HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2004-04-26 #II AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 26, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: REQUEST
BY CITY COUNCIL — RECONSIDERATION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING EXPANSION AND ADDITIONS TO NON-
CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
PROPERTIES and CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
REGULATIONS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Receive and File the report of the Planning Commission regarding a request by the City
Council regarding reconsideration of Planning Commission recommendations regarding
expansion and additions to non - conforming residential condominium properties and
condominium conversion regulations.
BACKGROUND:
Overview of Previous City Council Actions:
On March 8, 2004 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1519, as was recommended
by the Planning Commission. This ordinance became effective on April 8, 2004 and
allows for additions to non - conforming single - family residential buildings and uses
subject to approval of a "Minor Plan Review" by the Planning Commission. Additions to
non - conforming multi - family properties are not allowed in any case.
At the time of adoption by the City Council of Ordinance No. 1519, a Mr. Dennis Smith,
addressed the City Council at the time of "Oral Communications" regarding his desire to
add on a bathroom at an existing two -unit condominium development that complies with
all development standards of the City, except for density, and the inability of such a
development to occur based on the language of Ordinance No. 1519.
Agenda Item -TX
Z:\My Documents \NONCONF\PC Determination .Condo Exceptions CC Staff Report doc \LW\04 -16 -04
Report from Planning Commission re •
Reconsideration of Expansion to Non - Conforming C012do112i721umS
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April26, 2004
At the time of City Council discussion on the adoption of Ordinance No. 159 there was
discussion among the City Council regarding the particular issue of expansions to
condominiums and the City Council ultimately adopted Ordinance No. 1519 and
requested the Planning Commission to reconsider the issue of allowable expansions for
condominium developments. A copy of the applicable portions of the City Council
minutes of March 8 are provided as Attachment 2 of the April 7 Planning Commission
Memorandum for the information of the City Council.
Subsequent to this action of the City Council staff has been approached by individuals
requesting review of Section 28 -2322, Conversion of Existing Apartments to
Condominiums, which was adopted on December 21, 1987, and has not been reviewed
since that time. The issue of concern is the current language within Section 28 -2322 that
prohibits consideration of a conversion of existing units to condominiums unless the
current density standards of the city are met.
Overview of Planning Commission Determinations:
On April 7, 2004 the Planning Commission received a "Memorandum" from staff
regarding the requested reconsideration, as directed by the City Council. A copy of the
Planning Commission "memorandum" is provided as Attachment B for the information
of the City Council. At the Planning Commission meeting comments were received from
5 persons speaking in opposition to and in support of the requested reconsideration
matters. A letter was also received by the Planning Commission that evening regarding
the condominium conversion issue. A copy of that letter is provided as Attachment C for
the information of the City Council.
After discussion among the Commission on the matters referred back by the City Council
it was the unanimous determination of the Planning Commission to report back to the
City Council that the Commission "reconznzend that Ordinance 1519 remain as
approved by City Council" and "to deny condominium conversions ". A Minute Excerpt
of the April .7 Planning Commission meeting is provided as Attachment A for the
information of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the City Council determines to direct staff, and ultimately the Planning Commission, to
revisit the issues regarding condominium projects as discussed at the March 8 City
Council Meeting and the April 7 Planning Commission meeting staff will need to re-
allocate its existing resources from other planning efforts underway. The major planning
effort that would be impacted would be the ability of staff to continue to focus on
reaching resolution with the Coastal Commission staff regarding preparation of the
"Local Coastal Plan ".
2
PC Determination Condo Exceptions CC Staff Repot
Determination
Report from Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration ofExpansion to Non - Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
" April 26, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council regarding its desire to provide any further direction to staff
or the Planning Commission. Receive and File the report of the Planning Commission
regarding a request by the City Council regarding reconsideration of Planning
Commission recommendations regarding expansion and additions to non - conforming
residential condominium properties and condominium conversion regulations.
ND AP PROV L. r
/
�� /l�I� LIB
e Whittenberg . %i'►� M :.: ahorski
'rirector of Development Servic - : ` Manager
/
Attachinents: (3)
Attachment A: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt — April 7, 2004
Attachment B: Planning Commission Memorandum re: Request By City
Council — Reconsideration Of Planning Commission
Recommendations Regarding Expansion And Additions To
Non - Conforming Residential Condominium Properties And
. Condominium Conversion Regulations, dated April 7, 2004
Attachment C: Letter from Ron Hanes, 121 Thirteenth Street
3
PC Determination .Condo Exceptions.CC Staff Report
Report from Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration of Expansion to Non - Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartnients to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April 26, 2004
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT
APRIL 7, 2004
"SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Request by City Council — Reconsideration of Planning Commission
Recommendations Regarding Expansion and Additions to Nonconforming
Residential Condominium Properties and Condominium Conversion
Regulations.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg stated that at the City Council (CC) meeting of March 8, 2003, it
was requested that this item be referred back to the PC for additional
consideration. He said that at that time of the CC adoption of the ordinance
regarding expansion or additions to nonconforming single - family residential
properties in town, CC concurred with the PC recommendations and adopted the
ordinance as recommended. He noted that at that same meeting a particular
individual addressed the CC regarding a nonconforming property due to density
that meets all the parking, setback, and height requirements. That individual
requested that CC reconsider this issue and CC took action to refer the matter
back to the PC for its determination. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that if the PC
wished to receive additional information on this item Staff could provide this at a
later meeting date, or the PC could state that it chooses to sustain its previous
determination. Mr. Whittenberg then stated that one of the Council members had
requested that the PC consider the conversion of condominiums for existing
properties that meet all development standards except for density. He said the
City Zoning, Ordinance now allows for conversions of existing multi -unit
properties to condominiums, but requires that the property comply with the
current density standards. He noted that most of the condominiums in the Old
Town area probably do not meet these density standards. He indicated that
Ordinance 151.9, recently passed by CC, only allows for future requests to come
before the City for expansions to nonconforming single - family residences where
the only nonconformity is a setback or a height.
Commissioner Deaton requested clarification on what the PC is being asked to
do with this issue. Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that the PC is to consider whether
the City should revisit this issue for determination if City Code should be revised
to allow for conversions when density requirements are not met.
PC Determination Condo Exceptions CC Staff Report 5
Report from Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration of Expansion to Non- Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April26, 2004
Public Comments
Mr. Jim Caviola stated that the Zoning Ordinance is the constitution by which the
property owners of the City of Seal Beach live and it should not be changed. He
said that the condo conversion issue was happening 20 years ago and was
stopped, and the project that triggered this recent hearing is a nonconforming
property that was a condo conversion and now the property owner wants to add
to it. He indicated that CC and the PC have just revisited this issue and made
the determination that there would be no provisions for expansions or additions
to nonconforming structures. He said that he felt it is devious to attempt to gain
acceptance for this type of request by stating that it is for "condominiums." He
recommended making no further changes to the nonconforming ordinance.
Ms. Mitzi Morton stated that after spending a year on finalizing Ordinance 1519,
she cannot understand why individuals wanting to convert nonconforming
properties to condominiums did not present their case during that time. She said
that after passage of Ordinance 1519 the condominiums in Old Town became
legal nonconforming structures that should not be allowed additions or
expansions.
Mr. Warren Morton also recommended denial of any requests to convert
duplexes or multi - family units into condominiums.
Mr. Dennis Smith stated that he owns a condominium duplex at 1107 Ocean
Avenue. He said that he had spoken to the CC regarding additions to
nonconforming multi - family units and based upon his comments the CC was able
to see that there was a problem with Ordinance 1519 and had directed that the
PC reconsider the issue. Mr. Smith recommended that the PC take another look
at this issue. He said that he was not an absentee landlord looking to add more
square footage but is a 15 -year condominium owner who lives in Arcadia. He
said that he. and his wife come to Seal Beach on weekends and during the
summer and would like to retire here. He said that his unit is a small, two -
bedroom, one bath condo and he would like to be able to add another bath. He
asked to present photographs of his property for review by the PC. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the PC could receive the photographs and view them as
a part of the discussion, or the PC could determine that they do not need to see
the photos. Chairperson Sharp polled the Commission. Commissioner Deaton
stated that the PC must take all of the evidence into consideration before making
a determination, so she asked to see the photographs. Commissioner Shanks
queried Mr. Smith regarding the layout of the property. Mr. Smith explained that
the structure is a duplex with two upper units. He said that the garages have a
20 -foot setback from the alley, while a neighboring home is set back only 9 feet.
He stated that there are 6 parking spaces on this 25 -foot lot: 4 tandem spaces in
the garage and 2 additional spaces outside the garage. He noted that his
6
PC Determination Condo Exceptions.CC Staff Report
•
Report from Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration ofExpansion to Non - Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April 26, 2004
neighbor to the east, which is a single - family residence (SFR), has two parking
spaces. He stated that if he adds the bathroom upstairs, the structure will extend
and additional 5 feet, leaving a 13 -foot setback from the alley. He indicated that
his property meets all other development standards, except density. He stated
that as an architect he has worked with many other cities that have made
provision for allowing expansions to legal nonconforming structures. Mr. Smith
stated that he did not believe it was fair that his neighbor who has a larger home
is allowed to make additions and Mr. Smith is not. He said that having to apply
for a Variance in order to make an addition to his home would not help as
approval on Variances are difficult to acquire. He encouraged the PC to consider
his remarks in making their determination on this issue.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that this afternoon Staff had received a written letter
from Mr. Ron Hanes, the owner of the property at 121 Thirteenth Street, who was
not able to be present tonight. He stated that Mr. Hanes requests that the PC
reconsider the issue of converting apartments to condominiums when the
property meets all development standards. Mr. Whittenberg stated. that Mr.
Hanes was planning on completing a conversion but discovered that this would
not be allowed. The Director of Development Services stated that Staff was very
clear in telling Mr. Hanes that this standard has been in place since 1987.
Ms. Mitzi Morton commented that if Mr. Smith were allowed to do as he has
proposed, she would like to enclose the three balconies on her property on
Thirteenth Street. She said that if one person were made the exception it would
lead to many others expecting to gain approval for other similar requests.
- Mr. Caviola stated that when a home is constructed there is an open space
requirement. He noted that Mr. Smith's building was constructed as an
apartment building by Mr. Erickson and has been pushed all the way forward,
leaving no open space. Chairperson Sharp noted that the PC was not
considering one piece of property, but was considering all residential properties
within the City.
Mrs. Lynn Smith stated that they had purchased their duplex-15 years ago and
have always planned on retiring in Seal Beach. She stated that if they are going
to be living in this house until they die, they would need another bathroom.
Commissioner Comments
•
Commissioner Deaton stated that after working on this issue for over one year, it
would not be a good idea to begin making exceptions. She said that the
Variance process is perfect for this use when there is a hardship. She
recommended leaving the ordinance as approved.
7
PC Determination .Condo Exceptions.CC Staff Report
Report from Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration of Expansion to Non - Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April 26, 2004
Commissioner Shanks stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner
Deaton's comments. He said Mr. Smith stated that he has 6 parking spaces, but
the cars having to be parked in a tandem configuration bothers him. He said that
this manner of parking is not very useful and does not add to Mr. Smith's
argument.
Commissioner Eagar asked if what Commissioner Deaton was proposing is that
no further study on this issue be undertaken. Commissioner Deaton stated that
at this point she is simply addressing the issue of expansions to nonconforming
uses. Commissioner Eagar stated that if the Variance process is to an option,
then he concurs with Commissioners Deaton and Shanks.
Chairperson Sharp stated that he is also is agreement.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to recommend that Ordinance 1519
remain as approved by City Council. _
MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would prepare a report to CC to be presented at
the April 26, 2004 Council meeting. He noted that the April 12, 2004 CC meeting
had been cancelled. He indicated that Ordinance 1519 does go into effect
tomorrow, and whatever the PC decision was tonight would not have affected the
ordinance taking effect. He stated that the PC still had to address the issue of
the condominium conversions.
Commissioner Deaton said that she had no problem with ownership, but when
taking these. structures out of an apartment setting and putting them into an
ownership setting the City would end up with these owners wanting to make
changes to these structures.
Chairperson Sharp stated that the issue has been addressed in the past and City
policy on this has been working and he believes that it should remain in force.
Commissioner Eagar was in agreement.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to deny condominium conversions.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8
PC Determination .Condo Exceptions.CC Stan' Report
•
Report fzonz Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration of Expansion to Non - Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April 26, 2004
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this determination would be part of the same report
to the CC for April 26, 2004."
PC Determination .Condo Exceptions CC Staff Report 9
PLANNING
SE Ai
DEPARTMENT
i: ` ��AeoR4r� ,q� y''
v \ P .
411 OW
UN ri M emorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services 60
Date: April 7, 2004
SUBJECT: REQUEST BY CITY COUNCIL — RECONSIDERATION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING EXPANSION AND ADDITIONS TO NON-
CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
PROPERTIES and CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
REGULATIONS
On March 8, 2004 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1519, as was
recommended by the Planning Commission (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review
the adopted Ordinance). This ordinance will become effective on April 8, 2004 and
allows for additions to non - conforming single - family residential buildings and uses
subject to approval of a "Minor Plan Review" by the Planning Commission. Additions
to non - conforming multi - family properties are not allowed in any case.
At the time of adoption by the City Council of Ordinance No. 1519, a Mr. Dennis
Smith, addressed the City Council at the time of "Oral Communications" regarding his
desire to add on a bathroom at an existing two -unit condominium development that
complies with all development standards of the City, except for density, and the
inability of such a development to occur based on the language of Ordinance No.
1519.
At the time of City Council discussion on the adoption of Ordinance No. 159 there
was discussion among the City Council regarding the particular issue of expansions
to condominiums and the City Council ultimately adopted Ordinance No. 1519 and
requested the Planning Commission to reconsider the issue of allowable expansions
for condominium developments. A copy of the applicable portions of the City Council
minutes of March 8 are provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the Planning
Commission.
Z:\My Documents \NONCONF\CC Request .Condominium Reconsideration.PC Memo.doc \LVNO3-29 -04
Memorandum to Planning Commission re:
Re- Consideration of Expansions of Non - Conforming Condominium Properties and
Review of Condominium Conversion Regulations
April 7, 2004
Subsequent to this action of the City Council staff has been approached by
individuals requesting review of Section 28 -2322, Conversion of Existing Apartments
to Condominiums, which was adopted on December 21, 1987, and has not been
reviewed since that time. The issue of concem is the current language within Section
28 -2322 that prohibits consideration of a conversion of existing units to
condominiums unless the current density standards of the city are met.
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction as to the desires of the
Commission regarding the following requested actions:
Re- Consideration of Expansions to Non - Conforming Condominium Developments:
Provide direction as to the further review and consideration by the Commission of
amendments to the non - conforming expansion section of the Zoning Code relating to
expansions for existing condominium developments that comply with all development
standards except density. If the Planning Commission determines to re- consider this
issue, staff will prepare a subsequent staff report for consideration at a "Study
Session" on this issue. Depending on the direction of the Planning Commission at
the conclusion of the study session, a subsequent zone text amendment public
hearing item would be scheduled for required public hearings by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Consideration of Revisions to Section 28 -2322 — Conversion of Existing Apartments
to Condominiums: Provide direction as to the further review and consideration by
the Commission of amendments to Section 28 -2322 of the Zoning Code relating to
conversion of existing apartments to condominium developments that comply with all
development standards except density. If the Planning Commission determines to
re- consider this issue, staff will prepare a subsequent staff report for consideration at
a "Study Session" on this issue. Depending on the direction of the Planning
Commission at the conclusion of the study session, a subsequent zone text
amendment public hearing item would be scheduled for required public hearings by
the Planning Commission and City Council.
Attachments: (3)
Attachment 1: Ordinance No. 1519, adopted March 8, 2004
Attachment 2: Applicable Portions of City Council Minutes of March 8, •
2004 regarding Ordinance No. 1519
Attachment 3: Section 28 -2322, Conversion of Exiting Apartments to
Condominiums
CC Request .Condominium Reconsideration.PC Memo 2
FILE COPY
ORDINANCE NUMBER?
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION
28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING
STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND
ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1)
WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to
schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning
Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non-
conforming residential uses; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this
issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to:
❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and
❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to
non - conforming residential structures related to provision of additional
parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and
WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second
"Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance
provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming
residential structures. During the study session, several individuals
indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's
desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non-
conforming structures be permitted in the future; and
WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted
on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation:
"To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the
provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal
non - conforming structures within the City. "; and
WHEREAS, On April 14; 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An
Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to
California Governinent Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major
Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain
Z•\My Documents \ORD\ZTA 04 -1 Ordinance (2nd Readmg).Non- Confommng Residences.doc \LW\02 -24 -04
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non - Confonning Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of
the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning
Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim
Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and
was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10
months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No.
1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and
WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving
a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to
legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development
standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the
density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council
determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby
taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3,
2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule
public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed
alternatives; and
WHEREAS, The City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the
enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures;
and
WHEREAS, The subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming
residential structures within the City; and
WHEREAS, The proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
January 21, 2004, and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text
Amendment 04 -1; and
WHEREAS, The said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence
received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission made the following findings:
2
ZTA 04 -1 Ordinance (2nd Reading).Non- Confonning Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non - Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
(a) Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of
the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes
inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan.
(b) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was
initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed
Zone Text Amendment.
(c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning
ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and
planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning
requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new
standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and
uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in
accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment
04 -1; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, February
23, 2004; and
WHEREAS, The City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning
Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes
of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -10. In
addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented
at the time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, At the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented,
the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City
of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to
Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming
residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in
this section.
A. Permitted Improvements.
3
ZTA 04- 1.Ordinance (2nd Reading) Non - Conforming Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non - Conforming Residences .
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to
nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as fol-
lows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit:
(a) Skylights.
(b) Solar Systems.
(c) Additional windows.
(d) Decorative exterior improvements.
(e) Building maintenance.
(f) Adding or replacing utilities.
(g) Other minor structural alterations and
improvements similar to the foregoing, as
determined by the Planning Commission.
2. Minor Structural Alterations or Improvements to
nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as
follows may be approved by the Planning Commission
pursuant to minor plan review as a consent calendar item:
(a) Open roof decks.
(b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed).
(c) Roof additions over balconies and porches.
(1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the
required rear yard setback of Planning
District 1, Residential Low Density Zone.
(d) Additional exterior doors.
(e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem
garages and carports.
(f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which
involves removal of or structural alteration to less
than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's
interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or
remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms
provided that the number does not exceed the
following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for
each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The
number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210
of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject
property is nonconforming due to density or
parking.
(g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal
or structural alteration to less than fifty percent
(50 %) of the structures interior walls.
(h) Other minor structural alterations and
improvements similar to the foregoing, as
determined by the Planning Commission.
4
ZTA 04- 1.Ordinance (2nd Reading).Non- Contommmg Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non- Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
3. Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts 1
through 7: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or
Expansions to nonconforming single - family residential
buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by
reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height
or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single - family
residential buildings and uses, including the required
setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages,
carports, and exterior stairways, may be approved by the
Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a
scheduled matter item, subject to the following:
(a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with
the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and
district in which the building or use is located.
(b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall
be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the
exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior
stairways, which shall comply with all applicable
provisions of the California Building Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of
the required with the exception of the required
California Building Code setback requirements.
(c) The existing nonconforming side yard setback may
be less than three (3) feet in width on properties
developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned
Unit Development" approvals previously granted by
the City.
4. Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High
Density Zone, Planning District 1: Structural Alterations,
• Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single -
family residential buildings and uses which are
nonconforming only by reason of building heights
exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks to
nonconforming single - family residential buildings and
uses, including the required setback for existing legal, non-
conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways, may be
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor
plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the
following:
(a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with
the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and
district in which the building or use is located.
(b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall
be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the
5
ZTA 04- 1.Ordinance (2nd Reading) Non - Conforming Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non - Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior
stairways, which shall comply with all applicable
provisions of the California Building Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of
the required with the exception of the required
California Building Code setback requirements.
(c) Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public
alley shall comply with current applicable setback
requirements."
Section 2. Repeal of Ordinance Number 1518. Ordinance Number 1518 is
hereby repealed upon the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in
accordance with applicable law.
PASSE , APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council, gf the City of Seal
Beach a meeting thereof held on the �/► —� day of
Q�I• , 2004.
), 6 0 &4:1 . 4) A.
Mayor
• " ST:
&a.? 2
Clerk
6
ZTA 04- 1.Ordinance (2nd Reading) Non - Conforming Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non - Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, doh eby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number /V9 on file in
the office of t - !_'t Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the .02 Abe
day of , 2004, and passed, approved and 4 , • o.ted by the
City Council o City of -a1 Beach at a meeting held on the
day of AMA ___ , 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers ., • i . i 0.0
r
NOES: Councilmembers,
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number Alf has been published pursuant
to the ,S.e Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836.
Ci `lerk
7
ZTA 04- 1.Ordinance (2nd Reading).Non- Confommng Residences
Memorandum to Planning Commission re:
Re- Consideration of Expansions of Non - Conforming Condominium Properties and
Review of Condominium Conversion Regulations
April 7, 2004
ATTACHMENT 2
APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 REGARDING
ORDINANCE NO. 1519
CC Request .Condominium Reconsideration.PC Memo 4
Page Three - City Council Minutes - March 8, 2004
to the number of abstention votes, said that is likely
because there is some bad blood on the Council and the
people are the victims. Mr. Caviola said he wanted to
speak about meters, no one wants meters but they were voted
in on a three /two vote, that may be alright legally but as
far as being good neighbors and living together in a
community it is insulting and tiring, the person newly
elected in College Park East has come out against meters
but apparently they will be installed thirteen days before
the new person is seated, asked that this matter be
postponed until then, the three /two vote situation is not
fair representation. Mr. Caviola stated that revenue from
meters is not based on quarters, it is based on tickets,
meters cause anxiety, this town is different, there are
other ways to raise revenues, his understanding is that the
candidate elect from District Four used to be a vice
president of TRW, managed budgets bigger than that of the
City, and had three hundred employees under him, to that he
asked the Council to just wait, the Council needs to start
working on behalf of the residents, that is the duty of the
Council. He mentioned a news article in an Orange County
paper this date about the benefit of trees in the
community, that is the kind of thing he would like to deal
with, the residents do not want meters, said they submitted
four hundred fifty signatures to the Coastal Commission,
the response of the Commission was that the City obviously
has a political problem, he asked that the meters be
postponed and the Council work together so the residents
have representation. Mr. Dennis Smith said he and his wif
own a two bedroom, one bath condominium unit on Ocean. Mr.
Smith noted that the Council will be voting on an ordinance
at this meeting that will prohibit any exterior livable
space from being added to a legal nonconforming multi-
family unit, his understanding is that this limitation
evolved about a year ago from an application for a second
story addition to a four unit complex on Electric Avenue
that was noncompliant with regard to parking and setbacks
which raised public concern, he is also aware that during
the past year there have been study sessions and hearings
which resulted in certain revisions of the ordinance. With
regard to the effect of this ordinance on his family, Mr.
Smith said even though they have owned their condo, the
upstairs unit, for fifteen years, they only spend summers
and weekends in Seal Beach, they would like to live here
CX3,2777-6 full time, would like to retire here, they love the City.
Mr. Smith said the plan was to add a bathroom, being an
C2/ ✓17)2 , architect he understands that before you make any changes
one needs to check with the Planning Department to make
r2 ,JN(/ certain that all of the regulations are known, in December
v im, J., 777/ he submitted plans to the Building Department, showed that
it is a ninety -four foot bathroom and closet addition to
the second floor of a duplex on a twenty -five by one
hundred ten foot lot, it complied with lot coverage,
parking, setbacks, heights, it has four covered parking
spaces, two guest spaces, a twenty foot setback from the
•
alley, there were no objections raised by staff nor was
there mention of moratorium or the nonconforming use issue,
he was given a copy of the Residential High Density
guidelines with a suggestion to complete the plans, submit
them and apply for a plan check. After working on the
plans for sixty hours and hiring an engineer to do
Page Four - City Council Minutes - March 8, 2004
calculations and structural design, last week he submitted
the plans to the City, was told to prepare three sets of
plans for submittal to the Coastal Commission for review,
and being a minor addition it would likely be approved in a
week, later that day he called back to the City with a
question on lot coverage calculations, he spoke to the
Director of Development Services, explained his project and
•
at that point he became aware that his lot was
nonconforming due to density, it took several days to
confirm with the City Attorney that his property did fall
under the nonconforming ordinance and that he could not
submit for plan check. Mr. Smith mentioned that the
Director provided him with the history of the ordinance,
which he read over the weekend, at which time he became
aware of the magnitude of his problem, he can not find
space for a second bathroom in his small unit, what can he
do, question, is the ninety -five foot bathroom and closet
on the second floor, extending out five feet beyond the
garage doors, leaving a thirteen foot setback on the alley,
G af7 7i2 T� ®� detrimental to or out of character with the neighborhood,
if this ordinance is approved the only option he would have
/272.- - would be to make application for a variance which he has
` 77-1 level told is very difficult to obtain due to the heightened
level of findings that the Planning Commission must make to
C GvN /VGA approve. Mr. Smith asked that approval of the ordinance be
deferred until some means is inserted whereby through a
conditional use permit process or something similar for
minor exterior additions to nonconforming due to density
only of residential properties could be proposed, there are
allowances within the ordinance for single family
dwellings, why not a duplex, he would hope this could be
resolved. Ms. Joyce Parque, Seal Beach, asked that the
City Manager put all contracts on hold, those having any
value that the taxpayers will have to pay, one would be the
contract to buy parking meters, wait until the new member
of the Council is seated and looks at the contracts, this
will harm no one, the Mayor has admitted that some
contracts are flawed, the Trailer Park an example,
Councilmember Larson asked for an explanation of what
happened, it took six months to go through the documents
and the response was a couple of pages and hard to
understand, it was said the Zoeter School agreement was
even worse and more complicated, just recently the
Consolidated refuse contract was questioned and after re-
reading the document consideration may be given to getting
another bid, again, the contracts, which put the taxpayers
in debt, should be held until there is a new member of the
Council to review them, that person has his own business
and knows about contracts. To her the trash contract is
puzzling, there are two councilmembers who voted not to
have an open bid, Leisure World has a different contractor
as does Surfside, how can those members vote to double the
contract and change the pickups from twice to once a week,
they not only have a different contractor but received
$40,000 from their recycle bins, it is not right for people
who do not live in the neighborhood to deny the people two
bids. If the City Manager takes the responsibility for
sending the police cars to Sunset Beach to be washed he can
also make certain there are no new contracts until the new
member is seated. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, spoke
regarding the City Clerk election, claimed that the
Page Nine - City Council Minutes - March 8, 2004
CITY CODE PLACING A RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION
OVERLAY ZONE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 308 - 310 7th STREET IN THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH (ZONE CHANGE 04 -1)." By unanimous
consent full reading of Ordinance Number 1520
was waived.
I. Approved and authorized the position of Marine
Yearly Lifeguard.
J. Authorized the City Manager to sign a one year
contract with Nextel Wireless to provide
cellular service for the Police Department.
AYES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
NOES: None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "G" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1519 - NONCONFORMING
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - EXPANSION - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT
04 -1
Councilman Larson noted that he had given a courtesy vote
to the Urgency Ordinance although he opposes urgency
ordinances as a matter of course however sometimes
necessary. He expressed his feeling that Ordinance 1519
will create more problems than it solves, that it will
create ill will with the residents of the community, it is
not thought out well enough, as he said before to suggest
that an applicant can request a variance is not a good idea
because one can not obtain a variance if the law is
followed, it was his intent therefore to vote against
adoption of the Ordinance. Councilman Yost requested a
brief explanation to the member of the audience who spoke
to the nonconforming issue. The Development Services
Director said he had spoken to Mr. Smith about the middle
of the past week, the understanding is that there is a two
unit condominium on the property, it is over density, does
not qualify under the Ordinance that is before the Council
for adoption which only allows an addition to a
nonconforming property if it is a 'single family residence,
in the case of Mr. Smith there are two units on the lot
therefore does not qualify under that exemption. When this
Text Amendment was considered by the Planning Commission
they were provided four different alternatives for
consideration, one would have included multi - family
properties, the Commission ultimately determined to
recommend to the Council single family properties, as it
stands an application could not be submitted for the Smith
property under the process set forth in the Ordinance, the
only way to come to the City would be for a variance, and
as he indicated to Mr. Smith that is a difficult threshold
to readh and staff does not believe that it can be reached.
Councilman Antos said his recollection is that the issue of
condominiums has come up in the past, and if the Ordinance
proposed is adopted, asked if the issue of condominiums
could be submitted to the Planning Commission for
consideration as there are a number of condominium
complexes in the City, some of which are over density, for
those who have condominium units with CC &R's as an example,
suggesting that the Commission should at least look at that
Page Ten - City Council Minutes - March 8, 2004
issue and determine if condominiums should be treated in a
different manner, some criteria in conjunction with the
CC &R's. The Director noted that the Council could provide
that direction to the Commission if felt appropriate, from
the staff standpoint it was felt that the issue of
nonconforming, if it was merely for a height or setback
issue, really should apply irregardless of the number of
units on the property, if a property has three units and
meets the parking and other requirements the staff
recommendation to the Commission was to include those
properties, the Commission determined not to do that,
however they could be directed to revisit the issue, and
whether the condominium units can be separated out legally
from non - condominium multi - family developments that meet
all other criteria is an issue that would need to be looked
at by the office of the City Attorney.
Councilman Antos recommended that the issue of condominiums
be referred to staff, City Attorney, and Planning
Commission for consideration. The City Attorney said if
there is no objection that matter will be returned to the
Commission and a report will be prepared as to whether it
is possible to distinguish between condominiums and other
types of residential structures, it may be allowed for
duplexes or possibly not. Councilman Doane asked if there
would be a separate ordinance for single family dwellings
as opposed to multiple. The Director explained that multi-
family units have been removed as to being able to request
any expansion, the only properties in the proposed
Ordinance that could request an expansion are those that
are nonconforming for a setback or height standard is a
single unit on a lot, if there is more than one unit on a
lot, no matter what the nonconformity, a request for an
addition could not be granted, that was the determination
of the Planning Commission and is set forth in the
Ordinance submitted for adoption. The City Attorney
clarified that the current Ordinance provides for minor
structural additions to both multi and single family units,
however based on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission only single family properties can apply for
those enlargements, again, the issue of multi units will be
returned to the Commission, and the nonconforming Ordinance
is before the Council for second reading and adoption.
Antos moved, second by Doane, to adopt Ordinance Number
1519 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL
ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1 ", and as a
separate action that the issue of condominiums be
resubmitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
AYES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: Larson Motion carried
ITEM "K" - COUNCIL POLICY - PARKING DETERMINATION -
BUSINESS SUITES - MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Councilman Antos requested a brief report from staff. The
Development Services Director stated that the policy
statement that the Council is being requested to consider
Memorandum to Planning Commission re:
Re- Consideration of Expansions of Non - Conforming Condominium Properties and
Review of Condominium Conversion Regulations
April 7, 2004
ATTACHMENT 3
SECTION 28 -2322, CONVERSION OF
EXITING APARTMENTS TO
CONDOMINIUMS
CC Request .Condominium Reconsideration.PC Memo 5
Zoning
S 28 -2321 S 28 -2322
(c) Other signs as permitted by Article 18 of this
Chapter.
(Ord. No. 1257)
Section 28 -2322. Conversion of Existing Apartments to
Condominiums.
A. Purpose: The intent and purpose of this section is to
establish reasonable criteria and standards to govern the
conversion of apartment units to ownership housing while
protecting the low to moderate income housing supply, and
to provide for the upgrading of properties through the
conversion process.
B. Planning Commission Approval: The conversion of multiple
family units to condominiums, as defined in Section 1350
of the Civil Code; Section 11004 of the Business and
Professional Code for Community Apartment Projects; or
Section 11003.-2 of the Business and Professions Code for
Stock Cooperatives, shall be subject to approval by the
Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit, and
shall conform and be consistent with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act, the City's subdivision ordinance and
the General Plan.
C. Development Standards: Multiple family units proposed for
condominium conversion shall conform to all applicable
standard of the zoning ordinances, including but not
limited to height, setbacks, parking and minimum floor
area, but excluding density. Condominium conversions
shall observe the following standards for density.
1. Medium Density Residential (RMD) Zone:
Districts I and II - 2,500 sq. ft. of land per
dwelling unit
2. High Density Residential (RHD) Zone:
District I 2,178 sq. ft. of land per
dwelling unit
District II 1,350 sq. ft. of land per
dwelling unit
District VI 960 sq. ft. of land per
dwelling unit
8622 (Seal Beach 8/00)
Seal Beach City Code
S 28 -2322 S 28 -2322
3. For the purpose of calculating density in District I,
all fractional numbers of units where the fractional
portion is greater than 0.5 may be rounded to the
next highest number.
4. Proposed condominium conversions for which a Final
Tract Map has been filed with the County of Orange on
or before September 1, 1987, shall have the right to
rebuild the number of units legally existing at the
time of approval, subject to a Minor Plan Review to
the possibility of increasing the number of on -site
parking spaces subject to the availability and
location of space on the site and the constraints
imposed by the existing structure(s).
D. General Provisions
1. Preapplication Review.
a. Submittal of Plans. Prior to formal submittal
of the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative
Tract Map, the applicant shall submit three sets
of plans of the structure(s) proposed for
condominium conversion. Such plans shall
include the following:
i. A plot plan, showing all property lines and
fully dimensioned street and alley
locations, street names, walkways, patio
areas, all existing and proposed structures
and dimensions of same.
ii. All setbacks and building separations.
iii. Automobile parking arrangement, including
location of driveways and dimensions of
same.
iv. Interior floor plans, including existing
and proposed layout where applicable.
v. Building elevations, including exterior
materials and colors.
b. Report on Building Conditions. The Department
of Development Service shall review the plans
for conformity with all adopted building codes.
The Department shall render a report on the
proposed project, indicating required
improvements, corrections and replacement of
(Seal Beach 8/00) 8623
Zoning
S 28 -2322 S 28 -2322
detrimental components as determined necessary.
The report shall cover but not be limited to,
the following: foundation, framing, interior
and exterior wall coverings, roof, plumbing,
electrical wiring, utility connections, built -in
household appliances, and heating and cooling
systems. The report shall be considered by the
Planning Commission in reviewing the Conditional
Use Permit, and required corrections and
improvements shall be conditions of approval of
the CUP.
2. Minimum Standards, Public 'Works. Any missing or
damaged street improvements, including street trees,
will be required to be constructed or reconstructed
in accordance with a plan approved by the City
Engineer. All improvements shall be completed prior
to final inspection and release by the Building
Division.
3. Minimum Standards, Planning.
a. Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Division on all interior and exterior cosmetic
improvements, new interior amenities and
renovation of common area landscaping.
b. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC &
R's) shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Department of Development Services and
the City Attorney. At a minimum, the Document
shall address the formation of a "Community
Association" or the maintenance of common area,
disclosure of management agreements, allocation
of off - street parking for residents and guests,
and operating budget.
4. Minimum Standards, Building.
a. Sound attenuation shall be provided in a manner
'specified in the current adoption building codes
of the City of Seal Beach, and approved by the
Building Official.
b. Security measures shall be provided, including
dead bolt locks, window locks, security
lighting, and such other measures as shall be
deemed appropriate.
8624 (Seal Beach 8 /00)
Seal Beach City Code
S 28 -2322 S 28 -2322
c. One -hour fire rated walls shall be provided
between units. Fire detection devices shall be
provided for each unit.
d. A pest report addressing the present condition
of the structure shall be prepared, with work
required as necessary to render the structure(s)
free of infestation.
5. Notification. The applicant shall follow the
procedures outlined in Section 66427.1 of the
California Government Code to notify each tenant of
the proposed condominium conversion. A return
receipt shall be signed by each tenant upon such
notification, and submitted to the Department of
Development Services. The Planning Commission shall
find that these requirements have been met prior to
approval of any Conditional Use Permit requesting a
condominium conversion.
6. Tenant Relocation. In conjunction with a Conditional
Use Permit application for condominium conversion,
the applicant shall submit a tenant relocation plan
for Planning Commission approval, including, at a
minimum, the following provisions:
a. Payment of Relocation Assistance Benefits.
Relocation assistance benefits shall be paid to
the following:
i. Tenants residing in the proposed
condominiums at the time of City approval
of conversion, and who remain tenants for
120 days following City approval or until
the issuance of building permits, whichever
is sooner.
ii. Persons who become tenants following City
approval of conversion, and who were not
given written notice of the proposed
conversion by the applicant prior to
becoming a tenant.
Such relocation benefits shall be
determined on a per unit basis, to be
shared among the tenants of each unit, and
shall be payable only to those tenants
desiring to relocate. The amount of the
relocation assistance benefit per dwelling
unit shall be equal to twice the last
(Seal Beach 8 /00) 8625
Zoning
S 28 -2322 S 28 -2350
month's rent paid or a minimum of $1,000,
whichever is greater. Rent reduction in
lieu of cash payments, or waivers of relo-
cation benefits may be considered for
inclusion in the relocation plan. The City
Council may increase the minimum amount of
relocation benefits required in this
Section by resolution.
b. In no event may rents in a proposed condominium
project be increased following approval of a
conditional use permit or tentative tract map
and prior to recordation of a final tract map
without first obtaining City Council approval by
resolution or minute order.
c. A percentage or dollar discount in purchase
price may be offered to tenants desiring to buy
their unit(s).
d. A written agreement shall be filed with the
Department of Development Services that no
tenant shall be unreasonably disturbed by
building, remodeling or sales activity. Such
agreement shall also provide that except in an
emergency situation, tenants shall be granted
two (2) days notice prior to required access for
repairs, improvements, or showing to prospective
buyers or mortgagees.
e. Exception - The provisions of this Section shall
not apply to that certain area of the City
located within District No. 2 commonly known as
Leisure World.
(Ord. No. 1261)
* ** Sections 28 -2323 through 2349 - -- Blank
Section 28 -2350. Satellite Dish Antennae
(A) Definition: The term "satellite dish antenna" shall mean
any dish - shaped antenna designed to receive satellite
signals from any earth orbiting satellite of any type.
For purposes of this Section, "satellite dish antenna"
shall not include dish - shaped antennae which have a
diameter measuring less than one (1) meter. (Ord. No.
1266)
8626 (seal Beach 8/00)
Seal Beach City Code
S 28 -2350 S 28 -2350
(B) Purpose: The purpose of this sections is as follows:
1. To minimize the potential for: visual impacts,
obstruction of vistas, reduction of open spaces,
visual pollution, and adverse impacts on community
amenities; through careful design, siting and
screening of satellite dish antennae.
2. To avoid damage to adjacent properties from satellite
dish antennae failure through structural engineering
and careful siting of satellite dish antennae.
(C) Approval and Permits Required. It shall be unlawful to
install or maintain a satellite dish antenna without first
obtaining the following:
1. Approval to install a satellite dish antenna by the
Department of Development Services pursuant to the
criteria set forth in this Section 28 -2350 and the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. No. 1266)
2. A building permit.
(D) Permitted Use. A satellite dish antennae may be placed on
private property, in each and every zone in accordance
with the required criteria and performance standards as
follows:
1. Residential Zones.
A. A satellite dish antenna may be installed only
at ground level within the following Planning
Districts:
District II - that area commonly known as
"College Park West ".
District V and VII.
In the event that reasonable satellite signals
cannot be received if the satellite antenna is
ground mounted, such satellite antenna may be
roof - mounted if approval is granted by the
Planning Commission, pursuant to consent
calendar review, upon a showing by the applicant
that usable satellite signals are not receivable
if such antenna is ground mounted.
(Ord. No. 1266)
(Seal Beach 8 /00) 8627
Report from Planning Commission re:
Reconsideration of Expansion to Non-Conforming Condominiums
And Conversion requirements for Apartments to Condominiums
City Council Staff Report
April 26, 2004
ATTACHMENT C
LETTER FROM RON HANES, 121 THIRTEENTH STREET
11
PC Determination .Condo Exceptions.CC Staff Report
G ► `At Cori
/vly #10.144.-C. Aori //apte..f � a
Gl`'( 14fC /6O AO de / ',
.°1 0 751 wl //7n./ --Z t ° --°(44°-d
"kr / osf /41 gf , Z av4 9
LC(� � T s fro '4' °Lc-
"I M l,lG��� ► h �j revt�-
do 1 .� ► 4"-c 1 Guy
Jo now , -lam le T"Vt NA bze hmeety
/ De ve ley vvY-4,14 Sev v r meui1/4nej 1 I Qs
12 44; o-ff J d o / 4 e a r vef.f l ? Ph . h
r14 /a/ .SiZ.e
7 e Aire
- H i t t CatGttG, ' / r e Co m- f;der u e , v h on /I'l
P Op T 1A 1,�5 Conc"a Co i
�' Y i ;
'CD eJ' 4 rvte2 a.J I S�t v�4Lccv ^ cJ S fD r co ver,t:Or,
� `� P `1
C 1 - 6 +1"..9 h w V P ✓� e'F � n � o ,� -L-L P e (s)
r
1 h, a. vim. `6120 o r `C-01, T G ct o' �� �' a c �? p
- , AA
p ctf 1(2, v` t1 ► vl c�c, j �" fit r; ve Loci- y o_re +
i Imo. n 2Y 4-0 144c.. 12.3 i 3 a-'" . atA
and a
(1,�, /-f- Sa' � e�cr /�Sf��e� 0 /�� ) rc y
C ond o C c hve �Sl� n5 . G/es Le .-LoCe vs ?Lee K 14,12- Fi ore'''
tac/? k loaf WO i e severer / ye e r 4 'er'' r Were •
K� 6 €rc c ''i tie K e,i code of 7 eirc i �.:c �' W %mac /�
gs � Iz3
o %TTe r'e�.c.e ri ,o yo1 e v'/- IA 4eepi IA,' ��os C s�-
S;Ace_ 1 /t4u -e „eeekt dLvfe r ci r-Y p `''D r11 021 /3s4
a vL GC- gt-ere A k. U h ee l i no /J r a ‘ l e i''f'( QGf 4r &1 / /4Q7
Jvti 7 S 2l' - 1 ) Yv y p r®t c (pay 1,... 3 .Q 2 BA X 2B1
0 64
/07L s< Z -efc, a s 144; 11 e
i
you c," epvess, y wards ) k
kd
1.0 krkl 1 - 4 -teLiely 0'. 5 at- Von' pot. Le
pl`citt vi .c 0-( ii/Ly 1 - 4 -PL - ANR. #A.-e ) -rf
(-1-1Ltr (a Pt te dier cluee_f bl k 14T - 4th^-1/4
are needy . - / ke A Afi, s ctoo/p
- 7 11 yoL4 0&LA S
P t7n. a t�e S
C � 9 3 S337
13+k /f, A _St.
. ,
/
. . . ■ . s
f
•"' ' ' C . • ^ . ''
v ;..,*„.,...,, .,. , • ,
.... '''
'•■• ' .. \ ' 1 i , - ',..‘ , ' . ''.
_ , \,„ 411 16 , • , i • ..... 7 ,
't
, 1 ,.. .. - .
.6.,
...1 , ..1 .
-
( f , _ - '
N
.
, ir, - ,L - i , i t --, , ',,,, ,. , ......_
4
• II+ ' .- .
' .
• - • • * .• i i -
1
, , 1 1 __ „, , _ _ • .
:---- t...r • 4
-,,,'-- ' :,' ' ------ : '
1 1 - - - -
i f .-.- .---,—:_---.7 ... . ., \ t, - .. .
4.--
,..7 .
-r-..
,,..,,, . - - 1 , ---.= - .1 .,„ . . _._ v ...E. ; f __.„- - ■ - .... ,.- -
... - —
- .--=1-. -..... • _ "- r= - " - - - - .4+'::f .- - -- ----,- ' -- - -. ,_ _
. ....:_st "• P. ._ :_ -__ . ,,--•..-- ,--- ' --,=- , Mr._ 0.- - ■ : • : -.— - ----,,..--- *
..:-.;-,- - --,,,,' . _ ..-:-.,,-;.„-', .7 .....-_ -.....- -7-.7,7.7.7-- : w,,,,,, ' .-- -- . , -L.-. .---.--,..-=„,,,_ P. '..-,:::;-",.. .. ,..a.- •
7 e 7 ' 4 7s! ' " ' Z' - sati ',:('' '' ---".-- "‘-.4.0.147k.4 . : % ... ;1';'''''' '.i;,,.: ';'-:'-■ - „,.S . ; *";',... :"."1 _ - ;.;.:, -...jz..,... "`. ._ : ; , ,..‘ , ,i,,., .i.ttz -4_ 2,..
...,:+ri;r TA-- _ - * :-.-,-, 1--- -,:;. v._ - ..1.-. ,„, :=7....: -- ..i.Z4-1.1-,:-y=1,..1 ::,..- jx - .:-Ei--,- -...1•:;.:.?.. `...:. •?.. - --Art• - :-: - -;,-1..- - --7.:-_-Jk - .+.
- .. - ."47' .. et,2 '7 4';`:_ k C u' / . 5 4,%. , .' ,.--1- A , -,.:pi,::•,, il. .4 -.;=-,,-.- "--'--.
: : .
'"--, , • 4 ::: 70.i.:,.-;v:ran`s,..., - -.;,(.„.r...,..._, ,::...,,,,..,.........„._,,„,_,_,s,__,,,,,..,..4„,..„...,...,
,.......—-„,_-,,—,,,-,,,,---„,...,:=,.._—..„--„,,,.....,,.....„.,„:,,_, . _ . _,.:4._,:i..-....1_,..5.t.„,::__-.1-:::::::-,1;:.-r:-.7::*:,..1--,,;.,-_;•-_-.,-....=„7...--.....f...1-.,...„...._...,.:1-....,...,A._:::,...,._
i 44 : ; --- l•-• - :S3L - ±Vf-- 71 ..%:"- . . - f-..! , - - 24 , ..,t::' ,4-- -.-- - -t \ .. - ?:% . " - - - -2. * t= , 1- -;-r 6 V 1 1. -r - - - - 1 " - •'% - -1 1 -"c7* - -..'7‘;', - ; ) :-;-11.X;„
;_ ; .4 ',e - - - .. ; 7 - 7 , -. , -:•_:-.;:CA:. - ---_F, - ...3.4.- - -`1 ,i.i..-„;, • 1,:
1
t i ' --1:51 :- . z. 7.. -‘ ' '.4 1 : ;: ?-"-t*t- : " *.k- ' r =I' . . --' ": - - rIkt , - , 'Z' .' 4c !rA.
.: .I.b.., -A.- 4- ..: - 's.. - ,_:M -I t= i- : :: - 4.'.:: :, -C't - -' 1-4 t
- -0.. __ ++, --- - ,i.... A . ' . ..„..._,c- - ' I 't \E•N .. ..f.r.,,t2••: 1 :.., -,‘..,,,•,': .-. .. , e , - P.; 114 . :. - ..-1 . : - -1 , f - i. - -..,..?. - ' 4 "',.
. :: '‘ik't? ' '' - ''`j,,... 7 ,: -....2-,...... \ -A •
-.-'i -•4•- - -&- ,-.4.- -:,,,,- -,,, -,-, .,.....-. -=,. , , z•,.:
,..„
- _.... , 1 .i '' ^ '''. V` .,, " :-•., — --..' . --• ,''' ''*•-• 4 - . r ,
": _-'' -.. •-.\\ \ I
-. 1.1 , .....•. -I:: ' - ' "•:' ", • .-....) ' '- '4 : 4 ''''' '...- -'' EP alk 2. s . '':-.- P
L. .., .- -.. F * . -- .4 ' 4 - .2,4 • i. t ii-•'M'...1. , :•.1-,. ' • !4.....i'zi...1.'1 ik. ; ,.....iiiii .,„',..,_`• ' , ..3%.3.7: - - . - ::Iir ,, , - .'...., 4 - .4 .
-,..i L'"..•''' ' - 7..7... "v-...1.1. - , 1:4 .ts.,..: .., ... .-t ,-,.., ..,-:., - ,,,,,, ,4; -,3r.-.,,r 17 .1.,, r ," „..• - ..,, _ .; 1 . , - -' '•:. `,''9,.. -,„ - sp`,..`1,4 1
_.1. ,,,,--- .. - .:I-1 .-- :-,4..--; , 1,.-. - -,.., ?:,„,:,...,,-, 67,-.----,y -"-, , -- - ,t;r.i..- . :=7 - ‘.--4. 7 , - -...tzt - 7. %,---,"-•. -- 'r p..,. ,. ,, -.... 1
--.. :. ---. !- -.2-3:-...- • -r--_-., :,.. ' .'-4 - n'*--- in. ,.. .4.,. -.4:..;1-,..........;,"..,a.'''..., -
f ' -
.. ',,, - ,,t--f -- - • - ------,----- --- • - - ,. - .., ; , . - • +.;.•.--... - - 4 = -.,.?„-:+- -,_;_-..-....,! 4...•.,=-:•.----/ „-,,,.-
[ - z.,_::::,...--,!,,;....:.,-, .;:: , ., ---, • ---::, 4..,......... - .1;." . 4. _- ..- -?_,-_,T .- -
- ..../.‘ , ...-*-7 ' ..... "....- .. , • ...", ''''t - ..., 2' l't 1
1... YOY't-'Ai-::• if . A • 4 - ..."'r 4 ' '''' , . . ...%.. , V , a . ‘.. - . ..,,, , C.-.41" . 1 s ,-'42 - , ....4. .- • - --
MENgWIRZiff .. . - -.- 2 - , '' •• : ■ . ,
- ...; - 0....-- - ‘t • , ,. . = t • . - , ' • - :Ve•
&%.1---- -,--- 9 NI , - •-:". - ..,, , - . 1 - ' :','• 1 :-.: . • , ' -:. -= -
•-. .i_.....:..,*__.:.-- et..........,.. ... k. „•_•••• .,' ..; • ../.), 7,„.,,% -- - ,,,, , , , ....,i't 'Sl
z i S7?..:: -7..sa . ., - ....1 .. .-:T,.- -- -7 V .....,1{, i.i y •,..: n ■ . .,..4.;7` -...
z .1 ■ --..,....... - ' ' '''-' -
; s - .,....- ■•t. t__•+4..t,V._. El *:1 t . ..
1 - - -- ;,:',:- •r•:_lt.t-f., . f4. i ' ` ..,--, z ---'- - - .,
- • - -. „ ,-, - ..,-, ,
...:. ' .;,, rtl ..1-, :_. ,..,.:. -... --- , , 1 ...--•"'"- -r - ....... - - 7-- - ---- .....„. _,- " ,
/4 -.
_ ... ,
-- -,:--.
„---. •
- - -.' - ",-. '',.. -- ., • - ,... 11\ \
.■)' k - - , . ■ .7 '.... ia e:
„ 4
. 1
! - . ' '... ..i -r•;2. _...._ .. .■....... -.."— .-.--■■•.. . “ 1
kl \ • \'' S 1
. ,-.. \
_ - „:,--7,4•„42:f..- .
- --- ; ...,-• -.0. - . ... - _...!-..- -"-- ' — --. 7 - " . . --- 7.7. , :--:"••••••-.0- ...-.: -------:• ...--..,..... --,.- -.• ------- ......--' i.....1.-,..'...:-../
/ 4-",
. . . _
-
-- --- ,
R.' --.• .. - .WM . ..L . - - ' , 3,-
t .'.' - ' . . - I' ' ■ ..' ''' ....2: .. ,,," ' I - - •
_ , - 4 :4_ , - ter 4.. , tv.-.... :;_.-.. - •i- , e ..,.. :- -,.....,.;.- ....1-
_-- . -`
' '''' / :$...,:' S ' ...,....• i ' at$ .:41. • '''' - - t ., ' ''''''. --
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 26, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Pamela Arends -King, Director of Administrative Services/Treasurer
SUBJECT: Schedule Budget Workshops for Fiscal Years 2004/05
and 2005/06
• SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Staff requests Council set the fiscal years 2004/05 and 2005/06 budget workshops for the
week of June 7 —11, 2004 and June 14 -18, 2004. Please bring your calendars to the
meeting in order to schedule the appropriate dates and times.
6?bJ — k ---- -- y
Pamela Arends- King
Director of Administrative Services/Treasurer
• i f D A II APPROV - i! .
,/
J' � n B. Bahorski
/ ity Manager
•
1 0,