HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Q NOTICE OF CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing to consider
the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Minor Plan
Review 99-5, Construction of a Two-Story Cabana Home at 24
Cottonwood Lane (Seal Beach Trailer Park) , was continued
from the City Council meeting of August 23rd, 1999 until
Monday, September 13th, 1999 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach.
DATED THIS 24th day of August, 1999 .
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County
(2015.5 C.C.P.) Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Orange
'I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the county afore-
said; I am over the age of eighteen Proof of Publication of
years, and not a party to or inter-
ested in the above-entitled matter.
I am the principal clerk of the printer
of the SEAL BEACH SUN, a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published weekly in the
City of Seal Beach, County of
,,,,Orange and which newspaper has NOTICE of
gPUBLIC HEARING
;been adjudged a newspaper ofNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Seal
general circulation by the Superior Beach will hold a public hearing on
Monday,August 9,1999,at 7:00
p.m.in the City Council Chambers,
Court of the County of Orange, State 211Eighth Street,Seal Beach,Cal-
of California, under the date of itornia,toconsiderthefollowing
Item:
APPEAL OF PLANNING
2/24/75. Case Number A82583; that COMMISSION DENIAL
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 99-5
the notice of which the annexed is a 24 Cottonwood Lane
Seal Beach Trailer Park
printed copy (set in type not smaller Applicants Request:To construct
a 2 storryy mobile home within the Seal
than nonpareil), has been published comeLrailerParklocatedat313We1-
come Lane,off of 1st St.The appli-
i n each regular and entire issue of cant proposes to install a 2-story man-
ufactured unit at 24 Cottonwood Lane.
said newspaper and not inEnvironmental Review:The pro-
any posed use is categorically exempt for
A.
supplement thereof on the followingtCohe egSections:28-2ts of 19
P P Code Sections:28-2319
dates, to-wit: Applicant:Structural Consultants
M.,Inc.
Owner:Seal Beach Associates LLC
11 / At the above time and place all inter-
ested persons may be heard if so
all in the eat 1999. desired.If you challenge the proposed
y actions in court,you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or some-
one else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice,or in written
I certifyunder penaltyof correspondence delivered to the City
(or declare) of Seal Beach at,or prior to,the pub-
lic hearing.
perjury that the foregoing is true and DATED This 19th day of July,1999
correct. Joanne M.Yeo
City Clerk
Published in the Seal Beach Sun
07/29/99.
Dated at Seal Beach, CA,
this day of VL, , 1999.
Signature
PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY:
r(1)/11;")6691/61
THE SUN NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 430-7555 • (949) 759-7726
August 9, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R Till, City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF MINOR PLAN REVIEW 99-5,
DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO—STORY CABANA
HOME AT 24 COTTONWOOD LANE, SEAL BEACH (SEAL
BEACH TRAILER PARK)
RECOMMENDATION:
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City
Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, denying construction of
a two-story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane.
2) Sustain the appeal of SC Structural Consultants, Inc., revising the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant to approve construction of a two-
story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane, subject to the terms as recommended to the
Planning Commission by the Department of Development Services.
3) Sustain the appeal of SC Structural Consultants, Inc., revising the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant to approve construction of a
two-story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane, subject to the terms as recommended to
the Planning Commission by the Department of Development Services, subject to terms
and conditions other than those recommended by the Department of Development Services
regarding the two-story cabana home.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing by the City Council and a determination regarding this matter,
Staff will prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council consideration at the next City Council
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 1;1_'—
c:\My Documents\Minor elan Review NPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Reportdoc LW107-22-99
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
BACKGROUND:
On June 23, 1999, the Planning Commission considered the above referenced application for Minor
Plan Review (MPR) 99-5. After receiving all testimony at that meeting and extensive deliberations
among the members of the Commission, it was the determination of the Planning Commission to deny
the application on a 5-0 vote. The Planning Commission requested staff to prepare the appropriate
resolution for consideration on July 7, 1999.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-18, adopted by the Commission on July 7, 1999, set forth the
findings and determinations of the Commission regarding the requested interior plan review and set
forth the reasons for denial in Section 5 of the resolution. The resolution was adopted on a 5-0 vote of
the Commission.
An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by SC Structural Consultants
in a timely manner, and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing.
FACTS:
• The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on June 23, 1999 to consider
MPR 99-5. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for and against the proposed
project. At the public meeting persons spoke in favor of and in opposition to the request. After
receiving all public testimony, the Planning Commission determined to deny the request and
instructed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for consideration of the Commission on
July 7, 1999 on a 5-0 vote.
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-18, adopted by the Commission on July 7, 1999, set
forth the findings and determination of the Commission regarding these matters. The
resolution was adopted on a 5-0 vote of the Commission.
• An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by SC Structural
Consultants on July 16, 1999, and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration
at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF CONCERN OF APPEAL:
As previously indicated, the appellant is requesting the City Council to approve the requested two-
story manufactured home within the Seal Beach Trailer Park, in compliance with the provisions of
Section 28-2319 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. In addition, the appellant's legal counsel has
provided a written letter, dated July 13, 1999 as a part of the appeal, indicating the basis on which the
2
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Rcpat
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
appeal should be supported and the project approved. Please note the letter from the applicant's
attorney indicates he had not reviewed the written record of the Planning Commission prior to filing
the appeal(Refer to Attachment 1).
The Planning Commission devoted a substantial amount of time during their deliberations on this
application in regards to the proposed two-story cabana structure. Please refer to the Planning
Commission Minutes of July 7, 1999(Attachment 2).
For the purposes of this report, the following issue of concern as set forth in the appeal and the letter
from counsel dated July 13, 1999(Refer to Attachment 1)will be discussed:
A. The appellant's legal counsel states "The mobilehome installation conformed to all laws."
Staff Comment: The issue before the Planning Commission is not one of"conforming to
all laws". If the application had not conformed to all laws it would not have been presented to
the Planning Commission for consideration. The only time a development application can be
submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration without "conforming to all laws" is
when a "variance" is being requested from a specific development standard of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City. In the case of two-story cabanas, the Planning Commission is
specifically charged with making a determination of architectural compatibility with other two-
story cabanas within a mobile home or trailer park.
"Section 28-2319.B. Planning Commission Approval. Prior to the
issuance of a permit for the construction of two-story cabanas within a
mobile home park or trailer park, said permit applications shall be subject
to architectural review and approval by the Planning Commission as
authorized by the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency."
The specific findings of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-18 that address this issue
state(Section 6):
"(a) The proposed development will change the character and nature of
the Trailer Park and the residents that inhabit the Trailer Park.
(b) The proposed use will not be compatible with surrounding uses and
the community in general, because the style, height and bulk of the
proposed structure, is inconsistent with the existing Trailers and Cabanas
within the Trailer Park.'
3
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
These finding were based upon careful consideration of the following:
• the testimony received at the public meeting of June 23, 1999;
• the information provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23, 1999,
including the recommended conditions of approval; and
• the concerns and deliberations of the Planning Commission expressed after the dose of
the public testimony on this application.
Based upon the information presented and its specific findings of fact, the Planning
Commission determined to deny the request for the reasons set forth above.
B. The appellant's legal counsel states "The Planning Commission had no power, discretion
or jurisdiction to deny the application."
Staff Comment: Staff is of the opinion that if the Planning Commission has the
authority to consider a matter, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of the City of
Seal Beach, the Commission therefore has the jurisdiction to consider the matter. By having
the jurisdiction to consider the matter, it follows that the Commission has the power and
discretion to deny an application that is not compatible with the surrounding community and
other uses within the immediate area of the proposed project. Again Section 28-2319.B
specifically provides for Planning Commission architectural review of two-story cabanas within
a mobile home or trailer park. From that authority springs the authority to approve or deny a
request, as the Commission has properly done with appropriate findings as discussed above.
C. The appellant's legal counsel states"The record contains no evidence to support the denial
of the application."
Staff Comment: The record of the Planning Commission meeting provides evidence
received during public testimony regarding this matter that supports the determination of the
Planning Commission(Refer to Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 1999).
D. The appellant's legal counsel states "The Planning Commission articulated no findings
supported by evidence to deny the application."
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission considered all the evidence presented during
the public testimony time on the subject application. The Planning Commission carefully
weighed that information, along with the evidence presented in the Staff Report, and the
discussion among the Commissioner's after closing the public testimony. Upon the
conclusions of the deliberations among the Commissioner's, it was the determination of the
4
MPR 99-5.Appesl Staff Report
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
Commission to deny the subject request. Again, as discussed and quoted in Item A above, the
Planning Commission did articulate findings. Those findings do not support the approval of the
subject request.
E. The appellant's legal counsel states "The deprivation of proposed conforming use
constitutes a taking of property and a violation of civil rights."
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission determination to deny the requested
application does not constitute a taking. A taking occurs when a regulation "(a) does not
substantially advance legitimate state interests, or (b) denies an owner substantially all
economically viable uses of his land" (Longtin's California Land Use, 199 Update). In this
case, the Planning Commission has denied a particular application for a two-story
manufactured home at the subject site within the Seal Beach Trailer Park. That is not to say
the Planning Commission would deny a future application for a different two-story cabana.
Further, the applicant may submit an application for a single-story mobile/manufactured home
within the Seal Beach Trailer Park and no Planning Commission review is required, only
compliance with the development standards set forth within the Code of the City of Seal Beach
and the Mobilehome Parks Act. A single-story mobile home is reviewed by the Planning and
Building Departments, there is no discretionary review required.
Without further explanation of the theory behind a civil rights violation, Staff will not respond
to this unarticulated argument.
F. The appellant's legal counsel states "Violation of Title 25 of the California Code of
Administrative Regulations(and the therefore Mobilehome Parks Act)."
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission's determination of denial is based upon
authority granted by the Code of the City of Seal Beach regarding two-story cabana structures
as set forth in Section 28-2319 of the Code. The appellant's legal counsel discusses Sections
1020 and 1366 of Title 25, and indicates those sections must be relied upon by the Planning
Commission in its determinations regarding the subject request. It is the opinion of staff that
this interpretation is incorrect. These sections refer to the situation when the submission of". .
plans or specifications submitted with the application for permit do not comply with these
regulations. . ", and in fact refer to the issuance of building permits for the actual installation of
a mobilehome. The matter before the Planning Commission was a separate issue from the
denial of a"building permit" application.
The Planning Commission was properly considering the "architectural compatibility" of the
proposed structure in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-2319.B of the Code of the
5
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
City of Seal Beach. The Planning Commission was not, and as a matter of record, does not,
review plans or specifications for compliance with the provisions of Title 25, that is the
responsibility of the Planning and Building Departments.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR TWO-STORY CABANA APPLICATIONS:
Under Code Sections 28-2319, all two-story cabana requests must be evaluated in light of the
following:
"Section 28-2319.B. Planning Commission Approval. Prior to the issuance
of a permit for the construction of two-story cabanas within a mobile home park or
trailer park, said permit applications shall be subject to architectural review and
approval by the Planning Commission as authorized by the Seal Beach
Redevelopment Agency."
The issue turns on the provisions of the Code, which clearly allow for a "architectural review for the
requested use of the property; The Planning Commission considered public testimony, received a
written staff report, and deliberated the issue among themselves. It was the ultimate determination of
the Planning Commission, as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 99-18, that:
"(a) The proposed development will change the character and nature of the
Trailer Park and the residents that inhabit the Trailer Park.
(b) The proposed use will not be compatible with surrounding uses and the
community in general, because the style, height and bulk of the proposed structure,
is inconsistent with the existing Trailers and Cabanas within the Trailer Park.'
The issue will now turn on the Council's view of the evidence presented during the public hearing
regarding impacts to the surrounding community of the proposed two-story structure within the Seal
Beach Trailer Park.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL:
Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for the Council
to make a final determination regarding these matters.
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City
Council has the following options:
6
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
i
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, denying construction of
a two-story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane.
2) Sustain the appeal of SC Structural Consultants, Inc., revising the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant to approve construction of a two-
story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane, subject to the terms as recommended to the
Planning Commission by the Department of Development Services.
3) Sustain the appeal of SC Structural Consultants, Inc., revising the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant to approve construction of a
two-story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane, subject to the terms as recommended to
the Planning Commission by the Department of Development Services, subject to terms
and conditions other than those recommended by the Department of Development Services
regarding the two-story cabana home.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing by the City Council and a determination regarding this matter,
Staff will prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council consideration at the next City Council
meeting.
NOTED AND APPROVED
1 /(21/.." ..e / - / A,UV / i
O ':- Whittenberg,Director _pm- 'eith ' Till
Development Services Department City Manager
Attachments: (5)
ATTACHMENT 1: Appeal by SC Structural Consultants, received July 16, 1999
and Letter re: Appeal from Dowdall Law Offices, dated July
13, 1999
ATTACHMENT 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-18
ATTACHMENT 3: Planning Commission Minutes of July 7, 1999
ATTACHMENT 4: Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 1999
7
MPR 99-5.AQpea1 Staff Report
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5: Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23, 1999, with
Attachments 1 through 5
ATTACHMENT 6: Photos of Seal Beach Trailer Park and of similar unit in another
trailer park
* * * *
8
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 1
Appeal by SC Structural Consultants, received July 16,
1999 and Letter re: Appeal from Dowdall Law Offices,
dated July 13, 1999
9
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
APPEAL. APPUCAT1ON
TO CITY COUNCIL
1 = ff O7_or, r• II tl; 4„ ii it art t, , p,:31..„ ,t.
