HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2009-08-10 #VAGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 10, 2009 (continued from 07/13/09)
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager ,
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DE NOVO - HEIGHT VARIATION
NO. 09 -35 124 TENTH STREET
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
After receiving all public testimony, the City Council has the following options:
1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying Height Variation 09 -3, or
2) Direct staff to draft a resolution conditionally approving Height Variation 09 -3
with appropriate conditions.
BACKGROUND:
On May 20, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
determined to deny the subject request on a 4 -0 -1 vote (Commissioner Larson
was absent). On June 3, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-
23 denying the subject application on a 4 -0 -1 vote (Commissioner Larson was
absent). Please refer to Attachment 2 to review Planning Commission
Resolution No. 09 -23 for the findings and determination of the Planning
Commission regarding the height variation denial. Please refer to Attachment 3 to
review the Planning Commission Minutes of May 20 and June 3, 2009 and to
Attachment 4 to review the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 20, 2009.
The Applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision and the matter
is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing.
FACTS:
❑ The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 20, 2009
to consider Height Variation 09 -3, a request to construct a non - habitable
architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the
applicant proposed to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed
the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Both
Agenda Item y
Page 2
written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. After receiving all
public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and after
discussion, the Commission determined to deny the request. The Commission
adopted Resolution 09 -23 denying the subject application at the June 3, 2009
Planning Commission meeting.
❑ On June 12, 2009 an appeal was filed (See Attachment 1). The matter is now
before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR HEIGHT VARIATION:
In general the Code of the City of Seal Beach, (Code) states that no building or
structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is
located. However, Section 28- 2317(D) provides for height variations for non -
habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317.D.1, Scope, states:
"Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires,
towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by
Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof
decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in
which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7) if
granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section."
Further, Section 28- 2317.D.2.c, Review, states:
"Review.
(1) The Planning Commission may at a scheduled public hearing
approve or disapprove such application, subject to any
conditions deemed appropriate. In reviewing an application, the
Planning Commission shall consider the following criteria and
make findings thereon:
(a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural
style of the building.
(i) Whether all roofing materials of a covered stairwell to an
open roof deck are in substantial conformity with the
roofing materials of the remainder of the structure.
(ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is
located along peripheral exterior walls of the structure.
(iii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is
limited to the minimum area, both horizontally and
vertically, necessary to cover the stairwell.
(b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and
integrity of the neighborhood.
Page 3
(c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view
from any property located within 300 feet.
(d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work."
The above findings direct the determinations of the City Council' regarding
consideration of either denial or approval of the subject Height Variation request.
The City Council would need to make affirmative findings to support each of the
above criteria if it determines to grant the subject request.
APPELLANTS REASONS AS TO WHY THEY FEEL, THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WAS IN ERROR:
Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the written "Appeal Application to City
Council' and accompanying attachments.
The appellantlapplicant is requesting that the City Council approve the requested
Height Variation.
DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE "STANDARDS OF REVIEW" FOR
HEIGHT VARIATION APPROVALS:
The subject application is a discretionally allowable project, and the City Council is
required to make the findings specified in Municipal Code Sections 28-
2317.D.2.c.(1)(a) in order to approve the application. Those findings are set forth
above on page 2. In sum, the issue is whether, based upon the evidence
presented tonight, the proposed project can be found consistent with the zoning
ordinance provisions and the findings discussed above can be made in a positive
manner.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL:
After receiving all public testimony and the record of the public hearing, the City
Council has the following options:
1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying Height Variation 09 -3, or
2) Direct staff to draft a resolution conditionally approving Height Variation 09 -3
with appropriate conditions, as may be specified by the City Council upon
receipt of all public testimony and completion of City Council deliberations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minor.
SUBMITTED BY:
-- 2'-
e Whitt
of
Director of Development Servic
Attachments: (5)
Page 4
NOTED AND APPROVED:
David Carmany
City Manager
Attachment 1: Appeal of Robert J. Tavasci, AIA, received June 12, 2009, and
attachments
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution 09 -23, adopted June 3, 2009
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes: May 20 and June 3, 2009
Attachment 4: Height Variation 09 -3, Planning Commission Staff Report, dated
May 20, 2009
Attachment 5: Project Development Plans
Page 5
ATTACHMENT
APPEAL OF ROBERT J. TAVASCI, AIA,
RECEIVED JUNE 12, 2009, AND
ATTACHMENTS
APPEAL APPLICATION
TO CITY COUNCIL
Planning Commission hearing Date: May 20, 2009
Property Address:
Resolution No.:
12410th Street
09 -23
Explanation of variation request appeal:
JUN 1 2 2009
The Planning Commission arbitrarily ignored the Height Variation Code in an attempt to
appease a small group of misinformed Measure Z advocates, ignoring the City staffs'
recommendation to approve the Application.
The plans for the construction of a single family home at the address above comply with the
building code for the City of Seal Beach and Measure Z. The project has been reviewed by
City Planning Staff, who concur and support the design / plans as submitted. The City
Attorney has opined that the plans submitted do not violate Measure Z. The City Attorney
clearly assured the Commission and audience that the CRAS is in complete conformance with
the acceptable Height Variation Code set forth and has nothing to do with the Measure Z
height limit.
The variation request for a cover over an elevator to the roof deck falls one and one half feet
lower than the height limit setout in the Building Code. The purpose for the elevator, that
stops at all accessible floors in the home, is to allow elderly, disabled, or challenged
individuals to enjoy all of their property. The proposed building is architecturally appropriate
and consistent with the character and integrity of the neighborhood.
The proposed structure to protect the elevator shaft is minimally visible from the street and is
aesthetically characteristic of the homes and buildings in Seal Beach. It should be noted that
there is no habitable space involved in the structure and there are no windows. The denial of
the covered elevator shaft does not prevent a roof deck — any claim of loss of privacy is mute
when the structure is only as high as necessary to step out onto the roof deck. We believe that
this variation will not adversely impact the view of any neighbors.
The Planning Commission has been swayed by individuals that spoke negatively and
presented misinformation at the hearing and have ignored the Staff, Attorney, and the Law
(Code).. We are including copies of recent applications for similar variations that have been
approved and constructed in the neighborhood.
It appears that the decision rendered is incorrect. We plead that the City Council reverse the
decision of the Planning Commission and allow the plans as submitted to move forward in the
plan check process.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission offered unworkable architectural design suggestions
in an attempt to solve a problem that was only created by the commissions denial of a legal
CRAS conforming completely to the city code. We understand that all Seal Beach residents
have their voice in their city, however, to let a few ill- informed residents cause a misguided
denial of a legally conforming permit application is not in the best interest of all citizens of
Seal Beach.
Elements that are Stated on the Resolution of the Planning Commission:
Section 5 (b) states that the CRAS Structure is not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood which is misstatement. There are (2) Residences with CRAS that are approved
and do not negatively affect the neighborhood;
Section 5 (c) states that the CRAS will significantly impair view of properties located
within 300 feet of property. This is also not true as you can see by our submittal of Elevation
reflecting the Line of Site from across street looking at subject property.
Enclosed Find:
Copy of Word for Word discourse / explanation of differences between the requested
Height Variation Application and the Measure Z issue that the City Attorney presented
at Planning Commission Hearing;
Copies of Letters from Neighbors in favor of CRAS on our project;
Copies of previous CRAS Applications that have been approved in the area;
(5) Copies of Pictures reflecting CRAS approved projects in the surrounding
neighborhood;
Cordially Submitted,
Signaf6re Date
Applicant: Robert J Tavasci, AIA
Address: 320 Pine Avenue, Suite 400
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone (562) 590 -5222
Planning commission meeting Height variation Resolution 09 -25
Question presented to Attorney from City staff:
"Whether or not Measure Z prohibited height variations in old town"
City Attorney:
"We reviewed the issue, we reviewed Measure Z, we reviewed the code, and it is the city
attorney's offices position that Measure Z in effect establishes a standard maximum
height in old town of 25 feet and in the context of the municipal code that applies to
sections 28701 and 28801 which established the standard maximum height for residential
structures in old town, that is the residential high density and residential medium,density
districts in old town. Now, we reviewed not only the text, we reviewed councils
directions when they called for the election on this matter, we reviewed the city attorneys
impartial analysis that was prepared in advance of the election. Also, we reviewed ballot
arguments that were proffered on both sides and those ballot arguments basically
pertained primarily to the elimination of third stories. That was the intent of Measure Z:
the intent was to limit the standard maximum residential height to 25 feet. Now, the
question is how does it interact with the height variation procedures? Height variation
procedures have long been in the code and they exist in a different section from the
maximum height limits for the old town area. They are found in section 28 -2317 where
not only do we have the height variations procedures; we have a series of exception to the
height limits that exist before Measure Z, and apply to all zones throughout the city
regardless of use, commercial districts, industrial areas, everywhere. These exceptions to
height variations procedures apply everywhere; they are not just for old town. And the
height variation procedures do not allow for the addition of third stories; they do not get
at what Measure Z was intended to prohibit which is third story construction in old town.
What the height the variation procedures do instead allow for small variation from the
standard maximum height which after Measure Z in old town is 25 feet. So, the height
variation can allow for slight variations above the 25 foot limit in old town if the planning
commission finds the requested variation is architectural appropriate, appropriate for the
character and integrity of the neighborhood, and does not significantly impair the view
from any property located within 300 feet. And I just want to emphasize
here; Measure Z was about two stories versus three stories, height variation process does
not over turn that.... the height variation process does not allow for third story structures,
it allows for non - habitable structures on roofs. And we also considered what it would
mean if we were to interpret Measure Z to apply to eliminate the height variation process,
well... logically we also have to eliminate the other exceptions down in the same section
as the height variation process. Those exceptions apply to antennas, flag poles,
chimneys, these sorts of structures that exceed 25 feet would be rendered non - conforming
if we were to interpret Measure Z to eliminate height variations and that was clearly not
the intent of Measure Z ... Measure Z was about prohibiting future third story construction
in old town and consistent with that the height variation process still survives in the
code."
CITY COUNCIL
Planning Commission hearing Date: May 20, 2009
Resolution Nos.: 09 -23, 24, 25, and 26
COPIES OF APPROVED HEIGHT VARIATION RESOLUTIONS THAT
OCCURRED WITHIN THE LAST SIX YEARS:
We have requested records from the City of Seal Beach of the Height Variation Applications
that have been approved by the Planning Commission within the last six years.
Enclosed are copies of original Resolutions of (5) Projects that have been approved with the
proposed CRAS (Covered Roof Access Structures) of various sizes.
There are (47) in total of CRAS Resolutions that have been approved within the last 5 years in
the City of Seal Beach. We have copies if requested.
I would like to point out that at our Planning Commission Hearing on May 20, 2009, the
Chairman Commissioner stated that there have been very few submittals, and most were
denied, which as you can see is clearly not the case.
Please consider these findings and overturn the denials on these projects and let us move
forward.
Cordially Submitted,
d
Applicant: Robert J Tavasci, AIA
Address: 320 Pine Avenue, Suite 400
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone (562) 590 -5222
Date
+Y' 'id„'� w.� �4 . vO 'W
RESOLUTION NO. 07-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -2, PERMITTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NON - HABITABLE
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HOUSE AN
ELEVATOR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AT 231 15`h STREET, SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an application for
Height Variation 07 -2. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable
architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to
construct a 8 -ft. 4 -in. by 4-ft. 4 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet; 7 feet
is the maximum height variation permitted. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 9,
2007, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the submitted plans to reduce the
square footage of the elevator enclosure and eliminate portions of the exterior walls of the
enclosure to reduce the visual impact of the structure. The revised plans reflect these changes,
but after reviewing the house plans as originally drawn, the applicant determined that an
additional 1foot would need to be added to the elevator enclosure to accommodate the elevator
car and appurtenant mechanical equipment. As a result of this additional height increase, it
became necessary to resend hearing notices to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet
of the subject property informing them of the modification to the original plan and delay the
hearing until the regular meeting of June 20, 2007
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15025(a) and § 11A of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows The application for Height
Variation No. 07 -2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(a) (New Construction of Small
Structures), because the application is for the construction of three (3) or less single family
dwellings in an urbanized area; § 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 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on June 20, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -2. At the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received into all evidence and testimony provided on this matter
1 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No 07 -27
Height Variation 07 -2
231 -15`h Street
June 20, 2007
Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an
application for Height Variation 07 -2.
(b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an 8 -ft. 4 -in. by 4-
ft. 41n. elevator enclosure to exceed the height lunit'by 5 feet at 231 15th Street; 7 feet is the
maximum height variation permitted.
(c) The subject property is described as 231 15`h Street, Seal
Beach, California. Since this is a newly created lot as a result of a subdivision (Case No. TPM
2005 -237) an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this lot. The subject
property is located to the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to
as "Old Town"
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area
of approximately 2,500 square feet.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, SOUTH
EAST, & WEST Single and multiple fanuly dwellings located in the Residential High
Density Zone (RHD).
(f) The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar roof
lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home.
(g) The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately
32 square feet and is located at the north side of the building, with the roofline being flush with
the north building wall and the enclosure walls set back approximately 20feet 7 inches from the
front (east) of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7inches
from the rear (west) building wall.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts
stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning
Conunission hereby fmds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 07 -2, as conditioned, is consistent with
the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High
Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family
residential uses. 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.
2 of 4
Planning Courmrssion Resolution No 07 -27
Height Variation 07 -2
231 -15`h Street
June 20, 2007
(b) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch,
roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the
structure.
(c) The proposed elevator enclosure, as conditioned, is
appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
(d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
(e) The proposed architectural feature, as conditioned, is
approximately 32 square feet in area and is located at the north side of the building, with the
enclosure walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall, 20 feet 7 inches from
the front of the biulding, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from
the rear building wall.
(f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300
feet of the subject property.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Height Variation 07 -2, subject to the following conditions:
1. Height Variation 07 -2 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural
feature for an approximately 32 square foot elevator enclosure up to 5 feet in excess of
the 25 -foot height limit, with the roofline flush with the north building wall and enclosure
walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall at 231 15`" Street, Seal
Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV
07 -2.
3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature.
4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance
of Conditions" forni has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, finns, or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies to connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
3 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No 07 -27
Height Variation 07 -2
231 -1 Soh Street
June 20, 2007
permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or
resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, mjury or death arising
out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include,
but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or
actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, Judgments, verdicts, court costs
or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June 2007 by the following vote,
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Massa - Lavitt, and Roberts
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bello
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
/ Lee Whittenberg
✓ Secretary, Planning Co sion
4 of 4
/ Ellery Deaton
Chairperson, Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -29
ot�10,
141A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -4, PERMITTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NON - HABITABLE
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HOUSE AN
ELEVATOR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AT 235 15th Street
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an application for
Height Variation 07 -4. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non- habitable
architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to
construct a 8 -ft. 4 -in. by 441 4 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet; 7 feet
is the maximum height variation permitted. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 9,
2007, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the submitted plans to reduce the
square footage of the elevator enclosure and eliminate portions of the exterior walls of the
enclosure to reduce the visual impact of the structure. The revised plans reflect these changes,
but after reviewing the house plans as originally drawn, the applicant determined that an
additional 1foot would need to be added to the elevator enclosure to accommodate the elevator
car and appurtenant mechanical equipment. As a result of this additional height increase, it
became necessary to resend hearing notices to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet
of the subject property informing them of the modification to the original plan and delay the
hearing until the regular meeting of June 20, 2007.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § B.A of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height
Variation No. 07 -2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(a) (New Construction of Small
Structures), because the application is for the construction of three (3) or less single family
dwellings in an urbanized area; § 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 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on June 20, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -4. At the public hearing the
1 of4
Planning Comnussion Resolution No 07 -29
Height Variation 07 -4
235 — l5" Street
June 20, 2007
Planning Commission received into the record all evidence and testimony provided on this
matter
Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an
application for Height Variation 07 -4.
(b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an 8 -ft. 4 -in. by 4-
ft. 4 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet at 235 15th Street, 7 feet is the
maximum height variation permitted.
(c) The subject property is described as 235 15th Street, Seal
Beach, California. Since this is a newly created lot as a result of a subdivision (Case No. TPM
2005 -237), an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this lot. The subject
property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone, in an area generally referred to
as "Old Town"
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area
of approximately 2,500 square feet.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows
NORTH, SOUTH,
EAST & WEST Single and multiple family dwellings located in the Residential
High Density Zone (RHD).
(f) The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar roof
lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home.
(g) The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately
32 square feet and is located at the north side of the building, with the rooiline being !lush with
the north building wall and the enclosure walls set back approximately 20 feet 7 inches from the
front (east) of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches
from the rear (west) building wall
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in
§ 4 of tlus resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 07 -4, as conditioned, is consistent with
the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High
Density Residential" designation for the subject property and pen-nits single and multiple family
residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General
2 of 4
Planning Commission Resohttnon No 07 -29
Height Vartation 07 -4
235 —15" Street
June 20, 2007
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) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch,
roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the
structure
(c) The proposed elevator enclosure, as conditioned, is
appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood
(d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
(e) The proposed architectural feature, as conditioned, is
approximately 32 square feet in area and is located at the north side of the building, with the
enclosure walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall, 20 feet 7 inches from
the front of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from
the rear building wall.
(f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300
feet of the subject property.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Height Variation 07 -4, subject to the following conditions:
Height Variation 07 -4 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural
feature for an approximately 32 square foot elevator enclosure up to 5 feet in excess of
the 25 -foot height limit, with the roofline flush with the north building wall and enclosure
walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall at 235 15`h Street, Seal
Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV
07 -4.
3. There shall be no habitable space pemiitted within the architectural feature.
4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance
of Conditions" foci n has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, fin- is, or corporations furnishing
3 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No 07 -29
Height Vai tation 07 -4
235-15 M Street
June 20, 2007
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies to connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
clauns, lawsuits or actions ansing from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or
resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising
out of or connected with the performance of the use pennitted hereby. Applicant's
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold hannless the City as stated herein shall include,
but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or
actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs
or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Massa- Lavitt, and Roberts
NOES. Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bello
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary, Planning Comini ion
4of4
Ellery Deaton
Chairperson, Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 07-42 o� /v
111-4�
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
HEIGHT VARIATION 07-6 PERMITTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED ROOF ACCESS
STRUCTURE ON A REMODEL/ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 409
OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. On June 12, 2007, Mr. Felipe Velarde submitted an application for
Height Variation 07 -6. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a Covered
Roof Access Structure in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes
to construct a 9' -10" by 3' -10" staircase enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately
V-6"; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § H.A of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height
Variation No. 07 -6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301(e)(2)(A) (Existing Facilities), because
the application is for the addition to an existing structure not resulting in an increase of more
than 10,000 square feet, since the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are
available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B), The area
in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive; 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 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on July 18, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -6. At the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received into all evidence and testimony provided on this matter, and
voted to continue this item to the regular meeting of August 8, 2007, so that additional
infonnation could be gathered regarding plan dimensions and building code requirements
relating to ceiling heights.
Section 4. The record of the hearings indicates the following:
(a) On June 12, 2007, Mr. Felipe Velarde submitted an
application for Height Variation 07 -6 to the Department of Development Services.
1 of 4
Planning Commission No. 04 -42
Height Varfation 07 -6— 409 Ocean Avenue
August 8, 2007
(b) The Applicant is requesting to construct a 9 -foot 10 -inch by
3 -foot by 10 -inch Covered Roof Access Structure to exceed the height limit by 1 -foot 6 -inch at
409 Ocean Avenue; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
(c) The subject property is described as 409 Ocean Avenue,
Seal Beach, California, Assessor's Parcel Number: 199- 148 -11. The subject property is located
in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town"
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area
of approximately 2,750 square feet. ,
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, EAST, Single and multiple family dwellings located in the
AND WEST: Residential High Density Zone (RHD).
SOUTH: Single family dwellings located in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone, Beach, Pacific Ocean
(f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure will have
similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the
remodeled home.
(g) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure comprises
approximately 38 square feet and is located at the south side of the building, with a setback of
approximately 10' -5" from the west (front) side of the building.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in
§ 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 07 -6, as proposed, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density
Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family
residential uses. 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) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed,
is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing
materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure.
(c) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed,
is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
(d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
2 of 4
Planning Commission No. 04 -42
Height Variation 07 -6— 409 Ocean Avenue
August 8, 2007
(e) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure is
approximately 38 square feet in area and is located at the south side of the building, with a
setback of approximately 10' -5" from the front (west) side of the building.
(f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure does not
significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject
property.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Height Variation 07 -6, subject to the following conditions:
Height Variation 07 -6 is approved for the construction of a Covered Roof Access
Structure for an approximately 38 square foot staircase enclosure up to V -6" in excess of
the 25 -foot height limit and located at the south side of the building and set back
approximately 10' -5" from the west (front) side of the building at 409 Ocean Avenue,
Seal Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV
07 -6.
There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature.
4. The interior ceiling height of the Covered Roof Access Structure shall be no greater than
the minimum ceiling height allowed by California Building Code for non - habitable
structures, and the overall exterior height of the Covered Roof Access Structure shall be
no more than 1' greater than the interior height.
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or
resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising
out of or connected with the performance of the use penmitted hereby. Applicant's
obligation to indemnifv, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include,
but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or
actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs
or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
6. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance
of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
3 of 4
Planning Commission No. 04 -42
Height Variation 07 -6— 409 Ocean Avenue
August 8. 2007
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of August 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa - Lavitt
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Deaton
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary, Planning Colniss'
4 of 4
Tperson, Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO.07 -63 114/
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -7, PERMITTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED ROOF ACCESS
STRUCTURE ON A REMODEL /ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING AT 705
OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. On October 18, 2007, Mr. Edward Gulian submitted an application
for Height Variation 07 -7. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a Covered
Roof Access Structure in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes
to construct an approximately 4' -6" by 5' -3" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by
approximately 2' -0 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § I1.A of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height
Variation No. 07 -7 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301(e)(2)(A) (Existing Facilities), because
the application is for the addition to an existing structure not resulting in an increase of more
than 10,000 square feet, since the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are
available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B), The area
in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive; 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 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on December 5, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -7. At the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received into evidence all written and oral testimony provided on this
matter.
Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) On October 18, 2007, Mr. Edward Gulian submitted an
application for Height Variation 07 -7 to the Department of Development Services.
(b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an approximately
4 -6" by 5' -3" Covered Roof Access Structure to exceed the height limit by approximately 2' -0"
at 705 Ocean Avenue; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
1 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07 -63
Height Yarlation 07 -7
705 Ocean Avenue
December 5, 2007
(c) The subject property is described as 705 Ocean Avenue,
Seal Beach, California, Assessor's Parcel Number: 199 - 033 -15. The subject property is located
in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as `.`Old Town"
(d) - The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area
of approximately 2,750 square feet.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, EAST, Single and multiple family dwellings located in the Residential
AND WEST: High Density Zone (RHD).
SOUTH: Single family dwellings located in the Residential Low Density
(RLD) Zone; Eisenhower Park; Beach; Pacific Ocean
(f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure will have
compatible roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is arcltecturally compatible with the
remodeled home.
(g) The proposed Covered Roof Access Stricture comprises an
approximately 24 square foot area and is located at the east side of the building, with a setback of
approximately 34' -6" from the south (front) side of the building.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in
§ 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 07 -7, as proposed, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density
Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family
residential uses. 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) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed,
is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing
materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure.
(c) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed,
is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
(d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
2 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07 -63
Height Variation 07 -7
705 Ocean Avenue
December 5, 2007
(e) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure is
approximately 24 square feet in area and is located at the east side of the building, with a setback
of approximately 34' -6" from the front (south) side of the building.
(f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure does not
significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject
property.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Height Variation 07 -7, subject to the following conditions:
1. Height Variation 07 -7 is approved for the construction of a Covered Roof Access
Structure for an approximately 24 square foot elevator enclosure up to 2' -0" in excess of
the 25 -foot height limit and located at the east side of the building and set back
approximately 34' -6" from the south (front) side of the building at 705 Ocean Avenue,
Seal Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV
07 -7.
3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature.
4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance
of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees -(collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or
resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising
out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include,
but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or
actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs
or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 5`h day of December 2007 by the following vote:
3 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07 -63
Height Variation 07 -7
705 Ocean Avenue
December 5, 2007
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Bello, DeLay, and Massa- Lavitt
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Roberts
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
lee Whittenberg
Secretary, Planning Commissi
4 of 4
&Z oe 12
llery Deaton
Chairperson, Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 08-28 lIV44
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
HEIGHT VARIATION 08 -1, PERMITTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NON - HABITABLE
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ON AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1709 ELECTRIC
AVENUE, SEAL BEACH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. On July 14, 2008, Mr. Marty Mirand submitted an application for
Height Variation 08 -1. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable
architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to
construct a 9' -10" by 5' -1" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately 4'-9";
7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
Section 2. Pursuant 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 Height
Variation No. 08 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301(e)(2)(A) (Existing Facilities), because
the application is for the addition to an existing structure not resulting in an increase of more
than 10,000 square feet, since the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are
available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B), The area
in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive; 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 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on October 8, 2008 to consider Height Variation 08 -1. At the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received into evidence all written and oral testimony provided on this
matter.
Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) On July 14, 2008 Mr. Marty Mirand submitted an
application for Height Variation 08 -1.
(b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an approximately
9' -10" by 5' -1" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4' -9" at 1709 Electric Avenue; 7
feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
1 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -28
Height Variation 08 -1
1709 Electric Avenue
October 8, 2008
(c) The subject property is described as 1709 Electric Avenue,
Seal Beach, California, Assessor's Parcel Number: 199 - 062 -41. The subject property is located
in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town"
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area
of approximately 3,168 square feet.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, SOUTH,
EAST, AND WEST: Single- and multiple family dwellings located in the
Residential High Density (RI-ID) and Residential Medium
Density (RMD) Zones.
(f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature will have
similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new
home.
(g) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature comprises
approximately 50 square feet and is located at the side wall of the building, with a setback of
approximately 9' -6" from the front of the building.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in
§ 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 08 -1, as conditioned, is consistent with
the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High
Density Residential' designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family
residential uses. 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) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch,
roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the
structure.
(c) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
(d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
2 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -28
Height Variation 08 -1
1709 Electric Avenue
October 8, 2008
(e) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, is approximately 50 square feet in area and is located at the side wall of the
building, with a setback of approximately 9' -6" from the front of the building.
(f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as
conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300
feet of the subject property.
(g) The requested accommodation is requested ,by or on the
behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws
because the applicant has been diagnosed with conditions, both chronic and progressive, that
restrict his motility.
(h) The requested accommodation is necessary to provide the
applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling because an elevator will be the only
way for the applicant to comfortably and safely access bedrooms and bathrooms on the second
floor and the medically recommended hot tub located on the rooftop deck. ...
(i) The requested accommodation will not impose an undue
financial or administrative burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's
zoning program because the proposed elevator structure is a type of amenity allowed pursuant to
the Height Variation process provisions of the Zoning Code.
6) The requested accommodation will not, under the specific
facts in the record, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or
substantial physical damage to the property of others because the proposed elevator structure is a
type of amenity allowed pursuant to the Height Variation process provisions of the Zoning Code.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Height Variation 08 -1, subject to the following conditions:
1. Height Variation 08 -1 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural
feature for an approximately 50 square foot elevator enclosure up to 4' -9" in excess of
the 25 -foot height limit and set back approximately 9' -6" from the front of the building at
1709 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through
Height Variation 08 -1.
3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature.
4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance
of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
3 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -28
Height Variation 08 -1
/709 Electric Avenue
October 8, 2008
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever'occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or
resulting to any person, firm, corporation or properly for damage, injury or death arising
out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. , Applicant's
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include,
but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or
actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs
or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of October 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, DeLay, Massa- Lavitt, and Eager
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bello
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
Lee Whittenberg
'Secretary, Planning Commission
4 of 4
VeDeaton
Chairperson, Planning Commission
IT
ry Nr �"'��• F . p �V� it t � n� g �f 4�
2zM
lomsWAT
PROPOSED ELEVATOR
ROOF ENCLOSURE LINE OF SITE
5
LINE OF SITE
FROM SIDELLIM
ACROSS I OTH STREET
PROPOSED ELEVATOR
ROOF ENCLOSURE
'1
-7
01:
um
FIN ff
lw-
J3
111 a" �
I' ' I
f
��11
I-
:III, WP!
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
09 -23, ADOPTED JUNE 3, 2009
RESOLUTION NUMBER 09 -23
0191G,
14,144
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING HEIGHT VARIATION
09 -3, A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HOUSE
AN ELEVATOR AT A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AT 124 TENTH STREET.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application to
the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09 -3. The proposed project would
allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height
limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to
exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) staff has
determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 09 -3 is categorically exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of
Regs. § 15303(a) (New Construction of Small Structures), because the application is for the
construction of three (3) or less single family dwellings in an urbanized area; § 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 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 20, 2009 to consider Height Variation 09 -3. At the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received into evidence all written and oral testimony presented on the
subject application.
Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
(a) On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an
application to the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09 -3.
(b) The proposed project would allow for the construction of a
non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit
by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted, at a new single family dwelling
located at 124 Tenth Street.
1 of 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -23
Height Variation 09 -3
124 Tenth Street
June 3, 2009
(c) The subject property is described as 124 Tenth Street; since
this lot will be created by a reversion to the original subdivision boundaries, an Assessor's Parcel
Number has not yet been assigned to this particular lot. This lot is located in what is generally
referred to as "Old Town. ".
(d) The subject property will be rectangular in shape with a lot
area of 2,938 square feet. The property will have 25 .feet of street frontage and will be 117.50
feet in depth.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, SOUTH, Single and Multiple family dwellings located in the
EAST & WEST Residential High Density Zone (RHD).
(f) The City received both written and oral responses in
opposition to the proposed project as s result of its mailed notice regarding Height Variation
09 -3.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in
§ 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(4) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 09 -3 is one of two applications on
immediately adjoining properties, and such a concentration of CRAS structures is not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, therefore, the CRAS requested by Height Variation 09 -3 is
not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which
provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits single
family residential uses. The use is also not 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 not consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed non - habitable covered roof access structure
is not compatible with the remainder of the neighborhood, as the project has become the subject
of protest by the community.
(c) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature would
significantly impair the primary view of properties located within 300 feet of the subject
property.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies
Height Variation 09 -3.
2 of 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -23
Height Variation 09 -3
124 Tenth Street
June 3, 2009
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of June 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Larson
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
ee Whittenberg
Secretary, Planning Commiss'
3 of 3
Ellery Deaton
Chairperson, Planning Commission
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MAY 20 AND JUNE 3, 2009
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 -'
L..
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
Request: To allow an expansion of live entertainment hours and the
provision of outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing
restaurant, bar, and entertainment cafe.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to cond.itions, and
adoption of Resolution 09 -21.
Staff Report
Mr. Olivera stated that the applicant has not submitted an adequate Site Plan, so this
item is to be continued to June 3, 2009.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton continued the public hearing
to June 3, 2009.
11. Height Variation 09 -3
124— 1 oth Street
Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC
Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess
of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes
to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure
to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height
variation permitted is 7 feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09 -23.
Mr. Flower stated that Staff would like to present the Staff Reports with regard to Items
11, 12, 13, and 14 together, as these are all Height Variation (HV) requests presented
by the same applicant and Staff anticipates that they will present many of the same
issues. He requested that the presentation be for all four items at the same time. He
recommended opening the public hearing concurrently to allow for comments for all
items, but when it comes time to render a decision it would be appropriate to have a
separate motion for each application. He counseled the Planning Commission (PC) that
each application is separate and should be decided on its own merits. Chairperson
Deaton asked if four separate public hearings would be conducted. Mr. Flower stated
that if the PC wishes to do so, this could be done. Chairperson Deaton stated that she
would prefer this.
4of13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
Staff Report
3 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
4 Department.) He provided some background information on this item and noted that the
5 elevator would serve to allow access to the roof deck of a proposed new single - family
6 residence (SFR). He explained that the applicant proposes to subdivide a 50 -ft. lot into
7 two 25 -ft. lots and to construct a new SFR on one of the lots, with both stair and
8 elevator access to the roof deck. He noted that the stair access is to be uncovered and
9 the elevator access would require an enclosure for the elevator car. He stated that the
10 elevator enclosure meets all Code requirements for a Height Variation (HV), which
11 allows a structure to exceed the 25 -ft. height limit by 7 ft. He indicated that the
12 approximate footprint of the elevator structure is 57 sq. ft. and the City Council (CC)
13 Policy Directive of 1991 regarding Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) allows up
14 to a 65 -sq. ft. footprint for such structures. Mr. Olivera then deferred to Mr. Flower with
15 regard to questions as to whether the HV process is subject to Measure Z, which was
16 passed by the voters in November 2008.
17
18 Mr. Flower explained that after reviewing Measure Z and the City Zoning Code (ZC) it is
19 the position of the City Attorney's Office that Measure Z establishes a standard
20 maximum height in Old Town of 25 feet, and in the context of the Municipal Code (MC)
21 this applies to Sections 28 -701 and 28 -801, which establish the standard maximum
22 height for residential structures in Old Town. He indicated that after careful review of
2 -1 CC directives and all related discussion and documents, it was concluded that the intent
of Measure Z was to eliminate third stories in Old Town and limit the standard
25 residential height to 25 feet. He then explained that HV procedures have long been in
26 the ZC and exist in Section 28 -2317 and are different from the maximum height limits
27 for the Old Town Area. He noted that this Section includes not only the HV procedures,
28 but various exceptions to the height limit that existed before Measure Z and apply to all
29 zones throughout the City regardless of use. He noted that the HV procedures do not
30 allow for third story structures, but allow for slight variations from the standard maximum
31 height, which is 25 feet in Old Town. He stated that the PC can find that the HV is
32 architecturally appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood and does
33 not significantly impair the view from any property within 300 feet.
34
35 Mr. Olivera stated that Staff has received 5 telephone calls and 11 written letters all in
36 opposition to the Height Variation (HV) projects.
37
38 Commissioner Questions
39
40 Commissioner Eager confirmed that the enclosure is to exceed the 25 -ft. height limit by
41 5 ft. 6 in. Mr. Olivera confirmed that the HV process allows a structure to exceed the
42 25 -ft. height limit by up to 7 feet. He noted that all four of the HVs are requesting a 5 -ft.
43 6 -in. exception.
44
45
5 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
Public Hearin
3 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing for HV 09 -3.
4
5 Robert Tavasci, architect for the project, briefly described the project stating that the
6 elevator shaft must be enclosed. Commissioner Massa -Lavitt clarified that 124 10th
7 Street would be part of the subdivided lot. Mr. Tavasci confirmed that it would be.
8 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked if the homes are to have a basement. Mr. Tavasci
9 stated that the basement would include a media room, a wine cellar, and would
10 essentially house the mechanical and electrical equipment. Commissioner Eagar asked
11 if the elevator goes down to the basement. Mr. Tavasci explained that it does and the
12 elevator equipment is also to be housed in the basement. Chairperson Deaton noted
13 that the PC previously approved some elevators in new homes on 15th Street, but this
14 was because the equipment was to be at the top of the structure. She stated that if the
15 equipment is to be in the basement, she does not see the need for the CRAS. Mr.
16 Olivera stated that the projects on 15th Street elected to use an elevator that works on a
17 vacuum system with the equipment located at the top of the elevator, but even if there
18 were no equipment at the top, an enclosure would still be required to protect the
19 elevator shaft.
20
21 The following members of the public spoke in opposition to HV 09 -3:
22
252 Mike Bubbe — Stated he is certain voters of Measure Z did not intend to continue to
{ _ allow CRAS, as they are eyesores, and an uncovered staircase would be best.
25
26 Barbara Barton — Voters stated their preference when they voted to pass Measure Z.
27
28 Joan Wolfelt — Neighboring home is a 3 -story home and she has no sunlight or
29 circulation of air on her property. 73 Percent of voters want the 25 -ft. limit and City
30 should follow what the residents want.
31
32 Larry Carey — asked why the elevator should exceed the height limit. Mr. Tavasci
33 stated it was to permit handicapped access. He recommended use of an uncovered
34 stairway and denial of this application.
35
36 Warren Morton — Eliminate CRAS and maintain the 25 -ft. height limit.
37
38 Jim Wolfelt — Residents do take the election very seriously, and 25 feet is the limit.
39
40 Mr. Tavasci explained that the owner intends to make the roof deck available to anyone
41 and this is why the elevator goes to that level. Chairperson Deaton stated that she has
42 been told that the ceiling heights could be lowered iri order to stay within the 25 -ft. limit.
43 Mr. Tavasci stated that this might be possible. Commissioner Eagar stated that if the
44 elevator structure is denied, would occupants still have roof access. Mr. Tavasci stated
45 that they would have access via an uncovered stairway.
6of13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked if a soils report was done prior to designing the
basements. Mr. Tavasci stated that this was done.
3
4 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
5 hearing for HV 09 -3.
6
7 Commissioner Comments
8
9 Chairperson Deaton stated that most of the Old Town homes with roof decks have
10 uncovered stairways for access, although some do have CRAS. She stated that the
11 members of the public who spoke tonight are opposed to allowing more of ,the CRAS.
12 She clarified that this application is for a Height Variation and not a Variance, which is
13 important because the legal findings that must be made for Variance do not apply in this
14 case.
15
16 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that it is clear by their vote that the majority of the
17 community wants a 25 -ft. height limit; however, Measure Z did not address accessory
18 architectural features on the roof, such as chimneys, gazebos, or anything but roof
19 height. She noted that these homes are designed with the third floor in the basement,
20 and if this HV is permitted in the ZC, the applicant should be allowed to do this, and
21 arbitrarily ending the ability of people to request a HV is unreasonable. She stated that
22 she would vote for approval of HV 09 -3 and commented that changing the ZC to prohibit
?' CRAS would be another thing to consider.
25 Chairperson Deaton stated that since she has served on the PC, CRAS have been
26 denied whenever anyone has said "It is not compatible with my neighborhood; I don't
27 want it." She said that when the same arguments have been made as those made
28 tonight these applications have been denied. With regard to the homes constructed on
29 12th Street and those built on 15th Street and she explained that it is a different issue
30 when rethinking the homes on 15th Street to consider retrofitting an existing structure
31 versus dealing with a new one. She stated that the proposed homes for HV 09 -3 are
32 new and can be constructed with 8 -ft. ceilings, with the elevators, and with the
33 basement while staying within the height limit. She stated that residents are tired' of
34 repeatedly having to come out to speak against the same issue. She emphasized that
35 before Measure Z the PC had denied CRAS in many cases, particularly when there has
36 been opposition to them. She cited the homes on 12th Street and Seal Way among
37 others. Chairperson Deaton then added that she understands how citizens would feel
38 betrayed after voting to approve Measure Z and commented that perhaps the PC has
39 not adequately explained the differences between a Height Variation and a Variance.
40
41 Commissioner Bello stated that the history as stated by Chairperson Deaton matches
42 her recollection of how the PC has voted on these types of applications. She
43 emphasized that the PC has listened to the residents and when there was enough
44 concern, the PC has been sensitive to this. She stated that the PC does favor
45 elevators, but questioned whether the architects and builders should attempt to design
1 new homes in such a way as to not go against what the community wants.
7of13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that she had a question for the applicant.
3 Chairperson Deaton reopened the public hearing.
4
5 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked Mr. Tavasci whether he would be willing to take the
6 elevators out of the plans and leave the elevator shaft so that it could be retrofitted later,
7 and just have the open stairway to the roof deck. Mr. Tavasci confirmed that this would
8 mean simply constructing the shaft. Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that should a
9 disabled person buy the home, the shaft would' be ready for retrofitting of an elevator.
10 Mr. Tavasci stated that it could be done, but he would have to check with the property
11 owner. Chairperson Deaton added that the conce�t of creating a large storage closet
12 on each floor was considered for the homes on 15t Street, with this space available to
13 be changed into an elevator shaft, should a "real person" need a "real elevator," and
14 other owners might enjoy the extra storage space. She noted that this change would
15 eliminate the need for a Height Variation.
16
17 Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing.
18
19 Mr. Flower indicated that should the applicant decide to change the plans and convert
20 the elevator shaft to storage space, there would be no need for a Height Variation and
21 they could simply apply for the building permits. Mr. Olivera added that an elevator
22 could still be installed in the home, but there would be no elevator access to the roof
21 deck. Chairperson Deaton stated she believes architects can design homes with
ceilings in one part of the house where the elevator could be where the ceilings could
25 be 8 feet and ceilings could be taller in the rest of the house creating an interesting roof
26 line. She said if the PC does not ask architects to do this, then the PC is betraying the
27 voters.
28
29 MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Eagar to deny Height Variation 09 -3 and adopt
30 Resolution 09 -23 as amended.
31
32 MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1
33 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt
34 NOES: None
35 ABSENT: Larson
36
37 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that she changed her intent to approve HV 09 -3
38 based upon the distinct possibility of changing the plans to construct the storage area
39 only into which an elevator might later be installed.
40
41 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09 -23 begins a 10 -day calendar
42 appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
43 appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
44
45 12. Height Variation 09 -4
1 126— 10th Street
8of13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC
Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess
of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes
to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure
to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height
variation permitted is 7 feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09 -24.
Staff Report
Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
Department.) He stated that this item would be very similar to HV 09 -3 and proceeded to
provide the same commentary as previously stated.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Massa- Lavitt asked Mr. Tavasci if he were willing to consider removing
the elevator from the plans and leave the elevator shaft so that it could be retrofitted
later, and just have the open stairway to the roof deck. Mr. Tavasci stated that he is not
certain of what is to be done at present, but one way or another the plans will conform
to the ZC. Commissioner Eagar asked the same question. Mr. Tavasci noted that the
reason for the elevator going to the roof deck was to create access for anyone.
Barbara Barton asked if the public would have to comment on each of the applications.
Chairperson Deaton stated that this would not be necessary.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Massa -Lavitt to deny Height Variation 09 -4 and adopt
Resolution 09 -24 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1
9of13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
AYES:
Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa - Lavitt
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Larson
Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09 -24 begins a 1.0 -day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
13. Height Variation 09 -5
202 —10th Street
Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC
Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess
of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes
to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure
to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height
variation permitted is 7 feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09 -25.
Staff Report
Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
Department) He noted that the Staff Report is essentially the same as for HV 09 -3 and
09 -4.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Eagar confirmed that if the homes are built to conform to the ZC height
standard the applicant would not have to come before the PC for approval of these
projects. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that this was correct.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Eagar; SECOND by Bello to deny Height Variation 09 -5 and adopt
Resolution 09 -25 as amended.
10 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1
AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Larson
Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09 -25 begins a 10 -day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
14. Height Variation 09 -6
204 — 10th Street
Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC
Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess
of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes
to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure
to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height
variation permitted is 7 feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09 -26.
Staff Report
Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
Department.) He noted that the Staff Report is essentially the same as for HV 09 -3,
09 -4, and 09 -5.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Eagar to deny Height Variation 09 -6 and adopt
Resolution 09 -26 as amended.
11 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1
3 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa - Lavitt
4 NOES: None
5 ABSENT: Larson
6
7 Mr. Flower noted a point of order and stated that the Resolutions for denial of HV 09 -3,
8 HV 09 -4, HV 09 -5, and HV 09 -6 have not been prepared and will be presented for
9 adoption at the next scheduled meeting of June 3, 2009. He then advised that adoption
10 of Resolution Nos. 09 -23, 09 -24, 09 -25, and 09 -26 will begin a 10 -day calendar appeal
11 period to the City Council beginning the day after adoption. Chairperson Deacon asked if
12 there would be a public hearing on these items. Mr. Flower stated that the resolutions
13 would be presented as scheduled matters and there would be no public hearing.
14
15 STAFF CONCERNS
16
17 None.
18
19 COMMISSION CONCERNS
20
21 Commissioner Eagar asked if based upon the response to Items Nos. 11 through 14, a
22 review of the Height Variation process should be scheduled.
2?
i" Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC should request direction from City Council on
25 returning to the revision of the ZC. She asked Mr. Flower on how to proceed. Mr.
26 Flower advised that this issue could be placed on a future agenda for discussion.
27 Chairperson Deaton requested that this item be placed on the agenda for June 3, 2009,
28 under Scheduled Matters.
29
30 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt inquired about the Agenda Forecast application for
31 Conditional Use Permit 09 -9 submitted by Target. Mr. Olivera stated that Target has
32 submitted an application for an off -sale general alcohol license.
33
34 ADJOURNMENT
35
36 Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
37
38 Respectfully Submitted,
39
40
41 Ooc �� 0 &kar �
42 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Assistant
43 Planning Department
44
45
1
12 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2009
AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt
NOES: None
3 ABSENT: Larson
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR '
No items.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2009.
To be continued to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting of June 17, 2009.
2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009.
Chairperson Deaton noted a correction to Page 8, Line 23 and requested that the text
be changed to read: "Chairperson Deaton stated she believes architects can design
homes with ceilings in one part of the house where the elevator could be where the
ceilings could be 8 feet and ceilings could be taller in the rest of the house creating an
interesting roof line."
MOTION by Eagar; SECOND by Bello to approve the Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of May 20, 2009, as amended.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1
AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa - Lavitt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Larson
Chairperson Deaton noted that the PC would be making one motion for Items 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
3. Adopt Resolution 09 -23 denying Height Variation 09 -3 for 124 10th Street.
4. Adopt Resolution 09 -24 denying Height Variation 09 -4 for 126 10th Street.
5. Adopt Resolution 09 -25 denying Height Variation 09 -5 for 202 10th Street.
6. Adopt Resolution 09 -26 denying Height Variation 09 -6 for 204 10th Street.
2of10
r
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2009
MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Eagar to approve Resolution Nos. 09 -23, 09 -24, 09 -25,
and 09 -26 as presented, denying Height Variation 09 -3, 09-4, 09 -5, and 09 -6.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1
AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Larson
Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 09 -23, 09 -24, 09 -25, and 09 -26
begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action
tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Conditional Use Permit 09 -7
3001 Old Ranch Parkway (Kobe Japanese Steakhouse)
(Continued to June 17, 2009)
Applicant/Owner: BNP Enterprises, Inc. / Bixby Land Company
Request: To allow an expansion of live entertainment hours and the
provision of outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing
restaurant, bar, and entertainment cafe.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09 -21.
Staff Report
Mr. Olivera 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
Staff has not yet received accurate site plans and floor plans for the proposed
expansion, so this item is to be continued to the next scheduled meeting of June 17,
2009.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton continued the public hearing
to June 17, 2009.
8. Conditional Use Permit 09 -5
4000 Lampson Avenue (Chevron)
(Continued From May 20, 2009)
3of10
ATTACHMENT 4
HEIGHT VARIATION
COMMISSION STAFF
MAY 20, 2009
09 -3, PLANNING
REPORT, DATED
Page 8
May 20, 2009
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Height Variation 09 -3
124 10th Street
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant: ROBERT TAVASCI
Owners: BULLETHILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Location: 12410TH STREET
Classification of Property: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD)
Re guest: TO CONSTRUCT A NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN
EXCESS OF THE 25 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. SPECIFICALLY, THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 4' -10" BY 11' -10"
ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT BY 5' -6 "; 7
FEET IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIATION PERMITTED.
Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW.
Code Sections: 28- 2317(D) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Recommendation: APPROVE HEIGHT VARIATION 09 -3, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BY
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 09 -23.
7-AHeight Variations \HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street \HV 09-3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report.doc
Heignu Variation 09 -3 124 10"' Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
FACTS
❑ On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application to the
Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09 -3.
❑ The proposed project would allow for -the construction of a non - habitable
architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed
the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
❑ The subject property is described as 124 10th Street; since this lot will be created
by a reversion to the original subdivision boundaries, an Assessor's Parcel
Number has not yet been assigned to this particular lot. This lot is located in
what is generally referred to as "Old Town."
❑ The subject property will be rectangular in shape with a lot area of 2,938 square
feet. The property will have 25 feet of street frontage and will be 117.50 feet in
depth.
❑ The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, SOUTH, Single and Multiple family dwellings located in the
EAST & WEST Residential High Density zone (RHD).
❑ The Planning Commission has approved Height Variances of a similar nature in
2007 at 231, 233, and 235 15th Street (HV 07 -2, HV 07 -3, HV 07-4).
❑ As of May 13, 2009, staff has received no comments, written or otherwise, in
response to the hearing notices that were mailed and published for the proposed
project HV 09 -3.
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application for Height Variation 09-
3. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable
architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant
proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit
by T -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. The proposed non - habitable
architectural feature complies with the provisions of §28- 2317(D) of the Code of the City
of Seal Beach.
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 2
Heigrn Variation 09 -3 124 10" Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
This request for Height Variation 09 -3 is in conjunction with a redevelopment of the
existing property and a reversion to the original subdivision lines, creating two individual
lots from the existing lot. The proposed new single family dwelling: will comprise
approximately 3,096 square feet with an attached 400 square foot 2 -car garage-and
consist of a basement, two above -grade levels, and a roof deck. The applicant is
proposing to provide an elevator in the new residence and wishes to have elevator
access to the roof deck.
DISCUSSION
In general the Code of the City of Seal Beach, (Code) states that no building or
structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is located.
However, Section 28- 2317(D) provides for height variations for non - habitable
architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317(D)(1) states:
"Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas,
belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes
and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit
established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of
seven feet (T) if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section."
The height limit for structures on the subject property which is located in the Residential
High Density zone, RHD, of Planning District I is 25 feet. The maximum height
elevation of the proposed elevator enclosure is approximately 5' -6" feet beyond the 25
foot height limit, for a total building height of 30' -6" at the top of the elevator enclosure.
The proposed height of the elevator enclosure is within the 7 -foot allowance provided
for a non - habitable architectural feature under Section 28- 2317(D).
In addition to the overall height requirement previously discussed, the Planning
Commission, in reviewing an application for a Height Variation, shall consider criteria
set forth in Section 28- 2317(D)(2) and make findings pursuant to said review. Said
criteria is stated in Section 28- 2317(D)(2)(c) as follows:
"(1). . . In reviewing an application, the Planning Commission shall consider the
following criteria and make findings thereon:
(a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the
building.
(i) Whether all roofing materials of a covered stairwell to an open roof
deck are in substantial conformity with the roofing materials of the
remainder of the structure.
(ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is located along
peripheral exterior walls of the structure.
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 3
Heign, Variation 09 -3 124 10th Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
(iii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the
minimum area, both horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover the
stairwell.
(b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of
the neighborhood.
(c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any
property located within 300 feet.
(d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work."
Architectural Style: Roofing, Location and Size
In considering an application for a Height Variation, the Planning Commission may take
into consideration the architectural style of the non - habitable architectural feature as it
applies to the style of the overall structure. The materials used in this construction will
be in substantial conformity with the materials used in the construction of the rest of the
house.
This proposal will be in substantial compliance with the character of the new
construction of this particular house. The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar
treatments and roofing materials as the new home and is proposed to be partially
exposed on three sides, so as to soften the impact of the structure, yet provide weather
protection for the elevator car doors and elevator shaft.
The Height Variation approval process is generally seen in the Old Town and Surfside
areas of the City. The Code permits what the applicant is proposing, subject to the
finding that the proposal is consistent with the integrity of the neighborhood. If the
Planning Commission were to find that this proposal was not significantly in keeping
with the character of the neighborhood, this application could be denied.
The third factor of architectural review is whether or not the proposed projection will in
any way impair the primary view of any neighboring resident. The application is within
the City Council adopted Policy Statement of 1991 (Attached for review). The
maximum allowable square footages under that Policy Statement are between 38 and
62.25 square feet for a covered roof access stairway. The proposed elevator enclosure
does not need to comply with the requirements for a covered roof access stairway. The
proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately 57 square feet (total footprint
including roof structure) and is located towards the center of the structure, with the
roofline being flush with the north building wall and the walls of the elevator enclosure
approximately 32' set back from the front of the building, 7' -3" from the south building
wall, and approximately 65' from the rear building wall.
Staff believes that the elevator enclosure, as proposed, meets the intent of the Code
and provides the minimum square footage necessary to enclose the elevator car and
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 4
Heigw Variation 09 -3 124 10th Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
shaft, while the roof overhang, because of the type of elevator, provides necessary
protection from the elements for the elevator shaft and door opening.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relative testimony
presented during the public hearing on Height Variation 09 -3, conditionally approve this
request.
Staffs recommendation is based on the following:
❑ Height Variation 09 -3, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the
Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density
Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple
family residential uses. The use, as conditioned, 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, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan.
❑ The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is
architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch,
roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder
of the structure.
❑ The proposed elevator enclosure, as conditioned, is appropriate for the character
and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood and permissible by code.
❑ No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
❑ The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, does not
significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the
subject property.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for Height Variation 09 -3:
1. Height Variation 09 -3 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable
architectural feature for an approximately 57 square foot elevator enclosure (total
footprint including roof structure) up to 5' -6" feet in excess of the 25 -foot height
limit at 124 10th Street, Seal Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved
through HV 09 -3, with partial openings of the exterior walls of the elevator
enclosure.
HV 09 -3 124 10th Street PC Staff Report 5
Heigin Variation 09 -3 124 10"' Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature
4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the
presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to
the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents
and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all ;claims and
losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or
corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in
connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of
the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from
the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation,
and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm,
corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected
with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but
not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses,
lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments,
verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
ryIeelivera, AICP
for tanner
artment of Development Services
Attachments: (4)
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 09 -23, A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Height
Variation 09 -3, Permitting the Construction of a Non -
Habitable Architectural Feature for an Elevator Enclosure at
a proposed Single Family Dwelling at 124 10th Street, Seal
Beach.
Attachment 2: Application
Attachment 3: Code Sections
HV 09 -3 124 10th Street PC Staff Report 6
Height Variation 09 -3 124 10ffi Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
Attachment 4: Plans
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report
Heignn Variation 09 -3 124 10th Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -23, A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION
09 -3, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
FOR AN ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE AT A
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 124
10TH STREET, SEAL BEACH
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 8
Height Variation 09 -3 124 10th Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 09 -3,
PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE FOR
AN ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE AT A PROPOSED
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 124 10TH
STREET, SEAL BEACH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an
application for Height Variation 09 -3. The proposed project would allow for the
construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit.
Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure
to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted.
Section 2. Pursuant 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
Height Variation No. 09 -3 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(e) (New
Construction of Small Structures), because the application is for the construction of :an
accessory structure in conjunction with a new single family dwelling in an urbanized
area; § 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.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 20, 2009 to consider Height Variation 09 -3. At the public hearing,
the Planning Commission received into the record all evidence and testimony provided
on this matter.
Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 9
Heignn Variation 09 -3 124 10r Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
(a) On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application for
Height Variation 09 -3.
(b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an 4'40" by 11' -10"
elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by F -6" at 124 10th Street; 7 feet is the
maximum height variation permitted.
(c) The subject property is deso'ribed as 124 10th Street, Seal Beach,
California. Since this lot will be created by a reversion to the original subdivision
boundaries, an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this particular
lot. The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an
area generally referred to as "Old Town"
(d) The subject property will be rectangular in shape with a lot area of
2,938 square feet. The property will have 25 feet of street frontage and will be 117.50
feet in depth.
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH, SOUTH, Single and multiple family dwellings located in the
EAST, & WEST Residential High Density zone (RHD).
(f) The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar roof lines, roofing
material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home.
(g) The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately 57
square feet (total footprint including roof structure) and is located towards the center of
the structure, with the roofline being flush with the north building wall and the walls of
the elevator enclosure approximately 32' set back from the front of the building, 7' -3"
from the south building wall, and approximately 65' from the rear building wall.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts
stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the
Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) Height Variation 09 -3, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High
Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple
family residential uses. 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) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned,
is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch,
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 10
Height Variation 09 -3 124 10th Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the
structure.
(c) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned,
is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
(d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure.
(e) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned,
does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within ,300 feet of
the subject property.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Height Variation 09 -3, subject to the following conditions:
Height Variation 09 -3 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable
architectural feature for an approximately 57 square foot elevator enclosure (total
footprint including roof structure) up to 5' -6" feet in excess of the 25 -foot height
limit at 124 10th Street, Seal Beach.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved
through HV 09 -3, with partial openings of the exterior walls of the structure.
3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature.
4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the
presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to
the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents
and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and
losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or
corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in
connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of
the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from
the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation,
and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm,
corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected
with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but
not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's
choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses,
lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments,
verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action'.
HV 09 -3 124 10th Street PC Staff Report 11
Heigin Variation 09 -3 124 10tft Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2009
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
Ellery Deaton, Chairwoman
Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 12
Heigm Variation 09 -3 124 10' Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
ATTACHMENT 2
APPLICATION
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 13
ILE USE:ONLYa::' �'.. ; -.
':.
ApplFCaf[oF - 17.- (Check:one otmofe), ,e*
.Cbnrlitianal`l3se.Pern,it c jli: CAN OF SEAL BEACH
Minor P:(an F2eview,- (MPF�;:;:.
t 4:
:. tion_�WUj�
a-de :.._.• :.:.: r.:'. , s PUBLIC HEARING APP
�r::GPAxZorie- Change. '.
City of seat Beach
APR 15 2009
C� enent of
t Services
FOR_'"O.FFIGE_;US
A `�- li.catian
M
1. Property Address: .ls� law • ��•
2. County Assessor Parcel No:
P
I Applicant Name:
Address: �U �'114C IWE . °>t�
Phone: Work (C, Home: ( )
FAX: ( ) Mobile: ( )
E -Mail Address: 6iexuw 1 F �kTPV� .cam
4. Property Owner Name: k3 - T LLC
Address: 2-0)0,V,2 "f'M►N� -s1" Ave. �"%,
Telephone: (+e g ) • (0'11VT
5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: t
6. Present Use of Property:
7. Proposed Use of Property: 8. Request For: vke161 wt V�
9. Describe Proposed Use: �1n1�Lt*IL� �ll.L�tty+�l
10. Describe how the proposed improvements a e appropriate for the
�surr ing nei orhood: C r_AA 1M1
to .
cter of the
7 of 35 Rev. 1/08
11. Describe how the approval of this Permit would be detrimental in any wa to other
property in the vicinity: _t4o jaeil��t�,►� IMP ", j�1yW- qA t1&t
mss_ ' -- i
12. Proof of Ownership
Please attach a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by
the applicant.
or
Signed and notarized Property Owners Affidavit to be completed and attached to the
application.
13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed):
(Signature f Applicant
L (P N r;>
(D te)
For Office Use Only
(Signature of Applicant)
(Pint Name)
(Date)
This is to certify that I.have inspected the foregoing•application and found it to be thorough and complete:• If�conforms-to-
tFie Hiles. of the Ciiy of Seal Beach governing the filing of an apptication.fo.'f an Unclassified Use Permit Ap IicatioriA
(Pant Name y.- . `_; - - _
_ - Si are (Print Title);:' _. = . = °_ .. (Date)'•
8 of 35 Rev. 1108
fi
Environmental Information and Checklist Form
General Information
1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor:
Name: YNNtA
Address: W�IWIFVEF,
City: - State:'
Telephone: GW. 1i5F0,4AO'11JF FAX:
E-mail Address:
2. Address of Project:
Assessor Parcel Nu
LLC -
3. Name, address, and contact information of Project Contact Person:
I
Name: Vzez�_ tA�.V-Jb �
*FAI-J.:E: 4.NVIE7. —
Address: )rOO
City: State: C4S. Zip: _%Q5012
Telephone: 4alO • �2_2� FAX:
E-mail Address: dzWOZ* gs r0j� . 6C:r_A
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, incluiling those reqi4ired by city, regional,'state and federal agencies:
W-
AA�A r jt>�OPA
5.
A
Existing zoning: T___.1 Existing General Plan:
Proposed use of site: d*7Xr-V_-,►L-S- % 17t
11 of 35
Ag - I
Rev. 1108
nez&&
General Information
1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor:
Name: YNNtA
Address: W�IWIFVEF,
City: - State:'
Telephone: GW. 1i5F0,4AO'11JF FAX:
E-mail Address:
2. Address of Project:
Assessor Parcel Nu
LLC -
3. Name, address, and contact information of Project Contact Person:
I
Name: Vzez�_ tA�.V-Jb �
*FAI-J.:E: 4.NVIE7. —
Address: )rOO
City: State: C4S. Zip: _%Q5012
Telephone: 4alO • �2_2� FAX:
E-mail Address: dzWOZ* gs r0j� . 6C:r_A
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, incluiling those reqi4ired by city, regional,'state and federal agencies:
W-
AA�A r jt>�OPA
5.
A
Existing zoning: T___.1 Existing General Plan:
Proposed use of site: d*7Xr-V_-,►L-S- % 17t
11 of 35
Ag - I
Rev. 1108
Project Description s
7. Site size (square footage):
8. Square footage of proposed Project:
9. Number of floors of construction:
10. Amount of off - street parking provided: ��yC
11. Existing and proposed impervious surface coverage (Impervious surface coverage
includes all paved areas and building a /or structure footprints):
Existing impervious coverage:
Proposed impervious coverage:
12. Attach plans including preliminary grading plans, drainage plans, Water Quality
Management Plans (WQMPs) for large -scale developments, construction site Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Plans.
13. Proposed scheduling of Project: A u L
14. Associated Projects: M(P lOJ'A J l
15. Anticipated incremental development: _ 4 ICS '.
16. For residential projects, indicate the:
A. Number of units: 1
B. Schedule of Unit sizes: gzym
C. Range of sale prices or rents: :2 s •2 ±�t 1 L
D. Household size(s) expected: v7c;u?-
17.
18.
For commercial projects, indicate the:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Type of project:
Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented:
Square footage of sales areas:
Gross building area:
Size of loading facilities:
For industrial projects, indicate the:
12 of 35 Rev. 1108
Type of project:
Estimated employment per shift:
Size of loading facilities:
19. For institutional projects, indicate the:
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 variation or zone change application, state this and indicate clearly why the
application is required:
Variance: CUP: Height Variation. Zone Change:
Cok-jaejp Briefly explain: �o��•CG�-� �"�'C�
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items
checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
21. Change in existing features. of any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes- or hills, or substantial alteration of
ground contours?
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.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
13 of 35 Rev. 1/08
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels
in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or 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.
Environmental Setting
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.
14 of 35 Rev. 1/08
Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "Potentially Significant Impact", "Less
Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" and "Less Than Significant
Impact" 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 outcroppings, 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
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural
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
t]
0
0
*11
■'
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
O �
0 0 D�-
15 of 35 Rev. 1108
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?
III. 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:
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?
0 0 o X_
16 of 35 Rev. 1/08
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact ILnpart
0 0 o X_
16 of 35 Rev. 1/08
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 Water 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:
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
13 11 [3 Alk
E
■
A
�I
1
0
rip1h,
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?
17 of 35 Rev. 1/08
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 risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake- Fault 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?
O � O
O � O
C3 0
13 13
18 of 35 Rev. 1/08
Less Than
°otentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
O � O
O � O
C3 0
13 13
18 of 35 Rev. 1/08
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 foreseeable 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 rl
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?
19 of 35 Rev. 1108
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
-inv0MrPg v9ldtnd1ires-- including-wh-ere
s - -2c4acm#_ _#p . _ ur i ed
_ -was --.or -:w ..- rsidances —are
ar-e
intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
-- waste_ascharge regttiremerets?
b) - S'ubctadtially sieplete 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 the 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?
20 of 35
a
■i
0
0
■i
■'•
Loll
107,'�
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impa t
An
1■1
1071
`J
rEl'
j l
Rev. 1/08
Les§7han
Potentially
Significant with
Significant
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
®
Q
20 of 35
a
■i
0
0
■i
■'•
Loll
107,'�
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impa t
An
1■1
1071
`J
rEl'
j l
Rev. 1/08
21 of 35 Rev. 1/08
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Imp t
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?
1) 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?
o) Create the potential for significant
changes in 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?
21 of 35 Rev. 1/08
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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant with _ Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
RESOURCES —X. MINLKAL -- 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
groundborne 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)
22 of 35 Rev. 1108
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 C3 13
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
23 of 35 Rev. 1108
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
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?
Less Than _
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D
O
a
�
�
O
�
D
O
DU
� 0 O
24 of 35 Rev. 1108
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 alternative
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 construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction 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 determination 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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
n
7W
C
■
■''.
■f
F'
■1
C
Lail
■
25 of 35 Rev. 1108
26 of 35 Rev. 1/08
Less Than
potentially --Signlficantwith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
I
-statutes And Xe- uLRthas .related to -solid
- C3 C3 Vf
waste?
h) Would the project include a new or
retrofitted storm water treatment control
Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin,
- comtr-ucted - treatment - wetlands), the
Operation of Whidh 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
13 13
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 probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
26 of 35 Rev. 1/08
NOM_'.B_-dfbre4 *.Lead Ageii''*-
Ote the Op
prepgr pursuant -to Skboin .66962-5of the Got .iiNX4r:f_F.. 6&
e6t.QZatiag
whether the project and' any d- d
are.-Iocate . on a -site-whidh is- included'on �ihV suc ist and shall
_7? -
ky-
spec*:
Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement
The development project and any alternatives pr6posed 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 of applicant:
2. Street-
3. city.
4. Zip Code:
5. Phone Number.
6. Address of site (street and zip):
7. Local Agency (city/county):
8. Assessor's Parcel Number:
9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code:
10. Regulatory identification number:
11. Date of list:
Date: Signature:
Applicant:
27 of 35 Rev. 1108
NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any
list complied_ pursuant to Sectiort 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 alternatives proposed in this
application are not contained on these li
Date:
28 of 35
tw.
Rev. 1/08
RECORDING PEQJEST► - QY
UV04SERS T :LE'
RE('(.)RDI \'G REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN i REC:ORDED MAIL TO:
Rocky W. Gentner
Deborah F. Gentner
1105 Crestview Avenue
Seal Beach, CA 90740
A. P.N.: 199- 042 -23
This Document, s electronically recorded by
Lawye. j Title Company B
Recorded in Official Records, Orange County
Tom Daly, Clerk- Recorder
9.00
2008000204731 04:15pm 04/30/08
117 73 G02 2
605.00 605.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Order No.: 5360451 -25
Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only
Escrow No.: 1350 -D
GRANT DEED
T UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUINMNTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: COUNTY $1,210.00
[] computed on full value of property conveyed, or
[ ] computed on full value le §s value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale,
t [ ] unincorporated area; ( tj City of Seal Beach , and
\ FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
John A. Modaffari, Executor for the Estate of Ilene B. Eddy
hereby GRANT(S) to Rocky W. Gentner and Deborah F. Gentner, Husband and Wife as community property with
rights of survivorship
the following described property in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange State of California;
Lot 24 and 2$ in Block 10 of Bay City Tract, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map
recorded in Book 3, Page(s) 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
v
\ John A. Modaffari, Executor for the
Estate o � Ilene B. E '
Jo A. P�4odaffari, Exec;:
Document Date: February 20, 2008
SPATE OF CALIFORN )SS
cxx;iv"rY OF•/�G -Ci) �� )
011 -�' Z-& — ZOO (K before me,
a notary public in and
Ibr said suite, personally appeared 1v13 0 IPQCt 0 -Fit-0 r( G `&P'L �- y -T6 t'L. who proved to me on
e�
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose nattte(s)45(are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to the that t /she /they
executed the same inn /her /their authorized capaciry(ies), and that by &,i /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
wi'l.NESS uty at au f icial seal.
i �
! ; y)�
Signature � �
M. MAXIM
Commission* 1766897
Notary Public - California
Orange County
MYC=rM Et0esSep 10, 2011
Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below
ATTACHMENT 3
CODE SECTIONS
HV 09 -3 124 10th Street PC Staff Report
Heigrn Variation 09 -3 124 10th Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
Heigm Variation 09 -3 124 100 Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
Sec. 28 -2317. Building Height Limits.
... (4) Height Variation For Non - Habitable Architectural Features.
A. Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires,
towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by
Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells tq open roof
decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in
which such structure is located to a maximum of 7 feet if granted
pursuant to the procedures contained in this section.
B. Procedure:
(1) Any person desiring to apply for a Minor Height Variation
Permit shall complete and fill out and submit an application,
required plans and property owners list to the Director of
Planning together with payment of the minor plan review fee
14 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
(2) Notice of the application for a minor height variation shall be
given to all property owners within 300 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property.
C. Review:
(1) The Planning Commission may at a scheduled public
hearing approve or disapprove such application, subject to
any conditions deemed appropriate. In reviewing an
application, the Planning Commission shall consider the
following criteria and make findings thereon:
(a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the
architectural style of the building.
(i) Whether all roofing materials of a covered
stairwell to an open roof deck are in substantial
conformity with the roofing materials of the
remainder of the structure.
(ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof
deck is located along peripheral exterior walls
of the structure.
(iii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof
deck is limited to the minimum area, both
horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover
the stairwell.
(b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the
character and integrity of the neighborhood.
HV 09 -3 124 10th Street PC Staff Report
Heigm Variation 09 -3 124 10u' Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
(c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the
primary view from any property located within 300
feet.
(d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work.
(2) The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed
to the City Council, which in order to grant a permit, must
determine that the findings set forth in this section have
been met by the applicant.
(3) Any one appealing a decision of the Planning Commission
must file a written request, together with the appeal fee
within 10 calendar days after the decision is made.
HV 09 -3 124 1 0th Street PC Staff Report
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT
COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURES
SECTION
INDEX NO.
ISSUE DATE
REVISION DATE
COUNCIL
CM APPROVAL
APPROVAL
600
3
6/25/01
6/25/01
A. SCOPE
Citywide
B. PURPOSE.
To establish a policy setting forth standards for review of covered roof access structures
under Section 28 -2317 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code.
C. POLICY:
The City Council hereby approves the attached schematics as maximum dimensions for
�- Covered Roof Access Structures. The Planning Commission has routinely approved
applications under Section 28 -2317, subject to the minimum amount of impacted area of
the structure. The Planning Commission adopted a similar policy in 1991, and has
consistently held that applications for height variations which fit within the scope of that
policy statement are acceptable in their. minds under Section 28 -2317 of the Municipal
Code. The City Council therefore adopts this policy statement to set future direction for the
Planning Commission with regard to processing applications for height variations for
covered roof access structures.
D. PROCEDURES
Applications for Covered Roof Access Structures will be applied for through the
Department of Development Services, subject to Height Variation under Section 28 -2317
of the City's Municipal Code.
Attachments (1):
1. Skematics of Maximum dimensions for Covered Roof Access Structures
(Policies/Covered Roof Access Structures)
Oil
i
10' -0"
L-Shaped Staircase
Enclosed Area - 46. sq. ft.
r
UP
T�
CO
I
0
4 011.
0
Straight Sttaircase
Enclosed Area - 38 sq. ft.
2
54
Jr,
0
"Rectangular . Staircase
Enclosed Area - 62.25 sq. ft.
1 �
0
A
I
ED
M�
(cu'lar Staircase
Enclosed Area - 42 .2.5 sq. ft.
I
I
Q
Circular Staircase
Enclosed Area = 60 sq. ft.
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANS
HV 09 -3 124 10th Street PC Staff Report
Heigrn Variation 09 -3 124 160 Street
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20, 2009
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
12410TH ST.
SERI BERCH, CR. 90740
ASSF1EVIATIONS
SHEEP INDEX
. nugoaTlFruaasarWGMFamI >�ncocwN ®la
ArNMmv mIFO.1NmYImlaoalawtoanoorlNa
nl m1A1AAr /ImarGu
. �awnW pIEILKMFLwNnFC(NOaeQmNOUw
@ i ®OMCINIIRYNOIIOeBA1rILMIVMIEKW.
@k1 QF6MLM1®
HPAe D
a lw}1
A
eoNa
1 1
N�Q
WeQ
ii
>A
°B uQ°ww
,QQ.oN
■
Fl
PQTMr OIIAAAtA
elL
e111RW
�,N�„
MO
NR
Mddd
W111BLHYHt@
WRWN.
Idd
TM1[
rQIAl —A3m
�ng1IXq�
Am -Mnfen HAW1Ri
NA-Q.emWF
FF. F.
RNdllm
,I
+
iP
T
T.W.
t@ @PMMFI
t@@DfAt
Yc
AAWAu
iR.
Rol i!
,N1'a
gt1IIAffIHQiH
Iu�A� W
+�m1
.msF'JL
`ryLq
R�0.Ylec
NWra'
ra mr�Ha1H
Gi
we9�ana�INYra9F®mlII
N1FF
AHM
AnAerrmINQ11
A��1R
HI@l
N@ppF�1F
pH_yppN,tlq
VF�A
Nnr MI@
NYl
AM]I16TAYL
Flm
FQ6
iN1111
06
QFQIQNOWI
W
HK
Q�
�
61
N��
FNS.
ImM�
Wl1�
F11NE
FL
1K
y�yy�
WAIQIIGlQ1
H�eNH
i W
QGIG
HQ t81
IA+ANLLQNnMH101
KAA
ffi
R
RY�D
WD.1
WWA
1 RAII.Wf
�WA9QQ —AA 0H1
G
q�jlN�
HH�D
DLY
Q�WVWMHVOIw
gqR{{Mn
Pr.
N®AinFAII11
Q�n
CTNn'
�
�N
6i.
QMRnnE
mu
5uf
�rtmra
m
�y
p�nn
mnln.oNr
1�
t� �
y'{�o}@°yO�Owx
iQl
�C,/�inpu
C6
wltplMlA}f
QFBQOLY
11MO/.
IQNFIfK
Eve.
wQ¢
�
R
�Mp�N,�
X1
F�1 ®YH
mYS'I�II
Q
�MpRAQ
INM
1M
•
x W
AD�F'JL
Mir.
Iv�mllen
ml-
u
N
p.�w�
eAr.
HILA
nm—in}e
°dQT
e/
o��iaAllAw
PIwAA
ddM
nlDOA
M @I
DIW
DPATM
@Am
W�
QI
�1H
1.
�
0WFG1W
"�'°"
1W
�upryAN�N�
I�OwRa
ddC
ug
Hr OHIItL
.
�CWltimR
FN1hTmW�ulMi�rCDxFT�1
I FYm'
eDmC,nmtkw
E.P.
Q6A HM8
FN.
NMJFI!
FvM
i-`Ldl 'JL
UST OF BEST NIRNRGEMENT PRRCi10ES
AHMAmnu.T @wmo.11 W F®m ®NRwrtNAamoaasar v�M raumew.Qe @nwROeeelvummwN.Trmu
INHNW VNIDIQWIICMRIDFLTOMAeNCIQ 1MIHIQINEMMMnpW mSEQQA9NFftlLFNf+tIW,MNNW NO WNFYYD W
111AEn01n16rMnlnl M u°nlmlue.Tmlm AutoamArwASliQlraxrw Qa ®wrwncuFemne RFaQmQrelnima
li WO °1®
R Pmp 1� 011
4 e @I P
°o mC°i n.°�OrML °� w°me
t4nPNNIPa
11� 1,N.1
SEEP-
PROJEa ' DRTR
iu.Y n.oa�i'�j • 4lolauruaq
mae etAw Vr�.l.rt1..1
PVSa.Art I�A� Irt.mo
mY �_
R-
INtert..AS�
eFr.�tmt¢rt AwwloxHaNO @IWQImA■Hmea /ANN4HnL
A®N nAWrm ®FIwBR.InALRtFI.1.Nii1ONNL@OIA1 W NPA
t1on.Fr.RNTRQ11tr1i1NQUm1AV1RW IGrQNmW.luWm1DUR.
WIHIVIY.@MitW AMInpANAR+Om.HH W R.HY11aQ�1Y0AWA
Nnom1ATIRNf YAIR
IA>pnA P.�Nnm1m1QY1 @AMYIHIY @IMIII WNQIYn111M
WAIFMl6QELekY11INYYfr. WILWAY, MnINeQatl WMAAVXYI.YHQN
rA ®aAN WmAnAQIQGm.vaQOIArIFM1 @IAatm
oNemloae ®nnmulla @eH a PcwnA.es nFr.ImQOc
BUILDING CODE
naE11Ar1AwrawmllRClel wuQwwrwnlMN W..I
RH110/MHQ!
M NHirMlQla1H@L�Iffie ®IQif
nEG10QAG HAIIDQmpd1+F}IR{
MIraQNR,.�F�lam+a>�m�l a
nEl}eQYAAmNIC.ILIO@Pm m1.Y
newrwaomlrAUr�PegRm+IQm�
oeQ+eQFUOmIr mApmi Nnwl
oeGUQYU1eoA>eptmmlw
MrrlwPNloaoruaevetlzm mQFq
nNeQ1®AIEAAAiA!®NMn1Y @IQI EIW MIRm4LLQRNGIH°AIVe
MQ>e WYQMmNn11MN0 ®ANne;R1V1QIS®rinm6M
FmBIFF1ICM PIQ�lBnLLQAnN
NAQ11IXnOFIQSIn111L0AiT1AI1MMA®f Iblln'H.nRO.mY1 @M
AAAl tlQ+11M111® /a1DFnIWTAH1neG1AQYAA`�'�- - IIOL@MQD
. ®RRAAIRi1rID1111161. @ M@INElLN1101i�9m +E11 W
QN91RII1@1 /iw1YN7 @FYIAEIMI®IDMMIIn E111mliIDINMD
ImW Avntr -,ItGY to WntaMLLEwY1noQ1111t!°LInIGw
ArlloewlQ HG¢Fm W MMNMILYQI @MIM6f e W L@PIrYIIIII
AulwweltnrtlNllAAB1IRVL1�M1 W @IIANQIItINMNn1/1.l
H ®111aQIRON W\MIQLIFN WHNMN�IR DIMYNNMLM
RFIHIIIBQArlElnIANHAQ FPDD @nFRU1evW NRLL'IQI @nHQ1Y
SPEORI NOTES
SHEEP INDEX
. nugoaTlFruaasarWGMFamI >�ncocwN ®la
ArNMmv mIFO.1NmYImlaoalawtoanoorlNa
nl m1A1AAr /ImarGu
. �awnW pIEILKMFLwNnFC(NOaeQmNOUw
@ i ®OMCINIIRYNOIIOeBA1rILMIVMIEKW.
@k1 QF6MLM1®
. QOY�IOBIHF @TNI\tB14YiNO1Jt821FWiIIBi
Yt IQi RAM
We nFm1lFa;ww
wt m9rIlIIQ1 /W®.Y.ITRAII
AH ® —R /RMCKMAM
DD HIRmIWHGnY
Ad 1Q@R11
M IAt11N /n1nrH1W@1
Ad 011ll /IWDDlWll7f1
M Y dd=Ay
w mVmIFPAGiAu
Ai 1aQY®F}1
Ad ®mA0
Am -Mnfen HAW1Ri
ul Rmlimlllmllraurlur
DIRECTORY
W IrIDlRmla/IIIIe'A4YQIr
+
ml AIpFmINa WAAd
lona tc-
IOAIWt1Tp
H41 1HIeNBlI1H+G10
FAL6AQIG
Mmbinl +lH
iau nnAlaesarula
VICINITY NIRP
+
1
1
L I
.� ` A IIHfIII
I<61
SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
124 �Ol4 8® TREET
ar... DN H. Cw 90740
BULLLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC
,,6E.D ARC Tea
n
o I I
H �rE1l zs
9 OF CA��F�
H10HYT1LW
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT DATA
WW.OQF N�a.
wINm HI I L
M,.
Y1HeTNQ. C
TS 1
DI 1NMYAImftl
w IwHram /mraQww,w
N �ARmI /I�R11N /R+N
DI eHANHWL@iAL
w RwmuuamAu
DD HIRmIWHGnY
w IIINCIIWILRTAu
w mVmIFPAGiAu
w mFmulQlaiAu
DIRECTORY
+
iL�AT1uQ!tn@ASI[Im
WtltItHlAemnlIEAPQI
lona tc-
IOAIWt1Tp
y`
FAL6AQIG
Mmbinl +lH
GNW.
WMAQAInAGelm
I111ENIW1
r..,
gt1IIAffIHQiH
Iu�A� W
ourAQaalw
^
mm lAdlND
1@LIbDIGAQIQI
1NIT FW 1AnA1BAH
10ONA.dmA
••V
�
AIIIlMIQIIQ]Fif
MmbOHOJ
AnLOBAI:leAT1H
,AHmYeArp
nOm80AH1A
L I
.� ` A IIHfIII
I<61
SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
124 �Ol4 8® TREET
ar... DN H. Cw 90740
BULLLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC
,,6E.D ARC Tea
n
o I I
H �rE1l zs
9 OF CA��F�
H10HYT1LW
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT DATA
WW.OQF N�a.
wINm HI I L
M,.
Y1HeTNQ. C
TS 1
HDAKW FROPGM
I
• 1175' NONiH PflOPEp1Y LINE -11W RY5B
a mom moea ®m — ma ®m m o ®moo � I
asyQlli! -- ---------------- �-'•' —'1
'r.j.'' •I D
NEW 3,005 SQ. Fr. I I ff
''y ::'•;' ` ATTACHED 400 SQ. FT.
o SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 4 -CAA GARRGE = 'E
1
1 410• ALLart4MA 2,4 P7-
EBPYMTIM AT
�•...•.' :: mm�mmm ®�mol ®m ®m ®ems 0000mom ®moms ®moe ®mom o _
°••• I I I V °'/ 117.5' SOUTH FROPEDy 1WE k'�Jm m ®e ®mmmmem a
t' �}/ 1
noncElrlrNOaEAry
SITE PLRN
SWE IN•11'
rm reel D.NaR RJ Fig—
I DEStflIPDDn WE MT. Dscpjg00 DEL DES[AWIIDN IIErIDDL110T6
IM rlmrq lrppm — xum1 ,rww+M am wE MT pnwr a rpn l.o mNp: asp� / w carp ni
pp OrAMIII I m Tar'Np'Ca1Y Area CrrrrrYNr O' Tr AIrOMIR'OT NA pIW.L Nvr ®{p® ON ANY ONmI MONK NIfCP1' R I.rNOPmR W'IIr T! MpNMCfT. WmTImN OYm1pI1a TA10 awpeooeaep wa K.LLm Os.m,mar� .vo rwt Y Ymrl�l® er na .+prna .rrt olKaler nl.euu pluaa, pp rwpuarrr Tm sra IrT1Op <R TC .NrrMtNL
_ �Naia° N s
coz m n rm r- m N PRz
o v r �� un
b l_ M-1 Q N 3_ pµ pp= I
:11 m 113
FF
r' A m I ,.NSA I -—fin ti'
y
�ry
3s PD1E ANEVUa aurte.00
LONG SBACM CA. SOSD,2
P'MONE- SQ�.Sa0.6222
PAX. 602.3Y0.32� �
I4�I
PROJECTN m
NEW RESIDENCE
MT
SEAL BEACH, CA. 90740
C—m
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
PENSIONS
SHEET TRLM
BASEMENT I I ST. FL
FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT NO. I3�_00
DATE PPR IS. 'SOON
a—aY: VYl
SOwLE ws `o'ev
PILE:
aMEET NO.
A-1
1
IA
s=e J
0
Q
YA�i®
X * N
SECOND FIOOfl PLAN
--------- - - - - --
I,
1,
11
I,
1,
11
II
I,
I,
1,
I,
II
11
I,
II
1,
1
L' 1
II
11
II
11
11
11
m
41
nets[ l a ne -®lvm ma°sml .r an.a a °ow 4.� Riml trr
m esr reL w aew raFrr. m wow±rr_vn.nrl r r<.Y.. s<...e �� .�..-
rw eaa�.er aa.�w� aa.ra.�a
, � I I r6l�:
�
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
1.7 BE/'• .. .M.
OWNER
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC
REVIBK)N6
°MEET TR .
88C 0 FL,OOM ROOF DECK
FLOOR PLAN
omPROJECT
APRJ>!. aeon
oewwN Er �-
SGALE: b MOIT9
FILE;
aNeET no.
v2
All N Ai71C
' 1
I'
w.. awe aw aea
' 1
awT n le Ae.s new Im
I
mmnw / w®l. Iasi aw as
1
1
IL ��
Me.r A wrw
11
.t Mw nwRl rYt
Twill m/. ®1 / m.°°t
1'
11
s�MY RmI.K
1
L
11
r
MR Y eaw{ V ®l arr .i llw Am.
°
II
u
aaT .m w ®yw.L.al ueml
�1
1
JI
❑
eeew ewr. orna lw T, Isle:® mr r.11
R
I,
II
vAL•° wYM °GL mYl A el6f° mA RTM.
11
rNlrerlrr+erl®emlu . o e.: oa°°wm"i °1"11
i,
1,
.r .l.a..a wmlw ww s ® nmwMm ® NA rw
II
1�
I
1�
11
I�
11
11
1 L - - --
II
I 1
11
II
I I
II
11
1A
Ls = = =--
---- --
- -1J N
ROOF DECK PLAN
nets[ l a ne -®lvm ma°sml .r an.a a °ow 4.� Riml trr
m esr reL w aew raFrr. m wow±rr_vn.nrl r r<.Y.. s<...e �� .�..-
rw eaa�.er aa.�w� aa.ra.�a
, � I I r6l�:
�
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
1.7 BE/'• .. .M.
OWNER
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC
REVIBK)N6
°MEET TR .
88C 0 FL,OOM ROOF DECK
FLOOR PLAN
omPROJECT
APRJ>!. aeon
oewwN Er �-
SGALE: b MOIT9
FILE;
aNeET no.
v2
MI�YO w emu
rY gr q
Iwe®lrawl°. to .Is
w.. awe aw aea
awT n le Ae.s new Im
mmnw / w®l. Iasi aw as
rinr Rlss mwlml eewac rmT rw amrec
Me.r A wrw
.t Mw nwRl rYt
Twill m/. ®1 / m.°°t
s�MY RmI.K
IY. T.a e1wYT.
MR Y eaw{ V ®l arr .i llw Am.
°
�"�
aaT .m w ®yw.L.al ueml
Ye:r a., w o Rwa Ve • RT® w a. rm.l Bear.aT
eeew ewr. orna lw T, Isle:® mr r.11
R
rraaT r.mllM %p. w�lA 0.�ww.R � a x�F 1 el
vAL•° wYM °GL mYl A el6f° mA RTM.
11
rNlrerlrr+erl®emlu . o e.: oa°°wm"i °1"11
.r .l.a..a wmlw ww s ® nmwMm ® NA rw
nets[ l a ne -®lvm ma°sml .r an.a a °ow 4.� Riml trr
m esr reL w aew raFrr. m wow±rr_vn.nrl r r<.Y.. s<...e �� .�..-
rw eaa�.er aa.�w� aa.ra.�a
, � I I r6l�:
�
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
1.7 BE/'• .. .M.
OWNER
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC
REVIBK)N6
°MEET TR .
88C 0 FL,OOM ROOF DECK
FLOOR PLAN
omPROJECT
APRJ>!. aeon
oewwN Er �-
SGALE: b MOIT9
FILE;
aNeET no.
v2
SOUTH ELEVRTION
114%1 -SM
wcI
A.J. TRVRSCI AIR
3]9 PIN9 AVENU9 9111TH ,99
LONG BEACH CA. 9O9C2
PHONE: 9a�.9BC.6222
PAX: 6tl0.Oi10.62'12
PNCJ9CT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
r SEAL BEACH. cA. 90749
OwNaN;
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC.
erlaEr TITL9:
ELEVATIONS
PN Jaor NO. leen_oT
CAie; Arw. Is, aow
OpAWN 9Y; yµ,
aCAL9: J\9 NOT9D
PILE:
9NaaT NO.
5
To: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
Date: May 20, 2009
Re: Height Variation 09 -3, Height Variation 09 -4, Height Variation 09 -5,
Height Variation 09 -6
J. Lyon and D. Schumacher of Bridgeport left a phone message stating that they are "strongly
opposed" to the approval of any residential structure exceeding the 25 -foot height limit.
Lee Wittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach Ca 9074
The four new replacements of residences on l Od' Street 124, 126, 202 & 204.
The attempt to By Pass the 25' height limit requirement.
The lay out of these 4 proposed homes are nice but keep the stairs to the 2nd
floor only.
Access the roof in anther fashion.
Eliminate the 100 square foot plus, 3rd story structure that
covers the stairs and the elevator shaft.
Do not try to by pass the voter approved 25' foot height
limit.
Deep to the 25' height limit as requested and voted on by
over 70% of the people here in old town Seal Beach.
Do not allow this height variation
Warren & Mitzi Morton
Seal Beach
To: Planning Commission
From: Jerry Olivera, Senior Planne
Date: May 20, 2009
Re: Letters in Opposition to HV 09 -3; HV 09 -4; HV 09 -5; HV 09 -6
Attached are letters received by the Department of Developmental Services regarding
the four Height Variation requests on tonight's agenda.
Since agenda packets were distributed to Planning Commissioners, Staff has received
5 phone calls and 12 written letters, all in opposition to the proposed projects.
city of Seal Beach
Roger & Geraldine West IWAY 2 p
1.301 -B Electric Ave.
Department of
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6422 Development Services
562- 430 -3564 562 - 212 -3675 cell
11 May 2009
Mr. Lee Wittenberg
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Request to Exceed the 25 foot Height Limit on Tenth Street
Planning Committee Meeting of May 20, 2009
Dear Mr. Wittenberg:
We have been advised that there are requests to exceed the 25 foot height limit as
respects four properties on 10th Street in Seal Beach. We object to this proposal.
We wish to point out that Measure Z was passed with 73% as respects height limits
here in Old Town. We wish to remind the Planning Commission of this fact and ask
them to follow the overwhelming wishes of the citizens of Seal Beach.
We are going to be in a hotel at LAX because Jerri is leaving for New Orleans at
8:00 AM on the 21st and she is a night person and would not make her flight
otherwise we would attend attend the meeting to protest in person.
While she is there she plans to count the number of sites with liquor licenses on
Bourbon Street to see if her assumption that the licenses in Seal Beach exceed in
number those on Bourbon Street. She will report her findings.
Sincerely,
Roger West Geraldine West
09
�F . - _
r4�;b2,.0� -
�� 74 f
740P—u--
Lo
� r
AS
Lee Wittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 Eight Street
Seal Beach Ca 9074
City. of Seal Beach
M 9f 1 9 2009
Department of
Development Services
The four new replacements of residences on l Od' Street 124, 126, 202 & 204.
The attempt to By Pass the 25' height limit requirement.
The lay out of these 4 proposed homes are nice but keep the stairs to the 2nd
floor only.
Access the roof in anther fashion.
Eliminate the 100 square foot plus, 3rd story structure that
covers the stairs and the elevator shaft.
Do not try to by pass the voter approved 25' foot height
limit.
Deep to the 25' height limit as requested and voted on by
over 70% of the people here in old town Seal Beach.
Do not allow this height variation
Warren & Mitzi Morton
Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
MAY 19
Department of
Development Services
City of Seal Beach
2118' Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
ATTN: Jerome Olivera, AICP
Senior Planner, Department of Development Services
This letter is to express opposition to the Height Variation 09 -3 at 124 10th Street
and to all subsequent requests. Seal Beach's Measure Z passed with a 73%
majority vote citywide expressing the desire of this city and its residents to keep
buildings in Old Town to a height of 25 feet.
The covered roof access structures and other variances known as "doghouses" not
only exceed this limit but also block views and light of nearby residents. They
needlessly cause hard feelings between neighbors and are unnecessary.
I am particularly concerned about this project as I have lived in Old Town for forty
years and own a six -unit apartment building at 130 11th Street which is within the
codes.
Thank you for upholding the desires of the Seal Beach community.
Sincerely,
Jack Bettenhausen
MAY 1 9 2009
432 Corsair Way
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -5966
18 May 2009
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Sir:
It has come to our attention that there is a request before the Planning
Commission for a "height variation" to allow four properties on 10th
street to exceed the 25 foot height limit specified by the recently
passed Measure Z.
We wish to express our opposition to this request and urge that the
Planning Commission deny it. With nearly 75% of the vote in the
recent city -wide balloting supporting a height limitation, we see no
justification for an exception to that ordinance.
Sincerely,
William J. McNally
4t&�
Beverlee G. McNally
�e
MAY 19 2009
t -
Dear Mr. Whittenberg, '
I am a home owner in Old Town Seal Beach. I voted to enforce the 25 foot
residential height limit, which did pass. I would like you to deny the recent
request made by the builder on 10th Street and uphold what the voters have
put into place.
My two -story residence is no taller than 25 feet and I expect and demand
that no new structures should be allowed to exceed this height limit.
Sincerely,
Grant Fry
245 17th Street,
Seal Beach, CA 90740
William L. McGrann
12200 Montecito Rd. #D324
Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 ,._.
Email: wlmcgrann r,yahoo.com
Phone: +1(562) 594 -5752
Fax: NO FAX
l AY
78 X09
Sent via U.S. Mail
5/14/2009
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach CA 90740
Re: Seal Beach's Measure Z, 25 -foot height limit.
Dear Mr. Whittenberg,
I am a long time resident of Seal Beach. We the people approved Measure Z for good
cause.
Therefore, I ask you to please respect the 25 -foot height limit. Please do not allow
anyone a variance.
Thank you,
William L. McGrann
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth St
Seal Beach, CA 90740
May 14, 2009
RE: Request for Height Variance at 202 and 204 Tenth St..
Mr. Whittenberg:
tw
Mqr �
n
?049
_ t
I am an owner of a building at 217 Tenth St. In Seal Beach. I oppose the request for variance at
the properties cited above. I oppose any project that would violate the 25 foot height limit in Old
Town. In the November 2008 General Election the residents of Old Town voted overwhelmingly
to maintain a 25 foot height limit on any new buildings. Old Town residents were supported
overwhelmingly by all of their Seal Beach neighbors in this endeavor.
As a resident of Old Town and a property owner on Tenth St. my property would be directly
impacted by this variance. I am hoping the Planning Commission will uphold the desire of the
voters and deny this and any variance to the 25 foot height limit.
Sincerely,
an y w
�J
1625 Seal Way #1
Seal Beach, CA 90740
CC: Mike Buhbe
234 14th Street
Seal Beach, Ca.
May 16, 2009
Dear Planning Commission,
MAY l g 20M
n
We have been residents of Seal Beach for 28 years .and:
have seen a lot of growth, both good and bad. '
We are specifically appealing to you NOT to grant a
variance for yet another 'doghouse'. We are greatly
concerned because it is up to you to preserve our coastline
here in Seal Beach. Codes are written for a reason and
ESPECIALLY for maintaining our view of the coast. Once
you let one person build something out of code the coast is
ruined for every other person and all future generations in
Seal Beach.
Measure Z let the people of Seal Beach speak. The
people's choice is clear, NO structures over the 25 foot
limit.
Please save our city and do not permit one person the
ability to ruin our coast for all others.
Sincerely,
1
Marcha and Allan atz
May 15, 2009
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 8h Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
It is my understanding that another request for "height variation" for four properties on
Tenth Street will come before the Planning Commission on May 20, 2009.
Although I may be unable to be present at the above meeting, I would like to advise you
of my opposition to allowing any new buildings over 25 feet in height. The vast majority
of Seal Beach residents are obviously in agreement, as they voted for Measure Z in
November.
I urge the Commission to reject these latest height variation requests.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Louis C. Bellanca
251 6t' Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
562 -598 -0625
SAY � 8
?009
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth St
Seal Beach, CA 90740
May 14, 2009
RE: Request for Height Variance at 202 and 204 Tenth St..
Mr. Whittenberg:
I am an owner of a building at 217 Tenth St. In Seal Beach. I oppose the request for variance at
the properties cited above. I oppose any project that would violate the 25 foot height limit in Old
Town. In the November 2008 General Election the residents of Old Town voted overwhelmingly
to maintain a 25 foot height limit on any new buildings. Old Town residents were supported
overwhelmingly by all of their Seal Beach neighbors in this endeavor.
As a resident of Old Town and a property owner on Tenth St. my property would be directly
impacted by this variance. I am hoping the Planning Commission will uphold the desire of the
voters and deny this and any variance to the 25 foot height limit.
Sincerely,
Sharman Kay Snow
1625 Seal Way #1
Seal Beach, CA 90740
CC: Mike Buhbe
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 5
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
124 10TH ST.
SEAL BEACH, CA. 90740
RSSREVIRiIONS
-
'
A1�ImVIaF
I
ewR
Ort
""
{M
1EY.m
YE®WIDE
i.
Tc
mvnY1
T�6a1B
E
Exm{ES
on
W i1RC11nLLmTAU
uM°m
{�Lry�OBd°
T�{o
onE�ilnamAl
Pl
x.ml
On.
FFRROI
MR
IE.-
m�O1Ul
A
VICINITY MRP
{p�p•��f
xN
it
IOINMTUI
We1RRMA
N..
�I.L4DH0{Bn.YD
TP
T8
1tP6P1Rx4T
69EwDED
!JC
YIOI.a1QlNi
In
MJSI
NOWINRAIW.T
ATIREEf@.i
•~�•
LC
A6
Ama
1ri1YDCOlmnl[
YEA OMN
RYIERiL
Im.
INnI!
Rml
RYN4i
m
ILA
u1a
NMIw
R.f111
Imro{4..
nec
ucx
1..OmE.OMOa
uramonomEeMno
AIP
YY.ER ®IRmI
wuiNi':xr
l o
SW
°'tl'E°nm.Y1
VITA
T�drn{ IxWta
AnpNH.YWrI
9R�
T
V.
V. aDnr
n�1G
m
RR.
Alm
PYIm
PL
vYlmw
PRRR�ATn.6Rw1pw1YVE
W�L
OMRI
En.
®1101
,
D.EE
RR
RI.ErA
Pl
11{M9JnRW.Wf
9DYl
nYV+m1
4pQYyLLyY1yYWJ��
RYNO
RYYQO
WWI.
WY9 aFaaaw G
mw
EpaaK
OR
[a1,YC
pp
010
Or
OT.
OY.xYLE
1.us
J
oiF.Y®M8®F
�
0.
Ro
mDIB
I�mrn
oAwl.Glf
m
[!-q
�
c°AiAU
m�LCtFlumlmwr
�.
�i
�
�¢°
m° a°Raar
u�a
1
1pal�nLxll�µi.�
OIL!
11P.
Iyi1IpR
A.
Ol�1lw
OH
�IIQmAII
INM
Id1Ni
�{
Am
� w..
EgE
{IOYLETJL
41.
TO
yRF•
O
N
M
M LE,LI E
WLIR
Eoim
EmI.
W-M
RI-
D{
y
@A
mMa111AW
A.
N.Ipi�
.LO '
En
W
EnEEL YM
01
Ca
mm-
OM
411
IYAYIm
EE:
EID.1O01
DML
OYYWa
`W/•
1
IL1f
d
®9I0L
F
FMf
µ1x
MAVaM
nil.
M
E0.G
EpppA�p.yY��4�,TN�lOLER
�l
���
Fml
a
ban -1M
li
r
sII.EE1mwL
In
Ea'nrx
UST OF REST MRNRGEMENT PRRCTICES
MMAIORW) OP10n.1blYE®6amYRLMlEn1EmEEaIAlY MOfEEl1EIEMIP EMW.'I.OFnn ROH.180ARI0W ICIMRH
018mEI WAm10W1R.nER01L1EM1AAMOV.YOW NEM//Y.nYIlO61ro EAiMEID:YElY114M0110n1AMNWIAHmm
DAlEi1LIBRtlnIBEi MEEEIYI EIBi ®RN EIRD.@1GI0lIY[I®IMW f 01O ®.mMl EMlr1EEmM RO®ODMC101
� marN11 .mw I.�W
PROJECT DRTR
mare n -.E� ��.v NnmNa.s.Ya.q
ren.m .n �.INNm.I
....mn
u.mvYe Mx wRtl%i1.
tl A.OEP 1{YOR.BAEMMDYE6lNl [ i0W10a{tlE'IR•JL/ NOW.AL
PDIiBEIN11101o.rLlf.IO.WIIm1. WPaE3M AMO01AlON1In1
IEmm.R.REIRmI WOIPOI ®IMYY RD4RM�IROI.ENYD1EWf.
DnNIWAYO)EYwLAAMgRN.I ATIY1LEm0R. Ww.QDnfi01.mYP
YYEmIATRLwYYLL
I, EEOR.�L11010PIDI�MOAYYIIEIEEENm1 WEIEIYMYL
WYxW D @ ;EP'YOIEYiLIWLNYIY.NA �.INEMA.4O4rLiLMM
EEn of WIMATI0E0MMAM nmt YIFMOn.016
09 ®xiPl ®611iLN1EEE�G.m Pf.YDA.EEmR 1@oOX
RU LDING CODE
nFERAMYLNiNOYmC1wMEL0 .AY1Y.InEYmw.1
EaNLR.Ot
lIF NmNYLYL E.Y1Y ®1®. mluq
IIEOlUOm1Ea @LOER ®0100
DEIIlON Rl{H�EOZ�/ ED1Qd
nE u1.o., Ymwra�oa P ®EnLaI
MNAI01aEECimal,oE p -mm"WI
n.DW Mw 4611i'YmEPON Imr{-0
nErA.m.A --P--
TE WIMfM BEINY4IA>8NQ ®04E11
n4E ®YEY.BE ®NTE4464i0i/W NfEYK4QNfJEEW1W
IKOIDIMYOIWT WRInENYAQBNnlNN141 WOmn099E
W i1011CIM NO.E4R E W L4HEN
EMRCILIACI.nYxaE W LE 4.n ®m1IEMm.RY181r>10N Yn
e®rA.LaN.maW.MYUNEYU4: xlwn ®w nmlYlo�n
SPECIRL NOTES
. nmwon :rouumnrwm,nEmn�ocDClxasmr$
1rn11Emn 1tl1E w EMLY wLaoal.moonaaYNx
. mmmaumramfflnm+mwwoarWammuaEnl
al®a Yo4I11EmPlmiroaLErr.LIO1wY1 RYEAC
. RpIQMan1F11ERnA ®I,HE[MOImBFRRi{IIEFf
SHEET INDEX
n, 1mEEE4/ wasr4Au
aw oYEYLMn.
.AI ERP4N
W m{Om010I1{YI
A, REI11m1 /.IMBRRAN
Aa smYaml /Eao®IRax
Aa I�wAx
M 1Lm1 /,Y9fEN1E0Y
A{ 01111 /FYIELLY1TLa
M n.11UEmL.I
A) O4Q -LELVA
M E)LOE1.
Aa 'M601DHYlOB
u, mrRmlEmlmxulm
n. EIDONNIEECNOx4YYl1
ADI YLI.GMMLQlY.
H41 1111E W 6MmIFA®
iEl. 1111.GEDOYD110
a ReEnFmnen
1T usuv.�.gwum.
1 ` E�oeq.rm.
r
/
%%
f
moluar N.u.m
SINGLE FAMILY
(]WELLING
124 10th. STREET
EEAL EI41CN. CA W740
BULLLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLD
SED ARC
49
.Rq OE I
ENEVAL
\ T
J OF CA1 �FDQ
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT DATA
m Na
DATm
eGLm_
F.A: 1a._YRNn P.I.
.H.tlT N0.
TS -1
6, OEYMLMM
N .10.B1f /O.MILIRAII
N ®Dw101 /wL'wNmIYR/N
DI .4xL0YLRTAII
W i1RC11nLLmTAU
0 NRLIMIOflAL
w nRLUmtmrlu
a mllaulYnRAu
a {1R1n1ElYmma
VICINITY MRP
DIRECTORY
•* +
�I.L4DH0{Bn.YD
n . •.
^ 4.
E6YICIC
nlmYiaRY91E1ME1En {mnFY16.YY1{YO
.
;`
E:Y.GOICI .M11ADY1f1AW {OF6
PxE{Pawn,s
' A
ATIREEf@.i
•~�•
� AIA .LL
j
• ••
SoPNYE.IRlAm 1NR YW N0YINE
n1Ma•/Ol4EO1G. .Y{8a1D1EY.{
• ".'i;�
AM--a ATMYAN
YcmlunEn r..eomswn
PAx{{{.{.ro6i
a ReEnFmnen
1T usuv.�.gwum.
1 ` E�oeq.rm.
r
/
%%
f
moluar N.u.m
SINGLE FAMILY
(]WELLING
124 10th. STREET
EEAL EI41CN. CA W740
BULLLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLD
SED ARC
49
.Rq OE I
ENEVAL
\ T
J OF CA1 �FDQ
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT DATA
m Na
DATm
eGLm_
F.A: 1a._YRNn P.I.
.H.tlT N0.
TS -1
SITE PLAN
SauEla•:r 0
p p IA!lua hn as na •• 1-1 M. I DEWAVWN - - DO. DESNIPKW GG*FANOT6
I 1 Pma M1m1 I I.TY i6 rta 1) 4 NsE MmW1Y Wr. 1•ui W:/sErNN V PI w NoN .u. ...a rr Tr r.�w r. sm...l..ro...
E___� w wasr -r I'nwniwr asN 51pg6 r�si r�rir°.w a�..r or•.w I..r•w
rmN l•e mx QQ mw a m not °piml nm®O i.1Oiw11 s nm A" "0•:��"•°•• �..` r .0 T."`.'&'rY.rr..lr
Eaom rxDmr NNm I.rcvr�ummr Ne p woewr w.r .i �P3�l,e r101°....O1r'.. '�° .�"'. w` • �� ••�•• •••°` •
r m 1Deam1 w.
w. rr N.•.r •a.r. rural
rNrR M NRMT N,IIlo1Dl
� Ilrl NMi
mYl R/1.Y rC[t W . MYf. 6A r
1 r.DTO Nrl Ym IIt
noN wuwN.N MN T1a rwo►ealT Ne GC►rPIWIr w T1a ANCMIReT wSm .IMLL NeT m r® aN NR eilra ISeNK. 9fCar w IVIm>lrlr NTII T1� APICNIIOeT. Y'I.ITIOI OY�e�lolr TA10 r'1rCmpCO eVml KAIW OVO�INL wrr YIMLL m VmEPIm eH T1a .nmlTa hwr OlNewev,InNr M1AtL m Mwr.r Te IIa NOIbN a TINI .Y.ewree
fI! (n a o m Z o
ri T C i m 11,01 D
P fl a a Mr- "' X01o� L
u V / i o ITI o .. m» A �,>f ammo
-1 T Nmw=
g m -i m € _ pN ?c iz
i I mm ,— ogi: I D
Pr- 9 " m 310A 5
NEI
MIS
mm
r
IN
I
NEW 3,005 SQ. Ff.
�E
�■..
:1;.
ATTACHED
SINGLE FAMLY DWELLING
_'I�
2-CAR GARAGE
Ali
-1.
jai
.1...1
■.
..,
�
j�i�
�_�� ._I
i
SITE PLAN
SauEla•:r 0
p p IA!lua hn as na •• 1-1 M. I DEWAVWN - - DO. DESNIPKW GG*FANOT6
I 1 Pma M1m1 I I.TY i6 rta 1) 4 NsE MmW1Y Wr. 1•ui W:/sErNN V PI w NoN .u. ...a rr Tr r.�w r. sm...l..ro...
E___� w wasr -r I'nwniwr asN 51pg6 r�si r�rir°.w a�..r or•.w I..r•w
rmN l•e mx QQ mw a m not °piml nm®O i.1Oiw11 s nm A" "0•:��"•°•• �..` r .0 T."`.'&'rY.rr..lr
Eaom rxDmr NNm I.rcvr�ummr Ne p woewr w.r .i �P3�l,e r101°....O1r'.. '�° .�"'. w` • �� ••�•• •••°` •
r m 1Deam1 w.
w. rr N.•.r •a.r. rural
rNrR M NRMT N,IIlo1Dl
� Ilrl NMi
mYl R/1.Y rC[t W . MYf. 6A r
1 r.DTO Nrl Ym IIt
noN wuwN.N MN T1a rwo►ealT Ne GC►rPIWIr w T1a ANCMIReT wSm .IMLL NeT m r® aN NR eilra ISeNK. 9fCar w IVIm>lrlr NTII T1� APICNIIOeT. Y'I.ITIOI OY�e�lolr TA10 r'1rCmpCO eVml KAIW OVO�INL wrr YIMLL m VmEPIm eH T1a .nmlTa hwr OlNewev,InNr M1AtL m Mwr.r Te IIa NOIbN a TINI .Y.ewree
fI! (n a o m Z o
ri T C i m 11,01 D
P fl a a Mr- "' X01o� L
u V / i o ITI o .. m» A �,>f ammo
-1 T Nmw=
g m -i m € _ pN ?c iz
i I mm ,— ogi: I D
Pr- 9 " m 310A 5
z
S PINewVHNUe SYRE .ao
LoNo B6ACA CA. I'm
PMON H:
602.6E62.SY>00..
PIiX_
1
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
ELT
SEAL BEACH, C0. 00740
OWNER:
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
RENSIONS
S.Fwr TRLM
BASEMENT 11 ST. FL
FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT NO. 154_00
DATE APR. IO, 5007
DRAWN er. v.y
.CALF: Ae Mery
FRe: _
SNEST NO. A-1
1!i
O
B
O
s� 9
O
CLOW
YA�rz®
SECOND FLOOR PLRN
{g o
CEO
I` 1 11
WA. 1
1'
1,
1'
1,
1�
1,
I
;1
1
1'
1'
11
',
{g o
CEO
I` 1 11
P"^7 — 1 _ '+ m lar m....e — lei la,..: � um•_m.a w.a ryx � qla. -r.. V
v..L
ua Ivr ew wn
ar.IDr /aroma
rrc m msrr.
1.. amx
�,......m.eel/.•R .r ALrm,meaar
v n v mee lea Ase
e• xais arNV mwac wsr ee ae.Ay.c
Pr° na.s
aaw m*..lou m msam 0W 14.
.O aY. eR.. era m ID:6 m aY9 RInL
ONR.N. ."p.v 6ID ID em a1WArd rm.11. rM.
Om .rAY r0. r.."aR
u nms 1 r r,e•mav aeaea .r.ma n ma M v® ..aw m+,a
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
SEAL BEACH. C/l 80710
OWNER
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC.
sNEETTRL6:
srC o FLOOW ROOF DECK
FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT NO. li4_On
DATE A>•R es, aoo�
DRAWN BY: Y,.d
LdaLE: b 110T19
PILE:
BNEBT NO.
2
WA. 1
1
1'
1'
1
L
�1
J
11
1�
1
,I
II
i
u
u
n
n
u
u
P�
Ty
NQd
ROOF DECK PLRN
A•;
P"^7 — 1 _ '+ m lar m....e — lei la,..: � um•_m.a w.a ryx � qla. -r.. V
v..L
ua Ivr ew wn
ar.IDr /aroma
rrc m msrr.
1.. amx
�,......m.eel/.•R .r ALrm,meaar
v n v mee lea Ase
e• xais arNV mwac wsr ee ae.Ay.c
Pr° na.s
aaw m*..lou m msam 0W 14.
.O aY. eR.. era m ID:6 m aY9 RInL
ONR.N. ."p.v 6ID ID em a1WArd rm.11. rM.
Om .rAY r0. r.."aR
u nms 1 r r,e•mav aeaea .r.ma n ma M v® ..aw m+,a
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
SEAL BEACH. C/l 80710
OWNER
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC.
sNEETTRL6:
srC o FLOOW ROOF DECK
FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT NO. li4_On
DATE A>•R es, aoo�
DRAWN BY: Y,.d
LdaLE: b 110T19
PILE:
BNEBT NO.
2
SOUTH ELEVATION d'
IN.rsm
11
hkk
�.s
11'I l�
220PINBAVENUH 8UIT84DD
LONG BPl.CH G. pOB02
PAX 6a2 660 3212
PROJECT NAME:
NEW RESIDENCE
SEAL BEACH. CA. 80740
OWNEA:
BULLET HILL
DEVELOPMENT. LLC.
pHEET TITLE:
SOUTH /EAST
ELEVATIONS
PROJECT NO. IpPI_O1
.ATE: APR. Ip, aoo�
opwwN av: H„y
ECALE: N Npfm
PILE:
BHBET NO.