There wasn’t an empty seat in the council chamber as the May 8, 2012 Fillmore City Council began. It was a joint meeting with the Council and the Film Commission with a number of items on the agenda, but most in attendance came to hear the Council’s decision on the El Dorado Estates conversion proposal.

Other items were the downtown palm trees being removed, weed abatement, the one third retail requirement for the Central Business District, appeal to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and important financial issues.

Assistant City Attorney Charmaine Buehner gave a presentation on the City’s legal standing and the judge’s rulings in the case of El Dorado Estates vs. City of Fillmore. The City has prevailed in three rulings, yet that has not resolved the situation. The Petitioner/Plaintiff El Dorado Estates continues to sue, leaving the City with a legal bill of $236,000 to date. This all began on March 5, 2009 when the owners of El Dorado applied to subdivide the one 37.5 acre lot consisting of 302 mobile home spaces into 302 resident owned lots. There was a great deal of back and forth between the City and El Dorado as the application process began with the City not being satisfied with what was submitted. That brought on a threat by the owners to sue the City. On September 28, 2009 a lawsuit was filed by El Dorado and a legal battle began.

The owners of the park lifted the age restriction (morphing from a senior only to family park), which is something not subject to City approval and beyond the City’s reach. But this decision brought concerns for the safety of families with small children due to the lack of a safe play area and the additional parking needed for larger families. There is concern that these issues have an environmental impact.

The City objected to the conversion due to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of actions brought before them and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Another issue is that El Dorado is in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated flood zone and the City determined that El Dorado should comply with FEMA mandates.

A survey for such conversions is required by law and according to the judge El Dorado had not made a good faith effort to comply and that they had attempted to circumvent “the established homeowners association that is the voice of the mobile home park residents…” A second survey was taken with the El Dorado Homeowners Association on March 11, 2010. Of the 221 survey responses received 195 opposed the conversion, 20 supported it. But simply having the residents oppose the conversion does not give the Council the authority to base that opposition as a reason to oppose it.

The City and El Dorado have been in negotiation for the last six months and recently received a proposal to address the mostly senior park resident’s concerns. The settlement agreement presented would require; five year leases offered to all residents with rent increases being equal to the change in Consumer Price Index (with a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8%; an annual application for a 10% rent credit to low and very low income households; an overall 15% cap on residents as well as a numerical cap of 45 spaces; eligible for the rent credit (no more than 15% of the residents can receive the 10% credit and El Dorado will administer the program); each tenant in the credit program must apply for Section 8 housing assistance and if approved that tenant will not count toward the 15% overall cap; there will be no moratorium on subdivision of lots.

In addition El Dorado will pay the monies owed to the City for processing the Conversion Project, approximately $26,228.

The park residents like Charles Richardson, who also spoke for other residents, read a written statement to plead their case, asking that the proposal be rejected. Sandy Pella addressed the Council stating, “We are overwhelmingly opposed to this project…we have no voice with this owner.”

Council Member Steve Conaway spoke to those in attendance and thanked them for coming. He went on to say that he understands that many of the El Dorado residents are worried about the cost of rent and the quality of life issues and the Council has heard their concerns and they are important, but the City has no jurisdiction on stopping the age restriction and with the proposal, they now have measures to help those in financial need. Going forward you now will have a lease, he told the residents and went on to say, “I think there are some benefits now on the table.” Mayor Gayle Washburn responded, “It’s my opinion people have been harmed.” Council Member Jamey Brooks added, “I would only approve it if the CEQA terms are met…I feel there are environmental impacts.” Council Member A. Eduardo Gonzalez, who was not a council member through all the litigation, told those in attendance the Council has no say in the conversion, but what he didn’t like was the tactics used by the owners of the park and even though the Council has the right to CEQA, yet may agree with the proposal, “I’m not going to allow them to bully and not do the right thing…money should not stand in the way of doing the right thing.” The next to give an opinion on the matter was Council Member Brian Sipes adding, “CEQA is there to protect people….I find $236,000 appalling…my heart and my conscience will not allow me to approve this.” Last to give an opinion was Washburn who said the owners of the park have bullied the residents and that the Council had been diligent since 2009 in protecting the resident’s interest.

City Manager Yvonne Quiring reminded the council that if they continue down this path, the budget she presents at the next meeting will have to contain those options, meaning the cost of future litigations will be reflected in the budget.

At this point Conaway pointed out that it is the Council’s responsibility to protect the City. He then motioned to approve the agreement and Washburn seconded it and stated the Council recognizes there are many very low income residents and there are protections in the agreement.

As the remaining three Council Members Sipes, Gonzalez and Brooks voted No, the room went into applause and the proposal was rejected. At this point City Attorney Ted Schneider addressed the Council stating a need for a motion to direct staff to conduct the applicant to do the initial study and to be aware there will be a lawsuit that could go on for years.

In other items being discussed, the Film Commission reported that revenue from filming is way down compared to the year before which was $40,150 to the General Fund with $4,000 each generated from Police and Fire Services and $5,000 receive for City rental. This year Fillmore received only $6,625 to the General Fund from filming with $1,697 to Police, $1,970 to Fire Services and $1,292 to City rental.

The Commission is hoping to improve desirability of filming in Fillmore by replacing some of the Palm trees on Central that were planted in the 1940’s. The location scouts would like a more, ‘All American, any time’ location to film and Palm trees are both dated and typical California.

A survey was taken of the businesses on Central and the consensus is shade trees would be preferred over the palms. The replacements would be box trees that could be moved if needed and would not require the added expense of planting. It was suggested that four types of trees be presented as options and allow city residents to vote on which one they prefer. Gonzalez asked if the Commission has an estimate of how much the removal would be, to which Fire Chief Rigo Landeros responded that he received an estimate from a local nursery, Valley Crest, at $900 per Palm for removal totaling $23,000 for the 26 Palms being considered, and cost of the box trees to replace the Palms was around $800 per tree totaling around $20,800. The project’s total cost is estimated at $43,800.

Conaway asked if the Commission had considered that the box trees would take up a considerable amount of sidewalk and also block the view of some storefronts. The Commission is still working out the logistics of the replacements and hoping for a donation of the trees.

In regards to Fillmore’s financial situation Quiring informed the Council that the California State Department of Finance has rejected the Town Theatre $400,000 debt along with some administrative costs the City presented after becoming the Successor Agency for the eliminated Redevelopment Agency. This is money the City was expecting but may not receive. The updated City Budget will be presented on June 5, 2012.

Ari Larson announced the auditions for the American Cancer Society Fillmore-Piru Relay for Life Ceremony on September 15th. The winner will sing the National Anthem and be part of the entertainment for the 24 hour Fight Against Cancer. Auditions will be at the May Festival, Saturday May 9th Second Stage, Central Park. Also, there will be a May Mixer, Thursday the 10th, 5:30-7:00pm at Elkins Ranch Golf Course.