Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem PApril 2, 2002 Peter, Tanya, Alina Demeter 12281.01d Harbor Court Seal Beach, California 90740 Dear Demeter Family, Forwarded for you information is a certified copy of Resolution Number 4987 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Denying an Appeal, Sustaining the Decision of the Planning Commission, and Approving Site Plan Review No. 02 -1, Permitting a 234 Square Foot Family Room Addition at the Rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way." Resolution Number 4987 was approved by the Seal Beach City Council at their regular meeting of March 25L°, 2002. Very truly yours, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Encl. cc: Rebecca Cooper Stan Nathanson P CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that on Tuesday, April 2n°, 2002, I mailed a copy of the Seal Beach City Council Resolution Number 4987, documenting the Council's final decision made after the close of the public hearing on March 25th, 2002, concerning the appeal of Planning Commission approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1, approving a request to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way, Seal Beach, and that a copy /copies of said Resolution was transmitted, by placing it /them in sealed envelopes, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: 1) Peter, Tanya, Alina Demeter 12283 Old Harbor Court Seal Beach, California 90740 2) Rebecca Cooper 12287 old Harbor Court Seal Beach, California 90740 3) Stan Nathanson 12295 old Harbor Court Seal Beach, California 90740 and depositing it /them in the U. S. Mail. •wwfv • O� \ 5 a \a. �cucb v �� f rr f. PUBLIC HEARING THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1. MRS. YEO, HAVE NOTICES BEEN POSTED AND /OR ADVERTISED AND MAILED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATIONS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE MATTER? CITY MANAGER, IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED MATTER? IF SO, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED MATTER? IF SO, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. I HEREBY DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. (Council receives public input - action by resolution) AGENDA ITEM P STATEMENT FOR MAYOR TO MAKE AT TIME OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AGENDA ITEM Q. THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1, REGARDING PROPERTY AT 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY, IS RESCHEDULED TO MARCH 25, 2002, AND WILL BE APPROPRIATELY RE- NOTICED BY MAIL AND IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER. THE CITY APOLOGIZES FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE TO THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS EVENING WAS NOT PROPERLY NOTICED AND NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN ON THIS MATTER TONIGHT. C:N1y Documents\City Council\RescheduW Mating Notice.SPR 02- I.docU W3 -I142 City of Seal Beach, 211 St' Street — ® ® ® ®® Seal Beach, CA 90740 p ®m 562- 431 -2527 K� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 25, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, to consider the following item: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way, Seal Beach Appellants Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a request to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. Site Plan Review is required as a condition of a development agreement between the City and property owner. Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Code Sections: Site Plan Review mandated by Development Agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and City of Seal Beach. Appellant: Peter, Tanya, and Alina Demeter 12283 Old Harbor Court, Seal Beach Applicant: Cary and Carol Brody Owner: Cary and Carol Brody At the above time and place all interested persons may be heard if so desired. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Seal Beach at, or prior to, the p�N.jiq hearing. DATED This I 1 th day of March, 2002 'T UJ h'� 'Jo LAP to Af. Lb) 6tat,,, +n5 h,0 1: V. Jo eM. Yeo, r erk Whnlc oun r,e.'�olhb yr S.e -ap- C'7e�. J�- ��" �jplc- a h31,1 dv c� bN br a bbi rtm !�,° N C tvW u` ( he✓v Cl�aiz.d Talk GbD k t trn n e a' u } v" 1 go 5Mtik. 0. bx a 5 h 4 FrLdA AGENDA REPORT D� DATE: Much 11, 2002 L �j op TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council / d THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1, APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 324 SQUARE FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY RECOMMENDATION: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: (1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the terms and conditions approved by the Planning Commission. (2) Sustain the appeal, and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission, not permitting the proposed addition. (3) Deny the appeal, and modify the decision of the Planning Commission, permitting the proposed addition in accordance with terms and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared as Attachment A, a resolution of the City Council denying the appeal and sustaining the determination of the Planning Commission, subject to the terms and conditions approved by the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option (l) after conducting the public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. If the City Council determines to adopt option (2) or (3), it is appropriate to direct staff to prepare a new resolution based upon the determinations of the City Council. Staff will be prepared to revise the proposed City Council Resolution as determined appropriate by the City Council upon concluding the public hearing. AGENDA ITEM C:My Documents \Centex Hones\ PR02- I.Appaal Staff Report.&,,\LW\02 -2 -02 Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12182 Bridgewater Way City Council StafjReport March 11, 2002 BACKGROUND: On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. The site plan review is required as a condition of the approved development agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property in accordance with all required setback, building height, and lot coverage requirements. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. On January 9, 2001 the Planning Commission considered the above referenced application for Site Plan Review 02 -1 and determined to continue the public hearing to February 6, 2002, based on concerns expressed by neighbors regarding he proposed project. After receiving public testimony at the public hearings and deliberations among the members of the Commission, it was the determination of the Planning Commission to approve the application on a 4 -0 -1 vote, subject to certain terms and conditions. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -3 on February 6, 2002. Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 imposes 7 conditions of approval for the project. Please refer to Attachment C, Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -3, for the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission. Please refer to Attachments D and H, respectively, to review the Planning Commission Minutes of February 6 and January 9, 2002; and to Attachments G and I, respectively, to review the Planning Commission Staff Reports of February 6 and January 9, 2002. An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed in a timely manner, and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. A copy of the appeal is provided as Attachment B. FACTS: ■ The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on January 9 and February 6, 2002 to consider SPR 02 -1. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. At the public hearings the applicant spoke in favor of the request. Persons appeared in opposition and the City did receive written communications in support of and in opposition to the request. ■ After receiving all public testimony, and closing the public hearing on February 6, 2002, the Planning Commission determined to approve the requested Site Plan Review, subject to SPR02 -1 Appeal Sta Report Public Heanng re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12182 Bridgewater Way City Council Staf%Report March 11, 2002 certain terms and conditions, and approved Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3, setting forth 7 conditions of approval, on a 4 -0 -1 vote. Peter Demeter, et al filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on February 14, 2002 (See Attachment B) and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the provisions of the Bixby Old Ranch Development Agreement and the provisions of the Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the subject project must be evaluated in light of three issues: 1) Is the use permitted in the zone; 2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and 3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general? The first issue turns on the provisions of the Code, which clearly allows for a residential structure to be developed on the subject property in accordance with certain setback, building height, lot coverage and other development standards. The second issue turns on the current Land Use Classification of the property, which is currently designated "Residential Medium Density", and the proposed project is a permitted to be constructed as proposed in accordance with all applicable development standards of the City. The last issue will turn on the Council's view of the evidence presented during the public hearing regarding impacts to the surrounding community of the proposed 324 square foot, single -story room addition. The Planning Commission made the following findings regarding this issue in Section 5 of Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3: "(a) Site Plan Review 02 -1, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Residential Medium Density" designation for the subject property and permits the proposed addition subject to approval of a "Site Plan Review ". The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed style, height and bulk of the proposed 324 square -foot, single - story room addition is consistent with adjoining residential uses, which include a SPR02- 1.A,.1 Staff Report 3 Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 11181 Bridgewater Way City Council StaffReport March 11, 7002 new residential neighborhood development further to the west, being developed by the same homebuilder. In addition, the properties adjacent to the subject site to the south have received previous approvals for a commercial shopping center and mitigation measures were imposed by the City Council at the time of certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 97091077) to ensure compatibility of the proposed residential and commercial uses. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. The proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition exceeds all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street parking, and landscaping. (c) Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed 324 square- foot, single -story room addition, as approved herein, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. (d) 'Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use." At the Planning Commission meetings many issues were raised regarding the proposed project and Staff provided some response to those issues in the February 6 Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report. Many of those issues are also raised within the appeal filed regarding Site Plan Review 02 -1. Please refer to the February 6, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment G) for an overview of those issues and staff responses. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL: Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for the Council to make a final determination regarding these matters. After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: (1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the terms and conditions approved by the Planning Commission. (2) Sustain the appeal, and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission, not permitting the proposed addition. 4 SPR 02- 1.Appeal Stan Report Public Hearing re: Appeal ofApproval of Site Plan Rewew 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 11181 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2001 (3) Deny the appeal, and modify the decision of the Planning Commission, permitting the proposed addition in accordance with tertns and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared as Attachment A, a resolution of the City Council denying the appeal and sustaining the determination of the Planning Commission, subject to the terms and conditions approved by the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option (1) after conducting the public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. If the City Council determines to adopt option (2) or (3), it is appropriate to direct staff to prepare a new resolution based upon the determinations of the City Council. If the determination of the City Council is to sustain the appeal and deny the requested application or approve with revised conditions, it would be appropriate to instruct staff to revise the prepared resolution for consideration by the City Council this evening, or on March 25, 2002, depending on the complexity of the determined modifications, setting forth the necessary findings, as determined appropriate by the City Council. Whi enberg, Director Development Services Departmerd Attachments: (9) ATTACHMENT A: Proposed City Council Resolution Number A Resolution of the City Council of the City of � Seal Beach Denying an Appeal, Sustaining the Decision of the Planning Commission, and Approving Site Plan Review No. 02 -1, Permitting a 324 Square -Foot Family Room Addition at the Rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way ATTACHMENT B: Appeal by Peter Demeter, et al, received February 14, 2002 ATTACHMENT C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -3, adopted February 6, 2002 SPR 02- I.A,.1 Staff Re n Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 11181 Bridgewater Way: City Council StaffReport March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT E: Written materials submitted by persons in opposition to request at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT F: Written materials submitted by project applicant at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT G: Planning Commission Staff Report of February 6, 2002, with Attachments ATTACHMENT H: Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT I: Planning Commission Staff Report of January 9, 2002, with Attachments SPR 02- LAppeei Staff Regan Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 11282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 02 -1, PERMITTING A 324 SQUARE -FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY SPR 02- 1,Appml St Re m Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Rewew 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12282 Bridgewater Way City Cauncil Staff Report March 11, 2002 RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 02 -1, PERMITTING A 324 SQUARE - FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND: Section 1. On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -I. The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § ILA of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Site Plan Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15301(e) (Existing Facilities) because the request is for a minor addition to an existing residence that will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2002, and continued to February 6, 2002 to consider the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. SPR 02 -1,Appe t Wff Report Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 1002 Section 4. The Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review 02 -1, subject to 7 conditions, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -3 on February 6, 2002. Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 was timely filed. On March 11, 2002 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and written testimony and evidence presented at the time of the de novo public hearing, including the staff reports. Section 6. The record of the de novo hearing indicates the following: (a) On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. (b) The site plan review is required as a condition of the approved development agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. .(c) The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. (d) The subject property is located on the easterly side of Bridgewater Way, between Rock Landing Way and Plymouth Way, east of Seal Beach Boulevard within the Centex Homes residential development portion of the Old Ranch project. (e) The subject property is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone, on a parcel of land having 55 feet of frontage on Bridgewater Way, being 89 feet deep. The subject property is 4,895 square feet in area and is developed with an existing single family residence. (f) Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: All Directions — Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone. North of Residential neighborhood — single family residential homes within the "Rossmoor Highlands" area of the City of Los Alamitos. SPR 02- I.Appe [Stiff Report Public Hearing re: Appeal ofApprowl of Site Plan ReNew 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 01 -3 11182 Bridgewater Way City Council StaffRepon March 11, 2002 South of Residential neighborhood — Approved Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center currently under construction, in the General Commercial (C -2) Zone. Bast of Residential neighborhood— Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. West of Residential neighborhood — across Seal Beach Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -2) zone is the Rossmoor Center development, in the City of Seal Beach. (g) The proposed single -story residential addition complies with all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street parking, and landscaping. (h) An appeal of the Planning Commission determination was timely filed in accordance with Article 29.4 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. *(i) The City Council received the record of the Planning Commission hearings, including Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes. In addition the City Council received public testimony in favor and in opposition to the proposed project. Section 7. Based upon the evidence submitted at the de novo hearing, facts contained in the record, including those stated in §6 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28- 1300, 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds: (a) Site Plan Review 02 -1, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Residential Medium Density" designation for the subject property and permits the proposed addition subject to approval of a "Site Plan Review". The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed style, height and bulk of the proposed 324 square -foot, single - story mom addition is consistent with adjoining residential uses, which include a new residential neighborhood development further to the west, being developed by the same homebuilder. In addition, the properties adjacent to the subject site to the south have received previous approvals for a commercial shopping center and mitigation measures were imposed by the City Council at the time of certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 97091077) to ensure compatibility of the proposed residential and commercial uses. As SPR02 -I.App lSISARe A 10 Public Hearing re.: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. The proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition exceeds all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street parking, and landscaping. (c) Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed 324 square - foot, single -story room addition, as approved herein, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. (d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal, sustains the Planning Commission decision, and approves Site Plan Review 02 -1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Site Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the construction of a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way. 2. All residential development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted as a part of the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. 3. This Site Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department. 4. A modification of this Site Plan Review shall be obtained when the property proposes to modify any of its current conditions of approval. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this Site Plan Review if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those reasons specified by Article 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. 6. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations fa nishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of 11 SPR OZ- LApeeal Staff Report Public Hearing re: Appeal ofApprowl of Site Plan Review 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 01 -3 12281 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Site Plan Review, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City m stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. This Site Plan Review shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. Section 9. The time within which judicial review, if available, of this decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Section 1 -13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, unless a shorter time is provided by applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Iu SPR OLI Appeal Staff Report 12 Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 11282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 ATTEST: CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Joanne M. Yen, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002. City Clerk 13 SPR 02- I.Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 01 -3 12182 Bridgewater Way City Council StaffRepon March 11, 1001 ATTACHMENT B APPEAL BY PETER DEMETER, ET AL, RECEIVED FEBRUARY 14, 2002 SPR 02- I.AW.1 Smfi Report 14 APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL For Office Use Only Planning Commission Date: 2 - 6 -OZ Planning Commission Resolution No: 02. Planning Commission Action: prova Denial Other Date Appeal Filed: � -14 -02- �cil Date: Notice Date: 0 7- City Council Action:- Resolution No.: S&/` 6-Ti q 1. Property Address: /2Z83 04 p HAA*3A CowIet oA 9074, 2. Applicant's Name: PE762 ,TAm),,+ /4t- j m4 � LEPy ETE7d Address: /L283 V� D IeN" Z- e-U-A ' re.. 8CAe. C� Home Phone: (SW z) 493-)7-?7 r- 562 - 34Z- 9873 Work Phone: (r&z) 896 - 1004 FAX: (Sirz) 34 z - 9813 (CAL FIRST 3. Property Owners Name: Address: _ Home Phone: S AMC AT AP S/d/�[� 19-7 /1frJbcrCA*�'3 9FBo ✓E 4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following described aeon of the Seal Beach Planning Commission concerning Plan Review No. 02 — / (GtNTeX KaNess /2282. /6R -ioGc G..+7r�2. w4r 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�aay be in error. (Print me) Pe -rz-L, TANY/F 'A&i"� ermr7FL (Print Name} (Date) (Date) I of 12 Peter, Tanya & Alina Demeter 12283 Old Harbor Court Seal Beach, CA 90740 562.493 -1727 562.342.9925 Thursday, February 14, 2002 City Council of the City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Reference: Site Plan Review 02 -1 Cary and Carol Brody 12282 Bridgewater Way, Seal Beach, Ca 90740 Dear Council This letter is provided as our request that the City Council at this time deny or delay the approval of the above referenced site plan review and building permit- This refers to a IT extension/addition to a new home family room This residential house was purchased recently, on Dec. 6. 2001. The property is located is a just recently closed construction phase 1, in Old Ranch Community Association - New Centex development on Seal Beach Blvd., in the City of Seal Beach. We, Peter, Tanya and Alina Demeter, owners of the most impacted property and other 20 concerned members and homeowners of Old Ranch Community Association (ORCA) object to this construction on the basis of loss of value of our brand new property and the biggest investment of our lives. We just closed our Escrow on Dec. 14, 2001, after overlooking and doing our part of work, while our house was being built from scratch. For 6 months we were looking forward and anticipating to enjoy our new property. In the process we kept in very close contact with Sales Office and with other various Centex employees from various departments. We met many future and present homeowners. Overall we have had a stressful but a rewarding experience of being first time buyers of a new home, in a newly forming Homeowners Association. We have met interesting and wonderful people. But just after moving in, before enjoying our first experience of our brand new property, we found out that this addition was approved behind our backs. Our pain and disappointment is beyond words. We still have a tremendous amount of work to do on our new property. This issue has consumed our time, energy and drained our emotions to undeserved limits. Brody application for approval of addition was accompanied by a drawing, which is totally incomplete and misleading. The south elevation (looking from lot 29) was omitted by Brodys or left out on purpose. This elevation is very relevant to the fact that Brodys' addition creates the most negative impact to 2 of 12 Demeters. We do not believe the Architectural Planning Commission, if it was using a professional Architect advice, would have approved such a monstrosity. The City of Seal Beach Plan Check approval was obtained in deceit by such an important elevation missing from the plans. The proposed new chimney is very much sticking out of the house and it does not look attached to the house like all other Centex Homes. It is a very conspicuous "eye sore" and not hidden like other chimneys. It sticks out approx 9 - 10' above the second floor roof; depending from what angle you look. It sticks out approx. 18' above the roof eaves of the first floor addition. Both are extremely visible from Demeters windows and narrow yard and extremely close to both. This is very representative of entire Brodys' project, which is "expansionist" to every inch, and space Brodys thought could take horizontally and vertically. This is also representative, along with other missing elements from plans, how much ambiguity was left in the drawings and how much was left out of these very sketchy plans and how deceitfid are to the authorities appointed to approve them Our temporary Homeowners Association Board of Directors/Architectural Design Review Committee is presently formed of Centex employees advised by Action Property Management - Marianne Simek. They are the authority who pre- approved the mentioned addition/expansion based on Seal Beach Planing Department standard rear setback of 10'. They overlooked or not considered a staggered backyard unusual layout. They did not base their approval on Architectural and Value Preservation to our properties and in a Community Association spirit. But our lot 29 and adjacent lot 13 with its intended addition are not standard at all. This can be easily established by a site inspection and by studying the layout and configuration map of Old Harbor Court cul de sac, where we reside. No official representative visited our property. Neighbors and other visitors to Demeters breakfast room and backyard feel sorry for Demeters. People say: "It is terrible what they (Brodys) are doing to you." In the mean time, contrary to the spirit and concerns of a Community Association and a good neighborly attitude, Cary and Carol Brody played the system and are not interested in our loss of value, as long as they think of a benefit to themselves. They decided to expand to a maximum of 17' and stick up a second chimney, behind their addition, and out of their sight, but completely in our face and our full sight. This is intended in spite of our loss. Our entrusted Architectural Review Committee/Board of Directors did not bother to inspect the proposed construction site and did not demonstrate knowledge and concern for Old Harbor Court special architectural layout. They shall be in charge with preserving the value of all properties equally and not engaging in favoritism in any shape or form In this instance they failed to represent the real homeowners properly. Our interests were overlooked casually. We feel stabbed in the back and insulted by their decisions made in a rush and out of their office, without a responsible site research. Their decision, which will affect our lives in the most profound manner, was final. No appeal was their verdict. We are lucky to have this appeal as another chance to seek justice. Planning Department of Seal Beach relied on the architectural knowledge and expertise of Action Property Management/ Marianne Simek who advises Centex Board of Directors. Planning Department did not have a site inspection. In conclusion, both decisions were made out of office, backing up each other and without a site inspection of this new Old Ranch development in the City of Seal Beach. Please consider the following pertinent information about the sequence of events that created positioning our lot 29 at a disadvantage in case of an improper addition on adjacent lots. 3of12 These are material fads in sapport of our objection and appeal: 1. General Background of our new development: Centex developer maximized the use of land by a specific subdivision configuration and build 72 homes with a lot of square footage on small lots. All Old Ranch development homes are advertised as two stories high, luxury- detached homes and are priced as such- These two story homes are built on smaller lots with a very close setting, as it is. The backyards vary in size and each home has advantages and disadvantages, but overall an equivalency in value was Centex Developer concern and was appreciated by most buyers. It is important to keep this status and standard of luxury detached homes, in order to keep the value of these properties. One property modification can bring undesirable effects and consequences on to other properties and on to whole community. Architectural Review Committee/Board of Directors were entrusted and shall make sure standards are kept high, but failed and disappointed us homeowners in many respects. 2. Early, during Centex development design, two more homes were squeezed in - (lot 30 and lot 32) by using a circle layout in the center of the community on Old Harbor Court. The name of the street contains the word Court, i.e. enclosed, closed in. (Please see attached subdivision lot map) 3. Special topography of a circle and its cal de sac in the center of the community was handy, per development code, to accommodate large Fire Trucks to maneuver and turn around. This circle layout configuration benefits entire community, including Brody's lot 13 (with proposed addition on 12282 Bridgewater Way). Lot 13 is located on this adjacent street, a street west of and parallel to Old Harbor Court. (Please see attached subdivision lot map) 4. Due to this configuration of Old Ranch subdivisions, lots 29 and 33 are the only ones at a greater disadvantage with under 13' backyards and smaller lots overall. This is the most crowded central area in the whole development and requires a special attention relative to anv mai or and permanent modification. 5. Most homes on the same street follow a straight line with 24' backyards. Lot 13, with its proposed extension to the family room, located on Bridgewater Way, enters in the category of lots with a larger 24' backyard. But this cannot be looked upon in isolation, and allow splurging with square footage full blast, without considering the adjacent impact. Legal is interpretable. it is not fair and it is not in a Community spirit in this particular situation. (Please see the attached community map layout to understand the description above) Further explanations: Centex objectives and purposes of creating more lots with houses and code satisfaction described above, were achieved architecturally by creating a 9' staggered backyard property line for lot 29 (Demders) adjacent to lot 13. Lot 29, as mentioned above also has a smaller backyard, less than 13' near the proposed addition proximity. As a result of the above, only two homes (to the best of our knowledge) in the Old Ranch community of 72 homes, Lot 29 (Demeters) and lot 33 have staggered backyards. Lot 28 - Coopers and lot 34 being located on a curve in the cul de sac, have 15' wide backyards and are at a loss of value with a standard 10' setback applied to Brody rear property line. Please note that Lots 29, 31, 28 and 34 are subject to a detriment and loss of value in case of improper extensions on adjacent lots and deserve to be reexamined carefully by responsible and caring authorities. Please do not allow these lots to fall through the crack of a rush approach and J of 12 be sacrificed. Please do not allow some homeowners to be bitter and in pain. Please do not allow homeowners to take advantage on expense of their fellow homeowners and disturb our Community Association good neighborly spirit. Continuing with supporting facts: 1. A jogged fence line follows the property line of lot 29 and lot 33, which also have much smaller backyards than the rest of the houses in the community. Demeters lot 29 has less than 13 feet backyard on the side of Brody addition. There is no place to hide behind trees or otherwise not to look toward the addition and chimney direction. The proximity of Brody addition will crash Demeter property value, since it will create an effect of being boxed in and a feeling of oppression due to insufficient setback and narrow backyard on Demeters side. 2. The breakfast mom with its 8' high and 6' wide sliding glass exit door to Demeters backyard is on the side of Brody proposed addition. Our most looked upon and used portion of the backyard is facing the new expansion and the new chimney. An addition on the staggered point at that narrow side ofbackyard is very detrimental to property value of lot 29. The new 4 tall windows of proposed addition will face our backyard taking away the privacy and making us, Demeters, self - conscious and upset at all times. This will take away our enjoyment of the property as it was originally purchased. We cannot keep it "out of sight and out of mind ", since the most used entry from the garage into the kitchen, faces Brody proposed addition. It is the first thing to be seen entering the residency. It is a permanent reminder and a painful eyesore. It will definitely lower the value of our new property and we are very upset. 3. No inspection and consideration of this material fact was performed either by Centex Design Review Committee/Board of Directors and/or Planning Department prior to their approval. A rush judgement from the office, without site inspection was made. A rush approval was granted without consulting fresh impacted homeowners. A standard of 10' rear setback was Property. 4. Also a detrimental similar effect on lot 28 - Steven & Rebecca Cooper was overlooked. Please note and take in consideration that this special topography is not typical for the City of Seal Beach. Centex Design Review Committee/Board and Planning Department communicated and applied a legal 10 feet setback without considering the unusual staggered property line and a narrow backyard which will create a definite unfair and discordant detriment to Demeter and Cooper properties in comparison to all the other 70 properties. Note regarding Selling Price and Property values: All Centex properties were listed as appraised by Centex developer, just two months ago at an equal value within the same construction phase, for the same floor plans, regardless of the size of the lot. It happens that Demeter property (plan 2, construction phase 2), has the same floor plan as Brodys (plan 2, construction phase 1). Demeters property was sold for a higher price than Brody property, just in December 2001. Demeters were told by Centex sales office that their lot 29 even much smaller backyard that was half of Brodys' backyard has the same value because of the cul de sac location. By their addition /expansion Brody will lower Demeter property value, will have 5 of 12 still a larger backyard than Demeters original backyard. Also by proposed modification, Brody will turn their back of the building to the Demeters backyard. Brody will change their backyard on Demeters side, into a 10' side vard. They will exit their family room through sliding doors opposite 90 degrees from original Centex design. Demeters entire backyard is less than 13 feet. Please see Brody proposed addition plans. Brody will obviously benefit on expense of Demeters. Is their plan to sell and move out as they did previously in other neighborhoods and leave Old Ranch Community with a negative consequence of their construction? Is this fair under the Community Association spirit and purpose? Complaints and concerns to take in consideration: 1. Brody addition will crowd Demeters property to an unacceptable limit, totally out of line comparing to other properties, creating a very unfair situation for Demeters' property comparing to other properties sold for the same dollar amount. This is against the spirit of our Community Association. Bitter feelings will continue from now on. 2. The rush judgement and approval was caused by Irregularities in the submission and approval of the Brody's application to the Design Review Committee of ORCA the same with Board of Directors. 3. Luckily, due to our democratic process still at work, Old Ranch Community homeowners found out on January 9, 2002 during and after the public hearing in front of Planning Commission, about the recommendation of planning department in favor of this addition/expansion. Then and after that meeting, Demeters first time had an opportunity to point out the architectural shortcomings and incomplete information and incomplete drawing plans in the Brody's application to the Design Review Committee of ORCA and to the City of Seal Beach Planning Department. 4. Rush in judgment happened because adjacent neighbors did not see the plans for a 17 -foo punch out extension to a family room We did not know about a planned new chimney built in the middle of a backyard. We did not know about 4 windows being relocated closer to neighborly main windows overlooking the backyard. No demolition plans for the existing chimney that will become useless were submitted to the Design Review Committee or /and to City Planning Department. Unsuspected neighbors had no say and no input prior to Brody application and approval — and as a result, the neighbors did not have a chance to point out the shortcomings and detrimental effect of the proposed expansion. A proposed new porch is not shown in Brody's blueprint. Why incomplete drawings were accepted from Brody? South elevation of the new chimney is the most relevant and it is not shown on the plan. Demeter's property faces negative impact of south elevation of the new chimney. 5. Rush in judgement was caused by lack of physical inspection and lack of dedicated time from authorities to determine the impact on esthetics, quality of life, invasion of privacy and subsequently the detrimental impact on the value, safety and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Important matters to take in consideration by City Council and which Centex Design Review Committee disregarded: 1) Centex "Board" & "Design Review Committee" are the same three people. There is no appeal of their decision. Therefore, Old Ranch Homeowners destiny is being ruled by a "benevolent dictatorship" with no checks and balances. 6 of 12 Among all the decision - makers, there is not one Architect or Designer or Homeowner! Decision is final, No appeaL The reason why their decision is "final" is because the Board and the Design Review Committee are the same 3 people! Isn't this all the more reason to have a check and balance system? The decision - makers did not comply with Section 5.33 of the CC &R's! Section 53.3. of the CC&R's says the Design Review Committee "Shall" (i.e. MUST) consider: 1. installation NOT DETRIMENTAL to surrounding Properties as a whole 2. the appearance of any structure affected by the proposed improvements will be in HARMONY with the surrounding structures 3. installation, etc. of the structure will NOT DETRACT FROM THE SURROUNDING BEAUTY, WHOLESOMENESS OR ATTRACTIVENESS of the properties or the ENJOYMENT THEREOF by the homeowners. 4. maintenance of the proposed improvements will NOT BECOME A BURDEN ON THE ASSOCIATION 5. the proposed improvements are CONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARATION How can any of these criteria be judged WITHOUT A SITE INSPECTION OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION? No site inspection was conducted. Therefore, any decision about ESTHETICS was impossible. 5.3.3. goes on to state that the Design Review Committee is not to consider structural safety, or conformance with building or other codes. This implies that the Design Review Committee is to make an ESTHETIC judgment in keeping with the Centex design. The STRUCTURAL judgment (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). is left to the CITY. Therefore, it is no answer by the Design Review Committee/Board/ advised by Action Property Management - Marianne Simek that their decision is correct because it complies with City codes. City Codes are not under the Design Review Cmmte/Board jurisdiction. Esthetics, Enjoyment of the Property, Harmony, are under their jurisdiction. And these considerations were clearly disregarded as no site inspection was performed. A site inspection will make painfully obvious facts about the proposed structure. 1. IS DETRIMENTAL to Lot 29 and Lot 28 properties 2. The appearance is NOT IN HARMONY - 2 chimneys sticking out into the sky - a 1 foot setback from the Demeter property line so close to the house that it offends common standards of privacy, decency and enjoyment of the property. 3. The installation DOES DETRACT FROM THE BEAUTY, WHOLESOMENESS, AND ATTRACTIVENESS - as demonstrated an nauseam in previously submitted oral and written statements, and IT WILL DECREASE ENJOYMENT of properties of the Backyard adjacent Owners, Coopers and Demeters. 