HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2006-09-25 #M
-
e
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 25, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: PUBUC 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 REOUEST:
Conduct public hearing. Approve Zone Text Amendment 06-1, as recommended 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 28-801 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).
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 of lots 37.5
feet wide or wider in the RMD and RHO District 1 ("Old Town") zones. This
amendment proposes the following amendments:
D Amend Article 7, Residential Medium Density Zone (RMD Zone), District 1, as
follows;
D Amend Section 28-701.A.l, Maximum Heillht Main Buildinl!:s and Second
DweIlinl!: Units to allow 2 stories and a maximum height of25 feet.
D Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (RID) Zone), District 1, as
foIlows;
1:1 Amend Section 28-801.F, Maximum Heillht Main BuiIdinl!:s and Second
Dwellinll Units to allow 2 stories and a maximum height of 25 feet.
Agenda Item f'1
Z:\My DocumentslZTAIZTA 06-LHeight Limit In District LCC Staff Report docILW\09-20-ll6
Public Hearing - Zol'le Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old TOWIll
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
e
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 2S feet to proceed with
development, notwithstanding the recommended change; 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 "grace period" date for projects
that are being actively pmsued 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 Permi~' for the subject project. The "Coastal Development Permit" is then
effective for a l2-month time period, and can be extended upon approval by the Coastal
Commission.
e
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 recommended 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 recommended 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
e
ZTA06-1.HcigbtLimit in Dlstriot 1.CC StaffRoport 2
e
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD Q/ld RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
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:
e
The City Council could alSo select a later point in the development process for projects to
proceed und~r a determined "grace period." Once an applicant obtains "Concept
Approval," he or she must also obtain a Coast8l 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 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 state law the 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 that 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 recommended 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.
e
ZTA 06-l.Hcight Limit in Distriot 1 CC SlllffRcpor\ 3
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District J, Zone. (Old Town)
City Council StqffReport _
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 1 to review the required Ordinance to adopt the provisions of ZT A 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 recommendations 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 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 28-801 of the Municipal Code of the City of Seal Beach to Allow 2 Stories and a
Maximtun Height of 25 Feet in the Residential Medium Density and Residential High
Density, District 1 (Zone Text Amendment 06-1).
e
e Whitten erg
Director of Development Se
ZTA 06-1.Hoigbt LimIt in District 1.CC StalfReport
4
e
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zones (Old Town)
City Council St'fff 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 1 (Zone Text Amendment 06-1)
Attachment 2:
Planning Commission Staff Report, including all
Attachments, dated September 20, 2006
e
e
Z,!, A 06-I.Hclght Limit In District I.CC StaffRcport
5
e
Public HelJ/"ing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zanes (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 IDGH DENSITY, DISTRICT
1 (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1)
e
e
ZTA 06-I.Hoight Umit in Districtl.CC StaffRoport 6
e
e
e
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Reviswl'I8 to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
September 25. 2006
ORDINANCE NO. 1553
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH AMENDING SECTIONS 28-101 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' IDGH
DENSITY, DISTRICT 1 (ZONE lEXT
AMENDMENT 06-1)
Section 1. The City Council hereby amends Seal Beach Municipal Code
Section 28-70 I.A.I (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. ODen SDace. 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. Lot Size. ODen 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."
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 1 Zones that have
received "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" by the Director of Development
'&fA 06-1 HCJgbt Limit in DIslricll.CC StalfRcport
7
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff 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
shall 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
ATTEST:
e
Linda Devine
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
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
e
NOES:
Council members
ZTA 06-I.Hcight Limit in Distnct I.CC Staff Report
8
e
e
e
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions olZoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1. Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
Council members
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
ZT A 06-1.Heigbt limit In Dtstnct 1.CC Staff Report 9
e
Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provision. o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1
'INCLUDING ALL ATTACHMENTS, DATED
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
e
e
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit m District 1.CC Staff Report 10
e
e
e
September 20, 2006
STAFF REPORT
To:
Honorable Chairperson and. Planning Commission
Prom:
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 R.MD and. RED District 1 ("Old Town'') zones to a consistent standard of a
maximum heig4t 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.I, 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 (RHO Zone), District 1, 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 PIlInning 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 35-feet
on the rear half oflots that are 37.5 feet or wider.
Provided as Attachment 1 is the proposed Planning Commission Resolution that would need
to be adopted to forward these matters to the City Council for fina1 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:\My ~onts\ZTA\ZTA 06-I.Hoigbt Limit in District I.PC StaffRoportdoclLW\09-08-06
Zoning Tex:t Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions a/Zoning Code Te:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
PIQl'/7/i1Ig Commission StqffReport .-
September 20, 2006 _
I BACKGROUND ,
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 A m.."dmenf' to amend to Zoning Code to e1iminate the ability to
construct new residences higher than 25-feet and 2-stories. The Commission also requested
staff to provide additional infonnation 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 Commission at the September 6, 2006 Study Session, staff
prepared options for the Commission and public to discuss at this Study Session regarding the
"granrifathering" 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" after 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-stoxy 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 communications received by the .-
Commission at the September 13 Study Session. _
ZTA OH.Hoight Limit in DIStrict l,PC SIBffRcport
2
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Pruvisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
I DISCUSSION'
As indicated above, the PlAnning Commission has considered this matter at two separate
study sessions.
Atta.chment 7 provides the current language of the Municipal Code regarding allowable heights
for residential development in the RMD and RRD, District I zoned areas of the City.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Provided below are the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code regarding this Zone Text
NnP.nclment. The amendments are broken into two separate sections for discussion and
consideration by the PlAnning Commission:
Proposed Changes to Height Limits
CJ Amend Article 7, Residential Medium. Density Zone (RMD Zone), as indicated below;
CJ 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, Open Space, Bulk and
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1. Maximum Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
beh':idiJ:1, 18&& iJ:1BFl 37 11,2 fl. 2 stories, max. 25 ft.
let vjlftf;llr 211.'2 tt. SF AUIFS
Frs FIt 1f2 sf let, :I 8terle8, FF1BllimWFFl 25 ft.
Rear 1~ sf let, 1 &.,is8, AlRiAlYFFI 25 ft."
CJ Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (RHO Zone), as follows;
CJ Amend Section 28-801.F, Maximum Height. Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
Units to read as follows:
ZlA 06-1.Hei&hlLimit in District l.PC Staff Report
3
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zo1UlS (Old Tow'!l
Planning Commission StoffReporl ,6
September 20, 2006 _
"Section 28-801. General Provisions, Lot Size. ODen SDace, Bulk and
Yards.
F. Maximum Building Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling
Units:
b.ah.li~t"'sl , IllS& thaA 17 1.'2 It.
District I 2 stories, maximum 25 ft,
District II, VI 35 ft.
L..lI.t .fl...i~ths, 211.f,2 'fl. II r Mer.
gl&t.Fiat I Fral'lt 1/,2 af 1M 2 stll'Fias, 25 ft. maKiRlWMj
Raar 1.13 8f lat :I starlas, 15 ft. R1uiRlWM-
DIstriet& II. VI 25 fl;"
*** lats 81'1 Sllal '."ay May lallata a t"'Ird llta~. allwal te
tha tatal s"ya,a fe8t araa allal.'Ja&l iA t"'a raar 1.'2 8f tha
lat ,lith Ra IiMitati8A aA plall8lRaAt, layt s"'a1l1a8 .Ylljaet
ta F8"wi,ad yarll8."
e
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
reco=endation, the Commission reco=ends that the Council adopt an un-codified section
of the ordinance establishing a precise "deadline" date for proj ects 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
recommend a date 60 days after the effective date of the implementing ordinance to obtirln
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. e
ZIA 06-}.Hcigbt Li11lit in District l.PC StalfRcport
4
e
Zoning Tat Amendment 06-1
Proposed RevisiollS to ProvisiollS o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town.!
PllJ1ll1ing Commission Staff 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 Pennif' 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.
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.
e
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 Pennif', 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 oftime necessary for the Coastal
Commission to issue its approval and for the City to review :fina1 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
e
If the Council adopts the new ordinance adjusting the height standard, there will be a number
of existing and approved structures that will exceed 25 feet in Old Town, These existing and
approved structures would be classified as "legal, non-confonning"; 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 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 and as set forth in Section 23-2322,C of the
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit in District I.PC Sta1fRoport
5
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions o/Zoning Cods re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old TOW1!J
Planning Commission Staff Report _
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 recommended
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.
'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 Rl\ID and RED 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 e
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 recommended "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 2S feet in the Residential Medium Density and
Residential High Density, District 1 Zones
e
l:fA Il6-I.Height Limll in District I.PC StaliRepoll
6
e
e
e
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Zoning Te:tt Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to PrOllisions o/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. DistricJ 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20. 2006
September 6, 2006 pJ..nn;ng Commission Study Session Minute
Excerpt
September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session Staff
Report, including Attachments:
[J September 6, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session
Presentation Materials
[J 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
ExceIpt
Note: M"mutes not available at time of distribution of Agenda
Packets. They will be provided at the September 20 Planning
Commission meeting
Copies of All Written Communications 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 RHO, 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
. . \. .
ZfA 06-1.Height Limit in Di,lricl1.PC StaffRcport
7
e
e
e.
Zoning Te:tt 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 1
RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-43, A RESOLUTION
011 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 mGH DENSITY, DISTRICT 1
ZONES
ZTA 06.1 Height Limit in Distriet I.PC Staff Report
8
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Pravisiona of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED. District I. Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING .COJvfMI.SSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFPROV AL OF ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1, AMENDING SECTIONS
28-701 AND 28-801 TO ALLOW 2 STORIES AND A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 25 F~:?T IN 'fI:IE
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, DISTRICT 1 ZONES
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The Pl..nn;ng Commission held Study Sessions regarding the
allowable building height in the Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density,
District I 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 I ("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, staff has 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 ~ l5061(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 Pl..nning
Commission on September 20, 2006 to consider Zone Text Amendment 06-1.
zrA Q6-l.Heipt Limit in District 1.PC StaffRcport
9
Zoning Te:tt Amendment 06- J
Proposed Revisiona to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zones (Old Town) e
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
Section 5.
The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence
received by the Planning Commission.
(b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and
enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an
amendment of the zoning requirements for new residential developments within the Residential
Medium Density and Residential High Density, District I zones.
(c)' The proposed amendments are summarized above in Section 2 of this
Resolution.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in ~5 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 of25 feet to proceed with
development, notwithstanding the recommended change. The Commissi.on 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 recommends the date of January 2, 2007 for obtaining such
approval.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 06-1 to the City Council as set forth on
Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein.
e
ZfA 06-1".Height Limit in District l.Pe StafFRcport
10
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiona to Pravisiona of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1. Zones (Old TOWJ!i
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
PASSED, AFPROVED 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 __
ABSTAIN: Commissioners __
Ellery Deaton
Chairperson of the Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the pJ..nning Commission
ZTA Oli-llloighlLimit in Distriet I.PC StalrRcport
11
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiona to PrOllisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I. Zones (Old Tow'li e
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 2006
"EXHIBIT A"
[J Amend Article 7, Residential Medium Density Zone (RMD Zone), as indicated below;
[J 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. .Ooen Soace. Bulk and
Yards.
A.. Provisions applying in all districts:
1.
Maximum Height. Main Building
and Second Dwelling Units:
2 stories, 25 ft. maximum"
[J Amend Article 8, Residential High Density Zone (RED Zone), as follows;
[J Amend Section 28-80 I.P. Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling Units e
to read as follows:
.Section 28-801. General Provisions. Lot Size. Ooen Soace. Bulk and
Yards.
F. Maximum Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units:
District I 2 stories, 25 ft. maximum
District II, VI 35 ft."
... ... ... ...
e
ZTA 06-J:Height Limit m Di,tncl1.PC StaffRcport
12
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to PrOllisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Staff Report ..
September 20, 2006 ..
ATTACHMENT 2
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMlSSION
STUDY SESSION MINUTE EXCERPT
e
e
ZTA 06.-l.Heigbt Limit in Dislricll.PC Staff Report
13
e~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
e
City of Seel Beech Plenning Commission
Meeting Minut&s 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, n 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 on 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.
Amend the Code to include third story development standards that
address compatibility issues as either discretionary actions or permitted by
right.
Ootion 2
Ootion 3
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. far;ade 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 Be8ch Plennlng Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
Commissioner Questions
e
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 City'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.
e
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
equirement is 75 percent. Commissioner Roberts noted that this would probably max
e
6 of 16
e~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
t
City of Sea/ Beach Plenning 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 37.5 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 Hearin!:!
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
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
2
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 .
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Selll Belleh Plllnning Commission
Meeling MinlItes of September 6, 2006
review committee of some kind. Mr. Gibson said he is not concerned with style, but
obstruction of the line of sight.
John Morgan, 215 16th Street, said he concurred with Mr. Gibson's comments on the
homes displayed tonight, and added that there are ways to make a three-story house
more appealing. He suggested that property owners with plans for three-story projects
already in progress be grandfathered so that they may continue under current zoning
standards.
e
Joyce Parque, provided photographs of current three-story projects noting that one of
them is a condominium with a third-story on the rear half. She indicated that
Chairperson Deaton had met with Councilman Antos prior to the public hearing on the
condominium p~oject, and this was not right. She then noted that some of the projects
had been approved with Variances. She stated that denying homeowners the ability to
build a three-story home was taking away their property rights.
Chairperson Deaton stated for the record that she never had a meeting with
Councilman Antos or anyone else prior to the meeting in question.
Chairperson Deaton then called for those who wished to speak in favor of limiting
homes in Old Town to only two stories.
Mike Butte, 412 Central Way, stated that he lives on a 37.5 ft. lot and the quality of life is
what is important to him, which means that he wants to see light and sky and feel the
ocean breeze. He said that long-term he believes that his property values will increase
if he maintains his home as a single-level home, giving Seal Beach a quiet village
appeal. He said he opposes the idea of an architectural review board and
recommended grandfathering in those projects that are currently in progress.
John DeWitt, 1105 Electric Avenue, spoke about maintaining the "charm" of Old Town
and prohibiting the construction of three-story homes, as this leads to a loss of sunlight,
privacy, the ocean breeze, and the view. He stated that a maximum height of 25 feet
should be the standard and that Covered Roof Access Structure(s) (CRAS) should no
longer be allowed, as outdoor stairways for access to roof decks work just fine and do
not require exceeding the height limit.
Barbara Moreland, 116 4th Street, expressed her concern over the possible sale of a
neighboring double lot that cur.rently has 5 apartments on it. She stated that if a new
three-story home were constructed with the third story on the rear half of that lot, this
would block all the light from the windows on the side of her home facing that lot. She
suggested that special consideration be given prior to approving a three-story home
when it neighbors a single level home on a 25-ft. lot.
e
Chi Kredell, 1633 Seal Way, stated he served on City Council when the zoning for 37.5-
ft. or wider lots was devised. He said the reason it was approved was that at that time
duplexes could be constructed on all 25-ft. wide lots, and in order to make the town
e
8 of 16
e~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
e
City of See/ Beech P/enning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
more livable for families wanting to live in single-family residences (SFRs) the zoning
was down zoned to allow only one SFR on a 25-ft. lot. He said that a third story on the
rear of a 37.5-ft. lot was also allowed; however, there were no condominiums in town.
He said that this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to change the city and
keep Seal Beach a quaint town. He said he would be happy to respond to questions.
Roger West, 1301-B Electric Avenue, spoke against having three-story homes in Old
Town. He said that since purchasing his property in 1968 it has been down zoned at
least three times and he has benefited from the increase in his property value and the
value of living in Seal Beach. He recommended that those who are interested in
building homes SOlely for profit should look into other cities.
Don Kennebeck, 209 3rd Street, noted that the property across the street from his home
measures 30 feet, but it appears on the map of properties measuring 37.5 feet or more.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that on irregular shaped parcels the calculation is done by
taking an average of the front and rear lot measurements. Mr. Kennebeck then noted
that two 30-ft. lots have just gone up for sale on his street and a developer wants. to
purchase both lots. He asked if the developer would be able to consolidate the lots intq
a 60-ft. lot and construct condominiums. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was possible.
