Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1992-01-21 12-23-91/1-21-92 I Seal Beach, California December 23, 1991 The regular city Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings of December 23rd, 1991, were cancelled by action of the Seal Beach city Council at their regular meeting of December 9th, 1991. :n;;ii!.Q-:-' C~~ Seal Beach 1991. I...' . .-.... ,.... . 'Ii" '..... ,~ ~.'"" . 'i~ " ,~ , " ' . , :- ;. .,1.." ^ ~r : ". . :~', ;,,> '- " .--~. . Seal Beach, California January 21, 1992 The Redevelopment Agency of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:01 p.m. with Chairman Hastings calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Hastings Agencymembers Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo I Absent: Agencymember Wilson The absence of Mrs. Wilson was excused by unanimous consent of the Agency. Also present: Mr. Bankston, Executive Director Mr. Parrington, Special Legal Counsel Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, Secretary I TRAILER PARK DISCUSSION Chairman Hastings opened the session for public comments. Ms. LaMonico, 71 Riversea Road, cited her residence in the new Trailer Park since 1980, stated that when the Park was redeveloped propane fuel was to have been replaced by natural gas, yet upon calling the Gas company recently to turn on the pilot light of her heater they refused to do so until a certificate could be produced showing that the conversion had been properly done, also that the copper . tubing would need to be removed as it is illegal. She said she had provided the Agency with copies of the plumbing receipts for correcting this matter, and requested to be provided a written release from the City. The Chairman suggested an inspection of the entire Park to make certain it complies with Code. Mr. Paul Jeffers, 8 Cottonwood Lane, reiterated a prior concern with regard to space 10, the resident now deceased and the family advised that they did not inherit tenancy rights to that Space. He said this is not the first such instance, and claimed the Park owner buys the trailers, fixes them up, sells the trailers and they are never moved from the Park. He read portions of a 1988 letter to occupants of 96 Welcome Lane stating the Park has the option to remove any mobile home that is less than ten 1-21-92 feet wide, and that the option was being exercised. Mr. Jeffers claimed that he had accompanied the sisters of the prior resident of Space 10 when they paid the rent, the check was accepted, thereafter the family members were told they must leave the Park and the check was returned with a statement that the Park was not entitled to the rent nor were they under obligation to pay the rent since there was I no rental agreement with them, that since the trailer was -- being required to be removed the month would be a grace period, also that death constitutes termination of tenancy and is not extended to the heirs. He said that communication was then followed by a letter from the Trailer Park attorney relating to the lack of tenancy or occupancy rights, and requirement that the trailer be removed within thirty days or the matter would be considered trespassing and there would be proceedings initiated accordingly. Chairman Hastings said her research showed that trailers of eight feet or-wider are allowed to stay in the Park. As a point of clarification, the Executive Director said from his discussion with the sisters of the prior resident of 10 Cottonwood Lane, they had paid the rent once, however that check had been returned. Mr. Parrington responded that when the Park was developed eight foot trailers were allowed, many of the trailers at that time were recreational trailers rather than mobile homes, however had adequate space from a habitation standpoint to qualify for relocation into the Park. He noted there are numerous laws that relate to mobile home parks, and reported a change in the law as of January 1st where if it can be shown that the unit is not decent, safe and sanitary it can be required to be removed, prior to that if it was a recreational trailer it could be removed regardless, confirmed that recreational trailers are I not considered to be a permanent place of residence, and that his interpretation of the law is that the intent was to place the burden on the park 9wner to show that the unit was not decent, safe and sanitary. Mr. Parrington explained that when the Park was constructed many of the occupants had been occupying recreational trailers of eight feet in width, those that could be brought up to Code requirements were retrofitted by the Agency and placed in the new Park, however in those instances where the trailer was too old or not worth retrofitting, a replacement unit was provided pursuant to state requirements from a square footage standpoint, that met Code, and a number of those were recreational trailers. Mr. Jeffers said his understanding was that at the time the trailers were brought up to Code and certified to be decent, safe and sanitary, those trailers were exempt, yet the Park owner transmits letters requiring the people to move but the trailers are never removed from the Park. In response to the Agency, Mr. Parrington said he did not have a copy of any term lease agreement being used, and he believed the owner has a month to month or year to year lease arrangement with the tenants. Mr. Jeffers read paragraph thirteen of a monthly rental agreement relating to removal 'of a trailer upon sale to a third party provided that upon the date of sale the trailer I is less than ten feet wide, more than twenty years old, etc., and made further reference to paragraph eighteen whereby all plants, shrubs and trees planted on the premises, as well as fences, etc., are property of the Park. Mr. Jeffers said month to month leases had been distributed but he was not certain whether anyone signed them. A member of the audience said he felt the Park management should advise the tenants of the actual rules, mentioning specifically that the Park has approval authority of a roommate, which he deemed to be discrimination, and which is not allowed pursuant to the agreement with the City. .. ,', ""r4' ....~,. , . ::a~r~.~~l.~ ~ i J;"I.~~' I.. 'I' . ;,. '..' :1-21-92 I Councilmember Forsythe inquired as to the City's rights to review lease agreements, also whether the Park owner can create guidelines on his behalf for the tenants without at least an overview by the city. Mr. parrington responded that the Agency has the right to audit occupancy and tenancy pursuant to the Agreement, and it can be assumed that would include any rental terms, however if the owner is doing something contrary to state law that mayor may not be within the jurisdiction of the Agency. He explained that in providing for development of the Park originally the Agency did not control the sale or leasing of trailer units, that the rental,control that the Redevelopment Agency retains is over the pad space, the Agency did not control the rent of a unit that the owner might purchase and then re-rent, it did not restrict the resale of units or the re-renting of units by occupants of the Trailer Park. He noted that state law did allow the owner to require, in certain events, precluding sale to a 'third party, removal of units that were not mobile homes, or recreational trailers, that the understanding with Mr. Dawson in making those units available for the people that had been in the Park was that they were either retrofitted or new units were purchased for the then occupants of the Park, again there was no restriction from allowing him to follow State law and require removal of the recreational trailers where there was a sale. I Chairman Hastings said the Agency would like to commence monitoring the leases, rental agreements and schedules since a certain percentage of the units are to be maintained for low and moderate income and with the conversion of the Park to expensive'homes there is concern that the low/moderate percentages will not be met, and asked who could procure such information from the Park. The Executive Director advised that would be done through the City Manager's office through the authority for audit, with the criteria based on income. Chairman Hastings recalled being informed that someone only needs to qualify when they move into the Park, which she claimed is not correct, and that one must continue to be low or moderate income to reside in the Park. Mr. Jeffers stated the Covenants provide that the Agency shall examine any relev~nt records of operation at least once per year to ensure that income requirements are met. with regard to the responsibilities of the Agency to the Trailer Park, Mr. Parrington explained that the Agency is to review the expenses that determine the rents, the owner required to give notice to the City of any proposed increase, this last done in 1989, the Agency also to monitor the Park to ensure that the units are being maintained for low and moderate individuals. He stated he did not believe that the Agency has ever taken the position that if someone moved into the Park and subsequently their income exceeded the low or moderate income level that they would be asked to leave, from the City's standpoint it was an income determination at the inception, however offered that the State may take a different position. The Director of Development Services mentioned that $38,000 to $40,000 is presently the approximate moderate annual income for a family of four in Orange County, or eighty to one hundred twenty percent of the median, low income being fifty to eighty percent of the median or approximately $23,000 to $24,000 annually. Mr. Bob Taylor, 9 Cottonwood Lane, mentioned that there have been a number of students that qualified to live in the Park, have since obtained their degrees and should not be required to move just because they have increased their incomes, and said it has been his understanding that income I 1-21-9& qualification was at the time one moved into the Park. Mr. parrington concurred with that interpretation, and offered that if someone is receiving state assistance, under the BUD rental assistance program as an example, if the income of that person exceeds that of the program they would not be eligible for further rental assistance, yet he was not aware of a program that would require them to move from the unit I they occupy because they are no longer a low income person. Chairman Hastings mentioned conversations of Planning Commissioner orsini with the state questioning why persons can reside in the Park whose income exceeds low or moderate, can build cabanas and second stories, turning the trailer into a home, and suggested that Mr. parrington provide a clarification of this issue. Agencymember Forsythe said she was not certain that was as much of an issue as is turnover where trailers are being remodeled and sold for $250,000 or $300,000, and questioned how a low or moderate income person could qualify to purchase such unit. Mr. Taylor reported his unit has been for sale for at least a year, the original asking price was $259,000, is now reduced to $179,900 and dropping, that a family of four with moderate income could qualify at present interest rates with a twenty percent downpayment to purchase his three bedroom, three bath home, and to his knowledge there have been no units sold for $200,000 or more. Mr. Taylor described his perception of what may have occurred with regard to the sisters of the deceased resident of 10 Cottonwood Lane, that possibly those elderly persons were intimidated by the letter from the Park and accepted an offer to purchase the trailer at a lesser than market p~ice. with regard to Mr. Dawson's control of who buys or rents in the Park, Mr. Taylor confirmed that the owner has considerable control, and with regard to a I relative of a deceased person having the option to sell, accept a low offer, or removing themselves from the Park, he indicated that type of situation is likely what the Park residents need protection from. Mrs. Ellen Taylor offered her feeling that it is the elderly and less educated persons that feel threatened and coerced into leaving their units, where those that are younger or in a better financial situation would retain the services of an attorney. Mrs. Taylor noted her membership in the Golden state Mobile Home Association, and indicated that there is considerable protection if one is not intimidated, also confirmed that a family of four, with twenty percent down, can get a loan and qualify under moderate income housing, that the local Bank of America has studied the Covenants and feel they provide adequate protection to grant such mortgage. Agencymember Forsythe posed a scenario of a person residing in the Park, improving their trailer, and in the case of loss of life, asked what would happen to the loan or trailer, and would it revert to the owner of the Park. Mrs. Taylor said her question would be whether that would be legal. Mr. parrington responded that on-sale, where the Park owner previously used the exemption in the law with regard to upgrading the Park and the units that were not within the definition of mobile homes, he could have required the I removal of a unit over certain age, etc., yet again explained that the eight foot and under exemption has been removed from the law and it is now up to the discretion of management to show that the unit is not decent, safe and sanitary. Mrs. Taylor said Space 99 contains a schoolbus, not a trailer, it was built around, could not be removed, yet others are asked to remove a trailer while the bus remains, which is discrimination. The Executive Director explained that prior to the new law discretion was rather arbitrary where there is now some burden of proof, however that is not a decision of the city or Agency, and clarified -~~f!,'fi.~J! ~.,\~~!1+~- - -, 1-21-92 I that the determination of low income is up to eighty percent of the median income of the area, moderate is up to one hundred twenty percent, it is based on income and assets are not taken into account, as an example if someone sold a property, took the equity to pay cash or near cash for a unit yet is on a fixed income, they could be in an approximate $200,000 home and meet the income criteria. Again in reference to the Space 10 matter, the Executive Director reported he had referred the sisters to the Golden State Mobile Home Association, also to the County District-- Attorney's Office relative to any landlord/tenant issue, however 'they had indicated their intent to return home and not pursue the issue. Mr. Jeffers again said it is the responsibility of the Agency to review the Park records annually, the Agency should be referring low and moderate income persons to the Park, report annually to the Coastal commission, and questioned how the area can continue to be considered a trailer park when trailers are being dismantled, leaving only the frame, and then large homes are built over them. with regard to Coastal Commission approval of additions, the Development Services Director explained that once an improvement project receives Planning Commission approval, the final construction plans are drawn and have been plan checked, they are submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits, the Coastal approval generally an administrative permit process rather than a formal public hearing. Mr. Parrington said in his opinion the cabana issue has been stretched by Mr. Dawson and the State Department of Housing and Community Development, a mishmash of State law and local zoning, State law governing what a cabana can be, therefore the definition of cabana and what is allowed to be constructed has been stretched to the point of what is now seen in the Park, two stories on top of trailers, and said he believed the City has been governing cabanas to ensure they are consistent with State regulations. The Director explained that until about two years ago the State Department of Housing Community Development required that at the time a cabana was added to an existing trailer or mobile home it was required that the trailer itself be able to be physically removed from the structure, which can be observed with some of the older units, however the State changed their policy where the trailer structure no longer needs to be maintained to where it could be removed, and it could be torn down to where only the frame, axles, wheels and kitchen remain, everything else is allowed to be removed from the trailer bed, however the kitchen area must remain as part of the remodeled unit. He reported that the State granted an exemption to this Trailer Park to allow the two story cabanas, and as part of that process the City, in conjunction with the Fire Department a number of years ago, and in cooperation with the State H/CD, developed the standards and guidelines that the city now utilizes to process an application for a two story cabana, noted that in difficult cases the city consults with the State H/CD as to their determination, and as far as construction and maintenance of units there are few areas of discretion that the City has except with regard to inspections to make certain construction is done properly and meets the requirements of building codes. with regard to the right of tenancy, the Executive Director explained that issue is not covered under any of the redevelopment authorities, yet what would pertain would be the lease agreement and whether one side or the other sought court interpretation as to the legality of the terms of the lease, in other words it is a I I 1-21-92 private, civil matter. Mr. Parrington concurred, noting that the Redevelopment Agency is not the landlord, nor does it deal with successors, heirs, or have the authority to inherit the space, that issue governed by provisions of the state law. Mr. Jeffers said he did not believe this issue would have been raised again had the city inspected the records annually, and noted in the past the audit has merely consisted of looking at records rather than checking each trailer to verify that the person actually resides in a particular space. The Executive Director again confirmed .- that it is the responsibility of the Agency to inspect the Park records annually, stated an audit was done in 1989 in conjunction with a request for rental increase, also included an eligibility check of the tenants, however there has been no review since that time. He indicated it is uncertain whether there is any control over the income eligibility of a tenant through a sublease. Mr. Parrington said that the initial occupant of a unit should be of low or moderate income, clarifying that he was not speaking of a person who initially qualified and their income may now exceed that limit, and he recalled that the 1989 audit showed that the occupants fell within the low and moderate definition, however one problem is that the characterization of what is low and moderate income has been distorted by the exaggerated median income of Orange County, noting that when initially established the median incomes of Los Angeles and Orange Counties were quite close, which is no longer the case. In response to a question of the Agency, the Director explained that the setback requirements for trailers and cabanas are established by Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, the City does not have the authority to change those requirements, however does have the authority- to require a Conditional Use Permit for trailer parks and mobile home parks, yet again that Permit is limited to areas such as perimeter fencing of the boundaries of the property, ingress and egress, and some control over parking spaces and driveway aisles for safety access, noting that even under the CUP process the City'S authority is tightly restricted by the state. He reported there are no lots lines in the Trailer Park, there are lease lines that were drawn on a plan when the Park was reestablished in its present location, the requirements of Title 25 established the building separations by building to building distances dependent upon the type of structure, not by property lines, with the exception of the exterior boundaries of the Park itself. Mr. Jeffers indicted interest in that response, stated rents had been established by the original lines, now the lines are being changed and properties are being infringed upon, yet there have been no adjustments for that, and offered examples of large trailers being built next to a small trailer, foundations poured, walkways torn out impacting handicapped accessibility, said he had initially been told there were lot lines, and asked if someone would check to see if there should be rental adjustments when a . property is infringed upon. The Executive Director said it would be necessary to research whether there would be authority to mandate such rental adjustment. with regard to City authority to intervene when safety issues are involved, the Director offered to have the building inspectors investigate, specifically with regard to the issue of maintaining handicapped accessibility. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Agency, to declare a recess at 8:18 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 8:32 p.m. with Chairman Hastings calling the meeting to order. I I I ~ '..... .u.1!.~ ..,>If;. ":'.S<<~~!!",!,~~lf,f" ~. :1-21-9:1. I Ms. Sonja sonju, Sunset Beach, reported the Cook unit at 96 Welcome Lane had been purchased by the Park for $2500, never moved from the Park, and subsequently sold for $15,000, the owner having been intimidated with the threat of having to move the trailer. In reference to 10 Cottonwood Lane she said the sisters had contacted her for assistance, she had advised them to pay the rent, they too were intimidated, that she now owns 10 Cottonwood Lane, and Mr. Dawson has served her with a forceable detainer, as well as the persons residing in the trailer. Ms. Sonju said when some people __ say they are being forced to sell their trailers, it is true, and the rules change dependent upon who the people are. She recalled informing the Planning Commission that a subdivision is occurring in the Park without the benefit of the Map Act, that the initial plan under the Conditional Use Permit was approved as having lot lines, even though they are not recorded lot lines, and what is now occurring is that one lot is allowed to expand, creating a unit of greater value, yet encroaches on an adjacent lot, which is a violation of the intent of the CUP. Ms. Sonju said she believed the enabling ordinance allows the City to review, approve or disapprove of what is being built in the Park. Mr. Alan Duedge, 98 Welcome Lane, said he was pleased to live in the Park, noted that some people qualified to reside in the Park while students, and as a result of eventually improving their incomes it would be unfair to now require them to move. He stated however that he did not understand the fairness of allowing one space to build to two stories while the adjacent space can not, and in his opinion if all of the guidelines are followed and the unit meets Code there should be the ability to build the second story. The Development Services Director responded that he believed there had been a negotiation process between the City, Orange County Fire Department and the State at the time the standards were established, that the State allows cabanas up to fourteen feet automatically however this Park was allowed to exceed that height, and it is believed there had been concern regarding fire safety and accessibility at the time. Mr. Duedge asked if a petition from the Park residents would be useful to change the standards. Ms. Karen Tarascio, Park resident, spoke for a review of the current building policies, specifically a time frame for completion of construction and project design review, possibly allowing the residents some input with regard to design. She mentioned the periodic submittal of the Park budget when rent increases are requested, noted specifically an item in 1989 relating to maintenance and said she was not certain that expenditure was justified as there appears to be more trash, potholes in the driving and parking areas, etc., and questioned whether the sewer system is adequate to accommodate the increased construction in the Park. Staff offered to check with the Engineering Department as to the adequacy of the water and sewer lines. Agencymember Forsythe suggested that the residents may want to form a Homeowners Association as a means to resolve landlord/tenant issues. The Executive Director said he was uncertain as to the City's right to review the operating expenses of the Park in the absence of a request for rent increase, yet if there are rental adjustments based upon the lease line issue that may provide a means of doing so. The Director explained that pursuant to Code once a permit is issued it is valid for a period of two years, if a project is not completed within that time frame the applicant is notified that the work needs to be completed, or the permit will expire thus requiring the uncompleted work to be removed, where under the Uniform Building Code persons have a longer period of time to complete construction as long as there is I I a-21-91 reasonable progress in completing the work, also that the City does have the authority to review architectural plans for second story cabanas, yet if the project does not include a cabana and meets Code requirements the city has no authority to review aesthetics of a project. Ms. Tarascio said upon moving into the Park she had been shown a map that described the boundaries of her lot, as opposed to recent comments that there are no lot lines, only setbacks, as it is private property. The Director noted that the Planning Commission reviews second story cabanas through the minor plan review process, other than that the city only has the.. authority to review permanent public facilities that are part of the Park itself, not the individual living units. Agencymember Laszlo recalled the history of the Park, Mr. Dawson having obtained the land through a lease from East Naples Land Company, subsequently obtained approval to develop half of the land as a Trailer Park with one hundred twenty-six pads, the other half for condominiums, the intent of the city having been to provide low and moderate income housing, however Mr. Dawson then obtained permission from the state for the two-story cabanas. He questioned if it is appropriate for the Park owner to obtain a unit when someone moves from the Park, refurbish and resell it for a profit, and the units rotated to different locations since the owner is allowed five spaces. In response to Councilmember Hastings, the Director explained that at such time plans are submitted to the City there is a requirement that they met Building Code requirements, including soil and compaction analysis, yet such analyses may not be as detailed as single family residential construction in other areas of the City, the construction different, not having an in-ground foundation as one example. Mr. Tim Smith, 101 Welcome Lane, said he would take exception to having to move from the Park because his income increased, also stated his support for a change to the Code that would allow every unit to have a two-story cabana providing it meets the regulations, such as sprinkler systems. Mr. Ed Clute, 4 Cottonwood Lane, suggested that a document of some sort be prepared for the Park tenants that would clarify what the City/Redevelopment Agency can do since decisions are made that affect the lives of the residents and it is felt there is some protection afforded by the Agency. He mentioned specifically his concern as to whether his son would be allowed to remain in the Park if he were no longer there, and reported there. have been a number of tenant committees over the years yet have been unsuccessful because they have been nothing more than advisory and have no power. With regard to Park expenses, Ms. Tarascio suggested that possibly someone from within the Park could provide input, at least with regard to the common areas. The Executive Director explained that the authorities of the Agency are set forth through the Amended Covenants and the Agreement, that the Park is private property, if there are health and safety issues there could be inspections as there would be with any dwelling unit, that further Agency . involvement would be restricted unless it had been addressed initially, also that there are one hundred twenty spaces for low and moderate income persons, however not designated to a specific space, therefore the spaces of the owner do and are allowed to float pursuant to the Covenants. He noted that the issue of whether the Agency has the authority to review and audit the monthly expenditures, absent a request for rent adjustment, will be discussed in greater detail with Special Legal Counsel. Mr. Mark cunningham, 126 Cottonwood Lane, said that having grown up and attended school in Seal Beach the Trailer Park provided an opportunity for he and I I I ,;..... ~", j! . '.: ',. ,-. _[' ," .'.--="."t"'l......1"'." .', ,t. 1-21-92 I his family to move back to the community, and announced that when he purchased his unit last week he was required to provide proof of income. He noted his intent to improve the unit and provide a second story even though the adjacent pad has done so already, and inquired as to what may be a time frame for changing the current regulations. The Director offered that there would need to be discussions with orange County Fire as well as the state Department of Housing and Community Development, a process that at best would be six months if commenced immediately. Mr. Don Larson, former Trailer Park resident, said his unit sold for $148,000, that the Park should be a source of pride, providing nice but affordable housing units. In response to Council, he reported payment of an annual vehicle license fee as well as an assessment on the addition, and possibly some property tax. Agencymember Hastings asked if there wasn't concern with making improvements to the Park owners property without any guarantees. Mr. Larson indicated that the bank had no concern, also that there is a title deed to the trailer and improvements thereto, and said he believed that some residents have leasehold agreements. Mr. Jeffers responded that Mr. Dawson had promised to not offer lease agreements, and according to the state rent control could be lost if long term lease agreements were entered into, that fact being a significant consideration in the tenants not purchasing the Park. Mr. Parrington said it was his recollection that originally Mr. Dawson wanted to assure the tenants with long term leases, however in the mid-1980's legislation was enacted whereby a long term lease would have taken a trailer/mobile home park outside the purview of a city's rent control ordinance. He pointed out that in this case state law mayor may not affect the Agreement with Mr. Dawson, the Agreement also being with the Redevelopment _ Agency, a contract rather than a City ordinance controlling trailer park rents in general, and in his opinion the Covenant was an instrument in exchange for a series of obligations, the Agency having assumed that Mr. Dawson agreed to this contractual arrangement, therefore it is not known whether the Agreement and Covenant would be overturned by the subsequent state law and whether a long term lease would obviate the restrictions of the Covenants. He recalled that for whatever reason at the time Mr. Dawson said he would not offer long term leases, that having been part of the on-going negotiations with the tenants relating to the purchase of the Park, noted that he had not been privy to those negotiations, however the purchase did not materialize. with regard to the more recent state law, Mr. Parrington confirmed that the ability of a Park owner to require an owner of a mobile home to remove it from the Park has been changed to now require that such removal is to be determined by an inspection and finding that the unit does not comply with state health and safety standards, and offered his opinion that the protection afforded to mobile homes would not apply to a travel trailer, therefore when there is a change of occupancy through the death of a tenant or sale, the Park owner could still arguably force the -- removal of a recreational trailer. He clarified that to be his interpretation of that law, that he has not obtained an opinion from the state Department of Housing and Community Development. He added his opinion that the definition of a recreational trailer and mobile home is likewise confusing under the state statutes, explained also that he was not saying that Mr. Dawson is justified in requiring a unit to be removed for safety and upgrading of the quality of the Park purposes, and in turn buy and upgrade the unit and continue to rent it. Ms. Ellen Taylor again referred to the magazine article that stated the owner of a mobile home park I I 1-21-92 can not require removal of a trailer after January 1, 1992, and suggested that the opinion of a mobile home attorney be sought. Mr. Jeffers confirmed the statement, AB 932 providing protection for mobile homes under ten feet in width providing that they meet health and safety requirements. The Executive Director offered that the intent of this I meeting was to advise the tenants as to what can be done by the Agency, the other issues, the ten foot or less trailer width as an example, not within that realm, however if the City wishes to intercede in tenant relationship matters that could be a consideration of the Council at some point in the future, yet if the issue remains as to the authorities of the Agency, there is need to ensure that there is no misconception on the part of the Park residents. He offered that it would not be a recommendation of staff to expend funds to obtain definitions and interpretations at this point in time since that is not and would not be an issue for the City unless the intent were to adopt certain regulations or restrictions, and in the case of a resident receiving an eviction notice they should take private steps to determine whether or not there is legal grounds. He suggested that the issue of lease lines versus lot lines should be looked into, determine whether the Agency can evaluate the expenses of the Park in the absence of a rental increase request, that it is clear that the obligation of the Agency to monitor the number of spaces has not been kept current and to that he stated he would prepare a proposal for an outside audit for Agency consideration, the cost of which will likely be between $10,000 to $15,000, and that Council input would be sought as to whether there is I sufficient interest on the part of the City to allow for two-story cabanas on every space, thereafter there would be discussions with Orange County Fire and the state. In response to Council, the Executive Director said the two- story cabanas appear to be a means of getting around a subdivision, on the other hand there are individuals that are desirous of improving their living units, however the question remains that when those persons determine to move from the Park as to whether the improvement is moveable, where it can be relocated, whether they can incur the cost of relocation, otherwise it is likely one could be abandoning their property, and there are underlying rights of the property owner. He concluded that at this point he would find it difficult to recommend to the Council to allow further perpetuation of that which already exists relative to the cabanas, etc., until there is in fact a subdivision and possibly some conversion of property back to the owners, where it is felt single family homes are being built without full homeowner protections and benefit to the city of a formalized subdivision. Chairman Hastings noted the payment of fees and obligations of other persons in community . relative to remodeling or improving their properties, as well as the impact on infrastructure, safety services, schools, etc. Mr. Ray Maltex expressed concern based upon - the discussion at this meeting since he is presently in the I process of purchasing a trailer and could later be asked to leave. Mr. Clute recalled the issues involved in regulating the location of cabanas, the Fire Department for one wanting assurance of accessibility in the event of fire, thus the compromise of allowing a cabana for every other space with the condition of installation of sprinkler systems, and reported that the majority of Park residents can not afford to construct a two-story cabana, nor do they want them turned back to the Park owner. With regard to certain differences between a travel trailer and mobile homes, he I, -,- ~'1'" .-,- 1-21-92/1-27-92 I noted that a travel trailer of eight feet in width may travel the highways with only a vehicle license, where a mobile home greater than eight feet must have a special permit. Mr. Jeffers asked that the City provide a clarification as to the impact of long term lease agreements. Agencymember Laszlo requested that Mr. Parrington research the lease agreement issue, also suggested that any audit be postponed until there is a rent adjustment request, otherwise the audit may trigger such request. Mr. Brent Swanson, Swanson and Dawdelle, said he was present to represent the owner of the Park, that they disagree with a great deal of what has been said by the residents at this meeting, as well as some of the positions taken by the City particularly with respect to the rent and rent control issue, yet assured that he and Mr. Dawson would cooperate in working with the Agency and the staff to provide information and resolve any issues that remain a concern of the Agency. He also offered assurance to the residents of the Park, the bulk of which he said were not present because they do not share the concerns expressed, of their willingness to talk to them, their representatives or small groups, and as opposed to what had been stated, he said past resident groups have dissolved because problems have been resolved without any great difficulty, which is the position of his client. with regard to disagreement with the City's position on rent control, Mr. Swanson said it is a legal position that is somewhat complex, explained in brief by Mr. Dawson to the Agency's attorney, basically that there is a concept in the law that says if one is a lessee of a piece of land, then buys the fee interest in that land, the lease ceases to exist and is absorbed by the fee ownership of the land, and stated that is what has happened where Mr. Dawson has the fee ownership, and where the agreement with the developer of the Park specifically provides that the rent control restrictions do not apply to the fee owner of the land, therefore in his opinion the rent control restrictions have now disappeared. Chairman Hastings thanked Mr. Swanson for his opinion, suggesting that his interpretation would be helpful to Mr. parrington when reviewing the Trailer Park Covenants and Agreement. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Agency, to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Q;;-,. m; ( Se ary kZ / . - -. .r:.,':'. tll '~~'. .,~>.~""..- t'!" J{;' ..~ /...... .....~. "-,,: \.' .' '"/j ~. ,.... 1./7" '>e'::~Jt ..~~\ tI~ ~ t.'5\1 ~\ il ~ -o:.::;::._",;;g. ~., I. r\t"~ ....~n;> l"-;' ~~~:"~.i.'-v/I .,~~",.<.d"'.jt... ....... ."}," '~."....._- ....~ . - . I Seal Beach, California January 27, 1992 The Redevelopment Agency of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:45 p.m. with Vice Chairman Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the _Salute to the Flag.