Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-10-17 r - ,. . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1990 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 1990 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in Clty Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner orsini. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admin. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 1990 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT #6-90 COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURES RESOLUTION No. 1602 Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report which presented two al ternati ves regarding the construction of covered roof access structures (CRAS) (formerly known as 'doghouses') throughout the City. Alternative I would prohibit construction by mandating a Variance for which the three State mandated findings would be virtually impossible to make. Alternative II would allow construction City-wide through a Mlnor Height Variation which includes written noticing to all property owners within 300 feet and a hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff recommended approval of Alternative II and the addition of ~28-2407(5)(a) through the adoption of Resolution No. 1602. Page 2 - Planning commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 lit Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked staff if the amortization provisions had been prepared in consultation with the City Attorney? Mr. curtis said yes. Commissioner McCurdy asked staff if Alternative I were selected what would happen to Minor Height variations for non-habitable architectural features? Mr. curtis said that section would remain the same. commissioner Dahlman said he supports Alternative II because he was concerned that Alternative I would prohibit persons who had been planning to add a CRAS from building one. Commissioner Orsini said he supports Alternative I. He visited four houses which did not have CRAS, got up on their roof decks and feels CRAS are not mandatory. commissioner Sharp said he supports Alternative II because ocean views are important to preserve and the Commission shouldn't deprive those homeowners of having the1r view. . Chairman Fife referenced page 4, paragraph C of the staff report "In review1ng an application, the Planning Commission shall cons1der the following criteria: "saying there was no requ1rement to make findings and asked staff if that was their intent? Mr. Curtis said it would be appropriate to make findings when they approved a Minor Height Variation - these are proposed criteria to assist in making the findings. Chairman Fife said if Alternative II were adopted, and since it could be reviewed per appeal to City Council, staff would want the Planning Commission to be required to make specific findings so that you would have a meaningful reV1ew. Public Hearing . Jerry Anderson * 1301 Sandpiper. Seal Beach Mr. Anderson supported maintaining a set height limit. He asked the Commission what can be done if something is misrepresented to the Commiss10n? He referenced the observatory dome at 1305 Sandpiper as an illustrative vehicle to make his point stating he felt the Minor Plan Review application did not give staff adequate 1nformation to process the application correctly. Additionally, he asked after something is built 1ncorrectly what can be done? Mr. Wh1ttenberg said that if the Planning Commission and the C1ty Council adopt new regulations then staff is recommending that all of the existing structures in the City either (1) meet the new standards by altering their structure if necessary, (2) to apply for and rece1ve approval for a Minor Height Variation or (3) remove the structure totally from the property. Homeowners will have one . Page 3 - Planning commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 year to make one of those three choices. Mr. Anderson stated again that 1305 sandpiper is not built as it was proposed. It is a CRAS with an observatory dome on top of it. The dome is inappropriate and illegal and should be removed. . Alan Shields * 1300 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Shields said the mechanical observadome at 1305 Sandpiper is an industrial mechanism and should be taken down. He added it's not a roof but is on top of a roof and therefore is not part of the City's~. He recommended 'red tagging' CRAS that have habitable space and closing down the CRAS loophole with enforcement of a strict 25 foot height limit on residential homes. Mr. Shields distributed to the Commission a letter he wrote to the City Council dated June 22, 1990. The letter said he was interviewed by Channel 7 eyewitness news and the issue of privacy emerged indicating anyone in the observadome could look skyward or down at the neighbors. Mr. Shields said his point in bringing up the privacy issue was to urge the Commission to motivate the City Attorney to make a decision on 1305 Sandpiper. He said a problem with Alternative II is "you can't really tell until it's built". He said the application can be misleading to the Planning Commission. In 1989 the staff input to Planning Commission on 1305 Sandpiper was "the property is located in a residential low-density zone and cannot exceed 45% lot coverage, this particular one is at 42.5% and the 651 square feet does not exceed the maximum of a 10% lncrease". Mr. Shields said that based on the stated input from the homeowner, statistlcs and some drawings the Commission mlght still have not understood the full scope and negative impact on the entire neighborhood this addition has caused. He said calling a 30% increase above a residential height limit a 'minor' height variance is not right and it should be termed a 'major' height variance. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach (No Address Given) Mr. Stark said the City has too many CRAS to consider Alternative I now and to deny building them entirely would create litigation. He favored Alternative II because it would notice neighbors and come before the Planning Commission. He noted enforcement work will have to be done by staff to be sure projects are bUllt as approved. He urged adoption of Alternative II. Tom Greeley * 1629 Seal Way. Seal Beach Mr. Greeley supported Alternative II because CRAS are needed to create a covered area and block the water that blows off the ocean and creates damage to the interior of a house. Nancy Kredell * (No Address Given) Ms. Kredell said she has an uncovered roof deck and has not had any problems not having a covered roof access structure. She said the CRAS are not very nice looking. Her safety railing is above the height limit but was approved via a variance. . . . . Page 4 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of October 17, 1990 Charles Antos * 328 17th street. Seal Beach . Mr. Antos said it's possible to get access to the roof w1thout a CRAS and also to stay within the height limit. He recommended having a Conditional Use Permit review (to allow for fair analysis, noticing to homeowners within 300 feet and making the compatibility findings) rather than either Alternative I or Alternative II. Mark Thompson * 1305 Sandpiper. Seal Beach Mr. Thompson sa1d he followed the ~ requirements "... with the assistance of the Building Department according to the prevailing ~ a Minor Height Variance was neither warranted nor required ... we have already stated and the City Attorney (I reiterate) the City Attorney has concurred that no misrepresentations have ever taken place. I do not understand why there is any need to consider it further ... hopefully the new Codes will offer greater clarification and will strengthen, not weaken, an individual's property rights. For we do not live in a planned community although I have to say in recent months it doesn't seem like anything in this community is going to plan ... I would like to caution this panel to be prudent in its assessment of the consequence of accepting the staff's recommended ~ change regarding an amortization period for existing structures that might subsequently be termed 'non-conforming'. This is a bad idea. There are two glaring and potential pitfalls - #1 1f such an ordinance were enacted all existing CRAS in the City would be subject to the same review. This would cost the City and its inhabitants a horrendous amount of time and money and it's totally impractical. From a personal standpoint, we believe this ~ m1ght selectively discriminate against us and our property because of one or two or three local dissidents and this is grossly unfair. There is an even more serious question you should consider - the enforcement of this ~ is the flagrant use of retroactive law... and retroactive law... is a law that punishes a man for an action which was not illegal at the time it occurred. This law is rejected by and contrary to the entire tradition of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In fact, it is a form of persecution which is practiced only in dictatorships and is strictly forbidden under every civilized code of law. It's specifically forbidden in the United States and it's practice should be abhorred by every citizen of this community... it seems to me that all too often in this community... the vocal minority of whiners and complainers sure seem to get a lot of attention ...". Don Cox * Seal Beach (No Address Given) Mr. Cox, contractor, builder and resident in Seal Beach for several years, supported Alternative II. He said there is a need for CRAS for reverse floor plans because with open staircases CRAS ma1ntain the water views. If you have an open staircase on the floor below the deck you have to have a CRAS because of the architecture of those stairs. . . . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Paul Geyer * San Clemente (No Address Given) Mr. Geyer is an architect who has been designing houses in Seal Beach since 1977. He supported Alternative II and gave examples of current projects which would be benefitted by CRAS. Dennis Brown * Architect for 1305 Sandpiper Dr.. Seal Beach Mr. Brown said he supports Alternative II. Mr. Brown said the project was submitted to the Planning Department for design review. They did say they did not want to make a comment on the tower and the dome at the time it was submitted. They wanted to wait until construction drawings were submitted so they could take a closer look at it. At that time the drawings were submitted and the dome was detailed and it was approved. The proof of that fact is that a permit was issued. After that the neighbors complained. The Planning Department got involved w1th it again and he took another look at it. "The strange thing is, there was no problem then". It was allowed to go through Planning approval, working drawings, construction, inspection and at the very end - sign off. The accusation that "We were trying to put something over and get something passed that's not legal I take strong offense to that. Because you have a qualified Planning Department that understands what they're looking at. They know their codes and they did not have any problem with what we did". He supported Alternative II but objected to the portion that non-conforming structures would have to be torn down. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Brown if he came before the Planning Commission for any permits. Mr. Brown said "We asked that question and were told it was not necessary". Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this project did come before the Planning Commission as a Minor Plan Review because of the addition on the second story but the review did not include the roof access structure. Commissioner Dahlman noted Mr. Anderson distributed the staff report for that meeting and it mentioned a roof deck but no covered roof access. Randy Hines * ---- (No Number Given) Sandoiper Dr.. Seal Beach Mr. H1nes said he lives next door to the observadome and is unhappy about its presence. He said he himself had a project that went through the Planning Commission and obtained permits for a mechan1cal deck. Initially he was turned down on height but worked things out through the process. Mr. Hines supported adherence to a height lim1t. Mr. Hines attended a noticed meeting but there was no mention of a dome. Jim Saunders * 330 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Saunders said he purchased a home in Seal Beach in April 1990. He could afford a one story but knows he will get the money to add a second story some day. It will be a big disappointment if he can't build a second story with a roof deck. . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Ken Schmidt * 1001 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Schmidt said he is intending to have a house built on a 25 foot lot with an ocean view. If Alternative I is passed it won't be possible to build what he wants to build. He said everyone should not be punished because of the one problem on the Hill. Commissioner Dahlman clarified that the zoning change under discussion is not specifically being decided because of this one problem (1305 Sandpiper Drive). Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commiss10n Comments Commissioner orsini said Alternative I does not take away decks. Alternative II should be termed 'major' instead of 'minor'. Also, if CRAS are allowed they should not have floors - have only stairways. Mr. Whittenberg said staff's recommendation is covered in (C)(iii) "Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the minimum area, both hor1zontally and vertically, necessary to cover the stairwell". Commissioner Sharp agreed with and supported Commissioner Orsini's comments. Commissioner McCurdy supported Alternative II saying it was "as good as we can do at this time". He supported the change to 'major' height variation so all projects come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dahlman noted much support for Alternative II. He supported Alternative II saying it had less of burden than Alternative I where many tear downs of CRAS could occur. Chairman Fife said he favored Alternative II with the following changes: Page 3, paragraph (4): Eliminate the word 'minor' and call it a 'Height Variation'. Because 'minor' tends to disarm people 1n their consideration of whether to come before the Commission and give their input on a matter. Page 4, paragraph C (1): "The Planning Commission may at a scheduled Public Hearing approve or disapprove ... and make findings thereon. (Add language with emphasis added) . Chairman Fife indicated this is always to take place at a scheduled Public Hearing not as a Consent Calendar item. Adding the language . . . Page 7 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of October 17, 1990 at the end of this paragraph makes it clear that the Commission must make specific findings. Page 4, add paragraph (d): (d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work. Chairman Fife said the Planning Commission, any time it votes, should have the plans so it's not voting on something that is understood one way by the proponent and another way by the Commission. Page 5, paragraph C (3): change '10 calendar days' to '15 calendar days'. Chairman Fife said he felt ten days for an appeal wasn't enough time to notice because of the timing of Commission meetings and newspaper schedules. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that it's ten days from the date of final Commission action and ten days is the normal time for all Planning Commission act10ns. If the appeal time is changed for this action staff recommended it be changed for all actions to have cons1stent work1ng times and deadlines. Commiss10ner Dahlman asked if, for those accesses to be automatically approved, the neighbors wi thin 300 feet could be notified so they could object if they wished to? Mr. Whittenberg said staff feels that if the roofing material matches the house, if it's set within the interior of the house and not on the outside wall and it covers just enough area to cover the stairway then those meet the spirit of the ordinance and should not require any additional review. Commissioner Dahlman said there should be a 'safety net'. Mr. Whittenberg said any new structures will come before the Commission no matter what they're proposing. Chairman Fife suggested a provision to be "the Planning Department shall once a month publish a list of the existing CRAS which it has determined under the new QQQg to be in compliance - at least that would make known to neighbors whether another neighbor is "sliding through as being in compliance when they have issue with that". Mr. Whittenberg said he was not certain people would really find it in the paper. Mr. Whittenberg suggested noticing the adjoining neighbors within 100 feet of CRAS that staff feels meet the intent as expressed under the proposal and see if they have any problems. Chairman Fife said the mail outs would be too burdensome on staff, and said if the list were published in the newspaper and added to the Commission agenda as an informational 1tem on the first meeting of each month that would be sufficient. . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Commissioner Fife suggested adding the following paragraph at page 5, paragraph 5 (a) as (iii): (iii) The Planning Director shall publish monthly and list in the Agenda at the first meeting of the Planning Commission for that month the addresses of all properties on which an existing covered roof access structure (CRAS ) has been determined to be in compliance with existing codes for one year. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to amend Alternative II of Zoning Text Amendment #6-90 to include the following modifications: · Page 3, paragraph (4): Eliminate the word 'minor' and call it a 'Height Variation'. Page 4, paragraph C (1): "The Planning Commission may at a scheduled Public Hearing approve or disapprove ... and make findings thereon. (Add language with emphasis added) . Page 4, add paragraph (d): (d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work. Page 5, paragraph C (3): change '10 calendar days' to '15 calendar days'. Add the following paragraph at page 5, paragraph 5 (a) as (iii): (iii) The Planning Director shall publish monthly and list in the Agenda at the first meeting of the Planning Commission for that month the addresses of all properties on which an existing covered roof access structure (CRAS) has been determined to be in compliance with existing codes for one year. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Alternative II as amended through the adoption of Resolution No. 1602. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman NOES: Orsini . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Mr. Whittenberg said this matter will now be scheduled for a Public Hearing before the City Council; the date will be advertised in the local paper. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. REVIEW: CODE PROVISIONS/BUSINESSES IN ENCLOSED BUILDINGS 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. He stated this request originated at the Oral Communications section of the October 3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. After discussion with Ed Quayle, the Commission requested staff to review the Code as it pertained to automobile detailing. Staff's opinion was that auto detailing bus1nesses should only be permitted within an enclosed building. (Staff report on file in Department of Development Services). Ed Ouayle * 4228 Dogwood. Seal Beach Mr. Quayle began an auto deta1l business at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway by renting two parking spaces from the Honda dealer; he parks his own car in one of those spaces and has a portable red canopy in the other space. Supplies are kept between spaces. Mr. Quayle stated he is look1ng for an amendment to the QQQg and this staff report is only re-stating what the Code says. Mr. Quayle said staff was "trying to separate me into one particular sentence out of all three of these areas of the Code and deny me the ability to stay outside a building when I feel that I can or might be allowed to do that". Mr. Quayle talked about the nation becoming service oriented and that when the Code was written in 1982 they were not considering auto detailers. Mr. Quayle read letters of support from various Seal Beach businessmen (copies attached to staff report on file in Department of Development Services). Commissioner Orsini asked if the bright red canopy against the blue building conformed? Mr. Quayle said there was no problem. Mr. Quayle said the canopy and advertising banner go up at 7:45 a.m. and he works until 6:30 p.m. He's on a month-to-month lease. He pays a certain percentage of his income during the week and then a monthly rental fee. Chairman Fife said automobile detailing is a new industry having flourished in the last ten years. He said he would be inclined to explore the concept of a zoning text amendment along the lines of an automobile detailing business defined tightly enough not to include painting, mechanical repair or body work which might be Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 . permissible without being entirely wi thin an enclosed building provJ.ded it's operated on some sort of legal arrangement in conjunction with a building having public rest rooms. Mr. Fife said he agreed with Mr. Quayle's comment "If people are trying to conduct themselves legitimately (which I perceive you to be) have no avenue then we will encourage the guy who knocks on your door and says 'do you want me to detail your car'?". In which case the City gets no business tax revenue. . . Chairman Fife said he would like to see staff come back to the Commission with a proposed zoning text amendment involving a Conditional Use PermJ.t process for automobile detailing covering operation in connection with a legal existing property owner, the operator having a business license and having restrooms open during hours of operation. Commissioner Sharp asked Chairman Fife if he was recommending Mr. Quayle be given a temporary business license for a certain number of months? Chairman Fife said "Yes, if that's within my power yes". Commissioner McCurdy, restating Mr. Quayle's comment that 'new services are popping up allover the place', asked what else is the City going to allow being carried on in tents or in the streets if the laws are going to be changed for this one industry? Mr. McCurdy said if this type of business were to crop up in alleys and other places without a business license then that's up to the City to put an end to that. Chairman Fife said he felt "...J.t's just part of the job of people in these kinds of bodies and the Council to deal with these problems one by one as they come up. I can't foresee what may come up five years from now. But I think as a practical matter there is just not enough enforcement personnel to track down all the people who will violate the law if there's no reasonable alternative to it". Commissioner Sharp said he hopes Mr. Quayle will be successful enough to purchase a building and place hJ.s business inside soon. Commissioner Dahlman said if Mr. Quayle is successful he might have "a little niche here" and someone seeing this could outbid hJ.s rent and put him out of business. Therefore, he out to consider having a structure and a home base. Mr. Quayle said he cannot handle more than two vehicles per day at 4 to 6 hours by himself. Mr. Whittenberg said if the CommissJ.on wanted to instruct staff as they had been discussing, staff would be glad to prepare a report for the Commission and then schedule a Public Hearing to receive input. Staff has a concern that the parking areas currently provided is already the minimum required under the Code for the existing businesses. Once additional businesses uses are added you have other problems that need to be dealt with. Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 . Regarding M!tI:;. Q1llayle' s business license, Mr. Whittenberg said "technically he's l.n violation of the Code" and indicated there was no mechanism to make him conforming temporarily. Chairman Fife said "I don't think we should try to create one. You'll just have to run the risk that by the time this comes up next time you may be in jail". Mr. Whittenberg said there is not a way for staff to suspend the ordinances of the City while you're taking a look at something unless the City adopts some type of urgency measure and even then l.t does not allow you the right to continue to operate something that's in violation of the~. Mr. Whittenberg cites the emergency measure on the 'doghouses' which prohibited anyone from proposing any whl.le the City considered development standards. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to ask staff to propose a zoning text amendment for consideration by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 1 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman NOES: McCUrdy *** 4. SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK PRESENTATION BY BILL DAWSON . Mr. Dawson read a prepared thirteen page statement which is attached to these Minutes for reference. Mr. Dawson then indl.cated he would be willing to answer questions from the Plannl.ng Commission. Vacant Lots Chairman Fife, referencing a memorandum dated October 17, 1990 from Denis Thomas, City Finance Director entitled Review of Seal Beach Trailer Park Income Eligibl.lity, noted that of the 125 spaces in the Seal Beach Trailer Park (SBTP), 92 are currently rented to low income people and 25 to moderate income people for a total of 117 spaces, there are 4 vacant lots and 4 exempt lots. Mr. Fife asked if the 4 vacant lots had any structures on them? Mr. Dawson sal.d one of the lots characterl.zed as vacant has a cabana on it which he just completed bUl.lding and intends to sell next week. There is something on three of the vacant lots and one lot remains vacant. . Income Re-evaluation Chairman Fife, referencing the Amended Declaration of Establishment of Covenants (recorded in Official Records of Orange County, CA on November 24, 1981) noted that ~ 1.07 says "Riverbeach and Agency also desire to provl.de for the mal.ntenance of 120 of the lots and any trailers or mobile homes owned by Riverbeach for rental by persons and faml.lies of low and moderate income". Mr. Fife asked that if, when a person inl.tially moves into the SBTP, must he . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 qualify as a low or moderate 1ncome person? Mr. Dawson said that was correct and it's been his policy to "overwhelmingly favor low 1ncome persons as opposed to moderate". Mr. Fife then asked if there was any requirement for a re-evaluation of those tenant's incomes for verification of low and/or moderate income status? Mr. Dawson said there was no re-evaluation of income and no eviction if they become successful. Mr. Fife asked if Mr. Dawson recalled, from the original debates when this was first going through the City's Redevelopment Agency, whether that concept was ever discussed at that time? Mr. Dawson said he did not recall the subject ever being discussed. Mr. Fife, again referencing The City Finance Director's memo of October 17, 1990, said that "not withstanding the possibility that that could happen, it just has not happened and at least it is not happening now" because there are 117 out of 120 spaces that are rented to low or moderate income. Clarifying his statement, Mr. Fife said that even though a person could qualify as a low 1ncome person when he 1nitially moves into the SBTP he could become more successful with time and clearly not qualify as a low or moderate income person. However, he could remain in the SBTP "because there is no mechanism by wh1ch he is gently or forcibly asked to leave the SBTP and the way that is 'farmed over' is when he dies or moves on for other reasons it is now again re-rented or re-sold to someone who does qualify as low or moderate income". Mr. Dawson said that is correct and there is no provision that requires a re-evaluation of incomes. Mr. Fife asked Mr. Dawson that in terms of his work in the low income housing area if it was his observation that low income housing projects do not require any periodic or re-evaluation of the occupants eligibility. Mr. Dawson that certain Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs require re-evaluation annually. HUD Involvement in SBTP Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Dawson to explain to the Commission to what extent HUD was involved? Mr. Dawson said HUD is not involved 1n the SBTP "except in the following way. You note that the Redevelopment Agency volunteered to subsidize rents of tenants but that subsidy is restricted by California relocation law to $4000 or four years if the $4000 budget is eaten up earlier in subs1dy. Now that left you with the question of what happens to those people who can't afford to live here at the end of four years? That's where the Orange County Hous1ng Authority and HUD came in. HUD provides section 8 certificates out of their existing program to the tenant, not the project ... one may apply if he meets certain income criter1a to the Housing Authority who administers a Section 8 program for HUD in Orange County. So we were able to assist all the tenants in the SBTP who would have had a problem when that four year subsidy expired and to qualify for a section 8 entitlement and therefore we have tenants who's rent is subsidized for them by HUD. That's not HUD involvement with the SBTP, it's involvement with the tenants". Mr. Dawson went on to say the involvement with HUD in Washington, D. C. is interesting because when the SBTP initiated the Section 8 program it was before . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 the Section 8 program accommodated assistance to mobile home parks. To "go around the fact there wasn't Section 8 assistance available for mobile home space, I agreed with tenants to buy their trailers for $1.00. I then gave them an option to repurchase their trailer from me on 24-hour notice for the same $1.00. I then rented them their trailer and the space at that same rent as the space rent and thus qualified them for section 8 assistance. An Assistant Secretary of HUD flew out from Washington D.C. to see the project at the behest of the then-director of State Department of Housing, Arnold Sternberg. She toured the SBTP and she applauded the ploy as something that ought to be implemented on a broad basis because it attacked the problem that this rent subsidy wasn't available to trailer parks. Subsequently the laws changed and Section 8 is available to trailer parks". Assets Consideration Comm1ssioner Orsini asked Mr. Dawson that since SBTP eligibility depended entirely on income what consideration was taken by SBTP if the applicant had assets? Mr. Dawson said assets were not relevant, only income. Low Income Figures Mr. Dawson said median income in Orange County is $49,100 for a family of four. Mr. Whittenberg said these numbers are revised yearly by the Orange County Housing Authority based on numbers the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development generates for Section 8 rental assistance program. Mr. Curtis said the figures presented provide for very low, low and moderate, median income with a sliding scale based on the number of persons in the household. FAMILY NO. 4 2 INCOME LEVEL Low Low ANNUAL INCOME $35,700 $28,000 $58,900 $47,000 4 2 Moderate Moderate Mr. Whittenberg, referencing Orange County median income, said less than 50% of median income is very low income, less than 80% of median income is low income, 80% to 120% of County median is moderate income. Transfer Ownership Comm1ssioner orsini asked Mr. Dawson 1f a person, qualifying for low income status, were to purchase a trailer in SBTP could that person transfer ownership to a relative at any time? Mr. Dawson said yes, as long as the new owner would qualify financially for low or moderate income status. Mr. Dawson said he was not aware of anyone transferring a trailer to someone who had a high income status. . . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 street Width & Fire Trucks Commissioner Orsini asked Mr. Dawson 1f he had requested the Seal Beach Police Department to ticket in the SBTP? Mr. Dawson said the management does "lots of things to avoid people from parking in the streets in the SBTP". Mr. Dawson said he could not recall the Police Department ever ticketing 1n the SBTP or being asked to stop ticketing. Mr. Ors1ni said he had received a different story from the Police Department. Tax Assessments/Cabanas Commissioner orsini asked if all the units having cabanas were paying property taxes? Mr. Dawson said he was told by the Assessor that they inspect annually, once a year only. When they inspect they put all the cabanas that they find on the tax rolls. Mr. Dawson said "I can't testify that I know that there are only 41 cabanas". Mr. Orsini asked Mr. Dawson what the assessment of the cabanas was based on. Mr. Dawson said he was unfam1liar with the exact method of assessment but believed the method was the same as for houses. Mr. Orsin1 said that the four bedroom cabana at #6 Cottonwood was assessed at $77,000; the taxes are based on the assessed value. Mr. Curtis said the City evaluates all additions at $65.60 per square foot plus add1tional costs for kitchens, chimneys etc. That's how the City arrives at its valuation and what the permit cost is based on. That is the information the City passes to the Assessor's Office. Mr. Dawson said "These cabanas are assessed on the unsecured property rolls". When Mr. Dawson spoke to the head of the Mobile Home Division of the Assessor's Office he explained to Mr. Dawson that there are "over a million names on the unsecured tax rolls and that there is no parcel number or assessed valuation number " as there is for a house. Mr. Dawson showed Linda Stobbe's tax bill. Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the building valuations placed on a structure when a permit is sought may not be the same number the Assessor ultimately uses. The City is basing their figures on a cost per square foot value. The Assessor, when assessing the value of an improvement, uses two options: (1) if it's a sale he uses the sale price and (2) major additions are appraised by County property appraisers as they deem fit. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that when talking about assessed value, most of the value is in the land. Define Cabana Commissioner Orsini asked Mr. Dawson for the definition of a cabana. Mr. Dawson replied a "cabana" is a structure built as an appurtenance to a trailer or mobil home which is built according the Uniform Building Code which is precisely the code which every house in Seal Beach subscr1bes to. State Exemption * City Ordinance No. 1137 Chairman Fife asked Mr. Dawson if the exemption granted by the State of California to the SBTP exempted SBTP from State laws governing heights of cabanas in trailer parks. Title 25, Health and Safety Code. It was not an exemption from other local laws. . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Mr. Dawson said "I don't want to discuss that because that's a controversial issue. The fact is that the state Attorney tells me that the state law overrides the municipal law. But I've never taken that pos1tion and I don't intend to. The fact is that the removal of the height limit on cabanas left the height limit in the SBTP to the height limit in that zone of the City, which I recall is zone 2 ... . The height limit in zone 2 happens to be 35 feet not 25 feet. So you have Oakwood and Riverbeach ... on either side of the SBTP with an allowable height of 35 feet. It was in recognition ... of perce1ved problems of fire safety and other problems that the ordinance was superimposed over the SBTP as opposed to any other place in zone 2". Mr. Whittenberg said City ordinance No. 1137 was adopted in 1983 and allowed for 25 feet for a two-story cabana and set forth the 20 foot spacing requirement between two-story cabanas. There are documents in the Planning Department files between the City Attorney and legal counsel for the State Department of Housing and Community Development as to whose regulations pre-empt who. Title 25 has numerous provisions dealing with state requirements for cabanas and it's very clear that in those areas the City cannot pass something that is more or less than those requirements are. If the State has not pre-empted the field then the City can go into that area and adopt its own reasonable controls. The Seal Beach Trailer Park is the only trailer park in the State that can have two-story cabanas due to having a waiver from the State's requirement to maintain the standard 14 foot limitation. Mr. Dawson asked about those issues pertaining to cabanas not specifically addressed in the State codes the consensus is that local codes cannot be used to discriminate against trailer parks. Mr. Whittenberg said the City Attorney's consensus 1S that as long as those controls are reasonably related to health, safety and public welfare issues that you can adopt standards in those areas but the local codes cannot be used to discriminate against trailer parks. Mr. Whittenberg said when the City receives an application regarding a cabana the City reviews the application for compliance with the very detailed State requirements on cabanas, ~ standards and City ordinances adopted to supplement both State and ~ standards. Mr. Dawson said the relationship between the City and the SBTP has "always been a publicjpri vate partnership". He used the example of the City ordinance for sprinkler1ng a two-story cabana which is not mandated by the State. Mr. Dawson said he did not object to this ordinance because he thought it was reasonable and "... to not have the SBTP some day wind up ... with two-story cabanas cheek-on-jowl looking very much like Surfside. I didn't think that was a very good idea so I simply co-operated with the ordinance". Mr. Whittenberg read titles of sections from Title 25, Sections 1444 - 1464 relating to State standards for cabanas: Design & Construction, Minimum Dimensions (ceil1ng height, minimum horizontal dimension for a room, minimum square footage for cabana), Foundation Requirements, Flooring Requirements, Weather Protection, Exiting, Light & Ventilation, Electrical Installations, Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 ~ Cooking Facilities, Energy Insulations Standards. These are the areas the State of California has specific requirements on. Staff will provide copies of these State standards to the Commissioners. Chairman Fife said he would like to have these State standards plus he would like staff to indicate (asterisk) what comparable local municipal Code section is pre-empted. Commissioner Dahlman asked who was Seal Beach Associates? Commissioner Dahlman referenced an agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Riverbeach Associates; what's the difference? Mr. Dawson said "Seal Beach Associates was the venture that acquired the Trailer Park originally. Then I formed an agreement with Riverbeach Associates which was a lim1ted partnership formed by a major building company, Urban West Communities. They were required to build the new Trailer Park and then the townhouse project and turn over the Trailer Park to me. Which they did do. They eventually bU11 t the townhouses. I continued to operate the Trailer Park throughout since 1974 as Seal Beach Associates, subsequently the partnership name was changed to Seal Beach Partners, Ltd. which is the present form of the ownership. . Commissioner Dahlman asked if Mr. Dawson was a limited partner in the building phase? Mr. Dawson said "No, I was not the builder. Urban West Communi ties was the builder". Commissioner Dahlman said "They were the General Partner. Who were the limited partners?" Mr. Dawson said "My limited partner is Richard L. Botte. In the limited partnership known as Riverbeach, I don't know who the limited partners were in that partnership ... it is a little confusing ... I could furnish you with the sub-lease agreement which occurred concurrently with turning the project over to Riverbeach and then you would see the continuity of our operation. They simply built the townhouses". Commissioner Orsini asked Mr. Dawson what was the bond issue of Seal Beach #99 on the Riverbeach project? Mr. Dawson said "Mortgage revenue bonds were issued in connection with the Riverbeach townhouse project and utilized to provide the mortgages for the purchasers of those townhouses". . Comm1ssioner Dahlman noted the City's roll is to approve the SBTP rent charges. Mr. Dawson said that was correct. Commissioner Dahlman referenced a list of SBTP expenses noting that "When you read an annual report it's not the numbers in the columns but the notes that go at the end that you really ought to pay attention to". Commissioner Dahlman said to Mr. Dawson "I want to hear that you are disclosing to the people who have an 1nterest in the loans and all of the various things that would appear in notes to the Redevelopment Agency. I realize all that's not for open discussion". Mr. Dawson asked Comm1ssioner Dahlman what he meant by "people who have an interest in the loans - what loans"? Commissioner Dahlman said "It says 'Return on Investment - $2354' . . . Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 but $11,000 is a loan payment. If you made that loan then you are getting more than $2500. So these things need to be disclosed if they are relevant and I just want to make sure that you realize that. That's not for us (Planning Commission), we're here to talk about building". Mr. Dawson replied "But since you've raised the issue, I feel I'd like to respond. These are the expenses which are taken from rental income. The loan payment is an expense. This loan was a $1,000,000 loan and it together with equity was what built the Park. The Park actually cost about $1,900,000. The only return I'm permitted on the $900,000 investment 1S $2354 a month ... that is fixed for all time ... I felt there should have been some kind of escalator on that and he (Tom parrington) wouldn't go for that ... I refinanced the SBTP in order to acquire the fee title a couple of years ago and the Assessor smacked me with an increased assessment. As a matter of fact he valued the land at, I think, $16,000,000. I actually paid $390,000 for the lessor's interest. I bought it from Riverbeach Associates who had bought it from East Naples. I have appealed that. I haven't paid that tax bill. I will be before the Tax Assessor in November or December with that appeal and I think I'll be successful" . Commissioner Dahlman asked if the refinancing yielded an increased loan payment expense to the renters? Mr. Dawson said "Mr. Dahlman, I'm not permitted to increase the loan payment in terms of the rent formula. What you see here 1S ground rent and loan payment ... ground rent is the original ground lease. I leased the ground until a couple of years ago when I bought it .. the ground rent when I bought it was $3500 per month - it had increased from $3333 a month. The sum of $3500 and $11,060 a month or $14,560 a month is what I'm permitted as a loan payment. My loan payment happens to be bigger but that doesn't matter to you or the Redevelopment Agency or the tenants because they don't have to bear any part of it". Commissioner Orsini asked Mr. Dawson if he owned any un1ts in the SBTP? Mr. Dawson said "Yes. Four". Asked how he qualified, Mr. Dawson said "As a matter of fact, you will note that I am required to maintain 120 units for low and moderate income people. There are 125 units in the Trailer Park. I'm permitted five exempt units . . . " . Commissioner Orsini asked if those were the four modular homes? Mr. Dawson replied "There's a manufactured home, that's the world famous pink house, and at the other end there's the grey house, those are two of the exemptions. That happens to be connected to a mobil home. There are five exemptions". Councilmember Hastings asked if she could ask a question. Chairman Fife said questions were not allowed because this was not a Public Hearing but comments could be made at Oral Communications. *** Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 . 5. CEQA GUIDELINES RESOLUTION No. 1595 Mr. Whittenberg said the Californl.a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines were before the Planning Commission at their October 3, 1990 meeting. The determination of the Commissl.on at that time was to carry the item over to this meeting to allow for further study due to the length of the document. The CEQA guidelines before the Commission are an update to the existing CEQA guidell.nes which have been adopted by the City and last revised in 1984. State legislation and court decisions have required changes to be made. These guidelines bring the CEQA document into conformance with current legal requirements. The EQCB committee reviewed these CEQA guidelines and approved them at their September 18, 1990 meeting. If approved by the Planning Commission the document will go to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency for their review and approval before they become effective. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines through the adoption of Resolution No. 1595. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman , ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Charles Antos * 328 17th Street * Seal Beach Mr. Antos said one item left out of the history of the Trailer Park was that "qul.te a bit of Federal Community Development Grant Block (CDBG) funds were obtained by the City of Seal Beach and spent in the Trailer Park. The City's Redevelopment Agency paid for the costs of moving expenses, relocation, storage of personal property and upgrading of tral.lers before they were moved into the new park. This was to bring the trailers up to minimum Code standards in order to be moved l.nto the new park. Some of the money that was used for those purposes came from Federal CDBG funds under those rules and regulations. That's something the Commission should be aware of". Beverly Casares * Seal Beach Ms. Casares said there are "incredible inconsistencies" in the Housing Element that the Planning Commission has been laboring under. She noted the law firm of Rutan & Tucker said they had submitted amendments to the City's General Plan, other than the Housing Element, to accomplish their development. She cited the following examples of inconsistencies: . 123 8th Street - She asked "When is a rehab a rehab? Mr. Whittenberg said the only thing the Comml.ssion could do was approve it because all of the City's existing municipal Codes were met by the applicant. Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 . Auto Detail @ 1000 Pacific Coast Highway - She felt the Commission had given Mr.Quayle a fair and adequate hearing. . In V1ew of all the General Plan inconsistencies she called for a building moratorium in the City of Seal Beach should be recommended. Ms. Casares indicated the five Planning Commissioners, the Director of Development Services and the Administrative Assistant must be agreeing with her because they were not disagreeing with her statement on General Plan inconsistencies. She noted there are no earthquake guidelines that are written "so any developer can be given a fair shake". Ms. Casares said "suppose Mola (Development Corp.) got his 1nitiative ready to go. If he got his permit do you know that I could stop h1s plan (by) appearing in pro per for $1750 because the General flgn is inconsistent. In spite of the language in his initiative that says "any inconsistencies shall be ignored and this 1nitiative shall prevail" I could stop him because he's actually in the process of applying for a development now. I could stop him any time before the election". She said when the Planning Commission does not do the things they are charged with doing they are "aiding and abetting frivolous lawsuits". She further discussed "slam lawsu1 ts" saying no City Council member may be accountable for their vote. Ms. Casares asked if the City had a plot map of the Seal Beach Trailer Park showing designated space sizes? If not, she suggested the City should get one. She said a News Enterprise article quoted Kathy Sousa as saying the rents were based on a percentage of land use basis. . Ms. Casares asked Chairman Fife if a mobile home has a legal definition in the State of California? Mr. Fife said he didn't know. Ms. Casares said she thought the Government Code defined a mobile home is a chassis with a frame, four walls, a top and a bottom. In the Trailer Park there's new cabana being built with only a chassis under it. She urged the Commiss10n to find out how many two-story cabanas in the Trailer Park are built on a metal frame. She asked how many permits have been issued in the Trailer Park. She asked what the parking requirements are for addit10ns to mobil homes in the Trailer Park? The Trailer Park started out with 140 spaces and in 1981 fourteen spaces disappeared; she said she has a copy of the public map. She said "by my count there's 127 spaces but Mr. Dawson said there's 125 spaces". She sa1d there are documents from within the Trailer Park which are being circulated and, while not wanting to become involved in a private property settlement agreement, said the circulation of those documents has raised many questions. She said the City doesn't know the registered owner, phone number, occupant of every mobil home in the Park. She said the City has not done its moral job to make sure that it provides affordable low income housing. . . . Page 20 - Planning commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Ms. Casares said "There will be a formal HUD investigation on (1) the allegation of improper use of HUD funds in the Trailer Park; (2) all the income; (3) all the expenses written on the Seal Beach Trailer Park account; (4) civil rights voting irregularit1es; (5) all of the other alleged activities occurring in the Trailer Park; (6) charges of inordinate profit in mobil home sales; (7) tenant harassment; (8) favoritism and/or free rent to certain tenants; (9) the inability of people w1th 80% of the median Orange County money for a family of two and basically $32,000 to find low income housing in this City. Ms. Casares asked the Commission if they had the parking requirements for trailer park add1tions? She urged the Commission "to do what you are charged to do". Sonia Sonju * (No Address Given) Ms. Sonju introduced herself as "the other owner in the Seal Beach Trailer Park". Noting it was 11:00 p.m. she said she felt she could supplement the presentation by Mr. Dawson by adding to certain Commission questions, bring forth concerns from tenants and her concerns for liability to her and to the City. She asked for time on the October 17, 1990 agenda. Chairman Fife said the Planning Commission has no )urisd1ction for enforcement on the lease or low income housing requirements, saying that's the job of the Redevelopment Agency. The Commission's concern is the history of the two-story cabana situation. The Commission can't intrude into the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency or the Council on those issues. Ms. Sonju asked for time to further inform the Commission and add to their information. After discussion, the Commission scheduled a presentation by Ms. Sonju at their regularly scheduled meeting of December 5, 1990 as a Scheduled Matter. Barbara Antocci * Seal Beach Ms. Antocci said she resented the fact that the Commission decided who owns the Trailer Park stating it's a General Partnership and has two owners. She felt the Commission should invite Ms. Sonju to speak at its next meeting. Ellen Taylor * Seal Beach Trailer Park Resident (No Address) Ms. Taylor said the Commission asked Mr. Dawson how many spaces in the SBTP he owned. Mr. Dawson is allowed to own a certain number of spaces but those spaces are not locked down. He can own these five spaces today, build and sell them and then own five other spaces tomorrow. He should lock down the spaces that are low and moderate income spaces otherwise this floating policy will prevail. Mr. Whittenberg advised Ms. Taylor that concerns regarding the format of the existing agreements in the SBTP should be taken to the Redevelopment Agency. Lisa Antocci * Seal Beach (No Address G1ven) Ms. Antocci asked how many parking spaces are required per trailer? If a cabana is built are additional parking spaces required? Mr. Whittenberg replied the requirement is 1.5 parking spaces per mobil home. No additional parking is required when an addition is done. . . . Page 21 - Planning commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 Norma Strohmeyer * Seal Beach (No Address Given) Ms. Strohmeyer thanked the Commission for allowing clarification of the SBTP assets. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street * Seal Beach Mr. Antos said there was a large planter in the middle of a street in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. It has been removed and was perhaps removed with City-type money. He said "I would like to know where that money came from to be spent on private property. Whether it came from Redevelopment funds or CDBG or General Funds or just exactly what. And was that part of a regular yearly application?" . Mr. Whittenberg said he believed the funds came from the CDBG program. Mr. Curtis said "The funds used to pay for that were Community Development Block Grant funds. They were approved in 1982 for mobil home rehabilitation and maintenance. The Department of Housing and Community Development administers our program. (They) approved this use in the sense that it improved the mobil homes directly adjacent to that planter. For a number of years the Fire Department and the City have been requesting its removal for safety reasons and HCD was agreeable to utilize the CDBG monies to remove that to elim1nate that safety problem". STAFF CONCERNS 6. USE OF SCHOOL FACILITY FOR CHURCH PURPOSES Mr. Curtis said staff has not been able to ascertain from the school district when Calvary Chapel church began using McGaugh School for services. Mr. curtis is going to contact the Calvary Chapel to get the date of original use. It appears the use should have been approved by the City Council. Council would have looked at the parking requirements and the use. If it wasn't approved by the Council and it was required, staff will refer this matter to the Counc1l to apply for approval. Mr. Whittenberg said the problem in determining when the church use began is that at the time the church use went 1nto the school it was part of the Seal Beach School District which was subsequently taken over by the Los Alamitos School district and the records are unavailable. Staff is tracking the date through the church records. Housing Element Approval by Commissioner Bauer Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff received today a copy of the wri tten decision by Commissioner Bauer re the Housing Element. His decision was the document was valid as submitted to him. Copies were provided to the Commission in the staff packet. 7. STAFF REPORT RE: 1305 SANDPIPER Mr. Whittenberg said the staff report recaps the decision-making process regarding the "doghouse" at 1305 Sandpiper, reviewing the determinations of the City Council and what the instructions have been through the City Attorney's Office and staff and communicating Page 22 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 ~ those determinations to both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Thompson. This report is for information purposes. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~rnl~C-- Executlve Secretary Department of Development Services *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. . *** The Planning Commission Minutes of October 1~ 1990 were ap~~~ by the Planning Commission on ~ L~ 1990. ~ ~ e\ ,< , ' - 1<'/ if- 'I ,. " I f I; -, '711. JOU'"fICl/rt-- 0<<. iober" 7990 \; . READERst FORUM 1 Tha Journol ancourag.. oubmlaaron. ollo"ora and al1lclaa aa wall aa black a d whlta or color pholoa, which ca" , ..Iurned "SASE la oncloood Pi.... , 0 1oIt... undor 300 worclo Lattara mual ba algnad with I . . Roof access On Oct 17, the plannmg co.'.- miSSIon WIll addre\~ the cun en' proposal that any covered r,l', t access to roof-top decks not '), allowed anyume, anywhere WILl, . the city hmlts It IS my und. standmg that the eXIsting cOV'",' roof accesses would then beel ~', legally non-confonnmg and thL, would have to be removed m [/-, evenl that the property ow' l wanted to Improve or alter tll., property Why penahze all future hr> ',' builders for others past mlstal..e~' Why not specIfy the access clear- ance reqUirements and If tht.- butlder deVIates from these thell the butlding department does nl It Issue fmal Improvement for t 1 construction until It does confon I Many of us purchased (" property mtendmg to bUild a 10\ r ly smgle famIly home With a ro J deck to enJoy In Old Town a.'.' Surf side the lots are so small th. t the deck IS our lOam recreatIClI area 10 heu of yard~ (as on Tie Htll Are we to chmb rope ladd, , . to get to them? Please express your opmlOn " e Wrlt.,'1 nama, add,... and tel.phon. number All la"a.. a.. aUbJoct 10 odIl1ng by Journ.1 ola" Oeadllno lor aubmlaolon Is Friday al 5 pm prIot 10 publlcallon Mailing add...a ,a PO BOl( 755, Seal Baach, CA 110740 the Oc: 17 meetIng or contact a ptanl'J.ng commiSSIon or city coun- Cil member to be heard Lee Cambria Seal Beach "" < ~ ;.1' 'ft d I; '\ ", " ( ~ ;\1 ~ IOjl rill) MEMOTO /5e/ fZ~L:~->~i-//r . ;T;; L- ~/f?'/ a--r- cL /0 -/7-~O - .......... " c::8'~<>'<~? ~ -'7<tO~-j . 52 ~,--- ~...-. It: A'//~<7 "~~-<,d~A~ ~ c:z-,----a-g,J._ (f1.4,e!:) (.; d. CZI'./ ;:;;:,__ ~,d7 C;;~ ~ ~-<~.e.-, &4:'~h~~<~~ ~ ---7 ~PA - <;;--/A~.<<:.-uA ~/~ ~ Q/L~ ~~~S:-'-~-'~ P, ~~~ ~/'?~t!(' z:;r:J- ~~ ~-7 ~J ~ /L~ .,/n(t(.'-;lA _/)~~~/~ /2~~ :=:~:;~~.~~~~d~ /u/ ~a / ~/,/~>;T'-<,~ d~ */ _-L--f' ~ ~7'~ utr .~~.L;-~~u d ~---~-, ~ ~_ J,r/,~~~ I~ fYA-,u-/L_yL_~/ ~ ---a.,--?7'/~ , Y~<'/--";'-'-7 d /0-/7-;70 DATE PREPARED City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD '8l1ke.r:It/~~lilRDate / o!t rr/tio .<<:~ 'I' f , .. '0-'-1 NEW 10{75 (PREV ED 6S-1) MEMO TO hA7 (?:..A.z:. - ~~ ->- . p ~~ - ~ ~ r'~~~~ r?~-/~zL /-&--7--:-- ~~ _/-rt?~-~~/.//----- tR~~2:-~~~-?~?,.qt!'a-- 7;::;::~:~~d:~?(-4h =--~~ d~/ ;:;~~9-:=~E.2::~ ;~:;:::: / /o~/7-9cr DATE PREPARED ;-;i~. 2~6~.~j ~~fZ:~ ~L-< -zt- /e__h~..2'z (::L.L-P--r- 7'-.y--: . /~4 ~/ /' /' :z:: ~~~ >;_/ A;~-L- tl/~ ~ ~//'~ d- -/e-, A/a/ ~~' / .r/ 7 0 rip 6i:-v,-- L2.--:JU . '" From J!jI!1e' '0-'-1 NEW 10{7' (PREV ED 6S-1) . . MEMOTO ~/ e~----z: - ~~ 2- . /o~/7-9er DATE PREPARED ~ ~~ - ~ ~ /~~~~ r/~;?~;r:-- / . /-&:----7'-:-,?/./l.-C. _/-Y~<--'-'~/'/~-/___.n ../~~qP:?~~9<a~a-- 7;:;::Z;:::~~~7f~ ~.~~ a~-e ~~~9 :::::-E€~::Z ~~~:~ / ~ d:' 2 ~=6 ;::;.~j ~ ~fZ:~ ~- -zr ?~~,,~~Zc ~- 7<-~ . /~~ ~/ -/ ~ :k- ~k~~ >;_/ A;~-L f2:/~ ~ ,//~ ~ * A/a/ ~~. / s-/ 7 0 t!.L~<- L/4U . " From J!I!le" '0-'-' NEW '0/70 (PREV ED 68-1) . RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS RE: THE SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK ~" \ . c'.ty at Seat Beach Planning CommlSSIOfl SUBMITTED fOR RECORD By 5 DflW~fJate JOllrl'f..~.ae 1.( fla.p '\ - _ 'T":;'_-;:..:;::'- -.:::r::.r---..;......_ ......... _----..._....... Ii . Your Director of Planning was asked for the background on how to quote Mr. Orsini "we became unique." Of course he was referring to the Trailer Park. At your September meet1ng this Commission considered an application by one of my tenants for a variance 1n the height limit of his cabana. I did not attend that meeting, but another of my tenants provided me with a tape and I subsequently reviewed your dialogue carefully. I was shocked to learn of the misunderstandings or should I say, lack of understanding expressed that night. As a result, and at the invitation of your Chairman, I appear before you 1n the hopes of providing you with a ~ complete and accurate picture of the award-winning Seal Beach Trailer Park. Before I get 1nto the Park's history, I would like to respond to a few specific quotes which I have gleaned from the tape of the September meeting. So as to not play favorites, I shall identify your remarks indiVidually. Mr. Orsini is first with thlS quote: "They are not paying Ii property tax." In another place, he says," There's no money that comes back to the City off the DMV, we lose the property tax, I verified all of it. Nothing comes back to the City." I don't want to pick on you, Mr. Orsin1, but you now know that each cabana in the Trailer Park is assessed by the County Assessor, and pays real estate taxes, just 11ke any ~ other house in the City. Howard Sharp, head of the Assessor's moblle home . '. . -... ~ .--::.~_~--:::;--r,o.A."'~"____-^- division, explained to me that 9 individual coaches and 41 trai lers with cabanas are currently taxed as real property. "\ The City's chief financial officer, Dennis Thomas, and I have prepared an estimate of tax revenues from the trailer park as follows: Owner tax bill 9 individual coaches 41 cabanas 1989 city share of DMV fees TOTAL $27,000 $ 2,000 $12,350 ! 4,700 $46,050 Mr. Orsini next questioned the parking requirements in the park, in view of the proliferation of larger units, as cabanas are added to trailers. The parking requirements were carefully considered by both the Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission and established at 1 1/2 to 1 during the original approval process. This ratio in spite of the fact that the actual inventory of cars in the Park, at the time, was closer to 1 to 1. The only change since the original approval occurred was as a result of eight additional parking spaces being added on individual lots, thereby increasing the spaces in the central parking lots available to the balance of the tenants. To claim, as you did, Mr. Orsini, that "we're bringing up the dens 1 ty by gOing to more bedrooms" and "wheq~ Is this going to stop," is to distinguish the Trailer Park resident from any other homeowner in the City: I am unaware of any off street parking requirements which distinguish one ~-- --~ - - - ~-;t;....,--::~... -0.: . dwelling from any other regardless of the bedroom count. ~ Mr. Orsini next declared that "the fire department says trucks can't get through the streets." We have always had difflculty dissuading tenants from parking on the streets. It's an ongoing battle. However, I know of no instance in the past decade, where a fire truck could not get through the streets. According to the Orange County Fire Department, to respond to an emergency, they need an unobstructed width of 13 feet 6 inches for their widest piece of equipment. The streets are uniformly 25 feet wlde. An automobile parked in the street is no more than 6 feet wide. If my arithmetic is correct, 13 1/2 plus 6 equals r.=' 19 1/2 which leaves 4 1/2 feet of clearance. I believe that I should spread my remarks around and so let me quote you, Mr. Chairman, next. Here's your quote: "It's unsettling to me to think that in 10 years we might have $20 million worth of property and the City is getting the grand total of $1,000 a year." I don't have the final figures as yet, but since the Riverbeach Townhouse/Seal Beach Park project is entlrely within the Riverfront Redevelopment Project Area, virtually 100% of the tax dollars received by the assessor come to the City. I would guess those revenues amount to around $250,000 1\ annually at the present tlme lncluding the $46,050 from the . Trailer Park mentioned earller. Next comes Mr. McCurdy who said, "Do you have a copy of the Code? Then you have undoubtedly read the part which says - -- ",,-::a-;;:;~.t--;:-~ -~__, -""-~ . . that these are temporary structures." Now I have a copy of the Code, and I have searched for the part you refer to, but I can't find It. You'll have to enlighten me further. Next Mr. McCurdy says, "We need a complete set of zoning rules. -- It's (The Park) heading to all 2 story cabanas, there's 3 and 4 of them in a row, I saw them." "They're laying in there side by side" "We ought to have high densi ty housing and bring some tax money to the City." '\ Well, we do have high densIty housing bringIng tax money into the City. 21 to the acre to be precise, and I assure you that no 2 story cabana is closer than 20 feet from the another. That's the code, and we and your staff are extremely careful about maintaIning the required separation. Ask them! Finally we come to Mr. Sharp whose understandable concern was over being sued for approving a new structure where soil conditions are even more questionable than in the case of the Hellman Ranch. He correctly points out the very high water table and the potential for liquefaction in case of a major tremor. However, his remarks, and the CommIssion's action, seem to ignore your authority under the 2 story cabana ordinance. When the ordinance was passed, it was Intended to give this body the right to approve the aesthetics of design of 2 story cabanas -- nothIng more, nothIng less. Soil conditions, structural details and other technical matters . -........----- .......-r "l ~._~o....._:~ _..... ~~---:;:x:::=-: . '. are all governed by the building codes WhICh are enforced by the City Building Department. You, of course, condition your approvals upon requirements In the OrdInance, such as sprinkler systems, one hour fire wall, etc., but this Commission has no authority nor, more importantly, responsibility to review and pass judgements on construction documents for technical details. I fully realize that you are a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, and I am not, but wouldn't it be wise for this Commission to refrain from reaching out Into areas which might, in fact, amount to volunteering for more responsibilIty than it actually has? Now for the requested hIstory. '\ . . SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK BACKGROUND . The Seal Beach Traller Park, bUllt ln the 1930's contained 206 spaces on approximately seven acres. The fee ownership of the land was wlth the East Naples Land Company, which leased the ground to Captain Russell B. Grotemat ln the mld-fortles Captaln Grotemat was a retlred sea captain who personally constructed most of the park over a period of years. After hlS death ln 1972, the trailer park was operated by the estate of Captaln Grotemat In 1973, the Grotemat lease matured and the East Naples Land Company notified all the tenants of the termlnation of the lease and that they were being eVlcted The tenants appealed to the city, the press, the state leglslature and the governor. East Naples Land agreed to renew the explred leases for flve years - to January, 1978. The owner's 'I . willingness to extend the lease was based upon a slgned agreement by each tenant to the effect that in January 1978, they would go quietly without further protest The stated intent of the landowner, at the tlme the lease was renewed and the tenant agreement was slgned, was to develop the property to a hlgher economic use. In August, 1974, B1II Dawson operatlng as Seal Beach Assoclates acqulred the trailer park (leasehold estate) from . the estate of CaptaIn Grotemat and moved hIS offIces Into the traIler park. " When It was necessary to meet Increased management and operational expenses in January 1975, the tenants were notIfIed of a rental increase amountIng to $10 -$15 per month, wlth the proviso that, if they were unable to afford the increase due to indlvidual circumstances, Seal Beach Assoclates would waive the additlonal rent Intervlews were conducted and thirty-one of the 200+ tenants came forward, explained theIr circumstances and were exempted from the rent lncrease. . During the Initial perlod, Dawson began to address himself to the problem of the near-term explration of the lease and the need to redevelop the site. Four problems were apparent THE PEOPLE Present occupancy consIsted largely of very young and very old residents. Many of the elderly were of modest, fixed incomes and barely able to meet the very low rentals From the lntervlews conducted, it became apparent that, at least in the case of the thlrty-one tenants exempted from the rent lncrease, all of whom were elderly and whose lncome ranged from $177 to $277 monthly, any drastlc change In thelr lifestyle would be tantamount to a death warrant Therefore, . the first problem whlch confronted Seal Beach Assoclates was " the obligation to see to it that the needy resldents were not deprlved of the opportunlty for low-cost housing Instead of . beIng involved In the usual procedures of real estate development, Seal Beach AssocIates now became Involved in solvIng a socIo-economlc Issue THE CITY I The second problem was the CIty'S desire to see the physIcal blIght In the trailer park removed, or at least corrected Because of the social problems, the CIty had not undertaken an actIve POlICY of requIrIng the park to be '\ upgraded. However, the poor condItIon of the trailer park demanded that Improvements be made eventually THE LANDOWNER The third problem was the fact that the landowner . receIved an inadequate economIC return In view of the IntrinsIc value of the property. THE COASTAL COMMISSION The fourth problem was the need for any project withIn the Coastal Zone to be planned In an envIronmentally sound fashIon consistent wIth the aims of PropositIon 20. PROPOSITION The development proposed was an attempt to solve everyone's problems in a way which was envIronmentally sound. There were approxImately four acres of vacant land surrounding the eXIstIng park WhICh, when taken together with the park, would permIt development of 11 acres. It was felt . that a development of 205 unIts (125 trailer pads, 80 cottages) on 11 acres to replace 206 unIts on seven acres would be vIewed as reducIng the IntensIty of development and . therefore would be acceptable from an