Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem O l� May 8, 2000 ' d 19 0 / o /oo STAFF REPORT S,'ti l, To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 1 Attention: Keith Till, City Manager From: Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner, Department of Development Services Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4, ALLOW DECKS WITHIN THE SURFSIDE COLONY TO EXTEND 10 FEET ON THE 2ND FLOOR ON THE "A" ROW SU1VIMARY OF REQUEST After receiving all public testimony and considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Adopt the Zone Text Amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission (the appropriate Ordinance has been prepared and is attached as Attachment A). 2) Adopt the Zone Text Amendment with modifications based on testimony received and concerns of the City Council. 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. 4) Take no action. DISCUSSION Applicant: City of Seal Beach Location: Surfside Community Agenda Item 0 Public Hearing-Zone Text Amendment 99-4 Surfside Decks City Council Staff Report May 8, 2000 Request: To consider an amendment to the Code of the City of Seal Beach to allow the construction of 2" Floor Decks within the "A" Row of the Surfside Colony to extend ten feet, not to exceed the Westerly boundary of the property. Specifically, the Code currently allows 10 foot decks on the first floor only. Properties would only be allowed to have a 10 foot deck on either the 1°` or 2' Floor, but not both. Code Sections: Chapter 28, Section 28-506 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach Environmental Review: The proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15305 and Section 15061(b)(3). BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Zone Text Amendment on February 9, 2000, and determined to recommend approval to the City Council and adopted the appropriate Resolution on a 5-0 vote. The item was first heard on October 20, 1999 and continued to November 17, 1999 and then again to February 9, 2000. The proposed zone text amendment would change Section 28-506 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. The amendment would allow the residents on the "A" Row of Surfside the ability to construct a 2" floor deck to be 10 feet in depth. This provision would therefor allow a resident to choose to place the deck either on the first or second story, but not both, which extends into surfside Colony leased land. The intent of this code provision is to allow the property owners some ability to place a patio or deck area above the berm which blocks the view completely from the first floor. FISCAL IMPACT Since this Zone Text Amendment was initiated by the City, the costs of processing and enforcement will be borne solely by the City. No other implementation costs are anticipated. 2 Public Hearing-Zone Text Amendment 99-4 Surfside Decks City Council Staff Report May 8, 2000 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment 99-4 through the adoption of Resolution 99-36, adopted on February 9, 2000. This recommendation was approved on a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared the appropriate ordinance for City Council consideration based upon the Commission's action on this matter (Attachment A). a.....__:___ Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner Development Services Department NOTED AND APPROVED 4..e. , ., ,...,('-_P Keith R. Till City Manager Attachments: (4) ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Ordinance No. , An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Amending Chapter 28 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code Amending Section 28-506 to allow 2nd floor decks on the "A" Row of Surfside Colony to be 10 feet deep ATTACHMENT B: Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, California, Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 99-4, Amending Sections 28-506 to allow 2n61 floor decks on the "A" Row of Surfside Colony to be 10 feet deep 3 Public Hearing-Zone Text Amendment 99-4 Surfside Decks City Council Staff Report May 8, 2000 ATTACHMENT C: Planning Commission Minutes of October 20, 1999 & February 9, 2000 ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Staff Reports of October 20, 1999 & February 20, 2000. * * * * 4 Public Hearing-Zone Text Amendment 99-4 Surfside Decks City Council Staff Report May 8, 2000 ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, California, Recommending to the City Council Approval Of Zoning Text Amendment 99-34, Amending Section 28-506, allowing 2"d floor decks on the "A" Row of Surfside Colony to be 10 feet deep 10 RESOLUTION NUMBER 99-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4, AMENDING SECTION 28-506 (6) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEN FOOT DEEP DECK TO BE PLACED ON EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND FLOOR, BUT NOT BOTH; ON THE "A" ROW OF SURFSIDE COLONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of October 20, 1999, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Text Amendment 99-4, and continued it to February 9, 2000. This amendment would allow for the construction of a ten foot (10') deep deck to be placed on either the first or second floor, but never on both. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 1999, and continued to February 9, 2000 to consider Zone Text Amendment 99- 4. Section 4. The record of the hearings of October 20, 1999 and February 9, 2000 indicates the following: (a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. (c) The proposed text amendment will allow residents residing on the"A" Row of the Surfside Colony to choose whether they wish to place their ten foot (10') deck on the Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36 February 9, 2000 first or second floor. Section 5. 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 Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 to the City Council subject to the following: 1. Article 5. Subsection (6) of Section 28-506 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: "(6) Stairways, balconies or patio decking may encroach into the Surfside Colony leased land southwest of Block "A": (a) First Floor— Ten feet with Glass deck enclosure; (b) Second Floor— Ten feet, provided that the first floor deck is then restricted to five feet in depth with a 5 foot high glass enclosure, OR (i) First Floor is an on-grade patio to a maximum of 10 feet with no enclosure (c) Roof Projection/Sunscreen —Five feet (d) The decking may have a forty-two inch high guard railing installed thereon as required by the building code. On the first or second floor deck, a glass deck enclosure may be added. The glass enclosure shall not exceed five feet, measured from the finished floor of the deck. No glass panel shall be less than three feet by three feet. All glass above the forty-two inch high guard railing shall be clear, untinted glass. No portion of the glass enclosure shall be covered or roofed in any manner." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Cutul i , Hood, Larson, and Lyon Page 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36 • February 9, 2000 NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None it I. David Hood, Phd., Chairma Planning Commission i /moww re Whi tenberg, Secretary Planning Commission Page 4 Public Hearing-Zone Text Amendment 99-4 Surfside Decks City Council Staff Report May 8,2000 ATTACHMENT C Planning Commission Minutes of October 20, 1999 and February 9, 2000 11 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of February 9, 2000 5 6 7 Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission 8 to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 9, 2000. The meeting was held in the 9 City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.' 10 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Chairperson Hood 15 Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon Also Present: Department of Development Services i 8 Lee Whittenberg, Director 19 Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney 20 Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner 21 22 Absent: None 23 AGENDA APPROVAL 26 27 Mr. Whittenberg noted that a request was made to continue Items 4 and 5 on the 28 Agenda to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. 29 30 Mr. Reg Clewley requested that Item 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar. 31 32 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as amended. 33 34 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 35 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 36 NOES: None 37 ABSENT: None _9 40 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 41 42 Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. 43 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Page 1 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 Ms. Sue Corbin spoke regarding Measure M stating that a "yes" vote would indicate 2 a vote against the Bixby Old Town Center Project. She announced that monetary 3 and volunteer help was needed to promote Measure M. She provided the address 4 for the storefront for the "Yes On M Committee," as 12393 Seal Beach Boulevard, 5 Seal Beach, Telephone No. (562) 596-7520. She said that donations could be 6 mailed to this address. Ms. Corbin stated that flyers were delivered in College Park 7 East on Sunday and Monday. She said that the committee was fighting against the 8 very wealthy Bixby Family who has hired a very expensive consultant, Mr. Adler, to 9 promote the Bixby Project. She displayed samples of the signs being used to 10 campaign against Bixby and stated that they could be picked up at the headquarters 1 office. She stated that in brochures produced by Adler and distributed in Leisure 12 World stated that the trees on the development site would be saved. She said that it 13 was not possible to widen the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing and at the same 14 time preserve the trees. 15 16 Mr. Stan Anderson thanked the Commissioners for giving of their time in 17 participating on the Planning Commission and commended them for their work in 18 dealing with the proposal for the Bixby Project. He stated that this was a difficult 19 situation with many factors to be taken under consideration. Mr. Anderson stated 20 that he was concerned with the current traffic situation and stated that if the Bixby 1 Old Town Center is constructed and the Rossmoor Center is enlarged, there will be 22 more traffic. He said that although Measure M does include provisions for alleviating 23 the bottleneck of traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and these funds along with $1 24 Million contributed by Bixby will be used to widen the overcrossing, CalTrans has 25 already designated the 22 Freeway for widening at that overcrossing. He stated that 26 he did not understand why money would be spent to support something that is going 27 to be rebuilt when the freeway is widened. He stated that it was important that 28 information be provided to the people so that they can make the right decision when 29 they go to the polls. He said that he wanted to be informed, and he hoped that 30 information is distributed in a fair and timely manner. He stated that he believed the 31 Planning Commission has attempted to do this. Mr. Anderson stated that he wanted 32 to be supportive of the Commission and the City Council, but questioned how 33 citizens could be supportive when they did not receive information to help keep them 34 informed as voters. He stated that the traffic bottleneck must be rectified before any 35 further development is approved. He said that the Commission should be more 36 concerned with the people and less concerned with sales tax revenues or 7 developments in other cities. J8 39 Mr. Gordon Shanks spoke regarding the El Toro Airport. He stated that a vote on 40 this issue was imminent and that it would affect the citizens of Seal Beach as there 41 were several sites under consideration for an international airport. He stated that the 42 sites under consideration were one near the Los Angeles Harbor and another off of 43 Long Beach Harbor. He noted that another site under consideration is the Los 44 Alamitos Armed Force Reserve Center. He encouraged citizens to get out to vote if 45 they did not want to see an airport constructed near Seal Beach. 46 Page 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 Mr. Reg Clewley spoke regarding the importance of Measure M. He said that the 2 Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing is a substandard structure. He stated that 3 widening the overpass would not bring the bridge into conformance with current 4 standards. He said that the widening of the 22 Freeway would require the removal 5 of the overcrossing and that this was a project that the City is proposing to 6 "squander millions of our taxpayers dollars upon." Mr. Clewley stated that this would 7 be a disastrous waste of taxpayers' money to allow this to be done. He said that this 8 would greatly affect the residents of Leisure World who currently enjoy a greatly 9 reduced utility tax, which he believes would not continue should this project be 0 completed. He stated that a Target Store may be built, and it would be at the 11 expense of all of the eucalyptus trees, most of which were already dead. He said 12 that the people of Seal Beach preserved these trees on paper, but these trees are 13 now dead. 14 15 Chairperson Hood closed oral communications. 16 17 18 CONSENT CALENDAR 9 20 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000. 21 22 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he believed Lines 11 and 12 on Page 11 of the Minutes 23 to be "terribly wrong." He objected to the use of the word "glad," and argued that 24 there was a distinction between the words "glad" and "grateful." He said that the 25 applicant at no time stated that she was glad that the City had approved Ordinance 26 1419, but had stated that she was "grateful." Mr. Clewley stated that a person is 27 "glad" when they have seen justice served, and a person is "grateful" when they 28 have received something they do not deserve. He stated that this must be corrected 29 in the minutes and entered into the record for all to understand that at no time was 30 the applicant ever glad, but was grateful for the "special privilege" that the City 31 Council had granted in passing this Ordinance especially for the applicant. He said 32 that this was very significant and needed to be corrected in the Minutes, otherwise 33 the public would be misled at the hearing on March 22, 2000. He also referred to 34 the section of the minutes reflecting Mr. Clewley's comments in disputing several 35 items in the Staff Report. He stated that the items he had mentioned were not listed 36 individually in the minutes. He said that the minutes were misleading and did not 17 reflect what was said, and this has a bearing on what will be voted on. 38 39 Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the Commission directed, the actual words would be 40 'corrected in the minutes of January 19, 2000. Chairperson Hood responded that 41 this would not be necessary, as the minutes were not meant to be a verbatim 42 transcript of the comments but were meant to provide a summary of the attitude and 43 comments made at the minutes. 44 45 MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Brown to approve the Minutes of January 19, 46 2000 as presented. Page 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 2 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 3 NOES: None 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 7 SCHEDULED MATTERS 8 9 None. 0 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS 13 14 2. Zone Text Amendment 99-4 (Continued from Jan. 19, 2000) 15 Citywide 16 17 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 18 Request: To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row 19 of Surfside to be 10 feet, deep. Currently, 10-foot decks 0 are only permitted on the 1st floor, with 5-foot decks 21 permitted on the 2nd and 3`d floors. This amendment would 22 allow the owner to choose to place the 10-foot deck either 23 on the 1st or 2nd floor, but not both; and in no case would a 24 10-foot deck be permitted on the 3rd floor. 25 26 Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 99-36. 27 28 Staff Report 29 30 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 31 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 32 stated that currently, decks are only permitted on the first floor of homes in Surfside, 33 with glass enclosures up to 8 feet. He stated that Surfside Colony had gone through 34 a fairly rigorous procedure to change their lease to allow decks to extend 10-feet on 35 either the 1st or 2nd floor of homes along the A-Row in Surfside. At that time, 36 representative of Surfside approached the City regarding changing City Code to 37 allow these decks. He continued that during the October 20, 1999 Planning 38 Commission meeting, comments were made that 10-foot decks on the 2nd floor 39 would look "weird." He stated that in many of the Surfside properties the 2"d floor is 40 the primary floor of living space, with the 1st floor essentially being a patio. He said 41 that because many properties sit below the grade of sand, many of these properties 42 cannot fully take advantage of their beach frontage in the same manner as those in 43 other portions of the colony. This Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) would allow these 44 residents to have the same square footage of deck space by allowing 10-foot decks 45 on the second floor. 46 Page 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 Mr. Cummins said that the other issue discussed at the October meeting was the 2 possibility of residents enclosing these structures and converting them to habitable 3 space. To prevent this, Staff is recommending reducing the height of the enclosure 4 from 8 feet to 5 feet. 5 6 He then addressed Commission concerns regarding view blockage. He stated that 7 in the past the City has taken the policy of considering only the "primary view," 8 directly out from the property, and has not actively considered the angled view. He 9 presented several photographs of Surfside Colony decks along Row A. He noted 0 that there were many Surfside properties built several years ago with 1st floors sitting 11 on poles. He stated that this would be considered to be the 1st floor of these homes. 12 13 Commissioner Questions 14 15 Commissioner Larson asked if a 5-foot deck could be constructed on all three floors. 16 Mr. Cummins responded that they could but that only the decks on the 1st and 2nd 17 floors could be enclosed. 18 19 Mr. Dave Evans spoke on behalf of Surfside Colony. He recommended approval of 20 ZTA 99-4, and stated that he was present to answer any questions regarding this 21 proposal. He stated that representatives of Surfside held many discussions on this 22 issue and the lease was modified and a copy signed by all residents of A-Row. He 23 stated that currently there are 15 A-Row residences with 2nd story decks, and 20 with 4 elevated decks. 25 26 Public Hearing 27 28 Mr. Reg Clewley referred to the Paragraph 2 on Page 2 of the Staff Report and 29 questioned how Staff would be able to enforce unpermitted enclosing of the first floor 30 deck area. He stated that the citizens of Seal Beach did not have much regard for 31 the Building Code. He stated that the other issue of concern is whether or not decks 32 will create view blockage. He said that this issue was addressed by the Surfside 33 Colony during the October 20, 1999 meeting, by writing a clause protecting the 34 lateral view into their bylaws. He stated that in the rewrite this protection has been 35 eliminated. He stated that the same thing had occurred with homes along Ocean 36 Avenue. He said that the sunlight coming onto a 1st floor decks was obstructed by 37 neighboring 2nd story decks. He stated that the people of Surfside wanted the lateral 38 view protected and this has been eliminated as Staff has determined that this view is 39 unimportant. Mr. Clewley then referred to Paragraph 5, Page 2 noting that it was 40 ironic that a few paragraphs before it is stated that Staff had no concerns over 41 unpermitted enclosure of decks, yet in Paragraph 5 it notes that "a few" of the 42 proposed 10-foot, 2nd story decks have already been constructed, prior to having 43 approved this ZTA. He stated that Staff was now asking the Commission to approve 44 these illegally constructed decks. He said that a 10-foot patio on the first floor was 45 the same as a 10-foot deck. He said that referring to this as a patio simply means 46 that residents can have 10-foot decks on both the 1st and 2nd floor. He stated that Page 5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 what Staff was asking the Commission to do was to pollute the Building Code." He 2 said that this was poorly written legislation and provides no protection for residents 3 as enforcement of the construction of the decks would not be done. 4 5 Commissioner Comments 6 7 Commissioner Brown asked for clarification of the wording "otherwise 5 feet" found 8 in Article 5, Paragraph 6, Section (b) of Zone Text Amendment 99-4. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the resident wanted to construct a 5-foot wide, on- 3 grade patio slab, a 5-foot high wind screen enclosure could be constructed around 11 the patio. He said that for a 10-foot wide, on-grade patio, no enclosure would be 12 allowed. Commissioner Brown questioned whether the phrase "otherwise 5 feet" 13 was clear enough. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the Commission was in agreement 14 with the concept, Staff could change the wording of this phrase to make it clearer. 15 Commissioner Brown stated that he had no objection to the concept, but was simply 16 questioning the language. 17 18 Commissioner Cutuli stated that he had lived in Surfside for approximately 11 years 19 and he felt that the 2nd story extended decks were not very attractive; however, he 20 said he did not feel that it was up to him or the Commission to impose rules based 21 upon another person's concept of how a house should look. He said he felt that if 22 there were any chance that 1st floor decks could be built into a habitable unit below 23 the 2nd floorl0-foot extension, then he would definitely be inclined to vote against 24 ZTA 99-4. He said that he spoke with Mr. Evans and also with Judy, the secretary at 'S Surfside, and it is universally felt that this would be a good option to have and that 26 they would be very stringent about not allowing any enclosed structures below the 27 10-foot 2nd story extension. Commissioner Cutuli noted that another factor that 28 must be considered is that for the A-Row properties behind the berm that runs along 29 the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) property, if they were to construct a 10-foot deck 30 on the 1st floor, it would be like a cave. He said that in view of the information 31 presented to him during the past two weeks, he would vote to approve ZTA 99-4, as 32 he believes that this is something that should be allowed as long as there is the 33 guarantee that no enclosed structures would be built under the 10-foot extension of 34 a 2nd story deck. 35 36 Commissioner Lyon asked if there were any limitation as to the east-west location of 37 the decks, and with the berm in front of a property, would there be any reason to 38 construct a 10-foot deck on the 2nd floor. He asked if this would be controlled by the 39 Surfside Colony. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the lease arrangements within 40 Surfside would allow a maximum of a 10-foot deck anywhere. He stated that Staff 41 was proposing to change City Code to conform with the change that Surfside has 42 made to its lease agreements. He said that Staff felt that the standards that Surfside 43 had adopted with the new lease were reasonable. He stated that regarding the 44 lateral view issue, the City has never taken a position of enforcing construction 45 standards to preserve a lateral view up coast or down coast. He said that since he 46 has been with the City he has never seen this done. Mr. Whittenberg continued by Page 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 stating that although the issue has been raised on several occasions, the Planning 2 Commission has always taken the position that a view is a direct view from the front 3 of the property, not across someone else's property. He stated that this change 4 would allow property owners to decide where they wish to have a 10-foot deck. He 5 stated that for those properties further away from the berm, the decks would 6 probably be built on the ground floor, as this was usually the level for the primary 7 living area. He said that for those properties closer to the NWS berm, there is no 8 direct view of the ocean from the 1st floor, and so the decks would most likely be 9 constructed on the 2"d floor. Commissioner Lyon asked if the residents of Surfside 0 had approved the ZTA as written. Mr. Whittenberg responded that although it was 11 not up to Surfside Colony to approve ZTA 99-4, Staff had written the text to conform 12 to the new lease agreement provisions. He explained that Surfside has the 13 requirement that before a project can come before the City for a building permit, it 14 has to acquire approval from the Board of Directors of Surfside Colony. He stated 15 that those decks constructed prior to the Code change were built because Surfside 16 had already made the change in the lease agreement provisions to allow them. He 17 said that when the plans for these decks were brought in for plan check, Staff did not 18 note that the plans were for a 2nd story deck. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was 19 now attempting to coordinate City standards and Surfside's standards so that they 20 are the same. Commissioner Lyon clarified his previous questions by asking if after 21 having viewed the text for ZTA 99-4, representatives of Surfside were in agreement. 22 Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct. 23 24 Commissioner Brown stated that although aesthetically it would look better to have a 25 deck on the 1st floor as opposed to the 2nd floor, he had no objection to approving .6 ZTA 99-4. He agreed with Commissioner Cutuli's observation that the Planning 27 Commission was not the arbitrator of taste within the City, and he also agreed with 28 Mr. Whittenberg regarding the lateral view. He said that the Commission has only 29 been concerned with the primary view of residents. He stated that once you get into 30 this issue, it raises a hornet's nest that many Commissions have chosen not to 31 approach. He said that he was satisfied with Staff's limitations to prevent the 1st 32 floor being built into a habitable space. He asked if Staff had corrected the wording 33 previously discussed. Mr. Whittenberg recommended that in Article 5, Section (b), 34 2nd line after the word "OR" that a small numeral "i" be inserted to read "1st floor is an 35 on-grade patio to a maximum of 10-feet with no enclosure," then below that a small 36 numeral "ii" be inserted to read "or a 5-foot on-grade patio with a 5-foot high glass 37 enclosure." Commissioner Cutuli asked if this means that a 10-foot on-grade patio 38 and a 10-foot 2nd floor deck would not be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it 39 would depend upon what you were calling a patio. He said that a 10-foot on-grade 40 cement slab, with a 10-foot deck above would be allowed, but not a 10-foot enclosed 41 deck on both the 1st and 2nd floor. Commissioner Cutuli stated that this was 42 prejudicial to those property owners that have their homes built to specification with 43 the 1st floor on the slab, or on grade. He said this wording would allow some people 44 to have two 10-foot decks, while not allowing a lot of people to have two 10-foot 45 decks. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if you were dealing with a property with an 46 elevated, 1st floor deck, a first floor stairway could be constructed going down to a Page 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 new at grade patio area, or the standard could be changed and not allow the 10-foot 2 deck on the 1st floor in any case if there is a 2nd floor 10-foot deck. He stated that 3 Staff did not believe it would be a problem with an on-grade, 10-foot paved area as 4 opposed to a 10-foot area that is 5-foot paved and 5-foot sand. He said that this 5 was a change that could be incorporated into the ZTA. Commissioner Cutuli stated 6 that he would rather see this change made in order to address the issue of fairness 7 and also to prevent the enclosing of 1st floor patios in any way. Mr. Whittenberg 8 stated that if it was the preference of the Commission, Paragraph (b) of Article 5 9 could be amended to eliminate the text after the word "OR" to have Paragraph (b) 0 read, "Second Floor — Ten feet provided that the first floor deck is then restricted to 1 five feet in depth with a glass enclosure." Chairperson Hood confirmed that the 12 Commission was in agreement with this change. 13 14 Commissioner Larson stated that he felt the people that live in Surfside are capable 15 of watching out for their own interests. He stated that they had unanimously agreed 16 with the language of ZTA 99-4, and probably have a good system of enforcement, 17 which he referred to as the "snitch system." He said that he did not see any reason 18 to change the language if it had already been approved by Surfside Colony. He said 19 that he had no objection to changing the wording, but did not see the need for 20 making changes. 21 22 Chairperson Hood re-opened the public hearing so that the representative from 3 Surfside could speak. Mr. Dave Evans stated that the issue of two 10-foot decks _/..4 was discussed quite a bit by Surfside Colony. He said that currently there are 4 or 5 25 homes with this situation. He stated that with an on-grade patio on the sand, there is 26 a lot of sand that gets blown into the homes on a daily basis. He said that having 27 the 1st floor patio provides an extra barrier for keeping the area clean of sand and 28 provides extra space underneath the 2nd floor deck. He stated that the Board of 29 Directors for Surfside would prefer to keep the wording as written. He commented 30 that there is one recently constructed home with a 2nd floor deck, with the 1st floor 31 being elevated 18 inches. He said that this deck had to be cut back by 5 feet. He 32 stated that the intent was not to have two elevated 10-foot decks, but one deck and 33 an on-grade slab. Mr. Evans stated that as far as enclosures go, there is a very 34 good "snitch system" in Surfside, so he felt that there would not be a problem with 35 non-permitted enclosures of deck structures on the 1st floor. He emphasized that the 36 Architectural Committee reviews all plans carefully and he said that the City has 7 done an excellent job in never allowing plans to go through plan check without first .38 having been approved by Surfside. 39 40 Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. 41 42 Mr. Whittenberg proposed changing the wording to read that a 10-foot on-grade 43 patio could be constructed on the 1st floor with a 10-foot deck on the 2"d floor. 44 Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Whittenberg to read the changes as they had been 45 made previously. Mr. Whittenberg read Paragraph (b) to read as follows: 46 Page 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 "Second Floor — Ten feet provided that the first floor deck is then 2 restricted to 5-feet in depth with a 5-foot high glass enclosure, OR 3 4 (I) First floor is an on-grade patio to a maximum of 10-feet with no 5 enclosure. 6 7 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to approve Zone Text Amendment 99-4 8 and adopt Resolution 99-36 as amended. 9 10 11 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 12 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 13 NOES: None 14 ABSENT: None 15 16 Mr. Whittenberg announced that ZTA 99-4 would require another public hearing at 17 the City Council level and the date of the hearing would be duly noticed. 18 19 20 3. Zone Text Amendment 00-1 (Continued from Jan. 5, 2000) 21 Old Town 22 23 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 24 Request: To amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish the 25 "Residential Conservation Overlay Zone" permitting bed 26 and breakfast facilities within this zone subject to certain 27 conditions and terms. 28 29 Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-1 . 30 31 Staff Report 32 33 Mr. Whittenberg announced that the only item under consideration tonight was Zone 34 Text Amendment (ZTA) 00-1. He stated that Zone Change 00-1 and Conditional 35 Use Permit 00-1 would not be considered, as the applicant has requested that these 36 items be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. 37 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in 39 the Planning Department.) He provided a brief overview of the proposal to establish 40 a definition within the Zoning Ordinance for a Residential Conservation Overlay 41 Zone (RC-O Zone) which would permit only bed and breakfast (B&B) facilities within 42 that particular zoning classification. Staff would then attempt to establish standards 43 for the conversion of two historically significant structures from residential uses to a 44 B&B use. He stated that procedural standards for making specific application to the 45 City to apply the RC-O Zone to a specific property within the City were also to be 46 established. He explained that the City had been contacted by the applicant with a Page 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 request to save two locally significant residential structures and relocate them to the 2 property on 7th Street. Mr. Whittenberg noted that as property values continue to 3 increase within Old Town, pressure will continue to increase to demolish some of the 4 remaining older structures and replace them with new residential structures. He 5 stated that Staff felt it was important to provide the Planning Commission and to the 6 City Council an alternative mechanism for conserving historically significant homes. 7 He reported that this ZTA had been considered at the January 5, 2000 Planning 8 Commission meeting and had been scheduled for the January 10, 2000 City Council 9 meeting, assuming an action would be taken by the Commission. This did not occur 0 and the matter was continued for consideration before the Planning Commission 1 tonight. When City Council was informed that no action had been taken on this item, 12 they instructed the City Manager to conduct a Community Information Meeting to 13 acquire input from the public on this ZTA. These meetings were held on January 20 14 and February 1, 2000. He stated that those in attendance at the January 20 meeting 15 had requested that a second meeting be held to continue discussion on this issue. 16 Mr. Whittenberg noted that a copy of the meeting notes was included with the 17 Commissioners agenda packets. He stated that the Council took additional action 18 and asked the City Attorney's office to investigate the procedure and policies that the 19 City would need to adopt to develop a Historic Preservation component of the City's 20 development standards. He stated that a number of cities throughout California and 21 nationwide have historic preservation commissions or committees who deal with the --'2 issue of preserving locally significant historic structures. _3 24 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the major changes proposed to ZTA 00-1 are as follows: 25 26 1. That RC-O Zone could not be applied to any property located adjacent to an 27 existing single-family residential use. 28 2. The property proposed for the RC-O Zone would have to be on a lot that has at 29 least 50 feet of street frontage. 30 3. The proposed property would have to be located within 500 feet of the 31 centerline of Pacific Coast Highway. 32 4. The proposed property would have to be located within 300 feet of an existing 33 hotel/motel facility. 34 35 He displayed an area map of the location for the proposed project to demonstrate 36 that it does meet the above criteria. He also described the surrounding properties 37 and demonstrated the area covered by the proposed RC-O Zone. He stated that the 38 City felt that an option should be provided for individuals wishing to restore locally 39 significant buildings, as the cost of restoration can sometimes be very high. He 40 stated that Staff felt that the B&B use would be less detrimental than converting 41 these locally significant structures to a professional office or a local museum due to 42 the trip generation characteristics of these types of uses. He suggested maintaining 43 the focus on restoration and conservation of structures and not opening this 44 classification to allow for the new construction of B&B facilities within this area. Mr. 45 Whittenberg stated that although initially the Minor Plan Review process was (- 46 recommended, Staff is now suggesting that a B&B use be subject to a Conditional Page 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 Use Permit (CUP). He said that upon further evaluation by Staff and the City 2 Attorney, it was determined that the CUP process provides greater capabilities to 3 condition the operation of the use and to ensure that these conditions are met. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg explained that another revision to the proposal is that the maximum 6 stay for guests of the B&B has been changed from 14 days to 10 days. Staff has 7 also clarified that the use of the 1997 Building Conservation Code applies to the 8 exterior of the structure, and the exemptions to the height, bulk, and setback 9 requirements are only applied to relocated rehabilitations. He stated that currently '0 there are no structures located in the proposed area that would meet the criteria of 1 being built before 1930. 12 13 Mr. Whittenberg explained that as far as the procedure for applying this Zone 14 Change to a particular property, Staff was still recommending the Zone Change 15 Process, which requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission or City 16 Council. He said that at this level of review the City has wide discretion on whether 17 or not to make a change. He stated that because this would involve a legislative 18 action of the Council, there would be much wider latitude to determine whether or 19 not the use is an acceptable one. He stated that for the Site Plan Review Staff was 3 recommending a CUP Process, because this would provide greater control over the 21 long-term operational aspects of the B&B that might not be available in as strong a 22 manner under the Minor Plan Review process. 23 24 He noted a change to the definition previously presented from having this ZTA apply 25 to structures that were at least 75 years old, to having only structures built prior to 26 1930 qualify for this process. He said that Staff believes that the primary purpose is 27 to allow that this function as a conservation/preservation effort for older structures 28 within the City. He stated that the primary purpose should be the conversion of an 29 existing older structure in town, and not allow new construction of a B&B facility in 30 this area. The limitation of 6 guestrooms in any separate B&B structure remains the 31 same. Mr. Whittenberg summarized by stating that the desire was to convert 32 existing structures that have local significance to another use if there is the potential 33 for them to be demolished otherwise. He reiterated that a B&B facility would be the 34 only use permitted under the RC-0 Zone. Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the 35 General Provisions for the B&B facility within the RC-0 Zone. He stated that these 36 provisions were designed to allow preservation of older structures in a manner that 37 would not be detrimental to adjoining properties. He emphasized that the 38 designated standards would only apply to a relocated structure. He stated that the 39 criteria were designed to tightly limit the area designated for the B&B use. He said 40 that when an older structure is relocated onto a new piece of property and the 41 objective is to preserve the central characteristics of the structure, it might be 42 necessary to vary from some of the City Code requirements. He stated that Staff 43 had available for reference a number of samples of ordinances from cities 44 throughout the country that deal with making alterations to existing locally 45 designated historic structures. 46 , Page 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 Mr. Whittenberg explained that adoption of the ZTA would require a future public 2 hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council to apply the provisions of 3 the RC-O Zone to a specific property. He stated that this would give City Council 4 and the community the widest possible leeway for input and provides Council with 5 the ultimate authority as to whether or not to apply this standard to a specific 6 property in town. He stated that the Zone Change Process gives the City the 7 greatest leeway in making a determination as to whether or not a particular application of a particular lot in that area would be acceptable. He stated that Staff recommends approval of Zone Text Amendment 00-1 and that it be forwarded to 10 City Council. 11 12 Commissioner Questions 13 14 Commissioner Brown asked if hotels are allowed in a C-2 Zone. Mr. Whittenberg 15 responded that they were allowed upon approval of a CUP. He said that he would 16 have to check, but he believed they were also allowed in a C-1 Zone by CUP. 17 Commissioner Brown asked if the definition of a hotel includes a B&B facility. Mr. 18 Whittenberg responded that it would not. Commissioner Brown asked if an 19 application were made to build a hotel in a C-2 Zone, and the City approved a CUP 20 for this use, could the hotel be converted to a B&B at a later time. Mr. Whittenberg 21 stated that there were differences in the definition of a hotel and a B&B facility. He 22 gave the example of the Radisson Inn wanting to convert to a B&B. He stated that 23 they would have to apply for a CUP and receive approval before making a change in 24 the use of the property. Commissioner Brown clarified that what he wanted to know ,5 was whether a B&B was inclusive within the definition of a hotel. Mr. Whittenberg _6 responded that they were two mutually exclusive definitions. Commissioner Brown 27 asked why this was so. Mr. Whittenberg responded that currently a B&B was not 28 allowed in the City at all. Commissioner Brown asked if he called a B&B a hotel, 29 then that would be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that as the Code is written 30 nothing in the definition of a B&B would fall within the definition of a hotel. 31 Commissioner Brown referred to the area map of the proposed RC-0 Zone. He 32 asked if a hotel could be built within the C-2 Zone for the shopping center. Mr. 33 Whittenberg responded that with approval of a CUP, this would be possible. 34 Commissioner Brown asked if this would widen the circle for the RC-O Zone. Mr. 35 Whittenberg responded that this was a possibility. He stated that, as had been 36 indicated at the last meeting, if in the future the City were to allow an additional hotel 37 within 500 feet of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, this would open up 38 another area within the City for a potential B&B use. He stated that approval of the 39 hotel would have to be acquired before this could happen. Commissioner Brown 40 indicated that currently there were 7 properties that would be eligible for this 41 designation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the two 25-foot lots designated for this 42 project would be combined into one 50-foot lot. Commissioner Brown asked how 43 this would not be spot zoning. He stated that this was why the Zone Change was 44 very limiting in the way it has been drafted. Mr. Boga interjected that typically spot 45 zoning is considered to be when a few parcels have been singled out for i 46 discriminatory treatment in terms of getting fewer benefits than surrounding Page 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 properties. He stated that what was being discussed here was giving particular 2 properties more rights in terms of uses that can be allowed. He stated that once the 3 Planning Commission and City Council approve the application for the RC-O Zone, 4 this parcel would be allowed all the use of the lot in addition, it would have a B&B 5 use. Commissioner Brown asked if this didn't translate into giving the adjacent 6 properties less. Mr. Boga stated that the reality is that in zoning lines are always 7 drawn that may seem arbitrary to the parcels that are outside the circle and are 8 given less. Commissioner Brown stated that he wasn't referring to properties 9 outside the circle, but to the adjacent properties that might consider this to be a 10 detrimental zoning change. Mr. Boga stated that this was a choice that would be up i 1 to the Commission. He stated that if Council were to approve the RC-O Zone, he 12 would not consider this to be typically what is considered to be spot zoning. Mr. 13 Whittenberg interjected that the church located at 6th and Marina has been zoned as 14 commercial, while the surrounding homes are zoned as high density residential. He 15 stated that it would not be spot zoning if the residents down the street could not 16 develop their property for commercial use. He stated that the issue goes back the 17 fact that cities make decisions to zone properties for certain uses and not everyone 18 will have an equal right to put everything on their property that exists on some other 19 property. He said that the City does have very small areas of commercial zoning A along Pacific Coast Highway. He said some properties go 150 feet in depth, others 21 go 50 feet in depth, and these are decisions that are made based on overall impact 22 to the City and as Mr. Boga has said, this is not spot zoning. 23 24 Commissioner Lyon asked regarding the maximum number of allowable B&B 25 facilities. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the maximum number would be 26 determined on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the City. He noted that 27 within the proposed RC-O Zone there were a number of lots that were combined to 28 create 50-foot lots. He said that the apartment units on one of these lots could 29 conceivably be torn down and a historic structure moved to that location, but he 30 indicated that this would not be a rational economic decision, as rents for apartments 31 within the City are quite high. He stated that the proposed area would allow 4-5 lots 32 that would qualify for B&B use. He reiterated that these decision would be made on 33 a case-by-case basis, and simply because the lot qualifies does not mean that the 34 City has to approve the use for which the application has been submitted. 35 36 Commissioner Cutuli requested clarification on the extent of modifications that could 37 be made to locally significant structures, before it would be considered a remodel 38 rather than a restoration. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was a separate issue from 39 the issue before the Commission tonight. He said that if the RC-O Zone were 40 approved, then when a CUP application is received, the issue of the extent of 41 modifications would be addressed. He said that Staff has reviewed a number of 42 national, state, and local standards on rehabilitation, alteration, and expansion of 43 historic structures and there is a wide range of what is allowed depending upon the 44 level of historic significance to the structure. He stated that if a structure is part of 45 the national registry of historic structures, it must be preserved as it exists on the 46 outside. He said that there are provisions that allow changes to the interior area of Page 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 the structure, but the outside must be maintained as is. He continued by stating that 2 if a structure is on the California registry of historic structures, it is subject to the 3 same standards. He stated that for structures on a local list of historic buildings that 4 do not qualify under the national or state historic registry, there is more leeway for 5 making changes to the structures. He stated that some city ordinances allow up to 6 50% expansion in the existing size of the building if it is somehow in general 7 conformity with the existing structure. Commissioner Cutuli asked why one of the 8 provisions was that the B&B must be within 300 feet of another hotel as opposed to 9 any other commercial structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the reason for this was 0 that existing hotels usually are in an area where people have become used to i 1 visitors coming in and out of the area. He stated that the other criteria of having to 12 be within 500 feet of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway was because this would 13 prevent transient traffic from coming down into the 100 or 200 block of the Old Town 14 area. He commented that if the Commission wished to recommend another criteria 15 that makes more sense, that was certainly acceptable. 