HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2014-09-08 #I AGENDA STAFF REPORT
gt/FOR Pf
DATE: September 8, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Jim Basham, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) 14-4, AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A CUP FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE TWO-CAR GARAGE CONFIGURATION
IN A NONCONFORMING RESIDENCE AT 114A
SURFSIDE AVENUE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council hold a de novo hearing regarding CUP 14-14 and after
considering all evidence and testimony presented, adopt Resolution No. 6502
denying CUP 14-4 for an alternative two-car garage configuration in a
nonconforming residence.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On July 16, 2014, the Planning Commission denied an application for CUP 14-4,
which would allow for an alternative two-car garage configuration in a
nonconforming residence located at 114A Surfside in the Surfside Colony (the
"subject property"). The applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council.
SET-rING
The subject property is designated as residential development in the General
Plan and is located in the RLD-9 (Residential Low Density) zoning district.
It is 1,300 square feet (.029 acres) in area and developed with a three-story
residence that is 2,426 square feet in floor area. It is bordered by the beach to
the south and by residential properties in all other directions.
The subject property is non-conforming as to its front yard setback. Structures in
the A-Row of the Surfside Colony area are required to maintain a four-foot
setback from the front property line. The existing single family residence does
not provide the required setback so the property is considered to be
Agenda Item
nonconforming. Alterations, such as the garage alteration proposed as part of
CUP 14-14, made to structures that are nonconforming due to height or setbacks
require approval of a CUP.
CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
The subject property has a long code enforcement history, which is summarized
here to provide context for the Council's consideration of this appeal.
In May 2011, a Seal Beach Building Official noticed the existence of an elevator
on the subject property while inspecting unrelated improvements to the fagade of
the residence. Although building permits had been approved for the fagade,
none had been approved for the elevator.
Single-unit dwellings with five or fewer bedrooms are required to have two off-
street parking spaces. The residence on the subject property has four
bedrooms, thereby requiring two off-street parking spaces. Each off-street
parking space is required to have certain minimum dimensions. The minimum
basic dimensions of a standard-size parking stall are 9 feet by 18 feet. Two off-
street parking spaces, therefore, would be required to maintain minimum
dimensions of 18 feet by 18 feet.
In this case, the property owners constructed the elevator within the footprint of
one of the two required parking spaces, thereby reducing the required parking
dimensions below the minimum specifications outlined in the Municipal Code.
The property owners had constructed the elevator in the garage area without first
obtaining required permits and inspections. Had the property owners consulted
the City prior to building the elevator, City staff would have likely said the elevator
would have to be located in a different place or the parking rearranged to
accommodate the elevator. They did not, however, and the result is violations of
two separate sections of the Municipal Code — Section 11.4.20, pertaining to off-
street parking requirements, and Section 9.60.020, pertaining to building permit
requirements.
The City first issued a Correction Notice to the property owner for garage
alterations, including the construction of an elevator, on May 10, 2011. When
staff learned that one of the residents was disabled and required an elevator to
access the upper floors of the residence, the property owners were invited to
apply for a Reasonable Accommodation for a reduction in the City's off-street
parking requirement. Under Chapter 11.5.30 of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission may review Reasonable Accommodations to allow a disabled
person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling subject to specific
findings. The property owners subsequently applied for a Reasonable
Accommodation.
On December 7, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the application for a Reasonable Accommodation. A copy of the
Page 2
minutes of that meeting is attached to this report. The property owners were
represented at the meeting by their attorney, Mark Tundis, and the project
designer, Yolanda McCausland. During the meeting, the question arose whether
the property owners would be able or willing to move the elevator to another
location. Ms. McCausland indicated that the property owners would be willing to
remove a bathroom on the ground floor to install tandem parking spaces, which
would allow for the elevator to remain in place. She requested a continuance to
further explore the matter, The Planning Commission granted her request for a
continuance. The property owner did not return to the Commission for further
review.
Since the City had not received any requests to construct tandem parking spaces
on the subject property, on March 2, 2012, staff sent the property owners a letter
regarding the Code violations pertaining to the lack of proper garage
accommodation for the required off-street parking. On March 15, 2012, the City
received a letter in response from Mr. Tundis, the property owner's attorney,
which stated that the owners were "unaware of any violations which exist on their
property at the current time. Both in terms of the alleged required off-street
parking and any current lack of proper garage accommodation."
Over the course of the next year, the City attempted to gain the property owner's
voluntary compliance. At one point, a member of the owner's family told a City
Code Enforcement Officer that the owners would not take any action to bring the
subject property into compliance with the Municipal Code and that any future
correspondence from the City should be forwarded to Mr. Tundis.
On November 7, 2013, the City Attorney's office sent a letter to Mr. Tundis
advising him and the property owners of the Code violations and formally
requested permission to inspect the property to take precise measurements of
the required parking spaces and inspect the elevator. The property owners
refused to grant their consent.
The City was therefore compelled to apply to the court for an inspection warrant
to enter and inspect the subject property. The court granted the City's request
and issued the inspection warrant. It was executed by City Code Enforcement
and Building Department staff, accompanied by the Seal Beach Police
Department, on December 16, 2013. During the inspection, City staff took and
observed measurements of the garage area and took photographs. The area of
the garage space was found to be approximately 22 feet, 4 inches by 13 feet,
2 inches.
Because the off-street parking available in the garage area was less than the
minimum required by the Code, and the elevator was constructed without a
permit, the City issued administrative citations to the property owners of $100
each for each violation. The corrective action required was to obtain a demolition
permit to remove the unpermitted elevator and restore the garage dimensions to
compliance no later than January 2, 2014.
Page 3
The property owners appealed the administrative citations, and the appeal was
heard by the City's Hearing Officer. The property owners were present at the
hearing and represented by Mr. Tundis. On February 22, 2014, the Hearing
Officer issued a written decision upholding the citation issued by the City for both
violations of the Municipal Code. A copy of the Hearing Officer's decision is
attached.
On March 19, 2014, the City Attorney's office sent a letter to the property owners
and Mr. Tundis explaining the actions must be taken to avoid further citations.
rhe property owners were given until May 16, 2014 to either obtain permits to
remove the unpermitted elevator or apply for a building permit to allow tandem
parking on the subject property.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-4
The property owners submitted the pending application for CUP 14-4 for an
alternative parking arrangement in response to the City's code enforcement
efforts. The proposal would require removal of an existing shower in the ground
floor bathroom, but provide two parking spaces that meet -the City's minimum
dimensions, while allowing the elevator to remain in place.
To do this, however, the two parking spaces would be vertically and horizontally
offset from the one other, with only the first space having direct access to the
driveway. The second space would be located to the rear and behind the
elevator. As a result, access to the second parking space would require not only
removing the car from the first parking space, but also angling a vehicle within a
tight space to avoid hitting the elevator.
