HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2006-10-02 #A
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor and City Council
John B. Bahorski, City Manager
Quinn Barrow, City Attomey
. "'" Wh......"', D""d,,, af~p_ -j#W
October 2, 2006
Attention:
From:
Date:
SUBJECT:
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
REDUCE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 25
FEET ON THE REAR HALF OF LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE
OR WIDER - RMD and RHO ZONES, PLANNING
DISTRICT 1 - "OLD TOWN"
The City Council conducted a public hearing on this matter on September 25, closed
the public hearing, and after discussion was unable to approve a motion to take an
action. The Council determined to continue this matter to this meeting for
consideration. The Public Hearing was closed and no additional public testimony can
be received this evening.
Provided as Attachments are the City Council Staff Report of September 25, 2006
and a subsequent Memorandum that provides copies of all communications received
at the September 25 City Council meeting for the information of the City Council.
Attachment 1:
City Council Staff Report - Public Hearing: Zone Text
Amendment 06 -1, Reduce Allowable Height from 35 Feet to 25
Feet on the Rear Half of Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wider - RMD
and RHO Zones, Planning District 1 - .Old Town", Dated
September 25, 2006
Attachment 2:
Memorandum re: Zone Text Amendment 06 -1: Provision of
Communications Received at September 25 City Council
Meeting
Z:lMy DocumentslZTAIZTA 06-1.Cover Memo.1lJ.ll2-ll6 Adjourned Meeting.doc\LW\ll9-26-06
"' ~~
City Council Memorandum 19:
Zone Text Amendment 06-1
October 2, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT - PUBLIC
HEARING: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06 -1,
REDUCE ALLOwABLE HEIGHT FROM 35
, FEET TO 25 FEET ON THE REAR HALF OF
LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE OR WIDER - RMD
AND RHD ZONES, PLANNING DISTRICT 1 -
"OLD TOWN", DATED SEPTEMBER 25,2006
Z)"A 01!-1.COIIllr Memo,1().Q2.(J6 Adjourned Meeting
2
't
-
~,
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 25, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City ~ouncil
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
REDUCE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 25
FEET ON, THE REAR HALF OF LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE
OR WIDER - RMD and RHD ZONES, PLANNING
DISTRICT 1 - "OLD TOWN"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Conduct public hearing. Approve Zone Text Amendment 06-1, as reco=ended by the
Planning Commission, or as may be further amended by the City Council. Introduce
Ordinance No. 1553, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending Sections 28-701
and 28-S01 of the Municipal Code of the City of Seal Beach to Allow 2 Stories and a
Maximum Height of 25 Feet in the Residential Medium Density and Residential High
Density, District 1 (Zone Text Amendment 06-1).
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider various amendments to the Zoning Code
to reduce the allowable building height from 35 feet to 25 feet on the rear half oflots 37.5
feet wide or wider in the RMD and RHD District 1 ("Old Town'') zones. This
amendment proposes the following amendments:
o Amend Article 7, Residential Medium Density Zone (RMD Zone), District 1, as
follows;
o Amend Section 2S-701.A.1, Maximum Heil!ht. Main Buildinl!s and Second
Dwellinl! Units to allow 2 stories and a maximum. height of 25 feet.
o Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (REID Zone), District 1, as
follows;
o Amend Section 28-801.F, Maximum Heil!ht. Main Buildinl!s and Second
Dwellinl! Units to allow 2 stories and a maximum. height of 25 feet.
Agenda Item M
Z:lMy DOCUJDentslZTAIZTA 06-LHeight Limit in District LCC SlBffReport,docIL W\09-20-ll6
i.:' J'
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Propased Revisi01lS ta PrOllisi01lS afZoning Cod. r.:
Height Limits in RMD and RED. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Repart
September 25, 2006
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 20 and recommends
that the City Council, after receiving both written and oral testimony presented during the
public hearing, adopt ZTA 06-1, as may be revised by the City Council after
consideration of all public testimony.
Planning Commission Recommendations Regarding a "Grace Period":
The Commission also addressed the issue of allowing structures that have received
conceptual approval of plans for structures in excess of 25 feet to proceed with
development, notwithstanding the recommended change; the "grace period." Based upon
staff's recommendation, the Co=ission recommends that the Council adopt an un-
codified section of the ordin..nce establishing a precise "grace period" date for projects
that are being actively pursued by the applicant. Projects that have received "Coastal
Commission Concept Approval" by the Seal Beach Director of Development Services
by a date to be determined by the Council would be allowed to proceed with development
under the previous development standards relative to 3-story construction. Typically the
"Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the City is submitted to the Coastal
Commission and then the Coastal Commission considers and approves a "Coastal
Development Permif' for the subject project. The "Coastal Development Permif' is then
effective for a 12-month time period, and can be extended upon approval by the Coastal
Commission.
Based on the discussions at the Planning Commission Study Sessions and at the Planning
Commission public hearing on ZTA 06-1, the Planning Commission haS recommended a
time period of 60 days from the effective date of an implementing ordinance to obtain the
required "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the Seal Beach Director of
Development Services. The Commission has further recommended imposition of a date
1 year from the effective date of the implementing ordinance to obtain a building permit
that is in substantial compliance with the plans approved by the "Coastal Commission
Concept Approval." Failure to meet either of these reco=ended dates would nullify
the ability to build a 3-story residence under the current development standards.
If the City Council determines to adopt changes to the current development standards as
recommended by the Planning Commission, and as may be modified based on the public
testimony received by the City Council, the City Council is requested to provide direction
to Staff and the City Attorney regarding the above reco=ended time periods to obtain
"Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the Seal Beach Director of Development
Services and to obtain a building permit. The proposed ordinance currently incorporates
the recommendations of the Planning Commission on these two issues.
In order for the Director to provide "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" the
applicant must have submitted to the Department of Development Services conceptual
development plans for the project that clearly and precisely indicate the proposed
ZTA 06-J.Hoighl Lunit in Dis1rict l.CC SlBffReport 2
~ ::l
Public Hearing - Zone T""t Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisi01lS ta PrOllisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zanes (Old Town)
City Cauncil Staff Repart
September 25, 2006
building location on a scaled "Site Plan", along with floor plans and building elevations.
All of these plans must be scaled and dimensioned to allow the Department of
Development Services to clearly determine that the proposed development complies with
all requirements of the City regarding ,setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and
provision of required parking. Full construction plans are not required at this stage in the
approval process.
Other Options for a "Grace Period" Deadline:
The City Council could alSo select a later point in the development process for projects to
proceed under a determined "grace period." Once an applicant obtains "Concept
Approval," he or she must also obtain a Coastal Commission "Coastal Development
Permit", and after that, City plan check approval before issuing a building permit; the
City could require an applicant to have one of these approvals in order to qualify. It
would be more difficult to assign a specific deadline to these later approvals, however,
because it would be difficult to preqict the amount of time necessary for the Coastal
Commission to issue its approval and for the City to review final construction plans to
determine compliance with all applicable cons1ruction codes. The last point in the
process the Council could select for qualification would be the issuance of a building
permit. Once the City issues a building permit and the applicant incurs substantial
expenditures in reliance thereon, under state law th!' applicant acquires a "vested property
right" to proceed with the development, regardless of the city's subsequent amendments
to the maximum permitted height.
Treatment of Legal, Non-Conforming Structures:
If the Council adopts the new ordinance adjusting the height standard, there will be a
number of existing and approved structures th8t will exceed 25 feet in Old Town. Staff
recommends that the existing Municipal Code non-conforming provisions set forth in
Article 24 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to such structures. In addition, staff
recommends that the new ordinance not affect the ability of rental units in excess of 25
feet to convert to condominiums. This recommendation will maintain consistency with
the current City policy of allowing applications for condominium conversions to be
considered where standards have been revised since the Conditional Use Permit approval
process was implemented. The only exception that currently is allowed is to the density
standard, because that standard was revised after adoption of the CUP requirement, and
the reco=ended exception for height would be the only other allowable exception. All
setback, lot coverage, and parking development standards would need to be met, as those
standards have not been revised by the City.
The City Council is requested to provide direction to Staff and the City Attorney
regarding this issue.
ZT A 06-1.Hcigbt Limit in Distriel l.CC SlBffRcport 3
,." .r<
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Propased Revisi01lS ta PrOllisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1.. Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
City Council Options:
Staff has prepared the appropriate Ordinance for consideration by the City Council to
adopt ZTA 06-1 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Please refer to
Attachment I to review the required Ordinance to adopt the provisions of ZTA 06-1 and
to establish the date for obtaining a "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the
Seal Beach Director of Development Services and to obtain a building permit for those
projects that are currently being actively pursued by a project applicant under the" current
development standards, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Should the City Council disagree with the reco=endations of the Planning
Commission, it has the option of determining to make no change to the existing
provisions of the Zoning Code relating to current height regulations in the subject area of
the City. The Council can also determine to establish different "grace period" times
based on the public testimony, or determine to not allow for any "grace period." Lastly,
the Council could refer the matter back to the Commission to consider any new proposals
that were not considered as part of the Planning Commission deliberations.
The Planning Commission Staff Report, including all Attachments is provided as
Attachment 2. The Planning Commission Resolution and minute excerpt are not
available at the time of preparation of the Staff Report, and will be provided to the City
Council for review prior to the City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Please note that if the proposed Zone Text Amendment is not effective before
November 8, 2006, and the City adopts a similar provision that becomes effective after
November 8, 2006 there could be potential exposure to the City if Proposition 90 is
passed by the voters on November 7, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct public hearing. Approve Zone Text Amendment 06-1, as recommended by the
Planning Co=ission, or as may be further" amended by the City Council. Introduce
Ordinance No. 1553, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending Sections 28-701
and 28-801 of the Municipal Code of the City of Seal Beach to Allow 2 Stories and a
Maximum Height of 25 Feet in the Residential Medium Density and Residential High
Density, District I (Zone Text Amendment 06-1).
1wE~
""""'" ofD"""-"" S =
'I:CA 06-1.Hoight Umit in Distriel l.CC SlllffRcport
4
_ ':i
Public Hearing - Zane Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisians to PrOllisi01lS a/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1:
Ordinance No. 1553, An Ordinance of the City of Seal
Beach Amending Sections 28-701 and 28-801 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Seal Beach to Allow 2
Stories and a Maximum Height of 25 Feet in the
Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density,
District I (Zone Text Amendment 06-1)
Attachment 2:
Planning Commission Staff Report, including all
Attachments, dated September 20, 2006
ZTA 06-1.Height Limit in District 1.ec StalfRoport 5
~ ':'i
Public Hearing - Zane Text Amendment 06-J
Praposed Revisia1lS to Pravisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District J, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1553, AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING
SECTIONS 28-701 AND 28-801 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH TO ALLOW 2 STORIES AND A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 25 FEET IN THE
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, DISTRICT
1 (roNE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1)
ZTA 06-1.Height Lim.t in DIStrict I CC StalfRcport
6
.. ~I
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Propased Revisia1lS ta Provisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Cauncil Stqff Report
September 25, 2006
ORDINANCE NO. 1553
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH AMENDING SECTIONS 28-701 AND
28-801 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ALLOW 2
STORIES AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 25
FEET IN THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL HIGH
DENSITY, DISTRICT 1 (ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT 06-1)
Section 1. The City Council hereby amends Seal Beach Municipal Code
Section 28-701.A.1 (Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling Units for
the Residential Medium Density Zone) to read as follows:
"Section 28-701. General Provisions. Lot Size. Open Space. Bulk and
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1: Maximum Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
.. ........ .................. ................ .....2 stories, 25 ft. maximum"
Section 2. The City Council hereby amends -'Seal Beach Municipal Code
Section 28-801.F (Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling Units for the
Residential High Density Zone) to read as follows:
"Section 28-801. General Provisions. tot Size. Open Space. Bulk and Yards.
F. Maximum Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
District I ...............................2 stories, 25 ft. maximum.
District II, VI ...................................................35 ft."
Section 3. The City Council hereby determines that development projects for
3-story residences located on the rear half of lots 37.5 feet wide or wider in the
Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density, District I Zones that have
received "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the Director of Development
ZfA 06.1.Height Limit in District l.CC SlBffReport
7
\ ... f~
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS ta PrOllisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Stq/f Report
September 25, 2006
Services no later than January 1,2007 and have obtained a building permit no later than
December 31, 2007 may proceed to develop in accordance with the height standards in
effect prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1553 and in substantial compliance with the
plans approved by the "Coastal Commission Concept Approval." City staff shall note on
any "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" obtained prior to January 1,2007 that such
approval is rendered null and void if the applicant fails to obtain a City building permit to
build a structure in excess of25 feet by December 31, 2007.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shal1 cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of
,2006.
Mayor
ATfEST:
Linda Devine
City Clerk
STATEOFCALlFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
1, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the
office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day
of , 2006, and passed, approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of
, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
Council members
NOES:
Council members
ZTA 06-I.Hoight Lunit in Distriel l.CC SlBffReport
8
t";' "I
Public Hearing - Zane Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revi.i01lS to Pravisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limit. in RMD and RHD. Di.trict 1. Zanes (Old Town)
City Council Stq/f Report
September 25, 2006
ABSENT: Council members
ABSTAIN: Council members
and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant
to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836.
Linda Devine
City Clerk
ZTA 06-1 HeIght LUDll m Disbiot 1 CC Staff Report
9
., ~ i
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to Provisians of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Stq/f Repart
September 25, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
INCLUDING ALL ATTACHMENTS, DATED
SEPTEMBER 20,2006
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit in Distriel I.CC SlBffReport 10
C;, ~ ,
September 20, 2006
STAFF REPORT
To:
Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission
From:
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Department of Development Services
Subject:
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06 - 1
REDUCE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 25
FEET ON THE REAR HALF OF LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE OR
WIDER - RMD and RHD ZONES, PLANNING DISTRICT 1 -
"OLD TOWN"
I REQUEST I
To consider various amendments to the Zoning Code to reduce the allowable building height
within the RMD and RHD District 1 ("Old Town'') zones to a consistent standard of a
maximum. heigltt of 25 feet regardless of the lot width. This amendment proposes the
following:
o Amend Article 7, Residential Medium Density Zone (RMD Zone), District 1, as follows;
o Amend Section 28-701.A.l, Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
Units to allow 2 stories and a maximum height of 25 feet.
o Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (RED Zone), District I, as follows;
o Amend Section 28-801.F, Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
Units to allow 2 stories and a maximum height of 25 feet.
The Planning Commission also requested information from City Staff regarding the different
ways the City could determine an appropriate "grace period" for projects that are currently
being actively pursued by a property owner or potential property owner to build in
accordance with the current height standards, which allow for a maximum. height of 3S-feet
on the rear half oflots that are 37.5 feet or wider.
Provided as Attachment 1 is the proposed Plamiing Commission Resolution that would need
to be adopted to forward these matters to the City Council for final consideration. The
resolution contains the language of the recommended amendments to the Zoning Code and
the proposed language regarding the issue of an appropriate "grace period," based on
direction given by the Commission at the September 13 Study Session.
Z:lMy D~ents\ZTA\ZTA 06-1.Height Limit in Disbiel I.PC SlBffReport,docILW\09-0S-06
I. ,.
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisi01lS to Provisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammission Staff Repart
September 20, 2006
I BACKGROUND I
Overview of Previous Planning Commission Study Sessions:
The Planning Commission has held two study sessions regarding these issues. Provided
below is a summary of those previous study sessions:
September 6, 2006 Study Session:
The first study session provided an overview of the current requirements and standards for
residential development in the "Old Town;' area. The Commission received public comments
from 16 persons on the issue, and after extensive discussion, directed staff to begin the
preparation of a "Zone Text Amendment" to amend to Zoning Code to eliminate the ability to
construct new residences higher than 25-feet and 2-stories. The Commission also requested
staff to provide additional information regarding different options the City could consider to
"grandfather" projects that are currently being actively pursued by a property owner or
potential property owner to build in accordance with the current height standards, and
determined to continue the Study Session to September 13. Please refer to Attachment 2 to
review the Draft Minutes of this Planning Commission meeting.
The presentation materials of the September 6 Study Session and all communications
received at the September 6 Study Session are provided as attachment 3, which is the
September 13 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report.
September 13, 2006 Study Session:
Based on the discussion of the Co=ission at the September 6, 2006 Study Session, staff
prepared options for the Commission and public to discuss at this Study Session regarding the
"gram;{fatherin~' issue. The Commission received additional public input from 11 persons
regarding the "grace period" matter. Attachment 4 is the Supplemental Staff Report which
discusses the "grace period" issue in detail.
At the conclusion of the Study Session the Commission gave the direction to Staff to
incorporate a 60-day "grace period" afu;r the effective date of an adopted ordinance to
implement ZTA 06-1 for a property owner or project applicant to obtain from the Department
of Development Services a "Coastal Concept Approval" in order to be allowed to build under
the current provisions regarding 3-story development for inclusion as part of the
consideration of this Zone Text Amendment.
Please refer to Attachment 5 to review the Minute excerpt of this Planning Commission
meeting and to Attachment 6 to review copies of all written co=unications received by the
Commission at the September 13 Study Session.
zrA 06-1.Hoight Limit in Distriel l,PC SlBffRqlort
2
'I "i
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisi01lS to Provisi01lS afZoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammission Stq/f Repart
September 20, 2006
I DISCUSSION I
As indicated above, the Planning Commission has considered this matter at two separate
study sessions.
Attachment 7 provides the current language of the Mll1licipal Code regarding allowable heights
for residential development in the RMD and RHD, District I zoned areas of the City.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Provided below are the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code regarding this Zone Text
Amendment The amendments are broken into two separate sections for discussion and
consideration by the Planning Commission:
Proposed Changes to Height Limits
o Amend Article 7, Residential Medium Density Zone (RMD Zone), as indicated below;
o Amend Section 28-701.A.I, Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
Units to read as follows:
"Section 28-701. General Provisions. Lot Size. Open Space. Bulk and
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1. Maximum Height. Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
L.e' '.t'idth, ,18&s t"aFl 37 1.'2 ft. 2 stories, max. 25 ft.
L.et widt", 311!.2 ft. er lRere
FreFlt 1.',2 ef Ie, :I ateries, 1R1IKilllllfllll 21i ft.
Rear 1t.:a af la' 3 a'eries, lIIIuilRlflR 35 A..
o Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (RHD Zone), as follows;
o Amend Section 28-801.F, Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
Units to read as follows:
ZTA 06-1.Hcight Limit in Disbiel 1 PC SlBffRcport
3
II ,.
Zaning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to PrfJI/isians afZoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commi.sian Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
"Section 28-801. General Provisions. Lot Size. QDen SDace. Bulk and
Yards,
F. Maximum Building Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling
Units:
b.8t ':Jidt"'SI , 18ss thaA :J7 1.'2 fl.
District I 2 stories, maximum 25 ft.
District 1\, VI 35 ft.
L.Qt widths, 37 1.'2 k sr M8r8
gistl'iet I FrsRt 1/2 sf let 2 stePies, 25 It. RlaJliFRUMj
Rear 1[,2 8f 18t 3 8t8ries, 35 ft. FRaniMum***
gistFiets II, '.'1 25 ft.
*** L.ete SR Eeal '.!I}.ay Rlay 18sats a third ste~' equal te
the tetal squar8 fnt ar8a alls'lit'sd iA the Fear 1/2 sf th8
let it'ith FlS IiMitatiSR SR pla88FReAt, but shall be subjeet
t8 requiFed yaHls."
Proposed Revisions Regarding a "Grace Period"
The Commission also addressed the issue of allowing structures that have received
conceptual approval of plans for structures in excess of 25 feet to proceed with development,
notwithstanding the recommended change, i.e., the "grace period.". Based upon staff's
recommendation, the Commission recommends that the Council adopt an un-codified section
of the ordinance establishing a precise "deadline" date for projects that are being actively
pursued by the applicant. Projects that have received "Coastal Commission Concept
Approval" by the Seal Beach Director of Development Services by a date to be determined
by the Council would be allowed to proceed with development under the previous
development standards relative to 3-story construction.
At the September 13 Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission determined to
reco=end a date 60 days after the effective date of the implementing ordinance to obtain
the required "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the Seal Beach Director of
Development Services. Assuming an effective date of November 1, the deadline for
obtaining the applicable "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" would be December 31,
2006, and due to the holidays would automatically be extended to the next business day of
January 2, 2007.
ZTA 06-!:Hcight Umit in District l.PC StalfRcpOll
4
._. I,
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
prapo.ed Revisi01lS to Provisia1lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commis.ian Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
Typically the "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the City is submitted to the
Coastal Commission and then the Coastal Commission considers and approves a "Coastal
Development Permit" for the subject project The "Coastal Development Pennif' is then
effective for a l2-month time period, and can be extended upon approval by the Coastal
Commission.
In order for the Director to provide such 'Concept Approval" the applicant must have
submitted to the Department of Development Services conceptual development plans for the
project that clearly and precisely indicate the proposed building location on a scaled "Site
Plan", along with floor plans and building elevations. All of these plans must be scaled and
dimensioned ~ allow the Department of Development Services to clearly determine that the
proposed development cOmplies with all requirements of the City regarding setbacks, lot
coverage, building height, and provision of required parking. Full construction plans are not
required at this stage in the approval process.
The City could also select a later point in the development process for projects to qualify for
grandfathering. Once an applicant obtains "Concept Approval," he or she must obtain a
Coastal Commission "Coastal Development Permit", and after that, City plan check.
approval; the City could require an applicant to have one of these approvals in order to
qualify. It would be more difficult to assign a specific deadline to these later approvals,
however, because it would be difficult to predict the amount of time necessary for the Coastal
Commission to issue its approval and for the City to review final construction plans to
determine compliance with all applicable construction codes. The last point in the process
the Council could select for qualification would be the issuance of a building permit Once
the City issues a building permit and the applicant incurs substantial expenditures in reliance
thereon, under a state law he acquires a ''vested property right" to proceed with the
development, regardless of the city's subsequent amendments to the maximum permitted
height.
Treatment of Legal, Non-Conforming Structures
If the Council adopts the new ordinance adjusting the height standard, there will be a num.ber
of existing and approved structures that will exceed 2S feet in Old Town. These existing and
approved structures would be classified as "legal, non-conforming", and would subject to the
standards set forth in Article 24, Section 28-2400 through 28-2408 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Please refer to Attachment 8 to review the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, staff recommends that the new ordinance not affect the ability of
rental units in excess of 25 feet to convert to condominiums. This reco=endation will
maintain consistency with the current City policy of allowing applications for condominium.
conversions to be considered where standards have been revised since the Conditional Use
Permit approval process was implemented and as set forth in Section 23-2322.C of the
ZTA 06-!,Height Limit in Disbiel I.PC Stafl'R.oporI
S
1& "
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisw1IS ta PrOllisia1lS ofZonillg Cade re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammission StqffReport
September 20, 2006
Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to Attachment 9 to review this section of the Zoning
Ordinance. The only exception that currently is allowed is to the density standard., because
that standard was revised after adoption of the CUP requirement, and the reco=ended
exception for height would be the only other allowable exception. All setback, lot coverage,
and parking development standards would need to be met, as those standards have not been
revised by the City.
I RECOMMENDATION I
Staff recommends the Commission, after receiving both written and oral testimony presented
during the public hearing, recommend approval of ZTA 06-1 to the City Council, as may be
revised by the Commission after consideration of all public testimony. The recommended
amendment would reduce the allowable building height within the RMD and RHD District 1
("Old Town") zones from the current allowable variable building height standards based on
the width of a property to a consistent standard of a maximum height of 2S feet regardless of
the lot width.
Should the Commission disagree, it has the option of recommending no change to the
existing provisions of the Zoning Code relating to allowable height development standards
within the RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District 1 (Old Town).
Should the Commission follow staff's recommendation, staff has prepared the proposed
resolution recommending approval of ZTA 06-1, including the recommended language
regarding the reco=ended "grace period". The proposed Resolution is provided as
Attachment 1.
Attachments: (9)
Attachment 1:
Resolution Number 06-43, A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City
Council Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 06-1, Amending
Sections 28-701 and 28-801 to Allow 2 Stories and a Maximum.
Height of 25 feet in the Residential Medium Density and
Residential High Density, District 1 Zones
'/:'iA 06-1.Hcight Limit in Disbiel I.PC SlBffRepOIt
6
", '.
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
AttachmeIJ.t 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Prapos.d Revisi01lS to PrOllisi01lS a/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
September 6, 2006, Planning Commission Study Session Minute
Excerpt
September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session Staff
Report, including Attachments:
o September 6, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session
Presentation Materials
o Copies of All Written Communications Received by the
Commission at the September 6 Study Session
September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session
Supplemental Staff Report
September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session Minute
Excerpt
Note: Minutes not available at time of distribution of Agenda
Packets. They will be provided at the September 20 Planning
Commission meeting
Copies of All Written Co=unications Received by the City after
the September 13 Study Session
Current Language of the Municipal Code regarding Allowable
Heights for Residential Development in the RMD and RHD, District
I, Zoned Areas of the City
Article 24, Non-Conforming Use Provisions
Section 28-2322, Conversion of Existing Apartments to
Condominiums, sub-section C, Development Standards
. . . .
ZTA 06:1 Height Limit in Disbict1.PC SlBffRcport
7
. ~ I I
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions ta Provisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-43, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCn.. APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT 06-1, AMENDING SECTIONS 28-
701 AND 28-801 TO ALLOW 2 STORIES AND A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 2S FEET IN THE
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, DISTRICT 1
ZONES
ZTA 06-1.Hcight Limit iD Distriel l.PC StalIRopDrt
8
" ",
Zaning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to PrOllisio1lS afZoning Cade re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING .COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING
TO TIffi CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1, AMENDING SECTIONS
28-701 AND 28-801 TO ALLOW 2 STORIES AND A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 25 Ft:J;:T IN THE
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, DISTRICT 1 ZONES
THE PLANNING COl\.1MISSION OF TIffi CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The Planning Commission held Study Sessions regarding the
allowable building height in the Residential Medium. Density and Residential High Density,
District 1 zones on September 6 and September 13,2006.
Section 2. At the conclusion of the September 13, 2006 the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to reduce the
allowable height within the RMD and RHD District 1 ("Old Town") zones from the current
variable allowable building height standards based on the width of a property to a consistent
standard of a maximum height of 25 feet regardless of the lot width and to include language in its
recommendation to allow property owners who have received conceptual approval from the Seal
Beach Director of Development Services by a certain date to be allowed develop under the
previous standards.
Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305, staffhas determined
as follows: The application for Zoning Text Amendment 06-1 is categorically exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs.
~ 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because it consists of minor alterations in
land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land
use or density; and, pursuant to ~ 15061 (b )(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Co=ission on September 20, 2006 to consider Zone Text Amendment 06-1.
ZTA 06-l.Hclght Limit in Dubiel I.PC St.ffRcport
9
,- II
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisians a/Zoning Cade re:
Height Limits In RMD and RED, District 1, Zana (Old Town)
Planning Commissian Stqff Repart
September 20, 2006
The record of the hearing indicates the following:
Section S.
(a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence
received by the Planning Commission.
(b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and
enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an
amendment of the zoning requirements for new residential developments within the Residential
Medium Density and Residential High Density, District 1 zones.
(c)" The proposed amendments are su=mzed above in Section 2 of this
Resolution.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in ~S of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-2600 of the City's Code. the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
(a) Zoning Text Amendment 06-1 is consistent with the provisions of the
various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed new residential height
development regulations in the Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density,
District 1 zones are consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment will not result in
changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan.
(b) The proPosed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and
enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an
amendment of the zoning requirements by establishing new residential developments within the
Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density, District 1 zones.
Section 7. The Commission also addressed the issue of allowing structures
that have received conceptual approval of plans for structures in excess of2S feet to proceed with
development, notwithstanding the reco=ended change. The Commission recommends that
projects that have received "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" from the Seal Beach
Director of Development Services by a date to be determined by the Council may proceed with
development. The Commission reco=ends the date of January 2, 2007 for obtaining such
approval.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Co=ission hereby
reco=ends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 06-1 to the City Council as set forth on
Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein.
ZTA 06-I.Hoight Limit in Disbiel I.PC SlBffReport
10
'I 'I
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisi01lS ta PrOllisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old TOWIll
Planning Commission Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2006,
by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
.-
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAlN: Commissioners _
Ellery Deaton
Chairperson of the Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
ZTA06-1.HoigbtUmit in Distriel 1.PC SlBffRoport
11
r" '"
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commissian Staff Report
September 20, 2006
"EXHIBIT A"
o Amend Article 7, Residential Medium. Density Zone (RMD Zone), as indicated below;
o Amend Section 28-701.A.l, Maximum. Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
Units to read as follows:
"Section 28-701. General Provisions. Lot Size. QDen SDace. Bulk and
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1.
Maximum Height, Main Building
and Second Dwelling Units:
2 stories, 25 ft. maximum"
o Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (RHD Zone), as follows;
o Amend Section 28-801.F, Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling Units
to read as follows:
.Section 28-801. General Provisions. Lot Size. QDen SDace. Bulk and
Yards.
F. Maximum Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
District I 2 stories, 25 ft. maximum
District II, VI 35 ft."
. . . .
ZTA06-i:Hoight Limit inDistriel l.PC SlBffReport
12
-. '.
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Propased Revisia1lS to PrOllisi01lS a/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission StqffReport
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION MINUTE EXCERPT
ZfA OI5o-1.Height Limit in District 1 PC StoffRcport
13
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
"
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
STAFF CONCERNS
-.
4. Development Standards for three-story Residences In Old Town
Staff Reoort
Mr. DaVeiga delivered the staff report with a PowerPoint presentation. (Presentation is
on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He began by reviewing the issue of
"Takings," noting the conditions for determining whether a taking has occurred. Mr.
Abbe interjected additional commentary on the various court decisions presented
regarding this issue. The Senior Planner then reviewed the history of the current
discussion on third story development in Seal Beach beginning with the June 21, 2006
review of a request to construct two, three-story condominiums; and the subsequent
approval to construct two, two-story condominiums, followed by the recommendation for
a moratorium on third story development in order to study this issue further. City
Council (CC) approved a 45-day moratorium ori June 26, 2006, and on July 24, 2006
CC denied the request for an extended moratorium and directed Staff to review this
issue in conjunction with pending modifications to the Zoning Code (ZC). Mr. DaVeiga
then displayed a map of the lots measuring 37.5 ft. or wider within Old Town and
reviewed the existing Code requirements. He followed by presenting the following
options for consideration by the Planning Commission (PC):
Ootion 1
No change to the Code. Third story development allowed on lots that are
37.5 ft. or greater in width.
Prohibit third story development in Old Town.
Dotion 2
Ootion 3
Amend the Code to include third story development standards that
address compatibility issues as either discretionary actions or permitted by
right.
After presenting photographs of various three-story developments in Old Town, Mr.