16 17 Chairperson Hood stated that the Commission was not dealing with a specific 18 application but with a Zone Text Amendment in general. He stated that whether the 19 public chose to accuse any particular party with maligned intent by withdrawing 20 applications, that would be their choice. He noted that there were 38 people in the 21 audience and if they all wished to speak for 5 minutes, the meeting would be quite 22 lengthy. He requested that speakers be concise and to the point. 23 24 Mr. Whittenberg asked that Attachment 5 with copies of letters received regarding 25 ZTA 00-1 be entered into the record. Chairperson Hood noted that he had also 26 received a letter from Lauriette Burton and Jim Caviola and asked that they be 27 entered into the record. 28 29 Public Hearing 30 31 Mr. Dave Bartlett stated that the reason that the applicant chose to continue the 32 CUP 00-1 for this site to the next Planning Commission meeting was a result of the 33 response to the Commission discussion on this item. He stated that the point was 34 made that the applicant was moving too fast and that the enabling legislation needed 35 to be in place first. He said that he felt that it was appropriate for everyone here 36 tonight to focus the discussion on ZTA 00-1 and the appropriateness of the land use. 37 .8 Mr. Bartlett began his presentation by stating that after conducting research on the 39 Internet and surveying several innkeepers he had compiled some general 40 characteristics of inns and B&Bs. He stated that inns are good neighbors and are 41 primarily located in residential neighborhoods. He said that inns strengthen the 42 economic base by providing a bed tax to the City and are good for the tourist 43 industry as an alternative to hotels and motels. He stated that guests at inns spend 44 on an average $110 more per person on meals, shopping, and incidentals than on 45 the actual cost of the room. This is triple the national average for hotels. He stated { 46 that guests at inns are usually nice, upper middle class married couples that are well Page 14 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 educated. He said that complaints about guest noise and traffic are rare, and drive- 2 by traffic is very low because of the reservation system. Inns and B&Bs revitalize 3 older neighborhoods and raise the quality standard. He stated that conversion to 4 B&Bs offers the opportunity to preserve older historic homes. He provided 5 photographic examples of B&Bs within Southern California. He described the Seal 6 Beach Inn as a quaint and attractive facility surrounded by single-family homes and 7 said that it is an asset to the community. He stated that the surrounding residences 8 that have not been negatively impacted by having the inn located nearby. 9 Chairperson Hood asked Mr. Bartlett if he was addressing the ZTA or if he was 10 addressing the postponed issue. Mr. Bartlett responded that he was addressing the 11 fact that the proposed RC-0 Zone is primarily residential along with commercial 12 uses. He again outlined the area on which the B&Bs would be permitted. He ended 13 by stating that the applicant feels this to be an appropriate land use for the proposed 14 location. Mr. Bartlett announced that he would be happy to respond to any questions 15 regarding the project. 16 17 Mr. Gordon Shanks, president of the Seal Beach Historical Society, spoke in favor of 18 approving ZTA 00-1 and stated that the proposed project could not be separated 19 from efforts to save the Krenwinkel House. He noted that cities throughout the 20 country have difficulty in attempting to preserve older historical structures because of 21 problems with parking and other issues. He said that many times citizens will 22 complain that members of City government do not respond to the will of the public, 23 but he commended the City for the major effort that has been made to attempt to 24 save the Krenwinkel House. He stated that although the Historical Society would 25 love to see the Krenwinkel House and the Proctor House remain at their current 26 locations, the economics of Old Town properties do not allow for this. Mr. Shanks 27 provided a brief background history of the Krenwinkel House. He said that the 28 choices were to demolish the two houses or to move them to the 7th Street location. 29 He encouraged the public to support the City's efforts to preserve the history of Seal 30 Beach. 31 32 Mr. Ken Hall stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Bartlett's comments on B&Bs 33 and he felt that ZTA 00-1 would be a good plan for preserving the two homes. 34 35 Mr. Jim Caviola stated that the issue was one of integrity. He said that zoning 36 should not be changed. He commented that the City Manager had stated at the 37 community meetings that as everyone knew, this zone amendment was being 38 proposed specifically for this one project. Mr. Caviola stated that this project lacks 39 integrity, as it is not about restoration or preservation. He emphasized that zoning 40 should not be changed whenever someone wants to come into town with a 41 commercial project. He stated that the City goes out of its way and spends large 42 amounts of taxpayer money on issues like this when there are many other public 43 works issues that need to be addressed. He stated that he was adamantly opposed 44 to zone changes of any kind. He indicated that ZTA 00-1 would affect the whole 45 length of Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that construction of a hotel at the end of 46 town is under consideration and to add B&Bs would not be good for the City. He Page 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 said that the proposed area was being changed from a residential zone to a 2 commercial zone. He ended by again stating that the entire project lacks integrity. 3 4 Mr. Lance Greer stated that this is a flawed zoning plan with arbitrary standards. He 5 stated that his home is located within the proposed RC-O zone and he is the one 6 that would suffer from this plan. He said that no one seems to understand that this 7 is a unique part of town with many visitors to the library, many of whom park in front 8 of his home. He stated that all this change would do is to make things worse. He 9 reported that the attorney whose law office is adjacent to the proposed lot is 10 planning to retire soon and this could mean more B&Bs going in. He said he liked 11 B&Bs as they are isolated and unique and are not bunched together in what he 12 called "a bed and breakfast mall." He stated that he would become better informed 13 on this proposed ZTA and again stated his opposition to it. 14 15 Ms. Reva Olson spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She stated that she had nothing 16 against B&Bs or preserving old homes, but she feels that this looks very much like a 17 special privilege situation. She said that if the public allows the City to go out and 18 arbitrarily draw circles to accommodate one person to do a development job, this 19 was setting a very bad precedent. 20 21 Mr. David Rosenman spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. He stated that he would be 22 letting the press know that he would present the City Manager with a freedom of 23 information request asking how much money has been spent on this project. He 24 stated that this was a special interest piece of legislation. He said that he had 25 shared information on this project with a lawyer friend of his and was told that the 26 City was setting itself up for trouble if this proposal is approved. Mr. Rosenman 27 stated that this was not a historic preservation project. He stated that the only place 28 in town where a B&B might be appropriate would be where the Shore Shop was 29 formerly located. He stated his objection to the City going through this process 30 simply to "grant favors." 31 32 Mr. Reg Clewley spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 stating that it was arbitrary and 33 capricious. He stated that the Commission could not pass a ZTA that is either. He 34 indicated that several members of the public had pointed out that it is arbitrary and 35 without evidence of support. He asked what would happen to the B&B should the 36 Radisson Inn close down, nullifying the requirement for the B&B to be within 300 feet 37 from a hotel. He said that this was special privilege as it was only applicable to that 38 specific property. He stated that the other 50-foot lot within the proposed RC-O 39 Zone was an apartment building and that no one would build a B&B where there are 40 already apartments. He said that this was not about preserving the homes, as there 41 is no integrity of restoration proposed. He recommended denial of ZTA 00-1. 42 43 The applicant, Mr. Chris Verhulst, stated that after learning of the possible 44 destruction of the Krenwinkel House he approached the City about the possibility of 45 relocating the home and converting it to a B&B. He said that he was concerned 46 about the original ZTA that was presented at the last meeting because of the Page 16 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 possibilities it provided for B&Bs within Old Town. He stated that after the City 2 Council meeting the directive was given to hold public forums to allow the public to 3 comment, and the current rewrite of ZTA 00-1 is the result of these discussions. Mr. 4 Verhulst noted that the proposed lot with its surrounding uses lends itself well to the 5 B&B use. He referred to the information presented by Mr. Bartlett regarding the 6 nature of the B&B guest. Because the basic reaction to the initial proposal was "I 7 don't want a B&B next to my house," Staff had refocused the ZTA to narrow down 8 the requirements for a B&B use. He emphasized that if a place could not be found 9 for these homes they will be "taken to the dump." He ended by stating that along with being an asset to the City, conversion to a B&B was a good way to preserve i 1 these historic homes. He said that there were not many homes within the City that 12 would meet the criteria for conversion to a B&B, so the public should not worry about 13 having B&Bs pop up throughout Old Town. He encouraged approval of ZTA 00-1 so 14 that this project could move forward. 15 16 Mr. Jim Cook spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1 and stated that he lives within 300 feet of 17 the proposed project. He stated that most of his neighbors are in favor of the project 18 and that their absence tonight confirms that they have no concerns about it. He 19 stated that his motivation was that he had spent approximately $600,000 20 constructing a single-family home on 8th Street and he wants his neighborhood's 21 property values to go up. He said that the developers would not be able to build two 22 single-family homes on the proposed lot and make a profit. He said that if the B&B 23 is not allowed it would be possible that a "six pack home" could be built on that lot. 24 He explained that this is a single-family residence that can be converted to 25 accommodate up to 6 unrelated persons to reside, for example, within an assisted 16 living facility or drug rehab setting. He stated that he would not want this happening 27 in his community. He said he would rather every apartment complex within the 28 proposed RC-O Zone be converted to a B&B. He said that guests of B&Bs are 29 generally quiet and usually spend a lot of money in town. He stated that guest 30 would park in the designated spaces to avoid the hassle of finding parking on the 31 street. Mr. Cook stated that the reason he goes to a B&B is because he want to be 32 within walking distance of everything he wants to visit within the community. He said 33 that he would rather see a B&B near Jack-In-the-Box than what is currently there. 34 He said that this was not a single-family residence neighborhood as almost all of the 35 units on one side of 8th Street are multiple family units. He stated that it was not 36 good to have people from outside his neighborhood say that this would not be good 37 for Seal Beach when they don't know what is in that neighborhood. He ended by 38 stated that he was very much in favor of this zone amendment. 39 40 Ms. Fanny Bollen spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She stated that she owns the 41 apartment complex adjacent to the proposed lot. She objects to the zone change 42 and stated that it means nothing as it could be changed again later to accommodate 43 another project. She said that the ZTA should apply citywide and not only to special 44 people. She stated that she believes apartment buildings to be residential and not 45 commercial. Ms. Bollen said that she was very concerned about the proposed 46 height of one of the buildings, as it would block the sunlight and the view for the Page 17 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 residents of her apartment building. She stated that she did not understand why the 2 applicant was getting "special treatment." She said that the project was being 3 allowed to exceed height limits and to disregard setback requirements, and she 4 considers this to be discriminatory against other property owners. 5 6 Mr. Richard Harlan, a former planning director, spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. He 7 stated that it was not unusual to expand the permitted uses in a base zoning district 8 based on specific criteria and subject to a CUP. He said that this was an accepted 9 way of doing business and is done throughout the state. He noted that the proposed 0 RC-O Zone area is a mixed-use area. He explained that the minimum size lot for a 11 B&B is 50-feet, which would permit two single-family residences or apartments. Mr. 12 Harlan stated that it would appear that a B&B would be an excellent transitional use 13 and would fit very well into the neighborhood. He said that this was a good 14 opportunity for the City to preserve historic structures and that the B&B would bring 15 added income into the City as well as the bed tax and would increase property 16 values. He stated that a B&B would provide a nice alternative for visitors who do not 17 wish to stay at a hotel or motel as a B&B would provide a quiet atmosphere along 18 with a residential character. He stated that the ordinance provides sufficient 19 guarantees to restrict the use to its intended use. 20 21 Ms. Joyce Parkay spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She reminded the Commission 22 of the effort by the City of Huntington Beach to take over properties along Main 23 Street in that city to accommodate redevelopment. She added that every piece of 24 land in Huntington Beach was being developed. She stated that she lives on 6th 25 Street and had never received the Notice of Public Hearing for ZTA 00-1 . Mr. 26 Whittenberg explained that the notice is only sent out to properties that are within 27 300 feet of the property in question. Ms. Parkay said that she believed the whole 28 town should be made aware of this type of a zone change and that the whole town 29 should be able to speak on a matter of this kind. She said that she has a 50-foot lot 30 with a home that predates 1930. She remarked that the homes on the hill and in 31 College Park East have 50-foot lots and they should have been notified also. She 32 said that simply because she did not live within 300 feet of the proposed project, she 33 still should have been notified. 34 35 Mr. Randall Baez spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. He stated that he has lived in Seal 36 Beach a long time and has seen a lot of bars and restaurants that do well, but he 37 believes that a B&B would be a good business to bring into the City. He said that 38 the City has done a good job in attempting to designate the location for the proposed 39 project. 40 41 Mr. George Hisek, an 8th Street resident, spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. He stated that 42 he lives across the alley from the proposed lot and said that he was glad to see the 43 auto repair garage go. He said that he would hate to see two 4-bedroom homes 44 constructed on that lot, because this would mean that there would be eight cars 45 needing parking and there was not enough room. He said that he was in favor of 46 approving ZTA 00-1. Page 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 Mr. Kurt Staeple spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 and asked which option a property 2 owner would choose if having to make the choice between a single-family residence 3 and a B&B. He said that the lot needs to be developed, but changing zoning should 4 require the approval of the citizens. He stated that it appeared that the City was 5 attempting to impose their will upon the people. He said that all residents of Old 6 Town should be able to come and voice their opinion. Mr. Staeple stated that it was 7 obvious that this was an "inside deal", as it appeared that the zone text has been 8 written specifically to accommodate this project. 9 0 Ms. Maureen Pekar spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. She said that the B&B would be a 11 great improvement to 7th Street. She stated that although there was a lot of negative 12 response, she knows that there are a lot of residents who believe this would be an 13 improvement to the City. 14 15 Mr. Ron Bennett spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 stating that the premise of the 16 zone change was to save significant older homes within the City. He asked if the 17 City had researched other alternatives for accomplishing this. He stated that 18 Councilman Boyd had directed City Staff and the City Attorney to look into tax 19 breaks, etc., to encourage residents to keep and restore these older homes. He 20 said that both he and Mr. James Caviola had restored the older homes in which they 21 lived in Seal Beach. He stated that his major concern was with the parking issue. 22 He referred to the Staff Report and read the provisions for parking on Pages 7 and 23 14. He said that he had spoken with the applicant and expressed his objection to 24 the proposal for triple tandem parking. Mr. Bennett said that the applicant 25 responded that he had arranged for parking with the operator of a garage across the 26 street from the proposed project. When Mr. Bennett inquired whether this individual 27 was the owner of the garage or a lessee, he discovered that he is a lessee. He said 28 that this arrangement was fine as long as the current lessee was leasing this garage. 29 This could change in the future and the parking issue should be looked into more 30 thoroughly. Mr. Bennett continued that he did not believe the height and setback 31 requirements should be different for this project than what is required by City Code. 32 33 Ms. Sue Corbin spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She stated that she has lived in 34 this neighborhood and it is an unusual one. She commented that the owner of the 35 apartment house could have a problem with keeping tenants if there is too much 36 noise from guests arriving and leaving the B&B. She commented that originally the 17 City Attorney had stated that the zone amendment needed to apply citywide 38 otherwise this would be considered spot zoning. She said that when opposition to 39 this change arose, this zone text was no longer viewed as spot zoning. She stated 40 that the City Manager has stated many times that this ZTA 00-1 applies to the 7th 41 Street property only. She said that this is spot zoning and special privilege. She 42 said that this is wrong, as the applicant can make millions of dollars off of this 43 property. She stated that this is not historical preservation, as the proposed 44 changes to the houses would change them completely. She said that if the B&B 45 were not successful, the City would be left with these abandoned structures. She 46 stated that Mr. Whittenberg had said that the homes could serve as museums for Page 19 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 public viewing, but she asked whether there would be enough parking for guests, 2 museum visitors, and employees of the B&B. She said the City was creating a zone 3 for a monstrosity. She stated that she is for preservation, but until now the City had 4 not shown an interest in preserving older structures within Old Town. 5 6 Mr. Bruce Bennett spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 and stated that this issue is a 7 major one for Seal Beach. He said that over the years there has been a trend 8 starting with reducing high density residential, and almost every issue that comes 9 before the Commission comes with the element of the parking problem in Old Town. 10 He said that recently evening functions and activities at the library now create more 11 parking problems within the general area. He said that the trend has not been to 12 increase business uses but to maintain the residential status of the City. He referred 13 to Pages 7, 22, and 23 of the Staff Report and read those sections related to 14 parking. Mr. Bennett stated that the zone along Pacific Coast Highway is a sliding 15 zone where there could be a motel. He noted that Staff had demonstrated how lots 16 could be combined to qualify other B&Bs in the area. He said that this ZTA is very 17 narrow and has been accelerated very quickly. He commented that no other place 18 in town allows tandem parking and described the difficulties in maneuvering a car to 19 park in or exit from this parking configuration. He emphasized that someone will have to attend to this parking long after the City approves this change. Mr. Bennett stated that he was concerned with possible broadening of the use for this project. 22 He referred to Page 18 of the Staff Report, which describes other possible uses for 23 the B&B facility followed by the term etc., which he believes should be removed as it 24 allows for too many possible uses. He inquired as to the kind of exit strategy the 25 City has if this project does not succeed. Mr. Bennett encouraged denial of ZTA 26 00-1. 27 28 Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. 29 30 Commissioner Comments 31 32 Commissioner Brown stated that he believes the purpose of the Planning 33 Commission is to help increase property values and improve the quality of life in 34 Seal Beach. He said that he did not believe a B&B lowers the quality of life. He 35 stated that he has surveyed many local residents regarding a B&B in Seal Beach 36 and the general response has been that "they are great, but not next door to my 37 home." He said he also had previously expressed this sentiment, but upon reflection 38 he feels that if some of the apartment buildings behind his home were cleared and a 39 B&B put it their place, he would be very happy, as this would be an improvement. 40 Commissioner Brown said that his concern with ZTA 00-1 is that it combines two 41 objectives: historic preservation and whether or not to allow B&Bs in the City. He 42 said that if B&Bs are to be allowed, he believes that the community should be 43 involved in the decision. He said that he did not like the idea of a Zone Overlay, and 44 he agrees that the proposed RC-O Zone is arbitrary and has been written to 45 accommodate a few properties. He stated that if the community wants to allow 46 B&Bs in Seal Beach, this could be accomplished by allowing B&Bs in Residential Page 20 City of Seal Be, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 High Density Zones by CUP with specific criteria created for this. He stated that he 2 would vote against ZTA 00-1 because he does not feel that this is the right way to 3 approach this issue. He said that creating a zone change for a specific property is 4 not the right way to go. He believes that this is the type of thing that "will turn around 5 and bite us several years on down the road." Commissioner Brown referred to a 6 comment made earlier about the people approving the zone change, and noted that 7 the Planning Commission and the City Council as elected representatives are "the 8 people," and the people speak through these two governing bodies. He said that the 9 issue of historic preservation and the issue of allowing B&Bs should not be mixed 0 together. 11 12 Commissioner Larson commented that although the speaker stated that the 13 Commission should support the will of the people, the problem is determining the will 14 of the people. He said that all of the speakers presented valid points. He said in his 15 experience in working as legal counsel, he found that if the judge didn't like the 16 zoning it was called spot zoning, and if he did like it, he called it a legitimate exercise 17 of legislative power. He stated that he was having a problem with the definition. He 18 said that when he thinks of historic preservation, he thinks of the former homes of 19 U.S. presidents, which have historical significance because of the former occupants. 