Seal Beach planning commission approves minor use permit for Surfside roof access after design reduction

The Seal Beach Planning Commission on June 16 voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution 25-04 approving Minor Use Permit MUP25-0007, allowing a roof access structure that exceeds the city's 35-foot height limit on a single-family residence in Surfside Colony.

The commission's approval followed staff presentation of revised plans that shortened the roof access structure from 21 feet to 19 feet and reduced its area from about 104 square feet to 95 square feet. Assistant Planner Samuel Funes told the commission the structure will measure 39 feet, 6 inches in height and that the Seal Beach Municipal Code permits non-habitable roof access features up to 42 feet with a minor use permit.

The project site is on the north side of Surfside Avenue and backs to Pacific Coast Highway. Funes said the reduced length pushed the structure's setback from the front facade from 29 feet, 10 inches to 31 feet, 10 inches and that the Planning Department had received a Surfside Colony Architectural Review Board letter regarding the project.

Lawrence O., who identified himself as a member of the Surfside Colony Architectural Review Board, told the commission the ARB was not shown the initial plans submitted to the city and raised concerns that the submitted design did not meet Surfside's standards for roof access features. "Surfside ARB has not seen the initial set of plans submitted to Seal Beach," Lawrence said, and added, "The proposed covered stairwell does not abide by this code."

Max Nguyen, a representative of the owner, apologized for the procedural lapse in submitting plans to the Surfside ARB and said the owner voluntarily reduced the roof access length from 21 to 19 feet. "I apologize for not having that protocol submitter," Nguyen said. "We submit and we take the comment and revise." He also pointed out the revised plans and argued the feature was sited toward the rear of the property.

Planning Manager Sean Temple confirmed the commission had the ARB's materials in hand and described the ARB's correspondence as a conditional approval based on plans submitted to the ARB June 5. "It says issued their conditional approval. It doesn't say what their conditions are, but this is an approval letter," Temple said while distributing the ARB email and letter.

Commission discussion focused on whether the ARB's conditions had been incorporated into the plans before the commission and on the commission's own findings for granting an MUP: architectural consistency with the building, effects on primary views from adjacent units and compliance with the city's minor use permit findings. One commissioner moved to adopt Resolution 25-04 as drafted with an amendment to condition 2 to reference the plans dated June 5, 2025; another commissioner seconded the motion. The roll call vote was Vice Chair Mangione, yes; Commissioner Coles, yes; Commissioner Nolte, yes; Commissioner Campbell, yes; and Chair Wheeler, yes.

The city attorney reminded the public that a 10-day appeal period begins the day after the decision. "There is a 10 day appeal period from this decision. It starts running tomorrow," the City Attorney said.

The project was also described as exempt from additional environmental review as a Class 3 (new construction) exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, per the staff presentation.

The commission's action approves the minor use permit with the amended condition specifying Plans dated June 5, 2025. The decision is subject to the 10-day appeal window; no appeals were filed during the meeting.

Less-central items at the meeting included corrections to the June 2 minutes and brief community announcements from staff and commissioners about summer events in Seal Beach.