HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1999-06-23
.'
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission" Agenda of June 23, 1999
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
June 23, 1999 Agenda
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or
public to request an item Is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any
items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the
Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized
bylaw.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and a~e enacted by one
motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the
public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1. Report from Orange County Council of Governments
"Highlighting Livable Communities in Orange County Cities.
2. Conditional Use Pennit 97-12, Request for Extension
320 Central Avenue
ApplicanVOwner:
Address: '
Request:
Daniel P. Mundy
320 Central Avenue
Request for time extension on pennit to initiate improvements
to home.
Approval subject to conditions.
Recommendation:
3. Minor Plan Review 99-5
24 Cottonwood Lane.
ApplicanVOwner:
Address:
Request:
Structural Consultants, Inc. I Seal Beach Associates, LLC.
24 Cottonwood Lane
Architectural review of a new two-story cabana at 24
Cottonwood Lane. The proposed structure will provide a total
of 1,162.5 square feet of living area.
Approval subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No.
99-18
Recommendation:
3
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of June 23, 1999
.
4. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1999.
5. Receive and File - City Council Adoption of Ordinance No. 1419 re: Zoning Text
Amendment 96-1 - Decks along Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf Place.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Conditional Use Permit 99-7
Height Variation 99-2
Country Suit~s by Ayres
Southeast Comer of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard
Applicant/Owner:
Business:
Request:
Recommendation:
.
7.
Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-2
Bixby Old Ranch Town Center Project
Applicant/Owner:
Business:
Request:
The Ayres Group I Bixby Ranch Company
Country Suites
To build a three-story, 112-room hotel with a 117-space
parking lot, landscaping and other ancillary facilities on
property located at the southeast comer of Lampson Avenue
and Seal Beach Boulevard.
Approval subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No.
99-19.
Bixby Ranch Company
Bixby Old Ranch Town Center
A request to remove 68 of 227 eucalyptus trees greater than
12-inches In diameter, measured 4.5 feet above grade, in
conjunction with the proposed Bixby Old Ranch Town Center
Project. The areas where the trees will be removed are within
the eucalyptus grove area along the east side of Seal Beach
Boulevard, north of Lampson Avenue. The eucalyptus trees
recommended for removal comprise 29.95% of the eucalyptus
trees subject to the permit requirements, and are
recommended for removal for the following reasons:
[J Street/driveway entrance removals:
[J Sight line removals:
[J Bus Stop removals:
[J Building Pad removals:
[J Other removals:
34 trees
24 trees
5 trees
2 trees
3 trees
The tree removal request is in compliance with City Council
approved Mitigation Measures G-11, M-4, M-5 and M-6.
Specifically, the request does not permit the removal of more
than 30% of trees subject to permit requirements, in
accordance with Mitigation Measure M-S.
.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No.
99-20
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of June 23, 1999
8. Eucalyptus Tree Pennit 99-3
Bixby Old Ranch Town Center Project
Applicant/Owner.
Business:
Request:
Recommendation:
VII. STAFF CONCERNS
VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Bbcby Ranch Company
.Bixby Old Ranch Town Center
A request to remove 134 eucalyptus trees greater than 12-
Inches In diameter, measured 4.5 feet above grade, in
conjunction with the proposed Bixby Old Ranch Town Center
Project. The areas where the trees will be removed include
the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course project area, except for the
eucalyptus grove area along Seal Beach Boulevard and the
golf courSe area. Eucalyptus tree removals in that area are
the subject of Eucalyptus Tree Pennit 99-2
Approval subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No.
99-21.
5
e
e
e.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of June 23, 1999
1999 Aaenda Forecast
JUL 07
JUL 21
AUG 04
AUG 18
SEP 08
SEP 22
OCT 06
OCT 20
NOV 03
NOV17
DEC 08
DEC 22
TO BE SCHEDULED:
l:l Study Session: Pennitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones
(5/6/98)
l:l Study Session: Seal BeaCh Boulevard (10nI98)
l:l Study Session: Anaheim Bay Villas (10nI98)
l:l Staff Report: Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar:
CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrilQ Review (April 2001)
ADA handicapped-accessible restrooms (April 2001)
6
"
.'
1
..
, . 2
.
