HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem T April 12, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - FURTHER CONSIDERATION
OF ORDINANCE NO. 1419 re: ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT 96-1 - Decks along Crestview and
Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
RECOMMENDATION .
Staff Recommendation: Approve Zone Text Amendment
96-1 and introduce Ordinance No. 1419, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending
Section 28-401 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to Conditionally Allow Deck Structures
in Rear-Yard Setbacks on Properties in the Residential Low Density Zone District, which
Abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, with any amendments deemed necessary; or
deny Zone Text Amendment 96-1 and instruct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny Zone Text Amendment 96-1.
DISCUSSION
Overview of proposed Ordinance No. 1419:
As recommended by Staff, Ordinance No. 1419 (See Attachment 1) would require owners of
existing, non-permitted decks within the rear yard setback to apply for and receive a minor
plan review to allow those decks to remain within 12 months of the adoption of the ordinance.
The minor plan review process is a consent calendar item on the Planning Commission
agenda, and requires notification to owners and occupants within 100 feet of the subject
property. The City can condition its approval of any request to ensure health, safety and
public welfare concerns are properly addressed. Future applications for additional decks
would be processed through the conditional use permit (CUP) process. The CUP process
AGENDA ITEM
C:1My Dowments\ZTA\96-1 CC Further Cmxideration Staff Repatdoc\LWWD3-30.99
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
i Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
involves a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and requires notice to owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. As with the minor plan reviews, the City
can condition its approval of any request to ensure health, safety and public welfare concerns
are properly addressed. Note: The Planning Commission is recommending denial of Zone
Text Amendment 96-1.
If Ordinance No. 1419 is adopted and properties with non-permitted structures within the rear
yard setback area do not apply for the appropriate minor plan review approval within the
stipulated 12-month time period, a notice of code violation would be filed with the County
Recorder's office or other appropriate enforcement actions initiated.
This ordinance was initially introduced by the City Council on December 8, 1997. However,
at the time of consideration of adoption on January 12, 1998, the proposed ordinance did not
receive the necessary number of votes for adoption. The matter has been rescheduled as a
public hearing matter before the City Council this evening to allow the present Council to
further consider the proposed ordinance.
Overview of History of Zone Text Amendment 96-1:
1999
February 17, 1999 - Planning Commission conducts Study Session on the issue of decks
within the subject area of ZTA 96-1. Commission determines to not recommend any change
to the provisions of the Code, and to present Mr. Clewley's slides to the City Council
(Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report provided as Attachment 2).
February 3, 1999 -Planning Commission Study Session cancelled due to staff attendance at
Coastal Commission Meeting in San Diego re: Hellman Project.
1998
December 9, 1998 - At this meeting, the item was scheduled for the Planning Commission
meeting of February 3, 1999.
August 19, 1998 - Planning Commission consideration of this item once again, and it was
decided at this meeting that staff needed to present the issue to Commission once again as the
make-up of both City Council and Planning Commission has changed since the issue was first
raised in 1990. The direction given was that Ordinance 1419 might need some new ideas or
variations before it can be developed. (Please see Attachment 3 for a copy of the Planning
Commission Staff Report and Minutes of August 19, 1998, City Council minutes of January
12, 1998, City Council Minutes and Staff Report of December 8, 1997, City Council Minutes
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 2
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
and Staff Report of September 22, 1997, City Council Minutes and Staff Report of September
8, 1997, and City Council Minutes of August 11, 1997)
January 12, 1998 - Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1419 scheduled for City
Council action, and the motion to adopt the ordinance failed. It was determined that further
review by staff is necessary.
1997
December 8, 1997 — Ordinance No. 1419 was presented at the City Council meeting for
introduction. The proposed ordinance would require properties with non-permitted structures
within the setback area to come before the Planning Commission with a minor plan review
application. New deck structures would require conditional use permit approval. The
ordinance was introduced by the City Council.
September 22, 1997—This item was continued at the request of a resident who wanted more
time to research concerns and make comments at the next meeting. The continuance was
approved.
September 8, 1997 - Public hearing was held by the City Council. The proposed ordinance
from staff recommended that any pre-existing deck that had been extended to the rear of the
property line would need to come before the Planning Commission to legalize the non-
permitted structures within a specific period of time.
After taking public testimony, new issues arose. One dealt with the structural integrity of the
structures and the liability of the City if one was to injure life or damage property. Another
issue was the fairness issue in that those who had purchased property or completed
construction were being given a privilege in that the decks would be grandfathered.
It was decided by Council to allow the existing decks to be grandfathered through the minor
plan review process and those new proposals for decks would require a conditional use
permit.
1996
September 30, 1996 - Public hearing conducted before the City Council on the appeal of the
Planning Commission denial of ZTA 96-1. Similar testimony was taken as presented at the
Planning Commission public hearings in January and February 1996, and it was the desire of
the Council for staff to prepare an ordinance addressing rear yard setbacks on an individual
property basis. The City Council also indicated no further action on the appeal would be
taken until the draft ordinance as requested by the City Council was prepared. (Note: appeal
hearing held at this date at the request of the appellant) (Please see Attachment 4, for a copy
96-1 CC Further Consideration StafReport.doc 3
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
of the City Council Minutes of September 30, 1996 and a copy of the City Council Staff
Report dated September 23, 1996, with all attachments,)
March 28, 1996—Appeal of Planning Commission denial filed.
March 20, 1996 — Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 96-4, recommending denial
of Zone Text Amendment 96-1.
March 6, 1996 - Planning Commission Meeting, planning staff reported that a study of the
topography of the area had been completed since the last discussion of the ZTA. The survey
found that some of the properties had height differences of up to 25 feet. This topographic
height difference and the necessity of a three-foot high safety railing could then result in
structures that are 28 feet in height. Several members of the community spoke regarding
proposed ZTA.
The existence of a utility easement along the rear of the subject properties was discussed and
how that easement would affect the ZTA. The conclusion was that the utility easement along
the rear of the properties is used for access by the electrical, gas, water utilities.
It was the recommendation of staff at this meeting that the decks should not be allowed to
encroach into the utility easement and be limited to the height to 12 feet (a nine-foot high deck
and three-foot high safety railing).
Further discussion included issues such as liquefaction, vegetation, and other non-conforming
decks. In the end, the Commission voted 3-1 to deny the proposed ZTA and corresponding
ordinance, not changing the existing provisions of the Code.
February 21, 1996 —Planning Commission continued this matter to March 6, 1996.
January 17, 1996 — Planning Commission public hearing on City initiated Zone Text
Amendment (ZTA) 96-1. Several residents from the area spoke during public testimony
either in support or opposition of the proposed ordinance. After discussing the item at the
meeting, two significant issues raised were by the Commissioners. The first issue was the
control point used for measuring the height of the structure and the height issue would be
considered in future discussions. The second issue raised was the definition of a covered patio
roof. It was staffs recommendation to consider decks the same as covered patio, which is
defined in The Code of the City of Seal Beach (Code). Planning Commission continues public
hearing to February 21, 1996 to allow the Hellman property owners to comment on this issue
as requested by the Hellman's.
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 4
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ZTA 96-1 —Analysis of Existing Structures Within Rear Yard Setbacks
Zone Text Amendment would affect the property development standards for 82 lots adjoining
Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Nature Park. Of those 82 lots, it appears 4-6 lots may have non-
permitted structures within the current 10-foot rear yard setback area. The following analysis is
based on slides presented at the February 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, supplemented
by additional staff field research. Copies of building permits were obtained for all structures within
the rear yard setback of the below described parcels. Note that building permits for all structures
within the rear yard setback were reviewed specifically looking to determine if the structures
presented at the Planning Commission meeting of February 17 have appropriate permits. Those
property descriptions indicated in bold text appear to be in violation of the current rear yard
structure setback requirements:
Properties reviewed by Mr. Clewley at February 17. 1999 Planning Commission Meeting:
1125 Crestview Avenue - No permits exist for a storage shed. Permits are on file for a three-
foot high block wall, swimming pool, and a patio roof and slab. If the storage shed in
question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1135 Crestview Avenue - No permits are on file for structures within the rear yard. If the
storage shed in question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1215 Crestview Avenue - No permits exist for an aluminum storage shed. Permits are on file
for an eight-foot high block wall, redwood fence and sunroom. If the aluminum storage shed
is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1245 Crestview Avenue - No permits exist for a playhouse. Permits are on file for a block
wall. If the playhouse is less than 50 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1315 Crestview Avenue - No permits are on file for structures within the rear yard.
However, if the structures are less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1325 Crestview Avenue - No permits exist for a structure. However, if the structure is
less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required. If the structure in question is
more than 10 feet from the rear property line, no code violation regarding setback
exists, but a building permit should be obtained for the structure. Permits on file for
pool and spa.
1335 Crestview Avenue - No permits exist for a structure, but there is a permit for an
open lattice cover, a four-foot high retaining wall, swimming pool, 1200 square foot
concrete deck, 210 square foot redwood deck, and a chain link fence. If the structure in
question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 5
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
1415 Crestview Avenue - No permits exist for a fence. Permits are on file for a 618 square
foot deck, which was finaled in 1990 and repair to a fire damaged deck, which was finaled in
1994.
1435 Crestview Avenue - No permits are on file for a structure within the rear yard. If the
storage shed in question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required. If the
structure in question is more than 10 feet from the rear property line, no code violation
regarding setback exists, but a building permit should be obtained for the structure.
1445 Crestview Avenue - No permits are on file for a tree house structure. Permits do exist
for a three-foot high retaining wall along the rear of the property and redwood fence. If the
playhouse structure in question is less than 50 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1505 Crestview Avenue - Permits exist for a ten-foot high retaining wall, a walking deck,
swimming pool and block wall. The permitted ten-foot high wall is most likely the wall in
question located along the rear property line.
1515 Crestview Avenue -Permits are on file for a retaining wall (approximately four-feet high)
and a redwood deck. The permitted retaining wall is most likely the wall in question located
along the rear property line. The redwood deck is most likely the structure in question.
1525 Crestview Avenue- No permits are on file for a retaining wall
1605 Crestview Avenue - Permits are on file for a block wall and gate (within the front yard
area), a ham radio tower, a six-foot high wood wall and six-foot high block wall. The wall in
question is most likely permitted and the staircase would not require permits if less than one-
foot above grade.
1685 Crestview Avenue - Permits are on file for a patio cover, cinder block wall, swimming
pool and spa, and three separates permits for lattice patio covers. If the shed in question is
less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
1733 Crestview Avenue - Permits are on file for a six-foot high block retaining wall, a
sundeck, swimming pool, and addition to a pool house. The larger deck is known to not
be permitted since this is the property where the initial code enforcement action and
variance was denied that started the discussion of changing the rear yard setback for
this area of the City. Subsequently, a cabana has been constructed on the non-
permitted deck without the benefit of permits.
Properties investigated by Staff on March 30, 1999:
1005 Catalina - If the tree house in question is less than 50 square feet in size, no permit is
required.
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 6
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
105 Coastline - If the shed in question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is
required.
835 Catalina - No permits are on file for a structure within the rear yard. If the storage shed
in question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required.
925 Catalina - No permits are on file for a structure within the rear yard. If the gazebo
in question is less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required. In addition, if the
structure in question is more than 10 feet from the rear property line, no code violation
exists.
1545 Crestview Avenue - Permits are on file for a retaining wall (approximately four-feet
high). The permitted retaining wall is most likely the wall in question located along the rear
property line.
1729 Crestview Avenue — Permits on file for retaining and block walls, swimming pool,
sundeck, carport and guesthouse with no kitchen, and addition to a pool house.
Photographs of several of the above discussed properties are provided as Attachment 5,
particularly those which appear to be in violation of the current rear yard setback requirements
for a structure that requires a building permit.
DISCUSSION
This text amendment was proposed to allow the City to consider
changing the regulations regarding deck structures within rear yard setbacks for the properties
that abut Gum Grove Park and the Hellman properties. After various public hearings and
discussions before the Planning Commission and City Council over a four-year time period, no
changes to the Code have been made, but there has no definitive determination by the City
Council regarding this issue. The Planning Commission has consistently recommended no
change to the Code. The purpose of this public hearing is to allow the current members of the
City Council to further consider this issue, and come to point of closure on the issue.
Several issues were raised during the course of the various public hearings. These issues are
mentioned above and it may be the desire of the City Council to consider these previous issues
or discuss new ones that might not have been raised before.
One issue that was raised during a public hearing by a member of the public, but never
formally considered was the idea of terracing or stepping down the decks along the hillside.
The advantage of this is that less visual impact would occur in that decks would not be
elevated and appear to be such tall structures if one were to stand at the rear of the properties
and look up at them. The disadvantage for the property owner is that a continuous, flat deck
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 7
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
outdoor recreation area is not allowed. However, for those who own property with a slope, it
may be assumed that since there is a slope, continuous, flat areas are not always a reality.
It may be the desire of City Council not to approve any changes to the Code and require those
who want to retain any existing non-permitted elevated decks within the rear property line
setback area to apply for a variance. The issue can then be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
For those decks which are existing, a grandfathering policy could be adopted that allows all
structures to remain; provided they complete the following criteria: 1) prove when the deck
structure was built so that it can be determined what zoning regulations were in effect at the
time of the construction; and 2) the structure would need to comply with current Building
Department requirements for the structural integrity and the like. If the structures currently
do not comply with Building Department requirements, then the appropriate steps will need to
be taken by the property owner so that building permits can be obtained for the structures, to
insure that all current building code requirements are met.
FISCAL IMPACT
Minor. Allocation of staff resources to prepare appropriate
Zone Text Amendment application, and processing of
application for public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. Future costs of
processing minor plan reviews, conditional use permits, or variances will be borne by project
applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
There are several issues to consider. Some issues have
both advantages and disadvantages to legalizing or constructing new deck structures, and
some may be perceived as being unfair. However, if it is the desire of the City Council to
amend the current provisions of the Code, and allow decks within the rear 10 feet of the
subject properties, it should be acted upon expeditiously, as this matter has consumed an
inappropriate amount of City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff time, with no
resolution as yet reached.
The proposed ordinance recommended by Staff will ensure that all property owners are being
treated in the same manner by requiring a minor plan review approval for existing, non-
permitted deck structures constructed within the rear 10-feet of the subject area within 12
months from the adoption of the proposed ordinance. As it stands right now, some property
owners have non-conforming deck structures and no enforcement action is being taken against
them since there is no clear direction from the City Council as to how to deal with those
structures. Other property owners may desire to construct new deck structures, but are
hesitant to prepare plans since it is not known what the outcome of these discussions and
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 8
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
future regulations might be. Any additional decks within the subject areas would require
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission, as recommended by Staff.
The issue before the City Council is one of determining land use development policies for an
area of the City that has been an ongoing issue for many years. Presented below are the
possible determination before the City Council at this time:
Retain Existing Code Provisions - Planning Commission Recommendation: If the City
Council determines to not adopt ZTA 96-1, Council should take that action and instruct Staff
to prepare the appropriate Resolution for future City Council consideration and to enforce the
current provisions of the Code.
Revise Existing Code Provisions - Staff Recommendation: If the City Council determines
to revise the provisions of the Code relative to decks in the rear yard setback areas of the
subject properties, staff recommends the Council approve an amendment to Section 28-
401(2)(b) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach concerning minimum yard dimensions in the
Residential Low Density zone of Planning District V as follows:
"(3) Uncovered decks constructed as a level extension of the flat graded portion of
the lot which were constructed without appropriate permits prior to the
effective date of this ordinance, and which are located on those certain
properties in the Residential Low Density zone of District V which abut the
Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, may be approved by the Planning
Commission through the consent calendar plan review process. The owners of
such pre-existing decks shall apply for conditional use permit approval within
twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Ordinance.
(4) Uncovered decks designed as a level extension of the flat graded portion of a
lot on those certain properties in the Residential Low Density zone of District
V which abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, may be approved by the
Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process."
If this is the determination of the City Council, it would be appropriate after closing the public
hearing on this matter to introduce Ordinance No. 1419, An Ordinance of the City of Seal
Beach Amending Section 28-401 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to Conditionally
Allow Deck Structures in Rear-Yard Setbacks on Properties in The Residential Low Density
Zone District, which Abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 9
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
NOTED AND APPROIVED
Wz()
hitte rg Keith R. Till
Director of Development Services City Manager
Attachments: (5)
Attachment 1: Proposed Ordinance 1419, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY
ALLOW DECK STRUCTURES IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS
IN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT THE HELLMAN RANCH
OR GUM GROVE PARK
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report of February 17,
1999
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report of August 19,
1998, City Council Minutes of January 12, 1998, City Council
Minutes and Staff Report of December 8, 1997, City Council
Minutes and Staff Report of September 22, 1997, City Council
Minutes and Staff Report of September 8, 1997, and City Council
Minutes of August 11, 1997
Attachment 4: City Council Minutes of September 30, 1996 and City Council Staff
Report dated September 23, 1996, with all attachments
Attachment 5: Various Site Photographs
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 10
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed Ordinance 1419, AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING
SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW
DECK STRUCTURES IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS
IN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT
THE HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 11
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 1419
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY
ALLOW DECK STRUCTURES IN REAR-YARD
SETBACKS IN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT
THE HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Certain properties in the Residential Low Density Zone of District V,
located on Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf Place, which abut the Hellman Ranch or
Gum Grove Park are uniquely situated in that the rear yards of many of the homes are subject to a
substantial grade differential and a steep slope leading down from the rear of the structure to the
Hellman Ranch Property and Gum Grove Park below.
Section 2. Some of the owners of the above-referenced properties have, over the
course of many years, attempted to compensate for the loss of rear yard space caused by the steep
slope by constructing large decks, many of which extend into the current Code-required 10 foot
rear yard setback. The legal status of such structures varies greatly, because some were
constructed with proper permits, others were constructed without any permits, and still others
have been in place since prior to the adoption of the applicable Code requirements.
Section 3. It is the intent of the City Council to eliminate uncertainty regarding the
legal status of deck structures which pre-date this ordinance, and to protect public health and
safety, by conditionally permitting decks in setback areas, provided that property owners obtain
proper permits and inspections from the City. The permit process, as required under the
ordinance, is necessary to ensure neighborhood compatibility and to promote the public health,
safety and welfare through the imposition of all necessary conditions.
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 12
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April12, 1999
Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this ordinance is
categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA )
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303.
Section 5. Section 28-401(2)(b) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach concerning
minimum yard dimensions is hereby amended by adding the following subsections (3) and (4) to
the exceptions which are permitted within certain residential rear yards in District V which do not
abut a street:
"(3) Uncovered decks constructed as a level extension of the flat graded portion of the
lot which were constructed without appropriate permits prior to the effective date
of this ordinance, and which are located on those certain properties in the
Residential Low Density zone of District V which abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum
Grove Park, may be approved by the Planning Commission through the consent
calendar plan review process. The owners of such pre-existing decks shall apply
for consent calendar plan review approval within twelve (12) months of the
effective date of this Ordinance.
(4) Uncovered decks designed as a level extension of the flat graded portion of a lot
on those certain properties in the Residential Low Density zone of District V
which abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, may be approved by the
Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process."
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation
circulated within the City of Seal Beach.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at
a meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers —
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report.doc 13
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance is the original copy of Ordinance 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 1999.
City Clerk
96-1 CC Further Consideration StafReport.doc 14
•
4••••
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report
of February 17, 1999
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report 14
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 deletion of condition number 21.
2
3 MOTION by Brown to amend the MOTION by Hood to extend the hours of operation
4 until 1:00 a.m.
5
6 MOTION fails for lack of second.
7
8 Call for vote on Commissioner Hood's original MOTION.
9
10 MOTION CARRIED: 4 —0 - 1
11 AYES: Brown, Hood, Cutuli, Larson
12 ABSENT: Lyon
13
14 Mr. Steele advised there is a ten-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The
15 Commissioner action is final tonight and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
16
17 SCHEDULED MATTERS
18
19 6. Zone Text Amendment 96-1
20 Rear Yard Setbacks for Deck Structures along Crestview Avenue,
21 Catalina Avenue and Surf Place (specifically the residential properties
22 adjoining Gum Grove Park and the Hellman properties).
23
24 Staff Report
25 Ms. DeHaven delivered the staff report. (Staff report on file in the Planning Department
26 for inspection.) In 1990, a code conformance notice was issued to a property owner
27 along Crestview Avenue. The property owners submitted for a variance that was
28 denied by the Planning Commission. The decision was then appealed to the City
29 Council. Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to address rear yard setbacks
30 for this specific area of the City. Staff initiated the Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) in
31 1996. Since the ZTA was initiated, several issues have been discussed at length. No
32 decision made as of yet and the ZTA is still an active case for which a decision can be
33 made if desired. Staff is looking to the Commission for direction about the type of
34 ordinance that should be prepared for that area. NOTE: for specific information
35 detailing the discussion at each Commission and Council meeting, refer to the staff
36 report on file with the Development Services Department.
37
38 Commissioner Cutuli excused himself from the discussion since his property would be
39 affected by any changes to the Code.
40
41 Commission Questions to Staff
42 Chairman Brown asked how many properties would be affected by any change. Ms.
43 DeHaven responded that she did not know the exact number.
44
45 Chairman Brown then asked if it was a number similar to five, ten or fifty properties. Mr.
46 Whittenberg clarified the question to how many structures have a non-permitted
Page 8
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 structure and Chairman Brown was questioning how many had non-permitted structures
2 and violated the setback. Mr. Whittenberg explained that some structures may be
3 permitted but violate current setback requirements. These structures may have met the
4 setback requirements at the time of construction since zoning standards change over
5 time. Mr. Whittenberg estimated there might be between eight and fifteen properties
6 that have some type of non-permitted structure within the rear yard setback area. The
7 actual number has not been determined as of yet due to limited staff. Whether a
8 change to the Code is adopted or not, staff will need to verify the properties that need to
9 conform. Mr. Whittenberg also mentioned that it might be possible to enlarge the
10 negative for the Hellman's aerial photograph to assist in determining the exact number
11 of structures in violation.
12
13 Mr. Whittenberg followed up on staffs initial comments in that staff is looking for a
14 direction back to the Council if the previous recommendation of not changing the Code
15 is still applicable, or if a different approach should be taken. A different consideration
16 may be necessary based on the previous discussions of the Commission and Council
17 regarding the proposed change. One possibility is the Minor Plan Review process for
18 non-permitted structures. A second possibility a Minor Plan Review for existing
19 structures and a Conditional Use Permit for future structures within the setback area.
20
21 Chairman Brown questioned why the Commission would need to consider an ordinance
22 that would be adopted by Council. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the ordinance was a
23 result of the initial ZTA.
24
25 Chairman Brown clarified for his understanding that the ordinance would allow existing
26 structures to remain and that future structures could be built within the rear yard
27 setback. Mr. Whittenberg agreed and noted that this was the consideration of the
28 Council, but ultimately was not approved. Mr. Whittenberg then explained how laws are
29 changed sometimes because circumstances change.
30
31 Mr. Steele offered further clarification of changing the Code and the setback
32 requirements and sets up a mechanism to get the structures approved.
33
34 Chairman Brown asked if the current law was a restriction to property owners wishing to
35 build new decks, not necessarily those who have already built decks. Mr. Whittenberg
36 stated that the primary concern was the structures that have been already built, but the
37 ZTA process is there if the standards need to be changed. He also indicated that within
38 the last few years, requests to build in the area in question has not been on regular
39 basis.
40
41 Chairman Brown summarized that the Commission has looked at this issue three times
42 previously and has recommended not changing the Code. His two big concerns would
43 be how to handle the decks that had previously been constructed and how to handle
44 future requests for construction. Chairman Brown then asked if the study session
45 discussion tonight had been noticed to the residents.
46
Page 9
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 Mr. Whittenberg replied that the scheduled matter did not need to be noticed since no
2 formal decision would be made this evening. Mr. Whittenberg went on to explain that
3 the Council has closed their public hearings on the items and a report would be
4 prepared for them based on the decision by the Commission this evening. The
5 Commissioner's can recommend to the Council that they reopen the public hearing and
6 reconsider the proposed ordinance or recommend that no change be made to the Code
7 and that code enforcement action begins.
8
9 Chairman Brown felt that the Commission should be consistent and recommend for a
10 fourth time that the Code not be changed. He felt disappointed that there was no
11 reference to the exact number of structures that would be affected by changes to the
12 Code. However, it should be the decision of the Council as to if changes to the Code
13 should be made or not.
14
15 Commissioner Hood noted from the previous minutes regarding the reason why the
16 Commission was reconsidering the issue.
17
18 Commissioner Larson stated that he did not agree with the chart staff had provided
19 regarding reconsideration of the item. Commissioner Larson also stated that although
20 the Commission has considered the item over the past few years, the ordinance
21 (existing or proposed) should be enforced by the City Council, not the Planning
22 Commission. The zoning consideration and recommendation should be that no
23 ordinances or laws are changed.
24
25 Chairman Brown stated that the Commission is the fact finding body and can spend
26 more time on researching issues and six months ago it seemed appropriate to
27 determine how many structures would be affected by the proposed change.
28
29 Commissioner Larson clarified that his recommendation would be the same regardless
30 of the number of structures or property owners that would be affected.
31
32 Public Comment
33
34 Mr. Req Clewley • 945 Catalina Avenue, Seal Beach
35 Mr. Clewley presented a slide presentation of properties that potentially are in violation
36 or could be affected by changes to the Code. Most all of the photographs were taken
37 from Gum Grove Park. The addresses and potential violations of the properties are as
38 follows:
39
40 1125 Crestview Avenue — storage bin
41 1135 Crestview Avenue — storage shed
42 1215 Crestview Avenue —aluminum storage shed
43 1245 Crestview Avenue — storage shed
44 1315 Crestview Avenue — structure in rear yard setback
45 1325 Crestview Avenue — structure in rear yard setback
46 1335 Crestview Avenue — structure in rear yard setback
Page 10
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 1415 Crestview Avenue — portion of Gum Grove Park 'annexed' to property by
t 2 fence
3 1435 Crestview Avenue — structure that might conform to the code, but it is an
4 invitation to homeless persons who might desire to
5 sleep there
6 1445 Crestview Avenue —tree house that encroaches in rear yard setback
7 1505 Crestview Avenue —wall exceeds maximum height limit
8 1515 Crestview Avenue — portion of Gum Grove Park 'annexed' to property by
9 fence
10 1525 Crestview Avenue —wall exceeds maximum height limit
11 1545 Crestview Avenue — no structure violation, but accumulation of junk in rear
12 yard
13 1605 Crestview Avenue — structure (wall and staircase) built to the property line
14 1685 Crestview Avenue — structure encroaches into rear and side yard setback
15 and noted as a property where enforcement action
16 might be taken if property is sold
17 1733 Crestview Avenue — site of 1990 code enforcement action and now a fence
18 higher than allowed has been constructed and a
19 cabana has been constructed on the sundeck that is
20 the non-permitted deck in question
21
22 During the presentation, Chairman Brown asked staff is moveable structures (such as
23 an aluminum storage shed) are treated differently than permanent structures. Mr.
24 Whittenberg explained structures less than 120 square feet do not require a building
25 permit and are not subject to zoning standards. Structures over 120 square feet would
26 need to obtain a building permit and would be subject to zoning standards and could not
27 be placed within a setback without relief from the zoning standards.
28
29 Chairman Brown asked if retaining walls were subject to fence/wall height limitations.
30 Mr. Whittenberg replied that retaining walls are not subject to height limitation provided
31 they are permitted as retaining walls.
32
33 Chairman Brown clarified that Gum Grove Park currently belongs to the Hellman
34 Family.
35
36 After the slide presentation, Mr. Clewley contends that the City Council did not ask for
37 the item to be reviewed once again by the Planning Commission and that City Council
38 needs direction. If the current situation continues where no enforcement is taken, the
39 building code and zoning code will become useless and there will be no control over
40 what is built in the City.
41
42 Commissioner Brown thanked Mr. Clewley for his presentation and stated that it was
43 helpful in seeing the type and number of potential violations in the area.
44
Page 11
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 Len Cutuli • 1445 Crestview Avenue, Seal Beach
2 Mr. Cutuli (as a member of the public) asked that a decision not be made tonight since
3 there are a lot to be said for the properties along that area regarding setbacks. Mr.
4 Cutuli would prefer that the item be rescheduled so that the residents can have an
5 opportunity to address the Commission.
6
7 Chairman Brown clarified that no decision would be made this evening.
8
9 Mr. Steele explained that if Council decides to reinitiate the ZTA process, then public
10 hearings would be held and notices sent out to all affected property owners and
11 occupants for hearings before the Commission or Council. This was not a noticed
12 hearing since it is an educational session.
13
14 Chairman Brown summarized Mr. Clewley's presentation and estimated there are only
15 two or three major problems. He stated that the presentation was very helpful and it
16 might be a good idea for potential violations shown should be forwarded to the Council.
17
18 Mr. Whittenberg suggested that staff obtain copies of the slides and note the addresses
19 and have the information available. Mr. Whittenberg also stated that there are some
20 photographs of the area in earlier reports relating to the ZTA. Mr. Whittenberg pointed
21 out that there was most likely nothing presented tonight that was not previously known
22 and that the retaining walls were not focused on since there is probably no code
23 violation if the walls were built with permits. In addition, structures less than 120 square
24 feet in size would not require permits.
25
26 Commissioner Hood thanked Mr. Clewley for the presentation and suggested that it the
27 same presentation be made to Council. Commissioner Hood also felt that no decision
28 should be made until the residents of the area are notified of a hearing.
29
30 Chairman Brown stated that no public hearing is being held and that no decision would
31 be made this evening based on the comments from Mr. Steele. It is the feeling of
32 Chairman Brown that the Council should hold all further public hearings since the
33 consensus of the Commission will probably not change and for residents to speak at
34 two public hearings may be too burdensome.
35
36 Commissioner Hood suggested the slide presentation be made to Council during a
37 public hearing so that they have the same information as the Commission and they can
38 then make a decision as to referring the matter back to staff or the Commission.
39
40 Chairman Brown suggested that the presentation might be better received if it was to
41 come from staff.
42
43 Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Council could not act upon the previous ordinance (no.
44 1419) without a new public hearing since the members of the Council are different at
45 this time.
46
Page 12
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the direction of the Commission is to not change the
2 Code and to present Mr. Clewley's slides to the Council.
3
4
5 STAFF CONCERNS
6 Mr. Whittenberg mentioned that there had been some personnel changes in the
7 Planning Department.
8
9 Mr. Steele mentioned a lawsuit has been filed by the City of Los Alamitos, the
10 Rossmoor Homeowner's Association and the Rossmoor Center owners challenging the
11 City's approval of the Bixby Town Center project. A trial has been set for May 19, 1999
12 in Superior Court in Santa Ma.
13
14
15 COMMISSION CONCERNS
16 Commissioner Hood had no concerns but asked Mr. Steele if an injunction had been
17 filed regarding the Bixby Town Center project.
18
19 Mr. Steele responded that no injunction had been filed.
20
21 Commissioner Larson will be absent from the next meeting since he will be out of town.
22
23 Commissioner Brown had a question regarding the sand replenishment program since
24 the contour of the beach has changed. He also questioned the height of the sand and
25 that it is difficult to see the ocean now from Seal Walk.
26
27 Mr. Whittenberg could not answer the questions regarding the replenishment program
28 or the height of the sand and would have to check with Mr. Steve Badum, Public Works
29 Director.
30
31 Chairman Brown also had a question regarding the work being done under the pier.
32
33 Mr. Whittenberg responded that the restroom structure was being refurbished.
34
35 Commissioner Cutuli had a question about the status of the Hellman Ranch project.
36
37 Mr. Whittenberg responded that the Coastal Commission had approved the project, but
38 there is a lawsuit challenging the Coastal Commission's decision.
39
40
41 ADJOURNMENT
42 Chairman Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
43
Page 13
February 17, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1
STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION OF REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR DECKS
STRUCTURES ALONG CRESTVIEW AVENUE, CATALINA AVENUE, &
SURF PLACE(SPECIFICALLY THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERITES ADJOINING
GUM GROVE PARK AND THE HELLMAN PROPERTIES)
REQUEST
Review the summary below along with the attached materials involving previous discussions and
considerations by both the Planning Commission and City Council regarding Zone Text
Amendment 96-1 (ZTA 96-1) and Ordinance 1419. Planning Staff, Planning Commission and
City Council have previously explored various options regarding ZTA 96-1. Staff would like the
Commission at this time to provide direction regarding Commission preferences with respect to
future consideration and action on this matter.
BACKGROUND
The discussion that follows is a summary of the ZTA since it was first initiated in 1996. Also
attached is a summary chart comparing the recommendation/action of Planning Commission and
the subsequent action by City Council.
1996
In early 1996, the City initiated Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) 96-1. Several residents from the
area spoke during public testimony either in support or opposition of the proposed ordinance.
After discussing the item at the meeting, two significant issues raised were by the Commissioners.
The first issue was the control point used for measuring the height of the structure and the height
issue would be considered in future discussions. The second issue raised was the definition of a
covered patio roof. It was staff's recommendation to consider decks the same as covered patio,
which is defined in The Code of the City of Seal Beach (Code).
Study Session
Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 17, 1999
Page 2 of 5
The item was continued to February. At the February meeting, the item was continued to March.
At the March meeting, planning staff reported that a study of the topography of the area had been
completed since the last discussion of the ZTA. The survey found that some of the properties had
height differences of up to 25 feet. This topographic height difference and the necessity of a
three-foot high safety railing could then result in structures that are 28 feet in height. Several
members of the community spoke regarding proposed ZTA.
The existence of a utility easement along the rear of the subject properties was discussed and how
that easement would affect the ZTA. The conclusion was that the utility easement along the rear
of the properties is used for access by the electrical, gas, water utilities.
It was the recommendation of staff at this meeting that the decks should not be allowed to
encroach into the utility easement and be limited to the height to 12 feet (a nine-foot high deck
and three-foot high safety railing).
Further discussion included issues such as liquefaction, vegetation, and other non-conforming
decks. In the end, the Commission voted 3-1 to approve the ZTA and corresponding ordinance.
The resolution was approved on March 20 and a timely appeal was filed on March 28.
The public hearing before the City Council was held on September 23. Similar testimony was
taken and it was the desire of the Council for staff to prepare an ordinance addressing rear yard
setbacks on an individual property basis. No further action on the appeal would be taken until the
draft ordinance as requested at the meeting was prepared.
1997
Almost a year later on September 8, another public hearing was held. The proposed ordinance
from staff recommended that any pre-existing deck that had been extended to the rear of the
property line would need to come before the Planning Commission to legalize the non-permitted
structures within a specific period of time.
After taking public testimony, new issues arose. One dealt with the structural integrity of the
structures and the liability of the City if one was to injure life or damage property. Another issue
was the fairness issue in that those who had purchased property or completed construction were
being given a privilege in that the decks would be grandfathered.
It was decided by Council to allow the existing decks to be grandfathered and those new
proposals for decks would require a conditional use permit.
At the following meeting, the item was continued at the request of a resident who wanted more
time to research concerns and make comments at the next meeting. The continuance was
Study Session
Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 17, 1999
Page 3 of 5
approved. Ordinance 1419 was presented at the December 8 City Council meeting that would
require properties with non-permitted structures within the setback area to come before the
Planning Commission with a minor plan review application. The ordinance was approved.
1998
The second reading was at the January 12 meeting and a motion to adopt the ordinance failed. It
was determined that further review by staff is necessary.
The Planning Commission considered the item once again at the August 19 meeting. It was
decided at this meeting that staff needed to present the issue to Commission once again as the
make-up of both City Council and Planning Commission has changed since the issue was first
raised in 1990. The direction given was that Ordinance 1419 might need some new ideas or
variations before it can be developed.
At the December 9 meeting, the item was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of
February 3, 1999.
At the request of the Commission, staff has been working with the Hellman Ranch Company to
obtain aerial photographs of the area in question. However, it has not been possible to obtain
copies of the aerial photographs at this time.
DISCUSSION
This text amendment was proposed to allow the City to consider changing the regulations
regarding deck structures within rear yard setbacks for the properties that abut Gum Grove Park
and the Hellman properties. After various public hearings and discussions, no changes to the
Code were made.
Several issues were raised during the course of the public hearings. These issues are mentioned
above and it may be the desire of the Commission to consider these previous issues or discuss
new ones that might not have been raised before.
One issue that was raised during a public hearing by a member of the public, but never formally
considered was the idea of terracing or stepping down the decks along the hillside. The
advantage of this is that less visual impact would occur in that decks would not be elevated and
appear to be such tall structures if one were to stand at the rear of the properties and look up at
them. The disadvantage for the property owner is that a continuous, flat deck or living area is not
allowed. However, for those who own property with a slope, it may be assumed that since there
Study Session
Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 17, 1999
Page 4 of 5
is a slope, continuous, flat areas are not always a reality. On the other hand, if there is something
unique with the size, shape or topography of the property, it may warrant approval of a variance.
It may be the desire of Commission not to propose any changes to the Code and require those
who want to have an elevated deck to the rear property line need to apply for a variance. The
issue can then be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
For those decks which are existing, a grandfathering policy could be adopted that allows all
structures to remain; provided they complete the following criteria: 1) prove when the deck
structure was built so that it can be determined what zoning regulations were in effect at the time
of the construction; and 2) the structure would need to comply with current Building Department
requirements for the structural integrity and the like. If the structures currently do not comply
with Building Department requirements, then the appropriate steps need to be taken by the
property owner to that building permits can be obtained for the structures.
FISCAL IMPACT
Minor. Allocation of staff resources to prepare appropriate Zone Text Amendment application,
and processing of application for public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council.
Future costs of processing variances and/or plan reviews will be borne by the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
There are several things to consider. Some issues have both advantages and disadvantages to
legalizing or constructing new deck structures, and some may be perceived as being unfair.
However, if it is the desire of the Commission to prepare an amendment, it should be continuously
reviewed until a solution is found. This will ensure that all property owners are being treated in
the same manner. As it stands right now, some property owners have non-conforming deck
structures and no action is being taken against them since there is no clear direction. Other
property owners desire to construct deck structures, but are hesitant to prepare plans since it is
not known what the outcome of these discussions and future regulations might be.
A direction should be determined for staff to follow up on and prepare the appropriate staff
reports and ordinances for further review.
Study Session
Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 17, 1999
Page Sof 5
FOR: February 17, 1999
•d ,,, fri)/— /
Maryann DeHaven Whittenberg
Planner Director
Department of Development Services Department of Development Services
Attachments: (14)
1. Recommendation/Action Comparison Chart
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, January 17, 1996
3. Planning Commission Minutes, January 17, 1996
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 21, 1996
5. Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 1996
6. Planning Commission Minutes, March 6, 1996
7. Planning Commission Resolution Number 96-4, March 20, 1996
8. Planning Commission Minutes, March 20, 1996
9. City Council Staff Report, September 23, 1996
10. City Council Staff Report, September 8, 1997 (including City Council minutes,
September 23, 1996)
11. City Council Minutes, September 8, 1997
12. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 19, 1998
13. Planning Commission Minutes, August 19, 1998
14. Planning Commission Minutes, December 9, 1998
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommendation/Action Comparison Chart
Recommendation/Action Comparison Chart
Planning Commission City Council
Planning Commission voted to deny the ZTA On appeal, Council directed planning staff to
and maintain the current requirement of a prepare an ordinance to regulate rear yard
ten-foot setback, setbacks on a case by case basis.
Planning staff prepared Ordinance 1419 to
conditionally allow decks in the rear yard
setback. No Planning Commission
decision has been made regarding the
proposed ordinance.
1
I
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report of
August 19, 1998, City Council Minutes of January 12,
1998, City Council Minutes and Staff Report of
December 8, 1997, City Council Minutes and Staff
Report of September 22, 1997, City Council Minutes
and Staff Report of September 8, 1997, and City
Council Minutes of August 11, 1997
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report 15
•
City of Seal Beach-Planning Commission Minutes of August 19,1998
6. Study Session: Review of Decks Backing to Hellman Ranch
staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning
Department for inspection]. The report indicated the issue of decks backing to the
Hellman Ranch was deliberated extensively by both the Planning Commission and City
Council. ZTA 96-1 and Ordinance 1419 were prepared but not adopted. They were
referred back to staff with direction to perform additional research concerning the
scope, impact and administration of the proposed ordinance.
Commission Questions to Staff
The Chair asked what staff wants from the Planning Commission?
Mr. Whittenberg said staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission. Does
the Commission want:
o To maintain the previous position taken by the Planning Commission;
❑ To not change the Code, leave the 10' setback as it is and require Code
enforcement for those existing, non-permitted structures in that area.
If the Commission's wants to maintain the previous position, staff needs to reconstitute
a new Zone Text Amendment and schedule it for Public Hearings. However, if the
Commission feels the Code should not be changed, staff would need that direction from
the Commission to take to the City Council to see if the City Council agrees with that
position.
Chairman Brown said the Commission's previous position was to leave the Code alone.
That was appealed to the City Council by the property owner of 1733 Crestview.
Mr. Whittenberg said at that time, the City Council instructed staff to prepare an
ordinance which would allow consideration of keeping those non-permitted structures,
subject to either the Minor Plan Review or a Conditional Use Permit. The City
Council did not take a formal action to adopt those regulations, so the matter has been
in limbo. It is now before the Commission to see if the Planning Commission's
position has changed.
Chairman Brown said he has never seen an inventory or listing of the properties
involved.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that an accurate count would be difficult now because some
of the decks/structures were built without City permits and no records exist to review.
Also, the vegetation at the back of Gum Grove Park, adjacent to the Crestview Avenue
homes, is extremely heavy and makes it difficult or impossible to see what exists.
The structures that can be seen pose a problem as to which property they're on. Staff
4
•
City of Seal Beach—Planning Commission Minutes of August 19, 1998
estimates that five to eleven lots may have structures built without permits. The most
accurate method to evaluate this situation is with aerial photographs.
Chairman Brown asked what happens if the Planning Commission says they like the
Code as it is and wants staff to proceed by Code enforcement?
Director Whittenberg said aerial photographs would be taken of that area and they
would be compared with the Orange County Assessors' parcel numbers for addresses
and lots. That information would be compared to street addresses and building permits
on file. Once you have an aerial photograph it's very easy to match that information to
Assessor Parcels. The City's aerial photographs are approximately ten years old.
Commissioner Larson asked about a subdivision map, which would show lots.
Director Whittenberg said approximately 80 - 100 lots are involved and approximately
five to eleven parcels are estimated to have structures without the proper permits.
Chairman Brown said previous Planning Commission decisions were to keep the Code
as it stood:
( o Maintain the 10' setback with no structures allowed to be built in that 10'.
o After 10' a 25' high structure could be built from the ground level.
o Within the setback you can have a ground cover, a deck with a staircase
Chairman Brown explained that the properties in question are large lots and slope
downward at the rear. To take advantage of the full lot, some property owners have
cantilevered decks to the end of the lot by using 25' to 35' girders to support the
structure. As viewed from Gum Grove Park, these tall structures with the big girders
are eyesores.
The feeling of the Planning Commission, at that time, was that this situation was not
fair to the people who used Gum Grove Park or to the Hellman Ranch property owners
as it infringed on their property. The feeling was to leave the municipal Code as it
stood and to let the City Council direct Code enforcement on this matter.
Chairman Brown added that everyone in the City has setback requirements to obey.
They're not allowed to build in the required setback area. The properties in this
particular area are extra long. To have full use of the sloped area the property owners
could terrace the property and could landscape it.
Chairman Brown said it was still his feeling to maintain the Code as it stands.
Therefore, his view would be to take no action, to recommend no ZTA and to pass it
back to the Council. He would be interested, however, in knowing how many
properties are involved.
5
City of Seal Beach—Planning Commission Minutes of August 19,1998
Commissioner Larson asked about the terracing and the configuration of the lots. He
said he had a problem with the fact that this situation has existed eight or nine years but
declined to discuss that aspect further.
Chairman Brown said the Planning Commission has been told several times that Code
enforcement is not within its purview. Although the Commission may direct
preparation of a ZTA, the City Council directs the Code enforcement. The question is,
does the Planning Commission want a ZTA to change the Code to bring these mostly
illegally built structures into conformance?
Commissioner Larson said that from what he's read in the minutes and staff reports that
the laws governing Variances would not apply to these properties. The necessary
findings could not be made.
Chairman Brown asked if the City Council could decide not to enforce the municipal
Code and, as such, to leave these properties in legal limbo?
Mr. Steele said that to a large extent the City prosecutor and Planning Department
decide what Code enforcement activity takes place. In the past, the City Attorney's
Office has received direction on priorities from the City Council. The Council could
choose to hire two or three Code Enforcement Officers and enforce everything or, they
could choose to utilize staff it as they have and set some priorities.
Chairman Brown said the question before the Planning Commission is how far does it
want to proceed on this issue tonight?
Commissioner Hood asked for a recap on the rights of the property owners. His
understanding is that they have the right to use their property, to terrace it. If this is
true, how much terracing can they put in? He then verbally sketched various situations.
Director Whittenberg said terracing could be done but to change the grade on a
property would require a full review through the City's Engineering Department to
determine slope stability and other issues. To staffs knowledge, very few homeowners
in that area have chosen this route. Most people leave it either in a natural state or, run
a deck straight out from the lot's flat area and over the slope area.
Commissioner Larson asked if the Hellman Ranch family wanted to be notified on the
rear setbacks so they could put their garages on the rear property line? Didn't the
Commission turn that down?
Mr. Whittenberg said that was correct.
