Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-01-16 ... '. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLARRIRG COMMISSION MIRU'l'ES JANUARY 16, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 16, 1991 was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. I. PT.'Rnr-E OF ALLEGIARCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. II. ROLL t"AT.T. Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Orsini, McCurdy, Sharp, Dahlman Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry curtis, Admin. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Michael Cho, Intern, Development Services Dept. (e ARNOURC'RII'RN'I' - RT.nnn DONATIONS commissioner Dahlman informed everyone of Red Cross blood donation locations and hours in light of the Middle East crisis. III. SCR'RnUT.'Rn IlATT'R1I~ 1. PRESERTATION RE SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK SORIA SONJU Sonia Son;u * 16905 S. Pacific. Sunset Beach. CA - Ms. sonju introduced herself as one of two owners of the Seal Beach Trailer Park. She indicated City residents asked her to speak publicly to supplement a previous presentation on the Seal Beach Trailer Park by Bill Dawson, the other owner. Ms. Sonju indicated the State of California recognizes trailer parks as a resource for affordable housing. Section 6500 of the Government Code and section 18000 of the Health and Safetv Code regulate mobile home parks by requiring jurisdictions to permit mobile home parks in residential areas subject to Conditional Use Permits. '. Ms. Sonju said the Seal Beach Trailer Park exists under a Conditional Use Permit, a City-approved plan and map of the Trailer . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Park showing 140 mobile home spaces. She said "Before the Park was ever built, some heavy lobbying occurred and the map and plan was changed and there were only 126 spaces. That meant everyone's rent was immediately raised. The city subsidized this rent for awhile so the tenants didn't feel the impact of the rent increase immediately. Other conditions regarding the development and plan of the Trailer Park have been amended over the years, always with considerable lobbying. Last year city funds were spent to remove the planter in the Trailer Park ... City permission from the City Council was not asked or given nor from the Planning Commission. Lots of lobbying of City employees was necessary. That lobbying is documented in the diary of the Seal Beach Trailer Park manager. Later, Barry, whoever that is, had his palm tree trimmed by the landscaping firm paid by the Trailer Park". Ms. Sonju talked about the credibility of the other owner, Mr. Dawson, saying "The other owner has been subject to some criticism lately. Now how is that relevant to the Commission? Credibility. It relates to the credibility of the other owner. Can you as a Commission believe what someone tells you when they request something of you? Credibility. I have a resume of the other owner here, signed under penalty of perjury. Submitted to the Department of Savings and Loan. When ten of us invested $150,000 with him to start a Savings and Loan we all lost our money. The resume states the other owner graduated from UCLA, received a Bachelor of Science. His transcript from ULA (sic) states that he attended about three quarters and was dropped for academic reasons. He did not graduate. But under penalty of perjury he stated he did. He states Chairman of the Board, Golden West Airline, President/ owner of EI Centro Imports. Those two organizations were suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board. He states Chairman of the Board and President of National Board of Commerce. In an FBI examination he states that bank was closed. She stated a Savings & Loan application demonstrated Seal Beach Partners, Ltd. owned the Trailer Park in 1983 when in fact it did not make that acquisition until 1988. "In the transcript from the bribery trial of Ernie Mayer, Los Angeles County Case No. 8327358, the District Attorney states (quoting) "We started off with this case certainly showing of (sic) acceptance of $50,000 in bribes. Put Dawson on the stand. Asked questions of Mayer. And proved another $25,000 worth of bribes. Secondly, and this was exceedingly important to Mr. Dawson is the fact that the statute of limitations for a citizen paying a bribe is three years". Ms. Sonju indicated building permits are required for renovations of the mobile homes and offered the following information on certain lots: Lot 6 - Is an apartment complex with two two rental units on one lot and pays one space rent to the Trailer Park. . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Lot 122 ~ld trailer was placed on another lot to accommodate new trailer on old lot for purposes of more building. "Planning staff helped in purchase and placement of trailer without authorization. Then they requested special permission, after-the-fact from the state to place the trailer because there was insufficient room on the new space". This is documented in the manager's diary. Lot 58 - "Anderson, a well known case. Intimidated and extorted Lot 16. They could not withstand the pressure of the other owner and sold to him for $15,000. Trailer Park in turn built a cabana and it was resold by the other owner for a profit of $60,000". Lot 3 - Cabana built and resold with Trailer Park funds. Profi t to owner of $20,000. Almost $24,000 of rental income was used to build this home. Lot 113 -Trailer purchased with Park income: no rent paid to Park. Other tenants subsidize this unit while it was waiting to be built and resold for profit. Lot 70 - Same as Lot 113. Lot 7 - Rebuilt "with what funds?" $145,000. Being sold for Ms. Sonju said Mr. Dawson has had a m1n1mum of five trailer lots in a continuous transition stage for two years, adding "As always, five lots do not pay. This is in addition to the six other free rent lots ... the most important issue for the Planning commission to examine ... is the entire picture ... what's happening in the Trailer Park is a subdivision with no approval for that subdivision. With homes not being built on specified lots, not on subdivided lots because there aren't any. The Trailer Park is one lot. But on floating lots, at the pleasure of the owner, and the fear of the tenants. The tenants lot size is directly related to the relationship of the tenant to the other owner. ... The sub- division of homes is being created right under the noses of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission is being confused and intimidated into believing it has no control. Two years ago the City of Seal Beach denied permission to grant long term leases. But the other owner has gone along just as though those long term leases had been granted ... all they have is a month-to-month tenancy" . . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Chairman Fife asked Ms. Sonju if she had anything to add regarding powers of the planning Commission for building and construction in the Trailer Park? Ms. Sonju stated Section 65000 of the Government QQgft qives the Commission control of trailer parks. With regard to the Seal Beach Trailer Park, the establishing Conditional Use Permit had conditions when it was approved. Commissioner Orsini said he studied the laws applicable to the Seal Beach Trailer Park. Commissioner orsini apologized to Mr. Dawson saying "Everything is legal. I spent a hour and a half on the phone to Sacramento with Mr. Javor (Housing & Communi ty Development, Sacramento). I ripped that Trailer Park apart every which way I could and I'll tell you now it's legal". Ms. Sonju indicated a subdivision was taking place in the Seal Beach Trailer Park without a subdivision map, that the Commission can deny building permits for the Trailer Park without the State being able to do anything about it, that Title 25 regulates the building of mobile homes but not mobile home parks, that the source of regulation for the Seal Beach Trailer Park was the initial Conditional Use Permit with its conditions, that the Planning Commission has the responsibility and authority to regulate the overall Park development by denying building permits, that she feels the Park is developing without regulations and that she has talked to the State Department of Housing but has done nothing in wri ting. Chairman Fife said "Even if those issues were relevant they certainly are not issues the Planning Commission can deal with. They are really issues for the Redevelopment Agency and/or the city Council". Ms. Sonju objected, stating the Subdivision Map Act is something the Planning Commission rules on and advises the City Council on. Mr. Fife indicated he was initially struck by the construction of what look like homes in the Seal Beach Trailer Park and by the fact that rules applicable to the rest of the City do not apply in the Trailer Park. He added "I have become convinced that is exactly the case and the State wants it that way and there's nothing we can do about it". Ms. Sonju stated "You have been confused and served up a lot of propaganda". . Commissioner Dahlman asked Ms. Sonju to clarify the lot line situation in the Seal Beach Trailer Park indicating staff had told the Commission they should be concerned with only the boundaries of the Trailer Park. He referred to State correspondence which referenced lot lines, indicating the State thinks the Seal Beach Trailer Park is subdivided and that there's something written down concretely on what size each lot is. Ms. Sonju said "When the Trailer Park was originally approved there was a map, a plan, just like there is a development plan for any development. A map showing the size and dimensions, the entire property. And it was divided. Not as carefully as a subdivision map because none of them thought separate lots were going to be recorded. But it was . . . Page 5 - Planning commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 approved as a plan of development and it showed 140 lots. Subsequently, before that ever got built, it was reduced to 126 lots. Those lots are shown on a plan. They should be governing the development. They were approved by this body and they were approved by the City Council. However, at the whim of the owner the lot lines do float ... whether the lot lines float or not is not based on any good criteria". commissioner Dahlman asked if the lot lines are allowed to float does the Planning Commission have any authority over that? Ms. Sonju said the lot lines are not allowed to float by the City; no one has challenged the floating lot lines. Ms. Sonju stated the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the city of Seal Beach about ten years ago. Mr. Whittenberg said the City may and does require an approved Conditional Use Permit to establish a mobile home park within City boundaries. The City did approve a Conditional Use Permit for the Seal Beach Trailer Park several years ago. Among the number of special exceptions for the Seal Beach Trailer Park, that do not generally apply to mobile home parks in the State of California, is the allowance of two-story cabanas. Mr. Whittenberg referenced two letters from the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (1) a 1984 letter in which the State indicated the State regulates the floor area of proposed expansions and the removal of existing trailers from cabanas as keeping that a separate structure and (2) a letter dated January 7, 1991 stating "... applicable State laws and regulations do not permit the City of Seal Beach to require that a trailer or mobilehome be clearly visible from the exterior of a cabana as a standard imposed for either structural or architectural reasons". The January 7th letter states the Health and Safetv Code, Section 18300(g) identifies the remaining regulatory authority for cities and counties: "That authority is limited ... to ... prescribing park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage, signs, access, and vehicle parking or from prescribing the prohibition of certain uses for mobilehome parks". Mr. Whittenberg said staff's understanding of Section 18300 of the Health and Safetv Code is that all of the permitting authority for expansions or additions to the actual mobilehomes is by State authority. The City cannot enter into the areas of the size of the structure, the location as long as it meets the standard separation requirements. Regarding zoning, it says you can zone an area of the City for a mobilehome park. The Park is under a Conditional Use Permit allowing 126 spaces in the Park. Commissioner Dahlman requested staff provide him with a copy of the original Conditional Use Permit. . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Commissioner Dahlman asked Ms. Sonju for clarification on her statement that five spaces pay no rent and other people living in the Trailer Park pick up the slack because of the way the rent is calculated. Ms. Sonju said that it's more like eleven spaces don't pay rent. She added "If we have an income of $1000 per week but we have to pay the same bills and our income goes down --- I mean if ten people contribute $100 a week to us, two people stop contributing, and our bills are $800 then we're going to use the $800 to pay our bills. More income would come into the Park and probably require fewer rent increases if it all came in --- it doesn't. It's about eleven spaces short every month and that's something you can easily check but it's not something I thought the Planning Commission wanted to dwell on. I do believe quite strongly that the Planning Commission can regulate the size of, for example, cabanas as part of the Conditional Use Permit ". I don't believe that any state authority states that the City may not regulate the size of cabanas. You also regulate whether there's a concrete sidewalk in front of it and whether it meets the Building Codes. The trailer itself - modification to that must be approved and get a permit from the state and also from the City. Chairman Fife said State correspondence demonstrates the state is taking full charge of the Trailer Park. Ms. Sonju objected, saying that statement is not accurate and citing the example of the state approving two-story cabanas for the Park, and the city saying that's not what it wanted and the two-story cabanas are now every other lot. Chairman Fife suggested to Ms. Sonju that if she felt the Trailer Park was not being operated in conformity with State law that the most productive thing she could do would be to contact the Department of Housing and Community Development, bring these matters to their attention and if she received a favorable response to take that to the Redevelopment Agency or the city Council. They, not the Planning Commission, have the authori ty to do something about it. Ms. Sonju said "I did not say the Park wasn't being regulated in accordance with state regulations ... and I say you don't use the discretionary authority that you have to review what's happening in that Trailer Park because you have been propagandized into believing that you do not have that authority." Commissioner McCurdy said he objected to her statement of being propagandized, adding he had never been propagandized. *** . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 2. Architectural Review #10-90 15 Cottonwood Lane Seal Beach Trailer Park staff Renort Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. (Report on file in Planning Department). This item was continued from the January 2, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, requesting staff contact the state Department of Housing and Community Development (H/CD) to determine the Commission's architectural review authority. Staff contacted H/CD, speaking with Ronald s. Javor, Supervising Senior Staff council. Mr. Javor said the City's right to architectural review does not extend to requiring a trailer to be clearly visible from within a cabana. The existing trailer home is 380 square feet with a 1610 square foot addition proposed. Staff recommended approval subject to six conditions set forth in the staff report. Action is not taken by Resolution on this matter. IIOTION by Sharp; Second by IIcCurdy to approve Architectural Review #10-90 subject to six Conditions (set forth in the staff report). IIOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahl.ut Commissioner orsini apologized to the applicant for the delays involved in this application. *** 3. Architectural Review #16-90 133 cottonwood Lane Seal Beach Trailer Park. The staff report was not presented orally and there were no Commission comments. MOTION by Sharp; second by IIcCurdy to approve Architectural Review #16-90 subject to five conditions (set forth in the staff report). IIOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, sharp, McCurdy,Fife, Dahl.ut *** Commissioner Dahlman said he saw a leaflet which was apparently distributed throughout the Seal Beach Trailer Park and felt the leaflet was a distortion of reality. He indicated the Commission's interest is to see that what is done in the Trailer Park is fair to all Trailer Park residents. Chairman Fife indicated the twenty foot separation allows "He who builds first acquires an easement over his neighbors". He expressed the thought that this . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 could disappoint those neighbors unable to build but that it would be handled internally within the Trailer Park. Mr. Fife said he has not heard any complaints from Trailer Park residents themselves. Commissioner Sharp said the twenty foot separation regulation came from the Orange county Fire Department. commissioner Orsini, noting he was not in favor of two-story cabanas, said he wanted the public to know he had thoroughly researched this subject. He said "If there was any way I could have stopped it, I would have". He said the state of California gives the Planning Commission the authority to (1) be certain the kitchen facility has to be in the same location and (2) the chassis has to be connected to the two-story house. Commissioner McCurdy said he felt turning the Seal Beach Trailer Park into two-story housing is a "terrible thing" but the state of California took control of the Trailer Park out of the Planning Commission's authority. CORSERT t'll.T.'RNTlJl.lI 4. Minutes of January 2, 1991 MOTION by Dahlman; second by Sharp to approve the Planning ComIIIission Minutes of January 2, 1991 with a correction at page 10 (correct the ROE vote to ABSERT). MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, DahlllBD ABSTAIN: Fife *** 5. Architectural Review #14-90 20 Cottonwood Lane Seal Beach Trailer Park Staff ReDOrt Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. (Report on file in the Planning Department). The applicant, Don Rounds, is requesting a major remodel to include construction of a two-story cabana. The existing trailer home is 914.25 square feet and he proposes to add 1038.75 square feet. Staff recommends approval subject to six conditions outlined in the staff report. (Action is not taken by Resolution on Architectural Reviews). . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Commission Comments Commissioner McCurdy said the plans do not clearly show where the cooking facilities are located. Commissioner Sharp asked staff to request specify exactly where the existing trailer is. Chairman Fife asked if the existing trailer was remaining intact, retaining its original roof and walls? Mr. Cho said this trailer has previously been built upon once. Commissioner McCurdy noted it was impossible to see the existing trailer due to this. Commissioner Sharp, noting prior legislation required the entire trailer to be left intact so as to be removable, asked Mr. Curtis when removing the trailer was deleted as a requirement? Mr. Curtis said approval by the State is always obtained before removing walls or ceilings. The first time that was verified by the State was approximately one year ago. Bill Dawson * OWner. Seal Beach Trailer Park said "The information is that the second cabana built in the Trailer Park (some 11 or 12 years ago) the trailer was entirely removed. So that's a condition that's been going on ever since the new Trailer Park was built". Chairman Fife asked the applicant to come forward to answer questions on this application. Bill Dawson said he would be glad to answer questions in the absence of the applicant and his architect. He said "This applicant is the essence of what the Trailer Park is all about. He lived in the old Trailer Park, starting in 1975 or 1976 when he was a teenager. He is today a painting contractor, married and has two small children. When the second baby arrived his place just wasn't large enough. It had one bedroom. This is an application to improve it so that he and his wife and two kids can move back into it. It's the kind of thing I really support. As was suggested by Commissioner McCurdy, it's an existing trailer and two-story cabana which has been in place for many years. He's now adding above the trailer. I believe the roof stays in place. However, you'll note that your ordinance requires that it be sprinklered --- the trailer as well as the cabana. So ... in terms of your fire concerns --- that was very much in the minds of the Fire Department when they gave their input to the ordinance --- it requires the whole thing be sprinklered. It is required that the exterior walls on the two-story element be fire-rated". (Action is not taken by Resolution on Architectural Reviews) . MOTION by Sharp; Second by Dahl:.an to grant Minor Plan Review #14-90 (Architectural Review) with six conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, DahIIlllll1 . . . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 6. Architectural Review #17-90 55 Riversea Road Seal Beach Trailer Park staff ReDOrt Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. (staff report on file in the Planning Department). The applicant, Bill Dawson, is applying for an Architectural Review for a major remodel including construction of a two-story cabana. The existing trailer contains 120 square feet and the proposed cabana would add 2059 square feet. Staff recommends approval with six Conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Whittenberg said this entire 8' x 15' travel trailer is to be converted to the new kitchen area. commission Comments Commissioner Orsini requested a seventh Condition be placed on this application, to read "The proposed roof dome shall not open or turn". Commissioner Dahlman noted this is a twenty-fold expansion. Expansion being limited only by the size of the lot and the space distances to be maintained from the other existing units around it. (Action is not taken by Resolution on Architectural Reviews). MOTION by Sharp; Second by Orsini to approve Minor Plan Review #10-90 (Architectural Review) be approved subject to the six COnditions outlined in the staff report and with the addition of a seventh COndition to read: 7. The proposed roof dome shall not open or turn. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, Sharp, Dahlman, McCurdy, Fife *** PUBLIC R'RJl.lIYtlGS 7. AIIeIldJIent to Subdivision ordinance of Municipal ~ staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. (Staff report on file in the Planning Department). The purpose of this Zoning Text Amendment is to encourage construction of single family homes over multiple family dwellings in Old Town. . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Commission Comments Commissioner Mccurdy asked what the City could do with the park dedication fees? Mr. Curtis said the monies would be set aside for future parkland purposes. The City has five years, under the Subdivision Map Act, to use the money. The city can also use the monies toward existing facilities. . Commissioner McCurdy asked if there was existing state legislation which determines how close this park or improvements must be to the actual property subdivided? Mr. Whittenberg said no, not to his knowledge. Those funds can be used to either improve existing park facilities or construct new facilities anywhere within the community. Commissioner Orsini asked if some monies could be used for sand replenishment and pier repairs. The city Attorney is to check into this. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission should discuss (1) whether or not the park dedication fees to apply to a very small subdivision (4 lots or less) and (2) do you want to change the existing fee structure as set forth in the municipal~. This fee is very large and results in less subdivisions and the City not collecting any fees. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff if basically they were recommending the reduction of parkland dedication fees from $78,000 to $78001 Mr. Curtis said staff was presenting two alternatives (1) a fixed fee or (2) base the fair market value of the land to be dedicated on raw land versus the already subdivided land. Public Hearina ODened Clive Martin * No Address Given - said he was attending on behalf of Annabel and Robert LaRochi of 112 Central Avenue, Seal Beach. The LaRochi's want to subdivide one lot (120' x 100') into four lots. (AP #43-141-14). At present there are seven units plus the home on this property. . Commissioner McCurdy reminded everyone that parkland dedication fees were originally set up to provide parkland for increased population with nothing to do with the value of the lot or the increase in value by subdividing the land. Commissioner Dahlman noted that if you are going to put a park in Old Town then you're going to need enough money to put a park there. Commissioner Sharp said that when the condos were built in Leisure World there was a rule in effect that the parkland had to be put in within a certain distance of the subdivision. Due to the fact that there was no land available and the park fees were collected, after a five year period that money had to be returned to the owners of the apartments. Chairman Fife noted staff had indicated that the way fees are currently structured the City isn't . Page 12 - Planning commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 getting anything. The people are economically driven to build multiple units and later to convert them into condominiums and skate entirely out of it. We need a compromise between the question of should we apply the subdivision park dedication requirements enacted primarily for raw, unsubdivided land to the resubdivision of previously subdivided land. The real focus is what's a compromise to accomplish more than what we're accomplishing now? Commissioner Dahlman proposed a third proposal: If there is a way out then plug the loophole. Mr. Whittenberg advised that loophole was created by state law and it would require state legislation to change that provision of the Subdivision Map Act; the City can't override that provision. Barbara Antocci * Old Town * Seal Beach - asked Mr. Whittenberg if it was a law that parkland dedication fee monies had to be used within a certain time limit? She thought the City chose to return those funds to Leisure World. Mr. Whittenberg said it was a provision of law not the City's Choosing. She felt that making lots 25' x 100' was alright but asked a "tag" be built each house to a 25' lot and not to result in legally non-conforming units. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street * Seal Beach - said he wanted to make three points: . 1. He was the Planning Director in the City of Seal Beach when Presley Development went into Leisure World. The law said the collected Quimby Act fees had to be used for parkland to serve the residents of the subdivision for which they are collected. The Subdivision Map Act still says the same thing. Can you put a public park behind a gate guarded community? Or if you buy land a mile away, then is that convenient for those residents to use? A political decision was made to do nothing with those fees until the five years had passed and then those fees were returned. . commissioner McCUrdy disputed this statement as not being a political decision. He said he was President of the Golden Rain Foundation at that time and they were trying to spend that money. The City Attorney could not come up with a way even if land was found across westminster Blvd. It went back to the original buyers. Mr. Antos said within the Subdivision Map Act ordinance there is a section that talks about 5 acres per 1000 residents. A State law was passed that dealt with the level of the amount of parkland that you can require; this was lowered to 3 acres per 1000 residents. Mr. Antos suggested the Planning commission review the Open SpacejRecreation Conservation Element of the General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act ordinance and bring that into conformance with State law. The Commission could consider, Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 for large or small subdivisions, is dealing with differing values of land within the city. Once a year Orange County appraises land for parkland purposes. Depending on which area you are in determines what parkland fees you pay~ this is an established fee schedule. - . , 2. 3. , Is there additional land available for parks that is actually buyable? If not, for small subdivisions, you might consider not having parkland dedication fees at all. For larger subdivisions require the dedication of land or payment of fees where the city could buy the land back from the developer. Chairman Fife noted the problem with having funds come in erratically and yet having to buy land for a sum and then make the monthly payments. The City needs to come up with the buy money, say out of the General Fund, and then let the erratic parkland dedication fees slowly replenish that. Mr. Antos said that if the City doesn't have the money to buy the land that's available, the City does have to give the money back. The Quimby Act is to obtain parkland and was written in such a way that says the developer has the option of the dedication of parkland or the payment of fees with a cautionary disclaimer that on so many unit only fees will be required. Mr. Antos suggested the city and Commission review the Non- Subdivision ordinance. On small subdivisions the City might modify that to deal with those small subdivisions and establish a fee to improve existing parks or set aside for purchase of other parkland. Look for potentially buyable land. otherwise don't hold the money for five years. This money creates a bookeeping problem. Chairman Fife agreed, favoring leaving the present onerous parkland dedication fee structure in place which means that if you dedicate that level of money then it's subject to the five year use it or lose it State requirement except also have a provision that allows people to buy into an exemption at a much lower rate where the City has no use it or lose it five year restriction on that money. Because the City cannot garner enough money at once to buy a park, in areas like this that five year requirement guarantees we never accomplish anything. Look at formula in Subdivision ordinance which was developed for the average household size for different sorts of units in the area based on the federal Census. Mr. Antos was uncertain if 1990 Census would have count for household and unit by unit type in time. But research into what State law says dealing with the maximum level of parkland under the Subdivision Map Act, Quimby Act should be available for larger subdivisions. Public Hearings could be held for what is done with small subdivisions. The Subdivision ordinance has to be changed. . . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Commissioner Dahlman, noting Mr. Antos' remarks, asked staff if the state would take into account that Seal Beach has so little park and make an exception for us and allow us to continue with 5 acres per 1000 residents? Mr. Whittenberg said staff will look at the provisions of the changes in the law and see if it does allow discretion by the cities. Commissioner Dahlman said he also wants to look into Chairman Fife's comment re getting around the five year rule. Regarding the testimony by Clive Martin for the LaRochi's, Commissioner Dahlman said this is an example of going from eight dwelling units to a proposed four dwelling units with presumably no increased need for a park. He felt there should be some way to differentiate between subdivisions when it is obvious that a subdivision is not going to increase the number of persons living in town. Staff will check on an exemption/acquisition fee whereby we could extract lower parkland dedication fees but have the right to hold onto them longer before we use them or lose them without the state saying this is an attempt to get around the five year rule and report back to the Commission. commissioner Orsini asked staff to check with the City Attorney and see if these monies can be used for the beach and pier improvements. Beverlv Casares * Hill * Seal Beach - said she felt the existing ordinance addresses the two vacant parcels of land that have yet to be subdivided. It does not address the re-subdivision of land. She noted parkland dedication fees were paid when the land was initially subdivided. She felt a flat fee per lot created on lots with addresses would be best because it's not a subdivision but a re-subdivision and suggested $7,500 for each lot created or each new type of occupancy. This could be addressed as a new sub- section in the existing ordinance entitled "Re-Subdividing". Commissioner Dahlman asked if the flat fee could indexed to the current median price of real estate? Ms. Casares said the fee should be proportionate to other costs in real estate. She felt no person should have any more than twice the amount it costs him (settlement costs) to buy that land. Any time the City of Seal Beach changes a legal description the buyer should be required to pay a flat fee. The two cities that she talked to about this said their fees are indexed to a Riverside Consumer Price Index and all the city fees go up every year. Ms. Casares indicated again that once property has an address it has been subdivided, so we're not talking about sub-division of land, we're talking about land use - -- and the Commission can determine exactly what it wants. Chairman Fife called a ten minute recess at 9:40 p.m. The Comcast cameraman updated the audience on the Gulf war. Charles Antos * Seal Beach - suggested the Planning Commission obtain the original Quimby Act legislation because original legislation shows intent. . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Kurt De Meire * 242 5th street * Seal Beach - said he would also like to return to the original intent of the law. He felt no fees are levied in a condo conversions because there's no increase in existing units. Bill Orszewskv * 85 Riversea Road * Seal Beach - said he is a ten year resident. He said the value of life living in an area is measured not only by development and the value of property but by the quality of life which it represents ... but the value of that struggle, of maintaining the feel of a small town is so important because to sacrifice the quality of life here on debate over development rates of payment for something which seems so abstract as parkland. He urged the Commission not to overlook the intrinsic and overriding value of the nature of our community as a small town, the value of parkland to its residents and the pressing personal and corporate interests which would infringe on every blade of grass if given the chance in debate to do so. commissioner Fife commented that many of the Planning Commissioners shared Mr. Orszewsky's views. One of the things that puts such intense pressue on Seal Beach is the quality of life that a lot of other people want to share. Enormous pressue is created and it drives land values up and makes opportunities profitable for developers. We're all interested in maintaining the quality of life in Seal Beach. The staff report demonstrates we're getting duped by the way the law is operating --- we're not getting anything --- we're not getting lower density, park fees. Everyone has figured to circumvent the fees by developing multiple units, waiting five years, turn it into condominiums because of the exemption and there's no parkland --- we get more people, no parks, no money. We're looking for a better solution to this. Mr. Whittenberg advised that if the Public Hearing is continued, it does not require a Public Hearing at City Council level but does require the adoption of an Ordinance. That Ordinance requires an introduction and a Second Reading and does not take effect for thirty (30) days after that point. This is about six (6) weeks at the City Council level. The Council can determine by a four-fifths vote to adopt Commission recommendations as an emergency measure and this would take effect immediately. And then the City could follow that up with the normal adoption of an Ordinance with an introduction etc. MOTIOR by Sharp; Second by DahIIlllD to continue the Public Hearing on this AIIeIldment to the Subdivision ordinance of The Code of the citv of Seal Beach to its regularly scheduled February 6, 1991 meeting. IIO'1'ION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, DahllUlD *** '. ,\ . . Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 ORAL COIIMUNICATIONS Bill Orszewskv * 85 Riversea Road * Seal Beach Trailer Park - He stated he confused the Planning Commission with the Redevelopment Agency but wanted to state publicly that he is distressed at the level of personal rancor directed at Bill Dawson and felt this is detrimental to decision making. He said he moved into the Trailer Park in 1980 when he was a student, went to college and graduated and now is working as an art director and publishes his own magazine ("Orange Curtain Review") and is a low income person. He indicated more than half the units in the Park are dedicated to low income people. He said many of the trailers are being built and resold quickly resulting profiteering and resulting in the lack of a chance for families to enter due to the high prices. Mr. Orszewsky stated in 1980 his trailer was bought for $4,500 and in 1986 he was offered $45,000. His space rent was $162 when he moved in and is now $209. He said "Know that there are people in the Park who are on fixed income, and people like me who are on low income, who look with resentment at the slap in the face of what the Park seemed to be ... but when you grant exemptions and when you review building permits perhaps you can ask yourselves ... if they see the Trailer Park as a community they are going to stay in ... we're afraid the people who are building are simply building for personal profit...". He added that the Park is a low to moderate income housing area but sell at $60,000 to $150,000 but banks are seldom going to loan in the Park because it's a trailer and not real property. So the person would have to come up with a lot of cash. Therefore where is the intent of maintaining low to moderate income housing in Seal Beach? He felt a requirement for ownership/entrance into the Park of demonstrating income over three years would make quite a difference in who was living there: one year's income demonstration is not enough. "There's a circumvention of what the city, County, State must have intended" for the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The commission discussed entrance qualification after which point there is no further verification. Commissioner Orsini said State law mandates 60 spaces be low income, however, the CC&R's for the Trailer Park change that to saying a person only has to qualify and then your income can increase without prejudice. The CC&R's take precedence over State law. Chairman Fife noted there is also no net worth factor for Park entry. Beverlv Casares * Hill Area * Seal Beach - Said she has lived in Seal Beach more than thirty years. She said the rental covenants are negotiated for the Trailer Park are negotiated with the Redevelopment Agency. Moderate income is $40,000 in Orange County and the Park is to have 60 spaces for moderate income and 60 spaces for low income. One problem is that this City does not know who owns what in the Trailer Park. She: suggested the Commission mandate that before building permits are issued for the Trailer Park get proof showing he has made: proper payments to the . . . Page 17 - Planning commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Department of Motor Vehicles and show is the legal owner of that mobile home or have the person submit a copy of his Grant Deed. She asked the Commission to ask the Redevelopment Agency to get a copy of all the rental covenants and CC&R's for the Trailer Park are read them thoroughly. This would fulfill the City'S moral obligation with the agreement made with the State to maintain a certain number of spaces for low and moderate income persons. Chairman Fife said it is not written that once you qualify you don't have to qualify again. What is not written is the requirement that you have to qualify periodically. Ms. Casares said then that should be a recommendation from the Commission to the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Casares questioned who pays taxes and who pays DMV fees. She was at the Trailer Park and saw something that looked like a king-sized bed frame without wheels. Ms. Casares asked Mr. Fife for a copy of the covenants and CC&R's he said he had read. commissioner orsini said that in the Trailer Park once the DMV sticker is on it has only to be renewed. Also, once they pour a foundation that unit pays property taxes. Mr. orsini said he talked to the Orange County Assessors and they review the Park yearly and it's every unit that's on a foundation. Commissioner orsini said the four-story house on Cottonwood has an appraised value of $77,000 and that's what it's taxed on. Ms. Casares said she proposes there are more houses in the Trailer Park than are on the Orange County Assessor's tax roll. Norma Strohmeyer * Seal Beach - said Mr. Orschewsky expressed many of her concerns but that she was concerned there weren't more answers to many questions. She asked if the higher income residents pay the same rent as the lower income persons? Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission does not have that information because it's not under their purview to be involved with that issue. Chairman Fife said it's a legitimate question that should be referred to the Redevelopment Agency. Barbara Antocci * Seal Beach - said she objects to Bill Dawson being called the owner of the Trailer Park when Ms. Sonju is also an owner --- it's a general partnership. She added the State of California has a policy that after twenty years they will not renew the DMV sticker and requires recertification of 20 year old trailers, including rewiring, etc. She mentioned an advertisement for a house in the Trailer park, listed at $199,000. The Real Estate Board informed them they could not advertise it as a house. She said her fear for her taxes and for Trailer Park residents is the thirty-day quit notice. All the trailers are on leased land. What happens if they get a thirty-day quit notice? Jack up their house and move it with you? In a regular mobile home park they get thirty days to take your trailer with you. She said there's a lot of interest in the Trailer Park because taxpayer monies are spent there. Commissioner Orsini asked staff if people are notified if . . . Page 18 - Planning commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 they can actually be evicted in thirty days? Mr. Whittenberg said the city would not be involved --- that's a lease agreement between the property owner and the tenants. Ms. Antocci said a lot of people should know about this possibility. Ms. Antocci said a rubber stamp for Commission approval is needed because they have no authority in the Trailer Park. She said she intended to go to the state of California and discuss the Trailer Park. The Commission noted real tors duties regarding disclosure to their buyers. Mike Arnstein * Al16 * Surfs ide - approached the Commission because he wants to put windows in his storage attic at A116 Surfside. The attic was approved by the Planning Commission without any light from outside and they would like to have two small windows in the front and one on the side. This has been approved by the Surfside Board of Directors. staff advised this has come before the Commission as a Minor Plan Review and the applicant wants an amendment to the approval. Commissioner Sharp said it was turned down because it was felt windows would make it habitable living area when it wasn't authorized for that. It was agendized for the February 6, 1991 meeting. STAPF CONC'RDIT~ 8. Report on Auto Detailing BusinesS/Amendment to llUDicipal ~. Staff ReDort Mr. Curtis gave the staff report which presented certain conditions for operation of an auto detailing business in an outside tent. (Staff report on file in the Planning Department). Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked staff about the parking requirements. Mr. Curtis said this business needs one parking space for the tent and two additional spaces --- one for the car being worked on and one for the operator's own car. Mr. Fife asked would this work on that site? Mr. Curtis said "Without looking specifically at the square footage and the layout of the site I couldn't answer that. My hunch is no. That's a fairly small site ...". Mr. Whittenberg said staff's concern was allowing an additional use of basically existing parking areas for another use on the property which will increase the demand. You need to have enough parking allocated for the existing business plus the increased demand from the additional outdoor use. Street parking should not be utilized for a holding/storage area. . Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Commissioner Mccurdy said the Commission seems to be making a Zoning Text Amendment for one particular individual and didn't believe the Commission should do that. He said the Commission should not get involved in this at all --- who else would be doing business in canopies? What type businesses? commissioner Dahlman said this proposal would affect the detailing going on in the car wash. Commissioner Sharp said allowing temporary buildings to be placed on an existing business property could cause problems. Commissioner Orsini said he would want to see a one year lease so auto detailing would become a permanent business. Mr. Whittenberg said he would have to research that with the City Attorney as under the zoning code you may not be able to make that type of occupancy restriction. Mr. Orsini said if that were not possible, he would not approve of this because "I don't want to see a lot of tents around either ... is this going to open up having auto detailing on every corner with a tent?" . Commissioner Sharp asked the Chairman to poll the Commission on this issue: commissioner Dahlman said no to a zoning Text Amendment allowing businesses in tents. Chairman Fife said this is an industry which has grown a lot. There is a demand. Between the alternative of having outlaw detailers cropping up out of control if the Commission legitimized them it would be the best alternative. He said "I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I think the Commission would rather just not have it and learn from the experience that may provide that's fine by me". Commissioner McCurdy said he was against making this type of a change to the ~. Commission Sharp said he was against it. Commissioner Orsini said he was against it unless there was a long term lease to where business stability is shown. He would not want to see a detailer at every gas station. Chairman Fife instructed staff not to proceed any further with this matter . Mr. Whittenberg advised the next Planning Commission meeting will be February 6, 1991. *** . . . Page 20 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 COMMISSION CORC'R1IN~ Commissioner Dahlman said "All of us have been recently characterized as "schoolboys" and at first I was a little insulted. But then I got to thinking that was the opposite of "dropout". I think we have a pretty friendly commission...". Commissioner Dahlman said he wanted to see the Planning Commission meeting schedule changed to meet the first and third Wednesdays following the first and third Mondays. He felt it would be better to meet every other week even though it would be hard on city staff to get two meetings prepared so close together. Commissioner McCUrdy said he would need to review his calendar before agreeing. commissioner Sharp said that change could cause television and room scheduling conflicts. No decision was reached. Chairman Fife asked when the Commission would reconsider 1733 Crestview again. Staff advised they would hear it at the February 6th meeting. The other ~ violations on Crestview are currently being inspected individually by Planning Department staff. Staff is not starting ~ violation actions, they are verifying if violations do exist. commissioner Sharp said Mr. Ralston said he did not have any new information and yet the City Council has returned it to the Planning Commission because of new information. commissioner Dahlman said this list, with names and addresses, of possible ~ violations on Crestview is Mr. Ralston's new information. commissioner Dahlman said "This gentleman was forced to compile this list by the circumstances, I believe. I do not want this list to be used to establish the Fourth Reich ..." . Commissioner Orsini said ~ enforcement is accomplished by information being given to the city staff. commissioner Orsini said staff must investigate. commissioner Dahlman said "I agree with them investigating it Joe. I don't agree with them enforcing the ~ until we have had a chance to review the issues here". commissioner Orsini said "If his is illegal then theirs has to be considered illegal. Would you aqree to that? ... He never had a building permit." Commissioner Dahlman said "His is not illegal Joe. You know my position on it". Chairman Sharp asked staff if that list would be available soon so if any Commissioner wanted to see a particular property they could make an appointment to do so? Mr. Whittenberg said staff would try. Mr. Curtis said "In Mr. Ralston's defense, there are some that are probably just as blatant violations as his ... one of his neighbors has a garage built right to the rear corner property line and it was also done without permits ... there are a few that are fairly blatant, it's just they're hidden by the Gum Grove. We will provide to the Commission all our findings regarding all the properties tagged during our inspections". Chairman Fife asked about the noise setback exemptions on major arterials. was continuing to analyze the Orange study (Variance #6-89) on Mr. Whittenberg said staff county noise measurements. e . . Page 21 - Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 Staff hopes to have this before the Commission at the end of February or early March. Chairman Fife said that although the Planning Commission has been maligned a number of times it actually functions well. There are healthy disagreements but they don't become "permanent hatreds". We don't engage in personalities on this Commission and get their job done quite well, notwithstanding some public opinion. commissioner Sharp asked for a status on the State Lands property at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg said staff has received an application on January 4, 1991 and has thirty (30) days to review it for completeness. Once that is done it will be scheduled for the appropriate hearings. Mr. Whittenberg said staff has received a proposal from the Bixby Ranch Company for development on the golf course property. It was received January 16, 1991 and staff has thirty (30) days to review it for completeness and adequacy. This project will require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared so will take longer before hearings can be scheduled before the Planning Commission and ultimately City council. There will be no hearings until the EIR is in. There will be a scoping session on the EIR at a future date which will be announced. There will be hearings on the EIR at the EQCB meetings and then at the Planning Commission in conjunction with the Zone Change request and subdivision request. t . tg I.LI~1I.JI Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, '~\-or--"~~" Joarl Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. *** The Planning commissi~Minutes of on February 6, 1991. ~ January 16, 1991 were approved