He explained that parcelS can be combined, as long as it exceeds the minimum lot size,
but density and development standards would also apply. He said that under today's
zoning standards 3 to 4 units could be placed on this size lot. He explained that the
Zoning Code (ZC), requires that condominium projects receive a discretionary land use
approval (Conditional Use Permit), which requires a public hearing and a determination
by the PC that that particular use at that particular location would not be detrimental to
neighboring properties. Mr. Kennebeck then asked if the City still permits the
construction of apartment complexes in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the lot
size is large enough to accommodate apartments and the project meets all of the
required setback, lot coverage, parking, and density development standards, the project
would be allowed. Mr. Kennebeck asked if enclosed garages for parking could be
constructed as the first floor of the third story portion to rear of the lot. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that all parking must be off street parking in enclosed garages off the alley.
Barbara Barton, 415 Ocean Avenue, said she moved to Seal Beach for the small town
atmosphere. She spoke in favor of maintaining a maximum height of 25 feet and
prohibiting three-story construction.
Belinda Howell, 222 17th Street, said Seal Beach is one of the few beach communities
in California that has remained small, and she would not want to see this change. She
stated that visually and aesthetically three-story residences in Old Town are
disproportionate to the size of the city and its streets. She noted that three-story
construction on Balboa Island had created a loss of air circulation and many residents
now have to install air conditioning, and she does not want this to happen in Seal
Beach. She thanked the PC and Staff for their work on this issue.
9 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
2
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
David Broonend, 307 14th Street, spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit to prevent loss of
view, ocean breeze, and sunlight.
e
Jim Caviola, 1117 Ocean Avenue, spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit. He said he had
previously resided at 305 Ocean Avenue and had planned to construct a new home
there, but the lot was always shaded by the large homes that surrounded it. He stated
that he had sold that home and constructed a new home at 1117 Ocean Avenue, and
one lot from their home is Rene Bollen's property on which the condominium project is
proposed. He described how as an attorney for a large developer in Newport Beach he
has dealt with many homes having major problems with mold due to a lack of sunlight.
As a result, landscaping is no longer allowed between homes in order to help prevent
this. He said he did not want to experience this and recommended limiting the height to
25 feet and grlilndfatherlng those projects that are already in the plan preparation
process.
Ricki Layman, 119 5th Street, spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit, as she has a two-
story apartment complex next door and the 37.5-ft. lot on the other side of her home
may be placed on the market soon. She said if a three-story home is built on that lot,
her property will be completely enclosed. She recommended restricting the height limit
in Old Town to 25 feet.
Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, asked if homes on The Hill are allowed a third story.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that all of the residential areas in town, except for the Rossmoor
condominiums, the Oakwood Apartments, and Surfside, have a 25-ft. maximum height
limit. Mr. Voce said he favors the 25-ft. height limit in all residential areas in Seal
Beach. He said that in visiting his old neighborhood on the 200 block of 14th Street the
look is "highly monumental overall," due to the three-story homes constructed on this
block, and this has definitely changed the character of the neighborhood.
e
Mr. Whittenberg addressed the comments on the issue of Covered Roof Access
Structure(s) (CRAS) being very large. He indicated that at one time the City was
allowing these structures without any design standards imposed upon them, but the
standards were changed in 1992 when CRAS applications were allowed to be
considered by the PC. He said that the size of a CRAS is now. limited to the area
necessary to enclose the stairway. He noted that this issue can be addressed at a later
time, as it is not the issue under discussion. He responded to the question of how large
1,700-1,800 sq. ft. homes can be constructed without any discretionary review. He
stated that certain uses of privately owned property are allowed "by right," which means
that if the project meets all City standards, the project may proceed and permits can be
issued. He explained that for some design features or structural changes to a project
the property owner may have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Height
Variation (HV), Minor Plan Review (MPR), or a Variance (VAR) and have a public
hearing before the PC to determine whether the project will be compatible with the
neighborhood.
e
10 of 16
ei
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mimbs of September 6, 2006
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner O'Malley stated that the objective of the PC is not to make the lives of
residents miserable by changing the requirements in the middle of the stream. He said
that when serving on the Sewer and Storm Drain Ad Hoc Committee after the last big
flood, he learned how the flooding problem began. He indicated that when discussing
some of the causes of the flooding, one of the reasons was determined to be
overbuilding. There is a lot of runoff from The Hill as there are very few permeable
surfaces or green areas to absorb the rain water, and as such, the water runs
downward from The Hill and causes flooding in Old Town. He also touched on the
issue of mansionization and how it is affecting neighborhoods. He noted that many of
the public comments included the issue of fairness and constitutional rights, but what
this is about is what is best for the majority of the people within the City of Seal Beach.
He stated that the issues of having good air circulation, sunlight, having green areas to
help absorb rain water, and neighborhood compatibility are all very important, and the
PC must make recommendations that would provide relief to most of the people in Seal
Beach, so that they may continue to enjoy their homes and their lives in this City.
Commissioner Ladner stated that he is in agreement with Commissioner O'Malley's
comments and spoke in favor of a 25-ft. height limit.
Commissioner Roberts thanked Staff for a very thorough report, and he thanked the
members of the public present tonight for their comments. He stated that in coming to
tonight's meeting he thought that compromising by limiting lot - coverage and
incorporating third story setbacks would help solve some of these problems; however,
after hearing the comments from the pUblic tonight he has changed his opinion. He now
believes that a 25-ft. height limit would be the proper way to go. He noted that being a
resident of College Park East (CPE) he is a little hesitant to make this determination, but
he loves Seal Beach and Old Town and constructing three story homes on the 430 lots
that are 37.5 ft. or wider would tremendously change the feeling of the City. He said he
would like to explore the grandfathering issue to determine how to fairly handle those
people who have had the life vision of building their home to three stories. He indicated
that he wished to hear from the public again after Commissioner Comments.
Commissioner Bello stated that she agreed to accept the appointment as Planning
Commissioner because what the City of Seal Beach looks like is very important to her.
She thanked Staff for the preparation of the presentation and Staff Reports and she also
thanked the public for their attendance tonight and for their comments. She
emphasized that light and air are very important to residents, and the feeling of this
community is like no where else, and she is very concerned about keeping Seal Beach
the way it is. .
Chairperson Deaton said she had received many telephone calls and has spoken with
several neighbors who all agreed that having a uniform height limit for all of Seal Beach
was important. She noted that although Surfside does have a 35-foot height limit, it is a
uniform height limit. She said that she is still unclear as to why one lot size would have
11 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
one height limit and another lot size would have a different height limit, and feels that
this seems prejudicial and a granting of special privilege. She indicated that of all the
calls received and conversations she has had only two individuals favored three story
construction, so basically, what she has heard is the same thing the Commission has
heard tonight. She stated that she has heard the snickering about light and air at the
various public meetings she has attended, but anyone who lives in Old Town and must
deal with plants that won't grow, mildew, and mold would not snicker at air and light, as
they are essential to the well being of the community. She said she appreciates Staffs
work and assistance in responding to her numerous questions and noted that the
information provided on the FAR, infill standards, solar access, and fa98de articulations
is important for all buildings in Old Town, so that the town can be kept as it is. She
emphasized that City's Specific Plan and the Master Plan call for a .small town
community." She said that every beach city has its own culture and attracts a certain
type of person, and Seal Beach has attracted the people who are looking for the small
town that vanished from all the other beach communities. She said many residents who
live and work in Seal Beach told her that they could not come forward with a public
statement, but asked that she help protect the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach.
She continued by stating that she would be totally against architectural review as Seal
Beach is a town of texture and it is not the business of the Planning Commission to
determine which home designs are more beautiful, but their job is planning'on what this
City should be. She noted that this issue has fractured the community and she
encouraged residents to work together to get through this and to keep what is best for
Old Town in mind rather than individuals and personalities. She ended by stating that
she is also in favor of grandfathering for those individual who have already made an
investment in plan preparation; however, she does not want to see everyone leaving the
meeting tonight and having third story development plans drawn up, but she does feel
that grandfathering is necessary for fairness. Mr. Abbe interjected that depending upon
where they are in the development process under state law residents do have .vested
rights, n so regardless of the ordinance that is ultimately adopted, some of these people
will automatically be entitled to utilize the existing provisions. He said he would do
further research on exactly where this line is to be drawn, and this will certainly be
included in the ordinance. Chairperson Deaton then indicated that she wished to re-
open the public comment period to receive further comments from the public.
e
e
Mr. Whittenberg called for a recess at 9:30 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Chairperson Deaton re-opened for public comment period.
Victor Grgas, 211 15th Street, said he agreed that this is a divided community regarding
this issue, and that the most important issues to be dealt with are as follows:
1. Architectural diversity
2. If the decision is made to permit three stories on a modified basis, the PC will need
to give something back in exchange for this, such as reqUiring larger side yard
e
12 of 16
e~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
City of S9s1 B9sch Plsnning Commissicfl
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
setbacks or cutouts to adjacent properties that would allow for more space
between properties.
3. Require that larger lots provide more parking on their property.
He indicated that when he served on City Council (1982-1990) he was under the
impression that the most you could build on a third story was 500 square feet, or
essentially one room, yet the new condominium project proposed to construct a 1,500
square foot third story. He said he is opposed to allowing third stories, but should the
PC decide to do so, it should impose conditions that would allow for more space
between properties and require an architecturally pleasing design that works well with
the neighborhood.
Mike Buhbe, 412 Central Way, stated that the residential lots in Old Town should be
restricted to ha"ving just one building on each lot. as this would enhance the visual
beauty of the town and provide space between structures to help alleviate the threat of
flooding whenever it rains. He expressed his concern that the sale of the Seal Beach
Inn & Gardens would lead to the construction of one huge structure rather than using
the six-lot location for six separate residences. Chairperson Deaton clarified that what
Mr. Buhbe apposes is combining of lots in order to build one large structure. Mr. Buhbe
stated that this is correct.
. John DeWitt said he feels encouraged by the discussion toni9ht, as the PC has politely
listened to all comments and he will leave happy believing that there is hope of keeping
Seal Beach what it is.
Craig Gibson stated that it appears the PC is favoring a two-story limit, but he wanted to
note that owners of wider lots, must set back their side yards 50 percent more than for
the 25-ft. lots. He said that the larger homes are not taking up land and preventing
runoff, as they are being built up and not out. He said that if the PC limits SFRs to two
stories, he would like the PC to consider that it would be fairer to make the setbacks a
specific number of feet rather than a percentage of the lot size. Mr. Whittenberg noted
that the trade-off is that when you have a 25-ft. lot, under Building Code standards you
cannot have livable space closer than 3 feet to an adjacent property line, so you are
automatically limited to a 19-ft. wide home; and when you have a 37.5-ft. lot you can
construct a 3D-ft. wide house on a same depth lot, leaving the potential for a larger
building area. He said the reason cities use a percentage is to begin to shrink the
impact to the neighboring properties away from the property lines. Mr. Gibson stated
that in the presentation he noticed that. other cities had absolute setback numbers.
Commissioner Roberts noted that most of these other cities have greater setbacks than
Seal Beach, leaving less lot coverage for the structure.
Steve Cole, 222 1ih Street, said he lives in a single-story home and favors the 25-ft.
height limit. He noted that although front and side setbacks have been discussed the
rear setback can be a problem if there is a three-story structure looming up over your
ba k yard. He explained how the setbacks between two 25-ft. lots would allow for more
13 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 Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2006
sunlight, air circulation, and permeable surface than you would from one home on a
50-ft. lot. He recommended grandfathering the plans in progress.
e
John Morgan thanked the PC for receiving comments and asked how the
grandfathering is to be handled. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Staff would have to
consult with legal counsel to make sure that they are in compliance with the guidelines
for doing the grandfathering.
Chi Kredell stated that during his tenure as a member of the City Council when zoning
was changed anything that was submitted to the City and in the pipeline was
grandfathered, and anything after that was disallowed.
Mitzi Morton ca~tioned against grandfathering as this could create a whore other set of
problems. She stated that the reason for the down zoning was because residents
wanted to have front and back yards, but this is disappearing with the larger homes
being constructed. She recommended having greater front setbacks for second stories
to allow for more air and light.
Don Kennebeck commented that in looking at his two-story house from the rear, he
realized how huge it is, so he could only imagine how large a three-story house would
look, particularly when next to a single-level home. He said that he would support
grandfathering as long as it is done correctly.
e
Melinda Howell thanked the PC and Staff for their work on this issue. She asked where
the 6-ft. front yard setback comes in. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the ZC requires
an average 12-ft. front setback, with a minimum of 6 feet, which allows for a front
setback of 6 feet and a second story setback of 18 feet equaling a 12-ft. average, or
conversely, the first floor could have an 18 ft. setback with a second story setback of 6
feet. He stated that this provides for some diversity and prevents having the box look
along a street if all the setbacks were at 12 feet. Ms. Howell then expressed her
concern over combining lots to create one large structure. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
this is another issue that will probably be taken into consideration when returning to the
issue of mansionization.
John Morgan stated that he has paid for the services of a local architect with whom he
will meet on Friday. He said he had planned on constructing a three-story home. He
asked what he should do now. Mr. Whittenberg stated that at this time there are no
prohibitions on building a third story on the rear half of a lot 37.5 feet or wider, as long
as all building standards are met. He said that if the City were to decide to change the
standard today, by the time the issue comes before City Council for a public hearing
and then for a first and second reading of the zoning amendment, it will take
approximately 3-6 months. Mr. Abbe noted that there is an initiative on the ballot for the
November election that will greatly change the law on Takings, and Staff plans to make
every effort to resolve this issue before the end of the year.
e
14 of 16
e~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
City of Sa8/ Baach Planning Commission
Maaling Minutss of September 6, 2006
Joyce parque asked if when building a new home now, the requirement was to put
gravel on the sides of the home instead of concrete. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
City now has requirements within the Coastal Zone where homeowners of new
construction must have French drains or a dry well in the side yard areas to catch the
runoff from the roof of the house. She noted that the there are three-story home in
Surfside, and homes on The Hill have first floor garages with two stories above them,
which equal three stories, and these garages have rooms for nannies. Mr. Whittenberg
explained that the garages are semi-subterranean and are not counted as a story or
measured for height and these homes do meet the height requirement.
Barbara Barton asked that this issue be moved on to City Council as soon as possible.
There being n<? one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
comment period.
Chairperson Deaton outlined the following alternatives for making a recommendation to
CC on this issue:
1. Continue this study session to next Wednesday night to receive more pUblic input.
2. Ask Staff to begin preparation of a draft Zone Text Amendment for City Council to
be presented to the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting
and conduct a public hearing two weeks after this.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that within two weeks Staff could return with some ideas on the
grandfather issue. He said that once this is done Staff would have to prepare a Staff
Report and formal language provisions to change the Zoning Code (ZC) by ordinance,
which will take a while to prepare and requires a 10-day notice of public hearing. He
noted that this would create a timetable for public hearings of probably the first or
second meeting in October. He noted that the PC could adjourn to another date on
which a regularly scheduled meeting will not be held. Chairperson Deaton asked Mr.
Abbe if it would be possible to schedule another meeting for next Wednesday to review
the grandfathering issue. Mr. Abbe stated that he could complete some research and
have some options to present at that time. Chairperson Deaton asked if the
Commission was in agreement with this. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the intent of the
Commission is to have an ordinance prepared eliminating the ability to build a third story
in Planning District 1, which is Old Town, lind to prOVide a grandfather provision for
projects currently under a design contract.
Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees with this approach, but he also feels it is
important to discuss other issues as they pertain to homes on lots of any size with
regard to roof pitches, garages, etc., separate from the third story issue. Mr.
Whittenberg agreed that in order to complete this process by the first meeting in
October the ZTA would have to deal solely with the third stories. Mr. Abbe stated that it
is feasible to complete the process to implement a two-story cap with a grandfather
clause by the end of the year. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff will not able to publish a
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 Beach Planning Commission
Meeting 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.
e
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 District.1.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Bello, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Chairperson Deaton thanked Staff and the public for all of their assistance.
e
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m. to the adjourned meeting of
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 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.
e
16 of 16
e
e
e
Zoning Te:tt Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission St'lff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
St:UDY SESSION STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING
ATTACHMENTS:
[J SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
COMMISSION . STUDY
PRESENTATION MATERIALS
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE
COMMISSION AT THE SEPTEMBER 6
STUDY SESSION
PLANNING
SESSION
[J
ZT A 06.I.Height Limit in Districtl.PC Staff Report
14
e
September 13,2006
STAFF REPORT
To:
Chaixperson 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
e 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 residential development in the "Old Town" area was
presented, along with iDformation regarding residential development standards of other coastal
communities. The Commission received public comments from 16 persons on the issue and after
extensive discussion determined to request staff to begin the preparation of a "Zone Text
Amendmenf' to amend to Zoning Code to eliminate the ability to construct new residences higher
than 25"feet and 2-stories in the RMD and RHO, District 1, ZoneS.