J �'.�t� ,� �r.itt��nl��;.I, t}�� ' ' 1 ' : :1� '' �yt .il#t1� -' '1 ��'( 11 ( { q �j,� ,WI•r'.• `!� .•••. r r t .. . Intl li1a1" 'i�ilir:11 i1111'i I,•.• s- 1161.Sl t. P P' t' rs 'fel.' t. ., A. I
_ 1 , 1 t, 6 t n '. 1,r�)': otlAil':lUiil�ltVil �y{ C.+ '"' ,,
" ��' .," �� (!IA:.��II �i� 11,'�.t.ILI'i', '`NY''
`n tlrlt� � .��t; •.111A,�, utt , - , � .. p_!i:•-
• II ,,, .•{011 4 ,'1611' )111{1 1 144:':. 'i:•1NIli�R,f°sum=:+ I jjtil"t�til� I.I„.I'' i lAi I(1d!]ll;i �i.1 11.. P�II!"l! 1
• • • y p�] Ai; *' Tv:,:i{ ,::11,,,I.11,� .Y j - W 1`, �' �_ ,t b i
•
S ,,„,.."T.
y e Ay"" , a) 'Moil oil; 1,_.'{�1.101 1dt1i'i';,,Il1' lilt;1. 0 akii&- C141.
Prop�.rb r..r�---
2. Apptiosnt's Nems . 4 t, (.04 'f- _"
Ad . : tr'!�:rl ' . . •
-
Home Phone; ( )
Wor1c Phone: ( ) 0e)")I7 ,I. FAX: ( )..,212.2_ •
4
4
3. Property u� Ownor'e Name: S—. ' - _ 1Z4.0Addfessi . i `•_ - . , l .• i - - _.. .
Nees Phone: (Ty _ '" . '
4. ' The l,ndersigned hetaby appeals the following des sofr 1f the SW B
endl
Planning Commission*oncoming Plan Ravisw No. .....:
=rep-lament t t , ni.. 1..gt nil w+ tl�a den ton of till Planrdnglt Is being eppseted, the speoillc conditions of approval being appealed,
end !4slude yowr statements 014 00% vAeri the Planning Com n!salon m.y be 1n
iS11..:,,, ,,
(,: • 4 ra Of AoOisnv (Signature of Owner)
I art rno) (mint Warns)
1. I ...... ,,.... .�.
(Oats)
Page 27 7 -`(. - 9!
•
DOWDALL LAW OFFICES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
284 NORTH GLASSELL STREET SACRAMENTO OFFICE:
TERRY R. DOWDALL ORANGE.CALIFORNIA 92866-1409 7311 GREENHAVEN DRIVE
ROBIN G.EIFLER AREA CODE 714 SUITE 100
TELEPHONE 532.2222 SACRAMENTO.CA 95831-1438
FACSIMILE: AREA CODE 916
532.3238 532.5381 TELEPHONE 444.0777
CABLE: MHP LAW FACSIMILE 444.2983
IN REPLY REFER TO.
July 13, 1999
Original Via First Class Mail
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Rejection of Mobilehome
Installation for Seal Beach Trailer Park
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
I. INTRODUCTION
This statement is submitted with the attached NOTICE OF APPEAL of the City of
Seal Beach Planning Commission decision which has denied the application of the Owners
of Seal Beach Trailer Park for the installation of a mobilehome within the trailer park
community.
This statement is expressly non-inclusive of all grounds available for the appeal of the
decision, and constitutes therefore a non-exclusive illustrative description of certain bases for
the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. Applicant and property owner have
not yet received any written decision, resolution or other writing which reflects the rejection
of the application for a mobilehome installation which is the subject of this appeal, and have
instead,to date, been only verbally informed of action by the Planning Commission and the
commencement of the ten day period for the appeal beginning, as stated verbally at the
hearing, on the date thereof, July 7, 1999.
Owner and applicant reserve the right to supplement, amend and elaborate on any
of the grounds stated within this statement and the attached Notice of Appeal and therefore
this statement is without prejudice to all further and additional bases for appeal which may
July 13, 1999
Page 2
be hereafter raised.
II. APPEAL
a. THE MOBILEHOME INSTALLATION CONFORMED TO ALL LAWS.
The mobilehome and its proposed installation met with all applicable legal
requirements including without limitation all requirements pertaining thereto.
b. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD NO POWER, DISCRETION OR
JURISDICTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
The Planning Commission had no power, discretion,jurisdiction or authority to deny
the application for the installation of the proposed mobilehome.
c. THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission had no evidence within the record on which to base a
decision to deny the application for the installation of the mobilehome on the premises.
d. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARTICULATED NO FINDINGS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
The Planning Commission did not articulate any basis on which to deny the
application for the installation of the mobilehome. The Planning Commission could not
articulate any such decision because there was no evidence on which to do so.
e. THE DEPRIVATION OF PROPOSED CONFORMING USE
CONSTITUTES A TAKING OF PROPERTY AND A VIOLATION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS.
The proposed use (installation of a mobilehome) conforms to all legal requirements.
The Planning Commission, by denial of the right of use of the property, has deprived the
applicant and the property owner of their rights to due process, equal protection, privileges
July 13, 1999
Page 3
and immunities and right to use and enjoy property as guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the California Constitution, among other constitutional wrongs.
Accordingly, if allowed to stand, the denial of the use of the premises for the installation of
a conforming mobilehome will deprive the property owner and the applicant of their civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Such action further inversely condemns the premises.
f. VIOLATION OF TITLE 25 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (AND THEREFORE THE
MOBILEHOME PARKS ACT)
Section 1020 of Title 25 of the California Code of Administrative Regulations
provides that a denial of a request for a permit to install a mobilehome must specify the bases
for the rejection of the request. In this instance, the Planning Commission has specified no
basis (under Title 25, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or otherwise) for the rejection of the
installation of the mobilehome. Section 1020 in part states:
§1020. Installations and Accessory Buildings and Structures.
...When the plans or specification submitted with the application for permit
do not comply with these regulations, the enforcement agency shall notify the
applicant in what respects the plan and specifications do not comply. When
the applicant resubmits the application, plans and specifications, an
additional application filingfee may be required
Once the mobilehome is installed, the issuance of a statement of installation
acceptance is mandatory.
§ 1366. Statement of Installation Acceptance
(Certificate of Occupancy). When it is determined that a
mobilehome complies with the provisions of these regulations after final
inspection of the mobilehome installation, the enforcement agency shall
provide a copy of the statement of installation acceptance for the mobilehome
dealer and buyer.
The Planning Commission has exceeded its authority by rejection of the application
for the installation of the mobilehome. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has therefore,
furthermore,violated the Mobilehome Parks Act by failing to comply with the implementing
regulations set forth above.
This statement of grounds for appeal is without prejudice to the supplementation of
this statement with additional and further grounds for the appeal.
July 13, 1999
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
DOWDALL LAW OFFICES, A.P.C.
Terry R. Dowdall, Esq.
By. A J'"
Ter/y R. Dowdall, sq.
At rneys for the Property Owner Seal Beach Trailer Park
ad n.uallxh.001.19599
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-18
to
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
RESOLUTION NUMBER 99-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING MINOR PLAN REVIEW
99-5, DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY
CABANA HOME AT 24 COTTONWOOD LANE, SEAL
BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND
AND RESOLVE:
,Section 1. On April 14, 1999 Neal Grabowski ("The Applicant")filed an
application and Minor Plan Review 96-8 with the Department of Development Services. Through
MPR 99-5, the applicant seeks architectural review approval for a 2 story cabana to be
constructed at 24 Cottonwood Lane, Seal Beach.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.B of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan
Review 99-5 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs. § 15303 NEW CONSTRUCTION OR
CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES (a) single family residences not in conjunction with
the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences
may be constructed or converted under this exemption. § 15061(bX3), 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 hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on June 23, 1999 to consider the application for Minor Plan Review 99-5.
Section 4. The record of the hearing on June 23, 1999 indicates the following:
(a) On April 14, 1999, Neal Grabowski filed an application with the
Department of Development Services for Minor Plan Review 99-5.
(b) The applicant is requesting architectural review of a proposed 2 story
cabana to be located within the Seal Beach Trailer Park at 24 Cottonwood Lane.
(c) The subject property is located within the Seal Beach Trailer Park and is
surrounded on three sides by residential uses within the Park and to the west by the San Gabriel
River.
(d) The City received no comments, written or other, responding to the notices
of the hearing on MPR 99-5.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
§ 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-2319 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) The proposed development will change the character and nature of the
Trailer Park and the residents that inhabit the Trailer Park.
(b) The proposed use will not be compatible with surrounding uses and the
community in general, because the style, height and bulk of the proposed structure, is inconsistent
with the existing Trailers and Cabanas within the Trailer Park.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies
Minor Plan Review 99-5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 76 day of July, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, Lyon
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
Brian M. Brown, M.D., Chairman
/ Planning Commission
r- • tt-� rg, ecretary
•lanning Commission
2
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Minutes of July 7, 1999
11
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Repot
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Minutes of July 7, 1999 Meeting
1 Chairperson Brown asked if a video recording of the Planning Commission meetings
2 was kept on file. Mr. Whittenberg responded that an audio and video tape recording
3 was made at every Planning Commission meeting. He said that once the minutes for
4 each meeting were approved, the audiotape was erased, but the videotape was kept on
5 file in the Development Services Department. Chairperson Brown inquired as to how
6 long the videotapes were kept. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the videotapes were
7 kept for several years—how far back he could not recall. Chairperson Brown stated that
8 he was less in favor of a transcript of the minutes and felt that a summary of the
9 proceedings was sufficient. He also stated that it made no sense for Staff to transcribe
10 the audiotape minutes verbatim if videotapes of the meetings were made. Mr.
11 Whittenberg responded that this had been the accepted method for preparing minutes,
12 summarizing the basic comments presented during the meetings as adequately as
13 possible. He stated that the Commission's previous approval of the minutes confirmed
14 that the Commissioners were in agreement with the format.
15
16 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve the Minutes as presented.
17
18 MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
19 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
20 NOES: None
21 ABSENT: None
22
23
24 SCHEDULED MATTERS
25
-26 2. Adoption of Resolution 99-18 denying Minor Plan Review 99-5
27 24 Cottonwood Lane
28
29 Applicant/Owner: Structural Consultants, Inc. / Seal Beach Associates, LLC.
30 Address: 24 Cottonwood Lane
31 Request: Architectural review of a new two-story cabana at 24
32 Cottonwood Lane. The proposed structure will provide a total of
33 1,162.5 square feet of living area.
34
35 Chairperson Brown asked if this item should have been placed on the Consent
36 Calendar. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff wanted to ensure the Commission had the
37 opportunity for discussion without having to remove this item from the Consent
38 Calendar. He said that if there were no changes, it would be appropriate to adopt
39 Resolution 99-18 as presented.
40
441 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to adopt Resolution 99-18 as presented.
43 MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
44 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
45 NOES: None
46 ABSENT: None
3
City of Seal Beech Planning Commission
Minutes of July 7, 1999 Meeting
c.
1 Chairperson Brown indicated that it would be appropriate to introduce Mr. Michael
2 Colantouno, who was attending the meeting on behalf of the City's legal counsel. Mr.
3 Whittenberg introduced Mr. Colantouno, stating that he had been with the firm for 10
4 years and that his first assignment had been to serve as Planning Commission Attorney
} 5 for the City of Seal Beach back in the early 1990's for approximately 3 years. Mr.
6 Whittenberg stated that Mr. Colantouno was `pinch-hitting' tonight for Mr. Quinn Barrow,
7 who is on vacation.
8 i
9 Mr. Whittenberg advised' that the adoption of Resolution 99-18 begins a 10-day
10 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
11 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
2
13 PUBLIC HEARINGS
14
15 3. Conditional Use Permit 99-3 (Continued from June 9, 1999)
16 140 Main Street
17
18 Applicant/Owner: Brian Kyle
19 Business: O'Malley's On Main
20 Request: To permit a fully enclosed, uncovered outdoor dining area of
21 300 square feet at the rear of the existing restaurant structure
22 •, between the restaurant and an existing detached two-car
23 garage/apartment above structure, in accordance with the
24 provisions of Section 28-1251.1.c.
25 Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No. 99-7
26
27 Staff Report
28
29 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
30 Planning Department.) He reminded the Commissioners that this was a matter that had
31 previously been presented to the Planning Commission and stated that the initial
32 determination of the Commission had been to deny the request to permit a fully
33 enclosed, uncovered outdoor dining area located to the rear of the building. The
34 applicant had at that time proposed to pay the fee of $3,500 per parking space in
35 accordance with the City's parking program. Mr. Whittenberg stated after the
36 Commission's decision to deny this request, Staff had prepared a Resolution for
37 adoption to reflect this denial. The applicant had then approached the Commission
38 requesting to revise the application and return with a request for provision of parking
39 within 300 feet of the property, in accordance with the provisions of the Main Street
40 Zoning Regulation. Mr. ;Whittenberg stated that this was the request before the
41 Commission this evening. 1
42
43 He presented photographs of the proposed patio located at O'Malley's On Main Street,
44 140 Main Street, to be used for food service and dining purposes. He described it as a
45 fully enclosed, unroofed, 300 square foot patio to the rear of the building. Seating for 28
46 people is proposed, and under the City's parking standards of 1 parking space per 100
4
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 1999
12.
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
2
3 Chairperson Brown opened oral communications.
4
5 Reg Clewley stated that he was pleased to announce that the Bixby Ranch proposal for
6 the Old Town center project had been denied by court order and that the City of Seal
7 Beach had lost its lawsuit. He stated that the City would not be allowed to cut down
8 another diseased eucalyptus tree along Seal Beach Boulevard for the next 100 years,
9 and that the City never should have approved the Environmental Impact Report for this
10 project as it was wrong then, and is still wrong now.