.- 3
I. 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of June 23, 1999
Chairman Brown called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23, 1999. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Brown
Commissioners Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg requested that Items No.6, 7, and 8, the public hearing items related to
the Bixby Ranch project, be tabled, pending other testimony to be received. He stated
that Conditional Use Permit 99-7 for the hotel project, Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-2, and
Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-3 would be rescheduled for a future date of the Planning
Commission, with re-advertisement and re-notification of the dates of those future
meetings.
Reg Clewley requested that Item No.5 be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that many of the people present at tonight's meeting were
interested in Item No.3, Minor Plan Review 99-5. He requested that this item be
removed from the Consent Calendar.
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
~
"
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 23, 1999
'(
~
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
.
.~
Chairperson Brown opened oral communications.
Reg Clewley stated that he was pleased to announce that the Bixby Ranch proposal for
the Old Town center project had been denied by court order and that the City of Seal
Beach had lost its lawsuit. He stated that the City would not be allowed to cut down
another diseased eucalyptus tree along Seal Beach Boulevard for the next 100 years,
and that the City never should have approved the Environmental Impact Report for this
project as it was wrong then, and is still wrong now.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Report from Orange County Council of Governments
"Highlighting Livable Communities in Orange County Cities"
2. Conditional Use Permit 97-12, Request for Extension
320 Central Avenue
ApplicanVOwner:
Address:
Request:
Daniel P. Mundy
320 Central Avenue
Request for time extension on permit to initiate
improvements to home.
.
4. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1999.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that because both commissioners Cutuli and Lyon were absent
at the meeting of June 9, 1999, their vote should reflect abstaining to vote on Item NO.4
to approve the Minutes for this meeting.
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutull, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
3. Minor Plan Review 99-5
24 Cottonwood Lane
ApplicanVOwner:
Address:
Structural Consultants, Inc. I Seal Beach Associates, LLC.
24 Cottonwood Lane
.
2
,.
.
'.
.
'. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12-
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
123
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.=- 45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
Request:
Architectural review of a new two-story cabana at 24
Cottonwood Lane. The proposed structure will provide a
total of 1,162.5 square feet of living area.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated that on April 14, 1999, Neal Grabowski submitted an
application for Minor Plan Review 99-5 requesting to build a two-story manufactured
home in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The subject structure would provide 1162.5 feet
of living area. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
[J NORTH - Oakwood Apts. Residential High Density
[J SOUTH - Single Family Attached Housing, Residential High Density
[J EAST - Undeveloped Parcel of land and Single Family Housing, Medium
Density
[J WEST - San Gabriel River and the City of Long Beach
He stated that the Planning Commission has granted similar resolutions within the trailer
park, most having to do with the addition of space around an existing mobile home. An
example of Resolution 95-7 was included with the packets distributed to the Planning
Commissioners. Mr. Cummins explained that Section 28-2319 of the Code of the City
Of Seal Beach gives the Planning Commission authority to conduct architectural review
of all twe-story cabanas, and also within this section are construction guidelines relating
to height, balconies, roof decks, and safety. He stated that the cabana meets the
specification of not being located within twenty (20) feet of any other two-story structure.
Mr. Cummins said that Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission
approve this Minor Plan Review, subject to conditions, with approval by adoption of
Resolution 99-18.
Mr. \Nhittenberg then requested to addresses several of the concerns that residents of
the Seal Beach Trailer Park had expressed regarding approval of Minor Plan Review
99-5. He stated that there was concern that this particular unit was a manufactured
home and not a mobile home. He explained that the Health and Safety Code of the
State of California regulates both mobile homes and manufactured homes, and the
regulations basically say that a mobile home is a manufactured home. For the benefit of
the commissioners and other concerned parties, Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded to
read Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, which defines a mobile home as
meeting the requirements of Section 18007, which is the definition of a manufactured
home. He then read the definition of a manufacture home as:
· ... a structure transportable in one or more sections, which in traveling
mode is 8 body feet, or more in width or 40 feet or more in length, or when
erected on site is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a
permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without
a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities..
3
- . --- ------ --- --.,-- - -- - - -
'.
..
City of Seal Baach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 23, 1999
..
.
.
1 He stated that the end of the definition indicates that: .
2
3 8a 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 the 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
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
...
~.