20 He noted that the only definition Seal Beach has for a locally significant house is that 21 it is old. He said that if it were not for the preservation of the Krenwinkel and Proctor 22 homes, he did not believe that there would be any consideration given to allowing 23 B&Bs in Seal Beach. Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to see an 24 exploration of what City Council is asking to determine if there is another vehicle for 25 preserving these homes. He said he would vote to deny ZTA 00-1. 26 27 Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Larson. 28 He said that moving the homes to the lot and renovating their interior would involve 29 tremendous expense. He said that he did not believe this to be a smart move. He 30 stated that if the City wanted to restore the homes, they should find a way to raise 31 the money to do that, but he was not in agreement with moving the homes simply to 32 create a B&B. 33 34 Commissioner Cutuli commented that he had recently stayed at a B&B in Santa 35 Barbara and had taken note of what a B&B did to a neighborhood. He stated that 36 B&Bs were generally very well kept and are attractive and upgrade the 37 neighborhood and always look better than apartments. He said that generally they 38 were not near individual homes but were in residential high-density (RHD) zones 39 and he believes that B&Bs should be kept in a RHD area as opposed to a 40 neighborhood with single-family dwellings. He stated that this would mean that a 41 B&B would never go up next to a single-family home, but next to an apartment or 42 business. Commissioner Cutuli stated that although he does like B&Bs he did not 43 like the way this ZTA was presented. He said that he was in agreement with 44 Commissioner Brown and that more thought must go into the individual segments of 45 this zone change. He said that the zoning and historic preservation issues must be 46 separated. He stated that although he did want to see these homes preserved, he 1 Page 21 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 did not believe it was right to approve ZTZ 00-1 simply to facilitate one developer's 2 plans. 3 4 Chairperson Hood stated that it was important that the Commissioners listen to the 5 people as they work for the people. He said that those who spoke in favor of and 6 against ZTA 00-1 were speaking for the City. He stated that the historical heritage of 7 the City should be preserved by some means. He said that the City has a lot of 8 originality and creativity and surely should be able to find a way to do this. 9 Chairperson Hood noted that the City needed to take advantage of the talents of its 10 residents to discover a way to preserve its past without imperiling its future or 11 impacting its people. 12 13 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to deny Zone Text Amendment 00-1. 14 15 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 16 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 17 NOES: None 18 ABSENT: None 19 20 Mr. Whittenberg announced that Staff would return with a Resolution for adoption 21 reflecting the recommendation to deny Zone Text Amendment 00-1. 22 23 24 STAFF CONCERNS 25 26 Mr. Whittenberg referred to two letters from Ms. Michele Brendel and he wanted to 27 state for the record that the letters had been received by the City and copies 28 provided to the Planning Commission. 29 30 31 COMMISSION CONCERNS 32 33 Commissioner Brown asked if the project at 209 13th Street referred to in Ms. 34 Brendel's letter was a project that was brought before the Planning Commission. 35 Mr. Whittenberg responded that this matter came before the Planning Commission 36 in October 1999. Commissioner Brown asked what the procedure is when a letter is 37 received indicating that a project is varying from what was approved. He stated that 38 it was important to look into the matter. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would be 39 happy to address the issues referred to in Ms. Brendel's letter and report to the 40 Commission at the next meeting. 41 42 Chairperson Hood asked if it would be possible for Staff to make a recommendation 43 regarding letters addressed to the Commission. He asked if Staff could establish a 44 procedure that would be fair to all concerned for entering these letters into the 45 record. Commissioner Larson commented that because each Commissioner is ( 46 provided a copy of letters received, he did not believe it was necessary to read them Page 22 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000 1 aloud. Commissioner Brown stated that if the public took the time to write a letter 2 expressing their views, he was in favor of reading the letters out loud. 3 Commissioner Larson stated that the public could write a letter to the Commission 4 and then sit back and have crullers and coffee without having to come out to attend 5 the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Brown said that he realized that 6 because the Planning Commission does receive an inordinate amount of letters from 7 a few people, the inclination might be not to read these letters because this has 8 been done so many times before. He said that it was difficult to make a judgement 9 to determine which letters get read and which ones don't. He said that the 10 procedure would have to be to read them all or to read none. Chairperson Hood 11 stated that if this was to be the case, then a procedure must be set down so that the 12 Planning Commission will know how to proceed on this issue. Commissioner Larson 13 stated that the Chairperson should be able to decide whether or not to read any 14 exhibits for any meeting. 15 16 Mr. Whittenberg asked for clarification regarding the above discussion. 17 Commissioner Brown stated that during the past seven years, three different 18 Chairpersons have done things differently and maybe it was best that this be left to 19 the discretion of the Chair. He does believe that however the Chair chooses to 20 handle the matter, it should be consistent during the term of that Chair. Chairperson 1 Hood said that this could lead to capricious behavior on the part of the Chair. 22 Commissioner Brown responded that the Chairperson would decide whether or not 23 to read all letters or to not read them and simply enter them into the record. He said 24 that he would support the decision of the Chair. Commissioner Larson commented 25 that if one Chairperson decides to read all letters and the next Chairperson decides 26 not to, then he has to explain why and this could be very uncomfortable. 27 28 ADJOURNMENT 29 30 Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. 31 32 33 Respectfully Submitted, 34 35 7 38 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 39 Planning Department 40 41 42 43 APPROVAL 44 45 The Commission on February 23, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning i 46 Commission Meeting of Wednesday, February 9, 2000.-c.„ . Page 23 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of October 20, 1999 5 6 7 Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to 8 order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20, 1999. The meeting was held in the City 9 Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 0 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Chairman Hood 14 Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon 15 16 Also 17 Present: Department of Development Services 18 Lee Whittenberg, Director 19 Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney 20 Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney 21 Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner 22 23 Absent: None 24 25 26 AGENDA APPROVAL 7 28 Chairman Hood noted receipt of a memorandum requesting that Item No. 7, Variance 29 99-3 be continued to the November 3, 1999, meeting. 30 31 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to approve the Agenda as presented. 32 33 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 34 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 35 NOES: None ''6 ABSENT: None 38 39 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 40 41 Chairman Hood opened oral communications. 42 ' These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 10-20-99 PC Minutes 1 1 Ms. Sue Corbin commented that the issue of how the Planning Commissioners are 2 receiving their mail was supposed to have been presented as an agenda item. She 3 stated that she had not yet seen this appear as an agenda item. She asked when this 4 item would appear. She stated that she wondered why the Planning Commissioners 5 and the Chairman as a body was allowing Staff to determine which items would appear 6 on the agenda. 7 8 Reg Clewley stated that on June 23, 1999, the Planning Commission received a Staff 9 Report on Ordinance 1419. He said that at that time there was a question regarding 0 retaining walls and Staff had indicated that the matter would be revisited on July 21, 1 1999. He said that since that time the Planning Commission had cancelled two 12 meetings due to lack of business. Mr. Clewley stated that he felt that the study session 13 scheduled for November 17, 1999 was a little late to address the appeal to Variance 14 99-2. He asked the City Attorney why there was such a discrepancy of time for some 15 issues to appear before the Planning Commission or the City Council. He stated that 16 when a variance was denied and an appeal was filed, the appeal must be heard by the 17 City Council within 40 days. He said that the rules differed for other types of requests. 18 Mr. Clewley stated that it was his impression that the City Attorney "is digging up rules 19 out of a hat," as there was no set standard for hearing requests for a variance, minor 20 plan review, height variation, etc. He said that the same rules did not apply to 21 everyone. Mr. Clewley went on to say that although the rules for hearing these items 22 had been set, there was no consistency in applying them. He stated that he believed a 23 study session should be scheduled on how the City Attorney operates. 24 25 Chairman Hood closed oral communications. 26 27 28 CONSENT CALENDAR 29 30 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 8, 1999. 31 32 2. Receive and File: Seal Beach Weapons Support Facility — Installation Restoration 33 Program — Status Report Re: RAB Project Update. 34 35 3. Receive and File: "The Congressional Budget Office's 'Regulatory Takings and 36 Proposals for Change: One-Sided and Uninformed." 37 38 Commissioner Larson noted that since he was not present during the discussion on 39 Conditional Use Permit 99-9, his name appearing as a second on the Motion on Page 6 40 of the Minutes of September 6, 1999, should be removed and the minutes corrected. 41 Mr. Whittenberg apologized for the error and stated that the correction would be made. 42 43 MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. 44 45 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 46 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 10-20-99 PC Minutes 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 NOES: None 2 ABSENT: None 3 4 SCHEDULED MATTERS 5 6 4. Resolution No. 99-37 Honoring Brian Brown. 7 8 Chairman Hood read and presented Resolution No. 99-37 Honoring Brian Brown for his 9 service to the community as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 3 years. Commissioner Brown thanked the Commission and Staff for this recognition. 11 12 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve Resolution 99-37 Honoring Brian 13 Brown as presented. 14 15 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 16 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 17 NOES: None 18 ABSENT: None 19 20 21 5. Resolution No. 99-38 Honoring Craig Steele. 22 23 Chairman Hood read and presented Resolution No. 99-38 Honoring Craig Steele for his 24 service to the commission as Attorney for 6 years. 25 26 The Assistant City Attorney thanked the Commission Members and Staff Members for 27 their assistance and stated that his experience in working with the Planning 28 Commission and Department of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach had 29 been a very unique and positive one. 30 31 Mr. Whittenberg thanked Craig Steele for his efforts on behalf of the City and for his 32 ability to work so well with the members of the Planning Commission and Staff. He 33 wished Mr. Steele well and took the opportunity to introduce Mr. Terrence Boga, the 34 new Assistant City Attorney who will replace Mr. Steele. 35 36 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve Resolution 99-38 Honoring Craig 37 Steele as presented. 38 '9 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 -.40 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 41 NOES: None 42 ABSENT: None 43 44 45 PUBLIC HEARINGS 46 47 6. Height Variation 99-4 10-20-99 PC Minutes 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 A-8 Surfside 2 3 Applicant/Owner: David & Julie Evans 4 Request: To construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in 5 excess of the 35-foot height limit in Surfside at A-8 Surfside. 6 Specifically, the proposed structure would exceed the height 7 limit by approximately 4.5 feet. 8 9 Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of 10 Resolution No. 99-34 11 12 Staff Report 13 14 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 15 Planning Department.) He provided some background on the project and stated the 16 Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) was to be constructed in conjunction with the 17 construction of a new family dwelling on the property legally described as Orange 18 County Assessor's Parcel 178-502-20 located in Surfside. He described the property as 9 rectangular in shape with a lot area of 1430 square feet. Surrounding land uses to the 20 property are: 21 22 NORTH Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone and 23 open space located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. 24 SOUTH The Pacific Ocean 25 EAST & WEST Single family dwellings in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone at 26 Surfside. 27 28 Mr. Cummins stated that Section 28-2317 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code does allow 29 for CRAS to be a maximum of 7 feet above the 35-foot height limit subject to certain 30 criteria that the Planning Commission can review in approving this type of request. The 31 criteria are: 32 33 1. Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the structure being 34 constructed. 35 36 2. Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the 37 neighborhood. 38 39 3. Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any property 40 located within 300 feet. 41 42 In reviewing the case, Staff determined that the architecture is in substantial conformity 43 with the proposed structure. Within the neighborhood several height variations of 44 similar nature have previously been approved. Mr. Cummins noted that in conformance 45 with the City Policy Statement adopted in 1991, the straight run stairwell meets the 46 criteria of 38 feet. No habitable living space will be added to the structure and it will not 10-20-99 PC Minutes 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 significantly impact the view of any property within 300 feet. Staff recommends 2 approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution No. 99-34. 3 4 5 6 Commissioner Questions 7 8 None 9 10 Public Hearing 11 12 Chairman Hood opened the public hearing. 13 14 Mr. David Evans stated that he would be happy to answer any questions regarding the 15 plans for construction of the CRAS and new dwelling. He stated that with regard to the 16 stairwell, there were already 30-40 other such structures within his neighborhood and 17 he did not believe that it would be a problem. 18 19 Mr. Glenn Mitchell stated the he was the property owner of A-9 in Surfside, which is 20 adjacent to the applicant's property. He stated he had recently remodeled his home 21 with a different roofline structure that excludes the need for any stairway. He said that 22 there would be no interference or intrusion on his property by the new structure. Mr. 23 Mitchell stated that he wanted to support the applicant's petition. 24 25 Mr. Reg Clewley spoke in opposition to CRAS. He stated that it was not because he 26 didn't like people building things, but because CRAS look like warts or tumors growing 27 out of the top of structures. He stated that they were entirely incompatible with the 28 architectural features of the rest of the building. He said that there were too many 29 people not obeying the law and pointed out that directly behind the Vons Supermarket 30 there were five different residences that the Planning Commission approved for CRAS. 31 Although all fit within the height limit, what happens is that this creates a situation where 32 people have low-pitched roofs with big boxes to try to stay within the height limit. He 33 stated that it would be more architecturally pleasing to use the real height limit, which is 34 not always the height limit set by the City Code. Mr. Clewley stated that because 35 property owners were allowed to build beyond the height limit, the result were these 36 "great big boxes" built to the absolute height limit, and the height limit was generally the 37 guard rail of the roof deck. He stated that once construction of a deck is approved, any 38 deck could be enclosed upon appeal to the City Council or to the Superior Court. He 39 said that every time the Planning Commission meets, there is another request for 40 approval of construction of a CRAS. Mr. Clewley stated that this is creating an unsightly 41 skyline in the City. He stated if the Commission was going to allow property owners to 42 build to any height whatsoever, then that would be the height limit, and this would allow 43 for all kinds of "interesting" architectural features. He said that many people are building 44 the guardrails on top of the height limit of roof decks. He questioned how a disabled 45 person would gain access to a CRAS, and speculated on the problems for accessing 46 the roof deck, should a member of the household become disabled. He discussed the 10-20-99 Pc Minutes 5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 potential need for wheelchair ramps to allow access to roof decks. Mr. Clewley stated 2 that the Planning Commission needed to re-address the entire notion of CRAS instead 3 of simply approving them every other week. He stated that property owners should be 4 encouraged to build interesting and attractive architectural features instead of the 5 "trash" that was being put up all over the City. He recommended denial of this request. 6 7 Mr. Whittenberg noted a letter received from Henry and Sally Biets of A-18 Surfside, 8 recommending approval of this request. 9 10 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments 13 14 Commissioner Larson stated that the City had adopted the law that permits that an 15 application be granted and that this was not the time or place to state that the 16 Commissioners do not like the law. He stated that the structure may be considered 17 ugly, but if this is what the property owner wants, so be it. 18 19 Commissioner Cutuli stated that the residents of Surfside have very small lots and need ''fl to utilize every inch of footage in the house including the roof deck. He stated that he felt it was important to allow CRAS. 23 Commissioner Brown stated that the request was well within the guidelines and he had 24 not objection to construction of the CRAS. 25 26 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve Height Variation 99-4 and adopt 27 Resolution 99-34. 28 29 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 30 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 31 NOES: None 32 ABSENT: None 33 34 Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 99-34 begins a 10-day 35 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final 36 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 37 J9 8. Zone Text Amendment 99-4 40 Citywide 41 42 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 43 Request: To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of 44 Surfside to be 10 feet, deep. Currently, 10-foot decks are only 45 permitted on the 1st floor, with 5-foot decks permitted on the 46 2nd and 3rd floors. This amendment would allow the owner to 10-20-99 PC Minutes 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 choose to place the 10-foot deck either on either the 1st or 2 2nd floor, but not both; and in no case would a 10-foot deck be 3 permitted on the 3rd floor. 4 5 Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of 6 Resolution No. 99-36 7 8 Before delivering the Staff Report, Mr. Whittenberg again announced that Item No. 7, 9 Variance 99-3 for 1605 Seal Way was to be continued to the November 3, 1999 10 meeting. 11 12 Staff Report 13 14 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 15 Planning Department.) He provided some background on this item and stated this was 16 a request made by the Surfside Colony to amend the City Code to allow decks on the 17 2nd floor of homes along the A-Row of Surfside to be10 feet deep. He stated that 18 currently the Code allows 10-foot decks only on the first floor with 5-foot decks allowed 19 on 2nd and 3rd floors. He stated that Surfside Colony had already approved this 20 amendment and made it a part of their lease agreement and approval of Zone Text 21 Amendment 99-4 would be the next step in the progression to allowing these decks. 22 Staff is of the opinion that placing a deck on the 1st or 2nd floor is a matter of personal 23 choice. He stated that there is a provision in the Code that if a 10-foot deck were built 24 on the 2nd floor, construction of a 1st floor deck would be limited to a depth of 5 feet. 25 Staff recommends approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 99-36. 26 27 Commissioner Questions 28 29 None 30 31 Public Hearing 32 33 Chairman Hood opened the public hearing. 34 35 Mr. Reg Clewley stated he was in opposition of this Zoning Text Amendment. He stated 36 that once a deck has been established it can be enclosed, and the 10-foot decks on 2nd 37 floor could be enclosed. He stated that there was not a problem with having decks on 38 the 1E4 floor or 5-foot decks on the 2nd floor, as they did not obstruct anyone's view. He 39 stated that if 10-foot decks were allowed on the 2nd floor, people would not be able to 40 see the first floor. He speculated that a subsequent property owner might prefer to have 41 a deck on the 1st floor and would then construct a 1st floor deck. Mr. Clewley stated 42 that the City would be allowing 5 extra feet of buildable space to all residences of 43 Surfside, which could potentially be used as habitable living space. He stated that there 44 was nothing to stop residents from building on the first floor underneath the 2nd floor 45 deck. He said that neighbors would not complain about this so as to avoid conflict 46 within their community. He stated that it was well known that there were no 47 enforcement actions taken in this city unless a complaint is received. He said that 10-20-99 PC Minutes 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 allowing 10-foot decks on the 2"d floor would eliminate any hope of open space. He 2 stated that approving this ordinance would create confusion and would make 3 enforcement of this code amendment very difficult. Mr. Clewley stated that the Planning 4 Commission was creating exceptions to laws that others may build upon in the future. 5 He said that eventually there would be neither height limits in the City nor would there 6 be any tapering effect for decks. He stated that it was a horrible thought to think that 7 the Commission would approve this type of "nonsense." 8 9 Mr. David Evans spoke in favor of this Zoning Text Amendment. He stated that 10 property owners in Surfside have had a deck lease for quite some time, and the 11 residents were attempting to clean up the colony to conform all decks to one standard 12 for a consistent, uniform deck building program. He said that there were many houses 13 with 2"d floor decks, and some with intermediate height 6-8 foot decks, and that a 14 couple of homes were recently approved to build 2"d floor decks. Mr. Evans stated that 15 for those homes abutting the Naval Weapons Station, the view for these homeowners 16 has been eliminated due to a low grade, and being able to build decks on the 2"d floor 17 would be of benefit to them. 18 19 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. 