DaVeiga presented surveys of selected coastal cities on the issue of upper-story
development standards. He reviewed methods for addressing neighborhood
compatibility issues noting the use of upper story setbacks, upper story floor area ratio,
solar access requirements, favade articulation, height limitations, and infill development
standards. He ended by presenting a survey of current land use inventory for the 440
properties in Old Town measuring 37.5 ft. or greater.
Mr. DaVeiga then noted that Staff had received a total of 31 letters regarding this issue,
with 25 letters in favor of eliminating third story development altogether, 4 letters
favoring no change, and 2 letters favoring revision to the development standards for
third stories.
5 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
" .,
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
,
Commissioner Questions
Chairperson Deaton confirmed that out of the 440 properties surveyed, 36 already have
. a three-story structure on the lot. Mr. DaVeiga confirmed that 36 lots was correct;
however, after doing a subsequent check the total number of lots in Old Town Actually
came to 430. Chairperson Deaton requested a history of how the determination was
made to allow third story construction on the 37,5 ft. wide lots. Mr. Whittenberg
inte~ected that he has worked with the City since 1989, and this standard has been in
place since 1974, and Staff has not reviewed the records of that time to determine what
was driving the standards developed in 1974 or prior to this date. He 'added that in
1974 the City completed a comprehensive ZC update and adopted a new ZC. He
indicated that in talking with people in the community, his understanding is that this
standard was in:place when this new ZC was adopted, and apparently was developed
as an offset for reducing density for the number of units that could have been
constructed on lots within Old Town. Chairperson Deaton noted that former members
of CC were present in the audience tonight and perhaps they could provide information
on this. She indicated that when the downzoning was completed, the ability to have
additional units on 25-feet lots was eliminated. She referred to the three-story
condominium project mentioned in the visual presentation and stated that for many
years after the allowance of three stories on the 37.5 ft. lots there were not many
projects presented; however, these projects have become more frequent. She asked
the Director of Development Services whether this was the case. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that he could not respond to this, as under the ZC no discretionary review is
required for construction of a third story on the rear half of a 37.5 ft. wide lot. He said if
the projects meet building standards, no special review is required. Chairperson
Deaton asked how many of these projects are currently in the "pipeline." Mr.
Whittenberg stated that during the moratorium, three projects were approved, and one
of them was the two-unit condominium project, and the others were both single-family
residences (SFRs). Chairperson Deaton approximated that this would be equal to just
under10 percent of the 36 lots in Old Town with three-story structures. Mr. Whittenberg
noted that some of these three-story buildings are not SFRs constructed under today's
standards, but are legal nonconforming apartment buildings built under the old
standards before the downzoning. Chairperson Deaton requested that Mr. Whittenberg
indicate when the public notice for this study session was circulated. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that the notice was published as an 8th_page display ad in the Sun Newspaper
two weeks ago and was also posted on the C.ity's web page along with the Staff Report.
Chairperson Deaton asked if there were any other areas of Seal Beach, other than Old
Town, where there were changing heights for differing lot sizes. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that there were not.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the ZC as it refers to District 1, which is Old Town, ever
imposes a Floor Area Ration (FAR) requirement or a lot coverage requirement. Mr.
DaVeiga stated that there is no FAR requirement, but there is a lot coverage
requirement in all areas of the City in conjunction with the setback requirement. Mr.
\ Whittenberg noted that for a 25-ft. and 37.5 ft. or wider lots in Old Town the lot coverage
Uequirement is 75 percent. Commissioner Roberts noted that this would prObably max
6 of 16
-. '.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
City of Seal Beech Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
out to the setback requirements. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it comes close, but for
37.5 ft. and wider lots it would not quite match up to the setback requirements.
Chairperson Deaton then called for a show of hands for those people in the audience in
favor of allowing three-story development on all or some lot sizes. Mr. Whittenberg
clarified that the ZC currently allows three-story development on lots that are 31.5 ft. or
wider, and the City has never contemplated allowing three-story projects on smaller lots.
Chairperson Deaton stated that she wished to open the discussion to anyone in favor of
allowing three-story development on any size lot.
Chairperson Deaton called for a show of hands for those people in the audience in favor
of allowing 3-story development on lots measuring 37.5 ft. or more. Six people raised
their hands.
"
Chairperson Deaton called for a show of hands for those people in the audience in favor
of allowing 3-story development regardless of lot size. Two people raised their hands.
Chairperson Deaton called for a show of hands for those people in the audience in favor
of imposing a limit of 2-stories for all lot sizes in Old Town. Twenty people raised their
hands.
Public Hearinc
Chairperson Deaton opened the public comment period and began with those speaking
in favor of allowing third story development on any size lot.
Pat Kearns, 209 15th Street, stated that he lives in a two-story home on a 25-ft, lot and
then spoke on the issue of the fairness of zoning standards for different lot sizes under
the current ZC. He cited several residences with varying standards and noted that there
also was a time when Covered Roof Access Structure(s) (CRAS) were disallowed, yet
no one ever discussed this, and now there are a number of 20 ft. x 5 ft. CRAS
throughout Old Town, and many extend way beyond the 25 ft. height limit. He said that
the ZC is so ambiguous that no one is enforcing eXisting laws. He recommended that
all homes be required to provide at least 4 off street parking spaces to alleviate parking
problems, and no floor elevation should be less than 8.5 ft. above the floor level.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the real issue tonight is three-story, two-story, or three-story
with some design standards to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. He asked
that public comments be confined to the topic under discussion.
Craig Gibson, 305 17th Street, stated that the homes shown on the PowerPoint
presentation are all poorly designed, but there are three-story homes on the 200 block
of 14th Street that are very well done. He recommended looking at factors like roof pitch
and rear setbacks to help address the issue of obstruction of air flow and sunlight.
Commissioner Roberts asked if Mr. Gibson was recommending having an architectural
7 of 16
,. ,..
City of Seel Beech Plenning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 review committee of some kind. Mr. Gibson said he is not concerned with style, but
2 obstruction of the line of sight.
3
4 John Morgan, 215 16th Street, said he concurred with Mr. Gibson's comments on the
5 homes displayed tonight, and added that there are ways to make a three-story house
6 more appealing. He suggested that property owners with plans for three-story projects
7 already in progress be grandfathered so that they may continue under current zoning
8 standards.
9
10 Joyce Parque, provided photographs of current three-story projects noting that one of
11 them is a condominium with a third-story on the rear half. She indicated that
12 Chairperson Deaton had met with Councilman Antos prior to the public hearing on the
13 condominium p~oject, and this was not right. She then noted that some of the projects
14 had been approved with Variances. She stated that denying homeowners the ability to '
15 build a three-story home was taking away their property rights.
16
17 Chairperson Deaton stated for the record that she never had a meeting with
18 Councilman Antos or anyone else prior to the meeting in question.
19
20 Chairperson Deaton then called for those who wished to speak in favor of limiting
21 homes in Old Town to only two stories.
22
23 Mike Butte, 412 Central Way, stated that he lives on a 37.5 ft. lot and the quality of life is
24 what is important to him, which means that he wants to see light and sky and feel the
25 ocean breeze. He said that long-term he believes that his property values will increase
2 if he maintains his home as a single-level home, giving Seal Beach a quiet village
27 appeal. He said he opposes the idea of an architectural review board and
28 recommended grandfathering in those projects that are currently in progress.
29
30 John DeWitt, 1105 Electric Avenue, spoke about maintaining the .charm" of Old Town
31 and prohibiting the construction of three-story homes, as this leads to a loss of sunlight,
32 privacy, the ocean breeze, and the view. He stated that a maximum height of 25 feet
33 ' should be the standard and that Covered Roof Access Structure(s) (CRAS) should no
34 longer be allowed, as outdoor stairways for access to roof decks work just fine and do
35 not require exceeding the height limit.
36
37 Barbara Moreland, 116 4th Street, expressed her concern over the pOSSible sale of a
38 neighboring double lot that currently has 5 apartments on it. She stated that if a new
39 three-story home were constructed with the third story on the rear half of that lot, this
40 would block all the light from the windows on the side of her home facing that lot. She
41 suggested that special consideration be given prior to approving a three-story home
42 when it neighbors a single level home on a 25-ft. lot.
43
44 Chi Kredell, 1633 Seal Way.. stated he served on City Council when the zoning for 37.5-
45 ft. or wider lots was devised. He said the reason it was approved was that at that time
46 duplexes could be constructed on all 25-ft. wide lots, and in order to make the town
8 of 16
..
"
City of Seal Baach Planning Commission
Maating Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 more livable for families wanting to live in single-family residences (SFRs) the zoning
2 was down zoned to allow only one SFR on a 25-ft. lot. He said that a third story on the
3 rear of a 37.5-ft. lot was also allowed; however, there were no condominiums in town.
4 He said that this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to change the city and
5 keep Seal Beach a quaint town. He said he would be happy to respond to questions.
6
7 Roger West, 1301-B Electric Avenue, spoke against having three-story homes in Old
8 Town. He said that since purchasing his property in 1968 it has been down zoned at
9 least three times and he has benefited from the increase in his property value and the
10 value of living in Seal Beach. He recommended that those who are interested in
11 building homes solely for profit should look into other cities.
12
13 Don Kennebeck, 209 3rd Street, noted that the property across the street from his home
14 measures 30 feet, but it appears on the map of properties measuring 37.5 feet or more.
15 Mr. Whittenberg explained that on irregular shaped parcel~ the calculation is done by
16 taking an average of the front and rear lot measurements. Mr. Kennebeck then noted
17 that two 30-ft. lots have just gone up for sale on his street and a developer wants to
18 purchase both lots. He asked if the developer would be able to consolidate the lots into
19 a 60-ft. lot and construct condominiums. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was possible.
20 He explained that parcels can be combined, as long as it exceeds the minimum lot size,
21 but density and development standards would also apply. He said that under today's
22 zoning standards 3 to 4 units could be placed on this size lot. He explained that the
23 Zoning Code (Zc>. requires that condominium projects receive a discretionary land use
24 approval (Conditional Use Permit), which requires a public hearing and a determination
25 by the PC that that particular use at that particular location would not be detrimental to
26 neighboring properties. Mr. Kennebeck then asked if the City still permits the
27 construction of apartment complexes in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the lot
28 size is large enough to accommodate apartments and the project meets all of the
29 required setback, lot coverage, parking, and density development standards, the project
30 would be allowed. Mr. Kennebeck asked if enclosed garages for parking could be
31 constructed as the first floor of the third story portion to rear of the lot. Mr. Whittenberg
32 stated that all parking must be off street parking in enclosed garages off the alley.
33
34 Barbara Barton, 415 Ocean Avenue, said she moved to Seal Beach for the small town
35 atmosphere. She spoke in favor of maintaining a maximum height of 25 feet and
36 prohibiting three-story construction.
37
38 Belinda Howell, 222 1ih Street, said Seal Beach is one of the few beach communities
39 in California that has remained small, and she would not want to see this change. She
40 stated that visually and aesthetically three-story residences in Old Town are
41 disproportionate to the size of the city and its streets. She noted that three-story
42 construction on Balboa Island had created a loss of air circulation and many residents
43 now have to install air conditioning, and she does not want this to happen in Seal
44 Beach. She thanked the PC and Staff for their work on this issue.
45
9 of 16
.' I'
City of Seel Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 David Broonend, 307 14th Street, spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit to prevent loss of
2 view, ocean breeze, and sunlight.
3
4 Jim Caviola, 1117 Ocean Avenue, spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit. He said he had
5 previously resided at 305 Ocean Avenue and had planned to construct a new home
6 there, but the lot was always shaded by the large homes that surrounded it. He stated
7 that he had sold that home and constructed a new home at 1117 Ocean Avenue, and
8 one lot from their home is Rene Bollen's property on which the condominium project is
9 proposed. He described how as an attorney for a large developer in Newport Beach he
10 has dealt with many homes having major problems with mold due to a lack of sunlight.
11 As a result, landscaping is no longer allowed between homes in order to help prevent
12 this. He said he did not want to experience this and recommended limiting the height to
13 25 feet and g~ndfathering those projects that are already in the plan preparation
14 ' process.
15
16 Ricki Layman, 119 5th Street, spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit, as she has a two-
17 story apartment complex next door and the 37.S-ft. lot on the other side of her home
18 may be placed on the market soon. She said if a three-story home is built on that lot,
19 her property will be completely enclosed. She recommended restricting the height limit
20 in Old Town to 25 feet.
21
22 Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, asked if homes on The Hill are allowed a third story.
23 Mr. Whittenberg stated that all of the residential areas in town, except for the Rossmoor
24 condominiums, the Oakwood Apartments, and Surfside, have a 25-ft. maximum height
25 limit. Mr. Voce said he favors the 25-ft. height limit in all residential areas in Seal
26 Beach. He said that in visiting his old neighborhood on the 200 block of 14th Street the
27 look is "highly monumental overall," due to the three-story homes constructed on this
28 block, and this has definitely changed the character ofthe neighborhood.
2
30 Mr. Whittenberg addressed the comments on the issue of Covered Roof Access
31 Structure(s) (CRAS) being very large. He indicated that at one time the City was
32 allowing these structures without any design standards imposed upon them, but the
33 standards were changed in 1992 when CRAS applications were allowed to be
34 considered by the PC. He said that the size of a CRAS is now limited to the area
35 necessary to enclose the stairway. He noted that this issue can be addressed at a later
36 time, as it is not the issue under discussion. He responded to the question of how large
37 1,700-1,800 sq. ft. homes can be constructed without any discretionary review. He
38 stated that certain uses of privately owned property are allowed "by right," which means
39 that if the project meets all City standards, the project may. proceed and permits can be
40 issued. He explained that for some design features or structural changes to a project
41 the property owner may have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Height
42 Variation (HV), Minor Plan Review (MPR), or a Variance (VAR) and have a public
43 hearing before the PC to determine whether the project will be compatible with the
44 neighborhood.
45
46
10 of 16
'. '.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 Commissioner Comments
2
3 Commissioner O'Malley stated that the objective of the PC is not to make the lives of
4 residents miserable by changing the requirements in the middle of the stream. He said
5 that when serving on the Sewer and Storm Drain Ad Hoc Committee after the last big
6 flood, he learned how the flooding problem began. He indicated that when discussing
7 some of the causes of the flooding, one of the reasons was determined to be
8 overbuilding. ,There is a lot of runoff from The Hill as there are very few permeable
9 surfaces or green areas to absorb the rain water, and as such, the water runs
10 downward from The Hill and causes flooding in Old Town. He also touched on the
11 issue of mansionization and how it is l!Iffecting neighborhoods. He noted that many of
12 the public comments included the issue of fairness and constitutional rights, but what
13 this is about is IIYhat is best for the majority of the people within the City of Seal Beach.
14 He stated that the issues of having good air circulation, sunlight, having green areas to
15 help absorb rain water, and neighborhood compatibility are all very important, and the
16 PC must make recommendations that would provide relief to most of the people in Seal
17 Beach, so that they may continue to enjoy their homes and their lives in this City.
18
19 Commissioner Ladner stated that he is in agreement with Commissioner O'Malley's
20 comments and spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit.
21
22 Commissioner Roberts thankec Staff for a very thorough report, and he thanked the
23 members of the public present tonight for their comments. He stated that in coming to
24 tonight's meeting he thought that compromising by limiting lot' coverage and
25 incorporating third story setbacks would help solve some of these problems; however,
26 after hearing the comments from the public tonight he has changed his opinion. He now
27 believes that a 25-ft. height limit would be the proper way to go. He noted that being a
28 resident of College Park East (CPE) he is a little hesitant to make this determination, but
29 he loves Seal Beach and Old Town and constructing three story homes on the 430 lots
30 that are 37.5 ft. or wider would tremendously change the feeling of the City. He said he
31 would like to explore the grandfathering issue to determine how to fairly handle those
32 people who have had the life vision of building their home to three stories. He indicated
33 that he wished to hear from the public again after Commissioner Comments.
34
35 Commissioner Bello stated that she agreed to accept the appointment as Planning
36 Commissioner because what the City of Seal Beach looks like is very important to her.
37 She thanked Staff for the preparation of the p'resentation and Staff Reports and she also
38 thanked the public for their attendance tonight and for their comments. She
39 emphasized that light and air are very important to residents, and the feeling of this
40 community is like no where else, and she is very concerned about keeping Seal Beach
41 the way it is. .
42
43 Chairperson Deaton said she had received many telephone calls and has spoken with
44 several neighbors who all agreed that having a uniform height limit for all of Seal Beach
45 was important. She noted that although Surfside does have a 35-foot height limit, it is a
46 uniform height limit. She said that she is still unclear as to why one lot size would have
11 of 16
.. I~
City of See/ Beech Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 one height limit and another lot size would have a different height limit, and feels that
2 this seems prejudicial and a granting of special privilege. She indicated that of all the
3 calls received and conversations she has had only two individuals favored three story
4 construction, sa basically, what she' has heard is the same thing the Commission has
5 heard tonight. She stated that she has heard the snickering about light and air at the
6 various public meetings she has attended. but anyone who lives in Old Town and must
7 deal with plants that won't grow, mildew, and mold would not snicker at air and light, as
8 they are essential to the well being of the community. She said she appreciates Staffs
9 work and assistance in responding to her numerous questions and noted that the
10 information provided on the FAR, infill standards, solar access, and fayade articulations
11 is important for all buildings in Old Town, so that the town can be kept as it is. She
12 emphasized that City's Specific Plan and the Master Plan call for a "small town
13 community." She said that every beach city has its own culture and attracts a certain
14 type of person. and Seal Beach has attracted the people who are looking for the small
15 town that vanished from all the other beach communities. She said many residents who
16 live and work in Seal Beach told her that they could not come forward with a public
17 statement, but asked that she help protect the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach.
18 She continued by stating that she would be totally against architectural review as Seal
19 Beach is a town of texture and it is not the business of the Planning Commission to
20 determine which home designs are more beautiful, but their job is planning on what this
21 City should be. She noted that this issue has fractured the community and she
22 encouraged residents to work together to get through this and to keep what is best for
23 Old Town in mind rather than individuals and personalities. She ended by stating that
24 she is also in favor of grandfathering for those individual who have already made an
25 investment in plan preparation; however, she does not want to see everyone leaving the
26 meeting tonight and having third story development plans drawn up, but she does feel
27 that grandfatherin9 is necessary for fairness. Mr. Abbe interjected that depending upon
28 where they are in the development process under state law residents do have "vested
29 rights," so regardless of the ordinance that is ultimately adopted, some of these people
30. will automatically be entitled to utilize the existing provisions. He said he would do
31 further research on exactly where this line is to be drawn, and this will certainly be
32 included in the ordinance. Chairperson Deaton then indicated that she wished to re-
33 open the public comment period to receive further comments from the public.
34
35 Mr. Whittenberg called for a recess at 9:30 p.m.
36
37 The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
38
39 Chairperson Deaton re-opened for public comment period.
40
41 Victor Grgas, 211 15th Street, said he agreed that this is a divided community regarding
42 this issue, and that the most important issues to be dealt with are as follows:
43
44 1. Architectural diversity
45 2. If the decision is made to permit three stories on a modified basis, the PC will need
46 to give something back in exchange for this, such as requiring larger side yard
12 of 16
"'
City of Seal Beech Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 setbacks or cutouts to adjacent properties that would allow for more space
2 between properties.
3 3. Require that larger lots provide more parking on their property.
4
5 He indicated that when he served on City Council (1982-1990) he was under the
6 impression that the most you could build on a third story was 500 square feet, or
7 essentially one room, yet the new condominium project proposed to construct a 1,500
8 square foot third story. He said he -is opposed to allowing third stories, but should the
9 PC decide to do so, it should impose conditions that would allow for more space
10 between properties and require an architecturally pleasing design that works well with
11 the neighborhood.
12
13 Mike Buhpe, 412 Central Way, stated that the residential lots in Old Town should be
14 restricted to having just one building on each lot, as this would enhance the visual
15 beauty of the town and provide space between structures to help alleviate the threat of
16 flooding whenever it rains. He expressed his concern that the sale of the Seal Beach
17 Inn & Gardens would lead to the construction of one huge structure rather than using
18 the six-lot location for six separate residences. Chairperson Deaton clarified that what
19 Mr. Buhbe opposes is combining of lots in order to build one large structure. Mr. Buhbe
20 stated that this is correct.
21
22 John DeWitt said he feels encouraged by the discussion tonight, as the PC has politely
23 listened to all comments and he will leave happy believing that there is hope of keeping
24 Seal Beach what it is.
25
26 Craig Gibson stated that it appears the PC is favoring a two-story limit, but he wanted to
27 note that owners of wider lots, must set back their side yards 50 percent more than for
28 the 25-ft. lots. He said that the larger homes are not taking up land and preventing
29 runoff, as they are being built up and not out. He said that if the PC limits SFRs to two
30 stories, he would like the PC to consider that it would be fairer to make the setbacks a
31 specific number of feet rather than a percentage of the lot size. Mr. Whittenberg noted
32 that the trade-off is that when you have a 25-ft. lot, under Building Code standards you
33 cannot have livable space closer than 3 feet to an adjacent property line, so yo~ are
34 automatically limited to a 19-ft. wide home; and when you have a 37.5-ft. lot you can
35 construct a 30-ft. wide house on a same depth lot, leaving the potential for a larger
36 building area. He said the reason cities use a percentage is to begin to shrink the
37 impact to the neighboring properties away from the property lines. Mr. Gibson stated
38 that in the presentation he noticed that. other cities had absolute setback numbers.
39 Commissioner Roberts noted that most of these other cities have greater setbacks than
40 Seal Beach, leaving less lot coverage for the structure.
41
42 Steve Cole, 222 17th Street, said he lives in a single-story home and favors the 25-ft.
43 height limit. He noted that although front and side setbacks have been discussed the
44 rear setback can be a problem if there is a three-story structure looming up over your
45 ba k yard. He explained how the setbacks between two 25-ft. lots would allow for more.
13 of 16
." ,o.
City of Seef Beech Pfenning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 sunlight, air circulation, and permeable surface than you would from one home on a
2 50-ft. lot. He recommended grandfathering the plans in progress.
3
4 John Morgan thanked the PC for receiving comments and asked how the
5 grandfathering is to be handled. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Staff would have to
6 consult with legal counsel to make sure that they are in compliance with the guidelines
7 for doing the grandfathering.
8
9 Chi Kredell stated that during his tenure as a member of the City Council when zoning
10 was changed anything that was submitted to the City and in the pipeline was
11 grandfathered, and anything after that was disallowed.
12
13 Mitzi Morton calltioned against grandfathering as this could create a whole other set of
14 problems. She stated that the reason for the down zoning was because residents
15 wanted to have front and back yards, but this is disappearing with the larger homes
16 being constructed, She recommended having greater front setbacks for second stories
17 to allow for more air and light.
18
19 Don Kennebeck commented that in looking at his two-story house from the rear, he
20 realized how huge it is, so he could only imagine how large a three-story house would
21 look, particularly when next to a single-level home. He said that he would support
22 grandfathering as long as it is done correctly.
23
24 Melinda Howell thanked the PC and Staff for their work on this issue. She asked where
25 the 6-ft. front yard setback comes in. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the ZC requires
26 an average 12-ft. front setback, with a minimum of 6 feet, which allows for a front
27 setback of 6 feet and a second story setback of 18 feet equaling a 12-ft. average, or
28 conversely, the first floor cQuld have an 18 ft, setback with a second story setback of 6
29 feet. He stated that this provides for some diversity and prevents having the box look
30 along a street if all the setbacks were at 12 feet. Ms. Howell then expressed her
31 concern over combining lots to create one large structure. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
32 this is al]other issue that will probably be taken into consideration when returning to the
33 issue of mansionization.
34
35 John Morgan stated that he has paid for the services of a local architect with whom he
36 will meet on Friday. He said he had planned on constructing a three-story home. He
37 asked what he should do now. Mr. Whittenberg stated that at this time there are no
38 prohibitions on building a third story on the rear half of a lot 37.5 feet or wider, as long
39 as all building standards are met. He said that if the City were to decide to change the
40 standard today, by the time the issue comes before City Council for a public hearing
41 and then for a first and second reading of the zoning amendment, it will take
42 approximately 3-6 months. Mr. Abbe noted that there is an initiative on the ballot for the
43 November election that will greatly change the law on Takings, and Staff plans to make
44 every effort to resolve this issue before the end of the year.
45
140f16
-, '.
City of See/ BeBeh P/enning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
1 Joyce Parque asked if when building a new home now, the requirement was to put
2 gravel on the sides of the home instead of concrete. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
3 City now has requirements within the Coastal Zone where homeowners of new
4 construction must have French drains or a dry well in the side yard areas to catch the
5 runoff from the roof of the house. She noted that the there are three-story home in
6 Surfside, and homes on The Hill have first floor garages with two stories above them,
7 which equal three stories, and these garages have rooms for nannies. Mr. Whittenberg
8 explained that the garages are semi-subterranean and are not counted as a story or
9 measured for height and these homes do meet the height requirement.
10
11 Barbara Barton asked that this issue be moved on to City Council as soon as possible.
12
13 There being n9 one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
14 comment period.
15
16 Chairperson Deaton outlined the following alternatives for making a recommendation to
17 CC on this issue:
18
19 1. Continue this study session to next Wednesday night to receive more public input.
20 2. Ask Staff to begin preparation of a draft Zone Text Amendment for City Council to
21 be presented to the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting
22 and conduct a public hearing two weeks after this.
23
24 Mr. Whittenberg stated that within two weeks Staff could return with some ideas on the
25 grandfather issue. He said that once this is done Staff would have to prepare a Staff
26 Report and formal language provisions to change the Zoning Code (ZC) by ordinance,
27 which will take a while to prepare and requires a 10-day notice of public hearing. He
28 noted that this would create a timetable for public hearings of probably the first or
29 second meeting in October. He noted that the PC could adjourn to another date on
30 which a regularly scheduled meeting will not be held. Chairperson Deaton asked Mr.
31 Abbe if it would be possible to schedule another meeting for next Wednesday to review
32 the grandfathering issue. Mr. Abbe stated that he could complete some research and
33 have some options to present at that time. Chairperson Deaton asked if the
34 Commission was in agreement with this. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the intent of the
35 Commission is to have an ordinance prepared eliminating the ability to build a third story
36 in Planning District 1, which is aid Town, and to provide a grandfather provision for
37 projects currently under a design contract. '
38
39 Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees with this approach, but he also feels it is
40 important to discuss other issues. as they pertain to homes on lots of any size with
41 regard to roof pitches, garages, etc., separate from the third story issue. Mr.
42 Whittenberg agreed that in order to complete this process by the first meeting in
43 October the ZTA would have to deal solely with the third stories. Mr. Abbe stated that it
44 is feasible to complete the process to implement a two-story cap with a grandfather
45 clause by the end of the year. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff will not able to publish a
46 ice of continuation of this study session, but would have Channel 3 broadcast this
15 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
." ,,,
City of Seel Beech Plenning Commission
Meeling Minutes of September 6, 2006
notice as a public information item and notice will be posted at City Hall. Mr. Abbe
added that it is possible to adjourn to a meeting like this without having to go through
the whole publication process.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to continue this study session to Wednesday,
September -13, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. to receive public input, review grandfathering
proposals, and receive from Staff preliminary draft ordinance language for setting a
height limit of 25 feet within Planning Districl1.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Bello, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
S1 AFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Chairperson Deaton thanked Staff and the public for all of their assistance.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m. to the adjourned meeting of
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 a,t 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
_Meeting of Wednesday, September 6,2006.
16 of 16
., '.
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisi01lS to Provisia1lS afZoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
SJ:UDY SESSION STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING
ATTACHMENTS:
o SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
COMMISSION STUDY
PRESENTATION MATERIALS
COPIES OF ALL WRITfEN
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE
COMMISSION AT THE SEPTEMBER 6
STUDY SESSION
PLANNING
SESSION
o
ZT A 06,1 Height Limit in District 1.PC Staff Report
14
" I,
S~ber13.2006
STAFF REPORT
To:
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
From:
Lee Whittenberg, D~ctor of J?evelopment Services
Subject:
STUDY SESSION - AMEND;MENf TO ALLOWABLE
BUILDING HEIGHT ON LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE OR
WIDER - RMD and RHD ZONES, PLANNING
DISTRICT 1 - "OLD TOWN" ' .
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Conduct Study Session and provide direction to Staff as to desired actions.
DISCUSSION
September 6, 2006 Study Session:
The Planning Commission conducted its :first study session on the issue. An overview of the
current requirements and standards for rC1sidential development in the "Old Town" area was
presented, along with iDformation regarding residential development standards of other coastal
communities. The Commission received public co=ents from 16 persons on the issue and after
extensive discussion determined to request staff to begin the preparation of a "Zone Text
Amendment" to amend to Zoning Code to eliminate the ability to construct new residences higher
than 25-feet and 2-stories in the RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones.
The Commission also requested staff to provide additional il;Iformation regarding different
options the City could consider to "grandfather" projects that are currently being actively
pursued by a property owner or potential property owner to build in accordance with the current
height standards, and determined to continue the 'Study Session to September 13. Please refer to
Attachment 1 to review the presentation materials presented at the September 6 Study Session.
Attachment 2 provides copies of all written co=unications received by the Commission at the
September 6 Study Session.
Attachment 3 provides copies of all written co=unications received by the City after the
September 6 Study Session regarding this matter.
Z:lMyDocllmontslThird Story Intorim Clrdinance\Study Session.PC SlBffRoporldoc\LWlO9-ll8-06
" ,.
Study Session -Amendment to Allowable Building Height an Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RED Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Planning Cammisslan StqffReport
September 13, 2006
September 13, 2006 Study Session:
The main purpose of this study session is to a110w the Commission and interested citizens to
co=ent on and discuss the proposed language regarding the differen~ ways the City could
"grandfather" projects that are currently being actively pursued by a property owner or potential
property owner to build in accordance with the current height standards, which allow for a
~um. height of 35-feet on the rearhalfoflots that are 37.5 feet or wider.
Information reglU'ding this "granclfatherinlf' issue will be presented at the Commission meeting
by Staff and the Assistant City Attorney for the Commission and interested citizens to review and
provide comments to the Planning Commission. '
The Commission also requested Staff to begin preparation of the necessary Zone Text Amendment
docum.ents that will be required to consider this matter.at a future public hearing. A copy of the
''Draft Staff Report' is provided as Attachment 4 for the information of the Commission. Please
understand that this "Draft Staff Report' docum.ent may be further revised based on any additional
direction that the Commission may provide to Staff and the AssistaIit City Attorney at the
conclusion of the Study Session. '
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct Study Session and provide direction to Staff as to desired actioIis.
e Whittenberg, Director
Development Services Dep
Attachments: (4)
Attachment 1:
September 6, 2006 Planning Commission S~dy Session
Presentation Materials
Attachment 2:
Copies of All Written Communications Received by the
Commission at the September 6 Study Session
Attachment 3:
Copies of AIl Written Communications Received by the City after
the September 6 Study Session
Study Session PC Staff Report
2
I, "
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RED Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Planning Commission Stqff Report
September 13, 2006
Attachment 4:
Draft Staff Report re: Zone Text Amendment 06 - 1, Amendment
To Allowable Height On Lots 37.5 Feet Wide Or Wider - RMD
And RHD Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
'.