envIronmental standpoint. The land planner, Mr Pete Walker of SasakI-Walker Associates, produced a land use plan WhICh provIded for the compatIble development of an up-to-date traIler park to rehouse the needy resIdents of the trailer park and provide 80 condomInium cottages During the formulation of the development plan, It became obvious that, In order to provide trailer pads for the eXIsting resIdents, It would be necessary to have governmental assIstance to offset the hIgher rental costs. . The CalIfornia Redevelopment Act provIdes a vehIcle for such aSSIstance. The CIty and the developer expanded the boundaries of the eXIstIng Seal Beach RIverfront '\ Redevelopment Agency to include the traIler park, thereby maki~g funds from tax increment financIng available to offset the increased rent assocIated with redevelopIng the trailer park. The resultant agreement was in the finest traditIon of a Public/Private partnershIp After extensIve IntervIews WIth the reSIdents of the traIler park and surveys of theIr economIC and demographic characteristIcs, Seal Beach Associates decided to develop a new and modern trailer park facility of 120 spaces, leaving the balance of the land avaIlable for development Into the . cottage-type housing, WhICh would be classIfIed as real property and therefore produce real property taxes for assistIng the eXIsting tenants . . The constructlon of the houslng would provlde the city's Redevelopment Agency tax lncrement funds in the amount of approximately $1 5 mllllon. ThlS would be used to offset the estimated relocation expenses for the eXlstlng tenants and rental SUbSldy payments WhlCh would total approxlmately $1,000,000. The Redevelopment Agency showed a wllllngness to expend these funds for the purpose descrlbed, permittlng the developer to pay the landowner an lncreased rental WhlCh '\ respected the true economlC value of the land SUMMARY Therefore wlth the plan as submltted -- The need of the people (tenants) for low-cost houslng (trallers) was met, Slnce the dlfference between thelr current rent and the increased rent dlctated by costs of lmprovements and hlgher land rent would be subsidlzed by the Redevelopment Agency The tax increment beneflts generated from the condomlnium development would repay the Redevelopment Agency for taklng care of the resldents' needs The landowner should be'satlsfled, because he would received an adequate rental for hlS property. The staff of the Coastal Commlsslon responded affirmatlv~ly sinc~ the proJect would: 1. Reduce intenslty of development; 2 Provlde permanent low-cost houslng within the . . Coastal Zone; 3 Improve ecology by renewing a blighted area; and 4. Enhance the envIronment by creatIng a park- like setting. It seemed to us that wIth the solutIons dIctated by the problems, the proposed development represented a unlque approach to socIal, economIC and envIronmental plannIng. . The state Department of HousIng enthusIastIcally endorsed the development plan and, as the Code Enforcement Agency over mobIle home parks, granted approvals for devIatIons from the state Code (Tltle 25 of the Health and Safety code) to promote the opportunity for decent houslng for low Income persons. . '\ Jack KerIn, Chief of the Code Enforcement for the State notifled the Clty of Seal Beach of an exemptlon from the normal heIght llmit for cabanas In recognition of the very small spaces wlthin the park and the need to allow two stories in brder to meet the goal of decent houslng On March 14, 1983, the Clty of Seal Beach, in recognltion of perceived flre safety as well as aesthetic conslderations passed the "Two Story Cabana Ordinance #1137," which restricted the heIght of cabanas to 25 feet, requlred that any two story cabana be 20 feet from any other such structure, that such structures be sprlnklered and that plans be subJected to architectural reVlew by the Plannjng Commlsslon. '\ . In June of 1981 Governor Brown announced an affordable housing contest WhICh attracted over 600 entries state-wIde The office of Appropriate Technology, workIng wIth the state Department of Housing judged the Seal Beach TraIler Park to be the big WInner. Three park tenants received the award from the Governor at the annual builders conference in San FrancIsco. The award, WhICh IS proudly dIsplayed In the Trailer Park offIce reads as follows' "For Innovation, imagInatIon and InitIatIve In developing practIcal solutIons for provIding affordable housIng to CalIfornIans" . HUD at the Federal level, the Orange County HousIng AuthorIty the State Department of Housing have JOIned Governor Brown In applaudIng our unIque SolutIon to housing costs In our community. WhIle space rentals In other coastal locations have risen to as high as $2,500 monthly (in the case of the Treasure Island park In Laguna,) rents In Seal Beach have averaged an Increase of only 3 1/2% over the past decade and currently stand at 50% of market or less at a range from $162 to $321 dependIng on the SIze and location of an IndIvidual space. Covenants WhICh set out certaIn criterIa for tenant "\ qualifIcations suggest that 120 spaces be rented to persons of low to moderate Income. A recent audIt of TraIler Park . flIes by the City's ChIef FInancIal OffIcer reveals that 92, or 76% of the required spaces are currently rented to low Income persons even though the covenant only suggests that . 50% or 60 of the spaces be so restricted. It 1S hoped that th1S perspect1ve w1l1 persuade the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n and the C1ty Counc1l to be as proud of the Seal Beach Tra1ler Park as are the owner, h1S tenants and the County, State and Federal Agencies ment10ned. . '\ . rjP . I CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssion SUBMITTED FOR RECORD ByE. IJAwStJ,JOate 10/1"1/90 October 17. 1990 HEM ORANDUM TO: FRCJ.1 : SUBJECT: Executive Director. Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency Clty Finance Director Review of Seal Beach Trailer Park Income Eligibility As requested, I have conducted a review of Bill Dawson's Tral1er Park records supportlng tenant eligibility for low & moderate income housing. The scope of my review was limited to seventy- two fl1es presented to me by Mr. Dawson together with a 11sting of tenants and the spaces they occupy. Current usage of the 125 spaces in the Trailer Park can be summarized as follows: Low Income Moderate Income Vacant Lots Exempt Lots **Old Park 38 7 New Park 54 18 4 4 80 Total 92 25 4 4 125 45 . **There are 45 tenants relocated from the Old Park who are exempt from ellg1blllty requlrements as permltted by the Covenants and Partlcipatlon and D1Sposltion Agreement. The seventy-two flles for tenants subJect to lncome ellgibllity quallflcatlons were examined for compllance wlth Houslng and Communlty Development (HUD) low and moderate lncome standards. Speclflcally, each file was tested for eVldence of lncome by reference to a Federal lncome tax form, W-2, or affldavit as to income. The lncome shown was then compared to HUD Standards lssued in March 1990, (traditlonally 80% of Orange County medlan for low income and 120% of Orange County median for moderate). The HUD Standards increase accordlng to the number of persons in the famlly, and so each flle was checked accordlngly. From the records examlned, it is my opinion that the Traller Park has done a conscientious and effective job of qualifYlng tenants for income ellglbl1ity. All records reviewed were malntalned ln a superlor manner and Trailer Park Staff were most cooperatlve. Flnally, the dlstrlbution of tenants between low income (92) and moderate income (25) adequately satlsfles the HUD Standard that not less than 120 spaces be occupied by "low and moderate incomell tenants, of which not less than 60 must be in the low income category. J I I I i I I . ~~~~ . Denls Thomas DT/ss r' City of Seal Beach Planning CommIssion SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By 8, f)AtUso,J Date 10/17- / q 0 '. October 17. 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: FR()1 : SUBJECT: Executlve Dlrector, Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency Clty Flnance Dlrector ReVlew of Seal Beach Tral1er Park Income E11g1bl11ty As requested, I have conducted a reVlew of Bl11 Dawson's Tral1er Park records supportlng tenant e11g1bl11ty for low & moderate lncome houslng, The scope of my reVlew was 11mlted to seventy- two fl1es presented to me by Mr. Dawson together wlth a 11stlng of tenants and the spaces they occupy. Current usage of the 125 spaces ln the Tral1er Park can be summarlzed as follows: Low Income Moderate Income Vacant Lots Exempt Lots **01d Park 38 7 New Park 54 18 4 4 80 Total 92 25 4 4 125 45 -. **There are 45 tenants relocated from the Old Park who are exempt from e11g1bl11ty requlrements as permltted by the Covenants and Partlclpatlon and D1Sposltlon Agreement. The seventy-two fl1es for tenants subJect to lncome e11g1bl11ty qua11flcatlons were examlned for comp11ance wlth Houslng and Communlty Development (HUD) low and moderate lncome standards. Speclflca11y, each fl1e was tested for eVldence of lncome by reference to a Federal lncome tax form, W-2, or affldavlt as to lncome. The lncome shown was then compared to HUD Standards lssued ln March 1990, (tradltlona11y 80% of Orange County medlan for low lncome and 120% of Orange County medlan for moderate). The HUD Standards lncrease accordlng to the number of persons ln the faml1y, and so each fl1e was checked accordlng1y. From the records examlned, lt lS my opinion that the Tral1er Park has done a consclentlous and effectlve Job of qua11fYlng tenants for lncome e11g1bl11ty. All records revlewed were malntalned ln a superlor manner and Tral1er Park Staff were most cooperatlve. Flna11y, the dlstrlbutlon of tenants between low lncome (92) and moderate lncome (25) adequately satlsfles the HUD Standard that not less than 120 spaces be occupled by "10w and moderate lncome" tenants, of WhlCh not less than 60 must be ln the low income category. ~~~~ . Den 1 s Thomas DT/ss