,
~
'. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
>=> 45
.6
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 23. 1999
and mobile homes became synonymous terms, and that now either of these structures
would be allowed in a mobile home park subject to meeting the construction
requirements of federal law and complying with state code as written. Chairperson
Brown recalled a request that had been previously submitted for placement of a
manufactured home on 16th Street. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that it was a resident of
12th Street that had made this request. He stated that sometime in the early 1970's the
state had changed the law to require that all cities had to allow a mobile home to be
placed on a permanent foundation in a zoned, single family residential lot, with no
different design standards other than what existed for a "stick" built single family home
on the same lot. Mr. Whittenberg explained that within the State of California, these
changes were a result of the state attempting to deal with the issue of providing
affordable housing. He stated that manufactured homes and mobile homes provide this
type of housing and to encourage their initiation into the housing market, the state has
mandated that cities cannot have different standards for the placement of a mobile
home on a zoned, single family residential lot, than exists for a "stick" built home.
Commissioner Hood inquired whether there were any size constraints in the definition.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that size issues were addressed within the definition for a
manufactured home. He stated that there were no size constraint issues on mobile
homes. Commissioner Hood asked if there was a maximum size constraint on
manufactured homes. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only requirement was that it must
measure 320 square feet or more and structures that measure less would be
categorized as a travel trailer or recreational vehicle of some sort.
Chairperson Brown requested clarification of the distinction between a modular home
and a manufactured home. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was unable to find a
definition for a modular home anywhere within the Health and Safety Code. He stated
that Mr. Cummins had contacted the State Department of Housing and Community
Development in Sacramento and they stated that within Title 25 of the state regulations
for mobile home parks they were not aware of any definition that describes modular
housing. He said that the term modular home is addressed in a publication from their
department that was published approximately 5-7 years ago, but that this was no longer
considered an up-to-date document.
Commissioner Cutuli inquired whether when dealing with legal issues the distinction
between a manufactured home and a mobile home could be made. Mr. Barrow referred
the Commission to the handout provided to them of Section 18008 of the Health and
Safety Code as presented in 1995, which made the definition of the terms "mobile
home" and "manufactured home" interchangeable. He stated that there was a time
when there was a distinction between modular and manufactured homes making it
appear from this language that the distinction was based upon the foundation. Mr.
Barrow said that this question was specifically addressed with the Housing and
Community Development (HCD) Agency, referring directly to the Consumer's Guide to
Manufactured Housing, published by the HCD. He said that the HCD staff person
responded that the 1995 law had superseded this distinction between modular and
manufactured housing. He explained that the concern of the residents of the mobile
5
- ~~-~------..,..- -----~--.. ..---..,....~--------- ------......- - -----
City of Seal Beach Pfanning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
1 home park was that if there were a foundatio~~ the structure. would be consi~ered a
2 modular home; however, according to the definition of HCD, thiS would be claSSified as
3 a manufactured home.
4
5 Public Hearina
6
7 Chairperson Brown opened the public hearing.
8
9 Mr. Glenn Sparks, resident of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, stated that he repres~nted.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 two-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
...
I
"
.'
.
.
"
\.
. .
\
'*
'e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
123
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.-=- 45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 23, 1999
For:" box at the top of the application where the box for Two-Story Cabana has been
checked. Mr. Whittenberg explained that a Variance is required when the applicant
wants to forego a specific development standard of the City in the particular zone in
which the property is located. He stated that this project meets all of the standards set
forth for this zone and requires the Consent Calendar approval by the Planning
Commission for the two-story portion of the structure.
Mr. Steve Creighton, a resident of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, stated that although he
lives across the street from the proposed lot for the structure, he had not received a
letter of notification of the application for this structure. He asked for the name of the
owner of the cabana. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it was an individual wishing to move
into the park. Mr. Creighton asked to verify that it was not the owner of the park who
was the owner of this new structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the owner of the park
must sign the application, but that to his knowledge, the owner of the park was not the
owner of the structure. Mr. Creighton stated that it was important that he express his
concern over maintaining rent control to make it possible for current residents of the
park to continue living there.
Mr. Ken Williams, a resident of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, emphasized that residents
of the park were not at the meeting to make it difficult for the new owners of the park.