I Study S....ion.PC SllfIReport
3
"'
Study Session-Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lats 37,5 Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RED Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Planning Commission StqffReport
September 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION PRESENTATION MATERIALS
study Session.PC SlBff Report
4
'.
en
~
p\C
t~
z~
o. ~
t-4 Q)
en"c,
en e
i ~
~fr
oen
u'
~z
'!IS
z~
~
~
~~t....
[-4 0 fJ).
~
. -'
, ";
("\. .
~ '1::) ("\..
Ch!j~ ~
H ~ U 0
?U ~ ~ p...
u p....Q. ~~.
O~~ ~.-
" "'0 ~ 4-l 0)
" ~ _ O~
~ .S ~ ~b
~ >.~ ~~
~ ~.~ -g~
~ ~.S ~....
~ .~ ~ 0 ~
.B~~ ~.~
0) ~ \:ij Cd ~
~ ~~ u~
~OO g~
.O,g 'p .Q.
~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ 1n~
bn 0 % 0' ~
~ ~ ~.t:1 ~.~
~OO~~~
.;g~-Bu"PQ
~ rJl ~ ~ ~ %
~go~ou
~AA~A~
~ClCl Cl
1-'
."
~.~ u ~ 0'
',. ~O~
~~ ..Q (j~
~.:~~ ~l ~
\:* ~_ '0 ~
~i ca' ~ ~
o u d
'p~ 0
B~u
'p p... .
d~~
OoU
U~cl
,~ ~ 0
~ o...-..!
~ p... ~
~Bd
:.:a p... 0 .
U ~o a~.
rd~ord
~~ ~ 5
o b .8- ~
004-l~
o ~o rJl
~'6~ g
t} e-- a u.
rd .;,...{ \.....-xf)
o ~ ~. .
o 0 p...O
"
r3
~
~
~
v
~
o
~
~
~
.~
~
,":' l 1.; ;~"... i:l'jo. '-
. ,...:.-,,!'I"~ ,'.i-\: t\:..-tt~..l'"
. ....; '. ',....._ .;.. :.~.' .c."/\"~ .~..' . ~
_. . .:~.. ": "';" kt l. . ~...\t'i...... '\J~
, '- _: ': <.' _.:,/' ::~':: '_<;:'.:': ':1,i;;!,~~~~':~..L"_-: " ,,_, - . .
.. '.
~
~
t-l
.
>
.
o
U
.
~
lfJ
Z
;2~
t-lo
~
~~
Zz
~~
Uo
~~
~H
.~ U
','
~. ~}
. ~
- "
. '
, -I
'...-11
~ .,
,
. ;1
",;
'11
:} jl
'"
.~.:
, ,
o !? 0
0: '...-l ~ 0
.~ :f e] 1 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~
:E :E S ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ] '@ ~
"'0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ P-l ~ 2 ~ ~
]~~~~~.BZu~~
~ g ~ "'0 .S ~ ~o ~ E ~ a
~ Cod 0 ~ ~ ~ --:0 ~ --:0 CI)
~o .g ~ r~ 8'~ ~ "'0 ~ E ~
;.a 1,\,\ u CI) ~::s ~ b!J 0 ..:.~ ...
U ~ ~o ~ ~ CI) ~ 0(J.5 ~ ~"'.
o l> 0" --.d ~:8~~~
~ 0 0 0 "'0 ~ --:0 ~.~ 1..0' 0
800,..0 ~b!J~ o~~
~ '.0 '.0 ~ ~ 0 g::s ~ ,..0 .s
~ ~ u b!J ~ ~'t:j 8 & P-l 0 CI)
~ ~ ~.;@ Jj ~ ~ " ~ B B .~
~~8~E~a~g~~CI)
t-' P-l u,..o ~ P-4 u ~ ......-4 0 c:\'l ,~
ODD
~
z
~
02
~~
urJ)
~~
00
au
~~
rJ)~
<rJ)
u<
00
HU
..
en
..!:tl Q)
g ~ E ~
en ~ ~ B
~ ~ 0 en
8 ~ ~ ~
Q) U Q)
E ~,..c gf
Q) ~ bJJ '.0
~ g'E ~
~ Cf) '~ ~
Cf) d~ Q)
en ~ ~ E
o ~ }t~
o
~
Q)
~
4-l
o
~
Q)
~
.B
d
Q)
A
[
..
..
d
o ~ Q) en"'
~ ~ ~'~
~ '6 d ..s
::;c~.,j
u Q ~ 0
6 8 .S ~
Q) ~ tI.l d
,..c~ ~ 0
] ~ ~ g
P:-- t.ti '!'oI 0
~ 'Q ~ u
Q) U <u Q)
~~~..s
~ 0 <U4-l
O-c ~ ,..,Q, 0
o
""
'.
",
"
"
"
en
1!
~]
Q) "':::
O-c ~ ciJ
e,~ ]
~B~
],g ~
Q) t4 '"'0
~ 0 ~
Q) d ,~
~ 0 ~
B ~ ~
'.
lII' ,~l "
;'
a: ,:::; l "
-:~O)
j
~
.... : .
I - -
.. -
.-
c: '"
Oi Z c
~ .. s
CI) ~ ~
u
'.
,,M
.".U
:-
..
'.
(
~ ;Hj{
, ,.
'~ .:I
., ~
~ ,,\,.
j !.f'
, 1<
J.,. ~
O ;;~
';'l
~ ~ il
~ ~,
.ffi ~
o H,
UU
< >
Zer;
o
Z
.., "
"'..
4-c ....t;
Q.E 0 ~ ~
oJ' 4-c ti ~ ~ g s ~ co;! cu ~ .~
u 0 P-l <u ~'...c: "'S ~ ~ '5 q"j Q
E g.".Q ~ oj;! ~ ~ I> g.... ~ "l:;
o oo~ <u <u >-. ~ <u 00 Q ~
<l:j 0 '" !; l:J ~ ~ ..Q ..s 0 ~:ii! 1t !;i =
tr g. 0.0 '"0 ..s 0 u tr :.E 0 s tr"l:l .: g e,
" 0 oil gp ~ El " ~ 0 " III ., l:l l:l
P.. 0 0 o,,! ;:l 0 P.. 0 g. -a III :::l 9-
8 ~ <u ~ ~ q e ~.~ ~ cu' ~ Q C
P-l]>-!; 0 lJ 0 P.. ~ ;:l p..,c:: "tl " l'l
'"d' ~ ....c: ..0 ~ <u blJ. '"d ~ ~ CIJ L~
<u -co;! " .i!,g <u ~"""Q
Q ~ ...e- 0 bIJ" b.O r:p . t:l. 1:) :.....e
<u ~'P"O . ~ N co;! ~ .S ~ ~ ~
.~~ ~ ~ z~ 5 ~ ~].B ~ ~ 8~
uE<uoo ~;j"
o 0 0
I . :}~j.:.....~: .':. :.~: -:, ::. . "
. .. . ')"l'" d"J)... 0','" .
'" ': "f;~~;~:~~?p:(':' ': "
" . '
, ",
, "1
' . '/'1
' ,.', ':', ~
:' I. ,I..'
''"
" ..
~
U
~
~
.
>
.
00
Uu
~rn
H
rnU
~
~
~a
A
~.~
~]
..dbi)
~~~
~~
o..c~
bJJ . 0
,g ~ .l-J
gS~
N bl:J 0
'"CJdO
......-4 ,~ ('<")
~ u
..d~S
O-tv 0
O~tb
o
ci~ OJJo
'p en ~ . t:l c:<:! B
d'O 0 0 E ~. ~
~ ~ Q) ~ 'p po 8 d
~ ~ ~ ,~.8 'E 8 0 ,g
o.:ec;;o.-3~ en~oa
.l-J 4-I..d .l-J . ~ den. p
d 0 }o.("I.l-J ~ d Jo.I"\ W ~O en
Q) VNO 00 '-'NO 0
a. ~ g'M.g'~ .~ ~ ~ 8
"a 1 ~ tE E ~ ~ ~ 2 ~
fr.g ;:; ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~~
. ~ t:: t:; .l-J d w +J .l-J en Q) p:
~ 0 Q) g 8 8 ~ 5 ~.:e'B
E g ~ en c:<:! .l-J ..d t.~ ~ ~
u~~o~f-l~en-.-dQ)
~ Q) O-t ~ .l-J._:: O-l.~ +J '"CJ
o
o
, . . '. " " : I . :..'. :;..' t' ~~ t{ i 1 ~~;;t.:~'
'. . ' _' '.... ',' ,,'. "~I"j.'.~ l.(......:....
'.' '. ' . ~ I: : I.:.... .... . .'" . ,. ~ ,'~;a..~
. . ' ".' . ....t. ..:~ ..~'l~,1,1~\:.i.,I:~...
" .... ~ '. '" ":~'~~ ::.~ .~~~~;.~~.:~5~~.~:~:i;}~~
'.
.
"
, .
. -;
"
" en
"
. ;," ] d
, .. ~
" 11. .g
J-::
'~J rn ~ ~
OJ 0 U
,~ 'l' ~ g ~
~
rJ) u . .,;;.\
~ .~ en
ffi .' 0 0 en
~ U ~
a ~ 9 en
B a 0
-< u
~ 0 'E
rn ~ 5 ~
u 0
'0 u 0
~ ~ d
0 ~ '3 en
rJ) 45 ~ a
cj tr
~ .Y""I 0 ~
~ en %
~ 0 0 ~ ~
~ ~ u 0 rci)
rn e e u ~
.S ~ ~
0 0 ~ d
:< ~ lti 1t1 rn "'d
5 d d
~ '"'d CO ] 0
~ :g ~ .~ % .~ 0
d
~ ~ ,.....;..-I ~ .g
.% 0 CO f-t
N- .S 9 .;....\
, ~ ~
;:J % en
-~ 0 0 a ~
rn N E 0 0
~ OJ ~ ,P rn ~ ~
~ rn ~
0 H 0
U a a C1 ~ C1 a
." .' . .,. ..', ;."''''~;''''';..,,~
" ,,,',' :',,: ,,' "\'. '''~:<' ,:'''l;iJ;~, . ";
} , . . ".' .,.'" _,.'" "',....",,!it.li!l.~''*~~\
. " ',' ',,,;,"f~''''
: .' ..t" , f ...... ,r.i"\\' "'...$ ~""" ~ f.lFI,,"i!.
. _' . . l' ,wI . .' . .~ II ':\1 '.
(_ r _ , . ,< ~ . j .. <,".....,. :.... ~ "-'t...., ,
" . . ., " :f ,_, ~~ . '..' ," ,.f ," " :.--r. i-' ~. ' . .~.
'. " , ;' ". .r' .." 1~"~,-,,~;"';li"',>,,, ,f,~l~.
.. ' '." '.' i'" ,,,,;,:.<..,:.~,,,, ,'. -.'"
..-0
~ ~
o ~ to!- bO
. . -0 ~; ~ ~ .~ ~
.;;; ~ '0" ..... ~ 0
',,; ~ h e-- "0 --t( 4-l ~ Q)
',' ~ ? 0 p::2 ~ 0 ~
::: v.: .~ ~ ~"'" 4-l ? ~ d
:\~~ .~, 'f e--.-c;, ~ 5 ~ ~ ~
:.. ~ ~ B e-- ~ d ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 0 ~ en 0 ~ ~ en en d.-o
d rg ~..-o ~ B % ,~ ~ .0 0
.9 0 en .~ ~ ~ "0 ~ a) Bu.
\?, u ~ {j (:l; g.< \>: -0 :B 'a bJ:)
.\ e-- ~ d b ~ ~ ~ ..-0 '0'%
o~o u~d~oo
~ 8 H ~ 0 ~ p ~ U ",,-i
,0 , ~? ~ p B 0 l"'l
U ~ ~'~ .~ 8 'f U ~ .~ ~
bO .B 0 ~ .-c; e--.8 ~ ~
.\. g ~ ~ ~.~ .~ '8 a) 0
6.~ ~ .p u ~ U .p a ~
~~~en \ d \ e ~d
~ ~ .~ ~ 0 0 \.C 0 0 0
~ ..-0 ~ 4-l \.C ~ a "0 'p
\~ ~~g%~..-o~e
-g ,.D 8 d a N .~ 0 .-0 lP
~ B bO a '% ~ ~ ~ 1 e-- ~
~ 'is.~ % ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ a
~,~~u~ ~a
~U~,O.-o 0
~~~~ 0
.' "":"~',';~"r&"
. . ~.\'''''~'t;~1-...;;.g~
O ' ..,' ";:,,,(,,~,~~,~4;'''''?,~
,". ...' '''''''''-~':M~t:, <;- I'~
. . .:'-\.' ",:":,'~'::I,'r.'l""-H-;\P:.J""_I....~,,..J'*
- '. . r..~ '. .,t:..~:.'....~).~.~'~..i\Jt.C-.lt":;:tli~ll!..~ll.:~l'~-
... ..~ , ..... ..i,~l.' ", "U"'}'i .t~..,.,.c( vt.
.' " ~'J~ ~";\.; 'f":' '.," ~ t'...~l...j....~;...t ,1~~"', ,'"
.... :~'.~, ~..~ ..:~-~:\ ~'~:>. ~':' ::::~ .~.:.\ :,~:~ .~ ': .. ~ ..'~.
~., . - . '.
<
"
~
~
~
~
o
t;
~
b
~
o
t;
.H
~
, ~ . ,
4-l ~ 4-l
0 on. ~ .
. '1""'1
~ cu .~
. '1""'1
..0 OJ . en
If) . ,..0 .~ ~
. ~-
. > t- . .
I ~ I'M
'. ~, ('()
, . 8 ~
~ ~.~
, > 8 . ~
OJ ~ 1.1'")
~ . bJJ
l~ . \0 ""'- .~
" ~ I~ ~ '00'
1.1'") '"'-....
N L() OJ B en
OJ
('() ?f . '1""'1
'"'-.... ~ U
en en ""'- ~ U
4-l . ~
sa OJ en 0 4-l I~
. '1""'1 .~ ~ s &~
~
0 B ~ 4-l
B
~ r:n 0 . 0
r.f) ~
0 f:-1 N r.f) ~ . ~
('() N ''H
I 0
0 I ~ 0 0 .~
4-l I ~
~ 4-l I
U S ~ I OJ
4-l ~ bJJ
U ~ ~
0 0 4-4
~ 0 ~ u u ~
~ ..c ~ ~ gb
~ en ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ ,.-l QJ
0 ~ ~ ,.-l QJ B
H ~ ~ ~ en QJ
~ g ~ B en en
en 0 ~ ~ en
cf) en .~ \-l ~ QJ '"" en
"'0 ~ 0 ~ cu
~ :E ~ ~ '"" "'0 ~ u
~ ~ ~ N' ''1''"'1 U
('() 0 ~ ~ en ~
~ n a a a
'., ." ..' . ...... ,. 'c' , . .,',.,'/;,.,'\
", '.', "..;.~,. '~'.,. '.....' ....J-..~o{.! ",.i.f, .ii':!~
'.. " ~~ I",'. ~. ")"',~tf~'i,,_,.!.;;.t'~'~'''ij~.taA',''
_~'.' '" " . "'t'. ....!:. t.'t-:",-, t.,....llr'.~..,,(l~\~
". . .' ". ' ....... :"'"1 '.~'..\ '.I .-:,' ...,~...I ~l'"
.. .' : ," 'l' :. t. \ i ,,I .\'. "';,\~' 1.. 1 . . . . '''; I '~f or I ":
. , ." ',' ,;' ,'~ .. . . l . : ,'" :::~, :~ :,.
Q :) ~
~ 't"7' ,':: 9-~
~O ',"~1 if) ~
. ,.: rd ~
r-rl ;~.~' if)
~ ~ !,i' .
,......, cf) :~, ~:, ' r--
'd ,^ ':,~. ~
~, V.J" ,\
en . ~
Z ...g. C:<l
o o~
uO 0-B
r'':'' U .B t3
~. 0
~C) B~
'r-7 Q) 0 '
o ~ ~--o
~Z ~Q)
~%
o ~ tj
~+.J~
cf) p... \ 5 ~
Z r,.l ..... a ...
o \0'-\ ;:: % 0
r-\ i;:C .S ~ -B
r r ... \>: '"'d
p.. ~ o..g .~
o ~ 0
.
~
if)
.-r;j \
~
~ ~
--0' 0
? 0
"t) if)-O
ri if) Q)
.~ Q) ~
o 4j ~ .
~rd;.fd
~ ~ ~ ~
,0 ~ Q) ~
'u ~~.~
Q) if) Q) ~
~~~~
rd'~ .-0
5'"gg~
e ~ _~ '8
~ 4-1 \>-. ~
\ 5'~ ~
tt') e :$ ~
~ ~ _p 0
o 0 ~ ~
.~ 'Q) ~ 0
~ p-: a -
Q) 0-' B
rd u ~
-~
~
'6
%.
'--'aJ
~
.-0
~
B
if)
--d
~
~
.~
j
o
~
~
\
N 0
~ ~
O ~o
.~
~~
......-I
00
o
, " ',' ; ,'" ",; '.,. ':',:' ,."-" :.;.,;,;!",.",
' .'. ' . .' . .,' "'. '.'. ."." r,..,.......,\.. ",~;,~, .,.!'
'.;", , , ..,.... r ..,,<, t' "r':");"" i'1;""~"''H'-'\r~;~'
.' .::...... ::./.'; i,:"f;i.:{;iri!r~~/i*
.. .
.' !.:
. .:.
.
...:..
,.
"
'.
"i":"
. I..." .....~~.: .~:..I.. .,':~"(""""I'tl "r:~..:~'.; "I' .
~I, . ..~..,.<o','. ,. !. ...'.,'" ",.,~.~., , ",.... ",",'" I
. i .~:..." ~.,. . .... It: ..~:' r;W.',"U.l \ i~j I?:r~ f...t!;. -a ,,:;o..~,,~I~fllk)i.~' ~~.
, ' '.~' ..' ...,.... ,,'.. .' .._",.""",.~""~,,,.~
. '.' .... J', ......,... ,." "....'..' ,...' ,I> ;;"'-i"~.'" ".........., 'Y"
. .:: ....., , .,' ",",...;-....... ....., ~..,~""<\.':I:,,'.~~
I " .. ~., ,I r ." 0"" . .' II"" .. I .l!..... ljIt"-f'I'I It.' t
. . .._.. Po ,'t .. ,),.,' .1'''' ".' .~;"r.t"n(.......i
I ,'/ .' '. ',' ,"' ,I, '1, .' ; :~'~'::..~~~ 't;...t ~:.,;<t ::...
t . I' . :J. ',' ~J "~ , : 'oI.~.
.~ ..
" ";.:
" ~,
: .
, -J
Q
cj
~
~~
~ ~,
lfJZ
%.~
dIQ
~H
p:40
"',.,.,
~"!Il""'1
"",'\,:;,' ..~"
.f-l, ....,....ot.. ~"
. <, '.,,'.'; ~'V:~~"'~'~",":\;!.u~,.~.. ~.
", ~";:.' ~~"\~".:r~.",-;!~i...~{ -:..~,~ .. ~r~":l'" ':<..
~ I,., ~l '" ....... _. '\\;'-.
. '. ,Jt:-.... ..~~lt!.. t~ )'~f~, ~t~'.~h.',~ J. t" '~'~'/"1{~"
~~'l':'r-;"'""f:'"""~:,,;,,, \-" -;'\'~, ""~"I C" _',
- ..' " '--"~'';:~ .,.'.,,,...;, '"",,, '..',," '.', \.,
. ";::"". ,.::!~t';:~;;>;.h~:}'r.~ '",.,. ',',"
;4\, ::,~. 1..,:[.I:',1i.....~,,~ ,
' : ~.. , . ' :~,';' :1, l~ i '.::' ~'..
. -::.... ,.._\,1. ,
. '~'I..' .
"
l' .~
,"
? :~
.~ -,),
t~ ,"
,,-'j7,.
~~
" -
O:;~'
:, '}..
'LJ ~l
~:if1
.1; .j.t
B
~o
o~
~'~
r:nz
~~
cj~
zO
H~
~ ~.
.~ ~
.'
"
"
..
.
.", '
'~'."':/~'~':>~~'~"'~"'~">'~"'~~:':~"~""""" . .. .
," '.' ,',' . J.,'" ,',"' ,}J...... 1'."\' ....
~... ,. ...,~.;!.~:,.' :,,,,\,.~...\~}"J1J"{':::'(1:~,"(''I.~.~;1:'',(l ~~I.~}.<:'ll"" 't'l
' .,., ~ I I, .~...,.' .~.,... .., .~. ..:..~........ "
. ,.~ ".., '. ~.I ;1.. ",t'" ;tU"'"....o\!~.,:I~,_::t..'...~.....-i='..I..~. 'r.,~;;.
, ' . .....,.J ....j<,. ....., ,~.., ...,. '. ,'"",'
.' " ':.~ ' ;. .. .....J:',.:''\'";.~~!'t;~i.i~r.it.,'I''lf;.'':...f.l'~.:r.~ iI'~"
't" ..' J.. f.~'" ~"'l"l'~ '.'!I,.,.l'~<"" ~ ',,'
. .1\ ,,'.::.';-=:... -:' . .</11 ':'i"I-f/"'J""'f.'J~'
. "'l. ".". ".....'" ,t!.. I~ ....4,.~
.L .,'l"
..
.,
'-
. :'
. .~
.. ,"
, '.
.. ,t
.,
;\
'~
l> .
O~p
L..l 11
l-'!!~
8
o
~Z
OH
~~
~~
0~
~H
~~
~~
t.:
'/
,'J
, ,
':.
-', , .
. '. ~
. '.
. .~."!\
~ ~!Io:I'''r .'~::b...
'.-. .? ~'~:~,t~~''t':i:.-;t
. ,: ,',., ,,' ", ",', ,~y~~;,~...".:."
' .', ., '~'\". -.,;' "":;.: - i.~" I!:~i.;;\:r
. ,: . ,.',~. ,;"..,. :", ,-.'j '" 'I h'~
. . ,,', "".' '.:',. ,. , . .~I,".l";":""';i~'.~"l'l,tA~.'!.)~"'.o.~
' . "," ,~. . ....'. ~'--~'~I\~.., ,. '..
~ \ '. .. .'. ;...'~~'....,''t,. "9-;'; '''\-''\'i',,: '_
',' '.:~{;:).~.:i6-:.:~~:;'?'>::\~::,~""" '.'..
"
'.
~
o
~
9
~o
~~
~~
cnz
~~
0P-l
~S
&i .g2
GE:5
.,
,
.
-'j,:
, ~
;. t
" .~
~ ~.
;'\~;
\ '
~~ I
}:. JU
'':1!
.. ~'
;.: $1
.'
,
.~~:
, .', ,'". .'..,. "'~"I
.' '... J 1 ,', .'.r~, .~...:!t.~~"":{.1\..! 'r'-;(.;;;'.l~'
" .' ,'.. ,..,'.....".. -..; . (',fili"",..;":. .' '.., .
'.' ':0 .,.",~.~, 'J ""1,' , '-ir'~""'1i"'''''i\';~~'!o'. ,,';4.X
-' ',.~;'..< '"'''~''' " '.' :",.. .~~;1i!;I";l.. 'T~~,;;;!.(\
,... '"!":;~f :'~',: ,': --:,;?; ;,~'I'1'~r'1;:i\i':f" ;;)'Si:'~';if"'i;
"< ':"{, \: ,'::' \. ~"" ,:' ;';':-,',;" ~-, ,. <. ;;:: ......
;.
'.
, 'l"
, '
"
c
,
~.,
i.'f."
Y..
'" .~
o
~
8
~o
~~
~lZ
~~
(Jo
~H
.~ P
'. ";..::~
~, \ ",( .~ .20'.
. . .... lI':"~fi;.;:'l,h....n;
...... -' 'Z .';;~i'!t".~~lt:f~ll~~~;,~:.,~t
. . ,.."t;( "'r:;'\ ;J>lf~'.i:"'\""t".J!."'~'
.,' " ';'.. ':: '-,:, :'~"Y;!"l 1, ',;:;!<t>"'J ,IF, "~
. '~. ~~ >\',: :,v,> ;:~~'I :,~,\./~ !.{}t~;J.;I~,:~.,~~\;-; "'.,
','. '~','" .'..,.. . I, "'.. ""', """ .
' .'.... t> 'f ..,,;:,,~. "':" W" ", '." "', ~ ...' ,
'.;\ c,' :, .....f~,'..;~~ ",:',:;,'; , ',' : ',,' ,
':. < ': '~'~:r", ><:,:J{'~1,~~' ;:'.;~'" , ',,'
":,,-
f/)
f:3 "
, . .
;' i- en
.. I, 'B
.1 :! '1j
.:.'.
,
t: . " a;
. .
, . cfj
1" ,~
f' ',' roo
'r~ ~
'I .~. Q
U \. r-
~ I~' a
,I( 1
0 en
en -4-J
" ~ Q
,~
~ <U
~ E
U en 0
Q)
.~ rq)
. !'"j t:>
u <U
'E roo
f/) en
cfj
~ 0 8
u en
0 \0 ~
<U
~ o~
~
0
:=::t ~
~ t8
~
<U ~
~
C/) (1)'
H
* ~
~
cfj
cfj <U
CU' ~
r:q
* Q
Q
0 0
'1j ,~ ,bb
C\1
Q C\1 05
B ~
Q g.
0 ~
u ~
LJ LJ '0
*. ~
C\1 ~
U C\1
os C\f cu
...0 r:q
0 .~ -4-J
~., C\1 ~
r:q 0
.a a ~ ,
Q Q
cu
C\1 C\1 Z
CI') CI')
LJ CJ CJ
Cf.)
It)
'tJ
8
Cf.)
11
~
.@
It)
~
..j..J
o
c::
o
'"0
Cf.)
It)
'p
U
l1
It) U
rJ 'B
r? Cf.)
~:.o
*
. . .:".,:.:.. :", '.. ': .~.>:. ~..., .:;1'. '. ".:-. ~"_,
", . .-. ".: ....,.... '. '."1-;.0",,, .':-,'. .~~
. " :: :.. ,1 ',\:' "'1",),:::;,~"",',;,;:,"1:,,"'::~....~1::?:~1
' I , " . I ~ ." I~' '... I .',.~ ',' I So' ~., t'.. t \, ,I
. .. '<, '.' '.>: ";':i;"".''f,!''.}~>: :;,</"::,,,
.ff
0,
N
It)
:Q
~ '
~
~
o
u
'.S
* ,~
~
~
~ Q)
Q) ~
~
* 0 0
0 0
~ ~ to
~ ' .4-J
0 ~ .g ,
0
~ q,
0 ~ ~
U
t:I t:I t:I
*, ~ ~
~ ,~
u ~
'E ~ Q)
~ ~
0 ~ .4-J
~. ~
~ 0
~ ~ t
q ~
,~ Z
en en
t:I a 0
en '.
~ ..
, , . .
:' ~ en
:\ ~~ '~ ~
.;,':
, ~
~ ," (1)
. , ~
" :
~. ....
.~ .~ Q)
: ~~ 0
U \ ~. ~
~ ~
... II' ~
~ \
0 en
en ~
.. Q)
,.~
~ (1)
(1) e
b ~
en ~
Q)
~ '0
.~ ~
u
~ 'cd ~
4-J
en en
~ B
~ 0
U en
0 \D I
~
(1)
~ .~ p
~ S ~
~
~
0 (1) ~
~ (1)'
en
~
,. .' -:',:.;,.., .: :. .', :';'l' .':, ".!)., ....<;... '~I.'~1
.' 1-' . _.",1.-' ........1'.'....-1 J.:..pt
. ' ." '. .. ." C"" ,.....' ,\".'
, 0 .,. >, ' '," .', ','. ,',' :, 'If. ',0" ..,-'.'... I,,',;
, '.," : '.:.,'.,..,.,' ''''~'.'; <;":\}:~:'f(t.';:.:.:'/.:..~\~.<
..
.~
o
N
.~
~
~
a
o
u
.S
fJ)
~
.~
\-4
B
fJ)
"E
('(")
'~,
~
O-l
~
g
~
fJ)
.~
..;..\
U fJ)
~ t
fJ). ....-\
] ~
f-l~
*
"
"
..
'.
~
u
<
~
~
z
o
t3
,z
H
~
Z
o
~
~
o
~
u
-; ,W
.~ .!m
I' ~ 0011
''".;. ~!:
";" i e a
'J _.." lil
"l~ ~.a<.,Q'6
"<,. ~':l'" l<l
. \: "'" ~..
,:~ Ui~'
'. I. Q ~ 08]
.)
.; ~
,~
.;:It
ill .!i! -1-
0=: :e~. ~
~:j ~~. 8:
= ," II !l ~ 1.
. " ~ J:l", e'1O
~ 'il-a 'il.9 _ e
a. ~ aU"
Ut.;:;.-0 "'0.
_ ='- Co! ~
]ee~.a:;a
..,
:!. . .
..
o
'.0
~
cd Q) ~
Q) t:: ..
~ 0 Q)
~ Z g
8 aJ N
~ t:: b
o H
~ N';:;l
~ ~ 8
~cJ')CI)
Cl
o
.
~
o
'0
If')
Q)
~
:>
o
U
~
j
Cl
. .
~
'8 ~ t)
~.~ e
~ .-0 ~
If') ~ .8
~ '6 ~
.: ~ N
.. Q) 4-1
Q) O-l 0
~ t"~ Q)
~ .8 tE. ~
. .-1 rn t:: E
Q)"E 0 0
~ ~ u :>
o
- .' ..:. -,', .,.,.'.;,; .'..:~!;J,'i.'.-. :.'.:'..',; "";"'-''''1
:~- . .~: .'~ 1,.J'~h~lt i',~' """ll":"'" ;""1 .I......".,l....'.~.
',to ,". \ I ~. ~';;'.~:1:':....:1..".~.~~>, ~\~..;:' 'l. '. '," ,;~; '~I'
.,' .:. .. . ... 'I'"' ':~-".;A'~ t':r,~~/....:~7~~'.fl. ,',' ~"\"" ~:. 'l,'
I . ". ~ I~' I . , " ,': 1.1 .,.1 I,....t "!'P' I ,,'f} I . ,..... .' '. I" !".
": . .'..I:.~.~:.::.. ';~.~:;:l.'~,:j::!~:...'.!..t~:i:;'t;:~.;~ ~:"'.:":': ,:' -~.:' ~..
