Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2006-07-27 #P AGENDA ITEM _ AGENDA REPORT �,,1L REVISED OPTIONS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: July 24, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services (�'V SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 06 -4 REQUESTING A 35 FOOT HIGH TWO -UNIT CONDOM1NTUM DEVELOPMENT AND TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING • • COMMISSION TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL - MAP 2006 -160 - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 132 THIRTEENTH STREET • Conduct Public Hearing. The City Council has the following options: - 1) Uphold the Planning Commission decision and direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of CUP 06 -4, with conditions limiting the height to 2 stories; and to draft a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160. (If such resolutions were subsequently adopted, CUP 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 would be approved as a two -story development with a 25 foot height limit, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by City Council) 2) Grant the applicant's appeal and direct staff to draft resolutions for approval of CUP 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 for a three -story development with a 35 -foot height limit on the rear half of the subject property, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by City Council. (If such resolutions were subsequently adopted, CUP 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 would be approved as a three -story development with a 35 foot height limit, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by City Council) 3) Deny CUP 06 -4 in its entirety and direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of the application for CUP 06 -4 for a three story project. (If such a resolution was subsequently adopted, the applicant would be allowed to build a 3 story 2 unit rental structure as a matter of right because the Council exempted the project from the current moratorium) • AGENDA ITEM ,P Z;\My Documents \CUP\06- 4.Revised CC Staff Report Cover Page.doc\LW\07 -17 -06 AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 24, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 06 -4, PERMITTING A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM. DEVELOPMENT WITH A 2- STORY, 25 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT; APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2006 -160 — PROPERTY LOCATED AT 132 THIRTEENTH STREET SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permit 06-4 and to draft a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 as recommended by the Planning Commission. If such resolutions were subsequently adopted, the applications for both Conditional Use Permit 06-4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006- 160 for the approval to permit a two -unit condominium at 132 Thirteenth Street would be approved as a two -story development with a 25 -foot height limit, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the City Council. 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution sustaining the appeal and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and to draft a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 as recommended by the Planning Commission and revised to be consistent with the City Council determination on the appeal matter. If such resolutions were subsequently adopted, the applications for both Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 for the approval to permit a two -unit condominium at 132 Thirteenth Street would be approved as a three -story development with a 35 -foot height limit on the rear half of the subject property, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the City Council. AGENDA ITEM Z:\My Documents \CUP \06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth.doc\lw \07 -12 -06 Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 BACKGROUND: On June 7, 2006 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and determined to approve the subject requests subject to certain terms and conditions, with the condition imposed on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 requiring the proposed 2 -unit condominium development be lowered from 35 -feet and 3- stories on the rear half of the lot to 25 -feet and 2 stories being the subject of the appeal that has been filed. On June 21 the Commission adopted resolutions 06 -21 and 06 -22, approving the requested conditional use permit and tentative parcel map. The Commission determined to approve both matters on a 4 -0 vote (Commission had a vacant seat at the time due to the election to the City Council of previous Commissioner Shanks). Please refer to Attachment 2 to review Planning Commission Resolutions No. 06 -21 and 06 -22 for the findings and determination of the Planning Commission regarding the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map approvals, respectively. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the Planning Commission Minutes of June 7 and June 21, 2006, respectively and to Attachment 4 to review the Planning Commission Staff Report of June 7, 2006. An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 was filed in a timely manner (please refer to Attachment 1), and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. Since the appeal of the Planning Commission's Conditional Use Permit approval requires a public hearing before the City Council, as does the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, both matters have been consolidated for consideration by the City Council. The City Council will need to take separate actions on Conditional Use Permit 06-4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160. FACTS: ❑ The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2006 to consider Conditional Use Permit 06-4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the request and.provided several documents for consideration by the Planning Commission. Copies of the written documents received from the project applicant are provided as Attachment 5. At the public hearing 2 additional persons spoke in favor of the requests with 13 persons speaking in opposition and the City received written communications in opposition to the request. Copies of the written documents received in opposition are provided as Attachment 6. After receiving all public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and after discussion, the Commission determined to approve the requested 2 -unit condominium and as a condition of approval for CUP 06 -4 imposed a condition requiring the structure to be limited to 2- stories and 25 -feet in height and requested staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for Commission consideration on June 21, 2006. 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 2 Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ❑ On June 21, 2006 the Commission considered the proposed resolutions and voted to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 06 -21 and 06 -22, approving CUP 06 -4 and TPM 2006 -160, respectively, on a 4 -0 vote (Commission had a vacant seat at the time due to the election to the City Council of previous Commissioner Shanks). ❑ On June 29, 2006 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit: Under Municipal Code Sections 28 -2503 and 28 -2504, all conditional use permit requests must be evaluated in light of three issues: 1) Is the use conditionally permitted in the zone; 2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and 3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general? APPELLANTS REASONS AS TO WHY THEY FEEL THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WAS IN ERROR: Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the written "Formal Appeal Request for Amendment, Resolution No. 06 -21 Approving CUP 06 -4 ". DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE "STANDARDS OF REVIEW" FOR CUP APPROVALS: The subject application is a conditionally allowable project, and the Planning Commission was required to make the findings specified in Municipal Code Sections 28 -2503 and 28- 2504 in order to approve the application. The Planning Commission determined that by imposing a condition limiting the proposed structure to 2- stories and 25 -feet in height, the Commission could make the required findings. Specifically, regarding whether the applicant's proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the Planning Commission determined that the CUP application is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but only if limited to 2- stories and 25 -feet in height, as conditioned for approval by the Planning Commission. Please refer to Section 5 of Resolution 06 -21 and to Section 6 of Resolution 06 -22 (Attachment 2) to review the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission regarding that determination 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 3 Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 relative to both the CUP and TPM approvals. Upon conclusion of the public hearing before the City Council, the Council will also be required to make appropriate findings regarding is compatibility with the General Plan and with the surrounding neighborhood regarding Conditional Use Permit 06 -4. Resolution of the remaining issues will depend on the Council's view as to whether the proposed development is consistent with the intent, purpose and vision of the General Plan and the implementing zoning ordinance provisions of the City. During Planning Commission discussion on June 7 the issue of compatibly with provisions of the General Plan was extensively discussed and debated (Refer to Attachment 3). Additionally, it will depend on the City Council's review of the evidence presented during the public hearing regarding impacts to the surrounding community of the proposed project at the subject property. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permit 06-4 and to draft a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 as recommended by the Planning Commission. If such resolutions were subsequently adopted, the applications for both Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006- 160 for the approval to permit a two -unit condominium at 132 Thirteenth Street would be approved as a two -story development with a 25 -foot height limit, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the City Council. 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution sustaining the appeal and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and to draft a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 as recommended by the Planning Commission and revised to be consistent with the City Council determination on the appeal matter. If such resolutions were subsequently adopted, the applications for both Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 for the approval to permit a two -unit condominium at 132 Thirteenth Street would be approved as a three -story development with a 35 -foot height limit on the rear half of the subject property, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal impact to city receipt of property tax revenues. 4 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 NOTED A ■ . APPRO, E 0 i : ,/ j - j o Whi enberg Jo :. Bahorski d of Development Serv' es r ►i Manager Attachments: (7) 1 Attachment 1: Appeal of Scott Levitt, received June 29, 2006 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolutions 06 -21 and 06 -22, adopted June 21, 2006 Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes: June 7 and June 21, 2006 Attachment 4: Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 7, 2006 Attachment 5: Written documents submitted to the Planning Commission on June 7 in Favor of CUP 06 -4 Attachment 6: Written documents submitted to the Planning Commission on June 7 in Opposition to CUP 06 -4 Attachment 7: Project Development Plans 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 5 Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 1 APPEAL OF SCOTT LEVITT, RECEIVED JUNE 29, 2006 • 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 6 FORMAL APPEAL / REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 06 -21 APPROVING CUP 06 -4 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council This appeal pertains to the aforementioned resolution discussed in Public Forum on June 7, 2006, before a 3- person Planning Commission and adopted by a 4- person Commission on June 21, 2006. Applicant, 132 13 Street, LLC hereby requests that such resolution include the verbiage, "Two or Three story condominiums ". The request for the CUP is required under the City zoning codes. A CUP is not required for a duplex. Any legal ownership under condominium vesting title is required to go to Commission and Council for approval. The Commission at the June 7, 2006, lead by Commission Deaton took the opportunity to ignore the fact that the parcel is already zoned for three stories, and restricted the condos to two stories. In reality, the CUP, according to the City's Planning Director Lee Whitenberg, is really for allowing: ...for review by the City, the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &R's) for operations and maintenance of a condominium development. After approval by the City the CC &R's are then submitted to the State Department of Real Estate to ensure that they meet the City's concerns as to how overall maintenance of the property is to be conducted... The fact that this is what the CUP is for was completely ignored and the entire evening was spent discussing the 3 story. The Commissioners cited incompatibility for voting against the CUP, and Ellery Deaton read a prewritten speech against the CUP into the record. It is apparent the Commission is not against condominium ownership as they passed the CUP for two - stories. Basically, the Planning Commission has said it is okay to build two stories but not three. The fact that it is already zoned for a three -story duplex (which was exempted from the current Moratorium at the June 21, 2006 Council Meeting), creates a constitutional violation of property rights and a takings violation. It treats two individuals in a "similarly situated situation" and discriminates against one of them. In this case the condominium owner or builder, verses the common ownership builder or owner. An illustration might be a proposed restaurant on Main Street. Main Street is currently zoned for restaurants, but under City Code is required to obtain a CUP. The proposed restaurant for example were a Mexican food restaurant, and the Commission stated that they didn't like Mexican food, and some members of the public came to the meeting and also stated they didn't like Mexican food. So the Commission said, they would grant the CUP only if the restaurant didn't serve Mexican food. This would be a clear violation of the applicant's constitutional rights. As the CUP process for a restaurant is concerned with noise, and health and safety, etc., not what type of food is served. That issue is completely extraneous to the CUP discretionary process. As serving Mexican food rather than Persian food for example does not create more noise, or present more health and safety issues. In the appeal at hand, the third story is akin to Mexican food, and just because some people do not like it does not justify the denial of the CUP request. The Planning Commission simply did not provide the necessary rational, substantial or legal, salient requirements in denying the CUP. Again, our request is to simply modify the Resolution, to allow the third story which the lot is currently zoned for and which is exempt from the current forty -five day moratorium. Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 06 -21 AND 06 -22, ADOPTED JUNE 21, 2006 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 7 RESOLUTION NUMBER 06 -21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -4 FOR TWO CONDOMINIUMS AT 132 13 STREET, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 18, 2006, Scott Levitt, Member of 132 13 Street LLC, submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit with the Department of Development Services. Section 2. The proposed request is to approve a Conditional Use Permit for two condominiums at 132 13 Street. Conditional Use Permit approval is necessary for condominiums on the subject property. Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303b ( "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ") and 15315 ( "Minor Land Divisions "), this project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review, in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to § §28 -800, 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) On April 18, 2006, Scott Levitt, Member of 132 13 Street LLC, submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit with the Department of Development Services. (b) Specifically, the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of creating two condominiums. The proposal conforms to the building and density standards in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone. (c) The subject property is described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199 - 081 -10 and is located at 132 13 Street. (d) The subject property is located at the east side of the 100 block of 13 Street and is comprised of two legal lots, each 25 feet wide by 117.5 feet deep, for a total of 5,875 (50x117.5 = 5,875) square feet. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH Mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone 1 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -21 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 - 132 13 Street June 21, 2006 SOUTH Mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone EAST Across 15' wide alley and mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone WEST Across 13 Street, mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone (f) A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2006 to consider the subject Conditional Use Permit 06 -4. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission invited and considered any and all testimony offered in favor of and in opposition to said Conditional Use Permit. (g) In response to the mailed and published public notices, the City has received several letters in opposition to the third story portion of the proposed development associated with the subject application. At the public hearing on June 7, 2006, a few speakers spoke in favor of the application with the proposed third story portion of the development, but the large majority of speakers spoke in opposition to the third story portion of the development. Section 5. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this resolution prepared in conjunction with this project, and pursuant to §§ 28 -800, 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Municipal Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds: (a) A Conditional Use Permit for a three -story, two- condominium structure would not be consistent with the City's General Plan. A significant goal and objective of the City's General Plan is retaining a "small -town character." Pursuant to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the City's small town feel with a small town like population shall be preserved and enhanced. In addition, the Land Use Element directs the City to "continue to provide support for its residents, maintain its infrastructure and provide jobs and housing balance while still maintaining its small town atmosphere." The proposed three -story condominium would be inconsistent with these General Plan goals and objectives of retaining the City's small -town atmosphere and character. The vast majority of the homes in the vicinity are two -story structures. Thus, the proposed three -story condominium would be incompatible with surrounding uses. (b) Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 for two condominiums, when limited to two stories, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a High Density Residential zoning designation for the subject property and permits condominiums subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The vast majority of the homes in the vicinity are two -story structures, and therefore approving a two -story condominium would not detract from the General Plan goals of retaining the City's small -town atmosphere and character. 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, when limited to a maximum of two stories and 25 feet in height. (c) The building and property at 132 13 Street are adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, when limited to a 2 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -21 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 - 132 13` Street June 21, 2006 maximum of two stories and 25 feet in height. The property is approximately 0.135 acres in area. (d) The proposal conforms to the density requirements of 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of lot area and the minimum lot size of 2,500 per unit in the District 1, Residential High Density (RHD) zone. (e) At the public hearing held on June 7, 2006, a significant number of neighboring residents opposed construction of a third story in conjunction with the subject application request. (f) Letters received and public testimony heard on June 7, 2006, in response to mailed and published public notices, indicate the proposed structure with a third story component is not compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The District 1, RHD zone is very dense and congested, and the third story component would have detrimental effects on the adjoining narrower residential properties that are restricted to two stories, due to the potentially adverse impacts on light, airflow, privacy and views. (g) The incompatibility of the third story with the surrounding neighborhood is also established by the lack of similar three -story structures. The vast majority of homes in the Old Town, Planning District 1, east of Main Street neighborhood are two stories. In this area, there are 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more, but of these 48 properties, only 6 currently have 3 -story structures and these are considered legal, non - conforming for density and building area. (h) Approval of this application, as conditioned to two -story development, is compatible to and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. (i) Approval of this application, as conditioned to two -story development, would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 06 -4, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 is approved for a two -unit condominium at 132 13 Street, contingent on approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 by the City Council. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless and until the Council has issued such approval. 2. All development shall be limited in height to two stories, 25 feet maximum height. 3. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) to the Department of Development Services prior to submittal to the California Department of Real Estate. CC&Rs shall include maintenance of common areas, including open space, pavement areas and exterior of building structures. 3 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -21 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 - 132 13` Street June 21, 2006 4. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless /until a City "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) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed. 5. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 6. 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 Conditional Use Permit, 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. 7. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless /until a City "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) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts, NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None 4 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -21 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 - 132 13 Street June 21, 2006 Ellery Deaton Acting Chairperson, Planning Commission ee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Commissio * * ** 5 of 5 RESOLUTION NUMBER 06 -22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2006- 160 AT 132 13 STREET, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 18, 2006, Scott Levitt, Member of 132 13 Street LLC, submitted a request for a Tentative Parcel Map with the Department of Development Services. Section 2. The proposed request is to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to combine two existing lots into one parcel for the purposes of division into two airspace condominium units. The proposal conforms to the density requirements of 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of lot area and the minimum lot size of 2,500 per unit in the District 1, Residential High Density (RHD) zone. Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. §§ 15303(b) ( "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" and 15315 ( "Minor Land Divisions "), this project is categorically exempt from formal environmental review, in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2006 to consider the subject Tentative Parcel Map. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission invited and considered any and all testimony offered in favor of and in opposition to said Tentative Parcel Map. Section 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -160 will create one parcel from the two existing lots and two condominium units on the subject property. Section 6. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this resolution prepared in conjunction with this project, and pursuant to §§ 21 -7 and 21 -11 of the City's Municipal Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds: (a) On April 18, 2006, Scott Levitt, Member of 132 13 Street LLC, applied for a Tentative Parcel Map to combine two existing lots into one parcel for the purposes of division into two condominium units. (b) The subject property is described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199 - 081 -10 and is located at 132 13 Street. 1 of 3 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -22 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 -132 13 Street June 21, 2006 (c) The subject property is located at the east side of the 100 block of 13 Street and is comprised of two legal lots, each 25 feet wide by 117.5 feet deep, for a total of 5,875 (50x117.5 = 5,875) square feet. (d) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH Mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH Mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone EAST Across 15' wide alley, mix of single- family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone WEST Across 13 Street, mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone (e) The proposed Tentative Parcel Map, with two -story development, is beneficial to the short term and long -term land use goals of the City of Seal Beach; will promote the public health, safety and welfare; and is in the public interest. (f) The proposed Map, with two -story development, is consistent with applicable General Plan elements and the proposed development application in that the Map will establish new parcels that are consistent with said plans. (g) The design of the parcel map will not interfere with existing easements, acquired by the public or utilities that serve the public. (h) The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. (i) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (j) The design of the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially or avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or other habitats, or cause serious public health problems. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall comply with all sections as adopted in Resolution 5209, titled Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval for Vesting and Tentative Subdivision Maps, 2003 Edition. 2. For storm water requirements, submit an approved Water Quality Management Plan. 2 of 3 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -22 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 - 13213` Street June 21, 2006 3. All conditions from the City of Seal Beach Departments shall be incorporated into the parcel map prior to submitting the final parcel map for review. 4. Documentation shall be provided indicating the mathematical accuracy, title information and survey analysis of the parcel map and the correctness of all certificates. Proof of ownership and proof of original signatures shall also be required. 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 Tentative Parcel Map, 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. 6. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless /until a City "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) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts, NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None Ellery Deaton Acting Chairperson, Planning Commission 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution 06 -22 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 - 132 13` Street June 21, 2006 Lee 'ttenberg Secretary, Planning Commi ion * * ** 4 of 4 Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 7 AND JUNE 21, 2006 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 and approximately 8 feet 5 inches from the rear property 2 line, where the Code requires a 10 -foot rear setback, 3 4 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 5 06 -20. 6 7 Commissioner Roberts asked if the BBQ is to be 5 feet high or 48 inches high. Mr. 8 Whittenberg stated that Resolution 06 -20 should reflect 48 inches as the height of the 9 BBQ. Commissioner Roberts then asked which of the two sets of plans submitted is the 10 correct one. Ms. Teague stated that the plan that is separate from the Staff Report is 11 the correct one. 12 13 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Ladner to approve Minor Plan Review 06 -5 and 14 adopt of Resolution 06 -20 as presented. 15 16 MOTION CARRIED: 3 — 0 —1 17 AYES: Deaton, Ladner, and Roberts 18 NOES: None 19 ABSENT: -- O'Malley - - .. O Malle - 20 21 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 06 -20 begins a 10 -day calendar 22 appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. c4 25 26 SCHEDULED MATTERS 27 28 None. 29 30 31 PUBLIC HEARINGS 32 • 33 3. Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 34 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 35 132 — 13 Street 36 37 Applicant/Owner: Scott L. Levitt / Bollen Family Trust 38 39 Request: Approval of a parcel map to legally combine two Tots into one 40 parcel for the purpose of creating two airspace 41 condominiums. The proposal conforms to the density 42 requirements of 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of lot area and 43 the minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet per unit in the 44 District 1, Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required for condominiums. • Page 3 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 2 06 -21 and 06 -22, respectively. 3 4 Staff Report 5 6 Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 7 Planning Department.) She provided some background information on this item and 8 stated that the proposed development meets all zoning standards for density, setbacks, 9 and height for the construction on the two -lot property under single ownership. She said 10 that the applicant proposes to create one lot, in this case to construct two 11 condominiums for separate ownership, which requires approval of a Tentative Parcel 12 Map (TPM) and condominiums require approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by 13 the Planning Commission (PC). She noted that the two applications must be 14 considered together. The Senior Planner then reviewed the height limits for the 15 Residential High Density (RHD) Zone, noting that in District 1, when a lot is up to 37.5 16 feet wide the height limit is 2 stories, 25 feet maximum, and for Tots greater than 37.5 17 feet wide the height limit is 2 stories, 25 feet maximum in the front half of the lot, and the 18 rear half is permitted to be 3 stories, 35 feet maximum. She noted that the Code does 19 not specify height limits based on the number of dwelling units. She said that with the 20 ability to construct 3 stories on a 50 -foot wide property, more building square footage 21 could be constructed than building one unit on each 25 -foot wide property. She said 22 that Staff has researched similar properties in that area of Old Town and found 48 properties that are 50 feet or wider. Of these only 6 lots have three -story structures, 44 and each of these structures was granted a Variance. She noted that the primary issue 25 in this case is neighborhood compatibility, and since there have been no similar 26 condominiums constructed in the Old Town District 1, the matter of consistency should 27 be considered, as this is becoming more of a community concern within this district. 