20 21 Commissioner Comments 22 23 Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with allowing homeowners to build 24 2"d floor decks. 25 26 Commissioner Larson said that Surfside appeared to be a cohesive community that 27 would enforce rules. He stated that the residents of Surfside all seemed to be in 28 agreement, particularly those that have had their view blocked by the berm, and this 29 seems to be an appropriate way to solve the problem. 30 31 Commissioner Cutuli stated that he agreed with Mr. Clewley's statements. He noted 32 that the situation with the 10-foot deck on the 2"d floor is a major blockage of some of '13 the neighbors' views. He said that he used to live in Surfside and the 2"d floor was A typically the main floor of this type of home. He stated that there are usually windows 35 on the sides of the 2"d floor and a deck would block the view of the ocean. 36 Commissioner Cutuli also noted that the possibility of property owners enclosing the 37 deck to create habitable living space was a very real one. He stated that after having 38 served on the Board of Directors for Surfside, he did not feel that enforcement of rules 39 was consistent. He stated that he would definitely vote against Zoning Text 40 Amendment 99-4. 41 42 Commissioner Brown stated that although he understood the intent of Zoning Text 43 Amendment 99-4, he believes a 10-foot deck on the 1st or 2"d floor would be "a little bit 44 weird." He stated that to have a 10-foot deck on the 2"d floor and a 5-foot deck on the 45 1st floor with a 5-foot overhang seems strange. He said that he was having trouble 46 imagining what the structure would look like. Commissioner Brown stated that from an 10-20-99 PC Minutes 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 aesthetic standpoint, two 10-foot decks would be more appropriate. He said he was not 2 sure what the purpose of this was and that unless he received some clarification, he 3 would have to oppose this Zone Text Amendment. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg explained that the reason this amendment had been brought before the 6 Commission, was because Surfside residents had developed this program as a way to 7 most appropriately deal with the issue of decks on the A-Row. He clarified that this 8 amendment would only apply to the A-Row properties that front the ocean, and would 9 not apply to the interior properties. He stated that the residents of Surfside believe this 10 program to make sense within their community and approached the City to request that 11 the City Code be changed to conform to the program they had developed regarding 12 decks on the ocean front properties. Mr. Whittenberg noted that over the past few years 13 the City had developed a good relationship with the Surfside Community, and currently 14 there is a process in place where prior to the City accepting the applications from 15 Surfside, they must be approved by the Surfside Board of Directors. This creates a 16 check and balance system to ensure that when a project comes to the City it has met all 17 of the requirements for Surfside. He stated that the City is attempting to make their 18 standards more compatible with what the Surfside Community feels is most appropriate 19 for their particular area. As for the issue of view blockage, Mr. Whittenberg stated that 20 the City had never looked at view blockage on a diagonal situation from one unit to 21 another. He stated that although this issue had been discussed a number of times, the 22 Planning Commission and the City Council had determined that the only time there can 23 be a view blockage is when blockage of the primary view occurs. The primary view is 24 looking directly out from the property to the ocean, not up or down the coast, as 25 structures on either side would obstruct those views. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he 26 understood Commissioner Cutuli's comments because should this text amendment be 27 approved, the structure of the properties along the oceanfront would change. He noted 28 that whether or not this is good or bad is something the Commission has a right to 29 consider. Mr. Whittenberg stated that should the Planning Commission feel that they 30 require more formal information from the Surfside Community, he would suggest that 31 the Commission continue this item until the next meeting so that Surfside could make a 32 more formal presentation at that time. Commissioner Brown stated that after reading 33 further in the lease he noted that the 1st floor deck was allowed to be glass enclosed, 34 with an 8-foot high wall of glass. He noted that if a 10-foot deck were extending over 35 that it would be possible to create another room out of the 1st floor deck. Commissioner 36 Brown clarified that in Surfside, the front of the home can be built up to the lot line. He 37 said that he would be in favor of more clarification on this issue from Surfside. 38 39 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to continue Zone Text Amendment 99-4 to the 40 November 17, 1999 meeting. 41 42 MOTION CARRIED: 4— 0 — 1 43 AYES: Brown, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 44 NOES: Cutuli 45 ABSENT: None 46 10-20.99 PC Minutes 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 2 3 9. Negative Declaration 99-1 4 General Plan Consistency 5 6 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 7 Request: Approval of- Negative Declaration 99-1 and General Plan 8 Consistency for Seal Beach Boulevard/ 1-405 Overcrossing 9 Widening Project. 10 11 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-39 and instruct Staff to forward to the 12 City Council for consideration in their review of the subject 13 document. Receive and File Staff Report. 14 15 Staff Report 16 17 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 18 Planning Department.) He provided some background on the project stating that the 19 City had contracted the consultant firm of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates to 20 prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He noted that a representative of this firm, 21 Mr. Kevin Thomas, was present this evening to answer any questions regarding the 22 information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration document or in the Response to 23 Comments. 24 25 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this matter had come before the Environmental Quality 26 Control Board (EQCB) on September 29, 1999, at which time they had adopted a 27 memorandum setting forth their concerns regarding the document and had included 28 some additional conditions that they felt should be invoked upon the project. He said 29 that a copy of the September 29 EQCB minutes had been provided for each 30 Commissioner. Mr. Whittenberg also noted that a copy of the consolidated and revised 31 Mitigation Measures as set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the 32 additional conditions and revisions to those conditions set forth in the Response to 33 Comments prepared by the consultant was also included with the additional conditions 34 recommended by the EQCB. 35 36 Mr. Whittenberg explained that the basic objective of the project was to widen the Seal 37 Beach Boulevard overpass over the 405 Freeway. He noted that Seal Beach Boulevard 38 is indicated on the City Circulation General Plan as a major street with 120 feet of right- 39 of-way and is developed with 3 traffic lanes in each direction from Pacific Coast 40 Highway to the northerly City boundary at the City of Los Alamitos, with the exception of 41 the bridge overpass of the 405 Freeway. He stated that at that particular point the 42 roadway narrows down to two travel lanes in each direction instead of three. This 43 reduces the capacity of the street to carry traffic from 56,000 vehicles per day down to 44 approximately 37,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would widen the bridge 45 out in each direction, reconfigure the on/off ramp entrance points, and provide a double 46 left-turn lane from southbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto the southbound 405 Freeway 47 onramp. He stated that these improvements would resolve the current situation during 10-20-99 PC Minutes 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 peak traffic hours of cars stacking up in the left-turn lane leading onto the southbound 2 405 onramp. He said that the project would also provide new pedestrian sidewalks and 3 bike paths on the bridge itself that will meet all current CalTrans design and safety 4 standards. He noted that some widening would occur on the north side of the bridge 5 near the Bixby Ranch Development, and that some dedications would be required in 6 that area for the widening. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the south side of the bridge was 7 City property and that retaining walls would be constructed along with the building out of 8 the roadway in this area. He stated that the improvements would decrease the current 9 traffic congestion levels during peak hours on the bridge for both north and southbound 10 traffic. He said that the current Level of Service (LOS) was "F," which means that there 11 are more than 37,000 cars traveling through this area at peak hours. He said that the 12 improvements would lower the LOS rates down to Level B and C for southbound traffic 13 and to Level D for northbound traffic because of some of the on/off ramp configuration 14 issues that remain. 15 16 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative 17 Declaration and the finding of Consistency with the General Plan. He noted that the 18 consultant had prepared a list of mitigation measures to resolve certain environmental 19 impacts. Mr. Whittenberg noted conditions for approval would be included to mitigate 20 concerns regarding aesthetic issues, primarily having to do with trees currently located 21 within the cloverleaf of the off-ramps and how these trees will be replaced or relocated 22 during completion of the project. He stated that the City would require a minimum 1:1 23 replacement ratio of trees within this area, and for eucalyptus trees within the project 24 areas, a 2:1 replacement ratio would be required. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 25 conditions would be placed upon traffic management planning during the construction 26 phase to ensure adequate traffic flow across the bridge for normal traffic and for 27 emergency vehicle purposes. He pointed out that there were also a number of other 28 measures regarding soil and geology issues that must be dealt with as part of the 29 reconstruction of the bridge. He noted that all of the mitigation measures were 30 described in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in addition to 31 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration to the City Council, the State also 32 requires that public improvements be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with 33 the City's General Plan. Mr. Whittenberg said that since 1975 Seal Beach Boulevard 34 had been designated as one of the major roadways within the city, and that since then 35 the long-term goal has been to improve the bridge to its full 3-lane capacity in each 36 direction. He said that this project has been included in the City's 7-Year Capital 37 Improvement Program for funding and that the City has obtained approximately half of 38 the funds for this project through the Measure M Program for the County of Orange. He 39 explained that Measure M is a voter approved additional tax on gasoline sales from 40 which funds are provided to jurisdictions for roadway improvements within their local 41 communities. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that the remaining portions of 42 funding would be provided from Traffic Impact Fees for the Bixby Old Towne 43 development project, should it receive approval for completion. He stated that the 44 project is shown on the Regional Transportation Plans of the California Association of 45 Governments, which is the overall transportation planning agency for Los Angeles and 46 Orange Counties and for parts of the San Bernardino and Riverside area, and it meets 10-20-99 PC Minutes 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 • 1 all of the criteria for financing through the Federal Highway Program. He said that Staff 2 feels the project is consistent with the General Plan and recommends approval. Mr. 3 Whittenberg stated that a visual presentation had been prepared for viewing tonight, but 4 that the computer components were not properly configured and the presentation could 5 not be made. He noted that Resolution 99-39 was scheduled for public hearing before 6 the City Council on Monday, October 25, 1999. 7 8 Commissioner Questions 9 10 Commissioner Lyon commented that driving across the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge 11 during peak hours was "terrifying", as there was so much traffic congestion. 12 13 Commissioner Cutuli asked how many lanes of traffic would be open during the 14 construction phase. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this had not yet been determined. 15 He stated that one of the mitigation measures was that a traffic management plan had 16 to be prepared and approved both by the City and CalTrans. He stated that he 17 assumed that there would be a minimum of one lane at all times, and that his best 18 guess was that the construction would be phased so that two lanes in each direction 19 would be available during peak traffic hours. Commissioner Cutuli then asked what the 20 projected date of completion for the Old Towne Center would be, should it receive 21 approval. Mr. Whittenberg responded that at this point a date for completion is "up in 22 the air," as a referendum petition has been submitted to the City that, if qualified, would 23 place on the ballot for the March elections the question of whether or not the two 24 commercial portions of the project should be allowed to proceed. Commissioner Cutuli 25 asked if a delay in completion of the Bixby project would be good as it would be better 26 to have improvements for the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass completed prior to 27 beginning work on the Bixby Ranch development. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it 28 was difficult to predict that at this time as it would depend upon whether the petitions for 29 the referendum will qualify as a ballot measure. He stated that he believed the City 30 anticipates that this will occur, and that an election will take place in March. Pending 31 the results of the election, this will determine whether the commercial components of 32 the Bixby Ranch development can proceed. He stated that if the commercial 33 components do not proceed, the amount of transportation impact fees that the City 34 would collect on the remainder of the project would not be adequate to fully fund the 35 Seal Beach Boulevard improvements, and they would not go forward as anticipated at 36 this point in time. He clarified that because improvement to the Seal Beach Boulevard 37 overpass has been a long-term objective of the City (since 1975), the conditions of 38 approval imposed by the City on the Bixby Old Towne Center did not require 39 improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard to be completed as part of the Bixby 40 development. He stated that the existing problem of traffic congestion in that area is a 41 result of existing traffic flows, regardless of whether or not there is a Bixby development. 42 He explained that the Seal Beach Boulevard improvement is a separate project from the 43 Bixby development for both environmental review purposes and financing purposes. 44 Mr. Whittenberg noted that if the City is not able to obtain money from any future Bixby 45 development to offset the cost of the construction, the City would apply to the County of 46 Orange through the Measure M Program and talk to CalTrans to get financing for 10-20-99 PC Minutes 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 sharing the cost of the improvements. He stated that in actuality the bridge is a 2 CalTrans bridge, owned by them, and it must be designed to their standards and 3 specifications. He said that what the City was attempting to do was to move up the 4 improvements on the CalTrans schedule to be in place more closely to the time that the 5 Bixby project might possibly be completed. 6 7 Public Hearing 8 9 Chairman Hood opened the public hearing. 10 11 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that this was an issue that was far from ready for being decided 12 upon and that many questions remained regarding this Negative Declaration. He said 13 that the City was jumping ahead of itself, and that this did not need to happen. Mr. 14 Clewley stated that no one was advised regarding this item being on the agenda 15 otherwise the Council Chambers would be filled with people voicing their objection to 16 approval of this project. He stated that this project would not be going anywhere until all 17 of the other issues surrounding this project had been resolved. Mr. Clewley stated that 18 this would not come to pass until after the election in March. He said that there were 19 over 2800 signatures from registered voters in this City in favor of the ballot vote. He 20 stated that the City was not going to be able to do away with these signatures, and that 21 the people should have the opportunity to revisit this issue. Mr. Clewley stated that he 22 had not been made aware of a lot of the documentation until this evening, and that he 23 was not able to acquire a complete agenda packet to review and study prior to the 24 meeting. He stated that just like Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 was to be continued, he 25 felt that Negative Declaration 99-1 should be studied for about 6 months before voting 26 on it. He stated that he was disgusted with the manner in which Staff presents 27 information, and the "underhanded tactics with which they are delivered." He stated that 28 he wanted more time to study the document and that he believed the citizens of College 29 Park East would like more time to study it also. Mr. Clewley said that he did not believe 30 that the Commissioners had had sufficient time to study the document and that they did 31 not fully comprehend its contents. He recommended studying this item for at least a 32 couple of weeks, if not 6 months before voting on this project. 33 34 Ms. Sue Corbin inquired regarding the minimum public review period of 20 days for the 35 mitigated negative declaration. She asked when the document had been presented. 36 She stated that this was the first she had heard of it, and asked if the document should 37 have been presented so that the public could have seen it before tonight. Ms. Corbin 38 stated that if under The Brown Act Staff could answer this question, she would like an 39 answer. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the question had nothing to do with The Brown Act 40 and said that as indicated in the Staff Report, a Notice of Preparation and Comment 41 Period appeared on July 23, 1999. A 30-day public comment period was allowed, 42 increasing it over the 20-day minimum under state law, and that the comment period 43 ended on August 23, 1999. He stated that Staff had received written comments from a 44 number of different agencies as listed in the Staff Report. He stated that no comments 45 on the document were received from the public, and that for the public hearing tonight, 46 in excess of 600 notices were mailed out to property owners, business occupants, and 10-20-99 PC Minutes 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 residential occupants within Leisure World and to the surrounding area within the 2 required notice for this type of project. He stated that the Negative Declaration has 3 been a public document since July 23, 1999, and that the process is ongoing at this 4 point. Chairman Hood asked that Staff explain again where notices were mailed. Mr. 5 Whittenberg responded that notices for this meeting were mailed out to everyone within 6 a 300-foot perimeter from the boundaries of Seal Beach Boulevard at Beverly Manor 7 and at the northbound 405 Freeway off-ramp at Bixby Old Ranch Parkway. Ms. Corbin 8 stated that she felt that the Staff needed to draw more attention to the document as she 9 was totally unaware of it and she believed that had the public been made aware, there 0 would have been more people in attendance at tonight's meeting. Mr. Whittenberg 11 again noted that over 600 businesses and residential addresses within the City had 12 been notified, which he felt was very substantial notice to the public. Ms. Corbin stated 13 that she didn't know who Staff was trying to fool, but that the last time the Bixby Project 14 came up for approval, it was stopped dead due to lack of funds for the overpass 15 improvements. She stated that now "all of a sudden" the funds were available through 16 Measure M. She said that this was all done in order to "aid and abet" Bixby. She stated 17 that this never would have happened but for the Department of Development Services 18 desiring to "aid and abet" the Bixby Project. She also pointed out that on Page 25 of the 19 Final Comments and Responses, it predicted a maximum 7.0 for the Newport/ 20 Inglewood fault zone. She stated that this was inaccurate, as there have been stronger 21 earthquakes within this fault zone. Ms. Corbin requested that monitors from the correct 22 tribes be assigned during the excavation phase to prevent tribal friction. She stated that 23 they are available for these types of assignments. She said that she could not 24 understand how Staff could say that these projects were interrelated but not directly 25 connected. Ms. Corbin said that if it were not for the Bixby project, the improvements to 26 Seal Beach Boulevard would not have been completed. She stated that she believed 27 the archaeological findings had not been adequately addressed. 28 29 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. 30 31 Commissioner Comments 32 33 Chairman Hood inquired as to when construction was projected to begin. Mr. 34 Whittenberg stated that this was not an issue of construction, but an issue of insuring 35 that the environmental reviews for the project are completed within the time period to 36 meet the commitment for the Measure M funding deadline. Chairman Hood inquired as 37 to the deadline date. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he wasn't sure of the actual date 38 as the Engineering Department is the contact for this agency, and that Engineering has 39 indicated that this is the schedule that the City needs to follow in order to ensure 40 retention of the Measure M funds. He stated that to his knowledge the deadline date 41 was sometime in mid-November. Chairman Hood asked if after the Measure M funds 42 were designated for this project, and if the Bixby Project did not receive voter approval, 43 would the City have sufficient funding for the project? Mr. Whittenberg responded that 44 at this point the amount of funds allocated through the Measure M program would not 45 fund the entire Seal Beach Boulevard improvement project. He stated that should the 46 City be unable to provide the required additional funding, the City would then have the 10-20-99 PC Minutes 14 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 opportunity to apply to the Transportation Authority to request supplemental funding 2 from the Measure M program, which would be done, should the Bixby commercial 3 project be voted down. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg again explained that this was a project that had been in the City's 6 General Plan since 1975, and again emphasized that this project was not totally driven 7 by the Bixby Development. He stated that an obvious interconnection was presented 8 because the City did not have all of the funds needed to complete the Seal Beach 9 Boulevard Project without the Traffic Impact Fees that would be generated by the 10 commercial developments of the Bixby Project. Mr. Whittenberg again explained that all 11 this indicated was that if the City was not able to provide the funds, the City would still 12 have the environmental analysis completed for the project and would not have to do this 13 at some later time. The City would then apply to the County for additional funding to 14 proceed with widening the bridge regardless of whether or not the Bixby development is 15 approved. He stated that the bridge was currently servicing at a substandard level, and 16 the goal of the City for 24 years has been to widen that bridge to allow traffic to flow 17 through this section as freely as it does on Seal Beach Boulevard north and south of 18 that particular bridge. 