~
Lt"')
~
.J:4
u
cd
.-B
Q)
CI)
~
t:l
o
cl::
o
~
o
~
.J4
u
cd
.-B
Q)
cJ')
~
Q)
P:::
Cl
~
Lt"')
.J4
u
cd
.-B
Q)
cJ')
Q)
.-0
, .-1
CI)
Cl
, ,
,',
',' ~:':
? ,}
.. ~ .
~ ',"1
. d
-:t1
r. .z
U a
~. r"
~ ",!~ '.
,~ ..
~
~'
~
o.
~
~
z
~
o
~
H
U
o
.
N
I
L()
.
~
. .
~
.
~
.
~
o
(1)
q
o
Z
. .
(1)
~
~
(1)
>
o
U
~
o
H
o
4-l
o
~
,S
o
~.
""d ,~
's ~
ON
~':"'d
""d (1)
(1) (1)
~ u
~ ~
~ ~
,(1) 0
S, q
I B ~
.~
~...cl 0
~,9!J N
N QJ ~
.......0 u
. ~
(1)
(1) blJ ~
~:"E (1)
~ ." ~ r./)
...cl ~ ~
4-l q
.~ 0 0
(1) 0 ~
~ ~. ~
o 0
.
t"H
o
~
. .
~
u
~
~
(1)
r./)
~
~
(1)
~
o
, "':.r" ',. '.,' ,": '1,' ;-,' ,:;:\;\\.",:~':' '\';'\.';'.">1~~' .~~I
" . J.I ,.. I",~:. " . .t .J...I".....,'..,... "'J'If.''f~. ~~~."
. .: : . .;.: ::': '.~ ~?~:~/~;:t:f;+~:;'~:.: ;-~~>1:q::~~~~~:!:i{f.t~f::~;:~. ~ ~~
.
t"H
C'<")
II
~
""d
.~
," ..
-l--l
o .
~ t"H
"'
O~
~ II
.. -B
~'\J
~ .~
..8 ~
(1) 0
r./) ~
"'
(1)0
""d..q-
c;)^
o
'.
.
!
"
"
., .:
, ,
.,
. ~~.
. "
: -,J
., i: ,
'.' ;{
.fj ::,
:;.~ roo
': ~ ,0
' "
:r. '\~
, " 0
:' ~
0
~ .2 en
. ...-4 roo
rJ) (].) ~ ~
~
~ 0 . .
~
en cd 0
H en .B Q) ~
(].) en ~
0 ~ .U ~ en
.s u 0 ..j..J
rJ) ~ cd ~ .2 0
~ cd ,en .s 0 (].)
B Q) ~ s
p Q) .9
en en ~ 8 ~
en en
roo ....-4 ~ ~ ~
.p
0 Q)
B B ~
~ ~ ~ ~
en:. en
(].) rg 0 0
S ~ ~
~ Q) Q) roo m
~ cd ~ ~ cd
0 ,~ ~ u...
0 8 cd 0
~ 0 0 ~
H
rJ) 0 0 (j (j (] a
u
.' .. ....." ,. .., ", '''''''\
'. ." I,', J ", \~.I,-:",,:,':'I'.~r~ ..t.~\~'.
" (,. ,".. ,'. 'I.~A .,.1,_,;._ '," 'lI:''''l''' e,.......r. '....t .d. ....1"
.... . '. .,,1', .:_:~~II..:l :'n .~.~........,.'.\l'..Il'-:"";':''-:~';'''';I'
..' ......\.\ ..:tl:.,..r....,.'-~I;'l /o....;:...~,i.\..:.~l.. -':""~':
.' .." . I .r-." ,"... .... ...... " ,,' ..~. .1Il.," '-!./:o.\.. t
" ..= .: .. . ...~~.... 1-...,... (.:1.;....."'~..~{f!:J'4.~f. t~~..~:.i.:~-' f.;,tl.:~
':, ,,' ","", '.A~ :"''::'l~~'" ,.I:.:~:';_:',,,,,.~).<f"",,,,:"
,.
.'
~.
}::-
i
"
"
.:
'~
':.
~ .f...
~,
~ ~\
~ ~'
, '
.,
, ~:
, .h
;:'\
, 'I'
---
r.f)
~
U
~o
~....
~~
~~
~ ~.
rJ)<
~.~
p:40
~O
~ti
, .
.'
-.:s
~
~,..o
,..o'"d
~~
u 0)
rn ,~
rn rn
0)
~ ~
0) .;::\
:g~
< ~
o
'~
'0
..
0)
~
.~,
0-4~
bOp
~.~
~tJ)
,..o~
'0) ~
~O~
rn 1t-\ tJ)
,g 0-4 ~
~'"d~
?,~ .9
o
g ! OIl
~ ~ ~.@
~ ...0 B 0)
...0 tJ) U tJ)
0) ~~'
.. p.-. ~ t:l 0
~,~ 0) rn 44
~ ~ tj d 0
, P. 4--1
0:.] ,9 ~ ~ ~
rn......t BO) 0) 0
a)'V 't"! tJ)' dO
..p O)'..,o.j ~ 0 .........
o tJ) ......0 0) ~
S a3 5 ~.~ ~
e tj b 'B tr' 0-4
P-t,9 P-t u ~ ~
o 0
."'"
r.._..~' ,.."........-..-.
" .
: \,-......-'1
\ \ . \
It} \ I .'--1 ~
'. ~ L-"'!<'" .J ~~, ~
L..-.. -..~ ..-' .J
l~
~~
It-
IL~
\>
\
\
,'. ": .'. 'i. ..., '.', ." '., \ ,. 'l
.' ' ~':", " ': "', '." "" <'.; ,;;, .,'.J'.'; ,'. ...." ,(' ",';,~"~l"\
. .'.. ".') .....' ...~' !,/",_"",,\i!'r,l',J,"
_' ~..h.:- .',l:.c-: .......\..1 .-: t:.J(;;~."",,~'!'i&~,t. \~<::'}.~~.':.';\l"lo."\'\;'~~~"~'
. .' _ " . _ . (\It \_'1 .. .t.'\.k~-' 1~..oT-R""'" .... ,. fro , n.~
" '; . ." '~~'" ',' i, :'~ ,t.',1 .. j.'ti.;'!'" ::\~:'<..' !:,..f~'': :.';,...
, .." .", "', ~.:; ,'. .,'.,-;....'.:.;;.. :;:3,,\;.::,:.;(,5.;,-:,
---
~
u
~'O
~~
~~
o~
t;
~~
~.o
~3
~~
"
'l~
:..;
~
\
.. .
"
>> ,
!.. A'
c )
.
"
I, "
\ I ~ "'~'I :
"ol' ','~''-i .~}.'~~.;,~,I:
,".";'. ":I"=>'~'rt."":~':,~....
. ..... ~ --'l"',~{.i;ll..-::;. .' .. .. '.'..t ....;
. '.. ':.;'-.'..; ~r.. -.;! .~ ..... ),:l"~~!;fk'.. . '.:";";. '~l'l' .
'. '..'. 't" ......,><< ..., ,,'..
. . . .....J.~,.....r{....~., VI/"'~l..:.'Io"....,..., " " "'.... .
" .. "~'(oo,. .~,,' '" 1'. ... '4" . " .~;
'.";0. '''. ".: . 'JIl,.,'t~'t-t.~. .f,..,.....,4.';;...~;.......~I;.. , "
lor -, \- ,', Of:. . r-o. ,'( ~ <:.}. "':'.'-"l. \ "a;_
,', ,.,'1/:', ....:)\......:.(i....'f,.-:t,~..P."\"i'l:..~...r;.
I "'17 .. \:... J'.t 1"'"'\::. '~ \".....
- oj'... :.. ..... .;~~1J._L..:O. ~"
' ~ .,'.. 'Y:', on.
~f";'r', '", " i\ f .
:..)....,..,
,
tj
O-lcn
%~
+-! ~..
P-\ A '
r-!O ~..
(\),
.~" '(I)',.
' ~'...
~ "
, .
. . O"~
, ..
'~'~.,:.
S" '01,.,
, .. .....1
- ... ,'"
.>,.
"'0 "
~,:, ..~,.
\
: .a.
, .
~;:<
p~
-$
~':ti
,7 ~..
"6
:1- oe
{,I
i~
Z ,Ii
'~ ~
.. ~,
-;~
~~
It""
z
o
H
~
H
o
U
H
~
<
~
~
~
<
~
,
\'.-..--::-....
, \
Q'
l-)
L..- .~
~
,
I
.g
o~ c:l
o
~ .p
!~
~i
:a ~
~~
~ ~
a'~
404
~
1001
.. ~ to.
a
o
.g
OJ::! g
~ .p
~ ~
~~
~~
:a~
~ ~
~~
o
404
~
.. "
.
1
\ : ~
rJ ~ J ~
..~
. - .:" .,'-;,:" '." " , ':" ',; "~.:/-; .\ \1
".; . . " '. .'.' ''\.:~..ll:-:."ti..l..-.. ,~\-..:.-r.~.;.Jr..~
..', '.., .::.:':,: :~;, '> " .i::~:;.<.!~ ~:::~...~~.,.~~~~I:.:~::~~:~.~
,"' ~ . '~.:;'~ . .1/" ~,.~'Ij..,~: ,?W""'..~I..X..~.
. '. . . .,' . '.~'''' . ". '.' ,i'~ :..., !-.. ~~' .,~.. ,~'- i
: 71.... h . ,'~ ',.. 'J 'J)Y. l;:{ ;~:.~_~l. ':'" .,~,...;.~,~I.. .{...-;'/.l ;'.
. .", . I" '. \. _" = II" . . ~'. ,J.' -. l.-~. ~
:. ~a
,~'A
~,p
~
"
.
. ,
,I ';
,.
.'
'i-
.'
','
>."Ii
r,
:, ~
:- ~.
" '~'
~
S
0.<
dO
~~
~~
~
o
l~
B
~ b
u 0
~ ~
~ ~ ~ 1 .{
o \::I 1'1 <fJ . er
~ if) ~ ~ ,0 'U
o ~ ~ .,'@ -a
~ d <) -,;;,,,.D · ,0 \;:;'
. 5 <)'~ rl >::. U ~
. U ~ <) ,::l bll <;l U
"1j ~.s:: <fJ 1'1 .D ?:- <) <fJ
~I 0 " "1j ~. P 1:>-.'-'; 'ct:i "1j
,::l _ c:<l ~ <fJ '"' I'lo 0) ~
a ~ <fJ P-< bll'~ Q . " ;;..
_ ~ bll ~ <) ~ ~ "1'1 <)
~ 9, .....' t:l <) bll ~ ~ 0 "1j
-. . u ;:a U t:\ <) '" ?:- ,,,"
~.~ .S 'B.B'1) P-<"1j ~ ~
.8\ . Q) . . ~.D ~ ~ ~ ~ '.1u 0
a 1'1 SI bll bll c:<l bll?> <) <fJ
<fJ .~ ,9 '.9 .:: ~ .1'1 ~ ,N ,g
"1j .1'11 0 ~ ~ 0 p ~ p
;I P;::::l ~ U 0 "1j 5 .... c:<l
"1j g, 0 'ctj 'a <) S .... "1j \:>
~ 5 ~ 0 ~ ::3'~ 0 ~ ~
r~ ~ dl
V. ':P Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl .
. .':" " ;., ", ....... " ;"" !......(.,;:..:.<..: t :"l
. I'>' ',"" .....-'.' ~.. ,;.;~i.~"':.""~':'i~'\i..l"J;'~.I':
. :'. . .... .:...~..:.: '..':" ;.. d . ..::.";i:,,,'" :~;l":'~~":;}<
. . "',c<." .".,. .".... ...,.......,.4....."."" ....1"
. . 0 Y . ..., ,..... ..,' . ,., . ~,2 """.,.. '
, ." .0{" ,. "....~!--<.,r.,,...,~{' . .:".?> ,;..~.~'l',.."..,...,:.,~o:i..'.~\'!Iiit
. .." .::;":..: " :~.):;,;\l.::'.,' ....: Il'..:;:..'~,~:;..,~\.!ll.:;,,;.,.i.i
z
o
H
r:fJ
B
u
z
o
u
~i
~~
rs ,~
:.g ~
~'""d
~b!)
g .~
: U 0
~~
g~
,..q OJ
~~~
r"I .... OJ
~ ~ ~
~(\ q OJ
VNOJ~
.~ d .~
OJ Q 00
q ~ q
00 0 0
00......-1 U
OJ OJ OJ
~ ~ ...0
'""d '""d 0
~ t>-. ~
o ~- u
~ 0 00
~ ~ "1j
OJ 00 ~
rcJ""S ~
~ ('(') I,J
o ~ g
o IP ~
H ~ en
~
~
o
'.0
~
~
OJ
00 ~
~ <
U ~
~ 0
~ s
J5 ~
e-. ~ ~
000
--!-oJ --!-oJ u
en en U
~ ~ <
OJ OJ ~
0-1 0-1 ~
0-1 Cl-I 0
OOifJ
LI Cl Cl
00
4-J
~
OJ
8
OJ
'E
t:r
~
,_ I'
00
rcl
;!
'""d
q
~
r:n
o 00 --!-oJ
o q 0
'.0 0 OJ
~ '.0 8
~,~ ~
U .-::: 0
'.0 g cJ
~ ~ ~
OJ --!-oJ 0
~ ~~
u.. .~ ~
~ OJ q
~ ~ H
Cl Cl LI
, ..' \ ,..' 'j ~ :,;~ "1. :i<. ,l '-i';.,': ,t, ..R'" ... ,
, ,': .' ", '~_.,' "i-1,.t'. ;>\"""
i."i' ," \ J\'~"'''''~:,l.r''l').llt'~'' 7:' fll~'''~'!I.\.
_'" I '.~~'(",'''\l'~'~ l~..'l t1....:~
. .~.~. ~.', ':,~.I, ~ ....~:;.. ~ ~.i: .,:1'~' .
, '" ',:"" ' ',~''''~.'~'''''' ~> .
. '\ ~ ,....~J .~~ ~:Vi ;:''''l.K.' ~~
" I, ,.1"'. J; ..."....'.....,~ ~.~
. . "': .:.:..~.~:.~...}* r,~IIi", .J'~'!\
. . ~....' . ._...._. .g.... ......;;~.r
'& "
00
.Q)
~ "'~
~
0
en ..j..J
en
~ ~
0
Q ~
Q.)
Z ...0
E
j z,
~
~ ~
00
Z 4-J
0
H
~
0
~
Q)
~ ~
U en
~
...
0
~
C+oc ~ ~ ~
0 0 0
0 ~ 0
... 0\
;:: ~ Lt")
'CU
tJ
4-4
CU
~
rn
...
0
~
C+oc
0 ('lj 0\
4-4 r- ~ \0
CU ~ N ('lj
..c.
@
Z
rn
CU
ot:
0
...
en
C+oc ..
0 ~ N ('lj
~
CU
..c.
@
Z
~
~
..j..J
'El
~
~
...0
00
~
o
H
~
o
>-.
~
en
~
...
0
~
C+oc ~ ~ ~
0- 0 0 0
... 0\ ~ 0
;:: Lt") N N
CU
tJ
4-4
CU
~
rn
...
0
~
C+oc
0 Lt")
4-4 ('t") Lt") N
CU N 00 00
1
z
en en
'S -l-l
] 'S
CU '~ ~
~ en Q.J
t':I en ~
~ I:I..l Q.J 0
... Q.J H ~
os bb 4-c
0 ~
p .S ~ 0
rJ) Q.J
0 .~
~ ~
..
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37,5 Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RHD Zones, Pla1l1ling District 1 - "Old Town"
PIQ1l1/ing Commission Staff Report
Septem~ 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE
'SEPTEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION
"
Study Session,PC SlalfRoport
5
Carol Allee-Clark
318 15th Street
Seal Beach, CA.
90740
C/O Mr. John Bahorshi
Seal Beach City Council & Planning Commission
211 8th Street
SealBeach,CA.90740
C1lJ of SIll Beach
SEP - 5 2006
DevelopmentSvcs,
Dear Council:
, ,
I would like to give my input as a citizen/resident of Seal Beach on the subject of
"mansionization. "
Old-town is where regulation is needed the most.
1. The renowned atmosphere and charm is being rapidly lost through the
construction of these "monster houses."
2. Mansionization reduces or eliminates light for adjacent structures and
gardens.
3. Mansionization creates dampness which encourages mold.
4. "Cookie cutter" applies all the more when you see rQws,Qf.~!!'lse.l)arrow
cracker box houses being built,by developers for avarice' instead of any planning
to enhance the community. Where and when do the planners help to enhance
the city? Real value and livability of a town comes from diversity of houses &
preserving a lot of outdoor space.
5. Certain houses are partiCUlar eye sores and a disgrace to our supposedly
small town atmosphere. ,
This is all the more true when the house is huge and tak~s up in part 3 stories,
practically using up th'e whole land space such'liIs the house on the southeast
corner of Landing and 13th street. It takes up almost all of the skyline and looks
ridiculous. What small town atmosphere?
Therefore V!fe recommend that ALL houses lihould be limited to 2 stories.
". .
.'
; ';."\",
Sincerely,
't1~fJ. a(J/!fJ -r-'~~
, C~r~l Aile,e-GJ~rk .
. - .. \ "or. : f" 01
, ,
. . . . :. ~.:
"". ".' . ~
t"; ::.:. ":
, .,
" ,
. . I'" I' .'.' I .. :1,": ..~ :~ ..:.... :. ,:". J :J J .;"... :..:-:./0 ".' "
, ......:....... -:.1 '.'
"
I' JI
,... , ~
Dear Mr. Antos,
My bedroom window gets no wind. I must run a
fan all s~er to keep cool. That was never the
situation when I moved to Seal Beach. I request the
city put a stop to all this 3 story madness. We want a
low level, old town. I think that I will loose a lot of
blue sky if we do not stop 3 st . es.
Cl\y at.' &eaoh
SEP - 5 2006
oevl\opment Sves.
,
~' t
.\ ~ ,\ ~
-.~ ...
...
~, i
~~~~ '-
-
'.
~'S:
It '
~1 .
!
s; i'
I~rn
as ~
J f
l~
~
'0
en
c(
III ",0
.9 en -
c;.o-n
oCl. '" tII
III )( Q)
~.gcn
t1S~'1i
~O~
. -
=
&
g-
- -
CD
a;
-0
- c-.-
,z:--
aU
. - -r
en 0
,~ c=
~"S
- - r
-..;
...~ ...'
f!.B
cD-lS,
~~ -cD
-r -=
t= ,0
S-=
c:-F
~---
0==
.-
~
~~
-cs
- ~
,B
.~
~
!
-
-
-;
-
-
-
* -:
* ~.,;
i !-;
i ~ ~ ~
i' ~-l
iit;~ ::
g~~cn~ ::
~C\\I'l -:
g6~oo ;;
.tr
... ..
The City of Seal Beach City Council and Plann;ng Commission
c/o City Manager John Bahorski
211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740
We have owned our home at 1013 Electric Avenue in Seal Beach for over 18 years. We move to Old
Town because it had the small town feel and open spaces.
The charm. that Seal Beach has is being eroded by over sized houses. We oppose 3 stories on all
property with the exception of Ocean Avenue on the beach side from Main to lit street.
TomQuinn ~ ~~
1013 Electric Avenue ~
Seal Beach. CA 90740
CRy of SIll Beach
SEP -5 20L
Development Svcs.
..
.. '.
The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
clo City Manager John Bahorski
211 8111 Street Seal Beach, CA 90740
We have owned our home at 1013 Electric Avenue in Seal Beach for over 18 years. We move to Old
Town because it had the smaIl town feel and open spaces.
The charm that Seal Beach has is being eroded by over sized houses. We oppose 3 stories on all
property with the exception of Ocean Avenue on the beach side from Main to 1 It street.
Terressa Quinn 0.vLJte.oDa... ~
1013 Electric Avenue '
Seal Beach, CA 90740
City of Seal Beach
,r;" ,52305
...
Development Svcs.
I
c:--. ..
~~
.....- ~.
~
- ...s ......
~ .
~~'t
~
-~
-~~
-~i
s:=
~
~
'"':4.........
..~
...........
~;
~-
~
-~
~
""
~-
~~
~
... - '>
--
:5
I
~
-ei
~
'"
..sa
:g
g.
$
.. -
.s
i
1~
lIS
III
.-
:; c: ...
o.,g x::
III Ol
c: III .-
.- (\)
....E .r::.
5 E E
'r 0 J2.
, () -
III 0l'C:
(\) c: :)
"0 'c to
B ~ (\)
Ol - ~
.5 0. .r:.
c: (\) "0
~-;S"5
S :S 0
o(O~
~'Q)c:
:;::;..g~
.!gai~
0."0."0
:) (\) '5
~ (/) ...
1: c: (\),
!O:S
... II)
6 c .r:.
(\) % ~
"''-"0
co r ._
_ __ l,)
"13 ~ (\) Jl
c:o"O.2
:;) ..... 0
Go.....{5
() (\) c: to
i;o.... ,g (\)
._ ~,(/) to
()~IIl.....
_,;.., ~..tO'
..... ~- v~..' CD
~ :a ?; (/)
c:"O~o
o (\) "'^
__ .... V" '1ii
; '6 ~ !
E.9-o.(\)
E 0) 0 .r::.
ci .r:. c: ...
o.sos~
Ol "0 Ol:=:
c: (\) ,5 "C
'c 'i '% 0)'
~ (\) .r:. 's
_ c: '"
0. ~ ~ '5
S~:si
~ '$ 3- ~
CD
-5
"0
~
'-
J2.
~
~
~
~
(\)
E
~
~
!
~
1\ y
~ (/)
~.~
\t-'
g-
o
Ol
~
E
~
==~
~~
A
~~
c::::;
.. -i' :::.
~~
c.::-
c:::
~
. -
-~
<i
- ...:s.
-~
c::::>>
,~
---==-~
i s
.j ~
... c:
o ...
0) 0
-ci
'j ..~
.... a; ,
'i c:
- ...
-..n 0
. \)
t;) .-
:g
.'11.. .-
.... 0.
tIS 0
-5 c:
"OJ::.
-~
to \
:1:"'"
~~
e ~
'5 e
o 0.
I/)
='
"0
, G)
CIlC:
c: ,0
~ ~
CD
6 ~
Gl "0
-5 G)
o'~
.... -
Gl ~
%10
(.) ~
-' c:
~ ~
g '[5'
c: Cl)
Gl "C
E CD
=6!!!
c:: In
::3:e
8 1-,
~c:
.~ 9-
..... '1/)
'015
c: G)
CD '0
~ '~
g Cl)
.- ~""'
~ ~?J;
~"O.:;
o c:: ~
~~ ~
%~ _ c:
- '6 ,g
_ . lI!
~~ \{' .~,
...' % ..r "'-
5e -"'~
>-'~ '".....
~ -" -
~ta t:
.a6 -e
G) I/) , c::
E \'0 CD
:;:; "to it.
G) ,~ ., "0 -
:P'E ga~
,!!l.~ !:ao
"" 1:: CIl c: -i
f) &.~. ::3::3 In
Z.s ~8E
CUi ~- 5 ~ ~
.... G) 0 (.)
a:>' ,.. 'cD <
::3!/}.~'S-5g1ii(
~~ Eia~'
.... ....In_."
::3 ell . o-:&-'"
Ot1~ \I::\O"~
:.!!o b~~CO
I'm cd\- ~Cl) o~
ta' #! '6 0 f= u.c:a
~ ~.s
U)
Q)
::e
(\)
e
.2
-' "C
~ ~
... .Q
.B 10
~ Q)
~ .c
~ .2
! :g
to -E
(\) Q)
~ e
c::
cd c::
! %
'0 l-
c:: '0
:s _
o 0
(.) .
.
ai
... III
~~
~ ~
c>I .
... ..
'*" -
..-:;
i~
'" ~
~ '"
'" ..
u ~
1;'2-
$~
~~
0..';
Z
-
III lD
o c::
"Co
<....
c)
1II .-
lD ::.
;: 1II
tIS -
,s:.o
(.)
~
, r-
o
o
rlN -;; ~ --.
\'" '(7;
,~~~
FJ4tf1..~~L r ,~
vV" - ~ ~
~ ~--~~~
~ d}t--~. ~ 6 ~ ;:5'
/1A~' . _/.M..4 ~ "- ~ ~ .
tV- ~-- ~~ '
~--o/ A.- """ " '
trf.~' . rY (" ~?t-7
I..f ~ ~-"'"
r' lit' nr~ ~ ~"'-
" v.b!b ~ - p.:? ~oL-- ~
;t;-' ad ~ ~ dJ.,";{UiJ ~
,_ ., ~ ~fV 7~ ~ ""d
~-r~ ~ ~d-c1 ~
JJrY~,L.~~~O~ ~'
y-t" ~. ~~. {JC7 ~..h
,iY-".t ~ ~ '
~ ' '
tL if. ,.' '-;-' d2.--
.~ /.. #'...;. :?~ ~.--! (i:> If Ia. th sf- {?vi ~'" 0_
,& .&
1629 Seal Way
Seal Beach, CA 90740
August 31, 2006
city of &ell Beach
SEP - 5 2006
Development Svcs.
Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
C/o City Manager John Bahorski '
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, GA 90740
Dear City Council Mempers and Planning Commissioners:
I am writing this letter to support a consistent 25 foot height limit for the Old
Town area of Seal Beach, regardless of the width of a lot. Living in an area with 3
story homes nearby, I can say from personal experience that these larger homes
do adversely impact the neighborhood. One of the main issues is a lack of
privacy. This is exacerbared by having a big bulky structure nearby that can block
the ocean breezes and the sunlight.
It malres no logical sense to me that with a lot 37.5 feet wide or larger, that a
much larger structure can be built on the property. And these mueh larger
buildings will Qe built, As real estate values continue to increase in the beach
area, builders will desire to "max out" on any new structures. They will want to
construct the largest possible building permitted by code. After all, it is in their
economic best interest to do so.
So what will be the result over time? We will have McMansions next to smaller
houses - and what then will happen to the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach?
Will it become just a nice memory?
The leaders of Seal Beach have an opportunity now to take the action necessary to
preserve and protect our home town. I hope that you do take this action.
Yours very truly,
-::'=~I
t. ..
6f/'I~,
Dear Mr. Antos,
If people can not live in a nice one or two story home in old town Seal Beach
they should consider another place to live. I say NO, NO, NO to all 3 story development
"
/
<;;-rv? 11I~1'Y1 NOW
~~(L8a~J
I y.. s:r.
:
City 01 SIll Beach
SEP - 6 2006
Development Svcs,
... ...
1lXHoOroMAIL
Print - Close Window
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Lee Melody" <Imelody@leemelody.com>
Subject: 3rd Story Houses
To: MAVlKA2000@aol.com
CIlJ of SIIlSeach
SEP - 6 2006
Development Svcs.
Dear Councilman Antos,
In response to your request for comments regarding 3rd story houses in Old Town, I would like to
give you our thoughts on the subject. We live at 236 15th St. On our north side is a 3 story home.
The 2nd lot from us on the south side is a 3 story home. One house across the alley has a 3rd ,
story and another house across the alley on a 25' lot has a 3rd story deck. The house across the
street on the west side is a 3 story and directly across from our house is an approved building plan
for 3 houses on 25' lotS' that will have 3rd story decks (they are tearing down 2 one story homes on
371/2 ft lots to build these 3 houses), So, you can see that we have experience with 3 story
homes. We are surrounded. So whatever the decision the City makes does not affect us,
Therefore, I would like to give you our opinion.
Three story homes on 37.5 lots and 3rd story decks on 25ft lots are obtrusive, They block the sky
and the sun, If they are next door to you the massive size of these houses cause darkness inside
your home and gives one a feeling of living in a hi-rise city. For the future sake of homeowners
not yet subjected to 3rd story houses I would hope that you, the City Council and the Planning
Commission would change the zoning to not allow 3rd stories anywhere in Old Town. In my
opinion it will add to property values and maintain the small beach town atmosphere that Seal
Beach has always had,
By the way we have lived in Seal Beach for 15 years and 6 years ago built a new home at our
current address. As anyone can see passing by, it is not 3 stories and does not have a 3rd story
deck, not because we did not want one, or could not have had one, because we felt that our small
foot 37 1/2 foot lot would not be esthetically pleasing at 3 stories.
Thank you for the opportunity you have afforded us to express our opinion.
Sincerely,
Lee & Donna Melody
P,S. Please ask the people responsible for the City's website to bring it up to date - the current
home page feature Santa Fe by the Sea and the used bookstore which have been gone for years.
I
Lee
,- "
_.,. I
, ,
"
..
~
......---
-:----
"'-Xc""
.',"
"
- -
...~~..-.
,':
l:-' ,J.
'1;'-:<",;:
---~-"'-
"l.:'
-~
-w-~_.--:- rz~" "
.~~.--/.....;; .,," ,"
Ji " '
. ...
, '
, '
,~-'
It.: ....~.
'~.:l ~...}
~,."
. ':' ~ '-- '
'_ __ 73M'-- .-..-;--
, ,-" 'b;'~lr.,~
____-~.....-~..M?t( i;"~.
. :..:\....
.:....., ---..
_.,:..~i:~~f
",1,", .
i
\
--:-
...
....~:\~.!
..~\-~f'.;...\
'r-,l..~...,'
~i' ::::: :~ .'
-.-----
'..'I; fI.~'
".'0:::"
-...--'"
, '
,,\.: "'~"
o0oi:-,"
.
.
" :,C';
'. ;~;:-
.......1:.
",,:1...
. '
..
-~ ..
"
:" .
".1
~ .
._~.- -" -
..
.----..-"-
--
~. ..'
'"
-----
c
:,\;:,;'
",~. .'
,",
"
'.
'.
}
,,"l
>
--.'--
,-
......
..~
.~.-
..
r. I.
Sept. 3, 2006
Mr. Antos,
We do not want our sea breeze d~stroyed. We do not
want expansion. We do not want three story anything to
be built in our town. Please do everything you can to stop
all 3 stories. c> : )
~ r-. 04'C<,pt../
Susan alkins
Old town S.B.
C\\'i at SIa\ leacb
SEP - 5 2.U~1i
08V,\Qi)ment Svcs.
,- ..
city otSlllJeaCb
SEP - 5 2006
Development Svcs.
September 3, 2006
To: The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
From: Peggy Morrison 314 1.7th Street
I welcome this opportunity to voice my opinion on notification for future develop-
ment. In recent years I have survived the construction of 8 homes and one addition on
three sides of my home. I could go on at some length about the trauma and destruction
that these projects 'caused to me and my property, but this is not the time for that.
While I believe that we have missed the opportunity to keep old town small and are
addressing the mansionization issue too late, I fully and strongly believe that we 'mUSt If
dOJlQ~~otifY'nei~rs'or-rmpending'l:IelT!olition and eonstructiow. In
my own case, my next door neighbor did not have the consideration to notify me. I can
speak at length of the disruption to my life, privacy,airspace and light. It appears that
many of our newer residents do not plan to live here very long and are not at all respect-
ful of their neighbors. All that is of concern is build the biggest and get the most. I see
evidence of this every day.