11
12
13 CONSENT CALENDAR
14
15 1. Report from Orange County Council of Governments
16 "Highlighting Livable Communities in Orange County Cities'
17
18 2. Conditional Use Permit 97-12, Request for Extension
19 320 Central Avenue
20
21 Applicant/Owner. Daniel P. Mundy
22 Address: , .320 Central Avenue
23 Request: Request for time extension on permit to initiate
24 improvements to home.
25
26 4. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1999.
27
28 Mr. Whittenberg stated that because both commissioners Cutuli and Lyon were absent
29 at the meeting of June 9, 1999, their vote should reflect abstaining to vote on Item No. 4
30 to approve the Minutes for this meeting.
31 •
32 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
33
34 MOTION CARRIED: 5 —0
35 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
36 NOES: None
37 ABSENT: None
38
39
40 3. Minor Plan Review 99-5
41 24 Cottonwood Lane
42
43 Applicant/Owner: Structural Consultants, Inc. / Seal Beach Associates, LLC.
44 Address: 24 Cottonwood Lane
2
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 Request: Architectural review of a new two-story cabana at 24
2 Cottonwood Lane. The proposed structure will provide a
3 total of 1,162.5 square feet of living area.
4
5 Staff Report
6
7 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
8 Planning Department.) He stated that on April 14, 1999, Neal Grabowski submitted an
9 application for Minor Plan Review 99-5 requesting to build a two-story manufactured
10 home in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The subject structure would provide 1162.5 feet
11 of living area. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
12
13 0 NORTH — Oakwood Apts. Residential High Density
14 U SOUTH — Single Family Attached Housing, Residential High Density
15 ❑ EAST- Undeveloped Parcel of land and Single Family Housing, Medium
16 Density
17 0 WEST - San Gabriel River and the City of Long Beach
18
19 He stated that the Planning Commission has granted similar resolutions within the trailer
20 park, most having to do with the addition of space around an existing mobile home. An
21 example of Reso)ution 95-7 was included with the packets distributed to the Planning
122 Commissioners. Mr. Cummins explained that Section 28-2319 of the Code of the City
23 Of Seal Beach gives the Planning Commission authority to conduct architectural review
24 of all two-story cabanas, and also within this section are construction guidelines relating
25 to height, balconies, roof' decks, and safety. He stated that the cabana meets the
26 specification of not being located within twenty (20) feet of any other two-story structure.
27 Mr. Cummins said that Staffs recommendation is that the Planning Commission
28 approve this Minor Plan Review, subject to conditions, with approval by adoption of
29 Resolution 99-18.
30
31 Mr. Whittenberg then requested to addresses several of the concerns that residents of
32 the Seal Beach Trailer Park had expressed regarding approval of Minor Plan Review
33 99-5. He stated that there was concern that this particular unit was a manufactured
34 home and not a mobile home. He explained that the Health and Safety Code of the
35 State of California regulates both mobile homes and manufactured homes, and the
36 regulations basically say that a mobile home is a manufactured home. For the benefit of
37 the commissioners and other concerned parties, Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded to
38 read Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, which defines a mobile home as
39 meeting the requirements of Section 18007, which is the definition of a manufactured
40 home. He then read the definition of a manufacture home as:
41 s
42 '...a structure transportable in one or more sections, which in traveling
43 mode is 8 body feet, or more in width or 40 feet or more in length, or when
44 erected on site is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a
45 permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without
\ 46 a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities.'
3
City of Seal Beech Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 He stated that the end of the definition indicates that :
2
3 "a manufactured home includes a mobile home subject to the National
4 Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974."
5
6 Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon these definitions, Staff had determined that the
7 two terms were interchangeable. He stated that several years ago this was not the
8 case. There were distinct definitions for a mobile home and a manufactured home, but
9 that over the years the two definitions have been blended together. He explained that
10 the structure that was up for approval does meet the National Manufactured Housing
11 Construction and Safety Act provisions as indicated on the plans provided. Mr.
12 Whittenberg expressed that Staff understood the concern of residents of the trailer park
13 regarding allowing manufactured housing into the park, and that this might impact the
14 park's ability to maintain low/moderate income housing agreements that currently exist
15 with the City. He stated that Staff did not feel that approval of this application would
16 have any bearing on that particular agreement between the redevelopment agency and
17 the City. He stated that Ithe structure meets the requirements of the city code and
18 complies with the provisions of state law. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that copies of the
19 definitions had been provided to the attorney representing the residents of the Seal
20 Beach Trailer Park.
21
22 Commission Questions to Staff
/. 23 .
24 Chairperson Brown asked whether this type of home would require a permanent
25 foundation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that under the law both a mobile home and a
26 manufactured home could be placed on a permanent foundation or on a pier foundation
27 system. He stated that as Staff understood, this particular structure would be placed on
28 a permanent foundation. Chairperson Brown inquired whether any structures within the
29 park were on permanent foundations. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he was not sure
30 whether any of the complete structures were placed on permanent foundations, but he
31 stated that portions of some structures might be on permanent foundations. He said
32 that he did not believe that there were any structures that were completely on what
33 would be defined as a permanent foundation. Commissioner Hood asked if the lot was
34 currently vacant, to which Mr. Cummins responded in the affirmative. Chairperson
35 Brown inquired whether there was a permanent foundation for the home that had
36 previously been on this lot. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the applicant could more
37 readily respond to this question. Chairperson Brown confirmed that although in the past
38 a mobile home had to have wheels on it, this was no longer the case. Mr. Whittenberg
39 responded that in the past a cabana structure could be added to a mobile home, but the
40 mobile home itself had to.maintain the capacity to be moved outside the structure and
41 be driven on the highways. He approximated that in 1991 or 1992, the state changed
42 the requirements and at that point no longer required this situation to exist. At that point
1 43 individuals could build cabanas onto an. existing mobile home or trailer and the only
44 requirement was to maintain the kitchen in its original location within the pre-existing
45 mobile home or trailer. Any of the other walls within the structure could be moved to
46 increase the living space.. He explained that several years later manufactured homes
4
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
) and mobile homes became synonymous terms, and that now either of these structures
2 would be allowed in a mobile home park subject to meeting the construction
3 requirements of federal law and complying with state code as written. Chairperson
4 Brown recalled a request that had been previously submitted for placement of a
5 manufactured home on 16th Street. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that it was a resident of
6 12th Street that had made this request. He stated that sometime in the early 1970's the
7 state had changed the law to require that all cities had to allow a mobile home to be
8 placed on a permanent foundation in a zoned, single family residential lot, with no
9 different design standards other than what existed for a "stick' built single family home
10 on the same lot. Mr. Whittenberg explained that within the State of California, these
11 changes were a result of the state attempting to deal with the issue of providing
12 affordable housing. He stated that manufactured homes and mobile homes provide this
13 type of housing and to encourage their initiation into the housing market, the state has
14 mandated that cities cannot have different standards for the placement of a mobile
15 home on a zoned, single family residential lot, than exists for a "stick" built home.
16
1 17 Commissioner Hood inquired whether there were any size constraints in the definition.
18 Mr. Whittenberg responded that size issues were addressed within the definition for a
19 manufactured home. He stated that there were no size constraint issues on mobile
20 homes. Commissioner Hood asked if there was a maximum size constraint on
v 21 manufactured homes. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only requirement was that it must
22 measure 320 square feet or more and structures that measure less would be
23 categorized as a travel trailer or recreational vehicle of some sort.
24
25 Chairperson Brown requested clarification of the distinction between a modular home
26 and a manufactured home. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was unable to find a
27 definition for a modular home anywhere within the Health and Safety Code. He stated
28 that Mr. Cummins had contacted the State Department of Housing and Community
29 Development in Sacramento and they stated that within Title 25 of the state regulations
30 for mobile home parks they were not aware of any definition that describes modular
31 housing. He said that the term modular home is addressed in a publication from their
32 department that was published approximately 5-7 years ago, but that this was no longer
33 considered an up-to-date document. .
34
35 Commissioner Cutuli inquired whether when dealing with legal issues the distinction
1 36 between a manufactured home and a mobile home could be made. Mr. Barrow referred
37 the Commission to the handout provided to them of Section 18008 of the Health and
38 Safety Code as presented in 1995, which made the definition of the terms "mobile
39 home' and "manufactured home' interchangeable. He stated that there was a time
40 when there was a distinction between modular and manufactured homes making it
41 appear from this language that the distinction was based upon the foundation. Mr.
42 Barrow said that this question was specifically addressed with the Housing and
43 Community Development (HCD) Agency, referring directly to the Consumer's Guide to
44 Manufactured Housing, published by the HCD. He said that the HCD staff person
45 responded that the 1995 law had superseded this distinction between modular and
X46 manufactured housing. He explained that the concern of the residents of the mobile
5
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 home park was that if there were a foundation, the structure would be considered a
2 modular home; however, according to the definition of HCD, this would be classified as
3 a manufactured home.
4
5 Public Hearing
6
7 Chairperson Brown opened the public hearing.
8
9 Mr. Glenn Sparks, resident of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, stated that he represented a
10 number of the Seal Beach Trailer Park residents who were concerned with this
11 particular development. He thanked Chairperson Brown and the Commission for the
12 opportunity to present the resident's views. He stated that the confusion over the
13 definition of modular versus manufactured homes developed as a result of reading an
14 advertisement in the newspaper which stated that this particular planning meeting was
15 to approve building of a two-story modular unit in the trailer park. He stated that when
16 residents attempted to determine what a modular unit was, they received several
17 different and confusing responses. He said that Mr. Whittenberg and the City Attorney
18 had cleared up some of the confusion with the information they had presented. Mr.
19 Sparks stated that this would make it easier to live in the park in the future, as there
20 would be other residents now applying to add modular units to existing homes in the
21 park. He stated that residents welcome the addition of new technology and new ideas,
22 as several of the residents had built onto their mobile homes to establish beautiful
23 homes. He said that residents were concerned that this particular development did not
24 lean toward what would be categorized as R-1 housing, i.e., a structure placed onto a
25 cement slab and bolted to the ground. Also, this structure did not conform to ACE
26 standards, which are very specific with regard to dimensions. He stated that in their
27 minds this would have completely changed the land use of the trailer park. He
28 emphasized that the members of the Seal Beach Trailer Park Association looked
29 forward to working with the Planning Commission and the City of Seal Beach in
30 improving the quality of life for residents of the city.
31
32 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that in reading the Staff Report for Minor Plan Review 99-5, he
33 discovered that this was more than a simple plan review. He said that it was also a
34 request for a Variance and that the item should, therefore, be tabled and brought before
35 the Commission as a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this issue would be after
36 completion of the Public Hearing on this item. Chairperson Brown stated that he would
37 not accept any more public testimony if this item were, in fact, a Variance. Mr.
38 Whittenberg stated that the application does indicate that the applicant is requesting a
39 Height Variance. He stated that under the City Code, the definition of Height Variance
40 is to allow a structure in excess of the permitted height within the zone for that particular
41 property. He said that the applicant thought that a Height Variance was needed to build
42 a two-story structure and was not aware of the provision in the City Code that requires a
43 Minor Plan Review for a tvi'o-story structure within a mobile home park. Mr. Whittenberg
44 stated that notice of the Plan Review had been properly advertised and that because
45 the applicant was not clear on what was needed, the height variance had been included
46 on the initial application. He directed the Commissioners to refer to the "Application
6
1
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
7
For: box at the top of the application where the box for Two-Story Cabana has been
2 checked. Mr. Whittenberg explained that a Variance is required when the applicant
3 wants to forego a specific development standard of the City in the particular zone in
4 which the property is located. He stated that this project meets all of the standards set
5 forth for this zone and requires the Consent Calendar approval by the Planning
6 Commission for the two-story portion of the structure.
7 '
8 Mr. Steve Creighton, a resident of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, stated that although he
9 lives across the street from the proposed lot for the structure, he had not received a
10 letter of notification of the application for this structure. He asked for the name of the
11 owner of the cabana. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it was an individual wishing to move
12 into the park. Mr. Creighton asked to verify that it was not the owner of the park who
13 was the owner of this new.structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the owner of the park
14 must sign the application, but that to his knowledge, the owner of the park was not the
15 owner of the structure. Mr. Creighton stated that it was important that he express his
16 concern over maintaining rent control to make it possible for current residents of the
17 park to continue living there.
1 18
19 Mr. Ken Williams, a resident of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, emphasized that residents
20 of the park were not at the meeting to make it difficult for the new owners of the park.
21 He stated that they simply do not want to lose the status that they had worked so hard
22 to retain. He said that residents did not want to see the same thing happen as
23 happened at the trailer park in Laguna Beach. Mr. Williams said that as long as
24 everyone was clear as to the type of structure that was to be moved into the park, than
25 the plan should be approved. However, if residents were not Gear on all issues related
26 to this development, then plans to move in should be postponed to allow for
27 consultation with an attorney to make sure that everyone clearly understood all the
28 issues.
29 '
30 Ms. Sue Corbin, a resident of Seal Beach, asked for a show of hands of those residents
31 within a 100-foot radius of the proposed lot who had not received proper notification of
32 Minor Plan Review 99-5. She stated that residents are not being properly notified of
33 new structures within the city. She expressed her concern of the placement of the new
34 structure would be in compliance with the fire safety code.
35 .