19 20 Mr. Whittenberg then responded to issues presented during the public hearing 21 regarding the Newport/Inglewood fault zone. He stated that 7.0 is a design standard 22 that has been established by the United States Geological Service and the California 23 State Division of Mines and Geology. He stated that these agencies designate 24 maximum credible earthquake intensities for all identified earthquake faults within the 25 State of California. He stated that the 1933 Long Beach earthquake measured 6.3 26 magnitude. 27 28 Regarding the issue of Tribal Monitors, Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City selects the 29 monitors, and that Ms. Corbin's comments would be taken under consideration. He 30 stated that the ultimate determination of the monitor was up to the City and there is no 31 designated tribal monitor under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said 32 that there was no designated tribe for this area, but that there was a lot of discussion 33 between several different tribal organizations within Southern California as to whose 34 territory this is, and he did not know that this issue would ever be resolved. 35 36 Commissioner Lyon stated that Staff had failed to mention that the State had already 37 allocated funds for improvements to the intersection of Westminster Avenue and Seal 38 Beach Boulevard. He stated that he was 100% in favor of the Seal Beach Boulevard/ 39 1-405 Freeway Project, regardless of whether or not the Bixby development is approved. 40 He pointed out that the bridge section of Seal Beach Boulevard was overcrowded now 41 with traffic backing up before the bridge near the cross street leading to the fire 42 department and the hospital. 43 44 Commissioner Larson stated that whether or not the Bixby project is approved, this is a 45 "bad bridge," and is very dangerous for users of the bike path. He stated that the i 10-20-99 PC Minutes 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 curves are bad and that the on-ramps and exits to the freeway are easily confused with 2 other side streets. He stated that he believes the bridge needs to be improved. 3 4 Commissioner Brown was in agreement with the previous Commissioner comments. 5 He stated that the one criticism he continually hears from residents is "why don't you do 6 something about the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge overpass." He too stated that 7 regardless of whether or not the Bixby project is built, the bridge needs to be widened. 8 9 Commissioner Cutuli seconded the comment. 10 11 Chairman Hood stated that it was important for residents of Leisure World to have better 12 access to emergency services. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Larson. 13 This is a bad bridge. He stated that although he had different views on the Bixby 14 Project, he is in favor of widening the bridge. He commented that his first day as a 15 resident of College Park East was the day that the signal at Lampson and Seal Beach 16 Boulevard was opened. He said that previously there had been no signal, only a stop 17 sign, which testifies to how little traffic there was at that time. 18 19 MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to adopt Resolution 99-39 and instruct Staff to 20 forward to the City Council for consideration in their review of the subject document. 21 Receive and File Staff Report. 22 23 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 24 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 25 NOES: None 26 ABSENT: None 27 28 Mr. Whittenberg advised that as a future public hearing item at the City Council level, 29 this item is to be considered on Monday, October 25, 1999, and the public is invited to 30 make additional comments. 31 32 33 STAFF CONCERNS 34 35 None. 36 37 38 COMMISSION CONCERNS 39 40 Commissioner Larson commented on the smooth transition from one chairman to 41 another. He complimented Chairman Hood on the manner in which he handled 42 tonight's meeting. Commissioner Cutuli seconded the compliment. 43 44 Commissioner Brown commented on the Response to Notice of Preparation of Draft 45 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bixby Long Beach Project, City of Long 46 Beach. He stated that this was a massive project that is to include 524 homes to be 10-20-99 PC Minutes 16 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 located in the area of Westminster Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway near the 2nd 2 Street area. Commissioner Larson interjected that this project would include the 3 extension of Studebaker Road from Westminster Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. 4 Commissioner Brown went on to state that the size of the industrial area was 444,000 5 square feet. He noted that entire Bixby Project measured 286,000 square feet. He 6 stated that he drives through this area quite frequently and that he would assign an "F" 7 to the level of service for traffic movement. He said that Studebaker Road had recently 8 been repaved and the pavement is already buckling. He stated that the land designated 9 for this project was a wetlands zone, and, therefore, unstable, and the idea of building 10 524 home in this area was "mind boggling." Commissioner Brown stated that this new 11 project would certainly affect the residents of Seal Beach and the citizens need to be 12 made aware of this and to have the opportunity to make comments on this EIR. He 13 stated that the City should do everything possible to fight this project so that it does not 14 receive approval. 15 16 Mr. Whittenberg commented that this matter is on the agenda for the next City Council 17 meeting. He stated that Staff had prepared a Draft of a Comment Letter on the Notice 18 of Preparation and addressed it to the City of Long Beach highlighting issues that the 19 will need to taken under consideration while preparing the Draft EIR. He stated that the 20 majority of those issues focus on traffic and air quality impacts being adequately 21 presented as to how they will impact the community of Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg 22 noted that, as previously stated by Commissioner Larson, one of the project 23 components is to extend Studebaker Road from Westminster Avenue through to Pacific 24 Coast Highway. He stated that the City's response letter would also address concerns 25 related to this street extension. He said that the City Council will send this letter to the 26 City of Long Beach, and the City of Long Beach would then prepare the Draft EIR and 27 forward a copy to Staff for review. Staff will prepare a letter for review by the City 28 Council and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB). This letter will be 29 reviewed at the regular meetings of the City Council and EQCB, and interested 30 residents will have the opportunity to comment. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was 31 the beginning of a 6 to 9-month process of preparing environmental documentation for 32 the project, so it will probably be quite some time before a Draft EIR will be available. 33 34 Commissioner Brown encouraged citizens to participate in making comments regarding 35 this project. 36 37 Commissioner Larson asked whether the City had taken any action in opposition to the 38 future widening of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the position 39 of the City regarding this issue is that the number of travel lanes on Pacific Coast 40 Highway within the Seal Beach city limits will not be increased from the current two 41 lanes in each direction. He stated that he would expect the City Council to maintain this 42 position. Commissioner Larson asked if CalTrans maintained the same position. Mr. 43 Whittenberg responded that although CalTrans does pay attention to the desires of 44 communities, there have been cases both in Seal Beach and Newport Beach, where 45 there were proposals for increase in travel lanes and CalTrans ultimately decided not to 46 do so. 10-20-99 PC Minutes 17 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 2 Commissioner Brown commented that many times in focusing on mitigation of traffic 3 impacts only, there was a tendency to see only the trees and forget about the forest. 4 He stated that traffic could always be mitigated, but that there were bigger issues 5 involved here, specifically with regard to the stability of the land in that area and the loss 6 of the wetlands zone. Mr. Whittenberg responded that these issues would be 7 addressed at the time of review of the Draft EIR. 8 9 Commissioner Larson noted that should Studebaker Road be extended, this would 10 divert some of the traffic from Seal Beach Boulevard. For those cars accessing the 405 11 Freeway from Seal Beach Boulevard, many would be able to access the freeway from 12 Studebaker Road. 13 14 ADJOURNMENT 15 16 Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. 17 18 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 21 Q, *K_ 22 23 Carmen Alvarez 24 Executive Secretary 25 Planning Department 26 27 28 APPROVAL 29 30 The Commission on November 3, 1999 approved the Minutes of the Planning 31 Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 20, 1999. 32 10-20-99 PC Minutes 18 Public Hearing-Zone Text Amendment 99-4 Surfside Decks City Council Staff Report May 8, 2000 ATTACHMENT D Planning Commission Staff Reports of October 20, 1999 & February 9, 2000 12 October 20, 1999 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4 Allow the construction of rl floor decks on the"A" row of the Surfside Colony to be 10 feet deep. REQUEST To allow the construction of decks on the"A" row of Surfside to be 10 feet deep on the Second Floor. Currently, 10 foot decks are only permitted on the first floor, with 5 foot decks permitted on the second and third floors. This amendment would allow the owner to choose to place the 10 foot deck either on the first or second floor, not both; and in no case would a 10 foot deck be permitted on the third floor. DISCUSSION This text amendment is proposed to change the floor on which a 10 foot deck may be located on the"A" row of the Surfside Colony. Surfside Colony has already approved the proposed City Code text amendment with an amendment to their lease agreements. They have requested the text amendment of the City so that their residents may choose to place a 10 foot deck on the second floor. There are many residences which back up directly to the sand on the first floor and in order to have deck space, these residents would have to place the deck on the second floor. It is staff's opinion that whether a deck is placed of the first floor as a patio or the more traditional "deck" on the second floor is a matter of subjective personal choice. There will be no view blockage created by this amendment and there will be no additional floor coverage allowed. Staff can not see any reason why this text amendment should not be passed as a result, particularly in lieu of the fact that Surfside Colony has already amended their code to reflect the proposed changes to the City Code. In discussing this matter, staff has limited the number of options considered to two. Specifically, these are: I) Approve the Zone Text Amendment, allowing the construction of one (1)ten foot(10') deck to be placed either on the first or second floor, but not on both(As already amended by the Surfside Colony By-Laws); and (2) do nothing, thereby restricting the construction of the ten foot (10') deck to be placed on the first floor, as the current City Code requires. Staff Report-Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 October 20, 1999 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission, after receiving both written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, adopt a resolution recommending approval of the zone text amendment to be forwarded to the City Council. Staff has provided the Commission with two potential options in considering this proposal: Recommend that decks be permitted to be constructed on the second floor of the properties along A row. The deck would be permitted to be 10 feet deep on the first or second floor, but not both, and in no cases would the third floor be permitted to be 10 feet deep (As has been previously approved by the Surfside Colony through their By-Laws). • No change— Continue to restrict the construction of decks to be on the first floor only. FOR: October 20, 1999 c ` i /. Mac Cummins Oe Whittenberg Assistant Planner Director Department of Development Services Department of Development Services Attachments (1): 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Surfside Colony Lease Agreement with Amended Provisions for Decks Page 2 99-4 SURFSIDE DECKS Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 99-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4, AMENDING SECTION 28-506 (6) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEN FOOT DEEP DECK TO BE PLACED ON EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND FLOOR, BUT NOT BOTH; ON THE"A" ROW OF SURFSIDE COLONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of October 20, 1999, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Text Amendment 99-4. This amendment would allow for the construction of a ten foot (10') deep deck to be placed on either the first or second floor, but never on both. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 1999 to consider Zone Text Amendment 99-4. Section 4. The record of the hearing of October 20, 1999 indicates the following: (a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. (c) The proposed text amendment will allow residents residing on the"A" Row of the Surfside Colony to choose whether they wish to place their ten foot (10') deck on the first or second floor. Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36 October 20, 1999 Section 5. 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 Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 to the City Council subject to the following: 1. Article 5. Subsection (6) of Section 28-506 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: "(6) Stairways, balconies or patio decking may encroach into the Surfside Colony leased land southwest of Block"A": (a) First Floor—Ten feet with Glass deck enclosure; (b) Second Floor—Ten feet, provided that the first floor deck is then restricted to five feet in depth; otherwise five feet. (c) Roof Projection/Sunscreen—Five feet (d) The decking may have a forty-two inch high guard railing installed thereon as required by the building code. On the first or second floor deck, a glass deck enclosure may be added. The glass enclosure shall not exceed eight feet, measured from the finished floor of the deck. No glass panel shall be less than three feet by three feet. All glass above the forty-two inch high guard railing shall be clear, untinted glass. No portion of the glass enclosure shall be covered or roofed in any manner." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of October, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Page 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36 October 20, 1999 David Hood, Chairman Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission Page 4 Attachment 2 A-ROW FRONTAGE LEASE THIS LEASE, made and entered into this day of , in the County of Orange, State Of California, by and between SURFSIDE COLONY, LTD. ("Surfside"), a California corporation and ("Lessee"). 1. PREMISES. Surfside does hereby lease to Lessee and Lessee leases from Surfside that certain real property (the "Premises") adjacent to that real property known as (the "Adjacent Property"), which Adjacent Property has been improved with an existing single-family residence (the "Residence"). The Premises consists of a strip of land extending ten feet (10') westerly from the westerly lot line of the Adjacent Property between the westerly extensions of the northerly and southerly lot lines of the Adjacent Property. 2. USE. During the term of this lease, Lessee may improve the Premises solely as expressly permitted in this paragraph. Lessee may construct and/or maintain only the following structures on or over the Premises: A. One unroofed deck extending westerly from the Residence,but in no event past the westerly boundary of the Premises. The term "unroofed deck" includes both unenclosed decks and decks enclosed by windscreens. A deck extending more than five (5) feet westerly from the Residence shall be called the "Principle Deck." Where there is more than one deck, only the deck at the Premises' grade elevation or the first elevated deck may be a Principal Deck. B. • One or two unroofed decks extending westerly from the Residence not more than five (5) feet, but in no event more than five (5) feet into the Premises, which shall be called "Secondary Deck(s)." However, if the Principal Deck is at the second-floor elevation, Surfside may, in its absolute discretion, permit the homeowner to install, on-grade, an unenclosed slab extending westerly from the Residence, but in no event past the westerly boundary of the premises. Any on-grade slab so permitted shall be considered a Secondary Deck and conform to all requirements for Secondary Decks except for its westerly dimension. C. A "Roof Overhang" extending westerly from the Residence not more than five (5) feet, but in no event more than five (5) feet into the Premises. Occupancy on the top of Roof Overhangs is not permitted. Principal Decks, Secondary Decks, and Roof Overhangs shall not extend northerly or southerly beyond lines which are the westerly extensions of the north and south sidewalls of the Residence. Principal Decks, Secondary Decks, and Roof Overhangs shall be constructed only with the prior approval of the Board of Directors of Surfside, or by an Architectural Committee appointed by the Board, and in accordance with such regulations as Surfside and the City of Seal Beach may issue from time to time. Below grade decks and/or retaining walls are not permitted. A copy of the Surfside Unroofed Deck Structural Regulations("Deck Regulation")existing at the date of this lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A and, by this reference, made a part hereof. 3. TERM. The initial term of this Lease shall be for a portion of one year commencing upon the date of Lessee's first use of the Premises as determined by Surfside in its sole discretion and ending on the next August 31st. Rent for the initial term shall be prorated on the basis of a 365 day year. Unless terminated as provided hereinafter, this Lease shall automatically renew from year to year with successive one-year terms beginning September 1 and ending August 31. Annual rent is due in full, in advance,on or before September 1 of each year. Without limiting Surfside's rights at law or at equity to terminate the Lease for default or other cause,this Lease may be terminated by either party hereto upon giving to the other thirty (30) days written notice of termination. 4. PLAN APPROVAL. No structure may be constructed or maintained upon the Premises until the complete plans and specifications for such structure have been submitted to and approved in writing by The Board,or the Architectural Committee. In the event that the Premises have been improved by the construction of any deck or decks existing at the commencement of this Lease, Lessee need not submit plans or specifications for such deck(s)to Surfside for approval. However, such decks must continue to comply with the provisions of this Lease and Deck Regulations, and the execution of this Lease by Surfside does not constitute approval of, or waiver of, any non- conforming decks. In the event of any structural changes to an existing deck or decks, plans and specifications for such changes must be submitted to the Board or the Architectural Committee, and approved in v.riting,prior to the commencement of any work. "Structural changes" include,without limitation, changes in safety rails, changes in vertical uprights, installation of windscreens, or changes in existing windscreens. etc. 5. PLAN APPROVAL NOT A WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION. Plan approval by Surfside's Board or Architectural Committee shall not constitute a warranty or representation as to safety, engineering sufficiency, serviceability of materials, suitability for intended use, habitability, feasibility or practicability of construction or maintenance, or conformance to building codes or standards of care. 6. RENTAL. The total annual rent shall be computed as follows: Through August 31, 2003 - $ .90 per square foot of Premises. Through August 31, 2008 - $1.00 per square foot of Premises. However, in no event, shall the annual rent be less than $50.00. Surfside reserves the right to set annual rents for periods beginning September 1, 2008, in its absolute discretion. 7. RESTORATION OF PREMISES. Upon termination of this lease (including any termination by reason of the default of Lessee). Lessee shall remove any structures, Decks (Primary and Secondary), Roof Overhangs, on-grade cement slabs, and foundations upon the Premises and restore the premises to a clean sand beach without abrupt change in grade elevation from the surrounding beach, unless, not more than ten (10) days after termination of the Lease, Surfside notifies Lessee in writing that one or more structures are not to be removed. All removal and restoration shall commence not sooner than ten (10) days after termination of the Lease and must be completed within sixty (60) days after the termination of this Lease. 8. CONDEMNATION. In the event the Premises are condemned, Lessor shall be entitled to and shall receive the total amount of any award(s) made with respect to the Premises, including Lessee's leasehold interest therein, the right of occupancy and use of the Primary Deck and Secondary Deck(s), and any so-called "bonus" or "excess value" of this Lease by reason of the relationship between the rental payable under this Lease and the fair market rent for the Premises. Neither Lessee nor any person claiming through or under Lessee shall receive or retain any portion of such award(s)and shall promptly pay to Surfside any sums received in respect thereof. However, Lessee shall be entitled to any award, or portion of the award, allocable to Lessee's improvements on the Premises, including the Primary Deck, Secondary Deck(s) and Roof Overhang. The word "condemnation" or"condemned" as used in this paragraph or elsewhere in this Lease shall mean the exercise of,or intent to exercise,the power of eminent domain in writing,as well as the filing of any action or proceeding for such purpose, by any person, entity, body, agency or authority having the right or power of eminent domain(the"condemning authority" herein),and shall include a voluntary sale by Surfside to any such condemning authority, either under the threat of condemnation or while condemnation proceedings are pending, and the condemnation shall be deemed to occur upon the actual physical taking of possession pursuant to the exercise of said power of eminent domain. This lease shall be terminated as of that date. 9. CONDITION OF PREMISES. Lessee acknowledges that it has inspected the Premises and accepts the Premises "as is," with all faults, patent and latent, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected. Lessee acknowledges that no statement or representation as to the past, present or future condition or suitability for building, occupancy or other use thereof has been made for or on behalf of Surfside. Lessee agrees to accept the Premises in the condition in which they may be upon the commencement of the term hereof. 10. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Surfside and its officers, directors,employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all claims, expenses, liabilities, actions and causes of action arising out of the use or occupancy of the Premises or the construction or maintenance of any structure upon the Premises, whether the claimant on such claim, expense, liability, action or cause of action is the Lessee, a member of Lessee's family, an invitee or licensee of Lessee, or a mere trespasser. Failure of Lessee to perform its obligations under this paragraph shall be a default under this Lease and good cause for immediate termination of the Lease. 