As stated above, the proposed parking arrangement in this case requires a CUP
because the property is nonconforming as to its front yard setback. Alterations to
structures that are nonconforming due to height or setbacks require approval of a
CUP.
If the City approves the CUP for the alternative parking arrangement, the
property would be eligible for an after-the-fact building permit to maintain the
elevator provided the elevator complies with the building code and passes City
inspection.
On July 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
CUP 14-4. A copy of the draft minutes from that public hearing is attached. After
considering all evidence and testimony presented, the Planning Commission
voted to adopt a resolution denying the application. A copy of that resolution is
attached. On July 24, 2014, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council. A copy of the appeal is also
attached.
Page 4
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the Section 1.20.010 of the Municipal Code, appeals of Planning
Commission decisions to the City Council are heard de novo. This means that
the City Council must independently hear and consider the evidence and apply
the same decision-making criteria that the Planning Commission did when
deciding whether to approve CUP 14-4.
In order to approve a CUP, the City Council must make certain findings with
regard to the proposed project. These findings, as required by Municipal Code
Section 11.5.20,020.A, generally include determining the proposal is consistent
with the General Plan, the use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies
with the Municipal Code, the site is physically adequate for the proposed use, the
proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely impact the
surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed use will not be detrimental to
persons residing or working in the vicinity.
For reasons stated below and in the proposed resolution of denial, staff does not
believe that required findings can be made in this case.
Most fundamentally, the proposed alternative parking arrangement does not
comply with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The Code
generally requires each parking space to have unobstructed access from a street
or from an aisle or drive connecting with a street. City building records show the
subject property was originally developed in 1968 with a single family residence
and an attached two-car garage that provided unobstructed access to each
parking space. When the property owners built the elevator without consulting
the City and obtaining building permits, they made it impossible to provide two
spaces without unobstructed access.
There is an exception in the Code for tandem parking for a dwelling, but the
proposed alternative parking arrangement does not meet the definition of
"tandem." The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines tandem as a group of two or
more arranged one behind the other or used or acting in conjunction. Many
jurisdictions define tandem parking in a similar manner. The County of San
Diego states, "tandem parking represents a parking configuration where one
vehicle parks directly behind another". The City of Pasadena similarly defines
tandem parking as "a parking space configuration where two or more parking
spaces are lined up behind each other", To illustrate, the following diagrams
show a traditional two-car garage and a typical tandem parking garage where
one vehicle is arranged behind the other.
Page 5
Two Car Garage Tandem Parking Garage
Tandem Garage
Double Garyge
� o
71
The proposed alternative parking configuration does not meet any definition of
tandem parking because the parking spaces would not be arranged one behind
the other, but rather offset from one another, with the second space located
behind an elevator and therefore accessible only at an angle.
More broadly, the proposed alternative parking arrangement is incompatible
with and would negatively impact the character of Surfside Colony as it
exists and is envisioned in the General Plan. Surfside Colony is a gated
community served by private narrow streets that range from 20 feet to 25 feet
wide. In contrast, typical streets in other residential neighborhoods in the City
are 36 feet to 40 feet wide. Typical residential streets are capable of
accommodating street parking, but street parking in Surfside Colony would
impede emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent residents
from safely maneuvering their own vehicles. Additionally, garages in Surfside
Colony generally abut the street without sufficient room to further accommodate
on-site parking. It is therefore vital that residents be able to park their vehicles in
their garages in a safe and accommodating manner.
The proposed alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a
second vehicle around the non-permitted elevator. The current property owner is
willing to maneuver a second vehicle in and out of the garage space although the
application included no evidence to show this was possible.
Even if it could be demonstrated that the current owners could and would
maneuver a second vehicle in and out of this arrangement, there is no guarantee
that a future owner would be equally willing and able. A CUP is a land use
entitlement that, if approved, becomes tied to the property and runs with the land.
For this reason the City Council must analyze both immediate and potential
circumstances on the property when determining if necessary findings can be
made to support the CUP request.
In this case, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed alternative parking
configuration and determined that the maneuvering required to utilize this
Page 6
alternative configuration makes it less likely that the second parking space will be
used for vehicle parking. The parking arrangement would therefore make it more
likely that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony,
The resulting impediment would inconvenience residents and impede the access
of emergency vehicles. The Assistant Fire Marshall for the Orange County Fire
Authority conducted a field survey of existing conditions in Surfside Colony and
determined that fire access is impaired by the narrow width of the streets and
reduced turning radius at the ends of streets. His letter (included as Attachment
G) stated that a Fire Engine would be required to exit the area in reverse, due to
the narrow turning radius, and vehicles parked along the narrow streets would
further impair the fire engines ability to maneuver. He has determined that it is
imperative to maintain the existing 20-foot wide streets in the Surfside area as a
fire lane so that engines can enter and exit safely.
Furthermore, residences in the A-Row of Surfside Avenue are required to provide
a four-foot setback, which the existing residence on the subject site does not
provide. It does not have space to provide additional on-site parking if the
proposed alternate parking configuration is not utilized for a second vehicle. The
subject site was originally constructed to provide a traditional two-car garage with
unobstructed parking spaces that was compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, but this was removed when the property owners built an elevator
without first consulting the City and obtaining the necessary permits.
For these reasons, the proposed alternative parking arrangement is inconsistent
with the General Plan, physically inappropriate for the location, incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood, and potentially detrimental to the health, safety,
or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and State Guidelines
for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community
Development Department has determined that the proposed project is eligible for
a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(e) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, which includes the modification or conversion of existing
small structures where only minor modifications are made to the exterior.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolution and approved it as to
form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact.
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council hold a de nova hearing regarding CUP 14-14 and after
considering all evidence and testimony presented, adopt Resolution NO. 6502
denying CUP 14-4 for an alternative two-car garage configuration in a
nonconforming residence.
MITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
L
i Basham, Ingram, City Mn ger
' rector of Community Development
Prepared by: Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
Attachments:
A. Resolution No. 6502
B. Appeal Application to City Council, received on July 24, 2014
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-5— Denying Conditional Use Permit 14-4
D. Planning Commission Draft Minute Excerpt of July 16, 2014
E. Site Plan and Floor Plan
F. Planning Commission Minute Excerpt of December 7, 2011
G. Hearing Officer's Decision regarding Citation No. 110
H. Assistant Fire Marshal Letter dated August 4, 2014
Page 8
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-4 FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE TWO-CAR GARAGE CONFIGURATION IN A
NONCONFORMING RESIDENCE ATA114SURFSUDE AVENUE
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On May 18. 2U14. CPR Landholdings (''mpp||omnt^) submitted
an application to the City of Seal Beach Department ofCommunity Development
for Conditional Use Permit (''CUP~) 14-4 for a structural alteration to a
nonconforming building and alternative parking configuration at A114 Surfside
Avenue (the "subject pnnpert/'), which is located in the RLD-Q (Residential Low
Density—g) Zone.