36 Mr. Paul Jeffers, a resident of Seal Beach, stated that it appeared that the matter had
37 not been thoroughly researched. He said that other residents had applied for two-story
38 structures and their applications had been denied. He stated that the main question
39 was whether the owner of the park was the owner of the new home. He said that he
40 believed that this was going to become a continuing process of moving manufactured
41 homes into the park and that this should concern the Redevelopment Agency as it
42 related to low/moderate income residents of the park. Mr. Jeffers stated that he hoped
43 that this issue would be more thoroughly investigated prior to approving the resolution.
44
45 Mr. Jake Bishop, a resident of Seal Beach, stated that Mr. Talley told him that he could
\ 46 not build onto his mobile home. He noted that although Mr. Talley was present, the
\,
7
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 person moving into the new home was not present. He questioned who was actually
2 making the application for the minor plan review.
3
4 Mr. Mike Grabowski, a contractor with Structural Consultants M. Inc., stated that an
5 Orange County dealership who had sold the manufactured home to a private individual
6 had hired his agency. He stated that he had never met the management of the trailer
' 7 park, nor did he know any of the residents. He said that all he knew was that there was
8 a party who had purchased a home from All American Homes on Beach Boulevard and
9 had an agreement to move the home into the trailer park. He stated that if he could be
10 of further assistance, he would be happy to answer any other questions regarding
11 placement of the structure.
12
13 Chairperson Brown announced that should anyone have questions for Mr. Grabowski,
14 they could meet with him after adjournment of the Planning Commission meeting.
15
' 16 Mr. Whittenberg requested the opportunity to respond to the comment from Mr. Steve
17 Creighton regarding not receiving notification. He stated that a copy of the list of mailing
18 labels does show a label for Mr. Creighton residing at 28 Welcome Lane. He stated that
19 the radius map used by Staff does show the notice radius and every address within that
20 radius appears on the copy of mailing labels for addresses to which the notice was
21 mailed. Chairperson Brown asked who was responsible for providing the mailing labels.
22 Mr. Whittenberg Stated that applicants were responsible for providing the mailing labels
23 and Staff was responsible for mailing out the notices using the mailing labels provided.
24 Commissioner Cutuli pointed out that 5 people had raised their hands to indicate that
25 they had not received the notice. Mr. Whittenberg explained that those residents who
26 were outside the 100-foot radius would not receive a notice. He pointed out that the
27 addresses that would have received the notice were spaces 20-25 on Cottonwood, 134-
28 140 on Cottonwood, and 26-31 on Welcome Lane. These were the units that fell within
29 the 100-foot radius and to which notices were mailed.
30
31 Commissioner Cutuli asked what the regulation was regarding two-story structures in
32 the park. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a distance of.20-feet is required between all two-
33 story structures. Commissioner Cutuli questioned whether two-story structures would fit
' 34 on every lot. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he did not believe it was possible, but that
35 some of the lots were deep enough that if one unit were placed towards the front of the
36 property, the person on the next lot could have enough space to place a unit at the back
37 of that lot. He stated that it would depend upon the lot configuration and what is already
38 in existence within the park. He stated that although the existing units may not always
39 reflect it, the required distance between two-story units is 20 feet. Mr. Whittenberg also
40 explained that because these structures are within close proximity to one another, they
41 are required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system in accordance with the City Fire
42 Code. Commissioner Cutuli asked how the regulation requiring 20-feet between
43 structures came to be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he was not on Staff with the City
44 when this regulation was written. He said that his understanding was that this resulted
45 from negotiationbetween the then owner of the trailer park and the Orange County Fire
, 46 Department. He emphasized that two-story structures within a mobile home park were
• 8
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
7 1 not common occurrences at that time. He stated that should the Planning Commission
2 wish to change this regulation, this would have to be dealt with at a separate point in
3 time. He said that the current application did comply with the criteria of the Code and
4 that Staff did not see any reason to not approve the application, subject to conditions as
5 noted.
6
7 Chairperson Brown stated that although the Code did allow this, the purpose of the
8 Minor Plan Review was to allow the Planning Commission, at its discretion, to decide if,
9 in fact, it is appropriate to the zoning. He stated that it was the responsibility of the
10 Commission to interpret the Code and to look at the big and small picture. He
11 mentioned that every time issues arise related to the trailer park, the issue of the
12 definition of a trailer park always arises. He stated that he believed the spirit of a trailer
13 park is that it is a low-income area, and as he understood, the reason for having mobile
14 homes or manufactured homes was to make it possible for low income people to be
15 able to afford them. He expressed that when two-story cabanas begin to be erected,
16 the cost of the units also increases, making them less affordable to low-income
17 residents. Chairperson Brown stated that a manufactured home with a permanent
1 18 foundation creates a critical distinction between a mobile home and a manufactured
19 home, whether or not the code allows it. He related that when this happens, it creates a
20 higher standard, which translates into higher housing costs. He said that although most
21 people do want to improve their homes, when two-story cabanas are moved in, it then
22 appears to violate the spirit of a low/moderate income trailer park. Chairperson Brown
23 stated that for these reasons, he would vote against approval of Resolution 99-18.
24
25 Commissioner Hood asked Mr. Whittenberg for a definition of low income. Chairperson
26 Brown interrupted to state that whatever the definition of low income, it stands to reason
fl 27 that the more expensive the housing, the less available it is to low income families. Mr.
28 Whittenberg interjected that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
,, 29 does provide an annual definition of what a very low, low, and moderate-income family
30 would be. He stated that these figures change based upon the number of persons in
31 the family. With regard to:whether the trailer park is complying with the agreement with
32 the Redevelopment Agency for the provision of both low and moderate cabanas is a
33 separate issue. Mr. Whittenberg also emphasized that by law a mobile home or a
34 manufactured house could be placed on a foundation within a trailer park. He also
35 stated that by law the definition between the two is not different, and Staff sees the two
36 as being co-equal structures. Commissioner Hood stated that although he understood
37 what Mr. Whittenberg was saying, he did agree with Chairperson Brown's perspective
38 and he questioned whether approval of Resolution 99-18 would possibly jeopardize
39 low/moderate cost housing opportunities. Mr. Barrow stated that although there are
40 definitions on what constitutes affordable housing, what is unique about this situation is
41 that a covenant was made that provides that there must be 120 trailer park units set
42 aside for low/moderate income residents. Currently there are 126 sites, which leaves
43 room for some sites that do not have to fall into the low/moderate income requirement.
44 He stated that were there less that 120 affordable units, this structure could not be
45 moved into the trailer park unless it were also made affordable. Mr. Barrow continued
46 by stating that because of this agreement, there was no risk of the entire trailer park
9
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 becoming high income and eliminating the 120 affordable units. He stated that periodic
2 audits are completed on the availability of the 120-low/moderate income units within the
3 park.
4
5 Commissioner Larson commented on the display of courtesy by the attendees at the
6 meeting this evening.• ,
7
8 Commission Deliberation i
9
10 Commissioner Lyon stated that it appeared that moving this structure into the trailer
11 park would change the character of the trailer park making it a more expensive living
12 area, and that the Planning Commission should use its jurisdiction to deny Resolution
13 99-18 to prevent this from happening.
14
15 Commissioner Larson stated that as long as the park was required to provide 120
16 affordable units he did not believe approval of this application would create a change in
17 the quality of life in the trailer park. He inquired whether a price comparison to what
18 was already in place in other units in the park had been done, and asked the price of
19 the proposed cabana. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he did not know what the cost of
20 the unit was. Chairperson Brown asked Mr. Grabowski to recap the cost of a cabana of
21 this type. Mr. Grabowski stated that he estimated the price to be between $75,000 and
22 $150,000. Chairperson Brown inquired as to the price of a trailer. Mr. Grabowski
23 estimated the price to be between $39,900 and $85,000.
24
25 Commissioner Cutuli stated that one of the charms of Seal Beach was its diversity. He
26 stated that he would vote against approval because he felt it was important to maintain
27 the character of the trailer park.
28
29 Commissioner Hood stated that he too valued the diversity of Seal Beach, and that he
30 did not want to see a city full of 'a bunch of upper class yuppies.' He stated that the
31 city wanted to have a variety of people and that the trailer park was an integral part of
32 the city because the people in the trailer park had a lot of character. He said that he
33 would also vote against Resolution 99-18.
34
35 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Brown to deny Resolution 99-18 as presented.
36
37 MOTION CARRIED: 5 —'0
38 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
39 NOES: None
40 ABSENT: None
41
42 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would return at the next Planning Commission meeting
43 with a resolution for final adoption reflecting the determinations of the Planning
44 Commission as Staff has understood them this evening. Adoption of the resolution will
45 commence the appeal period for anyone wishing to appeal to the City Council on the
\ 46 decision of the Planning Commission.
•
10
Appeal of Denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-18
City Council Staff Report
August 9, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23, 1999,
with Attachments 1 through 5
13
MPR 99-5.Appeal Staff Report
• June 23, 1999 co
Cam
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Minor Plan Review 99-5
24 Cottonwood Lane
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant: STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS INC.
Owner: SEAL BEACH ASSOCIATES LLC.
Location: 24 COTTONWOOD LN.
Classification of Property: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY(RHD)
Request: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A NEW TWO-STORY CABANA AT
24 COTTONWOOD LN. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL
PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 1162.5 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA.
Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW.
Code Sections: 28-2319
Recommendation: APPROVE MINOR PLAN REVIEW 99-5, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS.
MPR 995 24 COTToNwo0o LN.
x,.e» Staff Report-Minor Plan Review 99-5
June 23, 1999 •
FACTS
• On April 14, 1999, Neal Grabowski, submitted an application for Minor Plan Review 99-5
with the department of development services.
• Specifically, the applicant is requesting to build a 2 story cabana within the Seal Beach Trailer
Park.
• The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199-
011-13 and is located in the Seal Beach Trailer Park off of First St.
• The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of 1402 sq. ft. (25.5 x 55)
• The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
o NORTH—Oakwood Apts., RHD
o SOUTH— Single Family Attached Housing, RHD
o EAST—Undeveloped Parcel of land, & Single Family Housing, Medium Density
o WEST— San Gabriel River& City of Long Beach
• As of June 16, 1999, staff has received no written responses to its mailed notice regarding
Minor Plan Review 99-5.
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 1999, an application for Minor Plan Review 99-5 was
submitted to the Department of Development Services by Neal Grabowski. The applicant
proposes the construction of a two-story cabana at 24 Cottonwood Ln. in the Seal Beach Trailer
Park.
The Planning Commission has granted numerous similar resolutions within the Trailer Park, most
of which revolve around the addition of space around an existing mobile home. Resolution 95-7,
approving the addition of a 2 story cabana at 8 Cottonwood Ln. is attached.
DISCUSSION
Section 28-2319 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, (Code), sets
forth development standards for two-story cabanas.
Section 28-2319 of the Code requires the Planning Commission to conduct an architectural
review of all two-story cabanas. Also contained within this section are construction guidelines
Page 2
99-5 STAFF REPORT-24 COTTONWOOD LN.
Staff Report-Minor Plan Review 99-5
June 23, 1999
relating to height, balconies, roof decks and safety.
The applicant is proposing to build a new, 1162.5 square foot, 2 story cabana in the Seal Beach
Trailer Park. In general the proposed cabana conforms to the architectural stipulations of Section
28-2319 of the Code. The plans provide for no roof decks or balconies above the second story
floor line.
The proposed cabana is not located within twenty(20)feet of any two-story structures. The
proposed stairs are not located directly adjacent to the main entrance, rather they are located in
the center of the living room. Finally, the proposed trailer/cabana provides the required setbacks
from the park's recognized trailer lot lines.
It is staffs opinion that the proposed cabana conforms to the architectural stipulations of Section
28-2319.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the requested application to be in conformity with
Section 28-2319 of the Code. Nevertheless, the Commission's authority to conduct an
architectural review of the proposed two-story cabana permits broader examination of the
proposed structure. For example, the Commission may comment on the color scheme or
materials.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Minor Plan Review 99-5 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 99-5 is approved for a two-story cabana located at 24 Cottonwood Ln.,
Seal Beach, measuring approximately 1162.5 square feet.
2. A life safety sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the trailer and cabana in accordance
with the requirements set forth by the National Fire Protection Association, Section No. 13D.
3. The exterior of the cabana shall be constructed of stucco, or one (1) hour fire-rated material
shall be installed under wood siding.
4. Approval shall be subject to compliance with all applicable portions of Title 25 of the
California Administrative Code and the Uniform Building Code.
5. The overall structure shall provide a minimum setback of three (3') feet from side trailer space
lines as designated in the map of the Seal Beach Trailer Park.
6. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Minor
Plan Review 99-5.
Page 3
99-5 STAFF REPORT—24 COTTONWOOD LN.
Staff Report-Minor Plan Review 99-5
June 23, 1999
FOR: June 23, 1999,
at,
a/ 747
Mac Cummins a Whitt nberg
Assistant Planner Director
Department of Development Services Department of Development Services
Attachments(5):
1. Code Sections
2. Application
3. Planning Commission Resolution 95-7
4. Proposed Resolution No. 99-18
5. Plans
Page 4
99.5 STAFF REPORT-24 COTTONWOOD LN.
Attachment 1
CODE SECTIONS
Section 28-2319. Development Standards for Two-Story Cabanas.
A. Purpose and Intent. In order to ensure the compatibility, safety and timely
completion of two-story cabanas within a mobile home park or trailer park, the
following development standards and procedures are established.
B. Planning Commission Approval. Prior to the issuance of a permit for the
construction of two-story cabanas within a mobile home park or trailer park, said
permit applications shall be subject to architectural review and approval by the
Planning Commission as authorized by the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency.
Determination that the proposed construction complies with the requirement of
this Section and all applicable laws including the provisions in Title 25 of the
California Administrative Code shall be made by the Building Department.