I have had the pleasure of living in Seal Beach for over 54 years. While I could live
anywhere in the world, I choose to live here. We who consider this our community and
not Just a springboard to wealth have I)een ignored. When I have gone to the city with
concerns about vandalism,graffiti or violence, I have been told" well, what can we do?"
And nothing is done. Only Mr. Antos has been very responsive when I have directly
contacted him.
Quality of life cannot be 60ught. Many changes have aiready negatively affected
the quality of life in old town. Lets stop catering to developers. Lets leave more open
space in our "quaint" town. The "quaintness" quotient Is diminishing with each big wall
that goes up. We are becoming the Newport ,Beach or Huntington Beach that we said
we never would. Please help this trend stop and prove that is not too late.
S~
P.S. Regarding the questionable activities and violence around the pier, I have 2
words-"surveillance camera", Lets raise some money and put a few around for the vol-
unteers to monitor and get this under control!
_. I.
September 3, 2006
0It,v of SUI leach
SEP - 6 2006
tllveJopment Svcs.
Seal Beach City Council and Planning Committee
City Hall
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Council Members,
Today a neighbor in Seal Beach showed me the notice of the meeting scheduled
for Wednesday September 6111 to provide public input regarding changing building
codes for old,.town. I was previously unaware of this important hearing. I may not
be able to attend the meeting so I am providing my written comments. '
First. I believe a notice of a new build should be required to all neighbors within
300 feet.
Second, I believe the maximum height of a build in old town should be limited to
two stories,
Old Town Seal Beach has its own character and attractiveness. It is a beach
community where homeowners and renters alike really like their community,
Primarily, long time residents' stay and newcomers move to old ,town because
they like the town as it is now.
There are many single story houses, and an increasing number of two stories.
Space between houses on 25-foot wide lots is only 6 feet. The maximum height
is two stories. Building codes should in force to protect the existing community
from new builds that dramatically change the appearance of the community. A
three-story structure is imposing. It blocks sunlight to the direct neighbors and
creates a visible barrier to the surrounding community. The current code for a 35-
foot lot allows for only a portion of the build to be 3 stories. If the code was
changed to allow for the entire build to be 3 stories am concerned the city would
slowly change into 3 story apartment or condominium buildings. I do not want to
see old town change into higher rise buildings.
Property right issues are not in a vacuum. Property rights do not give an owner a
right to do anything that he/she wants to do with the property, Every right has a
responsibility to the greater good. Otherwise there is chaos. People's rights are
interlinked with other's rights. The health, safety and concerns of the community
at large and the concerns of the neighbors need to be considered.
,- .-
Unfortunately, homeowners, real estate agents and real estate developers often
have competing interest. Real estate agents and real estate developers are in
business to make a profit. They have the advantage of their business experience.
and the access to consultants In law, business and finances to frame their
position on issues. Their various business plans may not coincide with the
welfare or wishes of the local community.
One of City government responsibilities 'is to have vision. Vision would include
not only acknowledgement and respect for the past and what is m the best
interests of the residents for the future. What is the vision for old town? A master
plan for the community should be developed that respects the wishes of the
property owners. Such a master plan would require a vote of all property owners
in that affec~d community. A reasonable approach is to first develop a master
plan. In other words, frame the issue involved and then allow residents to vote. A
well-publicized public hearing is a beginning.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions and concerns.
T.F. McCarthy
1516 Ocean Avenue
Seal Beach, CA
V.v-a fv\sC~
..
..
"
Council tJlembers of the City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740-6379
September 4, 2006
CII)' of SlllSeaCh
SEP - 6 2006
Oevelopment ~C
s.
Dear Council Members,
It has been brought to my attention through the media, other concerned citizens and interested city
leaders that,the City of Seal Beach is pondering how to p'roceed with defining the building policies
of the community, It appears that there are codes for bUilding, however, these codes vary
throughout the City and are open to '~nterpretation".
Regarding the latest issue of three story residential buildings: It is my opinion that there is 'no' place
in the City of Seal Beach where 3 story residential structures are appropriate. . . (period).
Old Town is a small conclave unique to the coast line of California. The character of the community
needs to me maintained. Building, highrise apartment and condominium buildings only brings a
congested higher-density to the area that is already impacted by overuse and overbuilding. Those
residents now living in the Old Town community are already having a difficult time with congestion
and parking. Why would anyone want to add further congestion to the area by allowin9 three story
buildings? Th~ possible answer- greed I Tenet'and landlords want to reap higher profits by.
building high-density (high-rental-cost) housing thus congesting our beautiful community with little
regard for those now living there.
Further more- It is my opinion that the City of Seal Beach needs a Long Range Plan (that is
followed) to determine how the city will develop into the next decades. A first step in this planning
would be for the City to hire an outside agency to develop and assess a building plan that would
be viable with the culture of the community. ' _
An out-side agency could give recommendations to some of our communities problems. listed
below. .
I see multiple problems going on in the city planning and public works departments,
, As I walk around the community I see: ,
. Utility wires hap-hazardously han~ing from poles gMng rise to a feeling of "uncared fo!"
areas decades behind other local communities with underground utilities.
. New construction being built that far surpasses the ethical consciousness of building'
environmentally friendly. "
. Streets being resurfaced at the east end of Ocean Ave are being refurbished in a manner
which is a disgrace to the city. The missing curbs are not being addressed as stated they would
be, rather they are being filled in some places with asphalt- other areas are not repaired at all. This
is inconsistent with the newly paved curbs and streets west of Main Street and north of Ocean
Ave.
. The surface of these streets are uneven and:done with poor quality asphalt. Has anyone
inspected these newly paved streets? The job done is not worthy of payment! The resurfacing
doesn't even go all the way to the boardwalk. '
. The Issue of curb-side parking. We residents watch beach people bang into others
parked vehicles as they tIy to squeeze into too small parking spaces. A solution may be parking
stalls painted on the overly congested north and south sides of Ocean Ave? Another suggestion-
make the south side of Ocean Ave east of Main Street "Permit Parking Only" with parking spaces
painted on the pavement. Leave the north side of Ocean painted space, limited one hour parking-
except for those with valid parking permits. This mayencdurage beach visitors to use the paid
parking lots near the pier rather than to congest the streets where long term parking is now
permitted.
,
" .'
. This beach community needs bike paths, walking trails and a pedestrian friendly
environment that encourages the use of our inherited coast line. While, at the same time,
developing a conscious perspective that protects our ocean resource and the residents property
from the disrespect given it by beach goers and outsi~ers.
The City of Seal Beach needs to define a PLAN that is worthy of this wonderful area - a plan that is
followed!
Respectfully submitted,
,~~h\~
Sandra McCarthy
Homeowner
1516 Ocean Ave.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
.,
I. I,
9/4/06
Mr Antos. 3story buildings are not compatible, with the old town
atmosphereJwe live here for. My vote is to prohibit them as the,
semi third story "dog houses" were prohibeted years ago.
Please do everything you -can to help the people that love this town for
what it is not, for the money they can make.
Thank You
Old Town
14th 81.
CI\y at SIa\ BRcb
SEP - 5 2006
Development Svcs.
L-AL-tc- f #oJ.s
,I I_
Don and Ginny Kennebeck
209 3rd St. '
Seal Beach, CA 90740
September 5, 2006
10hn Bahorski
City Manager
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Ci\V at SII\ aeacb
SE.P - 5 lnn6
De"e\01lment Svcs,
Dear Mr, Bahprski,
My husband and I are not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow
evening and wish to voice our opinion on the development of3 story homes in Seal
Beach. We are firmly and strongly against it throughout Seal Beach here in Old Town,
Our homes are so close together and affect each other's sunlight and sea breeze already,
that a three story edifice within 6 feet would be an abomination as well as an injustice I
We are usually in favor of keeping government out ofpeople's lives but this decision
effects all of us who want to live together in a modicum of peace and community, The
strife that these "mansions" have caused this community is already heady as you know,
Most of us, I believe, do not want our community to resemble Redondo Beach,
Manhattan Beach, Sunset Beach or even Huntington Beach. It is probably inevitable that
the beach cottages will eventually disappear, replaced by two story homes that afford
more space and amenities, but please, put the brakes on the unfettered building of three
story homes, even on 1/3 of the property. Our airspace, light and air is precious and can
not be reclaimed if someone (developer or individual) who buys property here can take it
away by our current building codes, It is a quality of life issue for all citizens that must
be considered by our Commission and Councill
We respectfully request you vote to repeal the current codes that allow building 3 story
buildings in Old Town Seal Bea . ;ba.nk you in advance for your consideration,
"
"
'.
September 5,2006
Cl\yotSll\lIacb
SEP - 6 2006
Devllopment Svet.
Dear Councilman Antos,
My husband and I are writing to voice our joint opinion Re: your
recent notice of the September 6th Public Study Session on the housing
height limit for Old Town.
We strongh'. support a uniform height limit of ~ stories
regardless of lot size. We believe that to have two different height
regulations, dependent on lot size, is discriminatory and will sooner or
later (probably sooner!) lead to protests and accusations of bias from
those single-lot owners who wish to extend their height level for the same
reasons the double-lot owners wish to extend theirs - view ,and space.
Wherever an individual decides to build a home, we feel it
behooves him/her to respect the integrity of that community. Here in Old
Town, with homes packed so tightly together, that includes respect for
one's neighbors. A respect for their. rights to light, view and space that
deserve nQJ; to be impacted in a negative way. It all comes down to the
question of where does one neighbor's fist stop and another neighbor's
nose begin?
Yes, we as property owners enjoy our individual "rights". But we
also need to be aware of and respect our "responsibilities" as members of
the larger community. Here in Old Town that means preserving the
quaint atmosphere.that attracted most of us to live here in the first place.
If we need to rewrite the codes that will preserve and unify a height limit
of two stories, then let's get to the business of doing just that.
"
.,
Sincerely.
~/.S; ~cu/~
Harlene Goodrich
222 6th Street
Seal Beach
Michael Goodrich
.,
,I ...
DALE E. NELSON
11110 SIXTH STREET
SEAL BEACH, C&LIFOlRNIA. 90740
City ot SElleach
Sf? - 5 2006
Development Svcs,
September 5, 2006
Seal Beach City Cowcil and Planning Commission
c/o City Manager John Bahorski
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Planning Commission:
I regret that I will be unable to attend the meeting on Sept. 6, 2006.
However, I wish to voice my objection to the erection of 3 story buildings in
Old Town. I feel definitely that neighbors should be notified of plans to
build a high rise as it may destroy their view as well as cut off the sun light.
The welfare of the entire neighborhood should be taken into consideration.
I hope you will give careful thought and stop allowing 3 story buildings on
any size lot.
Sincerely,
~;.~ :r ~
Eileen T. Nelson (homeowner)
..
"
Steve Cole and.Mel1ndll.H/lWell-Cllle
ZZZ 1" &ire. 8111l B<I'ICi, CA. 90'140 ($6Z) 43O-ZZ30
September 6, 2006
yia e-mail
City Councilman Charles Antos
The Seal Beach City Council and Plll1Uling Commission
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
City cd _leach
SEP - 6 2006
Development Svcs.
Dear COlUlcilman Antos:
Thsnk you for yom request for input regarding the building ofthree-Irtcny homes in Seal Beach.
We oppose further mch building.
Seal Beach appears to be one of lite few small beach cities remaining in California., Its chann is
that it is still a small beach city. Steve has long been a resident of Seal Beach; he purchased the
home at this address in 1976. When we mBIried, and Melinda moved from Pasadena. she left
behind lite beauty of yards, trees, and the feeling of space around homes, for the pleasures of sea
breezes, beautiful skies, and lite small-town clumn of Seal Beach.
Aesthe1ically, three-story residenceslbuildings are disproportionate to the size of1he city. Many
of the stree1s in Old Town Seal Beach are very narrow. The residential lots are small- even
those 37 feet wide. ThIee-lrtoxy residences take up too much space!
Three-stcny residences impede air flow, One of our joys is that whlln we open 1he windows and
doors, fresh breezes flow 1hrough the house. We do not need air-conditioning. While on Balboa
Island not long ago, Melinda gotinto a conversation wi.1h a long-time resident of lite Island, a
real estate agent there. The woman expressed her distress at lite growth of the Island. She
recalled days when she opened her doors and windom 1D fresh air breezes. Those days she said
are gone. Wi1h the residential growth, appesrmce ofthree-stoxy homes, and loss ofysrds and
airspace, folks are needing to add air conditioners.
Many of the small beach houses are gone. Larger homes have 'lBken 1b.eir place. Le~s stop the
grow1h now, before the small-town chann of Seal Beach is only histoIy.
As an aside, we have become a cOIlSumer society,~ "I WlIJ1t as much as I can get." Bigger meBIlS
better. Air-condi1ioning? Bring it on! Water1 The more lite better! Lighting? The brighter the
betteI! If one needs a t1u:ee-story home, one ought to move somewhere other than Old Town
Seal Beach!
Respectfully,
StIrII Cor. alllf~Gntfa :J{OWII!&Cof.
cc: Lee Whittenbexg (via e-mail)
John Bahorski. (via e-mail)
"
b ~.>>t>~
C\\'A o\$tI\~
~tP -51~'
~ ~~
t9Jl j.-w?V ~ ry tJU ~,
(h,1b j,IJ,~~~W~/!ptd
J~~.Jb ;jaJl;4.(9lJV~
~~~~ad~
~~~~~
i:ivY~~' ~,
1IJl.J;,J!iJ.iIY' · ,~.AW>" ;M., "b. tUUbLP*'
ik~~~~
(j; ~ M- J /I/ft" ' ~
JruV~ bl:lALtv A<PVJ-
~~JiE.~y~~
o.ad ~ II;. JJ.UAY A4- .
htJ. ;;;.~ ~ #P
c&# ,~~:Ii-~'
r
~_fJ-~ ~
~"1--!lJ 9 :AvnD.
~fVV""7 )
~~
M"'_coo\l- :}\
339 10m sveet '
seal eeo"". Cl\. 90'140-640\
,,44.[[1 )1.lIl~ '
I. tl
9~juut\ as C:u-~ccL.-
1?Jtihhi:J G-:;~
, 5a.rr, ~ 2a~c..
"
, ,
" '
,"
. Ii Jd~ d'" '0 lUn:lU~: ' ~
,'. ~,: =, 1ho~~ ~.(!~ 0'..-fi ~ ~~j
rd Sd 13/~k t'&elAVnLW 7t:<- hwfo r-~~ '~'..-cY
If)f 4, d'tj ~ f..ud. J2~~ (l>'t C.dl f-d'-d.. -r...J.
ti1Lj~ aDZ) ~~ P-~:J~ ~ JJ-t-cll ~ -
k~ t1r /vLO-vt~~. .
1k ~Ir-..-tt". ~ rpj;.fL~(Y~~
61 .5~ el-~ ~<l'..t..L. a- fj J..~~~ ~ elL
tv~ rJt~/~ i61t1~-rtty :,p~ ~ ~~U Q,~
tJ-[-{)-j ~ Jc ~~~..cK' ~JLe: J.~, ~ ~~
e<>-mfj J.L4 ~ "(j"'"'r '1 ~,J.".;.:
,-""""-~ ~t. ci.-.. ....... ~J krAW:;
~ 'O~ Q.ji...( tJ.--J ~v-.... I '~, '
-rb,f/rU..- J ~ e.~~tA.1.e.- ~.ha~ ~
rt:..$h'd4:~\+ h-l~"e... +rllve.-h~ !:!c,,--,, tt."", V'1:l",,-J o-f
l'a-piJ c-ka.jt. ~ "I J l6u.-.. ~r. ~h' .
1(e~r'02.c..~+V\J ~V\'WlI~~
~ -:rJ2dU--~.lL--
rJ ~5 ~~ $T:
~ ~1G~t...
,
"
Charles Antos, Councilman:
We are of the opinion that there should be no more three story properties built in old
town. nor covered third story stairwells. W~ rarely see these roof decks being used.
Adding any super.f1uous structures us\JaI1y is ugly and only hinders surrounding privacy.
It also dwarfs and shades the neighbors and obstructs their view.
Jack ~ JoAnn BetteDhausen
1311 Seal Way
. ',J ..... .:
, :;.':' . ~,.
~,
.'
.
"
. . ~ .
Letters Recommending No Change
To Current Regulations For
Third Story Development
Planning Commission Meeting
September 6, 2006
.
0-~ '0\c0<'-~~ '
co~,1"- ~~ S ,<-L- 1 Cl\yclSlllltlCb
SEP - 5 21106
Development SVCs.
.
eJ--S ~ 'v\.b'(Y\...(! <StD y'\ oVv v>-'
C) \.. &- '\ \) \.0Y\- .:;;s \0 ~ t:9- b.e. 'J-.e.. ''t
~ ~ ~ '3 7'\ \)'-i) 'n.M.\~
~(j~-
~ ~O\LL(s ~ \)~jt' 0 ,,~)
*~ 7Jn,~ ~ \:::>o-.Je '~
~ ~IIG' L~-t \p JUl'-Cluq"- ~
~ ~ c0..-ll-"- W\ t;u..ru
~ ~ ~~ \=>e-- la"orl- '~ lrc\W-0
~ ~ S~' ~ 'IJ.:)~
,--bO~ ~\CL \:J\c:;;J.cS -L \o\t>ck5> %
\?rt~~ -
t1)\~ ~ 6l0- clu-J.-m I. i
~'-<- \.W~ ~lJ..Yi'
U' 'f~
\?..~ Sk--
w' ...
224-l5th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
September 5, 2006
Seal Beach City Council and
PlarmiDg Commission
cia 10hn Babotski, City Manager
211-8th Street
Seal Beach. Oolifornia 90740
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission:
We have resided at 224-l5th Street, Seal Beach. for the last thirty years, and in
Old Town for in excess of fifty years.
As long term .residents, we are in favor of the height limitation of 35 feet on the
back one-tbird of lots 37-1/2 feet or wider and 25 feet on Jots 25 feet wide.
We already have three story residences in Old Town as well as in the gated
community of Smfside. The two story height restriction on our 37-1/2 foot lot will lessen
the value of. our property.
Tbllllk yon for your consideration.
Very traly yours,
~/v~
Don Mabc
Lana Mabe
C\\y 01 Sta\ Btatb
SEP - 5 2Il05
Development Svcs.
..
'.
C\\Y ot &11\ BelCb
SEP - 6 lUOG
oeve\opment Svcs.
Seal Beach City Council
Planning Dept.
City Hall 8th Street
September 06, 2006
Dear Sirs:-
We are in favor of keeping property owners rights to build a third story
on one and a half or double lots.
Sincerely, ~~~
~-f ~t>'~-
~i~' a~d Janet K1isanin
~
JIM KLlSANIN
:
WORKING BY REFERRAL
321 MAIN STREET · SEAL BEACH · CA 90740
Bus: (562) 596-6600 . FAX: (562) 596-5629 . TOll FREE: 1-877-BAYTOWN
Website: www.BaytownRealty.com
.- .-
John P. Scharler
234 7TH STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 91)741)
PHONE: (562) 799.3360 E-MAIL: JSCHARLER@AOLCOM
September 5, 2006
-<<_teach
S9 .. 0 2006
Oevelo~menf SVCS.
, '
TIle Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
clo City Manager John Bahorski
211 fl1h Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
SUBJECT:
Possible Amendments to Section 28-701 & Sectlon 28-801.Third Story Residential
Development Standards
Dear Councilmen and Planning Commissioners:
My name is John P. Scharler and I am a homeowner in Old Town and live at 234 711 Street I also own a
double lot with 4 units on 119 4'" Street
I purchased the property on 4th Street about 5 years ago with the option of buildIng a 3 story home to take
advantage of our ocean view. This pending down zoning would take away these rights. Therefore, I am
completely opposed to these changes.
Look at the positive side of aHowing homeowners the right to build under current building codes.
1. A single home on a double lot allows for greater set back which has a desIrable curb appeal.
2. Reduces congestion in our neighborhood.
3. Reduces our ~treet parking. ,
4. One home on this double lot reduces the building to land ratio vs. having 2 two-story homes from
street to alley,
I ask you to review the attached photos of homes that extend above the 2lId floor. I feel these homes are
some of the more beautiful homes in Old Town.
.
.. I.
Page 2
In closIng. I remind you that I am a homeowner (not a developer) and I share with you some of the same
'conCerns of our cIty. I would not build a home in Seal Beach, which would embarrass my neighbors,
friends or myself. This undertaking would be a huge investment for me and I would be delennined to get it
archileclurally right.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
:'
cc: Mayor John Larson
Councilman Charles Antos
Councilman Gordon Shanks
Councilman Ray Ybaben
Councilman Michael Levill
~mmissioner Ellery Deaton
Commissioner Phil O'Malley
Commissioner Erin Bello
Commissioner Gary Roberts
Commissioner Phil Ladner
-
....
....
.....
~~;L'.
..; ~
,"'
,,'
~
~,
-~
~
~
J~~'-":'
!'~ ,.
I'.,...
~.ft: ,.
;):~.f. ~ -
r.'''' "
--
.
~
i{\
~
~:
:. ., \
~,;.,:,
t ., ~:.~.:.:
~-,,.,',
;:.Y.;:..-.
:-.-!'
.. I.
Sliirky tJ3arascli
1278tnStreet · Sea{'.Beadi, ~aafornia90740-63~ · 562/431-4298
, " " C!lyot&llBlleiCb
SEP - 5 2006
August 31, 2006 Development Svcs.
The Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
c/o City Manager John Bahorski
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
"
Dear Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission:
. ,
In answer to your question, "Should Old Town continue to allow three story development
with no ne~ghborhood notice?" I believe it would be a wise decision to have all the
number of stories to be the same in Old Town to be consistant in appearance.
I live in a two story house now and the one story homes look rather out of place now. If
there were three stories then the two stories would look out of place.
At some future time I may have the need for an extra story making it three stories.
Thanks for your consideration to my thoughts on the pending matter.
Sincerely,
~d,J
..
I. I;'
Letters Favoring Retention of
Third Story Construction with
Revised Development Standards
Planning Commission Meeting
September 6, 2006
.~ \
~ ,1
\) ~
~
, ,f'
~ ... ",
~ ,~,'
oJ "V \\
~ ~ \
\\ ~ i'-
~.~,~, ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~'~~' '
q\N ~_::_, ~ ~ t
"'~ g \~
\ \' ~ i ,1. ,~ \l
~" ~ d J UJ ~
~ ~ ~ : ~. x - .~..
1% ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
:~ t) : ~ <N
h\;;~ t ~ ~.\::
....o....~ : '< \\ \I
g~6~~ ~ \0\" Ia~
~ <$'~ ..:: 'V :) "-
~o~tn:::: I
o~\ ' ~ ~ ~
\t. ,~t' {
-..) f1 /l
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .~
'-,) ~ ~
~ ~,p
~ :) t
\l ~ J 0
'\-\I~~~
~ .
~
E
CI'l
cC.
eftC')o
sm.sG
~C')1O
~~~
,;::COta
\!("'\G)
\.J
CI
+
\
~
I' -
Ii
S-
O
-ep
i)
.-c:t c-..-
c:-S
Q-r
\nO
~s=
-c:f
~S
-ca~
f1!~
\.J CD CP
\'\ ~ -cP
_j::' s=
s:;;S
5
~c=-F
~_....
, ~ ;I:
D
......
~
c::>>
...::I,
----::i
.0
'.~
~
'.
SIIldy Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37,S Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Planning Commission StaffRepon
September 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
RECEIVED BY THE CITY AFTER THE
SEPTEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION
Study Sossioal'C StalFReport
6
.
. -
. Ii:i
l " ,': .'..Ii 1 ~ 0)
~" ,~
"'\.:" . ,~~
<5 "';:. ',....... '& ft1
. ''''' < '. -cD 8 tn
~ .I " - !
. '..~" "-0.....
, .,.. ...--::-
~'" :~:. ' ,.,.c:- CD
,:if Q U
.,' . - -r
~o ~ cn~
Q\ - '~ ~
1:" ~ J i!; -cs
:~,\t,~,l ,'~ -0,2
, ,'7~: i~' '~'l; ~ . -1 -id~
_ ' " ~l..~ ~ . ~ . Q....
..( , . ' ,61 ~t1' ~ ' , · - :E
'(I 4 '.~! "15 ~. CP CP'
.. d .;:ij ; :::f ..-
~ ' ~' g ~0 ;;, ' ~ 3 ~. 5S
\'()), ~.' ~~!I=
, , 4' ,~~
"' d ' /,) "
H~~' 1 ~~1f ' ~~,j!
Hi :~1!A l~ ~-~rp=; ~
. -
\
,
"
~;:
l" .
" ,__J,.' ~-
1 ' ~"
, ' .. , '..),~.
# ~~~'" 1 ~~
1- ~- ,~'z~c:J
~ \J) 4 -::> )- S
= ~~ As ~
,
.. ,.
rolo.\(\I
--- .....'" 'I
.--fj; (; ~I )v ~ r
~~14'
t.lJ I P F ..l~''''''~ r I:JrL l
:3 .. 7D A ,'Ej: (,w, 9\1.. t'\t c.:l
.:.-. (?1It3,/t.C tYl- Nf.l e.lri8fJA. {Uore~
_._ '\-\-o,vtlt'1;!;', 1J!5.!J:!1r1i3d~1:},
,_,_ V I)..vt 'clE'\'71-!'.: vr fl." . ~prJ~1
_ Tl' \A.~ .,.. ~D w[ tJaorL .__
,_:...,fl!^- n ~(l8.AIlV'~J:rI.1.t.S! ...:.v
_ T"i>".
...-....----- .
__Plf~E. C.^,~/b ~(L 7)7.-.r ~ __
A If.) ,tJl1k,!,".J(V T"c:> ON ~ A It /LJ 3-
,,_''C,~'''1)ES <>1'1 n,L.,e.la-.......l. OF....:z:h~___
JI'WPft'l-TY avug "^'~ G~ii"'-
_J':',f. C~ lCUU(.""""",,} IV!:> IVE~,~_I&!;;L
/lit. [ H 19-0.. Ynj,&! : ~ fWw,-, -h-.
, VUNrt'1t.-
.s'~1V/~,;-a.......1 D~&1.H -c!~J ~
.109 ~
..
'.
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37,5 Feel Wide or Wider-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District 1 - .Old Town"
Planning Commission Stqtf Report
September 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT STAFF REPORT RE: ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT 06 - 1, AMENDMENT TO
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ON LOTS 37,5 FEET
WIDE OR WIDER - RMD AND RBD ZONES,
PLANNING DISTRICT 1 - "OLD TOWN" '
Study Scssion,PC SlIffRcport
7
..
'.
(Date to be determined), 2006
STAFF REPORT
To consider various amendments to the Zo .
within the RMD and RED District 1 ("Old To
building height standards based on the width
maximum height of 25 feet ' of the
following amendments:
o Amend Article 7, Resi
o Amend Section 28 '
Units to allow 2 ri
o Junend Article 8, Residen
o Amend Section 28-801.F,
Units to all, . s and
Ie building height
t allowable variable
a: c 'stent standard of a
endment proposes the
To: Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director
Department of Development Services
Subject:
I REQUEST ~
The Planning
ways the Ci
property owner
standards, which
feet or wider.
ormation from City Staff regarding the different
are currently being actively pursued by a
uild in accordance with the current height
of 35-feet on the rear half of lots that are 37.5
Provided as Attachment
to be adopted to forward
resolution contains the I
the proposed language regar .
directed staff to prepare for pub
cd Planning Commission Resolution that would need
to the City Council for final consideration. The
e recommended amendments to the Zoning Code and
the issue of "grandfathering", as the Commission has
hearing consideration.
Z:\My D\\oI1monlS\Z:rA\l:rA 06-111oight Limit in District 1 ,PC StaffRcporldoc\LWI09-08.06
,I '"
PI(l1l1'ling Commi..ion Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
PropO/led RsIrision.! to Provuions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, Dutrict I, Zones (Old Town)
Dille to be determined. 2006
I BACKGROUND I
Overview of Earlier Planning Commission Study Ses
The Planning Commission bas held two study sessions
below is a summary of those previous study sessions:
September 6, 2006 Study Session:
September 13, 2006 Stu
ber 6, 2006 Study Session, staff
s at this Study Session regarding the
resented for Commission and public
At the conclusio
Staff:
[J INSERTDIRE
. on the ommission gave the following directions to
Please refer to Attachment
meeting and to Attachment 6
at the September 13 Study
communications received by th
re the Minute excerpt of this PllUllling Commission
, w the Staff Report and presentation materials presented
sion. Attachment 7 provides copies of all written
ommission at the September 13 Study Session.
, ZfA o6-i.Hcigbl Limit in District 1.PC Stafl'Roport
2
'.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to b. determined. 2006
I DISCUS~ION I
D Amend Article 7, Resid
Cl Amend Section 28
Units to read as fi 0
As indicated above, the Planning Commission has consid
study sessions.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Provided below are the proposed amendm
Amendment. The amendments are bro
consideration by the plAnning Commission:
Proposed Changes to Height Limits
A,
1.
d Second Dwelling Units:
. 2 stories, max, 25 ft.
n
Cl Amend Article 8, Residenti
D Amend Section 28-801.
Units to read as follows:
, gh Density Zone (RED Zone), as follows;
Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
ZTA O&-l.Height Limit in District !,pe StalrReport
3
.'
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Te:rI Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions a/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old TOWIlI
Date to be determined. 2006
"Section 28-801. General Provisions
Yards.
F. Maximum Building Height,
Units:
bel'll'.'i"UulII , less thsFI '31 1.l,2 fL
District I 2 stories, maximum 2
District II, VI 35 ft.
bel ':.'i"ths, 37 1.':1 fL sr FRsre
gistFiets II, ~_/I 3Ii ft.
***
'e require" yaFds."
;Proposed Revisions Regarding "Gran
LANGUAGE TO
PLANNING CO
STUDY SESSION
Staffreco e
during the public
revised by the Co
both written and oral testimony presented
appro of ZTA 06-1 to the City Council, as may be
1 eratio of all public testimony.
Should the Commissio
existing provisions of the
within the RMD and RHO
the option of recommending no change to the
e relating to allowable height development standards
. g District 1 (Old Town),
.
Should the Commission folio staff's recommendation, staff has prepared the proposed
resolu~on recommending approval of ZTA 06-1, including the recommended language
regarding "grandfathering". The proposed Resolution is provided as Attachment 1.
z:rA 06-1.Heigbt Llmit in Dis1rict I.PC Staff Report
4
'.
