SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Staff Report Submitted to: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regarding: Torba Appeal of Director Determination of Use Abandonment: Former New Cuyama Trailer Park 06APL Supervisorial District: Fifth Staff Report Date: March 30, 2006 Deputy Director: Zoraida Abresch Planner: Brian A. Tetley Environmental Document: N/A Phone No.: (805) APPELLANT: Mr. Paul J. Torba 2830 McMillan San Luis Obispo, CA (805) Assessor s Parcel No , located approximately 1¼ miles northwest of the township of New Cuyama off Highway 166, New Cuyama area, Fifth Supervisorial District. 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of Mr. Paul J. Torba, landowner, to consider the Appeal (06APL ) of the November 1, 2005 Planning and Development Director s Determination of Use Abandonment for the former New Cuyama Trailer Park. Application Filed: January 17, 2006 Application Complete: N/A Processing Deadline: N/A

2 Page RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeal based upon the Director Determination s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, relevant ordinances, and based upon the ability to make the required findings. Your Commission's motion should include the following: 1. Adopt the required findings for the project specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings, 2. Deny the above referenced appeal, thereby upholding the Planning and Development Department Director s determination of use abandonment dated November 1, 2005, and 3. Determine de novo abandonment of use for the former New Cuyama Trailer Park on the subject property. Refer back to staff if the Planning Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION This request is being considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to: Sec of Article III (Inland Zoning Ordinance) of Chapter 35 of the County Code, which states that : projects under the jurisdiction of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant or any interested person adversely affected by such decision. While determinations of use abandonment or discontinuance are addressed in Article III Sec , the ordinance does not specifically address the matter of decisionmaker jurisdiction. As a result, staff has relied on the Director as the decisionmaker for this determination consistent with the Director s decisionmaking role in other sections of the ordinance (e.g. Substantial Conformity Determinations). Similarly, although the subject issue does not involve a project per-se as referenced in Article III Sec , the Director decided to utilize the formal Director determination process with the associated right of appeal to the Planning Commission. 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY This Planning Commission hearing is de novo and the Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Director of the Planning and Development Department. The November 1, 2005 Planning and Development Director s Determination of Use Abandonment for the former New Cuyama Trailer Park was appealed on January 17, 2006 by the

3 Page 3 subject property owner, Mr. Paul Torba based on: 1) the continuous maintenance of at least two trailers on-site, and 2) active response to all permit requirements of the County. Staff has considered each issue area raised by the appellant and recommends reaffirmation of the Determination of Use Abandonment. A complete discussion of each appeal point and Staff response is contained in Section 7.0, Appeal Issues, below. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Rural, Agriculture II (A-II). Designation Zoning District, Ordinance Unlimited Agriculture (U), Ordinance 661 Site Size 1.70 gross and net acres Present Use & Development One occupied trailer, storage of additional trailers and vehicles. Surrounding Uses/Zoning North: Agriculture/U South: Highway 166, Agriculture/AG-II-100 East: Agriculture, Ag. Structures/U West: Vacant Open Space/Single Family Dwellings/U Access Highway 166 Public Services Water Supply: Private well Sewage: Private septic system Fire: County Fire Station No. 41, 41 Newsome Street, New Cuyama Schools Cuyama Joint Unified School District 5.2 Description The request of Mr. Paul Torba, subject property owner, to consider the Appeal (06APL ) of the Planning and Development Director s Determination of Use Abandonment for the former New Cuyama Trailer Park. 5.3 Background Information The subject property is Lot 1 of Block 44 of Ranchoil Subdivision as recorded on January 1950 in Book 15 Page 287 of official records. The parcel consists of 1.7 acres located adjacent to Highway 166, approximately 1¼ miles northwest of New Cuyama in the New Cuyama area in the Unlimited Agriculture (U) zone district, under Ordinance 661. In November 2004, a Planner Consultation was sought by Mr. Emmer regarding development of the Ranchoil subdivision including the former trailer park parcel. As the consultation developed over time, the applicant elicited comments about the potential

4 Page 4 review of alternative development scenarios. On June 6, 2005, Mr. Emmer sent a letter to P&D regarding the potential for redevelopment or subdivision of the New Cuyama trailer park site. In formulating the P&D response to this request, research was initiated into the status of the trailer park and the existence of any vested rights relevant to future potential applications for redeveloping the site. In consultation with County Counsel, it was determined that the trailer park use had been abandoned since: 1) only one trailer unit (at least two required to constitute a trailer park) was occupied with a full-time renter, and 2) the last valid operating permit expired in This determination was formalized by the Director Determination of Use Abandonment of November 1, 2005 which has been appealed by the landowner. 5.4 Chronology January 1950 Prior to 1961 (precise date unknown) November 2004 June 6, 2005 July 29, 2005 November 1, 2005 December 1, 2005 Recordation of Ranchoil subdivision Operation of New Cuyama Trailer Park begins. Mr. Emmer submittal of Planner Consultation request regarding Ranchoil properties, including trailer park parcel. Letter from Mr. Emmer requesting options for updating/redeveloping a trailer park. County Counsel memo. regarding legal status of the trailer park. P&D Director Determination of Use Abandonment Mr. Torba letter requesting extension of appeal period due to being out-of-town during initial appeal period. December 28, 2005 Letter to Mr. Torba granting extended appeal period to January 17, January 17, 2006 Appeal submitted by Mr. Torba.

5 Page Environmental Review 6.0 APPEAL ANALYSIS The action described herein does not constitute a project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not applicable to this action. 6.2 Appeal Standard of Review Sec d of Article III (Inland Zoning Ordinance) of Chapter 35 of the County Code states: The appellant shall state specifically in the appeal how 1) the decision of the Planning and Development Department on a Land Use Permit or on applications under Sec , or a decision of the Director or the Board of Architectural Review is not in accord with the provisions and purposes of this Article or 2) there was an error or an abuse of discretion by the Planning and Development Department, Director or the Board of Architectural Review. If the approval of a Land Use Permit required by a previously approved discretionary permit is appealed, the appellant must identify how the Land Use Permit is inconsistent with the previously approved discretionary permit, how the discretionary permit s conditions of approval have been unfulfilled, or how the approval is inconsistent with Sec (Noticing). 6.3 Points of Appeal The Appellant submitted an Appeal application to the Planning Commission on January 17, The application was appended by a document titled Statement of Facts, dated January 11, 2006, stating the following points of appeal: The appellant argues in his attachment to the Appeal application titled Statement of Facts that he disagrees with the Director s determination that only one mobile home had been leased or rented out or offered for rent or lease over a period of twelve months. The appellant provides anecdotal information about the coming and going of trailers on the site and their full or part-time occupants. The Appellants statement does not directly state that at least two trailers have been continuously occupied on site. However, the Appellant nevertheless asserts that the requirement for at least two mobile homes continuously leased or rented out or offered for rent or lease has been satisfied and that the Mobile Home Park use has not been abandoned.

6 Page 6 Staff Response: The previous trailer park use was a legal non-conforming use. Sec of Article III of Chapter 35 of the County Code (Article III) defines a nonconforming use and structure as follows: Nonconforming use Any use of land, building, or structure which was lawful prior to the effective date of this Article or any amendment hereto, or previously adopted County Ordinances, and which does not conform to the present regulations on use of this Article including but not limited to (1) a use of land established where the use is not identified as a permitted use by the zoning district applicable to the lot on which the use is located, (2) a use of land that is identified as a permitted use by the zoning district applicable to the lot on which the use is located but is not allowable on the particular site because of planning area standards of a Community and Area Plan Overly commencing with Division 12, (3) a use of land that was lawfully established without the land use permit or other entitlements (e.g., conditional use permit, development plan) no required by this Article, (4) a use of land that is operated or conducted in a manner that does not now conform with standards of this Article including but not limited to floor area ratios, minimum site area, limitations on use, or location criteria, or (5) a residential use that exceeds the number of dwelling units or bedrooms allowed on the lot by this Article. Nonconforming Structure A building or structure which was lawful prior to the effective date of this Article or any amendments hereto, or previously adopted County Zoning Ordinances and which does not conform to the present regulations of this Article including but not limited to height, location, lot coverage or setbacks. P&D review of the facts as submitted by the property owner and gathered in researching County files indicate that as of July 29, 2005, only one mobile home was occupied on the property (Debbie and Wayne Johnson) and that these were the only tenants on the property for at least twelve previous months. Sec of Article III defines a Mobile Home Park as follows: Any area or tract of land where two or more mobile home lots are rented, leased, or offered for rent or lease to accommodate mobile homes used for human habitation. The rental paid for any such mobile home shall be deemed to include rental for the lot it occupies. Since only one mobile home was occupied over a twelve month period the previously legal non-conforming mobile home park use is considered to be abandoned. Sec of Article III defines discontinuance of use as follows:

7 Page 7 If a nonconforming use is abandoned, any future use shall comply with the provisions of the district in which the use is located. Proof of discontinuation of a non-conforming use for 12 consecutive months shall be prima facie evidence that the nonconforming use has been abandoned. Therefore P&D disagrees with the appellant, and recommends that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Director s Determination of Use Abandonment The appellant does not directly dispute the P&D determination that the New Cuyama Trailer Park has not had a valid operating permit since The Mobile Home Parks Act (MPA) regulates mobile homes and mobile home parks, primarily in the areas of construction, installation, and operation. Under the MPA and Santa Barbara County Code, the County (Building & Safety Division of P&D) assumed responsibility for enforcing the requirements of the MPA and related State regulations (County Code Chapter 11, CA Health and Safety Code et seq., and Title 25 California Code of Regulations). Mobile home park operating permits are issued by the Building and Safety Division on behalf of the State. In the Appellant s attachment to the Appeal application titled Statement of Facts he states that he assumed the satisfaction of various other permit requirements constituted a valid operating permit for the Mobile Home Park. Moreover, the Appellant states that he was not informed by County staff of the lack of an operating permit and has been paying annual invoices for required County Environmental Health Services permits. Staff Response: Based on the fact that no valid operating permit for the park has been obtained since 1980, P&D reasserts that the lack of a valid operating permit is further evidence of use abandonment and the absence of landowner vested rights to reinstitute past levels of development. Therefore, P&D recommends that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Director s Determination of Use Abandonment The appellant requests that all fees associated with this appeal case be waived and returned to the applicant because the park has not been abandoned. Staff Response: P&D charges fees equitably to all appellants without consideration of the outcome of the decision. In conclusion, based on the facts as applied to the Article III ordinance standards, P&D recommends that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Director s Determination of Use Abandonment and deny the appeal. 7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of said action.

8 Page ATTACHMENTS A. Findings B. Appeal Application dated January 17, 2006 C. Director Determination of Use Abandonment dated November 1, 2005

9 Page A- 1 ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS 1.0 CEQA FINDING The action described herein does not constitute a project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section The proposal does not involve the construction of structures or other alteration of the subject property that would have direct physical impact to the project site or surrounding environment. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that CEQA does not apply to this matter. 2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING The Planning Commission finds that the Director s Determination of Use Abandonment, dated November 1, 2005, for the subject property was properly and carefully considered according to the facts in relation to the relevant ordinance provisions. Specifically, as described more fully in Section 6.3 of this report: 1) only one trailer occupied and rented over a period of at lease twelve months, and 2) the lack of a valid operating permit. Furthermore, the Appellant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission how: 1) the decision of the Director is not in accord with the provisions and purposes of this Article or 2) there was an error or an abuse of discretion by the Director.