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 1 to review the presentation materials presented at the September 6 Study Session.
Attachment 2 provides copies of all written communications received by the Commission at the
September 6 Study Session.
Attachment 3 provides copies of all written communications received by the City after the
September 6 Study Session regarding this matter.
e
Z:\My DccumentslTbird Story lntorim OnIiIwIce\Smdy Session.PC StaffReport.docILW\09-08-06
Study Session -Amendment to AUowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wider - e
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District I - "Old Tawn"
Planning Commission Staff Report
September ]3, 2006
September 13, 2006 Study Session:
The main purpose of this study session is to allow the Commission and interested citizens to
comment 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
maximum height of 35-feet on the rear half oflots that are 37.5 feet or wider.
Information regarding this "grandfatherint' 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 necessllI}' Zone Text Amendment
documents that will be required to consider this matter.at a future public hearing. A copy of the
''Drtift Staff Report' is provided as Attachment 4 for the information of the Commission. Please
understand that this ''Draft Staff Report' document may be further revised based on any additional
direction that the Commission may provide to Staff and the Assistant City Attorney at the
conclusion of the Study Session. '
e
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct Study Session and provide direction to Staff as to desired actions.
Whittenberg, Director
Development Services D
Attachments: (4)
Attachment 1:
September 6, 2006 plAnniT1g Commission Study Session
Presentation Materials
Attachment 2:
Copies of All Written Communications Received by the
Commission at the September 6 Study Session
Attachment 3:
Copies of All Written Communications Received by the City after
the September 6 Study Session
e
Study SessiOll.PC Sta1fR.epotl
2
e
e
e
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wllier-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Planning Commission Stqff Report
September J 3, 2006
Attachment 4:
DrtiftSttiffReportre: Zone Text Amendment 06 -I, Amendment
To Allowable Height On Lots 37.5 Feet Wide Or Wider - RMD
And RED Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
'.
'.
I Study Session.PC Staff Report
3
e
e
Ie
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feel Wide or Wider-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District I - "Old Town"
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 13. 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION PRESENTATION MATERIALS
Study SessiOD.PC StaffRoporl
4
ftJ '\t~:
,,,I ,';..
,.,t "i
~. :l'l
!tJ 1;'\:
~:': j.~
..., ~"
!l ,4'
(. ~J.
.;~ ~~ ~
:.;1 ,,'
:..: "~I
~l\ ..:
e
t-4
~~
0~rJ'J
t~
,0
;~O
~
~~t...a
t-40~
~
p\C
~O
r.n~
.Z~
O. ~
I-t OJ
~~
i ~
~ fro
Oel)
U'
~z
~g
z~
~
~
r~ ,,4-lp 0;
~l. ~ '-'
,,' ~ ~
.'- '" . r"lp ~o ,/7'>
. .t: ~ "G/' .
.. r:
:: ~ r"l ..~ H.
f :'.. +-'-I
~~ ~ ~
t' ... 'Q.) ~
en en
OP.+-3
o u en
'P~ g
Br-gu
'p ~ .
d~~
O~u
u .
.~ t;g
q Q),~
~ ~~
~oen
~ ~ 0
,~~Q) .
u~ ~>
.-0 Q) Q
O~ 8~
~~ ~ Q)
cJ5~tI)S
og~~
Q)~o~
~E~g
ti .e- Q) u
.-0 . P acJ5
8 5 ~o
, ,
, ,
..' .
r-.
r-.
,en
~.
S
<
~
""
~
o
~
o
en
en
H
.~
~
e
('L.
.e- ~ ('L.
CAti~ ~
~ ~u ""
e $001 ~ 0...
. g ~~ ~ ~
~ ~5 4-lQ)
j .a 5 ~~
~ !--.. ~ J2 0
~~e~ <U
~ ~.~ ~ ~
~ .::::! ~
Q) ij3 t Q)~
--.d '''\ en .~
.~ ~~ p 0
~ ~ ~ t3~
~oo o~
o 0 0 ~
'p 'p 'p ,5
: t ~ t~
~ Q) Q) % Q)~
.B ~ ~.t:t ~.t..)
45.B.B~.B~
~ rs rs~rs~
~88~8~
en
Q)nC] CI
~
e
t
. ",", \,' .'. .0'\1 -
", . ': .' ".<' : ;:' /..'$ ',if:"-1.r'l' .
",. ,. ,', ",\.. ~~' ..\.~' .\r.~ I.'
'. ,"~...i.' ',; l~":;" ~~-1:~~t:: .:..'
":..h", ,:'. '~~I'.;t::~':~"".v.~.;!-?1" ~.,
.: ': 'U; .'.~' .,..;"'*:"\ '\_."t.~.tl'
'.: ,:~'r' ';':>';', t~ "'i.~':'.,,~
. : . ',"." l , ..' . ',' ..~I:f,~?"lfl'(-'- . .
~
~
o
P-
O
o
U
o
rn
d. .~.\-oJ d
.~ OIl .g : ,U.......5 ,0
o .0 0) ~ i '. ~ g ...... ~
~ .E u en ~ ~ '0 0 ~ p
] j $ ~ O).~ ~ >< B .~ ~
.-0 0 o~ ~ ~ 0-1 ~ 5 tj...9
~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ZU~~
~~9u~""~ d lo-4
g. U '" -0 .5 b '-H ~ 0.,8 0
.\-oJdod .\-oJ~o~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ o.~ ~ .-0 ~ a 'aJ
5 :-% to 0 0 ~ ~ j;j OIl 0 .....
U ~ "0 0) ~ '" '" OIl. ~ <.l:\ to..
goo ~..g ~ -tl ~.::\ <t:1 .0. t:l
'" 0 oA t:l 0Il.....l:j 001 ~
'" .p.p to ~ 0 t:l ~ t) .... :0 jj
lj.. to ~. OIl ~ '" . 0 a p.. p.. 0 '"
a b t:l:-% ~u t) '" '" B B ~
en ~ ~ ~ Egg b : ~ 0 .9
.~oP ~O~?,f;ir.f)r.f)
p p.. Ll .0 ~ p.. u " ~ 0 ~ .t\
C1 C1 C1
~
~o
~
r~
~z
u~
ZO
~E
.~ u
e
e
tn
o
1~~'%
tn ~ ~ B
!11 ~
~u ~ ~
p..e bP.p
~ g .g ~
.~ (/) .$ ~
(/). o~ a
~~ooo
';:) .-0 ~ J:i
o
~
~
'65
~tjj
u~
~
r
g8
~~
~t;
u~
38
e
o ~ ...
o = ~.~
~~~~~
~ ~.~ t:1 ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ...
o r~ ~.-B ~ ~ ~
~ crlo'P. ...
o 0 U.~ on 0 as'" tio
~ ~ ~ I"I.l 0 CM~ \
o ..0 = % 0 B .~ .
otn~~6CM~
.-B~ o~ e.,E u ~
<a t' ~",% '3 ~"s ~
~ou~~~go
b~~ ~r:p~ otti
~~g.Q'O 9 'rl a
tn
~
e
o
--
'.
....
-'.
....
'.
-..
",
",
".
'{
'. ~.
~ "
"
.; :$
~ .'~~
;'1;
:~
, .,
:; i
~~
t:~
~~
.Z ~
o
ob
uu
< >
ZlfJ
o~
<
z
e
e
e
.. .
"I~
,l\" .,
... .. .
~ "40.1~
O.S 0 Q ;:::
" ~ (]) (]) 0 tI) (]) ~ c::i
(]) ~ (]) ~......-I 0 .4-J ::1 ~ ~ fI.)".t:l
E ~ 0 ~ ~ j'r-O ] 1 0 '5 ~ :1
o ~ ~ Q) (]) :> ~ (]) (]) q ~ ~ "~
~ C\l po ~ l>-. ~ ~ -..d tI) c::i fI.)
~ 5 tI) (]) (]) ~ '-" r-O ~ .~ ~ ~ ;:::..
~ ~ gf'"d ~. u e-- .g .S F"~ :::s c::i ~
(]) 0 'P bJ:) (]) E ~..r:l (])!.;;;"40.1 ':.,) ~
~ B 5'~ ~ 0 ~ ~ g ~~ ~ ~ ~
~. p.., po ::1 rj t:1 8 ~'p ~ ~..Q t:l ~
+-'-l] (]) 0 (]) 0 0-4......-1 ::1 ~~ "t:s ~ ~
~. ~ ..!:l ...0 ~ (]) bJ:) . '""d ~ t::l cu t.~
"" ~".....d fl (]) ~..... ~
q '+=4 ..e-- 0 bJ:), bJ:) ~ 'c' t) :"40.1 :::s c::i
(]) ~'p 0 . ~ N ~ ~ gf~ fI.)"~
~~~] ~ S ~ ~~~~"gc~~.
U 8~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~O~.4-J~ ':.,)1o.i
o 0 0
. -'.,.:I..'.;:~ :':.'!i,\ .., .
, ~,' ."'f,I'" to:!-;... ' ;',' " " I'. . .
'. ';, ,~;;;',:~:~;?fr;:. " ' '
. 'I
: .' ,-, .r"
~ ..,~ :: ~
.' """r
~
U
~
r
.
?
.
00
Uu
~~
cnU
~
~
~
; -:
e
e
~ ~ COd
P ~.o. '" ~~
bO . : .~ ~O B ~
~'~ ~ i1 ~g ~ 'p ~ e 0
~ bO ..,,, A .~. .B S '0 .g
~ :%.~ '0 -B ~ BU.. 'S ~ ~ .%
v ,;; - 'i1 '0 ~ ';:\ --a g ';;0 B 'g ~
l:l . Ii, Sf ~ " ? "0) O.p t:\ ... -0 0
bO- ~ ~ O.~ 0 '" .o~ ~ U
.% ~ ~ .i ~ ~ ~.\ ~ ~! ~ ~..
O~O aU ."'"'p,..".....l:l~"
~ Wfo .~.s ~ '0 g % -B ~ 'S <g.~
"'" .u '" 1!. 0 " 0 U U 'a " \;'''' U
~ p a ~E 0. %"' '" ~ .s:: '{;." 'a ~
~.-o 0 9, u '" "' '-' .... '" d "
.;5 ~..tl ~ ~ p... \:: B.~ ~. p...1::"'-o
CI CI CI
. .. .., """'''~'~''\
.' . .. ." . -r" ,iP;;'''''' ",(".\1:;'
. .. .,....' 'I. ..."'.,,...... .,f.o"
. . - ' ,_.' ,. " _' ..,.'''' ,..c...,'.... ..,'.~
,. . ..' ".... ...." .l:"'.:;.~.~.., ...\...
" .;.',' :".:'. "_:,,I.~ .,~,: ._.; '.1,
.' _.... .- ...-:" < .'..~:.:.....:... :!i;.
,
."
~
e
r.f)
B3
<
u
r.f)
o
~
<
~
~
-~
~
o
e
..
.,
. ,~
" ;.
r'l
"
, ."
i."
",
~ :;.
.;t ~ ~
~l ~ ~ '1
Q u .....-1
.' ~ .~ ~
,..c <:13 0
o B +.J
rJ) ~ :E
'p B
~ i ~
~ QJ 0
..- ~ u
rn S S
.s 0 0
~ Jj ~
~ ~ OJ:)
:s .E .~
~ bJJ 0
p .~ 6
~ ~ g
~ ~.O
u Cl Cl
en
~
Q)
S
Q)
'6
tT
Q)
~
Q)
U
<:13
~
~
Q)
~
o
OJ:)
.S
en
o
E
H
Cl
en
~
o
':0
u
Q)
g
o
u
Q)
u
'E
Q)
en
~
~
~
~
rJ) ~
~
~ ~
t-t '0
~ ~
:9 ~
~ ~
o
~ Cl
en
""d
~
:a
en
~
~
o
~
6
~
~
""d
o
o
~
o
'P
.....-1
:E
o
~
~
Cl
'.. ,. . ':". 'j. ,,;:, ,f,,:.t. ';~.,:,
. " , ' ' , -,' . ' 'I"".~' ...\.' -,.j"'",~"
. ',' '.. '. ..' > , ~, ~.. ...
, '.',"." .',". ,',,',' i."I.;....'.' ..'~!:.gI,.\;. ~ ~~'!I
, .' :. ,.'" ....... :.,. ..)1.:. ..r:t:'{'. ....:ot"'li.::lt\. . Z j:"
.....~..._ . '" ......1." .)....:\.:..:.,~...:.:~~\~~.::. 'I :!i'I.t'\;
. .. .... _ ,. . ,',._, ..,,_ .. .,,._....' K4I...fu'Jo.l
"t ,.', .....~:.. "l;'.r1f ~.. ~'.'1,rr""'~f,,;\;!l;li._...,'t.!t""~!:
. ," . . ,,::~' I' \" ",.';:, ""'\.'.";;.;:':.J'1'~:~:"'l~"-; ....\
~
o
en
en
H
~
o
~
~
~
o
~
o
~
'H
~
'"d
~ .~
': .~ 8 ~{j
"; c..s 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on
.' , ~ ~ ~ 't.8.'> ~
>- O""'p. I ..n r-4
.,., ~ 11i +oJ"'" ~
~"~ ' b e- ~ ~ ';:l g B g.
.' ~ ..9 ~ .8 e--' en ~ tT ttj i1
~ . v ~ en 0 Q) d Q) c:;$.~
sa 0 c..s '"d +oJ P-o ~. , ~ +oJ ~
. en 0 rn ~ rn +--1 en rn Q)
.~ U c..s -0 \4 0 .~ e 00 '"d
~ t:>-. rn. ~ ~ 0) R u .,....j 0
8 l:) 0) q...... o:l ~ ..tj 0) t) U
O ~ ~ 0 0 ~ '"d --' .~ 0 bJ:)
U :< ~ ~ Q) U .'P"'\ ro :;j 0
Q) p.. E ~ g t4 U '"d ocr.c
bJ:) ~ &.~ ~ 0 0 g goo
~ ...'" ~ .,....j +oJ 0 ...'" U .....,
.0 . 0.8 p.. U ~ u a 0 t"'l
~ ~.~ ~o ~ .~] ~ s .,....j -~
--' ~ rn d ~ U~. u~ .g d '"P
~'"Cl ~ '8;B \ q I ~ 8 B
\. 8 \C 0 ~ p.. en
\C en d <:> \C 0 0 0
<:> ;00 8 '"0 Q) <:> a g 8 '0) .9
~ .8 bJ:) 5 ,8 N .6 N ~ ~. ~
~ t; .~ 8 ~ ~ .8 ~ '"d '"0 ~
a) Q) E 8 0) Q) c..s N 5 e--~
~&~8> ~~~~.8~
=~~'~~ =8 Q)rnO
C] C] C]
. .. ,.' ," ," ",,1,', :..'..l<~,;;~l1't;"';'.,';~-" .,;,
", , t....:~t.,.,..._-II"':...;l.'~~-=...:l.,.-I.'1~'._..'!:il tlj.h.~ t\
. ..... .' "..,;' '..J~ ~ .'II".~ ."
".' '",',::' .......: .,...~.. !...\:"~",.,,!.\.!~;~'t"IO~~lt":t:~.~~,,,.....~:;!
.' _ . .t' _ '. '~"'..' .!:-~\ -! ~~V':'.: -:. .......'J.,.."i.~ :...:.~'J.~if.'f.~~'t!:~~~"~.~,..- 'n
~.:.v" .. -t~::'. ....~:~ L.'1.... . .,.It....!~~1...~~~'t.t.rfla''F~W~
'~..: : ,-., :::: ~ :.... ",:_ i, -:...~: ":'~~. i::;! ~,!~"~ t\:;-:,,{l ;,.,t.;
e
e
4
e
e~lfJ
Q~
~~
H H
~~
lfJCI
~~
e
4-1
,..q 4-1
o ~ ,..q
~ o~ .
~ lJ .s .~
go ~ E ~
~E~UJ
~ . ~r-. .........
It")~'''''''' -........
NUJ'eJ"fj
............ ('(") bJJ]
~............ ~ ~
oq ~ ~
o 0,..,( .....
4-1 ~ ~
00 0 .
4-1 1"H
N 00
I ('(") N
4-1 I ~
J2 4-1 I
~ J2 ~ I
o ~ u ~
rn ~ 0 ~ U
~ ..... N,.c ~
B ";..( t ...... ~ ti ..c
fI) ~:-g g ~ ~ ti
"'d '""d ~ ~ ~ ~ fI)
.~ ~ ~ I-'-l 0 CU
R~O~N'~~
D D
. _ . :.:_:).>,:,: :.:,~;;.~_.. ',' ;. :.:;..!~<_,~:.'- ..\!'.. ''-''01<' "'."
. .' ..,...... '.' ._.l.'J" ." '.' .t'",. ./:",t.!,' i"/'!\"'<!'I
' ....~.. .....~:; (:r:: ,~",":-.:"I;";"~;::"i.,.;~,t'!'Ijl'il.ti.'<
. t ',', ... . .., ,,,-:','",: ,:,....: ",,'..I..):~..,:~.:....~.'IOfb=-
...\....\.,...t...t.tl"",'s'"l..-,~
. . ,\ ., ': I": .~~ .L~~.:,:I~.:.~.:~ :r;-e~t~t.1:1
~ . ...~..:.:I..:~\.:
. .
( ,
,
<. /.
, .
, :
"\
,~ :.
..! .
~
OJ
~
Lf)
.
r--
('(')
OJ
~
~
~
~
-B
rn
~
~
q
o
'"'d
4-1
o
.....-4
~
o
~
o
~
rn
~
~
bJJ
o @ '00'
~ rn
.8 ~
. u
t.t ~
~ ~
~~
.
~-B
o o~
I OJ
~ ~
U ~
~ ~
,.c bJJ
~
CU B
CI:J
~ rn
~ a'J
~ ~
D
~ . '~ ~ ~ e
-. .
" .f
., .9 B
" B
Z . ~ .9
~ .1. en . en
0 .' I.~ "\:J t~ ~ .-0'
. I..'
~ J ~
l' .... .~ tfl c<l i
~ '. ~
.''';' . e
B . ,j. r- ~
~. "\\
'q~
~ ~ ~' c<l
:f...\
%. ~ .g
r:f) tU . -
. ~
5 _tU -~ U en
, 'Ij. .S en tU
~ ~ tU ~
0 B ::g u
U ~ 'en
U 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.9 B 0 ~
B u .-B .~
0 en
.-0 . .;...! e
0 ~ tU O' ~ ~ ~ (l) $
~~ c(') en
~ .~ .~ ~
Z "'d :gen"'d
~ ~t j 5 Q) B
3 ~ a .~
o~ ~ 0 ~
B ~ en
~ en ...-1
~ z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\ \ 5 a ~
r:f) ~ \ tU tb
Z @ ~ a ~ t'l 0 ~ a $ ~
0 ~ %0 ~ t ~ %~en
0 0 0
~ .p 'Qj.-B .~ ~ .~ '"O~g
~. ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ %-.--'B
~
~ 0 0 0 0
"'d u ~
.0 0 0 0
. . .'. .' ." ., .... .... ......... ,~".," l
' . ..... .' .. '. ,.," ,..."....., <:, ,;.\1. .,. . - "".~'
, . ..;,.,.' .. ;..... r' ,,-;.t.--t" ...;,;..~,l;,~",!,:)"",:-~~"r~
. ....... ..' ,., ..... ,.' ':-f""''t..~,' .
. '. ,;.", ...:. .,._,' .._,~" .'~",ct'."" ..... ,,'.;ro..;....
.,.. '._ ..,....... ;:: ._.~._. ;_.~...I'~'l_,,:.,f:i'/:;...,<.,.;',.;,.:/,.-N:
. " .." '.. ...,~ ' ' \ ;,'. ......,. . t(:'\'::. ....
. . ".' . . . . .'.' ': __'.'~.: ',':.-f,..(
. . '.:.," -;:,~~_..~ ':'''::''-', '.\' ,,<::"'-' . " .'" "., .
. ~', .....,~.: .-,;(. ,>:: !:~;f{~:~';~'i~~:>l:~;,'rf..1.{6~t~:}-''::'''1-,~..,-:''J~\
,.' , ,., .".,-" _~. , .. ......f,....., "".~'
. . ":', , '. ,.,. ".'.t- :,. ,,": .:.'.,,~f 'C' ,,,,,..-.,,- '11J,.}...
. ," p' ,.' '" _ ,. , ,_. .":0<" ,-
,. ' _ , ", .-..... ," ," ",';' ",' .,,;"" ,\,.
,;,' .-.". ',':"'~." :"'.",: ..:;.;-~;:-~\{.'"-:".-:-\
OJ
',I -t
~ '."
" ,
~:.,~'
, ,
, '.
. .
:'1 t..
:.. 'I
B
~O
~z
OH
~~
cnz
~~
Cj~
ZO
HH
~~
. '.
e
.' .'
} '~.
'l, _7:
.e
e
'.. '._"'''':'':"'~'':;'?;'l'I~
,'. I''',' ~"':"'"i<'J'~'''~'.i~i1~~~t.~f..
,,' "''; -:.', ".... -"'. ~., .,' ."... ~"',,,,-r, .-;. ,~......
. '.' , ";";"",,..:.; ""~{:".'("f~', ,:/;,",'~".,..~m'l!j'~"J.\~fi;
;-,.~ " "';',~;.;;,.: :,:.,<.~,. >.~~!. ';"~:':"':":''''{'~~j':':'"
. , " I.. It".. ..'....". t.. ... '\. "- '..z(1..l'I."..$'
. '" '-" ",,' ...'. - "-"- '. ...., ." '. .... ..', ....... ,
. .,'iV <{";"~'>:'>":~'::'.~;r:..,;\ ': _!":". .~.;. _"'. .
e
;,
..
: ~
J; SI,
O~.
II '
.~ I
!-.in
r:-";l
Q!
"6
~Z
O~
~Z
~~
CJt)
~~
~O
e
"
"
~<'-'~
' . ...'..:,~tk~fj~
.t, '. ~ ....J.ii(l~ t
. \...."".g.;, ,,&"'9'~""7-. '1.
,,\ "I ~I '~r,~~...;,~,
..,........ll,: ~.....l,. ...'-"~.
'. .,:.... :', '.' ~ ~(...~\~ \ ~ "\
. -',~ - ..~''(';..~.~.:::;~-~~.<!';:~,1\.::~'(.
' ,.~ '-'.~ '", . . J~.~./~; .~l<...\~."'I\~..I'K.... ~
. '. " ", . 'I! ."?. . ....,", . V l'f- ~.
. ..~~~>:\~.\\; ::;,t?::! ':::;~" ~':;','. .
"
" "
1;' ~i
v III
l~ .'i
:i~
',' ~
. "
O:~~
.~j~l
8
~o
~~
~.~
cnZ
%,~
0~
~H
ti40
e
e
,
-oJ",l1:"
- ~ . '.. :\~-.t?I>!I:'~;~"~~~
. v"'':, " .rt lt~~..:.-.:~ !t,.. ;..,. r'~~
. ,'.,' j'. '\..~.':,.. '. II "Ji ..... ./'. 't_ ~"
.., ,.:. ".-... ..,'-' ""'-~'~ ',.~ -,
. .. . ,l"':l'~'\'~?;~AiqJ"\Jt:''':.h.:\~:~ f.~t'
" .- " ...., "~',., '.y;,.. '. ,'. .". ..-. ". >,,-
' . , ;',', .. i',-",\:~. ;(~'!f<.>:l", J~ ':~','l..i',;) .. _' _.
'~,:,'>:;:\;\<;}:{jJ):)~<1 i"~:~''''"""
e
--; t
~t
, -
\i
, \1
~~:~~':
( ',.
., ,
1i '.
.', ~.
, ,-
~. ~l
o
~
6
~o
~~
~z
~~
~~
~~
~,~
~~
"'"l
~''''~i::>.,.f:
,':00 . l ...
.., ~\....\ . '.
' ~ ."~.::.'<." -,~ x \
. . J. II' I', 'f'''''':'' '.: l;:
. .,'y..- ";\~..~flt;:.. ~.(lCl)?~. ~ \o>~~:.~Si
. '. j, t.. t. t.t'\ _:. . .
" -',' "'<'~''''-. ,..\':"'-)" "~~l.'~ :-\'i{-.! .....
. ~': ~" : v,..: "I ".ftt. .; .Y'f..:o;;~~;t-":Ir ~i,\.. .>:~ ,,;.... ..
' . .- ')'~.(~>."'J'~':':..v.'J!""':"""f",~,' ,t .......
:~:.>; j~::.$~'.;7.r~\~;~', 'o: .:' " -"
",
e
"
~'
t ~.
0..1
~
B
~o
~z
OH
~~
ifJZ
~~
(j~
ZO
HH
.~ Q
~~
e
.)
e
e
'. " "":-.. -f.' -r.., :"-"':"'~"~'."~I
.. .... .' . V....~. "., '\',,,, ~ .~.,. ~ 'r::~-""""'''''\L..~..~
. \",' ... .~ '\", .~'\-:;''''l' ;'''t . $\'..: i;'~I",jl'l(\:-fi!~~~~+-'~"lII~~~'lJ.l"I'-::i~
. ':', '.:;r.; ';:_~.'it~~,,-,...:" f 7',:,,"~,1 ,!'~. ..Jl~.~' ~~.i.";t:~.l. i".1,~~;.J': '.,~'.
- " f......,.~ 'Ilo_~J;\"('r', r.t....~t'f..~. ;.~.l'!~, 1<l.IO~~ .1:fo"t...,l'
." ". ,.~.;.:: ','-:.~". .t,:"",'t~_~J ;.':d~.:'.~':~.rt.,.t..;; ~.f!"~t'...o;~.~""':.~ . ~'f(
. ...... . - 1..- ~l"',;, Ii} ',1.:-" .. "" . I. "'- ~ '1':). .;;..,. '" _, .t..1, ~
- . _, }':l~-.. ," .",1 '~,....\... \:. ";.~~.' ~,;:.; ~:~ : t' .;.:....' ':"" -:":., -.. ;.;~: ~:J..:.~ ':.: ~i'~,~~'_;'.
r.f) -.
..
~ .,
'.:
to'
.'
~ . ,
... :
. .,
~t -::
, .'
.'
U. \ f
i <\I
~... \
@ ,
b
e ~
~
0
~
~
e
..
. .
~
f"Tj
Cl) ~
~rd
~~
tf) ~
Cl) 0
~~
~~
.p Cl)
.;...\ \?
u ~
~"'d
~
~
o
U
....0
.~. ~ ,
~ <a3
Cl) ~
~
0
* ~ ~
~
.~
~ ~ .g .
0 g'
~ ~
0
u ~
0 0 0
*. ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.a ~ ~
I $, ~
~ ~
) ~ 0
~ e t
~ ~
Z
b. if; if;
0 0 0
%
o
~
~~
~
~
a
o
U
,~.
.~ ?
S q,
o~
'-\.-4 \-\
Cl) ~
~ ~
W
.~
8
W
'"'a
en
.\
o
CM
~
g
~
W
,~
'U ~
OU B
w'
o
~ .~
~~
*
.' : ....: " . .,'.:,' ,::''.'d.;,:..\\:.y,.~;,.:~i\\
.,.' ..' \,..,,...., . ../\ 4}' ....1.,..:;. ..
. .... _.' '" . _' .... ._,' l' .
. .' ~., ~ " .....\....:1,.....w ...:.~ ,:. :'-~' ',-
. . ::'. ::''-: '";>'::{':;'-:'::}'~';\,~''}5r:.\.~'t:;--f'''
.~: ~
,~~ Q)
,do a
. .
-. "
J.
. ~ Q)
>" 3
'; .
:,~
.' ~\,;
, .
i t
'::Ii
~~
l~ ~
~
<G
~
~
en
~
o
~
u
.Q)
~
en
en
Q)
U
<
~.
'0
en
~-=.L :
O -,'
_ , .-i- - '.'. ~.
,~~.~ - .-
. . ,~~~
toG
.~ 0.0
.g .~.~
~I U 0
~ 0 a 0
~ -B ~ 0
:< ~ g:'%
~ ? .~ .~
,0 g 0.0
.9 '0 .g .
~ ~,,~ ~
~ o.~ ~
<g~~
~z8~
o
..,
,"
~ ~i1!;
, '(."ll
r. ~IJlJ
~ ~'i';>
~ i'=1
o
o
o
Z
~
o
en
<<S
a
o "'d
J:1 ~ 0 ~
"'d~a~
o u ~ ~
~ .~ s 0
O. d r.n Z
d 0 ....-1 ~
o 0 0 (:d
\-l ...?l
~ d bD..g
bD'~ q toG
g~~ bb
o ~ en 0
o ~ 0 \;:>-.
bb E 0
..g~u~
lOP. "
o tj N
('()Zff).~
.
.~
~
~
e-
B
en
I
~
U
~ ~
~4-l
.:e~
o
en
~
o
~
~
o
.
.~
o
('()
. .
.
~
~
J:4
~
.:e
., 0
e- en
B ~
~ ~
o
tj
~
u
~
:3
o
....-1
~
o
".:' " ",'"::,,,~',:i._,;;......-~::;t"':\..:~'~/l~'
, " ,_,' j'.' .. .-."~ '. ,':,". .'.__.>."" .'_' "",'~':.l ~>:\,!,:",t.:.'
,'.. ,.s. _'.~' ..... ,- pj ..::J..~__,\~..',f"~".lO"''i'.i.[<'
. '" _" .. .",' .";' 4'~_'" ;,. ': -C,"' ,,' ,.,,,. .. 4''''''
_. ..' - ,. ...~_.. ~,... .. "0'..' "
, _ > .;.' _ "_~'i-.~';"':':;' ,:),,;,,-"!'l':"',"" ,,:,,',.""!:
,., ., < ... ....' d.H' .... ..,_. ..' ',' - "J
.' . ':. . , ",-:' :......:.~\.. ..~~.,., - .,. ",,:.:
e
e
.B
\f)
.14
u
toG
.-B
o
en
..g
...-1
en
o
e
e
~
u
~
.~
z
o
~
o
'z
H
~
Z
~
~
~
o
~
H
U
e
,~
.~
:; .n
.~!:~ 0 <It
.': ~ ] ~ II B
,-.r' .e.!~'&
"1.. u-..._
-;~ ~i~:2
: ~ I,~ i ~
,:,.) Q i .8 ]
~ :t
,I !l
" ,
I ~i
li'l;
~ ~.
u ~ 1-
~ ~ 'li J1 I
. ~ !C ll" .. go
= IS a J:i "0 C)'iI
..("2~1.g55
..!l J! ~ rl a .u '"
'" ='ll.. !lEu
!!Be~-B:;;
;s
f. . .
P-l
. . .~ ~ 4-1
0 U
'.0 0
~ ............ '~ a
0 ~ .~ ~
.
. 0 . '"'tJ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 ~ Lt') .
~ <lJ <lJ 0 ~
t:l . . Lt') ~ ~ 0
<lJ Lt') ~ ~
< 0 t:l . . ('(") om CI) . . Lt')
I ~
Z 0 <lJ N . . . ,
~ . . u ~ ~
N .
0 . , ~ .. <lJ 4-1 ~ U
0 <lJ <lJ Pol 0 -B ~ ~
~ t:l ~ ~ ~ -B -B
0 ~ CI) <lJ
0 ....:l ~ <lJ <lJ C/) <lJ <lJ
~ N ::; U ...s:: B ~- .0 ~ C/) C/)
, ~ CI) t:l ~ <lJ
< ~ t:l 0
8 j <lJ "E ,.........j <lJ '"'tJ
, ~ 0 0 ~ ,~
~ C/) C/) ('(") u l> ~ C/)
0 0 0 0 0 0
" ',' ", ,," "...."""... "'" ' ."" , I
I "l'i: "to i"~: :.:~..~:.'t.l~lr. ":~~i 'V..;..!.:~'~' I ~ ~!o.'~ . -J'~'II~.'l~:r .':-~:
. l"'. " .. \ --;; '1,) ",. '-:.... ""t""1f,.. . ,". .... 't._ .' ~ I
... ':. .. . "" ':"-"i:I"\~-\4"II':"_' ;r,~:~ ~~~. r ~.... . 3 ,t. '.' .
'; . : :.' .::..::.~:.r::~,'~N;'':s,:,:~~!~/~~'~':~::\1;.;:/~:'~:/ y/.: ,I?
.. "t. . '~"'" ':'.' ........:.t,:..:~.._"...~......~;;...:.:_l~:tlo-:I'..;.,,',:
,~ '. '.' .....J...,.L....\'........ ~.!.~I.~..t........;,.:I,I.i......:~..-.;;~J..J.~..,.':.
. :J.:' . :.' ..: ~'.. .; ~1~::;";"7.:" ;,. li...:.~'.~~.i..~;~... '.;&'l.~~ ~:~:\~'l;o'" .:'.:'..:
'~~ .' .,...lr...'..-t.tt'j.,..,...'....1. .~. ~'''~''1:t-:''''1'",''~I'~ .~.
'.: : "':i:.:::>":":;'; ,-..: :,i:, .':'''',:".\,{:.,}'.,:'>.:
.
!
.,
, ..
", :-
.:J:
. ":f-,
. '
,"
. "
,.
. '~"..
.).. '~i
" '>
:" il
,', t~
. .
~. ~
,
e
if)
'tj
~
g
~
~
e
rod
o
O.
~
o
~
.~
<U
0: ..
en~
~ ~ if)
:d .W ~
~.9 ~
~ en f"'I
o 0 ~
~ a ~
:d'~ ~
o 0
~ a (/;:
a rg !)
~ ~ ~
~a~
o B 0
.g
~
~
~
~ 0
o 0
o .~
~ ~
~. .~
B ~
if)
~ ~
0) ~
g: V>
P ~
o 0
~
~
.~
~
~
~
if)
~
o
e
~
.-~
t
p
tB
$
o
.;. ...._ :.;' .' ...... :," >., >::.:;.!..:~..;~.{i>:.~;~:'\
: ' .. '"''''1''-''''''''' ....".:l.,..,..,....-..~. .~l.
.,,' ,. . ..',: -~',. r:' . ...; -.', ...".,:.,..! ~ ..;,...... ,'.' ..
.' . <. ..... .~l" .._,._"......,_."'.-....\..". .._..,'4't
:.; :. :: .~.:':.: : t;:-:; :.: ..::.~;:;~'::'~~v:;t..))::.:;<:.>.:.
----
~
~
~8
~~
~<
~~
ifJ~
~.~
~o
~o
o~
'.'
:~
",
. ';.
,,..
, '1
.~
:.. :t
:\\
\ t
'l:
:\
-,-
...
..
e
.~
OJ:)
a ~. on
~ ~~.%
o .D ~ 0
~ p ."
.B U') u \.U
~ ~BO
~~ 0 U')~
P:~ ~ a 0
.'ct ~ ~ 0 rn .
~$ '~~'5 ~
U') ~ ~ ~. e 0
~ O'.~ ~ 0 cO
oU')~..- ~ \...l.
a ~ 5 ~.~ 0
o ~ b U') .tt ~
~.~ ~ B ~ ~
o 0
e
."'"
r-~----::=-~-
\ \ . \ .
-~t-: \ \ -~:1 \
~ \ J ~ . ~
. \--_"'1<': \
L..-.......... ..-~
\\ \-
~-~ \
\! \
u:i.
g
~
~1
~'$
l~
'0 %
-Bo~
U') \...l. U')
o ~o
. t1 t'i
(<!~~
? .~.9-
o
1
.b~
o ~
~ 0
~ .~
U') U')
~~
o .~
~~
~.;j
~~
o
. '.' .".' ..,:,,:.,_~,,;"'~ :;;.._;,_~;:;:\,i\~'<~'
".' 'f" ~,(...,.J.l"," .~..\)t~..""l.~.!-It",-';l .\3'~
" " ' . 7~ .' ," '- ..
_ .' ,... "...,,~.-l~''''\'-~''' ","',,'\~"""'-
I, . . . ,\' ", _ ,', ". , _, _ ..... ,." ..',:,,~ . . .' ~ rl
. ' ,,'i:' _ _ ,..~...,. . .,...1.,,:'" ...\t":J !.\. .,\"" t"\~"'~-;t. ~.."'
. .. ~ . I .f'... ..'""" . ",'?i...... ~ .. . r. . .; ,- ..
, .:" . . .:-". ._.-.'.'~\j'."'" -~'>-" '." .\,.,~"" ~".<.>
. ". '\ ..:.: ' _.;;, ':i. -. <:'\ .;..... :.l:.1~' ".,{",. :-:.'~\:(\:~,~". ".-:.
. .
.'
It
. ;j
. .
r .t
'. ):
'i 1\
-~ 1.
" :.
e
..............
Q
u
<0
ffi~
c/)~
~<r::
~~
~.o
~O
~H
~~
e
.-
.
.
i
. ~'R
.'
.)
~
0-4
frJJ
~ ~
::i A"
'ofjO +4.'"
., . (U:
.en -'
~~. .~~
;iI..j .0....
'.E." ~::,:~
'0 .,~,
~. ".'
~ .v
. .'
" ' . '~~',:l':' '.' ~'::. . I',' I
. fl'. i:' <. ~ ''I' ,~. r . ,.J '.! .' "l . '. . . I' .
. . . \'. .~.' 't; .11..:, :.: ~.,. :. ,........, I . -I' ',' "I" .:,.:
. . _ . .'._." ..,_.".,'" ...(...~!l>--:.. .:iJ..y., . J,,'Q.~""
~, ,I, ,..<."}."....,l"~,,..;.i..'" }....-\ 1,"" ..\,....
~. l--......'. ~J':"" ,")..' . '..'
, ."..' " ,.....>.".o~>..v"I'~...i:...... '.. ~...@.
.' . ~ '.' ":. . ...."....; ~~~.,..~.~.',.,'".: .~; .;,,:~\,"\:i...;
..' . ....~.. ,.~' .to...,)# pH' .~..;.. "i" ~f." ~" 1'~ ,~ ..
. ~., .(l..."'t...:-:-~'.3\\.h" '....'n:-.-:
. .' . ~ ~-, i" .
,
~ k
;I.~
t~
."lY;
" 1:
~6
:~!
Z r
1'.
'l~
i: ~
o hf
H
~
U
H
~
-<
~
o
-<
v
'-<
~
e
....
oS =
0
oS Q
.~ =
0 .~ 0
u 'p 'p
= ~ u ~
~= ~]
CJ
~~ ~l
;.a ~ u
:g~
:g"g
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
=~
~ o~ e
I ~ 0
40l
~
I
-..-'.
I" '~
./
S'
La
L.__. -~
,oa,
I
~
,
I
. J
'r
....-:. ". ..... ,,'~ /: 'd~~:";:~~~~'~~':;t;;;~{~';"~~f.~~~JI
. -':.",. ' :'" . '1-,':."'.11.'-'" ~..:l'r. !r~:'40, ''.J~' .~_ ~ .
-- ... .,......' '1.1', r'~ ," , ..... .' ,r, . ~.." r'o. .
'. .. I~' . ~. "\ . ...."". 1>."'; '\ Y~:"ll .~....... 4,.' . 't";: ..;r;.....I.1
.':". ,'. ,:, ..~t..~. .~l.~~,.......l f~.;,>>.,.:....~....r_ :1
,", " I. . ~... - '. , ~ ~1 ...... ~..~f...1 ,"',. "~I. ~..\r,,_,
.' .: .'!1.'~. . ~ :.:.. ''', ..l~"":~ '..= ',_. '. . '~,,"'.. ....~: .
.
: ~
'~J, ~
..~
e
e
,
"
,..
'. .
. "
. ,
,.
"
..
~:
:. t
d:
. -,
. ~
~ : ~ ~
Z
.e :.0
~ ~ 'p
~
o~ 2
~
0 . u
e ~"'"d
~ .~ 8
E.-E
~ 0
~...o
"'"d...cl
Q.~ Q.)
o~ og .~
~Q
~..@ 0
~ 0 ~
"'"d E t.8 .
~ 0 Q.)'
H C/) U)~.-B
e
~
t:l
o
~
o
~
rn 4-l
~ 0
U 0
Q.) ~
"'"d bJJ
rn E rn "'"d d
Q.) 0 Q.) C . .;:j
E 0 u ~ ~
o ~t:l rn S
,..q rn .-B ~.~ U
~ ~.~ ~ ~
5 i1...o ~ 0 ...0
Q.) .~ t:l ~ u ~
Q.) .~ bJJ ~ u
.e ,..q rn t:l ...0' l>-. Q.) rn
Q.) "'"d ~. P ~ t:e "'"d
...0 ~ ~ rn e-- 0 Q.) ~
rn ~ b..O'M 0 ... ~
t> i><i ~ rn ...
b bJ) ~ Q.) rn ~ t:l Q.)
"'"d ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~~
.@ ~ '~'O ~"'"d ~ ~
~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u 0
'~:"~ ~ ~ .gf ~ Q.) 8
:8 :..q 4-l 0 P Q.) 'p
~ U 0 "'"d U ~ ~
CB ~ ~.:3 .~ '""d ~
o~~~o~ OJ
DDD.D D.
. .". -. ;:, . '. ..... . ',' ,";.'.........:-,.,. 1'..:~~.,: "~"::'I
i' .... I 'o,,",,~. .'....t.r~,',..~....~lfl,.:.~.J...,',.:.~:(
. I" :J. '1..1.~1":" .~. ;..~:.)..l~ ~'1':r..;:t);ll~'t!}.'
'. . - :"-." .. .~.:~:""~ ".,! ~,~....:...... '....J i-i-;~~~,.tit~~~-'~'~l.=rt ~l/.~""~~,:
. ~ ~. . -,,. . r..... ,,-''''' II\~' .,.,. ....., ..
I '. ~. "."'~ .~...'i.tL....."I.-1"":.~""~{,,,, '':''I.'\:i'"l'''\''''1~'~'''''''::'''''.:I,~:J...s~'!.~W~o;''.
~- ,:'~"'-,')"...:' '~I'.:;'l,l;-.I'.'I..',~: Illi.:I;....:;\';~~..~~ :-l'f-:'';~.~:~'~
z
o
H
C/)
~
H
U
Z
o
u
Obb
~ "~
ill JJ. CrJ
".0 a.;
~""O
~bJJ
S "9
: uO ~
. 0
""0::::1
ot..8
o
...q a.;
~ rfl rod
1""\ "a.;
,..I..! ..j...J ~
~I'\ Q a.;
\.J.Na.;""O
"~ S "--I
a.; CrJ
Q ~ Q
CrJ 0 0
CrJ -.! U
a.; ~ lU
~lU...o
""d""dQ
~ !>-.. ~
o ~- u
..j...J 0 CrJ
~ ..j...J ""0
lU CrJ ~
""d ~ ~
~~""d
o ~ ,0
Q 0 ~
H ~ CrJ
. .',. . .' i, ~~., 1. r,. .;....r~. /1,1 '" ,_
'" ~ " t~ .',; I '.'1~~:'l.~~t..'J'sto .'":!:'lil".v~~~
: ;': I ~\~t.:'>.. ...;;.*:.)....l/~"'.!... :ftriJliJ~~~.' ..
' . I, .' I ..' l' .. '..~-I\1.I'.......~'\lI. fiJ. I
>, ,_.. '",' '..!,,(d f. }~'" ';;j .F....,'~~.:;.. I .'
: ':. ,":, '::":;'<iJ:.':'~~'!i'~~.i:".;;;"'~r .
, \'., ;". if'-.. :"'" . -'.w-~Gt:.J;!;..:
' . ...... .:......}.. ......~I.~~. (:.,,( '".d,__\.
., . -,' .-.....-" .Ii{\\1' ,-I ,.. ,. "
~
~
o
'.0
~
~
~
CrJ ~
t1 ~
~ +-l
~ g
J5 ~
~ ~
o 0
..j...J ..j...J
en r./)
~ ~
lU a.;
~ ~
~~
rJ CJ
CrJ
..j...J
Q
a.;
S
lU
'S g ~
cr"p 0
a.; ~ ".0
~ ~. ~
CrJ U "g..j...J
Qj "S
~ ~ ~
<G lU ..j...J
~ ""0 i1
~ ~"-l
"0 ~ a.;
en ~ ~
rJ rJ rJ
I
CrJ
""d
~
""d
d
5
r:n
..j...J
Q
lU
S
~
o
-.!
~
a.;
Q
EB'
~
rJ
e
e
e
~
o
2
)
Z
e
e
e
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RED Zones. Planning District I - "Old Town"
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 13. 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE
SEPTEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION
:
study S..,ion.PC S1JffRcport
5
e
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
CItl of SIIIllIeh
SEP - 5 2006
Deve'opmentSvcs.
Dear Council:
I .
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."
e
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 rQ\I!Is.Qf.V!~se.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 takf!3s up in part 3 stories,
practically using up th'e whole land space such !IS 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 we recommend that ALL houses I!lhould be limited to 2 stories.
,',",". 'i.1
I' ;":",
Sincerely,
't!!~jJ ~~~I1<"~~
. C!lr~l ~i!~e-~JEtrk .'
\ I
~. I-
~ I. ~. . ~
:" .... :.... ".
~, I
e
" . .L. ":" .:7 J '"
. p" ":l"I~I.~ :::;-;.,;..,'. ,."', J :,1 I,;' .' :..': ~ .. '. f"
Dear Mr. Antos,
e
My bedroom window gets no wind. I must run a
fan all s~er to keep cool. That was never the
situation ~hen 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.
C\\Jot&ll\leacb
SEP - 5 2006
oeve\OpmetltSvcs.
e
e
~. t
~1 ~
. \ ~ ., ~
(
.~ ...
...
~~ i
~~"\~ "
-
~.
I"'l'
If
'6 fu
8m
.!
~
10
0)
<(
~t'lO
W% $ .sG
4. t'l QI
~ ~ Q)
a a:l ~ .-
_ 0 cQ
., -
Ii
S-
O
-cP-
t>>
-0
. ~-
-c:-
aU
11 - -r
en 0
~c:
~"8
- - ~
- itS -.-
ft.B
cP:;;S;;
~-~
-~~ ~.
II -
50
uS:::
s=-F
~---
0==
.-
-G
4t:i
-G
-:j
.~
in
==
-.:
-.:
-.:
==
~ ~
* A-:
* ~ ~ -
i~,~i
* ~ ==
* -
* :
... ...::.
\ it;~ ~
g~~~ -;
*g 9;'~ J
0<" ~
<" ==
J\'
The City of Seal Beach City Council and Pl..nning Commission
c/o City Manager John BahoISki
211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740
We have owned our home at 1013 Electric Avenue in Seal Bellrh for over 18 years. We move to Old
Town because it had the smaI1 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 l't street.
TomQuiDn ~ ~~
1013 Electric Avenue ~
Seal Beach, CA 90740
CIty of SRI Beach
SEP - 5 20C.i
Development Svcs.
e
e
e
The City of Seal Beach City Council and Plllnn;71g Commission
c/o City Manager John Bahorski
211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740
e 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 l"t street.
Terressa Quinn 0.vLIl.C!.oI.)&l. ~
1013 Electric Avenue
Seal Beach, CA 90740
e
City of SIll BeaCb
c. ." ,52305
...
Development Svcs.
:
e
:
c---
~~
..- :;;-
. .
~
~"<...
~ .
c:::>>Q
~.~
~
~
~
-~~
-c.:i
c:::
~~
~
--""~ --
--
31=
. --
~~
~
~
CP
<ii
~
~-
~~
~
~->
g
'~
l!
.er
~
lJ')
..Q
~
~
18
.. ~.
B
i
1i-
l8
~
-
=C\i
C!
.
~~
c::::
... :=
l:::
c:::>>
c,.;II
c::
is
I -
~
c:::::.
~
- ::::s
c:::>>
.-
:Ci>
CD
,-
G)
oS
'0
:iC_
0..2.r;.
1Il 0)
.!:: 1Il .0)
... 'E .r;.
5 E E.
>- 0 S
. (,) .-
1Il 0) C
(I) C ::l
"0 .- to
8 ~ (I)
0) J!! ~
.5 ll. ,e
C Q) "0
~:Ei3
... .c 0
5ttl~
~ ... C
C (I) >
:;::l~~
~(I)r-
0.0.."0
::l (1)-
>-(/)0
;;:: ...
C C (I).
~Oi
::l '.r;.
o C ~
e ~ (I)
tOr-:2
_ - 0
.0 ~ Q) ~
cO"O.r;.
5'O.8{3
Qe5tO
~'~..(j) ~
(,)...1Il.....
"0 - '; ~ ;..m .
ta :S >- (/)
c'tl-g'O
om.....
._ ~ II) ~
CD .- C u.
CD"Oft,!>>
.- 0. '" -
EQig-(I)
6,e :Ei
B.B{ij~
0)"00)':::
C Q) .5 ~
.- "0 -0 ...
~ $"O.t
g C .r;. (I)
ll. >- !!? .!:::
....:::::..JJ. a
::l a1 - ....
~~~e
!!:
<IS
r.
~
<IS
1 \ y
v.. CD
~
::l
o
~
~
e
g
~
~
~
Q)
~
... ci
~ u
'i ~
... c
o .....
lD 0
"0. ~
l .-m
~ 'Q)'
G) C
- ...
~ 0
\;g
CD .g
.- Q.
'tU 0
oS c
'(),C
-,
<IS I
~t
C G)
~ 0.
::l 2
o Q.
::l
o
>-
o .g
1U
i ~
~
<<l tIi
Q) (I)
.Q 't:-
. 0
....
en
en N
.(1)
:e
(I)
e.o
....
...J "0
~ ~
.g g
0) <<l
c (I)
:s2 .Q
CD .2
to en
e ,(I)
10 'E
(I) (I)
g e
en
tn
:2
'0
, II)
Ole
C oQ
i ?;-
e ~
Gl tS
~~
S _
Cl)~
% 'tU
o -6
- C
~~
~ .0.
c::: II)
Q) "'CI
E aI
:a!!
c::: .~
6 ~
o ,
~5
o .in
"'CI .~
i "'CI
tI) IIJ
lli:S
a CD
.- JI'.....
.~ ~~
~'gt
o ~ _1"\
CD CD ~.
.E J:! _ C
E '0 0
.!!!. "'0 ~
0.. E'
!5'g. ~ e
~ .~ r;f' 8
~ ~". CI
- \U C
s Ii 'c
v. . C
~a1 aI
~ 1& 0:.
CIl.,s .."'CI~
.:51: 'sae
tn III !! :;< 0
-"t: s::.~J:,
~o' C1sal
:z 0.::\ 6 0 ~ ~
g :50~'1-
~ ~~ ~ ~ g
a ~. >- lis '"
:2 .rn~ 'i '5 ~ 1il 0
0..... eIllCGl.
:5- Q)\Il.l:;'5l
.... .... to ':E en \Ill
:2~~' Om III
~i 'S1Il~i~
11)- (/)0 III
'li;l'CIl- g.lIlo....1Il
_ Gl :g '" .cl- (). c;i (/)
Gl:t:o 0
~ ~.5
e
aI e
e ~
:= 0
U l-
e "'CI
-::s _
o 0
~ .
I
iii
.- ~
~ .
~ ~
i .!.
..-
0-'1
~~
.. ~
G ..
ii..
6 ~
~.2.
.e~
..
;g Do
..
0-0
%
-
III G)
o e
~o
4: ~
UI _
Gl ....
- ...
... III
lIS -
;:.0
o
IlN-r:~ --'
~~-
t/vftf!.' --j~~L:r ~
-t@;}. ~ "'" ~ ~~ ~-
~ 1')/.' . ./ _...~ <> L..c: -:;.J /-e-~..J? -
, ~~. p.W" (. 7"-~ ;;J
~ ~~ A:- ~~-
~-o/ A-.- _ . ~...-7C.
rr--~' . rY' r ~~
. /.1~'~ ·
r' >>I ..E. ". "g~ ~ ~--
Vp ~::" ~ ~oL~'
d-;~' ~ 4< 'L). . . ../..LA
/ IV"'" ~ . d: ' <;Yl..;ttm ~-.
fte.- # )...t l'i6 yo ...c.r if .. . ~ M .e-
. ~-- -r-r ~~ ~ ~+
~-r,P- ~ ,'<1 ~
~p~~~;;:;O~ ~
~~ ~. ~~...0
Y. /.~ ~.~.
~~
. tZ- ~. " "
(/ /. ~ t:f2...,
,';u /."...; ;)$' ~ (i 2> 'f l:l- r sf- /Vt e,...- fl-
e
1629 Seal Way
Seal Beach, CA 90740
August 31, 2006
City of "Beach
SEP - 5 2006
Development Svcs.
Seal Beach City Council and plAnning Commission
C/o City Manager John Bahorsld
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, GA 90740
Dear City Council Mem~ers and PJAnning Comm;"''''loners:
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 exacerbated by having a big bulky structure nearby that can block _
the ocean breezes and the sunlight. .,
It mA1cp-s 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 much larger
buildings will ~e 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 opporttinity now to take the action necessary to
preserve and protect our home town. I hope that you do take this action.
Yours very truly,
f::~~;
e
e
e
e
41/, I"~
Dear Mr. Antos,
Ifpeople 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
t?.-.71 - ,...... I I
S;...,v I I IT ~ m IV ..,.......
..
~~o~J
I L..j- s--r".
."
CltyotStllIuCh
SEP - 6 20116
Development Svcs.
.YAaootMAIL
Print - Close Window
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Lee Melody" <lmelody@leemelody.com>
Subject: 3rd Story Houses
To: MAVJKA2000@aol.com
Cl\y ot SUI B.ICh
SEP - 6 2006
DevelOpment. Sves.
e
Dear Councilman Antos,
In respODse 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.
Lee
. ': .
'.
'. .
_ ':," J
~
~
.
e
rr{!L-
.,~--
. \' ~ -
"
.".
,.
l~'\, .~.
'~;(l...:.
. I:.:
-----.. ~.
... ~;:
.,i:.:"
,~~.:-
~H'"
.
'.
,.if:!.
0;1_"1:"
~,~~:
:.;tjl. . -
..._.....~~.~-
.______.__.._.21 ~t:; d-~_.
..'(..
e
.-.
': .':;'~-. "
~J~t.0y:
~t 11'\,'-'" \r. .
. '.
-,
'.
. . r-7
." ,..~;(.:
.t..>;"r{o ~ .
: ~
, .
"i.
--
':, ,"
i ::':'"
~
,.
.~~:I
. -~..
.....
.~. r. . 1 i . .
'--.-- -
.:..
.-,
'.
.. .
--
":). ..
.\
...:.,;.
"-
. ~I ~..
.
,
.,>A
.. ('
.'
, .
'.
('f ~.
"
Ill!
,
"
'.:".
.
.-
,.
e
e
e
Sept. 3, 2006
Mr. Antos,
We do not want our sea breeze destroyed. We do not
want expansion. We do not want thiee story anything to
be built in our town. Please do everything you can to stop
all 3 storieS. :;;;; ~ ~
Susan aIkins
Old town S.B.
C\\Y at St8\ &eaCb
SEP - 5 luas
oeve\opment Svcs.
c\\ycdSM\BeaOb
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
e
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'
do..sQm.mbllJ~otif}i'nelgblSbrs'of'impending'dernolltlon -and ool'lstFUctiOW 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 r,een ignored. When I have gone to the city with
concerns about vandalism,graffitl 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 already 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.
Si';,
P.S. Regarding the questionable activities and ylolence 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 controll' .
e
e
September 3, 2006
aJtv of Seal BlICh
SEP - 6 2006
OeveJopment 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 6th 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,
e
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.
e
Unfortunately. homeowners, real estate agents and real estate developers often e
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 WI 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 affe~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.vvo ~c;C~
e
e
e
e
e
Council Members of the City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740-6379
September 4, 2006
City of Sell StICh
Stp - 6 2006
Oevelopmenr SVCs.
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 communio/.. It appears that there are codes for building, however, these codes vary
throughout the CIty and are open to "interpretation".
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 hlghrise apartment and condominium buildings only brings a
congested higher-density to the area that is already impacted by overuse and overbuilding. Those
resiclents 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? Tht:! possible answer- greedl 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 IMng there.
Further more- It is my opinion that the City of Sear 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 woula
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 hanliling from poles gMng rise to a feeling of "uncared for"
areas decades behind other local communities with undergrouncl 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 b~ing 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 paymentl The resurfacing
doesn't even go all the way to the boardwalk. .
. The fssue of curb-side parking. We residents watch beach people bang into others
parked vehicles as they try to squee~ 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 parklng-
except for those with valid parking permits. This may enCdurage beach visitors to use the paid
parking Jots near the pier rather thliln to congest the streets where long term parking is now
permitted.
. This beach community needs bike paths. walking trails and a pedestrian friendly e
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 outsiders.
The City of Seal Beach needs to define a PLAN that is worthy of this wonderful area - a plan that is
followed!
Respectfully submitted,
~~ l'h~
Sandra McCarthy
Homeowner
1516 Ocean Ave. :
Seal Beach, CA 90740
..
e
e
e
e
e
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 Yau
Old Town
14th St.
L-AI-tc- f IJ 5
city of SIll BHch
SEP - 5 2006
Development Svcs.
Don and Ginny Kennebeck
209 3nl St. .
Seal Beach, CA 90740
September 5, 2006
e
John Bahorski
City Manager
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
CitY ot sea\&eactl
SEP - 5 2886
Oe'le\01lft1ent Svcs.
Dear Mr. Bah9rski,
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 weIl as an injustice!
We are usuaIly in favor of keeping government out of people'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 eventuaIly 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 Council!
We respectfuIly request you vote to repeal the current codes that allow building 3 story
buildings in Old Town Seal Bea . =hapk you in advance for your consideration.
Don and . y
209 3nl Stre
Seal Beach, CA 90740
e
.'
e
September 5, 2006
Cl\yot_&eacb
SEP - 6 2006
Development. Svcs.
Dear Councilman Antos,
e
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 strongly 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-let 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 nQt 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 comrp.unity. 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,
tZ..,l.); ~a1~
Harlene Goodrich
222 6th Street
Seal Beach
Michael Goodrich
e
DALE E. NELSON
llilO SIXTH STREET
!ilEAL BEACH, CALIFORNXA 9074.0
e
city ofSHlIl_
5fP - 5 2006
Development Sves.
September 5, 2006
Seal Beach City Council 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. e
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 imd stop allowing 3 story buildings on
any size lot.
Sincerely,
~;.~~..~ T ~
Eileen T. Nelson (homeowner)
e
.'
I
e
e
Sme CDle IUJd,Me1indaHuwe11,.CDlIl
ZZZ 11* Strfet, Sa BI!IIdI, CA. 90140 (S6Z) 43O-ZZ30
September 6; 2006
Via e-mail
Cllyot StIlIeaCh
SEP - 6 2006
Development Svcs.
City Councilman Charles Antos
The Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Councilman Antos:
Thank you for your request for input regarding the boilding of three- story homes in Seal Beach.
We oppose furtlier such. boilding.
Seal Beach appears to be one oftb.e few small beach cities remaining in Califomia. . Its charm 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 manied, and Melinda moved from Pasadena., she left
behind lhe beauty ofyurds. trees, and the feeling of space Il1'OIltl.d homes, for the pleasures of sea
breezes, beautiful skies, and tb.e small-town chBI'lIl ofS eal Beach.
Aesthetically, three-story residenceslbuildings are disproportionate to the size of tile city. Many
of the stree1s in Old Town Seal Beach are very naIIOW. The residential lots are small- even
those 37 feet wide. Three-story residences take up too much space!
Three-staxy residences impede air flow. One of our joys is that when we open lhe windows and
doors. fresh breezes flow 1hrough the house. We do not need air-conditioning. While on Balboa
Island not long ago, Melinda got into a conversation widt a long-time resident of the Island, a
real estate agent dtere. The woman expressed her di.streBs at 1he growth of the Island. She
recalled days when she opened her doors and windows to fresh air breezes. Those days she said
are gone. Wi1h the residential growth, appearance of three-story homes, and loss of yards and
airspace, folks are needing to add air conditioners.
Many of the small beach houses are gone. Lmger homes have taken 1heir place. Lees stop the
grod now, before the small-town charm of Seal Beach is only history.
As an aside, we have become a consumer society.'~ "I want as much as I can get." Bigger means
better. Air-conditioning? Bring it onl Water? The more 1he betterl I.ignting? The brighter the
betterl If one needs a three-story home, one ought to move somewhere other than Old Town
Seal Beach!
Respectfully,
StIfJ. cot:. antl9flllilllla !llDwIt&<:ot:.
cc: Lee Whittenberg (via e-mail)
10hn Bahorski (via e-mail)
b ~.)LPP~
C\\'Io\-~ e
sa> - 5 ?~~
~ ~~
t9JJ~~~(Y1d~
(bib j,llr~IWJ<WW~/pJd
J~~~p:~tJi#V~
J.II!p-/Pvrl"...r..- ~~ aJ~
~~~~~
:iWY~~ ~..
1IJLbP.vJIY ~ .iA.- dt~
t;b~~~~~ ·
Jr~~i;:J._tb . if1_
~~~~..~~
o-.d -tKw A:.- lJJlAV.J4- .
;Jb5. ;;~ ~ d?
~ .ftIt~j;-~,
....
~/f>VPJAw,~ ~
~~.'l! ~J
~{}1rL
",..._coak ;l\
;39 IOtb stteol .
Seal aeach. CA 9O'l4l)o6'lO\
, ~
e
"
e
e
. .
9tt&.$~, Ct5 ~\otC~
ri6.~nij ~~
. Sa.rt, ~ 20~0.
I .
. \ .
,"
. ! .klJw.... d~0 ~~~~_.. . _
.'. ~.::. -nM~ ~.(-~ w...-t( ~ ~~
rd S~.13~k r~t'AVhLW 1t:c- ht$+t1t'-~~ '~....J-'
16"1 It. u:-ty tr~ ktd. ~~s {i.-t Cod'!. r-d\d..-t.....-/..
tiiLj~ ~ZJ W'/,~ P-~j~ ~ ~J ~ tk-
P,UJ~ Jr /vL.6-vte~' .
.. /ke, ~_-tt:. ~ rPd/.~(Y~-e.r-
tJ-/ .5ufl e~~ ~~-- L--{- lr &rJ..-dL-~4 ~ elL
tv~ "'~/~& -tg" 1C1~-ry :.;5'!" ~ ~~~
D-flL; tu:c J c ~~ tt..d~..- l1- JLi .L1i ~ ~~
eottifr j.c.~ ~ fl.o~ (,'1 ~~~O/
,-~ ~1. --I=-- .~"""'- ~J krJL'~
-m~ 'fj-r ~'j~r 0--.-' et. ~ , . . .
-rbfne., J ~ e.~+r-e.~ (2.a..I.L~a~ ~
rl.$+~IIL{.4..+ h!.fbre... +r'-Vt,JI~ t:lo,--,^ Jt;.G. v-~",J o-f
i'll-piA c.~je.. v..:.. 0 I J l6v.-.- ~(. rg~~, .
"Re.!ptt2.e-r-fv 1) .6\.1 1,.\l'vtJ-tr~
~-;P.Q~J>-
iF) ~5 ~~ ~-t:
~ ~1G~~.
,
.'
Charles Antos, CouncilmllIl:
e
We are of the opinion that there should be no more three stoIy properties built in old
town" nor covered. tbird story stairwells. Wet rarely see these roof decks being used.
AdtliT1g any superlluous structures usUally is ugly and only hinders smroun.ding privacy.
It also dwarfS and shAIlp.!S the neighboIs and obstructs their view.
Jack I)Il.d JoAnn Bettenhausen
1311 Sea! Way
: . ~i.::,~ ...~ ;;"
..:.
':,
e
.
e
e
Letters Recommending No Change
To Current Regulations For'
Third Story' Development
e Planning Commission Meeting
September 6, 2006
e
~ ~ \'I\(,"N--J)--~
CifM. (\. ~ ~ S \:::.L.- 1 cavotSlllI-
SEP - 5 2006
Development Svcs.
. .
\J-..S <J- V\.b'(V\-<" ()U.) Y\~ .I...fi-l
C) \.. J.... '\ i) l0V'- d \..0 ~ c9-. be. \J"'- '(r
~ ~ ~ '3 ";:)-\ \>'L'1J n.~\)~
~()~-
~ ~a\U-Cs' v...:> ~m.Je 0 I\~)
. ~ ~~ G" \Po.slc hJ{
6\J '61 /::> l a-t \P ~()~ "'- ~ .
~ ~ ~b--"-w\ 6uJ<...;
I>>:-~ ~~ ~ lDcJ-'~ r..\W.~
~ ~ S~IJcp, ~ "vv~
'\..bO~ ~\CL 'o\c:;c.\L.S -L \o~()clc:>6t
\;:Y-t~~- ·
~\~ ~ (SU.)L ~lY\ln
c:::>xV-.J-.u V--el.~ ~llfl-
u. (~
. , '"' \ ~...v.- Sk--
e
'.e
224-1Sth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
September S, 2006
Seal Beach City Council and
Planuing Commission
cia John Baborski, City Manager
211-8th Street
Seal Beach, o.1ifornia 90740
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission:
We have resided III 224-15th 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-tIJiId of lots 37-112 feet or wider and 2S feet on lots 2S feet wide.
e
We already have thn:e story residences in Old Town as well as in the gated
cormmmity of Surfside. Tbe two stOry height restriction on our 37-1/2 foot lot will lessen
the value of our property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
A
~l~~
Don Mabe
Lana Mabe
C\\yot SI8\ 1m"
SEP - 5 2OD6
Development SVC~.
e
e
Seal Beach City Council
Planning Dept.
City Hall 8th Street
September 06, 2006
Dear Sirs:-
C\\'I ot seal aeacb
SEP - 6 2U05
oevelopment SVC$.
We are in favor of keeping property owners rights to build a third story
on one and a half or double lots.
e
-- ......
e
JIM KLlSANIN
WORKING BY REfERRAL
321 MAIN STREET · SEAL BEACH · CA 90740
Bus: (562) 596-6600. FAX: (562) 596-5629 . TOLL FREE: 1-877-BAYTOWN
Website: www.BaytownRealty.com
John P. Scharler
234 7"'STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740
PHONE: (562) 799.3360 E-MAIL: JSCHARLER@AOLCOM
September 5, 2006
-<<-Iteacb
SEP .. 3 2006
Developmenf Svcs.
The Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
c/o City Manager John Bahorski
211 B1h Street .
Seal8each, CA 90'740
SUBJECT: Possible Amendments to Section 28-701 & Section 28-a01.Thlrd Story Re$ldential
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 .,., Street. I also own a
double lot with 4 units on 119 4111 Street
I purchased the property on 4th Street about 5 years ago with the option of building a 3 story home to lake
advantage of our ocean view. This pending down zoning would take f1#IB1 these rights. Therefore, I am
completely opposed to these changes.
Look at the positive side of allowing 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 buildiitg 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 2nd floor. I feel these homes are
some of the more beautiful homes in Old Town.
.
e
e
e
-
e
e
PIlge 2
In Closing, I remind you that I.am a homeowner (not a developer) and I share with you some of the same
. cOnCems 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 determined to get it
architecturally right.
Sincerely,
-
Enclosures
cc: Mayor John Larson
Councilman Charles Antos
Councilman Gordon Shanks
Councilman Ray Ybaben
Councilman Michael Levitt
ve6mmissioner Ellery Deaton
Commissioner Phil O'Malley
Commissioner Erin Bello
Commissioner Gary Roberts
Commissioner Phil Ladner
...:
....
...:;:..-
.:: ;
','
....
~
~
.-~
~
~
. .
! ,..~
.....1"....
'";~/;:
"'fl"':~'l
I Z!r;' ~
:.-",,~:.h.'.
.e;..1-. :
--
.'
,
~
\{'l
~
~.'
~ .
I:"'...
.,.:".'
~ . '; :.~..
~. -'.
~Y..:.
:... :..~~;...",..
... ....
'_..1.
e
Snirfey '13arascli
1278t1iStreet · Sea[tJ3each., Ca[ifornia90740-6303. · 562/431-4298
. .,
. ... '. Cl1Y ot&lllfleaCb
SEP - 5 2006
Development Sves.
. '.
, .
August 31, 2006
The Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission
c/o City Manager John Bahorski
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
.f
. .
Dear Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission:
In answer to your question, "Should Old Town continue to allow three story development
with no neighborhood 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.
e 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,
~dJ
:
e
"
e
Letters Favoring Retention of
Third Story Construction with
Revised Development Standards
e Planning Commission Meeting
September 6, 2006
e
.~ \
3 '\
A ..:s
v ~
~
, .~
---...} .... ~
~ \) ..
~ "V ,,}
.,
~ ~ \
\\ ~ ~
~~ ~~~
~ -.~ ~ ~ ;: .
%.~ ~ ~ ~ I;)~
'i0 ~ ~ . (
i r- '* j I t.. w ~
\ i ~ ~ \). ~ ..t .
*n..t.:::: );)~
t~ u; 0...."
* ~ ..:. ~
\irA~'.~~'~
8?~~ d ~ J \l
* B""~ ...;. \J ;) la,-
So~tI):::: I
aD ~ ~ ~
1\ ~ f' {
."j P II
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .~
i ~ ~
"'3 ~. ~
\l Q ., ~
. J ~
, \-\ I~ ~ ~
~.
,
e
~
~
Q)
.a\~
~ C"l to
~~;
1ij CO iii "
__ 0 l\!.
\J
~
i-
\
~
., -
.
S-
O
-CD
~
iP
,..., ~-
c:-s
p-r
i.lJZ
~--=-
~s
-itS ~
41:>>
f!~
cP~
~ i! -ai.
-r s=
s:;g
5-
\.. \ c:: -F
\ " ~ -~
o
......
-cl!
c::>>
-d-
-~
"~
iP
e
e
e
Study Session - Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide or Wlder-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 13, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
RECEIVED BY THE CITY AFTER THE
SEPTEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION
Study Session.PC StalfReport
6
. . ,
"
~:
~
,
. . '
..1~'::- ,,~.
~ jo'
,- m
.' ~ r ~
~ 'oS 1~
.3 ~__AA_
. ~
~'.
. -
,
-
j iSs;
~1~U '
i~ .!~
~
. -
s:: .
at fI)
;J ", - ". .s I 8 ~
~:,:". ~~
. 1_ .r,... ...-- L-
. ~ ;,." ,..' 0 '& c:..
, - ....., ,_ 't: ..' < . at B W
"b' >- Q
. -l\, _
. ":~.'-: '. -a c---
. . _,~:~ ' ..' c:- SI!
~ 0 ~
., " . - -r
.~ ~ en 0
~ _ . ~c:::
tb: -.:s
j: ',".~ ,'~ .~ ~ 2
.' \ * l'It,~': .......
J * ,""..,,' ..-
_' I'. ,~.~ ' ..; ... ~
: ~ ~r: ~~ ~
, '" r--"" .......
~ '., ,.,' . II '::-,~- j P ..a
e \LI tj:;:' CD -t:n
~~. . '~~ tf1 =\ . ~ 3 ,-. 5 .=
~ ~ ~ ~ 1'~ :::E
~ ' ~==
\-\.
:> ~l ~-a .
~ ~. "'5 ~ ~ . .' ~}. ~
:;:', ~~92l ~.\-:
-ti~~' i ~.l-1f . -t:~.~
IIlXGl -? :::f>1 ~ ~ d ,.~~ en
! ~ i : ci . ~ /~ ~ # ~ d 'S?- ~
"< y:): ."
3~~
'l2'2~V
..c-;::))-~
~~ ;b; ~
.
:<
e
Tol.\f'/
q j~J a ,
. .-------1:.~1 w ,(.f~ ./fVO r /dn.!
--.:!iCl?n)usr- 3 <;7'D.....ES (.w,"'" Ne.)
.:... (?1I~Vc: lYL N'f.fl: M8/JA. I'UO,-,,~_
__ ~-'..;" t'l1",~l,/l!tJ",'}.___.
__,.y,/,t IAJ( .clEm.r vr fLll I n-.~.
"j""'b IA~ . . .. (ii,tvD W ~
. F"^- T).-t . f(&^,'IV'~~1tR.:.u __
_T>>u_
~1Jts..!._ D,III!of b ~ II- /)to j ~
. -B.!:L..~P.1v _~!uv T"P fNV I~ Ii IllW 3-
__ (r--"'l"U Of" 71!-.6,,4-..4 OF" 7h t
JMPfyl..TY tMlo c.-v~ 19-F"iil't.
-Th~ Clt-~I C,,'" l.,.,.'..,....,) IV" 1Vr.~,,!!l~L
/i(l[ t\ lI,i).(Ln"u.D...;'..:t:Q. jQ,N7-~t"l' cr.-
S '~ 1V1~'............7 a~ &"'1. e.e - fIt'-"" ~.fV.
c: SI9 ~
e
e'
e
e
e
Study Session -Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.S Feet Wide or Wider-
RMD and RHD Zones, Planning District I - "Old Town"
Planning Commission Staff Reparl
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 Session PC Staff Report
7
e
(Date to be determined), 2006
STAFF REPORT
The Planning
ways the Ci
property owner
standards, which
feet or wider.
,
To: Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director
Department of Development Services
Subject:
I REQUEST I
e
le building height
t allowable variable
a c . stent standard of a
endment proposes the
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 reg
directed staff to prepare for pub
prop ed Planning Commission Resolution that would need
to the City Council for final consideration. The
e recommended alllenr'lments to the Zoning Code and
the issue of "grandfathering", as the Commission has
hearing consideratioIL
e
Z:Wly DOoomentIIZTAIZTA 06-I.Heighl Limit in District I.PC SllllfRepOl1.cIocILWI09-Q8-06
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiona to Provisions of Zoning Code re: A
Height Limits in RMD and RIlD, District I, Zones (Old Town) _
Dale to be determllled. 2006
Overview of Earlier Planning Commission Study Ses
I BACKGROUND I
The pll>nni"g Commission has held two study sessions
below is a snmm,,'Y of those previous study sessions:
.
September 6, 2006 Study Session:
e
bet: 6, 2006 Study Session, staff
s at this Study Session regarding the
ented for Commission and public
At the conclusio
Staff:
[J INSERT DIREC
Please refer to Attachment
meeting and to Attachment 6
at the September 13 Study
co=unications received by th
re w the Minute. excerpt of this Planning Commission
. iW the Staff Report and presentation materials presented
sioIL Attachment 7 provides copies of all written
o=ission at the September 13 Study SessioIL
e
ZTA D6-[HeigbtLimit in District I.PC Staff Report
2
e
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revtsiona to Provisio7UI of Zoning Cads re:
Height Limits In RMD and RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
A.
1.
I DISCUS~ION I
AB indicated above, the Planning Commission has considere
study sessions.
Attachment 8 provides the current language of the Munici
for residential development in the RMD and RHO, Distri
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Provided below are the proposed llIJIP.1ldm
Amendment The amendments are bra
consideration by the pl"nniT1g Commission:
e Proposed Changes to Height Limits
[J Amend Article 7, Resi
[J Amend Section 28
Units to read as
d Second Dwelling Units:
. 2 stories, max. 25 ft.
.
e
[J Amend Article 8, Residen .
[J Amend Section 28-801.
Units to read as followS:
gh Density Zone (RlID Zone), as follows;
Maximum Height, Main Buildings and Second Dwelling
ZTA 06-Ilfeight Limit ill District l.PC SIBfrRcport
3
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiona to Pravisions of Zoning Code re: Ai
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, DistricJ 1. Zones (Old Town) _
Dais to be determined. 2006
"Section 28-801. General Provisions
Yards.
F. Maximum Building Height, Main
Units:
Let wi..t"'.. , IBSS t"'ElF! U 1/,2 ft.
District I 2 stories, maximum 2
District II, VI 35 ft.
Let '[iidtl'ls, :J7 1.'2 ft.. 8F AlIBFB
. .
gi&W4eW II, '.fl 15 A.
***
tEl rBqwiFed ya,ds:
'proposed Revisions Regarding "Gran
e
LANGUAGE TO
PLANNING CO
STUDY SESSION
Staff reco
during the public
revised by the Co
both written and oral testimony presented
of ZTA 06-1 to the City Council, as may be
of all public testimony.
Should the Commissio
existing provisions of the
within the RMD and RHD
the option of reco=ending no change to the
relating to allowable height development standards
. g District 1 (Old Town).
Should the Commission folio staff's reco=endation, staff bas prepared the proposed Ai
resolution recommending approval of ZTA 06-1, including the reco=ended language _
regarding "grandIathering". The proposed Resolution is provided as Attacbment 1.
ZTA 06-{.Heigbt Llmit in District l.PC S1alfReport
4
e
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revis/ona tD Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limita in RMD and RHD. Districl1, Zones (Old Tow,!!
Date to be determined. 2006
Attachment 1:
Lee Whitte.tlberg, Director
Department of Development Services
Attachments: (8)
Attachment 2:
Session Minute
e.
Attachment 3:
Study Session
Attachment 4:
Received by the
Attachment 5:
Session
Communications Received by the City after
y Session
Attachment 8:
e of the Municipal Code regarding Allowable
sidential Development in the RMD and RHD, District
of the City
* * * *
e
ZTA 06-1:Heigbt Limit in District I.PC Staff Report
5
e
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisiona to PrOllisiona of Zoning Code re:
HeightLimits inRMD andRHD. DistricJ I, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
e
ATTACHMENT 1
e
ZTA 06-.l.Height Limit in Distriet l.PC Staff Report
6
e
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisiona of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District I, Zones (Old Towll!
Dais to be determined. 2006
e
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
HEREBY RESOL VB:
RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-43
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECO
TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFPROV
TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1, AME
28-701 AND 28-801 TO ALLOW
MAxIMuM ~IGHT OF 2
RESIDENTIAL lv.fEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY, D
AND TO INSERT LAN
"GRANDF ATHEIfING")
'.
Section 1. The
allowable building height in
District 1 zones and to insert
13, 2006.
essions regarding the
sidential High Density,
eptember 6 and September
Section 2.
PlAnning Commission d'
amendments to the
District 1 ("Old ~
based on the wi
regardless of
right to develop und
e
Section 3.
as follows: The applicatio
review pursuant to the C~o
~ 15305 (Minor Alterations in
land use limitations in average slo
use or density; and, pursuant to ~ 1
no possibility that the approval may
Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305, staffhas determined
ext Amendment 06-1 is categorically exempt from
ental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Re~ .
Us imitations) because it consists of minor alterations in'
. 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.
ZTA06-f:HeigbtLimitinDislrict I.PC Staff Report
7
Plt111Tling Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text,.4mendment06-1
Proposed Revisl01lS to PrOllisi01lS o/Zoning Code re: ..
Height Limits in RMD and RED. District 1. Zones (Old TOWIll _
Date to be detemdned. 2006
Section 6. Based upon the faC
in ~5 of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-260
makes the following fiDrHngR:
The record of the hearing of (Date
Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was
Commission on (Date to be determined)" 2006 to consider Zone Text
Section S.
indicates the following:
(a) At said public hearing there was oral an
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, Dis
"e:randfatherinll").
d
(c)
Resolution.
uding those stated
Commission
e
(a) Zoning T
various elements of the City's
development regulations in
District 1 zones are consiste
changes inconsistent with the
the provisions of the
, the pro sed new residential height
'ty and Residential High Density,
ed amendment will not result in
Ian.
'se the City's zoning ordinance and
Iy and p development in the City through an
lishing new residential developments within the
Density, District I zones and to (insert
Section
reco=ends approval 0
Exhibit A, attached to this
the ore going, the Planning Commission hereby
endment 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.
PTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
day of . 2006,
e
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit in Dubiel 1.PC SlBffR.oporl
8
e
AYES: Commissioners
-
NOES: Commissioners
-
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAlN: Commissioners
-
e
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
e
ZTA 06-1.Heigbt Limit in Disbiel l.PC SlBffR.oporl
Planning Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED. District 1, Zones (Old TOWIll
Date to be determined. 2006
9
Planning Commission StqffReport
Zoning Text A.mendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to PrOIIisi01lS afZoning Code re: ..
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zona (Old TOWIll _
Date to be determined. 2006
o
"EXHIBIT A"
o Amend Article 7. Residential Medium. Density Zone (RMD
o Amend Section 2S-701.A.l, Maximum. Height, Main B .
to read as follows:
"Section 28-701. General Provisions
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1. Maximum Height, Main Build
and Second Dwelling Units:
o Amend Article 8, Residential High Density
o Amend Section 2S-S01.F, Maximum. Heigh'
to read as follows:
e
.Section 28-801.
ace Bulk and
F.
Maximum H
District I
District II, VI
welling Units:
ries, 25 ft. maximum
ft."
e
ZTA 06-l.Hoight Limit in Dubiel 1 PC StaffRoport
10
e
Planning Commissian StqffReport
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to Provisions afZoning Cade re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
e
ATTACHMENT 2
e
ZTA 06-I.Hcight Limit in District I.PC SlBffR.oporl
11
e
Planning Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisl01lS to PrOllislons afZoning Cade re:
Height Limits in RMD'and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 PLANNING
STUDY SESSION PRESENTATIO
ATTACHMENT 3
e
e
ZTA 06-11kigbt Limit in Disbiel I.PC StalfRoport
12
e
Planntng Cammission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to Provisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN CO
UCEIVED BY THE CO
SEPTEMBER 6 STUDY SESSI
ATTACHMENT 4
e
e
ZTA06-I.HeightLimit in District I.PC SlBffRqlort
13
e
Planning Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text A.mendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to PrOIIisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD. District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be dett!rm/ned. 2006
e
ATTACHMENT 5
e
ZTA 06.I.Height LillliI in Disbio! l.PC StBffRq>ort
14
e
Planning Commission Staff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS to Provisions a/Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNIN
SnIDY SESSION PRESENTATl
ATTACHMENT 6
e
e
ZTA 06- I.HClght Limit in Distriel I.PC Staff Report
15
e
Planning Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisla1lS ta PrOllisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, 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
e
e
ZTA 06-1.Hoight Limit in D1strict 1.PC SlBffRoport
16
e
Planning Commission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisions to PrOIIisia1lS of Zoning Cade re:
Height L;",its ill RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF
CpDE REGARDING ALLOW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP
AND RHD, DISTRICT I, ZO
CITY
ATTACHMENT 8
e
e
XJ:A 06-1.Hcight Limit in District I.PC SlBffRoport
17
e
e
e
Planning Cammission Stqff Report
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisi01lS ta Provisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Date to be determined. 2006
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE MUNI.
CODE REGARDING ALLOWABLE HEIG
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
AND RHD, DISTRICT I, ZONED ARE
CITY
"Section 28-701. General Provisions
Yards.
A. Provisions applying in all districts:
1. Maximum Height, Main Building an
Lot width, less than 1/2 ft.
"Section 28-801.
F.
and Second Dwelling
es, 25 ft. maximum;
ft. maximum***
y may locate a third story equal to
ot area allowed in the rear 1/2 of
itation on placement, but shall be
d yards."
ZTA Q6.1.Heigbt Umit in Distriel l.PC SlBffRcport
18
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisians to PrOllisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, Districtl, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commissian Staff Repart
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 4
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF
REPORT
ZTA 06,1 HeIght Umit in District 1 PC Stalfilqlort
15
e S~ber13,2006
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
e
This Supplemental Staff Report addresses 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, as requested by the Commission on September 6.
Staff recommends that the Commission reco=end to the City Council adoption of an un-
codified section of the ordinance establishing a precise "dead1ine" date for projects that are being
actively pursued by the applicant.
Staff reco=ends 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 reco=end 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 dead1ine for
obtaining the applicable "Coastal Commission Concept Approval" would be December 6,
2006 or January 5, 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 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.
e
Z:\My DOCllDlOlllsIThird S1my Interim OnlinancolStudy Session.PC Stall'Report - Supp1011l0DllI1.docILW\09-12-06
Study Session -Amendment to Allowable Building Height on Lots 37.5 Feet Wide ar Wider- e
RMD and RED Zones, Planning District 1 - "Old Town"
Supplemental Planning Commission Stqff Report
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 requi):'ements 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 Co=ission "Coastal Development Permit," and after that, City plan check
approval. The Commission could reco=end to the City Council that an applicant must obtain
one of these approvals in order to qualilY 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 necessmy for the Coastal Commission to issue
its approval and for the City to review final construction plans to detennine compliance with all
applicable construction codes. e
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct Study Session and provide direction to Staff as to desired actions.
e
study Scssion.PC StBffReport. SupplemOlllB1
2
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisia1lS to Provisians afZoning Cade re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammission Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
S'rUDY 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
'l.TA 06-1.Heighl Limit in Disbict l.PC StalfRepor\
16
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Praposed Revisi01lS to PrOllisi01lS afZoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commission Stq/f Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 6
COPIES OF ALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
~CEIVED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE
SEPTEMBER 13 STUDY SESSION
ZTA 06-1 Height Limit in Disbiel l.PC SlBffRoport
17
e
e
e
John and Susan Morgan
215 16th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
city at _Beach
SEP 1,) 2006
Development Svcs.
September 12, 2006
Seal Beach Planning Commission
City Hall- 211 81b Street .
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Chainnan Dea,ton 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 (/' 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 "grandfathered" 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,
tt:~M~
cc: Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. John Larson, Mayor
Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Mr. Alexander Abbe, City Attorney
Mr. Charles Antos, District 1 Councilman
Mr. Gordon Shanks, District 3 Councilman
Mr. Ray Ybaben, District 4 Councilman
Mr. Michael Levitt, District 5 Councilman
e
e
e
ZOlling Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisians to Provisi01lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammlssian Stq/f Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 7
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE MUNICIPAL
C9DE REGARDING ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RMD
AND RHD, DISTRICT I, ZONED AREAS OF THE
CITY
ZTA 06-1.Heighl Um.t in Disbict l.PC Stafflleport
18
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisl01lS to Provisions of Zoning Cade re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Commissian Stq/f 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. ODen SDace. 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. DDen SDace. 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.HOlght Lim.t in Disbiel 1 PC StalIReport
19
e
e
e
Zaning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisla1lS to PrOllisia1lS of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RED, District 1, Zones (Old Town)
Planning Cammission Stqff Report
September 20. 2006
ATTACHMENT 8
AR!ICLE 24, NON-CONFORMING USE PROVISIONS
ZT A <l6-1.Height Limit m District 1.PC StBfrReport
20
e
e
"e
-,
Artlr:IA'4 (.;AnAral Pmvlsinns, r.nnnitlnns Rnd
FlCl'~ptlnns, Nnnr:nnfnrming Rulldings Rnn Ilses
~er:tinn ?R-'400 Nnnl'.nnfnrmlng Ilse limits; Other IlsAs. 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)
~er:tinn '8-'401 Time limit nn AhRndnned Nnnl'.nnfnrming llse. 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)
.'
~Ar:tinn 'R-'40' RAmnval of Nonl'.nnformlng Rllildir..gs nr r.hange .in ~tah IS nf
Nnnr.nnfnrming (Ise. 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)
~er:tinn' 'R-'403 Pmvisinns nf This Artir:l", tn Apply tn Nonr:nnfnrming IJs", Rnn
Nnnr.nnfnrming Ruilnlngs Resulting Fmm RAr:lRssifir:Rtinn. 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)
~",r:tinn '403 1 FlCr:Aptinns fnr Nnnr.nnfnrmlng Histnrir: Ruilnlngs.
A. A locally recognized historic building or structure, may be substantially
preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit.
B. In reviewing the appliCation' tOr Jhe historic building or l?tructure, the Planning
Commlssion"shall evaluate and make findings on ~he fo.llowing:
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 deviations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code, necessary to
preserve the existing structure architecture; including but not limited to:
zoning, building" engineering and fire.
Z:IMy DocumentsIMUNICODElZanlng OrdlnancejZonlng Coda.Arflcla 24.doc\LW\11-15-04
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code .
Chapler 28, Zoning; Article 24 ..
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions, ,.,
Nonconforming BU/7dings 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. 110~)
SF!clinn ?R-?4ll4 Nnnr.nnfnrming..1 t~A Qf I::mp WhAn Nfl 'StnJl~h IrA In~nlvF!ri. 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 ofthis chapter. (Ord, No. 948)
. . -..... -
- .
SAcllnn ?R-2405 r.nmmi~c;inn MRY nAtF!rminF! r.nnriitinn~ fnr AhRtF!mAnt.
~
'-
A. When any nonconforming condition exists in any zone, pther 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 for 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. No. 1011; Ord. No. 1348)
SF!r.tinn ?R-?40R
RlJilriing~.
RF!r.nn~tn ,clinn nf nl'lm='lgAri nr nF!~tIY'\YP.rl Nnnr.nnfnrrning
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 Code.Altlc:le 24
A.
.e
c
e
e
,~
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming BuDdings and Uses
November 2004
continued in the same manner which lawfully existed prior to such damage or
destruction.
B. A nonconforming 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!'ltnJctinn ~lIhject tn Admini!'ltmtive Plan Review, Nonconforming
resi!iential buildings may be reconstructed pursuant to Administrative
Plan Review by the Director of Developm~nt SeNices 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 rourided to the next highest whole number.
2. Rer.nn!'ltrllctinn Suhject fn Minnr Plan RAViAW PArmit. Nonc;onforming
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 existing. at the time of the building's partial
Zoning Code.Arllcle 24
City of Seel Beech Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
Gensral Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming BUildings and Uses
November 2004
destruction, or one unit for each 950 square feet of lot area,
whichever is less.
d. For the purpose of calculatil")g. density, all fractions of units shall
be rounded to the next highest whole number.
3. f:;F!nP.n:l1 Pmvi!;inn!;. The following shall apply to the reconstruction of
'nonconforming residential buildings pursuant to Sections B.1. and B.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 ~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
resj~ential 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 parf<ing 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 28-2~01.sh~1I 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 licensed apprai~er, selected and paid for by the
e.
Zoning Code.Artlcle 24
e
'~
~
e
e
,e
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 fifty percent of its replaoement cost immediately prior to its
damage or destruction by fire, 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 n!-lmber 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. All setbacks and height restriction~ 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 and 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 intemal and extemal inspection of the building,
and a review of the City's planning and building files. Following the review,
the Department of Development Services shall Issue a statement of findings
which shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the Planning
Commission. If the owner does not request such .a review, it shall be the
owner's respons.ibility to. ,establish th~ !alNful exi~te~ce o~ all conditiqns, 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 information contained in the City's public records
regarding the owner's nonconform1ng building without making the request
provided hereunder.
E. The City Council may adopt altemative 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 fire or by any other means prior to July 31 st of that year and
Zoning Code.Artlcle 24
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 2B, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming BUl7dings 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 ana 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
valu,e, if any, of the improvement immediately after the destruction, and the
county assessor shall, on or before October 31st of that year assess the
improvement, or reassess It if it has already 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 tliat year equalize any such assessment or reassessment.
The tax rate fixed for property on the roil 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 tie 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 Califomia Govemment
Code Section 43007. To the extent that the p"r'ovisions 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 centrol. (Ord. No. 1255)
SA~tinn ' ?R-?407 Fnli:lr'gAmAnt!l 'hr- Stnll~lIml AltAratinn!l tn Nnnconfnnning
RA!lidAntial Rlli/ding!l and IJ!le!l. Nonconforming residential buildings' may be
enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section.
A. PArmitted Impmvement!l.
Minnr Stnlclllral Alteratinn!l and ImpmvAment!l 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:
1. Adding or replacing utilities.
g. Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to
Zoning Code.Artlcle 24
1.
~
~
le
'-'
e
e
,e
_.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
Nonconforming Bu/7dlngs and Uses
November 2004
the foregoing, as detelTT)ined by the Planning Commission.
2. Minnr ~tnJl~IJr::d AltFlratinns or ImpmVAmFlnts to nonconforming
residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the
Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a consent
calendar item:
a.
b.
c.
Open roof decks.
Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed).
Roof additions over balconies and porches.
(1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear
yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low
Density',~ane. .., .
,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 ratio: one bath for .each bedroom
plus art additional half-bath. The number of bedrooms, as
defined in Section 28-210 of this chapter, shall not be increased
if the' subject property is' nonconforming due to density or
parking. : .
Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural
alteration to le~s than fifty percent (50%) ofthe structures interior
walls. . '
Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to
the foregoing, as determined by, the Planning Commission.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
3.
RAsirlAntil'l1 low nAn",ity ?,nnFl, PIl'lnning Di",trici", 1 thmllgh 7'
~tnlcillrl'll AltFlrl'ltinn"" Fnll'lrg~mFlnts nr Fxpl'lnsinns 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 ~xisting legal,
non-conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways, may be
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review
as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following:
a. All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum
yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or
use is located.
Zoning Cade.Artlcle 24
4.
city of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article 24 e
General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions,
I
Nonconfonning 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 th~ California Building Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required
with ~he exception of the required Califomia 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 \Jnit Development" approvals
previously granted by the City. .
Rellidentiill Medillm Denllity 7nne ~nrl RellirlFlnt;~1 High np.nllity 7nnp.
Ph:mning Dilltrict l' ~tn Ictllr::ll Alter::ltlnn!'l Fnh:II:gp.mFlnt!'l nr Fxp~n!'linn!'l
to nonconfonning 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 tht} California I;luilding 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; Qrd. No. 1361; Ord. No. 1397; Ord. No. 1519)
~
SFlctinn 78-2408 Nnnr.onforming NonrA!lidp.nti~' Rllildi....gll ~nrl 'l!'Ie!'l May Nnt RFl
Enlar:gArl or Stnlctllr::llly AItAl'Rd. No nonconforming nonresidential building may be
enlarged or structurally 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 .e
expansion. C
Zoning Code.Article 24
e
-
"e
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 required yards and open spaces.
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.
B.
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 iss~ance 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 prop,osed landscape program and schedule alJd a site plan
of the entire shopping center, drawn to scale a'nd 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 Code.Article 24
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
, ChBpte~ 28, Zoning; Article 24 ..
General Provisions, Con~itiOBns end Exceptions, .,
Nonconformmg uHdings and Uses
November 2004
b.
(6) Location and ~uare footage of existing landscaping
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.
(Ord. 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 building, 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 QWners cannot meet off-street parking requirements, permits
may be granted if sai~ owners instead pay an in-lieu parking fee pursuant to
the provisions of Section 28-1257.
(Ord. No. 1406)
(e
~.
Zoning Code.Artlcle 24
e
e
e
Zoning Text Amendment 06-1
Proposed Revisia1lS ta PrOllisions of Zoning Code re:
Height Limits in RMD and RHD, District 1, Zanes (Old Town)
Planning Commission Stqff Report
September 20, 2006
ATTACHMENT 9
SECTION 28-2322, CONVERSION OF EXISTING
AfARTMENTS TO CONDOMINIUMS, SUB-
SECTION C, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ZT A 06-1.Hoight Lunit in DistriOl I.PC StaffRcport
21
e
e
e
City of Seal Beach MunIcipal Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article23
General Provisions, Condition"S and Exceptions, ,
Yards, Height, Araa, Open Spacs and Bulk
November 2004
(
\
d. Signing shall be consistent with tne character and Signing of the
primary use.
3. Large collection recycling facilities shall provide signin~ 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.
"
!=lRclion '8.23'2 r:onvRn:lion of FYi!:;tiog ApArtmAnbl to r:onnnminillms.
A. PllrpOSA: The intent and purpose of this section is to establish reasonable
criteria and standards to govern the conversion of apartment units to ownership
housing while protecting the low to moderate income housing supply, and to
provide for the upgrading of properties through the conversion process.
B.
PlAnning r:ommillllinn ApprOvAl: ' The conversion of multiple family units to
condominiums, as defined in Section, 1350 of the Civil Code; Section 11004 of
the Business a,nd 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. DevRlopment !=:tannArrls: Multiple family, units proposed for condominium
conversion shall :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 (RHO) Zone: '
District I .............................................. 2,178 sq. fl. of land per dwelling unit
District II...............................:........:.... 1,350 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit
District Vi............................................ 960 sq. fl. of land per dwelling unit
.
L
Zoning Code.Artlcle 23
22
"
(~
City of Seat Beach Municipat Code
Chapter 28, Zoning; Article23
Genera( Provisions, Condttions end Exceptions,
Yards, Height, Area, Open Space and Bulk
November 2004
3. 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.
4. Proposed condominium conversions for which a Final Tract Map has been
filed 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:tlcture(s).
D. GAnArAl Pmvi!::inn!l
1. Preapplication Review.
,r
'--
-
Zoning Code.Artlcle 23
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) A plot plan, showing all property lines and fully dimensioned
street and alley locations, street names, walkways, patio ar-
eas, all existing and proposed structures and dimensions of
same.
(2). All setbacks and building separations.
(3)
Automobile parking arrangement, including location of
driveways and dimensions of same.
" ...., .
(4) Interior floor plans, including existing and proposed layout
where applicable.
b.
(5) 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, electrical. wiring, utility connections,. built-in
23
e
e
e