PlfZ1l1ling Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Dati! to bi! dt!termbted, 2006
Attachment S:
Attachment 1:
Resolution Number 06-4
Commission of the City 0
Council Approval of
Sections 28-701 and 28-80
Height of 2S feet in the
Residential High Density, D"
LANGUAG :"GRAND
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Department of Development Services
Attachments: (8)
Attachment 2:
September 6, 200
Excerpt
Session Minute
Attachment 3:
Study Session
Attachment 4:
Received by the
Session
Co=unications Received by the City after
y Session
Attachment 8:
e of the Municipal Code regarding Allowable
ts for esidential Development in the RMD and RHD, District
as of the City
. . . .
ZTA Q6-[Hcight Limit in Dis1riclI.PC StaffRcport
5
'.
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Pr(JVisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1. Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
ZTA D6-l.Height Umit in District l.PC Staff Report
6
"
Planlling Commissioll Staff Report
Zollillg Text Amendme/lt 06--1
Proposed Revisio/lS to Provisio/lS olZollillg Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1, 'toIleS (Old TOWII)
Date to be determined. 2006
TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
HEREBY RESOL VB:
RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-43
A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING CO
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECO
TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROV
TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1, AME
28-701 AND 28-801 TO ALLOW
MAxIMuM HJ3IGHf OF 2
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL mGH DENSITY, D
AND TO INSERT LAN
"GRANDFATHERING")
essions regarding the
esidential High Density,
eptember 6 and September
Section 2.
Planning Commission d'
amendments to the
District 1 ("Old T
based on the wi
regardless of th
right to develop und
Section 3.
as follows: The applicatio
review pursuant to the Califo
~ 15305 (Minor Alterations in
1arid use limitations in average slo
use or density; and, pursuant to ~ 1
no possibility that the approval may
Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305, staff bas determined
ext Amendment 06-1 is categorically exempt from
ental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code ofRegll.
~,
Us imitations) because it consists of minor alterations iIi
, ess than 20% and does not result in any changes in land
1(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is
ve a significant effect on the environment.
ZTA 06-I.Hciglll LimIt in District l,PC StalfRopOlt
7
II I.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Rf!\/isions to Provisions olZoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
Section
reco=ends approval 0
Exhibit A, attached to this
Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was
Commission on (Date to be determined)" 2006 to consider Zone Text
Section 5.
inclicates the following:
The record of the hearing of (Date
(a) At said public hearing there was oral
received by the Planning Commission.
(b) The proposed text amendment will
enhance the abilitY of the City to ensure orderly and pI
amendment of the zoning requirements for new resi
Medium Density and Residential High Density, Di
"erandfatherinl!").
(c)
Resolution.
Section 6. Based upon the fac
in ~5 of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-260
makes the following findings:
ucling those stated
Commission
(a) Zoning Te
various elements of the City's
development regulations in
District I zones are cons'
changes inconsistent with the exis
'se the City's zoning ordinance and
, Iy and p development in the City through an
blishing new residential developments within the
Density, District 1 zones and to (insert
the oregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
dment 06-1 to the City Council as set forth on
corporated herein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND
Beach at a meeting thereof held 0
by the following vote.
PlED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
day of , 2006,
ETA 06-l.Heigbt Limit in District l.PC StalIReport
8
'.
AYES: Commissioners
--
NOES: Comniissioners
-
ABSENT: Commissioners
-
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
-
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
ZTA 06.1,Hcijht LImit in District I.PC StaffRcport
Plo7l1ling Commission Staff Report
Zoning Tat Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD /llId RHD. Districl1. Zones (Old TOW>!>
Date to be determined. 2006
9
.1 ..
Planning Commission Stoff Report
Zoning Tat Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revi3ions to Provi3ions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be detemrlned, 2006
[J
[J
"EXHIBIT A"
"Section 28-701. General Provisions
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1, Maximum Height, Main Bui!
and Second Dwelling Units:
o Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Z
o Amend Section 28-80 I.F, Maximum Heigll
to read as follows:
ond Dwelling Units
"Section 28-801.
F.
welling Units:
ories, 25 ft. maximum
ft."
o
ZT A 06-I.Heighl Limitin District I.PC SlaffRoport
10
"
Planning Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re;
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
ZTA 06-I.Hcight Limit in District I PC SlB1fRcport
11
..
'.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning rat Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiol'lS to Provisiol'lS o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 PLANNING
STUDY SESSION PRESENTATIO
ATTACHMENT 3
ZTA 06-I.Hcight Limit in District I.PC StalfReport
12
'.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1. Zones (Old Town)
Date to be deJermined. 2006
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN CO
IUCEIVED BY THE CO
SEPTEMBER 6 STUDY SESSI '
ATTACHMENT 4
ZTA 06-I.Height limIt in Dislrietl.PC StaffRcport
13
".
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be deJermilletl. 2006
ATTACHMENT 5
ZTA 06.I.HeightLinnt in Dislriot 1 PC Staff Report
14
'0 "
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined, 2006
ATTACHMENT 6
z:rA 06-1 Height LImit in District l.PC StaffRoport
15
I. ",
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined, 2006
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN CO
~CEIVED BY THE CO
SEPTEMBER 13 STUDY SESSI
ATTACHMENT 7
ZTA 06-1.Heighl LiImt in District l.PC St>ffRcport
16
t. I.
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits ill RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined, 2006
ATTACHMENT 8
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF 'l''''~CIPAL'~''
CODE REGARDING ALLOW~ HEIG S FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP - IN RMD
AND RHD, DISTRICT I, ZO AS ' THE
CITY
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit in District l.PC StllffReport
17
,. I.
Planning Commission St<ifJ Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions a/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Dale 10 be determined, 2006
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
"Section 28-701. General Provisions
Yards.
1.
Lot width, 37 1/2 ft. 0
Fron
Rear
ace Bulk and
F,
y may locate a third story equal to
ZT A 06,1.Height Limit in Distrietl.PC Staff Report
18
,.
"
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 4
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
S1;1JDY SESSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF
REPORT
ZT ^ 06-I,Heighl Limit in Distnct I PC Stalfl\qlort
15
"
September 13, 2006
STAFF REPORT - Supplemental
To:
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
From:
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject:
STUDY SESSION - AMENDMENT TO ALLOWABLE
BUILDING HEIGHT ON LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE OR
WIDER - RMD and RHD ZONES, PLANNING
DISTRICT 1 - "OLD TOWN"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Conduct Study Session and provide direction to Staff as to desired actions.
DISCUSSION
This Supplemental Staff Report addresses the issue of aIlowing structures that have received
conceptual approval of plans for structures in excess of 2S feet to proceed with development,
notwithstanding the recommended change, as requested by the Commission on September 6.
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of an un-
codified section of the ordinance establishing a precise "deadline" date for projects that are being
actively pursued by the applicant.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider allowing projects that have received "Coastal
Commission Concept Approval" by the Seal Beach Director of Development Services by a date
to be determined by the Council to be allowed to proceed with development under the previous
development standards relative to 3-story construction,
Staff would recommend a date either 30 or 60 days after the effective date of the implementing
ordinance to obtain the required "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the Seal Beach
Director of Development Services. Assuming an effective date of November 7, the deadline for
obtaining the applicable "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" would be December 6,
2006 or January S, 2007. Typically the "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the City
is submitted to the Coastal Commission and then the Coastal Commission considers and
approves a "Coastal Development Permit" for the subject project. The "Coastal Development
Permit" is then effective for a 12-month time period, and can be extended upon approval by the
Coastal Commission.
Z'\My Docum0Dt5\Third Story Interim OnlinancelStudy Scasion,PC St&ffRcport - Supplcmcntal,docILW\09-12.{)6
,;
Study Session - Amtmdment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District} - "Old Town"
Supplemental Planning Commission Stoffl/eport
September 13, 2006
In order for the Director to provide such 'Concept Approval" the applicant must have submitted
to the Department of Development Services conceptual development plans for the project that
clearly and precisely indicate the proposed building location on a scaled "Site Plan", along with
floor plans and building elevations. All of these plans must be scaled and dimensioned to allow
the Department of Development Services to clearly determine that the proposed development
complies with all requirements of the City regarding setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and
provision of required parking. Full construction plans are not required at this stage in the
approval process,
The Commission could also select a later point in the development approval process for projects
to qualify .for grandfathering. Once an applicant obtains "Concept Approval," he or she must
obtain a Coastal Commission "Coastal Development Permit," and after that, City plan check
approval. The Commission could recommend to the City Council that an applicant must obtain
one of these approvals in order to qualifY to construct under the current Code requirements. It
would be more difficult to assign a specific deadline to these later approvals, however, because it
would be difficult to predict the amount of time necessary for the Coastal Commission to issue
its approval and for the City to review final construction plans to determine compliance with all
applicable construction codes.
The last point in, the process the Council could select for qualification would be the issuance of a
building permit. Once the City issues a building permit and the applicant incurs substantial
expenditures in reliance thereon, under a state law he acquires a "vested property right" to
proceed with the developm~t, regardless of the city's subsequent amendments to the maximum
permitted height.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct Study Session and provide direction to Staff as to desired actions.
I Study Sessioa.PC StalfReport - SupplOlllcntal
2
"
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Stoff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
SllIDY SESSION MINUTE EXCERPT
NOTE: MINUTES NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF
DISTRIBUTION OF AGENDA PACKETS. THEY WILL BE
PROVIDED AT THE SEPTEMBER 20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
zr A 06-J.Heilht limIt in DIStrict I.PC Stafl'Report
16
"
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 6
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Rl):CEIVED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE
SEPTEMBER 13 STUDY SESSION
ZTA 06-1.Heighl LImIt in DIStrict 1 PC StalfRcport
17
I. '.
John and Susan Morgan
215 16th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
City 01 sem Beach
SEP 1.:. 2006
Development Svcs,
September 12,2006
Seal Beach Planning Commission
City Hall - 211 8th Street '
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Chairman Deaton and Planning Commissioners,
,
"
....
Thank you for taking into consideration a "grandfather clause" to the proposed changes to
residential height limits in our existing Seal Beach zoning codes. I was particularly
encouraged by the empathy, professionalism and support exhibited by the commissioners
and the public, during the September 6th meeting of the Seal Beach Planning Commission.
As you know, Suzie and I have contracted with an architect, and are in the design process
for the construction of a 3-story home which will meet current city zoning codes. We
would like notification from you that our project will be considered "grandfil.thered" under
the existing Seal Beach zoning codes,
For the record, we are in favor of establishing a 60 day period from the effective date of
the new height ordinance, with which to have Costal Concept Approval from the city in
order to be "grandfathered" under the current zoning codes,
Thank you for listening and for your service to our community.
Sincerely.
kt~ttM~
cc: Mr, John BahorsJd, City Manager
Mr. John Larson, Mayor
Mr, Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Mr, Alexander Abbe, City Attorney
Mr, Charles Antos, District I Councilman
Mr, Gordon Shanks, District 3 Councilman
Mr. Ray Ybaben, District 4 Councilman
Mr, Michael Levitt, District 5 Councilman
,"
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 7
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE MUNlClPAL
CODE REGARDING ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RMD
AND RHD, DISTRICT I, ZONED AREAS OF THE
CITY
ZTA 06-1.Hoight Limit in Oishi.t l.PC Staff Report
18
I- .'-
, Zoning Text A.mendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Pr(JVisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RMD
AND RHD, DISTRICT I, ZONED AREAS OF THE
CITY
"Section 28-701. General Provisions, Lot Size. Ooen Soace. Bulk and
Yards.
A, Provisions applying in all districts:
1. Maximum Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
Lot width, less than 37 1/2 ft. 2 stories, max. 25 ft,
Lot width, 37 1/2 ft. or more
Front 1/2 of lot, 2,stories, maximum 25 ft.
Rear 1/2 of lot, 3 stories, maximum 35 ft."
.Section 28-801. General Provisions. Lot Size, Ooen Soace. Bulk and
Yards.
F. Maximum Building Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling
Units:
Lot widths: , less than 37 1/2 ft. -
District I 2 stories, maximum 25 ft.
District II, VI 35 ft,
Lot widths, 37 1/2 ft. or more-
District I Front 1/2 of lot 2 stories, 25 ft. maximum;
Rear 1/2 of lot 3 stories; 35 ft. maximum***
Districts II, VI 35 ft.
*** Lots on Seal Way may locate a third story equal to
the total square foot area allowed in the rear 1/2 of
the lot with no limitation on placement, but shall be
subject to required yards."
* * * *
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit in Distnct I.PC StalfReporl
19
,'.
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiom to Provisiom of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD ond RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Plonning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 8
AR',fICLE 24, NON-CONFORMING USE PROVISIONS
ZTA 06-1.Height Limit in District I.PC Staff Report
20
"
,'.
ArtidFl'4 r.FlnFlml Pmvi!:;inn!'l, Cnnrfitinn!'l ~nrf
FYr.Flptinn!: Nnnr.nnfnrming RlJilrfing!: ~nrf II!:Fl!:
SFlctinn '1'1-'400 Nnnr.nnfnrming I J!:Fl limit!:. OtnFlr I J!:Fl!:. While a nonconforming
use exists on any lot, no additional use may be established thereon unless such
additional use is conforming and, in addition, such additional use does not increase
the nonconformity. (Ord. No. 948)
SFlctinn '1'1-'401 TimFl i imit nn An~nrfnnFlrf Nnnr-.nnfnrming I J!:Fl, If a
nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive months,
such use shall be considered abandoned and shall thereafter be used only in
accordance with regulations for the district and zone in which the property is located.
(Ord. No. 948)
SFlctinn '1'1-'40' RFlmnv~1 nf Nnnr-.nnfnrming RlJilrfhig!'l nr Cn~ngFl !n St~hJ!: nf
Nnnr-.nnfnrming I J!'lFl. If any nonconforming building is removed, every future use of
the land on which the building was located shall conform to the provisions of this
chapter. (Ord. No. 948)
SFlctinn' '1'1-'40::1 Pmvi!:inn!: nf Tni!: Artir.IFl tn Apply tn Nnnr.nnfnrming IJ!:", ",nn
Nnnr-.nnfnrming RlJilrfing!'l RFl!:lJlting Fmm RFld~!:!:ifir.~tinn. The provisions of this
article shall apply to buildings, lands and uses which hereafter become
nonconforming due to any reclassification of zones under this chapter or any ordi-
nance. (Ord. No. 948)
..
SFlctinn '40::1 1 FYr.Flptinn!: fnr Nnnr.nnfnrming Hi!:tnrfr. Rllilrfing!:.
A. A locally recognized historic building or struc;ture, may be substantially
preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit.
B. In reviewing the application fcir '.the historic building or structu~e, the Planning
Commission'shall evaluate and make findings on the following:
1. The local' historic. significance of the building or structure.
2. The existing architecture.
C, In approving a Historic Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may
authorize such deviations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code necessary to
preserve the structure and its historical significance. Before approving such
change, it must find:
1. All dE!viations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code, necessary to
preserve the existing structure architecture; including but not limited to:
zoning, building" engineering and fire.
Z:lMy DocumenlsIMUNICOOE\Zonlng Ordlnance\Zonlng Code,Artlcle 24.doclL'IV\11-15-04
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming BUl7dings and Uses
November 2004 '
2. All needed agreements, contracts or conditions between the owner or
lessee and any public agency which involves said building or structure
are executed to insure compli~nce between all parties. .
3. Any other appropriate conditions deemed necessary to the approval of
the application are required.
4. The waivers from Code must still render the structure safe and sound.
(Ord, No. 11 O~)
~Rr.tinn ?R-?4114 Nnnr.nnfnr:ming, I J!;Fl ,nf I Rnn WhFln N~ '~tn fcll Ire In~nlvFlrJ In any
zone, the nonconforming use of land wherein no structure is involved shall be abated
within one year from the date the ordinance codified herein becomes effective and
any further use of such land shall conform to the provisions of this chapter. If the
nonconforming use of land existing at the time the ordinance codified herein takes
'effect is thereafter discontinued for three consecutive months or more, any further
use of such land'shall conform to the proVisions of this chapter. (Ord. No. 948)
. . -. .~- - . .
, ,
~FlCtinn ?R-?40fi C'.nmmi!;!;inn M~y nFltFlrminFl CnnrlitinM fnr AhRtFlmFlnt.
A. When any non,ccnforming condition exists in any zone, other than, the
nonconforming use of land where no structure is involved, the Planning ,
Commission may, after a public hearing, fix a date upon which the
nonconforming building was established and determine conditions and time
limits tOr abatement.
B. Where a use is nonconforming only due to lack of a required discretionary
permit, the proprietor of said use shall terminate said use or apply for and
obtain any and all required discretionary permits within six (6) months of the
effective date of the ordinance which codified this paragraph or the effective
date of the ordinance which made the use nonconforming, whichever is later,
unless after a hearing the Planning Commission determines that a different
time limit for abatement is appropriate.
(Ord. No. 948; Ord. ~o. 1011; Ord. No. 1348)
~Flclinn ?R-?40R
RlIilrling!;.
Rf'!f'.nn!;tn .clinn nf nRm~gf'!rJ nr nFl!;tmYFlrJ Nnnc:nnfnrming
A noncOnforming building damaged or destroyed to the extent of not more
than' fifty percent of its replacement cost immediately prior to its damage or
destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God or the public
enemy may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part
thereof which existed at the time of such damage or destruction may be
Zoning Cod.,ArlIcI. 24
A.
..
"
(
'-
i
~,
,.
'.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions.
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
November 2004
continued in the same manner which lawfully existed prior to such damage or
destruction.
B. A nonconfonning residential building damaged or destroyed to the extent of
more than fifty percent of its replacement cost immediately prior to its damage
or destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God or the public
enemy may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building may be
continued as provided in this subsection.
1. Rer.nn!ltmr:tion Sllhjer:t to Admini!ltmtive PI;:m Review. Nonconforming
residential buildings may be reconstructed pursuant to Administrative
Plan Review by the Director of Developm~nt Services subject to the
following: '
a. The minimum number of standard, open and accessible covered
parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be provided.
b. The minimum setback and height standards of this Chapter shall
be met.
...
c. The number of units to be reconstructed shall be the number of
units legally existing at the time of the building's partial
destruction, or one unit for each 950 square feet of lot area,
whichever is less.
d. For the purpose of calculating density, all fractions of units shall
be rounded to the next highest whole number.
2. Rernn!ltmr:tinn Sllhjer:t.to Minor Pllln Review Permit. Nonc.onfonning
residential buildings may be reconstructed pursuant to a consent
calendar plan review, subject to the following:
a. A minimum of one standard, open and accessible covered
parking space shall be provided for each unit. Tandem spaces
existing at the time of the building's partial destruction shall be
reconstructed, but interior spaces shall not be counted in satisfy-
ing the requirement of one space per unit.
b. The minimum setback and height standards of this Chapter shall
be met for the zoning district in which it is located.
c. The number of units to be reconstructed shall be the number of
units legally ~xisting at the time of the building's partial
Zoning Code,Arlfde 24
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming Bui/dings and Uses
November 2004
destruction, or one unit for each 950 square feet of lot area,
whichever is less.
d. For the purpose of calculating, density, all fractions of units shall
be rounded to the next highest whole number.
3, GAnAral Pmvisinns. The following shall apply to the reconstruction of
'nonconforming residential buildings pursuant to Sections 8.1. and 8.2.,
above:
a. No reconstruction may enlarge the habitable area of a
nonconforming residential building beyond its pre-existing size, '
unless such enlargement complies with the provisions of this
Chapter.
b.
The number of units in a nonconforming I'E!sidential building shall
not be increased unless such increase complies with the
provisions of this Chapter applicable to the zoning district in
which it is located.
c.
The reconstruction of nonconforming residential units measuring
less than 500 square feet shall be subject to the following
findings by the Planning Commission:
(1) All units" and rooms meet the minimums established for,
resipential occupancies under the Uniform Building Code.
(2) All feasible area has been utilized to enlarge substandard
units, given the availability and location,' of space on the
site, or the constraints imposed by parking requirements
and the existing sound primary structure.
d. Any administrative plan review approval or minor plan review
approval shall become null and void if not exercised within one
year from the date of such approval or issuance, and the
provisions of Section 28-2401 ,shall be applicable.
Replacement cost shall be determined by the Director of
Development, Services, using valuation methods adopted by the
Department of Development Services. If the property owner
disputes the Director's determination, replacement cost may be
determined by a Iicen~ed appraiser, selected and paid for by the
e.
Zoning Code.Ar1fcle 24
..,
..
c
(
~.'
"
"
..
\
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
November 2004
property owner, which appraiser shall be approved by the
Director.
C. A nonconforming nonresidential building damaged or destroyed to the extent
of more than tifty percent of its replacement cost immediately prior to its
damage or destruction by tire, explosion or o~her casualty or act of God or the
pu_blic enemy may be reconstructed subject to consent calendar plan review in
accordance with the following criteria:
1. The property shall provide, at a minimum, the same number of on-site
parking spaces as were previously provided. The Planning
Commission shall, on a case by case basis, endeavor to increase the
ratio of parking to square footage, either by reducing the square
footage or by requiring additional parking on-site. In no case shall the
square footage be reduced by more than 25 percent.
2. AI! setbacks and height restrictionlll of this Chapter shall be met for the
zoning district in which the building is located.
D.
The owner of any nonconforming building, whether residential or
nonresidential, may request an administrative review to determine its
structural integrity ~nd the legality of existing conditions and improvements.
Such review shall be subject to fees, as established, by the Uniform Building
Code, and shall consist of an Internal and extemallnspection of the building,
and a review of the City's p1anr:'ling and building tiles. Following the review,
the Department of Development SelVices shall issue a statement of tindings
which shall be tinal and conclusive unless appealed to the Planning
Commission. If the owner does not request such .a review, it shall be the
owner's respotlsjbility to, establish the !awful exi~te~ce o~ all,conditiql)s and
improvements in the course of the reconstruction process. This subsection D
provides a voluntary procedure which shall not restrict the right of any
property owner to obtain informati~n contained in the City's public records
regarding the owner's nonconforming building without making the request
provided hereunder.
E. The City Council may adopt alternative procedures for the approval of the
reconstruction of nonconforming buildings in the event of a natural disaster
causing widespread damage to nonconforming buildings within the City.
F. Every person who on the lien date of any year was the owner of, or had in
such person's possession, or under such person's control, any taxable
improvement, which improvement was thereafter destroyed without such
person's fault by tire or by any other means prior to July 31st of that year and
Zoning Code,ArUcle 24
,'I',
..
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconfonning Buildings and Uses
November 2004
cannot be thereafter rebuilt because of a zoning prohibition, may on or before
such date as may be prescribed by the county assessor. or by state law,
make application for the reassessment of such improvement and deliver to the
county assessor a written statement under oath, accompanied by a certificate
of a disinterested competent person or authority showing the condition and
value, if any, of the improvement immediately after the destruction, and the
county assessor shall, on or before October 31 st of that year assess the
improvement, or reassess it if it has 11I1ready been assessed. according to the
condition and value immediately after the destruction and upon such notice as
it may find to be proper the board of supervisors of the county may, until
November 30th of that year equalize any such assessment or reassessment.
The tax rate fixed for property on the reill on which' the improvement so'
assessed appears or the improvement so reassessed appeared at the time of
its original assessment shall be applied to the amount of equalized
assessment or reassessment determined in accordance with the provisions
hereof. In the event that the resulting figure is less than the tax theretofore
computed, the taxpayer'shall be liable for tax only for the lesser amount and
the difference shall be cancelled. If the taxpayer has already paid the tax
previously computed, such difference shall be refunded to the taxpayer. The (-_
provisions of this subsection F are enacted pursuant to California Government
Code Section 43007. To the extent that the prollisions of such Section 43007
have been or may be superseded or replaced by other provisions of State
Law, or to the extent that the county assessor or the board of supervisors may
have promulgated or enacted procedures which conflict with the proVisions of
this subsection F, such provisions of State Law or such promulgated or
en~cted procedures shall oontrol. (Ord. No. 1255)
J:::p.r.tion '8-'407 Fnb'l~ementl'l nr ~tnlctllral Alterationl'l tn Nnnr.nnfnrming
RAl'lirlAntiRI Rllilrllngs !'Inri IIsAs.' Noriconforming residential buildings' may be
enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section.
A. PArmittArllmpmVAmAnts,
1. Minor 5:tnl~tlll'R1 AltAratinns Rnd ImpmVAmFmts to nonconforming
residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the
issuance of a building permit:
a. Skylights.
b. Solar Systems.
c. , Additional windows,
d. Decorative exterior improvements.
e. Building maintenance.
f. Adding or replacing utilities.
g. Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to
Zoning Code.Ar1lcle 24
,
\
'-'
.'
"
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
November 2004
the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission.
2. Minnr ~tnJcllJ....1 AltFlrAtinns nr ImpmVFlmFlnts to nonconforming
residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the
Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a consent
calendar item:
('
3.
'-
Zoning Cade.Ar1lcle 24
a.
b.
c.
Open roof decks.
~dditional balconies and porches (not enclosed).
Roof additions over balconies and porches.
(1) Roof eaves projecting fi\(e (5) feet into the required rear
yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low
Density'?:one." ,--'
Additional exterior doors.
Additional garages and carports, incl,uding tandem garages and
carports. .
Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves
removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty-five percent
(25%) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall
modifications or remodeling may increase the number of
bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the
following bedroom/bathroom ratic;>: one bath for ,each bedroom
plus an additional half-bath. The number of bedrooms, as
defined in Section 28-210 of this chapter, shall not be increased
if the' subject property is nonconforming due to density or
par1<:ing. ,
Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural
alteration to less than fifty percent (50%) of the structures interior
walls.
Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to
the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission.
d..
e.
f.
g.
h.
RFlsidFlntial I ow Oensity ~onFl Planning Oistricls 1 thmlJgh 7"
~tnJ<~tlJ....1 Alteratinns, FnlR'lJFlmFlnts nr Fl(pansinns to nonconforming
single-family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming
only by reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height or
inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single-family residen~ial
buildings and uses, including the required setback for existing legal.
non-conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways, may be
approved by. the Plimning Commission pursuant to minor plan review
as a scheduled matier item, subject to the following:
a. All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum
yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or
use Is located.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
November 2004
b. The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less
than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal
non-conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required
with the exception of the required California Building Code
setback requirements.
c. The existing nonconforming side yard setback may be less than
three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to
"Precise Plan" or "Planned Unit Development" approvals
previously granted by the City.
4.
Rp-!':idp-ntiAI Mp-dhrm rlp-n!':ity 7nnp- And Rp-!':idp-ntiAI High rlp-n!':ity 7nnp-,
PlAnning rli!':hict l' StructurAl Altp-rAtinn!':, FnIA(QP-mp-nt!': nr FxpAn!':inn!':
to nonconforming single-family residential buildings and uses which are
nonconforming only by reason of building heights exceeding the
maximum height or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single-
family residential buildings and uses, including the required setback for
existing legal, non-conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways,
may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan
review as a scheduled ,matter item, subject to the follOWing:
a. , All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum
yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or
use is located.
p. The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less
than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal
non-conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all
applicable provisio,ns of thEt California BuHding Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required
with the exception of the required California Building Code
setback requirements. ' .
c. Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall
comply with current applicable setback requirements.
(Ord. No. 1192; Ord. No. 1361; Ord. No. 1397; Ord. No. 1519)
Sp-ctinn 2R-?40R Nnnrnnfnrming NnnrR!':idp-ntiAI Ruilding!': And 1I!':P-!': MAY Nnt Rp-
FnIA(QP-d nr StnJcturAlly Altp-rFld, No nonconforming nonresidential building may be
enlarged or structunally altered nor nonconforming use expanded unless such
enlargements, structural alterations or expansions make the bUilding or use conform-
ing, or unless this section speCifically provides for such enlargement, alteration or
expansion.
Zoning CodeMlde 24
,..,_ . i
(
,
\.
.....-
,. .'.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions.
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
November 2004
A. Where a building or buildings are nonconforming only by reason of
substandard yards or open spaces, the provisions of this chapter prohibiting
enlargements, structural alterations or expansions shall not apply; provided
that any enlargements, structural alterations or expansions shall not further
reduce the size of require:d yards and open spaces.
B. Commercial centers of twenty (20) acres or greater in size which are
nonconforming only by reason of inadequate landscaping may be structurally
altered or enlarged subject to_ the following provisions:
1. Commercial centers with seven (7) percent of its total lot area devoted
to landscaping may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided by
this chapter with the issuance of a building' permit.
2, Commercial centers with less than seven (7) percent of its total lot area
devoted to landscaping may be enlarged or structurally altered as
provided by this chapter only upon the approval of a conditional use
permit. Such conditional use permit shall establish a landscaping
program indicating the procedure and schedule whereby seven (7)
percent of the center's lot area shall be landscaped. Following the
approval of the initial such conditional use permit for a commercial
center, subsequent structural alterations and enlargements may be
approved for that center with the issl,lance of a building permit,
provided that the center remains in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the conditional use permit.
a. Procedure: All applications for a conditional use permit filed
pursuant to the above requirements shall be accompanied by
the proposed lands,cape program and schedule alJd a site plan
of the entire shopping center, drawn to scale and indicating, but
not limited to, the following information:
(1) Lot dimensions
(2) Location, size and total square footage of all buildings
and structures
(3), Location and number of parking spaces
(4) Pedestrian, vehicular and service access
(5) Common areas
Zoning Cod.McI. 24
-,
,0;. .j
City of Seal Beach Municipal Coda
, Chaptftr 28, Zoning; Artic/ft 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming BUl7dings and Uses
Novembftr 2004
(6) Location and .square footage of existing landscaping
b.
Approval of Landscape Program: The Planning Commission
shall approve a proposed landscape program if such program
provides for the installation of the required amount of
landscaping within a reasonable period of time as determined by
the Commission; taking into consideration, among other factors,
the total lot area of the center, the number of businesses within
the center, the existing amount of landsCaping, and the cost to
comply with the landscaping requirements of this chapter.
(Orc!. No. 1252)
C. Where a building or buildings located within the Main Street Specific Plan area
are nonconforming only by reason of an inadequate number of parking
spaces, the provisions of this chapter prohibiting enlargements, structural
alteration or expansion shall not apply, provided:
1.' that any enlargements, structural alterations, or expansion shall not
further reduce the existing number of parking, spaces, and
2. new parking spaces shall be supplied to meet the parking requirements
for the differenCe in building area between the existing building and
new boilding, and '
(
3. new parking spaces shall be supplied to meet the difference in parking
requirements for the existing building between the prior use and the
new use.
Where property QWlJers cannot meet off-street parking requirements, permits
may be granted if said owriers instead pay an in-lieu parking fee pursuant to
the provisions of Section 28-1257.
(Orc!. No. 1406)
(
~'
Zoning Code.ArlJde 24
~L.