28 She indicated that due to these concerns, the PC has denied four Height Variations 29 (HV) for Covered Roof Access Structure(s) (CRAS) in the last 2 years, and on April 19, 30 2006, a study session on mansionization was conducted by the PC with residents of Old 31 Town expressing their opposition to three -story structures within District 1. Ms. Teague 32 noted that City Code does allow three -story structures on lots of this size. She stated 33 that the TPM as submitted does conform to the City's General Plan (GP). She then 34 explained some of the modifications to the plans that the PC could recommend in order 35 to deem this project acceptable. The Senior Planner reiterated that the main issue with 36 CUP 06 -4 would be compatibility, and since there has previously been no similar project 37 submitted, Staff makes no recommendations on the determination of the PC. She then 38 indicated that Staff received two letters in opposition to this application and copies were 39 provided to the PC. Ms. Teague then provided a brief PowerPoint presentation of 40 photographs of the lots along and surrounding 13 Street that could build up to 35 feet 41 on the rear portion of the lot. (Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning 42 Department.) 43 44 Commissioner Roberts asked that Ms. Teague provide a definition of "airspace condominium." Mr. Whittenberg explained that with airspace condominiums, the 4o ownership that a person has of his or her unit is most typically of the interior walls of the Page 4 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 ( unit from ceiling to floor, with the outside walls, the roof, and the yard areas owned 2 under a homeowners association with common maintenance responsibilities to ensure 3 consistent maintenance of the exterior appearance. He noted that he had explained to 4 the applicant that with a PC of 4 members, a 2 -2 vote would constitute a denial. He 5 explained that at one time City ordinances had required 3 affirmative votes by the PC 6 for approval of any action, but this is no longer the case. 7 8 Commissioner Deaton inquired about the public noticing. Ms. Teague stated that public 9 notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the 10 project site, and the notice was also published in the Sun Newspaper. 11 12 Commissioner Ladner asked if there is a separation between the two condominiums. 13 Ms. Teague stated that the two units are side -by -side and are under the same roof. 14 She added that the RHD Zone requires a 5 -foot side setback for the 50 -foot wide lots. 15 16 Commissioner Roberts asked what the front and rear setbacks are. Ms. Teague stated 17 that the front setback for the RHD Zone is a 12 foot average and the rear setback is 9 18 feet. 19 20 Public Hearing 21 22 Acting Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. G4 Scott Levitt, stated that he represents the Limited Liability Company (LLC) that is the 25 applicant for this project. He questioned why Staff just included a small section of Old 26 Town in their visual presentation, and in all fairness, all of Old Town should be 27 considered, as he is certain not every person present tonight lives within the boundaries 28 of the areas presented. He clarified that he is not seeking a Variance of any kind. He 29 stated that he read the Zoning Code and had the plans specifically tailored to these 30 requirements. He noted that were he building a duplex with the same architectural 31 plans, he would not have required any discretionary approval. He said that he wishes to 32 build a project where he can live in one unit and sell the other, and in this respect he will 33 be able to afford to live in Seal Beach. He noted that if he chose, he could construct a - - 34 10,000 square foot single - family residence (SFR) on this site or two, 2 -story single - 35 family residences (SFR) on 7,549 square feet, without any review by the PC. He 36 provided a spreadsheet listing similar projects throughout Old Town and calculated the 37 ratio between livable square feet versus lot size, and noted that most of these structures 38 were built in the 1960's and early 70's. He stated that his project would have 5 -foot side 39 setbacks with a lot coverage ratio under 66 %, which is less than the 75% ratio allowed. 40 He noted that there are approximately 13 other condominium projects recently sold 41 within Seal Beach and cited several examples of this. He then read into the record 42 comments made by the Director of Development Services as they appear on Pages 9- 43 10 of the minutes of April 19, 2006 from the study session on the topic of 44 Mansionization as follows: Page 5 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 ! `... in the opinion of Staff, the pattern of existing development, lot sizes 2 and related setback and lot coverage requirements are sufficient enough 3 that the perceived impacts of new home construction is substantially 4 reduced. Modifications to roof style provisions for the front of the 5 structure, even within the Old Town RMD and RHD zones, would have 6 some significant impacts on reducing the perceived bulk along the street 7 frontage." 8 9 "Commissioner Ladner asked if the lot coverage ratio would change if a 10 property were made up of two lots. Mr. Whittenberg stated that you 11 cannot build across a property line unless you apply for a parcel map to 12 create one lot, in which case, the requirements for side yard setbacks 13 increase in size." 14 15 Mr. Levitt stated that increasing the setbacks to 5 feet helps compensate for the shadow 16 from higher structures. He then referred to new plans prepared with a 30 percent 17 reduction in the 3rd floor and in the overall square footage so that the condominiums 18 would be more compatible with the surrounding homes. He then presented photos of a 19 similar unit at 329 10 Street, constructed within the last 6 months, and others at 122 20 11 Street, and 112 8 Street. He noted that all of approximately 100 owners of 21 properties in Old Town measuring 37.5 feet wide are able to construct a three -story 22 structure on the rear 50 percent of the property. L Joe Scibelli spoke in favor of replacing six rental units with two single-family residences g Y 25 and reducing parking impacts. He stated that property owners within Seal Beach would 26 rather have an owner as a neighbor than a renter. 27 28 Joyce Parque stated that she is the real estate agent for the seller. She said that the 29 proposed project conforms to City Code and should be granted approval. 30 31 Bruce Boehm, 131 14 Street, stated that his home is directly across the alley from the 32 proposed project. He stated that a three -story, monolithic condominium complex in the 33 middle of the block, surrounded by one and two -story small residential income. - . 34 properties would be incompatible with the neighborhood. He noted that this represents 35 another case of a developer attempting to change the character of the neighborhood in 36 order to maximize his profit at the expense of neighboring property owners. He stated 37 that the City needs to change the Code to limit construction of homes within Old Town 38 to two- stories with a maximum height of 25 feet regardless of the lot size, or limit three - 39 story structures to the avenues or Main Street, and livable square footage should also 40 be limited. Mr. Boehm also indicated that the City should require 4 garage parking 41 spaces that open to the alley for lots that are 5,500 square feet or larger. He noted that 42 Mr. Levitt's proposal limits parking to one, 448 - square foot two -car garage. He stated 43 that a tandem garage is no substitute for the current 4 -car garages that each open to 44 the alley. He said he would have no problem with this plan if it were for two -story ( homes. He recommended denial of Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 2006 -160 and `4o . Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 06 -4. Page 6 of 13 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 ( Nancy Smith, 127 13 Street, said that she has two 50 -foot wide Tots and will be 2 presenting plans to the Planning Commission (PC) for adding on to her home. She 3 explained that she has an approximate 1,500 square foot home that has gotten too 4 small for her family. She noted that several architects attempted to convince her to 5 construct a large, three story home, but she does not feel that she can agree to this and 6 continue to live in this neighborhood. She said that her new home will measure 2,800 7 square feet and will be 25 feet high. She discouraged the granting of any kind of 8 Variance and recommended denial of TPM 2006 -160 and CUP 06 -4. Commissioner 9 Deaton clarified that the PC is considering approval of a CUP and not a Variance. 10 11 Jim Caviola, 1117 Ocean Avenue, expressed his opposition to the CUP process and to 12 this application. He said that all that is happening is that the applicant is trying to make 13 a profit. He stated that homes no longer have 15 -foot front setbacks and the new 14 homes are being built to cover the entire lot. He noted that only after a person's name 15 is officially on the property deed, should he or she be allowed to submit an application of 16 this kind. 17 18 Bill Ayres, 707 Central Avenue, recommended denial of TPM 2006 -160 and CUP 06 -4 19 as this would set a bad precedent. He said that this type of project belongs in 20 Huntington Beach and is really all about money and would set a precedent that would 21 ruin the uniqueness of Seal Beach. 2 ( David Rosenman stated his concerns over the precedent this would set, and said this 44 would lead to mansionization of many properties in Old Town. He said that perhaps 25 City Council should review the issue of mansionization more directly prior to making a 26 decision on a project of this type. He cautioned that allowing the Toss of many of the 27 moderate income homes in town would eliminate an important cross section of the 28 community that keeps Seal Beach what it is. He recommended denial of this 29 application. Mr. Rosenman then commented that the City would be losing a very 30 valuable employee with Christy Teague leaving the City to accept employment with the 31 City of Dana Point. Commissioner Roberts stated that the PC was in agreement with 32 this. - -33 - - - -- - - 34 Melinda Howell voiced her opposition to TPM 2006 -160 and CUP 06 -4. She said that 35 she loves Seal Beach because it is still a beach community and big homes do not 36 belong here. She said that when recently visiting Balboa Island, she spoke with a real 37 estate agent who has lived there for 40 years, who commented about a time when you 38 could open the doors and windows to your home and fresh air would blow through the 39 house, but now more homes are requiring the installation of air conditioning because 40 neighboring homes are so big and so high that air is not circulating between them. Ms. 41 Howell questioned how a CUP could be granted to a project like this when once it is 42 constructed it cannot be changed. 43 44 Mitzi Morton, 153 13 Street, stated that her family moved to Seal Beach in 1958 and j owns a 50 -foot wide lot. She said that they constructed a triplex on half of the lot, as ` moo t his was then the trend. She said that they had the option to add another triplex, but Page 7 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 chose not to do so and now have 25 feet of open space, which turned out to be a good 2 decision, as her neighbor has constructed a "monstrous" two -story house that has 3 ruined her 25 -foot lot. She indicated that after receiving notice of this project and 4 discovering that these were to be three -story structures, she and other 13 Street 5 residents canvassed the neighborhood and found that no one was aware that these 6 condominiums were to be three stories high. She noted that 95 percent of those 7 canvassed were opposed to having three story structures on this street. She stated that 8 on 13 Street alone there are seven 50 -foot wide lots, and approval of such a project 9 would have a serious impact upon this neighborhood and would set an undesirable 10 precedent. She recommended denial of TPM 2006 -160 and CUP 06 -4. 11 12 Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, stated she is a 44 -year resident of Seal Beach 13 and has been involved with many community causes throughout the years and now 14 wants to speak regarding preserving Old Town. She indicated that what has happened 15 with Seal Beach is an embarrassment as the Old Town atmosphere is being eroded. 16 She noted that developers and incoming residents are not taking a look at the 17 neighborhood and considering the compatibility and preservation of the community 18 environment. She said she believes rental properties are important in Seal Beach 19 - because they are a part of the climate and provide a diversity of residents. 20 She encouraged the PC to deny this request. 21 22 Richard Moody, 312 13 Street, spoke in opposition to this application noting that he fives on a large lot in a 900 square foot house with a nice back yard. He noted that next door there is a three -story "mansion" so that all he sees from his lot is house, and he 25 now has to install air conditioning since he no longer gets any air circulation as the large 26 structure blocks the wind. He recommended denial. 27 28 Commissioner Deaton paused to request a show of hands of those present in favor and 29 in opposition of TPM 2006 -160 and CUP 06 -4. 30 31 Vic Grgas, 211 15 Street, spoke in opposition. He stated that his 37.5 -foot wide lot 32 provides 3 garages for a single - family residence (SFR) and the City should consider 33 increasing the parking requirements for these larger homes. He noted that the. 13 34 Street LLC includes Councilman Michael Levitt as a member, and he would have to 35 recuse himself from taking any action at the Council level on this application. He 36 indicated that allowing a third story on the rear of 37.5 -foot wide lots was intended to 37 provide additional living space for only one SFR per lot. He stated if the applicant wants 38 to construct one SFR on a 37.5 -wide lot, he would encourage the PC to require 39 additional parking, otherwise the applicant should construct two, 25 -foot high units and 40 provide adequate parking for each unit. 41 42 Gerri West, 1301 Electric Avenue, presented petitions with 87 signatures in opposition 43 to this project. She referred to Government Code (GC) 66424 and the discussion 44 regarding TPMs on Page 2 of the Staff Report. She asked that someone show her where GC 66424 states that two parcels can be joined together to create one. Mr. Abbe stated that there is a pre- existing building spanning two lots, and when such a case Page 8 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 predates the enactment of the Subdivision Map Act, the practice of the City is to allow 2 another building to span the two Tots. Ms. West stated that the GC refers to subdividing 3 a lot and not consolidating two lots into one. Commissioner Deaton suggested that Mr. 4 Abbe research this information and present his comments after the public hearing. 5 6 Warren Morton, 153 13 Street, stated that the residents of Seal Beach do not want 7 these three -story structures. He said that air space is needed and residents don't want 8 Seal Beach to look like Surfside. He recommended denial. 9 10 Barbara Barton, 415 Ocean Avenue, said that she and her husband have lived in Seal 11 Beach since 1965. She noted that at that time it was a very small, quaint beach 12 community, and she does not want this to change. She recommended denial and said 13 that residents need to see air, sunrises, sunsets, and horizons. 14 15 Scott Levitt, speaking in rebuttal, presented plans showing the elevation views of the 16 proposed condominiums and noted the with a 12 -foot setback, a 10 -foot sidewalk, a 30- 17 foot wide street, and a 10 -foot sidewalk across the street, an individual could look up 18 and would still not see the third floor of the proposed condominiums. He noted the 19 amount of open space there is between the condominiums, and said that the alley view 20 could also be shown on the plans. He then explained that the project will include two, 2- 21 car garages, and noted that the number of cars will be reduced from what currently 2 exists for the six -unit apartment structure. He reiterated that he is not requesting a Variance and indicated that his family moved to Seal Beach when he was 7 years old, C 4. and he lived here for 24 years, and comes to Seal Beach every weekend. He clarified 25 that this is a cash - funded project and he is not seeking funding to complete it. He 26 added that it is not the business of the public or the PC whether the LLC will or will not 27 profit from this project. He emphasized that he is not seeking any type of Variance for 28 any option that does not comply with City building standards, and he has reduced the 29 third floor structure by 25 percent. He commented that everyone has their own idea of 30 what a neighborhood should be, and unfortunately, Old Town Seal Beach is not a 31 homeowners association, and all he wants to do is build what he is legally allowed to 32 build. He added that if people are concerned about the building of larger homes, they 33 should have spoken up over 3 years ago when -the 8,000 square foot homes began - - • 34 going up along Ocean Avenue. He requested that the PC grant approval to this 35 application. Commissioner Roberts stated that in Mr. Levitt's comparison spreadsheet 36 he states that on a 50 x 117.5 foot lot the allowable square feet for the first floor is 37 3,860, but that the proposed first floor measures only 2, 862 square feet. He asked that 38 with the side and rear setbacks, where would the additional 1,000 square feet be. Mr. 39 Levitt stated that the architect has computed this and perhaps Ms. Teague could 40 respond to this. Ms. Teague explained that building within the required setbacks on the 41 first floor would allow 3,860 sq. ft. Commissioner Roberts asked if the third story were 42 denied, what kind of financial impact would this create for Mr. Levitt? Mr. Levitt stated 43 that he has not run the numbers on a two -story project, as he designed the home to be 44 his dream house and planned on living in a three -story home. Commissioner Roberts asked if he were to have the option of selling both units, would he still complete the o Q Mr. Levitt said that he would not. Commissioner Roberts inquired about the Page 9 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 i proposed lot coverage of 70 percent as listed in Mr. Levitt's Application for Public 2 Hearing. Mr. Levitt stated that the project had been scaled down to 66 percent lot 3 coverage. Commissioner Roberts noted that with the proposed project quite a bit of 4 open space is being traded for buildings, and the 66 percent does not reflect this. He 5 said that his position on this project is to proceed without approval of the CUP permitting 6 the third story. Mr. Levitt stated that he has not seen the petition and has no idea what 7 these people were told. 8 9 There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Deaton closed the public 10 hearing. 11 12 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the Assistant City Attorney is ready to respond to the 13 concern expressed by Ms. Gerri West. Mr. Abbe referred to Page 2 of the Staff Report, 14 which states that generally parcel maps are used for the creation of additional lots under 15 the Subdivision Map Act (SMA); however, in this case one lot is being created with a 16 parcel map. He explained that in this case air space is being divided into different Tots. 17 With regard to Government Code 66424, which is a part of the SMA and simply defines 18 subdivision, and does state that subdivision does include a condominium project, which 19 is the division- of air space. He noted that he had spoken to the City Attorney about 20 whether an additional merger were required in this situation, but was told that it is not a 21 requirement, as there is already a building on the lot. 22 Mr. Whittenberg then provided responses to some of the comments made as follows: G—F 25 1. Commissioner Roberts questions regarding the percentage of impervious surface as 26 noted on the Application for Public Hearing - This is something that the City is 27 required to have in order to comply with Water Quality Control Board provisions on 28 water quality and drainage from properties. 29 30 2. What is the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) conditioning? — Typically what is 31 conditioned under a condominium project is the requirement to provide for review by 32 the City the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the operation and 33 maintenance of a condominium development. After approval by the City the -CC &Rs •- 34 are then submitted to the State Department of Real Estate to ensure that they meet 35 the City's concerns as to how overall maintenance of the property is to be 36 conducted. Also, a specific site development plan for that development must be 37 approved so if in the future the owners wished to add a room, they would have to 38 apply for approval of a new CUP and seek discretionary approval to revise the 39 previously approved condominium plan. 40 41 3. Regarding the public notice not including information on the proposal of a third story, 42 the City does not notice for items that comply with City Zoning Standards and that 43 require no discretionary approval. On properties that are 37.5 feet wide, by right the 44 property owner can construct a third story on the rear half of the lot. In this case \ there is a by right type of use that is subject to discretionary approval because of the �si type of ownership for the property being requested. Page 10 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 4. Why did Staff not look at all of the 37.5 or 50 -foot wide Tots throughout Old Town? - 2 The CUP process is one that deals with compatibility to the neighborhood so Staff 3 took an approach that included only the immediate neighborhood for 13 Street, 4 which included the neighborhood bounded by Main Street, Electric Avenue, Ocean 5 Avenue, and Seal Beach Boulevard. He noted that Staff would take this same 6 position regarding compatibility for any proposed project beyond the west side of 7 Main Street. 8 9 5. Based upon tonight's discussion Staff would probably have to change some of its 10 thinking regarding how to deal with the issue of mansionization for lots within Old 11 Town that are wider than 37.5 feet. 12 13 Commissioner Comments 14 15 Commissioner Deaton stated that this project must comply with the City's General Plan 16 (GP), and in reviewing the GP over and over it refers to the objective of retaining a small 17 town character in Seal Beach. She then read from the General Plan as follows: 18 19 Introduction on Page 4 20 21 "The City has been perceived as having a small town feel with a 22 small town like population. This concept shall be preserved and enhanced for the future prosperity of the City as suggested by the General Plan Committee." 25 26 Page LU -36 27 28 "People have been attracted to Seal Beach primarily due to its 29 unique geographical location, educational opportunity, attractive beaches, 30 ideal climate, and small town friendly character. A goal of the City is to 31 maintain and promote those social and physical qualities that enhance the 32 quality of the community and environment in which we live." - 33 34 Page LU -37 35 36 ". . . the City will continue to provide support for its residents, maintain its 37 infrastructure, and provide jobs and housing balance while still maintaining 38 its small town atmosphere." 39 40 She continued by stating that the PC is not concerned with profit or financing and 41 everyone deserves the right to "make a buck." She said that what the PC is concerned 42 with is maintaining the small town atmosphere with no more shadows and trying to raise 43 plants with no sunlight and having to install air conditioning because the ocean breeze 44 is blocked. She stated that this is what happens when three -story homes are constructed, She noted that this may be unfortunate timing for the applicant as the PC has been studying the issue of mansionization and receiving feedback from residents Page 11 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006 saying "please allow no more third stories, whether for single - family residence, 2 duplexes, or whatever." She said that she personally sent a plea to City Council to 3 begin the process of changing the City Code. She stated that Old Town is beginning to 4 look like a cookie cutter Truman Show style town, and what residents want is a small 5 town, friendly atmosphere. She noted that the issue is not square footage as such, but 6 bulk and integrity of the community. She said she would like to make a motion to 7 approve the condominium concept, but a project that will be in keeping with a small 8 town community. She indicated that she believes you can have a lovely home and live 9 in the community without changing the community in order to do so. She moved that 10 the PC direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving this project conditioned upon a 11 two -story structure. Mr. Abbe requested that a condition also be added stating that 12 approval of Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 would be contingent upon City Council 13 approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, because if the PC approved CUP 06 -4 and 14 City Council denies approval of TPM 2006 -160, this could create "a strange legal limbo." 15 16 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to approve Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 with 17 the condition that the condominium structure be restricted to two- stories. Approval 18 would also be contingent upon City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160. 19 20 MOTION CARRIED: 3 — 0 —1 21 AYES: Deaton, Ladner, and Roberts 22 NOES: None ABSENT: O'Malley g ..t 25 Mr. Abbe advised that the approval of Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 is a final decision of 26 the Planning Commission, and the 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council 27 will begin after adoption of Resolution 06 -22 at the Planning Commission meeting of 28 June 21, 2006. 2 30 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Ladner to recommend approval to City Council of 31 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 and adopt Resolution 06 -21 as presented. 32 33 MOTION CARRIED: 3 — 0 — 1 • • 34 AYES: Deaton, Ladner, and Roberts 35 NOES: None 36 ABSENT: O'Malley 37 38 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff would return with the formal Resolution Nos. 06 -21 39 and 06 -22 for adoption at the Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2006. He 40 advised that adoption of Resolution No. 06 -22 would begin a 10 -day calendar appeal 41 period to the City Council and the Commissioner action would be final with the appeal 42 period beginning the morning after adoption. Mr. Abbe advised that the public hearing 43 on these items is closed and there would be no additional public comment taken at the 44 meeting of June 21, 2006. Page 12 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006 1 Bruce Boehm, 131 14 Street, spoke regarding Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 noting 2 that Mr. Scott Levitt does not yet own the property, and the time to stop construction of C 3 3 -story structures is now. He stated that he contacted the California Coastal 4 Commission (CCC) and was told that Mr. Levitt had already received approval from the 5 CCC to construct a 3 -story duplex at 132 13 Street. He said he did not understand 6 how CCC approval was granted without Mr. Levitt having received approval from the 7 City of Seal Beach. He indicated that the text in Resolution 06 -22 is very weak in that it 8 would allow construction of a 3 -story duplex. He proposed that the text state: "a duplex 9 built on a combined lot shall remain under the ownership of a single entity in perpetuity." 10 He stated that a clear recommendation must be sent to City Council that no more 11 3 -story structures should be allowed in Old Town. He noted that if approved, this 12 project would represent the first time that a 3 -story duplex was ever built in the middle of 13 a single -story, and 2 -story residential neighborhood. He suggested that the best 14 solution might be to table the TPM until after City Council has had the opportunity to 15 meet on Monday, as Councilman Antos will be proposing a moratorium on 3 -story 16 structures in Old Town. 17 18 Arnold Furr, 116 3 St, proposed that when looking at the issue of 3 -story structures in _ 19 . Old Town, the Planning Commission should also o - evaluate whether to continue to allow - -- - - - 20 Covered Roof Access •Structure(s) (CRAS), as there are other ways of having roof . 21 access with having the covered stairways. 22 23 Joyce Parque stated that she owns a double lot that is surrounded by 3 -story apartment 24 buildings. She said that the Planning Commission (PC) should not take away her C 25 property rights until there is a public hearing. She noted that most of the people who 26 have spoken against this project are owners of nonconforming structures, and yet they 27 have been allowed to do work on their buildings. She said that this is selective 28 enforcement, as some people receive special consideration for every home they 29 propose to build in town. She said there are many political and ethical challenges to be 30 addressed before considering rewriting the Code. 31 • 32 Kim Klisanin, 218. n Street, stated that he has lived in Seal Beach for many years and 33 owns six properties within town, which he worked very hard to acquire. He said that 34 should he wish to split one of his properties, or to construct a 3 -story home on a double 35 lot, he feels that he should be able to do this. He noted that he has clients present 36 tonight who purchased a large lot on 118 11 Street and already have their plans for a 37 3 -story home before the California Coastal Commission (CCC). He said that they paid 38 good money for their property and should not be denied the ability to do this. He then 39 noted another client who purchased a property at 113 11 Street with a condemned 40 structure on it, which he has had demolished and is now debating whether to construct 41 a new home on this lot, or purchase a larger double lot. Mr. Klisanin stated. that he is 42 concerned, as he sold these lots to these clients with the understanding that they could 43 construct a 3 -story structure. He indicated that times are changing and people no 44 longer live in small, 2- bedroom, 1 bath homes, but are constructing larger homes, and 45 I e City does benefit from taxes whenever new construction takes place. 46 (._ 2of7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006 1 Bob Black stated that he owns two properties in town and what bothers him the most 2 about Resolution 06 -21 is that it caters to a few people. He noted that as long as he is 3 abiding by City Code, he does not feel that anyone should dictate what he can or cannot 4 do on his property, and he should be able to get a return on his investment. He said 5 that the PC is manipulating the real estate industry by prohibiting 3 -story homes.- He 6 noted that he has never heard anything good about the Seal Beach Planning 7 Commission or City Council, and he promises to fight against this proposed moratorium. 8 9 Scott Levitt, the applicant for the 132 13 Street property, stated that he is in agreement 10 with the comments made tonight. He said that imposing this moratorium based upon a 11 few residents prompting a Councilman to do so is embarrassing. He said that as an 12 attorney he works to uphold the law and hates seeing the law circumvented. He said 13 that he has invested a lot of money on the proposed project and noted for the record 14 that the city did provide written notice to 139 people within a 300 -foot radius of the 15 proposed site, and out of these 139 people, 1 of them attended the public hearing two 16 weeks ago, which shows the level of concern the immediate neighbors have about 17 improving a 50- year -old building, and replacing it with a structure that is 3 stories on the 18 rear half of the lot, even though the third story is not visible from the front of the lot or 19 from the street._ He said that- the - Director of Development Services had correctly - 20 explained the requirement for . a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to construct 21 condominiums and noted that this has to do primarily with ensuring that the CC &Rs 22 clearly present the requirements for common area maintenance. He noted that this is X 2 3 what the CUP is for, not to permit a third story, and this is why he was so upset at the 4 last meeting, as the has PC basically ignored this fact. He indicated that he has 25 observed several blatant violations of City Code within the neighborhood, and finds it 26 interesting that the PC chooses to overlook these. He stated that in reviewing this 27 application Acting Chairperson Deaton had not been objective nor did she make a 28 decision based upon City Code, but simply read from selected portions of the GP 29 designed to help back up her position on this issue. He called for her immediate 30 resignation. 