Section 2. Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code
and State Guidelines for the California Environmental QuoUh/ Act (CEQA). the
Community Development Department has determined that the proposed project
is categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the
State CEQAGuide|ines
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on July 16. 2014 to consider the application for CUP 14-4 At the
public hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence
presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. Following the
public hearing, the Planning Commission voted tm adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 14-5 denying Conditional Use Permit 14-4.
Section 4, The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision
by submitting mn Appeal Application ho the City Council on July 24. 2O14.
Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City
Council on September 8, 2014 to consider the applicant's appeal and application
for CUP 14-4. At the public hearing, the City Council received and considered all
evidence pnesented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. All
persons present who wished to address the Council regarding the matter were
permitted todmso. Based on the record uf the hearing,the City Council finds the
following facts tobetrue.
A. The subject property consists ofa 1.300 square-foot parcel
with a three-story, 2.426 square-foot residential building located on the South
aide. A-Rmm, mfSurfsideAvenue in the RLD-Q (Residential Low Denoity — Q)
Zone and in the area of the City known asGurfs|deColony. The subject property
|sournoundedbynesidentia| umewtothenorth. aaot. andwee1. whi|ethebeaohis
located ho the south.
B. Surfside Colony is a gated community served by private
narrow streets that range from 2Ofeet to 25 feet wide, |n contrast, typical streets
in other residential neighborhoods in the City are 36 feet tV40 feet wide. Typical
residential streets are capable of accommodating street perking, but mdnee1
parking in Surfside Colony would impede emergency vehicles from accessing
dwelling units or prevent residents from safely maneuvering their own vehicles.
Additionally, garages in Surfside Colony generally abut the street without
sufficient room to further accommodate on-site parking. It is therefore vital that
residents be able to park their vehicles in their garages in o safe and
accommodating manner.
1
Resolution Number G502
C. The existing residence ismnonconforming structure because
it does not maintain the required four-foot setback from the front property line.
City records indicate the structure was originally built in 1968 as single family
residence with attached two-car garage. The Zoning Code requires structures
that are nonconforming due to height or setbacks to obtain approval of a
Conditional Use Permit prior to completing any structural alterations.
D, The proposed structural alterations include removal ofanon-
permitted storage mom and removal of an existing shower to accommodate an
alternative parking configuration where the two required parking spaces one
offset from one another horizontally and werticeUy, with only one space having
direct access to the driveway. The proposed arrangement would m||mw an
existing unpannitted elevator to remain in its present location, within the original
garage space, rather than being removed or re|oceted, but would require
maneuvering a second vehicle around the elevator to enter and exit the garage.
E. The maneuvering required bouti|ize this alternative
configuration to avoid the existing non-permitted elevator makes it less likely that
the second parking space will be used for vehicle parking. The parking
arrangement would therefore make it more likely that vehicles would be parked in
the narrow streets ofSurfa|deColony.
F. Parked vehicles on the streets of Surfside Colony
inconvenience residents and impede the access ofemergency vehicles. Fire
department access is impaired by the narrow width of the streets and reduced
turning radius at the ends of streets. It is imperative to maintain the existing
20-food wide streets in the Surfside area as a fina lane so that emergency
vehicles can enter and exit safely.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated |n the preceding Sections ofthis Resolution and pursuant bmChapter
11.5,20 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. the Planning Commission makes
the following findings:
/\, The proposed alternative parking arrangement is
inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan goo|s, objectives and
policies for the Surlside Area specify that redevelopment in Surfside Colony is to
be compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uaee,
and available infrastructure. SurfsideCo|ony isagated community served by
private narrow streets that range from 20 feet to 25 feet wide, On-site parking is
a high priority for the Surfside area because the existing streets are narrow and
cannot safely accommodate street perking The Orange County Fire Authority
has reviewed the existing conditions in Surfside Colony and determined that
street parking in the Surfside area would impede emergency vehicle access.
New development in the Surfs|de area is required to provide a two-car garage
that meets the standards set by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. The proposed
alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second vehicle
around the non-permitted elevator. The City Engineer determined the
maneuvering required for the proposed configuration would make it less likely
that the second parking space will be continuously used for vehicle parking.
Because there is no room to safely park a second vehicle on the driveway of the
subject property, the parking arrangement would make it more likely that vehicles
would be parked in the narrow/ streets of Surfside Colony, This result is
incompatible with the surrounding residential uses and therefore inconsistent with
the General Plan.
B. The proposed alternative parking arrangement does not
comply with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The Code generally
requires each parking space to have unobstructed access from m a1meed or from
an aisle or drive connecting with a street. There is on exception for tandem
parking fora dxve||inQ, but the proposed alternative parking arrangement is not in
2
Resolution Number S5O2
tandem because the parking spaces would be offset horizontally and mmrti:md|y
from one another rather than arranged one behind the other.
C� The subject property is not physically adequate for the
proposed alternative parking arrangement because the difficulty nfaccessing the
second parking space would make it less likely that the second parking space
would be used for vehicle parking. City records indicate the subject property was
originally developed with a single family residence and attached two-car garage
that provided unobstructed access to both spaces. The original garage
configuration was suited for the Surfside area because vehicles could enter and
exit without impediments. The City Engineer has determined the proposed
alternative configuration |s less likely tobe used for vehicle parking. The subject
property does not have a driveway and will be unable to provide a second
parking space if the alternative configuration ceases tobeused.
D. The |ooetion, size, demiQn, and operating characteristics of
the proposed alternative parking arrangement would be incompatible with and
will adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The
proposed alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second
vehicle around the non-permitted elevator. The City Engineer has determined
the maneuvering required for the alternative configuration makes it less likely that
the second parking space will be used for vehicle parking, The subject property
does not have a driveway or any other on-site location with room to park a
second vehicle. The proposed alternative configuration would make it more likely
that a second vehicle will be parked on the narrow streets ofSurfsideAvenue.
The Orange County Fine Authority has reviewed the current conditions in
Sudside Colony and determined the existing 20-hoo\ wide streets should remain
as fire lanes.
E. The establishment, mainb*nanoe, and operation of the
proposed alternative parking arrangement would be detrimental to the hea|th,
safeb/, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The proposed
alternative parking configuration would require maneuvering o second vehicle
around the non-permitted elevator located within the original garage space. The
City Engineer has determined this makes it |emm likely that the second parking
space will be used for vehicle parking by current and future property owners,
There is no room to park a second vehicle on the subject property, and the
proposed configuration would make it more likely that the second vehicle would
be parked in the nmnnm/ streets of Surfside Co|ony. The Assistant Fire Marshall
for the Orange County Fire Authority conducted ofie|d survey in Surfside Colony
to review the existing conditions and determined that fire access isimpaired by
the narrow width of the streets and reduced turning radius at the ends of the
streets. The Orange County Fire Authority has determined that the 20-foot wide
streets inSurfside Colony should be maintained am fire lanes.