Chairman Brown indicated that that is a separate issue.
6
City of Seal Beach—Planning Commission Minutes of August 19, 1998
Commissioner Larson said it appeared to him that if the property owner(s) behind those
homes on Crestview have to comply with the law, then the Crestview property owners
should comply.
Chairman Brown agreed, saying people throughout the City have to comply with the
setback requirements.
Director Whittenberg explained the City's five zoning districts and the varying setback
requirements.
Chairman Brown said he felt this would be a special privilege that the City would be
giving to people whose properties backed to the Hellman Ranch. If the Hellman Ranch
property owners wanted to do this same thing, the Crestview Avenue property owners
would be screaming about the Hellman's blocking their view.
Commissioner Lyon said he had only had this material a few days and was not prepared
to vote on it at this time. He said he would have to abstain from voting.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if he should abstain from participating because his property
backs to the Gum Grove Park.
Mr. Steele said if his property is one of those properties that might potentially be
affected that it would be a conflict of interest for Commissioner Cutuli to participate
and recommended he abstain.
Commissioner Larson said he was not ready to vote either. He wanted more facts. If
we don't want to change, that means somewhere along the line, if the City Council
doesn't take action, the Ordinance would have to be enforced. He would like to be in a
position to know exactly what we're saying should be enforced. He'd like to see an
aerial photo and a plot plan of the properties are in this same position.
Chairman Brown agreed, saying it was a great idea and indicating that would ultimately
have to be done anyway. He said it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to
say take the studies and come back to us.
Mr. Steele said the Planning Commission does not have a formal action agenda on this
item. If the Commission could give staff direction staff could go from there.
Commissioner Cutuli asked about one aspect of the properties. Mr. Steele advised him
that he would have to abstain totally from this matter as a Planning Commissioner. He
could, however, speak from the audience on his own interests.
Commissioner Hood agreed with Commissioner Larson, saying the Code should be left
as it is. He said the matter needs more information and recommended this be revisited
in sixty days.
7
City of Seal Beach—Planning Commission Minutes of August 19,1998
Reg Clewley requested to speak. Chairman Brown, with the consensus of the
Commission, allowed public testimony.
Reg Clewley * 945 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach
Mr. Clewley said his property abuts the Hellman Ranch. He spoke about former
Planning Commissioner Anton Dahlman, saying while Commissioner Dahlman excused
himself and spoke from the audience this staff report contains a minority Planning
Commission report from Commissioner Dahlman supporting this. He was in conflict of
interest in doing that after excusing himself. Mr. Clewley read his prepared letter to
the Commission [copy attached].
There were no comments or questions from the Planning Commission.
Chairman Brown indicated the property owner of 1733 Crestview Avenue is not the
original property owner who built the deck.
Mr. Whittenberg said that when the City became aware the property was changing
hands, the City drafted a document that the present owners, the Myers, have signed. It
says the Myers are aware that the deck was built without the required City building
permits and that there was an on-going process with the City regarding possible changes
to the City's Code requirements in that area and that they would comply with whatever
requirements the City would ultimately adopt. A signed copy of that document is on
file in the Planning Department. He said that recently the City became aware that this
property might be for sale again. The City contacted the listing real estate agent and
sent that agent a copy of this signed document so they can inform potential purchasers.
Chairman Brown summarized the consensus of the Planning Commission. It is to
request that staff prepare a report, including aerial surveys, and whatever it needs
to ascertain exactly how many properties are in violation of the setbacks and how
many properties would be affected by a ZTA.
Director Whittenberg said City staff would contact two or three aerial photography
companies and see if current, stock photos are available. If a special flight is needed,
that may take longer to arrange. Staff will come back to the Commission on September
9th or September 23"I with further information.
Chairman Brown and the Director briefly discussed the resolution of satellite photos.
8
Stephen Reg Clewley
9+5 Catalina Ave.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Aug. 19, 1998
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
City Hall
211 Eighth St.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: August 19, 1998 STAFF REPORT
Rear Yard Setbacks, Decks Along
Crestview, Catalina and Surf Place
Honorable Chairman and members of the Commission:
I object to this matter appearing on calendar as a scheduled
matter. ,While staff might like to think of this transaction as
administrative in nature clearly the emphasis intended is to ensure
an absence of public testimony pertaining to errors of ommission or
deliberate misrepresentation of facts. The current status of
Variance 5-90/ZTA 96-1/Ordinance 1419 is that the matter has been
denied, twice by the Planning Commission and twice by the City
A bewildered City Council voted to ask staff for direction, staff
told the council it would report back two meetings hence and did
nothing of the sort.
This issue had its genesis on December 22, 1989 when building
inspecter Chuck Feenstra red tagged 1733 Crestview by issueing
Stop Work Order No. 1112. No enforcement action has ever been
initiated, otherwise the property would have long since belonged to
the city or the structure would have long since been brought :into
conformity with pre-existing codes related to building and zoning.
While the attachments to this staff report document in detail and
verbatim nearly every word ever said in support of the proposed
Variance, Zoning Text Amendment, and Ordinance as much as possible
has been done to obfuscate the underlying facts, summarize the verbal
opposition, and delete or detroy written communications received in
opposition to this Variance/Zoning Text Amendment/Ordinance.
2
Where the Staff report background information seriously
diverges from the facts of the matter begin on page 2 within
the second paragraph thereon. The Commission' s decision was
appealed to the City Council and a building permit was issued
in violation of Stop Work Order :;0. 1112 allowing construction
to commence at 1733 Crestview which included the illegal installation
of an exterior staircase from newly created living space on the 2nd
floor to the ground floor level without requiring additional parking.
That oversite was corrected administratively by passing a law to
allow pre-existing exterior staircases.
Paragraph 4 of page 2 omits the particularly relevant fact,
that during December ' 97-January ' 98, the Council considered Ordinance
1419 and, after discussion and deliberation the Ordinance failed.
What we have here is a case of deja vu. -owhere in the materials
provided you by staff is there any attempt to explain why it took
five years from the time the Appeal of Variance 5-90 was denied for
staff to produce toning Text Amendment 96-1 however the regulatory
and procedural approach employed by staff can be glimpsed on page 8
of the City Council minutes of September 8, 1997 near the middle of
the page where, "The manager offered that with the adoption of the
ordinance proposed the City would send letters to property owners
known to have existing decks advising of the new regulations and
requiring compliance upon the sale of the home, or before if desired
by the home owner." There was nothing haphazard regarding the
timing for the emergence of STA 96-1 it was precipitated by the sale
of the property.
Now the City Council and staff would like nothing more than to
repeat this regulatory and procedural approach burying the issue in
endless dialog and navel contemplation for so long as the Myers own
the offending property. There is but one problem, the jig is up,
the cat is out of the bag, they aren't going to get away with it.
In the future only fools will purchase a building permit, because the
city is known to have no interest in enforcing the codes.
Sincerely,
i .Dtephen R-3 Clewley 4,
FILE COPY
August 19, 1998
STAFF REPORT
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: REAR YARD SETBACKS, DECKS ALONG
CRESTVIEW, CATALINA AND SURF PLACE
RECOMMENDATION
Review attached materials involving Zone Text Amendment 96-1 (ZTA 96-1) and
Ordinance 1419, consider options previously explored by staff, Planning Commission
and City Council, discuss relevant issues and concerns, and provide direction to staff
regarding Commission preferences with respect to future consideration and action on this
matter.
BACKGROUND
As indicated by attachments to this report, this matter has undergone considerable
deliberation by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Durring the latter half
of 1997, subsequent to direction of the City Council, a new ordinance (Ordinance 1419)
was prepared which reflects certain refinements to the regulatory approach contained in
ZTA 96-1. The current status of ZTA 96-1/Ordinance 1419 is that the matter has been
referred to staff and, by inference, the Planning Commission, for further research and
consideration.
While attachments to this report document in detail the range of discussion and
deliberation devoted to proposed ZTA 96-1 and Ordinance 1419, a brief description of
the sequence of events associated with this matter follows:
• This issue had its genesis in 1990 when, as a result of the City's initiation of a code
enforcement case in connection with an illegally built rear yard deck structure on
property located at 1733 Crestview Avenue, the then-property owners filed a variance
application (Variance 5-90) in an after-the-fact effort to obtain the City's sanction for
the already-built deck. That variance application was denied by the Planning
Commission and, upon appeal to the City Council, was again denied. In upholding the
Planning Commission's denial of the variance, the Council instructed staff to suspend
r staff Report ZTA 96-1/Ord 1419
•
" $ ,.
code enforcement activity involving this property pending development of a draft
zone text amendment which would address the overall issue of rear yard setback
requirements for properties abutting the Hellman Ranch/Gum Grove Park.
• In early 1996, staff presented Zone Text Amendment 96-1 (ZTA 96-1) to the
Planning Commission for public hearing consideration (see attachments). For reasons
reflected in the public record, The Commission at that time voted IlQ to approve ZTA
96-1. The Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council (by the
subsequent owners of 1733 Crestview Ave.), which deferred action on the matter and
directed staff to analyze the potential for further refinements to ZTA 96-1.
• In the Fall of 1997, the City Council conducted a public hearings on ZTA 96-],
which had undergone certain modifications pursuant to the Council's previous
direction. A number of concerns and issues arose during the Council's hearing
deliberations which resulted in direction to staff to prepare a new ordinance
(Ordinance 1419) reflecting certain refinements to the overall regulatory approach
under consideration.
• During December `97-January '98, the Council considered Ordinance 1419 and, after
discussion and deliberation concerning a variety of issues, referred the matter to staff
with direction to perform additional research concerning the scope, impact and
administration of the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION
A review of the record (including staff reports, proposed ordinances and PC/CC minutes)
indicates the range of philosophical and practical considerations attending the question of
how the City should deal with decks and rear yard setbacks for properties abutting
Hellman Ranch/Gum Grove Park. Affected property owners, Planning Commissioners
and City Councilmembers have expressed a variety of perspectives and opinions on this
matter over a period of several years.
At present, Ordinance 1419 represents the most recent attempt to define a regulatory and
procedural approach to this issue. As stated above, however, during its latest
consideration of the ordinance in January, 1998, the City Council indicated that
additional research relative to the scope, impact and administration of this proposed
ordinance should be performed prior to further action toward its adoption.
Insofar as this matter remains unresolved, and in view of the fact that a "new" City
Council and Planning Commission have in the meantime been seated, it appears prudent
to staff to again bring the matter to the Commission. It may be that the Commission as
presently comprised can bring new or different perspectives to proposed Ordinance 1419
which merit consideration by the City Council.
2
D::iMy Documents/Zoning Text Amendmcnts/ZTA96-1:KK
Star Report ZTA 96•1/Ord 1119
Staff appreciates the challenge involved (particularly for new Commission members) in
acquiring a thorough and coherent understanding of the substance and evolution of this
matter by review of the written public record (staff reports, minutes, etc.) only. In view of
this, the Commission could opt to schedule this matter for a future study session, during
which staff could, in an informal discussion format, provide information and insight
relative to this issue's history and present status. Such an approach may be the most
practical way for the Commission to become uniformly informed about, and provide
meaningful feedback concerning, any revisions to proposed Ordinance 1419.
However, if review of the attached materials affords the Commission sufficient
background and familiarity with this matter to provide direction to staff with respect to
endorsing or modifying Ordinance 1419, then staff shall proceed as desired by the
Commission.
Kyle Kollar / Whittenberg
Associate Planner Director of Development Servi s
3
D:../My Document,s2oning Text Amendments/ZTA96-I:KK
StaffReportZTA 96-1/Ord. 1419
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Reports and City Council Minutes Concerning ZTA 96-1 and
Ordinance 1419, from September 30, 1998 to Present
Proposed Ordinance 1419
D:/My Documents/Zoning Text Amendment/ZTA96-1:KK
to execute said contract on behalf of
the City.
Y. Authorized the City Manager to execute
an independent contractor agreement for
a cable television Public, Educational,
and Governmental Programming Coordinator
at an estimated cost of $36,000 per year.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "Z" - STATUS REPORT - SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION -
INSTALLATION RESTORATION_FROGRAM - ALL SITES
Councilmember Forsythe noted that some remediation efforts
vill be forthcoming where certain hazardous materials have
been evidenced on the Weapons Station from many years past,
and suggested that a letter be forwarded with regard to the
sites in nearest proximity of McGaugh School requesting that
they possibly be done during the summer recess.
Hastings moved, second by Brown, to receive and file the staff
report, and instructed that it be forwarded to the Planning
Commission, and directed that a letter be forwarded as
requested.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
L NOES: None Motion carried
- ITEM "X" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1419 - DECK STRUCTURES - REAR YARD
11�` ,$ETEACES - RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY 2ONZ
Mr. Req Clevley, Catalina Avenue, expressed his opinion that
the Ordinance proposed misrepresents the facts. He read
Section 2 of the ordinance, made reference to a 1990 staff
report relating to Variance 5-90, findings of special
circumstances, specifically properties that border the Hellman
Ranch and Gum Grove Park, which be described as lots being
similarly shaped, single family residences, and some with
patios that extend over the rear slope, some decks built
according to plans approved by the Building Department. He
claimed there is no special circumstance different in the case
of V-5-90 from other properties that would warrant the
granting of a variance, according to Planning Commission
minutes that deck the only one in the area that goes to the
property line and infringes into the rear setback, all others
set back ten feet, other encroachments have been found to be
-•- • fences, walls, trees, not structures. Mr. Clevley stated the
Ordinance proposed needs to be sent back and be revised. Ms.
` Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said existing law should be enforced,
some Code enforcement should be done, not allow special
consideration for some people. At the request of Council, the
Director of Development Services explained that the proposed
Ordinance pertains to deck structures, not fences or
•
• separations between properties, the ordinance as proposed
• would require properties that back up to either Gum Grove Park
i or the Hellman land that have a deck that encroaches within
�` -r':•. ; the rear tan feet of the property and built without a permit
to come to the City within one year for Planning Commission
• j review and approval of the plans for the structure, and if
additional conditions aro necessary to ensure its safety, fire
worthiness, etc., they would be applied at that time, this
procedure would allow persons to keep a structure that has
been built previously, without approvals or inspections, in
• turn the ordinance will also allow persons who wish to
construct a new deck structure to the rear of their property
K►.�3 r
to do so through the Conditional Use Permit process. The
Director clarified that at the present time decks are not
allowed to be built within the rear ten feet of the property,
the ordinance proposed would allow them subject to approval by
the Planning Commission, the Conditional Use Permit process
for new decks and the Minor Plan Review process for existing,
non-approved decks. The Mayor noted that this will ensure
that decks previously built will be inspected for public
safety factors. To a situation where the property owner does
not come forward for after-the-fact approvals it vas explained
that that than becomes a Code enforcement issue, to the point
of requiring a CUP for a new deck it vas clarified that then
allows the City the option to approve with conditions. A
concern vas expressed with allowing future decks to be
constructed into the ten foot setback. Mr. Clewley spoke
again, •stated the ordinance will impact Cum Grove Park and the
Hellman Plan, once a deck is built the City will have no means
of ensuring that further structures will not be built
underneath, another living quarter as an example, such
structure may not be known for years until the property is
sold, enforcement will be a problem too, with passage of this
ordinance the Building Code will not be able to be enforced.
He made reference to such a deck on Crestview, the subject of
Variance 16-1.
Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to approve the second
reading of Ordinance Number 1419 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OP SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 29-401 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW DECK STRUCTURES IN
REAR-YARD SETBACKS IN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHlCH ABUT THE HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM
• GROVE PARK." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance
Number 1419 was waived.
AYES: Forsythe
NOES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton •
ABSTAIN: Hastings Motion failed
A comment of Councilman Brown was that there is a ten foot
setback and in his opinion it should be enforced. To a
• • question as to how many homes this ordinance would affect, the
Director estimated five or six throughout the north side of
Crestview however each property would need to be inspected to
determine the exact number, and confirmed that currant Code
allows a deck to be constructed up to the ten foot setback.
j• •• ' The Mayor offered her opinion that the City has recourse if
anything were to be built under a deck. In response to
+ comments made, the Director of Development Services explained
-r•- - - 4 that the ordinance proposed has no effect on the Building
Code, rather, a Zoning Code change that provides development
▪ = standards, the Building Code specifies how a structure is to
be built, the change, as proposed, would allow the City to
continue to enforce currant Cods for construction without a
valid permit, when the City becomes aware, as in the case of
the Crestview deck that initiated this issue, a stop work
notice was issued, the owners were given the opportunity to
either move the structure back to the permitted setback
distance or apply for a variance to allow the structure to
`-='. remain, the property owner applied for the variance, the
Planning Commission denied same, it was appealed to the City
▪ "=71..0 •• Council, the Council denied the variance, instructed staff to
c" not enforce the Code provisions and that an amendment be
.:,.,. prepared to allow decks in that area in some configuration,
that has been referred back and considered by the Commission,
c.*:., . r •_ .. came back to the Council, the ordinance as proposed a
culmination of that long process. Construction without
permits is an issue dealt with by the City on a daily basis.
• '� ' •
There was recollection that the referenced Crestview deck was
completed over a weekend and after a stop work order had been
issued, that deck has also impacted other properties where a
deck has existed for thirty to thirty-five years, has become a
part of the hose with landscaping, etc., the issue now is how
they are to be treated. Without the amendment in place, the
Director explained that for decks constructed since the time
the tan foot setback requirement was adopted the City would be
in the position of having to enforce the existing ordinance,
those built prior to would not be impacted.
It was suggested that this be referred back to staff to
research further the effective date of the ordinance imposing
the ten foot setback, a sore accurate number of existing decks
that fall within the proposed ordinance category, etc. It was
mentioned that the concern is with those decks constructed
without permits, specifically for safety reasons. To a
question of Ms. Beretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, the
response was that the useable space of most lots is five
thousand square feet, some lots say range from one hundred ten
to one hundred forty-five feet in depth, the front setback is
eighteen feet with a minimum ten foot setback at the rear.
Ms. Fielding questioned the purpose of the ten foot setback,
applied a monetary value to the non-use of that land, and
questioned if the setbacks are not being used for a specific
purpose possibly use by the property owner should be given
consideration. To that, comment was that certain property
owners did not abide by setback provisions that existed at the
time of construction, the concern is with amending the
provisions for the benefit of just a few, reference vas also
made to a past amendment in order to accommodate gazebos that
encroached into the setback areas of College Park East. The
Director reiterated the direction of the Council to conduct
• further research for information purposes.
•
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4602 - AMENDING CLASSIFICATION PLAN -
TEMPORARY CIVILIA.*1 POLICE RECRUIT POSITION / SALARY RANGE
Resolution Number 4602 was presented to Council entitled •A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO INCLUDE THE TEMPORARY
POSITION OF CIVILIAN POLICE RECRUIT AND SETTING A MONTHLY
SAVARY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4602 was waived. The City Manager stated that this
action would allow the City to hire an individual that is
• . i nearing completion of police academy training, thus expanding
the candidate field available to the City, • competitive
process with other agencies, and at a lower pay rate than an
entry level officer. Councilsember Fulton spoke favorably of
the concept however his preference would be to place a cap on
•= -� • • the number of such hires. The Chief confirmed that under the
present system the City would need to employ the individual as
a police officer and at the police officer pay rate, under the
-� -.•c system proposed a recruit could be hired to fill a vacancy at
•..... .••• a considerably reduced cost while the person is completing the
•moi�' !- ,=. r academy, also, explained that there is no authority to hire
sore personnel than the number
authorised. The Mayor agreed Councilman Fulton
that the number of recruits should be
� clearly stated, however it was explained that the staff report
'" statesthata
,..�Lposition would be filled when an opening is
• • available, with which the Council concurred. Fulton moved,
second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4602 as presented
;.:3;., .. and clarified.
r'4
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
",L'_ :: '• - • NOES: None Motion carried
A•N. ,.. • O i•••.
State Lands site, use it as a museum, there could possibly be
meeting rooms, all open to the public. Councilmember Forsythe
advised that as part of the Hellman Specific Plan proceedings
the Rrenwinkle house has been designated to be coved to the
State Lands parcel, that part of the development agreement,
the Hellmans agreed to fund the Bove, the Historical Society
could possibly place some of their materials there, etc. Ms.
Corbin reiterated her request for a plan as to the use of the
house and source of funds to operate it. The Mayor explained
again that 140,000 of subdivision park fees have been
designated for the Rrenvinkle House. At the conclusion of
discussion, Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve
Amendment Humber Two of the Agreement with the Luraschi Family
for the Rrenwinkle House.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: Mone Motion carried
ITEM "M" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4594 - LOT LIN! ADJUSTMENT - 3011
OCEAN AVENUE - STEFFENSE$
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal leach, requested an explanation of this
item. The Director of Development Services advised that the
request is to combine two side-by-side parcels into a single
lot to allow a large home to be built on the property along
the Gold Coast, noting that the Planning Commission has
approved the plans for the home, this was a condition of their
approval as one can not build across a property line. Brown
moved, second by Fulton, to adopt Resolution Number 4594
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-97-4, FOR PORTIONS
OF LOTS 3, 4, 17, 18, 5 AND 16 OF BLOCK 03 OF TRACT N0. 2, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 3 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, ALSO
KNOWN AS 308 OCEAN AVENUE." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4594 was waived.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
ITE "P" - RRM DESIGN GROUP - CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Ms. Corbin, Seal Beach, said upon reading the staff report it
appears that the contract is to be amended to include
additional services, thus costs, the contract seaming to be
open ended, suggesting that there should possibly be a maximum
amount. It was explained that the additional services are on
a time and material basis, if the City had a larger staff
possibly some of the work could be accomplished in-house,
there is not, therefore is contracted out. Its. Corbin again
suggested • limit to the amount. Hastings moved, second by
Campbell, to approve the amendment to the RAM Design Group
contract as presented.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: Mone Motion carried
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1419 - ETA 06-1 - DECK STRUCTURZE
The Director of Development Services stated the proposed
Ordinance is felt to reflect the most recent direction of
Council with regard to the issue of non-permitted decks on
lots that abut the Gua Grove Park or Hellman Ranch, the
ordinance also reflects the determination of the Planning
Commission at the conclusion of their hearings. He explained
that the ordinance would require those properties that have a
non-permitted existing deck structure within the setback area
to come before the Planning Commission for a minor plan
review, the minor plan review is not a public hearing item
however is a noticed matter to properties within one hundred
feet of the subject property and if there are objections to
recommended conditions the item would be removed from the
Consent Calendar and a public hearing scheduled, if no
objection to the conditions there would be no public bearing.
He noted that for persons who propose to build a new deck
within the setback area, those would require the conditional
use permit process with notice to properties within three
hundred feet of the subject property. To the understanding
that some type of inspection of existing deck structures would
be conducted, the Director confirmed that an inspection will
be part of the minor plan review process, if there are major
violations of Building Code provisions as far as stability of
the structure, etc. the approval would be conditioned,
estimated the number of such structures as probably less than
tan or eleven, and that it will be the responsibility of the
individual property owner to make application to the City,
there is a twelve month period to submit an application for
the minor plan review, if they do not the issue would then be
discussed with the City Attorney. The City Attorney clarified
that this issue has been the subject of public hearings in the
past, the public has had considerable opportunity to comment,
therefore no .further hearings are required.
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the introduction and
first reading of Ordinance Number 1419 entitled "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW DECK
STRUCTURES IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS IN PROPERTIES IN THE
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT THE
HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PAM." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 1419 vas waived.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
runLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4596 - CIRCULATION
LLEmENT - GENERAL PLAN - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-4 1 AMENDMENT
97-2
Mayor Hastings declared the public bearing open to consider
the Negative Declaration and Amendment 97-2 to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. The City Clerk certified that
notice of the public hearing had bean advertised as required
by law and that there have been no communications received
relating to this item. The Director of Development Services
explained that the recommendation of the Planning Commission
was to approve the subject Negative Declaration and the
amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the
subject street right of way was dedicated to the City by
Rockwell in 1985, a strip of land that has not been improved
from the end of Alolfo Lopez Drive, north to Westminster
Avenue just east of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, this
roadway was included in the Circulation Element at the time
the seven hundred seventy-three unit housing project for the
Hellman property was under consideration and at that point the
First Street extension to Lopes Drive vas part of that process
as was this extended roadway to Westminster Avenue. As part
of the recent Nellman Ranch Specific Plan approval process,
one of the amendments to the General Plan was to delete this
roadway from the Circulation Element, this particular roadway
had initially been missed from that implementation plan. He
explained that this roadway deletion will sake the Circulation
Element consistent with the approved Hellman Ranch Specific
Plan, the Resolution makes reference to the response to
comments regarding the Negative Declaration, there were two,
the Southern California Association of Governments indicating
that the project is not regionally significant therefore they
had no comment, the other from CalTrans, Orange County Region,
indicating it does not impact their roadways therefore they
had no concern.
4
1 L ) )
December 8, 1997
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R Till, City Manager
From: Lee Whittecberg,Director of Development Services
Subject: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 1419
RE: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed Ordinance, "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW DECK STRUCTURES IN
REAR-YARD SETBACKS IN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
ZONE, DISTRICT, WHICH ABUT THE HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK"
with any amendments deemed necessary.
DISCUSSION
At the direction of the City Council, Staff has prepared a revised
ordinance for consideration.
The proposed ordinance would require owners of existing, non-permitted decks within the
rear yard setback to apply for and receive a minor plan review to allow the decks to remain.
Future applications for such decks would be processed through the conditional use permit
process
Based on the above, staff recommends the Council approve an amendment to Section 28-
401(2)(b) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach concerning minimum yard dimensions in the
Residential Low Density zone of Planning District Vas follows:
"(3) Uncovered decks constructed as a level extension of the flat graded
portion of the lot which were constructed without appropriate permits
prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and which are located on those
certain properties in the Residential Low Density zone of District V which
D:\My documents\Zoning Text Amendments196-1 CC Staff Report M2.doc BC/bc
Staff Report ZTA 96-1 - Ordinance
December 8, 1997
abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, may be approved by the
Planning Commission through the consent calendar plan review process.
The owners of such pre-existing decks shall apply for conditional use
permit approval within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this
Ordinance.
(4) Uncovered decks designed as a level extension of the flat graded portion of
a lot on those certain properties in the Residential Low Density zone of
District V which abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, may be
approved by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit
process."
FOR: December 8, 1997
Barry C Lee Whittenberg
Assoc' a Planner Director of Development Services
NOTED AND APPROVED:
Keith Till
City Manager
Page 2
96-1 CC Staff Report#2
_ _ may -. ,
/ K. Determined that the proposed contract with
Coast Rail Services is exempt from standard
bidding practices pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 2-22(c) , (c) , and (f) in that the
provision of sand via rail services within
the Navy Weapons Station is a specialized
I. service which requires negotiated contracts
e with the U. S. Navy and Union Pacific Railroad,
E - that potential winter storms and El Nino
" conditions pose a threat to life, private
property, and public infrastructure, therefore
awarded the contract to provide and deliver
beach quality sand, East Beach Replenishment
,.. .. ;=.: :- Project #772, to Coast Rail Services in an
amount not to exceed $1,083,000.00, authorized
the City Manager to execute said contract, and
�;'•'. "- to negotiate with Coast Rail to obtain the
i. :- '". • maximum amount of beach sand within the
:4:.,;._:,,., - established City budget.
.j~ L. Approved a consultant agreement with Moffat &
": Nichol Engineers to perform monitoring and
project support services for East Beach
4 •;? : Replenishment Project /772 at a cost not to
;: exceed $10,100.00, and authorized the City
" '•''''a°�-" Manager to execute same on behalf of the City.
' - M. Approved the plans and specifications for
the Railroad Track Removal Project, Seal
--11%-- : '- Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue,
-_�.'vz•,.-r__ = funding of $102,900 for said project currently
available in the form of a trust deposit from
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
• +-ks, the owner of said tracks, and authorized staff
' to initiate the public bidding process.
-. *7-_ " 0. Adopted Resolution Number 4561 entitled "A
"• f',: _. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
`0'- _"" OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED
~.•' •,`; AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCRETE
:$, -, REPAIR PROJECT, FY 96-97 PROJECT #675, CONTRACT
v' "4.4^ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DAMON CONSTRUCTION AND THE
.-16 -
-,,,oaf- CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full
.:=:_•,a. " reading of Resolution Number 4561 was waived.
4 •
.- •.4R. Q. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report
▪ .'"t . = for August, 1997.
+,:.= , � AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES:
`'gip'~ , ."6- None Motion carried
",.,- ;,,,�.•y: ..•- ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
.
::0t;�_ ;�_- ITEM "P" - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1 - REAR YARD SETBACKS/
.....7=;,..- DECKS
' ^`• 4. Mr. Reg Clewley clarified that it was Item "P" not "E" that he
,::j- had requested to be removed from the Consent Calendar. The
• ?% City Attorney confirmed that Item "P" is a matter continued to
-• 1=v?=rx."` - the October 27th meeting therefore no action will be taken at
,?!..,•'' " = this meeting, and should the Council determine to hear
„j:. .:••, comments it would be necessary to reconsider the approval of
, .: the agenda. Councilman Brown suggested that the comments be
.•- '�� delayed until such time as the item is beingconsidered. Mr.
'-=�4:,:3 ':a ••'• Clewley said he wished to make comments in hat hiss feeling is
_.t.=4.,1f;M -:,; that the Council can not allow adequate time to fully discuss
•w,_.,, ,;7,..- , . the matter, objected to continuation of the matter in that he
- px.•s~:;..;_..• - claimed his home, life, and lives of his family members are
--... • .
•::•:s• .... endangered by the passage of ZTA 96-1. •
tom. .. } ,.. •
i▪l.t:ti _
r.
•
-'ice : 'i_
< : - #fin.
page Eight - City Council/Agency Minutes - September 22, 1997
F- .
j2ECONSIDERATION
Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to reconsider the approval
of the agenda and the consent calendar.
AYES: Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
V:;-_-t NOES: Brown Motion carried
4.-::..J -Z
•
?"
t�_.r.:�• _ It was the consensus of the Council to consider Item "P"
-..•;•. before Items "N and J".
ITEM "P"
: Councilman Brown emphasized his desire that this item be
,;.;,, .:c'•_:;�; . considered on October 27th, and offered that Mr. Clewley
=-'k.^!ix:: =`'"• ' present his comments at that time. Mr. Clewley stated he
;.s. : . =., would be in attendance, reiterated his prior comment, and made
- reference to opinions voiced at a past meeting relating to
' . • this issue, to which he stated the deck at 950 Catalina was
•`-' ' . . illegally constructed, he lodged a complaint, it was
inspected, however said the City has failed to fulfill its
::2 : •x." obligation under the Code. Mr. Clewley made reference to and
, -:;' ;,;. read excerpts from staff reports of February 28th, February
.,.._.:,.......„,,,r,--..• 21st, January 17th, and September, 1996, January 22nd and
•x4 • October 3rd, 1990 with regard to Variance 5-90 and then ZTA
•"ger_ ``'=`1 96-1, and urged that the Council review and understand all of
'-'`=".-ii= -'- them before considering this matter again.
` " "' ' Campbell moved, second by Hastings, to continue Item "P", ZTA
..-
;;� ,��, •:; �,..2, 96-1, until the October 27th meeting.
7.';.--:- AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
` '_`k: ;^ NOES: None Motion carried
>•?
- ';` '_ Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, Hastings moved,
`
1....: � •n .;._-_ second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as
a. ' r•
:_.,._ �;,,�_<-• rearranged and the Consent Calendar.
'1, .4_;;M: 7
:,,y. AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
.,�,;,�sr ,._, _
_ NOES: None Motion carried
-
• a. . 4- •-=. . . •
• .- '~ • ITEM "J" - AWARD OF BID - 12th STREET PAVEMENT
t.. .
qy'A?:.- _. REHABILITATION - OCEAN / ELECTRIC - PROJECT NUMBER 680
"
:- Bids were received until September 18, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. for
.1=• ''"••''s•• Project Number 680, 12th Street Pavement Rehabilitation, at
-:.7:7,-- .74.i..-. which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as
.v` =1 follows:
r -
—�=w Alternative A - Asphalt Concrete Reconstruction
'`7.-;PrL:• Sequel Contractors, Inc. $231,226.07
Q;•;„..1..-„.,..;---- .�':
Nobest Construction $236,512.50
...--:731-.:: . ..-k- Excel Paving Co. $245,597.10
-'• •:=" ' r - GMC Engineering, Inc. $246,300.00
7,-.Y. %= ' . Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. $252,006.60
Y -; s.:,.. Damon Construction Co. $259,146.83
f.
�-.. . . ',_ Alternative B - Asphalt Concrete Overlay
:2• Sequel Contractors, Inc. $203,128.00
' , • Excel Paving Co. $217,406.70
.- •. -..;4 Nobest Construction $220,720.50
•�it:-;;;�-•»_ GMC Engineering, Inc. $223,890.00
-2-4?' -‘4, Damon Construction Co. $224,094.15
--7:-..4.-::,"-•'4-• Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. $236,094.15
,'7 Alternative C - Portland Cement Reconstruction
Nobest Construction $254,115.75
,• - $:,, ,,r
• 47
� Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. $278,207.58
`-�47•". ' Damon Construction Co. $282,822.02
ah.
.=°, ,= Sequel Contractors Inc. $307,719.30
riili`
AGENDA REPORT
phTC Sept. 22, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment 96-1, Rear 'Yard Setback,
Decks along Crestview, Catalina and Surf Place
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
City Council held public hearing re Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Zoning Text
Amendment 96-1 for Rear Yard Setback, Decks Along Crestview, Catalina and Surf Place on
September 8, 1997. The Proposed Ordinance No. 1419, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach
Amending Section 28-40] of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to Permit Pre-Existing Deck
Structures to Remain in Rear-Yard Setbacks of Those Certain Proper-ties in the Residential Low
Density Zone, District V, Which Abuts the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, Subject to the
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, was to return for Council consideration at their meeting on
September 22, 1997.
It is the recommendation of staff, that this matter be continued to the October 27, 1997 City
Council meeting.
}
�._ . lif/ ..�
�e Whittenberg, Director
Department of Development Services
Agenda Item p
Page Six - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
jiAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The City Manager explained that this item proposes seven pilot
projects and a signage program as an effort to commence
implementing the Main Street Specific Plan, the projects would
include improvements to the pier and City Hall restrooms, mid-
block crosswalks and trees at the north end of Main Street as
well as mid-block near the Off Main Street parking lot,
parking meters, renovation and landscaping of the Off-Main
lot, a 10th Street beach lot pedestrian walkway and
handicapped access, rumble strips, vine grates, screen fences,
and vines to make the north portion of Main Street more
attractive, in addition, directional signs on Main Street for
parking in the beach and 8th Street lots, and street light
banners that local business persons could purchase. He noted
that the design graphics of the improvements have been on
public display for the past couple of weeks. Councilman
Fulton said his recommendation would be Option One, to proceed
with the bid process, then dependent upon the bids reduce the
scope of the project at that time. Councilmember Campbell
agreed, stating she did not feel that all seven projects can
be done, receiving bids will assist the prioritization
process. Councilman Brown expressed his opinion once again
that some improvements to Lampson Avenue are necessary for the
purpose of safety, he would support Option One however did not
feel that all of the bond monies can be spent downtown. The
Mayor said it is her understanding that monies were set aside
for improvements to Lampson. Councilmember Forsythe praised
the aesthetics of the proposed improvements, portions of the
projects are mandated such as the ADA upgrade of the
restrooms, noted that a portion of the funds must be used for
Main Street such as the parking fees, the improvements do not
change the personality of Main Street rather will enhance it,
replaces trees, fixes sidewalks, keeps the village atmosphere,
and since the entire project can not be done at one time,
agreed with Option One. Ms. Hagmaier, RRM Design Group, again
expressed pleasure to have had the opportunity to work with
this City, said she has observed a strong element of community
pride, likened to, if not exceeding that of her town, San Luis
Obispo. Ms. Hagmaier noted that the staff report presents
some means of refining costs even more, spoke in support of
• seeking bids for the entire project, possibly existing City
staff could reduce the cost of landscaping installation as an
example.
Fulton moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Option One, to
proceed with the bid process for all projects, however include
a list of items that may be deducted from project
specifications at the City's option.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1 - REAR YARD SETBACK
DECKS
Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing open to consider
Zone Text Amendment 96-1 relating to the rear yard setback for
decks along Crestview, Catalina, and Surf Place. The City
Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been
advertised and mailed as required, and reported receipt of no
communications relating to this item. The Director of
Development Services noted that the Council considered this
matter at a public hearing in September, 1996, at that time by
motion of the Council referred this item back to staff to
prepare an ordinance for consideration that would address the
pre-existing decks along Crestview, adjacent to Gum Grove Park
and the Hellman property, how they would be dealt with and
17.1
t;" _ Page Seven - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
1
meet minimum health, safety and welfare considerations. The
a Director reported that the ordinance proposed would require
any pre-existing deck that has been extended to the rear of
. those properties to come before the Planning Commission for a
Conditional Use Permit to legalize those non-permitted
structures within a specific period of time. He said it is
3 believed the ordinance follows the intent of the Council
direction in 1996, however if it is desired to expand the
'•'."'''•-"`' 4 applicability•• ••- �• - to pre-existing non-permitted structures and to
.,-; ':t;::�; allow others to apply for new decks in the future that would
' . follow the criteria, the Council has the option to include
....7.-7!4?- -.-
- :• such provision, however that would not be the recommendation
' � •''. ` '"� of staff. The Mayor asked if it could be considered special
-:ti.
�‘'-/- privilege if others are not allowed to make similar requests.
- :; • The City Attorney responded that some people may perceive that
-� :• to be so, the safest course would be to allow all properties
the opportunity to apply for a deck CUP, however it is felt
that to allow just those having an existing deck to apply for
-4,-/:-:-:. ,., --. a CUP would not be challengeable in court.
-'?-.7.:.;;...:c. r.' :. Mayor Hastings invited members of the audience wishing to
:- «?!r1':,: speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their
, name and address for the record. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf
. • ..••,;;s- ':r x;..• Place, stated his position as being basically in favor of this
' ` ai- - �=' : proposal as a reasonable solution to a long standing
t• =: is • situation, such decks in this community present somewhat of an
�' �' , _ unusual circumstance in that the City is basically flat. Mr.
.a:.;.:; ',r:,�,; . • Req Clewley, Catalina Avenue, objected to the proposed
•. ...„_-•_•••-:-_ ordinance. He stated the structure on Crestview was built in
--- defiance of the existingBuildingCode, now it is
• y•y+. proposed to
[-� ;::;'•:f".'•'��:",`. be grandfathered as a pre-existing deck. He cited Gum Grove
r--=�'.. `” ` -- ' Park as a responsibility City, property for all of
s-:�.:c.�;;-._,•. •.
P y of the a
k±. ;.i�= ;,: the citizens, there is an extension of the Park proposed by
e- ";"'':� <- Hellman little pieces of property are being juggled, and it
4••'=;-;,,p t.: z4• is understood that human remains have been found in the Park.
�••: Mr. Clewley spoke regarding fence heights, asked if sixteen
.. -` ":. •` foot high q walls are
going to be allowed, and claimed that the
i�. :•�,,°_nom 4w� . .
: fence lines abutting the Hellman property are terrible, that
• brought about by the passage of ZTA 92-6, most communities
E�-- ` .'•' •r allow no more than six foot walls at the property line, if
;.7.:;.....,,. • there is a slope on the sideyard it is not unreasonable to
;.•,:,^` ';! O"' _ allow a trellis, in this case eight feet has been allowed, but
;;•-'.,<.,.;, now the eighty-eight houses are allowed a ten foot rear yard
►...'C.4.Jr""La z;4.;- fence for security reasons. Mr. Clewley argued that the deck
'•?-;;,;- :-r. in question is not pre-existing, this deck was cited yet no
_:. -ir�.�, . "'��• action has been taken with regard to it for years, no where in
.` • t the City should a structure bepermitted on the
`^ ` i'j` ��-'•.'1'=. property line,
' h��� �- in this case he understands that the deck actually extends
' :A. ,=• :' over the property line. He stated the ordinance needs to
*s. address height limits at the property line, in ZTA 92-6 you
:� Tom:^"�` � can go to ten feet, now a fence of fifteen feet six inches is
'! .. -t ;r. _ being considered. Mr. Clewley again expressed his objection
'4.:°; i ; Fw� to the ordinance. Mr. Dave Bartlett, Hellman property
.:s
..r, representative, said they have reviewed the staff report and
:•='. •t4,• •;�. . attended all hearings relating to this issue, and it is felt
""-��,/ `' the issue of
_;.� :_4 ,.a:.4'- privacy, noise, light, glare, safety, and
;,-i.-�"' ;s ... • • aesthetics have been well viewed, and it appears that the CUP
'`:..;; ',"'->• is the mechanism that assures the Hellman property rights and
7-7-', ":1-"-;17*,-,.--.: -' the rights of those living next to the affected units. If
°7'1 , approved, Mr. Bartlett suggested that a detailed landscape
plan be prepared for each project by a registered, licensed
s"` .'��- ='-'" landscape architect that will document and verify existing
c., ` , 'vF conditions by the Building Department to assure that the
,.=
property rightshts of adjacent
properties are meaningfully and dt ' tappropriately protected. There being no further comments,'•!•a.!,, . : Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing closed.-,:�.�.1. .:' ,:-.• ,T.� .
Page Eight - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
s
Councilmember Forsythe noted that the deck being referred to
was constructed without permits, the property was then sold, a
reason for the delay of time was due somewhat to the number of
properties that had similar decks, it would be difficult to
single out one from the others, it is also difficult to
require a homeowner to change a deck that may have existed for
some ten to thirty years and likely prior to applicable codes.
She expressed her belief in homeowners being able to enjoy
their property, if there are special circumstances whereby
they are mandated to obtain a CUP they should be allowed to do
so as long as it does not adversely affect another, the way
the land slopes on these particular properties it is unusable
and does pose a problem. She offered that it is unlikely that
staff will have time to research all of the decks that
currently exist, if the ordinance is adopted, henceforth
anyone who wishes to have a similar type deck would need to
come to the City for review under the CUP process as a result
of special circumstances, however expressed objection to
requiring persons who have had decks for years to go through
the CUP process at this point in time. It was explained that
anyone wishing to construct a deck in the future could do so
by obtaining a CUP. Mayor Hastings expressed concern that
some of the existing decks may not meet Code, may need
reinforcement, etc. The Manager offered that with the
adoption of the ordinance proposed the City would send letters
to property owners known to have existing decks advising of
the new regulations and requiring compliance upon the sale of
the home, or before if desired by the home owner.
Councilmember Forsythe inquired as to the liability of the
City should someone get hurt subsequent to a mailed notice.
The City Attorney advised that cities are granted immunities
with regard to the issuance of permits, there is a concept
when the City is put on notice of a dangerous condition on
public property, however in this case it would be private,
developed property, and if the City were to be put on notice
that a deck is dangerous after going through this process the
City could become part of a legal action. Councilmember
Forsythe stated again her position that the City should not be
involved in the issue of decks, if a deck henceforth adversely
affects another property that will be determined through the
CUP process, if it has no adverse affect they should be
allowed on private property. Councilman Brown noted that
properties are not inspected when sold, only when application
is made for a building permit for the construction of
something, he would have concern with requiring inspection for
the sale of property, and if there is no serious risk of
liability he would have no problem with the proposal of
Councilmember Forsythe. Councilmember Campbell said sometimes
people ask to see the building permits when a home is sold to
assure that all is legal. Mayor Hastings again noted concern
that many of the decks were built without permits and they
should meet code requirements for safety purposes.
Councilmember Forsythe again expressed her belief that the
• pre-existing decks should not be required to obtain a CUP,
rather, notice the property owner that the City accepts no
liability, that liability lies with the property owner. The
City Manager offered that if those that exist are going to be
allowed yet a future deck will require a permit, if there is
no inventory how will it be known which is permitted and which
is not, therefore suggested that the property owners be put on
notice that henceforth a permit is required, then as property
ownership changes and additions or remodels are done the issue
can be corrected. Councilmember Campbell commented that
people having decks that do not meet Code will not make
• application for the CUP, and if a neighboring property
questions the stability of a deck what is the City going to do
then. The Mayor emphasized that there needs to be some
Page Nine - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
4
criteria for decks or any other structure, her preference the
CUP process for all. To the question of Councilmember
Campbell, the City Attorney advised that under the proposed
ordinance if a CUP has not been applied for within the allowed
twelve months then a code enforcement action would be
commenced, at this point in time all of the decks are
nonconforming, and it is believed that this issue was brought
to light as a result of a neighboring complaint. With regard
to nonconforming driveways and garages, the Director explained
that certain exemptions exist in the Code for garages on the
Hill and in College Park East inasmuch as the plans did not
meet City standards when those dwellings were built. He noted
the concern of staff in this case is that there are structures
that have been built above ground that have had no inspections
by the City, the type of footings, the foundation system, the
structural support, whether they are built to Code are all
unknown, the recommendation of the Planning Commission had
been to not change the Code but to enforce the Code which
would require removal of the decks, the Council did not agree
and directed that some means be developed to review the
structures to ensure they meet at least the basic life safety
requirements that would be required for a structure. Question
was posed again as to the liability of the City should a deck
be inspected, found to meet Code requirements and then for
some reason there is structural failure. The City Attorney
reminded that that would fall under discretionary immunity for
the issuance of permits, by issuing a permit the City is not
guaranteeing that a property is safe. Councilmember Forsythe
countered that a permit would be based on an inspection, if
the inspection were flawed there would be an exposure for the
City, stated that the existing decks are not adversely
affecting anyone, let new deck applications go through the CUP
process. Councilmember Campbell said the building inspectors
could walk Gum Grove and get a feeling as to which decks may
meet Code and those that may not, however that was countered
with the fact that they would be unable to inspect the
foundations, footings, etc. The Director reported that before
consideration by the Planning Commission Gum Grove was walked
and it was found that there were six maybe seven decks that
were closer to the property line than the Code allows, the
others, that have permits, are not an issue and are legal
under this discussion, the issue is how to deal with the patio
decks that were built without a permit, those being six or
seven, only those that extend into the ten foot rear yard
setback and without a permit. He explained that until 1957
one could build a structure to the rear property line with a
permit, they would be legal pre-existing structures,
structures built with a permit at any point in the past are
not at issue, only those built without a permit. As to the
question if decks can in any way be a threat to their
neighbors, the Director responded that first of all that would
depend on the interpretation of a threat, from the City's
standpoint the concern is that a structure meet minimum
Building Code requirements, a requirement that is applied
throughout the City, any structure requires a building permit,
• in this case what is being discussed is waiving that
requirement for a structure that does not have a permit, and
should a structure have been built some years back, without
permit, it would be required to meet current Code. The
Manager said he believed that zoning and building issues are
being confused, this issue was addressed from a zoning
consideration, from a building standpoint the residents of the
area have a considerable investment in their properties
therefore it can be assumed that the decks will meet quality
construction standards for the most part, if adopted the
ordinance will provide for the CUP process, the issue then
becomes what type of landscape screening has been provided,
74741.-
Page Ten - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
and whether more is necessary to make the structure legal.
Councilman Brown said of concern is the change of
requirements, where it was once six foot footings it is now
eight feet, it may be as sound as another yet the City would
be imposing more regulations. The Mayor stated that the City
is merely trying to make deck structures legal. Councilmember
Forsythe said this may penalize an owner that did not build
the structure, this an intrusion into peoples lives, and the
City would be taking on a responsibility that it should not be
involved with. Question was posed as to how that would
jeopardize the person from seeking a CUP. Discussion
continued. When seeking a CUP question was raised as to what
an inspection entails, the Director responded that there are
two different types of inspections, for the CUP process
relating to decks, he or the Assistant along with a Building
Inspector would make the inspection to verify that the plans
submitted are accurate, the deck location in relation to
property lines, etc. , as part of that process the Inspector
would be requested to make recommendations of any upgrades
that would need to be made to the structure if it does not
comply with Code requirements, in that case it would be
submitted to the Planning Commission for additional
conditions, the process not different from remodels,
conversions, or additions to an existing nonconforming
residential structure, assuming Commission approval, building
permits are then issued and inspections are made to assure
compliance with minimum requirements. It was confirmed that
should the ordinance be adopted, six to seven property owners
would need to make application for a CUP, a situation similar
4 for comparison sake to the forty some doghouses that were also
required to seek a CUP for assurance of Code compliance. To a
question as to whether any decks extend beyond the property
line, the Director responded that if one were to go by the
fence between the residential area and Gum Grove Park the
answer is no, however one may not want to depend on that fence
•
as the property line, thus a survey would need to be
submitted, at this point it does not appear that any of the
decks extend over the property line. Councilmember Forsythe
stated her intent to oppose the ordinance, her belief is that
there are more than seven properties affected, this is a
backyard deck issue that the private property owner should be
•
responsible for, not a governmental body, it is a private
property issue. In brief, the City Attorney reviewed the
options for consideration, 1) the Planning Commission
recommendation for no change to the Code, the structures are
illegal, staff would pursue Code enforcement; 2) staff
recommendation that a CUP be requested within the next twelve
months for existing decks, and there would be no new decks; 3)
• Councilmember Forsythe's proposal that all existing decks be
,• grandfathered, new decks would require a CUP; and 4) all
decks, new and old, would require a CUP. As a point of
clarification of the reference to CUP's for all decks, mention
was made that there are only six or seven that would require
that process, to that the Director noted that the key language
�. .-.•._;: = is that the decks were constructed without permits.
" Campbell moved, second by Forsythe, to approve Option Three,
• that existing decks be grandfathered, new decks would require
••' a CUP.
i AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
NOES: Hastings
Motion carried
;6 The Mayor again stated that any deck built without a
ermi
illegal, and Councilmember Campbell said the concern is withis
; + "':,- something that was built years ago and it is not known what
- ,.; codes were required then. The City Attorney stated that a
.-•:e-:yX-':,_.,• . revised ordinance would be prepared for consideration.
%*-.;,. ..,..-r::. ,;..-
September 8, 1997
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT 96-1 -REAR YARD SETBACK,DECKS ALONG CRESTVIEW,
CATALINA, & SURF PLACE
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed Ordinance, "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO PERMIT PRE-EXISTING DECK STRUCTURES TO
REMAIN IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT THE HELLMAN
RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' with any amendments deemed necessary.
BACKGROUND
The City Council considered an appeal ofZTA 96-1 at its September 30,
1996 meeting (Minute excerpt attached). After the public hearing had closed, the Council directed
staff to return with an ordinance to consider approval of these decks on a case by case basis. The
Council deferred a decision on the appeal of ZTA 96-1 until such time as an ordinance was
presented.
DISCUSSION
As directed, Staff has prepared an ordinance for consideration. The
proposed ordinance would require owners of existing decks within the rear yard setback to
apply for and receive a conditional use permit to allow the decks to remain. Through the CUP
process the Planning Commission can impose conditions intended to minimize negative
impacts on adjacent properties. Such conditions could address maintenance and appearance
D:\My documents\Zoning Text Arnendments\96-1 CC Staff Report.doc BC be
Staff Report Non-Subdivision Park and Recreation Fee Amendment
March 24, 1997
of the deck, maintenance of the area under a deck, and structural stability of the deck since
many of the existing structures have received no City inspection.
Due to aesthetic concerns and separation from property lines staff recommends the code
amendment limit the approval of such decks to decks existing at the time the ordinance is
approved. However, the proposed ordinance could be amended to include all properties
backing up to the Hellman property and Gum Grove park.
Based on the above, staff recommends the Council approve an amendment to Section 28-
401(2)(b) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach concerning minimum yard dimensions in the
Residential Low Density zone of Planning District V as follows:
"(3) Uncovered decks constructed as a level extension of the flat graded
portion of the lot which were constructed without appropriate permits
prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and which are located on
those certain properties in the Residential Low Density zone of District
V which abut the Hellman Ranch or Gum Grove Park, may be
approved by the Planning through the conditional use permit process.
The owners of such pre-existing decks shall apply for conditional use
permit approval within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this
Ordinance." .
FOR: tember 9, 1997
Barry . Curtis Lee Whittenberg
Asso late Planner Director of Development Services
NOTED AND APPROVED:
Keith Till
City Manager
Page 2
96-1 CC Staff Report
Staff Report Non-Subdivision Park and Recreation Fee Amendment
March 24, 1997
Attachments: (2)
1. Minute Excerpt of 9-30-96 City Council Meeting
2. Proposed Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO PERMIT PRE-EXISTING DECK
STRUCTURES TO REMAIN IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS OF THOSE
CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT THE HELLMAN RANCH OR
GUM GROVE PARK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Page 3
96-1 CC Staff Report
Page Four - City Council Minutes - August 11, 1997
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "G" - ANNEXATIONS - CITY OF LONG BEACH
Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the location of the
properties being annexed. The Director of Development
Services explained that they are generally along the western
side of the San Gabriel River between Pacific Coast Highway
and Westminster Avenue, it is currently oil field use and
vacant land, owned by the County of Los Angeles. Campbell
moved, second by Hastings, to receive and file the staff
• report, and requested staff to provide further reports as
appropriate.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried
ITEM "I" - STATUS REPORT - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1
Mx. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, asked who is going to pay
for the third mailed notice of ZTA 96-1, the appellant should
be requested to pay the costs. The Director of Development
Services explained that notice will be made to properties
within three hundred feet of the boundaries of the area
impacted, the cost of the mailing is borne by the City as it
is a City proposal to change the Code, the area covering about
five lots from the north side of Crestview. Brown moved,
second by Hastings, to receive and file the status report.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried
TRANSFER - BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL REFUSE FRANCHISE - REPUBLIC
INDUSTRIES
The City Manager noted this item is a proposed transfer of the
refuse collection franchise from Briggeman Disposal to
Republic Industries, the cities of Los Alamitos, Cypress, and
Seal Beach were notified of this proposed merger in July.
Under the Seal Beach franchise agreement a transfer is
contingent upon two things, that the company is currently
doing business in surrounding cities, and the new company must
demonstrate that it has the financial capabilities and
resources to provide adequate refuse collection services and
recycling. He noted that the Council had been provided a list
of seventeen requests for documentation made by the City of
the refuse hauler and the responses, reported that Republic
Industries is currently doing business in a number of Orange
County cities, an investigation of their service levels in
some of those cities revealed no negative responses, it is the
stated intent of Republic that this merger will be transparent
to Seal Beach customers, Mr. Briggeman is to continue to be
the manager and daily contact for the City, continuing to
operate the company for several years. The Manager stated
that based upon the documentation provided and the fact that
Republic Industries does meet the conditions of the franchise
for transfer, it would be the recommendation to Council to
approve the transfer of the exclusive refuse franchise. Mayor
Hastings asked how the recently approved evergreen provision
will be handled with the new owner. Councilman Brown said
initially he came close to not approving the evergreen clause
because he did not like the concept, yet knowing what Mr.
Briggeman has done for Seal Beach and the other cities he felt
comfortable with it, then when it was learned that Republic
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT 4
City Council Minutes of September 30, 1996 and City
Council Staff Report dated September 23, 1996, with
all attachments
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report 16
9-30-96
opposes any development of the Bolsa Chica which includes the
• Mesa due to the unmitigatable adverse impacts to the surrounding
communities." Brown moved, second by Fulton, to receive and
file the staff report, authorize the Mayor to sign the response
letter, as amended, favoring wetlands restoration of the
Lowlands at Bolsa Chica, and instructed staff to forward this
item to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality e..4
Control Board for information purposes.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Meetings Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - LONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1 - REAR YARD
SETBACKS - CRESTVIEW/CATALINA/SURF PLACE R1
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the Z
appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Zone Text Amendment
96-1, Rear Yard Setbacks for decks along Crestview, Catalina and mei
Surf Place. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public
hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and
reported no communications received either for or against this
item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff
report and background detail relating to the Planning Commission
consideration and denial of ZTA 96-1 which addresses the ability
• of homeowners adjacent to the Hellman land to construct raised
patio decks on the rear portion of their property. He noted
that in 1990 a code enforcement action was commenced on a patio
deck being constructed closer to the rear property line than
current Code allows, which is a ten foot setback, the property
owner at that time then requested a variance to allow the
structure to remain within the ten foot non-permitted area, the
Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance, an
appeal was filed upon that denial, the Council denied the
variance as well however requested that there be no code
enforcement until such time as a Zoning Text Amendment could be
considered to revise those Code standards. The options proposed
for consideration of the Commission with regard to ZTA 96-1 were
to allow a raised patio deck structure to extend to the rear
property line, a request of several property owners in the area,
the staff recommendation was to allow a raised patio deck
structure with a six foot setback from the rear property line to
be maintained as an open space area where it adjoins the
boundary of the Hellman land, part of the reasoning for the six
foot setback being that there is an Edison easement that runs
through the rear of those properties, and the third option was
to leave the Code as it presently exists. The Director reported
that the Commission determined to recommend that no changes be
made to current Code, that resulting in an impact on four or
five properties that have constructed some type of a structure
within the ten foot setback area. He explained that the setback
was adopted in 1957 therefore anything constructed since that
time has been done without a permit, there have been no
inspections, and there is no knowledge as to the condition or
safety of the structures. Me reviewed the options for Council
consideration to deny the appeal and retain present Code
F standards, sustain the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Myers and
revise the Code to permit decks at an appropriate distance from
the property line, or refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission if new information is presented. He directed
• attention to a map showing the footprint of each lot and
boundary line between the residential structures and the Hellman
property within the area of discussion. With regard to the
tofivegto thirtyof tlotse rea thatehaveed there a fairlyareapproximately twenty-
five
m lots into the Gum Grove tat either havefsimilarhe
structures, or, if the Code were changed there would then be a
potential to build something of a raised nature out to the
9-30-96
property lines. Councilman Brown inquired as to how many of
those residences may have been sold and if there was a
requirement of the seller that the discrepancy with the Code
provisions be disclosed. The Director offered that there is
knowledge of the sale of the one property for which the variance
vas denied, in that case the potential buyers did contact the
City, were informed that the deck continued to be an issue under
consideration, the buyers signed a document acknowledging their
awareness that the structure existed illegally and that they
would comply with any ultimate decision by the City. Councilman
Fulton asked it any of the structures go beyond the Hellman
property line. The Director responded that there may be a few
fences that extend past the boundary but not necessarily a
raised structure such as a patio deck built from the house to
the property line, which poses a fire safety issue. To
Councilman Brown's inquiry as to under-structure maintenance
requirements, the Director explained there are no Code
provisions dealing with that issue as the Code does not allow a
structure to be built out to the point where there is an
underneath open area, therefore that issue falls under the
safety requirements of the Fire Department.
Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to
address this item to come to the microphone and state their name
and address for the record. Mrs. Terri Myers, appellant,
identified herself and her husband as the purchasers of 1733
Crestview Avenue, stated they had been made aware that there was
a concern with the deck on the property, however told it was
likely nothing would be forthcoming regarding the setback issue
for possibly a few years, her understanding was that there were
about seven such properties that would have the opportunity to
present their arguments when this issue was considered, however
the Code Amendment was denied, and her perception of why it was
denied was set forth in the appeal. Mrs. Myers stated they did
not construct the deck, was made aware of the problem, and
apologized for the problems it has caused. She noted that their
property backs to Gum Grove Park and the Hellman land, the deck
is not built to the property line however does not meet the ten
foot setback either, stated she felt the deck deters soil
erosion of the slope, it was constructed in a manner that saved
the trees on the property however if the deck needs to be
modified the trees will be lost, the neighbors on either side
could be impacted yet have assured that there is no problem, the
deck is well maintained, and to concerns of the Hellmans and
their representative an offer was made to cover the portion of
the under-deck that vas felt could become an aesthetic problem,
to cover it would also provide a safety factor. She offered to
do anything to the deck that is felt necessary, whether
structurally or otherwise, however stated her support for the
Zone Text Amendment to allow a structure to be built to the
property line or at least allow the existing decks to remain.
Mr. Gary Myers said there is a large amount of vegetation behind
the deck, only about one-fourth of it can be seen, it enhances
the looks of this property as well as the neighborhood, to
remove part of it would be an eyesore, to which he stated his
opinion that it should remain as it now exists and has for six
to seven years. Mr. Gordon Shanks stated his Surf Place
residence is at the westerly end of the subject area, as a
general rule he opposes variances however there are cases where
they are due when the circumstances are different from the
standard. He referred to Seal leach as basically a flat city
where it may not be viable to have a ten or five foot setback in
the subject area, none of these properties will encroach onto a
backyard neighbor, • number of the residents have planted ground
cover to control erosion, and cited these properties as the only
ones having the opportunity to take advantage of being built on
a bluff, therefore the circumstances are different than the
9-30-96
standard. Mr. Bill Morris, neighbor of the appellant, expressed
support for the Zone Text Amendment to allow the use of the rear
ten feet of these properties which, in turn, would provide the
ability for the City to control, aesthetically screen, and
maintain the area up to the property line, where it is presently
unusable and unkept. Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, read his
I written communication to the Council with regard to his concerns
and comments to such issues as the lack of compliance with
building codes, securing proper permits, arguments in support of
ZTA 96-1 relating to structure safety, protection against
hillside erosion, the need for code enforcement, objection to
exterior staircases without requiring additional parking, etc.
The communication of Mr. Clewley appeared to indicate an
opposition to the appeal. Mr. Dave Bartlett, representing
Hellman properties, stated that the quality of the edge of
property conditions is important to them, the southerly property
boundary of approximately five thousand linear feet, whether it
be with development of the Hellman property or the abutting
properties, of particular concern is privacy, noise, light,
glare, aesthetics, etc., and generally they are not supportive
of the reduced setback yet are trying to be responsive to the
issues that the City is attempting to resolve. He noted that •
letter had been forwarded to the Planning Commission stating
that they are supportive of soma type of arrangement that would
appease the property owners that have this existing condition,
yet the Zone Text Amendment may not be the correct vehicle,
rather, a variance process given the few affected properties, to
which they suggested an average ten foot setback with • minimum
of six feet which would allow some articulation of the deck and
some landscaping, thus eliminating massive deck structures to
the six foot line, the intent being that the area be landscaped
f and screened so that it would be aesthetically pleasing from
both sides of the property line, with particular attention to
the elimination of clutter from the underside of decks. Mr.
Bartlett concluded that their recommendation still stands. Mr.
James Goodwin, Crestview Avenue, inquired as to the reason for
the setback in the first place, also the correctness of a
comment therefore hatdeck•should ll llikd ewise sbeuallowed toe
theoline.cted on thrperty1Tine
he
Director of Development Services again noted that the setbacks
for the area ware changed in 1957, the reasoning for the change
is uncertain, generally setback requirements from property lines
are to prevent the spreading of fire from structure to
structure, for light and ventilation around residential
structures as well, typically cities have different Code
requirements for fences than they do for structures, fences are
allowed to be built on a property line however a city may
regulate the height and design thereof, yet very few cities will
allow structures that have the potential to spread fires to be
built close to a property line. Mr. Goodwin said he had
envisioned, yet questioned, that one could increase their
protheareawith darea irt, and then, abidinga wall on withetheofiveyfoote, fill
sideyard and ten foot rear setbacks, build a structure. The
Director responded that the concept of Mr. Goodwin was correct,
and explained that provisions of the Code allow the slope
II. to be filled or terraced to the rear property line, it isthea
raised structure above grade level that is currently prohibited.
There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the
public hearing closed.
Councilman Brown inquired if there is another mechanism, such as
a variance, to address the rear setback issue for these few
properties, as had been suggested by Mr. Bartlett, in addition
there should be some type of agreement that the property owner
would maintain a deck underside in a proper, aesthetically
pleasing manner. The City Manager said it was his understanding
• 9-30-96
that the variance process had been tried and it failed, also,
that process requires that findings be made. The Director
explained that the initial report to the Planning Commission
proposed construction to within six feet of the setback, which
protects the Edison easement, however to build within the four
foot area would require either a Minor Plan Review or a
Conditional Use Permit which would require public notice to
:1
properties within one hundred and three hundred feet
respectively, the Planning Commission determined that neither
process was appropriate and that the Code should remain
unchanged. The Manager mentioned that since the Planning
Commission had considered the CUP process the Council could
direct staff to prepare an ordinance to implement that process
to deal with this setback issue. Mayor Forsythe noted • concern
that there can not be a blanket policy to deal with this issue
as each property is significantly different, the CUP would allow
consideration and discretion on a property by property basis.
Brown coved, second by Fulton, to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance setting forth regulations to address the rear setback
issue on a property by property basis.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hastings Motion carried
The City Attorney recommended that an action be taken relating
to the appeal under consideration. Mayor Forsythe noted that
her concern is not merely with this subject property as there
are others that encroach into the Gum Grove, her personal
opinion being that they are hurting no one, her preference would
be that landscaping and decks not be required to be torn out as
long as they are not obtrusive, unsightly, or affect another's
property values or views. The City Attorney explained that the
appeal is not site specific, the direction of the Council is
that an ordinance be drafted, and if adopted each property
having decks, etc. that fall under the setback ordinance will
need to be heard before the Planning Commission either as a
Minor Plan Review or • Conditional Use Permit, and confirmed
that the alternative would be removal under current Code.
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to defer taking an action on the
appeal until such time as a draft ordinance is prepared and
considered by the City Council.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hastings Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS - POLICE SERVICES -
?B 3229
Mayor Forsythe declared the public bearing open to consider the
appropriation of funds for police services as provided by AB
3229. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public
hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no
communications received either for or against this item. The
City Manager presented the staff report relating to $61,315 to
be forthcoming from the State General Fund under Assembly Bill
3229 which stipulates that the funds must be used for front line
municipal police services, requires that a special fund be
established for those conies, also that the Police Chief and
City Manager establish proposed uses for the funds and
considered under public hearing. Chief Stearns explained that
the items proposed to be funded are tour mobile data computers
for marked police vehicles, $7,500 each, a portable field
command post for the trunk of the supervisors car, $800, and a
four-wheel drive, marked black and white, utility vehicle,
V
September 23, 1996
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT 96-1, REAR YARD SETBACK, DECKS
ALONG CRESTVIEW, CATALLNA, AND SURF PLACE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
After receiving all public testimony and considering the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, making no
changes to the current Code provisions.
2) Sustain the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Myers, reversing the decision of the
Planning Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant, and
revising the Code to permit decks at an appropriate distance from the rear
property line along Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue, and Surf Place.
3) Refer the recommendation back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration
if new, material information is presented which was not considered by the
Planning Commission, or if additional provisions are proposed to be added to the
Ordinance which were not considered by the Commission.
DISCUSSION
On January 17, February 21, and March 6, 1996, the Planning Commission considered the
above referenced Zone Text Amendment 96-1. After receiving all testimony at the public
hearings and extensive deliberations among the members of the Commission, it was the
D\WPS I'ITA\%.l r(1LW\09.0/.%
AGENDA ITEM U
Public Heanng - Appeal of Planning Convruss-Ion
Denial of Zone Tut Amendment %- •1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Cresmew, Catalina G Surf Place
Cit) Council Staff Report
September 23, l9t S
determination of the Planning Commission to not recommend approval of the proposed Zone
Ordinance Text Amendment on a 3-1-1 vote, with Commissioner Campbell voting to approve
the proposed text amendment, and Commissioner Dahlman abstaining.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-4, adopted by the Commission on March 20, 1996, set
forth the findings and determinations of the Commission regarding this matter. The resolution
was adopted on a 4-0-1 vote of the Commission, with Commissioner Dahlman abstaining.
An appeal of the determination of the Planning Commission was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Gary
Myers in a timely manner, with the appellants requesting deferral of the public hearing until
Mrs. Myers recovered from a scheduled surgery. The matter is now before the City Council
for consideration at a public hearing.
FACTS
• The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January' 17, February
21, and March 6, 1996, to consider ZTA 96-1. Both written and oral evidence was
submitted for and against the project. At the public hearings, eight persons spoke
regarding the proposed zone text amendment.
• On March 6, 1996, the Planning Commission determined to not recommend approval of
the requested Zone Text Amendment, on a 3-1-1 vote.
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-4, adopted by the Commission on March 20,
1996, set forth the findings and determination of the Commission regarding these
matters. The resolution was adopted on a 4-0-1 vote of the Commission.
• An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by Gary and
Terri Myers on March 28, 1996, and the matter is now before the City Council for
consideration at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION OF AREA OF CONCERN
As previously indicated, the appellant is requesting the City Council to amend the provisions of
the Code of the City of Seal Beach to allow rear yard decks on properties located along
Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue, and Surf Place, adjacent to the Hellman Ranch, to extend
to the rear property line.
D\WP5I`2TA\96-I (LN\09-at-96 2
•
Public Hearing - Appeal of Planning Corium scion
Denial of Zone Text Amtndnirnt 506-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestweii, Catalina & Surf Place
Gtr Council Staff Repor:
September 23, /9905
The Planning Commission devoted an substantial amount of time during their deliberations on
this application in regards to the issues and concerns raised relating to this issue. Please refer
to the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings of January 17, February 21 , March 6.
1996, and March 20, 1996.
In approving Planning Commission Resolution 96-4, the Commission adopted certain findings
which are set forth in Section 4 of the Resolution. These finding were based upon careful
consideration of the following:
• the testimony received at the public hearings of January 17, February 21, and March 6.
1996;
• the information provided in the Planning Commission Staff Reports of January 17.
February 21, and the Staff Memorandum of February 28, 1996, including the
recommended conditions of approval; and
■ the concerns and deliberations of the Planning Commission expressed after the close of
the public hearing.
Based upon the information presented and the specific findings of fact determined by the
Commission, the Planning Commission determined to not recommend approval of the proposed
Zone Text Amendment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ZONE TEXT AnMENDNIENT
The requested Zone Ordinance Text Amendment 96-1 is a legislative act. Therefore, 'the City
Council is provided a great deal of latitude in determining whether to adopt amendments to the
City's development "constitution". The City Council may determine the requested Zone
Ordinance Text Amendment 96-1 is in the public interest and approve the request as requested
by the appellant, or determine to approve the request with modifications. Likewise, the City
Council may determine the requested Zone Text Amendment is not in the public interest and
determine to not amend the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as recommended by the
Planning Commission. When considering to adopt or deny of the requested Zone Ordinance
Text Amendment 96-1, the determinations of the City Council must not be arbitrary, capricious.
or without evidentiary support.
D'\WPSI'ZTA`.96-I CC1LNAC .( .96 3
Public Hearing - ,4ppeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zane Text Amendment 9S-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
Cary Council Staff Report
September 23, 199h
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, making no
changes to the current Code provisions.
2) Sustain the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Myers, reversing the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant, and revising the Code to
permit decks at an appropriate distance from the rear property line along Crests iew
Avenue, Catalina Avenue, and Surf Place.
3) Refer the recommendation back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration if new,
material information is presented which was not considered by the Planning Commission,
or if additional provisions are proposed to be added to the Ordinance which were not
considered by the Commission.
If the determination of the City Council is to deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the
Planning Commission and not approve the requested Zone Ordinance Text Amendment, it would
be appropriate to instruct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council
consideration at the August 14, 1996 meeting.
If the determination of the City Council is to sustain the appeal and approve the requested Zone
Ordinance Text Amendment, either as requested by the appellant or as determined appropriate
by the City Council, it would be appropriate to instruct staff to prepare the appropriate
resolution for consideration by the City Council on August 14, 1996, with any additional
conditions determined appropriate based on the public testimony received, and setting forth the
necessary findings, as determined appropriate by the City Council.
•
Whittenberg, Director
Development Services Department
D\WPiI\ZTA\96-1 cr\LW\09-a-9b 4 •
Public Hearing - Appeal of Planning Commtcrion
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 9h-I
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
NOTED AND APPROVED
Kei R. Till
City Manager
Attachments: (8)
ATTACHMENT 1: Appeal by Gary and Terri Myers, received March 28, 1996
ATTACHMENT 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-4
ATTACHMENT 3: Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1996
ATTACHMENT 4: Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1996
ATTACHMENT 5: Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission re: ZTA 96-1,
dated February 28, 1996
ATTACHMENT 6: Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1996
ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Staff Report of February 21 , 1996.
with Attachments A through D
A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January
17, 1996
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-44
2. City Council Staff Report dated November
26, 1990 re: Appeal of Planning
Commission denial of Variance 5-90, 1733
Crestview Avenue
(a) Planning Commission Staff Report.
Variance 5-90, dated October 3,
1990
(b) Planning Commission Resolution No.
1599
(c) Planning Commission Minutes.
October 3, 1990 •
D:\WP51'ZTA196-1.CC1LW109-0d-% 5
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Comm-num
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
(d) Appeal by William Ralston, dated
October 12, 1990
(e) Proposed Resolution No. 3998
B. Minute Excerpt of January 17, 1996 Planning
Commission Meeting
C. Photos of Rear Yard Slopes
D. Topographic Maps of Properties Abutting Hellman
Ranch
ssss
D:1WP5I`ZTA 196.1.CY1LW109.04-96 6 •
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 1
Appeal by Gary and Terri Myers, received March 28, 1996
D:\WP51\ZTA\96-1.CCLW\09-04-96 7
Public He; 7 Application Packet
• Conditional Use Permit
mialiiiimisimisimimmilisiffigim
❑ Unclassified Use Permit
❑ Variance CITY OF SEAL BEACH
❑ Height Variation
GPA/Zone Change APPEAL APPLICATION
Other A �r�:.�
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No.:
Date Filed: 3— -2 S "14. • Date Complete: 3-2
Planning Commission Date: 3 Ix..► L City Council Date:
P.C. Action & Reso. #: C.C. Action & Reso. #:
1 Property Address: 1733 Ci;E S7 k /E/Etc , ,SSF, L 1F4C Ai5• : Nc-
2 Applicant's Name: 64 e ,}N TEf.'�') PYE/? .5
Address: /7 3 E ,E w' A Lx c, SFAL LI A c.N C A y c 7g/-U
Home Phone: (3n.) 4'3/ - S'74/-s— Work Phone: ()^r-) O -4/ 9 /
Mailing Address: ' 7 3 3 r X'Cs T v,t u• Av E, S E.a AGE 4.s Q c 7y G
3 Property Owner's Name: 6-A A' Y A kb TEi"r'/ k yF/1s
Address: / 7-4/ •E K. A v 4 - SEA (-Al sic -7510
Home Phone: (.>/i.) 41/ -S fi/ Work Phone: (ay) -?-) c - >'/ 9`
4 The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach Planning
Commission conceming 2.A',A C TEA r AM e o- No(s). c1 e -
r
Explain to detail the decision of the Planning Commission that is being appealed, the specific
conditions of approval being appealed, include your statements Indicating where the Planning
Commission may be in error.
C Sir A-TTS! c H E d )
By:
2‘; 4-(j 46-1-4.2. ' By. /24:4,., a
S'gnature of Applicer of
�
( ( p SinatureOr)
t AEV .4A'4) TF.c!'I CARP AAL) TE/ f ,4iYF/'.S
(Print Name) (Print Name)
(Date) (Date)
Page 27
r\wzx'VPPZOR•i (Revised 10195)
ON MARCH 6, 1996 WE APPEARED BEFORE THE
SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TO
SUPPORT THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING DEPART-
MENTS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1. WE
PRESENTED OUR CASE - TO THE BEST OF
OUR ABILITY- IN A CLEAR, COURTEOUS AND
RESPECTFUL MANNER.
THE ZONE AMENDMENT WAS DENIED.
THE FOLLOWING ARE OUR OPINIONS WHY
THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPROVED:
WHEN WE PRESENTED OUR VIEWS BEFORE
THE COMMISSION, WE EXPECTED A GOOD
FAITH EFFORT ON THE PART OF ALL THE
COMMISSIONER'S TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND
AND TO FAIRLY - AND WITHOUT PREVIOUS
BIAS - WEIGH ALL THE REAL FACTS. DR
BROWN'S STATEMENTS PUT AN END TO THAT
EXPECTATION.
IF MAKING SLANDEROUS, DEROGATORY PERSONAL
STATEMENTS/OPINIONS ABOUT PERSONS HE
HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IN A PUBLIC
FORUM AND TELEVISED ON A PUBLIC BROADCAST
SYSTEM WAS NOT DESIGNED/CALCULATED TO
DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING THEIR
CIVIL RIGHTS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!
BECAUSE WE CHOSE TO EXERCISE OUR CIVIL RIGHT
TO APPEAR BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO SUPPORT A PROPOSED ZONE AMENDMENT -
AN AMENDMENT THAT WE NEITHER AUTHORED
NOR INITIATED - DR. BROWN - WHO WE HAD
NEVER MET NOR SPOKEN TO BEFORE APPEARING
BEFORE THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION - DECIDED WE WERE "GREEDY".
_
DR. BROWN'S DENIGRATORY PERSONAL
INSULT HAS IRREVOCABLY DAMAGED ANY CHANCE
WE MAY HAVE HAD FOR A FAIR, UNBIASED
DECISION.
AHER ER DR. BROWN'S SLANDEROUS STATEMENT
ABOUT OUR CHARACTER, A DECISION WAS
RAPIDLY MADE NOT ONLY TO DISMISS OUR
REQUEST, BUT TO DISREGARD THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT'S STAFF REPORT AS WELL.
DR. BROWN'S STATED OPINION THAT WE
WERE GREEDY - ALONG WITH HIS OTHER
STATEMENTS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THIS ZONING
AMENDMENT - WAS QUITE EFECTIVE. WHO
WANTS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS BEING ON THE
SIDE OF GREED!
WE HAVE TO ADMIT, HE HAS ALSO BEEN VERY
Elf IN INSTILLING IN US AN INTENSE
ABHORRANCE OF EVER HAVING TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION AGAIN.
THE VERY FIRST TIME WE SUPPORTED A ZONE
AMENDMENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DR. BROWN HAS - ON PUBLIC TELEVISION -
LABELLED US AS BEING "GREEDY".
WE ARE REALLY AFRAID TO THINK WHAT HE
MIGHT LABEL US THE NEXT TIME WE WERE TO
SPEAK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ON ANY FUTURE MATTER.
- 3-
WE WONDER HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE
WILL BE DETERRED FROM EXERCISING THEIR CIVIL
RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE FEAR THAT THEY, TOO,
WILL HAVE THEIR GOOD NAME SMEARED
MERELY BECAUSE THEY WISH TO EXERCISE
THEIR CIVIL RIGHT TO GIVE THEIR OPINION BEFORE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
DR. BRIAN BROWN'S INFLAMMATORY DEROGATORY
PERSONAL STATEMENT WAS TOTALLY
UNCALLED FOR AND IS AN OUTRAGEOUS
ABUSE OF THE POWER VESTED IN HIM
BY HIS APPOINTMENT TO THIS COMMISSION
HE HAS IRREVOCABLY COMPROMISED OUR
CIVIL RIGHT TO A FAIR, UNBIASED HEARING.
ADDITIONALLY: WE OFFICIALLY REQUEST
THAT THE FEE FOR FILING THIS APPEAL BE
WAIVED. WE SIMPLY CANNOT IGNORE WHAT
HAPPENED AT THE COMMISSION MEETING.
WE MUST APPEAL SUCH A BIASED DECISION
COMING FROM A SEAL BEACH COMMISSIONER
AND WE REALLY MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DEFEND OUR GOOD NAME AND CHARACTER!
DR. BROWN, VERY CONVENIENTLY, MADE HIS
STATEMENTS ABOUT US AFTER THE MEETING
WAS CLOSED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION!
IT IS OUR FIRM BELIEF THAT:
COMMISSIONER BROWN HAD THE RIGHT TO
DISAGREE WITH OUR STATEMENTS; HE HAD
THE RIGHT TO CAST HIS VOTE ANY WAY HE
HE SAW FIT; HE DID NOT; HOWEVER, HAVE THE
RIGHT TO DEFAME OUR NAME AND CHARACTER
IN THE PROCESS - TO UNFAIRLY PREJUDICE
OTHERS AGAINST US.
- T-
IN REFERENCE TO OUR PROPERTY, WE WOULD
LIKE TO POINT OUT SOME FACTS AND CLEAR
UP SOME POSSIBLE MISCONCEPTIONS:
1. OUR EXISTING DECK - WHICH IS
NOTHING MORE THAT A WOODEN
FLOOR AND FENCE TO ENCLOSE
OUR OWN PROPERTY - IS NOT BUILT
ALL THE WAY TO OUR PROPERTY
LINE. THERE IS AMPLE ROOM TO
PLANT TREES AND/OR SHRUBS TO
COMPLETELY COVER THE DECK.
PLANTING HAS ALREADY OCCURRED
AND SOON THE DECK WILL BE
COMPLETELY OBSCURED FROM
SIGHT.
2. ALMOST 75% OF THE DECK IS ALREADY
TOTALLY COVERED BY TREES AND
CANNOT BE SEEN.
3. THERE ARE ALREADY TREES GROWING
INSIDE THE DECK - THE DECK WAS
BUILT AROUND THE TREES TO PRESERVE
THEM.
4. THE DECK IS A VERY EH-ECTIVE
BARRIER TO PREVENT DANGEROUS
EROSION OF OUR SLOPE.
AT THE MARCH 6, 1996 MEETING, COMMISSIONERS
CAMPBELL AND SHARP APPEARED TO US TO BE
IN THE PROCESS OF AI 1EMPTING TO RESOLVE
THE ISSUE OF THE EXISTING DECKS IN A
SENSIBLE MANNER. THIS PROCESS WAS STOPPED
COLD BY COMMISSIONERS BROWN AND LAW.
WE HAVE ALREADY DELINEATED OUR STAND
AS TO WHY WE FEEL THAT OCCURRED.
- S -
TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, OUR REQUEST IS
AS FOLLOWS:
ALLOW EXISTING STRUCTURES TO
REMAIN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE DETERMINED
TO BE STRUCTURALLY SAFE.
,
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-4
•
D:\WP51\ZTA\961.CC1LMA09-04-96 8
RESOLUTION NUMBER 96-4
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH DENYING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1, A
REQUEST TO AMEND THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE,
DISTRICT V.FOR PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE HELLMAN
RANCH AND GUM GROVE PARK TO ALLOW DECKS TO BE
CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE 10 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
Section 1. In September 1995,the City of Seal Beach proposed Zoning text
Amendment 96-1.This amendment was proposed to amend Section 28-401 of the Code to amend
the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Low Density zone,District V,for properties
abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove park to allow decks to be constructed within the 10
foot rear yard setback. This amendment was intended to address the rear yard slope in many of
the back yards of property abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park
Section 2 A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on January 17, 1996,continued to February 21, 1996 and again to March 6, 1996. to consider
Zone Text Amendment 96-1.
Section 3 The record of the hearings on January 17, 1996,Februar 21. 1996
and March 6, 1996 indicates the following
(a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence
received by the Planning Commission
(b) The text amendment proposes to allow decks to be constructed within the
current 10 foot rear yard setback for properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove park
The amendment was proposed to address grade differential at the rear of man of the properties
along Crestview Avenue,Catalina Avenue and Surf Place
(c) There is a six(6')foot general utility easement located at the rear of the
Marina Hill properties
Section 4 Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§28-2600 of the City's Code. the Planning Cornrnission
makes the following findings:
(a) The proposed text amendment allowing raised decks to be
constructed at or near the rear property line would create adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent
properties. Such impacts would include visual intrusions of large decks up to 28 feet in overall
height into the Gum Grove park nature area
(b) Allowing decks to be built to the rear property line would create
the possibility for an inaccessible space where litter and weeds would accumulate Plant screening
of the decks would require some setback off of the rear property line
(c) Allowing decks to be built as a level extension of the flat graded
portion of the lot could result in some decks exceeding 25 feet in height,greater than the
allowable height for dwellings in this zone
(d) The construction of structures in close proximity to the City's
utility easement at the rear of the property would not serve to protect the public health. safety and
welfare
D\..Vo046 Ur,g1Oewwn•M. 11111f06irw. Ksc
Planning Commission Resolution No 9<-.
March 20. 19y6
Section S. Based upon the foregoing,the Planning Commission hereby denies
Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 and determines to not to change the provisions of Section 28-401
of the Code.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach .
at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of March 1996,by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners Brown,Law,Sharp
NOES Commissioners Campbell,Dahlman
ABSTAIN: Commissioners —
Fes. .
Patricia E Campbell,Chairpersofi
Planning Commission
bee Whittenberg. Secretary /'
- Planning Commission
Page 2
D�_
\1 #.G TR•Yom+'s\K t IOOUIROp ec sc
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina it Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1996
D:\WP5IlZrA\96I.cc INA09-04-96 9
Page 3•City of Seal Beach Planning Cammiuiaa Minutes of Marco 20, 1996
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Consent Calendar:
1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1996.
MOTION CARRIED: S - 0 - 0
AYES: Dahlman, Brown, Sharp, Law, Campbell
The Commission considered item #2 separately:
2. Resolution No. 96-4, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the
City of Seal Beach Denying Zone Text Amendment 96-2, a request to
amend the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Low
Density zone, District V, to permit decks to be constructed within the
rear yard setback.
Commissioner Dahlman said he asked for this resolution to be extracted because he was
excluded from participating with the Commission on this issue, other than his testimony along
with other neighbors. He does not have a conflict of interest on this issue, but a Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC) rule prohibited him from voting on this. The FPPC rule is a
disenfranchisement and short-circuiting of the democratic process and he asked for this to be
extracted so he could vote against it.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 96-4
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 1 - 0
AYES: Brown, Law, Campbell, Sharp
NOES: Dahlman
1 Director Whittenberg indicated that anyone wishing to appeal the Planning Commission's
decision to the City Council had ten calendar days to file that appeal beginning tomorrow
morning.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Variance 96-1
Address: . 700 South Shore Drive
Applicants: Ted & Celeste Bowers
Property Owners: Ted & Celeste Bowers
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
Qty Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1996
D:\WP51\ZTA\96-I CRLW\09-04-% 10
Page 2-City d&a1 ieaci Pissaireg Commiraa Maws d Marco 6,1996
For the Record, the Chair noted a typographical error on page 14 of the Minutes. The word
should be preserved instead of reserved. Staff will make this change.
The Commission considered item /2 separately.
2. Receive and Fiie: Staff Report, dated February 26, 1996,
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. 652
and H.R. 1555.
Commissioner Dahlman said he was very impressed with Senator Feinstein's response and the
position she took. He felt she deserved credit for being open-minded and championing home
rule. He noted some Republicans are determined to deregulate freely, attempting to federalize
and take away home rule from us in the telecommunications area. He felt it is very important
we retain the ability to adapt our cable television, for example, to local conditions and needs.
Senator Feinstein supports this fully and he applauded her for that. Commissioner Dahlman
expressed his disappointment in Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. for abandoning
home rule.
Mr. Whittenberg said he believed the telecommunications bill has been signed into law now by
• the President. The pre-emption which the City of Seal Beach was objecting to is now part of
that law.
Mr. Steele said the actual result was the Senate went part way toward Senator Feinstein's
position where there's a limited pre-emption rather than the full pre-emption. The League of
California Cities doesn't consider it a very positive compromise.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to receive and file Staff Report, dated February 26,
1996, Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. 652 and H.R. 1555.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Dahlman, Law, Brown, Sharp, Campbell
�• PUBLIC HEARINGS
cop?
4. Zoning Texi Amendment 96-1
[Continued from 1/17/96 & 2/21/96)
Staff Report
Mr. Curtis presented an addendum staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department
for reference].
Tor 3-City d 6si\end rLiq Cltunnsrat Witter d Wird 6, 1196
There have been two changes since the last meeting. At the January Public Hearing it was
suggested by some Marina Hill homeowners that a deck, regardless of height, should be a level
extension of the level part of the rear yard. City staff canvassed the area adjacent to the back
side of the Hill. Staff provided the Commissioners with a topographical map of the area. Staff
found some of the affected lots backing to Gum Grove Park had a grade differential of 25' in
the sloping part of the back yard. This would allow a structure to be built to 28' in height to
the property line. Staff does not believe it would be appropriate to have structures of that height
built within that close proximity to a rear property line. The 28' in height would exceed the
maximum height for a home in that zone. Because of the extreme grade differential on a
number of the lots, staff doesn't believe a straight rule which would allow a level extension of
the flat part of the rear lot would be appropriate.
Another question was whether a utility line easement exists either on the back of the Marina Hill
homes or on the Hellman Ranch property and does it divide the properties. Staff found there
is a 6' utility easement on the back of the Hill homes but none on the Hellman Ranch. It's a
general utility easement held by the City of Seal Beach and it allows electrical, gas, water and
any other utilities to be placed in the 6' area.
Because of the extreme grade differential and the utility easement, staff recommended the
Commission, if voting to approve this, consider a minimum 6' setback. Staff did not believe
it is appropriate to have structures built into the City's utility easement. Additionally, staff
continued to propose a maximum 12' height limit which would allow a deck to be 9' above the
lowest grade with a 3' guard rail around the deck. Aesthetically that is most appropriate
adjacent to some type of future land use on the Hellman Ranch.
Commission Comments on Staff Report
Planning Districts vs. Councilmanic Districts
Commissioner Dahlman clarified that Planning Districts are different than Councilmanic Districts
and they are numbered differently. This is in Councilmanic District 3, Marina Hill.
Dave Bartlett Assoc. & Hellman Family
Mr. Whittenberg presented a letter from Dave Bartlett Associates, representing the Hellman
Ranch, with comments on the proposals before the Commission tonight. Referencing the note
from Mr. Bartlett, Commissioner Sharp asked staff if they are talking about a 6' setback from
the easement or a 6' setback from the property line? Mr. Whittenberg said his interpretation,
from reading the letter, is that the measurement is from the property line. He indicated Dave
Bartlett was in the audience.
Conflict of Interest
The Chair indicated Commissioner Dahlman declared a conflict of interest because he lives
within 300' of the affected properties and excused himself from participation in this portion of
the Commission meeting.
Pose I-City d id kick Hamar oomoosc-Maw of Mei 6, 1196
Utility Easement
The Chair asked staff what utilities are currently in the easement? Mr. Curtis said electrical and
phone for certain but he did not know about other utilities. These are above ground and he
couldn't say with certainty if there were any utilities below the ground.
LaiDstath
Commissioner Sharp asked the difference in depth for the existing lots on the north side of the
street versus the depth of the other lots on the Hill. Mr. Curtis said the lots on the north side
average 25' deeper than the standard 100' lot depths. Commissioner Sharp said he wanted
people to realize the 25' was added on because of the slope, not because they were making the
lots bigger.
Public Hearing
The Chair opened the Public Hearing.
Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Sea] Beach
Mr. Shanks spoke against limiting the height of decks. Mr. Shanks said a logical law is one that
fits the needs of a city, does not harm anyone and makes common sense. The Marina Hill area
would be safe ground during an earthquake, while everything else is subject to liquefaction.
This is the only place in the City of Seal Beach which has that type of slope to contend with.
To limit the height of patios would punish some homeowners. The 6' setback makes sense
because the utilities could be undergrounded sometime.
Bill Morris * 1729 Crestview. Seal Beach
Mr. Morris said he had previously testified on the issue of extending the existing level of the
rear yards. He asked the Commission to consider this and a zero foot setback. He felt that if
there's a 4', 6' or 10' setback the homeowner will still have an unaccessible area which is hard
to maintain and may become an eyesore. He wanted to see Option #1, a zero setback, to allow
the existing decks to remain, and to provide some aesthetic treatment for the decks so they
would look pleasing from the Hellman Ranch property. He read a letter from Lou and Vicky
Carreon for the Record [Attached].
The Chair said she had visited the Hill area and walked along the rear of many of those
properties. She noted some of the properties don't slope off at all. She asked how many homes
have a slope problem? Mr. Morris guessed at 25 to 30 homes.
Commissioner Sharp said Mr. Morris stated that if the decks were not allowed to go to the
property line it would be more difficult to maintain the property underneath. He asked how they
would maintain the property underneath if the decks were run to the property line as there's no
way to get down there? Mr. Morris said the area should be closed off, with no access. No
weeds would grow because there would be no sun.
tic 5.City d Seal inti wee Comic-Maws d Mani II, 1996
Mr. Morris added a 6' easement does exist. If the Commission did allow the setback to become
zero feet, a CUP could or should require that if the City needed to get into the easement to, for
example, underground those utilities the homeowner would be required to remove the structure.
Terri Meiers * Crestview Avenue
Mrs. Meiers said she agreed with Mr. Morris' comments. She said she is willing to cover the
bottom part of their deck and maintain it. She said she spent a lot of money to purchase their
house in Seal Beach and they are spending more money on an addition. Their deck is beautiful
and it's an enhancement and they will maintain it. They are willing to put in more screening
trees.
Anton Dahlman. M.D. * 1724 Crestview Avenue
Dr. Dahlman agreed with Mr. Morris' comments, saying the 0' setback is the only fair option.
Most of the 30 homes in question are backing to Gum Grove Park and there's no way the
Hellman's would ever be building against Gum Grove Park. As long as the homeowners realize
they may have to remove their structures to facilitate the City getting to its easement, the 0'
setback will not hurt anyone. The beauty of Gum Grove Park may be enhanced by the
homeowners maintaining the areas beneath the decks. The CUP process will allow the City to
require nice vegetation to dress the area up even more. The key thing here is fairness, noting
the properties which do not have drop offs can build decks to the back property line. The only
reason these decks are not allowed is because they are considered structures instead of decks.
They are only called structures because they have to be elevated. They have to be elevated only
because of a topographical abnormality. And this is the type of abnormality which qualifies
these people for a Variance one-by-one. What is appropriate to do is to make this a fair ball
game and zone it the same way for everyone. The fair way to zone this is with a zero setback.
The Chair asked how many homes there are from the end of Gum Grove Park to Seal Beach
Boulevard which have a slope? Dr. Dahlman said 10 to 12. Many of those don't have a steep
drop off. All the plans proposed by Mola Corporation for the Hellman Ranch included a 15'
or 30' buffer proposed for access and safety.
Commissioner Brown asked Dr. Dahlman how he could say there would be no adverse impact
when thinking about the persons/residents who are enjoying Gum Grove Park? They would be
in a wilderness park with a deck that's 20' to 25' above their heads?
Dr. Dahlman replied that an adverse impact exists as can be seen from the pictures. What will
happen, if the right decision is made tonight, is that people who have those eyesores will be
required to come before the Planning Commission and obtain a CUP. They will be required to
make their area safe and aesthetic. Vegetation will make it look aesthetic.
Commissioner Law stated that with a zero setback there will be no place to plant vegetation.
Commissioner Brown asked Dr. Dahlman if he was saying bushes would be planted under the
decks? The bushes wouldn't grow because there would be no light.
hoc 6-pi d Seal Ilicadi Room Cam iseiaa Mimeo d Mord)6, 1996
Dr. Dahlman said several of the properties have walls by their decks and these could have ivy
planted to grow on them. Vines are another suggestion.
Commissioner Brown said he just envisioned being in Gum Grove Park and having this 25'
structure going straight up from the border of Gum Grove Park. 'It just doesn't sound to me
like that would be very aesthetic'.
Dr. Dahlman said it isn't aesthetic and it already exists. These things are crying out for vines
or some type of trellis treatment that will allow for vegetation to grow and hide some of the
adverse appearance.
Mr. Curtis said photo#4 shows a conforming deck which was set back quite a ways. And photo
#5 shows one deck conforming and one non-conforming.
The Chair said that in all fairness everyone should walk Gum Grove Park as she did the other
day. Decks exist which are up high but also, because of the vegetation in Gum Grove Park,
you're down low, walking on the service road. If you wanted to see those homes or their decks
you would have to hike up the slope to find them. The homes' decks are not staring at you.
Dr. Dahlman said he felt a lot of the decks would be more presentable given the provisions in
the staff reports recommendations.
Commissioner Sharp said he had a problem with the City's easement. He said the City should
never get itself into a position where it would have to require homeowners to lop 6' off their
decks so the City can get to its own easement. The easement should be left clear and the
property line would have to be inside the 6' easement. Then he would have no objections to
building out to the property line. As it is now, when someone builds/extends over what is
allowed it's almost impossible to get them to comply with the law without going through a
lawsuit.
Commissioner Law said she didn't like the looks of the structures. While she knows it's
convenient for the property owners it looks like the back end of a movie set. The front looks
good but the back looks horrible. Any structure that tall should be screened with trees and
shrubs, not just a trellis and vines. She felt the height limit should be less than 25' and there
should be a setback.
Dr. Dahlman said many residents adjacent to the Hellman Ranch already have deep lots. The
• people affected tonight are different from most of those because they can't use all of that space.
It makes in no sense to put in a masonry structure because it may well have to be removed as
Commissioner Sharp indicated.
Commissioner Law asserted that when the property owners having steep slopes purchased their
homes they knew what the drop off was. She suggested those persons having steep drop offs
could step down or terrace their decks.
Port 7-Coy of Soil Dare Ploome C— ...Woos d Marsi 6, 1996
Dr. Dahlman said any elevated deck is a structure under the City's Code and that's why there's
a problem here. He also felt most people want wooden decks.
Commissioner Law said a wooden deck could be stepped down and it didn't have to be built
level with the back porch or lawn area.
Chairperson Campbell said Dr. Dahlman's point was the people without the drop offs can go
all the way out to the property line with their decks. One group can go out to the property line
and one group can't.
Commissioner Law said she doesn't believe in building to the property line.
Chairperson Campbell said the Code allows some homeowners to build right to the property line.
Commissioner Law disagreed.
Mr. Steele suggested the Public Hearing should be concluded prior to Commission comments.
Dave Bartlett * Representing Hellman Properties at 711 Seal Beach Blvd.
Mr. Bartlett said he concurred with Commissioners Sharp and Law regarding the 6' setback.
The Marina Hill area is fairly expansive, running the entire length of the Hellman Ranch from
Pacific Coast Highway to Seal Beach Boulevard. He said that's an expansive edge condition
which they are very concerned about. In general, however, the Hellman's are supportive of a
solution. Everyone on the Commission and the property owners are trying to find a solution.
He said, on behalf of the Hellman family, that they are supportive of trying to find that solution.
As mentioned in his letter, they would support a 6' setback. Preferably they would support a
10' average setback with a 6' minimum which would allow articulation of a deck and allow
landscaping to be planted and maintained; this is their primary concern at this time. The deck
height is also a big concern and staff's recommendation of 12' is reasonable. He suggested the
Commission consider the constraint of the City's easement and that a 6' easement be established
and some landscaping and screening mechanism be set in place to make the edge condition
aesthetically pleasing for years to come.
Damon Swank * 1685 Crestview Drive. Seal Beach
Mr. Swank addressed the issue of the disposition of existing decks. He urged the Commission
to adopt Option #3, or, at a minimum to adopt Option #1. He felt that if a property owner
comes to the Commission with approved plans, proper permits, proper construction and
approved inspections, that structure should be permitted to remain. To be discussing
amortization or removal of the structure would be wrong.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Swank if his property was involved in this? Mr. Swank said
no, he did not have a deck.
NKr$-Qty d lief Back P1 Cameria-Nays of Mine 6, 1996
Commissioner Brown asked staff how the City happens to have permitted but non-conforming
structures? Mr. Curtis said, going back to 1991 when this matter was initially brought up, one
of the decks had a permit from the late 1970's. It was built approximately 8' from the rear
property line. The majority of the remaining decks built into the 10' setback don't have permits
and he did not know how the one deck did get a permit.
Commissioner Law said one homeowner has built from property line to property line on both
sides of the house and at the rear of the house.
Mr. Swank said that where the properties do have a substantial slope, the area next to those
slopes is not going to be buildable. As Commissioner Dahlman mentioned, nobody has ever
suggested that they wanted to build on that; it would be impractical. There would likely be a
buffer zone between any proposed development and these properties. He agreed the height is
of concern but felt the lateral placement was of no great importance. He asked the Commission
if they had considered the economic costs to remove/relocate the walls and decks? He said "I
think you should weigh equitably how much you are going to gain and how much ... it's going
to cost".
David Rosenman * Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman said he agreed on protecting easements. He said he was concerned about Dave
Bartlett's mentioning aesthetics when there are at least four properties on Surf Place where the
Hellman property has barbed wire fences despite numerous requests from the landowners. It
seemed to him that the Hellman's were talking out both sides of their mouth.
Reg Cleweley * 945 Catalina
Mr. Cleweley spoke in support of maintaining and/or strengthening the City's building Codes.
He said the 10' number was chosen for specific reasons, one being aesthetics. By eliminating
the required 10' setback, the Commission would be legislating away the building Code. This
would affect all properties which abut the Hellman Ranch. People can find loopholes in any
legislation and would manipulate the laws. He felt the 10' setback was a good law and has
served well for a long time.
There being no other speakers, the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
Height Measurement
Commissioner Sharp commented he felt it would be preferable to build a rear yard deck at the
yard's first level, rather than building steps down a slope and building the deck down at the
bottom of the slope. At the lot level they would be required to have the proper foundation for
safety. He asked staff how this could be written?
Mr. Whittenberg said the provision as staff is recommending would take the measurement for
that height from the lowest point covered from the proposed deck area. At the furthest extension
Par 9-City sr Seel loci Roan(Clew=Mia"rs d Mrd 6, 1996
of the deck out toward their property line, normally the lowest point, that is where the 12'
height would be measured from. That height would be measured to the top of the rail of the
deck, not to the deck's floor.
Controversy on Deck Setbacks
Commissioner Sharp said there is controversy on the deck setback issue. He mentioned that
where a property has a drop off or steep slope, a deck there must have a 3' railing, whereas a
railing is not needed for a level patio.
Director Whittenberg explained that for a level lot, a property owner could pour a slab right to
the property line. The same would be true for individuals with sloping lots if they would terrace
the property downward. If the area under the easement discussed was flat, they could put a
concrete slab out to the property line under the easement only.
Chairperson Campbell said she wanted to re-open the Public Hearing to allow someone who just
arrived to speak.
Public Hearing Re-Opened
Matt Michelson * Surf Place. Sea] Beach
Mr. Michelson said the Hellman's have been great neighbors of his for ten years. He found it
amazing that someone testified about barbed wire when the properties's that have barbed wire
are encroaching on Hellman property. It was amazing to him that people will encroach onto
someone else's property and then when the trespassed property owner puts barbed wire up the
offenders complain about it. The people who back up to the Hellman Ranch say every plan
presented by Mola Corporation has a 15' buffer zone. But yet they can't give up 6' or 10' of
their own property and yet they want the Hellman's to give up 15' of their property.
Anton Dahlman * Seal Beach
Dr. Dahlman said there have been two persons speaking against what most of the persons here
tonight have asked the Commission to do. Neither one of them has the drop off and therefore
they actually benefit by their property values going up if the Commission does nothing to help
the 30 - 40 homes with sloping yards.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing.
commission Comments Continued
Commissioner Brown said he agreed with Matt Michelson, noting "The whole thing does
astonish me ... what people are asking for". He felt the purpose of the Planning Commission
is to defend the rest of the residents and/or property owners against the desires of the applicants
and to look at the City as a whole. These 30 to 40 homeowners bought their properties with
the knowledge that they could not build into the Hellman Ranch. Agreeing with a prior speaker,
hit 10.Qty of Seal sacs TSa"eusi Glaxo Woos d March 6, H%
he felt the 10' setback was placed for good reasons. Then to say we want to build into that
property and we won't bother anyone because there's nothing on the Hellman Ranch really is
taking the property rights of the Hellman's away from them. If development had occurred on
the Hellman Ranch the Commission would probably be hearing these same 30 to 40 property
owners saying no, we don't want big decks overlooking our property. Additionally, he did not
feel it is fair to put the responsibility for a 30' or 40' buffer zone on the Hellman's. 'I feel that
this whole Zone Text Amendment is wrong. If you want to put your deck out to the property
line then buy 10' of property from the Hellman's ... I can't see how that benefits anybody in
Gum Grove Park -- to see a wall with massive structures ...". There are solutions that people
can do with that property. For example, they could landscape it, they could terrace it. They
don't have to install decks. It may look good from the house out but from the other view it
looks bad, it does look like a movie lot.
He continued to say the Planning Commission is talking about a special privilege in this ZTA.
The Commission would be giving certain persons special property rights that they would not
otherwise have. He did not see any reason to do this as their properties are already deeper than
most. "To be frank, I think the property owners are being a little bit greedy here. They've
already got a big property. They want to go all the way out to the edge. I know this is not
going to make me popular with the property owners; I'm sorry, it's just the way I see it".
Commissioner Law said she remained in favor of setbacks and she did not like the way the decks
looked when viewing them from Gum Grove Park. She felt the people who built the decks
without the proper City permits created their own risk because everybody knows you have to
get permits to build. "If it costs a lot of money to take it down or to conform with the Code
that's too bad".
Commissioner Sharp said the Commission must be sure it makes the proper rulings to make
certain the existing decks are safe and up to Code. As for allowing the existing decks to remain,
if they're not within the 6' setback he agreed to leave them as long as they were brought up to
Code, properly maintained and landscaped. The landscaping must be sufficient to make the deck
sub-structure look decent if being viewed from the Hellman Ranch. While the Hellman's
property is not yet developed, someday it will be developed. And if that development is built
to its fullest extent there will not be a lot of easement to block the view of the tall decks. He
said the Commission must be very careful not to infringe on the Hellman's property rights.
Chairperson Campbell said Marina Hill does not have a problem with liquefaction whereas the
Hellman Ranch has the Newport-Inglewood fault going through it. The reason the Mola
Corporation's development proposals were turned down by the City was due to site liquefaction
concerns. 'The Newport-Inglewood isn't a straight shot. It goes through like fingers. So,
you've got it going through the Hill, you've got it going through the Hellman property, you've
got one or two scarps coming through Old Town, a couple that go through the Weapons Station
and one that goes into Rossmoor. But as it goes through the Hellman property you have a
property with liquefaction. So housing is really not in the foreseeable future in that area. I
believe they are talking about a golf course. Now when you're talking about a golf course you
Page 11-Qty of lag lace P1assuag Gltauria Mamma el Brae 6. 1998
still have to say to yourself how offensive are the backs of these homes to a golf course? I don't
know". She said she would have a problem asking someone to take out an existing deck or
wall.
•
Commissioner Sharp said he wouldn't have a problem with that so long as it wasn't permitted.
If the structure was permitted that would be a different matter.
Commissioner Law agreed, saying that if a structure was permitted it would be legal.
Commissioner Sharp said to the Chair that if she were going to start talking about liquefaction
then she would have to dispose of 90% of Seal Beach because 90% of Seal Beach is on
liquefaction land.
Chairperson Campbell said "No, no, that section through the Hellman property is really bad,
with a water table that is ground zero". Commissioner Sharp said "It isn't any worse than any
of the rest of Seal Beach". Chairperson Campbell said that was true right now but, the Hellman
property has a degraded wetlands and the water table is at ground zero. But again, in College
Park East the water table is a ground zero because it has rained a lot lately. But all year round
the Hellman Ranch's water table is at ground zero.
Chairperson Campbell said she does not want to ask someone to take out a deck that's already
there. Someone who did not get a permit, they need to come forward and find out if their deck
is conforming. And if it's not conforming it must be brought up to Code. She said she has a
problem with building out into the City's easement area. One problem could be due to the fact
of calling something a structure and because you're calling it a structure it falls into a different
category. "It does seem not fair to me that people who don't have the slope can go right out
to their property line and then those that do have the slope cannot go out to their property line.
Actually, I applaud them for being very ingenious and inventive in finding a way to use that
property. That's the American way; sorry. ... I would like to amend the Code to allow 6'
setbacks for decks from here on out because ... of the utility easement. And I would like to
require the removal or upgrade to Code of all non-conforming decks. If they can have them
brought up to Code I think they should be allowed. I don't know how old some of those are.
... The permitting process in Seal Beach has been with us awhile. But yes, there are probably
some people who just started building it and didn't think it was a big deal. Probably put it in.
That's not right but that's probably what happened in some of the cases".
Commissioner Brown said he was surprised at some of the Chairperson's comments. "If I were
sitting at my home looking at building plans, I'd probably rush right out and build something
and say well, the Planning Commission isn't going to make me take it down after I've got it up.
And in fact, we have done that to people who have built structures.' The reason this is a
structure instead of a deck is exactly because of the slope, it's elevated. He advocated staying
with the 10' setback. He indicated there was a similar situation in Newport Beach, where people
had built patios out onto the sand, publicly owned property. The City of Newport Beach did
sell those owners the property and charged the property tax assessment on that. Mr.
Per 12.Qty d 116..1 aaa!Pissnag Cara limas d Mani 6, 1996
Whittenberg said he also thought that was the solution Newport Beach took but was not positive.
Commissioner Brown said he felt strongly that these property owners are taking the Hellman
Ranch land or Gum Grove Park and are infringing on those owners. It isn't fair to say
something will not be built there as we just don't know.
Commissioner Sharp indicated Gum Grove Park also belongs to the Hellman family.
The Chair said the issue is then how far out can someone build and how high? Commissioner
Brown said the current Code says a 10' setback and a 25' height limit must be met.
Commissioner Sharp asked if a site had a 28' drop off, if they went back 10' they could build
up 25'? Mr. Curtis said yes, noting the deck would be 10' shorter because of the slope. They
could actually build a house at the 10' setback which was 25' high under the present Code.
Commissioner Law said she would not want to see a 25' structure at the 10' setback point. She
also indicated screening trees or bushes was mandatory.
Commissioner Brown agreed with a previous speaker, saying that when you have an overhanging
deck, no matter how you screen it, people are going to find a way to cut through the screening,
such a fence holes, and it would be used for unwelcome activities. It is a legitimate safety issue.
Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg for a synopsis of what the Commissioners have
been discussing?
Mr. Whittenberg said he is hearing different desires from different Commissioners and he was
not certain there is a consensus of opinion on what direction the Commission would like to go.
On one hand, Commissioner Brown is saying keep the ordinance as it is and make no changes.
The remaining three Commissioners are saying to not build in the 6' setback area but
Commissioner Sharp is saying don't build in the 6' setback area but then require an average 10'
setback for what would be in that area between 6' and 10'. Commissioners Campbell and Lam
are saying that at the 6' setback line you could have the structure straight across the rear of the
property. There's not a full consensus. He felt it might be best to form some motions and see
if one can be approved. If a motion is approved, then staff will return at the next meeting with
a resolution for signature.
Commissioner Sharp asked what would be the best way to make the motions? Mr. Whittenberg
suggested starting with the setback issues first. Then deal with non-conforming and non-
permitted structures. If it's decided to not change the current Code provisions, then those
structures which are currently built within that area without permits would go through the same
process the City goes through for somebody who's built something without permits.
The current Code does not allow does not allow any structure within the rear 10' of the
property. If a change to the setbacks is recommended, the non-conforming issue will have to be
dealt with separately.
hie 13-Ciy d Pal Pas!Hssaq("----s Mame;d Mani 6, 1996
MOTION by Law; SECOND by Brown to retain the existing 10' setback and not change the
provisions of the City's municipal Code.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 1 - 1
AYES: Law, Brown, Sharp
NOES: Campbell
ABSTAIN: Dahlman
Mr. Whittenberg said no issues remain. The Commission has said leave the Code as it currently
is. Staff will come back at the March 20th meeting with a resolution for adoption. It will have
the necessary discussion and findings.
Commissioner Sharp asked if this matter would automatically go before the City Council? Mr.
Whittenberg said no. The recommendation to not make a change goes to the Council but there's
not automatically another Public Hearing at the Council unless someone appeals the decision of
the Commission to the Council. The appeal period will begin at the signing of the resolution.
The Chair asked what happens to the decks with are non-conforming and/or non-permitted? Mr.
Whittenberg said if the City Council has a hearing on this matter it will depend on what the
Council's decision is. We can't answer that at this point. If the City Council does hold a
hearing on this matter, staff will report back to the Commission what their decision is.
RECESS
The Chair called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:03 p.m.
5. Negative Declaration 96-1
Zone Change 96-1
Zone Text Amendment 96-3
General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B
"Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1
Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report and
AB 1600 Report.
staff Report
Director Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department
for reference]. The applicant, the City of Seal Beach, recommended revisions to the existing
Main Street Specific Plan, and conforming revisions to the General Plan's Land Use and
Housing Elements, a Zone Text Amendment, and a Zone Change to designate those areas of the
City to be designated Main Street Specific Plan Zone. The Director indicated this matter was
continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1996. Public testimony was
received at that meeting and the Public Hearing was continued to this evening to receive
additional testimony.
Seal Beach Planning Commission...March 6, 1996
From: Lou and Vicky Carreon
1335 Crestview Ave.
Seal Beach
Although we are unable to attend tonight's meeting, we
would appreciate our opinion heard.
We support the proposal for a relaxation of the rear yard
setback. We believe that the current 10 foot setback rule is
extreme for the circumstances. Our property lines are
raised slopes that when built upon do not infringe directly
on anyone. With some of the severe sloped properties, this
is the only way to gain backyard space. Although this
current rule does not affect us now, it would be great to
know that our property could be utilized in a more useful
manner if needed in the future.
We do not believe that this would turn into a neglected
area, since all of the homeowners take pride in living where
we do. If in fact a homeowner did neglect a structure and
it became an eyesore or danger, the city could handle the
individual homeowner accordingly.
It also makes sense that if a homeowner has sloped land
that is inaccessible for maintaining, it could look much
worse and become a problem.
Thank you for attention.
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 5
Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission re:
ZTA 96-1, dated February 28, 1996
D:IWPSI\ZTA1961.CY11.WW9.Oi-96 I I
Cly of Seal Beach 211 of Seal StreetBeach 431 6
211 8thch. Phone (310)431 31-2
Seal Beach.CA 90740
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chairman
and Planning Commission
From: Barry Curtis,Administrative Assistant
cc:
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 1996
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Decks abutting Hellman
Property
This memo is a brief addendum to the February 21, 1996 staff report (attached).
This memo is intended to clarify the major options available to the Commission in
considering this item.
Regarding Setback for Decks
1. Amend Code to allow zero rear yard setback, subject to Conditional
Use Permit
2. Amend Code to allow six (6')foot setback for decks
3. Leave Code as is, requiring ten (10')foot setback for decks
Regarding Disposition of Existing Decks
1. Allow permitted, nonconforming existing decks to remain; require
removal/upgrade to Code of non permitted, nonconforming decks.
2. Require removal/upgrade to Code of all nonconforming decks.
Establish varying amortization periods for permitted and non
permitted decks.
3.Allow all existing decks to remain, subject to screening and
maintenance provisions.
The Commission should consider a combination of these items. Due to the rear
yard easement staff recommends initial item #2, a six(6')foot rear yard setback. Staff
believes either item 1 or 2 of the second group of options would be an acceptable
solution.
Finally, staff recommends that side yard setbacks be left unchanged at five (5')
feet for fire separation and aesthetic reasons.
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-I
!. Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
City. Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission Minutes of February 21 , 1996
L
D:\WP5I A\96-1.CCALW\o9-04-% 12
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES of FEBRUARY 21 , 1996
The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session in City Council Chambers
at 7:37 p.m. The Chair called the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Campbell
Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Brown
Also Department of Development Services:
Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant
Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary
AGENDA APPROVAL
The Commission discussed the order of the Agenda for half an hour as follows:
ZTA 95-1 * Banners
Director Whittenberg requested item #3, Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 95-1 regarding
establishing City-wide standards for advertising banners, be continued to the March 20, 1996
Commission meeting. He said the Planning Commission had previously continued this matter
to March 20th. The Commission does have the authority to take public testimony but not the
authority to take a final action until the March 20th meeting.
ZTA 96-1 * Decks in Setbacks
Commissioner Brown suggested item #4, ZTA 96-1 regarding allowing decks in the rear yard
setbacks in District V, be continued to March 6th to allow him more time to look at the
properties in question. He also noted the City received a letter from Dave Bartlett, of Dave
Bartlett Associates, dated February 21, 1996. This letter commented on ZTA 96-1, suggesting
setback modifications and mandatory landscaping for screening to benefit the Hellman Ranch
property. Commissioner Brown queried in what respect Mr. Bartlett would be representing the
Hellman Ranch property owners.
Banners - Main Street Specific Plan - Third Stories
Commissioner Brown suggested the ZTA on banners precede the ZTA for the Main Street
Specific Plan and then be followed by the ZTA on third stories.
Page 9-City of Scat Beach PL►miag Cammiuioo Mmutca of February 21, 1996
4. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
•
This matter was continued from the Planning Commission's January 17, 1996 meeting. The
City requested the Commission consider an amendment to the rear yard setback requirements
of the Residential Low Density zone in District V to permits decks to be constructed within the
rear yard setback.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to continue Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 to the
Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 1996.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
1 AYES: Brown, Law, Campbell, Sharp, Dahlman
s*s
5. Zoning Text Amendment 96-2
The applicant, the City of Seal Beach, seeks amendment of the municipal Code to prohibit new
third stories in the medium and high density zones of Old Town and place a blanket 25 foot
height limit on these properties. The ZTA will also consider permitting certain roof treatments
to exceed the 25' height limit by up to 2 - 3 feet, subject to a discretionary review by the
Planning Commission. The staff report was deferred.
The Chair indicated the Commission would take testimony only on ZTA 96-2.
Jim Caviola * 305 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach
Mr. Caviola said "... somebody is making decisions that are off-the-wall. How can somebody
just have a meeting tonight and lop ten feet off a property. That equates to $4,000,000 in
property values in this town. That's ludicrous". He felt the City should have a Design Review
Board/Commission. His property on Ocean Avenue has three-story apartment buildings on
either side. If the property across the street built to three-stories that would leave him paying
high property taxes, not Proposition 13 taxes, and having three story structures surrounding him.
He said the City of Seal Beach has "... millions of professionals who will work for free" and
suggested they be consulted. He said putting 2' more on the roof of a house for design purposes
was pointless because he is not into decorating the outside. If he can put 3' on top of his 25'
house he could have another room -- but that's not permitted. No one is thinking this out. It's
inconsistent and unfair. This proposal would not allow flexibility for someone like himself.
"It's profound to think that tonight you guys could have ruled that $4,000,000 worth of property
values could have gone in the garbage can because someone decided to put that on the Agenda.
That's really kind of scary ... you need to put a little more thought into this in my opinion".
If the look of the town is going to be changed it needs to be flexible and more thought needs to
go into this.
iri ffIA
DAVE BARTLETT ASSOCIATES
L4\I) USE.4\'n PL4 A\/\G CO.\'S L'LT4\'TS
6082 JADE CIRCLE•HuNrnNGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92647
PHONE (714)898-0600•FAcsrMnI (714)894-2670
February 21, 1996
Chairwoman Patty Campbell and Members of the Seal Beach Planning Commission
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
Dear Chairwoman Campbell and Members of the Commission:
Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to comment on this issue and to meet with staff and look at this
proposal in more detail. This amendment does raise important potential issues (aesthetics,privacy, noise,
light and glare) that could have a negative impact on the Ranch property.
Although we do not support the concept of reducing the setback, we do understand the City is attempting to
resolve a district-wide issue while maintaining reasonable development standards that would, 1) allow the
affected property owners to have more use and enjoyment of their backyard area, and 2) protect the Hellman
Ranch property from significantly-sized structures from being built directly to the property line creating
potential negative impacts as described above.
Balancing these concerns is what the City staff has proposed and we would support the Zoning Text
Amendment with the following modifications and clarifications:
• The 6-foot setback as proposed be modified to be an average 10-foot setback, with a minimum setback of
6-feet. This would allow for articulation of the deck and break up the mass of the structure. It also
respects the existing 6-foot electric easement. The maximum overall height of 12-feet (with the
measurement calculation as proposed by staff) is reasonable with the average setback.
• That landscaping be mandatory and sufficient enough to screen the area located below the deck to the
lowest point covered by the patio(on all sides) which may have a tendency to be used as a storage area and
become unsightly and neglected. The proposed landscaping would be required to be placed on the plans
and will be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as outlined in the staff report.
• That the amortization period of 6 months for the existing non-conforming structures be adhered to.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue.
Sincerely,
f
ave Bartlett
Copy:Jerry Tone,Hellman Properties
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina d1 Surf Place
City Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 7
Planning Commission Staff Report of February 21 ,
1996, with Attachments A through D
A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January
17, 1996
1 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-
44
2. City Council Staff Report dated November
26, 1990 re: Appeal of Planning
Commission denial of Variance 5-90, 1733
Crestview Avenue
(a) Planning Commission Staff Report,
Variance 5-90, dated October 3,
1990
(b) Planning Commission Resolution No.
1599
(c) Planning Commission Minutes,
October 3, 1990
(d) Appeal by William Ralston, dated
October 12, 1990
(e) Proposed Resolution No. 3998
B. Minute Excerpt of January 17, 1996 Planning
Commission Meeting
•
C. Photos of Rear Yard Slopes
D. Topographic Maps of Properties Abutting
Hellman Ranch
D:wwrsi\ZTA\96-I.cc iNA09.04-96 13
I
February 21, 1996
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1
Decks within Rear Yards Adjacent to Hellman Ranch
REQUEST
To consider an amendment to the rearand setback requirements q:.irements of the
Residential Low Density zone, District V, to permit decks to be constructed within the rea-
yard setback of properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park. If approved. the
proposed amendment would allow decks up to 12 feet in overall height to be built to within six
(6') feet of the rear property line The proposed amendment is intended to address rea- yard
slope along the rear yards of Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf Place.
LBACI:GROUND
The Planting Commission considered this item at its January 17, 19yf
meeting and, at the request of the Hellman Ranch property owners, continued the matter tc its
February 21st meeting During the public hearing four (4) people spoke in favor of the
proposed text amendment, with one (I) person speaking and one (1) person writing in
opposition.
During the public hearing members of the public as well as Commissioners raised several
questions and suggestions regarding ZTA 96-1. Above and beyond staff's recommendations
these items included. 1) a measuring point for such decks, 2) allowing decks to be flush with
the rear property regardless of height, and 3) whether there's a utility easement along the rear
of the Hill properties or the Hellman Ranch abutting these properties.
DISCUSSION
In preparing this text amendment staff considered the unique features of
properties abutting the Hellman Ranch property as well as what staff believes are proper
planning and zoning practices. Additionally, staff considered those issues raised during the
public hearing discussed above as well as aesthetic impacts on both the Hellman property and
public streets such as Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway
..\2.ciftin.Ttn ArOCaapRi\96,•r an RCJO/'.RLM1 Dc c Ra K 3
S7n"Report - ZTA 4G-J
Fehruar, 2). 1996
Uniqueness of Sites Abutting Hellman Ranch
The majority of properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park have some sort of
grade differential at the rear of the property. Many of the 80 or so properties which abut the
Hellman Ranch have fairly steep slopes trailing off for the rear 25-30 feet of the lot. This is a
situation which seems to have been addressed through the original subdivision of the Hill
properties during the early 1950's. On average the properties abutting the Hellman Ranch are
about 25 feet deeper than the average 100 foot lot depth on the Hill. The property which
initiated this text amendment is actually 45 feet deeper than the standard 100 foot deep El; lot
Properties adjacent to the Hellman Ranch are generally unique within the City for one reason
they are the only properties with a major slope which abut vacant property. There are other
properties with grade differential (particularly along Catalina Avenue) and there are other
properties which abut vacant land or public open spaces
Because of this rear slope the owners of many of the subject lots have chosen to take meas.:res
to better utilize the rear portions of their properties. Measures have included terracing,
retaining walls and decks.
Planning and Zoning Concerns
In preparing this report staff paid particular attention to the new provisions for detached
accessory structures established through ZTA 92-6. Basically, ZTA 92-6 permitted covered
patio roofs, gazebos and sun screens to be constructed within the 10' rear yard setback
(Planning Commission Resolution No 93-44, attached) Specifically, the ZTA allowed such
structures to be constructed to within 5' of the rear property line on properties whose rear yard
abuts a street as well as certain open space areas Through a conditional use permit covered
patio roofs, gazebos and sun screens can potentially be built to the rear property line on these
properties.
ZTA 92-6 also allowed other detached accessory structures to be constructed to within 5' of
the rear property line subject to a consent calendar plan review on the above mentioned
properties as well as other properties throughout the City.
The differentiation of patio covers, gazebos and sun screens versus other detached accessory
structures was made because it was felt that these three types of structures (if less than 200 sf)
pose less of an impact on surrounding properties, as well as aesthetically on public areas, than
other types of structures.
There is evidence that an administrative error occurred in the preparation of Ordinance 1380 Thr
ordinance as approved appears to allow detached occessory structures to be built to the property line subject t,,
consent calendar plan review. This makes no sense to al/ow these structures to be built right to the propertti lire or
any property in the Ca) This error will be corrected through this text anicndment •
Page 2
D _Vasep4c Tar A+oc>ro+rs'\O6 I•SI Alf Rsoir•Rua D[cu. BC s,
S7,!''Repo►i - Z7.1 96-1
Febri,an :1. 15.46
Staff believes these same provisions for "other" detached accessory structures are appropriate
for decks built within rear yards of properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove
Park. In essence, this will simply be adding decks to the list of detached accessory structures
Staff does not believe it's appropriate to construct large structures such as the decks in question
directly to the rear property line. In contrast to properties which abut arterial streets or other
public open spaces, the Hellman Ranch is privately owned and may potentially be developed
sometime in the future. Staff doesn't believe it would be appropriate to place structures up to
12 feet tall, or taller, directly to a common property line with an as yet undetermined future la-.d
use.
Therefore, staff is recommending decks be permitted within the ten (10') foot rear yard setback
up to six (6') feet from the rear property line. Like detached accessory structures, decks should
not exceed a maximum height above grade of twelve (12') feet when located within ten (10')
feet of the rear property line Staff also recommends decks, as with detached accessory
structures, abide by the current five (5') side yard setback requirement. Staff believes the
measurement of such structures should be an absolute height from the lowest elevation
covered by the structure.
Additionally, the Commission may wish to consider a maximum area for the decks and o- a
maximum percentage of the width of the property which may be occupied by a deck
Allowing Dees to be a Level Extension of Lots (Regardless of Height)
Speakers at the previous public hearing sugeested allowing decks to be a level extension of the
flat portion of the lot Staff has considered this idea and feels it would be an inappropriate
approach for many of the affected properties. Specifically, several of the properties have a rear
yard grade differential in excess of 20 feet, in a couple of cases this would result a structure
approximately 30 feet in height, or 5 feet higher than homes allowed in this area
Because of the extreme grade differential on certain lots, staff believes a maximum height on
these structures, as discussed above, is more appropriate.
Utility Easement
Staff has reviewed City subdivision records to determine whether a utility easement exists on
the Hellman property at the rear of the affected properties. Staff has found a six (6') foot
general utility easement exists at the rear of the Hill homes, while D_Q easement exists on the
adjacent Hellman Ranch property.
Given this easement at the rear of the Hill properties, staff believes construction within 6 feet of
the rear property line is inappropriate
Pace 3
\_\2 '. Tpr ororrs\961• AFI laud•*LA&Dc C ns 6: :
StoirReporr - ZTA 9C-1
Februor. 21. 16
Z0.\'T\'G TEAT A.4/ENDA fENT
Due to extreme grade differential on certain Hill lots as well as the six (6') foot utility easement
encumbering the Hill proper-ties, staff recommends that rear yard decks should be allowed to be
constructed to within 6 feet of the rear property line, but no closer. Staff believes a maximum
height should be established for such structures. Staff recommends decks not exceed an overall
height of 12 feet, measured from the lowest grade covered by the structure. Staff's
recommendation would allow a deck to exceed the lowest grade by 9 feet with a 3 foot guard
rail.
In order to address the issue of wooden decks within the rear yard of properties abutting the
Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park, as well as to correct the administrative error described in
footnote 1, staff recommends the following amendments to the Code
Article 4. Section 28-401(2) of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Bezch is hereb\
amended to read:
"(2) Provisions varying by district
(a) Maximum lot coveraee•
District 1 60%
District II 45%
District V 45%1'1'
(b) Yard Dirnensions (.\fir,irnum.$)
Front Yard Abutting Street -
District I 18 R.
Districts II & V 18 fl. front entry garage's*
10 fl. side entry garage
Side Yard Abutting Street -
Districts 1, II & VI 5% lot width,
Maximum required l0 ft.
Rear Yard Abutting Street and other Area Specified in Section
28-2316.2.(H) -
Districts ] 8 1I l0 ft.
District V 10 ft., with the following exceptions
Page 4
S�-\2o++c Ttr-4/cm:rp ' ve 7•17Ar+Rporr•RtM D[c Ra K-a:
Sxt.7Repor:-ITA sem•!
Fetr“or, :l. lY>G
5 ft. may be provided, subject to the following conditions:
(l) Detached covered patio roofs, gazebos (over 50% of
perimeter open) and sun screens (over 50% of
perimeter open) are permitted subject to the issuance
of a building permit. Such structures shall have a
maximum height of twelve (12') feet when located
within ten (10') of the rear property line, are subject to
the maximum lot coverage requirement, shall have a
maximum covered area of 200 square feet and a
maximum perimeter dimension (on any one side) of
fifteen (15') feet.
(a) Subject to the issuance of a conditional use
permit, and bound by all conditions of
paragraph 1 above as well as any conditions
imposed through the issuance of the use
permit, the above listed structures may be
constructed to the rear property line.
(2) Detached accessory structures, excluding garages and
habitable rooms, may be approved by the Planning
Commission subject to consent calendar plan review
approval Such structures shall have a maximum
height of twelve (12') feet when located with ten (10')
of the rear property line and are subject to the
maximum lot coverage requirement.
6 ft may be provided, subject to the following conditions:
(I) Properties Abutting Hellman Ranch and Gum
Grove Park - Decks may be approved by the
Planning Commission subject to consent calendar
plan review approval Such structures shall have a
maxinwm overall height of twelve (12)feet when
located with ten (102 of the rear property line.
Rear Yard Not Abutting Street:
District 1 96 ft. •
District II 10 ft.
District V 10 ft., with the following exceptions.
5 ft. may be provided, subject to the following conditions
Page 5
\-.N2ameNe To-moca rse s'tio6.i.SW,RCPowT•114a os co& K s:
Staff hcpor: - 27.4 9C4
Februor) 2). JSrC
(I) Detached accessory structures, excluding garages and
habitable rooms, may be approved by the Planning •
Commission subject to consent calendar plan review
approval. Such structures shall have a maximum
height of twelve (12') feet when located with ten (10')
of the rear property line and are subject to the
maximum lot coverage requirement. Additionally,
such structures shall have a maximum covered area of
150 square feet and a maximum perimeter dimension
(on any one side) of twelve (12') feet.
' Balcony and walkway may extend ten feet into this yard. Detached
accessory structures are permitted subject to the requirements of
§28-401.2.b.(1) above, provided such structures shall not be permitted
within the City sewer easement located in the area between 84 feet and 9
feet from the rear property line."
Additionally, the Commission should determine an appropriate amortization period for the
removal of structures which will not conform to the proposed provisions Staff recommends
varying amortization periods for any legally permitted structures versus illegally constructed
structures. Based on Commission direction staff will add an amortization provision to the
forthcoming resolution on this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT
Reallocation of staff resources to prepare appropriate Zone Te\:
Amendment application, and processing of application for public hearings before Pianninc
Commission and City Council.
Additional staff time to enforce the amortization provisions for structures which do not cornp'.\
with the proposed provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission, after receiving both
written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, provide staff guidance as to hov
to proceed with this proposal.
Staff will incorporate any proposed additions/amendments and, with the City Attorney's office.
will draft the specific wording of the new section, including amortization provisions This will
return to the Commission at its next meeting in the form of a draft resolution recommending
approval to the City Council
Page 6
dear orom SOS 1•IR.n Oban•Ruaa c.s ec b.
Sto!'hcpo-i- 27,4 9G-1
Febr„or, ?i. 19;C
FOR: February 21, 1996 / 1 ?Ait_
B C. urtis, Jr. 'ee Whittenberg
Administrative Assistant Director
Department of Development Services Department of Development Services
Attachments: (4)
A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 17, 1996 (wlattachmen:s)
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-44
2. City Council Staff Report dated November 26, 1990 re Appeal of
Planning Commission Denial of Variance 5-90, 1733 Crestview
Avenue
(a) Planning Commission Staff Report, Variance 5-90, dated
October 3, 1990
(b) Planning Commission Resolution No 1599
(c) Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 1990
(d) Appeal by William Ralston, dated October 12, 1990
(e) Proposed Resolution No. 3998
B. Minute Excerpt of January 17, 1996 PC Meering
C. Photos of Rear Yard Slopes
D. Topographic Maps of Properties Abutting Hellman Ranch
•
Page 7
January 17, 1996
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission ""1
From: Department of Development Services D
Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1
Wooden Decks within Rear Yards Adjacent to Hellman Ranch
m
z
REQUEST
To consider an amendment to the rear yard setback requirements of the
Residential Low Density zone, District V, to permit wooden decks to be constructed with.in the
rear yard setback of properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park if approved,
the proposed amendment would allow wooden decks up to 12 feet in overall height to be built
to within five (5') feet of the rear property line. The proposed amendment is intended to
address rear yard slope along the rear yards of Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf
Place.
•
BACKGROUND
In 1990 Staff initiated a Code Enforcement case against 1733 Crestview
Avenue where an illegal and non permitted patio deck had been constructed to both the side
and rear property lines. Staff advised the property owner he must remove the 16' high deck or
seek a variance from the provisions of the Code which require a ten (10') foot rear setback and
a five (5') foot side setback on this property. The property owner chose to pursue a variance
During the public hearings on Variance 5-90 the property owner, William Ralston, argued
several other properties abutting the Hellman Ranch had constructed similar structures Staff
inspected the rear side of the properties along Surf Place , Catalina Avenue and Crestview
Avenue and found six (6) other properties with either non permitted decks or patio covers
approaching the rear and/or side property lines.
Staff presented this information as well as the fact the properties abutting Hellman Ranch are 2
feet deeper than other properties on the Hill during the Planning Commission hearing
Ultimately, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1599 denying the variance and
requiring the non permitted deck, a non permitted patio cover and a non permitted lean shed be
removed within 30 days. The applicant appealed this decision to the City Council (City Council
Staff Report dated November 26, 1990, including attachments, attached as Attachment 2)
D1...\IONh+GToTAmo4DMrr \D61 •SrArsRC►ORT•Rum DECKS accscc
Staff Report-27.4 SG-1
Januar, 17, i
The City Council considered this matter in late 1990 and early 1991 and ultimately determined
to sustain the denial, but directed staff not to proceed with the code enforcement until such time
as a zoning text amendment could be considered addressing the properties which abut the
Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park.
[DISCUSSIOti
In denying the appeal on Variance 90-5 the City Council directed staff to
proceed with a text amendment to consider a modification of rear yard setback requirements
along the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove park.
Through Variance 90-5 the applicant was seeking approval to build a 14' high structure more
or less to the rear and side property lines.
In preparing this text amendment staff considered the unique features of properties abutting the
Hellman Ranch property as well as what staff believes are proper planning and zoning practices
Uniqueness of Sites Abutting Hellman Ranch
The majority of properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park have some sort of
grade differential at the rear of the property. Many of the 80 or so properties which abut the
Hellman Ranch have fairly steep slopes trailing off for the rear 25-30 feet of the lot This is a
situation which seems to have been addressed through the original subdivision of the H li
properties during the early 1950's. On average the properties abutting the Hellman Ranch are
about 25 feet deeper than the average 100 foot lot depth on the Hill. The property which
initiated this text amendment is actually 45 feet deeper than the standard 100 foot deep Hill lot
Properties adjacent to the Hellman Ranch are generally unique within the City for one reason
they are the only properties with a major slope which abut vacant property. There are other
properties with grade differential (particularly along Catalina Avenue) and there are other
properties which abut vacant land or public open spaces
Because of this rear slope the owners of many of the subject lots have chosen to take measures
to better utilize the rear portions of their properties. Measures have included terracing,
retaining walls and decks.