31 32 There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Deaton closed oral 33 communications. 34 35 36 CONSENT CALENDAR 37 38 1. May 2006 Building Activity Report 39 40 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2006. 41 42 3. Minor Plan Review 06 -6 43 921 Blue Heron 44 45 Applicant/Owner: Richard Loghry / John & Jayne O'Brien i 3 of 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006 1 Request: To construct an approximately 6 -foot high waterfall /fire pit 2 structure in the 5 -foot south side setback area, 3 4 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 5 06 -28. 6 7 Member O'Malley noted that although he was absent for that meeting, he has viewed 8 the videotaped proceedings and will vote on this item. 9 10 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as 11 presented. 12 • 13 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 14 AYES: Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts 15 NOES: None 16 ABSENT: None 17 18 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 06 -28 begins a 10 -day calendar 19 appeal period . to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight- is final • and- the - - - - -. 20 appeal period begins tomorrow morning. • 21 22 23 SCHEDULED MATTERS 24 25 (--‘ Adopt Resolution 06 -21 Approving Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 for the construction 26 of two air space condominiums at 132 13 Street. 27 28 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Resolution 06 -21 and 06 -22 were prepared based upon the 29 PC determination of June 7, 2006, and they have been reviewed by the City Attorney's 30 office and are appropriate for adoption as presented. 31 32 Commissioner Roberts stated that the PC could approve these resolutions or suspend 33 them and attempt to further acquire direction from City Council. 34 35 Acting Chairperson Deaton asked Mr. Abbe what would occur if these resolutions were 36 to be tabled. Mr. Abbe stated that given, that the proposed resolution is simply to 37 approve a 2 -story dwelling, he recommended approval. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that 38 Resolution 06 -21 eliminates the third story, and would approve the condominium project 39 with a two -story development. He noted that if these resolutions are adopted the project 40 applicant or any interested party has a 10 -day period of time to appeal the decision on 41 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 to City Council. He said that Staff feels the resolutions 42 reflect the direction given by the PC two weeks ago, and are a separate issue from the 43 item on the City Council agenda for Monday night's meeting, which relates to three story 44 structures. Mr. Abbe added that based upon the Permit Streamlining Act, if no action is 45 taken within a specific time period, there is always the risk a project could be deemed C_. 4of7 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006 r -- 1 approved. He said that if the resolutions reflect what the PC voted on, he advised 2 adopting them rather than postponing a vote, 3 4 Commissioner Roberts asked what the significance was of adding the word "duplex" 5 into some of the approvals when this project talks about "condominiums." Mr. 6 Whittenberg explained that the project before the PC is for a condominium project, so 7 the resolution has to address this. Commissioner Roberts asked if the California 8 Coastal Commission (CCC) has approved this project as a duplex. Mr. Whittenberg 9 stated that they have approved it as a duplex, and plans are in the Building Department 10 to approve the building as a rental unit. He said that if City Council takes an action on 11 third stories on Monday night, depending on how the ordinance is structured, it may or 12 may not stop further proceedings on this project or any others in the pipeline. Mr. Abbe 13 pointed out that this is a condominium application and under the Code this requires a 14 CUP, and the legal standard for a CUP is that you make a finding that it is compatible 15 with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the policies of the General Plan 16 (GP), which he believes is why Acting Chairperson Deaton read certain policies of the 17 GP into the record at the last meeting. He said that this was an appropriate action given 18 the PC's obligation to review the GP for this type of decision. 19 - 20 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Ladner to adopt Resolution - 06 -21 approving - - -- 21 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 for the construction of two air space condominiums at 132 22 13 Street with the imposition of two -story development only, as presented. ( 9 3 _ MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 25 AYES: Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts 26 NOES: None 27 ABSENT: None 28 29 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 06 -21 begins a 10 -day calendar 30 appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the 31 appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 32 33 . 34 5. Adopt Resolution 06 -22 Recommending Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006- 35 160 for 132 13 Street to legally combine two lots into one parcel. 36 37 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Ladner to Resolution 06 -22 recommending approval 38 of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 for 132 13 Street to legally combine two lots into 39 one parcel. 40 41 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 42 AYES: Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts 43 NOES: None 44 - ABSENT: None 45 - 5of7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006 1 Mr. Abbe advised that adoption of Resolution No. 06 -22 is a recommendation to City 2 Council and there is no appeal period. 3 4 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6 7 None. 8 9 • 10 STAFF CONCERNS 11 12 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the July 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting is to be 13 cancelled due to vacation schedules and a small staff, with the next meeting scheduled 14 for July 19, 2006. 15 16 Ms. Teague stated that it has been a pleasure working with the Planning 17 Commissioners and she has appreciated the opportunity to work with them on some 18 very interesting issues. She also noted how valuable Mr. Whittenberg has been to the 19 City and stated that it has been an honor working with him. 20 21 22 COMMISSION CONCERNS 23 24 Commissioner Roberts inquired about the Rossmoor Business Center. Mr. Whittenberg 25 stated that the status remains the same, but Staff is aware that they may receive 26 grading plans and preliminary foundation plans soon. 27 28 Commissioner O'Malley inquired about the Seal Beach Pier groin project and asked if 29 the approval for the remodel for Ruby's Diner is due to expire soon. Mr. Whittenberg 30 stated that he would have to check on the Ruby's approval. He said that the pier is due 31 to open on June 29 or 30 with all of the groin work completed. 32 33 34 ADJOURNMENT 35 36 Acting Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. 37 38 39 Respectfully Submitted, 40 41 C � 42 43 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 44 Planning Department 45 46 6of7 • Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -4 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2006 -160, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, DATED JUNE 7, 2006 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 9 June 7, 2006 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Christy Teague Senior Planner Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Applicant: SCOTT M. LEVITT, MEMBER 132 13 STREET LLC Owner: BOLLEN FAMILY TRUST, RENE BOLLEN TRUSTEE Location: THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 132 13 STREET Classification of GENERAL PLAN - RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY Property: ZONING MAP - RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD) PLANNING DISTRICT 1 Request Summary: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2006 -160 — APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE PARCEL FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING TWO AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUMS. THE PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF 1 UNIT PER 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA IN THE DISTRICT 1, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD) ZONE. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR CONDOMINIUMS. Environmental THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Review: Code Sections: 28 -800; 28 -2503; 28 -2504; SECTION 21 -7; SECTION 21 -11 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. Recommendation: PLEASURE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF WILL PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION AT A FUTURE MEETING, TENTATIVELY JUNE 21, 2006. FACTS ❑ On April 18, 2006 Scott Levitt, Member of 132 13 Street, LLC, submitted requests for Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit with the Department of Development Services. Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -i 60, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ❑ The subject Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit applications are categorically exempt from CEQA. ❑ The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council on Tentative Parcel Maps. If TPM 2006 -160 is approved by Planning Commission, the City Council will hold a future public hearing on this request. The Conditional Use Permit determination is decided by Planning Commission unless the matter is appealed to the City Council. ❑ The subject property is located at the east side of the 100 block of 13 Street and is comprised of two legal lots, each 25 feet wide by 117.5 feet deep, for a total of 5,875 (50x117.5= 5,875) square feet. ❑ The applicant proposes a Tentative Parcel Map to combine two lots into one parcel for the purposes of creating two airspace condominiums. The proposal conforms to the density requirements of 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of lot area and the minimum lot size of 2,500 per unit in the District 1, Residential High Density (RHD) zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required for condominiums. ❑ The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH Mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH Mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone EAST Across 15' wide alley, mix of single - family and multi- family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone WEST Across 13 Street, mix of single - family and multi - family residences in Residential High Density (RHD) zone ❑ The City's General Plan and zoning map both designate the subject property as Residential High Density. ❑ Generally, parcel maps are used for the creation of additional lots according to state regulations known as the Subdivision Map Act. In this case, however, one lot is being created through a parcel map as stated in Government Code § 66424 for condominium development. ❑ Staff has received two neighbor comments by office visit and one neighbor comment by phone regarding the mailed/published notice regarding Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 as of May 31, 2006 stating concerns about condominiums and three -story development at the subject location. No letters have been received regarding this application as of May 31, 2006. 2 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 DISCUSSION The applicant seeks approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to combine two lots into one parcel for the purposes of creating two airspace condominiums. The proposal conforms to the density requirements of 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of lot area and the minimum lot size of 2,500 per unit in the District 1, Residential High Density (RHD) zone. The proposed development meets all zoning standards for density, setbacks, and height for the proposed building construction on the two -lot property under single ownership. However, the applicant proposes to create one lot and construct two condominiums for separate ownership which requires approval of a Tentative Parcel Map. Condominiums require approval by the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit. For this reason the two applications must be considered together. The height limit in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone is stated as follows: Section 28 -801 General Provisions F. Maximum Building Height, Main Building and Second Dwelling Units: Lot widths, Tess than 37 1/2 ft. - District I 2 stories, 25 ft. maximum Lot widths, 37 1/2 ft. or more - District I Front 1/2 of lot 2 stories, 25 ft. maximum; Rear 1/2 of lot 3 stories, 35 ft. maximum As stated above, the height limit in the RHD zone varies according to lot width. Lots up to 37.5 feet wide have 2 stories, 25 feet height limit and lots greater than 37.5 feet have 3 stories, 35 feet height limit on the rear half of the lot according to the Code. In this case, the building design of 3 stories on the rear one -half of the lot is allowable since the lot is greater than 37.5 feet wide. Generally when similar 2 -lot properties are purchased for new development, one new single - family residence is constructed on each lot. In these cases, the construction is limited to 2 -story, 25 feet high structures. However, construction on these 25 -wide lots can be of similar, "cookie cutter" design which has been a concern of the community and the Planning Commission. Through the construction of two units on one larger lot, construction can be more unique within the Code restrictions and also can be constructed with 3 stories on the rear one -half of the property. The Code does not specify height limitations based on number of dwelling units. With the ability to construct 3 stories on one 50 feet wide property, more building square footage can be constructed than on two 25 feet wide properties. In this case, the difference in allowable square footage is 2,565 square feet more for construction on one lot, as illustrated below: 3 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 Comparison of Allowable Construction as 50' Wide Lot or Two 25' Wide Lots One Lot 50' Wide by 117.5' Deep Story Area Within Setbacks Allowable Building Square Footage 1 Floor 40' wide x 96.5' deep 3,860 2 ' Floor 40' wide x 101' deep 4,040 3` Floor 40' wide by 54.25' deep 2.170 TOTAL 10,070 Two Lots 25' Wide by 117.5' Deep Story Area Within Setbacks Allowable Building Square Footage 1 Floor 19' wide x 96.5' deep 1833.5 2 ' Floor 19' wide x 101' deep 1.919 TOTAL 3,752.5 x 2 lots = 7,505 Staff has researched similar properties in the Old Town, Planning District 1, East of Main Street neighborhood which could be developed in the future. There are 48 properties which have widths of 50 feet or more. Of these 46 properties, 6 currently have 3 -story structures. A compilation of photographs and a list of properties 50 feet wide or greater have been provided as attachments to this report. Old Town District 1 Properties 50' Wide or More Existing 1 -2 Story Existing 3 -Story 46 40 6 All of the six existing 3 -story structures received Variance approvals between the years 1969- 1973. These are now considered legal, non - conforming structures due to the higher density than could be constructed within current zoning standards. There have not been any structures built on lots 50 feet wide or greater, east of Main Street, with 3 stories. The primary issue is that of neighborhood consistency and compatibility. Since there have not been other similar condominiums constructed in Old Town Planning District 1, the matter of consistency should be considered. There have been increasing community and Planning Commission concerns regarding the neighborhood compatibility of structures in the Old Town neighborhood. Due to these concerns, the Planning Commission has denied four Height Variation requests for Covered Roof Access Structures in excess of the 25 feet height limit in the Old Town Planning District 1 area in the last two years. Similar third story concerns were stated during the April 19, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session regarding Mansionization. Excerpts of the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings and resolutions are attached for Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission may consider the application approval with appropriate modifications to the structure to ensure construction is more compatible with the neighborhood. Modifications • 4 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213` Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 Staff Comment: There are no existing public easements for access through the property associated with the request for Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160. The Public Works Department has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map and has recommended conditions of approval that will be incorporated into a resolution regarding Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 upon its approval. Conditional Use Permit 06 - 4 This request for Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 is contingent on the request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160. Conditional Use Permits are considered for the following reasons outlined in the Code: Section 28 -2503. Conditional Use Permits May Be Granted. The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit in the case of an application for a use which is required to be reviewed and conditioned prior to approval so as to insure compatibility with surrounding uses and the community in general and the General Plan. (Ord. No. 948) Section 28 -2504. Purpose of Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of a conditional use permit shall be to insure proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. (Ord. No. 948) The Residential High Density (RHD) zone states Conditional Use Permits as follows: Section 28 -800. Residential High Density Zone (RHD) A. Permitted Uses. The following uses subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: 4. Other similar uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in which such uses would be located. The primary issue in consideration of Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 is that of compatibility with the neighborhood. As discussed above, the proposed development meets the standards for density, setbacks, and height for construction on the two -lot property if built for one owner. The applicant proposes to create one lot and construct two condominiums for separate owners through approval of a Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission may address neighborhood compatibility concerns through increased setbacks, reduced floor area on the third floor, or other building modifications. Staff has not made a recommendation of approval or denial of these applications since the Planning Commission has not considered similar applications and the subject of a Conditional • 6 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 may include increased setbacks, reduced floor area on the third floor, or other changes deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Tentative Parcel Map 2006 - 160 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 has been submitted by Gilbert Engineering, on behalf of 132 13 Street LLC, to create one parcel for the two -lot property located at 132 13 Street, a property of 5,875 square feet. The minimum lot size in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone is 25' x 100', or 2,500 square feet. Government Code § 66473.5 requires that a local agency must find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. In determining to approve the subject Tentative Parcel Map, the City must ultimately make findings regarding the following issues, pursuant to Government Code § 66474: ❑ The proposed map or the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the applicable general plan. Staff Comment: The development associated with proposed Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance provisions of the City. • ❑ The site is physically suited for the proposed type of density of development. Staff Comment: The proposed development complies with all existing land use development standards for the Residential High Density (RHD) standards of the City. ❑ The design or proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially or avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or other habitats, or cause serious public health problems. • Staff Comment: Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under 15303 (b), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures such as a duplex or similar multi family residential structure. ❑ The design or the types of subdivision improvements will not conflict with public easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City may approve a map if alternate public easements will be provided. 5 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 Use Permit application is that of neighborhood compatibility, which is the foremost issue in this case. SUMMARY 1 The following is a summary of the issues, which could be classified as Findings for Approval and Findings for Denial of the applications for Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 and Conditional Use permit 06 -4: Findings for Approval 1. The proposal conforms to the density requirements of 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of lot area and the minimum lot size of 2,500 per unit in the District 1, Residential High Density (RHD) zone. 2. The proposed development meets all zoning standards for density, setbacks, and height for the proposed building construction on the two -lot property. 3. Construction on 25 feet wide lots can be of similar, "cookie cutter" design which has been a concern of the community and the Planning Commission. Through the construction of two units on one larger lot, construction can be more unique within the Code restrictions and can be constructed with 3 stories on the rear one -half of the property. 4. The development associated with proposed Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 and Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance provisions of the City. 5. Approval of this application would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Findings for Denial 1. Neighbors have stated concerns about condominiums and three -story development at the subject location. 2. Condominiums require approval by the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to determine that a use is compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. In this case, it is determined that a two -unit condominium use with three story construction is not compatible to the neighborhood. 3. With the ability to construct 3 stories on one 50 feet wide property, more building square footage can be constructed than on two 25 feet wide properties. In this case, the Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 difference in allowable square footage is 2,565 square feet more for construction on one lot. 4. Of similar properties in the Old Town, Planning District 1, East of Main Street, neighborhood, there are 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more. Of these 48 properties, only 6 currently have 3 -story structures and these are considered legal, non- conforming for density and building area. 5. There have been increasing community and Planning Commission concerns regarding the compatibility of structures in the Old Town neighborhood, including Planning Commission denial of four Height Variation requests for Covered Roof Access Structures in excess of the 25 feet height limit in the Old Town Planning District 1 area in the last two years and similar third story concerns were stated during the April 19, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session regarding Mansionization. • 6. The Planning Commission finds the application, as proposed, is not consistent and compatible with the neighborhood since there have not been other similar two -unit condominiums constructed in Old Town Planning District 1. 7. Approval of this application, as proposed, would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the proposed two -unit condominium would be located. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation of Staff is to review the application and issues, hear public testimony, consider identified and other issues stated in public testimony, and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 and Conditional Use Permit 06 -4. For: June 7, 2006 Christy D. eague, A Senior Planner Department of Development Services Attachments: (9) Attachment 1: Application Attachment 2: Assessors Parcel Map Page 199 -08 8 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 Attachment 3: Photographs of 3 -Story Structures - District 1 Properties 50 Feet Wide or Greater (East of Main Street) Attachment 4: List of District 1 Properties 50 Feet Wide or Greater (East of Main Street) Attachment 5: Excerpts of October 6, 2004 Meeting Minutes Attachment 6: Excerpt of February 8, 2006 Meeting Minutes Attachment 7: Excerpt of April 19, 2006 Meeting Minutes Attachment 8: Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 Attachment 9: Plans • 9 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 1 Application • io Application for. Department of TentativeNesting Tentative Tract Map Pub11CWOf"kS The goal of the Engineering Division is to protect the public by making sure that approved plans will provide safety from traffic, flood, fire, and health hazards. The private engineer's grading plans must provide safety from soil failures, flood hazards and meet ocean water quality requirements, their final maps must be technically and mathematically correct and all the developer's improvements must be able to be economically and safely maintained. All plans and maps must comply with the City and State ordinances and laws and provide good engineering design. The City's plan check does not constitute a representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind or nature by the City nor does it create liability upon, or cause of action against the City, its officers or employees for any damage that may result pursuant to incident thereto. 1. Property Information 132 13 Street. Seal Beach. CA 90740 Street Address 199- 081 -10 Assessor's Parcel No. 30 & 32 bock 4 13f Bay City Lot No. Block No. Tract 2. Zoning: Residential Hie Density 3. Project Description: Merge Two (2) 25x117.5 foot parcels into One (1) 50x117.5 foot Parcel. kiikkk RA 15 io r a pad Mi p 1 +het u. lTctcF workcs ‘trvoirflOtaS MAW CdffentiV. 4. Applicant: Name 132 13 Street, LLC (Scott L. Levitt, Member) Telephone No. 909 - 947 -9467 Street Address 1725 S. Grove Ave. City Ontario Zip 91761 5. Property Owner: Name: Rene Bollen Family Trust Telephone No. Street Address 10502 Randall St. City Orange Zip 92869 6. Other Parties: Name Telephone No. Street Address City Zip 7. Size of Property to be Merged: .1345 5880 ACRES SQ. FT. 8. Number and Size (in square feet) of each proposed lot: App for (Check one or.more) t9� APR 18 2006 Conditional, Use Permit fCUP)' it:- Mi o r P�a i ew(MPR:` ; = '' «_ CITY OF SEAL BEACEOBV910p111911t SVCS. Heipht Variation ?:` Vanance(VAR) •. -;. ;- ..;... PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION s. E ..: : : .: •. �...': '. • . ..:. ::`:.: i 6 , :' GPA2gne ChanOe �fi Other: 81" a Date Fled::;;; ; ;;:..:_ -. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. `: _., . ' :. C.� is =� F °:.` `: • Application No.: C.-1/4.3...( • Resolution No.: = CSl; - = Planning Commission Date: Date Complete: . 1. Property Address: 1 1 3 3 5 2. County Assessor's Parcel No: 1.qq a`bl' 3. Applicant's Name:-5C 0f L.• Levik IM/ Mid/ 1 k5" J't L1.G Address: tir9 5 • Gr®V2 P Q. -. O o-1-6 le n to 11 f Phone: Work (q0C) c1 19, - 1-q� . i 7 34 Home: (1l'�) 911) - CG4� FAX: ( Ct6 t) q -11- 5W l Mobile: (310) 11-14 =141' 4. Property Owner's Na e: 1 t kin ` . ReNe, Bo (' ► - `fv 2L. Address: 10501 6AtlEkl. 5h j @ccAti '. C Pc ciAG9 - 10-7 Telephone: (S61. ) 9.00--' L 5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: RED -ke5i4 66'1'cL\ LIJ4Ct1 6. Present Use of Property: '511. I PIRA I1Bckiik RcArsVMPi\sk 7. Proposed Use of Property: "TWO .5 6c,kavmj q se & -x\f\ -rou lav 8. Request For: 'Ib 1. Pasta t c • 11 s 9. Describe the Proposed Use: S�il� - C'v�0 �lt�`P- cklvAy fesAki\c -\c1/4\ Utsl` V 0t\le, gsvillMtt\\ \t \\ 10. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: r - C2.Cki f 'oocks.of,y/ • 1 \\ \\ 5 \ MO tS__k_n AANt Page 7 Rev. 6 /03 11. Describe how and if the approval of this Permit would be detrimental in any way to other property in the vicinity: St Urilk. Net Ile dt-hioselkik ilk atiylgoy. 12. Proof of Ownership Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by the applicant. or Signed and notarized Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to the application. 13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): Lob 30 a4 32 If bocK k o - c " t y C A ? it kk€ C � ,%kl:RettA 1 5d a ord/ , 564e DC c>t114004 1 44111,3 enf a EVIJIg leA IN eV*. 3 901P, llali MlSCe is 5 N _texpr 5 , 4\ ► ©fq . • IP — By wa ', s ' A_311‘ By: (S' na ure f Appli nt) 13%t 13�' r� � (Signature of Applicant) c • or Mtut (Pi t Na e) / � (Pint Name) � OG �r)Go (Date) (Date) For Office Use Only This is to certify that I have inspected the foregoing application and found it to be thorough and complete. It conforms to the rules of the City. of Seal Beach governing the filing of an application for an Unclassified Use Permit Application . (Print Name) (Signature) " - (Print Title) (Date) • Page 8 Rev. 6/03 Environmental Information and Checklist Form For Office Use Only Application No.: Date Filed: General Information • 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor: Name: 13 l.'S`" o 5kce + t C' Address: n. Grog p €-. Cit C044-0 ri`0 ) State: Zip: Telephone: ° 'k 77 ev( (07 FAX: g0c 611-1 �'1I 2. Address of Project: 132- 1 SAfee J 60:2cCC e i Qo70 Assessor's Parcel Number: 19.4 ( -10 3. Name, address, and contact information of Project Contact Person: Name:5C.044 L2\i Address: k - Los 5. GroV . A4Q,. City: Nj.kot State: C Fr Zip:o((77( Telephone: c k0 6 \- G FAX: coq - cjc1 . {t E -mail Address: j lisi\efe,O.COWN 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Rt1■14`1r t\nt'c y C A,In �.tM i �4 - s W 4, cJv. . �i �` 14 Vrmsii\ Coop sk © s � , Coct5kA ColtA ifk\ M- -goc `o a� 5. Existing zoning: iktia1a\ \\I) Existing General Plan: 1C.eSiftPN}ia4 6. Proposed use of site Vt\t . 0 va \A c'Ne/ COwnuoN \tJq" Co► hkaa -Jro ;A\( t el -liAck5 gt.lk\neiOr fe5i4010145. Page 11 Rev. 6/03 • • Project Description 7. Site size (square footage): 5110 8. Square footage of proposed Project: ? O + 5 -01 $1,15 9. Number of floors of construction: . 10. . Amount of off - street parking provided: 1- ( 11. Existing and proposed impervious surface coverage (Impervious surface coverage includes all paved areas and building Kor structure footprints): Existing impervious coverage: Proposed impervious coverage: ' 70 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: 14. Associated Projects: 15. Anticipated incremental development: 16. For residential projects, indicate the: A. Number of units: B. Schedule of Unit sizes: 11.3 :-C4, '5q' C. Range of sale prices or rents: 315 463 / 4100 PtC J D. Household size(s) expected:.a 17. For commercial projects, indicate the: A. Type of project: B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented: C. Square footage of sales areas: D. Gross building area: E. Size of loading facilities: 18. For industrial projects, indicate the: Page 12 Rev. 6/03 A. Type of project: B. Estimated employment per shift: C. 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: Briefly explain: Netk-110 (ecory Lfe1 W\4P -b Gregg oNe parcel ..(bw 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. Page 13 Rev. 6103 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water 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. P 9 P 1 P J 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. Page 14 Rev. 6/03 Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "Potentially Significant Impact ", "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers on separate sheets.) Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? '�l 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 1 � \ 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 0 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 a ,! agricultural use, or a Williamson Act �Ly contract? Page 15 Rev. 6/03 132 13 Street, Seal Beach Parcel Map Application ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. The site currently sits as a flat, level lot homogenous to those around it. This particular parcel has two building. The first building runs the long length of the parcel and consists of two stories containing multiple one - bedroom, one - bathroom apartment units. The second building consists of four single -car garages, with multiple one - bedroom, one - bathroom apartment units above the garages. This building is built at the rear end of the lot, over the property line. This lot is technically (2) 25x117.5 foot lots, but as stated has a building built across the property line dividing the two lots. The property is mostly concrete where not improved by the buildings, and contains a small patch of grass. There are a total of six, one - bedroom, one - bathroom apartments, all built around 1950. There appears to be no cultural, scenic, or historical aspects to this property. 