Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/03/06~ ~ , ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1995 1D•.00 A.M. - TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY PRESENTATION TO PLANNING - PRELIMSSNARY PLGN RDEVIEW IMMED ATELY ONLLOWING PRESENTATION 7 •:411 1-_M_ - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS A ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Selma Mann Deputy qty Attorney Jonathan Borrego Senior Planner Melanie Adams Asaodate quit Engineer Greg McCafferty Aasodate Planner &uoe Freeman Code Enforcement Supervisor Alfred Yakia Prindpal Transportation Planner Margarita Solorio Sr. Word Processing Operator PROCEDURE TO EXPEDRE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ~, The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional Ume will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. p, In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity otaka, but ethe~by what is said. misalon's considerations are not determined by the length of time a partidpan ape 3 Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission In each hearing. Copies are av:illabie to the public prior to the meeting. q, The Commission wlli withhold questions until the public hearing is dosed. 5, The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing H, in its opinion, the ends of taimesa to all concerned will be served. B. ind~d ng Photographs or carer accepitable v e alarep efaentaUonelor nomdocumentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7~ merest which are within Iths jurisdiction of fire Planning Commi issbnaland/or agenda hemae Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC030fi95.wp ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~_ , 1. REPOR AND RECOMMENDATI A. GONDITIONar rrSE PERMIT NO 3659 - REQUEST FOR APo roved 2-7-96) RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH R ~ CONDITIONS OF APPRQV_AL: Edward Ho.'~e, 9659 La Esperanza, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with condftions of approval for Condftional Use Permit No. 3659 (to permit expansion of an exist(ng market/grocery store) to expire February 7, 7996. property is located at 1217 S. Brookhurst Street. B. CODE AMENDMENT NO 95-04 PERTAINING TO MOBILEHOME ~nti~nued to PARKS AND DISPLACED MOBILEHOME OWNER: Requested by City Attorney's Office, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim 92805, to delete and amend code sections pertaining to mobilehome parks~ineflnf to displaced mobilehome owners and amending wording pe 9 relocation benefats. ~._ II Continued from the February 22, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 03/06/95 Page 2 1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March ~, 1995 2a. CEO_e NEGATNE DECLARATION (Previously t+pproved) 2b. rONDITIONAL USE PEAMIT N0.371 (Readvertls~,d) OWNER: THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, Attn: Gerald Greenberg, 10000 Lakewood Blvd., Downey, CA 90240 LOCATION: 1881 West Ball Road (Thrifty Oq Service Stat14n1,. Property is 0.43 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street and described as 1881 West Ball Road (Thrifty Oq Service 'Station). Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to removal of service station structures in conjunction with an existing service station facfliry. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. Continued ftom the February 22, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. ---------------------------------- ~FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Continued to 3-20-95 SR5635KP.WP ACT10N: Continued subject~req test~toph~e irch 20, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order for the appl VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) 03/06/95 Page 3 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 t._ ~ _E_.... ~...,~ ~+e~ ~ruaTION-CLASS 11 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3745 OWNER: G ~d H ran, 1952 W.SLa Palma Avenue Anaheim, TCAN92801 LOCATION: i°52 W La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 14.75 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 515 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue. To permit temporary modular classrooms in conjunction wfth an existing private educational faciity (Servile High Schod). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-21 ----------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. --- OPPOSITION: None No action Granted for 1 year (to expire 3.6-96) ClassM 4~and noAn g talve declaration ismequireda stated in thet staff r ~rt t is categorically exempt ( PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Rev. Gerald Horan, 1952 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, The Servite Fathers, stated they are requesting to keep the temporary modular classrooms placed on their property in conjunction with an existin at the private educational facility. Actually, the modular classrooms were placed on the schod property beginning of the schod year and they were not aware that permits were required. The company that themlu~ntihthey cantarrange foeadditionis to~heir buildings to aeccom~modate additional classrooms 8 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Henninger asked how long Mr. Horan thought ft would take to get an expansion to their existing building. Rev. Horan saki that they have entered into a feasibility study for the fund raising campaign and the it ww 11 not be beyond thednext schodi Year and th Y would II a to be finished by thendo~tion, but hope Commissioner Henninger suggested approval for a year from September. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, said the use permit can be given for any period of time. It is then up 03/06/95 Page 4 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~' to the applicant to arrange whatever agreement would be necessary with the Flre Department regarding sprinWers because of the period of time that the temporary class rooms wUl be in use. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated any permR granted for tra8er use over a one year period of time would require sprinlders. He was not aware of any exceptbns that have been ghren, but that is not to say that some haven't been made. ACTION: pCOerfodio~fio~ne year to e~ir~e eM~rche6,d19.96. Resolutbn2passed 6 yes votes. ~ ~r a VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann presented the written 22-day appeal rights. 03/06/95 Page 5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 one AIEGATNE ~~rLARATION (Previausfy Approved) Approved 4a. Sr ~ Granted for 3~ yrs. 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3148 (Readvertised) (To expire 9-1-98) OWNER: DCNNIOSO 2nd AvenueK, 3te71422, San Dlego~CA~92 Qts Service, AGENT: Tony Florins, C/0 Airport Coach, P.O. Box 757, Anaheim, CA 92815-0757 LOCATION: 917 East Gene Autrv Wav. Property Is approximately 2.62 acres located on the northeast comer of Gene Autry Way and Lewis Street. Petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the limitation of time to retain a bus storage temninal. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PG95-22 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: Na one indicated their presence sftion 3 faxed letters were rsceNed in oppo PETITIONERS COMMENTS Carrie Nelson, Airport Coach, 917 East Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, explained they are interested in an extension of time for 3-1 /2 years to terminate a3 the same time their lease terminates (September 1.1998). The staff report recommends 3 years. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planne;, handed out two faxed letters received today indicating opposftion because of the dust. Chairwoman Boydstun stated Code Enforcen°~ent indicated they had received complaints about the dust. She thought there had been discussion three years ago about paving the lot. Ms. Nelson answered That they had requested the owner to pave the lot and that the owner is willing to discuss ft. They are willing to increase the rent but are unable top et financf-tg thea~ no one will spend have ft paved at this time. There is a dispute regarding ownershi of the property the money but ft is their goal to have ft paved. She explained the dust problem originated last summer when underground tanks were removed. The tanks were not theirs but belonged to a previous tenant and the landlord took qufte a long time to remove the tanks and get the dirt Battened out. They have since gotten used asphalt at their own expense to spread over the dirt to red~.:e the dust. They have not received any direct complaints since staff ish oriel watering oni ho daysuas wellp Toter kinlowlodge therew iII behno digginghagafn in thin 03/06/95 Page 6 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~~' yard. There was some hazardous waste that had to be removed and those piles of dirt sat there until a qualified company could come and take ~t away. Commissioner Messe stated the dust has been a problem for awhile and although crushed asphalt was applied in some areas, ft was not put in all areas and the problem continues. Ms. Nelson staled they are trying to get more used asphalt as ft becomes available. Chairwoman Boydstun stated one letter mentioned traffic in and out and dust from the busses and employees vehicles. Commissioner Henninger added short of paving, there must be some way they can find to coMrd the dust. the have t ffic~ln the rtaorn ng and again aW1 p~m91n the afternoon when theret is alshift change.~dly~ Y In response to Commissioner Henninger's suggestion regarding gravel, Ms. Nelson stated they have had gravel delNered and spread out as well and that they are trying to get more used asphalt and that depends on them getting ft at a reduced rate. She explained the company is a reorganized debtor and has been operating successfully under bankruptcy for the last three years. They are seeking financing to do the paving themselves because ft would be better for their vehicles, but there are no specific plans '-- for paving the lot at this time. She added the complaints were not made to them directly and if the neighbors would call them at an/ specific time, they would be responsive to that complaint. tohthat vi~sftde y had the lusted asphalt applied s he nstated dur ng tthe rains some areas puddled andnt they have leveled those. Commissioner Messe asked how long before they can get the crushed asphalt or gravel. Ms. Nelson stated they have ordered berth at this time and the company has Indicated there needs to be a road being torn up in that area in order for them to get ft locally. She thought wfth the freeway wkJening project, there should not be a proble n9 thegothin 3 to 4 months.she felt she could gNe the Commission an answer regarding pa g Commissioner Henninger suggested Imposing a condftion wfth a definfte length of time for paving the lot. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated Condftion No. 9 from the original approval be deleted which makes reference to oiling for dust control because that is no longer an environmentally acceptable B ulevardSwhich does ehavle crushedcasphaft and indicated she ou d give the applicant addft oral elm information. 41CTIQN: Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for suh~ect request. (Findings in Paragraph No. 12 of the staff report). 03/06/95 Page 7 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Approved Conditional Use PermR No. 3148, as readvertised. (Resdution No. PC 95-22. (Findings in Paragraph No. 12 of the staff report). Modified Cond(tion Nos. 9 and 17 of Resc~iution No. PC89-183 to read as fellows: •g, That within a period of ninety (90) days ftom the date of this resolution, the parking lot shall be paved or properly surfaced to eliminate dust. 17. The subject co~~lot0 eup Pe~september 1gr1n998 "f~ a ~d~ of three and one half (3~S) y VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written 22-day appeal rights. 03J08/95 Page 8 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Henn Approved ~, NEGATIVE DECLARATION Granted 5b. gEr•i eSSIFICATION NO 9495-07 Approved 5c. TENTATIVE PARGEL MAP N0.94183 OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Attn: Brent Schultz, 201 S. Anaheim Bivd., Ste. 1003, Anaheim, C4 92805 LOCATION: 1909 East Lincoln Avenue Property is approximately 1.32 acres located on the north side of Uncoln Avenue between Rose Street and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way. petftioner requests redassfflcation of the subject property from the ML (Umfted Industrial), CH (Commercial, Heavy) and RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zones to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. Petitioner requests aoproval of a tentative parcel map to establish a 5-tot subdivision (including two (2) numbered lots and three (3) lettered lots) to relocate two (2) single-famil~~ move-on dwellings. RECIASSIrICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC95-23 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None 1 concerned person spoke Brent Schultz, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and Ron Waltz, developer, were yresent. Msf Schoultz explained this project is part of the downtown redevelopment project area aril the are propo.. g renovate two historic single-family residential structures at the northwest comer of Lincoln Avenue and Rose Street. Improvement will include complete renovation of the interior and exterior, repainting, new roofing, foundations, extensNe landscaping Improvements on both properties and some minimal off-site improvements including asphalt and curbing repairs. The Redevelopment Agency is working on a Development Agreement and that process is nearing completion, and should go to City Council soon. Allen IQendenen, 900 E. Cypress Street, Anaheim, stated he was one of the first persons invdved wfth moving an historic house and restoring >t in Anaheim. His was the first house in the Heritage Square project They went through a lot of red tape with the Commission and the City and as time progressed and more houses have been moved there, there have ~eRemdevelopment Agen y and bthee staff,tmostly people trying to restore the houses and the Commission, time factors. He encouraged the City to have staff try to streamline the process so the persons trying to restore the houses can expedite ft faster. These two houses have been sitting there for almost a year and they have sustained a lot of damage from the elements and from other persons due to vandalism. One of his concerns is the houses sit there for long periods of time before they ran start to restore them and he felt there Is a lack of communication. 03/06/95 Page 9 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Brent Schultz stated he appreciated Mr. Klendemen's comments and that his home is beautiful. The Agency has been working diligently with Ron Waltz and the financing is al o ~ ve eryone can the proilud continue to work with him to get the project done and make h a quality p J of. Me apologized for the delays. documentt that Redevelopment is waiting toegut ahcopyr of h sine ranee asflrequteed by Risk he signs the Management. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration (Findings In Paragraph No. 11 of the staff report). Granted Reclassification No. 94-95-07 Approved Tentatfva Parcel Map No. 94-183, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions and w{th the fdlowing added condition: (Findings In Paragraph No. 17 of the staff report). That prior to final parcel map approval, street addresses shall be obtained from the Building Division of the Planning Department for Parcels 1 and 2. VOTE: 6.0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented a 10-day appeal rights with regard to the Parcel Map and 22 dayv with regard to the rest of the actin+~s. 03/06/95 Page 10 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA • March 6, 1995 ~' rE(~A GATEGORICAi. EXEMPTION-CLASS it No actbn 6a. Granted 6b. yARIANCE N0.4267 OWNER: SEL H and COMPANY, INC.,1800 QuaU St.~~ X06/Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: a~sa E La Palm Ave Ste E (La Gaoilla Mexican Foodl. Property Is approximately 6.51 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 260 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Waiver of maximum number of wall signs to construct a second wall sign (77 square feet) for an existing enclosed restaurant. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC85-24_- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOW ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONEFI'S COMMENTS: Bill Henigsman, TNT Sign Company, 1436 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, Calffomia, explained the request is for s secondary sign on the back side of the building facing Imperial Highway. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked if the existing sign is being removed. Mr. Henigsman respor-ded K is. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, pointed out this item is categorically exempt -Gass 11 -rather than a negatNe declaration as indicated in the staff report. ACTION: Granted Variance No. 4267 upon flnding that subject property has special business has three facadessiwith visibility fromeLa Palma Ave ueethe parking lotj oft the shopping center, and the freeway. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22•day appeal rights. 03/06/95 Page ti ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 7a. CEOA N~ATI~E nFC~RATION (Previously Approved) Approved Granted for 2 years 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2703 (Readvertised) (To expire 3.6-97) AGENT: NEWPORT EQUITIES, 3501 Jamboree Road, South Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1141 North Baxter Street. Property is approximately 2.8 acres located at the southwest comer of Via Burton Street and Baxter Street. To permft moving truck rentals in conjunction with an existing self-storage facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-2~_- ._, ---------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Michael G. Blasi, Newport Equities, explained they are requesting approval for U-Haul Rental trucks in conjunction wfth an existing self-storage facility. PUBLJC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff this service will be just for people who use their storage facillt~/t Mr. Blasi answered persons could rent a truck without ~KOring at the facility, but tt is primarily for their customers and is a natural, logical complement to their business. Commissioner Henninger asked how many trucks and trailers are at the facility now. Mr. Blasi responded these are usually two. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the applicant was Iicant answeredh the limited number of vehicles that has been mentioned in the staff report, and the app he was comfortable with that number. Commissioner Messe stated on Saturday afternoon, March 4, 1995, there were three trucks there, but they were parked out on the public right of way. Mr. Blasi said that he was not aware of that and added they will adhere to the requirements that are in the approval. Commissioner Henninger tio~ hff they beoome needed ondition requiring that the operator will pay for Code Enforcement (nspec 03/06/95 Page 12 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ACTION• Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve • as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Conditional Use Permft No. 2703, as readvertised, for a period of 2 years. Added the following condftions: That the number of U-haul rental trucks permitted shall be Ilmited to two (2) trucks and no parking of the rerknital gruc ~sl~oc~l t~ed~onmtheenath side of the pruoperhl• customer/employee pa 9 Pa That the operator of subject facility shall pay for the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections to address existing Code violations. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy Cfty Attorney, presented the written 22 day appeal rights. :.. 03/06/95 Page i3 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 8a, rEOA NEGATIVE DECLARAT~ (Previously Approved) ~ro„nue~ ri4E PERMIT N0. 3591 (Readvertised) 85. ~Olv~,.. OWNER: WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER, Attn: David K Culberson, 3033 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803 ~raaa Orana.e Avenue (West Anaheim Medical Center . LOCATION: ,~4$" "' "' Property is approximately 11.2 acres located at the northwest comer of Orange Avenue and Beach °aulevard. Petitioner requests to delete or amend a condition ,~} approval pertaining to a time Iimftation to retain a mobile medical (MRI) trailer. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. pC95-26 Approved Granted FOLLO'dIi1NG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A~.%TION. OPPOSITION: None '~ Mary Herschberger, west Anaheim Medical Center, explained they _are requesting an extension of time on the conditional use permit to allow construction of their in-house AORI unit The plans have finally been received and final mechanical and structural changes have been made and h is out for bid. They hope to start construction within a month. PUBIJC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Caldwell asked Ms. Herschberger how long it will take to build the in-house MRI? She responded three months. Commissioner Caldwell clarified a year would then be more than enough time. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. (Findings in Paragraph No. of the staff report) Approved request. Amended Condition No. 1 of Resdution No. PC93-46 adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3591 to read as fellows: '1• That subject permit is granted for a period of one (1) year (retroactive to April 19, 1994) to expire AprU 19, 1996.' VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, Presented the 22-day appeal rights. 03/06/85 Page 14 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~~ ga, ,~€ne NEGATIVE DECLARA'LLQN 9b. g,Er~ °CSIFICATION N0. 9495-06 OWNER: SC~ARttBROUGHETRUSTEEBP.O Box~18957TAnahe~m, CA 92817 AGENT: Dfi-eNStUel125 RdMg HiIIs.Estates, CA 90274 D~pvalley LOCATION: id90 South Douglass Road (Orange Tree Mobilehome P rk Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road approximately 1080 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue with a ftontage of approximately 995 feet on the east skis of Douglass Road. Petitioner requests reclassification of the subject pra,~erty from the toS he RS A-43,000) (ReskJer~tlal/A9ri ultur~~ Zoneilehome Park Overlay) Zone RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. Condn;ted to 3-20-95 ------------------------------------ FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED REPORT OF THE PLANNING CO-:rMISSION HEARING AND ACTION: OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke in opposition James A. Hayes, attomey for applicant/property owners Clayton E. Scarbrough and Donna J. CA 90274, stated that he has just Scarbrough, 655 Deep Valley Dri\re, Sufte 125, Roiling Hills Estates, been informed that the attomey for the Campanula Properties, who is vitally interested in this proceeding, is also present. He stated Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough have been drsona0n in led 1 roce~edings matter for some time as the landowners, although they have not appea pe Y p until now. They are strongly urging a reclassification of the MHP Overlay Zone because the park Is now closed as of March 1, 1995. There are only two tenants in the park and they are receiving at this time only the minimum rent, which is about like $3000.00 Per month. It is economically not feasible for them or the park operator, the Campanula Properties. The Hearing Officer in this matter, appointed by the City Council, Judg enoto thoseY required tolrmo~ve. approved the Conversion Impact Report which set forth a cost of paym The park operator, Campanula Properties, has found it economically Infeasible to continue with the operation of the park because they can't get new tenants. Those who were there either abandonede r moved away or failed to pay the rent and resulted in foreclosure of their Interest in the property. added a comment that the landowners are the ones suffering now. He referred to the recommended conditions upon the deletion of the overlay zone and stated the 03/06/95 Page 15 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~` Scarbroughs t?nd that they cannot agree to an open-ended assessment district as set forth in Condition No. 1. There isn't any definition of what that assessment district would be or whether it would even be feasible for them to agree to it. It is open-ended, uncertain and completely unintelligible, and unless there is a definition of what the assessment district is and what the twrden will be upon them, they cannot agree to iG It is like agreeing to a "blank check.' Concerning Condition No. 2, they agree to reasonable relocation benefits to those tenants who are entitled to it, and he thought that is what the Campanula Properties (Mends to pay. They agree with the termination of this CUP, which is Conditon No. 3, They do not agree to Condition No. 4 which is, In effect, a prohibition against the matter even being put on the agenda of the City Council. He dkl not thinovemment fo dmany years and has neverheard ofkian He added he has served in both city and county 9 Commission Imposing a condtion preventing a matter being placed on the agenda of the CouncU. Commissioner Mesee stated they would have the right to appeal the Planning Commission decision in any case. Mr. Hayes continued this condition says they have to agree In advance that they do not agree in advance to it being placed on the agenda. That isn't the case at all and they cannot agree in advance that they don't want i< placed on the agenda. Felt Condtion No. 5 is totally unclear and felt perhaps ft could be explained during the course of the meeting. with the statements he had made.hThey eboth ind~cated from the audience that they agr for disagreed Properties) the gAound lessee foKthe propertyd which fomierlySwa Orange Tree Mob ehome Park. Mr. Cddren referred to the staff report with respect to the req~` andrM s~Scarbrough.yCampanula stated he thought tho applicant is the owner to the sub ect pro and is still the ground lessee even Properties is the ground lessee with respect 1 P perry though the mobilehome park no longer exists. He explained they submitted a change of use notice prior to last March. That Notice of Intent to change the use was served on everyone and it indicated that they were going to close the mobilehome park. The twelve (12) month period has now expired (he thought last week or about the first of March.) He thought there are only two resklents/tenants chani enof se has now occurr~ed~andnnow then tenancy hasf nefact, been~te~rminated putrsuanttiotCNii~ 9 Code Section 798.56. He stated he understood there are some proposed amendments to the overlay zone removal ordinance that would somehow modffy the provisions that have to do with the two year time period. It's not an ordinance of the city now so he is addressing himself to the existing ordinance. There is no mobilehome park on that property which is directly adjacent to the Arena. He stated he thought 03/06/95 Page 16 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 probably the interest of his dierr4, Campanula Properties, is that they probably are going to bear all at a substantial portion of the expense of whatever is ultimately deckled by the City to a redassffication of the subject property. He referred to Condftlon No. 1 which says that prior to the introduction of an ordnance removing the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, there is a requirement for an unsubordlnated covenant to patticipate in some assessment district. He stated he shared Mr. Hayes' concern and added he has never heard of such a condtion being Imposed either, and he thought ft is just totally unwarranted. He stated he dkl not know how the City can place a condftbn t,n a property oHmer which the owner may well find Impossible to comply wfth and felt that is essentially relegating the property owner to never be able to conskler any other use of his property. He stated even ff his diem was willing to participate and to subordinate their leasehdd Interest to this proposed condtion, there would still be problems because there is oher uire annu supbordinated consent thought Great Western or some bank has a loan on the property. eq is basically an impossibility because Mr. Scarbrough has absdutely no contrd or ability to comply. Concerning some assessment district to be formed, Mr. Coldren stated there is some assessment district that is under consideration now for street wklening on Cerritos and certain improvements that were done to Douglass Road. He stated he dkl not know ff that is the assessment district or not and he has not had an adequate opportunfty to study ft, but he did not know how the Cfty could impose a condition that they agree to in advance to participate in some assessment district. Commissioner Hesse interjected the condftion doesn't talk about participation, but ft talks about contesting lt. Mr. Coidren continued they may want to be able to contest the formation of such an assessment district, Commissioner Hesse stated they could vote against ft. Mr. Cddren asked why should the City stHle his diem's rights by trying to get him to agree that he won't exercise that right. Commissioner Hesse stated the City's attorney will answer that concern. Commissioner Caldwell suggested Mr. Coldren bring up all the questions he has and then let Cfty staff respond. Mr. Cddren asked why his diem is being asked to gNe up his rights before he even knows what ?he assessment district is about or who is going to be involved in ft or how much ft is going to cost, or what fts boundaries are going to be or what ft is going to be for, etc.. Selma Mann, Deputy Cfty Attorney, stated the formation of the assessment district, actually is the only aspect of the district which the applicant would be required to agree not to contest. The c~aM may actually is very narrow wfth regard to the formation itself and ft dearly states that the appl challenge anything else about ft, whether the property is properly induded in the assessment district, the amount of the assessment, etc. 03/06/95 Page 17 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~% Ms. Mann responded to Commissioner Messe that she believed this condition is Part of a development the very narrowness of the rway~that ~ exp~essedWOther t than the facts that t e e isealwaysOuse of resistance. Melanie Adams, Public Works -Engineering, stated the assessment district mentioned by Mr. Coldren for aeJ ublPc street facilit es agreement rid that hasenothings o d with Ithe covenant beingiasked for~~ to P Condition No. 1. Mr. Coldren saki with the information provided by Ms. Mann, that is precisely what he Just Indicated they were objecting to. And that is that there is an unformed, unklentifled, and at this point totally undescribed assessment district, and the City is asking Mr. Scarbrough to secure ft ftom his dients, and from these lenders, consent that they won't contest the formation of any such assessment district. He ,and Navin to do stated he has seen some documents in past hearings having to do with this property 9 with Anaheim Stadium Associates, or ASA, or Ogden, and he thought it is a contractual agreement which the City has with some third party wherein the City has promised that they're going to move forward to get this assessment district formed. He stated he has written to the City in the past and asked about this assessment district and the City has never responded. He added they want to know ff the City has contracted with some third party entity to form some assessment district at some future date. if so, what is it all about so they can conskler it. He added they can't even talk intelligentl~l about it here because they don't know what i< is about. Commissioner Henninger asked if Mr. Coldren was asking for a continuance? Measonable and Ira~tional that they be priovided with a I he information needed in o~rdertt omake arias only informed decision. He referred to the staff report dated March 6, 1995, and stated he has never seen this particular proposed condition before. Mr. Coldren said the issue of relocation benefits has been brought before the Commission on at least two prior occasions. It was also brought to City Council and there were at least two days of testimony before Judge Flynn on the topic. After hearing two days of testimony from enumerable witnesses and pouring over transcripts and documents, Judge Flynn identf8ed the relocation benefits which he felt were constitutional, lawful and reasonable. He stated he knows there is a debate right now with Campanula Properties, his diem, over whether or not they are bound by that or not. At least as far as his diem is concomed, that is a debatable issue. With respect to who should be pa~~ he~thu~ ~ the way in which very dear and the resolution fs very dear. It is their position candidly, the City proceeded, no residents at this point are entitled to receive relocation benefits ftom any source. They would Ilke to have an opportunity to sit down with the City and talk about this so that ft Gov din $5000.00 re B defeeryal subsklfeY.s or up to $5000.00, to a~substant(al poert on oftithe residents Y ~ 9 He stated Ms.Talley and Mr. Evar!s have appeared before the City with charts and two hundred page books of relocation impact reports, and all kinds of other documentation describing in detail the many hours of time and effort that have gone Into relocating these reskents, as well as the money that was 03/06/95 Page 18 ANAHEIM CITY PU4NNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 shelled out by the park in the form of rent credRs bo a number of the residents. He thought that burden has already been met. He stated he thought a c~orYtinuance would be warranted on that basis as well. Mr. Coidren referred to Condition No. 3 and stated he was not sure who would have to request termination of the conditional use permft, whether k would be the ground lessee, Campanula Properties, or whether it would be the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough. He warned to note for the record that they have not had adequate time to study that particular Issue. Regarding Condition No. 4, it reads, 'chat prkx Ito placing an ordinance rezoning the property on the agenda', and they thought it is Inappropriate to prOdude even placing an ordinance on the agenda untq Conditions 1 through 3 have been compiled wfth. With regard to Condition No. 5, he stated ff there is anything else they need to do in order to secure reclassification, or fi there is anything else Mr. Scarbrough needs to do in order to secure reclassification, they would like t~ know what that is. They are being asked to fulfill a number of conditions which might cost an awful I~t of money and would like to know whether or not there are any other required approvals or consents or anything else that the City is going to insist upon before they can move forward to secure redassific~tion of the property. He stated they believe that they don't have a mobilehome park on the sfte now and be ~efic~assifided~ That appropriate for the Commission t~ determine that it is appropriate that the property the overlay zone be removed and that h be removed without any conditions whatsoever. He added he would invite any questions and also he would 11ke to renew their request for a continuance on the basis of this inadequacy of infa;matian. Commissioner Caldwell determined that Mr. Coidren is not representing the applicant. Commissioner Caldwell explained that Mr. Coidren was not in a position to request a continuance. The appicant may request a continuance. Commissioner Masse stated this hearing is just on the reclassification, and the Commission is not talking about the proposed amerxlment to the overlay zone. Commissioner Henninger pointed out the proposed code amendment is Item 16 -Code Amendment No. 95-04 pertaining to mobilehome parks and displaced mobilehome owners) and it was on the agenda earlier today and ft wa.a continued to April 3, 1995. Mr. Hayes, attorney for the applicant, stated he has spoken with Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough and they do reegasonableffthey get the irrform2tion t ey need iromethetCommission or yourr off, month would be Chairwoman Boydstun stated there are other people in the audience who might wish to speak on this item. She asked if those presets would like to give their testimony today so that K is on the record, or wait if the matter is continued. Maryann Runge, 1400 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, stated she is one ~whats~ooever other than tha 9 in this mobilehome park. At this time she has yet to receive any proposal ~ stupefying contract that Mr. Stanaland provkled, which they were not going to sign giving up their 03/06/95 Page 19 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~> freedom of speech. She stated no provisions to relocate them have been made to date. She added she is not objecting to his desire to change the use of this park, but she wants the right to be relocated to another park and that she does not have the funds to move her mobAehome. Richard Haines, 1400 Douglass Road, No. 80, stated at this time he !s reskJing wfth his daughter and her husband. He stated on Saturday they were served with an eviction osier, and R indicated the use has already been changed. He explained they indicated that people could be moved for X number of ddlars, and that he has a:~ estimate itemizing every facet of their move. He added no one has ever formally asked for such a document. He stated he has read so ~ ~ ~~h~ arxi that he doesntt e park, about the permits, the six-month period that is supposed theeh me and that Mr. Stanalande and Campanula Properties have done nothing to encou ge them.p He stated he had one conversation with Mr. Evans (with Tally and Associates) and he gave him a list of three parks to move to and that Mr. Evans asked, 'Vvhy dkl you waft so long?". He explained they don't have the money to move at this time. They put everything into the purchase five years ago, and they pakl $50,000 for it, and still owe $60,000• If they walk away, they are bankrupt. The bank won't loan anymore money on iG He read that the reasonable cost of moving should be enuaned by the park and he did not see any of that coming from Mr. Stanaland. He stated he has heard no proposals, and no offers other than the CIR which gives them $4,650• The new state law says that the house must be tied down for earthquake and flood contrd.. The cost of the material for that alone is $2220, on their mere, andrif another park offers them any other benefltr, t~he~CI~R indiratesdthat amour wi I he taken in away. Mr. Haines stated today Mr. Cddren Indicated that no benefits should be paid to anybody and he dki not understand that comment. He asked where do they go, how do they move their home, and how do they take care of their Investment? He explained they made the irnestment In ail honesty five years ago when they moved into this park; and they said we'd be here forever. He stated if the Commission glues the applicant a continuance, he would ask that they put an injunction against the eviction order, completely halting it, so that he cannot enforce it. They have no money to move the house and need as much time as he is getting and if the Commission is not going to make a decision, then they must prevent him from enforcing his eviction order. Ha nesi es~imateCommissioer Messe asked hrim to include bodging costs as wellsite as shown in Mr. Mr. Haines explained the estimate includes twelve (12) days lodging in a motel. He stated they have a cat which they don't want to lose also. Commissioner Caldwell asked how much is estimated ff they are going to move the furniture Into storage, move the trailer to a new site, set it up with earthquake/flood coMrd straps, and lodging for twelve days. 03/06/95 Page 20 ~s r ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Mr. Haines replied this estimate has been broken down for the takedown, set-up as fellows: Takedown Set-up Pemtfts & fees Transportation Emergency Leglsiation 3,~ 7,106.00 587.00 1,200.00 - 2,220.00 115.00 needs flagging equipment etc. because ft is 28 feet wide. You have to have an escort whkh you may be aware of by the State of Calffomia for the earthquake protection law Maryanne Runge saki that estimate doesn't include any addftlonal expenses for possible re-skirting, assuming their skirting is dry-rotted; or any adjustments that might have to be made; a new deck that might have to be built, etc, depending on what the condftions would be for the new mobilehome park where they have Dean moved to. For their moving expenses, the storage fees, eo~Ve ~~'mores an estimate for twelve days and ft might be more than 12 days, and some peopl than that, and some have only needed three to flue days. It depends upon the weather and many other factors and how quicMy the home can be dis-assembled, moved and re-assembled, sealed and made tit 357.00. Should to live in. So these addftional figures which have not been included in the figures are $8, their skirting be unfit and should they have to put in some kind of masonry or reskirt with the wood which they now have, that is very expensive and can cost anywhere from $3000.00 to $4500.00, ff they cannot reuse what they have. Commissioner Masse asked ff the setup fee of $7,160.00 included any replacement of skirting? Ms. Runge said ?hat included spotting ft, positioning ft, unwrapping ft, levelling ft (the preliminary level and the final level), and the height and weight, setting the pads and the piers and the clean-up, finishing, aligning inside and the 11na exterior, mending the roof, re-sealing the roof so ft woi'~eki a~~ down putting new shingles on should that be necessary. It includes re-laying the carpe 9 and re-sezTing ft, the roof rkige and the dean-up on that, the utilfty re-connections, should there be a need for additional piping, the water, the gas, the sewer, the cross-over electric, the wiring for the phone, the heater, and ft mentions the phone cross-overs, water heater, the water heater drain braze, and the miscellaneous mats. This $7,1001ncludes ail these things and ft also includes the tongue and removing the tires or just those things to put ft in place. Commissior :~ Masse asked ff she had gotten another estimate. Ms. Runge responded they did get one from Reed Brothers but they have gone bankrupt and cannot be located. Mr. Haines added this house is heavy because ft has a large fireplace in the family room aril ft takes five art oof two roomst so they don't cellapse. All of this affects t e purchase and molving of thI is home. up Pa The park has no street lights and they have nothing around the home. He explained he had informed aroundmhei~home.tThey areein total darkness alll thle9 me at night and neve~knownwhat isrout thle9et o3f06f95 Page 21 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Ms. Runge saki to date they have remained current wfth their rent, even though the facAfties are not there. They are paying for options which they are supposed to have. They da :got have a dubhouse and there are many things they don't have. They do have a place to sleep right now and they need a place to put this house. Right now they can walk in the door of theL~ home and have aed~from their home but ff they are evicted, and if the police are brought to their home arxi thoy are Bragg and then M the home is moved, they understand one of the condftions is that they will be billed for the eviction, and for moving the house. She stated all they are asking is for what is coming to them, according to the City ordinance. They are asking for relocation fees. She added if the owner can fi as~long aaslthe ovm~eepay the billsvthat ishall can move their homy :: a location that they have chosen, they are asking. if they can find a cheaper alternative, as long as their home is put back Into the condftion that ft is now, that the roof does not leak, that the porch is where ft balongs, and if all is In accordance wfth City ordinances, and the State code for earthquake protection wfth the tie~iowns ,etc. is met, that is fine. Mr. Haines saki once again, ft the Commission continues this, he would rernse~i an injunct~nn so that they don't have to move in sixty (ti0) days. Chairwoman Boydstun saki she did not think that action is wfthin the Commission's jurisdiction. Selma Mann said that would ba a remedy that would be for a Court to deckle and, of course, anyone is Commission tootakethat type ofeaotioniandrthat Iwould be an un-enforceable action Planning Ed Lelon, 23623 La Palma Avenue, Sufte H-154, Yorba Linda, California, stated he is the Pres beuntt~~ee Orange Tree Residents Association and former Resdents Association. He is not ;in attome„ here as a resident, or former resident of the Orange Tree and as a spokesman for them. Hfs purpose is to oppose the removal of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park Overlay and charge of use permft, regardless who the applicant is. Whether ft is the Campanula Properties and Mr. Stanaland or whether ft is Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough, there was a responsibilfty taken on ere of uanaware that he park axle ed the mobilehome park. Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough, he was sure, on their land, and there are Codes that have to be complied wfth in removing that park from the land. This is the fourth time he has been before the Commission because Mr. Stanaland and his a e~ocat onep making this necessary by avokiing compliance with the Anaheim Coae~ requirement to pay benefft to displaced residents. They keep attempting ~-o redefine the terms of who is a qualftied resklent Commis on votelno oln thlsl application and deny the~equest untU they hav firsecomplf a witch thee Code. He stated they dkin't have any affluence or fund of money before the move. Afany of those who have moved now, like the family that just spoke, have found themsel The n haveplacked thetifunds ©fl sh the o moved are either bankrupt now or on the edge of bankruptcy. y completion touches after the move. He stated he found that he ran out of money before he could finish the landscaping around his home. He referred to a folder which he had gNen the Commission last week and he thought each 03/06/95 Page 22 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Cammissbner has had a chance to see it and, also Selma Mann of the City Attorney's office should have receNed one. There should be a copy also for Mr. Startaland and his agents. He referred to the cover story, the three page summary of the dosure of the Orange Tree MobUehome Park. It has summarized a year and a half or more of actions and bouncing back and forth between City Hall and them. It speaks for itself. He asked any Orange Tree reskferrts or former resdents to stand. He asked ff they had seen this document, the three page summary, and read it and agree wfth iG He stated these people have read it and they know the story is true and are here to testify to that. He referred to the red tab, the Codes and Laws and to the Anaheim Zoning Code Section and read the fdlowing: 'Prior to the approval of such change of use, the Clty hearing body should conduct a duly noticed public hearing In acco Dance with this code (and noted the underlined portion for emphasis). The Ciry hearing body shall requre as a condition of any such change of use that the person or entity proposing such change of use, and in this case it may be Mr. Scarbrough instead of Mr. Stanaland, take reasonable measures to mitigate any identifiable adverse impacts of the change of use of displaced mobilehome owners to filed adequate replacement space within another mobilehome park. Now, notice the bold, said mitigation measures shall be limits,: to the payment of relocation benefits. He stated Mr. Coldren referred to all of the money that went into paying for Vicki Talley presenting her charts and the overheads and all of that stuff and that is (reelevant to this question. Also note the quote of Calffomia law, 'that after all required permits requesting a change of use have been approved by the local government body, board, commission, the management shall glue the homeowners six months or more written notice of termination of tenancy. He stated as far as he knew, ~.: there has been no local body approving the change of use as of this date. Therefore, those residents who got the sixty~Jay notice should instead be getting asix-month notice ff the approval is granted today by this body, or by the City Council. Notice also that the change of use requires no local government permits - that notice shall be given twehre monthenU thee areoactin~ as ff theeCommisslon determination the change of use will occur. He added, apps y Y g is not a body that has any relevant domain over this whole issue. They are acting as ff the park is located out in an unincorporated area (nstead of in the City of Anaheim. If ft were in an unincorporated 2.rea, the State requires that the notice shall disdose and describe in detail the nature of the change of the use. He noted the State requires that and asked should the City of Anaheim require any less than the State of Calffomia? He stated as far as he knows, they have kept the purpose of change of use totally secret to date, except for some rumors that may be In the media. He stated since Mr. Stanaland has shown extreme reluctance to obey the Anaheim Code and has taken extreme measures over the past fourteen months to avokf reimbursing them for their forced moves, they want to darffy Just two issues. Very briefly: 1) who qualifies for the relocation benefits? He pointed out the simple answer is shown at the dear tab. The notice of change of use that is indicated there was maUed out about February 1, 1994, It was sent certU9ed maU, return receipt requested, to their homes because some people dkln't go to the post office to pick it up when they couldn't deliver ft to their home. They also had a courier deliver a second copy to each home. So that was an official action taken of official notice on behalf of the management that the park was dosing. That's the simple answer as to why they moved. Mr1 ~i , h ~tedt~~Sta~ a~ ndi ha~Publ t~h ~t~8e C°~v erne his own park records. tThe I!st is in theory 03/06/95 Page 23 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 fdder &t the blue tab. The homes are listed there and the names of the parties in those homes at that time. The thins CIR (the yellow tab) Issued on January 15, 1995, just a little over a month ago, reduced that reskient list from seven pages of people down to Just seven people. He stated of the 166 reskents listed, 92 may have dlsqualUfed themselves by signing that unconscionable rent deferment agreement that took away so many of their consumer rights. Some Commissioners acknowledged when they looked over that agreement that they wouldn't sign iG Some residents dkl sign ft and they speak today especially for the 74 who did not sign that agreement or reach any agreement with the owner, odor n~ who are in the park now being evkted. They believe that of the 166, 74 especial y q ify How much relocation benefits should be paid is the second issue. He referred to the red fdder and a page comparing the two calculations Mr. Stanaland has made (the green tab at the back) and on that first page there are two columns. The first indicating the CIR dated 1~ /94 ~nd ~a~~ ~~I~te bids, 1 /15/95. In the first cdumn are the figures calculated in February , (from Cornish, Collins, and Kahlers.) Mother resident will address what those companies are like and the es but no bidstare gNen~no estimates~no ompaniesheHe didtnot klnow were they got~tho~se~ lists P figures. He pointed out at these prices, the mobilehome movers may not be fully insured, licensed and bonded, and it also assumes moving the fumfture inside the home. One of the resident's did that and ended up breaking an axis on the 5 Freeway. Half of their home, wfth plastic sheeting on the sloe to protect the r aide before herhome couldtbe hauled the rest~of the way. In al newerdhomeuiif thetfumfture (s hauled inside„ any warranties on that structure are void. Virtually all residents who have completed actual moves have had to replace, at least some a` their skirting and awnings and often worse. Code Section 18.02.050.402 states that all work should be done by a professional contractor. In tihe original CIR, $4950.00 is the total of those three bids, and $42501s the new total. Lodging, accessories and lot improvement are listed below and on the new CIR lodging has been omitted, and they have included accessories a~'xl lot Improvements in the new CIR. Ths total is really less than $4250 which he is planning to pay for the moving of a home. He did not know the price given for moving a shed and $150.00 is included for landscaping. He thought by the time a person bought the three bushes and the fertUfzer and paid a professional landscaper to put the three bushes in front of the home, the $150 would be used up and they still have no flowers or anything else. He referred to the flnal page which is a summary by the Residents Association, and explained they surveyed the residents and asked them to quicMy get together the costs of moving. He referred to a thick blue binder gNen to the Commissioners in Septemberi0ctober. In that binder are the dotails of the actual receipts from each of the residents who responded to the survey and he has ~ ~ never summary sheet from that binder. He noted that particular motion, of course, was dropped came before a public hearing. He explained they can get those receipts again if needed. The average numbers are almost a perfect bell curve, under $5000.00 up to $19,000 to $21,000. They found that owners of eight homes of the 38 have bankrupted, could not the RS taxes iftthat was eextra during the e fumed the homes back to the bank and probably had to pay year, and ended up moving into apartments or somewhere else. 03/06/95 Page 24 _ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~_f The average cost to move of those residents who did respond was $10,780.86. Mr. Stanaland ends up richer by at least $300,000, or maybe half a million ddlars or more, ff they were to sunray all of the residents who moved out of the Park without being paid any benefits. He stated last May the Commission selected a figure of $10,000 as the amount to be paid for each double-wide coach and $8000 for asingle-wkle each. Of coursa, Mr. Stanaland didn't 11ke those figures. He also dkJn't like the fact that the Commission asked him ff he would hire a consultant to come up with an average figure for moving a mobflehome. He stated Mr. Stanaland refused to get a consultant to give the Commission advice and the residents have tried to do that with actual costs of moves and have given a figure of $10,780. He noted the Commission decided on a figure last May of S1o~~•~. and Mr. Stanaland he appealed h to the City Council and ft was overturned. Mr. Lelon stated Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough have said they are hurting now for and so are 166 families muorie acres of and these famines have one mobcilehomie and it is not on land they own abut on ent2e6dor space. The CIR approved by Judge Flynn and the City Council is not the CIR that waso p~fe Judge Flynn's Commission on January 15, 1995. The City Council specified when they app recommendations that their decision to approve the CiR would not affect any amount to be paid to residents and would not affect who qualffied for that money. The City Council specifically left those two decisions up to the Commission. Then Mr. Coidren indicated that Judge Flynn identified amounts that are reasonable in his finding to the City Councn; but there was no moeVti~on He left that decislonas toeY ~- at all in his findings. He simply made mention that the C!R be app amounts to the City CouncA and they again fumed it over to Commission. Also, the ordinance is clear. Mr. Lelon stated that Mr. Coldren has saki because of the way the City proceeded, no resklents are eligible for the relocation benefits and K is interesting that he is not throwing blame on Stanaland, but on the City of Anaheim. He dkf not understand that logic. And that Mr. Coidren gays they met the shelled out for~the Talley C5~ f ®eportsSetoS9nd thatthis le levant to this while di muss on money was He recommended that the Commission deny the owner's application untn after he has paid the relocation benefits to the residents who were among the 74 who were on that list of 166 and he asked that the Commission rule that thc+se in the park at the time of that notice are the ones who qualffy. He also asked that the Commission direct that $10,000 is the amou ~~nt demonstrated extreme reluctance the Commission came up with b+~fore. And lastly, since the spill to pay for fourteen months and Uhey have gone around and around as the summary indicates, and asked Corr:.~nlsslon to insure that some vehicle be provEded to entorce the decision. Otherwise, the own+ar will continue to want to H~easel out of paying the residents for this forced move which is what Fred Hunter identified last Septe+nber in the City Council meeting. Commissioner Masse asked ff any of the 74 resklents have been pakl any relocation benefits? Mr. Lelon said not one. AI Pemk;k, 83 Paseo Daytona in Brea. former resident of the Qrange Tree in Space 91, stated ne was rather surprised sittng here listening to what was 9ois who a asking for this remi oval~complalninge tentsdive removal of the overlay. He heard the peopl gnt nobody has thought about the ddlars that they would) be either forced not to have or to give up. 03/06/95 Page 25 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~~ ~. about the ddlars that they have caused other people to spend. Hearing the request for removal of the overlay aril the request for a delay in the consideration so they ~ love ay cannot~be removed because c~ndftions is really moot. The conditions really who ~~ ~ ~ ~ mobile park. Until that is done, i< there has been no compensation to the peopl is a moot point. The City can't legally remove the overlay when the City ordinances and the State law says, to remove ff, the first thing that has to be done is that the people who moved are compensated and that has not even been decided yet. They are before the Commission again and want another delay so they can understand the conditions. 'rho only real condition that has to be satisfied before anything else is to determine when the people who were forced to move because of the statement of dosing of the park are going to get compensated per the ordinance. Tippy Lawler, a former resklent in Space 44, stated he comes before the Commission simply to oppose the rezoning of the park. He added he has not receivad a dime ftom Mr. Starraland for the move. Last February he received a notice that the park would be dosing within a year and that he should move his home. He dkln't object to moving even though he dkln't like R, but the owner of the park is a businessman and he had a right to dose ft ff he so desired. He felt no moral obligation to oppose the thesmove~rle added he came beforeWhe Comemisslono task for what it cost tormovee ~mpensation for Responding to Commissioners Henninger and Masse Jointly, he saki the cost was a little over $10,000 and that he has all the receipts, but he was strictly o;:"posing the rezoning today. Mr. Lawler responded to Chairwoman Boydstun that his mobilehome Is a double wide unit and right now it is two and a half years old. Barbara Dexter, formerly of space No. 73, Orange Tree Mobile Home Park, stated they have appeared before the Commission so many times, n is becoming rkliculous. The Commission has seen through Mr. tt Is still ofn on. Mr. Stanaland wants Stanaland's dog and pony show in the past, but unfortunately, 9 9 the Commission to believe that h costs under $5000.00 to move a mobilehome and the resklents have shown wfth actual receipts that it Is far more costly than that. Their personal bills totaled $17,880.15, and they also owe $200.00 which they have not been able to pay yet because they are about a thread ftom bankruptcy. That is a far cry from the $4600.00 that Mr. Stanaland says it costs to move a doublewkfe mobilehome. Their home is 28 by 66 feet, and ft was the largest one in thb orange Tree Park and $4600.00 wouldn't even move half of it. She referred to page 3 of the January 1995 CIR, and ft states, 'average comparable parks require minimal, ff any, Improvements costs and these are limited to landscaping requirements". In their case, they had to have new skirting and they had aluminum at the 0 Orange ~ the homesrha eto be repainted, 111 in the new park. That was an additional $1100 fee. Also, including their sheds. She would like to meet the contracxor who can get a home re-skirted and the home and sheds painted for $150.00. Those contractors don't exist. Their bills included dismantling and re-assembling, and it is all written down and she would gladly share ff. They found a place to move she dklCnot wanst ebe In ~L.A.oCounryOThere wasn'tyanythingtlarge enough toaccomirrwdate outer home in Orange County. the elo~ceationlbenefits.'tTheeu~tnotaone Orange Tree Mobile HomeiParkUeowner who moved bbecause e 03/06/95 Page 2fi ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~ March 6, 1995 they just felt like spending $20,000• They moved because Mr. Stanal i~ with everytFdng he asked ndn February of 1994 and that is the only reason they moved. They c:ompl moved in a timely manner. They didn't cause him a while lot of heartache and grief, but he sure has caused ft to them. She questioned Calffomla CivG Code, Chapter 2.5 Artide 6 -Termination of tenancy which says he has to get approval from the City before he can dose the park. She added the owner has put the horse before the cart, and has just kind of said that the Commisskxr is worth~t ~ due the residents, the ~ Mr. Stanaland to remove the mobUehome park overlay without payi g ns the former residents, they wAl not see one dime. She added in her personal opinion, ff that happe Commission will be as guilty and as worthless as he is. Ms. Dexter continued that in the past Mr. Cddren specffically asked why they couldn't have moved their homes for the $78031n allowable costs. Her response to him was that'we chose a mover that was licensed, bonded and fully insured.' She asked ff the Commission would have trusted thelr home to somebody who wasn't? That is who they put in their CIR, she stated in the first Cli;, the three movers were Paul Cornish, Collins Trucking and Kahlers Mobilehome Service and they were not licensed, or bonded, etc. and that Mr. Kahler would only move homes out of Orange County into RiverskJe or San Bomardino County. She dkl not want to live in San Bernardino County and commute 3 hours to work. Mr. Cornish sent our` fraudulent Insurance copies saying that he was insured. She called his bonding agent, and his insurance had been cancelled in 1990. This is the caliber that Talley and Associates and Mr. Stanaland used. 03/08/95 Page 27 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~l At the Planning Commission meeting in May of 1994, one of the Commissoners put ft so aptly that Mr. Stanaland has already proven that he can't be trusted. If the Commission grants him the rezoning before they are paid, they have to look in the mirror just like he does and he has worked around ft, but she dkl not think the Commissioners could. Debbie Gilbert, current address >s 34202 Del Obispo, Space 48, Dana Point, formerly Space 90 at Orange Tree. Conceming her porch, she still does not have one. It is still sitting in the ex-0range Tree Mobilehome Park. Of course, ff Mr. Stanaland agrees to tear ft down and move ft like the ordinance requires, she'd be happy She lived in the Orange Tree for ten years and that she tried to negotiate wfth Mr. Stanaland on several occasions during unreasonable rent Increases. She tried to get services for those rent increases. Now ft is obvious that Mr. Stanaland warned the Park to be run down. There were garbage doors covering the garbage bins which needed to be replaced when she moved there in 1983, andtshe did nyot t ink that is an~unreasonable thing o ask foh so a security anted safety, but Mr. ge bin Stanaland dkln't seem to think that they needed ft. Ms. Gilbert stated Mr. Stanaland made ft very clear from the beginning of this move that he had no intention of paying the residents any money. If the Commission removes the overlay zone now, ft will give him tho option to wfthhold payment regardless of what is ruled. That would take away whatever leverage the Cfty has over him and will give him everything he wants. She dkl not believe that Mr. Stanaland deserves that. She thought Mr. Stanaland has Intentionally and wfth malice set out to come out of this wfthout paying a dime in relocation benefits. She added that is her personal opinion, and she ~_ really hoped the Commission conskiers that and that they look at all of the information which their association provkled. to beat them wfth flnanclal She stated ft is clear that Mr. Stanaland has used his influence to scare them, abuses; he has threatened them and in his own newsletter, he threatened rent increases if they dkin't sign his agreement. She thought the Commission has to look at this and conskler that he is not !n a position legally, nor morally, to have this overlay zone removed. Navin one into business wfth Mr. She stated she feels very song for the owners of the property, 9 9 Stanaland, but he is one person, and they are 166 people. Ifa r• wa heave shestsBut until then she does obligation, then fine, let him go on and develop the property y Y not believe he has a legal right and that the Commission has an obligation to them, as former cftlzens of this city, to hold him to the law. Vicki Talley, Talley and Associates, 500 N. State College Blvd., Ste. 1020, Orange, stated their firm prepared the Conversion Impact Reports that have been submitted. She referred to a previous staff report dated July 24, 1994. Selma Mann stated ff previously submitted documents are going to be discussed, copies should be made available to the Commission. She added previous proceedings before the Commission are not applicable at this point. Ms. Talley saki she would be happy to provkle copies. She referenced the July 12, 1994, Supplemental Conversion Impact Report and a supplemental packet which included a summary of rrobpehome moving bkis. She explained that summary came from a combination of bkis and copies of t~~e bkis were !ncluded, but that ;Host of those bids were submtted by the reskferrts, some of whom have testified this 03/08/95 Page 28 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 -. ~~ afternoon, inducting Mr. Mon and others. She presented a copy of that summary for the record. She stated on the 24th, they submftted ail of those bids, plus a summary and the average doublewide bkl, based on those bids, was $4800.58. Ms.Talley referenced the transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Officer, noting she was present at that entire hearing for several hours. Each one of these residents who testified today also testified before the hearing officer, and they had an opportunity to submit documentation, and there was an opportunity to cross-examine one another and to show proof, etc• She referred to one example wherein, a resident come up this afternoon saying ft cost 517,000 Plus to move; yet, in the transcript before the Hearing Officer, that figure was less than 58000. Ms. Talley stated they have taken great pains before the Commission to explain what Is irndved in a move. Some of the residents may have paki far more to move than $4800.00, but they may have made some choices to upgrade. Some resdents may have chosen to move into a better park, not a comparable park. A comparable park would have allowed the same skirting, agents fromythevparks deckled to move into a park that required more. Many of them did receive paym they moved Into, but those costs of upgrading and Improving the mobilehome when ft's at the new location are not a legftimate part of moving. She stated these are just some examples of the testimony that the Commi rtiun ~wfth a cotlnuance to numerous occasions. She stated they would certainly like to have an oppo fty refrosh memories. She added one of the primary reasons for a continuar-ce would be for the '~ Commission to take time to read the testimony arxi find out really what these costs were, and suggested the Commission read the entire transcript. c u d have beendmoveed to a~comparable park endthe north Orange County a~ea foriunderng$5000. Ms. Talley responded she could have moved ft for nothing, and explained they dk1 that for any number The dks who are really on the ball took advantageoof therent credft and theeinfodrmation thattheYrtunfty. worked very, very hard to provide. Commissioner Caldwell asked again ff she owned a double wkfe and was going to pay to have ft moved, could ft be moved for less than 55000 to a comparable park In the north Orange County area? She responded "YES". Commissioner Messe asked ff that mover would be licensed and bonded? Ms. Talley answered "yes' and said they have those types of bkJs from the residents themselves. Ms. Talley said she talked to a gentleman a week ago today and asked him for copies of the bkls. He has been moving double wkle mobilehomes from Orange County mobilehome parks out to the Inland Empire for less than 53000. She can show the Commission any number of instances like that. She stated they are not just talking about the cost to move a home, which, of course, (s the big issue and what is a reasonable cost, but also everything else that was offered in terms of mitigation beneffts. Commissioner Mayer referred to the term 'comparable parks" and asked at what time they set a 03/06/95 Page 29 ANAHI=IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 standard as to what would be a comparable park, pointing out there was testimony that this particular park was being allowed to deteriorate because they were anticipating a move? What constitutes a comparable park? Ms. Talley saki at the time the relocation ImpaC report was being Prepared, they dkJ look at comparable parks and there is an entire section in the February report devoted to comparable mobUehome parks with colored photographs, and with detailed description of those parks. She added ff memories are beginning to fade, they would appreclale ft ff the Commission would go back and look at that report Commissioner Caldwell responded his memory is very good about this and he spent a lot of time with iG He stated it is very Important to him to make sure that any decision is not oMy fair to the reskents but also fair to the mobilehome park owrrers. His memory serves him well that eerie nee on the~intenttof he any other Intent than one to try and skirt the obligation to move these peopl law. He added he understood the law and he believed it is black and white. Commissioner Caldwell stated the Commissi icaMS will~et a chance to refresh thenirdmemoery as well eHe review the report. He added maybe the appl 9 stated again the only thing he is really trying to do is to make sure that the people who lived in this park are moved to comparable parks; and that doesn't mean San Bernardino County, and that Mr. Stanaland and the Scarboroughs can use their property for a higher and better use as they see fit~B, based on all meantime, he dkl not think the people who live there should be penalized and ft aPP~ the testimony and information he has seen, that they were being given far less monies than what was ~, necessary to move their homes. Commissioner Caldwell stated the Commission will get a chance to review it one more time, and that he will ask staff ff there fs any way at all to get Independent verification of how much it costs to move these coaches. Commissioner Mayer wanted to verffy that this hearing today is not connected to the past hearings because she was not here in May. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, responded this is a completely independent hk, bu9it s not rela~ed action was pursuant to State law in connection wfth closure of a mobilehome pa ication to to what is happening before the Commission today. Before the Con,mission today is an appl remove property from an overlay zone and there are specific provisic.~ns in the Anaheim Municipal Code that are now applicable and that is the Code the Commission needs to look at. If there is information that is available which has been previously presented, it should be re-submitted to the Planning Commission, whether by the applicant or by the applicant's ground lessee, or by the tenants. She added there was also the previous application that was wfthdrawn for removal of the overlay zone, but that has absolutely no impact upon the proceedings today. Commissioner Mayer said she would like to darffy for the record that she has read all the documentation and listened to tapes of previous meetings. Ms. Tally commented that she (s speaking in response to testimony given this afternoon by residents. She added she has a wealth of knowledge about this park closure and the bids and the while process, and wanted to share that information and make it a part of the record. 03/06/95 Page 30 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 Mr. Coldren stated ff Commission is going to continue this, he would 11ke for them to take Into consideration the fad that the report talked about was Issued by Judge Flyn~ who re c~nsklerinP9 ~ retired judge selected by City Council to deckle this Issue and now it aPP~ again. Judge Flynn issued a written decision on August 31, 1994, which the Commission has in the files. His report talks about the fffteen or so tenants who testified before him at great length, reskle~rcs or hours of former reskents, and it talks about the two days of hearings he held which was many, many, hearings. His report saki that the Relocation Impact Report adequately addresses the cost of relocation. He read the following:'It is the conclusion of this heasing officer that the cornersion impact report adequately addresses the issues submitted, namely the relocaticn costs of the displaced resideMs'. Responding to Commissioner Messe, as to whether or not the City Council accepted that repon, Mr. Coldren saki a hearing officer was selected by the City of Anaheim and he spent two full days consklering this and then he determined that Ms. Talley was right and Mr. Stanaland was right. He sakl that their estimates of relocation costs are correct and right and that's what ought to be awarded. Yet, the decision by Judge Flynn is Ignored and rejected. Commissioner Mayer saki the Commission did not put this matter on the agenda. This was brought fonNard by an applicant. Commissioner Messe asked again ff the City Council accepted Judgi~Flim~ievest heyy dkl,rand dren answered that was a matter of some debate. He explained the appl apparently the City Attomey and Ms. Mann are taking the position that it was accepted in part and _. rejected in part. Mr. Coldren continued that at the September 19, 1994, meeting, the City Attomey, Mr. White, presented a memorandum conceming what the Commission should do in the removal of thk owreierto make d the following from that memorandum: 'add condition to reclassiflcatlon requiring pa relocation payments to the 18 mobilehome owners in the park on July 25, 1994'. He added it is his understanding that the Commission today is talking in to enU f the Commissioen istnoton y igno ing the a whole broader scope of residents in the park. So apps Y rentl the : are also recommendations of Judge Flynn after two days of hearings and testimony, but apps y rejecting the advice and recommendation of Mr. White. and added he did not Mr. Coldren said Commissioner Caldwell had said he was Just trying to be fair, know what happened because he has been at ail these hearings and related what happened. He explained that Mr. Strnalar~d stood here and said 'no, I don't think I want to pay ffor ithWhy doesn't the consultant, ff the City wants a housing consultant hired, why doesn't the City pay City hire iY. And within ten minutes of that, Commissioner Henninger said basically that he did not care, and was going to vote for $12,000, and the ultimate result, as he recalled, was $8000 and $10,000, which bore no relation to any of the testimony. Henn nige~agreedto the $8,000 ande$10,000, alndrthatsheiwas he one wanting $12~000~ ~mmissioner conceming the mitigation measures, Mr. Coldren stated there has been a lot of talk about what the law says and what the law requires on both sides today. In fad, there is a State requirement that says no thettste shrequired toulbe taken to mitigatenshall not e~xce'ed the reasonable costs of relocations He dear, P 03/06/95 Page 31 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 stated the Commission is asking that other stops betaken. They are being asked to agree to assessment zones that they have no knowledge of as apre-condition to resklents or tenants of the ~~ stated they are being asked t`o pa had o~bifeerh ~~e~ or tenants mobllehome park, or peopl Commissioner Henninger stated this hearing Is not about them going out of business, and apparently they have already done that. The Commission is having a hearing about changing the zone, so he dki not understand why the state law is being brought up. Mr. Coldren saki the only Impact of the mobllehome zone within the City of Anaheim is to force someone within that zone, ff he wants to do anything wfth his property, to rent it as a mobllehome park. Commissioner Henninger responded the City of Anaheim dkl not prevent them from going out of business. Mr. Coidren said the City tried, he believed, to keep them from going out of business. business.l They madega decision and went out oftbuslnessoon theibr owns f That~was their call t of Mr. Coldem saki the City chose, apparently, not to require them to pay any relocation benefits to anyone as apre-condition to going out of business and now they find themselves wfth a mobllehome park. _ Commissioner Henninger stated our ordinance doesn't relate to going out of business, ft relates to "change of zone," and now the owners of the property are here asking for a change of zone, and that is what this discussion is about. Mr. Coldren said the only effect of the removal of the overlay zone will be to free the property up for some type of use other than a mobllehome park. That is th have to d cem that the cannot trequest a anything new. He added, the Scarbroughs, the applicant, most knowledge about t ereloca ionmmpacts of this whole affairahe wou d/pke the Commission tothe conskler a continuance. ti the Planning Commission determines Selma Mann recommended that the public hearing remain open, it is looking toward a continuance of today's hearing. The Commission should let staff and the people who are present here today know the types of information that they would like to have before making a decision. Chairwoman Boydratun asked if Mr. Hayes had any answer or did you want to ask for a continuance? Mr. Hayes asked for a thirty-day continuance. He asked ff the Commission is meeting on Monday, April 3rd? Chairwoman Boydstun saki yes, and Mr. Hayes stated he would request that day respectfully. Commissioner Messe asked ff the sixty-day eviction notice on the tenants in the park would be changed ff the Commission grants a continuance? 03/06/95 Page 33 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~,j Mr. Hayes explained he represents the Scarboroughs, landowners, and K was Mr. Stanaland who Issued the eviction. Commissioner Caldwell suggested maybe the Commissbn should consider this today because of the people who have received eviction notk;es and Chairwoman Boydstun dki not think the Commission should lose 30 days of their 60{Jay notice. Commissioner Henninger did not think the Commission has the information needed~i ~i ° Sanot a part stated he understood that there is a lot of information from the past hearings, of this hearing and the Commission probably needs to have the information on these relocation costs and take another look at them In this format. Selma Mann suggested the Commission may wish to get some Input ftom the rel?resentatNes of the tenants association, as well. Chairwoman Boydstun asked Mr. Lefon about the time frame for a continuance. h1r. Lelon saki the biggest block to that time frame rests in two famliles who received that sixty-day thoichave to benmovediwith n~ ha~sixty days oar be a icted,unole f Somme hin9 haPPa~~He added the Y do not recommend a continuance. ~- Commissioner Henninger asked for a copy of the information gNen previously on the relocation costs. Mr. Lelon answered that copies of the binder were given to all of the Commissioners and that Cheryl Flores saki they ware still on file with the Planning Department, so they should be available. He were vo us esti1matets which Msg. Talley referred tokbut that they are Itsiking about actual costs, not re estimated costs. Commissioner Caldwell stated it is critically Important for the Commission to have as much accurate information as possible in order to vote on this matter and that he wants to vote forflhned o~ t~tttF at ~ ff it costs $5000 to move one of those things, then that Is the figure. And ff it's not, number is; that he would like to do it one more time and he r+1d not warn to be accused of having a bad indispurytable doclumented evkfence oof what~ft actually cos s to moveon ofithese trgailers. rnte Mr. Leion recommended ff Mr. Stanaland and his agents do submit those estimates, they should be broken down as to specific costs as follows: dis-assembly the awnings and skirtings; separating of the home, tearing up the carper, enc. then the actual transport of the home the reassembly on the lot, the fixing of the roof, the reassembling and putting up of the shed, landscaping by a professional landscaper 03/06/95 Page 33 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~) because the tenants have He stated Commission should require them to have a detailed breakdown, bkJs w~ h are just a blanketithatcavers erything without consklering the speciflcstbroken dow n~ing Commissioner Caldwell said he is a contractor and gets bids like that every day in construction. He understands how h can work for either parry. Previously it was the Commission's feeling that the $5000 wasn't enough and that may or may not be true and it may be different next lima, if there (s a next time. hearing officer.HHenwas rtsure what he City iCouncil's response wasior what theythad askedhehe Commission to do. Selma Mann stated she will bring a copy of the minutes from the City Council meeting or a transcript that actually states what the City Council did. It was her understanding that the report of the hearing officer was accepted, reserving certain Issues relating to the actual amount of relocation costs and expressly stating that was something that was not part of the hearing officer's report and the Ciry elocationdbenelfits. She added se wouldPprefer to have thei actual wo ding of that decision and the f recommendation of the City Attorney as well. Commissioner Henninger asked her to explain the relationship of the hearing officer to the City Council? Selma Mann explained there is a provision in the Anaheim ~~unicipal Code whereby the City Council may refer a matter to a hearing offlr•er, not for a decision but to actually hear the entire matter. This is particularly In Instances where there is going to be a lengthy, complicated hearing. The hearing officer hears the matter, then makes his or her recommendations to the City Ccuncil. Fallowing that, the matter is set before the Ciry t;ouncil once again. The City Council looks over theened before the hearings hearing officer and has before it, the transcript of everything that has happ officer, and makes its decision based upon that. he Commission does cont nue this heairing and leavethe pubic hearing open Who are going to testif)r, ff Selma Mann said there is nothing to stop the Commission from doing that and that ordinarily that is done at the very beginning of a hearing so that everyone who testifies is sworn in. She added an oath can certainly be administered. It is a rather unusual circumstanocce~w'eraw~e~ was notrequested at the testimony at one hearing She did not think it is a necessary p beginning of the hearing by the applicant. She pointed out there is an appeal open to either part before the Ciry Council. She noted that would be sworn testimony. Chairwoman Boydstun stated she thought the Commission probably needs the continuance to go over the Information, but she was concerned about the two families and asked ff Mr. Stanaland would agree to give them athirty-clay extension on the 60-day eviction notice? Mr. StanalarrJ answered whether there is a continuance or not, he did not think it would affect those Commiss on maden a decision today, ft doesn't necessarily mean that~they would getopaki ~f the Q3/06/95 Page 34 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ~~ Chairwoman Boydstun saki she is aware of that, but ff they don't have the money to move, they should have the right to wait and see how this comes out and stnl have a fair time to move. Mr. Stanaland saki they have tried to talk to those two people. Everyone dse has moved and they don't want to operate a park with two tenants. Chairwoman Boydstun clarified that Mr. Stanaland's answer ls'no" to going those two families an extension on the eviction notice. has never appgoached heu and She statementnt he Just madeoisea falsehood and he has nevertalked to e her. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff anyone ftom Talley Associates had talked to her. Ms. Runge saki yes', that Vickie Talley claims a move can be made for possibly even less than $3000. The tie~fowns under the new slat;. "agislation for earthquakes will cost $2200• She questioned how they can move a 28 by 61 foot house for $800? Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff anyone from Talley Associates had talked to her about moving? Ms. Runge responded, "no, they have noY. She continued only in the regard that Bob Evans gave them names of three mobilehome parks which he felt they might be interested in. She noted they wouldn't fit in those places because their house is too big. This is one of the reasons h has been very difficult to find a mobilehome park that might have incentives because their home is four feet too wkfe for many of thank p cy, and by law, they are ent ed toabe relhocatednwhetheir he Iikesift o enot.r a foreclosure or Selma Mann stated she has a copy 4f the Council minutes from September 20, 1994, showing the actual motion that was before the Clty Council. Mr. Leon noted Mr. Kenny Youngblood had just arrived and he is the second resklent who has received a sbcty-day notice of eviction. So he, as well as the Runges, face that time line and deadline to be out of the park in sixty days. Ms. Mann read from City Council minutes as follows: the motion made by Council Member Daly was "That the Council adopt the report of the hearing officer and recommendations submitted by the hearing offl^er, the Honorable John H. Flynn, Jr., finding that the Cornersion Impact Report for Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, as submitted by the owner/operator of the park, Campanula Properties, Inc., complies with State Statute and incorporating the comments as articulated by the City Attorney relative to the Issue of relocation payments; that the City Council is reserving the Issue of relocation payments as part of the on-going process now underway before the Planning Commission' You will recall that at that time there was the previous application for removal of the overlay zone and Mr. White confirmed for 'edge's report as amended to reserve the Mayor that he is recommending that the Council adoprocess so they do not have to decide the the issue of relocation payments as part of the on-going p Issue tonight since there is a collateral proceeding currently pending that has been requested by the ~pli~ 8 •p oceeedingsdgoing forwardns multaneolusly on the same issue~He is suggesting that thus two pa 03/06/55 Page 35 ~' March 6, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY P1J4NNiNG COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - Council not do something that ~'ti41 ~ looks atl~~ in Court, t; at the Coundl dearly dkl not irdend tom record, when in the future somebody ants by the action they are taking tonight. f~edose the Issue of relocation paym the need to Commissioner Henninger said most of this lnformati~~y ~ doh ~~o w ~ ~ ~~ thoadded K continue this for four weeks and though it could pr ndeM of this hearing. stxty.day notk~s for the two famUles soil living there are really indepe to do in order to protect their needs to be treated Independently and they should do what they need posftlon. a out there Commissioner Masse said he certainly wouldn't go towards four wee h time for the~applicant o talk to have been back here so many times, he though two weeks is enoug the city Attorney's office and find ° moWe dilsta~steefffid ~o~~ ~ ~~ 9 hen ~~ ~ in ten years on this Commission, he had never sat at a ed and passed. Commissioner Caldwell moved for two weeks continuance. Motion second staff would like Jonathan Borr ~ormatlon by therend of thus weeek so itncan be co Peed and annlew staff report to receNe any produced based on what is submitted. Commissioner Masse asked that the landowners and the applicants submit everything they want to submR by Friday. Commissioner Henninger saelous Set of estirmates that Msg. Talley referenced, land he would I ke copes of the actual costs and the pre those. Jonathan Borrego saki from what he understands, we do have a copy of that document in our files, but the cost of reproducing that was S300.00• Commissioner Masse saki he dkl not Head the while document. He added perhaps Just a summary and he dkJ not think the homeowners association summarized their document. He stated perhaps that is something they could do between now and next Friday. Mr. Lelon stated in the thick blue binder there was a summary Page and K was ma~.ad with a paper dip Because of this hearing, he explainefd t e three~inches o bindern section. All of the data that a on the final page Is the summary of what s Commissioner Henninger saki he ufte dfffe en at ndmthei only waf y to make a desist n ills toillook at the ve two sets of summaries which are q details dosely. Mr. Lelon asked that the Commi ease ~ ~ posbsible the one gure just indudesoonelpart of thekmove. He breakdown of details of cost bec of bkls for $5000.00 and thou people would move and base; se to explained they discovered that they g the lay of the land and the fa hilhe~ and nlone ofthe skirting was useful Amin, they ended up ha 9 have the house a few Inches g 03/06/95 Page 36 ~f~ r t ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiiSSION, ACTION AGENDA • March 6, 1995 Commissioner Caldwell saki it is incumbent upon the residents to make their case, just as it is for the applicant to make his case, and to try to give as much information as possible so the Commission can make the "fairest" possible decision. the averages were aind the range of ~4s. He asked if they na ~ ece~ipts showing the a ual incosts. t Mr. Lelon saki they are in the book and they made copies of everything. He stated she could get a complete new set for everyone by Frid2ry. Commissioner Mayer saki the applicant made several references to State law requiring earthquake and flood tiedowns. She asked >f there is any way to get more specific Information as to what the requirements are and if h is required on all relocated facilities. She asked about the ddlar amounts also. Commissioner Messe added also information as to what date that was required. Commissioner Caldwell asked if there is a statewide organization of mobilehome movers, or one in southern Califomla and there as a response that there Is none. He added the movers are Just Independents and they have no overseeing body of any kind. Mr. Haines said he would like tt- submit the bid they have for moving their house in detail, and that everything is listed and detailed. amonth rent hereyand tho ne t~hatheyaare co sidenny~eeFnn a month also. re It ~s ~omtParyaf~ w~ looking at dollars ar~d ce~:.ts. ACTION: Continued subject ~ to discuss he recommended conditions ofi approval with the order for the appl City Attorney's Office and for additional submittal of documentation related to relocation benefits. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) 03/06/f#5 Page 37 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIP~G COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 10a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.281 (Previously Certmed) Continued to 10b. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS 15120 15121. 15123. 15124. 3-20-9~a 15125 15126 15129. AND 15144 OWNER: THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16611 Hale Ave., Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Petitioner requests approval of the fdlowing to develop 247 single-family detached dwelling units within Development Area 204 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15120 - to establish a 7.4 acre, 27-lot, single#amily detached reskential subdivision including 26 residential lots and 1 open space lot; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15121 - to establish an 8.8 acre, 32-lot, singlo-family detached residential sulxJNision including 30 residential lots and 2 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15122 - to establish a 9.1 acre, 28-lot, single-family detached reskientlal subdNision including 26 residential lots and 2 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15123 - to establish a 14.4 acre, 32-lot, single-family detached residential subdivision including 30 residential lots and 2 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15124 - to establish a 11.3 acre, 30-lot, single-family detached residential sutxiNision including 27 residential Iots and 3 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15125 - to establish a 14.4 acre, 26-lot, single-family detached residential subdNision including 23 residential lots and 3 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15128 - to establish a 8.0 acre, 37-lot, single-family detached residential subdNision including 35 reskential lots and 2 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15129 - to establish a 5.3 acre, 26-Ict, single-family detached residential subdivision including 23 residential lots and 3 open space lots; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15144 - to establish a 5.2 acre, 27-lot, single-family detached residential subdNision including 27 reskential lots. Property is approximately 83.9 acres adjacent to Development Area 9 of the Sycamore Canyon Specffic Pian SP88-1 to the north, adjacent to Development Area 2 of The Mountain Park Specif<c Plan SP90~4 to the east, abutting Oak Canyon DrNe to the south, and adjacent to Developmen4 Area 203 and 209 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan SP88-2 to the west and further described as Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15120, 15121, 15122, 15123, 15124, 15125, 15126, 15129 and 15144 Qocated within Development Area 204 of'The Summit cf Anaheim Hills Specffic Plan). SR5632KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None 03/06/95 Page 38 t ~/ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - March 6, 1995 ACTION: Continued subject request to ~Mo ~ehde~sign~ R onnp i~ vying bn meeting In order for the appl tetrtatNe tract maps to address grading issues. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) ADJOURNMENT : Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. to the March 13, 1995 Planning Commission Workshop at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~ Edfth L Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor 03/06/95 Page 39 r t l ~~r ~ ~"1~ r~±,~4Fer'sl~dr rd T- Y ~ P'{n qr+ --i ~ "f ~ i '`,'t'om ~ ~ _, ;, .~~~'~;" `~ ~ ~` ~; v:~a*~i 2t'i "F ~~i 'N ~~bvtt'"eN.~M4`r~.a~l?i'(~~' aye+.ra'kM su A•;~ t ~,~„_ly,r7r rf'~-~ x.iG, y ~~ '^ h~ !Ti y~ F 0 ,' ~ ~ ~, ~~"~ a h: ~ Q ' cry. '. *" ~) `~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ t''~~a ~~ ia1{ j _` l4 ~., ~ _ SAYS - ~ ~r, r ;' ., _ ~ _ _ - ~ . ~`~: