HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2007-06-25 #BB
e
.
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 25, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 2 REGARDING
VARIANCE NO. 07-2, A REQUEST TO PERMIT 7-FOOT IDGH
WALLS WHERE 6-FOOT IDGH WALLS ARE PERMITTED
AT 429 BERYL COVE WAY, SEAL BEACH
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
1) deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, thereby requiring
compliance with Planning Commission approved Condition Number 2 at 429 Beryl Cove
Way.
2) Sustain the appeal, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing
the proposed7-foot high wall to be located as proposed by the applicant/appellant.
3) Sustain the appeal, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing
the proposed 7-foot high wall in accordance with tenns and conditions other than those
requested of the appellant.
Staff has prepared as Attachment I, a resolution of the City Council sustaining the detennination of
the Planning Commission. If the City Council detennines to adopt option 1 after conducting the
public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution.
If the City Council detennines to adopt option 2 or option 3, it is appropriate to return the matter to
Staff for preparation of an appropriate resolution of approval, based on the articulated findings of
Agenda Iltm.&
Z'\2007 Peoding Conncil MeotingIDS - S1llffReplDt. V AR 07-2 . 429 Beryl Cove Way.docILW\OS-03.()'7
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Stoff Report
June 25, 2007
e
the City Council to support the granting of the requested modification of conditions, and other
conditions that the City Council may determine to impose.
BACKGROUND:
On April 4, 2007 the Planning Commission considered the above referenced application for
Variance 07-2. After receiving all testimony at the public hearing and deliberation among the
members of the Commission, it was the determination of the Planning Commission to approve the
application on a 5-0 vote, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-18.
The appellant is requesting the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission
in imposing Condition Number 2 and allow the approved 7-foot high wall along Marlin Avenue
to be constructed at the property line, rather than 1 foot behind the property line with landscaping
and automatic sprinkler system, as approved by the Planning Commission.
An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by the property owner
and project applicant in a timely manner, and the matter is now before the City Council for .
consideration at a public hearing.
FACTS:
o The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2007 to consider
no other persons appearing either in support or in opposition.
D After receiving all public testimony on April 4, 2007, the Planning Commission determined
to approve the requested variance with conditions, and adopted Planning Commission
Resolution 07-18 on a 5-0 vote.
D Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-18, adopted by the Commission on April 4, 2007,
set forth the findings and detennination of.the Commission regarding these matters.
D An appeal of the determination of the Planning Commission regarding the imposition of
Condition Number 2 was filed by Nora and Leo Varshavsky, the property owners/applicants
on April 13, 2007, and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a
public hearing.
DS - Slllff Report - V AR 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
2
.
.
e
.
Public He01'ing re: Appeal of Conditions of Approval ofV01'iance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
PIQlf1l/ng Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Staff Report
Jrme25,2007
DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF CONCERN OF APPEAL:
As previously indicated, the appellant is requesting the City Council to reverse the decision of the
Planning Commission regarding the imposition of Condition Number 2 and allow the approved 7-
foot high wall along Marlin Avenue to be constructed at the property lines, rather than 1 foot
behind the property line with landscaping and automatic sprinkler system, as approved by the
Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission devoted a substantial amount of time during their deliberations on this
application. Please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2007.
The appeal packet of the property owner/appellant is provided as Attachment B for the
information of the City Council. The appeal packet also includes letters of support for the
property owner from the following neighbors:
o Barbara and Tom Blackman, 421 Beryl Cove Way;
o Brad Wilson, 425 Beryl Cove Way;
o Michele Fitzgerald., 1630 Marlin Avenue; and
o Penny and Chris Fielding, 1640 Marlin Avenue.
The adopted Commission Resolution is provided as Attachment C, the Planning Commission
Minutes are provided as Attachment D and the Planning Commission Staff Report is provided as
Attachment E for the information and review by the City Council in considering this matter.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS:
Under ~ Section 28-2502, all variance requests must be evaluated in light of three issues:
"(1) Such variance shall not adversely affect the general plan;
(2) Because the special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape. topography, location or surroundings. the strict application of
this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone;
(3) The granting of such variance shall not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties in the
same vicinity and zone."
VAR 07-2 - CC Appoal S1llffReport
3
Public Hearing 1'6: Appeal of Conditions of Appl'oval of Variance 07-2 .
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council StqIJ Rep01'I
June 25, 2007
In these three areas the Planning Commission adopted the following i;pdings, through the adoption
of Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-18:
"Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in ~ 5 of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-2316,28-2500,28-2501, and
28-2502 of the City's Code. the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) Variance 07-2, as recommended, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a
"Residential Low Density" designation for the subject property and permits
residential land uses in accordance with certain development standards. The
proposed 7-foot high wall with a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear
property line along Marlin Avenue and the proposed 7-foot high wall across the
back of the subject property will allow for the continued use of the residential
property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy, which is one of
the goals of the Land Use Element. The use is also consistent with the remaining
elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are
consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
.
(b) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the
property, including the location of the playfields for McGaugh Elementary School
directly across the street from the subject property, the playfield being
approximately 2'-7" higher than the subject property, and the reduced right-of-
way width of Marlin Avenue adjacent to the school, the strict application of the
Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject property has the side and rear
yards visible from the school playfield and as a result the side and rear yards and
main living areas of the subject property are clearly visible to persons on the
playfield. The reduced street width adjacent to McGaugh School results in the
playfield areas being located approximately 15 feet closer than would exist if
Marlin Avenue was built at the width of 60 feet, as exists west of the school
facility. The strict application of the wall height requirements would result in a
loss of normal privacy at a residential use in a residential zoning district.
(c) The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the
same vicinity and zone, given that only 4 other properties in the vicinity have
similar lot orientations, and because the variance allows the subject property to
VAR 07-2 - CC Appeol StaffRoport
4
.
e
.
e
Public Hearing l'e: Appeal ofCondilions of Approval ofVarlance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council StaffRepo1t
June 25, 2007
maintain useable outdoor recreation areas and utilization of interior living spaces
roughly equivalent to that of the standard parcels in the surrounding area.
(d) The subject property is unique physically in that it is one of
4 parcels that do not directly face the school playground area along the south side
of Marlin Avenue. There are 5 parcels that have their front yards facing the
school playground, and therefore do not have the main bedroom areas or their
outdoor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of the school.
(e) The variance, as recommended for approval for the
provision of a 7-foot high wall with a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear
property line along Marlin Avenue and a proposed 7-foot high wall across the
back of the subject property would not be detrimental to adjoining properties as
the variance requested on the street side property line would allow for a wall 1-
foot higher than is currently permitted to be located in the same location. The
requested variance along the Marlin Avenue side of the property will not be
detrimental to adjoining properties, as the nearest properties on the Marlin Avenue
side are across Marlin Avenue, which is 45 feet in width, and the requested
variance consists of a 1 foot increase in the height of a wall, and encompass a
total length of 53 feet. Marlin Avenue west of McGaugh School has 60 feet of
right-of-way.
(f) The granting of the requested variance for the proposed 7-
foot wall across the rear property line occurs in an area where the privacy
intrusion issues from the elevated playfield slide equipment allow for viewing into
the rear yard of the subject property, resulting in a loss of privacy in this area of
the property unless the requested.variance were to be approved.
. -
(g) The granting of the requested variance, as conditioned, will
allow for the continued use of the residential property with the ability to maintain
a reasonable level of privacy for those areas of the home that are directly visible
from the elevated playfield areas and elevated playground equipment located at
McGaugh SchooL"
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS RE: APPEAL:
Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for the
Council to make a final determination regarding these matters.
V AR 07-2 - CC Appeal SlalfRoport
5
Public Hearing l'e: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of V ariQ1lC8 07-2 .
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Stqlf Rep01t
June 25, 2007
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
1) deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, thereby requiring
compliance with Planning Commission approved Condition Number 2 at 429 BCIyl Cove
Way, as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 07-18.
2) Sustain the appeal, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing
the proposed7-foot high wall to be located as proposed by the applicant/appellant
3) Sustain the appeal, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing
the proposed 7-foot high wall in accordance with terms and conditions other than those
requested of the appellant, or as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Staff bas prepared as A fuI"hmeDt I, a resolution of the City Council sustaining the determination of
the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option 1 after conducting the
public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution.
.
If the City Council determines to adopt option 2 or option 3, it is appropriate to return the matter to
the City Attorney and Staff for preparation of an appropriate resolution of approval, based on the
articulated findings of the City Council to support the granting of the requested modification of
conditions, and any other conditions that the City Council may determine to impose.
NOTED AND APPROVED
Whittenberg, Director
Development Services De
o--/~
David Carmany
City Manager
o
Attachments: (5)
Attachment A:
Proposed City Council Resolution Number . A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Sustaining the Planning
Commission Approval of Variance No. 07-2, a Request to Permit a
7-Foot High Wall along the Street Side and Rear Yard Property
Lines at 429 Beryl Cove Way
VAR07-2 - cc Appea1 Sta1fRoport
6
.
e
.
.
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
VAR 07-2 - CC Appeal Staff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of App1'OVa/ of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resa/ution 07-18
City Council Staff Rep01'/
June 25, 2007
Appeal by Nora and Leo Varshavsky, received April 13, 2007
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-18, adopted April 4, 2007
Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2007
Planning Commission Staff Report of April 4, 2007, with
Attachments 1 through 5
*. *.
7
.
.
.
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of Appl'oval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Reso/ution 07-18
City COllfll:il Staff Report
June 25, 2007
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCn.. RESOLUTION
NUMBER , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF VARIANCE NO. 07-2, A
REQUEST TO PERMIT A 7-FOOT IDGH WALL
ALONG THE STREET SIDE AND REAR YARD
PROPERTY LINES AT 429 BERYL COVE WAY
V AR 07-2 - CC Appeal SllIffReport
8
.
.
.
Public Hearing l'e: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning CommwionResolution 07-18
City Council Staff Report
June 25, 2007
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
VARIANCE NO. 07-2, A REQUEST TO PERMIT A 7-
FOOT mGH WALL ALONG TIlE STREET SIDE
AND REAR YARD PROPER:!1. LINES AT 429
BERYLCOVBWAY Otl~\
TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOL VB, DETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On March 2, 2007, Nora and Leo Varshavsky applied for Variance 07-2
. . ,....)
Wlth the Department of Development SCl'V1ces. " , -:- ,
- , .
.. -~,
".... . l'
Section 2. The applicant is seeking to construct ~."'7tfuoi high block wall along the
street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is currently allowed.
Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ l5025(a) and ~ IT.A of the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, staffhas determined as follows: The application for Variance No. 07-2
is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average
slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to
~ 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval
may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on April 4, 2007, to consider Variance 07-2. At the public hearing the Planning Commission
received written and oral testimony.
Section 5.
The record of the hearing on April 4, 2007, indicates the following:
VAR07-2-CC AppcaI StaffRcport
9
Public Hearing l'e: Appeal of Conditions of Approval ojVf11'iance 07-2 .
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council StaffRep01'/
.lime 25, 2007
(a) On March 2, 2007, Nora and Leo Varshavsky applied for Variance 07-2
with the Department of Development Services seeking approval to construct a 7-foot high block
wall along the street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6- foot high wall is currently
allowed.
(b) The subject property contains approximately 5,600 sq. ft. and is located on
the southwest comer of Beryl Cove Way and Marlin Avenue {429 Beryl Cove Way).
(c) The subject property contains an existing, legal, single-family residential
home with an attached 2-car garage.
?"'!r"
(d) The subject p~.~ :ftlO"Ft of frontage on Marlin Avenue and 56
feet of frontage on Beryl Cove Way. The "frOiit" ~e lot is on Beryl Cove Way, even though
the garage entry is from Marlin Way.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
All Directions except North: Single-family residential homes located in the .
~ Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone.
North O~~f McGaugh Elementary SchoQl in the Public Land
UseIRecreation (pLUIR) Zone.
(f) The Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 28-2316 sets forth the following
requirements regarding heights of walls for properties located in the in the Residential Low Density
Zone, District I:
Front Yard Abutting Street
Side Yard Abutting Street
3.5 feet high in required 18- foot front setback
area (Section 28-2316.A.1.b)
6 feet high (Section 28-23 1 6.A.2.a)
6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.3.a)
6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.2.b)
Side Yard Not Abutting Street
Rear Yard Not Abutting Street
(g) The Code allows fences to be higher than the above requirements in
certain specified areas in Section 28-2316.B.8. The subject property is not located in any of the
specified areas where a higher fence is allowed.
.
VAR 07-2 - CC Appeal StalfRoport
10
.
.
.
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council StaffRepol1
June 25, 2007
(h) Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School has 45 feet of right-of-way,
and has 60 feet of right-of-way westerly of Riviera Drive.
(i) The playground area for McGaugh Elementary School is located across
Marlin Avenue from the subjt;.Ct property: The playground is approximately 2'-7" higher in
elevation than the subject propertY, and has.' chain link fence separating the playground area
from Marlin Avenue. The change in grade elevation between the subject property and home and
the school results in a lack of privacy due to the ability of persons on the school grounds to be
able to clearly see over the street-side fence and directly into the private yard area and living
areas of the home. In addition, Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School has 45 feet of right-
of-way, 15 feet less right-of-way than westerly of Riviera Drive. The reduced street width results
in the school facilities being located approximately 15-feet lklT to residences than exist along
the Riviera side of the school grounds. OR A'r
(j) The subject parcel is one of 4 parcels that do not directly face the school
playground area along the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are 5 parcels that have their front
yards facing the school playground, and therefore do not have the main bedroom areas or their
outdoor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of the school.
(k) The subject property is approximately 2'-7" lower in elevation than the
school playground, resulting in a lack of normal privacy for use of the yard area and the living
areas of the home on the subject property that are visible from the playground area. The request
for a 7-foot high wall with a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear property line, and a 7-foot
high extension of that wall across the back of the subject property, is being made to allow for an
adequate wall height for the privacy of the homeowner in their yard and home. The strict
application of the wall height requirements would restrict the normal enjoyment and use of their
yard area and the living areas of the home.
(I) At the public hearing the applicants spoke in favor of the request with no
other persons speaking regarding the request.
(m) The Planning Commission determined on April 4, 2007, to approve the
requested variance, with conditions, and adopted Resolution 07-18, approving the requested
variance with conditions on a 5-0 vote.
Section 6. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 07-
2 was timely filed. On June 25, 2007 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
VAR 07-2 - CC Appeal SlllffRcport
11
Public Hearing l'e: Appeal of Conditions of App1'OVa/ of Variance 07-2 .
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Staff Repo1t
June 25, 2007
consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and written testimony and evidence
presented at the time of the public hearing, including the staff reports.
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
~ 5 of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-2500 through ~~2 of the City's Code, the City
Council hereby finds as follows: OR ""''r ,
(a) Variance 07-2, as recommended by the Planning Commission, is
consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which
provides a "Residential Low Density" designation for the subject property and permits residential
land uses in accordance with certain development standards. The proposed 7-foot high wall with
a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear property line along Marlin Avenue and the proposed
7-foot high wall across the back of the subject property will allow for the continued use of the
residential property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy, which is one of the
goals of the Land Use Element. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the
City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the
Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including
the location of the playfields for McGaugh Elementary School directly across the street from the
subject property, the playfield being approximately 2'-7" higher than the subject property, and
the reduced right-of-way width of Marlin Avenue adjacent to the school, the strict application of
the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject property has the side and rear yards visible from the
school playfield and as a result the side and rear yards and main living areas of the subject
property are clearly visible to persons on the playfield. The reduced street width adjacent to
McGaugh School results in the playfield areas being located approximately 15 feet closer than
would exist if Marlin Avenue was built at the width of 60 feet, as exists west of the school
facility. The strict application of the wall height requirements would result in a loss of normal
privacy at a residential use in a residential zoning district.
( c) The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone, given that
only 4 other properties in the vicinity have similar lot orientations, and because the variance
allows the subject property to maintain useable outdoor recreation areas and utilization of interior
living spaces roughly equivalent to that of the standard parcels in the surrounding area.
(d) The subject property is unique physically in that it is one of 4 parcels that
do not directly face the school playground area along the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are
V AR 07-2 - CC Appeal StalfRoport
12
.
.
.
.
.
Public Hewing l'e: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of V ariance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council StaffRepo7t
June 25, 2007
5 parcels that have their front yards facing the school playground, and therefore do not have the
main bedroom areas or their outdoor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of the
school.
(e) The variance, as recommended for approval for the provision of a 7-foot
high wall with a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear property line along Marlin Avenue and
a proposed 7-foot high wall across the back of the subject property would not be detrimental to
adjoining properties as the variance requested on the street side property line would allow for a
wall I-foot higher than is currently permitted to be located in the same location. The requested
variance along the Marlin Avenue side of the property will not be detrimental to adjoining
properties, as the nearest properties on the Marlin Avenue side are across Marlin Avenue, which
is 45 feet in width, and the requested variance consists of a I foot increase in the height of a wall,
and encompass a total length of 53 feet. Marlin Avenue west of McGaugh School has 60 feet of
right-of-way. DR AFT
(f) The granting of the requested variance for the proposed 7-foot wall across
the rear property line occurs in an area where the privacy intrusion issues from the elevated
playfield slide equipment allow for viewing into the rear yard of the subject property, resulting in
a loss of privacy in this area of the property unless the requested variance were to be approved.
(g) The granting of the requested variance, as conditioned, will allow for the
continued use of the residential property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy
for those areas of the home that are directly visible from the elevated playfield areas and elevated
playground equipment located at McGaugh School.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council sustains the
determination of the Planning Commission and approves Variance No. 07-2, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Variance 07-2 is approved for the construction of a maximum 7-foot high street side
property line wall with a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear property line and a 7-
foot high wall across the rear property line at 429 Beryl Cove Way.
2.
All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through
Variance 07-2, as modified by the Planning Commission to require the street side
property line wall adjacent to Marlin Avenue to be set back a minimum of I-foot from the
street side property line, and that landscaping and automatic sprinklers shall be provided
in the I-foot setback area. Landscaping shall be limited to climbing vine species and
shall be approved by the Director of Development Services.
V AR 07-2 - CC Appeal StalfRcport
13
AYES:
Public Hetll'ing l'e: Appeal of Conditions of App1'OVaI of Variance 07-2 .
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council StaffRep01'I
June 25, 2007
3. This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the 10 day appeal period has elapsed.
4.
If any claim, action or proceeding (collectively "action'') is instituted by a third party or
parties challenging the validity of the this approval, Developer and City shall cooperate in
defending any such action. City shall notify Developer of any such action against City
within ten working days after City receives service of process, except for any petition for
injunctive relief, in which case City shall notify Developer immediately upon receipt of
notice thereof. Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, and any of its
officers, employees or agents for any action by a third party or parties brought to
challenge the Project Approvals; provided, however, that if City fails promptly to notify
Developer of any action against City, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense,
Developer shall not thereafter be responsible for City's defense. Developer shall
reimburse all of City's defense costs including, without limitation, court costs, attorney's
fees incurred by counsel selected by the City, and expert witness fees. Developer shall
promptly pay all monetary awards, judgments, verdicts, court costs and attorneys fees that
may be awarded in such action.
.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at
a meeting thereof held on the day of .2007, by the
following vote:
Council members
DRAfl
NOES: Council members
ABSENT: Council members
ABSTAIN: Council members
MAYOR
.
V AR 07-2 - CC Appeal StalfReport
14
.
.
.
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of Appl'oval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resalution 07-18
City Council Staff Report
June 25, 2007
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
OR~f1
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City
Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of . 2007.
City Clerk
VAIl. 07-2 - cc Appoo1 SllllfReport
15
e
e
e
Public Hearing Fe: Appeal o[CoruJitions of Approval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Staff Report
June 25, 2007
ATTACHMENT B
APPEAL BY NORA AND LEO V ARSHA VSKY,
RECEIVED APRIL 13,2007
VAR07-2 - CC Appeal StaffRopolt
16
e
e
e
, .!
, '
c~fIt bnlil!lBch
APPEAL APPLICATION
TO CITY COUNCIL
. ~9- ~ jln!07
D.~of
".', - sl!itll:el
I ,t'., - . - . ~ . i':'~r. - - 1" ~. 11' - - . I . ... I. - - '" - - - I.. 1"-'
",{' . . ". ~. ".' -' :...i~" ,," .' '. I'" For Office Use Only".-.. ,,'.-., "",' . . , .
','11,. ~'I't tP~lt'. ':~":"I ~- ,,"', .,. I " i . ~',' I ,;"', '..1",":
, I, t. .", ,1,1,.1. , ~. ~ "'L.... . I ." " ~ - ~ - I', I '. II
r., ..:~ _ {' I I ....~ J:.:' ., .':._-l;-~: r," I ':' '" ... I I' ., -" "I I ,I ,-
.... .t. .- ~.' ... .,.. _I 'I ..1.... :\.' " - . I, ., .,; . I . I -. .." . , I
, p.'I~inniria~l::r1iissitf~.D~ti:&.:o.1 /01/0 7 PlarininQ Comm. Resolutio~No.: '07-:-:-/8'
"~';":!r..m...lti>!~mlf.-'''''' . "". . ." ". .,.' ,,.t.t..'~'. ..~..."-' ".",' ,. '.
. a ninQ.Co riiissio AcJ"!if' :.. .'. ,'.,' . APproval'~'''''.' '~.:';~DeniaJ',;\~ff;':.~'''''Ottief .
~~, ~h-'I~~IJt.t~I~~[I.'I~":'''\Il.I~~ .1: 1..-- A 'I.'J: - , I, ' 1.:,.- ~ . '1, ,~~1. ~' ': '..,~_I L: ,',":f.'"M "" 111 JoIjj' Ow r- r,.t~ I"'~,..F' I T: -
~Date'ARDeal'FI eafl;l~, '. ,0;,<, . ""I>~" CitY CouncIl. Datel''''''''':'. '''~, ,"'''. ""'!,~,\~" ....f'
~~. i\~HHD~~tt~~~":p~!:.:..t;li~,,,,~t"1 .,;'ftl"'l~ ' ;' I 1"1',,11:' I,".~~..'-~~ 1'"~1~~kr;o:-, -1-1I:, --,.r'~I~".'tl P,_' ,I, \,~11~1, " _ -
t gee- ale..:Io Ol!:~ #'Il~. ., I . l...~ h III~ _. ... ,1~.~.,....JL.;.J!:~;:f.lftr'J~~L;::~~ri't~~ ,:_:_ -:'j":" ",' __
. ", I:'~~,"~'j,"j... - l........ "oJ ...... I,'" .1__.......9!...;._....... ...... I_,.~_ i-;to(.:.... ,I;;
,,<::1 ,<::our;1ciL ct!om....<!l-,......,<:i,~. '.. .,' '., .' " .'".: ".',... . .:"", ReSOlution No.;.'o',";!!'~,', ". '.
1.
Property Address: 4't'1 /5/U. 'It- (;PUlE Whet, S~ 4-9 907-f'D
Applicant's Name: Nt9/.2A Ilme>ll#II{t:-'I. Leo /!,?ie5/1#VSK.r
Address: ..,j'Z-'t B~I/(... Cot/e W/'9-<f: 58. 49 ftj-o 7-1'1)
Work Phone: (6'~ >43 - ?{Z~ M~bile: f!'1L 2SZ - P40~
Home Phone: (r~i- 7tii( 'if - z.. &f Z ~ FAX: ( )
Property Owner's Name: NDM- 1I/It2.~/fr}V~}!:' If ILea /.I#Je~~~.e7
Address: ~'Z9 Bet/!H ~ ClOVE.- WFl-y ,'>/$.. ~ ~o 7~o
Home Phone: (56!) 7'" €f - -z. 9 'Z '7'
2,
3.
4, The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach
Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No.
Att~~h ~ stat~mAnt that Al(f)lain!; in d~tail why the decision' of 'the Pllmning
Commission is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed,
and include your statements indicating where the Plan . g Co mission may be in
JIt~/~
~ of APPr!{- (Signature of Owner
NO/2..A VAf<..SHAVSf(.-(' Ltc.o \A-e.SH-AVb.KY
(Print Name) (Print Name)
01/1'3/07 04./1'3/07
(Date) , . (Date) , f
PAID
APR 1 3 2007
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Page 33
Rev, 6/08
e
To: Planning Commission
City of Seal Beach
Attn: Lee Whittenberg
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Date: April 11, 2007
Page I
From: Nora Varshavsky
Leo Varshavsky
429 Beryl Cove Way
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Subject: Variance 07-2, Planning Commission Resolution #07-18.
Mr, Whittenberg,
We regret to inform you that we cannot proceed with our Backyard Wall project due to Section 7, Condition
2,
e
Please consider the following:
1. The Project for the 7' Backyard Wall is a part of our overall Improvement Project that includes re-
building of the front of the house. We have selected the architectural style known as 'Contemporary'
or 'Modem'. The front fencing will be the allowable 3 '-5" block wall made with same
blocks/pilasters/caps and a combination of wrought iron and the same 2-tone flat stucco matching
the future stucco of the house. 'Climbing Vines' are more suitable with the 'Country' and 'Provincial'
architectural styles as they are covering the surface of the wall while the 'Modem' style exposes
architectural elements. The 7' Side Wall was planned with Solar motion activated lights at each end
of the Wall, The last span of the wall (at the drive way) is planned with Wrought Iron see-through
inserts and the electric gate (parallel to the drive way), Tree-like plants in self-watering containers are
thought for the area behind the Side Wall Iron inserts.
From the aesthetic point of view, the Side Wall, when completed, will look VERY nice and not
boring.
2, The intended use for the area behind the Side Wall between the Wall and the house is for the future
elec1ric car, We, at Southern California Edison Company, receive incentives for conserving Energy,
and elec1ric car is coming as soon as the subject improvements are made.
The proposed I-foot set-back - Section 7, Condition 2, changes the intended use for the designated
area. Currently, we have 4 vehicles, two of which are parked in the street. Additional parking will
bring much needed convenience to our day-to-day driving operations and free the street for others to
park (as one old car will be doDated with the replacement with an electric car).
3, Nothing grows along Marlin ave at the fence footing as there is not enough afternoon light. Most
fences along Marlin ave have green algae, same with the sidewalk's areas next to the fence as
moisture from watering of backyards and front lawns does not evaporate in time.
Our original plan for the 7' Side Wall was made with following considerations:
the future backyard landscaping will have raised flower beds that will NOT produce
excessive water leakage into the street (PVC pipe) .
our sprinkler line along the curb on Marlin ave will have to be adjusted for the side lawn only
without watering the sidewalk/fence to save on water usage.
e
Page 2
e
Knowing the nature and use of our streets, we can assure you that with the designated planting
area being at the street level, it will be impossible to produce a healthy looking (and not moist
and messy) 'Green Belt' with the amount of skate boards, dogs and foot traffic.
And only the fence starting AT THE SIDEWALK will help keep streets clean, dry and keep
bugslbirds away from parked cars.
Being very busy professionals, neither Leo nor I have time for the high-maintenance landscape that
includes taking care of 'Climbing Vines'. Our current gardening service provides only lawn mowing
service. Hiring another crew for a full gardening service - is not in our plans at the moment,
4, Our original design for the 7' Backyard Wall is supported by our neighbors:
e
e
e
To: Seal Beach plAnning Commission and City Council
From: Tom and Barbara Blackman
Homeowners at 421 Beryl Cove Way
Subject: One foot improvement and height extension at 429 Beryl Cove Way
Dear Planning Commission, City Council Members and Lee Wtttenberg,
e
Tom and 1 are spl'.Alcing out in favor of the new wall being proposed by Nora and
Leo Varshavksy because we have been looking at the dilapidated waIl at 429 Beryl Cove
Way for many years and finally have a homeowner who is willing to invest in a new,
aesthetically pleasing wall. We were looking furwanl to the removal of the unsightly tree
stumps and the new wall being built. Walls are expensive to build and none of the
previous homeowners have been willing to spend the money.
While it might be legal to force a homeowner to give up a foot of their back yard
so that they can add a foot to a waIl the question arises, why do 7 houses have their
backyard fences nestled right up next to the sidewalk: and they were not required to give
the city a foot of their yard. Will they be required to tear down their fences so that a one
foot planting area can be created? The sidewalks are narrow and ''if' the plantings grow
they will impede walkers on the sidewalks. This is of course if the plants survive in areas
of little drainage, green algae and mossy growth because of moisture retention and lack
of swilight.
In a case like this it seems that the PlAnning Commission and City Council should
consider the rights of a homeowner when the improvements proposed will benefit the
community. If the improvemenls are reasonable they should be supported. The privacy of
the back yards of the hill homes on this section of Marlin is reduced alnlady because of
the fact that the school yard is two feet higher than the street.,This makes it very easy to
look into the windows of the house. A 1 foot extension will make it a little more difficult
for sports participan18 to see in the windows of the home.
The city is in a unique situation to improve the environment and set a good
example of environmentally sensitive planning. When the overall project is completed
the comer that has been grossly neglected for years will be a welcolll'e sight as can
turn the comer onto Marlin from Seal Beach Boulevard. The improvemenls on this
48 year old home are long overdue because of the lackluster maintenance of previous
owners. Now we have an opportunity to upgrade the comer. We support the
improvements and waIl proposed by Nora and Leo Varshavsky.
Thank you for your consideration.
~
Barbara Blackman
~~
Tom BIlIclcmAn
Residence: 421 Beryl Cove Way
Phone: 562-431-7415
e
April 11 , 2007
e
Mr. Lee Whittenberg
Planning Commission
211 8th Street
Se~1 Beach, CA 90740
RE: Variance 07-2. Planning Commission Resolution #07-18
Dear Mr. Whittenberg,
I am writing this letter to advise you that as the next door neighbor to
the Varshavsky's, I have no issues with their building a 7 foot high
block wall along the side of their property without the set-back.
The fence that is now in place along that area is in dire need of
replacement, and the proposed 7 foot wall doesn't present any
problems from my point of view.
Sincerely,
e
WUJ~
Brad Wilson
425 Beryl Cove Way
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 493-5785 home
e
e To Whom It May Concern,
We have seen your proposal for the 7' wall on the Marlin side of 429 Beryl Cove Way
(where Nora & Leo live). We do not like the idea of having I foot of green foliage &
automatic sprinklers in front the wall here. Without this, we already have so much water
on the sidewalk and in our driveway. With the added sprinklers, there will be an excess
amount of water there that we have to walk over to get to our cars that are parked
alongside this wall. FurthemwIe, we have children that play in our front yard all the time.
We do not want to have a situation where they slip on excess water, trip over some
ivy/plants or get injUICd bec.allse ofwbat you have proposed. We feel as though a straight
wall right up against the sidewalk would be the best course of action of all parties
involved - both in terms of safety and in terms of aesthetic value.
We have seen the Varshavsky's original plans and ideas and we back them. Their plans
also coincide with some future projects at our own house. We ask that you please void
your current proposal, since it is not in the best interest of the cnmmunity nor our
~ boIhood and allow them to proceed with their original arrangt'T"P.nf Thank you for
1st
p
e
e
>.l' ~, . '< ;" '\' '" ,
\.\ ... ~ . \.,,\...." .,.... ~ ;'\..i.
...'i. .', \",\.":'.~;~ ~)\...~ --v.'.~":-.:".~~i\.:. \;'~;~'''''Q'~\r'~'", ".\:-,. \",:,\'
_ _, ,___' '~~ ,;____L~,. _"~'/ --~--~~-'l'''''''-'~~-,---,1,;-~-----:.!o-L:,-.......~A--- .-,.L'S._~______, _____ _
., I tvJ, :' '~\
'" _ n _ ,_ ' ~,__ 'A.:_, , _ _ _ , __, _ _, _ -}-_ __'._,_, ____ ,_____ __ _ _ _ ,_ :___-0:: _ __ n'_u____,_ _
t ' ~
.._ _.. ..- _..... _ ______.._____~.___.______.__.._.______ _________._--1.... ~~.-,.~ ~'...,~...~~~. .__._____.
_J? " " .
u,_ ,,-,--,-, -,f-,--~--tM1l__ tp-~- ~ ': - \' #t.b---,--
I Ll ' ~ ~"'-"'--
____n_'_ __00_ _ _l~Yl.l~_ _ _', ',' ". '-. -"::, ' " _ ______
i'-r--=-rv;~/- J?-; /. . I/~:" "d:. A, / ,~:~,~, ,-'>. ,,' J-'
----n-'----'--I&..t1dPL~~;~.::v~~~ _'," _______,
.d"a ' ~.. .t:Jt~ /,\
____ _.________~~L- . ~~,'" ....;..~~ .... ~ p.. _ .
- -,-- -, -- ----~J& - . - tItAL_~ ~~ -- .tkM-9fL~ u
-- -, "----,-"-~ -- !f-~OM--~,'J-~-~~M.d----,---,-
--" _n__~ _ _ _ AM--/l)~~--~~-."-_-
_n'n,_,__,__u_ -' - -- &- ~~~7::,/tILN~--m-'-
-,- -,,---- -,----.L<<dt.- ~- ~-L_ttL~-~tL-'/kL-,-------
'_'n' 'm -,-,---~---1L~ ,~~~/2utL~N~------
-no" u_ ---,-- --~ _' '_ . _~__~ ~ . ~:&-,i{L,,----
a"" - _n' ---1tI~--#d-kC-:AL-IJ!I;fC-~-~ ~--,--,----,
., -,-,--,--,f~-kl1JdL~-:ffLgt2-L~~~~---.---,-,--,
- - -,-, ----- -'I/!/ItU-,/#-,/M!d1td:l-..Ja~-_~-~__~_n_' _'__n
'n_ -u--,-,----rt-~- -- 7~~-1Izo+- --~~--------,-
,------n-""n-r~---k, - -, - '. - .. tf.JttJd,-_,,___
'n---,,--------~;ke--'-4J:tI'U-~tU1. . -~-/l~,-----"
____non_u n-~tUL--~-f:'I;-.~~--~-1 ~-,-, -~7-4- -,- ---"
-, u, ,_,_ -----~-i2-~/J&(L-,~- __. _ Mrd_ on _, n ,
m'-"-------'-n-'fiH-,,-,V!.~-~~~-,- __ _ --~,.---vL------
'u,h-u----'----'I~-'-~-fttd---&-.' , - --tl?,--,-~-1W-~
u_, --"--'------~-I_-At:."n~.d.v--- , ,'tdtu../At-~ _ _ _,____,_
,------,-,-----,~~,~-td---~,~--~--- v - 7'--
_un _ u, ---,--.I~-~-~-,-~- ~--~Ck-~ -tuiftv--
-00- ,-- ---, --,-I,~,----~~ltlt-,~-~~r-~-~ _ --Me--..___,___
-- - ---"-'--,LM:--~---~-'-,tta-~- n _,uA, , _ _ ~__ _ _
I .. ... . V 1/
e -'- ---~ ' .- ,-iUt;/iLfUt,aL-'- ,--A~~-Md~.-,
'---,',---"---'l~ - - d,~--tlu,:t ~--e:!f,--~-~---
--------'--1 --~-~-,~~--'J-~--~---,-
,,-_,_______YM ,ftL,{YJ1~_~--/~>>i..H:u~,~,!tL_IL_,~-Cf:..-~
I~, A',~'/, /J NA.I" .l-.---""j;;,~----/[),__, _ ;"..,__ ...:/"
'.._.. _mn..' '_n .i-~._tIa
!
I ...u._' 0;: I ~
-,-,M~- __n~~_--7'8AAL, ,___,___,
~ ',' \\. '. '~
.. ........~ ~"l': .",\\-\ to'l,,' '. '
, '~,J-.J~"~:L:b~}.:;.A~_ ,_~~\l._-:h~ ~__ ."_n_'__~
.... ..
....., ", .
e
'_"__'n_'n~": ,,' '\, .. ~--':::.'---,-_ '-:_~:--'-~~-.... ___~- '~~= '~--:-' .....n.. ~\, ' ,
-~~~. .,.}~::l.--,:c~', ':')'\---1"'\~~~~~~'_...)-:''''--m-- ,.. '._____,___ _,__
. k':-~. ' . '\' lit \' -':, " : ,~"-t-' ~=-- ~':}\,~~~, '\__~.)~;u~{"'1-L__-,----_._" __,
! '>, ~ ~ ":, !".. . -. . ~\ .,,' .. ", '--~
_!\., b.\~ .. ' ,.. ~ ~l,"~.~ ,".....- - ,,\, " '.', .'""', ,
.-------~-Il~~..,.. '. \"... . --' - '~~.__:b:-_ ~~..~._~ .!l....\.:...... ,"::!\ :..S;.'\\~:4-._ ---.--..-------
,------, -t,.t0~~\.:3,~\>~;~ -~/tt~~IU~~~~~-~"~~~' ~~,~L_ ,_
,~. . ~\. \, '. ~\ '~.~,""'(\ \~.
I ~'t.....).,~..~....~ ~~"""', L) "'(-:\~'-\ ""l~'..~' ,...'._1 -....., ':'r ~\,~....\......\'~\....\~
------\j' ~I "....' \\ _.r~,: ,'--~-,~\-.:::-:~~--~' ~~"l~~~~_-"--'---n, ,--,
!') \..\..~:A(~'':,'~\:~~'\-,-~,~' ,.1.!1; ~:.~\LL.:L-~'..~:!:{~l\..'\'~tj:!'~,----,----,
___-.-~-.'-~',-l,"", ~, ,,~ \'.-:\~~~\.~\'~ ;"t\ _' 'i".....:~\, ...~\,.J~.....\~.~\~\\~'., _______ ,____,
'. ',,, \, .....~.....,..." \. \.' ',. 'l>.. \\ ",. I hS'\
""'--\.~, r ~""~ \\ "~~'i\T.Jo.J\. ..~i4..:}~~_~~~\-?,~..~:~~ ~ .\~'t~,4~..:~.~...~~L-.--.
" .' ~ ':10, . .
\.\ ." \\ :i.:i~' '. ~ ~. '--'~\. ~'~ . '
---------_--1-.... t;u.t'I' ~t\~;-\ :;"''i.~~,,- ~,\-\ ')...-'~.:.... -:.-~.........D',\~~"\.'. ~, ~.h._-----------
__,__--k;ls:~\:~ ..:..i:s~~\,-~~~~_ ,~~,. ...l.-!~"'t.~.--.",~\ ....,,~ ,\,''\~' ___n_'_'___
~" . ',,\ '\',,-
. " '!.....~. ...,\., . v ~ l ~~\, l...."'.r:-: ...\ ~ . tl."'....~\...',. '-.
___,,__ · - ""\\~_- "'-'>:-,~~,,''l,). !"-,,,'~'. ,-t",\-),.~_.. .\, "--..:...~~~~ '~L_,_,____"____
..' '\ '., ~" '\.. \-' ~ ~, " ...-
-..------~.)'-;~. ',::~;y-\~~. }",--_ :~_ :\l~~>_ ',~: ' .~~" "'!.' ',,~';.st~ "'~_-'-n-----
'--------.':-i~ \,\~.) "j<l,l'tr'~~....::r1_" ,,:~, (t:,-~'\.. ~ .....~\..~--;-\ \u-u,---( ~
___ ,____" ';.n~~.:S!.~~...... ,~,....: ~~,."'~~~ :0' ::.~~,.':},~'." 't, \.~"--~J.~'\tl\.~~-~\.:--::\;,~S~----, .__,,_ ___n'.'
-:I., -- .~ , " '.:::,.'f:-" i-,,' ".... - '.1'\ , -,' "~
~"!_'" \-=-~ I ~\.J....\~...j.~)..~.~ \ ..('o.l~)S~ \ .._____.___.
"'\. . ~ . .. \.. i, \ '\; '"I;.....~
__,_,__,_,___>. 'i';;": ~ 'l..:",\_\.l'0..lt~~ '~lN..',',~.:,~~'j.~~)_--~,~-, \'.<:,:.:;.~,,\.l.......!..\c-~'. _n_____,___
~ \. t-,....., t\' ...." \~. .. ..':... .~.~ ~... \ -~--
,_.._,___ ~l;)~,:~:'\m.\'\~,t),.~:4_~~L~ \\::'-~\...\i~ '~~~.l, ~_~ ~~~~,-::'~~~~~~~:-n-'..-----..------
.".\. tv ~ )-..::~ :.,S, \.. ......~ .. ~. ~ ~ ..~'\. \'" ~';-'~ 'It, '-':.\'$\. \. ' ... ~
.__~~~...J,..~~~+_\";::...~:~~~ .l~~_ -Sl~_.~r::i ~.....t.~..~....,~~~~-~~~__::i.~~---- ..__ ____
_,~J'\ ~:>! .kx....\.. ,,\,.,::-,::'. "_;~~L~~~~--.:"~,,,.,.i.::;;-:.,~)}~";~~t~\\~ ~__,"~~~, '::t.~i~:"--_-_- '____'n_'
" \ ':'.. . ~ \ '." :-. \) \~ \ \
,_____ 'i..\_: -L"......ll1'\':,j,,~ _,,~ -.2:"~~ \~~'-_~.;;J..}3!S:JJ..~~,~_~_).!..~~'t....- ~:.~ ..:,.:~_\.& '. n"::~\~n____.n __"_.__,,
8 "'.. . - \ '-., -- ~ '.
\~",',':.J ,;~;- '. ,<,,-,,\- :-<;.... -'\-:'t~..,-"...i, .,~\\ -'l:':-",\:\- "'cl'''''~'''1-"",\ '.,~\.;:~,
._.~~ -2.M" ~~\._ _...._...._~"':~loo..?...._~~_.~L.......~-~');....)...N_;,-.-~-~~.;b _..:.:..__~~ _...___....._._..
-\~.\ - '\ '-_ .. '. ':\ M ~'\ ~: .- .... '.., i\.. ..
\'!';:...: ~... \ . \ :1 ., ' ,<,. "-" " \. -,,~ "... ~ ...A ....' \ ':' ,
,,__ ,.._.._, _..::..:y..:.::::.::.~~~ \__ "'--:....~~ "l',"-->>:~. "'-'--;,.,~-_-___.,)::...,,-::h~~_:'...~.:.n-' ,._ ';-,.,--:.~1..-,.n h. __ _, ___
'-""~J\ ,L j.~~~<. j;~:~h_ .;~~~~~.-' ,'~~.::si- =,_~~~~;..~~r~~'-\.\.....,~(,\:, " -, .-------,--
~t\~.- ... . 'f" r- I\,"t'.,..a."l.-. -.;:",\--"" . """ ~ ,\'\~.... ~
_ __'.:.~-\~.," ~....\.~:\":\.~"'~~""\.J ...j~j'J 1...;::}..___ ."':)... .~h~~,__~~____=J'...:A.::&~~ "~~~~~_~~..::a..:}.......--.--.--.--...---.--.
. ~I. \\.'< , \ .... '. ~..."\' . . . t\ '. ~. ......., .
--'---''--''--It,....~ ' -Y",,:. .=1-\..~1:\\'--- ;,:o..~_ h.~,Al~';~,:J...:h. -,.la__'i.i:_\-. _~,&~\;"'-'h__._~~__, . _m.' - -" ,"',--,-
. \ \\ . ... .",... .; ,~ . ~...
_n.._,J<~:~.' ~ ,.),~'-~.:~._,j;.;.~_""hL__,~-\ ~\;:~h__ ,_~,'b\\h' _..,....::,.~i~,--., ~'t:"m.'~__,~~__,. ,,_,._ n.' _"
',\ . \i' ~"- ~..,Io." .\'-.. -........ --..-...: . e
~" "",,, "... ~ -" '''''', ,; ,'. ~....~~,. ,\. ,\, Y'l,." "\"&. ~';". ! '.' , ~ ~,,\l~i\ ,
. M"....... ..L......~. ...._-I..x..........::... :'I..~...'- ..);..1. .... .. '" ..-,.._ "-.-\-..! , ,. \ \\. \'\. . t. ...... "'1,;::....1
-,---..._ - ...... __'~__; - _.~ - _..._'__'__--;__'___~__n..=_~ __ ,'""---;-'~..........,- _Un (
,____"__~~ . ),7-.~~. _-'~~__"~n.~.::..!~L._.ii::.~,.}~\'~~~ ~\>.;..n_~'.;~~,,~ ,_,k__
~ . '\.. . ..,.... . -,~ ........ .~.. "'" ..
:.. '~,' " ',-,.' ..(1..\::) 'i:" \ ""'-','.,'':>''. '....'q'., '!:'-!'-'\...... ....t,\. .,~~~...0. 0'_'. ,
.'--......" r\\ . ,....:......-,\\.. .._ ......-"011........... ...~......\-"\.dL . ,.J':&: .................._. _0.... "ill. ""_""\,
-__._...._ ..~~. .___.l...",;_._~.._._ .......... ~~ .'\.,;,_ _..__.._.._ __ __ .. _____...&"~-r-. ._P__._. __._.
. - .... . \. . ~l \. . ~ ': \.. \\\.. ,
.:::~\~t"..~~__.: _ .:....i:~~~_. .':.r~_.._~;'.:::::.r.\:......B~~};:~:_..'..::1l1~_.r. :-~_~~~. ..~;~;::J_~tt'~\:... . . ~\ .n.:r.Q~~\..\.\.~..
... .. ~ I ~- .'1;' . "'\ ~ .. \
.......,. .to...... r. .....'~......,'. ....:':.. ,..''l.' .~. ..~.~". \. ...~~ .....
Page 7
e
The bottom line is: are we concerned with rules more than with people's wishes and desires?
It is us, people, who make rules.
In short, we, at 429 Beryl Cove Way, offer the fonowing to increase the overall curb appeal
for the 7' Side Wall built at the property line next to the sidewalk:
Solar motion-activated lights at each end of the Side Wall
Wrought iron see-through inserts at the last span of the 7' Side Wall- for overall visibility,
tall plants in self-watering containers behind metal inserts
Flat 2-tone high-quality stucco finish for the 7' Side Wall along Marlin ave as part IT of the
Improvement Project at 429 Beryl Cove Way,
Any other architectural suggestions for the aesthetic side of the Project are welcome and will be
considered,
Thank you,
e
Nora Varshavsky
Leo Varshavslcy
e
e
Gi:z.6~
,41- ~l1-c
e
(;-/2 ~
1}1-r;-):1-LZ '
e
!l2'l E36R:-jL cov& 'kJA-.Y'
C~/6 77Ntd- p~c&-' F}L-C/UCr
m.4-/!2-l.-/".J .4- Y E '
.
.
If.;z 9 ,g e;2i.L- aN/;. ~;I .,
AI-- ~"Cr r71,#ZJ-1# ,LJ V &/ .:?ol?771 ",I pC: .
~ ~ ~10- ;N.cr.T',s(HZ-Y
~:?~~ ~,f.(/rdf'{;F) ];.l7pb
e
,
7'-;2') 61:t?&/~
, r~c& '
J7I2-flP~rY tJ 1f::r:2<ft'> -oj
1;2t!J S~
c;o V.t:. wlf '
e
e
.
, '
.
..
,Gou771
. 6(r::?~
~p&fer.J
f} t:- r;..-fl;;'
~
G-J2. c,eJJ hi- ~11t=.
.
>
~~J
II 1- r;--Il fi.
&;J -, '
G /.P e.vv,4t-JL..
Gf2-e~
ft1-&-/J~
4J-. {;l".LG- /lf~.w /fv.? ..
::5 '0 [/ 7?1 '6 I:r:::> &. '
,
e
,
e
,
iJ J.- (/<f.f G- p,4?2J.. /,J /IV J!:.
..:? 0 (,r1?/ t5 j J;;? 13-
..
. ~,:,.:...~"{
i)f;i"
~
(I) 0 J"..1? f
f}-~ G-fJ J3-
e
~
/}).. ~ j-I {;c ,r?1,4?ZJ- / -,j /f V i:-
N 0/2-1?I '6ft:? f3;
- '
,
pv (; pI;?;;'
ftJR 1;1.//I~
:7) (YJJ tAI'fL
rt7 1?f15
J.!7 ) N -rJ!:1.lP"
eP ~JZ
Lj-:;?-9
~f?1Z.:1 1-
C/O"';&'
(;VA)'"
e
e
e
e
Public Hearing Fe: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-/8
City Council Staff Report
June 25, 2007
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-
18, ADOPTED APRIL 4, 2007
V AR 07-2 - CC Appeal StaffRopolt
17
e
RESOLUTION NUMBER 07-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 07-2, A
REQUEST TO ALLOW A 7-FOOT mGH WALL
ALONG THE STREET SIDE AND REAR YARD
PROPERTY LINES AT 429 BERYL COVE
WAY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On March 2,2007, Nora and Leo Varshavsky applied for
Variance 07-2 with the Department of Development Services.
e
Section 2. The applicant is seeking to construct a 7-foot high block
wall along the street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is
currently allowed.
Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ l5025(a) and ~ II.A
of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application
for Variance No. 07-2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305 (Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land
use limitations in an area with an average slope ofless than 20% and no changes in land
use or density are involved; 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 before the Planning
Commission on April 4, 2007 to consider the application for Variance No. 07-2.
Section 5.
The record of the hearing on April 4, 2007 indicates the
following:
e
(a) On March 2,2007, Nora and Leo Varshavsky applied for Variance
07-2 with the Department of Development Services and are seeking approval to construct
a 7-foot high block wall along the street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-
foot high wall is currently allowed.
Z \My DocumontslRESOIV AR 07-2,429 Beryl Cove Way PC R<so,DOC\L W\04.09-o7
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
e
(b) The subject property contains approximately 5,600 sq. ft. and is
located on the southwest comer of Beryl Cove Way and Marlin Avenue (429 Beryl Cove
Way).
(c) The subject property contains an existing, legal, single-family
residential home with an attached 2-car garage.
(d) The subject property has 100 feet of frontage on Marlin Avenue
and 56 feet of frontage on Beryl Cove Way. The "front" of the lot is on Beryl Cove Way,
even though the garage entry is from Marlin Way.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
All Directions except North: Single-family residential homes located in the
Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone.
North McGaugh Elementary School in the IPublic Land
UseIRecreation (pLU/R) Zone.
(f) The Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 28-2316 sets forth the
following requirements regarding heights of walls for properties located in the in the A
Residential Low Density Zone, District I: _
Front Yard Abutting Street
3.5 feet high in required 18- foot front
setback area (Section 28-2316.A.l.b)
Side Yard Not Abutting Street
Rear Yani Not Abutting Street
Side Yani Abutting Street
6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.2.a)
6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.3.a)
6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.2.b)
(g) The Code allows fences to be higher than the above requirements
in certain specified areas in Section 28-2316.B.8. The subject property is not located in
any of the specified areas where a higher fence is allowed.
(h) Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School has 45 feet of right-
of-way, and has 60 feet of right-of-way westerly of Riviera Drive.
(i) The playground area for McGaugh Elementary School is located
across Marlin Avenue from the subject property. The playground is approximately 2'-7"
higher in elevation than the subject property, and has a chain link fence separating the
playground area from Marlin Avenue. The change in grade elevation between the subject
property and home and the school results in a lack of privacy due to the ability of persons A
on the school grounds to be able to clearly see over the street-side fence and directly into _
VAA 07-2,429 Beryl Cove Way,PC Reso
2
e
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
the private yard area and living areas of the home. In addition, Marlin Avenue adjacent
to McGaugh School has 45 feet of right-of-way, 15 feet less right-of-way than westerly
of Riviera Drive. The reduced street width results in the school facilities being located
approximately 15-feet closer to residences than exist along the Riviera side of the school
grounds.
(j) The subject parcel is one of 4 parcels that do not directly face the
school playground area along the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are 5 parcels that
have their front yards facing the school playground, and therefore do not have the main
bedroom areas or their outdoor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of
the school.
e
(k) The subject property is approximately 2'-7" lower in elevation
than the school playground, resulting in a lack of normal privacy for use of the yard area
and the living areas of the home on the subject property that are visible from the
playground area. The request for a 7-foot high wall with a maximum length of 53 feet
from the rear property line, and a 7-foot high extension of that wall across the back of the
subject property, is being made to allow for an adequate wall height for the privacy of the
homeowner in their yard and home. The strict application of the wall height
requirements would restrict the normal enjoyment and use of their yard area and the
living areas of the home.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in ~ 5 of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-2316,28-2500,28-2501, and 28-
2502 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) Variance 07-2, as recommended, is consistent with the provisions
of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Residential Low
Density" designation for the subject property and permits residential land uses in
accordance with certain development standards. The proposed 7-foot high wall with a
maximum length of 53 feet from the rear property line along Marlin Avenue and the
proposed 7-foot high wall across the back of the subject property will allow for the
continued use of the residential property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of
privacy, which is one of the goals of the Land Use Element. The use is also consistent
with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements
are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed
use is consistent with the General Plan.
e
(b) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property,
including the location of the playfields for McGaugh Elementary School directly across
the street from the subject property, the playfield being approximately 2'-7" higher than
the subject property, and the reduced right-of-way width of Marlin Avenue adjacent to
the school, the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject
property has the side and rear yards visible from the school playfield and as a result the
VAR 07-2,429 Beryl Cove Way,PC Res.
3
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4. 2007
side and rear yards and main living areas of the subject property are clearly visible to
persons on the playfield. The reduced street width adjacent to McGaugh School results
in the playfield areas being located approximately 15 feet closer than would exist if
Marlin Avenue was built at the width of 60 feet, as exists west of the school facility. The
strict application of the wall height requirements would result in a loss of normal privacy
at a residential use in a residential zoning district.
e
(c) The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and
zone, given that only 4 other properties in the vicinity have similar lot orientations, and
because the variance allows the subject property to maintain useable outdoor recreation
areas and utilization of interior living spaces roughly equivalent to that of the standard
parcels in the surrounding area.
(d) The subject property is unique physically in that it is one of 4
parcels that do not directly face the school playground area along the south side of Marlin
Avenue. There are 5 parcels that have their front yards facing the school playground, and
therefore do not have the main bedroom areas or their outdoor yard areas visible from the
elevated playground area of the school.
(e) The variance, as recommended for approval for the provision of a
7-foot high wall with a maximum length of 53 feet from the rear property line along _
Marlin Avenue and a proposed 7-foot high wall across the back of the subject property .,
would not be detrimental to adjoining properties as the variance requested on the street
side property line would allow for a wall I-foot higher than is currently permitted to be
located in the same location. The requested variance along the Marlin Avenue side of the
property will not be detrimental to adjoining properties, as the nearest properties on the
Marlin Avenue side are across Marlin Avenue, which is 45 feet in width, and the
requested variance consists of a 1 foot increase in the height of a wall, and encompass a
total length of 53 feet. Marlin Avenue west of McGaugh School has 60 feet of right-of-
way.
(f) The granting of the requested variance for the proposed 7-foot wall
across the rear property line occurs in an area where the privacy intrusion issues from the
elevated playfield slide equipment allow for viewing into the rear yard of the subject
property, resulting in a loss of privacy in this area of the property unless the requested
variance were to be approved.
(g) The granting of the requested variance, as conditioned, will allow
for the continued use of the residential property with the ability to maintain a reasonable
level of privacy for those areas of the home that are directly visible from the elevated
playfield areas and elevated playground equipment located at McGaugh School.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission _
hereby approves Variance No. 07-2, subject to the following conditions: .,
V AR 07,2 429 BOIy. Cove Way PC Reso
4
e
e
e
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
1.
Variance 07-2 is approved for the construction ofa maximum 7-foot high street
side property line wall with a maximum length of S3 feet from the rear property
line and a 7-foot high wall across the rear property line at 429 Beryl Cove Way.
2.
All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved
through Variance 01-2, as modified by the Planning Commission to require the
street side property line wall adjacent to Marlin Avenue to be set back a minimum
of I-foot from the street side property line, and that landscaping and automatic
sprinklers shall be provided in the I-foot setback area. Landscaping shall be
limited to climbing vine species and shall be approved by the Director of
Development Services.
3.
This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance
of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the
Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning
Department; and until the 10 day appeal period has elapsed.
4.
If any claim, action or proceeding (collectively "action'') is instituted by a third
party or parties challenging the validity of the this approval, Developer and City
shall cooperate in defending any such action. City shall notify Developer of any
such action against City within ten working days after City receives service of
process, except for any petition for injunctive relief, in which case City shall
notify Developer immediately upon receipt of notice thereof. Developer shall
indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, and any of its officers, employees or
agents for any action by a third party or parties brought to challenge the Project
Approvals; provided, however, that if City fails promptly to notify Developer of
any action against City, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Developer
shall not thereafter be responsible for City's defense. Developer shall reimburse
all of City's defense costs including, without limitation, court costs, attorney's
fees incurred by counsel selected by the City, and expert witness fees. Developer
shall promptly pay all monetary awards, judgments, verdicts, court costs and
attorneys fees that may be awarded in such action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 4th day of
Anril .2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
BELLO, DEATON, MASSA-LAVlTT, O'MALLEY, AND ROBERTS
NOES: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
VAR 07-2 429 Beryl Cove Way,PC Reso
5
Lee Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
VAR 07.2429Bcry1 CoveWay,PCRoso
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
e
Ellery Deaton, Chairperson
Planning Commission
e
e
6
e
e
e
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of V arionce 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Staff Report
June 25, 2007
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4,2007
V AR 07-2 - CC Appoal StoffRoport
18
-
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
--
City of See/ Beech Planning Commission
Meetlng Minutes of April 4, 2007
None.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by O'Malley to approve Conditional Use Permit 07-6
and adopt Resolution 07-16 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-16 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
6. Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Applicant/Owner: Nora Varshavsky & Leo Varshavsky
Request: To construct a 7-foot high block wall along the street side
yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is
currently allowed.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
07-18.
Staff Reoort
Mr, Whittenberg delivered the staff report, (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
noted that the property is located on a corner lot across the street from the McGaugh
Elementary School playground area. He explained that there is approximately a
2.5-foot grade differential from the height of the playground area to the height of the
Varshavsky property, which allows people on the playground to look over the current
6-foot high wall into the applicant's rear yard and into the living spaces. He stated that
the applicant is requesting to construct a 7-foot high wall along the street frontage and
on the return across the rear of the property adjacent to the neighbor's driveway, The
Director of Development Services explained that due to the grade differential and the
narrowness of the street in this area, allowing only a 45-foot wide right-of-way rather
than 60 feet, the school grounds are 15 feet closer to 429 Beryl Cove than most of the
other properties in the area. Staff is recommending approval of the 7 -foot wall along the
street frontage of the property, subject to conditions; however, Staff does not
recommend approval of the Variance for a 7-foot wall across the rear of the property,
which is the common line to the neighbor and adjacent to a driveway, and meets no
findings to recommend approval. He then provided a PowerPoint presentation of
photos of the subject property.
6 of 10
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 April 4, 2007
e
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
Leo Varshavsky spoke for himself and Nora Varshavsky. He stated that they feel they
definitely need the 7-foot high wall to the rear of the property as well, because the trees
that currently provide some screening in this area are to be removed to construct the
wall. He noted that when school children are on the Jungle Jim on the playground they
are able to have an unobstructed view into the side of the Varshavsky house and can
look directly into a bedroom and the living room. He then indicated that the property on
the corner of Jade Cove Way and Marlin Avenue has a 7-ft. 2-in. high wall along both
the side facing Marlin Avenue and on the rear of the properly. Nora Varshavsky added
that her rear yard faces the neighbor's front yard and the children use a basketball hoop
located in the driveway and the basketball is always in the Varshavsky's yard. She
noted that for curb appeal they would also like to have the entire wall the same height.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the back yard is the same elevation on both sides of the
fence. Mr. Varshavsky stated that the intent is that the elevation will be the same on
both sides when the wall is constructed. Commissioner Roberts then questioned the
request for a 7-foot high fence along Marlin Avenue to be 53 feet in length with
proposed extension at a later time. Mr. Whittenberg inte~ected that Staff has
recommended that the 7-foot high, 70-foot long wall be approved to include the future
extension.
e
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
hearing,
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner O'Malley stated that he believes the applicants have a good argument
for allowing a 7-foot wall along the property line. He agreed that the drop from 7-feet to
6-feet at the corner of the property would affect the aesthetics. He said he would vote in
favor of this request.
Commissioner Bello asked if Staff had actually accessed the playground equipment to
determine if it does provide an unobstructed view into the Varshavsky's property. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that he did not do so, but noted that the playground equipment does
look like it can be moved. He suggested approving the 7-foot height up to the comer of
the house and then step the fence down to 6-feet along the rear of the property.
Commissioner Bello stated that for aesthetics and privacy, she would be in favor of this
with the modifications.
e
7 of 10
~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2007
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that on the plans the pilasters for the proposed wall
would extend into the front yard, and a 70-foot block wall right at the sidewalk going all
the way across to the driveway creates a strong barrier between the street and the
property. She explained that people driving by would see only a long wall with no
greenery. She suggested that having the last pilaster located at the end of the house
where the gate would begin would be more reasonable, as the front lawn would visible
from the street, and this would be more aesthetically pleasing than a solid block wall.
Chairperson Deaton asked if she should re-open the public hearing to inquire about the
design of the proposed driveway gate. Mr. Whittenberg stated that she could do this,
but indicated that the plans submitted to Staff show a 70-foot long block wall, all the way
to the driveway.
Chairperson Deaton re-opened the pUblic hearing.
Nora Varshavsky explained that they have future plans to extend the living room closer
to the driveway and construct a second floor over the garage. She said that this
addition would take over what is now the lawn area. Chairperson Deaton asked if the
Varshavsky's had considered moving the fence back from the property line to allow for
plantings in front of the wall. Ms. Varshavksy stated that these drawings are the
preliminary design plans. The Director of Development Services cautioned regarding
questions beyond the scope of the applicant's request. Leo Varshavsky noted that the
property on Jade Cove Way has no lawn either.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
hearing,
Chairperson Deaton stated that she agrees with Commissioner Massa-Lavitt's
comments and inquired whether a wall could be constructed on the side property line,
even though it faces a street frontage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is a standard
provision of City Code. He stated that under a Variance the Planning Commission has
the authority to require something as an offset for the increased height of the fence,
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if it would be appropriate to approve the 7-foot block
wall only to the end of the house where the temporary wood gate is located, and when
the Varshavsky's are ready to do the remodel, they can request approval for the
extension of the wall.
Commissioner O'Malley stated that he is more concerned with safety than he is with
aesthetics. He questioned whether bringing the block wall all the way to the driveway
might obstruct the view of cars backing out of the Varshavsky driveway. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that there could still be a 7-foot wall in this area, but material that is
not solid could be used on this portion of the wall to provide for visibility, such as
wrought iron. With regard to aesthetics along the street, he noted that the Commission
co Id approve the wall with a 1-foot wide pocket landscape area between the wall and
B of 10
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 April 4. 2007
the sidewalk to allow for vines or other plantings. Chairperson Deaton stated that this
would be her preference. Mr. Whittenberg recommended taking a consensus on each
issue to determine what the final approval would include.
e
Commissioner Bello stated she would approve this request with the landscape pocket
along the Marlin Avenue wall.
Commissioner Roberts agreed with the suggestion to approve the 53-foot long wall with
the 1-foot landscape setback along Marlin Avenue. He asked what would happen on
the east side of the driveway along Beryl Cove Way. He assumed the proposed gate
will cross the driveway, Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is not an issue before the
Commission tonight. He suggested that the motion include the 1-foot area for
landscaping and that this area be approved by the Director of Development Services,
and that automatic sprinklers be added to this landscape area.
Commissioner O'Malley stated that the 7-foot height should be allowed to extend along
the rear property line, adjacent to the neighbor's property.
Chairperson Deaton asked how this would fit in with the legality for granting Variances.
Mr. Abbe stated that the Commission must find that there is a special condition of the
property allowing the granting of this special height. He added that if based on the
testimony the Commission finds that privacy or other concerns justify the extra foot in
height, they may grant this request.
e
MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Variance 07-2 and adopt
Resolution 07-18 as amended to approve a 7-foot high block wall along the rear of the
property and a 7-foot high 53-foot long wall along Marline Avenue and require a 1-foot
landscape setback area to include an automatic sprinkler system to be approved by the
Director of Development Services,
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-18 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow moming.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission of the cancellation of the next scheduled
meeting of Wednesday, April 18, 2007. The next meeting will be May 9,2007, during
which an additional Study Session on the Subdivision and Zoning Code Revisions is to
be conducted,
e
9 of 10
e
e
e
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Variance 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
Planning Commission Resolution 07-18
City Council Staff Report
June 25, 2007
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF
APRIL 4, 2007, WITH ATTACHMENTS 1
THROUGH 5
VAR07-2 -CCAppoal StaffRopoIt
19
e
e
e
/'
(
(-
April 4, 2007
STAFF REPORT
, .
To:
From:
Honorable r.haim,an and Planning Co=ission
Department of Development Services
VARIANCE 07-2
429 Beryl Cove Way
GENERAL DESCRIPTION I
Subject
Applicant: NORA AND LEO V ARSBAVSKY
Owner; NORA AND LEO V ARSHAVSKY
Location: 429 BERYL COVE WAY
Classification of Property; RESIDENTIAL Low DENSITY (RLD)
Request; To CONSTRUCT A 7-FOOT HIGH BLOCK WALL ALONG THE
STREET SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD PROPERTY LINES WHERE A
6-FOOT HIGH WALL IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
Environmental Review; THIs PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW.
Code Sections; 28-2316;28-2500;28-2501;28-2502
Reco=endation: APPROVE VARIANCE 07-2, SUBJECT TO CONDmONS, BY
ADOPTING RESOLuTION 07-i8.
FACTS I
o On March 2, 2007, Nora and Leo VarshavskY applied for Variance 07-2 with the Department
of Development Services.
o The applicant is seeking to construct a 7-foot high block wall along the street side yard and
rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is currently allowed.
o The subject property contains approximately 5,600 sq. ft. and is located on the southwest
co~er of Beryl Cove Way and Marlin Avenue (429 Beryl Cove Way).
Z:ILWhittonborglMy DoCUlDOll1SIVARIANCEI07-2,429 BayI Cove Way.PC StaffRoport.cIocILW\03-27-07
(
rfannlng Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl COIle Way
Apri14, 2007
o The subject property contains an existing, legal, single-fiunily residential home with an attached
2-car garage.
(
e
o The subject property has 100 feet of frontage on Marlin Avenue and 56 feet of frontage on
Beryl Cove Way. The "front" of the lot is on Beryl Cove Way, even though the garage entry
is from Marlin Way , ' ,
o The surrounding land use and Z9IDng are as follows:
All Directions except North: Single..fiunily residential homes located in the Residential Low
Density (RID) Zone.
North
McGaugh Elementary School in the Public Land Use/R.ecreation
(pLU/R) Zone.
o The Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 28-2316 sets forth the following requirements
regarding heights of waIls for properties located in the in the Residential Low Density Zone,
District I:
Front Yard Abutting Street
Side Yard Not Abutting Street
3.5 feet high in required 18-foot front setback are~
(Section 28-2316.A.l.b)
6 feet high (Section 28-2316,A.2.a)
6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.3.a)
'6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A.2.b)
e
Rear Yard N~t Abutting Street
Side Yard Abutting Street
o The Code allows fences to be higher than the above requirements in certain specified area in
Section 28-2316.B.il. The subject property is not loCated in any of the specified areas where
a higher fence is allowed.
o Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School has 45 feet of right-of-way, and has 60 feet of
right-of-way westerly of Riviera Drive.
D. Applicant's Statement: See Variance application (Attachment 2). ,
IJ Ai. of March 27,2007 Staffhas not received any communications, written or oral, regarding
this request.
DISCUSSION t
e
07-2,429 BmyI Cove Way,pC StaffRoport
2
,,-
I
Analysis:
As indicated above, the applicant-is requesting a variance to construct a 7-foot high block wall
along the street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is currently
allowed
As indicated by the applicant in support of the subject request, the playground area for McGaugh
Elementary School is located across Marlin Avenue from the subject property. The playground
is approximately 2'-7" higher in elevation than the subject property, and has a chain link fence
separating the playground area from Marlin Avenue. The applicants assert that the change in
grade elevation between their home and the school results in a lack of privacy due to the ability
of persons on the schopl grounds to be able to clearly see over their street-side fence and directly
into their private yard area and home. In addition, Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School
has 45 feet of right-of-way, 15 feet less right-of-way than westerly of Riviera Drive. The reduced
street width results in the school facilities being located approximately IS-feet closer to
residences than exist along the Riviera side of the school grounds.
e
In general, variances are granted in unique situations where a particular property can not conform
to the code due to unique physical characteristics. A classic example would be a triangular piece
of land that could not conform to the required setbacks by virtue of its unique physical
characteristics.
The subject parcel is one of 4 parcels that do not directly face the school playground area along
the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are 5 parcels that have their front yards facing the school
playground, and therefore do not have the main bedroom areas or their outdoor yard areas visible
from the elevated playground area of the school. '
The subject property'is approximately 2'-7" lower in elevation than the school playground,
resulting in a lack of normal privacy for use of their yard area and the living areas of the home
that are visible from the playground area. The request for a 7-foot high wall with a maximum
length of 70 feet from the rear property line is being made to allow for an adequate wall height
for the'privacy of the homeowner in their yard and home. The strict application of the wall
height requirements would restrict the normal enjoyment and use of their yard area and the living
areas of the home.
e
The variance requested on the rear property line would al1o~ for an extension of the proposed 7-
foot high wall along Marlin Avenue across the back of the subject property. In,this area the view
issues from the playground areas of McGaugh School do not exist. There are no substantial
grade differences between the 2 residential properties to warrant approval of such a request.
07-2,429 Beryl Cove Way.PC StaffRoport
3
("
(
rlanning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 -429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
Required Findings to be made to Approve a Varianee:
Section 28-2502 of the Municipal Code sets forth ''findings'' which the Planning Commission
must make affirmative determinations regarding in order for a variance to be granted. They are:
CI The variance will not adversely affect the General Plan
CI Special cilcumstances applicable to the property somehow deprive the property owner
from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the same
vicinity and zone
CI The granting of such variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges
RECOMMENDATION I,
After receiving all testimony, written and oral, staff recommends that the Commission approve
Variance 07-2, revised to deny the requested variance for a 'Ylill higher than 6 feet along the rear
yard property line.
Staff's recommendation is based on the following:
CI Variance 07-2, as recommended, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element
of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Residential Low Density" designation for the
subject property and permits residential land uses in accordance with certain development
standards. The proposed 7-foot high wall with a maximl!ID length of 70 feet from the rear
property tine along Marlin Avenue will allow for the continued use of the residential property
with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy, which is one of the goals of the
Land Use Element. The use is also consistent with the TP.ml!;n;l1g elements of the City's
General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with. and reflected in, the Land
Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
o Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including the location of the
playfields for McGaugh Elementary School directly across the street from the subject
property, the playfield being approximately 2'-T',higher than the subject property, and the
reduced right-of-way width of Marlin Aven~ adjacent to the school, the strict application of
the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject property bas the side yard visible from the school
playfield and as a result the yard and main living areas of the subject property are clearly
visible to persons on the playfield. The reduced street width adjacent to McGaugh School
results in the playfield areas being located approximately 15 feet closer than would exist if
Marlin Avenue was built at the width of 60 feet, as exists west of the school facility. The
strict application of the wall height requirements would result in a loss of normal privacy at a
residential use in a residential zoning district.
07-2,429 BIllY! Cove Way,pC StaffRoport
4
e
e
e
(
J'lanning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4. 2007
e 0 The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity an,d zone, given that only 4 other
properties in the vicinity have similar lot orientations, and because the variance allows the
subject property to maintain useable outd~or recreation areas and utilization of interior living
spaces roughly equivalent to that of the standard. parcels in the smrounding ar~a.
~
(
o The subject property is unique physically in that it is one of 4 parcels that do not directly :face
the school playground area along the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are 5 parcels that
have their front yards facing the school playground, and therefore do not have, the main
bedroom areas or their outdpor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of the
school.
e
o The variance, as recommended for approval, is for the provision of a 7-foot high wall along
the street side yard adjacent to Marlin Avenue only, the requested variance across the rear of
the property is not recommended for approval. The granting of the requested variance for the
proyision of a 7.-foot high wall along the street side yard adjacent to Marlin Avenue would
not be detrimental to adjoining properties as the variance requested on the street side property
line would allow for a wall I-foot higher than is currently permitted to be located in the same
location. The requested variance along the Marlin Avenue side of the property will not be
detriri1ental to adjoining properties, as the nearest properties on the Marlin Avenue side are
across Marlin Avenue, which is 45 feet in width, and the requested variance consists of a 1
foot increase in the height of a wall, and encompass a total length of 53 feet. Marlin Avenue
west of McGaugh School has 60 feet of right-of-way.
o The granting of the requested variance for the proposed 7-foot wall across the rear property
line occurs at a point ~here the privacy intrusion issues from the elevated playfield areas of
the school are not as sensitive. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that a variance is
not warranted for the requested variance for the rear yard fence height increase. The parcel is
generally the same grade elevation as the adjoining residential property and there has been no
substantial evidence presented regarding loss of privacy in this area of the property.
o The granting of the requested variance, as conditioned, will allow for the continued use of the
residential property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy for those areas
of the home that are directly visible from the elevated playfield areas of McGaugh School.
Approval of Variance 07-2 should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 07-18, with the
following conditions in place:
1. Variance 07-2 is approved for the constrUction of a maximum 7-foot high street side
property line wall with a maximum length of 70 feet from the rear property line at 429
Beryl Cove Way.
e
2.
,All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through
Variance 07-2, as modified by the plAnning Commission to only allow the requested
07-2,429 Beryl Cove Way.PC StaffRopolt
5
,
I
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2-429 Beryl Cove Way
Apri14, 2007
variance related to the street side property line adjacent to Marlin Avenue. The requested
variance for the rear yard property line fence height increase is not approved.
e
3. lIDs Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the 10 day appeal period has elapsed.
4.
If any claim, action or proceeding (collectively "action") is instituted by a third party or
parties challenging the validity of the this approval, Developer and City shall cooperate in
defending any such action. City shall notify Developer of any such action against City
within ten working days after City receives service of process, except for any petition for
injunctive relief, in which case City shall notify Developer immediately upon receipt of
notice thereof. Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, and any of its
officers, employees or agents for any action by a third party or parties brough~ to
challenge the Project Approvals; provided, however, that if City fails promptly to notify
Developer of any action against City, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense,
Developer shall not thereafter be responsible for City's defense. Developer shall
reimburse all of City's defense costs including, without HmH."tio~ court costs, attomey's
fees incurred by counsel selected by""the City, and expert witness fees. Developer shall
promptly pay all moneta.Iy awards, judgments, verdicts, court costs and attorneys fees that
may be awarded in such action.
e
Whittenberg, Director '
Department of Development S
Attachments: (5)
Attachment 1:
Proposed Resolution No. 07-18, A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Variance No.
07-2, a Request to Allow a 7-Foot High Wall Along the Street Side
Property Line at 429 Beryl Cove Way
Attachment 2:
Application - Variance 07-2
Attachment 3:
Assessors Parcel Map
Attachment 4:
Plans
Attachment 5:
Property Photos
e
07-2.429 Beryl Cow: Way,pe StaffRopDrl
6
e
e
e
(
-
{
. .anning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2-429 Beryl CCNe Way
April 4, 2007
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 07-18, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
APPROVING VARIANCE N:O. 07-2, A REQUEST
TO ALLOW A 7-FOOT IDGH WALL ALONG THE
,STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 429 BERYL
COVE WAY
07-2,42? Beryl Cove Way,pC Staff Report
7
e
e
e
(
(
, l'lanning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4. 2007
RESOLlITlONNUMBER 07-18
A RESOLlITlON OF THE PLANNING COMMrSSION
OF 'THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 07-2, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A 7-
FOOT mGH WALL ALONG THE STREET SIDE
PROPERTY LINE AT 429 BERYL COVE WAY
THE PLANNING COMMrSSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On March 2, 2007, Nora and Leo Varshavsky applied for Variance
07-2 with the Department of Development Services.
Section 2. The applicant is seeking to construct a 7-foot high block wall along
the street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is currently allowed.
Section 3. Pursu,ant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15025(a) and ~ II.A of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Variance
No. 07-2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average
slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to
~ l506l(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 before the Planning
Commission on Apri14, 2007 to consider the application for Variance No. 07-2.
Section 5.
The record of the h~ on April 4, 2007 indicates the following:
(a) On March 2, 2007, Nora and Leo Varshavsky applied for VarianCe 07-2
with the Department of Development Services and are seeking approval to construct a 7-foot
high block wall along the street side yard and rear yard property lines where a 6-foot high wall is
currently allowed.
(b) The subject property contains approximately 5,600. sq. ft. and is located on
the southwest comer of Beryl Cove Way and Marlin Avenue (429 Beryl Cove Way).
07-2,429 Beryl Cow Way,pC StaffRoport
8
(
("
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2-429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
e
(c) The subject property contains an existing, legal, single-family residential
home with an attached 2-car garage.
(d) The subject property has '100 feet of frontage on Marlin Aven~ and 56
feet of frontage on Beryl Cove Way. The "front" of the lot is on Beryl Cove Way, even though
the garage entry is from Marlin Way.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
All Directions except North: Single-family residential homes located in the
ResidentiRl Low Density (RLD) Zone.
North McGaugh Elementary School in the Public Land UselR.ecreation
(PLUIR) Zone.
(f) The Seal ~each Municipal Code Section 28-2316 sets forth the following
requirements regarding heights of walls for properties located in the in the Residential Low Density
Zone, District I:
Front Yard Abutting Street
Side Yard Not Abutting Street
3.5 feet high in required 18-foot front setback
area (Section 28-23I6.A1.b)
6 feet high (Section 28-23I6.A2.a)
e
Rear Yard Not Abutting Street
6 feet high (Section 28-23I6.A3.a)
Side Yard Abutting Street
'6 feet high (Section 28-2316.A2.b)
(g) The Code allows fences to be higher than the above requirements in
certain specified area in Section 28-2316,B.8. The subject property is not located in any of the
specified areas where a higher fence is allowed.
(h) Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School has 45 feet of right-of-way,
and has 60 feet of right-of-way westerly of Riviera Drive.
(i) The playground area for McGaugh Elementary School is located across
Marlin Avenue from the subject property. The playground is approximately 2'-7" higher in
elevation than the subject property, and has a chain link fence separating the playground area
from Marlin Avenue. The change in grade elevation between the subject property and home and
the school results in a lack of privacy due to the ability of persons on the school grounds to be
able to clearly see over the street-side fenc;e and directly into the private yard area and living
areas of the home. In addition, Marlin Avenue adjacent to McGaugh School has 4S feet of right-
of-way"IS feet less right-of-way than westerly of Riviera Drive. The reduced street width results _
in the school facilities being located approximately IS-feet closer to residences than exist along _
the Riviera side of the school grounds.
07-2.429'Soryl Cove Way,pc Staff Report
9
e
(
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl COlJe Way
April4, 2007
G) The subject parcel is one of 4 parcels that do not directly face the school
playground area along the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are 5 parcels that have their front
yards facing the school playground, and therefore do not have the main bedroom areas or their
outdoor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of the school.
(Ie) The subject property is approximately 2'-7" lower in elevation than the
school playground, resulting in a lack of normal privacy for use of the yard area and the living
areaS of the home on the subject property that are visible from the playground area. The request
for a 7-foot high wall with a maximum length of 70 feet from the rear property line is being made
to allow for an adequate wall height for the privacy of the homeowner in their yard and home.
The strict application of the wall height requirements would restrict the normal enjoyment and
use of their yard area and the living areas of the home. " '
(1) The variance requested on the, rear property line would allow for an
extension of the proposed 7-foot high waIT along Marlin Avenue across the back of the subject
property. In this area the view issues from the playground areas of McGaugh School do not
exist. There are no substantial grade differences between the 2 residential properties to warrant
approval of such a request. ' ,
e
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
~ 4 of this resolution and pursuant to ~~ 28-2316, 28-2500, 28-2501, and 28-2502 of the City's
Code. the Planning Commission hereby finds as folloWs:
(a) Variance 07.2, as reco=ended, is consistent with the provisions of the
Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. which provides a "Residential Low Density"
designation for the subject property and permits residential land uses in accordance with certain
development standards. The proposed 7.foot high wall with a maximum. length of 70 feet from
the rear property line along Marlin Avenue will allow for the continued use of the residential
property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy, which is one of the goals of
the Land Use Element. The use is also consistent with the reD1Aining elements of the City's
General Plan. as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use
Elem~t. Accordingly, the propos~ use is consistent with the General Plan.
e
(b) Because of the special c~umstances applicable to the property, including
the location of the playfields for McGaugh Elementary School directly across the street from the
subject property, the playfield being approximately 2'.7" higher than the subject property, and
the reduced right-of-way width of Marlin Avenue adjacent to the school, the strict application of
the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject property has the side yard visible from the school
playfield and as a result the y8ni and main living areas of the subject property are clearly visible
to persons on the playfield. The reduced street width adjacent to McGaugh School results in the
playfiel~ areas being located approximately 15 feet closer than would exist if Marlin Avenue was
built at the width of 60 feet, as exists west of the school facility. The strict application of the
07-2,429Selyl Cove Way,PC StaffRopon
10
(
(
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
e
wall height requirements would result in a loss of normal privacy at a residential use in a
residential zoning district.
(c) The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone, given that
only 4 other properties in the vicinity have similar lot orient,ations, and because the variance
allows the subject property to maintain useable outdoor recreation areas and lltiH7Ation of
interior living spaces roughly equivalent to that of the standard parcels in the surrouncfuig area.
(d) The subject property is unique physically in that it is one of 4 parcels that
do not directly face the school playground area along the south side of Marlin Avenue. There are
5 parcels that have their front yards facing the school playground, and therefore do not have the
main bedroom areas or their outdoor yard areas visible from the elevated playground area of the
school.
(e) The variance, as reco=ended for approval, is for the provision of a 7-
foot high wall along the street side yard adjacent to Marlin Avenue only, the requested variance
across the rear of the property is not recommended for approval. The granting of the requested
variance for the provision of a 7-foot high wall along the street side yard adjacent to Marlin
Avenue would not be detrimental to adjoining properties as the variance requested on the street
side property line would allow for a walll-foot higher than is currently permitted to be located in ..
the same location. The requested variance along the Marlin Avenue side of the property will not .
be detrimental to adjoining properties, as the nearest properties on the Marlin Avenue side are
across Marlin Avenue, which is 45 feet in width, and the requested variance consists of a 1 foot
increase in the height of a wall, and encompass a totallengtb of 53 feet. Marlin Avenue west of
McOaugh School has 60 feet of right-of-way.
(f) The granting of the requested variance for the proposed 7-foot wall across
the rear property line occurs at a point where the privacy intrusion issues from the elevated
playfield areas of the school are not as sensitive. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that
a variance is not warranted for the requested variance for the rear yard fence height increase. The
parcel is generally the same grade elevation as the adjoining residential property and there has
been no substantial evidence presented regarding loss of privacy in this area of the property.
(g) The granting of the reque~d variance, as conditioned, will allow for the
continued use of the residential property with the ability to maintain a reasonable level of privacy
for those areas of the home that are directly visible from the elevated playfield areas of McGaugh.
School.
Section 7. Based upon the .foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Variance No. 07-2, subject to the following conditions:
e
07-2,429 Beryl Cove Wll1,pe StaffRoport
II
e
e
e
1.
(-
nanning Commission Staff Report
, Varlance07-2-429B"",ICoveWay
April 4, 2007
Variance 07-2 is approved for the construction of a maximum 7-foot high street side
property line wall with a maximum length of 70 feet from the rear property line at 429
Beryl Cove Way.
(
2. All construction 'shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through
Variance, 07-2, as modified by the plAnning Commission to only allow the requested
variance related to the street side propertY line adjacent to Marlin Avenue. The requested
variance for the rear yard property line fence height increase is not approved.
3. This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an '''ACceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the, Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the 10 day appeal period has elapsed.
4.
If any claim, action or procel".tHng (collectively "action") is instituted by a third party or
parties chalJP.11g:ing the validity of the this approval, Developer and City shall cooperate in
defending any such action. City shall notifY Developer of any such action against City
within ten working days after City receives service ilf process, except for any petition for
injunctive relief, in which case City shall notify Developer immediately upon receipt of
notice thereof. Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, and any of its
officers, employees or agents for any action by a third party or parties brought to
challenge the Project Approvals; provided, however, that if City fails promptly to notify
Developer of any action against City, or if City fails to cooperate hi the defense,
Developer shall' not thereafter be, responsible for City's defense. Developer shall
reimburse all of City's defense costs including, without limitation, court costs, attorney's
fees incurred by counsel selected by the City, and expert witness fees. Developer shall
promptly pay all monetary awards, judgments, verdicts, court costs and attomeys fees that
may be awarded in such action. '
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPlED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the ' day of , 2007 by the
following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
NOES:
Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
07-2,429 BOI)II Cove Woy,PC SlaffRopon
12
Lee Whittenberg, Secretary
PIRnning Commission
07-2,429llayl Cove Way:PC StaffRoport
( ,
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
Ellery Deaton, Chairperson
Planning Commission
13
e
e
e
e
e
e
('
ATTACHMENT 2
(~ :anning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
April4, 2007
APPLICATION - VARIANCE 07-2
07-2.429 Bmyl Cove Woy,pC Staff Report
14
(-
(
e
To: City Hall,
PIanningDepartmeDt
211 Eighth Street,
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Date: December 30, 2006
From: Nora Varshavsky
Leo Varshavsky
Subject Property: 429 Bc:ryl Cove Way (043-283-26)
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 799-2929
Subject: Request for 7' high side yard wall along the Marlin Avenue (Walll).
Request for 7' high back yard wall between 429 Bc:ryl Cove Way (043-283-26) and
1640 Marlin ave (043-283-27) (Wall2).
To Whom It May Concern,
e
We would like to ask you 1:9 allow us to build a 7' side yard wall along Marlin Ave (Walll).
The McGaugh Elementary School and their playground are located along Marlin Ave. The school is on a higher
elevation than the properties along Marlin Aye. Furtbennore, the playground is heavily used on school days and
on weekends. When muning on the playground, people frequeatly stare over the school's link fence, over our
backyard and directly into our bedroom window, Please see attached photos,
Building a 7' Walll will shield us from curious eyes looking this direction and give us more privacy in our own
home. At. the same time, a 7' wall this will block the view for children playing on the playground, so 1hat they
cannot peer into Leo's room thru his large sliding glass door wind~w.
Also, r Walll along Marlin ave will better protect our dwelling from possible major WmdlStorm situation,
Currently, even a minor windy condition produces huge branches flying around over Marlin ave at our end as
there are nnm~n~ged trees of 40-50 feet high growing on School's playground. In case of a more severe storm,
there is a possibility that even bigger branches break and fiill over our property, Please see attached photos,
We would like to ask you to allow us to build us a 7' high back yard waIl along the property lim::
between the subject property and 1640 Marlin aye (043-283-27). This neighboring property is facing Marlin
ave, therafore, most ofWall2 is easily accessible from the street. We plan to install a Jacuzzi along WallI. There
still could be partial observance of our back yard from the grounds of McGaugh Elementary School in case
Wall2 is lower than 7'. Please see ~tb"hed photos.
Another property at 4281ade Cove Way (043-283-01) has a similar comer location on Marlin Ave., being
significantly further from the playground comparing to subject property, 428 Jade Cove Way currently has a 7'-
2" side and back yard waIl.
Thank you.
Regards,
Leo Varshavsky
e
N~ Varshavsky
I "J I E'x ( s '1': N 6-}'" , ' "
"t2oP~'1'o<. = l _
/640 M#-t.,iN /i-t/€ ({)4~'-Z-J'3-.zj
, / tiNE
eR.o4.; k:~J e)
?,
~
~
~
-0
,,~
~ N
~~
,
~Q\J
r~
~&"
~
f
~
("
,
.., .""
I
r
f
>Z
~./i
~ !
J 1 i
j
~ f
i
,
) I
I
,I ! I
),
l
!
IT~' I I !'
k~ I/~ i
ell I\" j
7:tf I~ ,I
!~ l~
-'~ <::::
; 1 ~
, ~
.I
.
-
,
\ I --1
) 30B,.:-b4- 'p~P,G..€;7' .." '
I
/ 4Z'1 /?;Y2Jll t/e
(' (0 1~ -:lJ'3 'coZb")
,
,
.
!
"
\f\
~
I~
;~
I""
Ir
;<:
:l:)
I
\
,
\
\
/~
l .
,
"
\
,
t
De1ve UJA-'t
... ~--..._...-.~.~_...-
1
I
I.
-
--~---'---'-'
I
._.._~_........__._-~_._--....._- -- -_...~.
12. r"' .,., LlI
fJ""/r- f I JLL~
J{lJlJP/~l-l7): /tf4o M 1-;tU-//v 4-t/€-- l(r"I.()poS'eo
. ((!)43;/ Z-a3 -.2.1) / If :::,
,f<=----,N~ tV Ss -R
I .....-
I ._, f;zDPeAeL-Y tl/l/.{;; 7
I .:I!: "t:?.....i".-...~ ..;.~.. -,. ~.. ..;.;:,~;.Jj.. ~ .f~'W&tiJ-"..;.r;-..Il"'. ".... ,"' .
. ,. '''4~,,\..-i .~.~'1i,",,!"'_~;"~'''''41~:.''''.il!o:'''.'-~.'''_4~;-;.....i:;I:'-'. - ..
. .... , ., '.~ J' . . _. '.--
I
I
~Ii
~
~~~ '
1 ~~1 !'
'-N '\1'. ~
, )
~~~
,~,~ ..
'",
.\'
f;\
~
e
~f
e
511
...
{'~
~', I
.1-' x:1.' ;f; ~
==- -. .......... =-j -'!- ~
' 't
"-
f Yo
1 it",
,
I
,
~
.
t
S()BJ~ f~/Jbe/-r:
42.or 13~ lft. Cot/~ w/t- '
(~4~""z83 ....,2'") ,
~
~
f \
1
I I
I j
J
I
!
"
I
f(2f) f>Of./U:J ~. I
G1c/~';'dJ^, I I
A-7 urJB...€:. ~ I
'TIM.€. , k:<I
G-{;
,
/J , PlV~
BvelfC COllE WIT Y
I
~
I
,
l
i
I
I
,
I
f
I
I
i
1
I
.....
c-
"""'- -
C~
(\
<\
o;:::~
(ll~
~
~
.-- (,
I
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
I ~~
~ ~
??J \S~ ".
~l ~~
00 _ 0\
II , -"
\,
~..... .....-.. '-'-"~
II ; ~ ""
~
~
~
.. -.,.-,-.-..,..... ..~ .~
........,
'. ,
..-.... ,
~
~
e
~.-....
.,..-
,--
~
~.~
14 ~
~ ~I
t\ CJ
~I!)
1
_I r I
! I I
/ ; ! !
,
,
~
.~~
I ~ 1,'
e
i
,
I
F,; 0 I / f j
f
I
(
i
I
( 1~L4
.
00 -- L-
11 I i
-
- ~' '
\
~ ":') I ~
~ ~,
~ ~,
~- -~ ~
- i.b- "-
?/tl \,. ~<
- u ..:b . I ~ ~ ~
2 %. c 3 ~
.j~
DeD ~~
~ ~ ~ ~c\J
\3\
S ~~ ')(. ~
-::....; '0~
~~ ~~
\ ~,~
e~ <.t--""-....:.
-=: r;)< ~
::::> ..s\ -.l ~
<t: ..... ~ ~
" ~
:::: ()
~\j . .
2- ~ ~ '~
~Q) t~ ~
'-'-- -,
~
"', U ~
' ~ ~
~~
2. , - ~Q
, , 'V"0
~
VI,
Ii:,)
e ~
~ ~
~
.0
lJJ .
~
<-
0.......
~0
~~
,~~
N
O~
~"t'
~~
-
. .
N
J.-
~
(\.
~
Q.
1/1
,l
\
I
\
I
\
\
~
ro
-:-,\
~
~
~
~~
ll\~
'\I) .:::s
~
Q
~
?:~z
" "II
..:::7/1,'-(/ ;....v /?W N Q' ~
qJ-W
OtJ --I L ~
II . ~
\ :!
\s-
't
~ 0)
~
~~
~:.
~~
l~
...., \/i
~ ~
)(~O
~ ~~
::h~\'i\
~
~ ~
~...j
-tQ
x
~~
, X
.:::- Q>
~
\
\lr
~
~
.. \
~
k~
~~
~~
~Q.
. . f
e
~. '.
e
"
(' ,
, '
~
-:-~
(
,"
{
~
e
--
~
.
,- .
, '\:~'
. ',. ..
. - .~' :
- - { '~.
'.-, .
"
. ' :.,~: ""
;~'"
e
. -- -- .--
L_DA-..._. __~~~____ .
(
e
e
~.~~. .
~
,
e
"
,
e
e
,
e
e
e
/"
t 1
CIlrorlMlll!ll!rlh
MAR 2 2D07
CITY OF SEAL BEACH ~Svca.
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
ci
0,
D
\JQ
'q
D.
OFFICE USE ONLY,
APplicati?n for: (Check' o~~ or morel '::,
Conditignell,Jse Pel'J'I)lt (CUP) , ,
Minor Pla~ "Review (MPR)
. - .~ .
Height Variation, (1:111)
Vsriance (liAR) ,
GPAli.one Change
'. ,
Other
He~rinROn ,~" / '"..
,PcMtg:ri~te;" 7\ P:;'ID7
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No.: "A- R- Q.., -~
Resolution No.: 01-\ R-
~.......... .....
1.
2.
3.
Property Address: 42"'1 8f:U!Nt.. ro v€ JUA-'t" &69f." k J1C#1 C9- 90/10
County Assesso~ Parcel No: O~ 3 - 283 .,... ,z.c:;; -
Applicant Name: .Noe.q.. {/;ne$!/-.4f/SIV'-/. UD #!1eS#>4t/!;.C.Y
Address'; 1Z,<J /5eIZ'tt.. CiJV6 Wr1-'-I: S~ 8cA7cH, ~ 9o?<RJ ~
.........
Phone: Work (2oS) ~>..< -J>/lo €if Home: (56'"-2) "/'1"-;] 9 Z~
FAX: ( t;;6;l.) 7f~ - 2- <j 2- '9 Mobile: (3'23) Ro-4 -:U B 8'
E-Mail Address: rz.o2tU'JfavJ€J~e,~. ~
. G eeL./oN 7 6 @. H9d/1ofeLl" ~. c.-ewr-t
Property Owner Name: ND2A Jl'Ate~A::~ ~E:.O VA1€S~Y.5A:;Y
Address: 4z't !3iEAHL Cove tV-4-'!, s~ ~ ~ 907",,0
Telephone: (S"6.2.) 7'it'i - -Z '? 2- q
~.
4.
5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: /CI.. 0 -/2.€.S/f) tOw DEA/S/T7;~:J.
,
6. Present Use of Property: p/Z.{/I{,Iffe '1 ee..s/~c€,'
7. Proposed Use of Property: P~H/helt ecs/~~
8. Request For: 7' HI(;..Ic. BACK; ~A,eo eL-oCtt::. td~l-
olD (Jo OO~ ,t:&1/~. ' ,
9, Describe Proposed Use: !JEfA.) 71 ~ f(~ IV~ IUlb(.,. /!JIf!E. L6G.<) /0
p~ PiYJ-/}t!.Y F6>€ >v&77C:c;,-'P2:DP~7.. ~ 'p~.,('l~OLl)
BIZf?~ W0l906N PENe.C -
10. Describe how the proposed improvements are appropriate 'for the character of the
surr~'unding neighbOrhood: NE.W 711-l1~ W~UlItG- PeD!/O,::>,€ r-c..€-
13iierl-&e >4-P&..7y tl,c /V1U~BOte..//V~ ~~L)~A) ~
FooT re4PPIe... l1t-o,.,j~ M~/N /H'CA/V ',P,€i)V/D.e.-
f/PS6~ 'b!...U'.eB A?'P~ It PoR- Sl.I,&.::n;;..c,,- 'p&:>CV"'~~
c...of!!..(Vs..:e.. t..oc.4--77DA/. Pagel Rev. 6/06
<<
~.v~
"
,',
11.
Describe how the approval of this Permit would be detrimental in any way to other
property in the vicinity: /II/A-
e
12. Proof of Ownership
Please attach a photocopy of a picture LD. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by
the applicant.
or
13.
RignAd and nntari7p.d Property Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to the
application, ' .
Legal Description (Dr attach description from Title' or Grant Deed): to T 3/ J' t9P
~1lIraT W. ilbGtl, Q,,IJ&e N.IJIO ~e.o /-'V BOOK..?3
~4 Co lEt.' of {}MN~ a.~ ~ wo~/d /
~, 5:-fzvIe of? 09,,~~ ~.2(.u/UJ.D'>-'
U6U!J?I/tj/ By: ~ -
( nature of Afplicant) / (Signature of ~~plicant) > ~
NOeIJ- ra-,esI#J-V'S~'t t---CON/I) y~s#J9-1'5A:::.1 _
(Pint Name) (Pint N;ime) .,
DIXEN IJe..e gO. 2o.o? I~ -30 - t9 G
.
(Date) (Date)
By:
For Otlice Use Only
This is 10 certifY thai I have inspected Ihe foreRoinR application and found it 10 be thoroullh and complete. It conforms 10
the rules of the Cltv of Seal Beach Roveminllthe filinll of an appllcatfon for an Unclassified Use Permit Application
-'Print Name\
.
ISI"nature\
tPIint Tille) -
IData'
e
Page 8
Rev. 6106
e
e
e
Environmental Information and Checklist Fonn
I Application No,:
For Office Use Onlv
Date Filed:
General Information
1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor:
Name: Nou VM-SfHwC,I::..'I. te.o th~If1'J(/s.IC-Y
Address: ~"2:" C/~"L CoVE 'WIT'!
City:!7/iJIH.. ~ State: C/}- Zip: 90 ?-fo
Telephone: t;6~ -7O(9-2&f'2&j' FAX: ~6;:l -7~9-~." 29
, E-mail Address: IV~CIM{f) ~~-hK. ~
Leot.! D,v 76@. H.o+I'Zt Q,.i"(,.. ~ .
2. Address of Project: 4'Z"J 8e-.e'lL CoLIc ,W"+/f. 5~ ~ t9- 90741:.
Assessor Parcel Number: 042 - 211 3 -:2 C
3.
Name, ad~ress, and contact information of Project Contact Person:
Name: NOM 1!/}f2~#AV7GY.. LE.o ~1h1J/>ttY
Address: ~rz. &f lSE,E.f.tL CovE UJHV.
City: Se.4-t:. Be: #J-CH State; C19- Zip: ~ ~ 0
Telephone: ~6:;J.-r;'1-2'12.&J FAX: r6.:2-7'79-292~
E-mail Address: ~eu.,(j;). e"l.'~:~he'UK;. ~
4.
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, inclUding those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
/V/~ "
.
/l."~'''wtr. ( :
5. Existing zoning: 1Z./...[7 oi::iht Existing General Plan: II/It
6. Proposed use of site: .~/JME RS' M/S7.IA/?
Page 11
Rev. 6/06
e
Project Description
7. Site size (square footage):""//O 'UN~ ~
8. Square footage of proposed Project: . N /'7
16. For residential projects, indicate the:
A. Number of units: tv' //j
B. Schedule of Unit sizes: II/PT
C. Range of sale prices or rents: IV /Ft
D. Household size(s) expected: /V' //J-
17. For commercial projects, indicate the: ,N I"t}
A Type of project:
B, Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented:
C, Square footage of sales areas:
0, Gross building area:
E. Size of loading facilities:
9.
10.
11. ,
12.
13.
Number of floors of construction: N /,4
Amount of off-street parking provided: tV //7
Existing and proposed impervious surface' coverage (Impervious surface coverage
includes all paved areas and building and/or structure footprints):
Existing impervious coverage: . A//A- %
,Proposed impervious coverage:' ,I) ~ AIJ %
Attach plans including preliminary grading plans, drainage plans, Water Quality
Management Plans (WQMPs) for large-scale developments, construction site Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Plans.
Proposed scheduling of Project: Sp;e.,-,v' ...f'oo 7
e
18. For industrial projects, indicate the:
N/rt
e
Page 12
Rev. 6/06
e
e
e
(
r
(
A.
B.
C.
Type of project:
Estimated employment per shift:
Size of loading facil,ities:
19. For institution a! projects, indicate the: AI /19-
A. Major function:
B. Estimated employment per shift:
C. Estimated occupancy:
D. Size of loading facilities:
E, Community benefits derived from the project:
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit/unclassified use permit,
height va,riation or zone change application, state this and indicate clearly why the
application is required: ' ,--, .., ..., .., '.
Variance:
711
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items
checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
-X
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes or hills, Dr substantial alteration of
ground contours? .
x.
22. Change in scenic views 'or vistas from existing
residential areas or public lands or roads. ~
,
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area ,
of project. '
x.
X
x..
X
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
Page 13
Rav. 6/06
x
X-
X
x
x
-X
Environmental Setting
(-
(
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage e
patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels
in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10- percent Dr more.
29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials,
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives,
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal service
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to larger project or series of projects.
33. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, _
including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any .,
cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site,
and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the'site.
34. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on
plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type
of land' use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family,
apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development
(height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity.
~
.-'
e
Page 14
RaY. 6/06
e
e
e
(
(
Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "Potentially Significant Impacf', "Less
Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" and "Less Than Significant Impacf'
answers on separate sheets.)
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcrop pings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
Ughl or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are signi~cant
environmental effects, lelid agencies
may refer to the California Agri~ltural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
,0
o
Page 15
Leas Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
l.ess Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Rev. 6/06
No
Impact
a
~
,~
$
~
ft
(
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Ill. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied
upon to 'make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air ,quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting 'a
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either 'directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies. or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
, Impact
o
o
'0
o
o
o
..
o
Page 16
..
I
Lass Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
"
o
D
o
e
Less Than
SignIficant
Impact
No
Impact
o )il
D :g(
"'0" PI....,
o Pl e
o B
o :;6Zl
o lit
e
Rev. 6106
e
e
e
(
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section '404 of the Clean Wate'r Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct
'removal,' filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
"movement of any' native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources,' such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
V, CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the' significance ' of ,a historical
resource as defined in ~ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
PotenUally
SIgnIficant
'Impact
o
,0
, Cl"
o
o
'0
o
o
Page 17
(--
Less Than
Significant with
MltlgaUon
Incorporated
o
0'
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
0,
o
o
o
o
o
Rev. 6/08
No
Impact
1m
IB-
~
ftJ
~
~
~
]Sa
(
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the ri~k of loss, injury, or death
involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fau,lt Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area 'or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
(iv) Landslides?
, ,
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to 'life or property? '
, '
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Potentially
Significant
. Impact
Cl
a
a
a
a
Cl
Cl
a
a
a
Page 18
.-
(
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
Lesa Than
Significant
Impact
o
D
o
a
o
o
o
D
Cl
o
Rev. 6106
e
No
Impact
~
~
;st
[3
~
rsa
lZI
~,
e
~
;pa
e
e
e
e
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably fpreseeable upset and
accident conditions Involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials. sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area? -
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Potentially
SIgnificant
Impact
C]
C]
C]
o
o
C]
o
Page 19
Less Than
SIgnificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
C]
C]
C]
o
o
[j
[j
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
[j
o
o
o
o
o
Rav. 6106
No
Impact
19
~
~
~
pi
C8
~
(
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any Water quality standards or
waste discharge (equirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be,a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g" the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells' would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of t~e site or area,
including through the alteration of the
, course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or, river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would .exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Potentially
Significant
"Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page 20
(
Less Than
Significant with
MItigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Lass Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Rav. 6106
e
No
Impact
~
%l
,6a
e
I2SI
~
.
s
j!J
e
e
e
e
(
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff
from construction activities?
I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff
from post-construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of
stormwater pollutants from areas of
material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or
other outdoor work areas?
n) Result in the potential for discharge of
stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of
receiving waters?
0) Create the potential for significant
changes iri the flow velocity or volume of
stormwater runoff to cause environmental
harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion
of the project site or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
Potenllally
Significant
'Impact
o
o
o
o
o
C]
o
C]
o
o
o
Page 21
,-
(
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
,0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Rav, &IDS
No
lmpact
9
~
~
~
~
~
~
l'lJ
~
~
.0
(
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. MINERAL'RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability 'of a
known mineral resource that would be of '
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without ,the project? For purposes of this
analysis, a substantial temporary or
periodic 'increase is defined as a
continuous noise of more than 70 db(A) ,
PolBntlally
Significant
Impact
C1
C1
[j
CJ
CJ
Ll
LI
LI
Page 22
(
Less Than
Significant with
MItigation
Incorporated
Ll
CJ
o
CJ
o
LI
o
LJ
e
Lass Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Cl
Bf
Cl t9
Cl... m
o ~
e
o t5a
LI ~
o lRl
CJ ~
e
Rev. 6/06
e
e
for 15 minutes or more or an intermittent
noise of more than 75 db(A) for between
5 and 14 minutes resulting from
construction that occurs between 7:00
a.m, and 8:00 p,m,
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
,the project ,expose people residing or
working 'in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, neceSSitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII, PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse' physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant 'environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, ' response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
e
Page 23
Po18ntlally
, Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorpora18d
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 6/08
No
Impact
pn
~
~
~
)i2I
"
(
public services:
, Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV, RECR,EATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
,might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XN. TRANSPORTA TIONrrRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system
(i,e,. result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns: including either an increase in
traffic ,levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
o
o
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Page 24
Less Than
SignIficant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Lass Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Cl
o
Cl
o
Rav. 6106
e
No
Impact
(i'
PJ
rs
.~
r>>:
,Sa
~
e
~
~
IS
e
e
e
e
(--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting altel11ative
transportation (e,g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the con,struction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the constl1lction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determimition by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the.
project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
Potentially
Significant
'Impact
CJ
CJ
CJ
d
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
o
Page 25
r
(
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
CJ
o
,0
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
'0,
o
o
o
o
o
o
Rav, 6/08
No
Impact
pJ
S
R1
'~
~
~
~
~
~
f) Be served by a landfill, with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comp!y with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
h) Would the project include a new or
retrofitted storm water treatment control
Best Management Practice (BMP), (e,g.
water quality treatment basin,
constructed treatment wetlands), the
operation of which could result in
significant environmental effects (e.g.
increased vectors and odors)?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE'
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict' the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of ~robable future oroiects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
.Impact
C]
C:J
o
C]
C]
C]
Page 26
(
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
C]
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
C]
C]
o
o
o
C]
Rav. 6106
e
No
Impact
~
l&I
~
J2SI
e
OJ
~
e
e
("
,--
(
NOTE: Before a Lead ARencv can accept this application as complete, the applicant,must consult the lists
prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Govemment Code and submit a siRned statement indicatinR
whether the project and any altematives are located on a site which is included on anv such list, and shall
snecifu anY list .
The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained
on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accordingly,
the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following
information:
1. Name ofapplicarit: LGo VPriL~V~{:::..Jl(
2, Street: .123 f?JG/G;/{(~ COVe lUlrY
3. City: ~ ~ 13~ I en-
4. Zip Code: q 0740
Phone Number: 5'6::2 - 7'1 Gf - z- '9 z Cf
Addressofsite(streetandzip): 1ZQ ~E;,e){t- tD/lE UJ9.Y,~~~90~
Local Agency (city/county):, o!G4-NtP-6 Co(Jll/rY
Assessor's Parcel Number: e4'3 - Z fj 3'" Zb
5.
e 6.
7.
B_
9.
Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement
Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code:
N//T
10, Regulatory identification number:
11. Date of list:
Date:
e
"
Signature:
Applicant:
Page 27
Rev. 6106
/'
I
NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any e
list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the
applicant must certify that fact as provided below.
I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Government Code
and hereby certify that the development project and any' tematives proposed in this
application are not contained on these lists. .
IIor.f'kv~7
~~
N etA- ~M- slf1l-l/Sf:.'1
Date: It./.o /BC;
e
"
e
"
Page 28
Rev, 6/0&
e
e
e
r-
(
(
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
(I)/(We) /; ~ V/h'l~Hfr1/)J1
(Name)
swear that (I am)/(we are) the owner of the property at:
!J1tJ ~eW{L.- love "';1/11
(Street Addl8Ss)
~~ f}G1-t.I-11 CA- 107 '-10
(City) , (State) (ZIP)
and that (l,am)/('f,'Q ar:v)-are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing
and filing a Public Hearing Application. The information contained in the attached Public
Hearing Application is correct 1'0 the best of (my)/~nowledge and (I)/~pprove of
this application to do the following wor!<' , /JACIl e.D LL
ec J4~.J~""'~
(Print Name)
~;l.1 ( ewe l.J
(Addl8Ss - Please Print)
5eA1 (}e CA- 1;07 'to
(City, S1a1e & ZI )
SUBSCRI~ED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
THIS 'Z 'f DAY OF: g~ ......),-ev .2.cl:lc.
fa ' ICIUN IN.M
, Cclmmllllan. 1637110 I
NalaIy Public . CcIIIlcIn1a
LoI AngeleI c:ourily -
MvCllrnn. EIIpIIeI",-, 1'" ZII1
Page 31
II '1'11""
(Dale)
g'()5 -,;1.J5d -gI{O':;
(relephone)
RaY. 6/06
e
e
e
07.2.4~ Beryl eo.. Way.PC StaffRqJort
(
, ATTACHMENT 3
ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP
15
( .anning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2-429 Beryl Cove Way
, April 4, 2007
,,' 9\ L- ~
~ I
-. " ,
" M .
.... - .01(18 - H:J1IN 7,,3$ ll.
....
...., [
.II' ~' @ t!) @
. ...
N'"
" ... [ ..
Aii'''' ;i ..",..,
!"'..'
i ~2i
" ;;: '" .
><: ~"'~
@ @@ @@ @ ~>-
l '" ...
"'~~
~ IUd ~ a
!l! ....,,,
"l
[s ..
.u ~ .. '"
15",':::\
...."'....
[ .,,,,,,,
~l~
"'..
"''''!
~~
IU.III ~~~
I
[ ~
0' rE
-, Af'" :;M():J 30li'r .. [
'"
~
:1'1/1/1 NJ " t
'IIMNII [
~ @ !!!
2
~;.
~ Aii'M ;tA(J3 1*' [ . I
~~
~~
~ll.:
"".... H.l ..'
-" G ~,
,w .... ~~
f'- - e:~
l.'J ....
<:; [
~
~. i 'll:
-
"es\ N--''' ~ lUll
\'&~'i ~- "i ~~r
~w.: ; be
!l~~~ ':
~,,~ie .l ." ~
'ii'Gl~9.~! ., ... WI \\.1\,
~1~.;i1l! '~ .Iii'''' ;JHXJ T1II/;/It"
\\\\\1 ' ..
~~t~'6!3 ~
~~~li~i ga -
'1\';\ ,
'S~;l!!S;1l
. _4 I Ua
e
e
e
(
07-2.429 BcrylCove Way PC StaffRr;porl
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANS
16
( .anning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2 - 429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
){lJl)P~/;= /(;40 /li' ~//v /l-t/!E- t"?,()poS'b()
. (04:;/Z,g-3 -:17) Ii :
'r:=-----t(/~Z tV s~/--f (
I ~ sl
. ..,~/ZOP~br t//!/G ~ ;
i r :'i::.~ ;.:.' ..... ~.. ., -t.-..~ ..;.......:.... - ....i~~~-i w,r:-"!t' ...... .... ~. . '," =.
. '. _. ._~ ,..... ...'"tl.,..t....~~.Io.:t'l"...;...A~'-.;~.f;.......--..rn~~'..... _' I. ..._
I .. " '.'
I
~,l
~ Ii
';'~~ ;,
-Cl. ~1 1
t..J.3 '\f~~ ;
,) ~
~~~ ~ .
,~,~.. I
I '" 1
6~ !
&\ i \
~
e
~f
1
e
j
I
I
I
I
,
I
\
,<
SVS:T~ 'p/2J>jjb€/-Y:
4Z.cr B~l{{.. G,(/~ Wr;
(~4~-Z83 -..2C) ,
f1Z/)pd;./U) ~. I
&1c/er..l~I"OI'\J ; I
A-7 [..A--~ ~ ~
TIM.€. k:SJ
tP€.
.
.
,
,
Pe-I!/ E t<./r9
-
Bp.A2lf[
,
COllE WA-lf
~
....
c--
---- ...
c.$
('I
G'
,~
m~
~
(....... "
(
~ ~~ ,
~ ~~
lllJ
~ () , ,
\:l,}.. ."
~~
~~
Ga_ S '7'
/1 I II ~ '" ,...
~
~
S
"........
.,.. .' "-l
_._,..._"..-_..",.,~~... ,-' .........,..----.. ~
,,,..,.,, "
.,/
~
--- .-
----~
--
\r)
--
~
~
~.~
'~ I ~ e
14 ~ I ;~
I , '0 l
~ - I r j
((J I
J ! 1'1 {I 'I ~~,', .
~ () , 'I
~, ! I I
I , ! I
\I), I i, I
-
-
~ ~\
~' Q
::::;, ' '<
~- -~
- -~-
--
'\J ~
2.
\D
e;::::::>
~
2-
"-'-
~
2.
e
(
\ ,
-
00 oJ L-
It /
~
~z '.'.
I ' '^
q ~ ~
~ '~
(--. ~
~'~~
\'-- ~~
\f\
(
1~~
, ~
~
~' .
~
to
~
~
~
~
~~
~\
~,
~~
~~
~)~
(!'-~
~
'"
....
~<
%.3~
Dt:Dw':'
~
')(..
-::....;
'~l- ~
:j ~ ~~ ~~
<t' \'\n2l ~ ~
:s \0
~
V\.
o
'~
~
~
\
\
.::;:- t)<.
'-9 ..J i
--t:{)
~
:::: C)
~~
:'-QQ)
,"
"
. .
'l S
0-~
~Q
~~
-~~
.::::1 A'tI ('^~/7?# jAj Q'..
\ . ql
oa....,L ''t:
111 fi ~
,~
~
, t:O
\ '
I \ ""--
~ ,
\ -, \/\ ':-
I
~ \ -- ~~~ ..J
\ -:t 0\
x 0 ......
<- 'e/tZ ~~~ ~
I, . ,~
0........ \.D
2)' ~!
~~
~~.e
\
,~~
~
N \ ~"t"
\. I :r~
o~ ~
~" ~ ~
~~ ro
- ~
- ~
-
~ ~...) \l\
. , -cQ
N t ~~ ~
~
-
~ ::.:-X Q) ~
J- \~ ~
~~ \S)
~
~~ t-;\
V) ~
C).. ,\,)
'~ Q. .' ~'
,3
Q
CL
e
e
e
(
07-2,429 Beryl Cove Way.PC StaffRoport
ATTACHMENT 5
PROPERTY PHOTOS
17
( _ ,anning Commission Staff Report
Variance 07-2-429 Beryl Cove Way
April 4, 2007
e
to
C'1;;
SCD
uJ ~'
UU
~"&
~~
.,..~
"d' '
.
~
CD
%
0.
1S
CD
.-
~
(/)
e
('
e
.l;
co:'~
SCD
U1~
UU
~~
~!
';'~
...
'"'
CD
~
en
CD
-5
~
...
~-
15-
o
-5
ff)
~
i
C)
.. Co)
.~{ ~
e
tl
C'1~
SO)
w. ~,
(.)(.)
~~
QaO)
<e.U1
~~
00:t'
ci
~
i
...
0)
:;
.-'
"Q
~,
CIS
(;
, '
"
e
(
e
~
~e
Co
1:)
C>>
.~
.c
:::I
en
e