11. HOLDING OVER. In the event the Lessee shall hold the Premises after the expiration of the term hereof with the consent of Surfside, express or implied, such holding over shall, in the absence of written notice by either party to the other,be a tenancy from month to month at a monthly rental payable in advance equal to the monthly rental payable during the term hereof and otherwise subject to all of the terms and provisions of this Lease. If Lessee fails to surrender the Premises u-'on the termination of this Lease despite demand to do so by Surfside, any such holding over shall not constitute a renewal hereof or give Lessee any rights with respect to the Premises, and Lessee 3 shall indemnify and hold Surfside harmless from loss or liability resulting from such failure to surrender, including, without limitation, any claims made by any succeeding tenant founded on or resulting from such failure to surrender. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS. Lessee agrees to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations with respect to the use of the Premises and the Adjacent Property, including, without limitation, such rules and regulations as Surfside may adopt and issue from time to time. 12. WAIVER The waiver by Surfside of any breach of the terms, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term,covenant or conditions,or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by Surfside shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Lessee to pay the particular rental so accepted,regardless of Surfside's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. No covenant, term or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Surfside, unless such waiver be in writing by Surfside. 14. NOTICE. Any notices or demands which are required to be given hereunder or which either party hereto may desire to give to the other shall be given in writing by mailing the same by registered or certified United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties at the address shown below or at such other addresses as the parties may from time to time designate by notice as herein provided or may be served personally to the parties at: "Surfside" "Lessee" Surfside Colony, Ltd. P. 0. Box 235 Surfside, CA 90743 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Lease and the exhibit attached hereto and forming a part hereof set forth the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between Surfside and Lessee concerning the Premises and there are no covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than are herein set forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Surfside or Lessee unless reduced to writing and signed by them. 16. ARBITRATION AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. Any dispute between Lessor and Lessee arising in any way under this Lease shall be resolved solely by arbitration before the American Arbitration Association under the Commercial Rules thereof then in effect. No court shall have jurisdiction of any such dispute except to compel arbitration upon the application of either party and for purposes of entering judgment in accordance with an award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) and 4 or the execution and/or enforcement of the judgment entered upon the Award. The Arbitrator(s) shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs in an amount they deem appropriate to the party who they deem to have prevailed, in their absolute discretion. 17. ASSIGNMENT. This Lease shall not be assigned, subleased or transferred by operation of law, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Surfside. 18. REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. In the event Lessee shall default under or otherwise breach any of the terms or conditions of this Lease, Surfside shall have the right to terminate this Lease forthwith and to retake possession of the Premises. Waiver of any default or breach shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent or continuing default. Termination of this Lease shall not affect any liability by reason of any act, default or breach or occurrence prior to such termination. IN WITNESS THEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. SURFSIDE COLONY, LTD., a California Corporation By President By Secretary LESSEE 5 EXHIBIT A UNROOFED DECK STRUCTURAL REGULATIONS OF SURFSIDE COLONY, LTD. 1 . SAFETY RAIL AND WINDSCREEN REGULATIONS. a. As required under Code, a safety rail forty-two (42) inches in height as measured from the finished floor of the deck around the entire deck, except in those instances where a deck enclosure is to be constructed of glass panels extending from the finished floor of the deck. The required safety rail shall meet all State, City, Safety and Building Codes . b. No safety rail shall exceed forty-two (42) inches in height . as measured from the finished floor of the deck. No windscreen shall exceed eight (8) feet in height as measured from the finished floor of the deck . c . No portion of any such safety rail or windscreen shall be covered or roofed over in any manner. d. No glass panels less than three (3) feet in width shall be used in the construction of such windscreen or safety rail . e . Vertical beams used in the construction of such windscreen or safety rail shall not exceed four (4) by six (6) inches . f . All portions of such windscreen above the required forty-two (42) inch safety railing height shall consist only of untinted transparent glass and be maintained in a clean condition . g. All such glass sections shall consist of one-quarter (1/4) inch tempered plate glass or the equivalent thereof . h. No material which in any way tends to obscure the glassed-in area shall be attached either to such windscreen or to the residence . i . Windscreens and safety rails shall be maintained so as not to obscure the view of neighbors on either side of the residence . j . No additional rents shall be charged for such windscreen or safety rail . February 9, 1999 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4 Allow the construction of 2"d floor decks on the"A" row of the Surfside Colony to be 10 feet deep. REQUEST To allow the construction of decks on the"A" row of Surfside to be 10 feet deep on the Second Floor. Currently, 10 foot decks are only permitted on the first floor, with 5 foot decks permitted on the second and third floors. This amendment would allow the owner to choose to place the 10 foot deck either on the first or second floor, not both; and in no case would a 10 foot deck be permitted on the third floor. DISCUSSION This text amendment is proposed to change the floor on which a 10 foot deck may be located on the"A" row of the Surfside Colony. Surfside Colony has already approved the proposed City Code text amendment with an amendment to their lease agreements. They have requested the text amendment of the City so that their residents may choose to place a 10 foot deck on the second floor. There are many residences which back up directly to the sand on the first floor and in order to have deck space, these residents would have to place the deck on the second floor. Staff has considered the comments that arose at the October 20, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Particularly the comments regarding the nature of the decks and whether or not having a 10 foot deck on the second floor would look"weird." Staff feels that this would not be the case because the intent of this is to allow someone to have a deck on their primary floor of living space. Due to the fact that some of the properties in Surfside that sit below the grade of sand, many of these properties cannot fully take advantage of their beach frontage in the same manner as those in other portions of the colony. This text amendment allows those residents to have the same square footage of deck space by placing the deck on the second floor if they so choose. A key fact to remember is that a first floor deck is essentially a patio and so it would really not look any different than any other patio situation (See attached elevation of a previously built house). However, if the residents choose to lay a cement patio directly on grade with no enclosure, staff sees no reason why this should not be allowed, in addition to the second floor deck, both to a maximum of 10 feet. As such, staff is proposing Staff Rep,rt-Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 February 9, 2000 to allow a 10 foot cement patio with no enclosure at all; otherwise a 5 foot patio or 1d floor deck with enclosure would be permitted if the resident chose to have a 10 foot second floor deck. Staff has also considered the concern of the commission that if 2nd floor decks are allowed to be constructed, that unpermitted enclosing of the first floor deck area may occur. Staff feels that this type of construction will not occur, and feels that lowering the glass enclosure limit from 8 feet to 5 feet will help in resolving any concerns that the commission will have in this matter. As such, this amendment has also been changed in the proposed resolution to reflect this. The other issue that continues to be an issue of concern in the Surfside Colony revolves around whether or not the decks would create view blockage. The City has taken the policy in the past of only considering what is termed a"primary view" which would be directly from the subject property and not to actively consider the angled view. Staff feels that this text amendment would in no way create view blockage from the primary view. It is staff's opinion that whether a deck is placed of the first floor or the more traditional "deck" on the second floor is a matter of subjective personal choice. There will be no view blockage created by this amendment and there will be no additional floor coverage allowed. Staff can not see any reason why this text amendment should not be passed as a result, particularly in lieu of the fact that Surfside Colony has already amended their code to reflect the proposed changes to the City Code. Staff would also like to note that a few of these proposed decks have already been constructed in Surfside and photos are attached to the staff report. In addition, photos of properties that fit the various criteria detailed above are also attached. In discussing this matter, staff has limited the number of options considered to two. Specifically, these are: 1) Approve the Zone Text Amendment, allowing the construction of one(1)ten foot (10') deck to be placed either on the first or second floor, but not on both (As already amended by the Surfside Colony By-Laws); and (2) do nothing, thereby restricting the construction of the ten foot (10') deck to be placed on the first floor, as the current City Code requires. 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. RECOMMENDATION Page 2 99-4 SURFSIDE DECKS • StafRep ort-Zoning Tex:. ndment 99-4 February 9, 2000 Staff recommends the Commission, after receiving both written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, adopt a resolution recommending approval of the zone text amendment to be forwarded to the City Council. Staff has provided the Commission with two potential options in considering this proposal: Recommend that decks be permitted to be constructed on the second floor of the properties along A row. The deck would be permitted to be 10 feet deep on the first or second floor, but not both, and in no cases would the third floor be permitted to be 10 feet deep (As has been previously approved by the Surfside Colony through their By-Laws). No change—Continue to restrict the construction of decks to be on the first floor only. FOR: February 9, 2000 §4/1"/ Mac Cummins V - . Whittenberg Assistant Planner ( Director Department of Development Services Department of Development Services Attachments(4): 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Surfside Colony Lease Agreement with Amended Provisions for Decks 3. Photos 4. Minutes from October 20, 1999 5. Elevation of previously built 2nd floor deck Page 3 994 SURFSIDE DECKS Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 99-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4, AMENDING SECTION 28-506 (6) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEN FOOT DEEP DECK TO BE PLACED ON EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND FLOOR, BUT NOT BOTH; ON THE"A" ROW OF SURFSIDE COLONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of October 20, 1999, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Text Amendment 99-4, and continued it to February 9, 2000. This amendment would allow for the construction of a ten foot (10') deep deck to be placed on either the first or second floor, but never on both. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 1999, and continued to February 9, 2000 to consider Zone Text Amendment 99- 4. Section 4. The record of the hearings of October 20, 1999 and February 9, 2000 indicates the following: (a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. (c) The proposed text amendment will allow residents residing on the"A" Row of the Surfside Colony to choose whether they wish to place their ten foot (10') deck on the Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36 February 9, 2000 first or second floor. Section 5. 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 Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 to the City Council subject to the following: 1. Article 5. Subsection (6) of Section 28-506 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: "(6) Stairways, balconies or patio decking may encroach into the Surfside Colony leased land southwest of Block"A": (a) First Floor—Ten feet with Glass deck enclosure; (b) Second Floor—Ten feet, provided that the first floor deck is then restricted to five feet in depth with glass enclosure OR 1d floor is an on grade patio to a maximum of 10 feet with no enclosure; otherwise five feet. (c) Roof Projection/Sunscreen—Five feet (d) The decking may have a forty-two inch high guard railing installed thereon as required by the building code. On the first or second floor deck, a glass deck enclosure may be added. The glass enclosure shall not exceed five feet, measured from the finished floor of the deck. No glass panel shall be less than three feet by three feet. All glass above the forty-two inch high guard railing shall be clear, untinted glass. No portion of the glass enclosure shall be covered or roofed in any manner." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners Page 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-36 February 9, 2000 ABSENT: Commissioners David Hood, Phd., Chairman Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission Page 4 Attachment 2 A-ROW FRONTAGE LEASE THIS LEASE, made and entered into this day of , in the County of Orange, State Of California, by and between SURFSIDE COLONY, LTD. ("Surfside"), a California corporation and ("Lessee"). 1. PREMISES. Surfside does hereby lease to Lessee and Lessee leases from Surfside that certain real property (the "Premises") adjacent to that real property known as (the "Adjacent Property"), which Adjacent Property has been improved with an existing single-family residence (the "Residence"). The Premises consists of a strip of land extending ten feet (10') westerly from the westerly lot line of the Adjacent Property between the westerly extensions of the northerly and southerly lot lines of the Adjacent Property. 2. USE. During the term of this lease, Lessee may improve the Premises solely as expressly permitted in this paragraph. Lessee may construct and/or maintain only the following structures on or over the Premises: A. One unroofed deck extending westerly from the Residence,but in no event past the westerly boundary of the Premises. The term "unroofed deck" includes both unenclosed decks and decks enclosed by windscreens. A deck extending more than five (5) feet westerly from the Residence shall be called the "Principle Deck." Where there is more than one deck, only the deck at the Premises' grade elevation or the first elevated deck may be a Principal Deck. B. • One or two unroofed decks extending westerly from the Residence not more than five (5) feet, but in no event more than five (5) feet into the Premises, which shall be called "Secondary Deck(s)." However, if the Principal Deck is at the second-floor elevation, Surfside may, in its absolute discretion, permit the homeowner to install, on-grade, an unenclosed slab extending westerly from the Residence, but in no event past the westerly boundary of the premises. Any on-grade slab so permitted shall be considered a Secondary Deck and conform to all requirements for Secondary Decks except for its westerly dimension. C. A "Roof Overhang" extending westerly from the Residence not more than five (5) feet, but in no event more than five (5) feet into the Premises. Occupancy on the top of Roof Overhangs is not permitted. Principal Decks, Secondary Decks, and Roof Overhangs shall not extend northerly or southerly beyond lines which are the westerly extensions of the north and south sidewalls of the Residence. Principal Decks, Secondary Decks, and Roof Overhangs shall be constructed only with the prior approval of the Board of Directors of Surfside, or by an Architectural Committee appointed by the Board, and in accordance with such regulations as Surfside and the City of Seal Beach may issue from time to time. Below-grade decks and/or retaining walls are not permitted. A copy of the Surfside Unroofed Deck Structural Regulations("Deck Regulation")existing at the date of this lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A and, by this reference, made a part hereof. be completed within sixty (60) days after the termination of this Lease. 8. CONDEMNATION. In the event the Premises are condemned. Lessor shall be entitled to and shall receive the total amount of any award(s) made with respect to the Premises, including Lessee's leasehold interest therein, the right of occupancy and use of the Primary Deck and Secondary Deck(s), and any so-called "bonus" or "excess value" of this Lease by reason of the relationship between the rental payable under this Lease and the fair market rent for the Premises. Neither Lessee nor any person claiming through or under Lessee shall receive or retain any portion of such award(s)and shall promptly pay to Surfside any sums received in respect thereof. However, Lessee shall be entitled to any award, or portion of the award, allocable to Lessee's improvements on the Premises, including the Primary Deck, Secondary Deck(s) and Roof Overhang. The word "condemnation" or"condemned" as used in this paragraph or elsewhere in this Lease shall mean the exercise of,or intent to exercise,the power of eminent domain in writing,as well as the filing of any action or proceeding for such purpose,by any person, entity, body, agency or authority having the right or power of eminent domain(the"condemning authority" herein),and shall include a voluntary sale by Surfside to any such condemning authority, either under the threat of condemnation or while condemnation proceedings are pending, and the condemnation shall be deemed to occur upon the actual physical taking of possession pursuant to the exercise of said power of eminent domain. This lease shall be terminated as of that date. 9. CONDITION OF PREMISES. Lessee acknowledges that it has inspected the Premises and accepts the Premises "as is," with all faults, patent and latent, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected. Lessee acknowledges that no statement or representation as to the past, present or future condition or suitability for building, occupancy or other use thereof has been made for or on behalf of Surfside. Lessee agrees to accept the Premises in the condition in which they may be upon the commencement of the term hereof. 10. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Surfside and its officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all claims, expenses, liabilities, actions and causes of action arising out of the use or occupancy of the Premises or the construction or maintenance of any structure upon the Premises, whether the claimant on such claim, expense, liability, action or cause of action is the Lessee, a member of Lessee's family, an invitee or licensee of Lessee,or a mere trespasser. Failure of Lessee to perform its obligations under this paragraph shall be a default under this Lease and good cause for immediate termination of the Lease. 11. HOLDING OVER. In the event the Lessee shall hold the Premises after the expiration of the term hereof with the consent of Surfside, express or implied, such holding over shall, in the absence of written notice by either party to the other,be a tenancy from month to month at a monthly rental payable in advance equal to the monthly rental payable during the term hereof and otherwise subject to all of the terms and provisions of this Lease. If Lessee fails to surrender the Premises u-'on the termination of this Lease despite demand to do so by Surfside, any such holding over shall r.'t constitute a renewal hereof or give Lessee any rights with respect to the Premises, and Lessee 3 or the execution and/or enforcement of the judgment entered upon the Award. The Arbitrator(s) shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs in an amount they deem appropriate to the party who they deem to have prevailed, in their absolute discretion. 17. ASSIGNMENT. This Lease shall not be assigned, subleased or transferred by operation of law, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Surfside. 18. REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. In the event Lessee shall default under or otherwise breach any of the terms or conditions of this Lease, Surfside shall have the right to terminate this Lease forthwith and to retake possession of the Premises. Waiver of any default or breach shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent or continuing default. Termination of this Lease shall not affect any liability by reason of any act, default or breach or occurrence prior to such termination. IN WITNESS THEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. SURFSIDE COLONY. LTD., a California Corporation By President By Secretary LESSEE 5 Attachment 3 ri.m. . ,,,....; ••• 0 .....:•::: " *1 .•;.t... , •:4,..:. • •-• 0 (I) ..4 , :.... ,...... ..., ,-, : . ........:....!: :..4,..:.,:§..i. -Ci .....„ ,.. :......... . .- •-•.:::.......-: .• ''..... .. .,?.: . ... . •: 3 ., :,:,:e•:4::.... ......! k,'ZI.f ,. b...*,?,- V : - ..... , ,,. ..., •.„?..: ,..,— 0 ,....... .....J .' . . „... t• '. ' ` • '. 0. * e'... —- '.. .7..".....•:.: i..— . :... -.” . . , ...t.‘4..is ; . ... , . 4■14 ."..:-.K ., ..,.. . .. " Cl) % t • Tmill"4 ..,• <• -4-,,, , ‘k ,' ..\.,....,.....;i!„,„..... .. ,.... . . • f' ,?!.s ,,,i) .. $.. .\\.',.••• • .... ,s - 1 . L...:: .':,,. ......., - .• • ,s,.. ' ;-:- . ' .ki.;• • , • .'" .itt.....: .,..% 2 ,.t. ‘...1."MI • ' ,. ...a:e .•.\-::' ' , :i•-:N -::::..:i: . , „, ., ,.:i ,,\\. • -, .,. „T.N.•.mii4.4 .....,....:...i.i,i,,:...?,i,ta.A. <-:•...:ft•.v,,.,,,.N..I:I,Ii,:. •ms. <•,,. ::-•.',..:'- - \ , kca :.' -•- —'-,,. 4•...i... ,.'".„5,x".:..%,t,0,,., -.,i,-ki....-..i..:.•• .., .,.. ..:: ".N.\-',s• \\'..... k __________. • ,..v.,,,s,,,,,,,,,. .„,.,,...i,.. .,,.•': • ., •> - Ct ::•4•:M .•.•'.•;. ,'• .::•:::: 'am... t.; ' .::::: „,,.,•:•:,::. ,i:ff.' .:;;;;,?:?.c.,::::,.• • .•::::.\ ...-.J.,4; . •-•. .. , . s ,.. ,..).::::i;I:,::\,,A.,., ..... -.vv..* . ..........-:•• .. ..„„..„:••• . ,•::,:33. ..10' .1.-.. . :., /.........,....„...:;;;i:::\‘,.,. . ...$..1 ....„,.:;.: ...-:. .„vs1„.ts, :"'.`.:•'•,. :53,,,- .:•.:,-... .. . . .....„ . . . ...% • . % , . . . . ..... , ...,.. < ' 0 •,.::':-?::i:i:..n..n N.„ •.t.i..Z.. '•: .*:.:.%. e. 44.it.V'''s".:•:,./,'k:it.),:, '''' .:..,..:::.•;nk,ss \'',:.'••; .•..,•••;;; . ........:3' ;.' . "'4% ''•••' ''' .... ::i•;: ii;i:.i':.ii.,0,:''•:,k,.,.,:••• • , ':--,„.: ••• •• ' ,.."' ...:'..:::: :-.: ' f. /...'..\ • Twm4 4:::link ‘;`.•,,,....:\ ....;;:s., - ...::.:::,i,' :i: '' (1.) imIJ..4 ..%...:,,...i:n.:::::,,,,,, '";•.,:.•.:' 'St\ ..4A::i...,'.E%•:•`-6 54 • 1"—i .. - / .9 TmCi 0 0 (... Ct v ...1 c•Im.1 _+ ,) ;14 +"4 CA ".......01 CN1 v ..1 C.) 41.1( •••:•:••••••:i-•:*:•••:.-.-..-::,:.::::::::::,....:•.:::.::.::.:i.„ •',.;::::.?:::..4.1•:„::;'•4\*I -.,...t.4, es, - ,-- - .a w� .. i".iii•-. . .. . ... ...."... M ...'17‘. Mq. Wr \\\ w 7...-..,L-..,. ..,..:"---:--H",'.'::3 :*:. L._,.. .. : .,, ... ...................,.. ..„ ..................„,..... .. . ............. . , .L.:.:., ... ..,... .. . . . ....:,..„,„:„..„.„.„..., ..:.. .........7.7..'—'''.::'.' •••••••••• -4`••'"`-. s iti...,^ '. '....:::',:::.W.:::liq.4*. t tftb:..• •:::•:::i ..z...t. -r'-n '. ..V...aa ''.11/4t,• ' g-'....•**; .ham.`A' \A�:y \ �� • ,I4 \\C� `a\ + . ' ,\ .7.'.:•••:" kt t'S%%. si:',.kiVs:.., - .4),';‘, \:,,a%;.Z.2.1k,.f,'%•.*.?.03,::,q3i:::.?..2?,Mc?..ctIti s' \ V\ ,, `,\\ 2 H 0 0 v ...1 4••4 ,i.. 4 C/) ;...4 •• I c•Ti AmmIJ CD 0 . IT"mi .. . . ::.F.--.:-.............3.1 15.,..:, . . ....* ,.. M''''' . •"; ',,. ..."''' ......%.<..,,,Z ..:0 ;.: .k•'....i ,._. RaiXoRMZ.5 '0. . MV:r::;'''.!' :' " . 04' *.9,64,. ..• q IT ......1.....4 .... . iii- •. . . -::::':%-:.. 1 --:: ., ,..:::: • •- 1. • -'"."- .,...... :..,.. •.' olgroe,^7,....4:,st ,t. """to...• :s:.:-. ti '., f of:j .. — :. l'. 11.,1*A4 b: •:ii': .. s . :.%6 .I 44! - , ' ;MMII .. ..... -.•.. '::.::.: ... ..... — - 0 • : ' . 1.:..:. .:5.,,: :,...amesee.mut*at.i::::.•.- :::-:.: . .... .... . ..„.. ,. . — ... ....- M.WI,-.....gr.1::-..: . ::::',';'.-:•-•- .,.".. i. ... f .f:'' , •,•,fr:, ,,` ^,16 , 0 ::••::':: i:. ' . :.:. •i:ii$I $ . . •' :i.-.• -.'-. ':;.:' 7,, :::•:.:.i. ....: '......:;;;,..,.. '• ... .. ..'....:::':.'' ;:f..;:i.... 4. :. .: ....: .. ....... ::............., - '. ..i.::: .:Fr' ::" .."';'•:*::. : I4 vo... ;:' 1... ..........7 ft 1 .., • :, .....,. : , ............ .fd:::::...... ,......r-, :K . ... 4111i .,.. ...% .... .. , • ...,. poilx,-,* ......y. id.1 ,11 ..... , 2,.. ' I ,.... VD ,,,,, *..., i . -• . , -''''' - 1......i .... ."-. . 11:1,.:,... -....' • 1:21 : at*'•'---.....4.1 fmg-zrvit - ::640; k g, - • ....:: WSW t‘..1 '4t....,mmes 1 iig:".] :,. • . • . , v.....i ''..:''f•••••••aliaa4 ...\.s: .:41160,:loc •Kt;::.• ... .. . .1, •••..„•••,........."..„.... , ..,...„.... „Its. , , ,....,.........rvai , . . . .....,N. ., 4 .,::'..iii::: .. 41 - ..ti:1 . ll ;*31 • . :°- -1...'f-if '''',.-.'..k . i siga4gea :. ..-.. ....:, . . . .. , . .•t .P.:41.'i: 0 ..... ..• ...... ..,t.:2;•.'... I . -:.:tt.,x8k . . - ..,.., ..:....,-.: .:.,:.:::: :.. ............. , .....;,:. . t18. --- ......s :, I, 4:Z.,f';';'.*::•,..t.:N. 11111°.!15',U8 : ,:- • ,01•11 '''.:..6.::.10L.......t.: •IA : ...mr:t., . §:1—$....4., 4.:;::::.• :x,a.' AIMIlm) ':'-' —- ....tii• .• -- S --sacs '.S. s•s:i: i=ES:a • T=.14 % .....:: •st.:.......,a...:::::.....*i*. > '%IA SmA10:09S0-wi::.,f: . • 7.....•1 . .... . . ...- w.,... :• .,,... . ..... .,... .. ..." . ............ Ct „,,,.. . .......,..„.. -....tr- • ....;•; t...,•*.. .....-.....- .. 4....... ....,,... . .• F'4 0 (L) ci) ;-4 ••-•4 4-4 Car) ^1J • \ i \� } h } � f , A T • • )A`Mi{ � £O — .• . if,,,.:„,w0::::k•-.:•::.,:;:-.,:•::: .: 7S .. i� .r-�w� . S 4.imi > \�� : .. .. AAS ^'< u::::.:•...... . :. ..:::,rasa,.>:'k 1----,...,-,:.`^, •\} gp4.__.-0. ><}, . �` N,} •} ..wec.Y S Y fit , $� H M A A da 04iiIi. Y CS1... >Q ,� ;',:.. 0� '� '! o SAAR' Y< ` .i \ 9 0 �axb�f.: > } Ash isv--- i::i ..•,....,• hr........:...+......., .x.,..v.+„ \\Jti ^4` n:: .:,4.. a�, 1.110:0 0 r 0O 0 F-4 wT-J Cr) N ;-1 ;-4 0 C 0 4-I ;--4 CI v•• Cr) nor i .• . .. • -. , - .. s'.-•'-- -. sz,... . ... 0 . , . ;. ; ... E's. :„$,..: ..„ ,..„.... , . . s., ., ,,.,. ... ,,.,,,,,„.„..,.,: s.,..,„:„,„„:.......:..,,. 0 ., .\:.,.. ..,.:.....:. ...,,,,,,„„...„:.„,..„.„.,..,,.,„„„:„ ,:.:..: , • .....„ ..„ :..........,.,.:*:„..,.:::::..::.:........:. ,,, ...„....,..,:,:::.:„..„.„:„...,. „.,: ::„.:::„.., .....„.:....,,, .,,,,.::::::„:„*,..4.°"'"I'M:*i§ii,$•:§P.'.igiii:::'!:.:::i:.i.:::i: • . ''"•';''i'•;-",•T:fi'v's1,3,c,;:ix.s.: •••tk .-:-K::•:$•••::, • • 0 ..:::::::...".?N ,;.••..f."'::::i.: :::':'::1::•:i:.::::::iiit .::' Ilt\kt'•.." t. ;.....w.:,..,:•••••;,:y•::••.st,:::::':•-•,. :. "'".,,:vss,'„'... ...;:,. . .., •:4;,....::.:k.• •'..k:i•••:::\:.:4‘••`:. ',•.—.,......:,,,,... NR':k Timill 3:-,:::**\•„::.".\\ s,,,,,• .' ‘•411t ,.`.A:,•,i' sift::14•5i.....:.`1'::fl'::-';''., ....' IITm4 ..:....tzmA.s' ...'.' i i i,- ..iv° ,`Wqr,j6,,K.z..T-'..-azr..,i,-, . .'..;.?•.-.-', ,,,• " +Me i ,.5.. ... It I I.*?1 t'l t ,,,.V'..s:.,:'W'-.:':"•.- S'N'.. .4%'...)s".‘‘. 'v ' . • ,c. * ....•. ir,,„...••' .„ .5..%,.....`.. r " ...,.... •" ..k..,' ,;„$: ,..":',;'il:',"sZ.;:.,;;;;;.., , ...• ,.s. •' ' 1111 ' , i . t. Al **Jt. : .d'. i:.•..*i:*A1.gOILW::::i;i:....:•::. .1,1". t i 1 t•iS 4: t'....... "P..{..*:/....4.KH''-'..:fi:S,,r'C6",;.".::L.t.\*.,*::.re.k::'::.:Z:<X7i:O...:;::.irs.....:%:':"••••. ..:''.. Cl) iii •4 .., , Li., I,e:Ni'.k,:,.: ,1:,..:.i.$:.::,....:.:?:,i."..,::6:'F....,f.'.. ........5:.::itZ,V.:....FV..:: I:::. 1 it . .f"::.tir‘.::,,,..,..N.Z... :...:.;::k.:,.... ...11.,4.1.::;ie.://,0....:4::"....f,:iki,:::::::::•• I I I ''. ' .L'‘.., .,6‘.."....."':.i.r:k.ICI:•••••-.4i0::.?,:s.imi.::;.:::::::,-..:i,..:*.:r.:.;-:.;:,*::i:::...:.,?::.-::: r — iii 1'. 1..* ...,.:.,..., .‘ii.?0",k,„...•.,4..,:k..,<ii•.4.i-`-z\4'V4-ZAgI:%N:k*<zl*..ft4,4,.4. kt*,:z:A';::it45?r,rii'st::::%,?4'*:?..i?.1k:;:•::4!i'::.!,...i..,...:i:.::..>s,,:;::1g:.,...:i.i:.i::.:: ..- lialltV. i ill':14'4 il2'-1 41%%:1%,s•Ae...4.:4 ;a;,:;::.3.):::..:f.: ' • .,..„ :,:,- : 1'''• M .t.:':::i;',iii:ii:i.:: . ' . Illsifia.s... *..".”F".'.••4 .;:::.,W;s+.%.",:*: "ZiK..„.:4•Ni :11,....:e3ik....:.":...,, ..' . • 10=4 . r.:p.......*:::.- .. . ••••!'"..ttt '.4''''. ! ":.'eS. .k!.. ..!..s.R0,„3:r4sik•sili; s's:',;%:.': .:.3:::::4 • ,e6s , * I 5••*.•••,,,:,sis.S,.:,..•:".,,,.,,,,N.•;•:"Wi:•*;,•,:,..4341...'.-.4.•...."::,,i.:: : .. , .... ..as,,,,,...ii...,::...,,,a. :,.:,-...zit-1.:,..,...4: .%•,,:' • ' °C.Noc,...,*\:.:'T4?..i:••,,:'i•V::0:r* .N.'''':.::•Ti ,.,; '" ••,." . t.. ....'fl'WYNWa.:s.:‘, . ss.,.-.. .. .. C..) . • , "".. ..,.....„..... -,:,...„ .,,•,-.. .....„:-.:.. .... • r.,.,---,:iii, --k.:0,..,- ...ii.. .,::z.z.i. .....:::..„.,,.... •:,:...: : . .., ....... ,..- ,... 1.,,,::•••: .4;;.im.,4::i'.,','"\"•,,.;••,,... ..."• . ." '•.: ..• • .Y.::..4., •Nx•#:4N" *.i.i14 K.!..i:•:k.:§i :O.: , . 4,2 i,,b.,,,•,..V4.034iik.:.'•"4 i:r*I :::iiNa:47..'`• ',.k.,..'..‘.., v... .4 - 1.iisswavo.....,:r 6.0,1ft. *4,...,14.* v..C.) — ' %,...„....„‘,...t,i)::.:i::::;:.4. ,. ..-.....g,-...:.,.. .;,....-•:,,51,:c.,;174.,--;.•-. 1i:.• ..t.,,Iiiii ':. . .tilf AM: * A').:: 1''...'..M1'.,;ki-•.-fte .1,W:: ', .kN..'•\7-• v....ii_,%.1:. D:ii.•>:::z::::4:-..,:.:,., .,i4 :':,.. '.4 Sk,•••1.4it.::4;&.,,.,..1" : :". .z,. tilmi ti r..,:::.;...,,it...,1‘...1„,.,...':::::r....... i'..,:,:: .,::",. >•. $ '.. (I) C:0 r:, W}}^:li a wa • 3 :ix<t k oc s a ' •r r!{uft� s ? tt t • .}}fir, . S} S:itJ ) � �kti: +d'}'Ct .. ... w✓. ib'.i•i fF Aii..�:•:ti':-.-w•:•,:.:-.••••••:::,.: Zit M'kt rM1-vim t' E .. ` } • ��Jf� ...'k }tt{ i• X �■j■ `/■ f% f/ ..SS¢..S.' • %.„...1::-...r,-.1[•,S5tiJ'r•&{ — I Sji��G�r r• ''C+ t�:`:��\' .'. 9tth'3,t k::+�t::v'p. ?..: ',,,,;-‘n.,......'�. }}':+}} •N. 't. • • .::.:tib}T��:iK:gi f ,`2••:".V.•...:::• h Nt}}}k}i} k f b i i tiw}�h}\t }-3it t;?y 0. v:G:`• ,. °°�.. f I) nr::...'-•. :•: k.:,::T:.}. o'#+' .,3:V.e;,'xs•,'ld :'•$.^. T'3}% , '-'.;::::, k}'.Kt:tv aJ.'{:Mi sy xG !„.,:::;i:1:1;1;::.!..:::-;.-:::::' };::t :;<+r'f.rk:'k �'k:.:::::. ';+''' 'f': ..3:[j:: %'ii>ii: :i:i`{•>: : .. i�l.�i;:}.:":v:.kC.•iQ\k'v'h}:i:.�4�}:X�.,+. .. kY:: .. t;kE ::„,„,...,„::::::,:„...:::::::...„...„4„. „. ......:::::::::::::.:.,.......,..,....:.......::::......:•� 2k: .....,.......,........,„:„..,,,,.. ....:.„..., .....,::::.::::.:::::......:„.:.::...::.:.:::::....... . .. ..... ky .. t ,. ,..) ^��¢ ..,...........,....: . , }#:,rpci ....„,,...„,..„...„...„.„.:.„,„:„...„:„.:::„.„:„.,.,„:„.::::„..,,),,...,.,,.....,,...:,....„:„.„.,..„...:,,,„:„..,:..„:„.,:,:.,...:,,.„.:„:.,::::.:„:„.::.:::::.::::.,:::.,::.... ani:"£ #::::2::�:���%•�::�:�:���•� .,.:. s . • .T+:},•;is}'n. ... ""i}.i•T�'.k\ .ly �: ....„.„.•:.....,... C C }t}^.,....:3J.%iii%i,;.S.„Y•} tiff:+:y{.; . . ., • `y,A .. +�.C<.,{k'}tel..`-i `N}Yi{.�'. ,S .-.;;:::]$:i': ,„_...„•,. ..,....„„„4,.:,::::::::.:K.,,., ..... 9n: .,..,.,,,..„,..... ... .... s ,.,.. }f 1' Y•. , . �:.:t+,,}syn}}; : - x\ ..,. �3}Y{ R .. .. :::m.::::.,::... k>,u 'c--t},tom-''M a /••••••,, O 0 O 0 0c — CD 7.3 0 ,_.4 ......, v.( ::z.•-..,,•-. ..;•.—..-.. . .s .. ...... • 4- ... ....:•.:.::::::: . : :„. k '. £ • >•• ..:. .,... • . • x,..• .• • :' >1....)413,SOMOSX8 . ' . . - • • . '''. -,-•••••••••- •• •••••• . ..:, . • ...- : , • ... .. .... • .... • • :....i. ........,:.,•.:t.,,•1`,•%:,:i.i.... :.-:•,...::•.:3•si:zz: . •••::. k ;:-.•.. -.••••..,+ ---:.: ,.. 3.. ..,,,,z ....,..i,:.• .„ . . ...4 /...'''•''..:;.....::.•• •r,.ff,'..:'''..."5.,'•:,...,%;,...:•:'.:ik;..Z .:...' 'V,: ..-.--- -.-— .:. . . - . ..•:" .•.....::si,w.„ igii-:::: :::::•-•?.,.4. :,.....ii‘i..::i]...:,,i. : rm.^.. ii,.:,.. ' : . ' C.$) .... ................x.N4....:*.::.e.i.:.•:;,..§:" .,•:.-:::...::::::... • -::::.•::::::•: :::..) ' ,..„, % . • : ., .'..':... V,,.lige, tilk:Iiiitall. .:;i•;a:i..;:: .Z .. ":1,4 ,1..%.. ' ''s - ... : : . O ''. . .1.2!7,g4.'II• 1!•' iiii:U4:t'' • 4•''44 fyl,! .• ..:•••••'::::::.. :•.:• .**:'.: f.:: .:,... ... -• :•:•.:.\ .'• 441,444 i.....k• \ .. ..44** •:k. t . ::!......:ii.•:.:-.. .,.,...-•:::sii•• .'• • ••• - '•' '''''''•••• • •,•:;•.,..4fts.,.it;•:.:.::::- •:.:E.•.:...... •*, \•...,.... .. ....;:i..Z.K: :.:.:. -"::: • :-..x:1132 kw.* :•• pk.:„.:,::I tp.....::. ::...,.::. • .... ...„....., .„...,::,,„... .„.. -. . ......i....... . . ..• .;?,... ,• . .. .:. ;...:.. „...::::..:• .. ...... •-k,,,k • —-- " • .. . , 0,. . :-.: ........— . . :i...,:;+ • p . :..: •1,— . — • •-•::— . • .. , CD 1.) •i : ., z.•,s, . ...... . ,:. , • . • -- . # ... ,: .. -,.....nii. T.--1 , .:,,,,,,,N,.....,,,,,...: • :::::,:.::•:••••::::.:::.:i.,,,....,,, ,- ,., .• •••• . : •:. -..::..s Alw v4i, ..... . .....,...i.: . ...,...- 4,„,.....,,,,,, „„,::,.,...... . ..,...,-. ..... ... ....„.: , .:,:,:. .:,..:„..... ...,.......„.... . . .. , I '- ....:•64.:-::-..- ' :r. ' ''''' :-'.....:::::;::::-::::.::: :i.:;:1::::•;' ,:...::,..... ,....:::4.::::4A....,,,--. • s::1 :::g.i.5.:..ii: ••••• ..,-- (1) CA ----,---, ... —...,.....„ - 1 • 0 ..* -.- :.: g • . '.i.. . .............k..::,:-.:..::::.:.:.,:--•—•--- .b...:., ••i• • ,...ettetem•. .% tt: 1 . • —' ' ' ',:ii :!i:: ,,,::1:-.•....:•.,-- ''' ::. • ';.•:-.'' .........- . . .. S . I) Attachment 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meefir '4inufes of October 20, 1999 1 potential need for wheelchair ramps to allow access to roof decks. Mr. Clewley stated 2 that the Planning Commission needed to re-address the entire notion of GRASshouldinst ad d 3 of simply approving them every other week. He stated that property owners 4 encouraged to build interesting and attractive architectural features instead of the 5 "trash" that was being put up all over the City. He recommended denial of this request. Mr. Whittenberg noted a letter received from Henry and Sally Biets of A-18 Surfside, o recommending approval of this request. 9 10 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. 11 12 Commissioner Comments 13 14 Commissioner Larson stated that the City had adopted the law that permits that an 15 application be granted and that this was not the time or place to state that the 16 Commissioners do not like the law. He stated that the structure may be considered 17 ugly, but if this is what the property owner wants, so be it. 18 19 Commissioner Cutuli stated that the residents of Surfside have very small lots and need 20 to utilize every inch of footage in the house including the roof deck. He stated that he 21 felt it was important to allow CRAS. 92 Commissioner Brown stated that the request was well within the guidelines and he had 4 not objection to construction of the CRAS. 25 26 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve Height Variation 99-4 and adopt 27 Resolution 99-34. 28 29 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 30 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 31 NOES: None 32 ABSENT: None 33 34 Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 99-34 begins a 10—day 35 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final 36 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 37 8. Zone Text Amendment 99-4 40 Citywide 41 42 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 43 Request: To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of 44 Surfside to be 10 feet, deep. Currently, 10-foot decks are only 45 permitted on the 1st floor, with 5-foot decks permitted on the 46 2nd and 3rd floors. This amendment would allow the owner to 10.20.99 PC Minutes 6 City of Se each Planning Commission Meet, 'vlinutes of October 20, 1999 1 choose to place the 10-foot deck either on either the 1st or / 2 2nd floor, but not both; and in no case would a 10-foot deck be 3 permitted on the 3rd floor. 4 5 Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of 6 Resolution No. 99-36 7 8 Before delivering the Staff Report, Mr. Whittenberg again announced that Item No. 7, 9 Variance 99-3 for 1605 Seal Way was to be continued to the November 3, 1999 meeting. 12 Staff Report 13 14 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 15 Planning Department.) He provided some background on this item and stated this was 16 a request made by the Surfside Colony to amend the City Code to allow decks on the 17 2"d floor of homes along the A-Row of Surfside to be10 feet deep. He stated that 18 currently the Code allows 10-foot decks only on the first floor with 5-foot decks allowed 19 on 2"d and 3rd floors. He stated their lease agreement and approvalof Zone Text that Surfside e Colony had already approved 20 amendment and made it a part of9 21 Amendment 99-4 would be the next step in the progression to allowing these decks. 22 Staff is of the opinion that placing a deck on the 1st or 2"d floor is a matter of personal 23 choice. He stated that there is a provision in the Code that if a 10-foot deck were built 24 on the 2"d floor, construction of a 1st floor deck would be limited to a depth of 5 feet. Mr 25 Staff recommends approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 99-36. 26 27 Commissioner Questions 28 29 None 30 31 Public Hearing 32 33 Chairman Hood opened the public hearing. 34 35 Mr. Reg Clewley stated he was in opposition of this Zoning Text Amendment. He stated 36 that once a deck has been established it can be enclosed, and the 10-foot decks on 2"d 17 floor could be enclosed. He stated that there was not a problem with having decks on :8 the 1st floor or 5-foot decks on the 2 �floor, thehey 2"ddid floor,tobstruct peope would notsbe able to e 39 stated that if 10-foot decks were 40 see the first floor. He speculated that a subsequent property owner might prefer to have 41 a deck on the 1st floor and would then construct a 1st floor deck. Mr. Clewley stated 42 that the City would be allowing 5 extra feet of buildable space to all residences of 43 Surfside, which could potentially be used as habitable living space. He stated thatthere 44 was nothing to stop residents from building on the first floor underneath the 2 floor 45 deck. He said that neighbors would not complain about this so as to avoid conflict 46 within their community. He stated that it was well known that there were no 0 47 enforcement actions taken in this city unless a complaint is received. He said that 142099 PC Minutes 7 City of c Beach Planning Commission Mee,. , Minutes of October 20, 1999 1 allowing 10-foot decks on the 2nd floor would eliminate any hope of open space. He 2 stated that approving this ordinance would create confusion and would make 3 enforcement of this code amendment very difficult. Mr. Clewley stated that the Planning 4 Commission, was creating exceptions to laws that others may build upon in the future. 5 He said that eventually there would be neither height limits in the City nor would there 6 be any tapering effect for decks. He stated that it was a horrible thought to think that 7 the Commission would approve this type of "nonsense." 8 9 Mr. David Evans spoke in favor of this Zoning Text Amendment. He stated that '1 property owners in Surfside have had a deck lease for quite some time, and the residents were attempting to dean up the colony to conform all decks to one standard 12 ‘or a consistent, uniform deck building program. He said that there were many houses 13 with 2nd floor decks, and some with intermediate height 6-8 foot decks, and that a 14 couple of homes were recently approved to build 2nd floor decks. Mr. Evans stated that 15 for those homes abutting the Naval Weapons Station, the view for these homeowners 16 has been eliminated due to a low grade, and being able to build decks on the 2nd floor 17 would be of benefit to them. 18 19 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. 20 21 Commissioner Comments 2 23 Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with allowing homeowners to build 24 2nd floor decks. 25 26 Commissioner Larson said that Surfside appeared to be a cohesive community that 27 would enforce rules. He stated that the residents of Surfside all seemed to be in 28 agreement, particularly those that have had their view blocked by the berm, and this 29 seems to be an appropriate way to solve the problem. 30 31 Commissioner Cutuli stated that he agreed with Mr. Clewley's statements. He noted 32 that the situation with the 10-foot deck on the 2nd floor is a major blockage of some of 33 the neighbors' views. He said,that he used to live in Surfside and the 2"d floor was 34 typically the main floor of this type of home. He stated that there are usually windows 35 on the sides of the 2nd floor and a deck would block the view of the ocean. 36 Commissioner Cutuli also noted that the possibility of property owners enclosing the 37 deck to create habitable living space was a very real one. He stated that after having 38 served on the Board of Directors for Surfside, he did not feel that enforcement of rules 39 was consistent. He stated that he would definitely vote against Zoning Text 40 Amendment 99-4. 41 42 Commissioner Brown stated that although he understood the intent of Zoning Text 43 Amendment 99-4, he believes a 10-foot deck on the 10- or 2nd floor would be "a little bit 44 weird.' He stated that to have a.10-foot deck on the 2nd floor and a 5-foot deck on the 45 1`t floor with a 5-foot overhang seems strange. He said that he was having trouble 46 imagining what the structure would look like. Commissioner Brown stated that from an 10-20-99 PC Minutes 8 4 City of Se each Planning Commission Meeting ,.Ainutes of October 20, 1999 1 aesthetic standpoint, two 10-foot decks would be more he ppropriate. He said he ed some clarification, he as not 2 sure what the purpose of tt-, was and that 3 would have to oppose this Zone Text Amendment. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg explained that the reason this amendment had been brought before the 6 Commission, was because Surfside residents had developed this program as a way to 7 most appropriately deal with the issue of decks that front the ocean,the A-Row. He and would that this 8 amendment would only apply to the A-Row properties not apply to the interior properties. He stated that the residents of Surfside believe this program to make sense within their community and approached the City to request that the City Code be changed to conform to the program they had developed regarding 12 decks on the ocean ft..nt properties. Mr. Whittenberg noted that over the past few years 13 the City had develope + a good relationship with the Surfside Community, and currently 14 there is a process in place where prior to the Cityaccepting the Dir ectors. tic ns from a 15 Surfside, they must be approved by the Surfside Board of 16 check and balance system to ensure that when athet City project attempting es to the it o make their 17 of the requirements for Surfside. He stated 18 standards more compatible with what the. Surfside Community feels is most appropriate 19 for their particular area. As for the issue of view blockage, Mr. Whittenberg stated that 20 the City had never looked at view blockage on a diagonal situation from one unit to 21 another. He stated that although this issue had been discussed a number of times, the 22 Planning Commission and the City Council had determined that the only time there can 23 be a view blockage is when blockage of the primary view occurs. The primary view is 24 looking directly out from the property to the ocean, not up or down the coast, as 25 structures on either side would obstruct those views. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he 26 understood Commissioner Cutuli's comments because should this text amendment be 27 approved, the structure of the properties along the oceanfront would change. He noted 28 that whether or not this is good or bad is something the Commission has a right to 29 consider. Mr. Whittenberg stated that should the Planning Commission feel that they 30 require more formal information from the Surfside Community, he would suggest 31 the Commission continue this item until the next meeting so that Surfside could make a 32 more formal presentation at that time. Commissioner Brown stated that after reading 33 further in the lease he noted that the 1' floor deck was allowed to be glass enclosed, 34 with an 8-foot high wall of glass. He noted that if a 10-foot deck were extending over 35 that it would be possible to create another room out of the 1 floor deck. Commissioner Brown clarified that in Surfside, the front of the home can be built up to the lot line. He said that he would be in favor of more clarification on this issue from Surfside. 39 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to continue Zone Text Amendment 99-4 to the 40 November 17, 1999 meeting. 41 42 MOTION CARRIED: 4—0— 1 43 AYES: Brown, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 44 NOES: Cutuli 45 ABSENT: None . 46 • 10.20-9e PC Minutes 9 I Attachment 5 • 7. .......77_,.._, ,, ...,_ •• , , ,r_T! . ,, __ ,_ ,..,,_ , 111 1 1 --1 •0. - 1 -- * 4 41 ...I • ,..._. i 1 I. . 1• ! !, 1' �, I I .,_F:,7/ ..- _ _ _ .. . _ i__...„......______z _______ ......... ....._________ ________......:._______ .1, „ ,.___ __ 11 ; . Iii.e\ \\41 -- -.- I • ire E j.•-::7 it, 111. . 11 - • iI .1 6'1;iffi--.- .) %'Ilt, • glr / r='‘"C7 1104....... 1 .. sr,.. I ,.. ,., , ....i . I I i 4 . .. . I a. ; , . ii ick. , .,0 :.-___. tj --, • I { :. • V � r � 1 4 i i //, ®, I __________, ___ ) )14 {1 :. _t .c7:______:. _-� r - - t . e ' • itil _• t.......___....=. • . \,.: . .1 a. ,r______ _..... .i • 1.). Ami: i • . .. a ___ _ lo . i• _. fil 1. .: •1, ,. . J .. J ; e ' .t _ ` .moi [1 -141 ., , 1 ---,—. — -- ^s ' - i 34- t 1 — • • 1 • • ��0" �h�"4- 1— WEST .51 tiE eA VA1i O N E �►►J,tiL 4 • - '/ i...••••''•• _) ' a '•ter. ' _�` _ `.;' J • , • . ,. ------ •_--- -:-.------ -1 ,- •.--,71/110-7 - I AI VI.;• • • `F.� .r. �f.S: •. Yom, Nti.:', -'f. .•!�•'+ i•. ,Y.. ( - .'lib- - . ..• 1 •• •C• •• . . •. ._.40tif *OA ' . " n pp . • 1-,• -i, • . L =�• f ���•' 'rte• • ••• :• /ilir6i4 Lk . 1/••• . ..;....4. 0.4.11 / -•''.'4...'1' . If/-•-•";'.-`:84( SI- . ..... ,.:,..,,,,.., .„ • . ,....,.. , .„ : i, , ..i4 ,.. _ .. . .,. •i t:-.---...1 „,:.. ,5 � +.►� i � • PI�1 _ ` • ..3..4".:`,. ... ..: : . . _- i! ' -1•OP‘srw Markt ill • '. ' ,1 • .." �.rr ` - l_ +` 4:11 ' i .. _______ . : .F4161' 13, ,-,,, . is' itivis .; ... ._ ......_ , . . . ..''.'•• •• ..••• •.4 k ,,,-. • • • wig- i' '`}�� i =. t f•"ie/3, w _�. t •�f;: w yet,..•: i. 'c w�f rki• "^! �+`'�7i f - , ,.• •t. ..„„:„-ig• r. t' .•t .ir.-. 1 �: .. '�• '. a-. i..'1 „t- i;�-� ! _� r- ._ � .'� ~a c. ��� •�>t /rte.• R: }- r 1 ^� ,•!,\' ••.-....••sem-,Y�� ,yG 4 ' .4 1 'O - ` . ;...- :id-,- .. ._ • '••. 1 'II*. •t • 4 li •I t Mlle/ ililliiii 11 ...' .1 Ai6"•/,`,..6..46'. . t .."- r., . • • . TL-ti .- ,a a.�,',...tee.�_S�►we!.� .��=' . t -31,8 "`'. "Ny t .�. ` •••••.....M1 was; — •+ - •i • `'..:'•, V..: -- '1.1011101010 - ;tr`'� �{ . r s * r J a' .0 yL •r e�.x',. :-iii"?.. .44.047.;. r d.w-..z4:)...41.;.,:..,:,.. . ._7,;".7••••„: ,; • •' . R t . . Yw t 3--_,; ,» -„'" •--,-.-284,,,,-. f 4�,,• ..� •... 4: AVIV! •r•,tri'' „-or-...S • r] i. .. 1. +, .4,•m"!,.- �.ia•:•. -'•••-+ - - • 't- -:.- •,t. 1r: ;•. tot. w 1-- •• . .... ,.. , .....2., . -. : ,... . .........7:..4„-......t.......i.:-..< , . , . ;,;...,::::.....,..........,..-1,-...f--.....r.i.,::)..'t":...:7.........':.::::',.;:•4.1r1\..* l'iv:..a.:4-.5sclitt-,:t11,4-'::-.-. vr.',...:47 . *•• ... J"... •�`-'•1 !. VP'L. • a .L ••' • ra"' 1 y r .- •�a•• tr •' v'•- ,•ref: r .r ••-:*• -•' SP1,, i-. .. • f ..1. .., - S' aS• -'1.. ,' _` "S c t, t. y.. i., • YI. • w ..y" K Y-••.•:rel '•• .,. .'1'Ilk `�• ,1, . �. • • ";• . C;t't,:.0. •4• t.w.-gt....-may,- - ._.•�' iv.•..-• _ . ,•e• +r,• • L `i,` ~.-`;J ;'..i•i Y i� r�'.ti'7. ` {:A+•w�• `•,1\f -r t ,.-tie; '�-.•. ..;•••••;.-..••••• -_ . . .r,y. ,' •'Ar , _ �. .a... , v•' .�• � ` tel' • ,:.,:i++ • •• • I. ' _ _ • J• .,. rte. ' 'Y ~ „ r...,..�L • •a y• ....•: il,Ian."iv-. s leclii.mitairimilir MEM, �� -`1111.1111111111111.1111111141111111111§11111111, aliges T.,....,= =,,„, i� all - it a r r . : �'rt (' "'� ` 4. _ , tomil . ., • ., • 01 • ..k lir t:...•-,:., re-.;''.'“:7:•:.•- . •• .4. . -/ i 1--.1"i'iSkl. 04 • IP' 4---4"1. 1'14 .-- t- - . • 4:, i.i t tltvri ., •.. . It: A ', le '" IL Lai U.: %1 ,. , .. •. • • .1. •74/IlitlaimmemPOININIMIlalar P.-.-,: .1'. �.) - . , Meg • • / "" : .. 7' . • _ • I± .� is .�i S'''. . . lit,•110 .1.; I -jo; •:",--.. ,0.. — • •. .•. •••.' ....... •••••115 I ridd/ . 1 • - •�--••—" mir 11417114' _ ' 7 aisammisis .711. .--.• •1. - F. Y•T.- ! _ 41111.. 1 Hdll'all".gal"'I ••�Vic••.. ..