7 o 12 4. Maintenance of the Improvement HAS ALREADY BECOME A BURDEN ON THE ASSOCIATION with numerous meetings, e- mails, submissions, and debates. It has also, by the way, become a burden on the homeowners themselves, who have been consumed with this issue since its inception. Instead of enjoying their new home and their new community are already divided, bitter, and humiliated. 5. The proposed improvements are NOT CONSISTENT WTTH THE DECLARATION. Please see Application form mailed to homeowners after receiving the house key and taking possession of the new property. What actually happened in violation with CC &R's and Application process: 1) Action Property Management approved the plans before Brody's were legal owners in violation of CC&R section 4.4.1. 2) Brody's FALSELY CERTIFIED that they disclosed to adjacent owners Demeters, and Coopers about the proposed addition in VIOLATION OF 5.3.2. 3) The developer DID NOT DISCLOSE prior to closure of Escrow by the Demeters and Coopers the impending violation of their property interests as required by Business and Professions Code. 4) Brody's Plans are incomplete. Do not show 2 chimneys or demolition plans of useless original chimney, do not show distances from adjacent property lines and distances between adjacent homes. 5) How can any of these criteria be judged WITHOUT A SITE INSPECTION OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION? 6) No site inspection was conducted. Therefore, any decision about ESTHETICS was not possible. Re: Structural/City Anoroval The law requires a 10' setback from the property line. Here, we have a de facto a ONE -FOOT setback from Demeter's property line. We have staggered lots. When you have staggered lots, other city Codes researched on the Internet (can be documented) require that an average of all property lines be made. No average was made here. Demeters' lot (which is pushed in 8.5 feet for the benefit of the large Fire truck turnaround) was NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. As a result, it has a 1 -foot setback from the Brody proposed addition. Other cities have similar situations with cul de sac and staggered property lines and have special regulations, for example: City of Alameda: Subsection 30 -5 -11 cul -de -sac Lots. Residential lots located on curved or cul -de -sac streets, which have a minimum width at the established from yard setback line of fifty (50') feet shall be deemed to satisfy the minimum width requirement for a residential lot. The setback line shall be measured by the same arc established by the from lot line. (Ord. No. 1729 N. S.) 1) Demeters' and Coopers' properties topographically are located in a cul de sac with already smaller distances from adjacent neighbors. Brodys' addition will decrease the distance between buildings to a of 12 an obviously unprecedented limit. The distance between comers of the Demeters and Brody buildings in the backyard, after the proposed addition will be 17.5 feet comparing to a distance of 49' of other equivalent properties on the same street. 2) Due to an unusual topography, not typical for City of Seal Beach, Demeters' backyard is pushed into Brodys' backyard in the area of proposed addition 8.5 feet and as a consequence 10' setback from the rear property line per City of Seal Beach codes will be only 1 foot from Demeters' rear property line. 10' rear setback for Brody means only P for Demeters rear setback. 3) The proposed expansion to Brodys' family room with its 4 windows and a pitched roof with its ridge height at 14', almost as high as a two story building, will hang (at a projected distance of only 1 foot) over Demeters backyard. It would be a permanent structure, invading the privacy, crowding and oppressing Demeters. 4) The new chimney is totally out of line with other chimneys in the development, which are provided by Centex. Developer architects were consistent about their design and buyers accepted this setup as such. Centex chimneys are inconspicuous, sticking out only 2 ft above root and well- hidden in side yards of every two -story house. Brodys new chimney will be nonconforming and protruding in an unacceptable manner over Demeters' and other residents backyards by coming closer to neighbors rear windows and backyards. The new Brody's chimney is 2T tall and sticking out 18' above new addition roof. Will ruin the outlook from Demeters' main rooms (breakfast room, master bathroom and master bedroom) and from Demeters entire backyard. At only 17' from Demeters' comer or the backyard the proposed Brodys' chimney would look very threatening and the 18' portion sticking above the proposed addition would not look attached to the house. 5) The homes are designed and build with a total architectural concept and were approved as such by the City of Seal Beach. And sold to buyers as such. CC&R's were issued and signed by the buyers in order to protect all the properties value. Any modification to one property can have an undesirable effect on other properties and shall be considered by the impacted owners for review and approval. 6) The proposed addition - extension will detrimentally impact Demeters' and Coopers' adjacent property value, relative to other equivalent properties, just after few months from closing the Escrow. 7) Lack of disclosure by Centex of Brody application for expansion before close of Escrow of a subsequent loss to property value for Demeters, Coopers and other neighbors is against regulations about disclosure of a known material change. 8) Obvious decrease in property value of Demeters' shortly after purchasing a property equivalent in value to Brodys' property. Brodys intends to expand his property and supposedly increase its value at the expense of Demeters property and Cooper property. Demeters and Coopers would fell as being robbed. 9) Brody does complain about the size of his family room which is the same size for all plan 2 homes in the development. He stated that his family room is the size of the closet and master bathroom Those closet and master bathroom are oversized and very large. Besides, other owners of plan 2 are satisfied with the size of their family room in conjunction with other rooms and their amenities. At the time of purchase Brody had a choice of three floor plans and could purchase a house with a 9 of 12 larger family room in plan I and plan 3. Those options were presented by Centex in their model homes (2,900 -3,400 Sq.Ft.). All needs and tastes were covered and furniture arrangement was suggested in Centex models. 10) Centex Design Review Committee disregarded all of the above, and rushed in only 14 days and granted a major modification with a major impact approval, instead of the legal 45 days, avoiding this way to deal with the actual homeowners. The Committee used its "discretion" without even inspecting the site! Present Committee has no material investment in sold properties. Committee decision doesn't represent actual homeowners at present time. Committee members are not homeowners in our Community. They are Centex employees who suppose to represent all of us. 11) There is no appeal to decision of Design Review Committee 12)Brodys intends to start a new construction in a recently Centex closed phase 2 of their construction of Old Ranch Development - sold to buyers as such. Brody will open a new construction site that will create pollution of dust, noise and construction inconveniences of all sorts. This is not what present homeowners expected when they eagerly moved willing to get a quiet life past the turmoil of the transition. As homeowners of Old Ranch, we all signed documents to live and abide by the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) for Old Ranch. The purpose of this document, as you are aware of is to give us rules and regulations by which to govern and control our Old Ranch community. It is a self - governing arrangement with an elected Board of Directors and appointed committees. We, as homeowners will be allowed to plot our own destiny by the decisions we make within the confines of our CC &R's, If we feel they are too restrictive or punitive, as an elected body we can change these rules and regulations. It will be the will of the people. During this transition period when all the homes are not yet completed and many of the homeowners have yet to move in, Old Ranch is mr, by a "benevolent dictatorship" made up of a Board of Directors and Committees of employees of the developer. This arrangement will cease once an election is held at an annual meeting of the ORCA. In theory, this is a good and proper procedure to follow in the transition period. However, the events that have taken place point out major flaws in this arrangement. One of the rules of the CC &R's in reference to the submission of applications to the Design Review Committee is that while the Board of Directors and Committees are made up of employees of the developer, there are no appeals allowed on any of the decisions made by the Design Review Committee. Simply, the decision of the Design Review Committee stands regardless of the effect it may have on the ORCA members. In the issue of the Brody's planned expansion, the Design Review Committee has made a very questionable precedent- setting judgment that is most unfavorable to the majority of the homeowners in Old Ranch. At the time of notification of your hearing, approximately twenty -two homeowners had moved into or closed escrow on their new homes, of the twenty -two homeowners (including the Brody's) eleven homeowners expressed their disagreement to the decision that was made. Ten of these homeowners felt strongly enough to attend a meeting and sign a submittal to the Board of Directors of ORCA asking them to rescind the approval of the Design Review Committee on the grounds that you are now aware of These same homeowners attended the first Board of Directors meeting on January 29, 2002 and again expressed their desire to have the Board rescind approval. Only two members of the community spoke in favor of the expansion, one of them being Mr. Brody. 10 of 12 In the United States we cherish and live by the democratic process. As Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach you are appointed by the duly elected members of the Seal Beach City Council. All of this is part of the democratic process, As it now stands unless you deny, delay or table the above referenced application democracy will be circumvented. On Much 5, 2002, the ORCA will hold its first annual meeting. At that time, they will elect its own Board of Directors and establish its Design Review Committee. If the new Board of Directors feels the application by the Brody's was incomplete or improperly submitted they will have an opportunity to rescind the action of the Board appointed by the developer. The Brody's can then resubmit their application to the Design Review Committee and as homeowners and residents we can make our own decisions as to bow we feel about the proposed expansion. Not only will there be self government, but an appeal process will be in place so everyone can express their feelings and feel confident about the decision. On Wednesday, February 6,2002: There was a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach. We asked Planning Committee to appreciate their review of this matter. On their agenda was the approval of the Brody's expansion. It had been put over from their last meeting on January 9, 2002. Attending this meeting were the Demeter's, Cooper's, Willingham's, Nathansou's, Brody's, the Brody's Attorney, and a member of the Board of Directors of Old Ranch Community Association. Tom Willingham, Alida Demeter, Tanya Demeter, Peter Demeter, Steve. Cooper, and Stan Nathanson all spoke in opposition to the Brody expansion. We pointed out all that had happen previously and how we, as homeowners, were being denied deciding our own fate. After the parties in opposition to the proposal spoke presenting their procedural and technical concerns, Mr. Brody's attorney spoke referring to CC&R's and to the Board of Directors discretion in making their decision. Mr. Brody himself spoke to the Commission. O A couple of observations from Brody's presentation: Mr. Brody informed the commission that his house would only have one chimney, not two. He indicated the existing chimney would be removed and a new one built in the planned expansion This statement is in direct conflict with what Mr. Brody told Stan Nathanson in a conversation he had with him on Sunday, Feb. 4th, night. Brodys' architectural plan is ambiguous on this matter. O Mr. Brody pointed out how landscaping would hide his addition. He also contradicted himself by saying that he could not contact the adjacent neighbors (because they had not moved in) by saying he had the Demeter's over to his house and had talked to the Cooper's over the fence! After the Brodys made their presentation, the Commission was able to ask questions and make statements. No questions were asked of the parties attending the meeting. A few procedural questions were asked of the City Attorney. Then, each of the Commissioners took turns stating their position. One of the Commissioners, Mr. Sharp, basically stated that if you signed the CC&R's you are bound by them and tuff luck! We think that CC&R's were misinterpreted and misused by Architectural Review Committee and The Board of Directors who are the same people and were 01 advised by Action 11 of 12 Property Management. They did not do their job properly and rushed a major decision at their "discretion ". We feel a great injustice is taking place. Three other Commissioners all stated that they thought the expansion was a bad idea and ill conceived. They felt that if the Brody's or the neighbors had to use trees to hide the expansion, it didn't speak well of the proposed expansion. Finally, they felt that the way the Brody's went about getting approval was hostile to their neighbors and this addition will produce a loss to Demeters property value. However, they all felt their hands were tied and they had no legal right not to vote for the project per city set backs. The chairman of the Commission is Mr. Hood He spoke last. He felt that this was a miscarriage of justice and that the Brody's had bent the system to their own rewards without concern for the effect that the proposed expansion would cause on neighbors' homes. He said that when a system is breaking down, some people could take unfair advantage. He chided the Brody's to reconsider their expansion, as it was not a good way to start life in a new community, by creating "bad blood ". He felt that legally he could not vote against the project, but he, in good conscience could not vote for it, so he was abstaining! Fellow neighbors (with the exception of the Brody's) broke into applause at that point. So, the final vote was four votes in favor of the proposal and one abstention. The proposal passed. However we file an appeal (something we could not do as homeowners to the ORCA Board of Directors) to the Seal Beach City Council. We will make one final presentation to the City Council in an attempt to avoid this miscarriage of justice. We respectfully appeal to City Council, please take in consideration, if this construction would be accomplished, as it is proposed now, it would be there for everybody to see what an injustice has taken place and it would be too late to do something about it. Besides causing immediate lose of value to Demeters and Coopers residences, it would be an eye soar for the whole community and a permanent painful and bitter reminder of an ill- conceived and hostile project. It would stand as a contradiction, a conflict, spiteful to the whole Community Association spirit and concept. It will badly reflect on Centex Architectural Design Review Committee/Board of Directors. Planning Department, who did such a good job with this visible Centex Old Ranch Development by applying higher standards and code requirements, shall not lower their standards afterwards, by allowing Brodys' addition to be built. Sincerely, Peter Demeter Tanya Demeter Alina Demeter S J J A zi- ��3 h J' wxnwvas wn �G _— .a n T an xeRMa rouar m� L:r m mN lPmO ATER WAY „ _ � N _ P •S s NAN'fl1CI�T Rim �: ro YMWK4iOWN SfAP� '•z o I � y I U Ig O XIgg f$ 4 wa O s 00 0, o ^= L U W _= a a � r ti 9a cd R R M a a N — R � N N 7 d = z T � O � U R CIO �o 0 0 mol a ee d Ci •a F y c c a � � 3 ; > qad c a � � o •d ° s � y F a _ o „ va � Gg� � u T N 9 00 N F — m � R u R C � y V � 9 9 C r y m H = � � V R � 3 � v m � 3 ? 3 ° d > 3 0 v ° c o R o 0 T � O C ' » Ci C 3 d_^ a,o N w� W > Q .y �y M z vi R CIO �o 0 0 mol a ee d Ci •a F y c c a � � 3 ; > qad c a � � o •d ° s � y F a _ o „ va � Gg� � u T N 9 00 N F — m � R u R C � y V � 9 9 C r y m H = � � V R � 3 � v m � 3 ? 3 ° d > 3 0 v ° c o R o 0 T � O C ' » Ci C 3 d_^ a,o Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12181 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02- 3, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 6, 2002 SPR 02- I.Appm] Staff Report 15 RESOLUTION 02 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW 02- 1 FOR A 324 SQUARE -FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "ApplicanV) filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.93 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Site Plan Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15301(e) (Existing Facilities) because the request is for a minor addition to an existing residence that will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2002, and continued to February 6, 2002 to consider the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of January 9 and February 6, 2002 indicates the following (a) On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -I. (b) The site plan review is required as a condition of the approved development agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. C:Ny Documents \USO \SPR 02 -1 (12282 Bndga ater).PC Rm.doc\ M(2 -06 -02 Flannina _ommirsion Resolution 02 -3 Site Plan Review 02 -1, 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 1001 (c) The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. (d) The subject property is located on the easterly side of Bridgewater Way, between Rock Landing Way and Plymouth Way, east of Seal Beach Boulevard within the Centex Homes residential development portion of the Old Ranch project. (e) The subject property is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone, on a parcel of land having 55 feet of frontage on Bridgewater Way, being 89 feet deep. The subject property is 4,895 square feet in area and is developed with an existing single family residence. (f) Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: All Directions — Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone North of Residential neighborhood — single family residential homes within the "Rossmoor Highlands" area of the City of Loa Alamitos. South of Residential neighborhood — Approved Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center currently under construction, in the General Commercial (C -2) Zone. East of Residential neighborhood— Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. West of Residential neighborhood — across Seal Beach Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -2) zone is the Rossmoor Center development, in the City of Seal Beach. (g) The proposed single -story residential addition complies with all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off -street parking, and landscaping. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to the City Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Site Plan Review 02 -1, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a `Residential Medium Density" designation for the subject property and permits the proposed addition subject to approval of a "Site Plan Review ". The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and SPR 02.1 (12282 Bndgew ter).PC Rno Planninb .:ommission Resolution 02 -3 Site Plan Review 02 -1, 12182 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed style, height and bulk of the proposed 324 square foot, single -story room addition is consistent with adjoining residential uses, which include a new residential neighborhood development further to the west, being developed by the same homebuilder. In addition, the properties adjacent to the subject site to the south have received previous approvals for a commercial shopping center and mitigation measures were imposed by the City Council at the time of certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 97091077) to ensure compatibility of the proposed residential and commercial uses. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. The proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition exceeds all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street puking, and landscaping. (c) Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition, as approved herein, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. (d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review 02 -1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Site Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the construction of a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way. 2. All residential development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted as a part of the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. 3. This Site Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 4. A modification of this Site Plan Review shall be obtained when the property proposes to modify any of its current conditions of approval. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this Site Plan Review if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those reasons specified by Article SPR 02 -1 (12282 andg. w,).PC Res. 3 Planning .;ommission Resolution 02 -3 Site Plan Review 02 -1, 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Site Plan Review, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. 7. This Site Plan Review shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to theDepartment of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at ameeting thereof held on the 6th day of February , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Sharp, Cutuli, Brown, Ladner NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Hood SPR 02 -1 (12282 PC Res. Planning „ommrssion Resolution 02 -3 Site Plan Review 02 -1, 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 David Hood, Ph.D: Chairman of the Pl Commission �Se Wh2 enberg cr etary of the Planning Co ion SPR02 -1(1 R82 Bndg ateq.PC Reo Public Hearing re. Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12182 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT D PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2002 SPR02- I.A,.]StefPRe a 16 CONSENT CALENDAR None. SCHEDULED MATTERS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Site Plan Review 02 -1 (Continued from January 9, 2002) 12282 Bridgewater Way (Centex Homes) Applicant/Owner: Cary and Carol Brody Request: To approve a Site Plan Review for a proposed 324 - square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.93 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02 -3. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the supplemental staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and noted that a copy of the initial staff report of January 9, 2002 was attached to the supplemental staff report. He stated that one of the main issues discussed was the impact from the proposed room addition upon the adjoining properties, related to intrusion on privacy. He noted that both staff reports indicate that the City looks at this issue from a different viewpoint than a homeowner association (HA) might. He said that the City sees this application as meeting the minimum setback and lot coverage requirements, and height provisions. He stated that this is a structure that the City would allow without any review at all. He indicated that the reason this application was brought before the Planning Commission (PC) is because of a development agreement (DA) between the City of Seal Beach and the Bixby Ranch Company that has provisions that continue to apply to the subsequent landowners upon sale or transfer of the property. He noted that because there was no residential plan submitted at the time the project was approved at the Council Level, a Site Plan Review (SPR) is required for all future construction within this residential development. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that another issue was whether or not the HA had adequately considered these issue in their approval of the project. He indicated that a copy of the grading plan had been included with the supplemental staff report reflecting the distances 1\ DATARUMUSERSCAlvareACarmen _datMPC Minutest2002\02 -06 42 PC Minutes.doc City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 between the new addition and the other structures on the adjoining properties. He briefly outlined the distances from the corner of the proposed addition to the cattycomered lot to the north and to the other existing structures. The Director of Development Services noted that there is a typical 10 -foot separation from residence to residence on side yards, and generally there is a minimum 20 -foot building separation from rear yard to rear yard when lot lines are contiguous and there is no "jog' in them. Mr. Whittenberg then reported that another issue was concern over the property owner constructing a second -story deck above the proposed single - story addition. He stated that should the owners propose constructing this deck, the issue would have to go before the HA first for review and approval before coming before the PC for an additional SPR. Mr. Whittenberg then explained that the construction of a fireplace on the single - story addition was also at issue. He noted that the fireplace would project into the side yard setback in accordance with the City's encroachment standards. He stated that because the fireplace will butt up against the rear of the existing 2 -story house, it must be a certain height above the roof line in accordance with Building Code provisions and that is why it is as high as it is. He noted that it would appear that it is physically attached to the existing 2nd story. He stated that Staff has outlined other alternatives for this structure that can be presented later. The Director of Development Services stated that several residents had requested that this item be continued until the Design Review Committee (DRC) of the HA has more residents than representatives of the builder as members. He noted that the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &Rs) do indicate that until September 21, 2002, the membership of the DRC will maintain its current membership of representatives of the developer. He said that after this, depending upon how quickly the homes are sold, all representatives could change over to residents of the development. He stated that the City is bound by state law requirements (Permit Streamlining Act) and under the provisions of this law, the City has 60 days to take action on this type of application before the PC tonight. He explained that if no action is taken within 60 days, the matter is then deemed approved. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that Staff believes the project complies with the City's requirements. He reported that copies of letters from the Board of the HA indicating the project has been approved have been provided to the Planning Commissioners as well as copies of a letter from the Brody's to their neighbors inviting them to review the plans for the proposed addition. Commissioner Questions Chairperson Hood asked if the homeowners have any right to choose the members of the HA. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as he reads the CC &Rs, they do not. Chairperson Hood confirmed that essentially the residents' future was in the hands of people not of their choosing. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Whittenberg noted that he has resided in two such communities that are governed 11DATAFREWSERVCANar .4Ca.en_datalPC Minutes @662102 -06 4)2 PC Minutes.eoc City of Seat Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 by this same type of organization and the language is very typical of what these associations use. Public Hearing Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing Mr. Barry Ross, legal counsel for Cary and Carol Brody, stated that as the Director of Development Services has stated, the project does comply with all City requirements and with the requirements of the DRC of the HA. He said that despite a letter from neighbors requesting that the DRC rescind their approval, they refused to do so. He stated that he is in agreement with Staffs recommendation to approve Site Plan Review (SPR) 02 -1 and he would be happy to respond to any questions. Mr. Stan Nathanson asked whether the PC had received a letter he had faxed for inclusion with the Staff Report. He provided copies and explained that in his letter he addressed the issue of the majority of the members of the HA being representatives of the developer. He noted that these same individuals make up the DRC, essentially approving their own actions. Mr. Nathanson said that the CC&Rs state that while the developer representatives are members of the HA, there is no appeal on any action taken by the DRC, leaving no avenue of appeal for the residents. Mr. Nathanson stated that the plans submitted to the PC are incorrect and do not properly represent what is being done. He said that the plans reflect one chimney, but there are actually two with the existing chimney, which is not shown in the plans. He continued by stating that there is a meeting of the HA scheduled for March 2, 2002, at which time members of the community will vote and place as a member a resident of the community. He explained that the homes have all been sold and as they are occupied, more members will be added to the board when the current members resign and have their positions appointed by members of the community. He said that at that time an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) made up of homeowners could also be appointed. He emphasized that the homeowners should have the right to determine their future by setting up reasonable rules that the community can live with. Mr. Tom Willingham requested that the Planning Commission (PC) review this application carefully and stated that he hoped the Commissioners were taking the public comments from homeowners into consideration in making a determination on this matter. He said that his biggest concern is that this application was presented and approved in approximately two weeks, leaving ample opportunity to notify the surrounding homeowners. Mr. Willingham noted that although he is not impacted by the Brody's addition, he would be very frustrated if an addition were constructed on the home behind him without providing adequate notice. He recommended that the PC review the plans again and that residents have an opportunity to provide input. Ms. Alina Demeter, a co -owner of the most impacted property, presented photographs reflecting how the back yard of her property currently looks, and how WATAFILMUSERS1CAIv ... XCannen data\PC Minutest200=2 -06 -02 PC Minutes.doc City of Seat Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 close the Brody house already is to her home. She stated that no site inspection was conducted when the DRC approved the plans for the Brody addition. She said that she and her parents had been living in their new home for less than one week when they discovered that the Brody addition had already been approved. She indicated that the proposed addition would come within one foot of the Demeter property line, because the Demeter property is located in a culdesac pushing their property line back 8.5 feet. She noted that again, without a site inspection, the Board of Directors (the same three members that are on the DRC) declined to overturn the DRC decision. Ms. Demeter then went on to explain the procedure used by the HA and the DRC for determining approvals for additions to the homes. She explained that the HA reviews applications and makes an aesthetic judgment about the effect of the proposed addition on the harmony and beauty of the addition. She quoted from a rejection letter received from the DRC as follows: "The Architectural Committee had approved the plans based upon the architectural review and approval criteria contained within Article 5, Section 5.3.3 of the CC &Rs. The Committee had determined that the plans complied with the criteria established by that Section. Because the Centex Representatives currently serve as both the Association Board and the Association Architectural Committee, there can be no truly independent review by the Board of Directors at this time of an Architectural Committee approval. For this reason the Association CC &Rs do not yet allow for the Association Board of Directors to overturn a decision of the Architectural Committee." Ms. Demeter then continued to review the design criteria as outlined in Section 5.3.3 of the CC &Rs emphasizing that the Brody's addition does not comply with these guidelines. She stated that the proposed addition is detrimental to Lot 28 and 29. She noted that with the two chimneys the appearance is not in harmony and the one -foot setback from the Demeter property line offends common standards of privacy, decency, and enjoyment of the property. She reported that the Brodys have verified that they were not property owners at the time they submitted their plans for approval, and contrary to what they have stated, the Brodys did not provide disclosure of their plans to adjacent homeowners. She also stated that prior to the closure of escrow by the Demeters, the developer, Centex Homes, did not disclose the impending violation of their property entrance as required by the Business and Professions Code. Ms. Demeter explained that the Brody's plans are incomplete, as they do not reflect two fireplaces or the distances from the adjacent properties. She stated that when there are staggered lots, the Code in other cities requires that an average of all property lines be made. She expressed that she and her family feel violated and humiliated in the worst way, and are completely helpless. She appealed to the PC to carefully consider their determination. Mr. Steven Cooper, owner of the home directly behind the Brody's, stated that he does not want to be at odds with one of his neighbors when he moves into his new home. He said that he has no issue with the Brodys, but with the developer, Centex IM ATAFILE1l1SERS1CAIVar ezlCarmen_tlataW C Mlnutes12002102 46 -02 PC Minutes.doc City of Seat Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 Homes. He stated that the Centex never called him to advise him of the Brody's plans. He indicated that until today, he did not know that a deck could be constructed over the Brody addition. Mr. Peter Demeter, co -owner with Alina Demeter, stated that the first time he had seen the blueprint of plans displayed tonight was at the PC meeting of January 9, 2002, along with the Staff Report on SPR 02 -1. He noted that his business is Engineering Architecture and he has since had an opportunity to review the plans. He stated that having to look at the single story roof of the Brody's proposed family room addition would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Demeter explained that the value of his property is in jeopardy as a result. He said he was not aware of the plans for this addition until he received the public notice from the City. He stated that the addition should be acceptable to all of the homeowners, and this would not be the rase. Mrs. Tanya Demeter stated that she likes the Brodys and understands their desire to improve their property. She said that she had invited the Brodys to come to her home so that they might see what the view is like from the Demeter kitchen. She noted that because the most frequently used entrance to her home is through the kitchen, they Cannot help but regularly be exposed to the view of the Brody's home. She stated that after doing some calculations she determined that the distance between comers of the lots along her street is 49 feet. She said that because the Demeter lot is staggered, the distance is 30 feet. She stated that with the Brody addition, there would be a distance of only 17.5 feet. Mrs. Demeter indicated that they are willing to negotiate with the Brodys to see if they are able to reach a compromise. She also requested that the PC give careful consideration to any determination. Mr. Barry Ross stated that it appears most of the residents' complaints have to do with the provisions of the CC &Rs or with the actions of the developer, issues that Mr. Ross noted the PC should not have to consider. He explained that when a property that is a part of a community association is purchased, before homebuyers can close escrow they are required to sign a statement of having received, reviewed, and accepted the provisions of the CC &Rs. He noted that all of the homeowners of the Old Ranch Homes would have been required to sign such a statement. With regard to the homeowners not having received adequate notification from the HA, Mr. Ross stated that this was an issue that should be referred to the developer and is not a reason to deny Mr. Brody's plans. He said that if Mr. Brody's plans are in compliance with City Code, they should be approved. He reiterated that the HA did approve Mr. Brody's plans, and there is no question that the DRC is properly constituted and has made their decision. He noted that the fact that the homeowners are unhappy with the membership of the HA is not an issue to be Considered by the PC. Mr. Ross then reported that the plans as displayed are correct as there will only be one chimney. He stated that the existing chimney is to be removed with the only remaining chimney to be the one constructed with the room addition. He also reported that the Brody's were the legal owners of the \\DATAFILMUSERMCAIvarez \Carmen dMatPC Minutes=OZ02 -06 42 PC Minutes.doc City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 property when the HA approved the plans. With regard to the statements made about Section 5.3.2 of the CC &Rs, Mr. Ross stated that having Adjacent Owners sign acknowledgement of being notified is discretionary and not mandatory. He said that the Demeter house was not yet occupied when the Brody's circulated their plans for adjacent owners to sign, and he commented that he believed the Demeters did not yet own the property. Mr. Ross explained that there were no plans for construction of a 2nd story deck, and he noted that should the Brody's wish to construct a deck at a later time, they would again have to go through the appropriate channels for approval of this deck. Mr. Cary Brody stated that all they had done was purchase a home and apply for and receive approval for construction of an addition to that home. He said that they had researched every aspect of this process and continued to comply with all City requirements and have applied for approval by the PC. He stated that they had no idea of the timeline on how Centex was showing new homes. Mr. Brody stated that he was required to have only those homeowners who had closed escrow sign off on the plans. He offered the scenario that six months from now the homeowner would mount a recall of the current members of the HA. He presented photographs of one of the homes in the development noting how the trees planted in the yard and in the neighboring yards with time begin to obscure views from one lot to another. He described other photo views of his home and the Demeter home to reflect that the addition and the new chimney would not be as highly visible as the Demeters claim. Mr. Brody reported that the CC &Rs state that under no circumstance are homeowners granted any view. He questioned whether any new addition to any home in Seal Beach and approved by the PC would not increase the value of the home. He stated that although his home is very nice, his bathroom and closet area are as big as the current family room and the fireplace was constructed in a comer of the house, which he wants to change. He commented that things have gotten out of control. He explained that he had invited the Demeters into his home before they had closed escrow on their home. He also noted that he had shared his plans for adding onto his home with his neighbor, Mr. Cooper. Mr. Brody stated that if this is a reasonable project and it meets all of the City's requirements, there should be no reason to deny this application. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brown asked whether the City had a provision for Calculating average setbacks for staggered lots. Mr. Whittenberg reported that this was not the case. He explained that the City uses a standard 10 -foot rear yard setback and 5 -foot side yard setback requirements, except for the Old Town area. Commissioner Brown asked if there were other areas in the city with staggered property lines. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is usually found in areas with culdesacs at the ends of streets. He indicated that the jog is usually on the rear property line only. \\DATAFILOUSERS\CAlvarezkCarmen _ datalPC Minutest2002U12 -06 42 PC Minutee.dac City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofFebmaty 6, 2002 Commissioner Cutuli asked Mr. Boga whether the PC had any part in evaluating CC &Rs, and if these take precedence over standard building codes throughout the City. Mr. Boga stated that compliance with CC &Rs is strictly a matter between the neighboring homeowners and the developer. He said that legally it is not the PCs job to evaluate whether or not proper notice was given in accordance with the CC &Rs or whether the standards of the DRC were properly applied. Commissioner Cutuli asked if the CC &Rs within a district limit what can be done on a property, the PC cannot supercede the CC &RS, even though City Code may allow the revisions. Mr. Whittenberg interjected by stating that the Bridgeport development is made up of a number of different tracts, and there are specific provisions for this area because many of the homes have a zero lot line on the property line. He also noted that there are provisions that only 50% of the home in certain tracts in that area can be two -story homes. He said that the City would not approve a project in that area unless their HA indicates that they have reviewed and approved the project. Commissioner Cutuli clarified that when making decisions on what can or cannot be constructed, the City must honor the CC &Rs and cannot overrule them. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the City could overrule the CC &Rs, but the City has taken the position that it will not consider a project from any area of town that is subject to CC &Rs unless the appropriate design review or architectural review board has approved the plans. He indicated that this is the provision for Surfside Colony. Mr. Boga continued by stating that the PC could give approval to a project that is allowed by City Code; however, the reality is that the homeowner could not build it because it would not be consistent with the CC &Rs and this could be held against the homeowner. He emphasized that the City will consider whether the DRC has approved the project as consistent with the CC &Rs, but this is really more of a courtesy, as the PC is determining whether the project complies with City Code. He continued by stating that whether the project complies with the CC &Rs is the homeowner's responsibility. Commissioner Sharp stated that he lives in a gated, controlled community in Leisure World and purchasing a condominium there involves a major investment. He said that he purchased his home there because it is a controlled community and it has rules and regulations, which were clearly explained to him at the time of purchase. He noted that if a prospective buyer felt that he or she could not abide by these regulations, then they should not consider moving to Leisure World. He said that although he sympathized with the Old Ranch homeowners and hoped they had carefully read their CC &Rs prior to purchasing their homes, as far as the City is concerned had this project been constructed in any other part of the city outside a gated community, it would have been approved without having to come before the PC. He said that the PC has absolutely no right to deny this application because of the CC &Rs, or the Design Review Board, or because of a view. He stated that the issue must be addressed with the builders, the CC &Rs, and the review board, and he believes that the PC is bound by law to grant approval. WATAFILE USERSWAWarez\Carmen_ealalPC Mlnule5W02 \02 4)6 4)2 PC Minules.EOc City of Seat Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 Commissioner Cutuli described this as a "hostile action" on the part of the Brodys to develop the land behind their home in an area that is already as crowded as it ever should be. He stated that just as Mr. Boga had noted, the PC does not create the laws, but must interpret and abide by them. He said that if the PC did make laws he would vote that this area should be immediately halted because the ARC has not been appointed by the homeowners and is a situation where the developer is the ARC. He commented that developers are not happy until every square inch of every piece of land is developed. He said that he believes that once a tract of homes is sold, the ARC should consist of the homeowners only. He stated that although he is totally against this project, based upon what City Code allows he must vote to approve. Commissioner Cutuli went on to state that he is totally against this project and it will certainly affect property values, as it is a tremendous eyesore. He stated that when the ARC is made up of the people that live in the area, this project will eventually be grandfathered in and this type of project would not be allowed again, and should not be allowed. Commissioner Ladner stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Cutuli. He said that he disliked the idea of have someone build an addition directly in his back yard. He said that he also understands that he is obligated to vote a certain way, and the property is within the legal jurisdiction of the City of Seal Beach so he must vote yes, although he is totally against this project. Commissioner Brown explained that the PC is a non - discretionary body, who follows the rules and occasionally interprets them, but certainly does not make new rules. He stated that this project is in conformance with City Code. He said he agreed with Mr. Barry Ross that the issues that the Brody's neighbors have presented should be taken up with the DRC. He stated that it is not the PC's responsibility to settle "homeowner squabbles." He noted that he does not like the Old Ranch development of homes and consistently voted against it, but the people who do make the rules have decided to allow the development, and once that has taken place, the PC is obligated to approve this project. He stated that it was not the place of the PC to say that the DRC does not represent the community. He said he would vote to approve SPR 02 -1. Chairperson Hood stated that this is a case of the failure of the system and it appears that someone is attempting to use the system to his own advantage. He noted that the process was begun before having gone through escrow, and the people making the decision would be benefiting from the sale of the home. He commented that the Brody's would probably have a difficult time living in this neighborhood with the amount of "bad blood" that has been raised with this issue. He said that unfortunately the PC has been backed into a comer and is constrained to deal only with certain issues. He said that legally he has no reason to vote against this project, but ethically he cannot vote for it. He stated that he would abstain from voting. WATAFILEWSER=AlvarezlCarmen _ dataTC Minutest2002\02 46 -02 PC Minutes.doc City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Site Plan Review 02 -1 subject to conditions and adopt Resolution 02 -3. ITiTi11LoPWill ANl4 D7NEIMIIII AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Hood Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02 -1 begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. STAFF CONCERNS None. Commissioner Brown inquired about the construction at 308 Ocean Avenue. He said that he had received a question regarding new construction within a setback area. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he had reviewed the files and found that the project is being constructed in consistence with what the PC had approved. He offered to compile a report on this project to present to the PC and its next meeting. Commissioner Brown asked where the new construction was being done within the setback area. Mr. Whittenberg reported that new construction was completed on the north side of an existing structure, above an existing non - conforming setback garage. He said the rest of the house is already within the non - conforming setback. He said the plans had clearly indicated this structure and there was some discussion at the PC in 1997 about building in this area. Commissioner Brown stated that although he understood that the PC allows existing non - conforming structures to remain, the Commission has rarely allowed any new construction to violate a setback. Mr. Whittenberg said that he did not recall, but the minutes appear to reflect that because the new construction was over the garage, and there is a large courtyard area, that it would be acceptable. He stated that Staff could provide the information at the next PC. Commissioner Brown then reported that his time on the Planning Commission was coming to an end soon. Commissioner Cutuli reported that he would not be present at the next Planning Commission meeting, as he will be out of the Country on vacation. WATAFILMUSERMCAlvarezTannen dataTC MlnutesU(1=02 -06 -02 PC Minules.doc 10 Public Hearing re. Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 11282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staf/Report March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT E WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY PERSONS IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2002 SPR 02 -I.AP lSIaHRe ft 17 From: Stan Nathanson 5627994611 To: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Commercial Sales- Stan Nathanson, Manufacturer's Rep. 12295 Old Harbor Court Seal Beach, CA 90740 562.799.4300/ 562.799.4311fax www.c- sales.com rate: 119!2002 Time 5:57.16 PM Page t on 1 For Your Information To: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Fax Number: 562 4314067 Company: PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF Date: 1/9/2002 From: Stan Nathanson Fax Number : 562 799 4311 Company: Commercial Sales Pages including cover page: 1 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING RE: SITE PLAN REVIEW 02-1,12282 BRIDGEWATER Comments: HELLO: I AM A RESIDENT OF OLD RANCH IN SEAL BEACH AND A NEIGHBOR OF THE APPLICANT, CARY AND CAROL BRODY. WE WORKOUT OF OUR HOME AND THE BACK OF MY HOME IS ABOUT TWO HOUSES SOUTH OF THE APPLICANT AND ON THE NEXT STREET (LOT 26). FROM OUR BEDROOM, WE VIEW THE BACKYARD OF THE BRODY'S. I AM SURE THAT MR. AND MRS. BRODY HAVE FOLLOWED PROCEDURE IN APPLYING FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THEIR HOME, HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PLANS OR TO COMMENT ON OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR ADDITION. THE APPROVAL THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE OLD RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS DONE BY THE TEMPORARY BOARD MADE UP OF MEMBERS THAT ARE EMPLOYEES OF CENTEX HOMES ( THE BUILDER). IN A FEW MONTHS THESE MEMBERS WILL BE REPLACED BY HOMEOWNERS ONCE WE CAN HAVE AN ELECTION. I DO NOT FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT THIS TEMPORARY BOARD'S APPROVAL AS THEY WILL NOT BE AROUND TO LIVE WITH THIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST DELAY OF APPROVAL OF THIS CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE PERMANENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MADE UP OF HOMEOWNERS IS IN PLACE AND THEY HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION. ALSO, I REQUEST THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS A VIEW OF THE ADDITION GIVE THEIR APPROVAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. REGARDS, STAN AND MICHELE NATHANSON P.S. OUR NEIGHBOR, MR. AND MRS. O'DONNELL (LOT27) HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN ON THIS CONSTRUCTION. THEY SIGNED THE APPROVAL BEFORE THEY WERE MOVED IN. WmFax PRO Cover Page 7RN-09 -2002 18 :1e 562.799.4311 94: P.01 Stephanie Cardin & Lee McMullin 12278 Bridgewater Way Seal Beach, CA. 90740 February 5, 2002 Dear Planning Commission We cannot participate in tonight's proceeding as we are out of town on business. We therefore request that our comments on the proposed improvement at 1228&Bridgewater Way be admitted via written vs. verbal comment. We are Stephanie Cardin and Lee McMullin — residents at 12278 Bridgewater Way immediately north and adjacent to the Brody's where the improvement at issue is the topic of discussion. At the recent Board meeting of the Old Ranch Community Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association) we observed significant opposition to the Brody's improvement plans. We choose not to discuss the essence of those concerns but instead focus on the contractual issues presented. As the City of Seal Beach has its own procedures established for granting a building permit our Association too has procedures for such improvements. The governing documents of the Association, hereinafter referred to as the CC &Rs, provide that the Design Review Committee is empowered to review and approve any proposed improvements on any lot in the Old Ranch Community. Decisions of that committee are final so long as the builder is acting as both the Association's governing Board and Design Review Committee. No appeal process exists. We understand the Association approves the Brody's proposed improvement. Any Association Member expressing dissent to that approval is still contractually and legally bound by the decisions of their governing Board. The remedy available to an Association's Members is to elect a new Board, a new Design Review Committee, or seek relief from the Superior Court. The governing documents or CC &Rs do not provide a means for the Membership to overrule existing decisions that are binding and not subject to appeal. We believe it presents a bad precedent for Members of any Association to circumvent the spirit of their Association's governing doctrine by doing an end run to the City's Planning Commission or avoiding the process outlined in their Association's rules. Additionally, we do not think those expressing dissent have considered how the courts interpret contracts in the comext of membership organizations. We personally do not want to see our Association dues increased to cover the Association's increased insurance premiums associated with litigation costs, or pay a special assessment that could result from first and second - generation lawsuits arising from this event. We are sure the City of Seal Beach does not wish to defend its position in a likewise similar manner. The City of Seal Beach has the benefit of City counsel by its side to guide its decisions while the Members of our Association expressing a dissenting opinion on this improvement do not. In closing, this is an issue that rests with the Old Ranch Community Association, not the City of Seal Beach. The Planning Commission should render a decision on the proposed improvement as it would with any other application in a residential community within the City's jurisdiction. Consideration of comments expressed by Members of the Old Ranch Community Association must be evaluated in light of our governing Board's binding approval of the Brody's proposed project and not on personal opinion or speculation — including ours. Thank you. Stephanie Cardin and Lee McMullin Stan and Michele Natlinrison 12295 Old Harbor Court Seal Beach, CA 90740 562.799.4300 562.799.4311 '�1 www.c- sales.com Tuesday, February 05, 2002 Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Refer®ce: Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way, Seal Beach Dear Commissioners This letter is provided as our request that the Commissioners at this time deny or delay the approval of the above referenced site plan review. I an sure that other members and homeowners of Old Ranch Community Association (ORCA) have pointed out all the architectural shortcomings and irregularities in the submission and approval of the Brody's application to the Design Review Committee of ORCA. My request is based on the spirit of the democratic process which we all, more than ever, celebrate, cherish, and uphold. As homeowners of Old Ranch, we all signed documents to live and abide by the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Old Ranch. The purpose of this document, as I am sure you are aware of is to give us rules and regulations by which to govern and control our Old Ranch community. It is a self - governing arrangement with an elected Board of Directors and appointed committees. We, as homeowners will be allowed to plot our own destiny by the decisions we make within the confines of out CC &R's. If we feel they are too restrictive or punitive, as an elected body we can change these rules and regulations. It will be the will of the people. During this transition period when all the homes are not yet completed and many of the homeowners have yet to move in, Old Ranch is run by a "benevolent dictatorship" made up of a Board of Directors and Committees of employees of the developer. This arrangement will case once an election is held at an annual meeting of the ORCA. In theory, this is a good and proper procedure to follow in the transition period. However, the events that have taken place point out major flaws in this saangemeat. One of the rules of the CCc&R's in reference to the submission of applications to the Design Review Committee is that while the Board of Directors and Committees are made up of employees of the developer, there are no appeals allowed on any of the decisions made by the Design Review Committee. Simply, the decision of the Design Review Committee stands regardless of the effect it may have on the ORCA members. In the issue of the Brody's planned expansion, the Design Review Committee has made a very questionable president- setting judgment that is most unfavorable to the majority of the homeowners in Old Ranch. At the time of notification of your hearing, approximately twenty -two homeowners had moved into or closed escrow on their new homes. Of the twenty -two homeowners (including the Brody's) eleven homeowners expressed their disagreement to the decision that was made. Ten of these homeowners felt strongly enough to attend a meeting and sign a submittal to the Board of Directors of ORCA asking then to rescind the approval of the Design Review Committee on the grounds that you are now aware o£ These same homeowner attended the first Board of Directors meeting on January 29, 2002 and again expressed their desire to have the Board rescind approval. Only two members of the community spoke in favor of the expansion, one of them being Mr. Brody. In the United States we cherish and live by the democratic process. As Commissioners of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach you are appointed by the duly elected members of the Seal Beach City Council. All of this is part of the democratic process. As it now stands, unless you deny or table the above referenced application democracy will be circumvented. On March 5, 2002, the ORCA will hold its first annual meeting. At that time, they will elect its own Board of Directors and establish its Design Review Committee. If the new Board of Directors feels the application by the Brody's was incomplete or improperly submitted, they will have an opportunity to rescind the action of the Board appointed by the developer. The Brody's can then resubmit their application to the Design Review Committee and as homeowners and residents we can make our own decisions as to how we feel about the proposed expansion. Not only will there be self government, but an appeal process will be in place so everyone can express their feelings and feel confident about the decision. We appreciate you review of this matte. Please consider your decision carefully and avoid this undemocratic rush to judgment by approving the proposed expansion. Sincerely, Stan and Michele Nathanson Public Hearing re: Appeal afApproval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2001 ATTACHMENT F WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY PROJECT APPLICANT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2002 SPR 02 -I.Ap lSffflk ort 18 02/05/2002 09:55 19494531014 ACTION PROP MGMT PAGE 01 OLD RANCH COMMUNITYASSOCIATON February 4, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Cary Brody 12282 Bridgewater Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Old Ranch Couanunity Association Subject: Room Addition Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brody: The Association will not be rescinding the architectural approval subject of the Association's January 2, 2002, letter directed to your attention. Please remember that all necessary building permits and other governmental approvals, as necessary, must be obtained prior to commenccnrnt of construction. Thank you for the courtesies you have extended in this matter. The Association =outages you to continue to communicate with your neighbors with respect to your construction plans end with respect to the scheduling of construction related activities. Sincerely, For tthhee(�/Booard of Directors Marianne Simek, PCAM, CCAM Association Manager NATURE SAVER' FAX MEMO A1915 Oa. 1 O;� pp.m n in. I - r.a.. v, r.. roa PrufeArlon4/ly Monged By Action Property Manageww, Inc. 29B Tcchrology L1r1Ye, State 100. ovine, CA 91618 -1302 (949) 450- 0101 (800) 400 -1184 t949) 4540303 f= cow, acrlon-onlh.e. con FEB -06 -2002 0930 19494531014 99% P.01 OLD RANCH C O MM UNI T Y A S S O C I A T I O N February 1, 2002 Mr. Cary Brody 12282 Bridgewater Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 RE: OLD RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Dear Mr. Brody: We are in receipt of your letter dated January 28, 2002 requesting information regarding submittals within the community of Old Ranch. Please be advised that as of this date, the number of submittals of the Home Improvement Form received by this office and requesting Design Review Committee approval is eight (8). This includes your two submittals Please do not hesitate to call me if I can be of any assistance to you, or if you have questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, For the Board of Directors Marianne Simek, PCAM, CCAM Association Manager cc: Board of Directors Professionally Managed By Action Property Management, Inc. 29B Technology Drive, Suite 100, 1"me, CA 92618-2302 (949) 450 -0102 (800) 400 -2284 (949) 450-0303 fax w .action- onlme.rom ly qq m 3lj��a l�A"��•GU�f �;W�3i••i a� v nwv w•s• d.�eRi2y i vmcaa • r�� �._.- �Ytl ! I .YR.. W. Ilk, ,. � "•"S it 1%�a 1111r _ P, Amt - { Gr - E7 I p it T t I r�.k i3 Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12182 Bridgewater Way City Council SlaffReport March 11, 1002 ATTACHMENT G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF FEBRUARY 6, 2002, WITH ATTACHMENTS SPR02- I.Appeal StaffReport 19 February 6, 2002 STAFF REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY (Centex Homes) GENERAL DESCRIPTION CARY AND CAROL BRODY CARY AND CAROL BRODY 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) ZONE - OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED 324 SQUARE FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE WILL BE 47.93 %; THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED IS $0 %. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROJECT DEVELOPER. APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 02 -3 C: \My Documents \Centex Homes \SPR 02 -1 - Supplemental PC Smtr R<Pmtda6LW 01 -31 -02 Planning Commasion Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 FACTS • This application was considered by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2001. Several persons spoke in opposition to the request and since Chairman Hood was absent, the Commission determined to continue the matter to this meeting. • Refer to the January 9, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report for the information presented to the Commission at the January 9 Commission meeting (Provided as Attachment 4). DISCUSSION ❑ At the January 9 Commission meeting several issues and concerns were raised, and staff will attempt to summarize and respond to those matters: Impact oforoposed addition on adioining residences. ❑ Several comments were received regarding the closeness of the homes and the impact of the proposed addition upon the privacy of adjoining residences. Concern was also expressed regarding a future second story balcony and the visual appearance of the proposed fireplace. ❑ StaffResnonse: ❑ Setback Issues: The side and rear yard setbacks for residential structures within this development are 5 -feet along the side yards and 10 -feet across the rear yard, with certain architectural features, such as fireplaces, allowed to encroach 2 feet into those setbacks. These are the same setback standards for all of the single - family residential zoned areas of the City except the Gold Coast (College Park East, College Park West, Marina Hill area, and the Coves area). Homes within the other residential areas indicated above can by right, without a Site Plan Review hearing or any other discretionary review by the City, construct a two -story residence up to those 5 -foot side yard setback and 10 -foot rear yard setback requirements. The proposed addition is clearly within the allowable building envelope and complies with the lot coverage provisions of the Code. It has been indicated that due to the small rear yards provided in this development that the proposed addition will adversely affect the neighboring properties. Again, the allowable building area for these homes is the same as for College Park East, College Park West, Marina Hill area, and the Coves SPR 02 -1 - Supplemental PC S1aa Report Planning Commasion StaffReporl - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 area. As long as the minimum setback requirements are met, homes in these areas would be allowed to construct additions identical to the proposed addition. Provided as Attachment 2 is an enlarged copy of the applicable portion of the final grading plan for the project. The plan indicates the existing rear yard and side yard setbacks for the information of the Commission. The proposed addition will maintain the required 10 -foot building separation between the addition and any future addition on the adjoining property to the north. The proposed addition will be separated by 18 feet on the diagonal from the existing residence to the northeast, with the building separation reduced to approximately 15 feet if this residence were to request an addition on their property to the maximum allowed at some future date. Future Second Story Balcony: Due to the provisions of the CC &R's and the Site Plan Review process applicable to this residential development, any future residential construction proposed would be required to first obtain approval of the Design Review Committee of the Old Ranch Community Association in accordance with the provisions of the recorded CC &R's and then receive approval from the Planning Commission of a subsequent Site Plan Review. Such City approval would be considered at a public hearing. Visual Impact of Proposed Fireplace: The proposed fireplace chimney is indicated to be approximately 26.5 feet high, which is required by provisions of the Building Code in order to maintain a height of the fireplace 2 feet above the roof height at a point measured 10 feet horizontal from any part of the building. As proposed, the fireplace chimney will be approximately 15 feet above the eave line of the proposed addition adjacent to the existing second story portion of the residence. As proposed, the new fireplace will be immediately adjacent to the existing second story overhang and not appear as a free - standing structure. Staff would recommend o modification to the proposed fireplace location. There are several alternatives the Commission may wish to consider if this issue is of concern to the Commission. These we: 1. Install a listed direct vent fireplace (gas only) in the proposed location. This will eliminate the need for a framed chimney chase. 2. Move the factory-built fireplace to the east elevation of the proposed addition, resulting in a chimney height of approximately 15.5 feet. 3. Leave fireplace in its existing location. 4. Eliminate the fireplace. SPR 02 -1 - Suppleoenml PC Smff Repot Planning Commasion StafjReport - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 If the Commission desires to address this issue, staff would recommend alternative 1, 3 or 4. Continue the matter until such time as residents are members of the Old Ranch Communitv Association Design Review Committee. • Several comments were received regarding the continuance of this matter until such time as a majority of the Design Review Committee is composed of residents of the development. • Staff Response: ❑ The recorded CC &R's establish the membership of the Design Review Committee in Section 5.1, and appeals in Section 5.10, which stipulate: "MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. The Design Review Committee shall be composed of three (3) members. The initial members of the Design Review Committee shall be representatives of Declarant until one (1) year after the original issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report ( "Public Report") for the Properties ( "First Anniversary'). After the First Anniversary the Board may appoint and remove one (1) member of the Design Review Committee, and Declarant may appoint and remove a majority of the members of the Design Review Committee and fill any vacancy of such majority, until the earlier to occur of (a) Close of Escrow for the sale of ninety percent (90 %) of all the Lots in the Properties, or (b) the fifth anniversary of the original issuance of the Public Report for the Properties, after which the Board may appoint and remove all members of the Design Review Committee. Design Review Committee members appointed by the Board must be Owners, but Design Review Committee members appointed by the Declarant need not be Owners. Board members may serve as Design Review Committee members." "APPEALS. So long as Declarant has the right to appoint and remove a majority of the Design Review Committee's members, the Design Review Committee's decisions are final. There is no appeal to the Board. After Declarant's right to appoint a majority of the Design Review Committee's members expires, the Board may adopt policies and procedures for appeal of Design Review Committee decisions to the Board. The Board has no obligation to adopt or implement any appeals procedures. In the absence of Board adoption of appeal procedures, all Design Review Committee decisions are final." SPR 02 -1 - Suppleme=t PC Stan deport Planning Commission Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12181 Bridgewater Way February 6, 1001 The Final Subdivision Report was issued on September 21, 2001. In accordance with Section 5.1 of the CC &R's, the Declarant will retain all membership of the Design Review Committee until September 21, 2002. After that date, the Design Review Committee could have a change in membership based on the ability of the Board to appoint one member, and possibly more if more than 90% of the escrows for the homes in the project have closed. Information provided by Centex Homes indicates that as of January 31, 36 homes have closed escrow, with the 90% closure expected to occur in mid -June 2002. However, the Declarant would still retain Design Review Committee majority until September 21, 2002. As staff understands these provisions, the membership of the Design Review Committee will not change until September 21, 2002, approximately 7Y: months from now. In addition, there is no appeal provided of the Design Review Committee action until that time, or later. Staff can see no reasonable basis to continue or delay action on the subject request based on the provisions of the CC &R's. Assistant Planner Cummins attended a Homeowners Association meeting on Tuesday, January 29 where the subject project was discussed by the Board of the Association and interested residents. It was indicated that the Board would issue a written response on February 1 to the written concerns of persons attending the Homeowners Association meeting. Provided as Attachment 3 for the information of the Commission are copies of the written materials obtained at the Homeowners Association meeting. Staff will provide the Commission with a copy of the Board response when received by the City. RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, approve Site Plan Review 02 -1 through the adoption of Resolution No. 02 -3, with the following conditions in place: ❑ Site Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the construction of a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way. ❑ All residential development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted as a part of the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. ❑ This Site Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. SPR 02 -1 - Supplemental PC Staff Repon Planning Comatasion Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12182 Bndgewater Way February 6, 2002 • A modification of this Site Plan Review shall be obtained when the property proposes to modify any of its current conditions of approval. • The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this Site Plan Review if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those reasons specified by Article 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. ❑ The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, funs, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Site Plan Review, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, £um, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. ❑ This Site Plan Review shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. ee Whittenberg Director of Development Services Attachments: (3) Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution 02 -3, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Site Plan Review 02 -1 for a 324 square -foot Family Room Addition at the Rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way Attachment 2: Tract 15767 Grading Plan — Enlarged Area indicating Building Setback Distances SPR 03 -1 - Supp6ne=[ PC Suff a,p n Planning Commission Staff Repon - Supplemental Site Plan Review 01 -1 11282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 1002 Attachment 3: Written submissions to old Ranch Homeowners Association, January 29, 2002 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Staff Report, January 9, 2002 re: Site Plan Review 02 -1, 12282 Bridgewater Way SPR 02 -1 - Supplemental PC Stair Report Planning Commission Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12182 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 02 -3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 FOR A 324 SQUARE -FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY SPR02- 1- SupplementalP SOti Report Planning Commission StafReport - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 RESOLUTION 02 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 FOR A 324 SQUARE -FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.93°/x; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § ILA of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Site Plan Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15301(e) (Existing Facilities) because the request is for a minor addition to an existing residence that will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2002, and continued to February 6, 2002 to consider the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of January 9 and February 6, 2002 indicates the following: (a) On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. SPR 02 -I - Supplemenml K Sufr Repon Planning Commission Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 (b) The site plan review is required as a condition of the approved development agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. (c) The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. (d) The subject property is located on the easterly side of Bridgewater Way, between Rock Landing Way and Plymouth Way, east of Seal Beach Boulevard within the Centex Homes residential development portion of the Old Ranch project. (e) The subject property is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone, on a parcel of land having 55 feet of frontage on Bridgewater Way, being 89 feet deep. The subject property is 4,895 square feet in area and is developed with an existing single family residence. (f) Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: All Directions — Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone North of Residential neighborhood — single family residential homes within the "Rossmoor Highlands" area of the City of Loa Alamitos. South of Residential neighborhood — Approved Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center currently under construction, in the General Commercial (C -2) Zone. East of Residential neighborhood— Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. West of Residential neighborhood — across Seal Beach Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -2) zone is the Rossmoor Center development, in the City of Seal Beach. (g) The proposed single -story residential addition complies with all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street puking, and landscaping. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to the City Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: SPR 02- 1- Supplemental PC Staff Ron 10 Planning Commasion StafRepon - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12181 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 (a) Site Plan Review 02 -1, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Residential Medium Density" designation for the subject property and permits the proposed addition subject to approval of a "Site Plan Review ". The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed style, height and bulk of the proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition is consistent with adjoining residential uses, which include a new residential neighborhood development further to the west, being developed by the same homebuilder. In addition, the properties adjacent to the subject site to the south have received previous approvals for a commercial shopping center and mitigation measures were imposed by the City Council at the time of certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 97091077) to ensure compatibility of the proposed residential and commercial uses. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. The proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition exceeds all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street parking, and landscaping. .(c) Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed 324 square - foot, single -story room addition, as approved herein, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. (d) Required adherence to. applicable building and fire codes will ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review 02 -1, subject to the following conditions: L Site Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the construction of a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way. 2. All residential development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted as a part of the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. 3. This Site Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. SPR 02- 1- Suppi..ul PC Smff R,0A 1I Planning Commusion Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 11182 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 4. A modification of this Site Plan Review shall be obtained when the property proposes to modify any of its current conditions of approval. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this Site Plan Review if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those reasons specified by Article 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. 6. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Site Plan Review, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. 7. This Site Plan Review shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners SPR02- I- SupplementalP Sniff Report 12 Planning Commasion Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission SPR02- 1- SupplemenulP Smff Report 13 Planning Commission Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 TRACT 15767 GRADING PLAN - ENLARGED AREA INDICATING BUILDING SETBACK DISTANCES SPR 02 -1 - Supplemental P Staff Report 14 s7i� r- _ MIN �!■ w� C'T• � 7�rsll�•� err .r Planning Commission Staff Report - Supplemental Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way February 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO OLD RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, JANUARY 29, 2002 SPR02- 1- SapplemeaalP Staff Report 15 Statement to Old Ranch Community Association Board of Directors: Board Meeting at Old Ranch Sales Office January 29,2002 My name is Tom Willingham and 1 live at 12284 Old Harbor Court (Lot 935). 1 have been asked by a group of concerned Homeowners to address the Board regarding the proposed 324 sq. ft. addition at 12282 Bridgewater Way (Lot 013). 1 will review the fiefs presented in our report to the Board and why we request the Board rescind the approval given by the Design Review Committee. First, it is our understanding that the Lot 13 plans were submitted in late November, 2001, prior to close of escrow on December 6, 2001. Per CUR 4.4.1, this would invalidate the application since the applicant most be a member of the Association. Second of the five Adjacent Neighbors, two (the Demeters in Lot 29 and the Coopers, directly behind the subject property in Lot 28) were never shown the plans or asked to review the application. I am sure you can understand the Demeter's frustration since their lot is offset to Lot 13 and the rear of thew breakfast nook is less than 17 ft. Gom the addition. 1 was with them at the Seal Beach Planning Comm meeting on January 9'" when they, for the first time, saw the plans and the monstrous chimney that would greet them every morning. Furthermore, the O'Donnells in Lot 27 feel they were pressured to sign the application while picking up their keys and have now rescinded their approval. Section 5.3.2 of CC &R requires Applicant to have Adjacent Owners initial plans or certify that they have asked Adjacent Owners to sign the application. Cleariy this did not happen. Because of the false certification the application should be invalidated. Third, Business & Professions Codes dictate that a developer must disclose material changes to future homeowners. Therefore, even if we assume the developer was owner of Lots 28 & 29 at the time the application was submitted, the proposed addition was required to be disclosed to the future homeowners of thos: lots. This did not occur. Finally, the plans submitted to the Seal Beach Planning Comm, (and we must assume also submitted to Design Review Comm) do not address the existing chimney and whether it will be removed or if the structure will have 2 chimneys. Because the plans are incomplete, we we concerned the Design Review Comm did not have all relevant information to act upon. Also, because the Design Review Comm has 45 days to review an application and the adjacent properties closed within 30 days of Lot 13, there was ample time to complete the application by obtaining the additional signatures. Because the application is incomplete, it should be invalidated To quote the Common Interest Development General Information we received" We will exist happily in an atmosphere of cooperation living where the interests of the group most be taken into account as well as the interest of the individual." In this case, the interests of the group are compelling and outweigh the interests of the individual. An additional quote, " it is vitally important to the owners of individual subdivision interests that the transition from subdivider to resident -owner control be accomplished in an orderly manner with a spirit of cooperation ". We appreciate the time and energy that you have put into Old Ranch and recognize the authority that the Design Review Committee has. However, it is the responsibility of the interim FICA officers to act on the behalf of the homeowners and the interest of the group. Too many homeowners are unhappy about this proposed and approved addition for the action to go unchallenged. In conclusion, the application for the addition at 12282 Bridewater Way is illegal, incomplete and establishes an undesired precedent for the Old Ranch Community. We, the Homeowners ol'Old Ranch, request that the Board of Directors rescind the action of the Design Review Committee on the grounds stated above and in our report. We further request a response in writing by this Friday, February 1, 2002 at 5 PM, due to the impending February 6'h Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting. ai CL U aj 7 O C U a p n @ C y U _ a 0 0 a C O C N Q a (O @ ° U O) cc 0) y CL C O U U C a) O C_ N to .�°, C m @ C ' N C E C T (a N m E @ t. a) N N .@.. N O .@. m C :a N y0 N O a C C C a m a 0 = T E a) C a) U m V •L.. 0 0) E m Q) a) o a °° a) m a N n O_ O_ C T@ 7 7 a) Q w 30 a T C 10 0- °- 3 ° E _Ile a) o c E E c `° ° o ° a) C w @@ m a O L a) L o 0� _o � a CL -0 a) O zo CU CL m N a) T T L0 L0 a) a) N c 0C a) O E E . N ) a) a) 0 0 E E U a) a) a m o w c N Qw Q EE =° a) a) CD rx � C a m a m m 0 o C o 0 m 0 0 O O O O ° p E OT 0 Q Q �) f c C E w a s o o > $ a a= @@ a" m c c c N E E o o o in 3 3 m m E 0 0 m ai c w o. C L . 0> a) a) C w@ T 70 ;O a co O m E E I 1- n O c � � CL m a) a ui -O T I I N N E w 0 a) (D `) O O O O w T> N N G) m p N N CDC 72 CD a0) o0 0o pa) _0aa 0@ w C)� c C o E o E a)" o > -O c C rn @ O Vl N N U) m m a) m a`) O C Co vi 0 >, L ,�: n O QO O y U ul 'O 'O 'O m N N O E N O 0 C ° v 3 aa) d c E o 0 0 o 0 0 - a). a) Q° C a) 0 m 0. m m m m m e ca w w0 �0 T a) O N N N N >, >, '-N-O '-N-O N U N V L N 3 Q o a) aa)) N L Q° N 0 w 0 '0-0 E 75 E:2 -r4 v! O CL "� Q O O O O d 0 O _0 O .�. O «° L Q m ao m as -003-003maa) @ >> >> ma) ° 3 t t L L 0 C 3 O O y N °° 9 c 9 c rn E U a) o 0 0 'O '0 '0 'O 'o 3 3 0 o .- 0) p a a 'y a 'y C L m 0) o 0 N a s 3 7 7 0 0 c C 2 C U U U@ U 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 o d o 0 a 3 � w 0 a) 3 3 3 3 3 3 o 0 3 3 x m m L C 3 3 �, L L x a) a) O C -0 O .Q U y ul rn d a) a) a) a) a) w N 0 N ti 0 N y a a@ CL d a) a) m a) Q) j, j, a) () m 0 a) >+ T (u T N as as E E E E E E -0a w-0La a) -0 cm 00 00 a)o 0m Q) a) 00 0 o °rn> _0 °� m` m m m Q Q Q Q Q Q m m Q m` Q ca = m F 0 w C O 3 U a1 U 0 N d a wN oa ; O (7 a C n a N y L L a)3 ma= O L C N w r E 00 O N N w; O a N O a) VO 9 0 C w r C N N w0 w ca . w w w w a � 3 m m s co ° m aEE �.°� N Q) — O O U ca 3 w w Y w C V' c0 a7 LO a0 LLJ to V' N c0 LO r a7 cl co tl� C6 vi r� r rn .- w N to co n '- r O a- O O w m ' N N N P7 c7 C 7 a) Cl) a1 N a U — C @ c0 ❑ 3 x II Cl) + QI -pp m O co io iv m .° v m o L cl * 7 U ' CL oi 11 1 N I I I I I M N Cl) C cm @ a) — C0 a C m w C y — 3 co as a) N II N L L Y m Y> c O N .O a w C O II II 'y p L E 0 a3 , L p p a N G O w U "- O N d r 2 a) m a a a3 a a) w p a L L C O C E CO N N C U N C O a cCp N EwL O 0-0 w 3 ww �a'3 a7 Vl 'C C Im w N u7 (� U C c 3 C p °c U w a� m 3 N p w Q i axi ai m ca 0) c d as c - o - io `� v '� m '� c a) w Kai °o = o o w `m E E E ° o E o `o v c 'w o a a m 00 ._. m o aa) li 11 IL UH 20' a N N U y. m mH 0 N d a ' IS M4 1 BL ri '�— et A& 'was caycttF �s r "pubJ Gs0 SM llt+l►/ E�CE sIRE�Rtigt - 7115+�yr/s�s+�r � y iYr.rax # "To 1. 4mag*d *aV Ai • --A `V 4 I. .1 I `'�, a (- �.1Y3 "�t•,. .. _ ,._•. .. _. _.ASble - -r- - ^. �y1 Tj yam. J� ..ry �4 ref V p'._. v 1i AqL ry z= t`'�'Y T -V1 y ^'Y' (J Nryy. [Q' ry.� fV14 3 (y� A aY • 'a"'�I 1 J 1 1 ( i 1k , �{ ' a••t !� y��_ i to ELIO- 4 V —4K I � 34 r'w A Ip�p•�7�wyt"_ s1' f�4.R �7°.',°•}vfi7yips � #'xYy� any �iF n I <r s TON j?> T =_+C°¢33. ms.li!'1RTra_ §iy� Ai \,1 •Y qj EXHIBIT ��tfi��� i CH10140 Glib S'nckc �• r BRODY LC3T 33.4 D Dit -METER LOT 29 ,- PROPERTY LINE OFFSET 8.5 FEET (VIEW PROM DENIETERS, (;P�fFt1 P S MASTER BEDROOM - DAY) PIC 4 C-Xj,ll8T 3 i \ c F fer-£ErTACr <NIhf`eY WILL �SnCK cc,'r � A✓=aVE I �*F�g BRODY LOT 13 AND DEMETER LOT 29 PROPERTY LINE OFFSET 8.5 FEET (VIEW FROM DEMETERS UPsTAIp S, MASTER BEDROOM - DAY) PIC 4 �E)l q /f> !% 3 VIEW FROM LOT 29 BACKYARD PROPOSED BRODY CHIMNEY WILL SHOOT 26 FEET INTO SKYLINE BLOWING SMOKE DIRECTLY INTO NEIGHBORS BACKYARDS? PiC 7 E-XH(l61 -F4 10 6:1 i; Ln CJ �Lcl —ew Pew,- 7 Te EX HM 17-� CURRENT VIEW FROM DEMETER LOT 29 BREAKFAST NOOK PUNCH OUT 17 FEET WILL BRING BRODY'S WINDOWS KITTY CORNER FACE TO FACE WITH DEMETER'S BREAKFAST ROOM CHIMNEY WILL ENCROACH UPON SUNLIGHT, EI,?v'- OYMENT, WILL BE VIEWED FROM BREAKFAST ROOMINEIGHBORS HOMES! PIC 3 HOMES Xc °s OLD CH GATED COMMUNITY LUXURY DETACHED HOMES 2,900 -3,400 Sq.Fc. n 562- 493 -6338 1. Cj)gPfiW BACKYARD CURRENT VIEW IS Sig CLOSE, THE BRODY TV AND STEREO EQUIPMENT CAN BE SEEN CLEARLY! WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF PUNCHES OUT 17 FEET? PIC 6 i,e SETBACK BECAUSE LOT 29 LOCATED IN A CURVE ON OLD HARBOR COURT. THIS CURVE IS USED FOR BENEFIT OF WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS TURN - AROUND FOR FIRETRUCKS. BRODY PUNCH OUT ADDITIONAL NFEET WILL: BRING BRODY WINDOWS FACE TO FACE WITH NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY LINES ik DECREASE ENJOYMENT, PROPERTY VALUE CREATE PRECEDENT OF FURTHER CROWDING MAKE IT UNSAFE IN CASE OF A FIRE PIC. 5 Z-:-Rie17-9 �llB 1 /,o 1 �� 'zz rd i - rn fiR si N C) -Aym ? (N 2 - 7 sr ZV ) +. 'NttrxT W x nary � I ;'x 199- Rmy _ f1Y Y! NJ _ l ��gtl 9, xs� EXHIBIT an C Public Heanng re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 02 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -3 12282 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Report March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT H PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2002 20 SPR 02- I.App ®1 Swff Report City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002 5. Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way (Centex Homes) Applicant/Owner: Cary and Carol Brody Request: To approve a Site Plan Review for a proposed 324 - square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.93 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02 -3. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He reported that as part of the Development Agreement (DA) executed between the Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach, a Site Plan Review (SPR) would be required for all future development to ensure that it meets the general criteria of the City and complies with the zoning provisions. He noted that because no builder was on board when the land subdivision was approved, City Council's main concern was to have the ability to review and pre - approve any plans for a residential development. He stated that the Planning Commission (PC) conducted the architectural SPR and the plans for the Centex Homes Development were approved. He said that the SPR process still applies to additions to homes within this development and that is why this application is being presented tonight. He described the proposal to add a 324 square foot, single -story extension to the existing family room to the rear of the house. He indicated that the proposed addition meets the required 5 -foot side yard and 10 -foot rear yard setbacks, and with the addition the property will have less than the 50% maximum allowed lot coverage. He noted that the architectural style will be similar to that of the existing house. He reported that a faxed document was received from Mr. Stan Nathanson, who resides in a house whose lot backs up to the Brody's home. Mr. Nathanson expressed his Concern that this project not be considered until the Homeowners Association (HA) for this development is made up entirely of homeowners and does not include representatives of Centex Homes, as is currently . the case. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Mr. Nathanson requests that this item be continued until such time as this action occurs. The Director of Development Services then stated that because the proposed addition meets all City requirements, Staff is recommending approval of SPR 02 -1. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Brown asked if this item would have been presented to the PC had it been located anywhere else within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it would not have come before the PC. Commissioner Brown asked if Staff would 1\DATAPILE USERS%CAlvarez\Carmen datatPC Minutes=OZ01 -09 -02 PC Minutes.dac Ciry or5eal Beach Planning commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002 have any concerns about the setbacks were this project located anywhere else within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff would have no concerns. Commissioner Cutuli asked for clarification as to why this application was brought before the PC. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the City entered into a Development Agreement (DA) with the Bixby Ranch Company when the Bixby Project was approved to require a Site Plan Review (SPR) for any future development. He said that as these properties were transferred from the Bixby Ranch Company, and in this case to Centex Homes, the new owners were required to comply with all the terms of the existing DA. Commissioner Cutuli asked whether the terms of the DA expire when the homes are purchased. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the terms of the DA continue to apply ad infinitum. He indicated that Staff would like to discuss this issue further with the PC at some point in the future. Public Hearing Vice - Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. Mr. Cary Brody stated that he was present tonight to respond to any questions regarding this application. Ms. Tania Demeter stated she and her family reside at 12283 Old Harbor Court, and that their rear yard backs up diagonally to the Brody's lot. She said that the Centex lots are very close together and since her property is located on a culdesac this contributes to creating a smaller rear yard area. She said that this also creates a staggered lot line where although the addition would be set back 10 feet from the Brody's rear property line, the comparative set back from the Demeter's rear property line would be much less. She explained that this would almost bring the Brody's addition into her back yard. She stated that she has not had an opportunity to look at the plans and she is not certain whether the Architectural Review Broad took her home into consideration. Ms. Demeter stated that although the homes have 5 -foot high fences, when she has her patio foundation poured, she would actually have only 4.5 feet of private fencing. She asked if homeowners would be allowed to increase the height of the fences. She said she would like to have an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff could not respond as far as what the Architectural Committee considered when reviewing the plans. He said that the City requires that all properties have at least a 5 -foot side yard and at least a 10 -foot rear yard setback. He stated that the Brody's addition does comply with these standards. He reported that many of the lots in this development have very small rear yards, mostly within the 15 -18 -foot range. The Director of Development Services also explained that the height of the fences could be increased to a maximum height of 6 feet. Ms. Demeter stated that because her back yard will accommodate a patio large enough for only a table and 4 chairs, she would not have any room for plants or planters in the back yard. She also expressed her concern with the Brody's future plans to add a balcony off the 2 "d \\DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez \Carmen data \PC Minutes\2002\0'I -09 -02 PC Minutes.doc City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002 story bedroom, which she indicated would really infringe upon her privacy and would impact the value of Ms. Demeter s property. Mr. Tom Wilinghand stated that he lives across the street from Ms. Demeter, and although the proposed addition does not impact him directly, his concern is that currently less than 25% of the residents are living in the homes. He said that he supports Mr. Nathanson's recommendation to continue this item until such time as there are more residents as members of the HA. Mr. Peter Demeter stated that he wished to emphasize that out of 72 homes in the development, his home has the smallest back yard. He said that although the PC could not remedy this, he asked that anything that might impact their privacy be considered in making a determination on SPR 02 -1 Ms. Alina Demeter, daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Demeter, stated that her parents are co- investors with her on this home and stated that she has known the Brody's since she was 15 years old. She commented that she likes the Brody's and is happy to have them as neighbors. Ms. Demeter explained that because of this she came to this meeting tonight with some trepidation. She presented a rough sketch she had drawn to help provide a better ides of the proximity of the respective houses. She noted that from her bathroom window she can literally see into the Brody's home and watch the TV programming on their television set. She stated that the Brody's addition would significantly impact the Demeter's privacy. Mr. Brody stated that the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) were provided to all of the homeowners when purchasing their homes and to change them would involve a very complex process. He said that the Brodys have complied both with the CC &Rs and City requirements, and he noted that many of the properties within the development do have more land use options than the Brodys do. He stated that this is a single -story addition with no future plans to add a 2 n story deck. He noted that because the homes are so close together residents are all able to look into one another's yards and homes regardless of whether or not the addition is made. He emphasized that with sideyard setbacks of only 5 feet, all residents are able to look into their neighbor's yards and homes from the side windows of the homes. Ms. Carol Brody stated that they had purchased the home in order to be close to her husband's job at Los Alamitos High School. She said that they had purchased one of the properties with a larger back yard with the intent to add onto the home. She stated that the addition would not only improve the floor plan for her home but would also increase the value of the property. She also emphasized that they have followed all of the appropriate channels in preparing the plans for this addition, and they are attempting to minimize any imposition upon their neighbors. Ms. Brody indicated that eventually there would probably be a lot of additions to the homes within this development because although the homes appear to be large, some of the inside living areas are quite small. 11DATAFILEIUSERS1CAIvarez lCarmen_datalPC Minutest2002\01 49 4)2 PC Minutes.0oc City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002 There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice - Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Cutuli stated that when Centex was designing these home he had expressed his concerns about having 2 -story homes on small lots, which creates a very crowded community. He said that he believes that in this situation, more additions to the homes will lead to more crowding. He noted that although this application would eventually be approved, he would not vote to approve this item until the HA is comprised completely of residents. He indicated that although the application meets all of the required criteria, he believes it requires special consideration. Mr. Whittenberg noted that in reviewing a copy of the CC&Rs they indicate that for the first year from the date of the issuance of the subdivision report, all the members of the Architectural Review Board will be representatives of the builder. He continued by stating that the document also indicates that at the end of one year one member may be appointed by the Board, and depending upon the number of homes sold by that time, the remaining members may be appointed by the Board or they may still be representatives of the builder. He stated that Staff could research the date of the subdivision report. Commissioner Cutuli indicated that he would like Staff to provide this information. Commissioner Brown stated that the reason the City has established setback requirements is to safeguard residents' privacy and to allow for airflow and space. He said that his initial feeling is that as long as this project complies with City Code, he does not feel that the PC is designed to nor should it become involved in "homeowner squabbles." He said that the only thing that might sway his opinion would be that a HA can sometimes impose stricter covenants and regulations than a city might apply, and they do so to ensure that all of the residents get along. Commissioner Brown stated that because this application meets all requirements, he does not see how the PC has the right to deny this request, but since Chairperson Hood, whose district this pertains to, is absent, he would vote to continue this item for one month to allow him an opportunity to comment. Commissioner Ladner asked when the vote from the HA would take place. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the provisions for the HA do not affect the Design Review Board, which has specific provisions in the CC &Rs that state that for a year from the date of issuance of the Subdivision Report, the builder can have 3 of its representatives as members of the HA. He continued by noting that after the one - year period has expired, one of the builder members can be replaced by an appointee of the HA, and if all the homes have been sold by that time, then the other 2 builder representatives could also be replaced. He explained that until the date for 1 \DATAFILMUSERS%CAIvar.zlCa.me Cata1PC Minutes\2002 \01 -09 42 PC Minules.Eoo the one -year period is established, he would agree with Commissioner Brown's recommendation to continue this matter until that information is available. Vice - Chairperson Sharp indicated that he had no objection to continuing this item until the first meeting in February 2002. He stated that he believes the Brodys have every right to go ahead with the project and trying to hold it over until a HA Board composed entirely of residents is established could pose a hardship as it might take 2 or 3 years to have a full resident HA. He confirmed that he would vote to continue this item so that Chairperson Hood could comment on this issue. MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue the public hearing for Site Plan Review 02 -1 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2002. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: Hood Public Heanng re: Appeal of Approval of Site Plan Review 01 -1 Planning Commission Resolution 01 -3 11181 Bridgewater Way City Council Staff Repon March 11, 2002 ATTACHMENT I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF JANUARY 9, 2002, WITH ATTACHMENTS 21 SPR 02- I.APP=al St ff RWM January 9, 2002 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY (Centex Homes) GENERAL DESCRIPTION CARY AND CAROL BRODY CARY AND CAROL BRODY 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) ZONE - OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED 324 SQUARE FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE BEAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE WILL BE 47.93 %; THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED IS 50 %. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROJECT DEVELOPER. APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION No. 02 -3 C:Wy Documents \Centu Howms SPR02 -1 -PC SetPRc ft.dac LW01-02 -02 Planning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bhdgewater Way January 9, 2001 FACTS ❑ On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. • The site plan review is required as a condition of the approved development agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. • The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. o The subject property is located on the easterly side of Bridgewater Way, between Rock Landing Way and Plymouth Way, east of Seal Beach Boulevard within the Centex Homes residential development portion of the Old Ranch project. • The subject property is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone, on a parcel of land having 55 feet of frontage on Bridgewater Way, being 89 feet deep. The subject property is 4,895 square feet in area and is developed with an existing single family residence. • Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: All Directions — Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone. North of Residential neighborhood — single family residential homes within the "Rossmoor Highlands" area of the City of Loa Alamitos. South of Residential neighborhood — Approved Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center currently under construction, in the General Commercial (C -2) Zone. East of Residential neighborhood— Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. West of Residential neighborhood — across Seal Beach Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -2) zone is the Rossmoor Center development, in the City of Seal Beach. SPR 02 -1 -PC Staff Report Planning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 11282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 1002 DISCUSSION Overview ofProkct Request: The proposed 324 square foot family room addition is at the rear of the subject residence. The addition is proposed to be an extension of an existing family room. The addition will comply with the required 5 -foot side yard and 10 -foot rear yard setback requirements. The proposed addition will have a similar architectural style as the existing residence, including exterior stucco to match the existing residence and matching roof tiles. The roof pitch of the proposed single -story addition will match the roof pitch of the existing residence. The residence is a Plan 2 residence, which contains 3 -5 bedrooms (bonus room and 3rd garage parking space), 4 baths, living room, dining room, kitchen/morning room, and family room. Residence Area Summary, including proposed addition First Floor: 1,306 square feet First FIoor Addition 324 square feet 3 -Car Garage: 631 square feet Porch: 85 square feet Total First Floor 2,348 square feet (47.96% lot coverage) Habitable Area: First Floor: 1,630 square feet Second Floor: 1.707 square feet Total Living Area: 3,337 square feet The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. The proposed addition complies with all standard setback, lot coverage, height, minimum living area, and parking requirements of the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone and is compatible with the homes recently constructed as part of the 75 -lot residential subdivision within which the subject residence is located. The properties adjacent to the subject site to the south have received previous approvals for a commercial shopping center and mitigation measures were imposed by the City Council at the time of certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 97091077) to ensure compatibility of the proposed residential and commercial uses. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. SPR 02 -1 - PC Staff RePon Planning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Renew 01 -1 12181 Bridgewater Way January 9, 1002 RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, approve Site Plan Review 02 -1 through the adoption of Resolution No. 02 -3, with the following conditions in place: ❑ Site Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the construction of a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way. ❑ All residential development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted as a part of the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. ❑ This Site Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. ❑ A modification of this Site Plan Review shall be obtained when the property proposes to modify any of its current conditions of approval. ❑ The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this Site Plan Review if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those reasons specified by Article 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. ❑ The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Site Plan Review, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. ❑ This Site Plan Review shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning SPR 02 -I - PC Swff Report 4 Planning Commission Siaff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 1002 Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department.of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. Lee Whittenberg JDirector of Development Services Attachments: (3) Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution 02 -3, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Site Plan Review 02 -1 for a 324 square -foot Family Room Addition at the Rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way Attachment 2: Application Attachment 3: Plans SPR 02 -1 - K stiff Report manning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 02 -3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 FOR A 324 SQUARE -FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY SPR 02 -1 -PC Stiff Report Planning Commission SlaJffRepon Site Plan Review 02-1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 2002 RESOLUTION 02 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 FOR A 324 SQUARE -FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282 BRIDGEWATER WAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section I. On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.93 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Site Plan Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15301(e) (Existing Facilities) because the request is for a minor addition to an existing residence that will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2002, to consider the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of January 9, 2002 indicates the following: (a) On December 17, 2001, Cary and Carol Brody (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Site Plan Review 02 -1. SPR 02A - PC Staff Report Planning Commission StaJff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 2002 (b) The site plan review is required as a condition of the approved development agreement between Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project. (c) The applicant is proposing to construct a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.96 %; the maximum lot coverage permitted is 50 %. (d) The subject property is located on the easterly side of Bridgewater Way, between Rock Landing Way and Plymouth Way, east of Seal Beach Boulevard within the Centex Homes residential development portion of the Old Ranch project. (e) The subject property is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone, on a parcel of land having 55 feet of frontage on Bridgewater Way, being 89 feet deep. The subject property is 4,895 square feet in area and is developed with an existing single family residence. (t) Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: All Directions — Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone North of Residential neighborhood — single family residential homes within the "Rossmoor Highlands" area of the City of Loa Alamitos. South of Residential neighborhood — Approved Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center currently under construction, in the General Commercial (C -2) Zone. East of Residential neighborhood— Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. West of Residential neighborhood — across Seal Beach Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -2) zone is the Rossmoor Center development, in the City of Seal Beach. (g) The proposed single -story residential addition complies with all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off - street parking, and landscaping. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to the City Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: SPR 02 -1 -PC S%ff Repun Planning Commission StaffRepon Site Plan Review 024 11282 Bridgewater Way January 9. 2002 (a) Site Plan Review 02 -1, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a `Residential Medium Density" designation for the subject property and pemdts the proposed addition subject to approval of a "Site Plan Review ". The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed style, height and bulk of the proposed 324 square -foot, single -story room addition is consistent with adjoining residential uses, which include a new residential neighborhood development further to the west, being developed by the same homebuilder. In addition, the properties adjacent to the subject site to the south have received previous approvals for a commercial shopping center and mitigation measures were imposed by the City Council at the time of certification of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 97091077) to ensure compatibility of the proposed residential and commercial uses. As approved by the City Council, there are sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. The proposed 324 square-foot, single -story room addition exceeds all standard development requirements of the City related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, living area, off -street parking, and landscaping. '(c) Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed 324 square - foot, single -story room addition, as approved herein, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the City Council, there we sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. (d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review 02 -1, subject to the following conditions: Site Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the construction of a 324 square foot family room addition at the rear of 12282 Bridgewater Way. 2. All residential development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted as a part of the application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. 3. This Site Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. SPR 02 -1 - PC Staff Report Planning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 2002 4. A modification of this Site Plan Review shall be obtained when the property proposes to modify any of its current conditions of approval. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this Site Plan Review if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those reasons specified by Article 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. 6. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations famishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Site Plan Review, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and my award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. 7. This Site Plan Review shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners SPR02 -1 -PC SWERe a to Planning Commission Staff Repo t Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 2002 David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission SPR 02 -1 - PC Staff Report hunning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 11281 Bridgewater Way January 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 APPLICATION SPR 02 -1 -PC Smfi Report 12 Application for: (Chen one or more). ❑ Conditional Use Permit 0 UnclasaifiadusePernit- CITY OF SEAL BEACH ❑ ❑ vananca - PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION HeightVanaaon ❑ 5r^ CPNZore Change Other �iTL� /�LAzl /Z�g 1 Date Filed FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: __--b d a— 1 Resolution No.: O� -3 Planning Commission Date: Date Complete :: 1. Property Address: I 2. County Assessor's Parcel No: h10 Co - A 3. Applicants Name: �AD� AN10 �� ROD�1 Address: 1.08 � ¢ I% n)AT -2�y Phone: Home (562) LV:� I'� 335 Work: (I 11) FAX: (562) C4, 1T 3? (114) a 1� y 4. /Mobile: Property Owners Nam . A&u A � hl n A 0 Lj3If) 0 Address: '(%iL 1,1, Home Phone: (SO tt- 51 -2a'Z "5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: IZ i t 6.- Present Use of Property: --)I >` T /%) t j t V 12C'Sj l7L NC.E 7. Proposed Use of Property's I )/ Z �A� 1 Ii l R _,, ' N 8. IA1sdz Request For. r a14 C AS1r` ✓ I pt- C MJ62862lt —I"O QN w j 9 47 - 9. Describe the Proposed Use: S 11 ),J /aH I ur 51 De k 10. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: ern 1 T 100 LL I l.L- QC}�Ifil hV u.71TN S ITe ?LAQ Pace 7 4ev. voo AT 11. Describe how and if the approval of this Unclassified Use Permit would be detrimental in any way to other property in the vicinity: NO1JE 12. Proof of Ownership Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by the applicant. W Signed and notarized Owners Affidavit to be completed and attached to the application. 13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): it (Sgnature (Pint Name) (Date) (Date) Page 8 Rev. voo Environmental Information and Checklist Form For office use Only Application No. - Date Fdetl: General Information 1. Name and address of Developers or Project SSponsor. onnso / Name: ( :AR>e AN9 lit �l� !Jki City —,-- PL State: ( A61 0&WMA ZIP: Telephone, 5(oa FAX: CC LL I14 14 1Q- V 2. Address of Project: -Aa a$ rz.IDd2aw rF2 Y Assessor's Parcel Number. ViD .MnArrFT) tJUHV --q.. AUA I ti rrf -Fr-Melir 3. Name an/dd address of Project Contact Person: Name: V Address: Q.. ' City State: i1A UFG¢NIA Zip:9y}4� Telephone: Z - FAX CL- uc 11 I4 -10 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies 115. Existing zoning: 1M Existing General Plarnn:�_JZ -`rA a_ 6. Proposed use of site: ��ry( �/°M 1 IJY l�-L�S I �lL' Page 11 R�.. v Project Descriptic - 7. Site size (square footage): Li 1!9 l i B. Square footage of proposed Project: 2 a'4 C� . DD I r 1 ON q. Number of floors of construction: t4) Qt 10. Amount of off - street parking provided: TWO 11,3 11. Plans (attach) 12. Propc-edscheduling: �$ [i)G -GYS CU}JSTIZocTION 13. Associated projects: NOM-(— 14. Anticipated incremental development: tJ I A 15. For residential projects, indicate the: A. Number of units: O mp B. Unit sizep: 3) -} � C. Range of sale prices or rents: D. Household sizeA expected: _ _?i� 3 _F'r, 16. For commercial projects, indicate the: i 1 A. Type of project: / v I A B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented: C. D. Square footage of sales areas: Size of loading facilities: 17. For industrial projects, indicate the: A. Type of project B. Estimated employment per shift C. Size of loading facilities: 18. For institutional projects, indicate the: A. Major function: N' A Page 12 R., wo B. Estimated employ vent per s.iift: C. Estimated occupancy: D. Size of loading facilities E. Community benefits derived from the project: 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit/unconditional use permit, height variation or rezoning application, state this and indicate dearly why the application is required: 1,1TI ,A Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of / ground contours? _ v 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. J22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. _ �� 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 7 _ 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream . or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage J patterns. _ 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels / in the vicinity. V 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. _ ✓% 28. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Page 13 Rev. wa 29. Subslant I change in demand for municipal service / (police, &a, water, sewage, etc.). v 30. Substantially increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting 32. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. uescribe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Sc-E "311SY QANL)I E•1.r?. 33: On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photograaFhs of the vicinity. Sec — Ip5i,,e K E. 112. Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers on separate sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 34, Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or t changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the / site? Page 14 Rev. coo 35. M f, Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed o! the ocean or any bay. inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides. mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or detenoration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage padems, or the ate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Attention to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of now of ground waters? Page 15 YES MAYBE NO V V l� R.Y. voe 37 38. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow or chemical content of surface thermal springs? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants ( ncluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microllora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects and microfauna)? Page 16 YES MAY'E NO l/ L/ R., LOO V V V V 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. YES MAYBE .0 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species or animals? t/ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or / wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels ?. b. Exposure of people to server noise levels? Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ✓ Land Use. Will the proposal result in a / substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. ✓ Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Risk of of Uosel. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the even of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Page 17 Rev. xmo YES MAYBE NO 44. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate' of the human population of an area? 45. Housin . Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 46. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: fl. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities. or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to walerbome, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 47. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? Page 18 Rev. MO 4e. 49. 50. 51. 52. YES MAYBE NO ne . Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel - or energy? b. Substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? / Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: / a. Power or natural gas? I/ b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water damage? 1. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards (excluding / mental health)? L /_ b. Exposure or people to potential / health hazards? ✓ Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive rile open to public view? Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological she? Page 19 Rev. xmo Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? Does the proposal have the potential to muse a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? u, •r ,r a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, muse a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant and animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -tern, environmental goals? (A short-tern impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) YES MAYBE NO I/ Page 20 Rm tmo YES MAYBE NO C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may affect two are more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) ✓/ d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? V/ Page 21 nev. zno NOTE Bef^re a Lead Agency can accept this .application as complete, the applicant must consult the Tats prepared p :Lwant to Section 55952.5 of the Government Code and submit a signed statement indicating tiArether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such rat, and shall specify any fist. Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement The development project and any aliematives proposed in this application are contained on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Govemment Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following information: //�/ �� 1. Name of applicant: _ O A I& ! AWD �� Q/ (�L, t ODLI/ 2. Street: I3a9p- Pig 1D(y(n�l )A: tz- 10 &=e 3.' City !!:—e/i L S.1r hl_ C.HT�I•lF�(t -Nl><i 4. Zip Code: 9.0241) 5. Phone Number. 5 t c k3) =333S r,- LL 6. Address of site (street and zip): t AGN A. ROM 7. Local Agency (city /county): O'l, B. Assessors Parcel Number. b,)o Sffp9kWI -tD Ar 9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: Nom_ 10. Regulatory identification number: M ,I A 11. Date of Date: ICI IY to I Signature: Applicant: Page 23 Rev. vuo NOTE: In the event t' at the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any list complied pursuant is Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the applicant must certify that fact as prvided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Government Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are no wntained on these lists. I Oat =: 114 Signature: Applicant: 0.6 7 Page 24 Re x 0 Arplicant s Affidavit Radius Map for Public Hearing 1, GxU) Y , certify that on the I4-' "day ofllcr.��- 2. -ie3oJ_, I prepared an ownership /occupant list and radius map, which included properties and esidential dwelling units entirely within or partially within three hundred feet (300') of the most exterior boundaries of the pro erty being considereQ in the above - referenced case known as (address) 1.1, Qa 4�T�' -�L SAT -211 ��Y. Sf- -AL '3EA614 CA• 90�4U Property Owners. The names and addresses listed were taken krom the latest records of the Orange County Assessor. Such names are recorded in the records of the County Assessor as being the present owner(s) of both the property involved in said case and of property in the immediate vicinity thereto. Occupant Notification. I obtained the mailing addresses of occupants within 300' of the subject property in the following manner.',OU 1 D t Q& L A N.4 i S HAD/ ou9` in JN�t D QftF62TjGS. NO PIED GNGGk L40QSUI7ED TJ6CAUSf pG I certify that. said ownership /occupant list and radius map are c Tract and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that any errors in this information will constitute an incomplete application and may invalidate its approval. t.O FtUUTI -UVJIT t- KWVCKfT (a0D1Ze"�ES qU FtiUM Prox%Tloly VtiRSE l;UILDiN(9 - 56gU&IJCE LIST V -eRV t ED T3Y C&JTex c0ZPbZ r& or- FtC.E RNb -vq - ur -4-4, 1LOY 013TAIUIU& ADDTZA"5sE5 F=rl V4 U USES. Page 25 A , 100 panning Commission Staff Report Site Plan Review 02 -1 12282 Bridgewater Way January 9, 1001 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANS SPR 02 -1 -PC Stef `Re on 13 I t a o rm® ♦vx a�vmx�awe L e 6� � w> II 3 0 rT gi i a i9 ;• ii� fill 11