C. Height Limits.
(1) The maximum permitted building height shall not exceed two
stories or 25 feet in overall height.
(2) The area between 20 feet and 25 feet in overall height shall consist
exclusively of roofing.
D. Decks and Balconies. No decks or balconies shall be permitted above the floor
level of a second story.
E. Safety Requirements.
1. A life safety sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the trailer and
cabana in accordance with the requirements set forth in National Fire
Protection Association, Section No. 13D, 1980 Edition as may be amended.
2. The exterior of the cabana shall be constructed of stucco, or 1 hour fire-rated
material shall be installed under wood siding.
3. No two-story cabana shall be located closer than twenty feet from another
MPR 99.5 24 CorroNw000 LN.
Staff Report-Minor Plan Review 99-5
June 23, 1999
two-story cabana.
4. The setbacks and clearances of Title 25, California Administrative Code shall
be applicable to all two story cabanas.
5. The foregoing safety requirements of this subsection E, apply to all partially
constructed two-story cabanas for which new building permits are required for
completion of the cabana.
F. Permit Expiration
1. In accordance with Section 1038(2), Title 25, California
Administrative Code, all permits to construct or reconstruct a two-story
cabana shall expire two years from the date the initial building permit is
issued.
2. Upon the expiration of the two-year period in subsection F(1), all
partially completed improvements shall be removed within 90 days of
written notice by the City Building Department.
Page 6
99.5 STAFF REPORT-24 COTTONWOOD LN.
Staff Report-Minor Plan Review 99-5
June 23, 1999
Attachment 2
Application
Page 7
99-5 STAFF REPORT-24 COTTONWOOD LN.
Application for(Check one or more)
O Addition to Non-Conforming
Stricture
Two-Story Cabana
O Structure in l-C tone.
O Exterior Staircase in Flood
Zone.
O Aooessory Structure r Rear
Setback.
Plan Review Application
.pr:ofce ono
LHcaffonT4Ww.M P .4 -- � ate
owro °7KmKr"
QtanninpCorn issi.npate;P /tom 0 ...:pate
Cptete,
1. Property Address: 24 COTTONWOOD LANE, SEAL BEACH CA
2. Applicant's Name: STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS M. , INC.
Address: 12018 CENTRAL AVENUE CHINO CA 91710-1907
Home Telephone: ( )
Work Telephone: (301 217-5610 FAX: (90i 931-5611
3. Property Owner's Name: SEAL BEACH ASSOCIATES, LLC
Address: 20201 S.W. BIRCH STREET SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH CA .9Q-&frI9
Home Telephone: wf) e2 - 2 9z (s6'
4. General Plan &Zoning Designation: MOBILE HOME PARK
5. Present Use of Property: MOBILE HOME SPACE
6. Proposed Use of Property MOBILE HOME SPACE
7. Request: WE ARE REOUESTING A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ENABLE THE
INSTALLATION OF A TWO-STORY MOBILE HOME
8. Describe the Proposed Request/Improvements: WE INTEND TO INSTALL/SET
A NEW NO—STORY MORTT.E HOME ON THIS SPACE
City of Seal Beach•211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Telephone: (562) 431-2527•FAX: (562)431-4067
7
[Revised 2/98)
9. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the
character of the surrounding neighborhood: THE SLEW MOBILE HOME WILL ADD
TO THE AESTHETIC VAT,TTE, AND PROPERTY VALUE OF TYE PARK
10. Describe how and if the approval of this Plan Review would be detrimental
in any way to other property in the vicinity: WE DO NOT SEE ANY DETRIMENTAL
ASPECTS OF THIS INSTALLATION FOR ANY PROPERTY TN THE. VICINITY .
11. Proof of Ownership:
Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture l.D. and a photocopy of the
Grant Deed provided by the applicant.
Or
Signed and notarized Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to
the application.
12. Legal description (or attach description from Grant Deed or title).
I hereby certify that the statements furnished in this application and in the
attached exhibits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
,Z7Z-ee'
ByW By:
(Signature of Applicant) y
!pit aiQgvo[v 5 9Rc3 (Signature
Dd Second fl y)
(Print Name) i
(Pmt Name)
ff
(Date) (p e)
For Office the Orgy
This is to certify that I have inspected the foregoing application and found to be thorough and complete. I conforms to the r
rules of the City of Seal Beach governing the filing of an application for a Consent Calendar Pian Review Item.
(Pmt Name) (Signature) (Print This) (Date)
City of Seal Beach •211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Telephone: (562) 431-2527*FAX: (562)431-4067
8
[Revised 2/98)
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
State of California J
County of Orange J
City of Seal Beach J
UWe
$ / Beae,.4 455o4/e5, L GC
(Name(s))
Swear that Uwe are the owner(s) of the property at:
24 COTTONWOOD LANE SEAL BEACH CA 90740
(Street Address) (City) (State) QIP)
and that I am/we are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for
preparing and filing a Plan Review application. The information contained in the
attached Plan Review application is correct to the best of my/our knowledge and
• Vwe approve of this application to do the following work APPLY FOR A HEIGHT
VARIANCE FOR THE SETTING OF A NEW TWO-STORY MOBILE HOME
54%?'/8,r-'4 5 c2 s 4G 41-13-9y
(Print Name) (Signature) (Date)
2O26( $lei. gieCA 57L/i 025U/ /14°4(// it`A C4f 946
(Address-Please Print) (City 3 State&ZIP) (Telephone)
191/22 az2,
Subscribed and Sworn y 4 C7 /Plc Jpellet/el 'ma I7�'
To Before Me This
1 Day of •
k4pq
fi-ec
NW TONNU
i�1 ►�- comm... 1189065
Notary Public-ColitorNo
Notary Public My Co=nm.Efirf Jul 4.20021
City of Seal Beach•211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Telephone: (562)431-2527•FAX: (562)431-4067
10
(Revised 2/98}
UCORD1XO ZEQtraf`LD YT: - :"
T D8LITY NATIONAL 11TI.E
RECORDING REQUESTED EY:
" Rdsllty Nations!Tlde Cemetery-Mellor Recorded In the County of Cranpe,CaiKomie
Account' t 7 ghGarryrL.GGrenpviile Cl`erk/Recarder
hTIT, rrNo.8071eE 151 i 11INll,I�fliD1341111M�11 52.00
( when Rocorda6 Mull Docurr 19960820281 3;22pm 12/01/98
.-- Dave sof*
aw
a.. end TStatement So: 004 7018315 07 12
R
r20201 S.W. Birch Street,Sults 250 G02 3 12 1443.?5 a 00 6.00 0.00 0.00 1443.75
aNewport Beach,CA 82680 20.00 20.00 0.00
OF�4M'DEER SPACE A/WVE MIS LINE role fk:ZOVAER i Ute
The underelpned prantorle)declrr 1
Documentary renew tax Is$ '� .SG
I X I Computed en full value of property Conveyed,of
I I computed on lull value less value of .its or encumbrances remaining et time of sate,
t I Unincorporeted Ana CITY of Seal Such
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,reoetpt of which is hereby ecknowlsdped, Richard Hall
hey BRANT(B)to Seal Bach Msociites,LLC, a California ltd.Lability Co.
the following described reel property In the City of Seat Beech
County of Orange, Sate of California:
SEE EXHI81'ONE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
DATED: November 30,1998
STATE OF CAUt*• ' nV /
cou!�TY OF �/�'�c.—°C
ON " 11 • '% before me,
. . 1XJtlt, personeilY tweeted iletrard A. Rall
personsf}y,clown m rte I basis
of-ecelerfretorretrtsfrcal to be ten person(s) whose
namelrl Isisre subscribed to the within tnatru-nortt end
ICithDwIedgsd to me that heriherthiY sesouasd the a ._ -- - .
same In hierhei/thetr euthortsed cegecitvC»I),and that .• •,.by hisRlorttlle'r Aosta'el on the instrument the
pereonls), or the entity upon behalf of which the s.,"n iirean j
peraontil acted.executed the uutrurttwrt. • ,I Nom, c
��',�=�,� ' '��Car. I
iris
Witness MY ri 'Id offslei seal. -�eL�'"'.r'P+�arc el apex
•
glamour, .
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
Fo.2ta pr..Niel GRANT Dere
-.....-.,.—. •••••••••••••••••••••••••......r ---- ". _
PPR.12.1999 9:40AM FATCO SANTA ANA .679 P.3%4
• FILE NO, 66719•Nh
igHFDUE C
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED PARTLY IN THE CITY OF SEAL
LY IN THE CITY OF
LONG BEACH,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELS,CALIFORNIANTY OF'ORANCE, STATE OF
ATES OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS'
A portion of that parcel of land granted to the City of Seal Beach by that certain Final Order
of Condemnation, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No, C-78004, Parcel 4, a
certified copy of which was recorded Marrs 23,1977 In Book 12115,Page 195 of Official
Records of Orange County,California;and a portion of Tide Land Location No.137"Survey
No. 106",as patented by the State of California on February 12, 1901 and recorded April
27, 1901 Ir Book 9, Page 105 of Paterrte records of Los Angeles County, and recorded
September 5, 1905 in Book 1, Page 231 of Patents, records Orange County; said above
portions of land being more particulariy described as follows:
8oginning at the most Northerly corns'of Tract No. 9783,as shown on map filed in Book
437, Pages 32 to 36 of Miscellaneous Jvlaps, records of Orange County; said corner being
a point In the Southeasterly line of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Land
described as Parcel 8 in Superior Court Case No. 231287, In and for the County of Los
Angeles, in Book 2383, Page 42, records of Orange County, said Southeaster),line being
a curve concave Southeasterly and having a radius of 2000.00 foot, a radial line from said
point bears South 35° 57'55`East;thence Northeasterly along said curve and Southeasterly
line, an arc distance of 356,05 feet; thence tangent to said curve and continuing along said
Southeaste'ly line, North 54° 02' 05" East 239.79 feat to the Northeasterly lire of that
200,00 foot wide strip of land described In the Quitclaim Deed to the Pacific Electric
Rahway Company, recorded February 21, 1926 in Book 514,Page 44 of Deeds, records of
Orange County;thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly lire,South 42. 15' 32'East
492,08 feet tc the Northwesterly line of First Street, as it now exists, said last mentioned
Northwesterly line being a line parallel with and distant Northwesterly 110,00 feet,
measured at right angles from the boundary line of the Rancho Los Alamitos, per map
recorded in Book 1, Pages 460,461 and 452 of Patents of Los Angeles County, California,
and as shown on Record of Survey recorded In Record of Survey Book 90, Pages 23 to 30,
and as more particular'y established by Seal Beach Boundary Lino Agreement No.2 dated
February 5, 1968 and recorded April 8, 1968 in Book 8565, Page 1 of Official Records of
Orange County; thence Southwesterly
14
•
rte. .. wM+q+...�V•'�.—w-.fir'. MT, aw_r r�r...�r• .�./.�w....�.. ,—
•
FILE NO. 66719.NN
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTINUED)
along said last mentioned parallel line,and the Northwesterly line of First Street,South 54'
48' 38' West 606.81 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Southeasterly, and
having a radius of 610,00 fee; thence Southwester'y along said curve,an arc distance of
6.79 feet to the most Easterly boundary corner of said Tract No.9783;thence Northwesterly
along the Northeasterly boundary line of said Tract No.9783,the following courses; North
42° 17' 11' West 203,39 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Easterly and
having a radius of 15.00 feet thence Northerly along said curve, an arc distance of 21.79
feet to the beginning of a reverse curve concave Northwester'y and having a radius of
112,50 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve, en arc distance of 10.24 Seat to the
intersection cf a non-tangent line bearing North 43° 58' 37" West, a lute from said point
of Intersection bears North 546 15' 24"West;thence North 43° 58' 37"West 230.28 feet
to the most Northerly corner of said Tract No. 9783 and the point of beginning.
The above described parcel of land is shown as"Not A Part"on the map of Tract No.9783,
filed In Book 437, Pages 32 to 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County,
California.
EXCEPT from the above described property,that portion of the subsurface thereof lying one
hundred(100)foot or more below the surface of said property,but without any right of entry
upon the surface thereof,as see forth In Memorandum of t.ease,recorded January 30, 1980
in Book 13484, Page 1969 of Official Records of Orange County, California.
ALSO EXCEPT TKEREFR.OM all oil, oil rights, natural gas rights, mineral rights and other
hydrocarbon substances by whatever name known,tegetherwtth app urtenant;rights thereto,
without, however, any right to enter upon the surface of said land nor any portion of the
subsurface lying above a depth.of 500 fee,as excepted or reserved in instruments of record.
Some matters affecting specific mobiie home sites only are not covered herein.
NWoc
updates 08/11/98
15
Applicant's Affidavit
Radius Map for Public Hearing
I, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS M.IsIrtify that on the 12th day of APRIL 199 9
(Prht Name) (fie) (Month) (Year)
I prepared an ownership/occupant list and radius map, which included properties
and residential dwelling units entirely within or partially within one hundred feet
(100') of the most exterior boundaries of the property being considered in the
above-referenced case known as (address)
24 COTTONWOOD LANE SEAL BEACH CA
Property Owners. The names and addresses listed were taken from the latest
records of the Orange County Assessor. Such names are recorded in the
records of the Orange County Assessor as being the present owner(s) of both
the property involved in said case and of property in the immediate vicinity
thereof.
Occupant Notification: I obtained The names and addresses of occupants within
100' of the subject property in the following
manner. FROM THE RECORDS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK OFFICE
I certify that said ownership/occupant list and radius map are correct and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that any errors in this
information will constitute an incomplete application and may invalidate its
approval.