34. The surrounding properties consist of single family homes and multiple family homes, condominiums, and rental apartments. All buildings are between one and three stories and all are residential units, with no commercial units. There appears to be no significant aspects regarding plant life, animal life, culture, historical, or scenic aspects. The surrounding homes and apartments appear to generally conform to the height restrictions and set - backs. However there may be some non - conforming improvements in the vicinity that have been "grandfathered" in, as some appear to be in violation of current front setback requirements. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ® Q 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 Q Q f )1 r ederally 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 Q Q a m j7 r ovement 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 Q ❑ a adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change • in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change Q Q Q in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique Q a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Page 17 Rev. 6/03 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct a implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 .7 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable a a 11 .� 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 Q a substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a Q �/ substantial number of people? J?� IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: • a) Have a substantial adverse effect, e 0 ither 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? Page 16 Rev. 6103 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 p 17 ( otential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, 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? 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Q Q Toss of topsoil? l� c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil Q Q 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 Q 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 a Q a supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Page 18 Rev. 6/03 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 Q a public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the a a 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 o El ;17 on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for - people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically Q Q i El nterfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Page 19 Rev. 6/03 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VW. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing 17 ( 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 Q a . 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 ❑ ® Q 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 • t q ? uality? Page 20 Rev. 6/03 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood a a LJ ;/7r 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ l significant risk of Toss, 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? El El El k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ '12( from construction activities? I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ from post - construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of ❑ ❑ ❑ 12( 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ s 4 tormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant : ❑ ❑ ❑ ..r1( changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion ❑ ❑ ❑ k of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ‘17k/ community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 21 Rev. 6 /03 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use A7r plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat Q Q )3 conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation a Q .,/ of excessive groundborne vibration or j�p groundborne noise levels? • c) A substantial permanent increase in El El 373( ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic Q O increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Page 22 Rev. 6/03 • Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 17( 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 a ® ® rte„ existing housing, necessitating the _L� construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered • governmental facilities, need for new or • physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Q Page 23 Rev. 6/03 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Police protection? Schools? Parks? tgl Other public facilities? 0 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 a Q f El acilities 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 Q substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., 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 tl7K 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? Page 24 Rev. 6/03 • Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No • Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 a 0 ccess? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? a Q Q 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 0 requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of a �,( new water or wastewater treatment I� 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 , L� > existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements • needed? e) Result in a determination by the /1( 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? Page 25 Rev. 6/03 Less Than Potentially Significant with 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 a Q statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? XVII. MANDATORY' FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to Q Q degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are a Q • 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 Q effects which will cause substantial �\ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 26 Rev. 6/03 • NOTE: Before a Lead Agency can accept this application as complete, the applicant must consult the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and submit a signed statement indicating whether the project and any altematives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and shall specify any list. _ • Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following information: 1. Name of applicant: t3 t .5 C' - &t.srlt L.L i k / VictArer 2. Street: I7c 5- Groves AJe,, 3. City: (r.) t c 4. Zip Code: c«(.0\ 5. Phone Number: q,t 1 6. Address of site (street and zip): ( 3)- I3 Skiteir C 101 1- 1 0 7. Local Agency (city/county):-.5?-4( 3 i1c afck je., 8. Assessor's Parcel Number: 1'{'( 9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: 10. Regulatory identification number: 11. Date of list: AMP Date: L 06 Signature: iu Applicant: nccit Luu Page 27 Rev. 6/03 NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the applicant must certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Govemment Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on these lists. y r . �� Date: 1 4 v Sign ature: ∎I AW�� ..►t►� Applicant: ceIrDe L. 1 &fiber 3a 3t S hee. 1 �- ,. L I � • Page 28 Rev. stns • PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } CITY OF SEAL BEACH } COUNTY OF ORANGE } (I) /(We) ^ , go ' - (Name) swear that (I am) /(we are) the owner of the property at: 1 13-'- 51-fee4 ( &ecLch C 1 90 M (Street Address) (City) (State) (ZIP) • and that (I am) /(we are) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing and filing a Public Hearing Application. The information contained in the attached Public Hearing Application is correct to the best of (my)/(our) knpwledge and (I) /(we) approve of thi application to do he following work: PCwf(a ( ki' �ceM � &h 'rint *WO mt5 i ow, NWN∎ \ 4+5o ¥. io cokkonn\k1 t)w m 0■ or �4 '�r .st e4Y. .6>/v & ' cca4 d 4 g_ 0/ c ia o /./ /5_. A/ ' , ./4er2e i- ‘- ,o ‘ (Print Name) (Signature) (Date) 5%0 J, ,4 1 ��or I.._—'' _ - #- 2 P2-/ 02 (Address - Please Print) (City, State & Zip) / (Telephone) .. ;?* SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME T S 6 DAY OF D , 2-‘640 ' N VANDERHOFF � 164 ,;.,� _� � o ;N OTARY PU BLIC - CAUFORNIA � ota � Public � oRa COUNTY COU - Y COMM Ex MAR 12 6963 . 2010 ~ Page 31 Rev. 6/03 O 0 OD ° 90 `'d >N W '" WS rg I. N:+ ,s, Vn 78 � � � i a . ,;II r g 0 m Ara / / o� / y CgN�pp��W 4 W 2 sp., W l aini 1. /... / / d . 3c 0 O U Q�Q k 0 el • .1.5 N CC 01 ^J O H1G / C _ h Y 2 '' . tW ififit#4 7 : e / , : ' . c . • ea 1 ..., A w, 7 .„ 0 I. _ a O O � ®O - V h [n VIC 4 "1 0 1 1170 1 0. 4 ‘, ‘4"%11."- .0 a:1 ��,•� V Z W O H.1 91 / : 17 y�G � �e ��O e _1Vi11It"�7 i .- N \I 1 , ' n ..Iq J �. ` � H � C . J 4111 ' I 161 ©Q� , ^ N 3 > p, o n u )- / 'M � . . � �%' ' 2 J a[ l � I .s . <• � .� 0 � O 7 G r C J• L .. 4 e +" 3lW3it d NI- 1!/700 g > :: .6 °f / / / c I V � � I c : Y w��I��� - t V i j :1)3 L1 R / C1 Qe e ► 0c � eeeeeee e � I N � I h _ _ %� L7 7 ell 2 W " �� .(3771 a �' '! - S. ! A�lil�i k�i K" fie? A... w w W �� 101 =cep 0, ti 7 aim WM MOM 4 7 Cf w tC C] ¢ 1338.15 ' H1N331J 0I : •` e v r y "' u 1 N ac .. mmv : AG 1 • foommiumil O ,-6•43 e, cogeeeeeeee I N _ az I m i al .al•st hl of 7. 3I R Er •ml 4.: mem s ( r a II " : : ` B ®m Well z NMI! IV I 1 1111 o, . , I £ 6a 7�� nc I a. ( a .uc I .a �� •- r g: O1 Ct t 133.918 I H1N331Ha11 1I 1 P LO 4 ' ■ Description: Orange,CA Assessor Map 199.8 Page: 1 of 1 • Order: wedapn Comment: • CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 4 = n r� n c am ;-n. n -.n� • -r., -r =n r an,.'v� -- r =r . v-..: -r - _ c:Cae �'nt� - ��< :Y..-i `C.F,'• ,.. .N`�, -< . n �`:. ..C .r'C`-C..'� C ^f`. <:."� -C ;-+• State of California : County of 0Ah (?-6 ss• • ` 2�� Joseph Vanderhofff On C. t , before me, r Notary Public Date Name and Title of Officer (e g., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared A E C. Boil ex) - , • Name(s) of Signerrsi El per nally known to me • . . . I roved to me �o 'the basis of satisfactory evidence ✓California Drivers Lic. .., , '' _ JOSEPH VANDERHOFF to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are : t�.� ;,COMM. #1343473 s ubscribed to the within instrument and � ' 14 NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA . acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed � ORANGE COUNTY , . the same in his /her /their authorized srtx, MY COMM. EXP_ MAR 12. 2006 capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITN SS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above , I Signature of Notary Public A \ \ \ ., OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document r : Title or Type of Document: r • Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: . _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer - . - . ,.; Signer's Name: - RIGHT THUMBPRINT A ▪ ❑ Individual OF SIGNER r, • i Top of thumb here • Corporate Officer — Title(s): is ▪ ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General . ❑ Attorney in Fact 0 Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: . © 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave.. P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free 1- 800 -876 -6827 AA Mobile Notary, Fingerprinting & Paralegal - 7 Days a Week - Office (714) 997 -5800 * * * Short Notice (714) 496 -9696 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 • ATTACHMENT 2 • Assessors Parcel Map Page 199 -08 11 u 3r 90 1 0 1 4 1 �' �� 2 En i:. 4y 2141y :e, :� : :.. V{yZ).b, WO fa • :: - / s/ // ~eQp k ' . ' ly• • -,, fil 1'4::. . • I-1 . - ***J . C3 0) -..w., . HI LI . / I V B ... iir . • ! O � :, v �� `� r t Ja '. Pi::- \ M 7 a � / v � ' P J �p A 1 .. .. p. • 3 • O' fie- ^ � • • • T.,/ )// ktrie ••: "'h. s t m ° s ° ®�� i ® ' • L. m� 2 � b Hl 9/ c i � w cn W '.. C • • / . . A IiiifiWir1. • ' i_. ...- - --.. %INN. •�pO ..... u .,..,.. • .' :: ( - _ 1 a, " C) . . ` V u '',... 7 >;"' ° '' 64 Lu �+. .5L I W 11111111 04L I I ,99'L9 . / . ZL'96 • O :" • 4.1" • • ° •3fN3AV N/Hd70Q t • � NINIIIIIIIIII2 a — .. •IV " I I �' =��� _" e / . (k. . , 1 IS :o M1 .. V . „ I � NI N S;,Y ® ® ® ® ' � Q7 .4 3 sz I < � I .s .s�I.s N "/ ; c� — mil. ::''.• vz • • • s " •a Hl S! I iv I ' I n N 4 i, • • • . 00 • • 3• •7 LL �V� ° Wei o oY + . . " AIN : :.". A1 i Ii 4 1 iI!i = . ; . ,.., Milt ri � .0S in ! i .„ y `" S 1 33d1S .. • .} , „ • ... . - : • . • H1N331?1n03 e • ' x Y .on r .1.-1. . r. . ' t .sz• sz I -.sz .sr f. s :sz t .ca ^ •„ .. •� { �-• � � _ � • • • " ...4i• 4 : al p �"io • - " I " 1111111> �" � •• . . V ; �I. �SZ I - r L-.5r .SZ I •_SZ' � .SL• ���� ' SL I .S���� z • • r • • :' . 00000 • 0 0 ° : Oss e o •00eeiem • W .. .� • • „. • c ,: -. .... -- : :: : ••••-•••••• ::.- i F: '' 1 . I . ' ".-- . i . 1411110 t • 11 4 . .. • .os - • ,o, gi .• � - 1N331d!f' : • '; Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13` Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 Photographs of 3 -Story Structures - District 1 Properties 50 Feet Wide or Greater (East of Main Street) • 12 N''' 1 k M1£ c 1 l 3 1 � _ S q �^ m - i [ d � g ,5 ro I P $A � ( R Amm° CO 0 > _ { R � ' �� L. ! < / : fib o0 t I 4 0 i LIJ r ■ , Li ti , -. p-- ,, Rif' , „,__ z.., ; '4., .,,.. ..4.....„...,::,,:,...1.,_..,..,,..1 . N... co � c:)._ 1,,..., 2-3 --- 4 --- i-- - -1 4 � ! 3 x17 : i , , . 4f. I . _ E f if.„., ti I ..z £ . � � , CO i a) r, ,� n ,� - � n. a) .1.,#, :, - . - . . - 6 „,-..',..-°, ' . -4kki r:r-l - mkr6i!..°. , - -I-4 ."';; S S & Y „ y '3. S Y e 1 +. , aa a ; � CO : .e x, .• ate. 4 a a ♦' T O F i . t r t. :.. h > ; . ; o, l (0 N I 7 U � ., - t (t 3 „.. • - C CO - till, �--+ - 0 N O L " — V) .-if _ o O N : co ■ iii. N �_...�_. ' �t 1 n c . _.,....... .,. ___ ,........, / ,,..".,..., , .." . ..,.. , ... i . ,, .,., Sa y y "° ". rv Y` ; + CO x; , i , ,1,w 1/ - 4' fte1/11111/ M i l a) _. . - : � f §xa , m i l (I) „0-..---- . . 0 I � \ fA y L N �yN - ff M ii r y f t �i CO -. n 1.• � :i{ g _ r E (1J g1 C '. ' ... , . r ` +€a .r te .. / ' n a .' '. � - Zi t ?!' 1 .. ". .. `M t 4— t r !4, • .l�� • r . Y J l ^/� ' ` ) [i . W P - ` ` . - (1) ' Ir.i `' .! '., .tw as z W lam- '•� . as tea. ' � W SS f t ;�� t s ' Q C -' r I . -Al � � ': : `74a �� fi 41 . CO 4 A. �' a) . 0 .. , :, „.::-..„.. ,,, ...„.„.... . , .,..... , ,..... ., -, L .... ..,:. _-_,,,,,,,,, - -J u) rp ,ice.' f .: __ _.. ,,,,,„:„:::„ ... M if..►l► lllllllilllll it1118f„,„„t1111 .,,,,,:',V:iii.,'INI M i H ; /I,I iii - CC) "�..., r � , � urn r lluIIIll1111111111111 • ,•, .' ci •a S •, _ -- 1 . •: t 0) CO x.. 4, y -.:-• k � '• 'd ti - a !.'.� e .$' ...r ° ' -: 5�.. ,..3 - . it c 5 �j� Ifs Iz `. . ]s . 1 i I. , �i ,q� y a . , ,wi \ p ' • ,: „ x�i L � 5 F 6 • t•I CD i ti i, - - '- , ., � it +li i 1^ - CD L _C , . I r" /) y 1 N �d. I 1 n 7 i �∎ i s r 1 i � C ' i , , _ , i + J 1 7 � ; ,� . � N 11 t 1 ` 4 i 1 4 �2 ' `i Q : 7i, i•y ,la 1 MEI 1 i h 3 �� 1 1 1 9 j 1 A i .: I A j 1 i . l e i , r �! CO P 1,s .mot, . *. ' 0 ' � . a \ - - - L <� .. i ~ . ^ . « \ « § y \ » ' y \ .... all � � - .\ S. ; I \ / , : \ . « \ 0 . « . / 0 ) *ffiliNIMEM/i/C, , Ls■ \ Th' , . . / 2 ( f) . . w ] \ ~.� � , « � i y . CN . ` \ .. / . § � ) p p - . . . d .? } d: : } . . I 01 ¢/ (IN . » 1 i ». \ \ \ \ 1 ^ - - / \� ∎\ kt \ \ CO r 1 . 4 U C , , - " .,.. ••••,,,,. • _ -I L k / - � , ..At :z: ,` pp 0 O (,- ' . (/) (n - r c N - T - O (N �'` I ../ A 1 0 N -- I SIN ••••■••■■•,% i (" ti 0 Eai 0 " 0 S limm (II) . CD N � N N (1.01 . c.. .0110111110.11.11 1 V r i �" ' 0 > +-r c) 0 + , -1—+ V 0 ' i 7 r p Q 7. . •,■ C O .' 0 o r r t ' k r € � f ■ Cii") . _ , } 5 y S 4 -4=1 Try$: , v ^��. rv. T N N I Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213`" Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 List of District 1 Properties 50 Feet Wide or Greater (East of Main Street) • 13 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213` Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 List of District 1 Properties 50 Feet Wide or Greater (East of Main Street) Addresses of Lots East of Main Street, South of Electric Ave. 50' Wide or Greater with 1 or 2 • Story Buildings • • 111 10 Street 111 14 Street 112 10 Street 925 Central Avenue • 120 10 Street 138 Dolphin Avenue 121 10 Street 1510 Dolphin. Avenue 126 10 Street 909 Ocean Avenue 129 10 Street . 1001 Ocean Avenue • 133 10 Street 1007 Ocean Avenue 139 10 Street 1011 Ocean Avenue 148 10 Street 1016 Ocean Avenue 208 10 Street 1101 Ocean Avenue 130 11 Street 1113 Ocean Avenue 135 1.1 th Street. 1201 Oceari Avenue . 121 12 Street 1212 Ocean Avenue 138 12 Street . 1213 Ocean Avenue 150 12 Street 1217 Ocean Avenue 129 13 Streeet 1315 Ocean Avenue 132 13 Street 1317 Ocean Avenue • 135 13 Street 1603 Ocean Avenue 141 13 Street 1611 Ocean Avenue 142 13 Street 1501 Seal Way 153 13 Street 1519 Seal Way Addresses of Lots East of Main Street, South of Electric Ave. 50' Wide or Greater with 3 Story Buildings 111 10 Street • 112 10 Street 201 11 Street 211 11 Street 121 12 Street 118 13 Street • 14 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213` Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 5 Excerpt of October 6, 2004 Meeting Minutes • • • • • • 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 1 Commissioner Questions L 3 None. 4 5 Public Hearing 6 7 Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing. 8 9 Ms. Beth Aboulafia of Hinman & Carmichael stated that she and Mr. Mark Robinson 10 from Target were both present tonight to respond to questions from the Commission. 11 She stated that no problems have resulted from adding the sale of packaged beer and 12 wine. She requested that the PC grant approval of the indefinite extension CUP 03 -4. 13 Commissioner Roberts asked if Target had received a Type 20 ABC license for beer 14 and wine. Ms. Aboulafia confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Roberts noted 15 that one year ago the request indicated the sale of wine only with the possibility of • 16 selling beer in the future. He asked what the status is today. Ms. Aboulafia stated that 17 Target is still selling wine only. Commissioner Roberts asked if there are any plans to 18 add the sale of beer. Ms. Aboulafia responded that all of the Target stores that are 19 licensed in the state of California are selling only wine, and currently there are no plans 20 for the sale of beer. Commissioner Deaton asked if Target had posted the signs in 21 accordance with the conditions of approval for CUP 03 -4. Ms. Aboulafia stated that 22 they had. She said that she was not aware that one of the signs had come down, nor was she certain what the reason was, but this situation is being remedied. 25 There being no one - else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public 26 hearing. 27 28 • MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Indefinite Extension of 29 Conditional Use Permit 03 -4 and adopt Resolution 04 -50 as presented. 30 31 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 32 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp 33 NOES: None 34 ABSENT: None 35 36 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 04 -50 begins a 10 -day calendar 37 appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the 38 appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 39 40 3. Height Variation 04 -6 148 12 Street 41 Height Variation 04 -7 150 12 Street 42 Height Variation 04 -8 152 12 Street 43 44 Applicant/Owner: Huntington Pacific Development, Inc. 45 Request: To construct three single - family residences on three _ contiguous legal lots, with each residence proposing a non- Page 3 of 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 1 habitable Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) in excess z of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the proposed CRAS 3 structures would exceed the height limit by approximately 5 4 feet. 5 6 Recommendation: Approval subject. to conditions and adoption of Resolution 7 04 -47, 04 -48, and 04 -49, respectively. 8 9 Chairperson Ladner asked if this public hearing had been property noticed, to which Mr. 10 Whittenberg responded in the affirmative and he also noted that one communication 11 was received from Roger and Geraldine West in opposition to this matter. 12 13 Staff Report 14 15 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 16 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on these items and 17 stated that the proposal is to construct three separate single - family residences on a lot 18 that is currently developed with an existing apartment building, which would be 19 demolished. He said that the lot is a 75 -foot wide lot, and underlying are three .legal -25- _ 20 foot x 117 -foot lots. He noted that the proposal also includes the provision on each of 21 the three structures for a Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS), which would exceed 22 the height limit by approximately 5 feet. He explained that there are provisions in City '1 Code that allow for these types of structures to exceed the 25 -foot height limit for this ( zone by up to 7 feet for a maximum height for a CRAS of 32 feet. Mr. Whittenberg then 25 added that the PC has adopted a set of design standards for different stairway 26 configurations for CRAS with the maximum allowable area of 38 square feet. He noted 27 that the proposed stairway configuration for Height Variation (HV) 04 -6, 04 -7, and 04 -8 28 measures 32.25 square feet. He said that since the dimensions fall within the maximum 29 limits, Staff feels that the CRAS would not block any primary views from properties, as 30 in this area the homes are facing west on 12 Street looking toward downtown Main . 31 Street. He stated that the proposed design of the homes is compatible with the 32 neighborhood, so Staff is recommending approval of HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, and HV 04 -8. 33 subject to conditions. He noted that a separate motion would be necessary for each 34 application: 35 36 Commissioner Questions 37 38 Commissioner Sharp asked what style of staircase was to be used. Mr. Whittenberg 39 stated that straight -run stairways would be used. 40 41 Commissioner Deaton indicated that on the map provided, it appears as though Central 42 Avenue does not dead -end into these properties. She noted that this is incorrect. 43 44 Public Hearing A ` • Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing. . • Page 4 of 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 -1 (Note: Neither the applicant nor a representative of the applicant was present tonight.) 3 Mr. Roger West of 1301 -B Electric Avenue spoke in opposition to HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, 4 and HV 04 -8. He said that for over 40 years he has been fighting to preserve the 5 identity of the community, and he is stressed over this matter. He stated that although 6 the architect for this project knew what the building requirements are, he exceeded 7 them anyway. He said he did not understand why this project could not be built to 8 comply with the building standards. He indicated that there is no reason to exceed the 9 height limit for these homes. He encouraged the PC to begin "standing up to these 10 things" and noted that this would probably eliminate half of the work for the 11 Commission. He said that everyone assumes that the requirements don't mean 12 anything, as all they have to do is come before the PC and the Commission will make 13 an exception for them. He noted that the developer is from Huntington Beach, and said 14 that this city has block after block of "cookie cutter row houses" being constructed, and 15 now these developers want to do the same in Seal Beach. He asked that the PC take a 16 stand for Seal Beach and keep the community the way it is. He recommended denial of 17 HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, and HV 04 -8. Commissioner Sharp asked if Mr. West was just 18 opposed to building the CRAS 5 feet above the height limit. Mr. West stated that the 19 . public notice had indicated that the project .would - exceed the height _limit _by 7 feet. 20 Commissioner Sharp clarified that up to 7 feet is allowed, but these homes would only 21 exceed the height limit by 5 feet. Chairperson Ladner added that the law in Seal Beach 22 allows up to 7 feet. Mr. West asked why these applications had to come before the PC `'' if the law allows this. Commissioner Sharp stated that this is the way the PC handles these applications. Mr. West clarified that if someone wants to exceed the building 25 limits all they have to do is come before the PC and the Commission decides whether or 26 not they can do so. Commissioner Sharp noted that this is in the Code and there are 27 many other CRAS in town, which have all come before the PC for approval. Mr. West 28 stated that someone has to fight to hold the line. He said that he frequently meets 29 people who comment on how nice the city is, and he tells them that he and many others 30 in town have been fighting for 40 years to keep it this way, and prevent it from looking 31 like downtown Huntington Beach and Long Beach. He again encouraged denial of HV 32 04 -6, HV 04 -7, and HV 04 -8. 33 . 34 Mr. Chris Mewes spoke in opposition to HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, and HV 04 -8 and noted that 35 the developer did not even have the decency to show up for this hearing. He stated that 36 this is the same PC that approved the project at 12 Street and Electric Avenue that the 37 neighborhood residents appealed and fought to prevent, and were able to have 38 overturned by City Council (CC). He said it appears that the PC sees this as another 39 "slam dunk." He noted that there are other doghouses in town, but not every one of 40 them is built on a HV. He stated that to give this developer three HVs would block 41 everyone's view of the neighborhood. He commented that the Commissioners may not 42 be concerned as the only Commissioner that lives in old town is Commissioner Deaton. 43 Mr. Magus said that 12 Street is already overburdened with large buildings, and 44 approving this request would just continue to destroy the neighborhood. He stated "we "5 have a little jewel down there that most of the Planning Commission just seems to throw • Page 5 of 11 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 1 away." He said that if residents are forced to appeal this application, it would cost them over $2,100.00. He begged that the PC deny this request. 3 4 Mr. Larry Horowitz of 146 12 Street stated that he resides next door to the proposed 5 . project. He said that it would be nice if the PC just "killed the whole project," as this is 6 such a beautiful piece of historic property. He said he lives in a one -story house and 7 this project would totally block any view. He recommended denial of HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, 8 and HV 04 -8. 9 10 Commissioner Sharp asked the Director of Development Services if, with the exception 11 of the proposed CRAS, this project is meet the requirements of City Code. Mr. 12 Whittenberg stated that it would be best to respond to these questions after the close of 13 the public hearing. 14 15 Ms. Terry Mavis of 150 12t Street stated that she has come before the PC many times 16 to oppose variances to the building code. She said that she does not understand why 17 the Code exists, as it appears that it does not mean anything. She indicated that what 18 is being given away is the blue sky of the City of Seal Beach, and before long as you 19 walk down to. the _beach, there will be_ no.sunlight, but only shade. She said that this is -. 20 not why she moved to Seal Beach. She stated that she enjoys the community the way 21 it is. She recommended denial of HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, and HV 04 -8. 22 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public hearing. 25 26 Commissioner Comments 27 28 Commissioner Deaton stated that she would like to motion to deny all three HVs 29 because she feels that this is a completely different situation than what has previously 30 been approved. She said that Central Avenue dead ends into these properties, and the 31 I project would obscure the view for the entire width of this street, and the homes are all 32 ' lined up creating a "block" with no depth or difference in the homes. She stated that the 33 CRAS that the PC has approved in the past have been individual homeowners with 34 individual needs for that particular CRAS, and these homes have not yet been 35 constructed and have no pre- existing need. She said she would like to move to deny 36 HV 04 -6, HV 04 -7, and HV 04 -8. 37 38 Commissioner Shanks stated that he was in agreement. He commented that all the PC 39 can approve or deny is the CRAS. He said that if the developer wants to construct 40 ' these homes without the CRAS, they are in conformance with the law and can proceed 41 to do so. He noted that he had received a telephone call from Joan Stegman whose 42 grandparents owned the Willard Hotel, which formerly operated at this location, and she 43 stated that she is opposed to this project. 44 • Page 6of11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 1 Commissioner Deaton stated that she had received several telephone calls from 2 concerned residents. She indicated that when this type of home begins going up in 3 rows this can create a big problem for the City. 4 5 Mr. Abbe noted that each HV would have to be voted on separately. He asked if 6 Commissioner Deaton wished to amend her previous motion. 7 8 Commissioner Sharp asked if Commissioner Deaton was moving for denial on the basis 9 of the aesthetics of the property, and if not, on what grounds was she moving for denial. 10 He said that unless the PC has a good reason to deny, he has a problem on the legality 11 of this, particularly since similar requests have previously been granted throughout the 12 city. Commissioner Deaton stated that she chooses to deny based on the following: 13 14 1. Protest of the community, which has not occurred with other applications for HVs. 15 2. A street dead ends directly into the property, which will allow a complete view of 16 the three homes, right in a row. 17 3. She does not believe that there is a legal problem, but she would like to discuss 18 this further with Mr. Abbe. She said that it is her understanding that the PC is 19 always able .to. accept or deny these, and that no precedence has been created, - 20 and neither will this set a precedent. She asked Mr. Abbe if this was correct. 21 22 Mr. Abbe stated that this is correct. He said that the courts have established that every property is unique in its own way. He explained that the fact that the PC has granted or denied these in the past should not affect the ability of the PC to rant or deny these 9 Y 25 variations at this time. He clarified that this application is for a Height Variation and not 26 a Variance, for which the legal standards are very different. He added that under City 27 Code the PC has the discretion to approve or deny based upon whether it will obstruct a 28 primary view, and considering the character and integrity of the neighborhood and how 29 the HV would affect this, which can be a very subjective determination. 30 31 Commissioner Sharp clarified that Mr. Abbe had stated that the PC had the right to deny 32 this application because of obstruction of a primary view. Mr. Abbe stated that the PC 33. could determine to deny if the HV would significantly impair the primary view . of any 34 property located within 300 feet, and also considering the character and integrity of the 35 neighborhood and how the variation would affect that. Commissioner Sharp stated that 36 he has been on the Commission for a few years and the issue of view has been argued 37 on a lot of properties and was never allowed to be a deciding factor in approving or 38 denying a HV. Mr. Abbe stated that this discussion relates to CRAS only. He noted 39 that the standard is very different for a Variance, which involves granting an exception 40 to a legal standard. He indicated that here this is not the case as the Code allows a 41 height of 25 feet, and above that an additional allowance of 7 feet could be granted 42 subject to PC approval. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that there have been several cases 43 where HVs for CRAS have been modified to reduce the impact upon view. He noted 44 that most of these are found in Surfside Colony for homes in the A Row wanting to A5 construct CRAS that would have obscured the view of homes in B Row. He also J indicated that there have been cases with people on the ocean side of Ocean Avenue Page 7 of 11 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 1 wanting to construct a CRAS, which could have obscured the view of homes on the inland side of the street. He said that another issue is whether or not it is appropriate 3 for the integrity of that particular neighborhood, and as Mr. Abbe has stated, there is 4 some subjective thought involved in making a determination. Commissioner Sharp 5 stated that he is arguing this because he wants to make sure that the PC is not doing 6 something that it should not be doing. He said that he believes if the PC denies this 7 application, City Council will proceed to approve it on appeal. 8 9 Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees with Commissioner Deaton,' and noted 10 that his major concern is having three similar structures in a row that will only differ in 11 exterior color, and this will significantly affect the character of the neighborhood. He 12 said that it is a shame that what the PC is doing here tonight is not going to change this, 13 but he does not know how to get around this. 14 15 Commissioner Sharp stated that the same problem has occurred with the latest building 16 on The Hill, so unless the City adopts an ordinance that allows the PC to control what is 17 built, this will become a problem. 18 19 Chairperson, Ladner_.agreed with. Commissioner. Sharp and noted that _this .issue . will 20 continue to arise whenever someone wants a HV to build higher than the 25 -foot height 21 limit. He asked the Director of Development Services how long ago construction of the 22 CRAS had begun. Mr. Whittenberg stated that CRAS have been constructed for 9 1 approximately 20 years. He said that for a long time they were simply approved at the Staff level without any discretionary approval from the PC. He noted that this became 25 an issue in the early 90's, and in 1992 the City adopted the standards in use today, 26 which means that all of the CRAS constructed since 1992 have been built in 27 accordance with these provisions and have come before the PC for approval. He 28 emphasized that the request is a discretionary action, and the PC does have the 29 authority to say "yes" or "no" based upon the particular circumstances of the application 30 and the area where the project is located. He commented that although he cannot 31 recall a recent case where the PC has denied a CRAS, this is the first time a request of 32 this nature has come before the Commission. 33 34 Chairperson Ladner commented that previously he and Mr. Whittenberg had discussed 35 the limitation of HVs within Seal Beach and Chairperson Ladner had stated that he 36 believed no one should be allowed to build beyond a height of 25 feet, and Mr. 37 Whittenberg had stated that because of a precedent, these structures were allowed. 38 Mr. Whittenberg clarified that City Code does allow people to request a HV, and as long 39 as it allows this, people have a right to file an application and the City must process and 40 consider the application. He emphasized that the decision of the PC would be based 41 upon the particular circumstances of each property in light of the public comments and 42 concerns that the Commission has. He stated that as long as the City ordinances 43 . maintain this provision and allow someone to make the application, Staff must process it 44 and the PC is authorized to consider it and make a decision on it. He said that if the PC 5 wishes to eliminate this process, they would have to change the Zoning Code. Page 8 of 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2004 1 Chairperson Ladner asked if the PC could do this. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could recommend to City Council that the Code be changed. 3 4 Commissioner Roberts read from Section C-1B of the City Code regarding whether 5 such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood, and 6 stated that this is exactly what is under discussion now, and certainly is something that 7 the PC can "hang its hat on." He stated that he is very concerned with the character 8 issue, and although denying the HVs is not going to resolve this, it would allow the PC 9 to make a statement. 10 11 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to deny Height Variation 04 -6. 12 13 MOTION CARRIED: 4— 0 —1 14 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Shanks 15 NOES: None 16 ABSENT: None 17 ABSTAIN: Sharp 18 19 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by _Roberts to deny .Height Variation 04 -7. _ 20 21 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 22 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Shanks x . 9 3 NOES: Sharp ABSENT: None 25 26 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to deny Height Variation 04 -8. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 29 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Shanks 30 NOES: None 31 ABSENT: None 32 ABSTAIN: Sharp 33 34 Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff would return with resolutions to deny for these items 35 to be adopted at the next Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 2004. He said 36 that after adoption of these resolutions the appeal period would begin. 37 38 STAFF CONCERNS 39 40 Mr. Whittenberg stated that the new Senior Planner, Christy Teague, began work on 41 Monday, October 4, 2004. Unfortunately, she became ill this afternoon and was not 42 able to be in attendance this evening. 43 44 He then provided an update on Ruby's Diner and indicated that the hearing before the 5 California Coastal Commission (CCC) is scheduled for October 13, 2004 in San Diego. He stated that there would be a staff report on the City Council agenda for Monday, Page 9 of 11 • Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213` Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Excerpt of February 8, 2006 Meeting Minutes • 16 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2006 - A law to do enforcement of Title 25, which involves the development, land use, setback 1 _ standards, and construction standards for mobile homes within California. He stated 3 that the state representative made Staff aware that effective July 2005 cities can no 4 longer require discretionary approval for a trailer space adjustment within a mobile 5 home park. He noted that state law indicates that trailer spaces can be adjusted within 6 a trailer park, but this requires that the owner of the park and the affected space owners 7 all agree to the adjustment. Once this approval is given, documentation must be 8 submitted to the City, a new survey must be completed to indicate the new survey 9 points, and if a determination is made at the Staff level that the request is not in accord 10 with the land use . approvals granted at the time the park was established, the space 11 adjustment can be denied. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this issue will have to be 12 further explored at the state level, and at this point trailer space adjustment is not an 13 issue that the City would have to deal with. He noted that in their letter the SBAHC has 14 indicated that their board will meet on February 13, 2006, to revisit this issue, and 15 should they decide to consider adjusting spaces, then applicants will go through the 16 process as outlined under state law, and at that point the City would deal with these 17 requests. 18 19 Commissioner Roberts referred to the discussion in the OCFA letter regarding agreeing 20 • to 1 -foot setbacks; and noted that the state a - 3 -foot setback from - the - property - - - - - - -- - 21 line. He asked if the 1.5 -foot setback referred to by OCFA would begin at the property 22 line. Mr. Whittenberg stated that OCFA has indicated that the 1.5 -foot setback would be . ^z the minimum reduction they would like to see. Commissioner Roberts stated that in (- reading the letter from Seal Beach Trailer Park Resident Owners' Association 25 (SBTPROA), it appears that they would be willing to keep the physical location of the 26 building where it is today. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the SBTPROA letter states that 27 they believe they should be able to build up to the space line without the 3 -foot setback. 28 He added that in the discussion with the representative from the state, Staff learned that 29 the waiver granted by the state in 1978 to allow the greenbelt to be considered a public 30 access road did not give these trailer spaces the right to have their unit located on the 31 front of the space line. He explained that the state's position is that you may have a 32 space there that fronts the greenbelt, but you are still subject to the 3 -foot setback 33 requirement from that space line to the first part of the mobile home. He ended by 34 stating that if new information is presented at the February 13 board meeting, Staff will 35 - provide an update to the PC. 36 37 Chairperson Shanks so ordered to Receive and File: Status Report Re: Trailer Space 38 Adjustments, Seal Beach Trailer Park. 39 40 41 PUBLIC HEARINGS 42 43 1. Height Variation 06 -1 44 203 2nd Street 4 - . Applicant/Owner: Mark Coppess/ Brendan Baker 5of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2006 ` Request: To construct a Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) that exceeds the 25 -foot height limit by 5 feet 11 inches. 3 4 Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution 06 -9 5 6 Staff Report 7 8 Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 9 Planning Department.) She provided some background information on this item and 10 explained that City Code does allow architectural features to exceed the 25 -foot height 11 limit by up to 7 feet. She indicated that the applicant has submitted revised plans that 12 do conform to the City Council guidelines, copies of which were delivered to the 13 Planning Commissioners. She noted that the proposed staircase meets the minimal 14 roof area allowed in the guidelines, which in this case is 38 square feet, and the revised 15 height would exceed the height limit by 5 feet 5 inches. The Senior Planner then added 16 that the proposed Covered Roof Access Structure(s) (CRAS) is compatible with the 17 craftsman architecture of the new home and with the character of the surrounding 18 neighborhood, and would not provide any habitable living space. With regard to 19 obstruction of the primary view of neighboring homes, Ms. Teague explained that this - - 2 . 0 . - . - -. -- area rather with two blocks of residential - dwellings - between the ocean and the - . . .- - - - 21 subject property and this CRAS would not significantly impair the view of surrounding 22 residents. She added that a letter in opposition was received from the residents of 206 Central Avenue, which was provided to the PC. She stated that Staff is recommending { approval of Height Variation (HV) 06 -1, subject to conditions. 25 26 Public Hearing 27 28 Chairperson Shanks opened the public hearing. 29 30 Mark Coppess, representative for the applicant, stated that he would be happy to 31 respond to questions from the PC. Commissioner Roberts asked if there were other 32 / alternatives to the proposed plans to meet the needs of the homeowners yet respond to 33 concerns from neighbors. - Mr. Coppess stated that surrounding neighbors currently 34 have very little view and he does not believe that this CRAS would block their view. He 35 noted that another option would be to construct a deck that would accommodate a spiral 36 staircase; however, the homeowners would rather have roof access from inside the 37 r home. Commissioner Deaton noted that there are many homes in town that do not 38 have CRAS, and they don't have spiral staircases. She added that some have 39 staircases on the outside of the home and others on the inside of the home until you get 40 to the exterior door. She asked what the purpose of a CRAS would be. Mr. Coppess 41 stated that it was basically convenience and comfort. Commissioner Deaton stated that your acres - s - th deck - from - irfs - idwth-e h a C Mr: Coppess 43 stated that with an outside or spiral staircase the plans would have to be considerably 44 modified. Commissioner Deaton countered that the CRAS was not essential, and Aq normally she does not object to them, but in this case there have been complaints about this project. 6of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2006 Joanna Rivera expressed her opposition to HV 06 -1 and noted that her home was constructed in 2001 -02 on a 25 -foot wide lot and the home has a roof deck with a 3 stairway without a CRAS. She added that a home across the street from 203 2nd Street 4 also has a roof deck without a CRAS. She stated that the roof access could be 5 constructed without the spiral staircase. She provided maps designating the line of 6 sight view from her home, noting that this CRAS would totally obstruct this view. She 7 recommended denial of HV 06 -1 and suggested that Mr. Coppess provide an alternate 8 design that would not exceed the height limit. 9 I 10 Joyce Politz spoke in opposition to HV 06 -1 and stated that an extra 5 ft. 11 inches 11 would have the effect of encroaching upon her privacy and deprives her home of 12 additional light and air. 13 14 Ralph Rivera spoke in opposition to HV 06 -1 and noted that he agreed with his wife, 15 Joanna, that this home could be designed to provide roof access without the CRAS. 16 17 John Baker stated that he lives on First Street from which he has a beautiful view of the 18 bay and beyond. He said that in the early 1980's he had constructed a roof deck over 19 his garage without a CRAS. He indicated that his roof deck also has a. straight stairway . 20 - i along the side of the roof deck: He recommended redesigning - - 21 home without the CRAS. 22 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed the 9 9 p p public ( hearing. 25 26 Commissioner Comments 27 28 I Commissioner Deaton stated that she would define the primary view for homes in Old \ 29 \ Town as any view of the ocean, mountains, or the marina, and although she normally 30 has no objections to a CRAS, when she visited this neighborhood she saw only 4 single 31 story homes, as the majority of single story homes in Old Town have been demolished 32 or converted to large homes covering every inch of the property and constructed as high 33 as allowed. She said that granting this CRAS would lead to more homes asking for the 34 ; same type of approval. She stated that she would vote to deny. 35 i 36 i Commissioner Roberts stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Deaton's 37 comments and would vote to deny. 38 i 39 Chairperson Shanks stated that he was also in agreement and would also vote to deny. 40 He indicated that the home could be redesigned to provide everything the applicant 41 I wants without exceeding the height limit. 42 43 I MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to deny Height ht Variation 06 -1 and direct 44 Staff to present amended Resolution 06 -9 at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 7 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2006 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts 3 NOES: None 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 The Director of Development Services noted that Staff would return with the final 7 amended Resolution 06 -9 for adoption to deny Height Variation 06 -1 at the Planning 8 Commission meeting of March 8, 2006. He advised that adoption of Resolution No. 9 06 -9 would begin a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council and the 10 Commissioner action would be final with the appeal period beginning the morning after 11 adoption. 12 13 Mr. Abbe added that the public hearing on this item has been closed and there would be 14 no additional testimony at the meeting of March 8, 2006. 15 16 2. Minor Plan Review 05 -10 17 Trailer Space Adjustment 05 -1 18 74 Riversea Road (Continued from November 9, 2005) 19 - - 20 - Applicant/Owner: Sheila Oden / - Beach - Afford - able Housing Corp . - - - 21 Request: To adjust trailer space lines and architectural review of a 2- 22 story cabana. The applicant proposes a Trailers Space Adjustment to modify the trailer lines, adding approximately 19 square feet to the trailer space. -�- - q p The applicant also 25 proposes to construct a new 2 -story cabana in the Seal 26 Beach Trailer Park with an overall height of 25 feet, and 850 27 square feet of living space. 28 29 Recommendation: Deny Trailer Space Adjustment 05 -1 and Minor Plan Review 30 05 -10 without prejudice and adopt Resolution 06 -12. 31 32 Staff Report 33 . 34 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 35 Planning Department.) He stated that since receipt of the letter from the agent 36 representing the property owner, rescinding the authorization for Trailer Space 37 Adjustment (TSA) 05 -1, Staff has prepared Resolution 06 -12 denying TSA 05 -1 and 38 Minor Plan Review (MPR) 05 -10 without prejudice, which means that should the parties 39 involved come to agreement, they could return with a similar application without having 40 to wait a specific period of time as specified in City Code. 41 42 Public Hearing 43 44 Chairperson Shanks opened the public hearing. itq 8of13 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 132 13 Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 7 Excerpt of April 19, 2006 Meeting Minutes • 17 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006 4. Windows. Some cities ban windows on the side walls of home to protect the privacy of neighbors; however, there are many window styles and glass types 3 currently available such as opaque glass, including frosted and tinted glass, 4 patterned glass, and glass blocks, which can provide both light and privacy. • 5 6 5. Architectural Review. To ensure adequate application of bulk requirements, some 7 jurisdictions have initiated additional review and regulation requirements for 8 additions of second stories or any expansions greater than a set percentage of the 9 existing building area 10 11 In conclusion, Mr. Whittenberg presented Staff recommendations for consideration by 12 the PC for managing mansionization within the City of Seal Beach, as follows: 13 14 1. Limit any mansionization regulations to the RLD -5000 zoned properties only (the 15 "Hill," the "Coves," College Park East, and College Park West other than potential 16 changes to roof style requirements that may be applicable within Old Town). 17 Beyond these'areas, in the opinion of Staff, the pattern of existing development, lot 18 sizes and related setback and lot coverage requirements are sufficient enough that 19 the perceived impacts of new home construction is substantially reduced. 20 - Modifications to roof style for the of the structure, even • the • - • - -- 21 Old Town RMD and RHD zones, would have some significant impacts on reducing 22 the perceived bulk along the street frontage. _ 2. Focus on the "incentive concepts" that encourage flexibility and innovation in 25 preparing development plans for new 2 -story residences within the City, as 26 discussed above regarding "Second Story Regulations" and "Rooflines ", or 27 consider requiring additional side yard setback for height above a certain level. If 28 the Commission determines these suggestions are worth pursuing, Staff will return 29 with additional information at a later study session. 30 31 He then presented photographs of some of the larger homes within the City, followed by 32 a brief review of the Supplemental Staff Report provided to the Commissioners at 33 tonight's meeting. (Supplemental Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning 34 Department.) 35 36 Chairperson Shanks commended Staff for the work done on the issues brought before 37 them by the PC. 38 39 Public Comments 40 41 Chairperson Shanks opened for public comments. • 42 43 Tom Arthur stated that his concern is that the recommendations for additions not be too 44 restrictive. He suggested including "grandfathering clauses" that would allow current homeowners to use the building standards in place at the time of their home purchase. 9of12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006 Chairperson Shanks noted that the request for grandfathering clauses was previously proposed, and had not been implemented, so he doubts that it would happen now. He 3 said that the proposed regulations don't appear to be too restrictive, particularly 4 concerning OId Town. 5 6 Sarah Fuller stated that her concern is with limiting the height of homes in Old Town. 7 She invited the PC to tour Landing Avenue from 12 Street to Seal Beach Boulevard 8 and to consider whether it would be appropriate to have the same rules apply to corner 9 lots as for those in the interior Tots. She stated that having third story developments on 10 corner Tots changes the character of the neighborhood. 11 12 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed public 13 comments. 14 15 Commissioner Comments 16 17 Commissioner Deaton stated that she does not believe mansionization is a problem in 18 OId Town; however, whatever is done, must be looked at from OId Town's perspective 19 in order to eliminate the cookie cutter look that is occurring. She referred to the plans -- 20- - -- presented for - de - - of - homes • at 4O0 Marina - Drive, a - noted - that this is - -- -• -- 21 leading to "row houses" in Old Town and everything of character is going, and she 22 would like to address this problem. `- Commissioner Roberts stated that the secret to this process is to not make it so 25 restrictive that it infringes upon property rights; however, the City does need to look at 26 this issue, otherwise the City will be overbuilt within 20 years. He stated that he agrees 27 with the recommendations made by Staff, and believes incentives can be used to help 28 control mansionization. He would like to see more discussion on "offsets" and setbacks, 29 specifically, second -story setbacks, and he believes the issue of flat roofs is a concern 30 that needs to be looked at. 31 32 Commissioner Ladner asked if the lot coverage ratio would change if a property were 33 made up of two lots. Mr. Whittenberg stated that you cannot build across a property line 34 unless you apply for a parcel map to create one lot, in which case, the requirements for 35 side yard setbacks increase in size. 36 37 Commissioner O'Malley presented the aspect of the environmental impacts from 38 mansionization. He stated that in Old Town it has created a problem with light and air 39 circulation. He proposed that one of the incentives should involve ensuring that any 40 new construction allows adequate light and circulation of air to neighboring homes. He 41 indicated that his main concern is with providing adequate drainage with new 42 construction on The Hill and in CPE, as there are problems with flooding in these areas 43 during winter storms. He noted that building on the entire lot takes away a lot of green 44 areas and other permeable surfaces, which contributes to less absorption and more run DR off. He encouraged creating incentives to leave more green space when new construction is to be done. 10 of 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006 Chairperson Shanks agreed that building out to the property line needs to be looked at. _ He emphasized that mansionization is an important issue that should be addressed, as 3 it will give property owners the confidence to know what they can and cannot do and will 4 . ultimately make Seal Beach a better town. 5 6 Commissioner Deaton asked why "pop outs" were eliminated in Old Town. Mr. 7 Whittenberg stated that there is a provision that allows for architectural projections by 8 right for certain types of things, like bay windows, fireplaces, etc. Commissioner Deaton 9 stated that this is a good way to not restrict square footage, yet still allow architectural 10 variation. 11 12 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would draft more information to return to the PC in 13 June or July, and he would consult with some of the local architects to get their 14 feedback on how these restrictions might affect their ability to design homes. 15 16 Commissioner O'Malley added that The Cove neighborhood also experience flooding 17 due to a lack of permeable surfaces and runoff from The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg noted 18 that Staff is aware of these issues and explained that a Charter Amendment was 19 approved during the recent election that increased the transient occupancy tax and - 20 - these funds are to be - used for drain improvements throughout community: - .... -- . - - - - - - .- 21 ; 22 Commissioner Deaton referred to the 37.5 -foot corner property referred to by Ms. Sarah - ,/ Fuller and stated that this is a problem because this three -story home is surrounded by ( single story homes. She said that if this home had a 2 or 3 story setback, it would 25 I not be a problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the issue of setbacks for corner lots in 26 Old Town could be reviewed. 27 28 Commissioner Roberts asked if the proposed standards for Old Town would be different 29 f from those for the rest of the city. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would, as the issues 30 ' are so different in this area of town. 31 32 33 STAFF CONCERNS . . 34 35 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the Planning Commission meeting for May 3, 2006, has 36 been cancelled due to a lack of business items, and the Chairperson would be 37 adjourning tonight to the regular meeting of May17, 2006. 38 39 Mr. Abbe stated that passage of Assembly Bill 1234 in 2005, requires that public 40 officials obtain two hours of ethics training, and members of the Planning Commission 41 are required to complete this training by January 1, 2007. He indicated that his law firm, 42 Richards Watson and Gershon (RWG) is offering free seminars to provide this training, 43 and noted the seminar dates at the closest locations as follows: 44 AC June 2, 2006 Cerritos, CA June 29, 2006 South Coast Plaza, Costa Mesa, CA 11 of 12 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213`" Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 8 Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 • 18 :<: 10SPIFFY I OF G No. OF LOT :,' , ;� .1t , ,�.:- £ '' ,t r .4" 6 '''� ""Allilei` , y ;,,.: . S: =Q�. •,:te ��`�- •. �' a -,• -z • 4 ' " ,'" � '� . ; - _ :pit � , -,.,: ; .,. PROPOSED PARCEL: I �;;�f � ;r 'ID b`' d ��,: �' r•,. •p"s.:;!�,�". •. �- = • HO . • ACREAGE: 0.135 A i >- PRO GRES- = ; ' �• �i '' s ,; ..:. 1,C �;� E LE •" �U V U�LJ'Ll D 2 _ _t,;:.:; ,'.. ' ;! Y: IN ` ,`TH�E CI1' OF...�S .BEACH (, • - �1, + ' {� : i:t�,. � y � 1� ., }. {•'7 f Y.f:: Y, •'' ^f!:r- LE6AL DESCRIPTION -• = •' `? : a ,. xa, ;' •, . CO 0F1'OR LOTS 30 6 32 BLOGK 13 "BAY GIr(TRAG; , . • '� • . r ' " S '''O F CALIFORNIA MM 3/19 - , - :APN.199 -081.10 , °,r + I.P�?PERT :... •,. ,•-• -.= . ;} F,( 15TIN6,•RE5IDENTIALtAPARTMENTS SITE , • ' • y} •PROPOSFDF•eCONDOHNIUM • • 132 13 ADDRESS , LEGEND L.. th • S� .;; : I' ":�:i ..y-•' . - STI,T - EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED 0 3 I DATE'' OF PREPARATION ' ZONING : ,, :. ExIST1NG TREE 2006•' . EXISTING : - RMD:y <,:Y 4 • ,BENGI,iMARIC " .. , + :" , :. ti;1 +. ". • PROPOSED BUILDING) PAD f7r'• e • •- • ', GENERAL PLAN: DE - Oc,spri ,(G- 134- 85:::NbVD, 29/1995 ocs M :! (g':. , UMI : r FN C� B 4 " OGS = ALNJhI BEPY HMARK DI5DISK 5TAMPED '; EXISTING pB RESIDENTIAL EX. SEWER MANHOLE 0 ,,w • . • 'IC 13,495% SET HV IN THE NORTE5TER1;Y• CORNER OF A 4 FT " PROPOSED- H16FI RESIQENTIA1 " ••. " t z - 'BY' 8•. FT CATCH BASIN, MONUMENT 15 LOCATED IN • ••-- v •: , • TO ' TOP OF CURB ' ; •THE EASTERI:Y, CORNER , THE INTERSECTION OF-. PACIFIC; .• BA.SIS OF- BEARING f '• 'F• ••• FL FLOW LINE ,ti :..COAST NI6F,IWAY.AND SEAL BEACH BLVD.; 45 FT.:- : • ' „ SOEASTERLY OP THE,CENTERLINE OF SEAL BEAGH BLVD, THE Ee/OWE5, SHOWN.HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING) ( XXXX) EX ELEVATION -:r U.7H AND 42 "1 T• "OP THE NORTHEAST CURB,. , ' -, ° = N31'IH 24� THE'GENTERLINE OF ism ST..AS SHOWN ON y ) • ° "Ya: •S ONES; PGN PROLON6ATED FROM THE SOUTH. MONUMENT :15 Phl NO. G)3= 1OO5�PMB 204/47 -44, RECORDS, OP ORANGE PAD F PROP05ED HOUSE • PAD ': 1 ET'LE\(EL,WITH'THE. SIDEWALK. .. • , a ELEVATION ; - 5.956'(1989 LEVELED)_• '• :'� : YC CENTER LINE • ' UTILI TY N O T ES' , OWNER'/ DEVELOPER - o a a es EX WOOD FENCE • BAS SOUTHERN■GALIFORNIA G)AS COMPANY -,, 1 , "� • ' 132 13tEi.5F:,LLG .• : • SEWER•- GIN OF SEAL BEACH '" • 1725 SO, GROVE AVE. • . - "„�! ONTARIO, GA '91761 - WATER - GITY�OF'SEAL BEACH, ' • • - - ELEGTRIGITY ••- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI5O_N COMPANY - . -4,'I'• - ENGINEER': - . • • • - .. TELO'NONE - sec. G)L'OBAL • " - _ - , • ', ,RG 61L -E BERT RGE 16104 (EXPIRES 60-07) " '" ' • • SILBERT ENGINEERING .;t ::'45E2 LINCOLN AVENUE ' - 'SUITENO. • " f GYPRE55; CALIFORNIA 90630 , - - p(TI4) 993 - 7144' ' ,. ::(562)'402 -0196' . , " ti y�y i i., ( I ' �� I I I 1 � 1 ,. ( I I Ia.29_p . .(6.9 -1) . 1 4' d ,^ t t ) L =� „ A r . M.." : I� 1 F$ II FL U I I • { I II ; . • 11 1 ` IEX. 5MH • •,V I I ;EXISTING , •. ; HOUSE " 11 I • 43.31) • I 1I ;' • • > J r J I 4 l ' (T.15)FL� BW . . ••••• h - . r . p ..ke.:,. , . : — _ — I F ••• . 1�.; / 'y .) . ' .1(j " : N 58'42'08•" W. • , , • 4 117.50'• • — — — — I (`1.05) 'Y 1�(/ (�� L P4/441 J1( /f� /L I 1� / J f / J ///////-7/// S �IEX WM .,•' I'.,, I 7 f7Tf'I TY t fYt - 1 7,t'!T 1 7lY �i�lll l.! I l II , l Illl { . J I I 1 : : ' %' :-,ry a • II • • " , I / 751 • • . Is I I 9 • // ; � . o I I 4 __ - 1 N , '' I , f EXISTING . . c d' X • • 1 Bu1LDING ro eE FF =4.20 "y " / o I , , • ( 8'5 I') • I�. I/ I SF R EMOVED . pA5ta.�0 ' GAR // I I - 95)FL \I V i p • w X '•9 • II / /I ryF EXISTING / I, f + / I I i W • 11 10' I y �I l l GARAGE // / . ) f ! 47.07) I,' 1 "" -� TO BE ! N I F$ I FL • • ••: ' > II IL- 314 1_. / / / ' _A ,'• k:i7 0 - REMOVED / pp i . • I • I . /1 !//// U //I / / //! ! I //f II /II1III ! /I / /III / { � / / 7 / 7 / / • ! r /1/7/1/7///7/////1 7 1?-7‘''' I) I i . ,a'� ''• 1 4512) • II (8.1 /)FL \I ,"' _ _ _ _'! .. 9' 117,5 tea. — I i 1 �) • . EX ST S16N , - — 3: t: • - 0 — - _ — "� d° „ ':f 1 1 I rr , " �o ' i t l : , i� Cx . fi y Y! y T r w , ,- o 1 F F L ; ` � •EX 1 S . , z tf,s: : r.X. IWM S/Wl - T.:'t;. f } +{ • i"_ " °` rt':"' ' 1 q'. = :..�i71=. ;,: , dt; - 4... 5F:"IFP f 8.76 T I f . � , , ;• .., ` y:, .. ' " I .,/ '� �s 1 NF �- r�.• t A}'P R, i '°I•,y : ��„ (.5.26)FL \I 1 : ( ; . :. •Y + em u•• t - t,G 1V ,.. 4 � . : 71 �ri : 1 I`.(1 11 • (111) I (.89)/ ;;% iii l• '4Pir i `9 ",x' ' • - . NM: DR � j l•"!-��'t ,` rc .. t 4 3'„ „� , + i •S � v., ? '�0a1Z- : 1 ; • • ', - >' . • • • . � � a �. , ,��' ':: �', : , �; R 2o' • Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160, Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 13213` Street Planning Commission Staff Report June 7, 2006 ATTACHMENT 9 Plans • 19 . . . .. 1 CI 1 . I . . 1 • 1 . - , • - - • 1 .— . III: '74 1 111 iliiii I 1 011111' I r — II . .. ._._._._._._._._ ! , ! 1, , ! 1 i : - "r "i 3 ' \ •' 1 . ! 1 , Elif 1 ,1 i ! - \ ., piiii„ ■ i pl, I i .. . • i ' '. ' i i ; . : „1 el f 9 — j . ; : : : , , : I Pi! 'Ili ..2, . . A g I i II- fq i .. -.; i 'Ili! ill i — i ■_. .-,-...: z — . . i 0 GI 0 co . ' I. ii 1 I li i 1 I 1 11, • c . 1 1 • ii 1 11111 i 1 i r.‘'..::■,:aip.rii:1111 : i I 111 1110 i I i :ll_._.; A 11 iliti " -.----lag 1i b I'll; 6 g i A 1 I ' i " 1 • 1 ; — r -'-'---- 1 i i i i 1 i i 1 141! i \ ...--....., . I/i' tip .,...... _.1 & - - • .....■■.... 1 II ifilliiii ....„ ' I ial/1 ii 1 i. II 1 II 1 1'11111 1 i - 0 ;,, I .. .1 %• 25 1 4; I . I' .. 1 r 1 • , , • li 1 t Pi 1 1 i . 1 wrimumr.sm 1 - 1 ' Id li i i i I 1 0 i i 1111' ill' 1111 ! . i 1 I 1.. 1 .141 i Ill 1 i . - :- t 1 b • i ii 1 7 ; II iii iii!.:111'11 ii ..... — 9 . i I I 11'1 111 11111 r i-r-,...___( i 111111 i 1• , \ i 1 i Pi! 1 1 . . -1 1: 1 , 11 . i 0 , . ' 2 ---I ,,..... m ...I' f , imir , IIIIIIIIIIIF ALLFf ,: - - 0 5 1 il HI, 1111 . w , -• I -- 1111111 / .... / _ ..; .'.1 8zG AS'IlEgi ifigmKi .,I leM ° 181E2 gm5 J 13 x 1 I I ° Egral ,, ,, ,,, I ..,... ,1 i• Se X.71 :11 11 CI I :; i 1 ti ;11 ; L... • -- 13 ,... 1 1 1 . 11 l l' 1, I !.., -,---_-:_-....- ..7.72. .... a • n ... . .. . ^ , _ ---,-_-'-__-" i , g?klia§liii=q-iNtf-1.---i_31-,--,..- - -•E --- ir_ , . -- =:-E ,- z-- - - - - - - - -4 - t,• : 1 _ —.1. g 1 . 1.. i i ii _ - .F -,_: ..;,- t . ._ t ,_ 5 zo 1 1 ii; yr _.=,- _,-,,,--.. --,•__ _ _ _ .... , 1 rave' .7-.., , c _ •, . — , . t I 1 ii 1 ri _ 1' r -1. ,.; — c ri I — 1/ . / , i - tl 1 r .-..' 1P e i. ii 0 4., 1 - 1 ...... i '1 :•:•. P gh. 1 i 1 : i* ,, . . [11110E11 [ ! 1 ' 11111111E irazi I 4.: 1- : 77 CI, 1 I Hitiii : MY - i --- I . ii.::::, ,:::: . E:l: HE i ..7.. E H /1 1 Ill I I I LIDE: :RE: . i Airel I= I ::::: i ° - IN i 0 num g::: • 1 4 5 :-:• 2 1111111 ! • IE [fl :igi: i' %Da I M I 1 1 At E efiii !!: 4 > :..... '''''' .. " I AM 4:::: .. i ..-. i- Q 442: ly, , . i 11 -` III li r MC:: u u — :0: m Num • .... __ 1.1 t• rdi! 1 -- 1 F; lw 1 : :. mg. kw: 10 _____ D i: 4 ,1 ,‘ ::: 1 55 ---)... 141 I!! 1 EINE , i ;. ;. ! i ,..1 'Ili ii 1 t o 41 IF IT . , ::::.: . .0.: . — 1 lig 14 ; A: - .. i : :::: ,li ,..i r' Z I - ' I l i 1 I A mai 0: Epon IIN., i .....1., , ---t :: .5 d g g . • 4 ----_, 2.00.1 41. F S- .... ..., - 3 I 44 z. 11 : : _____I , :::: 42 " P Ilill I Pr i g ) „, 1 0 :•:. I I I ; a O I ) ; i'llrAllij ' g .... . . ii 4§ . 0.: A -; ... V i" gal il 114i, - 1 :EIG\' ilni ; IP. ii , -z- Mr ir* i Mil 1' — _ I 1 ‘1,6 ;gil . l 4 i 1 1 , .'- i 1— ii ! I 1 El ki , ....'11. .., ill 11 _ ''' • : OA; — 1, - " END iii 1 o i Z CI) Mg _, 0 • i._ A..... c ....,; _ 3 1 — - :,. • (12 — I A OP 03 * ,u IN u - u ge p MI •-, .1 V. 0 1 I A ir, x 1-1 i _ i :::: • /- ;; m . m , •-1 0 !Pi < .-.:.; ..., .,.. .--I gig! P _ X 1., 9 z 0— ._____; . at '; 1111 illir g; \ . AIIII ig - 1 : [E] '11i1 :.' ) ..:- ---. f 5 i — , . - Wig se, illigi 9 ° N , „.„.. / 1 1 1 • 1 . , . " 1 8 g 5 2 1 a j 2 -7-,--------------------,_----: ----.-----_-.;---__---- T.'s.: i i i ------____. g!,1g..g e I -'. --,- "-- ''. .-._ - - -' - - 1 - - - " -'-'• _--- ----__ , i _ 17 = = c , 11'.' 1 trOilgi 1., _ L. — ---------- - ,..,.. i l PA i 4 cLVS: --- rcat rave 0, i E o o 1 '-----ovca.....-7.......—: 1\ Z z . cn .., , 1 $= 5 . -, 1714) 45543290 TeL _ '• ' -. -- — — - ---------- I# —.. .1 W . " 1 ,. 1 11 PIN: F i' a r a 3 s3 - ii6 �I:� 1 a Fs r MP Al Q 1 V.£ 41 Z ° � k = K - L'7 . i T� i''; - R> 1- P B_4 Di r g ° _ a . g gqs �1 :hi L : " g ,- -g $ a 8 a < 1,, — m � S 1 ; a > a :r, 1 r ' V! SR S I ;:; e , a Y Is 9 y ola m e i I ��y " E i SE E l'iLL iggaa , - — l z ■ p ■;:; 6 I R,; l - i i ■ ■ eld i, 4- IBM A4 i„i j g ° • F= F 4 -1 gE : 0 f a q is — .... , ._.i 0: e ' i �' k u 11 6 ',I\ .. �I l I , P n ! E ❑ ❑I� IEL:■ Jew e ms- 18 DR � 3 ,�I I j� =��� ����, :i I I . ' ;lag = 1 IMI i Er21111tiF .Ttiz:rimil 5 :�: m 11 III 1 i ini� h illy > > — r i- � ■ ■ I I1Ir� :I�tf I� '• • ■ ■ ■ 4 8 ps ir— i I` 111 == I d,! °'` ; v ligl : a P . Ai !` A gm* I/ ■ u I ,____ . :::: ? .1 , mit ': 9 ■ ■.■ ■■ r �lln �■mP, G�■�!dp V ■ . ! I ds a Or !i ' 3 - P 9 m ! - _ /J i ( i D` > S9 III II ali 1/111111 II / �� I ° r.. � - g n I I ^ I o ■ 'r 1 pW 4 11 2 5 0.51Sgigna _--- 1, .---_-- 0 4 WI A fc 0o x I.: rc r a-� Wg Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 5 WRITTEN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 7 IN FAVOR OF CUP 06 -4 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 10 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt Residential Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:15 AM CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 123 13th St A Seal Beach (SLB) Price $465,000* Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826F5 Orange County (OR) XSTS 13th Street/ Ocean Ave Aerial Map P297496 Media: 0 Builder Tract - ( -) • Bed 3 Model - ( -) No picture available. Baths 1.75 Stories Two Levels HOA Dues $ 50 + $ 0 View No View Land Fee $ ASqFt 1,274 Assessor YrBlt 1977 Assessor ALotSize 0 Assessor Dim Acres Prkng Garage Attached, Garage Door Opener Garage 2 A Rem 2 Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No Master Bedroom Downstairs/ Close To Beach/ Front Yard/ 2nd Floor Balcony 2 Car Tandem Garage. Show And Sell!! Rooms Bedrooms Master Suite Living Rm Living Room Dining Eating Area Other Laundry In Garage — • menities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Firepl Living Room Security No Security System Appliances Built -In Gas Range, Dishwasher, Gas Dryer Hook Up Other Interior /Exterior /Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling No Air Conditioning Floors Concrete Slab Roof Other -See Remarks Plumbing Patio Cond Sprinklers Doors/Windows Lot/Community /Association APNO 938 - 096 -053 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract - //- Lot Not Horse Property Legal In Special Study Area, Not In Flood Zone Mello Roos Y Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard No Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Elemen MCGAUGH Junior OAK High Sch LOSAL Amenities Units 2 HOA Dues $ 50 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $ Total Assessed Value $ 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office Baytown Realty (PB4047) Office 562 - 596 -6600 Fax Res List Agent Klisanin, Jim (ZKLISJOH) Pager 562- 795 -0767 Cell 562 - 857 -1043 Primary 562 -431 -1259 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite Priv Rmks Thank You For Showing. Price Excl Occupant Vacant Occupant Name Listing Activity List Date 6/24/2002 Date Added 6/27/2002 Tran Date 9/30/2002 DOM 32 COE: 9/27/2002 LP /SgFt $383.83 Org Price $ 509,000 Prev Price $ 499,000 Cur List Pre $489,000 • Off-market 9/27/2002 Comp 2.5% Pending /Sold Information List Price$489,000 Financing Selling Terms Cont Price $ 480,000 Begin Escrow 7/26/2002 Closed 9/27/2002 Sold Price $ 465,000 SP /SqFt $ 364.99 Sold /List 95% DOM 32 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office First Team Real Estate(PB4438) Office 562 - 596 -9911 Fax 562 - 596 -4661 Res 714- 952 -3461 Sell Agent Sheri Whitney (NWHITGUY) Pager 000 -0000 Cell 714- 290 -8584 V -Mail 000 -0000 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite 4RealEstateHelp.com The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. C 975 C T 79) 7 S) - )9 B7) http: / /www.tempo. socalmis.com/SearchDetail/ Scripts / PrtAgtFul /PrtAgtFul.asp ?UidList =80... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt Residential Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:14 AM CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 123 10th St 2 Seal Beach (SLB) Price $390,000 Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826E4 ••‘ ; Orange County (OR) XSTS E /mai n S � �' ,�,�, ; ,�•�,°j�� t.,s /pch,n /ocean Aerial Map 4 ` Q� Y F w x,,� `;,i_ ! S261194 Media: 1 Builder Tract Old Town (OT) L,''''47,--;,- .• f : � V-,.-,1.71:1.• , A'''''' Bed 2 Model 3 Unit Bldg (0) v �' .� Pte. �. r , f � ; a 1 p C R '• • '� , � r Baths 2 Stories Two Levels HOA Dues $ 100 + $ 0 i , ` : r ' � { - Vie C L hts View No View Land Fee $ (1,-,...:,..: � 1 rti l '7�: .-0, i � ' g �` j t ' .w1 . � , ,, ASqFt 1,337 Other YrBIt 1979 Estimated ::; 4 3 '� :4; ALotSize�n Dim Acres : 1 !� o ` Prkng Garage Attached, Garage Door Opener r' ' `' - Garage 2 A Rem 2 Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No Absolutely Adorable Condo In 3 Unit Building Near Beach,pier,'old Town' Shops & Restaurants.unit Shows Great & Is Spacious & 'move - in'condition. Tiled Entry,vaulted Ceiling,tiled Fireplace W /gas Logs, New White Ceramic Tile Counter Tops, Kitchen Built - ins,Iarge Pantry,large Deck W /lots Storage 2' Blinds Throughout,2 Car Tandem Garage Wlopener.nice Complex & Location ! Rooms Bedrooms Master Suite, Walk -In Closet Living Rm Living Rm Entrance, Living Room Dining Eating Area Other Inside Laundry , Storage Space Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Cable TV Firepl Living Room Security No Intercom Appliances Built -In Gas Range, Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal Other Turnkey, No Wet Bar Interior /Exterior /Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling Attic Fan, No Air Conditioning Floors Ceramic Tile, Sheet Vinyl, Wall -to -Wall Carpet Interior Misc Cathedral - Vaulted Ceilings, Window Blinds Roof Composition Plumbing Patio Patio Cond Sprinklers Front Only, Sprinkler Timer Doors/Windows Structural OtherCustom Built, Faces South LotlCommunity /Association APNO 937 - 053 -002 Zoning Lot/Block /Tract 1//10428 Lot Curbs - Walks, Alley Access, Lot Level -Flat, Ocean Side of Highway 1, Legal CC &RS, Homeowners Mello Roos Y Ocean Side of Freeway, Not Horse Property Association Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard No Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Etemen Junior High Sch LOSA MCGAUGH MCAULIF /OA g Amenities Assoc Earthquake Ins Pd, Assoc Insurance .Paid, Assoc Trash Paid Units 3 HOA Dues $ 100 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash, Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $0 Total Assessed Value $ 0 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts 0 Listing Office /Agent Info List Office Seal Beach Realty (H04830) Office 562 - 430 -2545 Fax Res List Agent Russell, Sharon (SRUSSSHA) Pager Cell Primary 000 - 000 -0000 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite www.sealbeachrealty.net Priv Rmks Sq.ft.as Per Previous Seller.appt.through Owners.spacious Well Located Up- Stairs Condo,open & Charming W /view Of City.large Master W /walk -in Closet & Dual Vanities, Whole House Fan, Centra Heat,champagne Carpet.hurry !! Price Excl Occupant Owner Occupant Name • Listing Activity List Date 9/29/2001 Date Added 9/29/2001 Tran Date 12/21/2001 DOM 21 COE: 12/20/2001 LP /SqFt $295.43 Org Price $ 395,000 Prev Price $ 395,000 Cur List Pre $395,000 Off market 12/20/2001 Comp 2.5% Pending /Sold Information List Price$395,000 Financing Selling Terms Cont Price $ 390,000 Begin Escrow 10/20/2001 Closed 12/20/2001 Sold Price $ 390,000 SP /SgFt $ 291.69 Sold /List 99% DOM 21 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Coldwell Banker Residential(0065) Office 562 - 494 -4600 Fax 562- 597 -2968 Res 714 - 301 -3115 Sell Agent Les Andre (ZANDRLES) Pager 714 - 301 -3115 Cell V -Mail 714 - 301 -3115 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite lesandre.com The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http: / /www.tempo. socalmis.com/SearchDetail/ Scripts/ PrtAgtFul /PrtAgtFul.asp ?UidList =83 ... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt - -- - - . . Residential - - - - - Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:14 AM CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 205 10th St 'c' Seal Beach (SLB) Price $380,000 Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826E4 Orange County (OR) XSTS Main / Central Aerial Map P148815 Media: 0 Builder Tract - ( -) Bed 3 Model - ( -) No picture available. Baths 2.5 Stories Two Levels HOA Dues $ 0 + $ 0 View No View Land Fee $ ASqFt 2,897 Assessor YrBlt 1975 ALotSize 4, 406 Assessor Dim Acres Prkng Garage Attached, Garage Door Opener Garage 2 A Rem 2 Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No Largest Condo In Old Town / Custom Built / Master Bedroom Suite / Loft Den Cathedral Ceilings / 2 Car Tandem Garage W /storage Space / Fresh Paint Great Location / Walk To Shopping, Beach,pier. Carpets Are Being Cleaned On 8/11/99. Do Not Show Until 8/12/99. Thank You Rooms Bedrooms Dressing Area, Master Suite Living Rm Living Rm Entrance, Living Room Dining Eating Area Other Laundry Area, Den /Ofc Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Cable TV Firepl Living Security Intercom, No Security Room System Appliances Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal, Gas Dryer Hook Up, Gas /Electric Other Range Interior/Exterior/Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling No Air Conditioning Floors Wood Interior Misc Cathedral - Vaulted Ceilings, Window Blinds Roof Plumbing Patio Patio Cond Sprinklers DoorsNVindows Structural OtherCustom Built, Termite Clearance Lot/Community /Association APNO 937 - 053 -014 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 1//197 Lot Alley Access, Not Horse Property Legal CC &RS, In Special Study Area, Not In Flood Zone Mello Roos Y Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard No Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Elemen MCGAUGH Junior OAK High Sch LOSAL Amenities Units 1 HOA Dues $ 0 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land LselYr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash, Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $ Total Assessed Value $ 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office Baytown Realty (PB4047) Office 562 -596 -6600 Fax Res List Agent Klisanin, Jim (ZKLISJOH) Pager 795 -0799 Cell Primary 562- 431 -1259 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite Price Excl Occupant Vacant Occupant Name Listing Activity List Date 7/30/1999 Date Added 8/7/1999 Tran Date 10/1/1999 DOM 32 COE: 9/30/1999 LP/SqFt $136.34 Org Price $ 395,000 Prev Price $ 395,000 Cur List Prc $395,000 Off market 9/30/1999 Comp 2.5% Pending /Sold Information List Price$395,000 Financing Selling Terms Cont Price $ 380,000 Begin Escrow 8/31/1999 Closed 9/30/1999 Sold Price $ 380,000 SP /SgFt $ 131.17 Sold /List 96% DOM 32 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Coldwell Banker(I083) Office 714 - 965 -9500 Fax 714 -965 -6364 Res 714 - 536 -0356 Sell Agent Michael Obrien (IOBRIMIC) Pager 000 -0000 Cell V -Mail 000 -0000 Agt E -Mail Agt WSite The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and/or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http : / /www. tempo. socalmis. com/S earchDetail /S cripts/PrtAgtFul/PrtAgtFul. asp ?UidList =80... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt - - • - - Residential Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:16 AM - CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 127 11th St B Seal Beach (SLB) Price $556,000 .✓ � t i �z �.,�.ikxr rn ' ru 3 -� i � i �n � � ^-^ 4� �-� - �''oX� a � Wig Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740 -6424 TGNO 826F4 " s 5 , b ; �4 A '3 Orange County (OR) XSTS N /Ocean E /Main Aerial Map G r �v 1 �� +� � t � C CM1 . h ^� F i . , ` , UZ ., :� P418559 Media: 8 Builder Tract (01) r-k, & x - '' i ; ,,, , r � ; ' Bed 2 Model (A) ∎ `{ - ' �- " 4. -- tr ` ` ' Baths 2 Stories Top Level HOA Dues 85 + , "' el , ' q p . ii k ; - V No View Land Fee $ j t, x- 7 , ASqFt 934 Assessor YrBlt 1977 Assessor ,_y. : , _ ' ' t ALotSize 2,500 Estimated Dim Acres r r , , „. Prkng Driveway, Garage Attached ,.. `� :` - '' Garage 2 A Rem 1 Spc 1 Cprt RV Acc Range $: No BACK ON THE MARKET! Custom hardwood floors have contrasting inlay accents. Granite top kitchen island has built -in gas stove, breakfast bar and plenty of storage. Custom slate kitchen sink counter and designer faucet. Custom bookshelves in living room with built -in color TV (w /o warranty). Skylights give natural Tight to hallway and bath. Remodeled bathrooms are tiled with new glass shower enclosures. Crown molding, and wood blinds in master bedroom with large walk -in closet. Rooms Bedrooms Master Suite, Walk -In Closet Living Rm Living Room Dining Breakfast Counter /Bar Other Laundry In Garage Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Cable TV, TV Satellite Dish Firepl Living Security Room Appliances Built -In Gas Range, Convection Oven, Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal, Gas Dryer Hook Up, Other Turnkey Gas /Elec Dryer Hook Up Interior /Exterior /Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling No Air Conditioning Floors Ceramic Tile, Hardwood Interior Misc Custom Window Covering, Window Drapes- Curtains, Window Shutters Roof Spanish Clay Tile Plumbing Patio Balcony, Deck, Wood Cond Sprinklers Doors/Windows Skylights Structural OtherRain Gutters LotlCommunity /Association APNO 937 -53 -010 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 186//01 Lot Alley Access, Curbs -Walks Legal CC &RS, Homeowners Association Mello Roos N Sewer In Street Paid Water District Yard Wrought Iron . HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Elemen Junior High Sch Los Alamitios Amenities Units 2 HOA Dues $ 85 + $ Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Submit Tax Amt $3673 Total Assessed Value $ 350,198 1st TD $ Type Conventional Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office First Team Real Estate (PB4438) Office 562- 596 -9911 Fax 626.608.0336 Res 626.858.5118 List Agent Woody Dahlen (pdahlwoo) Pager 000 -0000 Cell 714.878.9148 Primary 714.878.9148 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite www.MyRealtorWoody.com Priv Rmks Subject to cancellation of current escrow. Keybox at top of stairs. Key also opens side garage door. Tandem car spaces and laundry hookups closest to door. Unit B water heater is strapped to code. All interior remodeling and rear balcony from Master bedroom has City of Seal Beach permits which are available to all potential buyers upon request. Price Excl Occupant Owner Occupant Name Cali Woody 714.878.9148 Listing Activity List Date 9/27/2004 Date Added 9/27/2004 Tran Date 1/12/2005 DOM 107 COE: 2/1/2005 LP /SqFt $620.88 Org Price $ 579,900 Prev Price $ Cur List Prc $579,900 Off market 2/1/2005 Comp 3% Pending /Sold Information List Price$579,900 Financing Conventional Selling Terms Cont Price $ 556,000 Begin Escrow 1/12/2005 Closed 2/1/2005 Sold Price $ 556,000 SP /SgFt $ Sold /List 96% DOM 107 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Prudential California Realty(NB07) Office 562- 860 -2443 Fax 562- 924 -4060 Res 562 - 860 -2443 Sell Agent Deborah K Freeman (PFREEDEB) Pager 000 -0000 Cell V -Mail 000 -0000 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http: / /www. tempo. socalmis.com/SearchDetail/ Scripts /PrtAgtFul/PrtAgtFul. asp ?UidList =95 ... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt - - - Residential - - - - -- -•- - - - -- Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:17 AM . CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 127 2nd St A Seal Beach (SLB) Price $650,000 Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740 -6003 TGNO 826E4 Orange County (OR) XSTS S. PCH /E. 1ST. Aerial Map P417401 Media: 0 Builder Tract (00) Bed 3 Model (0) No picture available. Baths 1.75 Stories Two Levels HOA Dues $ 95 + $ View No View Land Fee $ ASqFt 1,234 Assessor YrBlt 1987 Assessor ALotSize 0 Dim Acres Prkng Garage Attached Garage 2 A Rem Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No Very nice condo. 3 bedroom, 1.75 bath, large tandum garage, 2 unit condo complex, lower unit A only 1/2 block to beach, beautiful Seal Beach shops and pier. Unit has front patio. Condo was remodeled 2 years ago with new appliances, counter tops, paint and carpet. Laundry in garage. • Rooms Bedrooms Living Rm Living Room Dining Breakfast Counter /Bar Other Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Firepl Security Appliances Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal Other Interior/Exterior/Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling No Air Conditioning Floors Concrete Slab, Wood Roof Composition Plumbing Patio Balcony, Concrete Slab, Deck Cond Sprinklers Doors/Windows LotlCommunity /Association APNO 938 -96 -041 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 0//194 Lot Legal CC &RS, Homeowners Association Mello Roos N Sewer In Street Paid Water District • Yard HS Dist Seal Beach Unified School District Elemen Junior High Sch Amenities Units 2 HOA Dues $ 95 + $ • Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $2639 Total Assessed Value $ 247,491 1st TD $ Type Conventional Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office Coldwell Banker Star Realty (0299) Office 562 - 804 -1385 Fax 562- 920 -7101 Res 562 - 494 -8222 List Agent Robert Austin (zaustrob) Pager 000 -0000 Cell Primary 562 - 804 -1385 Agt E -Mail Agt WSite Priv Rmks Seller has had property appraised for $740,000.00 by a certified residential Real Estate appraiser. Price Excl Occupant Owner Occupant Name Joan J Dayton 562 -431 -5627 Listing Activity List Date 9/20/2004 Date Added 9/20/2004 Tran Date 3/31/2006 DOM 78 COE: 1/31/2005 LP /SqFt $599.68 Org Price $ 740,000 Prev Price $ Cur List Prc $740,000 Off market 1/31/2005 Comp 2.5% Pending /Sold Information List Price$740,000 Financing Conventional Selling Terms • Cont Price $ 650,000 .Begin Escrow 12/7/2004 Closed 1/31/2005 • Sold Price $ 650,000 SP /SqFt $ Sold /List 88% DOM 78 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Outside Area Listings(LOUT) Office Fax Res Sell Agent Outside Area (LOUTAREA) Pager Cell V -Mail Agt E -Mail Agt WSite The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not . guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http : / /www. tempo. socalmis. com/S earchDetail/ Scripts /PrtAgtFul/PrtAgtFul. asp ?UidList =95 ... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 2 Scott Levitt -- Residential -- - -- - - - - - Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:17 AM CONDO Detached RES Closed Sale 222 7th St Seal Beach (SLB) Price $740,000 i ^ham ,---; q u 4. � , 1 Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826E4 � � � - � . : Orange County (OR) XSTS S /central & W /main wry _ 9 Y ( ) Aerial Map 4 ' - _ .7, P293417 Media: 2 Builder Tract (OT) -._ � ~ . l's Bed 4 Model (0) .`p -4 ` ` - 3 Stories Two Levels HOA Dues $ 120 + $ 0 . �;_ V iew No View Land Fee $ '1-w � x f 1 ASgFt 2,108 Estimated YrBlt 1981 Estimated � r , y ALotSize 5,875 Estimated Dim 50X117.5 Acres , - rt 4 x `� Prkng Parking Space, RV Access /Parkin Garage Attached Garage Door _ z"' ,./.., r 1 -, ' ! Opener 9 P 9, 9 , 9 yam, " - - � 'r Garage 2 A Rem 2 Spc 2 Cprt RV Acc Range $: No A 10+ Premium Throughout! Gourmet Kitchen With Granite Counters, Sub -zero, Embossed Tin Ceiling. Family Room With Fireplace, Antique Mantle, Vaulted Ceiling, Oak Wet Bar And French Doors Lead To Large Entertainment Deck. Den With French Doors Lead To Large Private Patio With Jacuzzi Hot Tub. Los Alm. Schls. Walk To Beach, shops ,restaurants,parks,library,main St. Rooms Bedrooms Main Floor Bedroom, Master Suite, Walk -In Living Rm Living Rm Entrance, Living Dining Formal Dining Rm, In Closet Room Kitchen Other Family Room, Inside Laundry , Storage Space, Workshop, Den /Ofc, Separate Family Room, Laundry In Garage Amenities Pool No Spa Private TV Cable TV, TV Antenna, TV Satellite Firepl Family Room Security No Intercom Pool Spa Dish Appliances Gas Dryer Hook Up Other Turnkey, Wet Bar, Barbecue Private, No Water Softener Interior /Exterior /Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling Ceiling Fan, No Air Floors Other Conditioning Interior Misc Cathedral - Vaulted Ceilings, Custom Window Covering Roof Wood Shakes Plumbing Patio Enclosed Patio, Patio, Brick Cond Additions /Alter, No Sprinklers Doors/Windows French Doors, Stained - Leaded Glass Additions /Alter Window Structural OtherCustom Built, 220V In Garage Lot/Community/Association APNO 938 - 096 -060 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 1/0/00240 Lot Alley Access, Ocean Side of Highway 1, Not Horse Legal Homeowners Association, Not In Flood Mello Roos Y Property Zone . Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard Wood, Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Elemen MCGAUGH Junior High Sch LOSA Amenities Assoc Insurance Paid, Assoc Maintenance Paid, Assoc Trash Paid Units 3 HOA Dues $ 120 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash, Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $4230 Total Assessed Value $ 407,975 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office RE /MAX College Park R (0021) Office 562- 594 -9447 Fax Res List Agent Kelly, Diane (ZKELLDIA) Pager 000 -0000 Cell Primary 562 - 493 -2294 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite dianekelly.com Priv Rmks Unique Property, Front House Totally Private, 2 Condos Individually Owned Off Alley On 50 Ft. Wide Lot. Price Excl Occupant Owner Occupant Name Listing Activity List Date 5/31/2002 Date Added 5/31/2002 Tran Date 7/12/2002 DOM 8 COE: 7/11/2002 LP /SqFt $379.03 Org Price $ 799,000 Prev Price $ 799,000 Cur List Prc $799,000 Off market 7/11/2002 Comp 3% Pending /Sold Information List Price$799,000 Financing Selling Terms Cont Price $ 740,000 Begin Escrow 6/8/2002 Closed 7/11/2002 Sold Price $ 740,000 SP /SgFt $ 351.04 Sold /List 93% DOM 8 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office ReMax College Park Realty(0021) Office 562 - 594 -9447 Fax 562- 594 -5955 Res 562 -493 -2294 Sell Agent Diane Kelly (ZKELLDIA) Pager 000 -0000 Cell V -Mail 000 -0000 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite dianekelly.com The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and/or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http: / /www.tempo. socalmis.com/SearchDetail/ Scripts / PrtAgtFul /PrtAgtFul.asp ?UidList =80... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt _ Residential Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:15 AM CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 1493 Seal Way Seal Beach (SLB) Price $489,000 Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826F5 �� 'IN froff �'���Y�' Orange County (OR) XSTS 12th Street/ocean Avenue Aerial Map '' ` gyp r e -. . W , tmv.tvzr.:r.,, ,P240178 Media: 1 Builder Tract Old Town (OT) 4 t - a i�� i" Bed 3 Model (0) I1 =- a ;-,•,-: '=, a / r i : it -'1 1" �:0, Baths 1.75 Stories One Level HOA Dues $ 150 + $ 0 . _ � � ,t A 1 r - , - .,,' V V Land Fee $ ' � . t, i ASqFt 1,200 Other YrBlt 1985 Estimated P I p rJt vE I tsS ';';;t:' ' 3, Y7 `�' y I , i ' � _ ° gi p k � l ALotSize 0 Assessor Dim 30 X 90 Acres . =% r "L r Til Prkng Garage Attached, Garage Door Opener `` yii -'; 3 .", • Garage 2 A Rem 2 Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No Condo On Ocean Front - location - location - location! One Of 3 In Building Very Few Condos On Seal Way /first Floor Unit -steps To Sand /2 Car Tandem Parking W /openers Rooms Bedrooms Master Suite Living Rm Living Room Dining Dining Ell Other Inside Laundry • Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Firepl Living Security No Security Room System Appliances Dishwasher, Freestanding Electric Range, Garbage Disposal, Gas Dryer Other No Water Softener Hook Up Interior/Exterior/Structural • Heating Wall Electric Cooling No Air Conditioning Floors Wall -to -Wall Carpet Roof Wood Shakes Plumbing Patio Patio, Wood Cond No Additions /Alter Sprinklers Doors/Windows Structural OtherTermite Clearance Lot/Community /Association APNO 938- 096 -063 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 1//274 Lot Not Horse Property Legal No Special Study Area Mello Roos N Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard No Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Elemen MCGAUGH Junior OAK High Sch LOSAL Amenities Units 3 HOA Dues $ 150 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $0 Total Assessed Value $ 0 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office Baytown Realty (PB4047) Office 562 - 596 -6600 Fax Res List Agent Klisanin, Jim (ZKLISJOH) Pager 562- 795 -0799 Cell Primary 562 -431 -1259 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite baytownrealty.com Priv Rmks Tenant Occupied W/2 Young Children. Shown By Appointment Only. Price Excl Occupant Tenant Occupant Name Listing Activity List Date 5/8/2001 Date Added 5/9/2001 Tran Date 6/26/2001 DOM 10 COE: 6/19/2001 LP /SqFt $407.5 Org Price $ 489,000 Prev Price $ 489,000 Cur List Prc $489,000 Off market 6/19/2001 Comp 3% Pending /Sold Information List Price$489,000 Financing Selling Terms Cont Price $ 489,000 Begin Escrow 5/18/2001 Closed 6/19/2001 Sold Price $ 489,000 SP /SgFt $ 407.50 Sold /List 100% DOM 10 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Out Of Area Office(P999) Office Fax Res Sell Agent - Out Of Area (OUTSIDE) Pager Cell V -Mail Agt E -Mail Agt WSite The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http : / /www. tempo. socalmis. com/ SearchDetail /Scripts/PrtAgtFul/PrtAgtFul. asp ?UidList =80... 6/5/2006 • Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt _ Residential _ . Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:18 AM CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 805 Ocean Ave 6 Seal Beach (SLB) Price $820,000 'y k -C " uy ' Merv-_ xt ` ' w Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826E4 ,�- � *': Orange County (OR) XSTS Main And Ocean Aerial Map''` c r y , ,,; � - -- , ' E, J ,� `�� P392102 Media: 1 Builder Tract (0) .4. - - - ''. F Bed 3 Model (0) 0-= F': ti ' , , - ,. I , 1 A li 44 � Baths 2 Stories Two Levels HOA Dues $ 150 + $ 0 ,f � ' , , r '� a r,, V Peek -A -Boo View Pier View, View Land Fee 0 S j,. g:` . ASqFt 1,225 Assessor YrBlt 1975 Assessor i , 1 - : -,fry J ' 4 ` . ' ti 4 n r �° r �`�;.° ALotSize 0 Dim Acres � "� ,mss',; +y Prkng Garage Attached Garage Door Opener 4,1-:a....- t _ _' .r Garage 2 A Rem 2 Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No Small View Of Pier And Ocean From Bay Window Seat. This Is The Rear Unit All On The Second Level. All New Tile Floors In Living, Dining And Kitchen Tile Counter Tops In Kitchen. Skylight In Kitchen. Rooms Bedrooms Dressing Area, Master Suite Living Rm Living Room Dining Breakfast Counter /Bar Other Laundry In Garage Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa TV Cable TV Firepl Living Security No Intercom, No Security Room System Appliances Dishwasher, Freestanding Gas Range, Garbage Disposal, Gas Other No Wet Bar Dryer Hook Up Interior /Exterior /Structural Heating Forced Air Cooling No Air Conditioning Floors Ceramic Tile Interior Misc Window Blinds Roof Other -See Remarks Plumbing Patio Cond No Additions /Alter Sprinklers Doors/Windows Structural OtherTermite Clearance Lot/Community /Association APNO 937 - 033 -006 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 0/0/10415 Lot Not Horse Property Legal CC &RS, Homeowners Association, No Special Study Area, Not Mello Roos Y In Flood Zone Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard No Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School Elemen MCGAUGH Junior OAK High Sch LOSA District 9 Amenities Units 6 HOA Dues $ 150 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land Lse/Yr $0 Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash, Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $921 Total Assessed Value $ 72,620 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office /Agent Info List Office First Team Real Esta (G107) Office 562 - 799 -2434 Fax Res List Agent Ross, Joyce (PROSSJOY) Pager 000 -0000 Cell 562 - 884 -7079 Primary 562 - 430 -4018 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite Priv Rmks Call Joyce To Show, Appointment Only 562 - 884 -7079 Price Excl Occupant Owner Occupant Name Call Joyce To Show Listing Activity List Date 5/8/2004 Date Added 5/14/2004 Tran Date 8/2/2004 DOM 73 COE: 8/2/2004 LP /SqFt $693.87 Org Price $ 850,000 Prev Price $ 850,000 Cur List Prc $850,000 Off market 8/2/2004 Comp 2.5% Pending /Sold Information List Price$850,000 Financing Conventional Selling Terms Standard Sale Cont Price $ 850,000 Begin Escrow 7/20/2004 Closed 8/2/2004 Sold Price $ 820,000 SP /SgFt $ 669.39 Sold /List 96% DOM 73 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Prudential California Realty(E524) Office 714 - 998 -7250 Fax 714 - 998 -0425 Res 714 - 974 -1547 Sell Agent Jeannie Averill (PAVERJEA) Pager 714 - 974 -1547 Cell 714 - 974 -1547 V -Mail 714 - 974 -1547 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http: / /www.tempo. socalmis.com/SearchDetail/ Scripts /PrtAgtFu1/PrtAgtFul.asp ?UidList =80... 6/5/2006 Full Report Page 1 of 1 Scott Levitt Residential Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:18 AM CONDO Attached RES Closed Sale 809 Ocean Ave 4 Seal Beach (SLB) Price $820,000 Seal Beach (1A) Zip 90740- TGNO 826E5 Orange County (OR) XSTS Ocean Avenue /main Street Aerial Map AT I S345762 Media: 0 Builder Tract ( *) No picture available. Bed 3 Model ( *) Baths 2 Stories Top Level HOA Dues $ 125 + $ 0 View No View Land Fee $ ASqFt 1,261 Assessor YrBlt 1975 Assessor ALotSize 0 Dim A Acres Prkng Garage Attached, Garage Door Opener Garage 2 A Rem 1 Spc Cprt RV Acc Range $: No This Is A Must See. Absolutely Adorable Seal Beach Condominium. Right Across The Street From The Seal Beach Pier. In A Desirable Location Near Shopping, Beaches, Main Street, Restaurants, And More. Beautifully Upgraded. Hardwood Floors, Crown Molding, Granite Kitchen Counters. Rooms Bedrooms Master Suite Living Rm Dining Family Kitchen Other Family Room, Laundry In Garage Amenities Pool No Pool Spa No Spa Ty Firepl Family Security No Intercom, No Security Room System Appliances Dishwasher, Freestanding Electric Range, Garbage Disposal, Gas Other Turnkey, No Wet Bar Dryer Hook Up, Microwave Interior/Exterior/Structural Heating Forced Air, Electric Cooling Central Floors Hardwood, Wall -to -Wall Carpet Roof Tar and Gravel Plumbing Patio Cond Sprinklers Doors/Windows Lot/Community/Association APNO 937- 032 -004 Zoning Lot/Block/Tract 1//10249 Lot Not Horse Property Legal Homeowners Association Mello Roos N Sewer In, Connected & Paid Water District Yard No Yard HS Dist Los Alamitos Unified School District Elemen Junior High Sch Amenities Units 4 HOA Dues $ 125 + $ 0 Land Fee Lse Trans $ Land LselYr $ Lse Ren Lse Exp Financial Information Terms Cash, Cash To New Loan Tax Amt $ Total Assessed Value $ 1st TD $ Type Interest % 2nd TD $ Type Interest % Seller Pnts Listing Office/Agent info List Office Star Real Estate Har (H45560) Office 714 - 840 -1031 Fax Res List Agent Daymude, Katrina (SDAYMKAT) Pager 000 -0000 Cell 714 - 296 -1586 Primary 714- 296 -1586 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite Priv Rmks Shown By Appointment Only. Call Katrina To See 714/296 -1586. Owner's Are Asking For A 60 Day Escrow. No Lock Box On Property. Please Do Not Disturb The Tenant. Price Excl Occupant Tenant Occupant Name Listing Activity List Date 3/22/2004 Date Added 3/24/2004 Tran Date 6/28/2004 DOM 56 COE: 6/28/2004 LP /SqFt $674.06 Org Price $ 850,000 Prev Price $ 850,000 Cur List Prc $850,000 Off market 6/28/2004 Comp 2.5% Pending /Sold Information List Price$850,000 Financing Conventional Selling Terms Cont Price $ 850,000 Begin Escrow 5/17/2004 Closed 6/28/2004 Sold Price $ 820,000 SP /SqFt $ 650.27 Sold /List 96% DOM 56 Selling Office /Agent Info Sell Office Star Real Estate Harbour Homes(H45560) Office 714 - 840 -1031 Fax 714- 846 -5249 Res 714 -514 -6290 Sell Agent Russell Rudeseal (SRUDERUS) Pager 000 -0000 Cell 714 - 514 -6290 V -Mail 714 - 840 -1031 Agt E -Mail Yes Agt WSite moveup1.com The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and /or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCaIMLS. http: / /www. tempo. socalmis. com/SearchDetail/ Scripts /PrtAgtFul/PrtAgtFul. asp ?UidList =83 ... 6/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 Property Detail Report 139 6TH ST # 2, SEAL BEACH CA 90740 -6142 Owner Information: Owner Name: GRIFFITH BOBBIE A GRIFFITH EILEEN A Mailing Address: 139 6TH ST # 2, SEAL BEACH CA 90740- 6142 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / HW Location Information: Legal Description: BAY CITY LOTS 39,41 BLK 5 (AND NLY1 /2 LOT 37 BLK 5 TR 115 County FIPS: 6059 APN: 199 - 031 -36 Census Tract/Block: 0995114006 Thomas Bros. Map #: 826 -E4 Legal Book/Page: 199 -03 / Tract #: 115 Legal Lot: 39 Tract Name: BAY CITY Legal Block: 5 Township - Range -Sect: - - Last Market Sale Information: Recording /Sale Date: 11/13/1992 / 15t Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Sale Price: $422,439 1st Mtg Term/Due Date: Sale Type: F 1st Mtg Deed Type: Document Number: 000000778220 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Deed Type: U 2nd Mtg Deed Type: Title Company: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE Lender: Seller Name: QUINN JAMES MICHAEL Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: Prior Sale Type: Prior Sale Price: $ Prior Deed Type: Prior Doc Number: Prior 1st Mtg Amt: $ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: 0 Garage Area: 0 Construct Type: FRM Living Area: 7824 Garage Type: 140 Heat Type: Building Area: 7824 Parking Type: 140 Exterior wall: STU Total Rooms: 0 Parking Spaces: 0 Building Type: Bedrooms 0 Basement Area: 0 Pool: Bath(F /H): 0/0 Bsmnt Finish Type: Pool Type: Year Built/Eff: 1965 / Foundation: CRE Air Conditioning: # of Stories: 2.0 Roof Shape: F00 Style Type: Stories Type Roof Cover: 025 Quality: QAV Units #: 8 Roof Framing: Floor: Condition: FAI Fireplace: Site Information: Zoning: R3 Acres: 0.17 Fuel Type: Property Indicator: 22 Lot Area: Sewer Type: Flood Panel ID: Lot Width /Depth: . 0 x 0 Water Type: County Use: 2 Land Use: 133 Tax Information: Assessed Value: $1,134,019 Property Tax: $13,371 Tax Year: 2005 Land Value: $843,706 Tax Area: 12007 Homestead Exemption: Improvement Value: $290,313 http:/ /maps. digitalmapcentral. com/ production / custom / socalmis /ver5.17.2 /socalmis.html 5/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Property Detail Report 134 5TH ST, SEAL BEACH CA 90740 -6121 Owner Information: Owner Name: SADOFSKI GORDON Mailing Address: 2030 RANGEVIEW DR, GLENDALE CA 91201- 1157 Phone Number: 8188411487 Vesting Codes: TR / Location Information: Legal Description: BAY CITY LOT 34 BLK 5 AND LOT 36 BLK 5(AND N1/2 LOT 32 BLK 5 TR 115 County FIPS: 6059 APN: 199 - 031 -28 Census Tract/Block: 0995114006 Thomas Bros. Map #: 826 -E4 Legal Book/Page: 199 -03 / Tract #: 115 Legal Lot: 34 Tract Name: Legal Block: 5 Township- Range -Sect: - - Last Market Sale Information: Recording /Sale Date: 07/21/1972 / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Sale Price: $ 1st Mtg Term/Due Date: Sale Type: F 1st Mtg Deed Type: Document Number: 001023600311 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Deed Type: G 2nd Mtg Deed Type: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec /Sale Date: Prior Sale Type: Prior Sale Price: $ Prior Deed Type: Prior Doc Number: Prior 1 Mtg Amt: $ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: 0 Garage Area: 1165 Construct Type: Living Area: 7576 Garage Type: 010 Heat Type: 001 Building Area: 7576 Parking Type: 010 Exterior wall: Total Rooms: 0 Parking Spaces: 0 Building Type: Bedrooms 0 Basement Area: 0 Pool: Bath(F /H): 0/0 Bsmnt Finish Type: Pool Type: Year Built/Eff: 1963 / Foundation: Air Conditioning: # of Stories: 2.0 Roof Shape: Style Type: Stories Type Roof Cover: Quality: Units #: 7 Roof Framing: Floor: Condition: Fireplace: Site Information: Zoning: Acres: 0.17 Fuel Type: Property Indicator: 22 Lot Area: Sewer Type: Flood Panel ID: 0602330226H Lot Width /Depth: 62 x 117 Water Type: County Use: 2 Land Use: 133 Tax Information: Assessed Value: $218,119 Property Tax: $3,923 Tax Year: 2005 Land Value: $76,888 Tax Area: 12007 Homestead Exemption: Improvement Value: $141,231 http: / /maps. digitalmapcentral. com/ production / custom / socalmis /ver5.17.2 /socalmis.html 5/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Property Detail Report 234 6TH ST, SEAL BEACH CA 90740 -6164 Owner Information: Owner Name: B & C PROPERTIES INC Mailing Address: PO BOX #1177, WILMINGTON CA 90748 - Phone Number: Vesting Codes: CO / Location Information: Legal Description: BAY CITY LOT 34 BLK 106(A ND LOTS 36, 38 & 40 BLK 106 TR 115 County FIPS: 6059 APN: 199 - 051 -05 Census Tract/Block: 0995115006 Thomas Bros. Map #: 826 -E4 Legal Book/Page: 199 -05 / Tract #: 115 Legal Lot: 34 Tract Name: BAY CITY Legal Block: 106 Township-Range-Sect: - - Last Market Sale Information: Recording /Sale Date: 01/02/1996 / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Sale Price: $ 1st Mtg Term/Due Date: Sale Type: F 1st Mtg Deed Type: Document Number: 000000000392 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Deed Type: G 2nd M tg Deed Type: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: COOPER & BRAIN INC Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 04/09/1976 Prior Sale Type: F Prior Sale Price: $ Prior Deed Type: Prior Doc Number: 001169900641 Prior 1st Mtg Amt: $ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: 0 Garage Area: 2717 Construct Type: Living Area: 11809 Garage Type: 001 Heat Type: Building Area: 11809 Parking Type: 001 Exterior wall: Total Rooms: 0 Parking Spaces: 0 Building Type: Bedrooms 0 Basement Area: 0 Pool: Y Bath(F /H): 0/0 Bsmnt Finish Type: Pool Type: 300 Year Built/Eff: 1964 / Foundation: Air Conditioning: # of Stories: 2.0 Roof Shape: Style Type: Stories Type Roof Cover: Quality: Units #: 17 Roof Framing: Floor: Condition: Fireplace: Site Information: Zoning: Acres: 0.27 Fuel Type: Property Indicator: 22 Lot Area: Sewer Type: Flood Panel ID: 0602330226H Lot Width /Depth: 100 x 117 Water Type: County Use: 2 Land Use: 133 Tax Information: Assessed Value: $464,216 Property Tax: $8,550 Tax Year: 2005 Land Value: $228,054 Tax Area: 12007 Homestead Exemption: Improvement Value: $236,162 http:/ /maps. digitalmapcentral. com/ production / custom / socalmis /ver5.17.2 /socalmis.html 5/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Property Detail Report 701 W OCEAN AVE, SEAL BEACH CA 90740 -6147 Owner Information: Owner Name: WALLACE RANDY LESTER Mailing Address: 501 OPAL DR, OAK POINT TX 75068- 2242 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: TR / Location Information: Legal Description: BAY CITY LOT 1 BLK 7 AND LOT 2 BLK 7 TR 115 County FIPS: 6059 APN: 199 - 033 -16 Census Tract/Block: 0995114004 Thomas Bros. Map #: 826 -E4 Legal Book/Page: 199 -03 / Tract #: 115 Legal Lot: 1 Tract Name: Legal Block: 7 Township - Range -Sect: - - Last Market Sale Information: Recording /Sale Date: / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Sale Price: $ 1st Mtg Term/Due Date: Sale Type: 1st Mtg Deed Type: Document Number: 2 "d Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Deed Type: 2nd Mtg Deed Type: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec./Sale Date: Prior Sale Type: Prior Sale Price: $ Prior Deed Type: Prior Doc Number: Prior 1st Mtg Amt: $ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: 0 Garage Area: 955 Construct Type: Living Area: 6225 Garage Type: 010 Heat Type: BHO Building Area: 6225 Parking Type: 010 Exterior wall: STU Total Rooms: 7 Parking Spaces: 0 Building Type: Bedrooms 0 Basement Area: 0 Pool: Bath(F /H): 0/0 Bsmnt Finish Type: Pool Type: Year BuilUEff: 1961 / Foundation: RAS Air Conditioning: # of Stories: 2.0 Roof Shape: Style Type: CNT Stories Type Roof Cover: 013 Quality: Units #: 7 Roof Framing: Floor: Condition: Fireplace: Y Site Information: Zoning: R -1 Acres: 0.13 Fuel Type: FEL Property Indicator: 22 Lot Area: Sewer Type: SPU Flood Panel ID: 0602330226H Lot Width /Depth: 25 x 110 Water Type: WPU County Use: 2 Land Use: 133 Tax Information: Assessed Value: $307,495 Property Tax: $4,726 Tax Year: 2005 Land Value: $128,503 Tax Area: 12007 Homestead Exemption: Improvement Value: $178,992 http: / /maps.digitalmapcentral. com/ production / custom / socalmis /ver5.17.2 /socalmis.html 5/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Property Detail Report 133 10TH ST, SEAL BEACH CA 90740 -6459 Owner Information: Owner Name: PRATHER RONALD RAY Mailing Address: 4864 LAKEMONT PL, BOISE ID 83714- 3912 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: TR / Location Information: Legal Description: BAY CITY LOT 33 BLK 9(AND LOT 35 BLK 9 TR 115 County FIPS: 6059 APN: 199- 044 -06 Census Tract/Block: 0995114002 Thomas Bros. Map #: 826 -E4 Legal Book/Page: 199 -04 / Tract #: 115 Legal Lot: 33 Tract Name: Legal Block: 9 Township - Range -Sect: - - Last Market Sale Information: Recording /Sale Date: 03/03/1972 / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Sale Price: $25,000 1st Mtg Term/Due Date: Sale Type: F 1st Mtg Deed Type: Document Number: 001002400508 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: $ / Deed Type: G 2nd Mtg Deed Type: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: Prior Sale Type: Prior Sale Price: $ Prior Deed Type: Prior Doc Number: Prior 1st Mtg Amt: $ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: 0 Garage Area: 0 Construct Type: Living Area: 6695 Garage Type: Heat Type: 001 Building Area: 6695 Parking Type: Exterior wall: Total Rooms: 0 Parking Spaces: 0 Building Type: Bedrooms 0 Basement Area: 0 Pool: Bath(F /H): 0/0 Bsmnt Finish Type: Pool Type: Year Built/Eff: 1972 / Foundation: Air Conditioning: # of Stories: 2.0 Roof Shape: Style Type: Stories Type Roof Cover: Quality: Units #: 6 Roof Framing: Floor: Condition: Fireplace: Site Information: Zoning: Acres: 0.13 Fuel Type: Property Indicator: 22 Lot Area: Sewer Type: Flood Panel ID: 0602330226H Lot Width /Depth: 50 x 117 Water Type: County Use: 2 Land Use: 133 Tax Information: Assessed Value: $230,600 Property Tax: $3,719 Tax Year: 2005 Land Value: $52,773 Tax Area: 12007 Homestead Exemption: Improvement Value: $177,827 http: // maps. digitalmapcentral.com /production/ custom / socalmis /ver5.17.2 /socalmis.html 5/17/2006 City of Seal Beach California OPERATING PROGRAM OF SERVICES BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 CITY COUNCIL Charles Antos, Mayor John Larson, Council Member (Mayor Pro Tem) Ray Ybaben, Council Member Mike Levitt, Council Member Paul Yost, Council Member Gordon Shanks, Council Member Elect • EXECUTIVE OFFICERS John B. Bahorski, City Manager Quinn Barrow, City Attomey ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL Linda Devine, City Clerk Mark K. Vukojevic, PE, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Keith A. Evanoff, LIMA, CRP, CRRA, Director of Administrative Services June Yotsuya, Assistant City Manager Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services • Joe Bailey, Lifeguard Captain Jeff Kirkpatrick, Police Chief Prepared by Department of Administrative Services Keith A. Evanoff, CIMA, CRP, CRRA Director of Administrative Services /City Treasurer Budget Transmittal Letter May 17, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council: In accordance with the City Charter Section 1002, the proposed budget was transmitted to City Council at least 35 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The proposed budget for FY 2006/07 being submitted to City Council will be subject to Council budget workshops and a public hearing prior to adoption. The budget format is composed of three separate documents: • FY 2006/07 Budget — is the traditional budget document that City Council will review and adopt as required by the City Charter. • Capital Improvement Program — provides a five -year plan for capital improvements. This five -year program outlines how the City will address its long -term capital needs. In addition, the five -year Capital Improvement Program also contains the identified needed, but unfunded, projects that the City must eventually address. • Budget in Brief — summarizes the proposed FY 2006/07 Budget and provides an overview of the budget to the members of the Seal Beach community. For detailed budget information, it is best to use the proposed FY 2006/07 Budget. Combined, these three documents are the FY 2006/07 budget package that is being submitted to City Council for consideration and approval. The proposed budget takes an optimistic approach to the City's short-term fiscal health. This is due to the hard work over the last few years to reduce expenditures, restrain spending of one- time revenues, and ensure that expenditures do not exceed revenues. This formula has resulted in the City being able to fund reserves at acceptable levels and provides for a stable fund balance. This year the City Council approved a one -year budget approach in order to change the budget cycle. In many ways, this is a transitional budget that allows the City to return to the two - year budget beginning in FY 2007/08. Although this will create some additional work by staff, it will allow new Council Members more time to study the budget prior to undergoing a budget process. The proposed budget reflects a carefully balanced budget that provides essential City services at acceptable levels. On a cautionary note, the City still needs to examine its Tong -term fiscal health. City Council Goals The City Council established four goals that provided the staff with a blueprint to guide the City over the next several years. With the assistance of a facilitator, the City Council developed the following four goals: • Deliver responsive, user - friendly customer service • Improve the quality of life for all residents • Create sustainable revenues for essential City services 1 Financial Overview In FY 2006/07, total General Fund revenues are projected to be $23.9 million. This is a $475,000 (approx.) increase from FY 2005/06. The increase in revenues is primarily due to the 9.3% increase in property taxes. The City's top three General Fund revenues sources continue to be property tax, utility user tax, and sales tax. FY 2006/07 Property Tax $6,699,000 • Utility Users Tax $4,600,000 • Sales Tax $3,600,000 In FY 2006/07, these three General Fund revenues represent $14.9 million of the $23.9 million in total General Fund revenues. The top three General Fund revenues are projected to remain unchanged in FY 2006/07. Over the next year, revenues are expected to remain fairly stable assuming no significant changes occur in the top three General Fund revenues. General Fund expenditures in FY 2006/07 are budgeted at approximately $21.8 million. Excluding transfers out to other funds, this represents an increase of approximately $2.1 million over FY 2005/06 results. This increase is predominately due to the increase in salaries (e.g., Safety employees) and PERS obligations. Water Fund revenue in FY 2006/07 is projected at approximately $5.2 million. This represents an increase of $144,000 (approx), or 2.8 %, over FY 2005/06 results. Overall, the revenues in the . • Water Fund are higher due to the water rate adjustment approved in August 2003. Expenditures • in the Water Fund are projected at approximately $3.5 million in FY 2006/07. Expenditures in the Water Fund increased by 3.8% in FY 2006/07. The Sewer Fund is projected to have revenues of approximately $1.4 million in FY 2006/07. This represents an increase of 5% over the prior year due to the increase in water rates. Expenditures in the Sewer Fund are expected to increase by 9.8 %. The Sewer Fund is projected to have a positive net income of $398,000 (approx). Tidelands Beach Fund revenues are estimated at approximately $1.3 million in FY 2006/07. The General Fund subsidy to the Tidelands Beach Fund is projected at $874,000 (approx.) with expenditures in the Tidelands Fund estimated at $1.3 million (this amount includes $250,000 for pier renovation) during FY 2006/07. Development and Economic Assumptions In the FY 2006/07 proposed budget staff has developed conservative yet realistic revenue estimates in large part due to the uncertainty of development within Seal Beach. Uncertainty exists with the following developments: the Pacific Gateway Project, the Rossmoor Shopping Center, the Regency Shopping Center, completion of Heron Pointe, and the Panattoni /Hampton Inn development. Staff cannot project when these developments will be on -line and in a position to reflect full revenue potential. As a result, staff is not comfortable projecting revenues from these developments. Once revenue figures are available from these developments, staff 5 recommends that the current revenue projections be adjusted. As City Council is aware, the Heron Pointe project (which was delayed for 18 months and is just now nearing completion) is the main reason why staff takes such a conservative approach to revenue projections. A consistent question has been raised concerning what can be done to improve Seal Beach's Tong -term fiscal health. Seal Beach has improved its fiscal health due to increased sales tax generators, which resulted from the Bixby and a portion of the Rossmoor developments. However, those revenues are starting to flatten and it is doubtful that a significant increase in sales taxes will result from these mature shopping centers. There is no doubt that without these two additional sales tax generators Seal Beach would be in a less favorable fiscal situation. Unfortunately, although the Bixby and Rossmoor shopping centers provide additional revenues needed for the City, rising PERS rates have offset the anticipated benefits. Over the long term, Seal Beach still needs to make decisions that will improve its Tong -term fiscal health. Fiscal health for Seal Beach can be achieved by reducing expenditures, increasing revenues or a combination of expenditure reduction and revenue increases. This very simple formula will bring long -term fiscal health to the City but will require difficult policy decisions to be made. Unfortunately, the revenue option is very limited due to a lack of land within the City available for development and the community's reluctance to make changes that may impact the character of the community. In California, the economic outlook is likely to remain stable in FY 2006/07. According to the Orange County Assessor in June 2001 the median home price was just over $300,000. In just four years, the median home price has more than doubled to $621,000. Within Seal Beach the 2005 median home price is $769,000. However due to the large number of pre Proposition 13 homes, the City is not recognizing the added property taxes. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for California is projected to range from 5.0 to 5.2% in fiscal year 2006/07. A larger source of concern is the cost of raw materials that has increased dramatically and negatively impacts the City's capital improvement projects. For example, concrete prices have risen 28% during the time period 2003 -2005. Diesel fuel costs have increased by 90% between 2004 -2005. Staff has significantly raised fleet fuel cost in anticipation of gasoline exceeding $3.00 a gallon. According to the Chapman Economic Forecast 2006, the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to grow at 3.4% rate. In Orange County the economic forecast is for continued growth but at modest rates. The forecast by Chapman University calls for a small decrease in housing prices, but no sudden drop in the housing market. With the national and state economies growing slowly, the proposed budget has conservatively projected revenues and expenditures. 'Acknowledgement The Executive Management Team of the City deserves special recognition for their efforts in developing revenue and expenditure projections that meet the needs of the community. The City extends a special "thank you to the Staff in the Administrative Services Department for their effort in completing the budget while simultaneously managing a growing number of significant projects. Their long hours and necessary teamwork required to bring this budget to completion is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted: y c---N John B. Bahorski City Manager 6 Analysis of Major Revenues As the spreadsheet on the opposite page reflects, the total estimated revenues and transfers in from other funds for all City Funds for FY 2006/07 is $43,300,618. General Fund revenues totaling $23,915,720 are not restricted and therefore can be used to fund the operating expenditures of the City such as fire services, police services, public works, recreation and general government administration. The Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Fund, Enterprise Funds and Redevelopment Agency Funds revenues are restricted and cannot be used for general operating expenditures. Analysis of Maior General Fund Revenues Property Taxes Property Taxes account for $6,699,000 or 28% of FY 2006/07 General Fund revenues. The California voters adopted Proposition 13 in 1978 that changed the definition of taxable value for all real property in the state. Proposition 13 defines the taxable value of real property as factored base year value or market value on lien date (January 1 whichever is lower. The base year value of property acquired before March 1, 1975 is the 1975 assessed value and the base year value of property acquired on or after March 1, 1975 is usually the market value when the property was transferred and or purchased. The factored base year value of properties that have not changed ownership since the prior January 1 is calculated by adding the value of any new construction and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase but no more than 2% per year. Included in Property Taxes, other than secured, are unsecured property taxes, supplemental assessments, Homeowners Exemption, property tax in -lieu of VLF and property tax related penalties and interest. Amount % change 2003/04 4,074,918 7,000,000 5,698,775 28.5% 6,500,000 rz 2005/06 6127 896 7.0% 6,000,000 ' . 5,500,000 `�= 2006/07 6,699,000 8.5% 5,000,000 ` 4 ,500,000 ��� 'r 4,000,000 > 3,500,000 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Budget Assumptions — As the table and graph illustrate, the City experienced a significant growth in property tax revenues from FY 2004/05 resulting from the "Triple Flip" which replaced Property Tax in -lieu of VLF. Increases after FY 2004/05 are the result of new development and increases in assessed valuation resulting from sales of property. Utility Users Tax Utility Users Tax accounts for $4,600,000 or 19% of FY 2006/07 General Fund revenues. The Utility Users Tax rate is charged to customers of electric, natural gas, and telephone companies to raise revenue for general governmental purposes of the City. The Utility Users Tax rate is 11% of the customer's monthly charges. The utility companies collect the tax and remit them to the City. 31 y City of Sear Beach Planning Commission ii • Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006 r 4. Windows. Some cities ban windows on the side walls of home to protect the privacy of neighbors; however, there are many window styles and glass types currently available such as opaque glass, including frosted and tinted glass, 4 patterned glass, and glass blocks, which can provide both Tight and privacy. • 5 6 5. Architectural Review. To ensure adequate application of bulk requirements, some 7 jurisdictions have initiated additional review and regulation requirements for 8 additions of second stories or any expansions greater than a set percentage of the 9 existing building area 9 1 In conclusion, Mr. Whittenberg presented Staff recommendations for consideration by 2 the PC for managing mansionization within the City of Seal Beach, as follows: 3 1. 1. Limit any mansionization regulations to the RLD -5000 zoned properties only (the 5 "Hill," the "Coves," College Park East, and College Park West other than potential 3 changes to roof style requirements that may be applicable within Old Town). 7 Beyond these areas, in the opinion of Staff, the pattern of existing development, lot 3 sizes and related setback and lot coverage requirements are sufficient enough that ) the perceived impacts of new home construction is substantially reduced. - • - Modifications to roof style - for the of - the structure, - even - within - the • -• - - I Old Town RMD and RHD zones, would have some significant impacts on reducing ' the perceived bulk along the street frontage. z 2. Focus on the "incentive concepts" that encourage flexibility and innovation in i preparing development plans for new 2 -story residences within the City, as i discussed above regarding "Second Story Regulations" and "Rooflines ", or consider requiring additional side yard setback for height above a certain level. If the Commission determines these suggestions are worth pursuing, Staff will return with additional information at a later study session. He then presented photographs of some of the larger homes within the City, followed by a brief review of the Supplemental Staff Report provided to the Commissioners at tonight's meeting. (Supplemental Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning • Department.) Chairperson Shanks commended Staff for the work done on the issues brought before them by the PC. Public Comments Chairperson Shanks opened for public comments. Tom Arthur stated that his concern is that the recommendations for additions not be too restrictive. He suggested including "grandfathering clauses" that would allow current homeowners to use the building standards in place at the time of their home purchase. 9of12 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006 Chairperson Shanks noted that the request for grandfathering clauses was previously proposed, and had not been implemented, so he doubts that it would happen now. He said that the proposed regulations don't appear to be too restrictive, particularly 4 concerning Old Town. 5 6 Sarah Fuller stated that her concern is with limiting the height of homes in Old Town. 7 She invited the PC to tour Landing Avenue from 12 Street to Seal Beach Boulevard 8 and to consider whether it would be appropriate to have the same rules apply to corner 9 lots as for those in the interior lots. She stated that having third story developments on 10 corner lots changes the character of the neighborhood. 11 12 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed public 13 comments. 14 15 Commissioner Comments 16 17 Commissioner Deaton stated that she does not believe mansionization is a problem in 18 Old Town; however, whatever is done, must be looked at from Old Town's perspective 19 in order to eliminate the cookie cutter look that is occurring. She referred to the plans - 20- - -- - presented for-the development-of homes- at 4Oa Drive; and - noted. that. this is --.. •- . - 21 leading to "row houses" in Old Town and everything of character is going, and she 22 would like to address this problem. - Commissioner Roberts stated that the secret to this process is to not make it so restrictive that it infringes upon property rights; however, the City does need to look at 2b this issue, otherwise the City will be overbuilt within 20 years. He stated that he agrees 27 with the recommendations made by Staff, and believes incentives can be used to help 28 control mansionization. He would like to see more discussion on "offsets" and setbacks, 29 specifically, second -story setbacks, and he believes the issue of flat roofs is a concern 30 that needs to be looked at. 31 32 Commissioner Ladner asked if the lot coverage ratio would change if a property were 33 made up of two lots. Mr. Whittenberg stated that you cannot build across a property line 34 unless you apply for a parcel map to create one lot, in which case, the requirements for 35 side yard setbacks increase in size. 36 37 Commissioner O'Malley presented the aspect of the environmental impacts from 38 mansionization. He stated that in Old Town it has created a problem with fight and air 39 circulation. He proposed that one of the incentives should involve ensuring that any 40 new construction allows adequate light and circulation of air to neighboring homes. He 41 indicated that his main concern is with providing adequate drainage with new 42 construction on The Hill and in CPE, as there are problems with flooding in these areas 43 during winter storms. He noted that building on the entire lot takes away a lot of green 44 areas and other permeable surfaces, which contributes to less absorption and more run off. He encouraged creating incentives to leave more green space when new construction is to be done. 10 of 12 ) 4 1:7 d o 0 Cl) � mLO r W > N LO >- o c0 0 4- 0 J a E N ih cn in W u o >- ca wg L N o fX 0 0 W � • � J } "v "v N N L a i C CV N o '_ DW LL C OL } c E iv E to M — I Er cv t j3 O • d = 2 O W X >' co 2 g c0 O in C O c•7 s •N - 0 ?§ cn b = N 1.0 } E ▪ CO O u) W J c� 0 O ,, 0 • c 0 0 w Q >- N O o f- CL w >_ c � w O vi 0.0 c O o v U O o W y- N m o M »_ U n 0 CO O LO O CO O) N O CA 0 CO 00 Nt' 0 CO Nt h- CO trz CV r CO O O O N 7 O CO (C T r O r r (-.1 r r T LL O O O Ni" CO O) LO 1.0 LO O N CO CO N CO CA CO a0 CO O CO O N ti O N O) t- O CO �. O O N N •ct' O 0) 1 0 N CO CO LC) CO N CO 'cr '�t' t` La (U O O Cfl d' CO CO -::: v v v v LLN M-4-N N. CO Cod' CO `' C CD CU N 0 U c C 2 —7 0 m N z O co co Ln O O LO CO CO CO N N CO N N N CO N co co M M O LO 1.0 is O O N-- CO Cr) 0) CO N CA 0) 4 co Cn C) C� N r-- r.- oo v v. CO C � j �, l^ N N t` I` N- N LO V Ln N N 0 e- t' N CO e- I a 0 u) O- W a N CO in CO O O J 0 CO co N LO CO NI' T' N d' co ti LL co O p 0 0 , c� a) CZ {a COCDCOCDCOCO p 0 co CA O co O) co O O co Cr O O r O ti CO , LO � CV N N t- CO Cf . CV C7 M of- ti CO CO e-- L li (i co O Q co r T x 0 L C O CO co .5 .' > U co C E Q a)) N a Id L en U m� ) v, vJ O C) ; 1 12 r- U ' C l / . 5 C n N- N W J L L N L L d d co • co r CO LC) CO § r r' CCf O O _ O O O J O O O O Q. C. 1 i C LL LL LL LL_ LL , O O Q . N co Co -t' , 4- r co N N N O F -p O �, - L L la N NCO C7 M O CO N r > 3 C a CL -` � - r T T N (� r �- _ Q N CO 1 — r N CO • id v\11 11 \ 1\.. 61/4 :L sams.... . amemmiliwimilso 1. , T ___.. ; , , b }:5 !� f a gog s ws=_ .. f. , \ .,,...- ,c,pliOrw 7 .,...----- ,,-!.., I /40 '4' ::: . _ . ,,,,,„_ ... . ___, F 1• l i gr n t. € fir y� , ! t.',,,,.... - - r <, 1 u , ..‘,...„, ,-,—,,,,,,,_ -,,- --,,,!,,, ,::_.,--. ._.-; <- , _ -744 Litti.: '.. 41,,,,ii.,..*:,,TrIf,.:,...., 0 - 1 1:1:41 1 .,,, c! , .)041 T �,a ',,;44,4.,N1 ?: i l z e t { R' 3 . ' f • '�` s „..,,,f.,,,,‘ SS 1 Y ' S g i ii &t�4 ` 6r. e 4 • 1 } L s J fY ' ^+rw•- ig P€ _- -.._sue •- 2 . - �r k . • F 2 K l 4 y �! • 1 TEA C \ %4144 :4Z: 1%%) k , P j ., ...., 4 L - , 1 1 / r 1 N. - ...._ „ -..., ( ri r .,...,_ i lif - . : i 1 ' 1-;'Pl*vialltr .-- J. .1 1: '...:. • '\ L — . - Li” ., . i --, ,, •.: • .4• --\ i A ‘''' \ '' f' 4 -.. , . , ..4. \ , -.•—, , I • 1 '' \ ./_. -, - • - 4,, _.— ' - -- --- , ------.-- - ----71 , '. ., ',■' • , - 1' z,... -^±,,,,:4 4.„1:_„,g_y-„,- -. ^, ,, , , ,,,'-' ,,,,, Ar= , 411 --- 'N ------- *' • . H -- 'I .'-','-- " --.----'.•`: - , \ ' \ ,\ .. ', '-:_•. , -- - --...-- -- -',...".!,.. • - . N, \ • \ 1 .• I ' I ' ' ' '':''. ' ' 10k- _ - -____ _ ,_ \ , iL....,;:r.______., , • , I . , ‘ I .,,,,----------\ --- . - „ • „. -,- -- _ ...,..,.. ,, , _ , .,-, - , ''' ,, . 4- \ ' 4 b \ \,,, ..,... ..... _ p .,...,,..____. ---- 77 - 7%.,....._ .: . ___N_.,.. • \ . ,.,., \-,_ _ . , _ s -. ,,....—____..----.....,,, .. \. ,, , .. ' - .• , , . • - 1, ,../../.,; , , . , \ 1 -. - N. ' \ ..._ . \\ ,, , i • • L "•-• • \ • . i :,''. : ' ' , ' - ' • • ' . ' "' '''', ' - • . ,,,, . ,-- ' . ' - - - • ' ,,, '' - • •'•' „., i t , . , , _ _ , • - . j ' 1 , „. _ • . - ,- , ", . - k ' ; - • I 1 ' . • , . _ _ , ' - , • , .",'.., ' . . ' . '• , ' ' ' ' • .'' • . , V ". -•,• ,,,''. ••••._ ,••• . .,,, . _ _ .' . . ' ' ,•1'. \ . , , ,, _ .. -, ,. - . • •.• .• •., I ..• ,:,■ .' , / ' # , . . , , , • , ,,,. • -. " . ' . ' ',•,.. -..”.... . . • --, - , - . • r.. • • • .- • ,, A . ' NI / • " , , - - :. '' !- ' i i -' .. • V 1, / ■ , 2 1 • '• • , '. • ,, ,', :.'- „ . , •- I. -• I ! . . • .,... ■ - . ,, ,. _ ' r • • . " ' • - - " - . ' . • , - ,. .., ' . .4 , • -, , ' - ••-, • -• " . ' , , • . , _ . ..1 ' ''.'„ - -- - ' '. "".,,, - , - ■ „ ..„ „... ... „„,--„„.. „ . - ... .... '.,..,_ _ ,:- _,•,-, -, - , „„ . „..., - .4..,, _._ , ,,,.. _..,,,,,.,., -_..._'-, - - - ' -- / : 1 ' i 1 ■ 1 ‘ ,I \ I i - '' ' I 1 ' ' 1 - _ . 1 , ' -, ' i , I ' 1 1. - ifiriiivE _ ---- ' ' -- ,. ....._ ,.. I i i 4 4,: - ',..:- ";" _ ,--- "" -- , ....----. 1 , - ..„.- :,...-.. ,-,-,,'-'-- -• _ i I ' - , - / - .-- ' '-■.- -- ,,,' .. . I i . •,, .,•-, _NOR i , , , . , ., .., / .,1.. . '..:.."..;; ,,... 1 anizzomm==2.2z tammmemmens (#74 446 .....„. 4111 11is .ot N. 1 ., .-,,, i \ , ,•,. i lk \._ - • ,--- f ,...- _ ____ ____, c‘, ,.. .... _ 0,. _ , .. 4 , , .. ,_ : , /- q,,.,,, , .. .. _ ', -,, . , . _ ._.___ ..,.- ..... r" --; -'',- '1 .1-• ', • • , , 1 ' I , : ■ \ • ' ' - ' " - . ' . f • ' ' ' ' 1, • , • • • t •• ,-• I .; ', • - -- 4 -4.•' : ''- "" ,..e ' '', ',, ...1 ,::./iil . .," , 1 , ' ...., AI & I ' I? " "d'i, k : ' t, ' ,... '7 • . ;c7 :- =4,„- -- ' ._ - . . , , .'-,-, -, --. --,,,7 ,_ ' • ,_, 1:Arf.' -..* .....4r,--. ;:-r".:;. 12 -:'- -..-- s,- - .1 „1-•sti, A, vt, ......7: . „--- . , -- c.,,,„, .../ • / i s , - „„,,,,,, .. , 1, _ ,„_:,- - . 1 ;...' '....,..,,:.. )::".1-; ' , .'..s..t - ,., \,,, "--_:,..„..-.' , ' • 1 ' . , - :''':. ,. ., 1 ' ' ' --'. t .. .....,-,,' • ,„ t..A . ...„ - • : , ,:,... r - .--: • _ ., . , .ji , ■ 1=4 --1 541 1 : .., . ", ,..*: ..,T ..A, ''.._- , . '"'' , - 11';' •:i, ( 1:4 1, ;•rf i:'," - . .- '',. `-' '-:''-.;'' f- iltlf: 4' ' ,' . A 1 • . -,‘ 3)'1 - ‘ :"..-`. '' ' l'" -%"-- •ii \ ''','• ' 4?- • i. .. 1 . ..:, •• - ... %,. •••,- . . , - .,„ N, P' '' r;•- - - (C I . --x\ -- N - _. , " , ,,,,.. R S '..•,.•.f e" .- ,.- - ...... . ... . • . / 11 I ''''' '. . 1 '" •, ...: . • ' ' .., ' 1 - f `-4.,, • - - j.: ' ; I --,:-. • - ... rt - , ' .-" ; .1 ' '''': " ; '-'-; r : , I • . , 1 (- , % 1:,; 7 :"..,• 4 0 -.- - i. . • , ,.. . . ..„. , .,.... . .,.., ., _ „. ... ..,,, I • - r , i t " if ''''• '•-• - , ' I t '.;•.!, A _ - - \ , .,.. 4 . , k ' - - ' - 0 (((f(t -• 'j.- 5 - IttfEftle i - - '''' ...' '''' - ' 5 ' 4igitrattlkEt . ,-,; . , ..T•• g ■1 I (i ''' , .-T.r.1. "•••■••■--* f 1 ( \OR ' s 't•14,„-^'-''' I- I l'i t..iri" .~....4,...- - 4 ..... - : ' ;•••.". :.:, , r . ,- win ..: ' . • ' / - A' -rc . . * 1 k . ' I _„ , A.■:. ,. 0: • ---'' II — 04fitaaliMailigillo Y ,e.i. : ;4, '::- -'` - , / --' ...„ «((r ' -'' . . : ,i• 4 - - --. 1- if -. -- - - v -3,. - ;,----.. ,.., r :i . *1 - - -= '••• As • : ', ,.:''• 10 _ _ t ' 1 .t .f"fi ' 3 '''r t ' - •;'- 7-,C4 " ". - '.. , i-. . . lst 1 (11(1 1 :/''.. 7 -1 ' -- ---:- i.:--:; L ,-,,, ,4 -, ,,IV -7- 0.. (r(tra' e---Ai,:-"-',,Q=" I T r tisl`' >j f74, „;.i. . , .-: , • rO - •-: = ,,-. - 4„:"( • - - I• 'fret (e -% .1 ,,,,,,,..., ,\. .‘,.,....., ..,_. ,.: ., „ \ ,,,,,,, , „.„,...,__ , ... ,3 i firelt• ' ."' " ' - — - i t, - . i :',., ,'''. --- — --;.-----,--,-.'• :"-_ - • c ' , - "Are_ -, . .- , . - .., , ,.• , , . ,,, :.,- . f . I, r(r )...,,, . „. ,, :,, ......„ , ...., .,c; .,_ - . / f / , BilliM71 ' .,.; I, A. f f . / 7 .' f((t i : - •. ; - - 1.,...-- ' ' ' :• . •-• .-i'',..,:•-•;,:. ...'-:',- . , '.....f. :-.- .... ,.. ,•._ _ ....,. ,.... ,,1 .. _ . • - , ,,`-- = -'' ; ' 't‘..„ .....,. • -. _- - 1111 • ,,,„. . . 4 ' -: -2 '; ..:',7' , , • 424—milk...,„— - ....7. - _- -- --- -- -- .. - f i- --',":" ""1"*„...";;..:1 - ,.-., 1 , 1 .------ - 7 - . - . - - - L ---- = -- -' - - --- "- ',' -' • '":" ' '" " - - --, ' - ":", .", .,;,,f .".11",___, , i ---. . - ='-• ‘--, - - V E/ iZ cat . 6,,',, . , -- • - '7' ■ "• __ 71 , " ?t _--_ . iNi e ',* -*-. ",..-...: .: , ..: , CLE 12, Ei - ; 1 1'''' , 4:; ,- ;4' - '-,-.4.: 1 ' . -, 4 - •-•-1,....... 44=r• -- —. '' - Itt- •••••• 1 . . ri/' -, -if:- - , p,,,,- -- '` , .--:.- : ' :•:, - . 4e--: . , - : 1 , E _ ..• ''•--- -- ' - - - , -.." 7 -iiiift- 17 -‘. , ' 1 '1 . t , . , r.,, - ,-----":.••• ...,..'-----"" ' ‘....stkil',, - i •' ' - T,'":;- A• ',--- 3' . ' _- - ,:• I ".., .-;-, ., .......,....,,,,,.-- ----,--- ,,, •,- t . ,...--;:, -- „;- „ -,-'''*' .c .V- ' ” .• . ' - t'i.:'' ' i ,, Ai; ,. i.:. ,.,-,,:,; - '...:4f;i ' ' -- .. ' -' -.1. - . , . - . . •,,,-,..' ':= •••• 4W-. J•f ', . fos...4.,),-..,401-_.,.. -- ,1", , , s ' , - .. 4 ‘ . . • , ./.. . ;_ „_, • --X- * l' 1 4'‘, : 4-- ."'',„: :_-_ _ --___-_, ::.--- -,,, '- • ..A.: ,t • :• - =.4%: , ,, t - e _ - z.= : -. -,: ,.,-,43 , - . • i t - , - _ / __.•;'' -----'''';',. (t' -:. - .- - - ' - 'g , --. : ' -:-.-. - "-- - ' ' --,,-;:,,:,---- ' ;,r,, ' - 1 • 1 " . , ,,,,-ff.:. ' ----- ----- -.' - . I . - - ,s / --,: , '''.."'„,-,--;', 1 - 4',;:' • "Jr. "'. , • , ....._ ,,, ...._„...,_, .,". r ._.,... . .,_ .. :.,.. ,........,.....„.,.,... ,._.., ...,,,,r. ..._ _,/..--- , . .-' ..' . 1).5. ,. .;:'1 , .. e , ,:z...' ,, 7 •:'1 ', :C- -••■•-•-!---,.. - , t • L ...t . , • • _ _ .,, •3- -*....__ , --• ° :1-',A,1 4 • .•';'-...''': -';'' :, --''':` ; '---` - ‘'' ''' ''''''' '::iKk;'7,',1.,:,,1:71Vi7g T ,. '-' - -': -' ' i ---- °------------ 4 " " ' 'n ' . ' 111111W ' : :,,"'„, - i i" . : : . ,- -f _-,=,,„::,1Z.:::,,,,f ,,:-,-, 2 7,-;',, i --;, _ , Ii4 e-' itt A l';: , VfZ',....--H - - - :;,..':.i , i - , ' ; ',,,. - 1,-- ' -;::. : '' ':- ir'''' ' ' . 1 11 # 11111111111WI ': ' • i;-:-‘1* :::::'' ''''.1"''.1 ..,3 .- '-',- --. ' - - 7 .. , , ,4 . ' ' -- . 71.7p7". \ \ , . . , , \ Ini.''''''''''''' -'4......,,,,_ . ''• -,::::',• Ill Ul . II 11111 IIIIII FR r - -_. : .; ' _ " , ,•'-',', \ . ' ' . '' illIl 1 IIII i MI 111 41\ il SO _,.,.,. ,, 11111%11\111E VA 1 Ili I ' ' Ultain IIIIIII INN ME IIII RR \ • iiiii NM iiitillitin MN 111111111111 111111 : - •., : i , . v ...... i .,„ 4.. ,,,... 7 :„... r... ..*"... ,..... " : „..-....,,. -- -,_ ,-.::, Ti ,- . =. -__ :,'' __ "",,,, ,,.,: i .'; • \ t l - i I 1 .:.: 1 - i ' '' 4 • 4. . ^ ' ,, 4 l I.-, 4is 11,/ ., . fling 04::-. • ) / ".. — 7 , • i l� i �I ` � ' a • t - / , si'fr °Itf: *1 i ....allialigliti,A, I •••;';-9-i, 4 441 . + r. ' •-.7: _ f {� - -` :: ,' ,.;rte �,,, "_" �""" _ j ■ 1 n i 4+4_ . .. , ■ . s i. 1 4 l if ,.,..„.r._ _. ,... , . , __,-,3,,,_, ,_ .. i.W0,7 v ., v,iii I i " • s .. -4,-, , ,- vrezel,...; , -- --7., 1:- -_,., , rt • ,, ...r ', jttl,' - - - 1 1���� $ n a ,� r r� -- " �j • 74 c� -.i� 4 < 1 s� r . .M ME t t� 4i J I p i t' 7 i f L 'G r .,. ▪ 13 �+„ yJ. • 1 111111111111mg \ 1111111111111. O a c � ▪ x < y ...,, r 1 - ,. ..a 7....i g . ry . I ■ iffy x3: W�" d .� .; e �r.'.i• , 't' s6 5 � e .S',{.- 1• . '-.° t1 t, i+ +o r r tt. ritai a F -----7, - T li ; 5 A` L I'�' ^ _.. _ . ~ '- i .1 ' • . . = � ' i ' C` Q - t r i \ ; . . t 1 . h �• ..,�jI h' r yt,. .,..,' , • �, 1 \1 i;-,`,::-.4. w I '`.. ti ,•• .: 3 f 't i vy �e. ,,, :.'• Itio....' t ' ..., • — ...-.-- ,., .:,,. ....., , .,.... I S r . sio ,, . 1 s I `a ` :. (. I w. �iw - T T`_ f F t A _ i .._ .. , . 1 . ;I x [ li ,r.. 11 .....---___ ------ _.-- ------ — -----_--?------ , - ._ - ionz,- 94, , ., .?„.,..-. --__ , t _...,_ . , , .-.._ -•,..',---; P --:---- I ‘ ?-"_'--- t' 9 . 1 • - -,-"f.". _.,.. -,i,-. 1 1 4 '. ""'.- a , *-,,,,.-. • t _. ---- toi:04:' 2 -- - _ •• - , s • - - - ---------- - ,- -.... L.,... . ' .... 4; - ' " '4 r ••'' ', ' ' " •3' ' ' Mill Inn . ;,,,:... ••-:' '1k ''. III- : ' , . EMI III 4 . • 1._ ......- , - """ •- . 0 - , - :4- 4 -- -- ..--. '" , -, -, -,-,-77--.-- , --- = -- _ — 4 10 . ---- - - --. — i . ' ... •-• . 4 ___,--- -- - ,.-- ' _____,..--A r ' ' :-.1 4"":4 AIME \ \ . -"."---- '''" " ,.. • -.. •-._,,••■. ' Z .,_,..._------........, , • .. - - • . - . ""'''' - - , - / '"1" " ' ' •!..' 4 4 — ..-- -,...t.; . 7 ,•^,..-_ 'L.:. _ ---- \ — .C/C. -- - --- - - -- - . ---, .7 -- ---_—:;-------- ,, — 0 L 1 at I - 7 - - i • , 1 - r------ - 1 • u "narm., .-:—..-;-- ' t \ 4.... I y., •••■•--- _ — ,„, - - 1 ' • ',,, . --■••■•• -- .„, _ .4 ' 1 I AK, / _ , I , I ,, i , / 2' i / ,.. - rte; . a • .�; ' ` - _ I i.., �' '• ' . p . 1p "� +��� r r or�fr. r '�s:;- ��►� � ; ° f z� • a � �. _ ,v- s-i� - t- A'V , r rr.as.ert .aa•.r - * - ;' ` _ ^_ _ 3 . t _ .< , ..,,, : -• '�$•si- .r.s.: ': -fie -tea. ' s� 1 t a a '� ,, . t. .-� �'! = te a. 'F � %• -' - � f • w itr „__;„__ t om• am, _ - - x �' �` °" „.:.t..e.._ � 4' -. . i -' �- - ; r, ,, der ._.. , - ., '^ ` +``r` -fir : , � . - .�i 6.� I' rsc : . � te e.. :dam s«• --- - - T � t _\ L FA: ill 2 , . _ % � � ++5 +J l �• � � ice` _ .air r _- t"= Y Fc - - - - _ 11 - _. _ ma y } s ue. b . � $� - ms a � = - =� }� � s '� ° '; ” - mss- ' s - =s z `� - j am -� ' y- i a-r .,e = �_- �c -'.4-Mv-7----.1"--.....,-t--7i -c" fai:-" -' -7-....,..---n:=:';1_,...-;1-'4,--7----..:'7.--=:.- .4----,-z:-iii-tii,'A.4:-a-.5-4'54.1;:tk:i---V'-ia'.1-4 -- - ' .^ s•3P -teak - r -- t-- 3s.- 1' 7, " _ "" : t �. $• Y S f i +�-A . - - c.TST' " X 'i f -f - `l i ,f' � •- �- . - frk . 1141 • ' sri r �t •�• z„,- , . a _, gy = s ' z','- a.as -...--.---.= - -- � � Td � •^• gi p �, ' � ,�. � � '' ��'� _ - �s �`_ 1 a" 3 -�' °- rte € - te - ' ^�i .rt. , � ` . l'''' ..{.. L Y F 4 _ _ S y v.� _ 3r� �� � ru 3' � c T�rxlS -'`P zs�.` .�. + '�T, '- � : .'� r �� ��'+`�i ? E�'r { a 41 � -£ � c.o -.+- _ T r+ - 3c- i. j s ue' �• c ' i - ',--,.14 � K�`- �-� - -.sue _i .."� .. .!'� ; # 34h ` ° F-�E. � '{ � �k'' -- F .JYJ _.. gam. _ / c,,(//tr 3),9 fo r x,« _ . ...._ _ _ • _ 2:----_,,,, _ ...,:„.,,,,,,„:,n,,..„.,..,,..,-.,:.= . .._ . „... , ,......,..,„7:„._.,,.e....,,,-.„,„4„,„„,,,,,_„_ , . ,-, ,,,_, ,:, ,\_. t 4 r- — ' � w t w t o .4,. i � I f..y a � , • T.s .,rp 1 - - Ili, .iitt. ..._ . , ..,,-4,..ti , i_•1 ,- i i ',. , ., ,-.- I- -', -..-','•-•,...-'''', t . • it ‘ 1 ,,,,-,_,-_,- ...,;„',..: , ._ _,-_-,,. - .1 : , ....,,,, - 4- , III I a fr _.,. „,, ; _. ,, - ty . 1 , 1„:1 , 1 , .....- , ---_.: ,...;,..:!..--7- i a 1 1 1 I . ..__ . _. -. - .— __ - _ - 3 . --, - -- --- I . -,- -. • _ a x lir • S ^ ` ....•- _ ---- ' . _ :r . _ ; " . 10 :4 . leii... f .,' 1 ..1 . 0 f r 41 .._ . • ..72. ..': : ..? ', ----1.A, ..„,_,,,,,„ ..., .„,,,,,, _ r „...,.: iii .,: lov ,.. 4,..,:ii.. " kr 1 _ :. 27. .141* • ,•_,,.,_-_, : ,...-.=',..?,.." i .....,..':,,,::' . •:.,-. - .' # A 7.7.771 - - - - ' ' - ---7- IIP'sk. ,;;;;'''' s_ 1 fig. . ".-*•• ••'••,: . ,,,, 4 - -.. „... . .. 4 ' � 1 t • , . t 1 , f 1 1• � I i . _ - : , ( 1 ) '-------, ------ C ------------ J „,,,. '''''........ ' `. ' ••• , w-._ , 4,,,,,, !„. ',., -`,...<4,„ v ..,,V ...„ . ,.§...,,, ' ' + ' :' • 't l' 1, . ' ' l .... .11,10..71.1: .. , ...W- N' q .4 '1 ".• 4. '•''..S• . 1711r. . - .,',L ..)•-,'..10.,' ."...=:,,, o ''' - - --,' - ' .'"777'71'' ' '' ' 14...•:'''''`I'N"-'' ",..7-:-.' - , ... .., . „ i No r ,,,444/(f., ..!, _• -:, . ,,,-,::::-.-',.,-iz.':„. -, • -: , L- ' : ..-. . ',., I •,-,i'T,'-• -:2i ,:.:-7,',', ,. -;.:, ' , ' : " . .-'i .... '-', - -. u. ' -:,,,,,,,,,,,.. ' • ' ,:',"-'''..':'.:::',,,,,' -, , ';.,•::::-::: ''. !i. . .. I . 1 . • • .-, '''',''' t•';': - '-`44;ii;:-..,' . ,... 71 . ' • ,1„.fir,•-. f::,. 3,,,,C;:,,,,,„,,kr 1,,,,t.:, , . , -.. , \ , • ,,,■,, ...T.'- • , .1, .,, , - ;It .' ' '''' . '''''''''' • ' A', ' ''''l f”" •-‘-:,-7:31-'is.v.0,*!:. ' ----, '`.C.' -.., . - .' ' ;',:-.1 -.,111 • 7:1::,-,_-**-',P7'.:'.:F-,',7.-''..-:::-":-.,..,... . ''',•' ..,.....,..m'if.'",. '"7 : . • 4alip gmle I I pc. k ..:,,,, , r 1 .1 ' ' • '''''' :',`,,- Si`.;• -,... ' , • 71'. • - : ,r • 1,, ,-, ..,•••,, , ' , , , - , . : •• . 1 ,... ,. ' -,-- - •,,,, Q.- -.1 , . t ,. ...--„,,,,,,2-;'-.1,:ir-7-•%:-,..:..--_,_,----zett4, :. ..,.. - , - ;..: 7 „, - _ . .._ .,-- . ... 5 ) '"--'''ll-----L:---- ). 5 ... Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 WRITTEN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 7 IN OPPOSITION TO CUP 06 -4 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 1 1 BRUCE W BOEHM K nh a: 4 PO Box 155, Seal Beach, CA 90740 -0155 131 14th Street #A, Seal Beach, CA 90740 4 Home: (562) 431-0211 Cell: (714) 337 -2388 bnrceboehm @earthlink.net June 7, 2006 Christy D. Teague, AICP cteague ©d.seal -beat h.ca_us Senior Planner (562) 431 -2527 EXT. 316 CITY OF SEAL BEACH Re: Proposed development at: 132 13th St., Seal Beach Dear Christy, My home at 131 14th Street sits directly across the alley from the proposed development. A three story, monolithic condominium complex in the middle of our block surrounded by one & two story small residential income properties would be incompatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission should deny Scott Levitt and his 132 13th Street limited liability corp.: 1) a conditional use permit to construct a two unit condo complex with a common wall; and 2) a permit to sub-divide the lot into two parcels (a change to the City's plot map). This situation represents another case of an out -of -town developer attempting to change the character of our neighborhood in order to maximize their profit at the expense of neighboring property owners. SUN reporter Charles M. Kelly described a study session held during the April 19th Planning Commission meeting in which City Development Director Lee Whittenberg recommended the commission limit mansionization regulation to certain districts specifically exduding Old Town. For Old Town, he (Lee) thought there should be restrictions on roof styles. (The staff report said a flat roof can add to the apparent mass of a house and suggested that a ban on flat roof houses might help relieve some of the problems related to mansionization.)" Is that it? Simply banning fiat roofs and requiring setbacks to mate a "building envelope" without limiting building size or reducing building height is NOT going to "relieve some of the problems related to mansionization" and stop these three (3) story monstrosities from ruining our town. In addition, Levitt's proposal reduces parking to one 448 square foot 2 Car Garage. A tandum garage is NO substitute for the current four (4) garages that each open to the alley. The proposed loss of parking is ludicrous. The Planning Commission should: 1) Limit all houses and condos to a maximum height of 25 feet regardless of lot size. OR Limit three story structures to the Avenues, Main Street and the Main St. sides of 8th & 10th Streets. AND 2) Limit livable square footage. ( Levitt's proposed —3,800 sq.ft. per condo unit is too BIG). 3) Require four garage parking spaces that open to the alley for lots >5500 sq.ft. Should the Planning Commission approve these permits against the wishes of the neighbors, we will request an appeal before the City Council. What procedure we will need to follow? Sincerely, ?pAjleS2:V/fiC 234 14 Street City o f SW Beach Seal Beach, Ca JIJN - 7 2006 90740 June 7, 2006 Development Svcs. Dear Planning Commission, I have lived in Seal Beach for 26 years and have certainly seen some changes. Many good changes and some not good. I am aware of a CUP coming before you concerning a 3 story building on 13 street. My understanding it is to be a condominium of 2 units. I am very much AGAINST condos in our Old Town Area. I also think that building a 3 story unit in the rear of a 50 foot lot is the same as giving a CUP for someone to build a 3 story on a 25 foot lot. The configuration is simply turned around. I am opposed to this building. Sincerely, (q4z6, Marcha and lan Katz b Dear Mr. Antos, Congratulations on your re- election as our Old Town councilmember. I would like to voice my opinion on overbuilding or, "mansionization ". I encourage you to maintain, and enforce,the 25 foot limit on houses and enforce laws that provide that a certain per cent of a property must remain available for proper drainage. If a person wants a bigger, or higher, house go to Manhattan Beach or some other over developed beach area. No more VARIANCES that allow over building. 25 feet is 25 feet. Also, it seems to me that if the city makes one hour parking on Fourteenth St. and Fifteenth St., between PCH and Landing, and, enforce it,the city could make a lot of money off the people that patronize MAHE and park on our residential streets. a,. S. (1101/tAlLc- / L+%1 , ..;,. 11E COP" - PETITION TO DENY CUP 06 -04 AT 132 13TH STREET The proposed condominium use with three story construction is not compatible with the neighborhood. If approved the building would exceed the present city code by 2,565 sq ft for this property creating more density. . In Dist.1 of the 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more only 6 currently have - - - -3 -- story - -- structures- -and.- these-- wer-e.- built- -on, -• the -- early--- 19.70Ls_before.- owners - .voluntarily.-_down.,___ . zoned their properties to lower densities in Old Town. -_ ..-- _-- _T. -.. _ The- planning -_commi.ssion_has. -. had increasing_ concerns .__regarding.. compatibility_ of_._ __ _._-.-.-..- structures in Old Town neighborhoods and have denied similar requests. . _ . _...._The...application is__not -.- consistent, with --the__neighborhood , since.-there, _have,__been no________ other similar two unit condominiums constructed in the Old Town. - ,.:f " -- '' - - - - .----- _._.._.. --- _ / ?/ -. - "?./) 2_.. . `__ - - . �`�G�?-. _.__._. / . _. _ . _ J.; =z _( - e � .3_.(__• .. l U - _. _ _ -.. - _-- - - -- - - -- fir v_.. _ �-.--.Z - -- _ - - 16 t 5 S - kAi Ad SEAL Rpf.-Aci4 10 7(10 - - -1 4 e 21 4 . ' a _._..._______ . iii . A _ ..A. _ , , ... L e _4___ __131 a,,,,jg .3( / , c2. , 04, e. ,..q0_ e v . _ 7 . Si , ,C) Crz' ,,,-. (_ca-i Q &i,tcz u3471 &NF) --C &I.__Ck_ 9"\)7 Y r `' - �'3 2- apv ,�e 1,d, Ste .._... .. _ - -- _ -- 10 b 4,4 eArt4.,.. . . . - - , ___. . . - - - . . _ _ _ - _ ( .7 . -( . . St41 - .-1 ..C.6i _ , _ 5 „g . _ _ e"' c . . Q..' ;..._. _ _-- .- _.� 5 ..� rte_ ti� ._ ..._._.. S _ :_ - ..._..1 v7. b_.__ ..... _.... -_ . i , i _I_ 2. __.-__._ _ ____,, j ____ / ...._____ _ _ \.b.I5t. 2 .4P_.. .. „____ _____ ...____. c5 . ___. _. . 9. 7.__&.._._ _ .. _ 2-G,,o1 , .0_ _ .11_v /pai€4,1 / , 4 33 ,,r.c....v it ,. isi _.i7 PETITION TO DENY CUP 06 -04 AT 132 13TH STREET The proposed condominium use with three story construction is not compatible with the neighborhood. If approved the building would exceed the present city code by 2,565 sq ft for this property creating more density. In Dist.1 of the 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more only 6 currently have 3 - -- story -- structures- ..and..- these -were .- built.- -on - -- the -- early. 14 -7.0. = -s- before _Awners..voluntarily_down. . zoned their properties to lower densities in Old Town. - - -. - -..- . ...The- .planning-. commission--has --had. increasing .concerns__regarding., compatibility.of. -- _ -, - _.- -__ structures in Old Town neighborhoods and have denied similar requests. . _ ... The :.application _. is. _not : consistent with the - neighborhoodsince there have been no other similar two unit condominiums constructed in the Old Town.. J 4/1-4.--eA...k....-_-&_. - ... 4 / .. ee4A,r GeJ l /m ere.e ji ..).-- / ./2- e,,,,,,,,,, 40' id, „ „ A .Y. .__ ._ .. -----_ .. ... . ..... _Me ....f..... . /1..__ _..5. ref S.e.al -._eC - _ c.... . - --_ ... Y,,&_d -- .. - -- -- _ .. _. _ ._.. _ . DJ? f..... - 5.e.aL -.. ea.o.k ...... . , ,, y eA pA ve CJ / ►. 1 / Sig) x 9. Att e A ,c.:e.ed RUA_ Ja ,. - - 1:2- /- (54 1/ .. ,Se a I Sea e4. , - -/..---) , c5. a eti g e 4 r - &Al 6047/4 ... 13 - lei 40- 01 > .. � _. . _ - .._...._ _.__ . 44 - -.. - -- ._.._...... _......_ . 3 y ... G'en_ /PQ./.- Aie TS._e l...Oe . 6_ �i b� ..... - - .ms . ate` -- _ _....._ c5D. 6' ter/ �� / /fre S a I Seiac G�..- . -. � �6 �.,�' 1 e' .,. ,SW, 171*. . ,s qo71.6 07 - .._...._ St2 ?d,70. if ( .." -,:s). C../....„.4.3,7_ S__:...,W2.1.d_.,_..._._...... .2- i) X e:----(4)A—R—.-.1 5 6 - 6 Y 0' . . . - --. - _ — _. _. PETITION TO DENY CUP 06-04 AT 132 13TH STREET The proposed condominium use with three story )construction is not compatible with the neighborhood. If approved the building would exceed the present city code by 2,565 sq ft for this property creating more density. In Dist.1 of the 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more only 6 currently have • , 3----story-structures -and- these -were built- on- the - .early . 19 -s- ... before..owners_ . voluntarily ,_down .. zoned their properties to lower densities in Old Town. The planning commission. .has. - had_increasing. concerns .regar-ding._compatibility_- of„ ___ - _ ._. structures in Old Town neighborhoods and have denied similar requests. __._ . . .... . ...._The-_ application_ is..- not.. - consistent _with. - _the.. neighborhood since.. there_ have._been . no_ - - _ ,___,_ other similar two unit condominiums constructed in the Old Town. ../ -- 1 S3 /3 _ i4- - _._.... ---- - - -- .. �f r `� ~ z-G`4.. -- - - 2- -- L5a12.. . i .V k- - -- - - - SD_ _1. .$- - - Wit_ -H -- .- - ,,CL . y - - - -- Pv, _ _4 - - ----. /50 !did'' - ... sue ).1- _&9?cb -- - - - . (6 )covek /Li - 1. \1'. 2 - Z 17 l'/32.- 7 al ,kueo- !lid., _s 45A- f.— a a - _ -.. / ._. l_ .... _ &_-.._ f i!(, -- - - 7 / _.. I `•F r3 -- z.�_.. ,s-. .e. (. :Sr lb_ S ilo ,d114 /Yff 13 (s -C-z) 3 If g co-Tr ` /5 f a 7-14 , g 0 ' __) . . _ Si.F__ . L3.42.0 Z..- ! r ; _ e� -_ � _- .... 3 ��` .._.. 3 a ds: 3..... - ... - - --. i . -- __471.____ -.. - _---- �- -I. -.S ....1.3r __-. _....__... - `_°' 4 ..)... -. 7a _. 7____. -._ r > /-5-5 / 7W r% �3,- 3 Z-g i . / . , V" f 155 -13-- 1/4 ------ 1 02 - 931-3 z? 9 r he, - VJ i(i 1% y i--,c 2 - -- cf 6 -3 2 ,‘' 1 r ._ . . ._ h_g__ _____,-_,____________//.05---.E_4„0.----_(.4/4_Iiiia.,___ _ ° Y..,:_t3o 7.-.4_,.3.g1.-._ . ... .... _ �' cdf /1/1-, _ - -- 1 . 3L . - . . . ! � . -s - ccLCs...Qfl 172 . 96 ?3 _. -7YLetAqd PETITION TO DENY CUP 06 -04 AT 132 13TH STREET The' proposed condominium use with three story construction is not compatible with the neighborhood. If approved the building would exceed the present city code by 2,565 sq ft for this property 'creating more density. In •Dist.l of the 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more only 6 currently have - -- - • - 3- -story - structures -and-these-were-built-on- .the -- early.. - 19.7.0.1s- .before. owners. _voluntarily _.down _ . zoned their properties to lower densities in Old Town. . — -- .- .._.___ The• - planning- .commission - has _.had_.incr easing.__. concerns _regarding__compatibility _of__._., .....- __ - . structures in Old Town neighborhoods and have denied similar requests. ._ ._ _ _ -__. _ _The,.- application _.is....not_consistent with the neighborhood since there have been no other similar two unit condominiums constructed in the Old Town. t a_ kVAJILAA 5 ! ) ,.. :? 5 : i 3-4 /Loi)1.-- \i_ S IS 1 A _ �. P ._..._. l3 _ _ -sue- sue....._.._ 6 . y -.es - - -- -- ,.._.. _- 1 3 �'� ... 9T 5 i3 sv z s 9 y - / . .i - tit/ /fri Ph 6 Z, ,,5 - 7/f / / 1 / 3-11. 6 ---. 7./5 4 ..._p / rale 4 , , ,/ 7 / 3 1 q Co((e .( 7 .. '‘I.x. - ' 6 .4 , - 2 e,u,„ ci 2 1 •-f--J'', s/' S YC 3 2 / v LA) 0,,,,,i.- t- v• nr. , I c rj l 3-h s` - s D . 5'U 2 ^ S 9 q' , z C, -9 it ( �/ d Evve_. '?v c.� A _ S av x3 3 I 9 , _ .__ ..___ . ,,,..______ 0 _../.7v_p__________ , .., - _..__...._.._.'„ _- __.___21 7..___._._-_.__.__-___. __-....._._ -_. _ _-_ _ .t_ _-` -_ S! _-__._.__. C1 ". _ ° - . WV) d Fes sz A ManA PETITION TO DENY CUP 06 -04 AT 132 13TE STREET The proposed condominium use with three story construction is not compatible with the neighborhood. If approved the building would exceed the present city code by 2,565 sq ft for this property creating more density. In Dist.1 of the 48 properties with widths of 50 feet or more only 6 currently have - - -•- •3 --- story•- st-- r-uctur-es- -and -- these - -were built -on -the. •early_.19.7.0!.s._ before .owners voluntarily. down..__- - zoned their properties to lower densities in Old Town. -- .. - - -- The -- planning ...commission...has._had._ increasing_- concerns __regarding_compatibility of._._. __ .. _,____ ,_ structures in Old Town neighborhoods and have denied similar requests. _ -.._ ...., .... ...__. The_ application._ is - -_ not -._ consistent. with _ the „neighborhood_ nave_ been _no___ -___ other similar two unit condominiums constructed in the Old Town. k • - / a ow- /......__________ _<' -1-='. ..., ....._..•.. .. _ .___._....t.3.0.(-_ _ ._____.._ .._.._ 4...k__.(.6_ ____..........:.,__ .........:_ _. 40 7rifc?___. ________ 4. 3.... .6e_r1AAAATA . . ' 130 - A EIR c-l-ria -Prue. ct,A" 5ach CPr qb7-zio •- 1 : / SLak.O.V., b _&P ' �l ;__ .t - E el dth _ Ace - ,_ _ � , J. _ b&-d ix . - o� 90 -w S Qe",tge-‘e. . ii. __..__.j.3 y.l. -. s-r >� -)Mzd v►_0✓ P _ 2 i Lce_a / e h ` . -9 v 79 _- 6 Robef-l- S Darmack._ larph -(Qc.t-i-;c A-r e_ . Sell 13-Qc i c.4 citY4zio rid_ i Zf 7 /z- &Ce--t4 -K C . Imo_ -.. l _. .c- e.L./_ ' U , q (,. iP (F ) 2 - c ... i.c.y,kc ve . S� �t- ) - _ E e AC C, �1 aa?Yi /o_ -.__.� •-- -- r•_ -. __.._ - -- _.__....._ loo _ _. _..... . - l .A4C : ` -?_- ._ 90 7'%O y ___/.2.______._ ilikt___Ifi_____X.I, .K-0. 5, 1 e, J3 J . ,.._ pl 4c) /02 t- S44 de 64-- Cit7c,D - f. ,'�. 4.24161c04,/ _..._... 1303 Eh m. 4 l � '•.,- ri pF'Y..�- -- -__ �l / V 4 f Iov i41'(,J QWd .__... 1301 A eckn.c kre- y .S3._. Crk. •q°1` 0 - _ ..... -.._ )-1 Public Hearings re: Appeal of Conditions on Conditional Use Permit 06 -4 and Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 -160 City Council Staff Report July 24, 2006 ATTACHMENT 7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS 06-4 Appeal.CC Staff Report - 132 Thirteenth 12 saraaaR ` v 1 au:tn •umn Ig z' gS f t y± _ ,.A 'i , .. I y 50. _ . S : z U JJ 3 r ¢ ¢ 3 E, L i l - - e ; g l i 11 i a U U W F a i i 1 1- m W I b l; I 1 n - -- �' 1 - z o = " - 1 a s I. o I I e I . I I I .. .7 1 1 , �� C R � ?�a I , \ L CI eae_ z s e il e 3 3: l \Z a ii 'jf ; 1 i t .!rc "- ° '.1 " - i ■h•Y !r ° o • > ? ice e $ L EE y� 'I / � 3 R - l g t / � 3r S f 1 i Y I � ` • ,en MU unoxm3s ° Dui %R ' g 3 - " LI ,_I_ / • I r ' 11a / AOIllO 1, ' , ..,.... , . , , ,,, A311V 1 ATTURT ' II Mt ..I ?. 11 7 ® s T i CC F1 .._._._.___. _. \ r. ! e l� ��l �� II f ;� S 1l' a- I i I III I � 1 i i i .� (; _.� ! g si i �� • I_ 1 � � ( i ,:.Il ( ! i� i JII i ( ( .._,_,.._.,�___,_,. iA " -•-•‘ i i i i i i • i i i } � a 1 9} L. _._� ._._._._._ _.J w - ! l B � I I i 3! i i N Q Z= 4 !IN.! 1 .1 i 1-7X _ I-=7J \ i il El �l s + ! ! — i i� @ m W a ; ate ..1.1 i i ( w GO D i ti �pi :—; 1 " i 1/111111i. ��E �l ( i .r- ! i iii .1 hi 3e i i i i i ( _ i i i II/ et,� , ii i i2 iiiipiiii @ i :illliII , . I r lip!! .11 _._._._. J._._._._._._._•— •— •— •— •- - -•_._ • . 1 . 1 I .. 1 .. ! • 1 ,. 1 . T . i ...111.01Mairnia . 8 ' uao �SI� y 3 co I < I . I " � � o T -1 8 / B � . ease °_,: A __ gli 1.1 RI iri al, d 8 ® g o - go ® r il i r w m I � 3 Hi iii Jr sig. IIII 11 til l i 1 - 3 y ! . '��.• v � �fl I ' „ I� n MP . H. .] 1I g g• �- f �3 MI 4 011,....; 1 _ . � , a rig i 6 Be y .. �1 p ! ^ s , •Cr' ��r 9- rh1uhhhhhuhhll z 1 - =• I—+ : ;r ? l 4 O V r ;. �= I F- i �p -1 1111 IAIIIIWIIIIIII w 1 - ME .. M. ❑ _ 111111 ' 0. :OK 11 - IN I: .p.;; •' IIIIIII N 3 : y ; Mt 0 I ' � f IL 1{1 3 r �� �I : • 4 _ I I 'lllrlll 1! i !! : : 1 1 l 11 '• . r : I, g [IIIIIWIIIIIIIII , - i " 1 I e: r 111lllllllllllii - , 1111 2° , .4 . 1. e>,;e � ill I a AA ^8 1 1 gg I ^ I .. I .. I I I I _ e , ._ _ _ cuosvcrcvr(riel_.-,-- 2 ggi '.. : 0 1 CJ 7 ___, _ , .../ z ._.- .. OSCIL-203 C229 .,=_.: Fbtagig g ;_ 1 gg i __-- e_AR-I 11 -P-= -1 1/ / - zAgif#14111,1/1 lei - - .-- L '' . Z . - 77-`,Z,- . r glg 2 ; Ig - a -- - t . 7 -- ------ - - CY7 17 ;33 -- - . ;.,_.--' agagifill i ig i •,. , g I 2 a - - . ilion ,E.I. 1 1 ;I 1100 -2 re N . - , ,_ _ „ 'higtsw 1 , 1 z - --' - ,-- - --. --L II_ w , .. u I 1 .... 1 -...-',.. 3 L :: ■ A I 7 . • (PI I . ..., i M NCO : WI - M .„•,,. 3 • Ile. . -, i Irel•Q.1 1 — r. •:-: i :e.• ( 1 — Ail 3 A 1 lg 111111111 / 11 4 1 ffl i m : :•:: 1 it I nu : - ., t. 1......ir AI 1 ,! l ial II !VOID I r• _ .5 ,... ,_ ..,, . "iv \ ...5 412 r i,...■■ 1 I,; '2 ,,.... n ...= ...._ _ .... iv •• al RD 11 n• • • • im ra ::,.." I g! ' - Z :•:. : :Egi 1 1 , 1 r. I [--':',' -.a ,, R 0 • N 1 alli ggilm maifi li_si. i= . e. g ,,,... e < _ . 1 wila g ______.-...7 I.--. - > C ... :_-E---_Imir: ::: ileretalliii t Lu ! ... ?.. L iimi ...=!.••=■.:=. 1 1 , —1 ' - .: z _ ..,4111111111m:::= 111111,='. Z.. iii •,„ „ — ___ 1._ ... t . 4.= —..:.=. • '- :: t --, i 111 =esir U' (//// .. g; ____ ,___ ... -.a. ---- III l.•-= moo I , nt' 1I =cum i• X ::: 1= L.- :-:. l■ v. 4. -- 0 I! . . i - ■I:cie k 1 ,-- e F- :-. 111 'MI , Pa iffilE- I ANNE, c ts 2 '.• •:. we 'i ! - — i L---. / :.: --- a. § ...... - 1 4 - i ::: ■11■I• •:• ---- I L=1:10 i i - I : " 1111 F 3 g . ■•: 1...m1 _. _11■••■••1113 3 ■IF i•g• l', 1 -1 S. INMI37 ! . 1.! ...- i5 1 2 ---- >VII" 0 _ , _ :., ,; , - .-.1.,* 5 I*0 ,, , , 1 ---1 ,, p,..... v WE 'A : •:•: M R IF A I 4Rib - •-• •:•g• 1 a 13 . I MIN E. 4.. " -...- r - .: ... . I 1 1 11 z . MEE • .. o ..._< lw 6 2 E.. aa .- . w %Eli ..., - — el ' i; ::711 11111_ I W -1 11 ; NI 1 ti ;I fiat 2 a i .i. . . 1E: t .. 1 w I- d . Y ! N1. ! 1 i ••,, 1 61. < LLI - All i 1L'D I- ce — u tqwR i 1 ;4 i .. o su iv; g 2 !Pm I II mi it Z "..: ..., m r :22 'WI 2 t5V 2 a 7 1 2 ••• '": •• k a - i glil § — i "1 0 0 a"Pi2 1 5 Is 313'0 E 4! i ' • 1 Id 9 i ____ ..... al g ig!fil MI 14 111! k ig 5 .! iiftgil . I . ii - . - „ • .- . • 4.1.7'17-"VVT."L''''.17;Mei...lr'Z'.-;,:a.V.r...-<-=,..-,357;"•,,,T: "•:,-1.!.) - :- .... ;. . SCALE: 1" = 10' ...*ie..... . ...- • SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS . - ,.... q .s..,-..i...4w.-1,-.• - e..:...gie,..T.:::i.o..:.; , .. - •6' ,,.• - - . ', ," 1.• i• . . •• - ....J.".• - ..V.X.-.04:::i....?.t.t.,-pay - v,I.=-7:... - .1.--...,..-.J.,...• • ..• .• - EXISTING No. OF LOTS:.-2 7 .. t "-' . . . - . . ACREAGE: 0.135 AGRES': ';1„:" . •• -., '-,,,4-, :: . .:,_' ' -. .,,„ . ..,... _ .. ' I. LI \- ° _,..4„..... :,.. ,.......... .. IN T.HET,Q ofy -. oF. BEACH LEGAL DESCRIPT1oN ...: Z.: ftifiolki';'••••!•2 - •-•: 7 !'-' 2,,i ,7'r..':.ZP;•" , :::•-• - ,.etitaN,Tr: OF,- ORANGE „ „; , ,...,;:f • '2 , ';',•:•T•i:". 7••• • ' • ' • • ". LOTS So A 52 BLOCK 15 MAY' CITYt..TNACT . -•• 4:.% .. ..1• •: .. . . S TATE • CALIFORNIA NM SAN MN. iwi • • . lkni40, RemeiettruiphrAR , • : - • .-. • , ; -.. .. I-WEND i ' --•, •;•ii ...: I • • . -• •• •,- • , • - ' • - • P32 Oth SlREET - .-".• ' r... STRUCTURE To oe FUSNOvED 0 • ... : :; " . 1- ; 171 '4; 5. 4. : .• - : - . ‘ -:'-' .... ''..' .• • - h y:UATE PRe0AWAnom ...• •• :. •. '• - zormi4es:.,'• - -r, . . . .7. .• • - EXISTINS "MEE -.. • . ;, EXJ511P45.- RHDIil •T• , .- 0 . • ,- • • / 4 - FR9POSE ' ./; :.• PROPOSED ammo PAD • ' . SE/46EAL: PI_AWDESISNATION o . • . x.o 149v0 24 -. ,/1945 OCS A/7X _ . - . • - • FND a 't 'OCit'ACIIMITat EIDCWIARK DISK STAMPED •• • • 7 oainNoiiiidi.tosi5JieilisbioeinA,L - - ex SB•ER MANHOLE 0 • ' • .,...• • 16:,104-85 IN THE NORDSIESEERLY CORNER OP ' A 4 FT . PROP0950; 1•110121301TY • " ';_/: • ii . ::0F..13 FSCONG CATgli BASIN. MONA:17 IN - TC ' 1115 05 CURB ' BASIS tiF.BEARINS ,: •-• • i •• . . FL 19.014 LINE P COAST NIONWAY.AND SEAL ar..Acti BLVD; 45 Fr : " • . ' SOUTHEASTERLY OF TI•E CENTERUNE OF SEAL BEACH SLVo, ' THE eemairesi 54/344.47.zoi4 Me liA510 ON ne seAstme ( MOW EX ELEVATION •'.1 - 450 42 FTMORTHEASTERLY OP THE NORTHEAST CURB. • • , ' ' . " 051 THE OP OW ST. AS SHOld4 ON FP FINISH FLOt7R GRADE ' :•174,0146 PCN PROLONSATE0 FROM ME scum morimare,is ' • _ ' pm No. 83-loc.2.r,io 2o4t9r-4.3 RECORDS or MANSE .: 1 . PAD PROPOSED NOME PAO :.5ET LeveL.Ram . nie SIOUX/AUG. .. _ . t - 15LEvAnow- smarms Lt , ' ..• '• - • • 'E CENTER LINE . 1 • IT Ok4ER ) EXVELOPER UTILITY mirr6 --.. - • ..• . • -:- - 0017 0 EX 140013 FENCE . ,• .,_ ,_ ;.: 102 001 SALI • . • 59 1.1ER - c+re or. sei.,_ 52., - • . • - 725 50. GROVE AVE. • " • •• • WATER - CITYCIP•SEAL BEACH. "'' - " . • • • : ONTARIO, C#:RTTSI - ' . •:, ,, . ...,. . , . • 'ELECTRJCITY - CALIFORNIA EDISON cor-trao- . - • • -INSIMEili: • . . . - , . . ... . . . , .- Flo' SILBERT lice 16104 (EXPIRES 6-30-407) ' , " . • , • . . , ' . • •.: • '' GILBERT ENSINMRIN . S . : 45.92 LINCOLN AVM! • .. • • ' • SATE No. 206 •. • . ' • CYPRESS; CALIFORNIA 40650 . , • . . . . i• ' • ..:40,1" . . • . .. ..- . . , . ••... :. 4 ,..., • . . -5 - - . • - , •5... .A . . . . . - . . • — - • . .. • -- " • - ... . • ' ''' "r• • "••-; ...1.4 . .. . _ - - . . - . • .: , .:...-4 Li E. • . •• . . • • ,• :,..‘ ILI • 1 r ii 1 1 , • , V .. .. • - . . , . ii Ko_,_2•4 , 55 .11 FL 1 1 1 • -,'.' • k i .' • 1 MOS : 1 ) =1111 . • . . d 0 1 I 1 11 !051156 . .. • .. Hasa — :- . 1 I .:i• .., 1 . 1 II ... . • .. - . • .. . - II • " _I its.3 . I II • ' 7-- 4 (5.25)T0 r t- . • • -.'i . 4 1 .. 0.15)FLI N 91.1 • • • , 11 ., "2 L0 . ill I'• " - I : N 51:542'08 V • • : ' • u7,50... . • . . • . . ci,.... ,,,a,__ • 0.) : 1 L . 1 • • . 1 EX 1 141 , .. .f , J • . it - .1 II/ / II 7 I • ,. 1 Il 1 1 .,.; -, .• . 1 . r. • 7 Y1 / . .. . , - 1 • - r • 7T77 Tri , I r ..... , 1, , • - ..1" / . . : .. -. " . , • I " . • • / / 1 t /5 1 . // - 1 ... , ; .. 1_ • I . . . • S • .. 1 r ,. 11 =::.......: EX1511N6 - . • // / k 1 - 1 BU LOINS TO 13E FF = • '1 -, • 4.9; . • " • ' • / 1, SF REmovEDI PAD .. ' &AR // I I -., .., 6 . ,4 0.4.m. ./0 ' • EY1 N • .1 1 , • - "' , '.1 • f7.95)FL N t I . 1 - % / • EXISTING /// I • . BLDG/ ri I r ' ) • I& . Fi 1 it . . .. •• . • r\p_._. 1 VH• :7 4 • / 4 / . • GARAGE 61 4,t_ ' - TO BE ft FS 1 ..: ' ; 4 • L tic-7 [ • REMOVED II/ ,i ,I / . . _A - 4 )— -- - A. .:..-. : •• . , / i . ILI ' ..;.i.• - " ,) L 2 5x cs 6-2L.-I.I 1' • /////itit ////i//////7//11//1/////////////////1/7/17//////////////////7 • —I - . • ,- : 4 -i' I I •est - ' - It` . %MP_ L \ 1 / BH \I r e'. -1 ' 1 ! '-: ' . •• a Ut t I <( , -,..?....,•A . EX ST SIGN r --- - — No_ vim) ' •' '-, .. • ..,....... I - - - - - r> 1 FL - • -- i • '' F, 1 1 ' II - •''. - • -.` ',"• ' . ' - exisliNii ...r..:_iitg,g..1,..01keig-i^:.;:-:::-•.....,.::. - • I ' - ... 1L• ‘, Ex CO SAN - .. . ......• ' - I -. • •,. - w •-'-ui::/r. ;./.- • ":." . - • .• , L .,. Ex fr _ , • ... . -... '. . ' . • - • ;.-;'.'....!....:-..iP..-4..h.;.-1,:r,...e.,e1,....,6.7 ' -" SEIEP I • I I f 6 'WM • I, ,IsAft*, ,',6 ■iri ... ......! . %.i,.., ,,ta4: ?;: , , 7 . • tri I l';;;'1,14..,WCATIVAtifttlf ,..:. '• ' •:. -'4",,I.744 T442• :' ' is1 'Hilo .. -.- •,...._ 4.i s ... =., ., .- —1 , • w- . ., -.• •4.e.S ' - • - l'I . I 1 II ,.. „ : 4„,,,....2.-*,s4, „ , ; , -,-1 .. , , 0....4,..? • • .: 1 I . .• 2.1.11 ' ''':: . t i • 4 1. e. 1 ... t. r ' . • • •direP .. .-k -...,..■ . -..-,., ••,, .6 . • . 10.1. 55 -4:141 .! , . .4 ....' i'Vt-4..Pf,: ,,,- ... . 1........ ... .. •■ ' '.-,,..A.. ... .,...,./.., Aor40 0.,., At ,,...... , , , ./7• ; .,,,,,„,: t .,1. F ia-v it ,,w„.k le: . .k. F . - • • ' ' . 1 :, 7 ' .' 44 . ' tU•': .: .•: 1 ' ' .