,. .....1
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Repart
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 9
, SECTION 28-2322, CONVERSION OF EXISTING
AJ;>> ARTMENTS TO CONDOMINIUMS, SUB-
SECTIONC,DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
ZTA 06-1.Hcigbt Limit in District (.PC StaffRcport
21
,,~ _I
,. .'.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article23
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Yards, HaIght, Area, Open Space and Bulk
November 2004
/'-
i
d. Signing shall be consistent with the character and signing of the
primary use.
3. Large collection recycling facilities shall provide signin,g as follows:
a.
Information signs as required by this Section;
b.
Directional signs as necessary to facilitate traffic circulation;
c.,
(Ord. No. 1257)
Other signs as permitted by Article 18 of this 'Chapter.
~F!ctinn ?R-?3?? CnnvF!~inn nf Fxi!;ting Apl'lrtmF!nts tn r.nndnminillms.
A. PIII:pnsA: The intent and purpose of this section is to establish reasonable
criteria and standards to govem the conversion of apartment units to ownership
housing while protecting the lo,!" to moderate income housing supply, and to
provide for the upgrading of properties through the conversion process.
B.
PIl:lnning Cnmmissinn AppmvRI: ' The conversion of multiple family units to
condominiums, as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code; Section 11004 of
the Business and Professional Code for Community Apartment Projects; or
Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code for Stock Cooperatives,
shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission through a Conditional
Use Permit, and shall conform and be consistent with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act, the City's subdivision ordinance and the General Plan.
c
C. nF!vAlnpmAnt ~tRndRrrls: Multiple family units proposed for condominium
conversion shal,l,conform to all applicable, sta.ndard of the zoning ordinances,
including but not limited to height, setbacks, parking and minimum floor area, but
excluding density. Condominium conversions shall observe the follOWing
standards for density.
1. Medium Density Residential (RMD) Zone:
Districts I and 11..............:....................2,500 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit
,
2. High Density Residential .<RHI?) Zone:
District I ..............................................2,178 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit
District II...............................:............. 1,350 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit
District Vi............................................ 960 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit
L
Zoning Code.Arllcle 23
22
--
( ,iT
"'I"i.i~ _ ....:....
city of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Artic/e23
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Yards, Height, Area, Open Space and Bulk
November 2004
For the purpose of calculating density in District I, all fractional numbers of
units where the fractional portion is greater than 0.5 may be rounded to
the next highest number.
3.
Proposed condominium conversions for which a Final Tract Map has been
flied with the County of Orange on or before September 1, 1987, shall
have the right to rebuild the number of units legally existing at the time of
approval, subject to a Minor Plan Review to the possibility of increasing
the number of on-site parking spaces subject to the availability and
location of space on the site and the constraints imposed by the existing
str:ucture( s).
4.
D. (:;RnRml Pmvi",inn",
1. Preapplication Review.
a. Submittal of Plans. Prior to formal submittal of the Conditional Use
Permit and Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit three
sets of plans of the structure(s) proposed for condominium
conversion. Such plans shall include the following:
(1 )
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
A plot plan, showing aiL property lines and fully dimensioned
street and alley locations, street names, walkways, patio ar-
eas, all existing and proposed structures and dimensions of
same.
All setbacks and building separations.
Automobile parking arrangement, including location of
driveways and dimensions of same.
.'
Interior floor plans, including existing and proposed layout
where applicable.
Building elevations, including exterior materials and colors.
Report on Building Conditions. The Department of Development
Service shall review the plans for conformity with all adopted
building codes. The Department ,shall render a report on the
proposed project, indicating required improvements, corrections
and replacement of.. detrimental components as determined
necessary. The report shall cover but not be limited to, the
following: foundation, framing, interior and exterior wall coverings,
roof, ,plumbing, e!ectrieal, wiring, utility connections" built-in
23
b.
Zoning CodeMcI. 23
1
City Council Memorandum re:
Zone Text Amendment 06-1
October2,2006
ATTACHMENT 2
MEMORANDUM RE: ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT 06 - 1: PROVISION OF
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AT
, SEPTEMBER 25 CITY COUNCil MEETING
ZTA 06-1 ,Cover Merno,11).l)2-06 AcfJOUmed Meeting
3
-
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT.
AGENDA ITEM A.
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
To: Mayor and City Council
Attention: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
Linda Devine, City Clerk
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Date: September 26, 2006
SUBJECT: PROVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AT
SEPTEMBER 25 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Provided for the City Council as attachments are copies of all communications
received by the City Council on September 25, 2006 regarding Zone Text
Amendment 06-1, REDUCE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 25 FEET
ON THE REAR HALF OF LOTS 37.5 FEET WIDE OR WIDER - RMD and RHO
ZONES, PLANNING DISTRICT 1 - .OLD TOWN"
PETITIONS/LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT
06-1:
1:1 Petition Favoring ZTA 06-1-signed by 261 persons
1:1 Ruth Reed, 114 5th Street
1:1 Barbara Freeman, 540 Ocean Avenue
1:1 Rosalyn Bennett, 117 4th Street
1:1 Maria and Michael Bubbe, 412 Central Way
1:1 Bruce Bennett, 117 4th Street
1:1 Halijeanne Bennett, 317 Ocean Avenue
1:1 L, E. Bennett, 317 Ocean Avenue
Z;'My DoaJments\ZTA\ZTA 1l6-1,Communicalions Reaiived,CC Memo,d'-:ze.oo
;
City Council Memorandum re:
Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Communications Received at September 25 Public Hearing
September 26, 2006
D Karen Viljoen, 411 Ocean Avenue
D Michelle A Mundy, 303 Central Avenue
D Daniel C. Defever, 303 Central Avenue
D Lori Ann Dunn, 516 Ocean Avenue
D Jerry Lewis, 112 1 st Street
LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1:
D Pamela and Jeffrey Edson - no address
D John p, Scharler - 234 Seventh Street
D Steve and Mary Wright - 1645 Catalina
D Shawna Trostle, 8th Street
D Mary and Marlo Lewis, 8th Street
D Carolyn Alexander, 8th Street
D Charles Parker, 8th Street
D Lawrence Alexander, 8th Street
D Barbara Moreland, 4th Street
D Jim K1isinan, Baytown Realty
* *
* *
ZTA 06-1,Ccmmunicalions ReceIved,CC Memo
2
;
City Council Memorandum re:
Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Communications Received at September 25 Public Hearing
September 26, 2006
PETITIONS/LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
ZTA 06-1,Communlcattans Ro_,CC Memo
3
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
/
2-
tv." 'f, '1'-1 ~
I.
/
/
f,
I
/.
I
;.
/
;J.
:;.
tz
h
=
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. h is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Nam
Address
1..\
,
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniforn'l
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of fflze. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove .11 have 25' height limits. It Is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name Address .
~ '-j"A~'b1, lJY5u72tli (\.J1n~.ol &111 LJuA ,C/fl/iJl'/u
-=- -= ;;;: -.#1J~Jj 7!A) I2t:1:J.S~</Jnj ~eA-q~~D
n'i~:;:C ( ~~., ~ )..--u,' :(."'? Jr-:/r.'i'&o i../ 1?<4.( C(~ .n..,....,.. CJ
"I I - .' -:;; ,) .. li .:J.:J. '9 -;( .i4..... Q./- ~ . iJ 14/. ./) c/' n 71,1 a
Vii \.. -r~, It(':"M :2. b 8 Lj'11. ~5-1-, Sea 1f"tJd/1 ('a. I 9 f71/)
;. ~ IJ 'JA./ ), - '2.06 ~71r 8't St:wt/" -.. Cf:-9:0/t,:)
1/-,"" 1t:.- - ./ /00 f:"'" I" ,oE!2IJ!Le&U A~'/!1 9YH ,(l..-l qf)f'] 70
'/L ~ ~ -f77.5 / / L. <' "",;) <'7' C~' /- . .;,- J/c" 1:::/
-rV'n r'll ~.",,\ ,T ~_ 111-1 Orp?r\ ~Ie. ,~, (l A QOiL{O
7v" .77 '1.1 ./LJ) A .. ; If /"1 t ft;C41 ) 410 C' -n (/1)' '7'0 J #-,
v./;,J /.~.I J/IC N{'y'f.tI 7:F \' A~ 9o~
-i-- /. J.. oU -c; 1J..U '/J (n r)/'e n-.) A...c:" ~r:;;'" Qn ./~ ~
"... . - '/ ~... '. 11,., - A~n (,N"\. f1 d~~.R d 6140
17 !, t. 7i!ll1 _ ,13 I 111L. ~ :S" Iii: ~67y'6
)..-v' L .~'I-_, .. /lg~fi'-st.tt3 SA907l/o
~, ,: n. JitKI 6\d..~ ,a~ (~,+I c:;-/ sA '9111"'- 0
~\T =- ~ " ./ - I l r:L ~ ~ C' """' ~~, ~ ~""\. -\ C)
~..' ...r....~Ua....u 1 ?Cl\ rv &1~ ifI,u.~, O'<'.__P...
~.""" ,)~ :lr r A /_ _ .& ~ I L .... 'L:(1 _ _ /l
f--,: '11/ I r.. u-:
/~,.- ,,-a.J"Jpr b'nn ~_ /L - ])........ <..; 1<- ,.' ~h:JQS4J
'H~L./~ /:: 77.'d~ /h ~c- (114 7 ~ ~J. ~ /~ -~ 9d7190
?.'Jf-Jv---...<'........- Z09 7-n1- 5~,- ~i....~"""" CA- 'i't77~1
. . ~'~ - ....... ~ f',:!14...~. ~...cJ ~_........h.. CQ.. q~o/)
~~ 1\ ,,~ ~1-::;- \ h<;../1-r..J- ~,JJ 'r.,"vkl, ('t... 9071()
vcr' : t"J, - J,).j 11 :~ J n, ,. _' C' flLJI ~ _. 9 ""
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of ~ize. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hili and The Cove all have 25' height limits, It Is
Imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name
Address
1\..
( .
'Or.
~,
j..)
:
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should hav~' unifor~
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. Col ege Park
East, to liege Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
I
:z.
J
II
~J:;:
r
q
/D
II
l
":.:
i-
J.
I
.8
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' unifonn
height limit. The 25' limit should be for 8111018 regardless of 8ize. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hili and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with Its higher density have the 8ame height limiL We
urge you to create a unifonn 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name
Address
"'O~
o
rf
'P7~...
"
"
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It Is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit We
urge you to create a unlfonn 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name
Address
1 '>
r.-
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name
Address
~ ,./ Jl/ /.,,, 3/t., (,!/,,_ y;., ,,/ 4A~ . A. ~'" 4" /319(/ YJ
.1- ./ ",,"'l. 1'(',< (." ",-,., / A / C / ~ r,{J Or7u ()
W' j'h lY'.J/.6 lu I:).l\";t (\?Jv\!.r~An J}{J ~<\' "I 0]6 7th
~ " I.A t A-I.n P It<PJ /.., d_ ~ it-'J- ..:-" 91'\fL.Lr1
,..." ~L..tJ '- 1'llJto &IA..HL J.<~... <"e._O ~4_J. /'.., '1:J1't"7l/r.
~ ~ ,Vh~ (f( ~ 0 (' E',,~ a. v.P .:ttc! St?<>t./ f3eJ<d. ('..., '101, 0
ICtIt !?'/'-/;,w-'r tf'S-4' -;::-/ "M,{ . V Or-~ ~ ~aP.1~"7
! I) '!'.N .,( . AJ {> f GJO'i /(1,. u ~ If. ' Jl HI. (}f;... GlHW J
!A1'/}CP t61?/r"r' -r1 /;Jq Y - f)f' II'U'/ --I'5r/?
r.. .1'Yn '-:iI_'- , ?.() 8\ ~ 8 b" <;./ 0 ~ .J /:/1
\.Jill,,,, "" t:1.r, k.~3'l.~c.l;.i i a 0 s'... S4-rl'~t APT a S."'I ~'''<'I." c/q( l</Q
-'''''''AI='''- j\,\!= t.\J~.I,....,.,.,. 1,:<, "b ""_ ;;''1',: g:r 'S,jS.. '7~-;/T',;::,
.I h.a/ L Y/ S-u ~t!h#1 .&.H' ~ /J ~t~
~~. :; ~. :'A, .2='.:J. It"! <?- ~::K
,,) /~ of;y. .IV J:Ik'6o ^.~ ~ #' Il. ,;::8.?t) 7Yo
,IN:--. ~t'\ A-..,. "1:- $:BJ1l.. ()~ 90ttf.t>
11/1 ~,~. A...., -1. "'-~O~A ;A."lr.7lt"
'lL" ~ ./.... ./ J $/ C'_~J~~.!.. .A M-907Y~
'-::" A v:" ; J'" ~ -{).12.' 1~ <)""'... d AA .A .~. AWl"
r:..I " .'.."8 Znt:; 2......1<;'+ <.:. '2.-.\ fA., '{'....... I~
..-'7Au I J I J V.. ~ ~~ (I" n, J; 1,., (_ I J:L II, r ~ rl1.,!1- c.,
1r.:I,-~~ Cbo4:r>n..~"...,.JL Ac..e.. C3..:::k:'
-1/1.r':J,,,,,,~~L ~~ Ce",-trc...\ Ave s_~ql''''+~O
~~/ ?P~ :!t~-.: /-;'7.1/-- -:7~ a~ /"~
~(f/'\uy /1I7///~ ~./ 401 ~ A PI -/h, J'K. \!iJf!.t2
~ (J {V
-~
,
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name
1
. i .
,
'J,,-r
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with Its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name ........, Address
-S".- L _ '3'/(;) Ib-7L.. Jj-. ~(~,-L, "cT1~
, I ..l... .5V~' . ~ /l '~JD )Io~ ST'. <;--A GlD7L/l)
'1'\~,/)4L -, U; "'~ ~ 7 . ,(:...1/)1. $f-, ~p.,. ~07C;n
7<) '{j.L ~w -::sa? /dlj:x,- 1'f:7c16
Y y1llJ .' ,~\. l~l IcJ~~ C{67W5J
~ \, ~ ~ :J 2?<:' - ~... qt5l\.1.,~
'jiY."-'--A. // I _ ~111)' Ir"ft ")+ V074rl
~AJ~Aprr.R A 3.2-Z- /~-HI~~ ?o;Z~6
'''Tld//2",( /Zr:1_ - 'A_~ ;;;"7-,7 j 10 /il,/J",,';- C?c7'-1D
'#, ~', Ih,AA<l.....- l~l CI '- 'c...A~ 5.R qn"";L4^
'\1M \.'^~, ~^or.(l "-1"'\ 13nl -r \11.1 ;, MU, c::.. 'Q. .OrfllJ.O
~ 'Vv;t1 i,61~ l...ol~ 13 UA(.J ~'rz.. t:iD,ckJ
YJ'a.. ~'" ~ /.- ~ - ~/4f~.sv. SR ~ '
/ / i//1 I /,/(' J 1f.J'1 ~ Ie r+rl r /J.;R )' jf; q (J-=1 Y P
~,,/, . u '1 t. .. '1. "'. ....j ,,1 I ~ O~ F _0 D~.L, k $ 73 '1() ::7110
1M..'OI: .-r,~......... 'r}1lr"J C(.r-T/Ro.L '{J.{1.(, <\13 o,()J~O
'//./,; rn A.JJ~~ ./ ;2/1 ~ ~S""" R t- <5 ~
I 2- ' (/ c/"71 /~ 7117 r--... _-/9:. 0 0..., LJ c::; ~ w7(lj,
?l - ~~, ;55- /..!J'd...#. '- '-, ~-'. ...._ 7i'7J./P
~~..~ " . /55-/3.!!JS7: c-_ ~1J../l!.~_7. 'q'tf7Y-/J
!...:.. e:. ,"l (J' 1,(, I ~--r~""f' ..::" -0""'7,_ J c...... ~ o7!/D
-k'.J-6>r:::-Jl.., I .- .-:-.....7 / Q.~'r f?'Y 47- 1f::2 '~, "'......- ~(A 907f{O
VitG:,;',A 11...u~(./. ::2'7cr 9ft. i?r--=#=J /_"~ C/t907t{O
~ n D.1 );J..../Y' ~
~ -P, - /;a.t...- ~
). (. }H kwl~..
t2.:J-/ ~-<.... .
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Address
'2 \ '1 ti-.
/.,1..4/
"I:)'")'t'v
~(/7"1-D
II
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height IimlL The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It Is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit, We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
..
?;
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
Name
rf
'.
~
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We, the undersigned believe that Old Town Seal Beach should have a 25' uniform
height limit. The 25' limit should be for all lots regardless of size. College Park
East, College Park West, The Hill and The Cove all have 25' height limits. It Is
imperative that Old Town with its higher density have the same height limit. We
urge you to create a uniform 25' height limit for Old Town. Thank you.
J,Ip' 7"V/ h'Of-.~ ~
To all involved in deciding whether 3 stories
should be allowed in Old Town Seal Beach:
Please allow me to express my opinion by
letter as I will be unable to attend the
meetings.
No More Three Stories
25' for everyone in Old Town
Regards, ~ Ii1 ~
/ rLj - 5 ;r,{ .sl =') g
To all involved in deciding whether 3 stories
should be allowed in Old Town Seal Beach:
Please allow me to express my opinion by
letter as I will be unable to attend the
meetings.
No More Three Stories
25' for everyone in Old Town
Regards,
~~
.5' ijO t:OC4f?. ~
... r;~~ &,.~-< eA-,
To all involved in deciding whether 3 stories
should be allowed in Old Town Seal Beach:
Please allow me to express my opinion by
letter as I will be unable to attend the
meetings.
No More Three Stories I
25' for everyone in Old Town .
Regards,
,4~
1/1- ~f:f- ~.
~ ~~ I, t4- 967$10
To:
City Manager, John Bahorski
Mayor Larson
City Councilman Levitt
City Councilman Ybaben
Gentlemen:
I am writing to you expressly because you do not represent Old Town. You are
perhaps unaware that for the past three or four years large, three story homes
have begun to sprout up around Old Town at an alarming rate, threatening our
small town culture.
Why, when the last downsizing of Old Town was done, the three story option
remained on the books for larger lot sizes Is unexplainable. But, I do know that
this was certainly never imagined to be the outcome. What Is It called?
Unexpected consequences?
There is no property taking here. There are property rights. on both sides of the
issue. I'm exercising the one true property right I have, I'm speaking out, casting
my vote, taking a stand against any more 35', three story developments.
Old Town Is like a beautiful maiden that a young man falls In love with. He
marries her and then says, "I love you just the way you are, now change. n
Let's keep her as she Is, a diamond of a small town; not a glitzy big city like
Huntington, or hip like Belmont Shore, or yuppy like Manhattan, but Old Town,
the last remnant of a historic little beach community on a coast once dotted with
many little beach towns.
I'm grateful for your time,
~~
~M~
J-j/ P- c..C:'1~ ~ l' s::- ~
If I,P &/'te!f&/ tt-""',/
GIS.
August 15. 200'
.
Dear City Councilmen end City Pfenning Commission,
I bought mu home In Seel Beach beceuse It Is the last town of Its kind on the coast In
Southern CalifornIa. There are those who sau squere foo18ge Is whet gives property Its
value: I sey scarcity Is whet gives property Its wlue. There Is NO other place like Seal
Beach. Chenge Old Town end we wlfl be like everu other beach town. like Huntington,
Menhattan. Redondo, Newport, you m~me it. 3 stories Is not Old Town Seal Beech. Seal
Beach does, however. have Surfslde wlth3 story properties for those who wish to live In
that type of neighborhood.
Please do not allow enu more 3 storu buildings In Old Town. Keep Old Town Seel Beach
different and watch our property values soarl
Sincerely,
;)./'-- ~.tf
//7 tf TU
~~I ~-t / Cfi- t?t:' '1 "f 0
Is. -t<<aAP P'^~ ~~. WL /(dtlU ~
r.:: ~ 1I,Jv~~ ~h:~ ~~ 5>;-
fIJ~ Co~+..;.o 1.>1..... ~.i~.'
To all involved in deciding whether 3 stories
should be allowed in Old Town Seal Beach:
Please allow me to express my opinion by
letter as I will be unable to attend the
meetings.
No More Three Stories
25' for everyone in Old Town
Regards,
~~
-::s '''1 C)~t>.~ t\"lL,
S~
To Whom It May Concern:
Please stop 3 story construction in Old Town. All of a sudden 3 stories have encroached upon
our neighborhoods. And there is nothing we can do about it. We are told by the city-too
bad-the code says they can do it
Please. City Manager, Councilman, whoever makes these decisions, change the code. Keep Old
Town. Don't throwaway our jewel of an ocean town.
Yours truly.
ot't:
317 ~~
S\ 8/
Most Honorable City Council
Mayor Larson
Councilman Ybaben
Councilman Levitt
Councilman Antos
Councilman Shanks
Dear Sirs:
Please inform your Planning Commission that it is their duty to reform the zoning code
of Seal Beach. Ask them to do their homework and look around Old Town. It is small.
It is eclectic. It is going...and it will be gone soon if your Planning Commission
continues to allow 3 story buildings in Old Town.
Old Town is NqT Surfside.
Stop 3 stories now before Old Town is GONE.
Tha"k}(~ +---
1-\ \ \)~~~
f\ \J Q.....
To:
City Council
City Manager
Planning Commissioner
Every politician that has ever run for office in Old Town or the Hill has
promised to keep the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach.
"
Now we have investors, developers, and new homeowners who have
found a way to undo all the had work we have done here in Old Town
for generations. They want to turn Old Town into Surfside and build 3
story homes. I even heard one councilman suggest that ALL properties
in Old Town be allowed to be built to 35 feet.
What in the world has happened to keeping the small town, 1950's
atmosphere of Old Town as every politician has promised?
Please stop this craziness, now. 25 feet is good enough for other
districts with large lot sizes, it is plenty high enough for Old Town
with its tiny lot sizes!!
~\)~ ~ .o\j\\l.~L
City Manager, John Bahorski
City Mayor, John Larson
Councilman, Charles Antos
Councilman, Gordon Shanks
Councilman, Michael Levitt
Coundilman, Ray Ybabben
Why did you move to Seal Beach? Why not Huntington or Long Beach or another
city? Did it have anything to do with beautiful Old Town, the pier, Main Street? If
not, it did for those of us who live in Old Town. We love her. We love her, just the
. way she is. Please help us save her for the next generation.
Years ago we downsized Old Town because of severe parking problems. People cried
foul then. People said their property would lose value. They said we were degrading
their property values.
Not true. This has prover to be completely false. Yet today some scream the same old
song proven false years ago.
Please save Old Town and allow no more 3 story buildings. It won't hurt anyone's
property values. We've shown that in the past. Keep Old Town; enhance all our
property values, even yours.
'303
~~~
JfA04 __tfJ. "!?~tAaetAt,~<<J,1J ~ RJfII4D. ~.f_
toIdtAaer-' 1.!.el...tn;?~_NJlt",a//.ouJ,~~~ m ""'~""
~rp..!-+-.{.rb-II'W'tAiJ~/JfA. ~..~ Y&a,JttHM4_NJI
~tfJ. ""'~"" ~f4IIHI,A04 _1.-?'t1oU.ItAaeltltJ_~~tfJ.1oM1iM
tAt,~~ .P$'muA"tStt-. tAt,~ on, tAt, {10M ~_4dedo,~
~..fooe~1imi4 MJ, tAt, ~ fJfJlIIet 1tJd&m". aIJ. ~ -'0-. itlJ ~ tA.ed
tAt,~ fMJRJJJ tAt,Jbr<<t.PomtAt, {10M ~- ~tfJ.~./mJ/eet~ ~
d6J6n,p o,'kl"/f!UI",? fZtJtJd4. ~ UIUtJ NJlOQ4I ~
~rr~inJo,tAiJmedl1 . ~4do,~~-;rd'""-~p
uIt 6<<ifb~ m "'" PrfJNI"IdI~~./mJ.fiet.
~~ WtNUtJ.
~ an ~ - -5/6 ,-6J~ ae c:fe:f
August 2006
To Whom It May Concern. I am very concerned. Supposedly
there are as many as 400 lots in Old Town that can build up to 35
feet plus a dog house. I want to express my desire stop this
kind of development in Old Town. It is not healthy to live in
homes with no light, no air, no space.
For many years many families have devoted their lives to
making sure that Old Town was small, quaint, and a family place
to live. Now with three stories going to 35 feet, it will be
like raising children in the big city in an apartment building.
There won't be flowers. Flowers take sun to grow. There
will be more mold, more fungus, more damp, wet ground where
beautiful roses used to grow.
.
In closing, please, please keep Old Town a
place with flowers, sunshine, and lots of fresh
happy children and adults.
special, family
air for healthy,
Thank you for your consideration.
Very TruI~
Do- ~-
II Z. /6'( :::::J/,tf'ZL/
-
City Council Memorandum re:
Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Communications Received at September 25 Public Hearing
September 26. 2006
LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
ZTA06-1.Communications Recelved.CC Memo
4
To: Seal Beach City Council
From: Pamela and Jeffery Edson
We are a family with younger children who own a home
in Old Town Seal Beach that will be adversely affected
by this zoning change.
We believe this proposal to discriminate against
families'like ours, and to be irrational, unjustified, and
against the interests of both homeowners and the City
of Seal Beach. It may, as well, be unlawful, and we are
joining with other home owners to seek legal advice
and possible action in this matter.
We urge you in the strongest terms to vote "No" on this
proposed ordinance. Please resist the impulse to
regulate away the interests, property value and rights
of homeowners like us simply because, perhaps, you
can. That does not make it right. That does not make
it wise. You are being advocated to do so at the behest
of a few people who wish to exert more control over the
use of our property than that with which we will be left.
This is not just, and it violates the very principle and
definition of private property.
We also see that the Planning Commission and Planning
Department are aggressively pushing the timeline on
this ordinance to try to short-circuit the results of
Proposition 90 in the November election. This we find
completely outrageous and objectionable; a blatant
violation of public trust.
The City Council needs to reject this kind of abuse of
the voters. We will do everything in our capacity as
informed voters and many-year residents here to not be
manipulated in this fashion by those advancing a "pro-
regulatory" agenda. We will actively resist this ill-
advised, unfair action targeted against those in Old
Town with individual needs and long-term plans to
provide for their larger families.
Pamela and Jeffery Edson
9/25/2006
John P. Scharler
234 7'" STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740
PHONE: (562) 799.3360 E-MAIL: JSCHARLER@AOLCOM
September 23. 2006
Mayor John Larson, Esq.
13741 Annandale Dr., #18G
Seal Beach, CA 90740
SUBJECT:
Possible Amendments to Section 28.701 & Section 2B-801.Thlrd Story Residential
Development Standards
Dear Mayor Larson:
I am totally apposed to the ban on all3-story construction of single-family homes in Old Town. I am a
homeowner and live at 234 7111 Street and also own a double lot (50 ft.) at 119 4th Street.
The residents that favor the ban view the issue as discrimination toward owners of 25 fl. lots. I'm not so
sure thafs true. It appears the City had allowed special variances in the code for width of 2 cars garages
(17 ft. vs. 20 fl.) cantilevering of the 2nd floor toward alley and chimney walls protruding into the side yard
set back area. This forward thinking attitude on-behalf of the City serves all homeowners by adding value
to homes on 25 ft. lots.
Homeowners such as myself have paid higher prices to obtain wider lots (37 ~ fl. and larger) to have an
option at some point in our lives to build a larger home for our families and ourselves. In my particular
case, I would have an ocean view from the 3n1 floor level that would certainly enhance my life and this view
would be taken from me if this ban were approved.
I am asking you to consider a compromise whereas:
1. The City would double \he side and front yard setbacks on lots 37 ~ ft. or greater.
2. Third floor exterior walls to be setback an additional 6 ft. from the footprint of building and/or
exterior wall of 2nd story.
These changes in code would allow more sunlight and air flow than the present code for a 2-story home on
a 25 fl. lot. This should also take the 3n1 floor out of view for the immediate neighbors.
Page20f2
After viewing these proceedings at City Hall, I don't feel the Planning Commission served all the residents
of DisIrict 1. They have not considered compromise as a way 10 satisfy !he residents such as myself.
I am appealing 10 you since I believe you are a fair and independent thinker and would favor a compromise
to resolve this very sensitive issue, being fair 10 all residents of Old Town.
Respectfully yours,
,.~
cc: ~i1man Michael Levitt
Councilman Gordon Shanks
Councilman Ray Ybaben
Councilman Charles Antos
Commissioner Lee Whittenberg
~ ~I !e,"q/J1M
To Whom It May Concern.
I have owned property in Seal Beach for almost 35 years. I have seen
many changes over the years and for the most part I truly believe change
is good. I feel that we will not lose our cozy, Quaint, and appealing old
town feeling if the city allows for a third story addition to be placed over
the garage on lots that measure 37.5 feet. I feel that the numbers that
the planning department keeps throwing out for review(430) is not a true
indication of the potential homes that could exercise this option of
building a third stOry. We should deduct 167 dwellings that have more
than one unit already on the lot. Not too many people are in a position
to tear down good rental income to be replaced by a single family
residence. Out of those remaining 263 homes I would estimate over
half...1ets say 60% are rental properties and most absentee landlords iust
count their money every month and are not looking to enlarge their
existing single family rentals. So now we have 153 single family
residences that mayor may not exercise their rightful option to add a
third story on the rear of their house.
This is an issue that should not be rushed through without further study.
"'Ibe city council was asked to come up with a survey about the numbers
of single family rentals on 37.5 foot lots which would more than likely not
generate any 3rd story building. I believe its irresponsible government
that is willing to exercise their administrative rights to diminish the
property rights of others. I may never put up a third story over the
garage, but I feel that we need to give some consideration to the
incoming young families that want to call Seal Beach their home.
Steve & Mary Wright
1645 Catalina Ave. Seal Beach, CA. 90740
(113) 596-5975
Concern:
-bJwerllIg Height Limll ill Old Town Seal Beach on lot and a half (3 7 1/2 ~ in District 1
Owner of property of 305 14th Street in District 1
Selll Belich City eo""cll members,
1. Out orlbe 430 (aoDroxJ lots In. District 1 that are eligible, 167 lots have ",ultiple
dwellings. It is Very unlikely those will be touched. Also "'any lots are single rental properties ( as
is ",ine ). It is also Wllikely. Those will be touched So' how ",any third stories are we really looking
at? We are 1/Ot Surftide.
2. If Measure is DflSSed )IOU are lowering property value. I a", sure our taxes won't be
lowered. So",e owners who at the present ti",e can't afford to build, will be forced to sell,
so they can buy property that will be eligible for the size house they desire to build on one day.
3, If Measure DflSSI!S ",any of us lot and a half owners, who have never cOllSidered tearing
down and building will II
4. 36-third stol11 homes have been added in lhe 30+ vears that lot and a half owners have
been eligible in District 1. Why all of a sudden is there such a major concern. Does the
November Election with Prop. 90 have so",ething to do with it? Are you current on the situation in
San Clemente concerning their attempt to MOp 2 MOry construction.