\.r .f.eeet.,;94 Clo,1/s��t it yrs e. t dL i/,,,2..Q
Pmt Name) Com— (Dat.) 7 j�
City of Seal Beach•211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Telephone: (562)431-2527•FAX: (562)431-4067
9
(Revised 2/98)
City of Seal Beach • Department of Development Services
211 8 Street• Seal Beach, California • 90740
RECEIPT
Received From: ("UC}- U \ COf U11-0 )-S In( . Date: LtII I I qi
Address: l'1A CDA04\ wood Ln . 5tco a Lacii
.. .... '..; :,:. 1,e�}x;ex^�;•{'.,}`p `...v.;.�}rr ,y„}rem.4..,�....".•,..•',.•,r�»r.}:•;, ?��.•�.�^.^^`.w.""
,�i�� Z..:.. ;::':•::>:•......i'•::.;':,•�:.s,.. W(N�yj�OtC%,Vf:04iaV4tL{{Ya:{aL<a'..w,Ki:..vK' i`..t(* WKG
Laxmgv�{aew� w.ac v:{c:{aa.'.Lc.�a�ocmo�a:{a• • ... .$c� ..
.Appeal to CitY Councll/PubUC Hearing Matters _ {n
w
Cr attliat••��: ••fie
. . .:..::. .. { 5100
' Concept Approval(Coastal) 0
L General Plan Amendment . 0
:•---•••:•-•:,, :
.:%,fir
}:i'v is.
�'�'$0:itrh
.50 per sheet) • •• }
��Q/ t' "•MaY•aat9tt.w}P9':,➢,.?}.oc::.i. Yt+:.... .. ...
Tyr •• �.•.. - .` ;.T-v '�I.15 pe pale : O Y.{EMIL• >.,:„ tlf',JM ..
n F. •\ .:
a 1 nor Plan Revie ., � :m::.::. •. ". '""`
•
eretation isPlanning Commission IntrpM , ,,,;� y, „ '. .
Pre-Ap Caton Conference-........: 4.. ....- tr 1100
: ±^.� ?::.:•::::: :••::.::.:;:.:.,,: a :...{;::;{.:Xc.::r}:<•,:�,:{:.,::}:::::;;:::c>a<. ::::<:»:•>'•: : ••:w�ur<.x:'`: .;�.`ifY r<.}�. e,}.
roMMEI
�4;�MM.�,.it�L: •�', :52,000.
5 c Plan
p
,;. : r:Hili:::::.:.:: ::
..... .......: .- .. N .....x...... ,•..:. •{„is:,::•:,,:4:S:}'ti.}•{i::,{•:•}::::v:{i :::i:Li:}: ..'Ilti .
:::....: •......v:tib.,':•.••:v::...:::•. ...... ti't{}iii''w.\L'i"i]i`Yii:
.. {n:}i=n•v+•:;:•::• v,:•: k�wY:.SoowW+aw•'M'
i .:,......1....••••••":• .. .�'.'.............. :..n•:nfpC0:J00i'AA�J6d6: , i...v
•
;Variance }'
:rh•:{:C':'{•:;,'• (J,{.,..:{ac,�1froa)o-R�u'o8:rv. ...:::::aatf L•.hHaatuTtiWmica L:a r�
iiV•••L' .
leiNis . ... .. ;1.000
:•:,Zone Change .,,:.::... ...: L{L.}}••LP: ' •. Y ;.':.., ... ..,0 :��; . , r
... N Wo:
. ::...:..:':{v }\{{ya S]P%ta .:4.. JGC,V..S......... {.:.:v.:;.{ .n::w,..• ...
�....sxec:;+•..c:...<, :. .: :.:{ :: ..:..' :•••::::.;.;:.}?::'s:•:{;c,;:>;j:{.::.;.:• :owl :3x•:at'h'4r�i:::C:?<i�:rii?..;
::::•..:..�,•::::... Cv bn .sk .:iiMr'.w3.R.f1aa
;.t. ;: ., it ire.;::;ate<}:; ; :,� L; .
Environmental Impact Report _ •r. ,�, , M,,.,
5
1000
FYI.
...............:::.:::f:1•.xr,•rn...ai..?: .. .l.� Mw.� :.� .. ..... .:.....:..is":•i}N:}:Yi}: 4 :..- �/�/::;{:+'.xv'L;:iL:.:i.:.
aor'�ii ft&::.iMi• rnell. inlO ::St )w,�.� waidaxeaa 2oaa a,. vi."4..a&:$;. t ....:: ..::•a,.
Minor Environmental Assessment(Determination) _: v..;;.
..,,,.:::::.:......,.• ...w•.. .,..,,,,,xo .,•x..c:7.2^,,,,,,q}:y,r.•.;..r »} sw '' .....
�}v.�.. � ii.�.:.r.,��4Pr1.l�.:: v'{ S:i..::i:::v:::. `^n',{:Ji'i'iw:A'iwJT:..%Oi VH:J•U.vdO`{iL
V UAmount To Be Paid $ r 0 o
Account* 1 - 3Sb 1-0
001-33017 Microfilming
001-35011 Building Plan Check
001-35020 Planning Fees
001-37004 Sale of Printed Material
Paid: (Finance Department Stamp)
l
( al ,
StafReport-Minor Plan Review 99-5
June 23, 1999
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Resolution 95-7
Page 8
99-5 STAFF REPORT—24 COTTONWOOD LN.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 95-7 }'; �` fir"
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF •, ,
SEAL BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 95-1, APPROVING AN ., ,X •
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED e
ADDITION OF A TWO-STORY CABANA OVER AN EXISTING TRAILER s x.te S
HOME AT 8 COTTONWOOD LANE, SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND Y �',ryy .,''.
AND RESOLVE. •` -... ,} "4k
y,r" 1
Lcant")filed an .aWvs� d
Section 1. On Ma ch 13, 1995,Paul Jeffers ("The App .' .;.
application and Minor Plan Review 95-1 with the Department of Development Services Through .-- .:_:4,,A,TV,,
B r-.a
MPR 95-1,the applicant seeks architectural review approval for a second story addition to an Yi4 • �lVi
= _
•
existing trailer home at 8 Cottonwood Lane, Seal Beach.
• • e.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a)and § II.B of the ,•,, • ', ` ;€
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan -,, -:r,,
Review 95-1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Envirorunental ��
Actpursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301 (Existing Uses),because it involves the 0�,,
Qui to 15061(bx3),because it can be seen with fi 4 - • i' a
negligible expansion of an existing use;and pursuant § ar, '.! .: ,* ,
certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the t t 4r } }
environment. -...,1. ` ,r•`
Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on April 5, 1995 to consider the application for Minor Plan Review 95-1. j„ "'� '- ;".;`
Section 4 The record of the hearing on April 5, 1995 indicates the following ti" ,'. ;w
c-'; #4,, r.
(a) On March 13, 1995,Paul Jeffers filed an application with the Department r
of Development Services for Minor Plan Review 95-1.
(b) The applicant is requesting architectural review in conjunction with a ! A< �ie.-
second story addition to an existing trailer home at 8 Cottonwood Lane. -, ,ilt,/ds,i,iullz
(c) The subject property is located within the Seal Beach Trailer Park and is i -t
,e,
on three sides by residential uses within the Park and to the east by First Street. IIV. a% .
d The City received no comments,written or other,responding to the notices t r ' `, .
of the hearing on MPR 95-1. t
upon the facts contained in the record,including those stated in Al,i.
,�:._,'
Section 5.Based the Panning Commission 4 t;` ''4 ''A'`'
§4 of this resolution, and ;Pursuant to §§28-2319 of the City's k> ' f �+�~ iz.,'
M in--* .
hereby finds as follows: .' s .
(a) Minor Plan Review 95-1 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use > •.. a *, N
Element of the City's General Plan,which provides a"high density residential"desigrwtion for the 1 "x ",
ar;;j property and permits trailer residential uses.The elemee is nts acnsistent with the e consistent with and ung X .. `..
dements of the City's General Plan as the policies of t _w 4 , -. f<
reflected in,the Land Use Element. Accordingly,the proposed use is consistent with the General • ' �
Plan. J.. iQ. [r..,•k•s,.-
(b) The building and property at 8 Cottonwood Lane are adequate in size, x age 3F,,`
use of the property .--,,,;,'`'..*.t.
� •r''-$
topography and location to meet the needs of the proposedi' Petty. �' ; t#,4 .+�
shape, PoBraP Y `
(c) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensure there will `•,f``°- Ott
1 and utilities for the proposed use. '�'' ^-'
be adequate water supply w " • 1St..'
,t1-f!' s•VV. •AZ,
j yt
. i '}x.r4°" kms -
M-�r f .fiez ,* ....
SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK
, /, ' ` Resident Owners' Association
C_ y ,4
Oetwool
/17
09 GC)
� Z
Sept 13th, 1999.
The following expresses the Seal Beach Trailer Park Resident's position on the 24
Cottonwood appeal:
We have no objection to this unit coming in, provided that the following conditions
are met and approved as part of the overall planning variance to the proposal for lot
24 Cottonwood.
1. That the proposed new residents fall under the covenant and fully qualify,
financially under covenant guidelines.
2. That there are no agreements between Richard Hall and the residents that place
the proposed occupants for this space outside of the covenant. (e.g. short term
leases and the like)
3. We further ask that a condition be made in conjunction with the approval for
variance on lot 24 Cottonwood that Richard Hall and his successors
permanently remove the current moratorium he has imposed on allowing the
residents to maintain or build similar units on the existing spaces or add on and
build two story cabanas to their existing mobile homes or trailers.
The residents of the park will leave the ultimate decision, as to the conditions up to
the council . We understand that the council has our best interests at heart.
Sincerely,
Executive Committee for the Residents of the Seal Beach Trailer Park
SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK
"°7 /,} Resident Owners' Association
c
PRESENTATION TO SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
RE: Public Hearing on appeal of Seal Beach Associates L.L.C. to
decision of the Seal Beach Planning Commission rejecting a
minor height variance for a new unit to be installed in Space
24 in the Seal Beach Trailer Park.
r
PRESENTATION TO SEAL BEACH COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER'13, 1999.
As a member of the Executive Committee of the Seal Beach Trailer Park
Resident Owners' Association, I would like to assist the Council in
arriving at a decision in this matter before Council by giving some
background and specific information about the Seal Beach Trailer Park.
1. Seal Beach Trailer Park was established in 1930 to serve those
people who hauled a travel trailer behind their car or truck and
wanted to spend a few days camping near the ocean.
Over the years, this concept faded, but some of the people remained.
The character of the trailer park changed from transients to
permanent resident use.
2. In 1978 a general upheaval took place as the owner wanted to build
condos where the trailer park sat on Marina Drive. With the City of
Seal Beach's help, money from HUD, the approval of the Coastal
Commission, and much more problem solving on the part of
everyone, the residents and their trailers were moved to the present
location on First Street. At that time a long-term Covenant was
established between the City and the Park operator to provide a basis
for permanent Tenancy of the residents.
3. Something must have been done right, for in 1981 the Seal Beach
Trailer Park won a $5,000 prize offered by Governor Jerry Brown
and the State of California for Innovative Housing for low to
moderate income folk. This prize was won from over 400 entries
statewide.
See Exhibit"A" attached: Article in Seal Beach Journal.
4. Since 1981, the park residents have always kept within the guidelines
of City Ordinances, they took out Building Permits and have
complied with various Health and Welfare directives designed to
maintain the park in a proper manner. Every Unit in the Park,
including the two-story Cabanas has at least a part of a trailer or
mobile home physically incorporated into its structure. This was
done to satisfy very specific building code laws of the City of Seal
Beach and to maintain the "Mobilehome" use of the land as detailed
in the City Plan.
See Exhibit "B" attached: Pictures re Character of the Park.
Yes, there have been some unique residences constructed. Most of
them were put together piecemeal over several years as the owner
could afford another 2 x 4, or had some time to drive a few nails into
his dream home. Life savings and a lot of elbow grease went into
these structures, with a minimum of cash expenditure.
They have been a labor of love and are a real asset to the City of Seal
Beach as are all of the residents of the trailer park.
5. Through all this, every home has been, and is:
(a) A trailer;
(b) a trailer with attached cabana;
(c) a Mobilehome;
(d) a manufactured home (the new name for a Mobilehome); or
(e) a two-story cabana modification.
6. All Mobilehomes, and indeed, the very operations of all Mobilehome
Parks in the State of California, are governed by the Mobilehome
Residency Law(1999), California Civil Code, Chapter 2.5, Sections
798 and 799.
a'
7. Under Section 798.3 of the Mobilhome Law, a trailer which occupies
a site in a Mobilehome Park for more than nine continuous months,
becomes a "Mobilehome" by definition. All of the Units in the Seal
Beach Trailer Park have occupied their sites for more than nine
continuous months.
See Exhibit "C" attached: Pertinent law- Section 798.3
8. So all of the existing Units in the Seal Beach Trailer Park are
"Mobilehomes" under the law. The law is quite clear on that point.
9. Under the previously referred to Covenant, all of the residents in the
park have had to pass a "means" test to gain permission to move into
the park.
Under these rules, 60 spaces are for low income, and 60 spaces are
for moderate income.
10. At present, no residences in the park are actually owned by the park
owner. All existing homeowners have moved their personally owned
unit into the park or have purchased a unit already on site in the
park.
All cabanas or other additions were added to these units after they
were added to these units after they were on site in the park under
the Covenant rules.
11. It is noted that the owners of the unit that is being ruled on tonight
are listed as "Seal Beach Associates L.L.C." We are extremely
concerned thatthe new owner of the park, operating under this
Limited Liability Corporation, is in fact moving a unit into a vacant
lot and he will maintain ownership of the unit. In this way he will be
starting to increase his sphere of influence in the park makeup. This
can only lead to very serious problems in the future, unless this type
of action is rigidly controlled by this Council under the Covenant
rules.
See Exhibit D attached: Official Notification of This Hearing.
3
12. I would like to introduce the Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Frank
Boychuck, who will be expressing our specific position on the
installation of this new unit in the Seal Beach Trailer Park.
Thank you for your consideration.
//CP
Gle nA. C :..
12 Cottonwood Lane
Seal Beach CA 90740
GAC:pjc
att: 4
4
__, -,••• . •:_::,:fti......i..-.- i,r-7-4..„,_,:,,....,,.......!,,.:-..::: .--:: '',,,..„,,.:.,. ,..„..„7,•,:.:. . -:,
•
5
• t ,:...: , •
.. . -,:, Vfj. ;.•'.,:;•. . '..4. '
-N)"1')IA.
. 0 .
.'
fi z
. ..ree .0
Vol. 14; No. 22 216. Main St.;'Seal Beach, Ca..90740. .• -••••' •• *fT* . • 'June24,_:1981
'r-vt V.:1 ,C..a.- + 3: ?> ,1` ��r ..y5.11 A +:� 'y t f"�C-u....,,t..,...., ......•.„....,-.....„-.,,...,%i;41.7. .:.;St •
♦� •v: h s:�t p � '� �` w <t ' +'X.'t" •v Fi.".At...+1�.4r Q;Fo"fi�L rHs rae^a� v.°`w
i• A V, r3. , g 'dY rc" F w t •r•'1 votes y +t -• y� t_•a .•;', ��jt c•44,1a s ra rf 4• C5 ,t fit t •
t, ri .�>�k >; � � r<., r. >�, .!�,s+� ark, ^r :fir`' ��}�+
Council
t �S',,fit L 'f�'yFl, W„K r rc. r i - ry rY ;' i -3 `r
t''K` . '3i3F a',' .',Y4 R�'C?vrj�'r ,* a XFi ?� - Lar ks t'''l_:� -
-" 1Y "SiST nY �;„ ✓f;e1,' sh ` - 41.` ="-s'`.til nth,,
:.1- 1."7:1
."t •{ �• ,►� *j�l•- >•^ t� � ,,tLss��--�.-v bill r�;�" ,v, .•- .-... ..�' .,.r. ..... . "-.. .. ..
t i r,, 4; c. - By�William G..Quinn"•-.=`•.-not receive one half()
i �;' :. .1',•51:-..9'.:•'=.•
i _ Monday•night the Seal -revenue collected.
i % '' • _�-'' • °' Beach.CityCouncils in•-an - 'Manager Allen Pa
• � ,' i� ;1 /• t- tts...is '''F'4•'_,.,`1;1_,....- --"...v.. •� + ` ,te t effort to balance.the 1981- .says this is because e
TA• e'er ,:. ''' budget, voted to rein- complicated way the
! •i - `+ I+ -'Y(.:.. "lye T,t.... *.1• _. , �.i..t i4 S,` state the paramedic tax: ty computes the .dist
'• •' { a r' ' -` ' But the 17-cent per $100
..4-' W`6ia'''-+!sire p,, t r x•-. 1 , ar::::-/.:!;;'''''e- — _ evaluation lax,once voted
::::i - , ` f,s,„1 Ff'��' t 1f .::,,,..,,,,,:.,,,„,,,,.:,,,,,,,,n.,.Y,, . _ . . ' in:and:.then`abandoned ,:,,..
.'� _. i . after Pro osifion .' 13-
• ' . , - , P ' Just prior to t
t -.::.:•!2.......!,.. ;`: ^ passed, still leaves' the Journal going to pre
I Top picture shows the Seal Beach Trailer Park which was just awarded a $5,000 . city $,105,000 away from
it' was learned that
award from the office of Gov.Jerry Brown.The competition ,which was entered by balancing the $9 million . special• City Coun
more than 400 developers of projects over the state, was to find ideas which cut plus budget. .. meeting has -been
I across conventional housing disciplines. [Photo by Larry Crandall for the Journal] for Monday, June
k The vote: to reinstate
k _ ,• .. the tax'just barely made., al 7 p.m. in the tom
LOW COST:PLANthe grade with.a 3-2 vote. chambers. .
c --.- • • iY:�„ : . •:Ayes were Councilpersons Itis being held
n`�` • = ~ • - .Chi Kredell, Willio'Van-`” the request of Coun(
TraiIeçpark
�/ r : o " lLin stat ;'•derstaay and Frank.;Lass�_ ye �r ar 'y"lo Na es were Councal e (,`3' PVr f:*';'a .: ;.;4y".':�.4- 5:t-t!-4-.'f '-'F::9-.51": t4 'ii2.. i .'a. yr.,.•: a -a.� •q!.- -.i
:: men.Ient Seitz and ly wants.to change I
all:•started;=i the Geor e;•Sti vote on the arame
• . It::. q;. ; -were-audits of the trailer _..z disturbed . about-''.what,.: .g . ;,,,x,, •, . •;.•f;._'.,/,-.- ••.:: .. ...
+winter of 1978: The• old-. •ark books, and:even;two was 'ha eni rind- - s �•` •i
:4s•� * .r=, `-
P ..SPR i>�'_ ,ih+r 4, >;
trailer ark at:F'rst'Street;-•-requests ;the council.for ::;railer. ark•inrnw 9liaf.•.it`:
00 Mr
Seal Beach Journal June 24, 1981
��- M.. ,. r.• ." • GuLD MINE
, . �
a; ,�� , , -.4,',7,•",•••• ii
Thee
r '1/45
fr r:. , 4;,. .. . of SEAL BEACH
,d0,--,'.....-,. ,i-•;, i •• ,.,,. ,,,,,.' , '' ,' ,,' ' . :;' ' • ,...'‘...-„..,:jr:;;,-, ..tr • ''Y
�' ,4 � Sj r ,:'•all r =� Chains,Charms, Rings, Pendants,
'f ., ' :"Pulsar Watches, Estate Jewelry
• .¢ .1t y '7i,t ' Custom Manufacturing
,: ;_ ' • r r �''' APPRAISAL.SERVICE AVAILABLE
Graduate G-emologist (G.I.A.)
iese three women traveled to San Francisco to accept award and check WEDDING -BAND SETS
-the Seal Beach Trailer Park. From left to right: Margaret Quinn, parkark resident; •
yce Dawson, park manager; and Christine Agur, park resident. [Journal Photo]
loner trailerark , not escape Developer
Dawson who was quoted WEBUYGOLD Si JEWELRY FOR CASH
p •
as saying: "I'm proud of OR`TRADE IN ON VALUE
rom Page 1 the City of Seal Beach and
Kredell called on the
away with a $5,000 prize. all the people who made it le + roux
They won over 400 entries IY III OA 430.3310 . t -,
inning director to do submitted from over the happen. e e W1
mething. It seems that Those people who made 'Seal Beach... 598.91'0 A
state. it happen were not around I - . 1' �- -^—{'
the building going on Pp Hrs.10-5:30:Mon.-Sat.12-4 Sun. .�
the Seal Beach Trailer These days there is a lot to offer congratulations. Lowest Prices&' ` II X, r.r-rr:r-,rri
irk was legal. Last of gloating in the trailer They were -obviously ne- Largest Selection In Area
onth the planning coni- park village. The. Seal ver expected to make ail
ission came up with a Beach Homeowner's As- appearance.
nw ordinance which lim- sociation (trailer park re- - ; ;
.d the building height on sidents only are members) r. • .- .
ructures situated on lots �''� - � � �ry
sent three representatives - `'t First • Visit ►� ectal
at were so small the at the expense of the t N ISO4
mita tions had to be developer to San Francis- i '• "1 y�,
� � ,�' Get acquainted with the Latest
mcd at only the trailer co to accept the award. ••;
Y g- d y
` .. t i ,1,4?`I • ..CY x'4'0. F ��i r•
lia "� F• 2 d} y �x
rT t ���>;, it k1v.
r...-(-1 P'l "1". .' . '' i •- ,' • 74-' .., ''''y --k,„,- --tc.1',.-,-..'. I -71,./"=..; ''''..; ' - `-...) - '0,=,eli-$. ' ". I ;:
3► 1:Y t l •: k ti,� r se',+. ....+.: ]J/,5•v fJ r •�A� ` \ir._._,, ' :'] ( 1/ •}.'�-1. Nom:.' • . 4
l, ;g - _� •/1/7;;;, if h:� _dei ,r. ,' i
—r, jr 4
4` 11 i 1 _ Id r `,
�. r
.r , • .
'Ill"r...,_3,-:.:::;Ls
r���.
T
CA • � '
�
Y, Cy
r•, , •
jd,, i a `-
j_t
4 ._
tt
�: ---,rt i ,; - s 4^—.e_.--1, �-' ht. j ,r
r ' < i ,.F r
k 7 I ;i.; A. ' yam--.� ` ( Vi ._._.�. F y 7 :\h.+ -€
cam" }1. 1' •,,.!.Lir ,r°"g r 0 I • - l ..,, j..
•
k 3 r *irS 1 t c::..:.. a6"k 0.
•
; f w-"�F�;�'�v 3' __J.
lllriy€r `j i It 1
u '_" 'r{`t S ee.{.f 6 �L4,
11 �.fi ..f ,aast +sy4.- 1 .'
t� � r i e 'Cjq 1,� �; ry�n�,r5� 1
#a k '�` t'•�O�r�Ly�� r�li� p, Y q r t , '..�.,. `
vv �, =,ayG - iy ,':+' .?�;�t� .1,,,,,,,r 1 - �`-I' ras -t i S�.
+ Y '(' i4 N '1 1 t t Ir _�i I'
j t'F i G =s+ ',4.1..., , I
el- E' r pj1 t fi J ' I I
i.
- (i r. i tf\ 444 S _.1�l, 'd •d, tint + r nr ,�`
.41
'''...: • . -1
11 py ,�a.a...r 5`A Ire S% ., . I I.+^{r.
t 4 r F rr4 - �r•14,�d !' i .I r r7 I :.
.Y F �H ,r � (�j(am `.
( � r .5t-,;:i.,: +��f4'Sr 'I. ,4� .y�. r+4 xf r' �tie
; xt , ti;: 1•. ( '.�t ['. , '• Y 1•' lylr C`'�tl% 1 '�{aYflJ� �a
[- i - _ -,n_ I i+ � u 1 J.iS] �_ 1 y r,r�. , F �.". ,,„1,,,,,,,,e4‘.., 4�1
IL
. .
--- ._ ...,---- .! •
s • ^
.•,•-.11-7-.Iiii-ii • .• - , ,,-, -,..„,,,,,:r.-...._ :,• -'. .
- ,,r-•-• _ . : t . •
, .
1 '-•"1/4-4 ''"?."-'.-`..--L•t- i 4'.
•
.-- ,., ..,,... s .n.,‘_••••_'-__---,'i , %., .?.--7,i;
Mt.i,,.
. ' ,-*S '...L1.111 . . . J '• 4' ..:.. 14$411 .'tl'''
., .
.. .. '.• '. r
...4alligitgialr ..•'' v . •,.; •.1 .,.,' •ir ."..01/111 11111!"i' -. e ''' .1, ',1;,.••!:„C 4. •.'•1; -
...—_
, A _ ,.. . , - ...„C n.,:- ' ,.. ' ..„"1 .".•,,' 1111.,0,11litiqin, ."•,' 114111'. • . ,J ,..
,-;'.14. •••'
i ... _,.... .- .-„,.....„,- . .,`` • ' ..., - Wi,9,,o,at, ...- ' ..liliiii 'i,li ' /./1'..'' 44' 1-.. .• ',6'''''''Y'v, -; :,.-'' '`i"ni‘,. • ,.C.-7'.-0 ,
, , A .
:\ .....7.—;.,,... • t- r
.t
t.,....._1 ..}:„....,17_,,..,,,,,•,,, •''-''''''''''''4i' '''''''..r..-i,...q4" ,,_,..,--4"e;'-',-r-a-o::,11. . . 4::. .7-':"'‘.—:,.-.. 'v.''71.--ts---''''1:477{•-in:7-r,'
,'"',s--,'.•,,:',-.3'i Al .• '''l •
kit: 'al-'• '. A.-11— = ,.';.-,.7'"
, :
---.
:',..i , 1 . 4. , -.4k.
.,r , -17tip
• - h , I p
f '.1'",r‘ 1 ''' : 't,fi'•'-,••• ' ' ''r 1 'IA • ' Pi :" 1-''''. '', .,' • -1- -1-i:i 1,', 1 .pia!:. ---
,‘ , !ii • ' Ild11/111:. 1.,.,..111.Pidi,. •,-„:;-,... ,:1 If,-, i I .,,I, ,. ,---• _-__1,,_ Ar,..- , 't---- -- t., - - '::741i7• -.1. II P-,-'-fl'i:\l'—`
--•-••-•------- P,....P. '7,::.or'J.E....,:-;-0).-.-.• -- 7-7.1---:-.--.--. ' ' Illt I' ;2itil.,,toi5, 4T- - . . ` (Pr:R.. g ,. •.-, . --,-
..,:44/0---- -4, - T • N . .. ,-.2. .,.....,.. ...,_.,,,.......77.,,.2 .: . .. ,,
._
11111''=, ' ''•-i;.,.. .F-4--, •,..,,_.....
. . ..„1„:„..... -
..... . . , ---...!=fifr, -....- , ....,:„...-...-,- ,,-:.--- - . .,,.:- •.- i- - .....
. ,
.---_---,, '_••,f.---7,:•-•`'`,'":r-, •:;•'?,*-44-44a.,.-e--.111;a, ! ;- •i • 11 .. rr,;::•-•'--" - . ' ' 4: A
---.' -- ‘,14 .1-'-.• ''' ' i'.. r-!Sf‘l.'Mnt...t., ..4,7*A-* -f-,;.-- _ - - ,.'. - .r'• 1'
-.-4". '...' .' ' .0.
L •
'' • -' '• , A.,' , ---••• ' ,•",_-.7: :,....,--•:... .,_.....__•_,..., , _:"•?it',,-.4-...40S;40.."‘".,..r.--•.•: "-f•'•,.'4.--•°.; •- .'' '---
, .- .
•
'..,•,.' ' '• : .,....., _„. ',..11:1;1a1 '-'` ,',' '-'.*--.....7:— ' • ,
_,..___ . ' --.. • , -"''-
......
. . .
''••.' I or. 2t1'---- - .7'' '',:,,"*.rr.,"'''';'':.-. , ' ' '
A. '- ,orr',-- -'1'—;. .. :.4'-t......i"---,.., ••• . • , -' ''' 4,,..",-z;.-....... • • ,
. . .
, .
. .. , -• ____... ..,,, .,
.. .
. .
. .
. . . . .
.;',14 't _'..•-, ',, - ,:,-',";;„_,,'i,--.A..v."-iteNr-P„.;,•'' ........----: -•--..• .'..... .: 7 - . '-• '''. '' ,. ' . , . . . , ,. .-
•,. . . . . . . . .. _
Fr:'''''t,- ',,:';'.1;_-,..?'4'.''„,t,;".':'. •,... :.,-4,-.....,..-.-----'-t-,._
• . , . ,
,. , . .t. e.." •".. -
. . • __.,
. , . . „•
.. ..., . .., ,
- - - ' •• - f - - . ' , - ' - - . • .
.,....,„
, .
.• .„. _ • . . -
- .
.0. ... r' 4-9',-, - : •'. - ' .- - ' . -' . = .,, -., ..
,..._r.r.t. `•-•%''''' ,". " ''..7 .';'..rA• '"...1.::".,,r-',,,r;',":L:e,,''...-' -`',-1-, '''' . '.-, - '.. •,. • . . - '•• • ',- -.
,....r..,.,....,. ,:_,.",-,....„:7?..r4s1...14.---:.: t.'`,.'"„:','',4,1"1:P.CIP...'',''i'.' -'.,•• . . - '- -- '
r, ..,..-- -.:... '-,..- -- ., . - A'Ci."....:i '.-,.,:,'!•..' „..:‘,0 ---A. '
-,k•-.+,.- :,-....,z...,,'",t.,.,- ,-,-,,,..,t r...,
' .'J.,..r.--, , . !-• • n
, -.•
,s•Ni4. .'-,,.s.--i-,,..., ,._ .,4,..„--
,-,,,,, • --,,,,,
..,,
...• _._-.____
, .
.. . • - .. ,
- •!!' _
,
. ,
''
y ,,, ( '
.1 -f.„, Er c ' •-e"-• - o4)---_,,,, -4:,- — 4 -,',' 1 - 4 . r...1
,r
1‘. •-, ,,f ,-1.f.., , ..., -.. t."-:, r. 6;,: , : r ... 1 i 6.,,
,..,
•I., 3.: . ,g,... • --
,-, ' . ........, I
- -A 1--. e*-1,,, •,–. 4 LY•.. v -41-7– .,.- . — • –- 'ii;;71. ill , il ; i, • - . . ,.. „.
,.... •,•-,,, •
- , - , 114 t • '• i ••,-..?"c„,,,t.A1 '1.. ••,;1"`y•r•;;I• IiIrl, "on ll ''!'1?.s..-1 -
---..,,,,,,,,Tv,N,'-',.. -....s,44- -..• l••--.•1 , ',11,, '•• "v ' n '3 li' -
1 ,•,,
. f--;„:0 -..m, --,,- -..t4i....; h. ! • ..•- - • c4-.4,7•0.," t. ; .11 ,Illi 11 i I i 1 ,,-;• •, ,A::,•„!,.•)1,ml•---,..--17-,-..,...... , .
-4 r .. •..._ ,,, L. R ,, —. 4,4,4,,.,,,,I.V. ..„1,,,.'..t. i 1. 1 14 1,,,,:,,,,,;„,,,',, : ...;ikpf ,•• -- ••' • v2..,, : .-*. -- .,-•c'.---- •!"11, '•• -5,.
...., ,. '•
„. -.4.,„.- --.. ..,s, . .. ; _ ,...- 1 •-;:-...t.i. • ,-. ,..,L.:.,.-.2,” 4,....... „,,, - •„ ,,,,., , , . ,
..T. '''''..".-' "' --....wir ,f•Ni.,.- - -,.... • -- .3 4",-.......^'''' ' '''', i ''`' 1 -1.......,..?‘ ,..ii,,,,.....,..„.•," -•
-, . ,
-_-o -..,-, •-• ......-..... „ ...., ..„,. ..,...„ : :. ,. - . •••• ,,,. ....• , ,, _1. •,, -,,,-:-„,:• -,)., , • , •••,„ .,. •
... ... •.• _.,„...,........,,,,,..- ,..-..":. ,••,-,-,,,, ,s n-,- „. ,,..„:•- -.4.•, .. . ..„,,r, -. .-. ,..!,,...:„,!, .11s, ;5,-;•tik.,-1„0,-,,,..„.„!-,, 7...
ij'------;• ''-' of--- - '
, .s , . T.,2.4.-...3.,t!-P!..2,.'n„'.'../:,. 'r't .,.;.77- •-4. ''' ., .t.• /74,-c-i- .*.*r' .'''.14't.'.-
4 ...•._ ,
..
_ __ . , ,.., oil,
,
• ..... _ , €.(,, .......,,,,,,,,, ..
. - '( ' -kr i I
' Sr,
7„.., . •
4-• 4' iv - ,:••• ; .,.z.-_ ..
•
. .. • '
1
'....., :-- f...:, .
. .
L .
c -• - -, ;-..
• 401117.-"".7". '''.-:, II:. ,.. •. .. . . •
• . .
• _
• , „,. , ,
.T... . . .
. , . .
" -$:.- „A; , ..,..,_..-:"-•-,M000' . ,.
.. ,irorirgt `•'• )1,-,..,-„, :•'''.'...,'
4,0r41111
. .. . . . .
. . ..
. .
: . . ..
. .. ... " ' .
...
•
"' - • •
•
, , , ,. •
. ....„.. 7, . • . , . .
. , • '
% . 4.,44 V,-01; • . . }�to l �tint.- r '1S rte '4. IC _ 1 V''....14.1
�st
`¢.:i �y ` 1 i::
r i ;'f
ti V
inl f
0
",..a+• , '. ' �i 4 1
r L ,C •••,..h.1 r•i. f l _,_I 1 ;� �� � }
Atii,
V
!��1 ` 11 t
a �' .;f' + V„4
`x s I i . . .�41 :
. ' .
___
,, -,?. .,,, aiii„.1, I .,,,,.„ . , , ‘.., ,, ,, :.
11
7
Af ]1
aF
•
;> i 9., tea:rvi `vA.� ,k __ 1
ti
r r r '�
I ', 1 j t fes:., . -
f ¢ y 1 . , i
ahs { -- i !: - �.... .. 9 �nW.a.-
i.
I ( .
t *- .p4, : : ► i ,
. ,, .
} drY .. (. , 1 ' y4
_ IN _A ,ILII _
L--;<_ t4 i B i rr- C-
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE: Chapter 2.5
_ •Mobilehome Residency Law
Effective January 1, 1998
NOTE: Bold type denotes new sections or changes i:'
g
ARTICLE 1. GENERALfi
Sec. 798. TITLE AND APPLICATION k
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Mobilehome Residency t'
Law." •
Sec, 798,1. APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS '
Unless the provisions or context otherwise requires, the following definitions
shall govern the construction of this chapter. f:
Sec. 798.2. DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT
"Management" means the owner of.a mobilehome park or an agent or
representative authorized to act on his behalf in connection with matters relating
•
to a tenancy in the park.
70° ` DEFINITatON� MO BIL- H•MEy==' _
O •"Mobilehome"-rs str cure`designed fo L human habitation and for being
mo e-ori a�treet-or�'highway-under`permit pursuant-to Seclfion 35790 of
the Vehicle Code. Mobilehome includes a manufactured home, as defined in
Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code, and a mobilehome, as -
defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, but, except as
provided in.subdivision (b), does not include a recreational vehicle, -as
defined in Section 799.29 of this code and Section 18010 of the Health i'.
and Safety Code or a commercial coach as defined in Section 18001.8 of
the Health and Safety Code.
• 1Mobilehome'- , far-.purposesof this chapter, other than-_Section 798.73, ,ti
also includes,trailers and,other_recreational vehicles of all types defined in
echori--18010 of the health and Safety Code, other than mdfor homes,
truck campers, and camping trailers, which are used for human habitation
if a oc-'cupancy'criteria of either paragraph(1) or(2)as follows, are met:
� ; ..aVF-Os ,4.
(1) Theltrailer-or other recreational-vehicle occupies a mobilehome site in
the park, on November 15, 1992, under a rental agreement with a
term of one month or longer, and the trailer or other recreational
vehicle occupied a mobilehome site in the park prior to January 1,
1991
2) 'The trailer;,or-other recreationaLvehicle-occupies a-mobilehoine site`in/ ,
r 87"am : . — 7
•", the { •IIfi €I?more,continuous^months commencing on or..after
- ',November 1992
,�A.y
. —- Mobilehome" does not-include a trailer or other recreational vehicle located in -
., a recreational:vehicle parksubject to Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
799.20), except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) of Section 799.45.
r' Sec; 798.4. DEFINITION OF MOBILEHOME PARK
"Mobilehome park" is an area of land where two or more mobilehome sites
are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human
habitation.
I
I
1
_. -----, -
2
'';f*F 4._,..
•r. ,
'_
•
1.
" ,;.,..w- 1",' 1 t gd a �n; '•J tts A-. ` 4J ` -.`' ', �.3" 4 '� $� 0-7...‘„,1, p; rx�:rrGe .=xF '^ i4 rs. _Ia„ .,Jas - .�ys`.A..-k, 003�y :1„,..,01;, -,-... �'�� a =diaa ..,=',"-A, • wr�����„ .„_ �0.Y y I.J, 7G� ��, a�_^��.d 3x� .s���� , �� .Sr � rt. h�',�` t-.�'E,-.NF ,‘ �� :�.4a ,f,. ti ^s'S, -n y' 4_,,'„,..” 'fit .,. z ' rwNy ti �. A''> 01-0AV'` � s. ,z � ? t " Gg�- i _ 5LJ
+ x'};'r S ti -,4‘,4:-,et-.'1 • ryp2�. t"!-4.:.:-.
` -u-. T `'- {^ ', �it , rv�@ '' Y'w (, a " a'f^ ._ t 1 ' r 'e ¢ a " r?-6.5.0..t„.2,5•,...1
;am""' .!i't.,.., h.q..l , -
:a „ s'� 4 WigA- a t d: "s o- x 4.1- _.
x ,,
•
^. `'? �•..•` ;:r
. 4 - - .1 4N �rr `,m1c`°t- .c--,. ,fte'• ' a •ne �'%^s:-.— s: -P .. sRagt-As'4+ h ' ;S":` , ',- 7 ' .i.t' F. 1e,s;3. :4K.T.yt. 4. y4yt 2h�c .,vslii� 1:- �1.� :2 Tr ..�
� s. .z;S et'c� „M ,`� �.t75[.rt - { rij•_ :'-'r7
41,C41-A01 .-
1C41- , P ,:'`- -Mt3q , -:,..* '
. �' {: „
.3�y ae ° ; L ,....,..L.,-Ria'
4.
' ' --- •
- .�' %E x $ '4'r...,43 ; : 5i , . Z ,.. �} k yr 'h rKS ' 't +v
.
\\� ti
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach will
hold a public hearing on Monday, August 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, to consider the following item:
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial
Minor Plan Review 99-5
24 Cottonwood Lane
Seal Beach Trailer Park
Applicants To construct a 2-story mobile home within the Seal Beach Trailer
Request: park located at 313 Welcome Lane, off of l'Street. The applicant .
proposes to install a 2-story manufactured unit at 24 Cottonwood
Lane..
Environmental The proposed use<is categorically,exempt for the requirements of
. Review: CEQA. :::
: v v ..::,
Code t:: . : _;,; y:
' . '"Sections: 28-2319,:::::,: ;:r ;r
.
;i.a; 3
Applicant: Structural •Consultants M., Inc.
F� .i:
@wnert, Se_a1lB`eacfi soctate ILl CC
ki is A Tom. >4 ‘e".., 4.i " 4 `��S^,Y--.?.1
At the above time and place{,at tutetestpersons ni bOied.if so desired. If you
challenge the proposed actions Vii;caU :�q ibt,,':-i kl riitec4 ffo raising only those,issues
you or someone else raised:.at thy;pu beteE.g descnl ''ia this:notice;, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City til ea.ch artirprior to,the public hearing
4<; ,•'
DATED This 9th day of August, 1999
, Danns M_Yeo
ity Clerk
•
c:\My DoammtS\Minor Plan Review\99-s-Appeal Hearing No;ccaocli..wws:o9-99 .