Section 7. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 8 of this
Resolution, the City Council hereby denies CUP 14'4 for a structural alteration to
a nonconforming structure and alternative parking configuration. The City
Council hereby finds and dohanm|nem that it would have denied CUP 14-4 based
on any one ofthe findings and conclusions stated in Section 0of this Resolution,
each of which is considered by the City Council to be sufficient independent and
alternative ground for denial.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
3
Resolution Number G502
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held onthe 8th day of September . 2014by the following vote�
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE QFCALIFORNIA )
COUNTY DFORANGE } S8
CITY DF SEAL BEACH }
|. Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6502 on file in
the office of the City C|erk, pasa*d, mpproved, and adopted by the Seal Beach
City Council ata regular meeting held on the_8th L__day . 2014
City Clerk
Attachment "B"
Council,Appeal Application to City
received on July 24, 2014
LNECOVIEED
Y . APPEAL APPLICATION JUL 2 4 2014
CITY CLERK
TO CITY COUNCIL CITYOFSEALB
!'s utngi�th
- OF SEAL BEACH
For Office Use Only
Planning Commission Date: Planning Comm. Resolution No.:
Planning Commission Action: Approval Denial Other
Date Appeal Filed: City Council Date:
Notice Date:
City Council Action: Resolution No.:
1. Property Address: A114 SURFSIDE AVENUE
2. Applicant's Name: C.P.R. LANDHOLDINGS, INC.
Address: 1630 E. FRANCIS STREET, ONTARIO, CA 91761
Work Phone: (901 923-4445 Mobile: (999 996-3299
Home Phone: ( ) NIA FAX: ( 901 985-3381
Email Address: RUTHIE @RAAREG.COM
3. Property Owner's Name: CP.R. LANDHOLINGS, INC, �-
Address: 1630 E. FRANCIS STREET, ONTARIO, CA 91761 O
Home Phone: (909 923-4445
4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach
Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No. CUP 14-4
Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission is
being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and include your
statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error or must provide
extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or
modification Of the decision. (Municipal Code§1.20.005.D. Appeal Contents)
(SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACH )
(Sig ature Applicant) (Sig ture Of Owner)
ROBERT RICHARDSON, PRESIDENT ROBERT RICHARDSON, PRESIDENT
(Print Name) (Print Name)
7, a.( .aof 4 7'i d o
(Date) (Date)
01/2013
EXHIBIT"A"TO APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNSEL
(CUP 14-4)
Appealing Party, Owner and Applicant, C.P.R. Landholdings,Inc., submits the following
statements in support of its Appeal of Denial of CUP 14-4 and Adoption of Resolution No. 14-5,
denying Conditional Use Permit 14-4 for structural alterations to a non-conforming building and
an alternative parking configuration at 114A Surfside Avenue,
1. Applicant appeals in its entirety, the adoption of Resolution 14-5 and specifically
the following specific conditions of the denial of CUP 14-4:
(a) Section 3. The Commission did not consider all evidence presented regarding the
subject Application.
(b) Section 3(C). In that at least two (2)Planning Commissioners, who in fact gave
due consideration to the evidence presented, found that both parking spaces within
the garage had direct access to the driveway contrary to the assertion in Resolution
14-5.No such finding was made by the Planning Commission. Also,there was no
finding and it is erroneous to state that the purpose of the proposed arrangement is
to allow an existing un-permitted elevator to remain at its present location,rather
then being removed or relocated. The Application for CUP 14-4 was made in
order to comply with the City Code regarding"off street"parking.
(c) Section 4(A). The Commission made no such finding that the alternative parking
arrangement is inconsistent with the general plan. In point of fact, at least two (2)
Planning Commissioners stated that in fact the proposed parking configuration in
the garage, was the equivalent of"tandem parking"and was functionally
sufficient to conform with the City Code and the general plan.
(d) Section 4(A). The proposal had nothing to do with street parking in Surfside
Colony, and there was no evidence that the Applicant parked vehicles on the street
which would impede emergency vehicles from assessing dwelling units or to
prevent residents from safely maneuvering their own vehicles.
(e) Section 4(A). There was no evidence presented and it was an erroneous
assumption set forth in the Staff Report,that the proposed parking arrangement
would make it less likely that the second parking space would be used for vehicle
parking, no such evidence was presented or considered on this issue.
(f) Section 4(A). There was evidence presented that in fact, there was permitted
parking in front of the garage of the Applicant's residence at Al 14 Surfside.
Page 1 of 5
Notwithstanding whether or not parking on the street was available, the proposal
presented in the Application, was the functional equivalent of tandem parking,
and therefore, the appropriate findings could be made to grant the proposed CUP,
if the Commission had considered only the CUP Application before it and not
irrelevant and extraneous issues.
(g) Section 4(C). Again, an erroneous assumption was made and no evidence was
presented, and no finding made, that it would be less likely that the second
parking space in the garage would not be used for vehicle parking. Additionally,
the Resolution states"nor could a second vehicle be parked on the driveway".
This is absolutely false, in that,the only testimony presented was that there is
permitted parking in front of the garage at Al 14 Surfside. But again,this issue
was not a part of the CUP Application.
(h) Section 4(D). Again, an erroneous and factually unsupported finding was
allegedly made, in that, substantial evidence was presented that the garage as
currently existed, without the proposed alterations, in fact afforded parking of two
(2) vehicles inside the garage, wherein numerous other residences at Surfside not
only had no offsite garage parking, and others which were required to have two
(2) off street parking/garage parking had none or could accommodate only one
vehicle. In fact, Speaker Paul Criss, who spoke against the Applicant's proposal
and the request for the CUP 14-4, stated on the record that his own garage in the
A-row at Surfside, was only sixteen feet(16) wide when the Code requires his
garage to be at least eighteen feet(18')wide. There is an erroneous finding that the
second parking space would be less likely to be used for parking and that vehicles
would be parked on the narrow streets of Surfside Colony, no evidence was
presented and no such finding stated on the record.
(i) Section 4(E). There is no evidence that the establishment, maintenance and
operation of the proposed alternative parking arrangement would be detrimental to
the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. In fact,
the only two (2) Commissioners(Commissioner Sloan and Commissioner
Goldberg), that stated an opinion, stated clearly that the proposed arrangement,
although perhaps not the preferred arrangement, was clearly functional and would
allow for two (2) cars to be parked in the garage.
(j) Section 4(E). There was no finding and no discussion whatsoever that the
proposed configuration would in any way impede emergency vehicles from
accessing dwelling units or prevent residents from safely removing their own
vehicles, and therefore, not allowed. There is no definition in the Seal Beach
Municipal Code as stated by the Senior Planner in attendance, which defines
"tandem parking", and the only"evidence"that was presented in the Staff Report,
regarding what constitutes "tandem parking" was a diagram of vehicles parked in
Page 2 of 5
a line front to back, borrowed from a United Kingdom Publication as to the
meaning of"tandem". Commissioner Sloan stated on the record, that he found the
configuration to be"tandem".