5. How rar do 1'0" want to 110 in COntrollinfl the rillhts and DrivU_ of Seal Beach ho",e
owners? You would be surpriSed at the 1IU1IIber of people in this town that have just about had
enough of the s",all group of cltizellS that are trying to run our lives.
Sincerely,
~~VQ 0~cfJ
Steve Wright
Members of the Seal Beach Council,
9/23/2006
It has suddenly come to my attention the City Council is considering a
proposal by the Planning Commission to take away the ability of homeowners of
the wider lots in old town Seal Beach to put a third story on the back of their
property. I oppose this proposal as unnecessary. The current codes have served
the city well for many years and I believe that the proposed change is
unwarranted.
C;ffrrwNAr- cp
CrJwz17Ve'{ -r1
~~C;
~~
,
Stop Discriminatory and Abusive Zoning Changes I VOTE NOI
Seal Beach City Council, September 25, 2006
We utterly reject the highly political, discriminatory and abusive zoning ordinance
rammed through approval by the Planning Commission and put before you for a
Council vote - and we urge you in the strongest conceivable terms to decisively
conclude this ugly chapter of rancorous. unneighborly selfishness and partisan political
manipulation by voting "Nay" tonight once and for all.
This ordinance is theft of property value and property rights; it is precisely because the
law on such unconstitutional "takings. is in dispute all across America, from the federal
Supreme Court on down, that Proposition 90 Is before the people of California for a
statewide vote; and the maneuvering of the Planning Commission to circumvent
the November 7 popular vote on this issue is unseemly and irresponsible, and not
in keeping with the stewardship entrusted to the City Council. You should not
permit yourselves to be implicated in this partisan, anti-democratic travesty.
We own and co-own two single-family residential properties in Old Town Seal Beach, on
so-called "larger lots." We should not keep having to fight against regulatory extremists
for our family's living space in these homes. The tortured rationales and false. empty
arguments advanced by the City Planning Commission for the zoning change they
propose you should force on family property owners with wider lots, prohibiting building
to the current 35' height in the rear half of the property. do not veil the Commission's
overt partisan political agenda that has no place in City Council actions.
You are being ill-served by the Planning Commission in a partisan political ploy
that is bad for Old Town and whole City. There is no legitimate constitutional, legal,
or even "community" excuse, need or justification for a building prohibition of the existing
third-story Code height limit in Old Town. There are many family-friendly reasons why
the existing zoni!1g works well. If this ill-conceived and discriminatory ordinance is
approved by the City Council, it will be to the detriment of the community, and the public
shame and disrepute of the City of Seal Beach.
This zone change. if enacted, will be the opening maneuver of a much larger political
agenda to fundamentally change the character of Old Town Seal Beach from a
vibrant and diverse family community to a restrictive "planned" community with all the
repressive and privacy-intrusive controls of the gated-community mind set. Contrary to
the overtly disingenuous (dishonest?) protests of Commissioner Deaton. which
contradicted the explicit Planning Department materials provided at her own last public
meeting, this ordinance has been "fast-tracked" from its inception to "beat ouf' the
possible effects of passage of Proposition 90 on the California State ballot - a dirty
partisan political trick being played upon the voters of Old Town by collusion of the
Planning Commission with City Hall planners and tiny circle of pro-regulatory activists.
This ordinance represents a two-pronged attack to usurp and diminish the
individual rights of private property owners, many, families with children. Again, it
is (a) a strategy by City Hall planners to try to circumvent the possible effects of the
expressed will of the people at the ballot box November 7 seeking through Proposition
90 to protect private property rights against just such bureaucratic actions as this zoning
change, and it is (b) an attempt by a few residents and planners to force upon Old Town
- under a deceitful guise of .community character, health and safety" - gated-community
Mary and Marlo Lewis, Old Town Seal Beach
Letter to Seal Beach City Council 9/25/06
Page 2
style mandates dictating their personal tastes and "aesthetic standards" and "no-kids,
no-pets, small is beautiful, my way or "II see you at City Hall" extremist ideology. Of
course, none of these dictates in themselves may lawfully be regulated and enforced by
regular City ordinance. And none, by the way, are our activists and planners willing to
see subject to the popular vote of the citizens. Coercion is the name of their game.
This whole exercise in coercion is contrary to reason and doomed to fail in its
ostensible purpose, as it will inevitably render "cookie cutter conformity" of
housing and residents that spoils the very independence and diversity that truly
defines Old Town - the "channing character" which our activists claim they wish
to "preserve." By the time they are done regulating, families will be driven from Old
Town in order to get enough living space. and what buyers are left will be forced to eke
out every last square foot of "Floor Area Ratio" that interfering City bureaucrats finally
deign to leave them, and guess what? Every lot and house and resident and pet will
look more and more the same - with no yards. no gardens, no kids. no dogs bigger than
lap-size. no lot size or family size variations. Never mind that it has been individualism,
initiative. ingenuity. creativity and enterprise, with a healthy dose of tolerance, which
have built Old Town through its history - not intrusive and coercive central planning, and
not carping, complaining "not-next-to-me" government interventions. Tonight, over-
reaching activists and planners want you City Councilmen to shut all that history and
energy down, and turn Old Town into a postcard I Such thinking has already made a
reputation for Old Town being small-business and church hostile; now the Planning
Commission wants the Council to go after all those irritating, non-conforming familiesl
The General Plan and current regulations provide entirely sufficient standards to
maintain the good and happy life we all enjoy in Old Town. The existing Code provisions
have served the City and home owners well. There is no reason that the rights of
family property owners should be grossly violated in this way by the sly, rushed,
selective, duplicitous manner in which the Planning Commission process on this
matter has been pursued - purposely seeking to circumvent the expressed will of
the voters in November, and fueled by a desire to drive young families "up to the
Hill" or simply out of town. This decision to play political games with Old Town was
made by City Hall-insider collusion some time ago, and the end of the process tonight to
thrust this ordinance at the City Council has been a well-known, forgone conclusion for
months and months in our information-rich little town... a truly shameful episode of
backroom politicking that the City Council must reject.
It is absolutely disgraceful that elected and appointed representatives of the people of
our town would plot and plan how to achieve an end-run around possible November
election results. for fear that Proposition 90 might actually prove to be the will of the
people of California. and future abuses of the eminent domain process and property
takings by the City of Seal Beach might have to be lawfully executed. This would mean,
of course, that the mania to regulate people's lives and property might have to be
curtailed. It is explicitly the case that this particular abuse of the zoning authority
presently before you has been remorselessly accelerated on a "fast track" for
November 2 by the Planning Commission, to circumvent the democratic process
of a November 7 decision by the people of Seal Beach and State of Califomia. It is
also the case that the Planning Commission is lying about this to the public.
Mary and Marlo Lewis. Old Town Seal Beach
Letter to Seal Beach City Council 9/25/06
Page 3
These abuses of the democratic process alone are sufficient grounds for the City
Council to reject this proposed ordinance.
Why is the ordinance being pushed forward with such determination by a small
clique of "community activists"? These larger lots serve the needs of larger families,
and families that are multi-generational, and ethnically and racially "diverse" from the Old
Town activist cabal clamoring for more regulation. WHAT HAVE LARGER FAMILIES IN
OLD TOWN DONE TO DESERVE THIS ATTACK, except fail to conform to the cookie-
cutter formulas and tastes of activists, planners and NIMBYs? Why should households
with kids and extended family members be singled out? Anti-family, anti-children,
anti-elder, anti-dependents, anti-handicapped, anti-ethnic bias? Families with real
people in real circumstances like these, needing real homes with large square footage
are those who will be adversely affected by this needless, arbitrary zone change - not
the fictionalized "developer" boogeymen that the activists continuously demonize.
Completely apart from the appalling abuse of the November democratic process, and
the obvious discrimination implicit in the zone change. to "bull-doze" through a highly
controversial ordinance in this manner. damaging one small category of property
owners. is an arrogant act of "guerilla planning" inconsistent with time honored Seal
Beach community values and abusive of orderly City Hall business. Such an action
reflects an agenda instigated and relentlessly driven by a small. activist political faction
plainly hostile to families that don't fit their tidy planning "no child, one dog" ideal.
Those activists pushing this revocation seem relentless in seeking political, personal,
and perhaps economic agendas or advantages for themselves at the expense of their
neighbors. Among the most out-spoken advocates for revoking the third-story option are
those who OWN and RESIDE IN third-story buildings already developed with the
cheerful and willing cooperation of their neighborsl What hypocrisyl Are these activists,
so horrified by three stories, going to level their properties down to two stories. so as to
live consistently within the standard they suddenly seek now to enforce on us? Or is that
a price to be paid only by the little people with irritating children, whose interests and
rights come far behind those who already have what they want? They have endless
time and ene~y it seems, to busily pull up the ladder on the families around them.
. This faetion is clearly demonstrating selfish disregard for the good of the family residents
with a need to care for children, elders, and other household members. .Those clamoring
for this change show a callous willingness to promote patent unfairness and
inequity towards their neighbors - and they will be energetically resisted by family
residents who are being discriminated against by this partisan process that persists .
against all reason or justice in jamming an anti-family agenda forward.
To arbitrary single out larger-lot owners for this proposed "down-zoning" represents an
absolute breach of faith and trust with Old Town property owners who worked hard with
the City in the 1970s' "down-zoning" to reach the third-story/reduced units property
compromises that emerged. have been law for nearly 40 years, and are currently Code.
How much property value are we expected to surrender to make Old Town "charming"
and "quaint" in the aesthetic judgment of others? Many of the owner families being
targeted gave up rental units and significant real property value years ago - with the
~ary and Marlo Lewis, Old Town Seal Beach
Letter to Seal Beach City Council 9/25/06
Page 4
Code commitment from the City of the back third-story option as a property value
compromise for "down-zoning" of their property. The City violates its honor reneging
today on that commitment of trust made in the 1970s' Code with home owners.
This has NOT been a deliberative process; this is a railroading of a small and
vulnerable number of individual families. The outcome was pre-determined from the
artificial instigation of the "crisis" that brought Old Town the abuse of the Moratorium
process earlier this year. All the presentations from the Planning Department have been
slanted to prejudice the case against third-story expansions. and strengthen the case for
increased "community" regulation of private property and individual ownership. Absurdly,
the Planning Department's documented "history" of third-story zoning begins in June
2006 - as if we .owners have no history or interest in our properties that need be
respected prior to Planning's assessment this June that a disputed condominium permit
application presented them a new opportunity to regulate us out of Old Townl
No case has been made, no actual facts or evidence whatever have been produced to
support feckless assertions made by those supporting this taking that the third-story
option for larger lots in Old Town contradicts the General Plan, is "no longer in
the interest of the City," or presents any substantive negative impact to the quality
of life, the health, or the economic well-being of the community. Activist
contentions regarding personal or community interests in light, air and view cannot be
supported by law or custom, as the Planning Department and the City's lawyers have
confirmed. However, the actual impact in quality of life for families in our community, to
potential tax revenue, to property values, to the real estate market. etc. - even the
simple data on how many "unbuilt" lots there are being devalued, and how many home
owners are being discriminated against in this narrow attack - have not been
forthcoming from the Planning Department until the very night the Planning Commission
voted to foist this ordinance upon City Council.
This initiative is driven by a political agenda that can only be understood as
hostile to families, and hostile to the rights and interests of the private home
owners it seeks to deprive of property use and value without consideration or
compensation. Should this unfounded and discriminatory aggression persist, it
constitutes grounds for lawsuits against the City and its officers, recall actions against
the City Council, and other very determined political and legal response.
This zoning change is part of highly partisan anti-Prop 90 activism, funded and endorsed
by "progressive" extremist political groups. The regulatory agenda it advances invites
political factionalism such as we have never experienced in our town. and real live class
warfare. It will surely generate tremendous community strife, reduced property values.
reduced tax revenue to the City, and highly negative publicity for Seal Beach - as a
NIMBY-driven. hyper-regulating, privacy-intrusive, anti-family, property-owner-hostile
hamlet dominated by over-bearing "small-is-beautiful-crunchy" meddlers and over-
zealous bureaucrats who don't care how many actual families with actual needs and
interests in their own private property they hurt. This is not the Seal Beach we have
grown up in and intend to fight for, in the interest of our children and families, and
in defense of the delightful free-iiving Old Town that we call "home." PLEASE
VOTE "NO" ON THIS ANTI-FAMIL~Y EXTREMI ORDINANCEI
~~ ~ ~ ~
... l,_.~. ,
Ma.ry and Marlo Lewis. Old Town Seal Beach
Seal Beach City Council,
Sept 24. 2006
Council Members,
I am co-owner of a home in old town that has been in my family for four
generations.
I reject the recommendation of the planning commission to change the
code to restrict third story homes in old town.
I wish to make clear that any proposed change in the current code that
takes away the rights of property owners with the wider lots to build on the backs
of their lots to the current 35' height limit is completely unacceptable. We have a
recently reVised city plan which considered and approved the existing codes
permitting the 35" limit on wider single residence lots and also the codes which
take into account with setbacks, the need for fire access, light and view.
I am writing to oppose in the strongest manner possible the proposed
change in the current code in Old Town Seal Beach. There has been presented
no hard evidence of third stories being detrimental to health. welfare or safety.
Disallowing the third story hurts property owners who are fully within their rights
to improve their property, costing them time and money.
Some have cited loss of view, light and air. Because someone may lose
the view they currently enjoy because someone else is allowed to build on their
property what has been and is still permitted by code is not a valid reason to
restrict the legal and reasonable rights of the person building. If restrictions on
this basis were a legal, fair and reasonable action, then there would be no homes
between mine and the beach. since my home dates from 1906 and the others did
not exist at this time. Everything on my street was built after my home and
"negatively impinged on my light. air and view." Obviously, the other property
owners do have the same rights as I do, and many homes have been built which
affect all of these on my property. Codes are to ensure safety, health and welfare
of the citizenry. "Welfare" is not defined as getting what you want just because
you want it. or being able to keep exactly what you had. Current setbacks, lot
coverage. and height limits have proved reasonable and adequate standards to
provide for fire access, light and view fodhe town for decades and nothing has
altered to change this. As it is we are more restrictive than many beach cities in
California and elsewhere.
I am appalled at the presumption by the noisy few that their perception of
what is aesthetically appropriate to a neighborhood must be forced on property
owners by code. "Seal Beach must be kept 'quaint'." If they wish to dictate the
aesthetics of their neighbors' property, they should buy into a gated community
with cooperative aesthetics agreements. It is not the job of government to
regulate aesthetics.
I find the proposed change to be very family unfriendly in many ways.
Without the option of the living space on a third floor, many families that would
otherwise preserve yard space (for young children to play. older children to
socialize within the safety of the home, or adults to relax) will have to choose
between having sufficient living space and usable yard. The third floor option
contributes to individuality of design and avoidance of the "cookie cutter floor
plan."
It is not the prerogative of the citizens of Seal Beach or the city
govemment to dictate how many children a family may rear, nor how a family will
care for elderly or dependent family members. These are very real factors
influencing the need for space in a home.
Given that some recent third story homes were built to serve culturally
traditional multigenerational family units, I can only wonder if there is a cultural or
ethnic bias motivating some of those protesting larger houses. ''This is how I live,
therefore this is how they should live."
Again, I oppose the changing of the code to remove a long held right of
property owners with wider lots to build to 35' (a third story) on the back of the lot.
t.
~yc
Carolyn Alexander
Seal Beach City Council
Sept24,2006
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Old Town Seal Beach all of my life. I am a fifth generation
Seal Beach resident. I am currently a senior at UC-Irvine worKing on double
majors in aeronautical engineering and political science. If at all possible I intend
to live in Seal Beach the rest of my life.
The proposed change to the current code that would take away the rights
of property owners with the wider lots to build on the backs of their lots to the
current 35' height limit is completely arbitrary and unnecessary. We have a
recently revised city plan which considered and approved the existing codes
permitting the 35" limit on wider single residence lots and also the codes which
take into account with setbacks. the need for fire access, light and view.
This proposed change to the current is not unacceptable. There has been
presented no hard evidence of third stories being detrimental to health, welfare or
safety. Prohibiting the third story hurts property owners unfairly. denying them the
right to improve their property reasonably and according to established custom in
Seal Beach.
Codes are to ensure safety. health and welfare of the citizens. Current
setbacks, lot coverage, and height limits were enacted with a view to a diverse
and family friendly community and have proved reasonable and adequate
standards to provide for fire access. light and view for the town for decades.
Nothing has altered to change this. As it is we are more restrictive than many
beach cities in California and elsewhere.
I find the proposed change to be very family unfriendly in many ways.
Without the option of the living space on a third floor. many families that would
otherwise preserve yard space will have to sacrifice this to have sufficient living
space. The third floor option contributes to individuality of design.
Again, I oppose the changing of the code to remove a long held right of
property owners with wider lots to build to 35' (a third story) on the back of the lot.
~
Lawrence Ale
Members of the Seal Beach City Council.
9/24/2006
I own a single-family residence on a lot and a half in Old Town Seal Beach. I
am adamantly opposed to the change recommended by the planning commission to
change the code to take away the right to third stories for the wider lots. I oppose
any change in the current code that takes away the rights of property owners with the
wider lots to build on the backs of their lots to the current 35' height limit. This 35'
limit is legal in virtually all Califomia beach cities, many of which allow the third story
on single lots as well. It is legal because it is a safe, reasonable and accepted use of
property in beach communities. We already have setbacks that ensure that fire
access, air and light are ensured in the customary and accepted manner. There has
not been, nor is there now any threat to the public health. safety or welfare that would
occasion the need to rush for this more restrictive zoning. To take potential living
space from properties when it is not there is no real justification for doing so is a
violation of the power with which the citizens have entrusted their representatives.
Merely that a vocal handful of people say they want the code changed is not a valid
reason to take property rights from owners. It is an abuse of the zoning process
without justification. In arguments brought before the Council the main complaint has
been that in a few peoples opinion larger homes are aesthetically displeasing. that
they want their neighbors property to remain "quaint". As has been shown by recent
court decisions it is not the prerogative of government. including the city planning
commission and the city Council to regulate aesthetics.
Furthermore. the limiting of the size of homes and living space beyond the
current code restrictions discriminates against larger families. blended families,
multigenerational families, families caring for infirm, elderly or disabled family
members and other family units that do not fit the politically correct description of
family: " two parents, two children and dump grandma in a care facility".
Do not turn Seal Beach into the poor man's Peoples Republic of Santa
Monica: hostile to families and governed by the guerrilla-zoning tactics of an arrogant
few.
~M-
Alan Parker
To the Seal Beach City Council
September 25, 2006
I am 91 years of age, and my family has owned my home in Old Town Seal
Beach since before my birth.
I urge the City Council to continue the 35 foot height limit on the back half
of the lot for homes on lot and a half or larger in Old Town.
I urge you all in the strongest terms possible not to enact this code change
which will drive families away from Seal Beach. Families are the lifeblood
of any community and should be encouraged, not discouraged, from making
Seal Beach their home. Families are not all alike, they vary in size and needs
for space. Unnecessarily limiting the height to two stories, and thereby the
living space in these larger properties will result in excluding many families
from being able to live in Seal Beach.
The Code as written was arrived at through an arduous and fairly open
process over quite some time, with a great deal of community action and
reaction, and as finally resolved in the 1970s, it has served Seal Beach well
for decades - and continues to do so, despite a few agitator cries to the
contrary.
Those who wish to ''pull up the ladder" and deprive their neighbors of
improving their little piece of our delightful township, by taking from them
what has been theirs by right, justice and logic - and certainly should remain
so - seem animated by a spirit of arrogance, selfishness and a desire to
position themselves more advantageously in comparison to those who come
after them. This has never been the animating spirit of our little town.
Such an approach abuses time-honored community processes that have
generally stood Seal Beach in pretty good stead throughout our history, to
which I can attest first hand.
I encourage you each to act with principle, fairness, and fortitude and reject
this code change.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Charles M. Parker
.jA-~ ~_ p~
r-'- r::= 1/1 V1/1
.=.._ / ~/, J f1 TI
2- 774 06 - J
Barbam Moreland
116411> Street
Seal Beach, Ca 90740
September 25, 2006
Dear Seal Beach City Council:
I believe that limiting the number of stories, which can be built on any size lot, to two is Mt a
"taking of property," but mther, a "quality of life" issue.
I own a home on 411> Street (a 25-ft. lot) that sits between two larger lots. I appreciate the
fact that the home on the northeast side is not a solid wall of stucco. On the other side
there is a sizable lawn down the side that sepamtes my home from the duplex/ apartments.
That is why I purchased this particular home and not one in Naples where I lived for so
many years.
If the property on the southwest side were to be developed any differently, I would lose the
light and air circulation that I appreciate and enjoy in my one-story home. A thin! story to
that existing property would most certainly dwarf my home and greatly t'!;m;ni.h my quality
of life as it is now - and the reason for which I pU[Chased this property.
I respectfully request that the Council members seriously consider the over-development of
properties in Old Town - particularly the properties adjacent to the smaller lots. Please
respect ow: privilege of comfort, light, and air the same as those choosing larger lots.
I feel that if the Old Town founding fathers could have visualized what some would do and
what some would want to do to Old Town, there would have been much different policies
established long ago. However, it is not too late to be reasonable.
Again, this is a "quality-of-life" issue - not a "taking of property" issue.
Thank you for yow: consideration,
Barbam Moreland
562/ 596-0796
J=- TI==- (Y1
-z- TY+
fV\
vG - \
September 25, 2006
Mayor Larson
Councilman Antos
Councilman Levitt
Councilman Yababen
Councilman Shanks
Dear Mayor Larson:
It has been brought to my attention that the Zone Text Amendment 06-1 did not have a
correct 10 day public notice. I am requesting that you send the Zone Text Amendment
06-1 back to the City Planning Commission.
Best regards,
:J::~~
JIM KLlSANIN
WORKING BY REFERRAL
321 MAIN STREET. SEAL BEACH · CA 90740
Bus: (562) 596-6600 . FAX: (562) 596-5629 . TOll FREE: 1-877-BAYTOWN
Website: www.BaytownRealty.com
.::]:. -rrm
2 'Tl4-
M
OG--)
September 25, 2006
Mayor Larson
Councilman Antos
Councilman Levitt
Councilman Yababen
Councilman Shanks
Dear Mayor Larson:
It is unfair to deny the rights of property owners on a 1 Yo or double lot 'Yo of the lots in
Old Town are on a single lot and the other 14 is on I Yo to 2 lots, so of course more people
are complaining. Did you take into consideration what the people paid for the 1 Yo to 2
lots?
Don't take away the homeowner's rights to build a 3rd story on the rear oftheir
properties.
Best regards,
~~~
{J~ KIisanin .
JIM KUSANIN
WORKING BY REFERRAL
321 MAIN STREET · SEAL BEACH. CA 90740
Bus: (562) 596-6600 . FAX: (562) 596-5629 . TOLL FREE: 1-877-BAvrOWN
Website: www.BaytownRealty.com
September 24, 2006
Mayor Larson
Councilman Antos
Councilman Levitt
Councilman Yababen
Councilman Shanks
Dear Mayor Larson:
I am requesting that you send the Zone Text Amendment 06-1 back to the
City Planning Commission for the correct 10 day public notice.
~u ve:.:uc~~~
Joyce Ross-Parque
118 6th Street
Seal Beach
September 24, 2006
Mayor Larson
Councilman Antos
Councilman Levitt
Councilman Yababen
Councilman Shanks
REGARDING: 3RD STORY OF REAR LOT
Dear Mayor Larson:
The rush to deny property owner's of their rights on a double lot or 1112 lot is unfair.
Old Town has character because of the variety of buildings. There are small houses
and large houses. That mixture has brou.ght back more young families with
children which were missing for many years.
There are not that many properties that will be building out with a 3rd rear s1:o1y.
Don't take away the right of3n1 story in the rear.
~s~ue~
118 6tl1 Street
Seal Beach
September 24, 2006
Mayor: Larson
Councilman Antos
Councilman Levitt
Councilman Yababen
Councilman Shanks
RBGARDlNG: 3RD STORY OF REAR LOT
Dear Mayor Larson:
The rush to deny property owner's of their rights on a double lot or 11/2 lot is unfair.
Old Town has character because of the variety of buildings. There are small houses
and large houses. That mixture has brought back more young families with
children which were missing for many years.
There are not that many properties that will be building out with a 3rd rear story.
Don't take away the right of3rd story in the rear.
....
July 1, 2006
To Whom It May Concern, my name is Nathaniel Ferguson and I own
a home at 216 200 st in Seal Beach. This property is situated on a lot that
qualifies it for a 3rd story per the existing city code. I want to express my
desire to retain the right to develop this property to the current code ifI so
choose to do so. I am strongly opposed to limiting the property rights of
those who own similarly qualifying lot's in Old Town.
This property has been passed from my Grandmother to my Father
and now finally to me. I can only imagine the disappointment they would
feel if our right to develop this family lot was taken away. Two generations
of my family worked hard to provide us with this opportunity, only to be
threatened by a few disgruntled citizens. What a shame it would be if these
few critics were to alter the course of nearly 3 generations of hard work by
my family.
In closing, I hope you'll see the importance of taking a "case by case"
approach to applications for properties seeking the addition of a third story.
After all, every individual bas a story all their own about what makes their
Seal Beach property so special to them.
Regards,
~THAN/~ ~~
Nathaniel Ferguson
Sam Primm
227 811l Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
559-269-0425
Seal Beach Planning Commission
By Hand
Re: Height Limits To Residential ProDartv MoratorhJm.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am Sam Primm and I .Jive at 227 8111 Street. I purchased my home in March of
1998 and I have lived there ever since. In fact. I have lived in Seal Beach slnce
1995. When I purchased the property, I hat! the un~tanding that I would be
able to build a three story residence at this locatiQn. It is and has been my dream
to some day build a three story residential home on my prop.erty and thereby
remove the existing 50+ year old duplex that now occupies the land.
Now, I understand that the zoning requirements could change for various
reasons that I don't understand. Please do not make any changes to the existing
and long standing rules. I'm sure that the present rules for buildfng on the
property more than aGequately protect our clly from over development and the
loss of our way of life. .
Building coctes should not be changed for a few selfish people motivated purely
by their setf interest. Changing the height limits on my property will dl;Walue the
property in my estimate from $300,000 - $400,000. I will be looking to the City of
Seal Beach to reimburse me for thi~ unjust taking. .
Take no action to reduce the height limits OIl res! tial property.
~
L. r
am . Pri
Mansions and, busybody. neighbors
Ir
la
Not a beautiful
day in the neigh-
borhood.
In the town
where I live, a
once-placid Wash-
ington suburb, the
mayar has just sent
out a letter asking
the natives to atop
throwing eggs at
one another's
homes. Such is life on the front'
lines of the antl-mansionizatlQn war.
Until recently, I didn't know that
"mansionizatipn'l was a word, much
.less that there was a growing na-
'tional movement against it. I didn't
fully apprecia~ the menace of big
houses. I live innocently in' one of
the many small houses in. the town
or Chevy Chase, Md. (not to be con-
fused with our tonier neighbor, the
village of Chevy Chase, which for
some time has tolerated palaces).
Our townspeople have inhabited
2,000-square-foot brick colonials
artd wooden bungalows built from
Sears kits. In the past few years, a
"For Sale" sign has meant a death
sentence. We'd walk by and mutter,
"Dead house standing," waiting for
it to be torn down and replaced
with a 6,000-square-foot nea-Victor-
ian.
Some locals were so enraged they
persuaded the town council this
year to impose a moratorium on
tearing down homes or building
large sdditions. That just enraged
~e rest of the town. leading to a .
complex class war.
In a front-page story in The
Washington Post, a newcomer com-
plained o!reverse snobbery - ~I feel
I should be embarrassed that I need
a mudroom" - while locals mocked
their new neighbors for living in
McMansions they derided with
names like "the Gucci House." One
town veteran piously explained the
problem with the people buying
these $2 million houses: "It's con-
spicuous consumption, meaning in a
sense their values are all out of pro-
portion. "
, My first impulse was to side with
the mansionizers:This was partly
out of self-interest because my .
property would sell for a lot more if
a bigger home could be built there,
JOHN
TIERNEY
SYNDICATED
COLUMNIST
t
~--..._...,~- "lilllt_j'_r-- .--- -.--
REGISTER FILE PHOTO
The manslonlzatlon phenomenon' on display In fountain Valley.
but it was mainly because of my
knse-jerk libertarian reaction to the
moralizers trying to bo~s their
neighbors around.
Who were they to control other
people's property? Who were they
to impose their tastes on new-
comers? A1J long as the builders .
were following the zoning rulea, let
them be guided by their customers'
choices, not rules made by the
neighborhood busybodiea. The
message from the market seemed
clear enough: People want bigger
houses. .
. But when I talked to housing ex-
perts, they pointed .to another mess-
age from the market: People want
neighborhood busybodiea. A major-
ity of new homes'in rapidly growing
urban areas are in communities
governed by private homeowners
associations that inlpose much
stricter rules than do governments.
Some people chafe at the re-
strictions, but most are willing to
pay a premium for them, according
to a study by Amimda Agan and
Alexander Tabarrok, economists at
George Mason University. They
found that a home in the Virginia
suburbs of Washington that was
part of a private community typ-
kally sold for 5 percent, or $14,000,
more than a similar home nearby
not governed by a homeowners as-
sociation. . .
More than 50 million Americans
are noW ruled by these associations,
which regUlate things' like the size
of the house. the architectural style,
the color and the landscaping. The
rules have always sounded creepy
_-.. r...._'..
_.:~\l_t.._'BB
to me, but after my town's fight, I'm
s~rting to see why people buy into
these communities - and why some
economists suggest that traditional
towns like ours be allowed to turn
themselves into private homeOwn-
ers associstions.
The fury in our town was trig-
gere.d by people's powerlessness to
control what their neighborhood
lookS like. They couldn't shape the _'
zoning rilles, which are dictated at '
t;he county level, and they couldn't:.
stop newcomers from- cutting down '
trees or building homes that looked
ut of place.
When a buildel' challenged the
moratorium, the judge ruled in his .
favor by citing the "long line of ..
cases that the government may, not..
use its police powers to regulate
aesthetics. I'
But most people apparently want-
aesthetics to be regulated - not by
county or state politicians, but by
homeowners'in the neighborhood.
That's why the developers of pri-
vate communities write constitu-
tions'that give so much power to
the homeowners associations.
Those founding fathers learned
by trial and error that empowering .
local busybodies is the best way to
maximize home values and mini-
mize strife. If our town were ruled
by. a homeowners' association set-
ting clear aesthetic guidelines, the
homeowners c~uld probably work .,
out a compromise allowing bigger
houses that Would blend gracefully
with the neighborhood. They
wouldn't be reduced to throwiJ)g
eggs at the ones they didn't like.
T"-
.... "1:1 II ........-. ,.. . . ~