Planning and Zoning Concerns
In preparing this report staff paid particular attention to the new provisions for detached
accessory structures established through ZTA 92-6. Basically, ZTA 92-6 permitted covered
patio roofs, gazebos and sun screens to be constructed within the 10' rear yard setback
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-44, attached). Specifically, the ZTA allowed such
structures to be constructed to within 5' of the rear property line on properties whose rear yard
Page 2
D\•..V..o►+s+Gnor'Aal[MOriitPen N.961•STU•r R[•OirT•Rtwio D[cru BCC:scc
Stg7Report - 27A 96-1
Jar.uo', 17. 1';;, .
abuts a street as well as certain open space areas.' Through a conditional use permit covered
patio roofs, gazebos and sun screens can potentially be built to the property line on these
properties.
ZTA 92-6 also allowed other detached accessory structures can be constructed to within 5' of
the rear property line subject to a consent calendar plan review on the above mentioned
properties as well as other properties throughout the City.
The differentiation of patio covers, gazebos and sun screens versus other detached accessory
structures was made because it was felt that these three types of structures (if less than 200 sf)
pose less of an impact on surrounding properties, as well as aesthetically on public areas, than
other types of structures.
Staff believes these same provisions for"other" detached accessory structures are appropriate
for decks built within rear yards of properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove
Park. In essence, this will simply be adding wooden decks to the list of detached accessory
structures.
Staff does not believe it's appropriate to construct large structures such as the decks in question
directly to the rear property line. In contrast to properties which abut arterial streets or other
public open spaces, the Hellman Ranch is privately owned and may potentially be developed
sometime in the future. Staff doesn't believe it would be appropriate to place structures up to
12 feet tall directly to a common property line with an as yet undetermined future land use
Therefore, staff is recommending wooden decks be permitted within the ten (10') foot rear rand
setback up to five (5') feet from the rear property line. Like detached accessory structures.
decks should not exceed a maximum height above grade of twelve (12') feet when located
within ten (10') feet of the rear property line. Staff also recommends wooden decks, as with
detached accessory' structures, abide by the current five (5') side yard setback requirement
Additionally, the Commission may wish to consider a maximum area for the decks and'or a
maximum percentage of the width of the property which may be occupied by a deck.
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
In order to address the issue of wooden decks within the rear yard of properties abutting the
Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park, as well as to correct the administrative error described in
footnote 1, staff recommends the following amendments to the Code
There is evidence that an administrative error occurred in the preparation of Ordinance 1350 The
ordinance as approved appears to allow detached accessory structures to be built to the proper! line svhtect to
consent calendar plan review. This makes no sense to allow these structures to be built right to the property line on
any property in the City. This error will be corrected through this text amendment
Page 3
c.v.\20...40 TcrrAwtNDw[wrs\ &I •STAr7R[►ow,.aL►IDEc" eccicc
Src!,'i r; • ZTA s�-)
JonLa�. 17. flyv
Article 4. Section 28-401(2) of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beath is
hereby amended to read:
"(2) Provisions varying by district.
(a) Maximum lot coverage.
District I 60%
District D 45%
District V 45%'•
(b) Yard Dimensions (Minimurnsi•
Front Yard Abutting Street -
District 1 18 ft
Districts Tl & V 18 ft front entry garage"'
10 ft side entry garage
Side Yard Abutting Street -
Districts I, I1 &: V l 5% lot width,
Maximum required 10 ft
Rear Yard Abutting Street and other Area Specified in Section
28-2316.2 (H) -
Districts ] & II 10 ft.
District V 5 ft may be provided, subject
to the following conditions'
(1) Detached covered patio roofs, gazebos (over 50% of
perimeter open) and sun screens (over 50% of
perimeter open) are permitted subject to the issuance
of a building permit. Such structures shall have a
maximum height of twelve (12') feet when located
within ten (10') of the rear property line, are subject to
the maximum lot coverage requirement, shall have a
maximum covered area of 200 square feet and a
maximum perimeter dimension (on any one side) of
fifteen (15') feet.
(a) Subject to the issuance of a conditional use
permit, and bound by all conditions of
paragraph 1 above as well as any conditions
Page 4
D'\..\ZONINGTt,-.A.b4ENDarr gni\a&I •STAITREPORT•RE., DECKS ECC7cc
Src!rReport • Z7A
Ja cr. )i, )yY(,
imposed through the issuance of the use
permit, the above listed structures may be
constructed to the rear property line.
(2) Detached accessory structures, excluding garages and
habitable rooms, may be approved by the Planning
Commission subject to consent calendar plan review
approval. Such structures shall have a maximum
height of twelve (12') feet when located with ten (10')
of the rear property line and are subject to the
maximum lot coverage requirement.
(3) Properties Abutting Hellman Ranch and Gum
Grove Park - k'ooden Decks may be approved by
the Planning Commission subject to consent
calendar plan review approval Such structures
shall have a maximum height of twelve (12)feet
when located with ten (10') of the rear property line.
4S
Rear Yard Not Abutting Street:
District 1 96 ft *
District II 10 ft.
District V l0 ft ;
5 ft. may be provided, subject to the following
conditions:
(I) Detached accessory structures, excluding garages and
habitable rooms, may be approved by the Planning
Commission subject to consent calendar plan review
approval. Such structures shall have a maximum
height of twelve (12') feet when located with ten (10')
of the rear property line and are subject to the
maximum lot coverage requirement. Additionally,
•
such structures shall have a maximum covered area of
150 square feet and a maximum perimeter dimension
• (on any one side) of twelve (12') feet.
* Balcony and walkway may extend ten feet into this yard. Detached
accessory structures are permitted subject to the requirements of
§28-401.2.b.(1) above, provided such structures shall not be permitted
within the City sewer easement located in the area between 84 feet and 96
feet from the rear property line."
Page 5
D'\.-NZ:D.1HGTEXT, E mDmr►r's\%t •STAFF REPORT•Ru*D[eru IBC C7ee
Staff Repo,:- 771-1 96•I
Jania'- 17, 19y%
Additionally, the Commission should determine an appropriate amortization period for the
removal of structures which will not conform to the proposed provisions Staff recommends
varying amortization periods for any legally permitted structures versus illegally constructed
structures. Based on Commission direction staff will add an amortization provision to the
forthcoming resolution on this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT
Reallocation of staff resources to prepare appropriate Zone Text
Amendment application, and processing of application for public hearings before Planning
Commission and City Council.
Additional staff time to enforce the amortization provisions for structures which do not comp:
with the proposed provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission, after receiving both
written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, provide staff guidance as to how
to proceed with this proposal
Staff will incorporate any proposed additions'amendments and, with the City Attorney's oE:e.
will draft the specific wording of the new section, including amortization provisions This wwil',
return to the Commission at its next meeting in the form of a draft resolution recommend:7.2
approval to the City Council.
FORS January 7, 1996
Barry C. Curti ;Jr. Lee Whittenberk
AdministrativiAssistant Director
Department of Development Services Department of Development Services
Attachments: (2)
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-44
2. City Council Staff Report dated November 26, 1990 re Appeal of Planning
Commission Denial of Variance 5-90, 1733 Crestview Avenue
(a) Planning Commission Staff Report, Variance 5-90, dated
October 3, 1990
(b) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1599
(c) Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 1990
(d) Appeal by William Ralston, dated October 12, 1993
(e) Proposed Resolution No 3998
Page 6
D\..\ZpNwcTpRAm(irDirt NTS\a61.Sr*r Rt►D1rt•PLAN DECKS SCC7cc
•
•
RESOLUTION NUMBER 93. 44
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CONL\OSSI0N OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 92-6. ANiENDI\G
SECTIONS 28-400,28.700,28.800 TO PROHIBIT EXTERIOR )101
STAIRWAYS IN CONJUNCTION WITH SINGLE FAIRY {
DWELLINGS, SECTION 21.401 ESTABL1SHT:G SPECIFIC
SETBACKS FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, almileamin
SECTION 28.2316.2(H)INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
OF PROPERTY LINE WALLS FROM EIGHT(8)FEET TO TEN(10)
FEET LN SPECIFIED AREAS,AND,ADDING SECTION 26.233 1
ESTABLISHING A DEFINITION FOR'FENCE'
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY m
RESOLVE. Z
At its tnerings of Augur. 19, 1992, September 9, 1992. Occte•
21, 1992 and April 21, 1993,the Planning Commission,considered and approve;Zor•-E text
Amendment 92-6,amending Sections 26-400,28.700,28.800 to prohibit ex enor rain-z s :n j
conjunction with single family dwellings, Section 26.401 establishing specific se:ba:ks fir
detached accessory structures,Section 28.2316.2(h)increasing the allowable height of pro;e-t)
line walls from eight(6')feet to ten(10')fee: in specified areas,and,adding Sector.28.2::
establishing a definition for 'fence'.
Se:io-2 Pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs § 15305 and § II B of the
Cm's Lou' CEQA Guidelines.5 1R has determined as follows The appLation for Zonung Te>•.
Arnendmer.: 92-6 is ategorica'I) exempt from review pursuant tc the California En.-ro:-,.en:a'
Q.al::) Ac,pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Reis § 15305(Minor Alterations in Land L'se
Litr to:ions),because it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas w-:.. an
average slope of less than 20%,which do not result in an) changes in land use or dens•:'..and .
pursuant to § I5061(b)(3),because it car.be seen with c .a'nt) that there is no possa...:, tha• the
approval ma) have a significant effect on the environment
$en;;r 3 Dul) noticed public hearings were held b) the P,a--•-g Cc-.—.ss o-.
on August 19, 1992, September 9, 1992, October 21, 1992 and April 21, 1993. to co-s de-Zone
Tex: Arnendrner,: 92-6
Section 4 The records of the hearings on August 19, 1992,September 9.
1992,October 21, 1992 and April 21, 1993 indicate the following
(a) At said public hearings there was ora'and written testimony and evidence
received by the Planning Commission
(b) The proposed text amendments will revise the City's zoning ordinance and
enhance the ability of the City to ensure order!) and planned development
Section 5 Based upon the facts contained in the record,including those rated
in 14 of this resolution and pursuant to 4§28-400,26.700,26.800,26401,28.2316.2(h).
28-233.1 of the City's Code,the Planning Commission makes the following findings
(a) Zoning Tett Amendment 92.6 is consistent with the provisions of the
various elements of the City's General Plan According?),the proposed use is consistent. w•,:h the
General Plan The proposed amendments arc administrative in nature and wilt no: res.!: in
changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the Genera!Pur;
Ciro+a 30:re•ar1114 1117-1.
•
PkaararE Coreg...u.or ReL ;uu:r !:; S,•
2cr r.[Ter.Amen_ne.•4.
(b) The prohibition of extenor stairways in con;maior,w;:► single fa.
dwellings,when not located in a designated flood plain,will re jce the oppo:,ar,•:, fcr the
establishment of illegal dwelling units
(c) The establishment of specific setbacks for non-habitable,detached
accessory structures in residential zones will allow for the construction of such s:ructu•es
the rear yard setback to allow for additional privacy and sound attenuation within ren ya.cs cf
residential properties
• (d) increasing the allowable height of property line walls from eight (8')fee: tc
ten(10')feet in those areas specified in 128.2316.2(H)of the Las will allow for add;:io-a'
privacy and sound attenuation within rear yards of specified properties abuning major a-te-a'
streets and large vacant areas
(e) The addition of a definition of a fence will clarify ambiguity as to wh.:
structures constitute a fence under the provisions of the Las
(f) The proposed text amendments will not result in any significant adverse
impacts
section 6 Based upon the foregoing the Planning CornMssio he'e`•.
recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 92-6 to the City Council subject to the
following
1. A..icle 4 Section 28-400 of Chapter 28 of The Code cfthe Cry erSez'Bu: is hetet•,
amended to read
'$e:tion 28-400
A Permitted Uses
(1) One dwelling unit on each lot of record,
(2) Accessory buildings or structures including private garages to
accommodate no:more than three aatomob.ies.
(3) Flower and vegetable gardening.
(4) Animals and fowl as provided in Chapter 3 of this code.
(5) Home occupations,
(6) Twenty-four hour foster care homes,
(7) Small family day care homes,caring for up to six children
(8) Mobile homes in a mobile home park established by the issuance of
an unclassified use permit,
(9) Swimming pool used solely by persons residing on the site and their
guest
(a) Pool setbacks
(i) Side property line-4 ft
(ii) Rear property line-4 ft
(b) Mechanical pool equipment
e..nwaoaesrr.arm. ec.
Page 2
•
Pr r.tur,i Cor^rus.or keso:ulit h: S;• C:
Zon:r4 7cr,
(i) Setback one (1)foot frorr,property line and. ter (10)
feet from neighboring residence,or eight (II.)feet
from neighboring residence with sound atten.,at.or.
approved by City stiff
(ii) Heater vent not to extend more than 6 inches above
the nearest wall or fence
• (10) The following uses subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit
(a) Public utility buildings,
(b) Private churches,trwseurns,libraries,schools and colleges,
(c) Second dwelling uniu provided that the following
conditions are satisfied
(i) The lot or parcel contains an existing single fa.:.:?;
detached dwelling unit(the'primary dwelling unit')
and the second dwelling unit is looted within the
existing living area of the primary dwelling unit
'Living area'means the interior inhabitable area of
the primary dwelling unit,but does not tnclide
pages or accessory structures
(ii) The second dwelling unit provides complete.
independent living facilities for one or more persons
and includes permanent provisions for living s3eep:-g
eating. cooking and sanita:ior.
(iii) The second dwelling unit shall comply with a'; he:g'•:
setback, lot size,parking. and other a;,L able
requirements of this chapter
(iv) The second dwelling unit shall riot be sold,transferred
or assigned separately from the primary dwelling ur:
The owner of the lot or parcel aha''record a deed
restriction to this effect within thirty days aper the
approval of conditional use permit for the second
dwelling unit
(v) The applicant for the conditional use permit shall be
an owner-occupant of the lot or parcel upon which
the primary dwelling unit is situated
(vi) Any other conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission or City Council pursuant to Article 25 of
this Chapter which are not inconsistent with the
provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2
(d) Large family day care homes,caring for seven(7)to twelve
(12)children subject to the following regulations
O Seventy-five(75)square feet of outdoor play area,
and thirty-five(35)square fent of indoor play area
shall be provided per child The outdoor play area
shall be contiguous usable area,enclosed by a six (6)
rru
Page 3
PlarsinTT ssior Rest:J:.r S: 57-44
2cn ni Ter.Amen:--.:7.• 5:1.
foot high masonry, wa': Ar.) gate e-:r shat: be
securely fastened and self-closing
(ii) Large family da) care homes shall be operated ir.a
manner not exceeding the noise levels of the Cit) of
Seal Beach Noise Ordinance,nor shall such day ca-e
homes be operated in a manner that cons•.itutes a
noise nuisance to neighboring properties
• (iii) A permit shall not be granted for a large family day
care home that would be established within a 300 foo:
radius of any existing licensed large family day care
home,and within S00 feet of an airing licensed large
family day we home on the street for which the home
is proposed
(iv) All large family day are homes shall comply with a:l
regulations adopted and enforced by the State Fire
Marsha:l and the Orange Count) Fire Department
(v) The applicant shall submit a copy of the Orange
County Social Services License prior to the opera:,cr.
of the da) care facility
(vi) The applicant shad obtain.a City business bce-se pn:•
to the operation of the da) care facility
(vii) In addition to the two required covered parking
spaces. one on-site parking space shall be pro.-ded
for each employee other than the operator.and one
drop-off-pick-up space shatl be provided on-s::e er
immediately adjacent to the subject proper!)
Pursuant to Government Code Se^.ior,6585:2.the Cin Council fres th.a!
the second dweJ:ng unit permitted by this ordinance are deemed no:to
exceed the allowable densities for the lots upon which the) are locate:and
that such dwelling units are residen:ie uses which are deemed to be
consistent with the City's General Plan
B Prohibited Uses(single-famil) dwellings)
(1) Exterior stairways providing access from the round le.e'a-._or the
first floor to the second floor or above,when such stairways are no:
specifically required by the Uniform Building Code
However,exterior stairways may be permitted on single farnily
dwellings located within identified flood sones upon approve of a
consent calendar plan review by the planning Commission'
2. Article 7 Section 28-700 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the Ciro of Sea'Beach is hereby
amended to read
lection 28-700
A Permitted Uses
(1) All uses permitted in the RLD Zone
(2) Medium density residential uses
e..s.omCfr.arA„ .Cc.
Page 4
Ptatu:..na Corrxussior Acs:' :- +:: S:. tC
Zor.,r.E
(3) The foliowing uses subje:, to issuance of a Cord::,o Use
Permit
(a) Parking lots established in conjunction w•i:h the use of
nearby lots zoned commercial
(b) Conversion of existing apartments into condomiruurns
a
B. Prohibited Uses
(1) All uses prohibited in the RLD zone•
3. Anicle 8 Section 28.800 of Chapter 28 ofThe Code of the Cit% of Sea'list: is he•et
amended to read
'Section 28400
A Permined Uses
(1) All uses pertine;in the RLD and R.'+D zones.
(2) Apanment houses,
(3) The following uses subject to issuance of s Cond:ucri Use
Pern• ,
(a) Hotels law fJlly existing on J 't a.^y 1, 19E',
provided tha: a conditiona:use pe^ru: is ran.:ed
therefore on or before Januar) 1, 1966
(b) Fraternity and sorority houses,
(c) Prate clubs,
(d) Residential board and care facilities for no: more
than fifteen persons,
(e) Residential complexes of 150 uru:s or more ma\ be
permitted accessory commercial uses subject to the
follov.tng conditions and limitations
1. AU uses and services shall be designed for the
specific convenience of the residents and their
guests
2 All uses shall be conducted wholly within,an
enclosed building
3. All access to the accessory use shall be from a
lobby,patio,courtyard or interior walicuay
4 No signage for such accessory use shall be
visible from any public or pct ate street
S That a valid Cm business license shall be
obtained for all operations
cr..nnaomirivan+n. rr.
Page S
➢carr rs Corr.-.a:::. F.s :;_
(4) Other sirruh uses wluct. in the opiraor, of the P;a:-„rr
Con 't:ss;or. wOJld no: be de:ttmer:ta:to the
in which such uses would be located
B Prohibited Uses
(3) All uses prohibited in the RIM and RAID sones
•
4. Article 4 Section 28-401(2)of Chapter 28 oUJhe Code Oahe Cit r '
hereby amended to read b"2' is
12) Provisions varying by district
(a) Maximum lot_coverage
District l 60%
District Il 45%
District V 45%e•'
(b) YL d Dimers'ons(!•:-:m.r^s�
Front Yard Abutting Street
District 1 18 ft
Distracts II d V 18 fl fro.nt env-)
gr at.
10 f side en:r garage
Side Yard Abutting Street •
Districts 1,II& VI S% lot width.
Max.tmum required IC.f
Rear Yard Ab .••,-g Scree:and other Area Specified tr.Se:,o-.
2&•23162 (Hl-
Districts I L II 1 C f
D,stnct V 5 ft nv) be provided. s_`•e;:
to the following condi:,ors
(1) Detsched covered patio roofs.gazebos(over 5;°
of perimeter open)and sun screens(over SCx.of
perimeter open)are permitted subject to the
issuance ors building permit Such structures sha"
have a maximum height of twelve(12)feet when
located within ten(10')of the rear property line,are
subject to the maximum lot coverage requirement,
shall have a maximum covered area of 200 square
feet and a maximum perimeter dimension(on an)
one side)of fifteen(15')feet
•
(a) Subject to the issuance ors conditional use
permit,and bound by all conditions of
paragraph 1 above as well as any conditions
imposed through the issuance of the use
permit,the above listed structures may be
constructed to the rear property line
(2) Detached accessory structures,excluding garages
and habitable rooms,ma) be approved b) the
Pian.ung Commission subject to consent wends:
r,..oaxtar....m. cc:
Page 6
Pknr.,nt Comm,tsIor Res:';;:,_r
Zorunj Ter Amer.:.:::-.•5,4,
plan mew approva' Such.sru,ures she have a
maximun; he,gh: of twelve(12')fee: when loca:ed
_ with ten(10')of the rear property line and are
abject to the maximum lot coverage recr,:irecnen:
Rev Yard Not Abutting Street
District l 96 ft •
District II 10 ft
District V 10 ft ;
S It may be provided,subject to the follov.;ng
conditions
(1) Detached accessory structures,excluding garages
and habitable rooms,may be approved by the
Plaruting Commission subject to consent calendar
plan review approval Such structures shall have a
maximum height of twelve(12)feet when located
with ten(10)of the rear property line and are
subject to the maximum lot coverage requverne-:
Additionally,such structures she have a nrax,r..:-
covered area of 150 aq.tare fee:and a maxim„-.
penmeter dimension(on any one side)of twe:.e
(12')fee:
Balcony and walk va, may extend ten feet into this yad Dexached
accessory structures are perrraned subject to the req-ereme*.:s of
128-4:1 2 b(1)above,provided such structures shall no: be pe—.::ed
wi:h.r,the Cin sewer easement located in the area between 8e fee: and 9:
fee: from the rear propert% line
S. A..,:le 23 Section 28.28.23160)of Chapter 28 of The Code cf t'e C+rN c`Se:'br :' is
heret. arnended to read
'(H) len(10)Foo: Fences Jr.the fo::owi.g cases. ter (1C)f' :
high fences may be constructed where six (6)foot fences
are pert rutted by this chapter
(1) Between commercial and any resider,:ia' land.
(2) Along the following streets
Almond Avenue
Balboa Drive from Pacific Coast Highway to Bolsa
Avenue
Bolsa Avenue
Pint Street
Lampson Avenue
Marina Drive
Pacific Coast Highway
Sari Diego Freeway
Sea.'Beach Boulevard
Westminster Avenue
Properties which back to the 1-605'7th Street Connector
(3) For Security in the Following Areas
Back yards of Hill homes adjacent to,•s:an: He'-'ar lard
and Gum Grove Park
ewroaocarruarm• aa.
Page 7
P arrn�Come ssror
Zor.;nj Ter Amer.:.:.:-. S:.(.
East Flood Control.Chane:, Colle&e Pal, Eat!
Edson Park
—W'esi Fence of Leisure World'
6. Article 2 A new Section 28.233 1 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the Cir, of Su'Bez:' is
hereby added to read
'Section 28.233 1 Fence A freestanding device,structural or natural,
forming a physical barber by means of wood,mesh,metal.chain,masor7.
brick,slate,plastic,louvered glass or other similar material For the
purposes of this section a post,wood,metal or other,designed for use as a
physical barrier,shall be considered a fence"
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Se.a:Be.a:h
at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of September, 1993,by the following vote
AYES Commissioners pe"linen, Soukup, law, She;
NOES Commissioners
ABSENT Commissioners ••-
Anion DL.lr an. Cna:rrar.
Planning Corn.russior
Wnitter,berg Secre:ar)
Piar..ni^.g Com-.as:o-
CWIPS04112:11149•ILTM).• ICC
Page 6
•
� t S- 5a
November 26 , 1990
LE
"TA.s'F REPORT
mei
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Bob Archibold , Acting City Manager
From: Lee hhittenberg , Director of Development Service=
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — APPEAL OF PLANNING COY:Y..:ES: c ; rn
DENIAL OF VAFcIANCE 5-90, 1733 Crestview Avenue Z
mmi
Reccrrend!tio
N
After receiving all public testimony end considering the
recor..nendation of the Planning Commission , the City Council hes
the following options :
1 ) Sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission .
2 ) Sustain the appeal of hillier Ralston , reversing_ the
recor.,rendaticn of the Planning Commission .
3 ) If ne., additional facts are presented , the City Co..—c .
ray refer back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
On October 3 , 1990 , the Planning Corr.ission considered the abc e
referenced Variance . After receiving all testimony at the p: t: ic
hearing and extensive deliberations among the rer..bers of the
Commission , it was the determination to recommend denial of the
variance request on a 4-0-1 vote , with Commissioner Dahlran
abstaining . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1599 sets forth the
findings and determination of the Commission regarding this matter .
At tthe public hearing before the Planning Commission, the
applicant was the only person to present testimony.
An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission has been
• tiled by the applicant , William Ralston in a timely manner , and the
setter is now the City Council for consideration at a public
hearing . Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the
City Council , it is appropriate for the Council to sake a final
determination regarding this matter.
The City Council has the following options available in considerin:
this matter : •
1 ) Sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission .
2 ) Sustain the appeal of frillier Ralston , reversing t`.e
• recommendation of the Planning Commission .
3 ) If new, additional facts are presented , the City Ccun:i
ray refer back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
If the determination of the City Council is to sustain the
recommendation of the Plannino Commission , it would be appropriate
to adopt Resolution No. 13 5 y
If the determination of the City Council is to sustain the appear ,
reversing the recommendation of the Planning Commission , it wou:d
be appropriate to instruct staff to prepare a Resolution for City
Council consideration at the next regular meeting setting forth te
necessary findings , supporting facts , and conditions of apprcv=: .
If the determination of the City Council is to refer this ratter
back to the Planning Commission for further revie a-.=
consideration , the City Council should specify the particular areas
of concern which re;uire further review and evaluation ty t'.e
Commission .
For : Ncvenber 2E , 195_
I .
Lee h'.1ttenterg , D.re:tcr
Development Services Department
NC' D AND AP?RCVED
4 ;„<=75F-
Bob Archibold
Acting City Manager
ATTACHMENTS (5 )
Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report , Variance 5-
90 , dated October 3 , 1990.
Attachment B: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1599 .
Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes , October 3 , 199: .
Attachment D: Appeal by William- Ralston , dated October 12 ,
• 1990 .
Attachment E: Proposed Resolution N .
• • • •
ATTACHMENT A
October 3 , 1950
SLUT RrPCRT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Cor.-.issior
From: Department o: Development Services
Subject: VARIANCE 5-90
1733 CREST VI n+ AVENUE
•
cE.hERAL DESCRIPTION
j.tplice-t : Villiar A. Ralston
D�rpr: Sane
Lcce• ;c- 1733 Cres tvi e. Avenue
ClesEifiraticr
t` Frcperty : Residential L . Density (RLC )
A variance fr:r the rear and side yard
setback re;.:re,e-ts of the rode _of t`.f
r' se!: SeB:~ , (r=te ) , as pertaining to t!..c
Residential Lo... Density zone for District V .
This project is categorically exer.rt fro-
CFkh
roof SErt _ _rE 2E-4C.1 , 2E-2:.: :, 2E-2.C1 , 2E-2.:;
perc--e-. _: _c-. : Der.y Variance re_. est 5-50 .
• On Aug.:st 27 , 195:1, Willis- A. Ralston filed a- applicat: cn
with the Derertr. ert of Development Services for Variance
.request 5-50 .
• Specifically, the applicant is requesting a variance fror
the rear and side yard setback requirements of the
Residential Low Density (RLD) sone , District V, for a ncn-
pernitted patio deck that has been built to the property
lines.
• The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel nu .:er
199-151-15, Is located in the Residential Loi.' Density (X:..t )
sone , on a trapezoidal lot (front: 60.13' ; east side :
134 . 55' ; vest side : 155.30' ; rear: $2 .78 ' ) .
•
e,%WM 011.1i111:T.w•.-a.•
Staff Report - VAF 5-5 :
October 3 ,
Page 2 c: c
• The sutje:t property contains a single tinily residence a-.:
a detached 'quest Douse" which is legally considered a= an
extension of the single far..ily dwelling .
• On Decerbcr 22 , aal! Building Inspector Chuck Teenstra
• issued a Stop Work Order (see Exhibit "A" ) for the nor,-
perr..itted and illegal patio additior, built within the
property's rear and side setbacks .
• Sutse;uent to the issuance of the afcrenentioned Stop her;.
Order the applicant , with knowledge and cor..rlete disregard
cf the Stop Werk Order , continued and con;leted centtruoti
cf the patio deck .
• City staff initiated a Code enforcerent case against tne
s'ut jest property in January of 195: . Do tc lack of
cooperation on the part of the property owner , the ratter
was forwarded to the City Attorney 's office in Kay of
(see Ex.`.itzts "E" , "C" , and "D" ) .
• The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows :
Single farily dwellings located it the
WEE Pesidential Lc•.• Density zone , (P_. ) .
W;,F.TY. Hellr.ar property located in the Fellr.t- Fen:-
Specific Plan Regulatory zone , (5Fn ) .
qtr:IPOh'YZ TA.. FI Vi
This project is eete_crically exer.rt frog. CEPA review (Cal :-- _ a
Adr_n_.trative Lsde , Section 153:: ) .
EZOI:IP.ED EYOkINS5 TOP A vAF.IAN:I
Section 2E-2500 of the Cole erpoti•ers the Planning Cor..r_ission witn
the authority to grant variances when strict and literal
Interpretation of the rode results in practical difficulties ,
unnecessary hardships , or inconsistencies with the general
purpose of the rode .
Before any variance say be granted , Section 2E-2502 of the Code
rewires affirrative showings of proof for each cf the following :
el vr... vau..s...o. .101
•
Steil Report - vAY 5-5 :
October 3 , 15 :.
Page 3 of E
(1 ) Such variance shall not adversely affect the general ;: an :
This request is consistent with the General Plan.
(2 ) because the special circur..stances applicable to the
. property, including size , shape , topography , location or
surroundings , the strict application of this chapter
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the sane vicinity and zone :
There are no special eircurstances aprlicatle tc this
property which deprive it of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the sane vicinity and zone . Frier
to the construction of the patio deck , the residence
was developed in conforr..ity of the setback
requirements . No special eircurstances exist as tc
require a setback variance allowing encroa:hrent int:
the setback . There are presently 43 properties
sir..ilarly situated along Crestview Avenue , Surf Piece
and Coastline Avenue . The granting of this request
would set a precedent for all such properties and
severely lirit the City 's atility to enforce setbacy
re;.rirer.ents for all properties containing a
significant grade differential .
( 3 ) The granting of such variance shall not constitute a gra-.:
of special privilege inconsistent with other lir..itetic-.s
u;:n other properties in the sane vicinity and zone .
The granting of this variance request would constitute
the granting of a special privilege . It would allc.
the applicant to encroach into the required rear a-.:
side yard setbacks to the pcint of zero lot line
construction . Such approval would be wholly
inconsistent with the rode and the City 's past and
present policy of requiring strict corpliance with
setback requirements .
DIS^USSIDN
The applicant is requesting this Variance to allow an illegally
constructed patio deck to encroach into the required rear and
side yard setbacks . Section 26-401 (2 ) (b) of the rode requires a
tan (10) foot rear yard setback and a five (5 ) foot side yard
setback . The illegal patio deck has been built out to meet or
exceed the rear property line and a portion has ,been built out tc
Staff Report -
October 3 , ] _
Page 4 cf E
the property line to the east (see Exhibit "E" ) .
In snaking its findings , staff has concluded there are no spatia:
Circumstances that warrant granting the variance and in the ccEE
1t is granted such granting would constitute a special privile;E .
Aps.iel Circumst Er,oee :
Section 2E-25C2 ( 2 ) of the rode requires findings supporting the
existence of sore special circumstance applicable to the properly
that deprives the property the same privileges enjoyed ty other
property in the sate vicinity and tone . Properties to the east
and west of the aptlicant 's are sir..ilarly toned and situated
along the slope that borders the Hellman Ranch property and Cu-
Grove . The lots are sir.ilarly shaped , have single far.ily
residences , and sore have patio decks extending over the rear
slope . There exist no special circumstances attributable tc t!,e
applicant 's property that are different to those properties in
the sere vicinity and tone that warrant the granting of a
variance .
NC:E: Several cf the afcrerentioned properties contain a Fat: c
deck sir..ilar to that of the subject property . However , each c`
these decks has been built according to plans reviewed ant
approved ty the Building Departure-t and observe the rear and site
yard setback reguiretents of the rode .
It may be argued that the slope is a special eireur..stance .
However , the existence of the slope does not necessitate
disregard of setback requirements . The topography of the slope
in no way prohibits the construction of the deck within the
required setbacks . The City has had a long standing policy of
requiring and enforcing encroachments into required setbacks
regardless of vicinity or tone . While enforcerent reduces the
usable area of the rear yard it does not deprive the applicant
the use of the property. Enforcerent of the setback require-e-t
would be the same regardless of the rear being level or sloped .
jpetial privilege :
faction 28-502(3 ) requires the granting of a variance not
constitute the granting of a special privilege . The granting of
the applicant's request would constitute a special privilege . If
granted , the applicant would enjoy a privilege not normally
enjoyed by similarly situated neighbors nor all those residents
of teal Beech restricted by setback requirements .
•
it,wind;ve,u.�.w►.—a.•
Staff Report - Vt.P 5-5 :
October 3 , � 55 �
Pa;E I c: E
cher Considerations :
In prior discussions , r+er..bers of the Flaming Cor.r.ission ha-:e
expressed equitable concerns regarding this particular case .
Concerns over the money expended by the applicant in the
construction, of the deck , the cost related to bringing the de:}
Into confcrnity with the rode , and the overall question of
fairness have been raised .
Without question, there will be costs associated with er.forci';
the setback re;uirer.,ents . It is Staff 's opinion these costs are
self ir.rosed by the applicant 's atter.pt to bypass the estatlis'.€ :
re_uirerents of tne rod . Had the applicant fcllo-.e=
the proper procedure of filing plans , obtaining perr..its , end
having the job inspected , the deck would have been built in
ccnforr..ity with the previsions of the rods . Therefore , since t,'.f
applicant placed hir..self in this position , he rust take
responsibility for his ir..proper actions by renedying the
situation. It would be unfair to the rest of the citizens cf
Seal Beach who are forced to adhere to the requirements of the
;ode tc have the deck rer.ain in its present state .
Fele:ef Staff Concerns :
Staff 's investigation cf the illegal deck has revealed a n.zr.tEr
of toe violations in ad::ticn tc those discussed above the
Planning Ccr.r.issicn sho:;ld be a..are of as related Stens . These
violations are as fcllo�s :
• The applicant without subritting plans , obtaining rere:
perr..its , or having inspected hes constructed a patio cover
that encroaches into the required side yard to the property
line (see applicant 's plans Exhibit "F" ) .
• The applicant has a self professed "quest house" . This
raises the specter of a possible illegal unit .
• A "lean to" shed has been located within the required side
yard .
• While the applicant's plans show the patio deck at the rear
property line , there remain questions regarding encroachr.,e-t
onto the Mellaen Property such that a survey should be
conducted to detercine the property line and thus the proper
rear sethack.
•
Staff Rer:rt - 5_c:
O:tcber 3 , lc=_
Pa;e E C: f
•
SZCO?�r.E JA`ION
Staff recor..rends the Planning Cor..r..ission deny variance re;Jes t :-
00. Stab 's request is based on the following:
• • The request does not meet the three State randated taming:
required for the granting of a variance. Specifically,
these is no special property related circur..stence which
deprive the property at 1733 Crestview Avenue fror enj:y:r.=
the privileges as other property in the sane vicinity ant
tone and , the granting of this request would constitute e
greeting of a special privilege.
• Reccn-,erde t:or, to the City Council to instruct the City
Att:-nEy tc pross-L•te th-se a`c a listed Viclaticns c' t`.E
gc a which are n:t corrected within thirty (3G ) dei: Cf t.'.=
denial of this ret:Jes t .
Denial cf Variance 5-50 should be thro::cn the ad:ptic- of
Reseptic'. Vc.
TC-r.: October 3 , 15 :
E. nae: C. Cr.. E=rr . C. Curti:
A:rinistrative Intern Adnf�ristretive Assistant
Der: . cf Dcvelornert Services Dert . of Develc; a-.t ServiceF
•
Lee h;itterberg /'
Director
Dept. of Developnent Services
Attachnents : rode Sections
Exhibits
Plans
Application
Resolution No. 1599
•
e,w\..ai.:-r,.....—S
"..--1
F-4 C‘*1C41 .
i 44-4
�, c : L
C. a u L.
; v = F
I I i =
�o F
n el r
� J 1 01 CZ ` �
G
S I N �►
11
t
�. L.) . 1 E
nc ? • ,' _
cow A : ` 71 z
1.i.' 6.1' I •
c IN t L
c
C ! I z ) s `
L
V = ' ; 1 =
.. • k. 1
1 I )- Zi; tk i a \JF) i
. J ' 1
•
L
— r le�,f4¢�f�t� IJ •
�' Sa •s-� ---:�r!•Ste— — _ .. �.t _..�.-1:1—��,,•'`�I' ==� t,�, -
January 11, 1990
C'P7171m, 1 p-5E5-019-31E • Pr71:Fn Rr:'Elp7 Rr';:'re;r:.
E;:llis A. Pe'.s:c-
1133 Cies:vie: Avenue
Sea: Sea:'. Ce: 3 c:-.1a 9:74:
Des: . . Fm:s:c- :
C`- DIE:fl':* 3E , 15E-, Jnspe-:cr C`,:ci Fe:'ns.rt asset-!a Et:4 : : •
defc: a- L-,pt . . F an! : le;b. pb :c a ren a: Vsif see: c _.
proper:}' a: 1%3? Cres:vie: Ave-:e, Sea: bear'. (en:lose! . Constr.:::ic•.
un!te::ae-. 6.::h::t pier arta:nr*-: of a F.il::n: Per-:: is a v:::atirn cf
Sertic- $-f cf 7''f Ce cf C:ty of Sea: Fear`.. ie::io-, 2E-4:: of t-.e
Cod,, re:_isc•s a rem: ya:d sf:i,t:R of ten (1:1 feet ire- the p:cper%. 1 :-x , r :
s rtureS r.= to .ecrs:ri:C.ed L'i:!::n t.'.if area. The City is re:_.r:n; t'a•
the i!le:a: a:=:ticn be re-+cve: prier t: F:ide , Fe::eery 2, 19::.
Att.t:C-.a:1;', the let- she c:-s:rw::e- alc-: the pro rty's wester..
is sl :e:m: an'_ r.:s: bE re:crate! or re-.:':e=. Se::io- 2E-4:: of the C:
tr_;:::es a sid* ya:d se:tom:R c: five (5' feet fro- the propert) line .
Fa .re tc CC.;:y a:11 ret i- this matte: bEin: forgs:de: t: t`e
Attorney. •
Please contort Barry Curtis in the Depe:trent of Development Services a: (?: :
431-25' , tvt. 21( within five (5) days of your re:e:p: of this tette: .
neer
44
&arty . ,1i
, Jr.
Adr.i .strative Assistant (Planning)
(Enclosure
•
C:WFDA7A\GOOF-LhF\17332t57.ZOv:BCC:Dc
EXHIBIT 13
..".44', . ,..,1142;oirEZIEL ;..• . . ....... .. , ..•......,A t.-,;.w•.. 4Q.,,,;,..,y, .... . 1,....
'..•lop......•riC 'r • -/ • .OIL..ow 41:rowo..•
ti;
Lr-'�..:!,,, Vii. .j 4.3.:3451.7-4°""`"—...4 —V.&..�yi.t 17?.rr•-••• .i'sT• • '_7 :' '['rr; �+t
....1.:.•�►� •L.,• � •('F Gti.� ._ tie
t z=�...� .- - : s .T+t3F • - _ -�_. r!.:.�i•:rS-�i 7.'ir.,r1/4"-: !:r+*
„...' -- k__ =- _-'-i—tea.-' — - . y ' .. • - •• S.r..... .
January 19, 199:
CTP73F)T:• I P-SE5-4'15-322 • Fr7.,='. n:11;7 Pr;:!S7r
Killia.- A. Palstcn •
1733 Crestvie. Av--Lc
Set: IFe:h, Ce: 7::rnie 9:-::
Dee: f.lr . Fit:St:...
Tnerti. yc: ter yc:: P::r;: at ter:::-. .. r, 3e-:e r de:E, fen:a:: 31 . 39
After inspE't3'' your prop ?y t: ;%::a C?Es: :If. X..f....f. tnC• Cit)' is re: ... .
thf fello.:-1; C::7re:tions b ro::
3 . The ra:sed dirk e: the rES: c' the property mit be se: t.er>. tc-
(1C'' tee: fro- the P:::se :. line. Plans fcr the de:k r.us: L.e
s::+--ittfd and ai::e:tr t; the De ertrent o1 Dev[1C -t Se::.:t: .
2. The roc! over the d:: rc- al n; the property's wester s7'1f r.!
be re-cve_ tc p::v:di the Ttni e'. five (5) fort side ya:_
sftbe:k.
3. The fixed caned (*•trio cover) alcn: the pr*perty's western s::-
:res: be relocate: t: prr,v f the r ':ire_ five (5) fo:: sE:to:•..
Th* City is re;:irino that plans for the cons:ru:tics and relo:a:fen Cf t`.e
deck be sub-.itted to the Dope:trent of Develop-•-t Services by Fride, ,
February 23, 1990. Furtherrcre, ala three cf the above-rentione! centitio .s
must be vet by Friday, Parer 23, 199 .
3f you have any questions or co"rents :ege:dins this matter, pleas.. feel free
to call Pe et (213) d31-2527, ext. 22k.
Si rel ,
i •
Derry .1(;:/17
;r i;: r. '
AS-.i 4st ative. sistant (Planning)
t
C:‘IPTPDATA\ZCY\3 7333837.2:1CC:be !
EXHIBIT C •
RiOKARDS, WATSON a GERS►1DN
•+•►o•�rs .• �.,.
h+.ar".4.0.41..••OOo
.• Imo•�s. ••••••••••• r►• .„ $ JV-••Ori t'•►[r
a..r t••.G..r.• •• � &.Dt•WGtC.408 0•••.•attct .•aft
.r ••.•w au+«s. r �+r•�
�• •••. . - • t 113•1•11.••••113•1•11.•••••0•••:..c•.s Ocie--••.►� � 3
f-I .,r••a�r�rw` �La ae • I••16/ • a.s.• ar••.•.r r.j r.<.
.c.,
wo...a• •••,••• • `r•r•a ••• as.oftmodcas.c.c CKs ••' +0+• •1,t-
rr..•. a.•+•-• •••c.. •a. ••- ..
'aa aa.•• ...
swam•
•••s••■•-• Or..•• 11••••••• E a y 30, 1950 •.. .
•►ted^• +• •iI • .••r•
M•O-r r•••..••••.• r.••••
!c�.J •�•�t atirOr• •••y►
n r a acs a r..,•-
•• sr.• •.o • a..o.a,.•
w...• •••r• •...c • 5. .
•--•• 1••••••co- • •aa••
w•r• . w.,..•.- am.-• anc••••s•••
110.1-••• •u- r r-.• AA..
Er . w.l . . e A. Ra :et
1%33 Cr es tvie- ��•e-.',:f
Sea: bean , Ca: if:r ._a 5 • 74 .
Re : 1%33 Cres. a. Ave-..;e: 1:n;_e -- .tie= de :;.
Dear Mr . Ralst:.. .
Yc'.: have re:e :ve: a n_-.te: c: letters retad ' n= a-
ille;a: der.X that has been t•: lt in the rear yard of the at: . e -
:e-.ticnee property. As c...ne: cf that pr crest? , yc.: are
responsible for any ec_e v• z: at• cns. that exist there:-. .
The deck you have built re;,:ired a building perr.it
prior tc its ccnstr•:ctic-.. City of Seal beach r�r.icipa: Cc_f
Section 5-6 . Fvzther ,, it encroaches into the re;.:ired side a-.=
rear yard setbacks estat: ished for your district . City c: Seg :
Beach Municipal Code Se:tion 2E-4C: .
It should be a relatively sir..ple matter to submit Fla-.s
for the deck and to relocate it slightly to ensure that the
City 's setback re. .;ire:ents are ret. Thus , you should s::brit tr.c
appropriate plans as soon as possible , but no later than dune 15 ,
1990.
Please be advised that violations of the City 's
Municipal Code are misdereanors punishable by a fine of one
thousand dollars ($1 , 000. 00) 'or six months (6) in jail or both
for every day that the violation continues . It is the City 's
policy first to attempt to resolve such matters informally.
Thus , I would strongly urge you to contact the City Luediately .
•
EXHIBIT D
60A* $, WAr& i a aeas..oti
Mr. Millin: A. Ralston
May 30, iss0
Page 2
Otherwise , given yo::: arparent failure to ackno•..led;e the Ci t;
atterpts to resolve this tetter, I will have to consider tay:-,_
arrropriate legal action.
Ve- •
::
M. Cogan
IS. s'
.., ... •. ily
E2
i.
'ite////////////jell ic.)
6
co o„,„„,.. G L. c
. Cr E
1 / �
i 1
�1 /
C
1 /:.
i 4
! i r\I' &Wit
Vi /E / /,' . t
Zr'
a v.
L.
/� I '---) is
,.,; .
i
V '
r9 3 ,o , ,u .
c
., a '‘ 1 '----- :„..)
Q ti
EXHIBIT E
ENCROACHMENT: PATIO COVER
g iga`
• • n
ir) t..;*/
Ti
! I
I 13
1 01',419
.'xz
):3ma- 1 �p,du Fr
Fti+l7/01/y
•
roP ✓/Iis/
EXHIBIT F
ATTACHMENT B
PSSDLt?ION MUMMI, 1599
A PLSO..t?IDN OT THE MAMMY: COMX:ss
OF TML CITY OF PLA. SLA:y
DrwyIMC VARIAN:I RSOJLS7 /5-SO
A RSO'.:LS7 SO =N:RA:M MO TWE RSO-IR=
TIYL tDO7 SIDI TAAD sLTSAcx AND
TIN TOO/ RL►f PARD sE?$A:V P09 AY
ZL1.IGAL PATIO DLcx AT 1733 CRISTVILw
?MI PL.NKIN; COMMISSION OT TML CITY OF &L►l 'LACY DOLS ML:.L°
RISDIVL:
"tXrAS, Cr August 27. 1590, Willis? A. Ralston tile: •-
•p:lication with the Department of Developser,t Service:
for Variance request IS•50. Specifically, the •p;::ca-:
is requesting to deviate trot jr.e tete ef t►e cit, c'
• Seal Set-t2, Section 29-IC1(2)(b), which req::re( te-
(1C' ) toot rear yard setback and five (5' ) foot a:de ya-:
setback In the Residential Lo. Density tone of C:str:::
V. to ration •n illegally constructed. pet:c de::
to the property lines.
MtirF.LAS, The patio deck in questiot was cor.s:ru:tet N::•.:.-
perrits, plans and inspections: and
IenRLAS. The suis:t property. legally described as 1st 399 c'
Tract 2$9;,; ar.d
M??LF.LAS, The spa:ific sorting reg:letions governing Tract 2!$: are
set font it Section 2S-1:1 (2)(5) of ;►e torte tf t•c
t! fee_ See_.. The ull re;. :res • te- (1:
setts:k axon; the pace: 's rear property line and a 1..c
(5' ) foot setback It the side yard; and
M'r.If.Li.S, The s:rro:nd:n; lard uses and tonin; are IS fc::o.s :
Sc.:t., Las: - Single lazily residences it tte
i west Residential Lo► De-ssty (R ; 2:•c .
Hutto - We:lsa- Ranct. property.
MtiEF.LAS , The Plan-in; Cestissio- held • d::y notice:
Maar:n; or. October 3, 299: and vote: to der) Var:a-.:e ft-
SC: ant
MERLAS, The Planning Coss:ssior, sakes the fellovong ford:n;s :
1. The request does not see: the three State (undated
tandings re;aired for the granting of a Varier.:. .
Specifically. there are no special property-relate:
clrcusstances 111301 deprive the property et 1/2:
Crestview Avenue fros enjoying the privileges as
other property In the ease vicinity and sone end
the granting of this request would Constitute •
granting of special privilege.
2. This request is inconsistent with the req.iresen.ts
of ?se rode e! the ?its• e! tee_ Sea-r whoth re;::re:
ten (IC' ) toot rear yard setbacks and five (5' ) icc
side yard setbacks.
Pant
Pesclutier A:. 1,5;
PO+:. TMLAt?OrtE SI IT SISOLVLD that the Planning Costistio- c' tr.t
City of teal Mach does hereby deny Variance IS-!: and re:etrcr.:s
to the City Council that they instruct the City A:tern*/ t:
prosecute the following violations of are tete t' t e e_ty e' er_•
which are rot corrected within thirty (3C) days of tr,t de-.:a.
of this Vaguest:
1. The applicant, without subritting plans. oz:a:r.:r.:
Ve;::ired persits, or Raving inspections, Conttru:te: a
. patio de:k that Itneroathes into the required rear yar:
Setbacks.
2. A •lean to• shed has Seen located within the re;::re:
side yard setback.
• 2. Wile the applieent's plans show the patio de:ti a: t't
rear property line, there Tesa:n questions re;art.r.;
encros:Ment onto the he:lean property suct that a s:r:t:
should be conducted to dete•c:ne the property lint a•.:
thus the proper rear setba:k.
PASSID, APPADVL: Aa: ADPADM= by the Panting Cem:ss:c•. c: tt.c :. .
c' tea: lea:t et a setting tiered held on the l/tt dad e:
1fs:, by the talion:ng vote:
AYES: rr,: i wr_:r1v _stars 1_it
Alc-i,:K: tn':-t•
APSLN
f'. :::j fife Cr.l.rra-
Piar.•.;ng cr_-:ss:c
Lee w-.:tte-.berc, St:re:ary
P:anr.:t.; Co:-.:ss:cr
ATTACHMENT C
Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3 , las:
. 3. VARIANCE f5-90
1733 YS 7'YI L 1+
,Ls0147I1oh No. 1599
Staff Re;=rt
i Mike Cho delivered the staff report on Variance 15-s: . ' r,e
applicant , Killiar. Ralston, requests a variance iron the zea- a•.=
side yard setback requirer. ents of the municipal rods . A ccr rectic-,
vas Sade on page 2 , para;rarh ? , to 019E9" not "19SSO". Tte steff
report noted this deck was built without any perr.its and it
encroaches into the rear and side yard setbacks . Staff reconnenCs
the Planning Co w-.ission deny Variance request I5-9: with a
recornendeticn to the City Council instructing the City Attcrnti
to prosecute the retie violations not corrected within thirty dEir
of denial of this request .
rc-- ec ' Cc--e-•
Chairr..an Fife asked why the quest house was mentioned? Y.: . C'.:
stated the quest house was mentioned only to alert the Plann.:-.=
Cor.nission tc its existence due to the con-.unity concern re ille;= :
units . The quest house is really • pool house and was perr.,itte: .
It doesn't have a kitchen .
Ccrr.issioner Sharp asked about the do; run. Mr . Cho explained the
plans shote a dog run along the back side of the quest house ,
running along the "lean to" shed . The shed intrudes into the se:
back . Mr . Cho ex;lained the "lean to" shed 's encroachr. ent has a
rcdt en,fcrcer.:ent action being processed against it .
Connissioner Dahlman said 'this in now a very corplicated issue
involving building out the patio, patio deck in the side yer.
setback , irrelevant guest house . Mr. Cho explained the existir,-
quest house could raise the specter of an illegal unit and staff
telt It was their responsibility to infers the Planning Corriss: cn
of its existence . Cor.r..issioner Dahlran explained the quest house
was there when Mr. Ralston purchased the Douse .
Commissioner Sharp asked staff about 'granny flats" . Staff
explained the rode alloyed 'granny units" which are attached or
detached separate living unit which can be allowed on Al sone:!
properties . It does require additional off-street parking to be
provided and Conditional Use Permit approval through a Putlic
Nearing. Pool/quest houses are common for changing areas . ?'t.as
pool house is legal and permitted. ,; �
rCommissioner McCurdyMCdsaid he is concerned because this tate. has
been continuing since last December . He asked staff why this has
been going on for ten months without any action being taken to no•..?
Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3 , 199;,
Coznissioner Dahlman said •The applicant has not had a chance tc
speak Mr. McCurdy - I think he 'll answer that question very
appropriately for you". Corsissioner McCurdy said "1 don't knc.
why the City shouldn't answer it - why they haven't taken attic7.
before this - not the applicant taking action" . Corr..issie-ter
Dahlman said his Inforration is that when Mr . Ralston pot the Stop
Work Order he stopped and not what Mr . Cho just tele tt,E
Coznission.
Cor..nissioner Orsini noted the applicant got the Stop Mork Order ,
City letters , City Attorney letters . Was there any cor_r.uniceticn
back to staff? Mr . Curtis said in January or February the
applicant contacted staff and staff inspected the site . Ste! :
= informed hir of what had to be done. The applicant asked staff for
a time schedule of 3C to 6D days . Staff told hir to stop all wcr►
. being done . A railing was added for safety reasons but this di :
violate the Stop Work Order . Mr . Curtis said the o:ner indicate :
a contractor did do the work.
put-lir Hearin:
Yilues Fe '. stcr • 1/23 Crertvie. • Seel Beach
Mr . Ra/ston addressed the Stop Work Order which was delivered t:
his bore on Decerber 12 , 1990. No work has been done since the-. .
• The deck was built as a replacerent to a belly rotted out
• This deck is a little tights and more extended . Other propertiez
{ on Crestvie: have structures like his . kr . Ralston said "When the
three of us built that we didn't knot we were in rode violation ,
it was not something to try and evade the workings of the City" .
ire contacted Berry when the Stop Work Order was issued . He che:>,et
out the property end told us sore things that needed to be dc-.e .
Mr . Ralston said "There steed to be sore question as tc what the
violation really was".
Corr.issioner Sharp asked Mr . Ralston if Barry Curtis told hir the:
if he put a wall up on the property line that he would be perr..itte:
to build a deck out to it? Mr. Ralston replied "No."
Chairr,an Fife asked if Mr . Ralston's property sloped don to►arC
the retaining wall? Me replied it did and that there is about a
twenty-four foot drop at a severe angle. The railing is for safety
because of the steep drop at the end of the deck .
Chairman Fife asked Mr. Ralston ii he had had his property line
surveyed and if the retaining wall is on his property line? Mr .
• Ralston said "Only fror some previous surveyors marks . , The
retaining wall is somewhere between 1 ' to 1 .5' angled back; The
1 deck vas built according with that plan."
Page 13 - planning Commission Minutes of October 3 , less
Kr. Curtis said structures cannot be built within required
setbacks . aasic network , like concrete , is allowed to extend tc
the property lines . Raised materials must meet the required
setbacks . w;')en soil Is retained over a certain height sefety
fencing Is required at 42 inches high. The *aximur back fill kr .
:Ralston could put in would be 61/2 feet. Kr. Ralston could have a
ten foot wall with 3h feet being wall and 61 feet being reteinir.:
and that would be considered similar to flat work . He could raise
the land 61/2 feet. The base of the deck, from the grade level ,
according to staff 's measurements , Is approximately 121 feet tics. .
Above that is a 31/2 foot fence. The footings are fairly level tint.
grade , sticking up about 6". The portion of the deck walked on is
12h feet above grade.
•
• Commissioner Dahlman clarified with ?!r. Curtis that if Kr. Rals:cr
were to extend his yard on the level out to his property line ht-
would not be alloyed to build this deck ; lar . Curtis agreed . M: .
Curtis said staff inspected every yard along Crestview:. Ncne c`
the existing decks infringe upon the rear setbacks — they are t : :
set back ten feet trot, the property line . This was the only de:,.
that cores to the property line and infringes into the sette =). .
The grade differential rakes the optical difference . Mr . Cr.:
said "It has been brought to ry attention that there are severe :
encroachments into the Hellman Ranch property however , that is a
• civil natter and is not under the jurisdiction of the City in terrr
of telling then to rove beck off the property. But in terns cf
this actual structure , the City , under the rode , does have the
obligation to rove that back within the required setback" . Mr . Cr.:
noted the encroachments sere not structures but fences , weals ,
trees . rJx.t t 77 F s
Cot.:.i ss i ones Dahlman said "I think sore of the confusion i s , rr .
Chairman , if you ask Pr . Curtis if there 's a structure there the-:
he doesn't include a retaining wall as a structure . A deck flat
with your property level — I never thought of that as a structure
but I understand now tonight that it is . The letter of these rules
is getting so detailed . . . if you just take a look at this backyard
the deck simply extends the normal elevation on this property bari
to the property line . If it were flat and he had a fence between
him and the neighbor . . . I 'r now informed the City would object tc
a deck being built to within anything closer than ten feet fro-
that fence . . . every house on that side of that street have similar
topography and a ten foot requirement is very tough. So I wonder
if there is sone middle ground here that can be found".
Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3 , 19i:
•
f ; Commissioner Sharp, to Corr..issioner Dahlman, cited many •xar;les
of applications and j'odt enforcement matters that had cone be: cre
the Planning Comr.ission and had to be refused due to setbe:).
Iraquirer er,ts .
Mo one wishing to speak further on this matter , the Public Hetrir:
was closed .
Iper_•;scion [o-- ail
Chairrnn Fife noted the enormous differences in the degree tc
which an owner can use his lot depending on what planning district
he's in. He syrpethized with this applicant 's having to give t;
: ten feet of his lot when he 's got only vacant land behind hir .
Mr. whittenberg indicated the Cor.r_isfion , when reviewing war ie-:e
IE-E9 , requested staff to conduct a noise analysis or. rand:-
properties abutting arterials with differing heights of wale t:
see if the height of the wall made a difference as to noise
entering the beck yard off Pacific Coast Highway. Mr . Whittenber=
said staff could include the properties such as this one w*.i c'.
becks to the Hellren Ranch in the noise study. Cor..r.issioner Shar;
said Crestview could not be considered the sere as Pacific Cots:
Hi;h ey because Pacific Coast Highway is developed and Crestvie .
backs open property --- the Hellran Ranch property.
Cor.rissicner Orsini said this arplicent built without plans a-.:
without perrits . He said "We just turned down/delayed a plan the:
cor..plied with ordinances and now we 're looking at giving a Variance
to soretring that hasn't even had a perrit?" Corr.issioner Da`.lrt-.
asked staff � if Kr . Ralston would incur a penalty for not gett:n:
his Variance before building? Mr. Curtis said "Jo there will n::
be . If he did turn in an application for a building perr..it there
would be double fees which , for a deck of this size , are pretty
sinute - seybe $3C extra . But as far as any type of fine for
building without proper permits he would not (owe ) at this tire
because we (City ) have not begun an official rode enforcerent
(action) or actual litigation on this rote violation" .
Commissioner Sharp asked if the City Attorney had officially file:
(an action) then would it be a different matter? Mr. Curtis said
'Yes".
• Kr. Curtis , addressing two Items , said (1 ) different setbacks in
the different planning districts in town are due to the size of the
lots . Old Town lots are 3 , 000 square feet and Kr. Ralston's lot
on the Hill is 10 ,000 square feet and (2 ) referring to the Stop
Mork Order, Kr. Curtis explained that the Building Inspectors felt
the deck was incomplete at that time . Kr. Ralston he explaiped tc
Mr. Curtis he had been out of town and bad not had • chance to
finish it yet . Staff 's second inspection showed the deck to have
been corpleted and that's why staff indicated it was in violation
of the Stop Work Order . But if Mr. Ralston states nothing else was
1 done staff will not argue that point.
Page 15 - planning Commission Minutes of October 3 , 1950
PCTION by £burp; SECOND by Orsini to deny Variance 15-90 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 1599 and to recommend to the City
Council that they instruct the City Attorney to prosecute the
following violations of TN. Code of the City of Seel Beech .
wtich are not corrected within thirty (30) days of the denial c'
ibis request :
1 . The applicant , without submitting plans , obtaining
required permits , or having inspections , constructed e
patio deck that encroaches into the required rear yard
setbacks .
2. A •lean to" shed has been located within the required
side yard setback .
3 . %Chile the applicant 's plans show the patio deck at the
tear property line , there retain questions regarding
encroachment onto the Hellman property such that a survey
should be conducted to determine the property line end
thus the proper rear setback .
MDTION CARRIED: 4 - 1
AYES : Orsini , Sharp, McCurdy , Tiff
AESTAIN : Dahlme-
Cor:i ss i c'.er Da`._r.an ccr-e-ted that he could not support the rotion
because Mr . Curtis said staff is currently starting tc loo). at t'.€
inequities associated with o. ners on steep slopes at Crestvie• .
Mr . Sharp said he suspected Mr . Curtis ' cor.rent was just a ecr.rf- _
because there is no Planning Corr.ission action in effect at the
;resent tire which hes instructed anybody on staff tc perfcrr a-,
work on this . Cor.r.issioner Sharp advised the applicant of f.: s
appeal rights .
Chairran Fife called a five rinutes recess ; 9 : 40 p.r . tc 9 : 45 p .r .
4 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /12-$9 (RENEWAL)
12343 SEAL BEACH BD'JLr'AR.)
SUPER SAVIOR C I N DAA SEVEN
RESOLUTION Mo. 1592
Staff Rtort
Kr. Curtis delivered the staff report. Staff recommends a, six
Sonth extension of CUP /12-19 subject to the original cond:ticns
Of approval except for the removal of the condition requiring the
gating area to be completely roped off . This would be accor..plished
by the adoption of Resolution No. 1592. The staff report indicates
that after reviewing the video game operation on several occasions
staff feels the requirement that the game machine area be roped off
ATTACHMENT D
y
�► * TOR OfflCt VSL ONLY:
t. + It. I. I .R. No.
s Q Date filed 77---1-• _e /,2 1c, ,r ''+�-�
sy' J.4 `e!`•`O CITY COUNCIL Date
•AO1hil V - APPEAL
City o iea heath
NOTE: PLEASE RLAD •Iter; TO flit AN APFI)►L" ILTDPI COr.Fit71,;G 7r:;S
APPLICATION
1 . Karon vice,. # , #iI ,
cf Applicant vice,.
Telephone t 2(5 1,11,21L_taG
Actress of ArF; ica-t i;?-" 1,/,1,►.L,_i ;r-�'. -
2 . Kine of Property Owner • 'rj f--, nJ
Address cf property Owner •, i, a.•
3. Address of Property )i ., , ' 7'4- 1;:� t
. le.wee7 T`r. . Ti_'/ / and ye-4j , • I � stiff : b
i
4 . The undersignet herety appeals the following descratee.
action of the Seal }ta:t, Planning Car..- issicn ecnce:r.in: te
following sLDject :
1
Variance Nc . t - L
Conditional Use Permit Nc . C"
Change cf 2cne No. '1
Flan Review No . •
SPICIFY AND IXFLAIN IN DL7AIL:
Specify and explain the decision of the Planning Cor.: issien Dein;
appealed; the specific conditions of approval being appealed ;
statements indicating where Planning [omission may be in error .
i •
/I^ 1-1
4 M •f' n J d •114 ' ' �•, '� rr� i�.1e./�
S m. ,./. /. go) a,
rw , r,, • ,, • -:
e / ,/ , ,, ' '
_ ''L !//!n'A-►• r s!!'#7�
At a
M .. ..
•r ,•_, 1 .
�f pPA1L' ,• _rt/ 11 'fir "tl `
.r• Are�f i • :,los. r,' .
, '. ' ' • 1 . /f/4'. ••/e .t 'Z• I,r. ,< -//er.-,, r ,
(
Jr" AR/617A_ . 4s4L14, bc. Asst: 74/101- * 6e5* 44114‘6Av-
44//f14' R fu21��-Fitt. 15 1 �uJ— �CL9/4. 71-A? 6�C1� 'A*moi j--
4t/ rk/76 S1V1h litiPaa*5 /"e5 k,,/Li— 4c,ii p iflb/r-
ltnIrer74.7`7e7•-•• 1.144.G,, 51.7it
•
-7'/
•u•a..'.e 111iJ. �l.�',1,J'
"_ • THRIFTS
Charter Savings Bank
Seised by Regulators
• S&Ls:The federal 1tee.:.tart blunt: t!e
arencl'that declared it iire.Cuirt.or al w•war:•e
Ing r•aiwle•...Maw
iinsalhrnt calk for a Wm' .v>vou bag away
criminal Jnt+ati tIGr1 Of rtc•arun,ung SM./1W I''_
•
gis*• a. Tait aci::suc� c'
the New-pert Burl firm. b•Iing Ifen:b•iag,
•
. . •- . . Ange,ea
11: I V:.11 CR•st.�)•'' " •Jn inquiring rent. Cr..
•...t,are...•tri.'i. t1u1:. al • .Mole!w awe Sat iMJ•-::
r., • ;Z:,• ••, ay.pelaty amt a.tta•
� ,.
Cne i1 s'tVi ie•I.•.')1iN; pr a het at•f•'e,a•.t tR riB ta.•
b: ia•g•.tt 1a=ui4 M1t.'u u. gm: m! f•oe•::: a. au.;
su tlrwt•.t atrt;.,i.t:::11141:. *a: alae:W:...i k trrtta•:t':.
414rurl:.i sCW.. 1r..r: W". 1.: Oh et U:. )
•n: at.aec e:!avec'. Paf.J.crs Chant'Flt: SU:4 ill
•'h: air taut: fa • e.c.:4: aa: t keg'
•r•es.abier 'nu }o J C ea?C g fayre a al Y::.14.1e130 t' Ia
• Y artli►vye•.;math LFT.:. ren
The 11•yes••alt wrings and WA* la: WWI r LI R..
flu• vrN•et haat w• me;inee lar yaw alit r)I(ICIG a Ott •
't,,as,•,.s.•)**a' it sa sr;.,a f gime,e'3W Qa tar was r
1r:as:goner OfLrti:irlata.•L•d wet:meet a:'Wee tau t'f
Ua: i,4•Yp'c. e+ viols here aa.'w'Le.tett•y/Mfuslx-
iu•.u.. C the &•lice a' Trrtti finer pito!') amr;.t
t:+YrWc.' the areae: of tray mounting 1yr,nnalel. Is.e
au Nor;31 MAO''Faultapes/Yhe>c
Cna•tt•. •ia.+<1fprla,,g SLL. ►:►5111 .6x••tr tis:) eve
•s' P-.c MI•rtes:.,f 01.e us IX:1 s::u;r a latuoaa.ai e'
riff— •aW.'�(YO'AL� el(I'Art.
Y *toe turn! eve* V • torr y 411rt+tt t • smirtl't.r. e' 1
tAa torr falter satire bag`r.the:gamma•.att-te
Chi•.t• fueled. aa•.s RF •rwct awe OctL) bp •Itii`.T a
•:: Way** keral: Ir&omega Way, ••molar.: •11 lot■•
aal ri„a' • •• they hag moat N: mI •w
The i nn't leg u earl)Mt Van"
er.:t'o• R the ane ••' ht teal, Ope,rani a•yerl Li:
o•
t ::rs�tc Or kook-1,;,)mule tap te
Deet Ws::WS N
o'LAI
It I)O:1>a ae' •'loan: Ao:der mea•patent.sal Gerry P't
()TS erLe'ntet the ill's::u:,en !>raa Indust•) male.:int Mt
Tr,•• Ct'1; the beim: Wm) M eanoetrt a I1D11 nut is e
W wwr.ein fa.kt tt•tlo.Y mon•
• ems*.elite ew•g1: •tie!W h•l•OWL!p.
Reg:lt:i�
1.e:1t at:eip•ee on IA al feedlot Y CR••('
the Mfrrter•ermine'$n.ts:,. Sows
'
r� rum.to■y they Me arae De.ig:•I PE) Mg Wt:. e.re
_• Mahe, N nfe!'rl:i' la Ne m:Slat Mee mighty Mawr.
Jia:rif!►prtlnent.They ease the M a hahrr.. roil after lie-
Ihr:tio•ia.ale•'Y operating In an Owlet in IVF the IAZ•t la-:
�aa'1?91wawa Mmner ave!r Slat twang have I.
Cheer•n the Ie,t-tr Orsrtfe ter afay.Pa..ty&MAW,i .
Carrie LE 1.IL mt!lore au, yea, r+rr rout trait rues:Y k:•.
and the Mr tarn err sit Ye last Ir I1Ii& Kau anile' a or
a•.Feu. Illaoe•1M P A►: lute is
Tait pits mar inpri 5k-itt. W e'er si:ute fat-
r.r.u.r'•a.e.erVu pular.V kcu bu ma: matt m*nsua-:
pr.,a -s.'+1 Cary. • Newport `►rat Yen:b•tetfi lass.t
atatulselpay that wave Et of b Orel r las me We• •
Ci• ••„ —. IONu 1•rt W*Lars II J we..
St •tier a. ft. Fleet SM I Lr ps.•. Cara'1O•• hn.
sevembir. hove s If o:a *Myth ra are •►s) r k•
grecar•"�s 11en;rr•Aa'!Ca•trot I wed sl
list ora carat t r'Nte T t'
roma. 1'wrr: sr the Me:siare halm r•ShItta>C
uIke:*
it o+
lla ►t•tar'•: w at
Sae: a:r ale I He tk t•. swarm•Masa wr
• !solea II•tte•y rt o etr.t•C `sore Milo'• Shearon( mac:
MheAtnwp ant tetmtrtlal 1 SM at:4 Ott•rite-+•ta:�: 'J
M leap ie Mrfne - faa.1►W.ria er fru berm
•
•
- ,,..44,01"""""4"1""1"."'. r[�,„ • i0Vr z �Ii•?4` Xf:4,"Ft"r' ••.- . •---jv -c....”- .4.Y ` •
>
"••••• ,-. •-•1 ,-,44.4ti,..,,.....: 4e,... .... .....1,....._.4"isa:Irt.,..iiiivw.'i..". ••re!!!... .:.i.•....t.,...s.r,44:_41:44"0"el.40.14de.,-.:::7
-
•
- •:.-...^ ti'• -•-1-•••-•...;: y };.r.•-'':4, '-iJ,..� .•.• i•-_..• '..,y.
•of. -y%�►t:ava.•:• .l• -•� � ',• '�JY•+•iii�•,'k?a ��+~r �4.' '
.-1-4111111.
•
• -d • ..-:-4:-..::. 4.....„..,,,,r„....,••:' • .-a-. '..i..- . -i �--;°_•4 . - ` �—
'.yrs, �rr i .J bei. z;; �r�i.,j._;:.
. •
=`` • • ' •+- ,. ••t� �.-i^i!x...:A1C .} y,:J� ...TV.'Z�% •:"•. •.
L.'r`_r ,"'; .: t•'tet i ,.-. ,-S .tet
-rte' _ • �:`.`t .1J. -+ tir-�' � � ��"�;�"" - '. ++y`��e
• .eYl^..r %� �TG,t'�•{, c•S'•� 0,.-...f.
4y1:. e--I.-7;'�
..•y►,,r� ••� .+L�.r . . .V. ala ��•.�✓. ► Al
• t.
•
•1-•x'.6.^'7 .•1 ".
•
•
-� .. " •
1.P44-14.wcq „ ��".•�►�;— 4..•�•,.I. �.4 :.. -•
yam
.---r.'$'-',._%'.117 f41' = _ _ ��0e--".t "r : t,- 1 . !:JCS• .�C"ti•,
• a'e+.:t , , •'• : .� _.." •-...t. .�` . a :.'_-.. a: ..._:Y,,.. _ 1xY, ?!1�:s�.:.• ^i' r �'y-�3 '..•..t-
•
'70.",•••1-�C._.-\.L `e, M.,."r ~�;x."l 4=.-[; 4#'I !`,yp"1. '.i"44 s-S�•t.-T1•tii �• _ i� .1�•V••"••• ~1FY'r�c'a?
r'+. --- .• V!'S." ,. ••ice .'.? •r•'''T' •.`{,TM• 7 ' '�• .j '- v. _.j.-:r:'. � .+ 7:-.,, :--Ta• �.'
Y T _.+ 3.. <_ •S - Wit!: . 444•••;r7r \.- � �
\ ...e...V.s.14‘..N. ^' . ' '' '•-=-- ? ..-, C"----- -:,--k.•r4i..,-.
.L-,et+s. - }+ yam !f�l -`C'" e -..1.. - S
•
Ufa. • �.-~ •
..l'„+1' ::-. --- �+'�•° I' "+� Y'2 .jia. :fly .ya( j�r
� +�T; �t .'s- st +�-�C�! ter..
;•�•.-:•-•""!sem• �'�`f.L .t. ;i,2,.'.•-.i��;; a 4.. -T��►• .4.4.,‘,..... s��e - • 1:' ..-.......:021....- 1.w-• '
- :�`it::' ="?•. ..+ ,:+ ' ��1 ;'''^•'�; • 3�.c i•J`•" ' •'tom... ' � ,�.���d S�'�.r i'�'
•1•715P2. fes, 4_ '� k,:.ywr - - - . '.-`1. ....--77,4=6..44.4.:44j,;:-40,•••••• •.
.1... .w - •_ltd �Yt9� •- • ' ....1-,...t i , .x'07• '• �( rA w._:‘,.---.434",_.-.. ... _
r : RR.t ,-_ • _ '•u�' 1 a••••71 ,,. „ " i•�•I. S�Ti•.fri�' e.> �►�1
E.
i.• :.:3.•; is�, „,....17:.,:, �, s-ice,�� a
at.•, yr,`�e_�. -,a.a.., _�Y;t,.•Y
.rt.? - . •••••1*,114414-•
�:.• '`. -�F.L�3a.Zi.f 'iJe^dic_ J•s•' 41+a.: •._F `.a•• � ',,'••�'_ jX"rY� -s k:-:.:_"' ��11 j : {1.•••_•••11..::...
�i X•- . :a ► .a' .• _
^*Si .as..� a*Y:-- •._ . . .•;... sw••.r••_ . .-_ , tet -b.* ti , :. . .-.• •
•
�� :y • � 7 � � li �•9ati i -4.'.-0,4°...r--:-....=.14::-::,,......7e- 1...-..LI-- Y�r�,•.4.),0.-� v �E • 'c •1�"t. - i� r �' •"
-f
ATTACHMENT E
uSOI.VTION =MEP ___
(
A RISO:.V'7I ON OF THF CITY COL•►+:2 L
Of THF CITY Of SLA1 SUCH
DLrYIMc VATi2AN:F RIOULS7
A RLOULST TO 10:ROAC11 IKTO THF RLO1:IRE0
fl VI YD07 SIDE YARD StT$ACK AND
TLx TOOT REAR YARD StTIACK TOP AN
2124041 PATIO DLCP A7 1711 CRLSTbIL�
THF CITY Of SEAL SUCH DOLS KLRLPY RLSD.VZ, D2TEPJ'2NF AN: Yle;::
Sr-tic- 1. On August 27, 1196, Millis, A. Relator f:le:
an application with the Department of Development Service! 1:-
Variance request I5-/0. Specifically, the applicant Is re;Jest:-.:
to deviate frog ;he cede of the [Iry e! See! leaf„ Sectier. :t-
403 (2)(b), which requires ten (IC' ) foot rear yard se:ba:ks a-:
five (5' ) toot aide yard setbacks In the Residential Lc. De-.!:t,
tone of District V, to retain an Illegally constructed pi:ic dt:,
built to the property lines.
jr-Sir- z The patio deck it Question was ecr.str-:tt:
without pertits, plans and inspections.
srrt a �. The planning Cog fission held a duly n:t.r.:
Pu lie Meering on October 3, 195C and voted to de-.y t•ariance a:-::
and adopted Resolution No. 1591 to that effect.
$e tie- 4. Ar. appeal of the de:isicn of the flan-inc
Cor_-issior, was duly filed with the City by b:llisr A. Ralst:- c=
October 12, Its:.
Se-tie- 5. The City town:il noticed a putlic hearing c-
Ncver.. er 33, 111:, and continued the p:ilie hearing to A:var..te:
• 2E, 1910 to consider evidence relating to the re;.est.
0411C
Se- e- t. The City Council received Into evidence the Pe;:rt
of the flan-:ng Cor..r:ssion, including the Staff Peeper: dared
October 3. 191:, Planning Cor_-issior. Resolution We. 35<< , t!.
V Minutes of the Planting Cor. .ission meeting of October 3 and O :::,c
1;:;; *
27. 191:, and evident' subritted In support of the appeal file: L.
the appe:la-t, Na'illiA. Ralston. In addition.. the City
considered all oral evidence presented at the time of the
hearing.
Se-tie- Z. based upon the •vidence presented, the Cit;
Council hereby finds:
a) The subject property Is surrounded by single fo-: l�
residences In the Residential Lbw Density (RID) tone to the scut' .
east and west, and Specific Plan Regulation. (SPP) Zone to tt..
North, which Is currently vacant. The subject property tons3sts
of approximately 1,100 square feet and is located on the north side
Of Crestview Avenue. •pproxiaately 420 feet west of Seal &torn
boulevard. The property has approximately a0 feet of frontage e-
Crestview Avenue and Is approximately 115 to 155 feet In depth. The
property Is improved with an existing single family residence wit!
a single car garage and a single ear carport, detached •p:::
house", swimming pool and spa, and a non-permitted wood deck a-=
storage shed.
b). Specifically, the applicant is requesting to deviate
Th
trot r o
Ce e! the [ity e! See] ice-r Section 2s-ICI (3) It` ,
which requires ten (10' ) foot rear yard setbacks and five (5' ) toot
• side yard setbacks in the Residential Low Density sone of District
V, to retain en Illegally constructed patio deck built tc the
j property lines.
e). The specific zoning regulations governing Tract 251:
are set forth In Section 29-101 (2)(b) of S.tt cele r! Lite C _A t'
Seal sears. These Ooeuser.ts rag::lre I tet (30' ) toot setb.:k a:c.-
the parcel 's rear property line and a five (S' ) foot sett.e:r it tr.i
aide yard: and
d). A variance can be granted only if unit:e:
eirewsten:es exist. Pursuant to applicable provisoors ir. t► e
California Jovernsent Code and Manicipal Code &actions 2s-2::: a• .
1i-ISC2, the City may grant a variance only if, on the bee;: c'
special circumstances applicable to the subject property, ir,:lut.hc
site. Shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the ser:c
application of the provisions of the toning Code is fo::nt tc
deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by genet
properties in the vicinity and under identical sone elassif3ca:,cr .
Moreover, any variance granted shall be subject to such eon.::tic•:
as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorised s.►,a:l rc:
constitute • grant of special privilege in the vicinity a-.: tc* .
in wf.ich the subject property is situated.
e) There are no special eircusstances applicable tc t�.e
subject property, such as site, shape. Surroundings, loca.acr, c-
topography which would deprive the subject property of pr3vile;e!
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The site std
of the property art similar to the site and shape of the laic .
majority of residentially toned properties along Crestvie.
Katy of those properties located in the AID, Pes:de-.tia: Lc.
Density, tone are developed in a sirilar nature and came: as t•.e
s..tject property. The fact is that other si?:laraly
properties have Constructed patios consistent with Code re;-la::c-:
and applicable zoning witho.t the need for $ variance. Tr., re-e
existence of an illegally constructed patio does no: cons• •- • E
unusual circumstances under the law. The applicant has the o;:::-
I;1451to sod:fy the current location of the existing structure tc ec-;
with the rear yard setback requirements and still cor;ly with a: :
City development standards. The granting of • variance
O encourage other properties to construct structure wathcct proi.er
perr:ts and then seek relief through the variance p-o:ed:re .
res.3ting in additional weakening of the City's develop-e-:
standards for residential properties. In sur, the tittle:t trope-:)
does not present cry special eircur.stances to 11.4l2fy for • var: •
-
ance. The granting of the variance will abrogate the intent e' t-.e
General Plan by allowing a special privilege for the s:: :•::
property which is not generally available to properties in the se-t
vicinity and toning distract.
PASSIM. APPPDvID and ADDPTID by the City Cour:il of the C:t. c'
Seal Sea:f. at a meeting thereof held on the day of 14:vee-:i7 .
194:, by the following vote:
AYES: Counci lserbers
ADIS: Cour.cilmer..sers
ALS£►:': Councilmembers
KAYDF
AT7IST:
•
CITY CLIP);
STATI Of CALIFORNIA ) •
COJNTY OF OUNCE ) SS
CITY OF SLAT. •L►CN )
I. Joanne M. Teo, City Clerk of Seal 'each,, California , dc here:
certify that the foregoing resolution is the Orap:nal cop c'
Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk,
passed, approved, and adopted D) the City Counca ) c' the C.1 , c•
Mee) $each, at a re;.)ar cheetah; thereof he)d or. the Ce, c'
»9C.
CJty C)erl
•
hie 19-Ory at kat inch Mam% Coossaumaa Coos-auMaraca d Jaoui) 17, 194t
6. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
Applicant: City of Seal Beach D
conflict of Interest
Commissioner Dahlman stated he believed'he lives within 300' of the properties abutting the
Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park because he received a Notice on this application. He said
he felt that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPP) ruling deprives the residents of the
district he represents from due representation by their elected and appointed representatives and
he vigorously objects to that ruling. rn
Mr. Steele advised Commissioner Dahlman that, because he lives within 300' of the affected
properties, the FPP says he has a conflict of interest and he must announce his conflict of
interest and abstain from participating in the decision on this matter. co
Commissioner Dahlman asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting and asked if he
could address this matter from the podium as a member of the public.
Mr. Steele said Planning Commissioners are permitted to speak as a private citizen on an issue
which directly affects their property.
With the permission of the Chair, Commissioner Dahlman was excused from the meeting at 9:42
p.m.
Staff Re;ort
Mr. Curtis presented the staff report for ZTA 96-1, a request by the City of Seal Beach to
consider an amendment to the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Lou. Density
zone, District V, to permit wooden decks to be constructed within the rear yard setback. If
approved, the proposed amendment would allow wooden decks up to 10 feet in overall height
to be built to the rear property line, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The
proposed amendment is intended to address rear yard slope along the rear yards of Crestview
Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf Place. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for
reference.
Mr. Curtis indicated this ZTA came before the Planning Commission in 1990 in the form of a
Variance. A homeowner along Crestview Avenue had a home with a substantial slope at the
rear of the property and he built a dock without the requisite Building Department permits. The
Planning Department thus began a Code enforcement action. The applicant was advised of the
opportunity to apply for a Variance, to seek legalization of the deck. During the Public
Hearings that property owner argued that there are other properties which abut the Hellman
Ranch which had similar decks/structures. Based on that testimony, staff conducted a walking
survey of the back of the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove properties. Staff found there were
six (6) other properties along those streets which had non-permitted decks or patio covers which
Pau 20•Cr. of Say & R.noq Camm,...m Malas..of January 17. 14St
were close to the rear and side yard setbacks. This information was presented to the P;anning
Commission at that time.
Mr. Whittenberg said one letter was received from Alan Shields, 1300 Catalina Avenue, Sea_'
Beach (Attached] indicated he would be opposed to the proposed ZTA. Additionally, a
telephone from Barry Tone, attorney for the Hellman family, was received late this afternoon.
Mr. Tone said they would like additional time to consider this matter and how it may or may
not impact any development they may consider in the future for the Hellman Ranch property.
Mr. Tone requested the Commission receive public testimony this evening but then continue the
Public Hearing for one month to allow them the additional time to study the issue and come back
to the Commission with any questions or recommendations they may have.
Measuring Point for Structures
Commissioner Sharp questioned the height of the structures and where the measuring point is;
it is not stated in the staff report. Staff said this will be taken into consideration in further
discussion.
Define Cove-ed Patio Roof
Commissioner Brown asked where the definition of a covered patio roof could be found? If you
were standing under a wooden deck could you be considered to be standing under a covered
patio roof?
Mr. Curtis said yes. Most of the properties would be stretching that possibility because the land
underneath the deck is at quite a slope. Mr. Curtis indicated that without stretching the point,
those homeowners could build a 12' gazebo or patio cover in that area up to 5' from the
property line. Staff's recommendation is to only include decks and to
consider them the same as patio covers or gazebos.
Mr. Whittenberg clarified that any application of this nature would have to come before the
Planning Commission for review, it's not an over-the-counter approval.
Public Hearing
Bill Morris • 1722 Crestview. Avenue
Mr. Morris spoke in favor of ZTA 96-1, to allow the decks to be built to the rear property line.
He asked the Commission to consider a substitute for the 10' height limit, saying the intent of
the deck is to extend the existing back yard at a flush level back and to gain the area now in
slope. However, extending a patio deck flush with existing yard might put the structure 10'
higher than the elevation at the rear property line. He asked the Commission to allow building
the decks flush with the yard regardless of what the height might be.
Pry 21 •Or, d hos;head Ptaissig Cesimaaia Wahhakei d Jruar) 17, 19%
Keri Myers • 1733 Cressview Avenue
Ms. Myers spoke in favor of ZTA 96-1 saying she agreed with the staff report but want it to
further to include building decks to the full extent of the property line. She and her husband
purchased 1733 Crestview Avenue two months ago.
Their deck makes their back yard the same level as her grass and cement walk- ways. She said
the person who built her deck did a nice job and the deck can only enhance the property value.
She could not see how the decks would infringe because the properties currently back to the
Gum Grove Park and the Hellman properties. She said the Hellman's have a 15' easement
between their property and these properties. The easement would be needed to approach the
utilities and more than likely it will remain a greenbelt. She said she had a survey done of her
property when they purchased it and their deck is on their property, about one foot (1') back
from their property line. She said having her deck where it is good protection against slides and
soil erosion. If she were forced to cut the deck back it would cost her several thousands of
dollars and that would ruin that deck.
Commissioner Law asked how deep her lot is? Mr. Curtis said the property averages l45' deep.
On the shorter side it measures 135' and on the longer side it's 155'.
Commissioner Sharp asked Mrs. Myers if, when she purchased the property, she was made
aware the City of Seal Beach had a problem with the deck? Mrs. Myers said absolutely yes.
She was told that if there was a problem she would have to accept that but she would have the
opportunity to address the Planning Commission and present her case. She said the Planning
Department staff made her well aware of their concerns and this is not a surprise to her. She
is hoping they can get this approved.
Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Steele about the utility easement at the rear of the properties,
if the utilities are re-routed or placed underground, does the easement die with the changes?
Mr. Steele said if the utilities are not located anywhere within that easement, then the easement
will probably die. He assumed if they were undergrounded that they would be located within
the same easement. Chairperson Campbell explained her concern was that if the easement were
to perish that would encroach on their homes. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not certain there
is an easement through that area. If there is he was not sure on who's property it might lie ---
may be on Hellman's property or it may be split between the Hellman property and the
individual homeowners. Staff would have to research that.
Commissioner Sharp said the fence, which is located about 10' from those rear property lines,
was not put there for an easement.
Anton Dahlman * 1724 Crestview Avenue
Dr. Dahlman said his home is not affected by this ZTA as it's across the street. Dr. Dahlman
said this ZTA should be easy to approve as worded in the staff report. Several years ago the
Planning Commission denied a single Variance for 1733 Crestview Avenue because the reason
Ig a 22-Cay did soca C42111111.10400 Mame.d Jaw'," 1,, 1991
for granting it applied to every property bordering on the Hellman property. Also, an inspecuor,
was made of the property lines at 1733 Crestview Avenue and it was found that many of the
homes which back to the Hellman property have massive concrete structures built right up to the
property line. Enforcing those out of existence would be a major task, if not virtually
impossible to accomplish. The existing zoning at 1733 Crestview Avenue is for a minimum 15'
buffer zone but possibly a 30' buffer zone per the Hellman Specific Plan.
Mr. Whittenberg said he did not remember the setbacks for the existing plan which is in effect.
However, it should be noted the Hellman Specific Plan has not be approved by the California
Coastal Commission and they indicated it would never be approved by them. So, it's not a plan
that could be built.
Dr. Dahlman said that of all the plans considered, as proposed by Mola Development
Corporation, in the 1980's (Plan A, Plan B, Plan B2 etc.) every plan had a buffer zone. It was
generally a wide buffer zone of 15' to 30'. There is probably not an issue if the decks were
extended to the property line.
Damon Swank * 1685 Crestview Avenue
Mr. Swank spoke in favor of the ZTA but believed development should be permitted to the rear
property line. As a matter of economic reality he believed the property along that strip is no:
developable. There have been two aggressive developers over the last fifteen years who have
tried to develop every square foot of the Hellman property. No one has proposed development
along the buffer zone space.
Bich Cleuley * 945 Ca•alira Avenue
Mr. Clewley said his property abuts the Hellman property. Mr. Clewley spoke in opposition
to any decks exceeding the specific requirements set forth in the City's municipal Code. A fence
on the property line should be no higher than 6'. Mr. Curtis said a fence on the properties
abutting the Hellman property can go to 10' in height on the rear wall and 6' on the side walls
maximum. Mr. Clewley said it's not really wide open space in the back of their yards ---
there's a chain link fence on the Hellman property. Anyone can see shear faces of decks going
up 10' or 12' plus the 42" guard rail which puts them to 13'6". This would create an
inescapable alley back there --- '... a muggers alley". The chain link fence at 6' would riot
allow someone to escape from a pursuer and you couldn't go up for help to the neighbors with
their high decks and large walls. Once a deck is out there it could be enclosed which could
become a Mother-in-Law suite at the property line. The homeless people who walk in from
Long Beach would love these decks as a form of shelter. 'You could have an encampment back
there with literally hundred of people living under these decks". He felt it's a totally
inappropriate use of the property and a public safety hazard. He suggested that terracing would
be much more attractive result. He said he has seen, in the past, existing sun decks being used
Pty 23•Cs)d Jiea bark q Gamm+u� ►lea or Jac.u7 I7, 199t
to justify further expansion. Additionally, the high decks arc dangerous as someone could fall
over and have a long drop. He was against granting indiscriminate Variances as it could lead
to corroding of the building codes. He said the matter should be referred to a safety' committee
for further study.
With no further speakers the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to continue the Public Hearing on Zoning Texi
Amendxnent 96-1 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1996 to allow the
Hellman property owners to comment on this issue as requested by the Hellman's.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1
AYES: Brown, Sharp, Campbell, La'
ABSTALN: Dahlman
Mr. Whittenberg indicated no further Notices will be provided. The ZTA will be discussed on
February 21st. At that time the Planning Commission may or may no: make a decision.
STAFF CONCERNS
There were no staff concerns.
CO'AL\iISSION CONCERNS
There were no Commission concerns.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone was working on getting the Brown Act unconstitutional?
Mr. Whittenberg said not anyone from t .e City of Seal Beach. Commissioner DaSlman said
they have been looking at getting exemptions from the Brown Act when it would be appropriate
to do so because Seal Beach is a small town. It's a geographically large town but in terms oc
population this is a small town no larger than Signal Hill; Signal Hill has an exemption.
Commissioner Sharp said Leisure World is in the process of getting ready to build a new
medical center in the middle of the complex. He was sure questions will be raised about this
building and it would be a shame to have to have a thret-member Planning Commission make
a decision without either of the Leisure World representatives being able to vote on the matter.
Their share of stock is one issue when the actual residences are more than 300' away from the
project site.
Hellman Decks Photos
1. Hill Homes (from Seal Beach Boulevard)
1733 Crestview Deck Highlighted w/Arrow
2. Hill Homes (from State Lands Parcel)
3. Hill Homes wl Pacific Coast Hwy at Right (from Avalon Drive)
4. Conforming Deck (from Gum Grove Park)
Set back approx. 25 feet
5. Two Decks (from Gum Grove Park)
Deck to left s_t back aprTx. 20 feet and is abo:;t 5 feet ,a'1
Deck to r `ht set back app.ox.. feet andbc. ,t feet
rr 5 a. .., is ato...:4. L� to
(rote: let deck is ac a'y b.., t a foot hLvhG than right deck
6. Deck Built Nearly to Property Line (from Gum Grove Park)
Deck is approx. 23 feet ta!! en richt s:de
7. Terraced Rear Yard (from Gum Grove Park)
Both terraces are approx.. 10 feet `. de
8. Hill Home which is approx.. 15 feet lower than Hellman property
(from Gum Grove Park)
f
g
.:I 111111/117., ..:blitelf... loop.0111;11116011".444r.Ao.
= f.'•.':-6-..-..-..,-..
:�"
;rte_:..::s -w. r .1"....i.140....l. a „ ;ZaK .+ :t �'i+Aa'
:..i. . . :+.w• ••'_w
.....••-al,..• •ti'...�Or „',� •:ri• ".+ •_..w:t'.arr.4_ •-4,1%: .., _ •w -
. , 11.2. 1,•"71/•e•�_4. ..
..t•.ri�+ ••41.1.44.:„.••41.1.44.:„.• r,}•i•:.•sis x•..40., 1,•,
^.s •, ``�a ...WOWJ1i. .�
• : '' .."..174.•>:"1..:e-.•a;.•'.. •''• .-r .. - .-
•
.•
••!.._,r,.S. I.•r _'u:'a.'.1Mrw4+i: `8• :;
I‘
r
• .., •
.0.,:ipplat lef er.....,
. .111,001.00-, 7.-..alilit tottalkor rkiesinefrojevre.,54.446.4.. ..., • rya se._w,......pia,. 1.1
. ....,
. . •
F• •.! ••! it:..".::•..airZ.1".... ..01,7.... .k..y.„:.• ....... . !• ..•.•;• .- If••-;....--• •
• -,...•.. • :.- •.. ••-•':ft-'40..f.._. •Ai -• gste, AS'i•:„.,;„- *V,kr.11:•.4'..--., r- •...._-.7,•_-Jr-.-.6.4.,-./.....3;:... _
••:. -""• If.-1",,:"•-•.- :,.."4 tig a-I+ .;.,7,3$. • .- . .„,,,,. ..•.......,.7•"....-dir•--..c.."..:_•.--„,-_.•A. .• .......,se-. •-•....
•...' v.--- _ _4- ..‘;....1'..:-'S•7.1„^•••4416:1. ,4 -:::•-•- t;,,;.;lea:!-•.,.•--- ;...-,4 -..0i .•?:;.;
- '`'-.....
--.a:. '.I- - ••• • :. . • -..- . I ; . .' ' 1
-'. • -..
: •.•'-' •f 1-:••1:-.E...::: : . i -t.-•-..... --- 4 • ••et.3 ,.....•,. +,.-•••,• • s
-.1.. ;.:•.-. "7.--- - 4./..
• .-7-ifwz-;4:.,t'' .. — -;'•,..e:•!!'4. 4;f4.'4••;-gi.s *.-- 1br...-3-.•:• r.'41•:',4*--•.:4-;,r4.-%?"-'z•..c , •-'4
All - :, • ..... . ,..... .:••••-••..4•,.. s_, • : , ...- .- •••!........... .:..,.
• • .. .„ ...
-• -1* '•••••- • '• - ••.4•••• —'• vr••arg-••••• .A...4.• :.• • -t.b•i•... .:t.....•• :•••.-Ar.;...Z. : .*: 1
. ••• ••••••• • .• :- . .8:....irr.'•,....::ilr:::41......41:P.:gt,--.... ,-... • :...1..Z,-22,4.2"t;-:•4-•.1•;•76'41:76.:111.
iJI. •:•..,-..., ••••. - - ..--- .. - ..-- ' ' •
• • • .46"..41 $'1-.I - . I
er „,
71\1 ,••, ., 4p-- '
. • .t:Jr:. . • .. .
4 ' • , 4_ #. .. - . ----
":1411171Lt ,• •
...as.t ' . • • 1 •
#...iir•- .• . • r ' 2. Iii 1 I
. ....=,•• • • ..
•galik. I I 41 ' 1 a >
z 1: . - ,. . •.
'P.. )1 _..41 )
f. ,S4C..81.. ..1: , .4 ie - .1.:.•-•-•
. , .;;-\ • ••••-•.••••
..
,
—
..-.1?....•• ..... •••.-I .a 7 4 -.., ..-• - • • •-..-::•• .- • - = --..-4,.•• •-.
' .. • •1111"fr - i. 1 ......- 44.4 ,441400,ft-''.ae..C.7.••:-41....11.11,4140; • -4
.6 ..--, :i Wilt it= • •- - •
,,•1 ,............ Z..i.:..:. ..2.S...ti.. '
si.4. .,...% ...5"-•".!..•,,",-.7-...4...;.;:....r.fF.•:s t•;••••,•..7-..• •
_,. ___P ....---.-7-.....-_„.•-.:,...-•0 •.• •••• . ..•1 .iv. •;.• ,a• •••••••,is L .":".•.•.1.,ft• .• ..- ...b...-• .• • . .
111r7..d.- ......, •;air..•..,..." '.'..1,44 ipieg.<7: :Si &.•7if•tr.....nn.';:kS46r:"21.4ft.4:,107).....4.Y.... ..-
•
._ !I..;.•:;......•:"••••••••...7.....0." .0•••'.,...•......•i.Si;10P1 ..... •••:•••,-,•'`I.'S ii. J.....V`('.41s,..da....ter •Iv..i••-4.. - , .
v. I,. 2.• ...•fv".4.arv, - • -• •• • r• -i
••1•:.g..totiezr•• ..A.• . ..a ..i•ii4.....A 11 41C. ' :1•4_1.st•••• 5, •-A:•:•-.40r;Zr•
' • '9,••'• r:-4111....;,•-7.7.'%•":-*. kr..b4itti... ......sc.-.t..,•-...-2, 4,‘4..10,4-..•.r.-...- . ., ,•-•!.., IT ,t• •• •••- i
•.•• * •*• ..--,-D.:. *s. A -. '4'5;:g LI.; •srrp*". Xt . Abircf;iplir.,‘11::wiiifilionli:......
• ..W. '119,1.4,I ..:•41144f.Tj,r 4 .... . • ,,.%-• •r .. •... . %er:, Art •
:._..*.i--1':'i• • •••.:-:•.-... ,sr a-.. -4-Z .1. a%tg... Z%.1.. E,/;7;'.1 4:- ' ",7'..-.. .-.. '''•;•Z;. .
..,-.. ..........?"........ r .•.,-.,.-.., ... ...........,-1. .:!**.Aft.......4••e • ••f •••WJ • t ....C27 -• ......,....... e.7.
.-. .'s;4..11...... . .i 2:7-:;&i..,.II;17 SZ4.X41.-4,4:ZA;N:47Pr,;.4::-::.**•-..t.z...-7-z.f"---""--;ket.•_i t-tn.cz.:4:-...—.-.:a...._-_
- - • .; - - ..- —%• -.4!.._7,- .74...,-. .._„-Api..„._:. 4.4•,..-...,,,,,-••...:.!. ....4 , -—::• •
•. .:;.les: ...,...-,i .,.....X.Nz:wireteNtot.••,c,,,,pi_ . .:.11.,..-civ:,...,••1`,,,iii.set f-)i'llii...,..344,:s.r.e12C•••••P :. 11
,. •
,.,„....._,. ... .-•,.--.:0-......;:.. .• ....-r-..;•zi,./..tei."-:-.40et ;;•..ii,:.;•*;.. "..".....:4:::1-'-.1::-.•-••••:•—
..; •• . • • .- :-. .. - •15. ., --•• v.... .e ,..• ••-•,••:.--• - s.
• ••- •-• •''i'. ', '- :-'i.......A. 04:44'.3-1•,,,l-,* •1:-.•.....„-•_/c.-.1;•-,__& -,,'• .;..i.: : •-•,,,,....• r.- -- * •
• ........•••,,.......AS•A.;Viz;• V; .••••:.:- hit ..;;tr,„... .1--P It.„1.-.14,.. -•.-11796,": '..1-..-.-'.1z.1...s•L'''..--:..1:',;":_..pr:. •
]
. ..-.-. -•:..4.:-„.... .s.kt-:,.2". .....,....-t.....,...z.vb:,.ast...0.j.i.,-.7,71,7e• ii.....1,74.‘,.;.. i 14-1"....4..e.r., ..„....._„.. ._ .
i
•., • . c
-- :-"f• ti, )3:- ;•••'Fr-..',„,7,N., . :•*.:44:-•>'",..41; .'II,:...e.e.:". 4‘,62. 9...,,r.„."11:-.•. -
- • -• -..- •.• / .-••• .• • ,..".•t, •:• ....•. ...,,:-. ":•••:- •-:"7, •) ........•If .- -f-••-•Je 4=1,, If 1
. ..
• - . k
,.. : ••.•.• • — s" .
• •., . . . .
• • .. ..
- c4.711,r27 "PIT. .>"V7---:,•;,... .. : ••' , - , . ''''' .,, :
ir-,. .... .,.. •At, • -•mi•-•ti. ••... '1\• :•%) ,a___ -.. •
. "I•.,v. • ‘6, )1tr4• 1...11 .' •
.1;ti,47;,‘ • . 3r.• 1..1 :: •. .. • i
• •
°I%`,10. I •'14. i , '••• f.
1 1 , . _ 1 , 11- •„ . , I. - •,‘ • ,. i "t x•••••, •
• c .d 4. ‘ ''.9-.1.:-.' • .. -14A,„,:::4111::.••-:: T)ICII.i ....07ii
, ! ;,--z., '!* ' . :,. -.k. ' •.i 6,• .I. .
' . •
..-.• ....... , •.0 i, . ' '3..4 • •
-.Y.-%-.
-----.-----.4.-------............_e • .., ..4% 1-.,....... •;......7.*:i. ,.. '.'-..
11 SA
'"""---..• '•7.- j... '' ‘‘•• ' .„ . ....:,4v r ;r•V.h.,.r.v v.,, . i
•,,, , . ,,.0.... , ,.
.....; • .,•• ...,
...v.,.• •• ::.....7".!.4. . ,
.f„,....:-.••., ...... •...•...... 2......0.-7•4." . _ . - • - . .. •\. _ , .. 4
...„,c - 7
•--•04',4.41r.'Y',./.'4 %;/.4. tr.: • ,.7‘ . .0,••-•• •.„, `....7;'?.. • ;Y.:4 . a-1‘..ii t
s It for .,.. !.A ta-7-s. • oryor.. 1. ...,4 I- 1
,•
•'410-r*11::4.-.C:Art7:060,1: .lit 4 ..,./1: ...iy,a.„4... J ..-. -.7 :: :•t... k '1 ...,-:..1-••• ..'-'.• .-••••:.,,,,s#t',,,I.,--"'-''.
..., •:•-;P-0..•F4.-t.-.......i.-4.ft • -•:. " • - .'i."A -1 JOT i
-, s;:-- ..• - z.,..'VP Ft..p. . 4 .•:.-1"ir: '4. ;•`1,;4 . •••••• : !!.. "tfri, . :: . ....--• t..--:'. .
t
a
...,...'•S •kA'7'1..,.:1"*.‘',.:'S,C*): ••:".'",..•A ..,.; 4'•(_., '.. ;-. -;:i,
.._,--1 4P -....N.;:;1•„2 5 Nit-:I.4;;;11• a..,...•,...A..- '.rit..•%•!!4;10:i.r. c . .‘It. . . .--...... !Lit:j:-.'c':'..... ••••••••A.,..4.74;%:' •-. . 1
.( .'•-•••' •Psylrillie.;&.10. -"iii.:....14hi:#•••.t.,Z•S"......W...i.to•./.:LV it„,'; ; .• -,... •_
1:-_ .** . 4,:,,,v`t:•.---• 7.1) ...-*`;,7 1 ., .. t7 . .isNi. ,.....-...•- - . ..! ;.; • .:i..4'q _ .
.... ..,.., ---, iv i .•
---k%.,.•-ii, *a;* -{ .tir;-7'4, ,,),,,,-,-tra. •• •• ..% " .r. -•:„..•.7. .1 ...-::::.--J:71f.::;• .--
..x.4
4 ..A.: .. •, .
-I, ..... •-- . •• I
(I'.644 1W X. e 4 a.•...t e•'..i••'.. .7g:g.4.•‘•".I.•it, 1 i• • - L • • :' 1..61 "• . •i•":..'1 •.
N.N.Le ..••.. 46,..... . "4"413.?: ,.`....L..x 1 t i r 1 r'.4.. t!i a.r I I.4.• P..'. Ir-....'.2ii. ..,-..,447.;4.7: -..-. 7. •
:Ai ., •••,••• .7 ,,..,. . . .,,• , . '4 0 41, • ".•••it
• ..... . .•; 1. . 1,' 't..... ....... N'.. r•itt?...4.1N 1:"A••,,. 1 : ...-i''. . ••: :. .. a
1,4.. .. •••••411 ...!Alw4,41? ..Vnt"PcgrA".,4't ' •-•,. ..:-.4 - •-,y..:••:- 4-.-
1.,i;...1. ......., ...eti••.,-7:r.•
. --I,. lit'- ,r. . - ..... •-,0,,,..,..-„;;:-....„?
.... -• .c -....!....ie. -.•'•• •ts . --.-
--Ss tt;:-,....sa 66.-.4-7174.11k. ' • ,..1!.... .4.-7...):gr•'-.I' ..wit • •-• " ' a
....11 ,..- 4,, • ." •..'".6-,., •.'•••
--7_,L .;2;e4..;-44,..i ••••-....::.„,11.,,,,-,......?-,,,;,J, ,,ff,, ...,,,, , .. .-...1-4..„,-,„,..........1.4.:.: . -_. •
e. ikib,e,. ,.. .-' ).7..,--.. _4.•• , ,„_'4•1*,4..',11'Zi..17.-;,......;.4,1-i•••-•4„p 7. • • • 5 4
•t• .. - - .7.-: . 1 4• 4..4. • . ^.4 t‘' .C.Z. ... ‘..• . t-•. ' ; • . _
4, . .
... ....
.
.I Tr,- 4'..• 1: .0; -, IC . . r A Er, '717
: •V•N‘# .4.. ; .- ..1; 4 i' 7,-. ‘,V ''..t.,-14' I .
••
• 1 . '4 4 ..-ff , A-,,. • . 7.1 . -,.-..;1, -/)
.. -, ,. -
• •
• .,4,\:. Tr- . ../1. it ,t). • 'Pk 4 .%
• • • , • • , ...I
• .....\ " i A . i . •.:•.i. ,...,•• ...... ., ,-. .. . ..
,i' it•r•' • a'" ' ' f
, .
,-1.....3'• A - '. ' • ve .. ..:k •,.IL • 4 .1'
i 2.#.. ' I#•"I iii•
-• '- / s ... •..
. ..1. . ,•-•. . • ,„,.:4.1::•A r 171,0 1. NV ,
i- r,•(•, -.7 • ".:•1.4.•°-i 1 ‘.' tit 1'1 ! IA.,.. , JP
! ',,-• i t ter. Al• t
1 v. t. :
• ,
.1 4 ( •, • 1. . ) sp 4
F211.ii r•i;,p, , , . ,lbs 6 I '
66• t '.
...,..-6,4 .4. .. ‘,: ;.. ' . ... •
:., 4 ,..4!
•V •I i / ),'
y 44 .1'
t • - ornit.4 ..7 ••c.
..'',.,;:•:.'.;.; .1(...,,:.../..0... :
'
."
I.. ' ..10"• s'..h•4 • •''Ito , ••••
. ••4
.. 41,,,I,.•••• In... . ., ../
lir ..p •-• • •i•• • "Piltb.!.4046 ts,..
i •"114 °1211.7! r ro. ' a a
.4...;,-,v -..N.. . go
s,
iyji.t.., i.„.4.1.,.4
7 .::.tZ •,41.' 91: ,.! it•ft- V,-;1/4.ts
,.1E4: oi-i,-• ,.7. 4 --..*
A 0:i stli 4fifi:4..t..e; ') f-i.til -4441r.
,.-..,,.. ., tf..c.„44-T.tr.j104.• t.. -- , ..
-......p........1,--. . act ...r...A ..,!..),,....:N...„7„... . .,.. ..1, .. ...jr...F . i.
,. ihi..... .. ., :•x-,...z...-- ..a:ttik. :.-,i..\: ...f....:: ti;A:c: ;.7...p.i.t7:71::...:.e.: ..1
..7-73,;(tr:"'4,..Zite_ -_,Lik-...i.i...,:.'s I.,:5,,, ...44,et, A 16 .. . .
k: a'aisc*alf-;I; -.15.41•••ap .:!.....„_oi t .."........? ihk- ...4,•.: :
•. • • ..• •-•- -,.. - ...11 • . • .1.•. -4 e- i•4 ..li-%? ,..,
• :;r. -"i".•04114"-64"-Ii -74-104'z i'• .'"••• ' . - • 4•44‘41.!.t. f..i.-.1.62
dti
A't.4s!' ".... g/-.•-t ....... .• --4.-.41ryty.%-•-•.:1111-0.V- ___,
.- vt''.....i.i.....-a.-•V- 41.:::%, .v.•4-. ,,/.7*-P-k IV"... •1.07.1 dit• 'el
•4...• .. ..•".f.• ''1.2- .'-'• s ..a.T4r....414‘st..1•V.i4t 4 •1‘4:•"4`'`.... It
.-.• €..,..•,..-.......0.-,...•.ft -...1-ii.„. 141 44, ..) T._,.-„i, :X.!?-.0 i
....•... •*I- -...tr e 4....fp_ ,,,„‘ .A )vez,-, ••
.....1.':;.:Vr?:"..;Fs ft=ta."-ar.- 4----1,tt ft-t•••-'' 74
- ••••••• ••- • ....,,clirlii-ak
.-ti•'.. .*:...4--mt..*..7.- ""s--. .-r-....-----imit :.4 6
..... :.., ,.............,..:,.„ . . _ _ ........ •, - ..h.e....... •,
......• 4.....• ... .... .„.... •.,. .. _ .. ......... ,411,47.0,.. ;rig L...- •. j
. ..v. • ...../. ".,Sp I.,'-o,Y..a.••IW St.5:44%. 4.• :.211 iti ...'".
' ...S.:7..0.•••.r. . . .7t-.." •,s...L"'` v ... • •T ar t •r
. -
•
la•
T 1 s rfr z _ i 'P J
L. ;, ;t� t ,--1,-_$.
r` } 1
, •••:. , „pi 4, / , . _4, . -+ r• i
, — s' - ' - --4 . .. . . I ; a •t.' .....--t. . ....•- ,,,
.". `�. 4s• � - .t.-1,e" y^�:i{tit;L`r ,"!'�..y�!''�:
..1• ��e,. 4.-1, TR- • 1►_.-'1.,•.� it +•�9.~ i.•.. i.1 wn.'..&_s- _ - - 9
_ .... . • )--'�'—T.".' -'' - •►':? r,-te., .•►•�'..-....:1►- -+►J _%
. •-
:.� .k- ••..a. ad,.,:'•.'•• �./.4.... .4 .:Y -�
1
. -..IIPT „X",r740.-k.Air I i
''V
i rb
i • Z� I
4.4..,;,.."'"' „.\ . • . r.•'''•• .•- I I ; p t 4M1
,\\ t. a. of
7 -1-::-.7 ;4..0, 4,',k,‘',\., ‘\‘::k.A„.' t- .:-. „ _ ; . . . li i ; A,:14, • 4.4"` '
•,i, t?•:I. air=`7'V'•�' .�.\,1 f 1 • `c . GE 9
•
• .els•V, •�:•sip'' •.. ;'.:le av ; % int":;. '*_` � •.,•. V ,% i ,/1��(( ' r
",2. ,.'••' -:-. •A. r'1 -Ir •1 . t!.'• 1 11 t.1 !♦ •;l\4.� -7•� 1lt.. Zi.- ••
. . •1, .s 1�• - ' •1 r,'� t.A ). t. -1 •. tic 8
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestview, Catalina & Surf Place
Qty Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 8
Minority Report from Commissioner Dahlman, dated
April 22, 1996
D:\WP5I1ZTA1961.CC11..W109-0/-% 14
Minority Report of the Planning Commission April 22, 1996
Re: Zoning for Decks along Crestviaw
To the Mayor and Councilmembers,
Background
The Marina Hill lots adjoining Gum Grove and the Heiman Property are in many
cases flat enough to allow construction of a back-yard deck. In these cases, no
special permit is required and they can build all the way to their property lines.
Two or three dozen homes, however, have steep drop-offs on their property where it
adjoins Gum Grove and the Heiman Ranch. A rear-yard deck in these cases is not
allowed unless they build huge retaining walls and move enough dirt to flatten the
topography of their rear yards. Some of the residents have already done this and the
resulting retaining walls present an imposing and undesirable appearance to people
walking through Gum Grove or viewing the from across the Heiman Ranch.
i-low almant zoning rules apply
A deck is defined, and legal out to the lot line, if it is not elevated. An elevated deck,
however, is treated as a structure and therefore is subject to a huge set-back
requirement.
The inequity of rxrrrent zoning rules
As a result, the two or three dozen homes with steep back-yard drop-offs are
prevented by strict enforcement of the code from using their property the same
way as owners of similar property in the same vicinity and zone. This inequity is
due to lot topography.
1lnreasonable solution adopted by Planning Commission
Staff proposed a zone change that would allow decks which extend the level surface
of the back yard to be elevated as much as 12 feet. These decks would still be treated
as structures by the code, but each one would be subject to planning commission
review. Such a process would turn up problems or abuses and would allow each deck
to be constructed in a safe and sightly fashion.
At the hearing the overwhelming majority of the testimony favored the staff
proposal with the decks permitted out to the rear lot line. Two who testified were
opposed to the staff proposal and made general comments about people needing to
respect law and order and abide by the code, lice it or not. Also, a representative of the
Heiman property opposed the proposal but clearly did not understand that the massive
retaining walls are permitted by the code. He did not realize that these retaining
walls do not have to be "sightly" and that the proposal would actually be protecting
the interests of any future Heiman Ranch developers.
Commissioners Sharp, Brown and Law apparently did not understand that the staff
proposal was in everyone's best interest. One of them used the word "greedy" to
describe the affected residents. Commissioner Law expressed the point of view that
these people's lots were so large that they didn't have anything to complain about.
Commissioner Brown made a comment that seemed to relate to a somewhat unsavory
character who had built a non-permitted deck many years ago. Apparently, Dr Brown
doesn't realize that the unsavory character in question sold his house and moved out of
town.
Essentially, the Planning Commission majority voted to do nothing about this
problem and I'm sure that's why it is being appealed. tf you deny the appeal, there will
be a sloppy process of code enforcement in which many of the residents will request
variances and hire lawyers.
A reasonable solution to this i ui'
To sustain the appeal and allow either zero or a five foot set-back for these decks is
best for the city because it will correct the inequity in a fair way that should avoid
much litigation. Sustaining the appeal is best for the Heiman Ranch because the
planning commission review process will make sure that the decks are both sightly
and safe. But above all, you should sustain the appeal because Seal Beach residents
are asking for it, and because they are right.
Respectfully submitted,
-- nton Dahlman, M.D.
ATTACHMENT 10
City Council Staff Report of September 8, 1997
1. Minute Excerpt of 9-30-96 City Council Meeting
2. Proposed Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH TO PERMIT PRE-EXISTING DECK STRUCTURES TO
REMAIN IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES
IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT
THE HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK, SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF A CONDITONAL USE PERMT"
City Council Public Hearing StafReport re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5
Various Site Photographs
96-1 CC Further Consideration Staff Report 17
City Council Public Hearing Staff Report re:
Further Consideration of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Standards for Decks along
Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place
April 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5
Various Site Photographs
a 1125 Crestview Avenue
o 1315 Crestview Avenue
o 1325 Crestview Avenue
o 1335 Crestview Avenue
o 1415 Crestview Avenue
a 1435 Crestview Avenue
o 1445 Crestview Avenue
o 1505 Crestview Avenue
o 1515 Crestview Avenue
o 1525 Crestview Avenue
o 1729 Crestview Avenue
a 1733 Crestview Avenue
96-1 CC Further Consideration StafReport.doc 18
1125 Crestview Avenue
. r #y. eea s `y
„e• fir.. �4 � ,� _ , i•:
th } 'tib` s. . r
! r s;t � ,4� h� ' i' rt ♦j..
7::
r ','r1y � .+r -► 1...- 1�
ili)
s ' -f R �. r. o
S '''''4
t -.. L ,14 r' `'1•'..,114i•b ;j ','� i„ T, ,-,,t' .#4 ' '1 >.<• t
I
.sly. 4. .0,* 1�
4 1 7•fit'.;,P , t a 1 •
l3 •'iy '1 V' • •\ • �+�. _ ' _ I -
1 e f<' Sp t t
_. .r 1ST JJ e - e`1 (4 1' V -
ikef # E
•
Permit for: Year Permit Number T
- block wall 1959 6251
- pool 1960 6861
- patio roof and slab 1959 5988
No permits exist for a storage shed. If the storage shed in question is less than 120
square feet in size, no permits would be required.
1315 Crestview Avenue
,. . f .9.4.10v:iciii;t• t.z-v .!;1171... srlita:TAir jri'v,,,, I 4't? 44, . 1,:51-17.,
) i , ' '#r
7 'r •r <.`
d.., .
• Elk • , '' . .5% 4 O
..tikto, ..: t A
‘ V.:6,A . ', 4%44 k p N..., 1 2 . c
if ei f 1 X..... .- r.
I 1 , L(
f*k.i.:- . f,` • ‘ 1 1 410 i , -,.
• L w"ft; ''"' "'"'"f r
to1
t
i ` Al- ";.,ray'',y .� s:a ,.• N.
2'i• �f •fir�./r" '�EP�A .' .d• 5 � '1A
r
•
.. , 1 0-, :0„, /...,„, ,„rode,' die. , , , . ...,,- ,, it._ . ,
It , 1 1 I * '.•• ..,:y"...x. .-: : •-‘,/,,",-,,,:',.:.,'.'..--,- - -...'.‘,..,...,. , , a!, .
'� 1 .! ' ,+',V,O ,� ,rte. , r.. .7 ‘ i
4 . r�jj�Y f • re R `, •r• s f,
Vi‘ t ,�,'//1'V' F '% .,�,..V',� • I•'
.'��� ''` �,��� ,I,��•f > `]� >'P' � '�� fir' �j �� _�
Ple:7447iplk . '4* A", 7.4-1, . • i '
. 1.," R
i. 4010.1
t ` . r .. j x ` ` w, t ,3/4,-....4-,
•:f .v ^ • ", .4.y.... tom .,4-1, , , .
.... . ..... , . 10- '.-... v.,,',/, = 14. , 'lip , !,,,
. . 7 ,........ -;,..1. ,Cir,:‘, . 4.- F "..i;le:, 4. „........._,. ' i••••
No permits are on file for structures within the rear yard. However, if the structures are
less than 120 square feet in size, no permits would be required. If the structure in
question is more than 10 feet from the rear property line, no code violation regarding
setback exists, but a building permit should be obtained for the structure.
1325 Crestview Avenue
,,, • ,
'1 . ",
• 1"4 f Z? .:. " N. a A 1" i . • , - ', • •
.4.1..4,0„ \, wf . , ,• • • • ,
711. :1• 1- ; • v• Ir ' vii,'`• 1-;A4. ,74'.., ,, . -4;:i f #
zi 04 it' . .-11 11.1' ..',11p . .s.f,r.gi 1.7: • ‘k.,
5,,,t
4e- •
•
...,.,, v. •
v. et . .4 - , iP4Ae , a,
, . .,• : •,'• • 46......*•, •41
-I-. L.• i '
.• ..;/. • to ..1- of 0 io.N.• .7..•.. . w ,.,
v —• ,, - : !. • -,-(..i. ..a....4 ,. ., , . .-
Ni0At,.
a
I. 1 I
efr;. ._4 4 1111.4.i ...„%i 4.4 t t..
• Ili •
f ,.1:AL" •::.°":411111W/i li 42.1.;If:::‘,Lit t k., \ ....
, *T.fr v ;10, ./ / . 1 .
a ._
.61 ...k 1,...".. 4kstioti : / t 1 • i.itt.tiNiri:'‘ i ' I
li
'7-4111 ii-Itell =-4C •",;1411 sil 61 i
, ... -
I s
1 ,-# • ' . .4 -4* A irr.. .4, . 1 ', list-ilipie•.::::._,-.-..,;:vc.
. .....e.4,..... ,4414,14 VII . .if. ...34" 'k• Zo46 f64/ . . -3'
.i--
, 111.11Wo., 1; - 0141111i0 61-i( k ' '
, 4.' 1 Aft• -,-il i • • ,,,, . --,,,, . -.,tr*, 44/1$Lit:: ',' I-404 it
ofts•,14›,4 I .6.:, -. a
.911
• • , •4,1.-: •.." . •-•..i - 'r:. ,,, .. , , ...„„: tif . .. .....,, 4• -11..
40000P
.
,. 11X4, , 1 i . .. . .0 irs,
-44‘...';t C'P . :t' ' ' . . * .."'-d_....11-__,•°'' •$ .0 ( w' -it")• 4 , :I.,.1..,-: •
... ' ' f . ,:41'.-.......,.- .,,.. 1 • t ,b. , i
4 4 .** .c - - , 4,..-- -i", • . ie--. - ., • 7 ,J •
• . .. ., .• i.
:P •
t• ,
- . ,A.:11}4,.:1;11. ..474;:;AP;'... *.t- :‘;::- qiot• 'ii' ,.. fi) ..
,J‘. II. ., .:, , •
r -,: -4.,; 4ii** -....i '•,t': 41).%". - 4\ ‘-:' ..1 - T •
i.. ‘‘‘' '666"4,• -4"f k -1 ' 6 16 • 4-4., itt.......,•.: .....t . • •fri t *.:" . -. N t . i. 4 • . ,
'.'i'v..-Z '.....7..41kIkk'--l', '''° . • . :'' '. : 6.. --'r'.1.A," 1 v ' . 'As'Si ' .A: 1 • ',4 i
k `
,,, 4.,i• vv,1:4:4,i .''•1,-*..1.4. ,AA.-., • ......,..*:, '. - ...;,, ,' ••,,•;- % -k. - .„
\
.,.. ‘.:, .. , . i .i. 1 -. .,-. .. ....... . .7 / A- - - . 1 •,,,,,k1
' ' ' ' ' t„ •i * - :i "" r.es ,' ; •41
' A...A ' .MK. ,. • * I . % • ,,,,, ,t, -,A, N. \
/ 4v..E.'''' .ar . .,_4 4%,: -, PoZ?... I t ' . - ....r.', .I:7i -, .I, ,,i.:.\ , . , •,- 'k„''k
.
—'1' 1r % .1 !•,.. '1...,:k. ..-- , ---tr'''•:-- r*,t' 7.041heir' /4. 4 -....., A.
. ..: ..,
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- spa and equipment 1979 719
- replaster pool and add spa 1995 14097
No permits exist for a structure. However, if the structure is less than 120 square feet in
size, no permits would be required. If the structure in question is more than 10 feet from
the rear property line, no code violation regarding setback exists, but a building permit
should be obtained for the structure.
1335 Crestview Avenue
.
K . .� ,i k. ,f- ; .1
i . ,. i
.... . y 4f: 1. ,.•, °1' •'t' 0/ . '' : .. 114 1
ik
Si g
.. :\il t,..., .1 et:,
•. 7 ti..ttti. . - .. .. ' 4 "l is..+"
t.
VP• a litit ....110,41. . ..y am`~
,,.. . .
• , • . ,., r-ir 4! ,-- '
0 4
. ,7 , ,.,,glog-.L. -41:6*- — 4
.w. . Ate - 44 .f: . . lk, „It
iar
t ,rr _, •. . a
0 1 , i1 ti
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- open lattice cover 1992 6963
- retaining wall 1992 6607
- pool 1963 504
- 1200 square feet concrete decking, 210
square feet redwood decking, chain link 1962 440
fence
No permits exist for a structure. If the structure in question is less than 120 square feet
in size, no permits would be required.
1415 Crestview Avenue
,
. • R
• .,
1 1 I fp. y jl.
�;
' \
YY ♦♦77ii
I:�,; ARV)... . ,
+lvGr �a7ssm11►s. ! , M •'
V[I
fib•4 . mimmmin rh4• . •
""�/• s .--1 li • ,
Y
l
I
f
1, 1
i
11
r. 1
i' '', }
I s z.
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- 618 square foot deck 1989 1786
- fire damage repair to rear portion of 1994 13358
deck
1435 Crestview Avenue
tit. sF .jam.• ►►•. A'
, ,.
41, ,, 7.0,-.4,0. ,4t' „ -% -t. •
t . .r;z:dtr,:01, hi \ :7 , •
$•-' 4 9'r ''''' ‘ '\ N
f' .. ,.,
4 1 y
r y►
t .: '
I ,2 .1'4.{r." /1 f 'r 1 r ,
Oil°r"ifih'-' : ° dlilleir4r .IAiwt
ii .$04,014:00:11 - , 14,1111: 4b4.___‘am,4%.*sp: i:.6. 1,,4:4' . .1.4 ix 1:., . ..„.fr'.
000,
• et ....„, ....i . .... .,.... . , ,r, .- ) - .
I), - : .4., . ..-,,,,,,
..1 / i . p,,,, ;:k ..' 4..:11.4.7tritir •,f ilt(41 4 *,r ek '.
Itir,r' ' . ;-.'. Xli It, . VrIrPir . '1
•
��, r '- �•T • �. � .---N.• 1 . ,~ -� Siti• .••'
r '.1�,1 'w tY,i . ���
! zILI ,'r 4"'y 44..' . `_ }f .1...11(.1 s.]...l4.4.4+11
—,1„-...,.: ,, , „,,o,,,,, .,.. „;.. ,. .. ...„„A.,,,...„.7-e„, - --3,,,_ ....., .„ A ip.,, .., ,
... i
No permits are on file for a structure within the rear yard. If the storage shed in question
is less than 120 square feet in size, no permits would be required. If the structure in
question is more than 10 feet from the rear property line, no code violation regarding
setback exists, but a building permit should be obtained for the structure.
1445 Crestview Avenue
• is .r • ..„ . f
'' ' It ••• , ,6. t.,r•
si,„ ..- .10 p .. ii„.. .„ . i •• ,4,,ii . t • •, 41 i c . 4f• , 1*.
Inii f %1 .',g ,* a .4. 4
....44 I 4 46 -, i .4\ 0 • . . ,
, ...,
.. ,,.. , 4 • ;111'' .. 0 ,„,,,,, ii' * %. •. „,.. ..
11,
A1,
., . •. ' 4''1 t 0
%. ., ,,.. •, ,
Y *' .• . ••,4 11. •I tIP? *t i ne40-. .' .h...., op . .
• . ,do/ •..11,' • P•i $44,6 ., .4*$A
" •owl -fitl•
f .'•; p 4 A.. ' •
• $ * iptift,'.• .$ •
i , .
. ue •
''''''''t ...\t, r\orall.....116,"" 1•.i'ir • • .. .
I\)t..
•- .
..4
rA ..-.. i40,
1
..,. ,,
A.tat0; I' 41111111112:f t '7".:
• , * %, i il • \ 4, .
vow. ........4. is•
. Ong‘ 1 i11111\ 111 IP Sci'uZ1'41°!.,''" .: f'. t t'it' INIZ' • BRIO' .4 , mll
1014
41114' 411441111411
VI
"
, • , 4' , •
4 • : .. ',.........
• . ,t •s '''...,"..:lia.. oe ...
.. , . I ' , t ' i •
i ..."'"••••••-,„,...
.. ,
i •• •........,.....4......
' ',417 . I', • I 't , "...e
..1 A,40 ..,:s$.•Oh t
Ik: . ' A - 4,'"... V .k. ,. . . • _
,.....
. ,
r „ . , , ....gm .... ,
,... A, . . • .. viii - - * •
..., it ,,...._:,. .%_. „ .• 11" ;1st
,.
!it" 0 gat ,k—, , :- . ,,, 4 0,,. ‘; 5‘„*I1104, lik % .-41/4,401...40.•-
,o- it- -.. _ . .• ....,„ , . .; ik -• ...-0.• ,, ...„ : , -...,,N, ... •iiik
•• -".„. ...
.4. •• It *6 171 #•
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- retainer and redwood fence 1960 6579
1445 Crestview Avenue
.. ,1
,,, ,
vi .1+, • 0,riprx-
./ 0. +4,- ,. ., , .4 ;-. t.
V IA, T• '4 ..i.„,,,,,Atili" - 0. 4.4-1.A.7:4 a; .„Al „. ,, ,, • ,
Iif , ,,, 4 k id % 101/4 • .. Li, , • „w, y,,. ,ur ."-,....- jr„ .......Alis.12, .. .
. . . ,,,. .,A , ,4 ,, p. .,k ..ikr • -47. 1 ' ' ' dr.44I loth* 1. r '' •'
. ..`,. ' (#1`* •If i '' ''' I 1 r' 4 ,1 .• it' :i' , ,6, ' . 4'4, e
, ,
, , , _ r - . • e ,, , I. . •, .. , jb. , • k, 4 , '.. ..• ,.,,f
t .• Ai • ' . ,4,i—II ' ." ,e, ,',, ,..:. :•',i•• If• .. p i, ' • , 1 3(..
" i ' '•,. .. .
4 4. 4 • IA• "' , ..4•41 I. .0 9 , f 't4 • -
.• "41(A;li . 1. ; 44 i . .• % Y i•, 0 , 4 •
ekt .
°. -- s! " ••• .''' ''' " " •a7Vi* ,;;)--., :, ' 4
• ..1 s•-,••• • •II ,• .. i 'o• ' • ' I r
tl. I
. . • 4. ".
-., ... ,....; 4 k oi`ft df , 4 I *,
vel * ‘‘.4 .-ak
, ,, $ r 4 2 • P"4 ? get: :
, $ %it ,,,sw° `•,' f- lip' 1 ' ki (II ' ;44'
.•.0, ": :.111 4 000,041* 1. t_ .• / %
' ! 1 '',0,' '. I 4 • ' 0
.4
. 1
:f'`.e
, 0:- r‘. ' 4i 1.„7 . ;Wm )4 •
, is ,! ,-. , ,, •
'
•
l'if f l'.4 ..
• i 0
, ... , . •
. . ..
i .• ' •ii -*.
f •" , -.
.• ' 4'. ' ^‘1' . ::_:
•1 , •' , /;.% t. A ,4 !Iitis1.* .l:i+N:IfTIL-114'41.4.4i1.
' 1 i
' • 'y',4: .. k' I. '4' . SA,•'es*"*le. *.4.1'6)+'''‘Ot
„,.....+41"....):*...":.. t„, ,....,.. ` , %Ns.. .4.,.....: ;24 ',111t, .!,,1,1,110", :..01.L.N-.4 .
t410 , t.„iiikl ..,jec.,1 zi. • ', .,, 4 • . 4,t s. 4, ' x s ' •‘,,'''.‹se,i.741,./4;e04110:11:. , 4.
I j.i• '1;1 ° /4%..‘14.*- If
, r irsiVit,+. ‘' i itt .* kr, • + '' ' .' M:: ' . 4C4‘1`',/ligaI •” kw/4.T'1,, 1
‘h ' ... : s . .4. • 44 W'.114, .
... ilk
liefor
‘•01.4.1Pkit•,e-
,N°I, If 'ibr v's.;,c`:fig•. \ ' • ° , _ .. , %• , , c . r
•1S
401:
4110 "'''' 1•014.4.....11P ...- '''''';‘ 1 . ..•' ..4 0 4" 4§. ,:' ,....l.
If the structure in question is more than 10 feet from the rear property line, no code
violation regarding setback exists, but a building permit should be obtained for the
structure. However, if the structure is less than 50 square feet in size and more than 10
feet from the property line, no permit is required.
1505 Crestview Avenue
,
V d • r e tri. Pikla 4 ti i •.d,_ 1-,,fir ,p. , . . •,0 .
4, 'Vb.e7
/� ' l 1
,,:, :, .,41.' .4 r.:.• 1 .1:01,:t- .); ' 1 .
Aar
, Ig ilk
fira 44;
'' ` r • ,.lj 1 ii, dv a- • . i ,,gr.:" fr. 9
� I'I` wt
1011'
''.., de ' j . . 1
-or ,/Zd •/ *•i ,0 [{• --'may
.0.-"" , iiiv I A
., 3 �/'/r
�� '—
i .:, e-,,:,..,..,,,,,,„,..-- t .,1. : -- s:A., , ._.. . :,.*
-...`"‘" ; V ' . p. pi. ..., - -• ......!.. . -
_ ... "
., ,,... . .
4
- i ...... - 1 , , .
_
efi 'r � t
. i' •
t 0 .4.-ArArs:141k i
, . y
is
pit i
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- pool 1984 888
- block wall 1985 1224
- pool 1962 356
- retaining wall 1963 392
- 550 square feet of decking 1963 248
- grapestake fence 1962 7466
- retaining wall 1995 12898
1515 Crestview Avenue
a
! 411III1IIiJII11lI �a— q'
iiii-
44 a
, .., . .. • i • tr kr 4.••,,vii. 4,4',
' 1 ti .
A
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- 553 square feet of redwood decking 1993 11219
- block retaining wall 1962 7555
1525 Crestview Avenue
IvW ,,y , I •,' ..• , 1 tom. 1 • .N •
I .., 3k'44•‘, ifir •v •1
i!IK 4: .$ # ,4 6.41:, .i# 1?liW41•6' \'‘ ).:.•
-i 4 . .. aloe, Is I a
II/L ,•,' • ' 7 .3p' rot }M t '•r Afr ie�t
1 00111; ,,......„:„:14,,,,......:.;5 0 r.b.,.,:-. .....i.'1''''7....4i.:-...:'-^::ipt4,,.I s y.1". s,:s. ..<14.1 -,.7';ot „,..1,,,:".A.:,,i;:i-IP.:.. : ,;.: -14,'% -7:1*.
r
! , It •. i. 1 7tJ Off /'_l<•• • . $s 4+ ,�I f.. h. 4
epo
o.
. . ` . 'Jr. 3. < ' t . b a f'.
p T • r 4.4 1
-1 i14..330 361. 4. . i 4(ti
♦ .F y .Y ai.f.t'. jj-. 11 .! Y..
,.. -,.- _ , , .--
;.. ., f, . ..,i , „iiiii.,,t
_ , ,.... .,_ ,., , . .
.4. _ 4.41 , -
4.
` • W,7 . f `,' &zit "-# -P ` ,.p . tr* t
CCC 'l �yy'
...- -:tad .Ivi i►. ...rt_ " A. s;
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- footings and 254 square foot third story 1995 13741
deck
No permits are on file for a retaining wall.
1729 Crestview Avenue
4.-• . ',. ..., :, , .- . ,, ..,. " '.. 011/4,4.,. . •11.
•.. 9
•.' ' •, •Ng ail.
itk
---..
.-., -7.
, . . .... #;: • > ti ;
in , .1. i• Ler"; . .am, t gh. 11. I . ..
"4.411\* 'All '
• • S
1{r t{lt en , ,� t `j•t� r
oil . •.,- 'i•.* • , it ,. ,,i, .,,,, .,.., „,.. t •'" ii. I, '•N . *' *
. " '-' '''-1:: .4:77F-2, -. 7. r p ,"•Vs ' V --.."'1 r t,•,-W."I V i i Le 4', 47,17 ; )ef
4
. , . . .-, ... _: ....,,,,,....„ - . . z., ,_.., t...... ,,,, ,..., ,s,6„,
4
, -,..., . ....„ , ..,
. ,;,,,- .,, p -.,-,',,-t. .1, ' • ''.0., '," . .',.••
t •/VMA 4.. .
M. :F�t. r�I 4. • r?.t} •�.��.jyt�`►j / ;s
lby
, ,
... ,..; ,....„......,
. , .7-j,
, :thiA... , _..,,r,„
- 0
Z. Tkt. II.;,, :,,:,..-- -,-.il' - -, ',. *;- 1;46.44'.'eq 4.-'. i $410:1?...4 tt.7.//A#4 14
3 .4.01....t..-'
Vii'• 00°.
.
. 1#•et•- • ' 4 -'f VA,..A+ 40/J4i. 14.00..t-. ••• 4, a .4„, '''fr:51.4..r.i.,,,m
,,,,dryii?,,- "it rte.'','......".4 .4rti,!ftd.:3;:010. iT6vid v--.•,
� a �� ��
' tiGai� 1; .i . ,'�' H .►S7A. � 4►s&-y:�.f:0�� t. t i 'h �� �� ,�a+a���ir.{
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- block wall 1974
- retaining wall 1988
- pool 1966
- addition to pool house 1968
- carport and guest house (no kitchen) 1968
- retaining wall and block wall 1965
- sundeck 1965
1
1733 Crestview Avenue
w l ,,} •moi f• I4,
1 $41
��r!/SI�J!i * �rVi f�ri t) .%i,...lir 't:. . ,
' '..4 :Ai. NI . , __,,,,. •9. '4 .4 e144$1'"1;1 s ,,, •7:, t , ' ,.1
\Nt.
Iii ,, . --_, ,.. -,... .--,-0.. _,. . • . • r . 111, i
J '"I''11' -, 1#4 :4111:4:t—I -II, ..t 4... i ..., . . . , ,t , .
A/ill IA. •111 . 5, . rill ,
-. , / [ . t. . j 4......
'? `1. _77,1,,-.
►/ 1 ' t ♦r _ •yF'. K1. �': ,..cii Y: I,, ,. 1.,..,.-,No,
.
wr , . t�.' 1/ , 4•"13
. ......40,-11-4,to.-, t, .', 4 _. ,;4 • ; ."`irb 11. it c'411...,r, .4 .0 Af
r- 441;f 4 1 ' / ', '1-L mil- i ' ` �1, 4 •
••• / - �,
ti f �"• !!Li ll • ,
• ' '
?''� '. � '►�► {- 'fig�r � � 4 4,•••
; 4 '��:. r �. fit ' ! i �•
� x^; ` �'
�
•-• a�y 1 t 7 -
' `-. r r.`'
, \,„:„.,,,,,,..,...,...,,
' „,,,,,,. ,7:,...,.. ...„4„ .,
t' 01;. . •.'• i",i! . ' '44;,/ Ati.;.
y lir +xY1.. �`i? 14.�iif. 'n4iu� mia r' iliL /Met '^y aiL, (
a
Permit for: Year Permit Number
- pool 1962
- addition to pool house 1968 565
- carport and guest house (no kitchen) 1968 565
- block retaining wall and block fence 1965 230
- sundeck 1965 138
The larger deck is known to not be permitted since this is property where the initial code
enforcement action and variance was denied that started the discussion of changing the
rear yard setback for this area of the City. Subsequently, a cabana has been
constructed on the non-permitted deck without the benefit of permits.
c
n/erCi/ /4 /9f
Stephen Reg Clewley q
945 Catalina Avenue . L i /o(/
Seal Beach, CA 90740
41111
City of Seal Beach City Council
City Hall
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: Consideration of further Amendments to Zoning Text Amendment 96-1/Ordinance 1419
Mayor Yost &Members of the Council,
1. Consider page 8 of the Seal Beach City Council minutes Dec, 8, 1997, "The city attorney
clarified that No further hearings are required".
2. Examine stop work order# 1112 issued Dec. 22, 1989.
3. The standard of review for a ZTA....the council must not be arbitrary,capricious or without
evidentiary support.
4. Planning Commission minutes Jan. 17, 1996,pg. 19. Mr. Steele advised Commissioner
Dahlman to abstain
5. I therefore request Attachment 8, a Minority Report from Commissioner Dahlman be sup-
pressed and not entered into evidence.
6. My letter to the Planning Commission Aug. 19, 1998, should be entered into these proceed-
ings in its entirity as directed by the Planning Commission.
7. City Council minutes of Sept. 30, 1996,unfairly suppresses my written communication of
that date. I request that written communication,herein provided,be entered into these pro-
ceedings verbatim and without pages missing.
8. Page 10 City Council minutes-Sept. 8, 1997, Councilmember Campbell's statement is un-
founded and lacks evidentiary support. She contended that the concern is with something
built years ago and it's not known what codes were required then. See City Council minutes
Sept. 30, 1996. Director of Development Services explained the setback was adopted in
1957. Houses were not constructed on"THE HILL"prior to that time. Councilmember
Campbell's motion was arbitrary, for a structure to be "Grandfathered" it must predate
otherwise applicable codes.
/C.,aiy,& 1 .z z
9 . Planning Commission minutes Feb. 17 , 1999- page 9
Mr. Wittenburg' s seen here carrying on with Councilmember
Campbells unfounded concern, again totally without eviden-
tiary support, again refer to City Council minutes Sept.
30 , 1996 where the Director explained that the setback
was adopted in 1957 .
10 . Page seven City Council minutes Dec . 8 , 1997
The Director arbitrarily, capriciously, and without
evidentiary support stated re Ordinance 1419 , "The ordinance
also reflects the determination of the Planning Commission. "
The determination of the Planning Commission is reflected
on Page 9 of the City Council minutes of Sept. 30 , 1996
where the Director reported that the Commission determined
to reccomend that no changes be made to the code . Ponder
if you will just what the Ordinance seeks to do if not
change the code?
11 . Page 8- City Council minutes Sept. 8 , 1997
The Manager offered that with adoption of the ordinance
proposed the city would send letters to property owners
advising of the regulations and requireing compliance
upon the sale of the home. Which is precisely what trans-
pired to bring about consideration of ZTA 96-1 in the
first place as explained in my column found on Page 5
of the News-Enterprise Dec. 25 , 1997 , which is herein
enclosed.
12 . Support for ZTA 96-1 and Ordinance 1419 has also come
from Gordon Shanks who lives on Surf Place. Mr. Shanks
was the subject of an aborted enforcement action several
years ago when the City Council decided that his "annex-
ation" of a portion of the Hellman Ranch was a civil
matter and therefore the responsibility of the Hellman
family to prosecute. Mr. Shanks development standards
cannot be embraced by a responsible City Council. His
evidence should be considered suspect and tainted. Mr.
Shanks incidently still occupies notoriously and hostilly
a good size chunk of wildlife nesting habitat proposed in
in the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan.
/odic 2 el -2_ 2_
13 . The appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of ZTA 96-1
was without merit. The properties with the drop off are
deeper than the properties without a drop off. 1733
Crestview in particular is 145 ft. deep as opposed to the
customary 100 ft. lots found on the hill. Owners of the
properties with a drop off were thus apparently compensated
for the rear yard slope when the lot lines were drawn with.
deeper lots . The owner of 1733 Crestview may well have
been greedy in supporting ZTA 96-1 before the Planning
Commission and they are certainly being selfish beyond reason
in appealing the Commission' s decision before the City Council.
14 . All efforts in support of Variance 5-90/ZTA 96-1/
Ordinance 1419 have attempted to give special privilege to
the owners of 1733 Crestview arbritarily, capriciously,
and without evidentiary support. The City Council properly
can determine only to enforce the code set forth. in 1957 as
it relates to yard setback requirements , support the
reccomendation of the Planning Commission, and order that
the illegally constructed structure be removed.
15 . Approval by the City Council of ZTA 96-1 or any amendments ,
Ordinance or mechinisum which has the effect to allow the
illegally constructed structure or structures at 1733
Crestview to remain in place shall be precidental and
irrevokabely eliminate the local Agency' s ability to enforce
code requirements in this jurisdiction, resulting in
catastrophic loses of otherwise collectable property tax
revenues and building permit fees as property owners come to
understand that they can build what they wish with impunity.
The policy of the city has been as the Manager offered, That
the city sends letters to the offending property owners ,
• and upon the sale of the property the city sends letters to
the new property onwners, and upon the sale of the property
will send letters to yet unborn property owners as infinitum
and ad nausium.
Very Truly,
"al.& Stephen Reg Clewley
Page Eight - City Council Minutes - December v, .397
recommended conditions the item would be removed from the
Consent Calendar and a public hearing scheduled, if no
objection to the conditions there would be no public hearing.
He noted that for persons who propose to build a new deck
within the setback area, those would require the conditional
use permit process with notice to properties within three •
hundred feet of the subject property. To the understanding
that some type of inspection of existing deck structures would
be conducted, the Director confirmed that an inspection will
be part of the minor plan review process, if there are major
violations of Building Code provisions as far as stability of
the structure, etc. the approval would be conditioned,
estimated the number of such structures as probably less than
ten or eleven, and that it will be the responsibility of the
individual property owner to make application to the City,
there is a twelve month period to submit an application for ___
the minor plan review, if they do not the issue would then be
discussed with the City Attorney. The City Attorney clarified
that this issue has been the subject of public hearings in the
past, the public has had considerable opportunity to comment,
therefore no .further hearings are required.
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the introduction and
first reading of Ordinance Number 1419 entitled AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW DECK
STRUCTURES IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS IN PROPERTIES IN THE
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT THE
HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 1419 was waived.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4596 - CIRCULATION
ELEMENT - GENERAL PLAN - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-4 / AMENDMENT
97-2 '
Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing open to consider
the Negative Declaration and Amendment 97-2 to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. The City Clerk certified that
notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required
by law and that there have been no communications received
relating to this item. The Director of Development Services
explained that the recommendation of the Planning Commission •
was to approve the subject Negative Declaration and the
amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the
subject street right of way was dedicated to the City by
Rockwell in 1985, a strip of land that has not been improved
from the and of Alolfo Lopez Drive, north to Westminster
Avenue just east of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, this
roadway vas included in the Circulation Element at the time
the seven hundred seventy-three unit housing project for the
Hellman property was under consideration and at that point the
First Street extension to Lopez Drive was part of that process
as vas this extended roadway to Westminster Avenue. As part
of the recent Hellman Ranch Specific Plan approval process,
one of the amendments to the General Plan vas to delete this
roadway from the Circulation Element, this particular roadway
had initially been missed from that implementation plan. He
explained that this roadway deletion will make the Circulation
Element consistent with the approved Hellman Ranch Specific
Plan, the Resolution makes reference to the response to
comments regarding the Negative Declaration, there were two,
the Southern California Association of Governments indicating
that the project is not regionally significant therefore they
had no comment, the other from CalTrans, Orange County Region,
indicating it does not impact their roadways therefore they
had no concern.
7
�2 z
N ... 4 .
O• C u C
Z
1 t,it.
0
i
y -
'
V v" ; v
M
I A
S 1 V
;
o s V i ii:F
ma 11jI
W c
O
. LL zN. U
C I c
J� c
a
'..1 t ta; E \?1 Z
h c c -_
1 >- , S2
2 6i a O• Z
1
•
+ 1
t1 + • '"N
': 1
4'142_rn IEX!-�11TA. __
Public Hearing - Appeal of Planning Comnu.Iv7nn
Denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along Crestvaex, Catalina & Surf Place
Cite Council Staff Repot
September 23, /996
The Planning Commission devoted an substantial amount of time during their deliberations on
this application in regards to the issues and concerns raised relating to this issue. Please refer
to the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings of January 17, February 21, March 6.
1996, and March 20, 1996.
In approving Planning Commission Resolution 96-4, the Commission adopted certain findings
which are set forth in Section 4 of the Resolution. These finding were based upon careful
consideration of the following:
• the testimony received at the public hearings of January 17, February 21 , and March 6.
1996;
■ the information provided in the Planning Commission Staff Reports of January 17,
February 21, and the Staff Memorandum of February 28, 1996, including the
recommended conditions of approval; and
• the concerns and deliberations of the Planning Commission expressed after the close of
the public hearing.
Based upon the information presented and the specific findings of fact determined by the
Commission, the Planning Commission determined to not recommend approval of the proposed
Zone Text Amendment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ZONE TEXT AMi'1 rNT
The requested Zone Ordinance Text Amendment 96-1 is a legislative act. Therefore, 'the City
Council is provided a great deal of latitude in determining whether to adopt amendments to the
City's development "constitution". The City Council may determine the requested Zone
Ordinance Text Amendment 96-1 is in the public interest and approve the request as requested
by the appellant, or determine to approve the request with modifications. Likewise, the City
Council may determine the requested Zone Text Amendment is not in the public interest and
determine to not amend the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as recommended by the
Planning Commission. When considering to adopt or deny of the requested Zone Ordinance
Text Amendment 96-1, the determinations of the City Council must not be arbitrary, capricious. !,
or without evidentiary support.
D\WP51`.ZTA`,961 C flLVA09-Cu.9e 3
Pale 19-City Cl Seal Beach PLmio*Cammiuiao Mawea of January 17, 19%
6. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
Applicant: City of Seal Beach
Conflict of Interest
Commissioner Dahlman stated he believed'he lives within 300' of the properties abutting the
Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park because he received a Notice on this application. He said x
he felt that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPP) ruling deprives the residents of the
district he represents from due representation by their elected and appointed representatives and C
he vigorously objects to that ruling. rn
flMr. Steele advised Commissioner Dahlman that, because he lives within 300' of the affected
properties, the FPP says he has a conflict of interest and he must announce his conflict of
interest and abstain from participating in the decision on this matter. W
Commissioner Dahlman asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting and asked if he
could address this matter from the podium as a member of the public.
Mr. Steele said Planning Commissioners are permitted to speak as a private citizen on an issue
which directly affects their property.
With the permission of the Chair, Commissioner Dahlman was excused from the meeting at 9:42
p.m.
Staff Report
Mr. Curtis presented the staff report for ZTA 96-1, a request by the City of Seal Beach to
consider an amendment to the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Low Density
zone, District V, to permit wooden decks to be constructed within the rear yard setback. If
approve, the proposed amendment would allow wooden decks up to 10 feet in overall height
to be built to the rear property line, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The
proposed amendment is intended to address rear yard slope along the rear yards of Crestview
Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf Place. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for
reference].
Mr. Curtis indicated this ZTA came before the Planning Commission in 1990 in the form of a
Variance. A homeowner along Crestview Avenue had a home with a substantial slope at the
rear of the property and he built a deck without the requisite Building Department permits. The
Planning Department thus began a Code enforcement action. The applicant was advised of the
opportunity to apply for a Variance, to seek legalization of the deck. During the Public
Hearings that property owner argued that there are other properties which abut the Hellman
Ranch which had similar decks/structures. Based on that testimony, staff conducted a walking
survey of the back of the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove properties. Staff found there were
six (6) other properties along those streets which had non-permitted decks or patio covers which
z(2 2-
LCU
/://i
Public Hearing -Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Zone Text Amendmeru 96-1
Rear Yard Setback Requirements, Decks along G}estview, Catalina Surf Place
Cry Council Staff Report
September 23, 1996
ATTACHMENT 8
1 _ �
r° Minority Report from Commissioner Dahlman, dated
April 22, 1996 )
D:Wwr51\zrMM%1.CCU.10.'109-0C% 14
2' Z
Stephen Reg Clewley
•
9+5 Catalina Ave.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Aug. 19, 1998
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
City Hall GTY OF SEAL BEACH
211 Eighth St.
Seal Beach, CA 90740 AUG I 1998
9
DEPARTMENT OF
RE: August 19, 1998 STAFF REPORTDEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Rear Yard Setbacks, Decks Along
Crestview, Catalina and Surf Place
Honorable Chairman and members of the Commission:
I object to this matter appearing on calendar as a scheduled
matter. While staff might like to think of this transaction as
administrative in nature clearly the emphasis intended is to ensure
an absence of public testimony pertaining to errors of ommission or
deliberate misrepresentation of facts. The current status of
Variance 5-90/2TA 96-1/Ordinance 1419 is that the matter has been
denied, twice by the Planning Commission and twice by the City
A bewildered City Council voted to ask staff for direction, staff
told the council it would report back two meetings hence and did
nothing of the sort .
This issue had its genesis on December 22, 1989 when building
inspecter Chuck Feenstra red tagged 1733 Crestview by issueing
Stop Work Order No. 1112. No enforcement action has ever been
initiated, otherwise the property would have long since belonged to
the city or the structure would have long since been brought :into .
conformity with pre-existing codes related to building and zoning.
While the attachments to this staff report document in detail and
verbatim nearly every word ever said in support of the proposed
Variance, Zoning Teat Amendment, and Ordinance as much as possible
has been done to obfuscate the underlying facts, summarize the verbal
opposition, and delete or detroy written communications received in
opposition to this Variance/Zoning Text Amendment/Ordinance.
2
Where the Staff report background information seiously
diverges from the facts of the matter begin on page 2 within
the second paragraph thereon. The Commission' s decision was
appealed to the City Council and a building permit was issued
in violation of stop Work Order No. 1112 allowing construction
to commence at 1733 Crestview which included the illegal installation
of an exterior staircase from newly created living space on the 2nd
floor to the ground floor level without requiring additional
nat ovarsite corrected ..._ ,_._.::!otratively by passinz a law to
allow pre-existing exterior staircases.
Paragraph 4 of page 2 omits the particularly! relevant fact,
that During December ' 97-January ' 98, the Council considered Ordinance
1419 and, after discussion and deliberation the Ordinance failed.
.(hat we have here is a case of deja- vu. Nowhere in the materials
provided you by staff is there any attempt to explain why it took
five years from the time the Appeal of Variance 3-90 was denied for
staff to produce Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 however the regulatory
and procedural approach employed by staff can be glimpsed on page 8
of the City Council minutes of September 8, 1997 near the middle of
the page where, "The manager offered that with the adoption of the
ordinance proposed the City would send letters to property owners
known to have existing decks advising of the new regulations and
requiring compliance upon the sale of the home, or before if desired
by the home owner." There was nothing haphaard regarding the
timing for the emergence of TA 96-1 it was precipitated by the sale
of the property.
::ow the City Council and staff would like Liothing :,ior:e to
repeat Tl s reultory and procedural approach burying the issue in
endless dialog and navel contemplation for so long as the Myers own
the offending property. There is but one problem, the jig is up,
the cat is out of the bag, they aren't going to get away with it, In
the future only fools will purchase a building permit, because the
city is known to have no interest in enforcing the codes.
/D 2- ;;inc erely
LCL; ;teph �.eg Clealey
C4:- 9-30-96
standard. Mr. Bill Morris, neighbor of the appellant, expressed
support for the Zone Text Amendment to allow the use of the rear
ten feet of these properties which, in turn, would provide the
ability for the City to control, aesthetically screen, and
maintain the area up to the property line, where it is presently
- unusable and unkept. Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, read his
written communication to the Council with regard to his concerns
and comments to such issues as the lack of compliance with
building codes, securing proper permits, arguments in support of
ZTA 96-1 relating to structure safety, protection against
hillside erosion, the need for code enforcement, objection to
exterior staircases without requiring additional parking, etc.
The communication of Mr. Clewley appeared to indicate an
opposition to the appeal. Mr. Dave Bartlett, representing
Hellman properties, stated that the quality of the edge of
property conditions is important to them, the southerly property
boundary of approximately five thousand linear feet, whether it
be with development of the Hellman property or the abutting
properties, of particular concern is privacy, noise, light,
glare, aesthetics, etc. , and generally they are not supportive
of the reduced setback yet are trying to be responsive to the
issues that the City is attempting to resolve. He noted that a
letter had been forwarded to the Planning Commission stating
that they are supportive of some type of arrangement that would
appease the property owners that have this existing condition,
yet the Zone Text Amendment may not be the correct vehicle,
rather, a variance process given the few affected properties, to
which they suggested an average ten foot setback with • minimum
of six feet which would allow some articulation of the deck and
some landscaping, thus eliminating massive deck structures to
the six foot line, the intent being that the area be landscaped
and screened so that it would be aesthetically pleasing from
both sides of the property line, with particular attention to
the elimination of clutter from the underside of decks. Mr.
Bartlett concluded that their recommendation still stands. Mr.
James Goodwin, Crestview Avenue, inquired as to the reason for
the setback in the first place, also the correctness of a
comment that a wall could be constructed on the property line
therefore a deck should likewise be allowed to the line. The
Director of Development Services again noted that the setbacks
for the area were changed in 1957, the reasoning for the change
is uncertain, generally setback requirements from property lines
are to prevent the spreading of fire from structure to
structure, for light and ventilation around residential
structures as well, typically cities have different Code
requirements for fences than they do for structures, fences are
allowed to be built on a property line however a city may
regulate the height and design thereof, yet very few cities will
allow structures that have the potential to spread fires to be
built close to a property line. Mr. Goodwin said he had
envisioned, yet questioned, that one could increase their
property area by constructing a wall on the property line, fill
the area with dirt, and then, abiding with the five foot
sideyard and ten foot rear setbacks, build a structure. The
Director responded that the concept of Mr. Goodwin was correct,
and explained that provisions of the Code allow the slope area
to be filled or terraced to the rear property line, it is the
raised structure above grade level that is currently prohibited.
There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the
public hearing closed.
Councilman Brown inquired if there is another mechanism, such as
a variance, to address the rear setback issue for these few
properties, as had been suggested by Mr. Bartlett, in addition
there should be some type of agreement that the property owner
would maintain a deck underside in a proper, aesthetically
pleasing manner. The City Manager said it was his understanding
G� �
Sem
O
3� Q�d Stephen Reg Clewley
945 Catalina Avenue
Seal Beach, Ca 90740
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Council Chambers
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, Ca
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
There is a view circulating within this community that the
building code really serves no other purpose than to record
improvements for the convenience of the Assessor' s Office so that
these improvements can then be taxed and taxed again year after
year. This being the case any property owner who is less than
thoroughly delighted with the prospect of paying ever higher
property taxes may be inclined to, at best, ignore requirements
for building permits or worse, to deal with any such regulations
with an air of contempt.
This case has followed a pattern with which I am all too
familiar. The then owner of ! 733 Crestview was red tagged on or
about December 22, 1989, that is he was ordered to cease all work
on his property because he had no permit for the deck and patio
cover which were under construction. Subsequent to the issuance
of the aforementioned Stop Work Order Mr. Ralston and or those in
his employ, with knowledge and complete disregard of the Stop :Work
Order continued and finished to his satisfaction construction of
the patio deck1 .
The Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990 quote Mr.
Ralston as saying "When the three of us built that we didn't
know we were in Code violation" . Mr. Ralston' s ignorance of the
building code was apparently short lived as upon appeal to the City
Counci it seems he was able to argue chapter and verse rather
persuasively that just maybe the building code was no good and that
maybe it was not his deck but the building code that needed to be
torn apart and thrown away.
Some obscure possible flaw in the drafting of an ordinance got
the matter sent back to the Planning Commission where the matter
1 . Staff Report- LIAR 5-90 October 3 , 1990 Page 2 of 6 paragraph3 .
Fzie iLF2
t
2
lay dead for so long as sir. Ralston owned the property. The
property was sold which forced the issue to the surface again
in the form of ZTA 96-1 . Amongst the arguments advanced in
support of ZTA 96-1 is an envirothental position that the deck
provides good protection against erosion. That is highly
debatable, at some point water will find a way under the deck
and the changes from naturally occuring hillside vegetation to
plantings designed to hide the existence of the deck may very
well result in a destabilization of the hillside. The argument
has been made that the deck should stand because it was well built
That assertion is false and was apparently a deliberate attempt
to mislead the honorable Planning Commission. Good building
practices require that prior to the commencement of construction,
all requisite permits and waivers be acquired. Inspections of
footings must be conducted prior to the placement of concrete.
The inspection of footings is of paramount importance as structural
integrity is ultimately dependent upon the footings. The only
way I' ve ever seen a footing inspected after the placement of
concrete was in cases where the footings were exhumed.
ZTA 96-1 received a hearing before the Planning Commission that
was not only fair but exhaustive. Absolutely overwhelming
evidence ( including but not limited to aesthetics, safety, lighting,
noise, precedent , and respect for law and order) prevailed. Thus •
rebuffed the appellant now employs the tactic of last resort, the
ad hominem argument. The appellant may well have been greedy
in their support of ZTA 96-1 and they are certainly selfish beyond
reason in the remedy now sought from this City Council. Easement ,
schmeasement , they are demanding appeasement .
There comes a time and that time is now that this City Council
is going to have to enforce the building code or get off the pot .
There is more involved in your decision here tonight than the fate
of one illegally constructed sun deck. The city' s willingness
to sit upon it 5 hands where code enforcement is concerned has not
gone unnoticed and we are witnessing a pushing of the envelope and
the grotesque disfigurement of Gum Grove park, note the 13 foot wall
Pr""eI'l y I e ?r,ferr e
�, v
at the"-rear`ro� 1505 Crestview, the 16 foot wall at the rear'of '1525
Crestview, and the 13 foot nine inch wall at about the far end of the
park. Page i3 of the Planning Commission 4nutes of October 3 , 1990
paragraph 2. "Mr. Curtis said staff inspected every yard along
Page. 1.3 °P 22s-
t .
3
Crestview. None of the existing decks infringe upon the rear set-
backs- they are all set back ten feet from the property line."
Unquote, mhat is not the case tonight.
While I'm here pointing a finger and naming names this evening
allow my parting stab at the City Attorney' s office for allowing
the construction of an exterior staircase from the newly constructed
living spacev-t�os2 r tnd level without requiring additional
parking provided at 1733 Crestview in obvious violation of the
spirit of ZTA 92-6. Don't get me wrong, as it deviated from the
uniform building code ZTA 92-6 was bad legislation from the outset
and ought be repealed but if you're going to write these laws for
the benifit of the Assessor' s Office you're going to have to enforce
them to protect the value of the property of the citizens who abide
by them. Please don't give me the old existing staircase routine
as there has been a ladder leaning against the side of my house 10
these last five years and when I get around to putting a second floor
on the struct 'ure you're going to have to approve itli use as a
staircase.
fa3e_ X22
Page Ten - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
and whether more is necessary to make the structure legal.
Councilman Brown said of concern is the change of
requirements, where it was once six foot footings it is now
eight feet, it may be as sound as another yet the City would
be im osin more re ulations.`' The Mayor stated that the City
- is mere y rying to ma e eck structures legal. Councilmember
Forsythe said this may penalize an owner that did not build
the structure, this an intrusion into peoples lives, and the
City would be taking on a responsibility that it should not be
involved with. Question was posed as to how that would
- jeopardize the permon from seeking a CUP. Discussion
continued. When seeking a CUP question was raised as to what
I. an inspection entails, the Director responded that there are
two different types of inspections, for the CUP process
• relating to decks, he or the Assistant along with a Building
Inspector would make the inspection to verify that the plans
submitted are accurate, the deck location in relation to
property lines, etc. , as part of that process the Inspector
would be requested to make recommendations of any upgrades
that would need to be made to the structure if it does not
comply with Code requirements, in that case it would be
wi submitted to the Planning Commission for additional
1 conditions, the process not different from remodels,
conversions, or additions to an existing nonconforming
residential structure, assuming Commission approval, building
- permits are then issued and inspections are made to assure
compliance with minimum requirements. It was confirmed that
A should the ordinance be adopted, six to seven property owners
'.:would need to make application for a CUP, a situation similar
for comparison sake to the forty some doghouses that were also
required to seek a CUP for assurance of Code compliance. To a
e question as to whether any decks extend beyond the property
line, the Director responded that if one were to go by the
fence between the resL:'.e,:tial area and Gum Grove Park the
answer is no, however one may not want to depend on that fence
as the property line, thus a survey would need to be
submitted, at this point it does not appear that any of the
decks extend over the property line. Councilmember Forsythe
stated her intent to oppose the ordinance, her belief is that
there are more than seven properties affected, this is a
backyard deck issue that the private property owner should be
responsible for, not a governmental body, it is a private
property issue. In brief, the City Attorney reviewed the
options for consideration, 1) the Planning Commission
jrecommendation for no change to the Code, the structures are
illegal, staff would pursue Code enforcement; 2) staff
recommendation that a CUP be requested within the next twelve
months for existing decks, and there would be no new decks; 3)
Councilmember Forsythe's proposal that all existing decks be
grandfathered, new decks would require a CUP; and 4) all
decks, new and old, would require a CUP. As a point of
clarification of the reference to CUP's for all decks, mention
was made that there are only six or seven that would require
that process, to that the Director noted that the key language
is that the decks were constructed without permits.
Campbell moved, second by Forsythe, to approve Option Three, :I]
that existing decks be grandfathered, new decks would require
a CUP.
t _-
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
NOES: Hastings Motion carried
The Mayor again stated that any deck built without a permit is-7
r- illegal, and Councilmember Campbell said the concern is with r
something that was built years ago and it is not known what
codes were required then. The City Attorney stated that a �4
L -- revised ordinance would be prepared for consideration.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission-Minutes of the February 17, 1999 Meeting
1 structure and Chairman Brown was questioning how many had non-permitted structures
2 and violated the setback. Mr. Whittenberg explained that some structures may be
3 permitted but violate current setback requirements. These structures may have met the
4 setback requirements at the time of construction since zoning standards change over
5 time. Mr. Whittenberg estimated there might be between eight and fifteen properties
—6 that have some type of non-permitted structure within the rear yard setback area. The
7 actual number has not been determined as of yet due to limited staff. Whether a
8 change to the Code is adopted or not, staff will need to verify the properties that need to
9 conform. Mr. Whittenberg also mentioned that it might be possible to enlarge the
10 negative for the Hellman's aerial photograph to assist in determining the exact number
11 of structures in violation.
12
13 Mr. Whittenberg followed up on staffs initial comments in that staff is looking for a
14 direction back to the Council if the previous recommendation of not changing the Code
15 is still applicable, or if a different approach should be taken. A different consideration
16 may be necessary based on the previous discussions of the Commission and Council
17 regarding the proposed change. One possibility is the Minor Plan Review process for
18 non-permitted structures. A second possibility a Minor Plan Review for existing
19 structures and a Conditional Use Permit for future structures within the setback area.
20
21 Chairman Brown questioned why the Commission would need to consider an ordinance
22 that would be adopted by Council. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the ordinance was a
23 result of the initial ZTA.
24
25 Chairman Brown clarified for his understanding that the ordinance would allow existing
26 structures to remain and that future structures could be built within the rear yard
27 setback. Mr. Whittenberg agreed and noted that this was the consideration of the
28 Council, but ultimately was not approved. Mr. Whittenberg then explained how laws are
29 changed sometimes because circumstances change.
30
31 Mr. Steele offered further clarification of changing the Code and the setback
32 requirements and sets up a mechanism to get the structures approved.
33
34 Chairman Brown asked if the current law was a restriction to property owners wishing to
35 build new decks, not necessarily those who have already built decks. Mr. Whittenberg
36 stated that the primary concern was the structures that have been already built, but the
37 ZTA process is there if the standards need to be changed. He also indicated that within
38 the last few years, requests to build in the area in question has not been on regular
39 basis.
40
41 Chairman Brown summarized that the Commission has looked at this issue three times
42 previously and has recommended not changing the Code. His two big concerns would
43 be how to handle the decks that had previously been constructed and how to handle
44 future requests for construction. Chairman Brown then asked if the study session
45 discussion tonight had been noticed to the residents.
46
Zj
9
9-30-96
opposes any development of the Bolsa Chica which includes the
Mesa due to the unmitigatable adverse impacts to the surrounding
communities." Brown moved, second by Fulton, to receive and
file the staff report, authorize the Mayor to sign the response D
letter, as amended, favoring wetlands restoration of the
Lowlands at Bolsa Chica, and instructed staff to forward thismmi
item to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality
Control Board for information purposes.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton /
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hastings Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1 - REAR YARD
$ETBACES - CRESTVIEW/CATALINA/SUpF PLACE ♦T1
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the Z
appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Zone Text Amendment
96-1, Rear Yard Setbacks for decks along Crestview, Catalina and aml
Surf Place. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public
hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and
reported no communications received either for or against this
item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff
report and background detail relating to the Planning Commission
consideration and denial of ZTA 96-1 which addresses the ability
of homeowners adjacent to the Hellman land to construct raised
patio decks on the rear portion of their property. He noted
that in 1990 a code enforcement action was commenced on a patio
deck being constructed closer to the rear property line than
current Code allows, which is a ten foot setback, the property
owner at that time then requested a variance to allow the
structure to remain within the ten foot non-permitted area, the
Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance, an
appeal was filed upon that denial, the Council denied the
variance as well however requested that there be no code
enforcement until such time as a Zoning Text Amendment could be
considered to revise those Code standards. The options proposed
for consideration of the Commission with regard to ZTA 96-1 were
to allow a raised patio deck structure to extend to the rear
property line, a request of several property owners in the area,
the staff recommendation was to allow a raised patio deck
structure with a six foot setback from the rear property line to
be maintained as an open space area where it adjoins the
boundary of the Hellman land, part of the reasoning for the six
foot setback being that there is an Edison easement that runs
through the rear of those properties, and the third option was
to leave the Code as it presently exists. The Director reported
that the Commission determined to recommend that no changes be
made to current Code, that resulting in an impact on four or
five properties that have constructed some type of a structure '
r- within the ten foot setback area. He explained that the setback
was adopted in 1957 therefore anything constructed since that
time has been done without a permit, there have been no
inspections, and there is no knowledge as to the condition or
safety of the structures. He reviewed the options for Council
consideration to deny the appeal and retain present Code
standards, sustain the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Myers and
revise the Code to permit decks at an appropriate distance from
L the property line, or refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission if new information is presented. He directed
attention to a map showing the footprint of each lot and
boundary line between the residential structures and the Hellman
property within the area of discussion. With regard to the
topography of the area he noted there are approximately twenty-
five to thirty lots that have a fairly steep drop-off from the
residential lots into the Gum Grove that either have similar
structures, or, if the Code were changed there would then be a
potential to build something of a raised nature out to the
/ 7 Z
rage Seven - C17y Council Minutes - Deceacer tl, 199/
State Lands site, use it as a museum, there could possibly be
meeting rooms, all open to the public. Councilmember Forsythe
advised that as part of the Hellman Specific Plan proceedings
the Krenwinkle house has been designated to be moved to the
State Lands parcel, that part of the development agreement,
the Hellmans agreed to fund the move, the Historical Society
could possibly place some of their materials there, etc. Ms.
Corbin reiterated her request for a plan as to the use of the
house and source of funds to operate it. The Mayor explained
again that $40,000 of subdivision park fees have been
designated for the Krenvinkle House. At the conclusion of
discussion, Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve
Amendment Number Two of the Agreement with the Luraschi Family
for the Krenwinkle House.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
ITEM "M" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4594 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 308
9CEAN AVENUE - STEFFENSEN
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, requested an explanation of this
item. The Director of Development Services advised that the
request is to combine two side-by-side parcels into a single
lot to allow a large home to be built on the property along
the Gold Coast, noting that the Planning Commission has
approved the plans for the home, this was a condition of their
approval as one can not build across a property line. Brown
moved, second by Fulton, to adopt Resolution Number 4594
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-97-4, FOR PORTIONS
OF LOTS 3, 4, 17, 18, 5 AND 16 OF BLOCK 03 OF TRACT NO. 2, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 3 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, ALSO
KNOWN AS 308 OCEAN AVENUE." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4594 vas waived.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
ITEM "P" - P. M DESIGN GROUP - CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Ms. Corbin, Seal Beach, said upon reading the staff report it
appears that the contract is to be amended to include
additional services, thus costs, the contract seeming to be
open ended, suggesting that there should possibly be a maximum
amount. It was explained that the additional services are on
a time and material basis, if the City had a larger staff
possibly some of the work could be accomplished in-house,
there is not, therefore is contracted out. Ms. Corbin again
suggested a limit to the amount. Hastings moved, second by
Campbell, to approve the amendment to the REM Design Group
contract as presented.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: • None Motion carried
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1419 - ZTA 96-1 - DECK STRUCTURES �!f
The Director of Development Services stated the proposed
I _ Ordinance is felt to reflect the most recent direction of
Council with regard to the issue of non-permitted decks on
lots that abut the Gum Grove Park or Hellman Ranch, the
ordinance also reflects the determination of the Planning
Commission at the conclusion of their hearings. He explained
L__. that the ordinance 'would require those properties that have a
non-permitted existing deck structure within the setback area
to come before the Planning Commission for a minor plan
review, the minor plan review is not a public hearing item
however is a noticed matter to properties within one hundred
feet of the subject property and if there are objections to
/5)1Z 2
Page Nine - City Council Minutes - September 30, 1996
Amendments for Wetlands Restoration, Mayor Forsythe requested
that the last sentence of the third paragraph be amended to
read "Residential development will be precluded on all but 42
acres of the Bolsa Chica Lowland however, the City of Seal
Beach still adamantly opposes any development of the Bolsa
Chica which includes the Mesa due to the unmitigatable adverse
impacts to the surrounding communities." Brown moved, second
by Fulton, to receive and file the staff report, authorize the
Mayor to sign the response letter, as amended, favoring
wetlands restoration of the Lowlands at Bolsa Chica, and
instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning
Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for
information purposes.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hastings Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - ZONE TEXT MFNDMENT 96-1 - REAR Y Rn
SETBACKS - CRESTVIEW/CATALIN J SURF PLACE
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider
the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Zone Text
Amendment 96-1, Rear Yard Setbacks for decks along Crestview,
Catalina and Surf Place. The City Clerk certified that notice
of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as
required by law, and reported no communications received
either for or against this item. The Director of Development
Services presented the staff report and background detail
relating to the Planning Commission consideration and denial
of ZTA 96-1 which addresses the ability of homeowners adjacent
to the Hellman land to construct raised patio decks on the
rear portion of their property. He noted that in 1990 a code
enforcement action was commenced on a patio deck being
constructed closer to the rear property line than current Code
allows, which is a ten foot setback, the property owner at
that time then requested a variance to allow the structure to
remain within the ten foot non-permitted area, the Planning
Commission recommended denial of the variance, an appeal was
filed upon that denial, the Council denied the variance as
well however requested that there be no code enforcement until
such time as a Zoning Text Amendment could be considered to
revise those Code standards. The options proposed for
consideration of the Commission with regard to ZTA 96-1 were
to allow a raise-! patio deck structure to extend to the rear
property line, a request of several property owners in the
area, the staff recommendation was to allow a raised patio
deck structure with a six foot setback from the rear property
line to be maintained as an open space area where it adjoins
the boundary of the Hellman land, part of the reasoning for
the six foot setback being that there is an Edison easement
,r-- that runs through the rear of those properties, and the third _ 1
option was to leave the Code as it presently exists. The 1
Director reported that the Commission determined to recommend I
that no changes be made to current Code, that resulting in an ___I
impact on four or five properties that have constructed some
type of a structure within the ten foot setback area. He
explained that the setback was adopted in 1957 therefore
anything constructed since that time has been done without a
permit, there have been no inspections, and there is no
knowledge as to the condition or safety of the structures. He
reviewed the options for Council consideration to deny the
appeal and retain present Code standards, sustain the appeal
of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Myers and revise the Code to permit decks
at an appropriate distance from the property line, or refer
the matter back to the Planning Commission if new information
is presented. He directed attention to a map showing the
footprint of each lot and boundary line between the
�p /9
r 2
,Date_
Page Eight - City Council Minutes - September 8, 1997
Councilmember Forsythe noted that the deck being referred to
was constructed without permits, the property was then sold, a
reason for the delay of time was due somewhat to the number of
properties that had similar decks, it would be difficult to
single out one from the others, it is also difficult to
require a homeowner to change a deck that may have existed for
some ten to thirty years and likely prior to applicable codes.
She expressed her belief in homeowners being able to enjoy
their property, if there are special circumstances whereby
they are mandated to obtain a CUP they should be allowed to do
so as long as it does not adversely affect another, the way
the land slopes on these particular properties it is unusable
and does pose a problem. She offered that it is unlikely that
staff will have time to research all of the decks that
currently exist, if the ordinance is adopted, henceforth
anyone who wishes to have a similar type deck would need to
come to the City for review under the CUP process as a result
of special circumstances, however expressed objection to
requiring persons who have had decks for years to go through
the CUP process at this point in time. It was explained that
anyone wishing to construct a deck in the future could do so
by obtaining a CUP. Mayor Hastings expressed concern that
some of the existing decks may not meet Code, may need
reinforcement, etc. The Manager offered that with the
adoption of the ordinance proposed the City would send letters
to property owners known to have existing decks advising of
the new regulations and requiring compliance upon the sale of
the home, or before if desired by the home owner.
Councilmember Forsythe inquired as to the liability of the
City should someone get hurt subsequent to a mailed notice.
The City Attorney advised that cities are granted immunities
with regard to the issuance of permits, there is a concept
when the City is put on notice of a dangerous condition on
public property, however in this case it would be private,
developed property, and if the City were to be put on notice
that a deck is dangerous after going through this process the
City could become part of a legal action. Councilmember
Forsythe stated again her position that the City should not be
involved in the issue of decks, if a deck henceforth adversely
affects another property that will be determined through the
CUP process, if it has no adverse affect they should be
allowed on private property. Councilman Brown noted that
properties are not inspected when sold, only when application
is made for a building permit for the construction of
something, he would have concern with requiring inspection for
the sale of property, and if there is no serious risk of
liability he would have no problem with the proposal of
Councilmember Forsythe. Councilmember Campbell said sometimes
people ask to see the building permits when a home is sold to
assure that all is legal. Mayor Hastings again noted concern
that many of the decks were built without permits and they
should meet code requirements for safety purposes.
Councilmember Forsythe again expressed her belief that the
pre-existing decks should not be required to obtain a CUP,
rather, notice the property owner that the City accepts no
liability, that liability lies with the property owner. The
City Manager offered that if those that exist are going to be
allowed yet a future deck will require a permit, if there is
no inventory how will it be known which is permitted and which
is not, therefore suggested that the property owners be put on
notice that henceforth a permit is required, then as property
ownership changes and additions or remodels are done the issue
can be corrected. Councilmember Campbell commented that
people having decks that do not meet Code will not make
application for the CUP, and if a neighboring property
questions the stability of a deck what is the City going to do
then. The Mayor emphasized that there needs to be some
,c7 2z.
cu a' oo ,- a' a'
3 5 o c d s ,.. .° ' c - - cd �. a' ,moi, 0 O co •^
°c � .a� 2. H s5 :: .X '3a = 38' aGci v5oE 'oov1
� " `
cT .cbv .a3 � .3oo ` .9g. .�cvo ,, c' 3 .> oo A
a's , c >, a,• wa . f, ' cO 0 5y d ' A' C Oc . T � C
',J. 2 >, .23 =:. 0 g."-'0 .'s ] -.7: Qa" 4! 6 '1 1 :ft).- 3 4-.42 al i v:, i
00
O C H 0 ,_,) -9 ... ocA4
CZ
-w y ° = A 3 c � 3 a' a°oi 3 .n >
(�1 .0 N cd � E ,., = 00
�� . ga v 3 '00 2 � I °: o = aU .c. .c ° •o .a
IND .01
V 9 ° E cls � ,N�9c� 6 � .....s i, 8 u, : — . • 0., , ,,, , >-. 3 °' a a-' y a� a
0
04 /CD V/� y d y A .S oo..r y O •0 0-• 5 cd cd a' aj ,''' 'S
V " 3.b y 0 'E A 3 b 'd .a. .2 at3 ,a °` c`3 N E .5 g 0, E 8
0
g aGyN " ,. U G, .a o ° b 3c3 , F °,... o w %... ' ,cg ' 9 b yp U
coa) .53k, 04°, O 39 =- 330, 2 ' > = O
0. v `°
� � � 1 oc ,F36 , aooag - ' 0 � ) p 'u - 0_
0 49 ,i,9 .6%., ..-7.9 5 r:l.."' 9 E -‘7. E" ., .`4 8 .-5 0 A Z.' r). ,:."3 0 g -5 66'
c3 ° sv
c ,. o � oo
5 >, aib00goci ° -a U o
'
o
o° d � o =° . c •5 . : aE -
•ma 0 a � g 9b t �. $ 0 ooa n
E c c 5 `V
° AA a c cA co °� a, n (= ]
�Y� ��
•
5 ,.„ cc —s U ' A .. c61 U . 4) L3. QIN
_\CC6 ,q
4:11 w ."'", 0 0 0 , g ,.... • •
Ci)
A a
7 ,' H , b.0 a' U U ., x0 aO ' N..
[ cd
r7 � O .. Q 'c:' -m g a s a E ~ � v
-..`.--) >.-a .T., 2 3 •E Q) t,Q,,g,e, 2/ .0(
'
� U CGC - 3a v1 . a ;
' 4
I ''' `. to M Siaff Report ZTA 96-1/Ord 1419
�1 ' K J , ; i
code enforcement activity involving this property pending development of a draft
zone text amendment which would address the overall issue of rear yard setback
requirements for properties abutting the Hellman Ranch/Gum Grove Park.
• In early 1996, staff presented Zone Text Amendment 96-1 (ZTA 96-1) to the
Planning Commission for public hearing consideration (see attachments). For reasons
reflected in the public record, The Commission at that time voted not to approve ZTA
96-1. The Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council (by the
subsequent owners of 1733 Crestview Ave.), which deferred action on the matter and
directed staff to analyze the potential for further refinements to ZTA 96-1.
• In the Fall of 1997, the City Council conducted a public hearings on ZTA 96-],
which had undergone certain modifications pursuant to the Council's previous
direction. A number of concerns and issues arose during the Council's hearing
deliberations which resulted in direction to staff to prepare a new ordinance
(Ordinance 1419) reflecting certain refinements to the overall regulatory approach
under consideration.
• During December `97-January '98, the Council considered Ordinance 1419 and, after
discussion and deliberation concerning a variety of issues, referred the matter to staff
\---
with direction to perform additional research concerning the scope, impact and
administration of the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION
A review of the record (including staff reports, proposed ordinances and PC/CC minutes)
indicates the range of philosophical and practical considerations attending the question of
how the City should deal with decks and rear yard setbacks for properties abutting
Hellman Ranch/Gum Grove Park. Affected property owners, Planning Commissioners
and City Councilmembers have expressed a variety of perspectives and opinions on this
matter over a period of several years.
At present, Ordinance 1419 represents the most recent attempt to define a regulatory and
procedural approach to this issue. As stated above, however, during its latest
consideration of the ordinance in January, 1998, the City Council indicated that
additional research relative to the scope, impact and administration of this proposed
ordinance should be performed prior to further action toward its adoption.
Insofar as this matter remains unresolved, and in view of the fact that a "new" City
Council and Planning Commission have in the meantime been seated, it appears prudent
to staff to again bring the matter to the Commission. It may be that the Commission as
presently comprised can bring new or different perspectives to proposed Ordinance 1419
which merit consideration by the City Council.
2
D::/My Documents/Zoning Text Amendments/ZTA96-1:KK