(k) Section 5. Applicant appeals from Section 5 of the Resolution denying CUP 14-4,
in that, the alleged findings made were not supported by the evidence presented,
was not based upon the independent thought or deliberation of the
Commissioners, and was based upon erroneous assumptions and consideration of
factors not within the province of the Planning Commission, or within the issues
presented by the CUP Application.
(1) The denial of CUP 14-4,was based upon a perception of the Planning
Commission, that to grant the CUP would be to reward persons who had erected
un-permitted structures on their property. Clearly, this was not within the province
of the Planning Commission's consideration of CUP 14-4.
(m) Several of the Planning Commissioners, as is their duty, did not consider all of the
evidence, but rather, had formed an opinion prior to the Public Hearing being
opened and merely followed the Staff Report recommendations. As stated by
Commissioner Cummings, (paraphrasing) "the staff does a good job and I support
their report". It is the function of the Planning Commission to consider the
evidence presented, and not merely accept staff reports as how a particular item
before them should be decided. Excerpts from a Washington State Supreme Court
case illustrate the importance of due process and the appearance of fairness.
Although not a California case, it clearly illustrates the fairness and impartiality
that all Courts, including California Courts, expect of Planning Commission
deliberations.
"Members of Planning Commissions with the role of conducting fair and
impartial fact-finding hearings must, as far as practicable, be open-minded,
objective, impartial, free of entangling influence, and capable of hearing the weak
voices as well as the strong."(Buell v. City of Bellingham (1972)
At the hearing regarding CUP 14-4, clearly, several of the Commissioners, were
not"open-minded", "objective"or"impartial".
(n) There is no finding articulated on the record that the proposed configuration of the
two (2) car garage DID NOT constitute tandem parking, which said finding
would be necessary to properly deny the CUP Application.
(o) The Commissioners improperly considered whether or not granting CUP 14-4
would set an improper"precedent" which would encourage landowners to build
un-permitted structures and then seek permission to have the structures permitted
Page 3 of 5
e
after the fact. This issue was not relevant or properly before the Commission, and
should not have been considered. The CUP 14-4 Application had nothing to do
with an un-permitted structure on the property, and to consider such evidence, was
improper and beyond the province of the Planning Commission, and clearly
tainted several of their votes.
(p) The California Supreme Court has laid down distinct,definitive principals of law
detailing the need for adequate findings when a City approves or denies a project
when acting in a quasi judicial, administrative role. In Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic
Community v. County of Los Angeles(1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, the Court interpreted
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 to require that a City's decision be
supported by findings, and the findings be supported by evidence. The Court
defined findings, explained their purposes, and showed when they are required.
The Topanga Court outlined five(5)purposes for making findings, three (3) relate
to the decision making process, two (2) relate to judicial (Court) functions:
(1) To provide a framework for making principled decisions, thereby
enhancing the integrity of the administrative process;
(2) To facilitate orderly analysis and reduce the likelihood the agency will leap
randomly from evidence to conclusions;
(3) To serve a public relations function by helping to persuade parties that
administrative decision-making is careful, reasoned and equitable;
(4) To enable parties to determine whether and on what basis they should ask
for judicial review and remedies; and
(5) To apprise the reviewing Court of the basis of the agency's decision.
Moreover, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support the findings.
Evidence may consist of a myriad of things such as Staff Reports, written and oral
tdstimony, exhibits and the like. Boilerplate findings, or findings that do not recite
specific facts upon which the findings are based, are not acceptable. As stated in
Honey Springs Home Owners Ass'n. v. Board of Supervisors(19 84) 157 Cal.App.
3d 1122, 1151, "A finding that is made"perfunctorily"and without discussion or
deliberation and thus does not show the....analytical route from evidence to
finding will be struck down."
In short, there is no legal presumption that a Planning Commission's rulings rest
upon the necessary findings and that such findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Rather, City's (Planning Commissions) must expressly state their
findings and must set forth the relevant facts supporting them.
In the instant case, the Planning Commission meeting of July 16, 2014 failed in
almost all of the above-stated respects. The Resolution that was passed, denying
Page 4 of 5
CUP 14-4, contained pre-drafted findings of denial prior to any evidence being taken, and
was blindly followed by several of the Commissioners without consideration of the
relevant evidence presented and without proper discussion and/or deliberation. It is
interesting to note that no alternative findings were prepared in advance of the meeting,
which would have contained the necessary findings for approval in the event the
Commission had voted to approve CUP 14-4.
Page 5 of 5
Attachment "C"
Planning Commission
ResolLition No. 14-5
Denying Conditional Use Permit 14-4
RESOLUTION O. 14-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 14-4 FOR A STRUCTURAL ALTERATION
AND ALTERNATIVE PARKING CONFIGURATION
FOR A NONCONFORMING BUILDING AT 114 A
SURFSIDE AVENUE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY'FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On May 16, 2014, CPR Landholdings submitted an application to
the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) 14-4 for a structural alteration to a nonconforming building and alternative
parking configuration at 114 A Surfside Avenue (the "subject property"), which is located
in the RILD'79 (Residential Low Density — 9) Zone.
Section 2. Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and
State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community
Development Department has determined that the proposed project is categorically
exempt from environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the State CE QA Guidelines.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Comrhission on July 16, 2014 to consider the application for CUP 14-4. At the public
hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented,
both written and oral, regarding the subject application. The record of the public hearing
indicates the following:
A. The subject site consists of a 1,300 square-foot parcel with a three-
story, 2,426 square-foot residential building located on the south side, Row A, of
Surfside Avenue. The subject'site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east,
and west, while the,beach is located to the south. The subject property is located in the
RLD-9 (Residential Low Density— 9) zone.
B. The existing residence is a nonconforming structure because it
does not. maintain the required four-foot setback from the front property line. The
structure was originally built in 1968, but it does not conform to current zoning
regulations. The Zoning Code requires structures that are nonconforming due to height
or setbacks to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to completing any
structural alterations,
C. The proposed structural alterations include removal of a non-
permitted storage room and removal of an existing shower to accommodate an
alternative parking configuration where the two required parking spaces are offset from
one another horizontally and vertically, with only one space having direct access to the
driveway. The purpose of this arrangement is to allow an existing unpermitted elevator
to remain in its present location rather than being removed or relocated.
