HomeMy WebLinkAboutReceived during Public Hearing - Item Ip ►VAp �$I0 01
To: Seal Beach City Council
Meeting: March 26, 2018
Agenda Item: 1- Public Hearing
My name is Robert Osborn and 1 am the owner/occupant of B95 Surfside Ave, Surfside. 1
wish to ask the council to either refer this action back to the Seal Beach Planning
Commission or alternatively make some substantive changes to the proposed action.
The primary reason I am making this request is because the Directors of the Surfside
Colony LTD Corporation ("Corporation") provided inaccurate information to the City of
Seal Beach Community Development Staff that directly led to their recommendation for the
proposed action.
In particular one of recommendations in the proposed action at Table 11.2.05.015.A.1
Footnote L-2, is to create a new standard for a subset of A row lots that permits lot owners
to encroach into side yard setbacks for elevated walkways. In support of that change in
zoning the Board of Directors reported to the Commission, and I quote from their report:
"The homeowners on B Row directly behind these A Row lots all have their living levels on
the upper Floors (garages are on the ground level) and will not have their views blocked."
This statement is false. 7 of 27 B -row homes in the affected area have their major living
spaces on the first level. This change to the zoning would allow substantially more than
50% blockage of peek-a-boo sand, white water surf, ocean, and Catalina views.
Additionally, the City Staff was not apprised of the fact that 9' elevated walkways for the
purpose of connecting to decks extended into the setback view space to meet the walkways
would block sand and white water surf views even at the 2nd floor level for some if not all
the affected B -row homes. The City Staff during the planning meeting affirmed they had
relied on the Corporation's recommendations.
The recommendations from the Corporation's board also suggested these walkways were
needed to gain access to front decks from the beach and side yards. This would be an
incorrect interpretation of the facts. Stairs to the decks and side yards can be easily
provided on decks themselves without extending the decks into the side yard setback open
view space. This fact should have been correctly reported to the Planning Commission for
the purpose of making their recommendation.
Approving this zoning change could have a very large impact on the property values of
myself and other B -row homeowners.
Making this zoning change is a big step backwards for Surfside. Some homes already have
these non -conforming structures blocking a few of the B -row homes views unnecessarily.
Some were created after original cottages were destroyed by winter storms and homes
j i Y
were built on pilings. External stairs were built alongside garages to take home owners up
to their elevated homes. Today with the rock revetment the need for elevated external
walkways has gone away. Interior stairwells from new ground level rooms can extend up
all 3 or 4levels. Today these homes, thanks to the rock revetment, have large useable
footprints for both ground floor living spaces inside of currently zoned setbacks behind
their garages. An additional staircases can also be built on the land the Corporation leases
them for decks without intruding into side yard setback view corridors.
Lastly as a B -row home owner 1 am concerned about the removal of the only quantified
transparency standard for decks that might intrude into side yard setback view corridors
should the proposed structures encroaching into minimal setbacks be approved. This
change is found under proposed 7. a. v. General Requirements. The language proposed to
be deleted is "No glass panel shall be less than 3 feet by 3 feet". Since this is the only
quantified standard in the code establishing a high degree of transparency the deletion of
this standard should be replaced by another quantified standard that specifies a high level
of transparency that better suits construction realities.
1 would recommend that the action be returned to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration and possible modification. In lieu of that if the Council desires to move
forward, I request at a minimum that the change under note L-2 on Table 11.2.05.015A.1
worded as: "For lots 92A through 116A, this elevated walkway may extend up to a
maximum of 9 feet above grade" be deleted entirely, and that a process initiated to require
stairs and second level decks on Corporation leased lands not intrude into side yard
setback view corridors.
Sincerely,
Robert Osborn
B95 Surfside Ave
Surfside, CA 90743