He stated that they simply do not want to lose the status that they had worked so hard
to retain. He said that residents did not want to see the same thing happen as
happened at the trailer park in Laguna Beach. Mr. Williams said that as long as
everyone was clear as to the type of structure that was to be moved into the park, than
the plan should be approved. However, if residents were not clear on all issues related
to this development, then plans to move in should be postponed to allow for
consultation with an attorney to make sure that everyone clearly understood all the
issues.
Ms. Sue Corbin, a resident of Seal Beach, asked for a show of hands of those residents
within a 1 DO-foot radius of the proposed lot who had not received proper notification of
Minor Plan Review 99-5. She stated that residents are not being properly notified of
new structures within the city. She expressed her concern of the placement of the new
structure would be in compliance with the fire safety code.
Mr. Paul Jeffers, a resident of Seal Beach, stated that it appeared that the matter had
not been thoroughly researched. He said that other residents had applied for two-story
structures and their applications had been denied. He stated that the main question
was whether the owner of the park was the owner of the new home. He said that he
believed that this was going to become a continuing process of moving manufactured
homes into the park and that this should concern the Redevelopment Agency as it
related to low/moderate income residents of the park. Mr. Jeffers stated that he hoped
that this issue would be more thoroughly investigated prior to approving the resolution.
Mr. Jake Bishop, a resident of Seal Beach, stated that Mr. Talley told him that he could
not build onto his mobile home. He noted that although Mr. Talley was present, the
7
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes 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 deal~rship who had sold the manufactured home to a private individual
~ 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 negotiation between 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
- - - -. - - - - --. --
,
,
..
"
j
"
"
.
.
.
.
'.
.',
-
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
" ,23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.~45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23. 1999
not common occurrences at that time. He stated that should the Planning Commission
wish to change this regulation, this would have to be dealt with at a separate point in
time. He said that the current application did comply with the aiteria of the Code and
that Staff did not see any reason to not approve the application, subject to conditions as
noted.
Chairperson Brown stated that although the Code did allow this, the purpose of the
Minor Plan Review was to allow the Planning Commission, at its discretion, to decide if,
in fact, it is appropriate to the zoning. He stated that it was the responsibility of the
Commission to interpret the Code and to look at the big and small picture. He
mentioned that every time issues arise related to the trailer park, the issue of the
definition of a trailer park always arises. He stated that he believed the spirit of a trailer
park is that it is a low-income area, and as he understood, the reason for having mobile
homes or manufactured homes was to make it possible for low income people to be
able to afford them. He expressed that when two-story cabanas begin to be erected,
the cost of the units also increases, making them less affordable to low-income
residents. Chairperson Brown stated that a manufactured home with a permanent
foundation creates a critical distinction between a mobile home and a manufactured
home, whether or not the code allows it. He related that when this happens, it aeates a
higher standard, which translates into higher housing costs. He said that although most
people do want to improve their homes, when two-story cabanas are moved in, it then
appears to violate the spirit of a low/moderate income trailer park. Chairperson Brown
stated that for these reasons, he would vote against approval of Resolution 99-18.
Commissioner Hood asked Mr. Whittenberg for a definition of low income. Chairperson
Brown interrupted to state that whatever the definition of low income, it stands to reason
that the more expensive the housing, the less available it is to low income families. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
does provide an annual definition of what a very low, low, and moderate-income family
would be. He stated that these figures change based upon the number of persons in
the family. With regard to whether the trailer park is complying with the agreement with
the Redevelopment Agency for the provision of both low and moderate cabanas is a
separate issue. Mr. Whittenberg also emphasized that by law a mobile home or a
manufactured house could be placed on a foundation within a trailer park. He also
stated that by law the definition between the two is not different, and Staff sees the two
as being co-equal structures. Commissioner Hood stated that although he understood
what Mr. Whittenberg was saying, he did agree with Chairperson Brown's perspective
and he questioned whether approval of Resolution 99-18 would possibly jeopardize
low/moderate cost housing opportunities. Mr. Barrow stated that although there are
definitions on what constitutes affordable housing, what is unique about this situation is
that a covenant was made that provides that there must be 120 trailer park units set
aside for low/moderate income residents. Currently there are 126 sites, which leaves
room for some sites that do not have to fall into the low/moderate income requirement.
He stated that were there less that 120 affordable units, this structure could not be
moved into the trailer park unless it were also made affordable. Mr. Barrow continued
by stating that because of this agreement, there was no risk of the entire trailer park
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
,
.'
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
.
i
^
.
becoming high income and eliminating the 120 affordable units. .He stated .that pe,riodic
audits are completed on the availability of the 120-Iow/moderate Income units within the
park.
Commissioner Larson commented on the display of courtesy by the attendees at the
meeting this evening.
Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Lyon stated that it appeared that moving this structure into the trailer
park would change the character of the trailer park making it a more expensive living
area, and that the Planning Commission should use its jurisdiction to deny Resolution
99-18 to prevent this from happening.
Commissioner Larson stated that as long as the park was required to provide 120
affordable units he did not believe approval of this application would create a change in
the quality of life in the trailer park. He inquired whether a price comparison to what
was already in place in other units in the park had been done, and asked the price of
the proposed cabana. Mr, Whittenberg responded that he did not know what the cost of
the unit was. Chairperson Brown asked Mr. Grabowski to recap the cost of a cabana of
this type. Mr. Grabowski stated that he estimated the price to be between $75,000 and
$150,000. Chairperson Brown inquired as to the price of a trailer. Mr. Grabowski
estil1Jated the price to be between $39,900 and $85,000.
.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that one of the charms of Seal Beach was its diversity. He
stated that he would vote against approval because he felt it was important to maintain
the character of the trailer park.
Commissioner Hood stated that he too valued the diversity of Seal Beach, and that he
did not want to see a city full of 8a bunch of upper class yuppies.. He stated that the
city wanted to have a variety of people and that the trailer park was an integral part of
the city because the people in the trailer park had a lot of character. He said that he
would also vote against Resolution 99-18.
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Brown to deny Resolution 99-18 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would return at the next Planning Commission meeting
with a resolution for final adoption reflecting the determinations of the Planning
Commission as Staff has understood them this evening. Adoption of the resolution will
commence the appeal period for anyone wishing to appeal to the City Council on the
decision of the Planning Commission.
.
10
t.
.-
..
'e ~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
_, 45
.46
City of SesJ Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 23, 1999
5. Receive and File - City Council Adoption of Ordinance No. 1419 re: Zoning
Text Amendment 96-1 - Decks along Crestview and Catalina Avenues and Surf
Place.
Chairperson Brown stated that although he realized that Mr. Reg Clewley was eager to
comment on this item, he had some questions to ask. He stated that he did not
understand Ordinance 1419. Chairperson Brown stated what he understood to be
correct as the height limit being 12.5 feet. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was
correct and clarified that the 12.5 feet was measured from the top of any required railing
on the deck to the point closest to the required side or rear yard to the lowest land
elevation directly below said uncovered deck area. He stated that some portion of the
property would be on a slope. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that the rail of the
deck had to be 36 inches above the deck itself, creating a more realistic measurement
for the height of the deck as 9 feet above ground level of the property. Chairperson
Brown speculated that because there is no height limit for retaining walls and the text
does not specify whether it refers to the natural grade of the property or a manufactured
grade, a resident could conceivably build a 20-foot retaining wall and level the grade all
the way out to the end of the property line. The resident could then build a 12.5-foot
structure above that. Mr. Barrow stated that in order to build, the property owner would
have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. The commission could then approve or
disapprove based upon compatibility use reasons inherent to CUPs. Mr. Whittenberg
interjected that he was not certain that the premise was correct since Sections 5:3 and
5:4 on Page 7 of the Ordinance both state "Uncovered decks constructed as a level
extension of the flat graded portion of the lot..." He stated that the level of the grade by
a retaining wall could not be raised higher than the existing grade of the property itself.
He stated that as Staff understood the ordinance, the property owner could not raise the
grade of the lot to the level of any retaining wall. He related that this applies only to
uncovered decks designed as a level extension of an existing grade, and would not
apply to anything that was built above the grade of the lot, such as a detached garage
or a pool house building, which cannot be built onto the rear yard setback area. He
emphasized that the uncovered deck itself would be at the grade level, not 12.5 feet
above the grade level. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was working on the issue of
limiting the height of retaining walls and at a later date would present an amendment to
the code to the Commission. Chairperson Brown asked what the purpose of the 12.5-
foot height limitation was. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believed this was to try to limit
the appearance of these decks from the Gum Grove Park side of the property, and that
this was the number that the City Council came up with. Chairperson Brown pointed out
that the text for the Ordinance should read "from the natural grade." Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the natural grade was the grade on the rear end of the properties, but it
is not a flat grade. Chairperson Brown responded that because there was a height limit
based on the grade, the question would then be "Where would the measurement of the
level of the grade be done." Mr. Whittenberg demonstrated by creating a drawing of the
natural grade of a property with a deck and retaining wall scenario. Chairperson Brown
asked again about the possibility of leveling out the natural grade of a property to the
height of the retaining wall and building the deck at that manufactured grade level. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that this would not be allowed. Chairperson Brown then
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
J
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 23. 1999
~.
..
emphasized that the if the City did not want a structure that was higher than Gum Grove
Park, the text should then read "12.5 feet above the natural arade of the property." Mr.
'Ntlittenberg stated that because this code was already in place, the most expedient
way of addressing the issue of defining the natural grade of a property would be to
include this with the amendment to limit the height of retaining walls.
Chairperson Brown asked what the Commissioners were supposed to review when
items such as this ordinance come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Barrow stated
that at this point it was simply a Receive and File item. He stated that not only would
the Commissioners comments be in the minutes of tonight's meeting, but the
Commissioners were also free to provide their recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council would then evaluate the Commission's comments to determine if any
action should be taken. Chairperson Brown stated that his objective was to make the
interpretation of the text as clear as possible for the benefit of those residents viewing
the Planning Commission meeting. He again inquired as to the responsibility of the
Commission regarding applications for construction of these decks. Mr. Barrow stated
that there would be two separate applications made as follows:
1. For Existing Decks (Section 5:3) - There are no height limits set for existing deck
structures. Property owners must apply for consent calendar review approval within
twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Ordinance. The decks will be subject
to inspection to ensure that screening, landscaping, and/or terracing meet city code
requirements.
.'
.
2. For New Deck Structures (Section 5:4) - The height limit is set at 12.5 feet from the
grade level of the property and the Commission will have the same discretion as for
any other Conditional Use Permit presented for approval. New decks will be subject
to inspection to ensure that screening, landscaping, and/or terracing meet the city
code requirements.
Chairperson Brown asked for a definition of terracing. Mr. Barrow specified that this
referred to terracing of the deck structure to conform to the natural grade characteristic
of the property.
Commissioner Lyon questioned the last sentence in Section 5:3 of the Ordinance
regarding application for consent calendar approval within twelve (12) months of the
effective date of the Ordinance. He asked whether property owners would have to
submit a plan of the existing deck structure. Mr. 'Ntlittenberg confirmed that property
owners would have to provide plans of the current construction of the deck as it exists.
,
Commissioner Cutuli asked what the procedure would be should a property owner
neglect to make application within the twelve-month period. Mr. 'Ntlittenberg responded
that they would be subject to code enforcement activity for a non-permitted deck.
Chairperson Brown interjected that this had not been done for over ten years. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that based upon the direction of City Council, Staff had not
proceeded with code enforcement for these structures.
.
12
1.
. .
~
'. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
,~, 45
146
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 23, 1999
Chairperson Brown asked whether those decks that had not been constructed to code
would be brought before the Commission or simply required to be brought to code. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that when a non-permitted deck comes before the Commission for
review, the building inspector would inspect the deck and provide Staff with
recommendations. If the building inspector were not sure that the deck meets code, the
City would have a private contractor inspect the deck and provide recommendations for
bringing the deck to code specifications. These recommendations would then be
included in the Staff Report for review by the Commissioners. If the Commission does
not approve the deck, the property owner would then be required to take the deck down.
Chairperson Brown asked why decks would not be brought to code before presenting
the application for approval to the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg responded
that this would allow the Commission to have final say on whether the deck should be
approved prior to the property owner investing in the recommended upgrades.
Rea Clewley
Mr. Clewley stated that he did not believe that Staff could be relied upon to perform
safety inspections of the existing decks. He stated that the City is not getting its
money's worth for the $1,600 I day attomey provided under contract. Mr. Clewley
stated that the City was spending too much on legal fees to cover up Staff
incompetence. Mr. Clewley referred to a 1957 Building Code, which applied to
development on the hill and limited the height of retaining walls to two (2) feet. He
stated that the ordinance provided for a 6-foot fence that could be placed on the two-
foot retaining wall for a maximum height of 8 feet. He then referred to Zoning Text
Amendment 92-6, which provided for retaining walls of up to 10 feet in height, 6.5 feet
for the actual retaining wall and an allowance for a 42-inch guardrail. Mr. Clewley
stated that in 1994 the Director of Planning had approved a retaining wall measuring 9
feet in height, in direct violation of ZT A 92-6. He stated that in order to remedy this
situation, the City Council called for the writing of another law. He said that the law had
never been written clearly enough to define what the legal height of retaining walls
should be. He stated that the Ordinance was completely unfair and should apply
citywide. Mr. Clewley implied that residents who were willing to .pay a little bit extra
under the table- to the Department of Development Services were extended extra
privileges and allowed to do exactly as they pleased. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he
very strongly resented Mr. Clewley's accusation of Staff taking money under the table
and that he would not tolerate such comments. He stated that he would continue to go
on record now and in the future each time Mr. Clewley made such statements before
the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg emphasized that he
would not allow his reputation to be denigrated in such a manner by Mr. Clewley. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that although Mr. Clewley had spoken incorrectly many times in the
past, and Mr. Whittenberg had never challenged him, he would no longer remain silent
regarding such accusations.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.1
. .
"
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
.,
..
Sue Corbin
Ms. Corbin stated that because the City currently had no knowledge as to how existing
decks were constructed, it was important that when the applications for approval of
these decks come before the Commission that the plans be carefully reviewed to
ensure that they are safe. She expressed her concem that young children might be
endangered if the decks are unsafe. .
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Cutuli to Receive and File City Council Adoption of
Ordinance No. 1419 re: Zoning Text Amendment 96-1.
.1
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: None
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the public hearing for O'Malley's on Main Street would
appear on the agenda for the Planning Commission of July 7, 1999.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that although there were probably many non-conforming
deck structures throughout the City of Seal Beach, he would like to see the residents
take responsibility for reporting these structures and making sure that they conform to
city code. He stated that the text regarding the height of decks should be less
ambiguous so that property owners would have no question as to what the
requirements are.
Commissioner Hood encouraged his fellow commissioners to drive along Lampson
Avenue to view what he referred to as "an ecological disaster." He stated that it was an
"aesthetic cesspool-a pit,1/ and that the golf course looked terrible. He said that the
entire area had been stripped bare, and that if commissioners see this they will
understand why the residents of College Park are so unhappy about this situation.
Commissioner Larson requested a copy of the recording of tonight's meeting with Mr.
Clewley's comments on it to be presented to the Grand Jury for investigation.
Commissioner Lyon stated that it was important to have a copy of the plans in
evaluating the approval of the deck structures. He said that knowing the exact
construction of the decks would make it easier to determine what would be needed to
bring the non-conforming decks to code.
.
14
'.
,
...
~
'- 1
.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1999
Chairperson Brown wanted to know how to proceed in making corrections or
amendments to Ordinance 1419. Mr. Barrow stated that a letter could be sent to the
City Council by an individual or by the Planning Commission. If the Commission sends
the letter, the item could be rescheduled so that recommended changes to the
ordinance could be presented. Mr. Barrow reminded the commissioners that the issue
of height of retaining walls was already scheduled to come before the Planning
Commission at a future date. Chairperson Brown stated that he believed all members
of the Commission were in agreement of the need for clarification of the text of this
ordinance regarding what the definition of the "natural grade" would be. He stated that
a letter from the Commission as a whole might have more impact. Mr. Whittenberg
recommended revisiting this item during the Planning Commission meeting scheduled
for July 21, 1999.
Chairperson Brown stated that he had recently received two letters from a local
business owner, one thanking Chairperson Brown for frequenting the business
establishment, and the other attacking him for never visiting the business location. He
stated that business owners should consider that with this type of activity going on, they
may create a loss of customer goodwill that would negatively affect their businesses.
Chairperson Brown said that members of the Commission should feel free to make
positive as well as negative comments about their experiences with the various
businesses within the city without fear of being attacked for expressing their views.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~~
Carmen Alvarez
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on July 7, 1999 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, June 23,1999. ec-.. .
15