1 of 3
Resolution No. 14-5
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surfside Ave
Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in the preceding Section of this Resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of
the Code of the City of Seal Beach, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
A. The proposed alternative parking arrangement is inconsistent with
the General Plan. The General Plan specifies that redevelopment in the Surfside
Colony is to be compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land
uses, and available infrastructure. -Street parking in Surfside Colony would impede
emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent residents from safely
maneuvering their own vehicles. The proposed alternative parking arrangement would
require maneuvering a second vehicle around the non-permitted elevator. This makes it
less likely that the second parking space will be used for vehicle parking,- and because
there is no room to park a second vehicle on the driveway of the subject property, the
parking arrangement would make it more likely that vehicles would be parked in the
narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
B. The proposed alternative parking arrangement does not comply
with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The Code generally requires each
parking space to have unobstructed access from a street or from an aisle or drive
connecting with a street. There is an exception for tandem parking for a dwelling, but
the proposed alternative parking arrangement is not in tandem because the parking
spaces would;be offset horizoht?tlly and vertically from one another rather than arranged
one behind the other.
C. The subject site is not physically adequate for the proposed
alternative parking arrangement because the difficulty of accessing the second parking
space would make it less likely that the second parking space would be used for vehicle
parking. Nor could a second vehicle be parked on the driveway. This would make it
more likely that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony. The
resulting impediment would inconvenience residents and impede the access of
emergency vehicles.
D. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed alternative parking arrangement would be incompatible with and will adversely
affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Street parking in Surfside
Colony Would impede emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent
residents from safely maneuvering their own vehicles and is therefore not allowed. The
proposed alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second vehicle
around the non-permitted elevator. This makes it,less likely that the second parking
space will be used for vehicle parking; and because there is no room to park a second
vehicle on the driveway of the subject property, the parking arrangement would make it
more likely that*vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
E. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed
alternative parking arrangement would be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity. Street parking in Surfside Colony would
2 of 3
Resolution No, 14-5
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Sutfside Ave
impede emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent residents from
safely maneuvering their own vehicles and is therefore not allowed- The proposed
alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second vehicle around
the non-permitted elevator. This makes it less likely that the second parking space will
be used for vehicle parking; and because there is no room to park a second vehicle on
the driveway of the subject property, the parking arrangement would make it more likely
that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies
CUP 14-4 for a structural alteration to a nonconforming structure and alternative parking
configuration. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that it would
have denied CUP 14-4 based on any one of the findings and conclusions stated in
Section 4 of this Resolution, each of which is considered by the Planning Commission
to be sufficient independent and alternative grounds for denial.
PASSED,. APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning
Commission at a meeting thereof held on July 16, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
Commissioners
NOES: 0V1
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
4 r
Sandra Massa-Lavitt
A T ST: Chairperson
A
J i sham
nning Commission Secretary
p,1 W
3 of 3
"D"
Commission Planning
Draft Minute Excerpt of July 16, 2014
SEA1
DRAFT MINUTE EXCERPT
City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission
July 16, 2014
Chair Massa-Lavitt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and Commissioner Cummings
led the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Massa-Lavitt;
Commissioners: Campbell, Cummings, Goldberg, Sloan
Staff Present: Jim asham, Director of Community Development
Steven L. Flower, City Attorney
Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
Will Chen, Community Development Department
Linda Devine, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING
4. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 14-4 114 A Surfside Ave
Applicant CPR Landholdings, Inc.
Property Owner-CPR Landholdings, Inc.
Request Conditional Use Permit 14-4 requesting to legalize non-permitted
construction within a two-car garage and to allow an alternative
parking configuration in a non-conforming structure.
Recommendation: After conducting the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 14-5, denying
Conditional Use Permit 14-4.
The Senior Planner presented the overview for this item indicating the subject
property has been the subject of on-going code enforcement efforts since May
2011 — the owners constructed an elevator in the garage without obtaining city
permits or inspections. The property remains non-compliant due to the lack of
the required on-site parking and the owners were given a notice to either
reconvert the garage to the original condition or request approval from the
Planning Commission for structural alteration to a non-conforming structure - this
would be a request for a conditional use permit because of the property does not
provide for the required setback. The owners submitted an application for an
alternative parking arrangement that would require the removal of the existing
shower in the ground floor bathroom and allow the elevator to remain in place.
Staff has reviewed the application and cannot find that the proposed parking
arrangement to be applicable to the Municipal Code, does not meet the definition
for tandem parking, and is not compatible with the characteristic and existing
development in the Surfside Colony. Staff provided clarification for the
Commissioners.
Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Speakers: Mark Tundis, attorney
for the applicant/owners, presented the background and justification for their
request; KC Coultrup, resident and architectural review board representative for
Surfside Colony, stated they strongly oppose the approval of CUP 14-3; John &
Sandy Kriss, Surfside Avenue, also expressed opposition to CUP 14-3; Robert
Richardson, applicant, expressed his arguments regarding the on-going issue-,
and Mark Tundis, presented final comments. There being no other speakers,
Chair Massa-Lavitt closed the public hearing.
Commissioners deliberated the issue and received further clarifications from staff
and the applicant's attorney. The Director stated that there is a code
enforcement case regarding the illegal elevator and the Planning Commission
does not have the authority to take any action regarding the elevator and the
decision before the Commission is for the construction of an alternative parking
structure. The City Attorney elaborated that the Commission can only determine
the findings for the CUP,
Goldberg moved, second by Cummings, to adopt Resolution No. 14-5 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-4 FOR A STRUCTURAL ALTERATION AND
ALTERNATIVE PARKING CONFIGURATION FOR A NONCONFORMING
BUILDING AT 114 A SURFSIDE AVENUE".
AYES: Campbell, Cummings, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: Sloan Motion Carried
The City Attorney advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 14-5 denying CUP
14-4 is the final decision of the Planning Commission. There is a 10-day appeal
period to the City Council and the appeal period begins July 17, 2014 and ends
at 5:00 p.m. on July 28, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
With no objections, Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the Planning Commission
meeting at 10:37 p.m.
Attachment "E"
Site Plan and Floor Plan
SVt?4-EZ6-606
kijvwwns i3sromd
anuaAV DPISPnS 1111V
GNV NV-ld 311S
UOSJDPUV'I S1114d
JOIBAO13 PGZIIBBO
Fri
G
TFM,
L
2 t
`J II LIM"
II
0
o
< OR
—any
0
4A
-K K
YN ft
gwj
H H,
AFL
tz
} St tt-EZ6(606)
anuany apispnS bTTV
uOSIOPUV'IS!IIR4d`: UV ld IPs 'Q
6
N� a
X Q
N u m
61-az'sa a3d 4b �f
SOQTZ'3'7H M1?Ids'0 L
d I{ a-LL ,
y
6T-4ZZ'S'H Had _ TdF4_W;1
y 3.wos,Ss-aES. ..
SOOTZ'3'7H MjJIdS'0d - N
k
Im
m
� � z
Wig i----------- s'o z
ry C) o
it
a 4 m
LL
ce-I al
z mo
1 di
g _ f
LL
ui
Q �
Q
N S ,
O ~ Q
5E I
= sus g 5
°O 0 Z C o Z a
2u o3 z z o Q O
Noz = Z.I'„ N �.
0 000 0
0 0 0{
z
w ~ . O ~ n O O
°u z o d
Ln
O
q N
di
6T-uZ'S'H H3a -
SooTZ'3'�'H 1.11'ai ..RAPIRL
_m_pnS m,
; » §\q ! _iap u,q�� a (
\ , {
>
0 CL
CL
o
® �
!
\ . ---s
, \
!
\ �
-
} ) � » �
y r jt `
! ! ! �
�
2 i
\ \
�
\ ) {
� § \
o
\ `
—
®
vv • ! y , —
` -
y S f g \;
e
Strtrb-£Z6-606
anuany 4pislin6 bTTV
uosiapub I sllln4d
CL G7 QSOdOJ
o
N� C
�Q �
T x �I
a �
„p of
,r vAM�ryfM n'
a>f31 Z
g
a f9_�, Fq, ri
I
r a
i = Ww
LVj1 H TJ JLk/M 55%-1Jl4V1(��
I
— m �
v a _
o p
0
J
— a >
� � w
w °. a - =a ate- 0 a U
o
Q a a O
ti Q d O z G Os.
i u�
i
j- �", � � Sbbtr-fZ5-fi05
3� M
anuantl ap)s}��bTitl
Z n a uosaapuy'I SlllAyd
$o � 1
a v
oe �
S
yy II I
_ N
d
�J-Ti. ➢ 9= rte. , 117 ��5 ' u_�� L_ �•
S
JA
99 ��
e
E ii �i a �i it i j I j
AI—
j j i 5
Ll-i.
�a
E
El
> I
w
zg
� I
-Y '�
r
tfsa
r:
lam" ��
l j. I I
If
ei
i
aTOZ/zT1s:aTea
Sbtrb-EZ6-6D6
anuangapI nS V T,'ssappypa(wd
c \ @y anU@AV apispns tiTTV OL16tl7'op¢3u0'tl R'S'4"'S sioue131se30£ST
uosaapuy'I 5 1IIA4d 4
uosaaputl'I sIIIA4d
_ 41, iYYdi�$ I-i i i
#tt ; j€€�;$ sY g°�' a[$il }: i° 'tillH
SEgii t aa($ig� l °•"p g Yve Y�
Y t �a g € xgga eg 'e {pt E 7�ft �i a e
�€Ht �3.�
ss & g €i$fii�gmfi, es{2!gg 65es�g � i83 YE6fH7i8`l =?
{al9.9 i- xYiH'efHiy5itsx. °5 � l6si 4a SlBW}EYE
I
•V s.:' ��.�..... / ...�.�„„.��.c`x... �7��5Y•H@�»"'”°•�•°�_°°;�, 5�� ��$€!�•.�'x�E!�3;�Y;'�!pq€�l 8�I Y��€�f°}��'3�k�x��_�7 r4 fl�a�.aY��rE!§l€Y#�l�ia#�s lg![!.H H€#g�t'!{b$�YxgH.�@[a H�°=�R�B r_Hs{�P€}f€�p�itYiYt d_R�p¢1�g�H 1�R€!;Htt 4 I�t�Y tA.lt !x 'l'1�!!�t i{•�ae'Y I�P"t
it €!!1 t Y t, €d€?t�I t 1 Yl�f4■t�i�!s t a
3 1k��9gt;B1i„ti,f3!Ht i(1ltt 4 Y��9EtA€
i "g$fill
vorz
till t Y1
i$�$jH$t€i a'1-1 lit ul!
Jill ti
iY
�
�.Yli
m of -
_ Ytls.' "5e ,3 $$
5 E i S5. d 3 56F 9 ! . §
'$5 �'x�- I�s f ��€xtY a�t �e R s
x 5 s t �s sgs! �Hax Y & !�! ]{ 9w apt
df C _ ___ � L;I g� B3nY3 &n& € I$R5 Cg�s$S!�
N 6 �3$ 7{ Ya
p ® ____ -- --.__ = a y Y ns $Y x$ i 5�, t' H
• H ee st BRe Yet&ta€ € €°xs`E a $g H Rao
� T n�� �5 !�I•a��tY
'1: l �111111-14,1111-1 lg.Yys$ U.
E .8 { gs ,RT €sKSY� stYe.
s 3
U r -- • �.HgHa '
s
T _- L �
C O W
� s
x c _
E w m
0 V
cr
f
- - - I
s
T
O
d
$ Ad's 1a BEe
H"Y'Q gxRFE'=x
YiM H" '
tQe: YY5§€ as�eYm'@� �na �e€ aat„_ $ •�
.y$ � YHy i,s LL
lkd� . z3��gGcY�€!x! ssM; RmRe°
g
Attachment LL
Planning Commission
Minute Excerpt of December a
SEA1
MINUTE EXCERPT
City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission N 2 v
December 7, 2011
Chair Massa-Lavift called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 7, 2011. The meeting was held in
the City Council Chambers with the Salute to the Flag led by Commissioner
Cummings.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Massa-Lavitt;
Commissioners: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Galbreath
Staff Present: Department of Development Services
Mark Persico, Director
Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Request for Reasonable Accommodation 11-1 {A-114 Surfside Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: Yolanda McCausland
Request: For an after-the—fact permit for reasonable
accommodation to allow an elevator within an existing
single family dwelling. The elevator is located within
the required garage area, reducing the required two-
car garage area to a single-car garage,
Recommendation: Deny request for Reasonable Accommodation 11-1
The Senior Planner presented the staff report.
Chair Massa-Lavift opened the public hearing.
Yolanda McCausland, applicant/project designer, spoke briefly regarding the
project and on the location of the elevator within the home.
Mark Tundus, attorney representing the homeowner (Cynthia Richardson),
presented background information regarding the project and stated that his client
is making this request as a disabled person.
The Senior Planner indicated there are other options for the applicant to
consider.
Minute Excerpt
Planning Commission Meeting 12/11/11
Page 2
Four speakers spoke in favor of denying the request for reasonable
accommodation- John Chris, A-100-, Sandy Redding, B-70; KC Coultrup, B-66,
representing the Board, agrees with staffs recommendation; Judy Wyles, B-68.
Commission comments and inquiries: received clarification regarding relocating
elevator — potential other locations within home and inquired about a building
permit for existing elevator. A recess was called at 8:28 pm. and the meeting
was reconvened at 8:37 p.m. The Senior Planner stated that there is no permit
on file for the existing elevator. It was suggested the item be continued to
consider other options,
Ms. McCausland indicated that her client would be willing to remove the first floor
bathroom to install tandem parking — would like to make a request for
continuance of the item to explore other locations for the elevator and parking.
There being no additional speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared the public
hearing closed.
Cummings moved, second by Galbreath, to continue the Request for
Reasonable Accommodation 11-1.
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion carried
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
1, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that
the above is a true and correct copy of the minute order on file in the Office of the City
Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on January 18, 2012
8th Aay o
DATED this 8 5f September 2014.
y 4
LilnanDevine, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Attachment "G"
Hearing Officer's Decision regarding
Citation No. 110
February 22, 2014
Decision of Hearing Officer
An administrative hearing for the appeal of Citation No. 1100,dated December 20,
2014, for property located at A-114 Surfside ("A114)" in the City of Seal Beach, CA
("City"),was held at Seal Beach City Hall, 211 Eighth St, Seal Beach, CA 90740, on
February 13, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. -11:50 a.m.
Present were:
Aaron O'Dell Esq. and Code Enforcement Officer Will Chen for the City.
Mark Tundis, Esq, Appellant Phyllis Anderson, Robert Richardson and Cynthia
Richardson for Appellant.
Decision:
Based upon the documentary evidence,presented at the hearing, the testimony of
Will Chen for the City and Phyllis Anderson, Cynthia Richardson and Robert
Richardson for Appellant, a preponderance of the evidence supports upholding
Citation 1100 as follows:
SBMC section 9.60.020 Building Permit Requirement, construction of an elevator
without a building permit and a fine of$100,are upheld.
SBMC section 11.4.20 Off Street Parking requirement, failure to maintain minimum
parking dimensions and a fine of$100, are upheld.
Findings of the Hearing Officer:
1.The house at A114 was first constructed in approximately 1968-1969. Anderson
and her husband purchased the house in late 1970's.
2. The parking requirements are not being applied retroactively. The Seal Beach
Municipal Code ("SBMC") established the two required on-site parking spaces with
minimum dimensions for parking stalls for single family homes as early as 1961.
3. The SBMC requires A114 to have two on site parking spaces with the minimum
dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet (18 foot by 9 foot per parking stall).
4.An elevator was constructed in Aug-Sept, 2005, in a location that intrudes into a
portion of the parking area in the garage. No permit for construction of the elevator
was discovered in City permit records after a search of those records.The SBMC
requires,and has required a permit for construction of structures such as the
elevator since 1961.
5.The A114 garage parking area dimension is 22 feet 4 inches long by 13 feet 2
inches wide and does not meet the minimum width requirement of 18 feet.The
parking width is deficient by 4 feet 10 inches.
6. Appellant's supporting documentation and testimony of Anderson, Cynthia
Richardson and Robert Richardson does not establish that the City issued a permit
for the elevator.
7. Photographs submitted by Mark Tundis, as Appellant's Exhibits 6-26, purporting
to be photographs of other properties in The Surfside Colony neighborhood that
have deficient on-site parking are not the subject of Citation No. 1100, are not before
the hearing officer for determination,are not relevant evidence that disputes or
refutes the cited SBMC violations at A114 and do not establish unequal enforcement.
B.The testimony of Cynthia Richardson supporting medical necessity for the
elevator is not relevant evidence to dispute or refute whether the cited violations of
SBMC exist. The elevator's necessity as a reasonable accommodation is not before
the hearing officer for a determination. Appellant previously initiated a City process
before the Planning Commission for reasonable accommodation to reduce the
required parking to a single car garage and withdrew that application.
9. City provided Appellant reasonable notice of the violations and an opportunity to
correct the violations as provided by SBMC.
Robin Clauson Zur Schmiede
Hearing Officer
February 22, 2014
Attachment ii
Assistant Fire Marshall
Letter dated August 4, 2014
pIR$
c ��COGy�< ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
P.O. Box 57115,Irvine,CA 92619-7115 • 1 Fire Authority Road,Irvine,CA 92602
c9llF01���P Lori Smith,Deputy Fire Marshal (714)573-6180 www.ocfa.org
9 H0
August 4, 2014
Mr.Jim Basham
City of Seal Beach
Director of Community Development
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Subject: Fire department access for the Surfside community
Dear Mr. Basham,
I conducted a field survey on July 30th to determine if fire department access is readily available to serve the Surfside
residential community. After driving and measuring Surfside Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Sea Way streets, I determined
that fire department access is impaired by the narrow widths of these streets (averaging 14 feet wide as marked; with an
average width of 28 feet from garage face to garage face). Fire department access is also impacted by the reduced turning
radius at the ends of these streets, and the existing practice of allowing homeowners to park parallel to their garage doors.
With vehicles parked on Surfside, Pacific and Sea Way streets, there is barely enough room for one vehicle to drive in one
direction, and there is insufficient room for two-way traffic. Furthermore, with the existing short turning radius at the end
of these streets, the engines have to travel in reverse to an intersecting street such as Phillips Street or Anderson Street in
order turn the fire engine and exit the community. Their ability to drive in reverse is impacted by vehicles parked on these
streets.
Currently, the California Fire Code requires a 20-foot wide fire lane to allow access to all structures. Based on the Orange
County Fire Authority (OCFA) standard of an 8-foot wide parking space parallel to the street, a 36-foot wide street is
necessary to provide sufficient room for emergency vehicles while fighting a fire or providing medical assistance.
Furthermore, a minimum turning radius of 38 feet is required to provide the room needed to allow fire engines to turn
around comers; or another means of allowing the engine to turn-around such as a "hammer-head" or cul-de-sac "bulb"
would be provided. Since existing improvements preclude creating a turn-around, it even more imperative to provide a full
20-foot wide fire lane to give the engine the added room to drive safely in reverse.
Fire lanes are an important component for providing timely fire and life safety services to the residents and businesses
within our communities. Blocked fire lanes delay response times, which have dire consequences regarding fire and
medical emergencies. That's why the development of modern building and fire codes in the 1960's includes provisions for
fire lanes to provide access to all dwelling units and commercial/industrial buildings. While I understand that this beach
community has insufficient parking available for residents and guests, OCFA recommends that all streets within the
Surfside community are maintained as fire lanes with no parking permitted on the streets.
Please call me at(714) 527-9431 or send an e-mail message to kevinbass@ocfa.ora if you have any questions or comments
regarding fire lanes or any other fire prevention activities for your communities. Thank you for allowing OCFA to meet
your city's fire and life safety needs.
Sincerely yours,
Kevin Bass
Assistant Fire Marshal
Community Risk Reduction Department
Safety&Environmental Services Section
Serving the Cities of Aliso Viejo-Buena Park-Cypress-Dana Point-Irvine-Laguna Hills-Laguna Niguel-Laguna Woods-Lake Forest-La Palma l
Los Alamitos-Mission Viejo-Placentia-Rancho Santa Margarita-San Clemente-San Juan Capistrano-Santa Ana-Seal Beach-Stanton-Tustin-Villa Park
Westminster-Yorba Linda-and Unincorporated Areas of Orange County
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES