Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/03/20T ~ l c L\~ 1 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20,1995 10:00 A.M. - GENERAL~DI.SSIGN FICANCETAINING 1 v MURALS AND SIGNAGE OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC 11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. 1;30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGlN (PUBLIC TESTIMONI(). ~. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE VACANCY: ONE SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hastings Selma Mann Jonathan Borrego Melanie Adams Greg McCafferty Bruce Freeman Alfred Yalde Margarita Solorio Zoning Division Manager Deputy City Attorney Senior Planner Associate Civil Engineer Assodate Planner rviaor Code Enforcement Sups Principal TmnspoAaUon Planner Sr. Word Processing Operator PROCEDURE TO p(pEDRE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ~, The proponents in applications which ere not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time wiil be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's conaideraUon. p, In contested appllcaUons, the proponents and opponent wiil each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional Ume is requested and the oo ~plexi~ of aks, b~ fether~by what is said. mission s considerations aro not determined by the length of time a perti pan spa 3 Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies ere available to the public prior to the meeting. 4, The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5, The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 8. photographss oPother axeptable visual9epresen bons or nontiocumentary ev denre, shallrbe refs ned by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. ~~ within the jurisdi onaof Uie Planning Commission, anad/orlagenldaaitems. sEachsspeaker will be allotted a mhaximum of Uve (5) minutes to speak. ac032095.wp.wp 03/20/95 Page 1 w , ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 ~, 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE ar:RturT NO 705 -REQUEST FQR_ Terminated TERMINATION: Ronor Associates; NeA Fleri, Managing Partner, 533 S. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 requests termination of Condftkxial Use Pemtft No. 705 (to establ(sh an automobile body repair shop). Subject property is located 515 South Rose Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC95-27 g. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3667 -SUBSTANTIAL Determined that CONFORMANCE Dl=TERMINATION REQUEST: Bundy, Flnkel the freestanding Architects, Attn: Timothy Bundy, 20331 Irvine Avenue, Ste. 7, Santa ?~ meeti~iFlednat Ana Heights, CA 92707, requests substantial conformance determination for a freestanding sign (adjacent to Brookhurst Street) in substantial conjunction with Conditional Use Permft No. 3667 (to permit afull- ~~~~• service carvvash wfth related retaA sales area aself-serve automated canNash and an automobiie tube/oA facility). Property is located at 125 N. Brookhurst Street. ~ C, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3658 -REQUEST-Q Approved EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF (fo expire 3-7-96) APPR V L: C.B. Commercial, Attn: Jacqueline Ortega, 3501 Jamboree Rd., #100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 requests an extension of time to comply wfth condftions of approval for Condftional Use Permft No. 3658 (to permft an 8,710-square foot semi-enclosed restaurant wfth on premise sale and consumption of alcohdk beverages wfth waivers of roof-mounted equipment and minimum number of parking spaces} to expire March 7, 1996. Property is located at 5620 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road. 03/2o/s5 Page 2 { ~. (1 1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 D. VARIANCE NO 3290 - REOUEsr Fna NUNC PRO TLtur Granted RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO PC95-OB• The Planning Commission Secretary requests ,z nuns pro tuns resolution to amend Resolutbn Na PC95-06 granted in connection with Variance No. 3290 (waiver of minimum number of parking spacers to permit the expansion 7fi a motel). Property is located at 301 W. Katella Avenue. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION N0. _ PC95-28 03/20/95 Page 3 ~~ '. ) ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3718 (Readvertised) Approved Denied amendment to condftbns of approval OWNER: THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, Attn: Gerald Greenberg, 10000 Lakewood Blvd., Downey, CA 90240 LOCATION: 1881 VNest Ball Road (Thrifty Oil Service Stationl Property is 0.43 acre located at the northeast comer of Ball Road and Nutwood Street and described as 1881 West Ball Road (Thrifty OA Serve Station). Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to removal of service station structures in conjunction with an existing service station facility. Continued from the February 22, and fdarch 6, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL'iSE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-29 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Gerald Greenburg, Manager of Reai Estate, Thrifty Oil Company, referred to a letter to the Planning Department regarding the requirement for the covenant. They are asking that this covenant be deleted because of the extraordinary situation. There are Code Enforcement procedures which will require them to do certain things and to covenant it to be done would lock them Into the covenant and remove the opportunity to take advantage of any Code changes that might take place. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the applicant had read the staff report and staffs recommendation that the applicant negotiate on that covenant. Mr. Greenberg stated that would be their only alternative ff the Commission does not delete that requirement. He stated he was not sure but believed there is another Code they are subject to which would have required them w rose the station if it was not in operation for 12 rt~onths. In order to prevent the loss of their permit, they reopened the owUon even though it is not economical. 03/20/95 Page 4 ~._ ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 .~ ' i Commissioner Henninger stated this is an implementation of that Code sectic~n~. Commissioner Masse stated he thought the applicant will find in dealing with the City Attomey'g Office, their concerns will betaken care of. Mr. Greenberg asked what happens to the covanant ff there is a change to the Code. Commissioner Henninger stated that would have to be negotiated. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied amendment to condftions of approval of Conditkxial Use Permit No. 3718. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the decision within 22 days. 03/20/95 Page 5 ~, March 20, 1995 } ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA (i Approved 3a. C~EQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Granted 3b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.9495~ OWNER: SCARBROUGH, TRUSTEEBP.O Boxy 18957TAnahefm, CAJ 92817 AGENT: PENINSULA CENTER, Attn: James A. Hayes, 655 Deepvalley DrNe, Ste 125, Rdiing Hills Estates, CA 90274 LOCATION: +a^~ South Douala' ° °~ r^"~"OQ Tree Mobilehome P rk , props,-ry is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road approximately 1080 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue with a frontage of approximately 995 feet on the east side of Douglass Road. Petitioner requests redassffication of the subject property froom ehi Rhe RS AO-~ x,000 (Residential/Agricult rai) Zonelehome Park Overlay) Continued from the March 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC95-30 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 7 people present OPPOSITION: 22 people present/6 spoke Chairwoman Boydstun explained each side will have 20 minutes to present their evkience and that six people have indicated a desiro to speak in opposition. James Hayes, attorney, 655 Deep Valley Drive, Rolling Hills, CA, representing gayton Eugene Scarbrough and his wffe, Donna, owners of the property. His clients have filed anted inion far reclassification to remove the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone from the property they submitted a Conversion Impact conjunction with the filing of the petition for reclassfficatfon, Report dated January 15,1.~i. Exhibit A to the Conversion Impact Report kientffies seven mobilehome park resklents who remained at the park as of January 1995, and why had not reached a relocation agreement with Campanula Properties, their tenants. 03/2Q/95 Page 6 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Mr. Hayes stated the estimates of twat to relocate these cwad~es to arraveraga comparable park amount ~ y incentiveses receNed by the displaced mobAehome ownerthe new parka oths whkh the coach is relocated. He stated in order fior this redassfficatlon to be approved, the Planning Commission must make expressed ffndings that the petition for relocation has been satisfied and that the Anaheim Munkipal Code has been cwmplied wfth. The petition for redassificat~ does satisfy the requirements of the MuNcipal Code in that the proposed diange wpl not have any adverse effect fay since a substantial amount upon the goals and pdkies for preservation of housing within the C ~ affordable housing exists in the City as set forth in the Scarbrough CIR. The apartment association of Orange County reports a vacancy rate of 10 a percent i~pa~ ~ ~~mnits in the Cih!. This is the second highest vacancy rate in Orange County. Housing Authority also reports a Iist of housing units avaBable to qualified low-income applicants. He stated the petition for reclassification also satisfies the requirements of the Ana ~ t~ Mour'ngie'pal Code, Section 18.092.070.030, in that the Orange Tree MobUehoma Pam ~ ~ a ena and other compatible with the surrounding land use as a result o tehdefdoev~pamsea mobUehome park on an adjacent properties. The property was originally app interim basis only and in recent yeah:, the development of the area has ~rmitteeyd~deveiop in a reasonable contrd of his clients. Accordingly, the property should be pe manner consistert with the City's General Plan. -~ At the present time there are only two tenants in the park, and the park was officially dosed on March 1, 1995, and is now in an unoccupied state with no generation of revenues. His clients are receNing only a minimum rental under their lease, around $3600 a montph. The petitb in ursome reclassification should be granted in order to allow his clients to develo the property other use that is both reasonable and economically viable. Mr. Hayes stated for the above reasons the Planning Commission should expressly find that the Sgrlxough's petition meets the requirements of the Anaheim Munkipal Code. Regarding relocation benefts required pursuant to the Code, Mr. Hayes stated Mr. Scarbrough proposes that Campanula Propertie3, the tenant, pay to those mobilehome owners who are legally eligible, the amounts set forth next to their space number in Exhibit D to the Scarbrough CIR. Mr. Hayea stated Mr. Scarbrough maintain.4 that none ~ t~ dosed ~ Mao ch st.elnaadditionthe park are entitled to relocation benefits because the pa Hula Pro rues, and not as a the park was dosed as a restitioners f cthis redassifi Campa Pe result of the Scarbroughs, pe He stated in addftlon, the Anaheim Munkipal Code provides that the person making the application for reclassification take reasonable measures to mitigate the identifiable adverse 03/20/95 Page 7 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA j ( ' ! im cts of the change of use on the abUity of the displaced rnobgehome owners to f(nd adequate Pa golacemeM space in another mobil home in 0 9 ~ My, a~rrdClRthou~nds of vaceM spaces hundreds of vacant mobgehome pa pa within 120 miles of Orange Tree Mobpehome Park. Plus, a vfsual irnestigation of other Parks in the City of Anaheim indicated that there were morn than 100 vaaznt spaces in other mobilehome parks within the Cff'rl. Since there were only seven coaches existing in the park ~ ~ removal of the~mobilehomehere are only two coaches existing; in the park at the present time, park overlay zone results in no adverse Impacts on the abUiry of the displaced homeowners to find an adequate replacement space in other parks. If relocatbn benefits are owed, they are owed only to the two tenants currently existlnenn the park. As set forth above, the Scarbroughs wUl not be responsible for the payme Y relocation beneNts because the few mobiehome owners remaining at the park have abundant spaces available to them to rr-~ve to nearby mobilehome parks. Because of the great availabUiry of mobiehome spaces throughout Orange County, many park owners are offering substantial incentives, and that issue of incentives is not addressed in the Anaheim Municipal Code. However, ft is importan: to keep in mind that the general principle underlying the concept of reloce'lon benefits Is to reimburse mobiehome owners who are displaced by a change of use for the cost they incur as a resuk. The intent of the relocation benefU:s is not to put the mobilehome owner in a better position than he or she otherwise would have had ff they had remained at the when he o~sho I yocates show dirbe taken Into account in cons Bering these relocatioVn costesoeives Mr. Hayes, on behalf of the Scarbroughs, respectfully requested that the Commission approve the Conversion Impact Report dated January 16, 1995, and the petition for redassffication for removal of t-'~e overlay zone currently in effect on the subject property. Mr. Coldren stated he would like to have Ms. Talley and Mr. Evans speak. He indicated that he does not represent the applicant, but represents Campanula Properties, the ground lessee. !ie thought it is grossly unfair that they are being held t^, a twenty minute limit and requested, out of fairness in this important Issue, to be given ample time to make their presentation. He added his dlent is probably going to end up paying some or all of these benefits, and should be gNen some tame. He reminded the Commission that Judge Flynn spent fourteen hours going over this matter, and the last time they were before the Commission, the while reason this was continued costs realty are. He th ught a 20r-ml ute ime II~ Ids unfair to ieveryone, hisadie q,re~or ation Scarbrough and the tenants. He stated at the last meeting the Commission said this is a new hearing an~± it is as ff nothing had gone on before. They were tdd to provide a new administrative record and that they had to be prepared to present all their evkfence. He stated they are here today with all their evkJence and want to present it to the Commission. 03/20/95 Page 8 March 20, 1995 ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~._~ not taking in o conskieration the berreflts thart~these t ~ ~ when tgf~e~ ~ eo 34500, Mr. Cddren indicated that Ms. Tf~ley would make her presentation, but he did not want his _ to stHle them and IP imft the/ preset ntatk~na He stated he wloukl need nianother fifteen or,twenty minutes to make his presentation. Vkkl Talley stated they have taken an incredible amount of time to review the submittal of the reskents of the park and are prepared today to go over those with the Commission. She thought in light of the time, she wcwld probably be able to hand out their submittal and then touch very briefly on their conclusions. She stated ft seems the issue ig what does ft cost to move a mobilehome. They have consistently focused on what the City of Anaheim Ordinance says shall be pakl in relocation PeYmL Some took h andrsomeodkln~e Park offered every resklent in that park a 35000 paym Ms. Talley stated, for the record, that $x000 was a reasonable average amount to move a doublewide mobilehome and they have substantiated that in their inkial reports, which have all been submitted. She continued that they will show today and wul subrrlt verification using the tenant's flgunu, and those submitted by the Orange Tree Residents Association, that, in fad, their figures on relocation benefits In the Comrer..ion Impact Report arse high. She stated according to the City Ordinance, relocation payments re-setting of a mobilehome. only include the tear~down and Ms. Talley preserved an analysis of the residents' survey information submitted to the Commission, pointing out they had fontyfiivo respondents on a survey. Twenty-one of those actually had receipts s-~bmitted. She stated she reviewed those receipts extensively and of those twenty-one, on page .hree of the handout, there is a summary of actual receipts. Focusing only on ones that actualh/ have receipts attached and using all of their ilu~ 8 ~htl~n bills atnd that is twenty one actually have a copy, and she has attached a copy 9 for thF; actual tear-dawn, transportation, re-assembly, hook-up of utUlfties and so on, and tl-~at bill amount is noted on the chart. Ms. Talley referred to the information for the tenants, for example in space 53, they are saying that the actual receipts a She pointod~o those twenty-oneethilrteen havelhad~relocation benefitsr Anaheim Code is 34500• pakl. She submitted another summary submitted by the reskients on what their bids are and explained on the right hand skfo, she has shown the actual amour+.t of the bill they Included in their receipt. If there is a blank that means that that person did not i;~dude a ~ a~l~ fth~OSe numbers are~35000 t of their home. She stated some of those numbers are missing, in relocation benefits, except two which were 335tw• She referredthe eve ge mo ingecx~sts using noted, according to Anaheim Gode allowed under the ordinance, the actual bills submitted by the Reskients Association of Orange Tree., is 55267• She stated the 03/20/95 Page 9 March 20, 1995 '~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~% reskents' average moving costs, based on the bills they submitted, is 55068. The average relocation berxtflt they cdlected ftom the park to which they were relocating is 54769. She referred to the section of the Corrversion Impact Report which spells out what they did in temps of researching to determine reasonable relocation costs to pay the resklern's of the Orange Tree. They came up with a 5~"~ figure for average moving costs and realistk~Jly, the residents came up with 55~• She explained they came up with average IrxentNes pall as 52eoo• Ms. Talley explained using ti`~e resident's specific numbers, the average is $4769, had they used the residents' actual num~~ers, ff thsy had been avagable,'.heir numbers would have shown 52~ average actual moving cw''s for those moving expenses allowed under the Anaheim Ordinance. She referred to the Corrversion impact Report and pointed out they are allowed to include, as a moving expense, the Improvement ~ threklotS~ ~e~y Iha~e~ad ~ ~ eas probably t~ ~g for an average comparable mobUehome pa devoted to pictures and analyses of comparable mobilehome parks and what it costs to improve a comparable lot. They also show an amamt to be paid of 5250 for moving the shed. She handed out the aclemientalaeport of ththe ~h plalned the handouts the Commission received today are i;~e full suppl Ms. Talley indicated there is a problem on these bids, or estimates of moving costs, in that far more has been included than is permitted under the Code. first gentlemenH (Shengesponded that shells working only from the numbersusubmittedtby thee residents for this hearing.) Commissioner Henninger clarified that she had Just gNen the Commission this document and ft Is an update. Ms. Talley responded that is correct and it is the same, and the evidence is still accurate and current. She explained 52001s the cost to improve the lot on the average comparable mobilehome park and the residents are showing extraordinarily higher a~moou~ amounts. They Improvements. She added no one is disputing whether or not they pa have people who are hiring professional landscapers and they are greatly Improving their situation over what would have been an average comparable move. She presented an exhibit to demonstrate that the numbers the Commission is looking at cannot be depended upon as being accurate, nor are they consistent with what is allowed under the Anaheim Code. She pointed out Margaret Lelon's bid (No.1) and stated it seems the Commission appears to be focusing on what it costs to move a mobilehome, and they are trying to share what the real costs are, as allowed under Anaheim's ordinance. She noted, an example, Space 205, a singlewkle, page 187, the owners testified that the total moving costs to move this home was 51920. This particular homeowner could have Put over 03/20/95 Page t0 ANAHEIM r,;'~'TY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20,1995 ,~ ~~' $30001n their pocket had they taken advantage ~ all the benefits available to them. They could have received $5000 in their move and actual costs were $1920, so if the ~ ~nken the $5000 m~igation payment offered by Orange Tree they would have put $3000 The owner in Space 53, had submitted a bk! for ~ to tear down, move, and relocate the mobilehome. That is not the bkl they chose to use, and they chose a higher bid. If the things on that list that are not allowed under the City Ordinance were deleted, that would be the actual total cx~st of that move. They had submitted a $4x00 bid, under testimony before a Judge, but then they submitted a total moving cx~st of $15,000. Actually when the things not included are removed, it is $5100 and if they had taken the offer fora $5000 rent credit from the park where they moved, they could have taken the $5000 credit from Orange Tree, again giving them extra money to make upgrades, etc. Ms. Talley explained due to the limited time she would not show all the examples, but will provkie copies for the Commission. She skipped to No. 5, space 99, and noted they submitted a bid for $12,000, and ff all the things that were either deferred maintenance, new Improvements or not allowed under the City Ordinance, and allowing $200 for landscaping, they were pall 35000 by the park they moved to, and ff they had taken the Orange Tree offer, they would have had another $5000, so could have put $4800 in their pocket. She continued that every single one on this list is like that and that they have given the Commission the resources by which to understand the bids. She felt when the Commission understands, after they carefully analyze the actual submittal by the residents, the numbers, in fact, support a lesser amount for the cost of moving than what has originally been given in the - Conversion Impact Report. Everyone had an offer of $5000 from t enters from theey rk t ee down. Thirteen of the twenty-one, they are absolutely certain of, had paym pa Y relocated to, and the others may have. She added if the Commission does chose to give them adn fis loft ~ time ho no that thattpme provkJe addftlonal Information today. She stated they spe P 9 could be shared and that what they have teamed from this could be shared. She felt then the Commission would be better able to make a decision today. Mr. Coldren thanked staff for removing one condition from the staff recommendation of last time, that being the condition requiring that they had to agree to participate in the formation of some assessment district. He referred to a proposed new condition which says, 'Prior to the presentation of any ordinance to the City CouncU, the park actually has to have paid the benefits.' He thought that is improper and asked what happens ff the removal of the overlay zone ordinance goes to the City CouncG and they tum It down. He stated they would ask that that condition be modified. He stated the Scarbroughs should not be required to pay these relocation benefits because they did not close the mobUehome park. Campanula Properties, Inc. dosed the mobAehome park. The Scarbroughs never received any formal notice of any of these hearings and did not participate In any of the hearings on tho closure of the mobilehome park or the cessation of use 03/?.0/95 Page 11 March 20, 1995 ! ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA V~ of the mobiehome park. He noted the Government Code talks about reasonable relocation benefits for displaced reskients as the only thing that can be required. He ernphas~ked ~ re "reskJer~ts', and stated the City's ordinance says nothing about residents. It ~ relocation going to order the payment of relocation benefits and only order the payment benefits to mobfiehome owners. He stated a condition shook! be included tam ar both y people who are entitled to payment under any circumstances, are the peopl owners of the moblehome on the records of the California Department ~ who c9ually pakl CommunUy Development, and who are resklents of the mobgehome pa relocation costs. He stated he could go on and on about the kinds of things needed in the corrditkx~s in order to time to s m k and CommisslonebHe ninge~nswered het ough~he had Just ranern~er th rtY~ f~ minutes. Mr. Coldren clarified that nefther he nor the applicant had any additional time to speak. Chalrwc.nan Boydstun indicated they would have additional time when the Commission has questions. Mr. Coldren answered that he and Ms. Talley and the applicant would like to have more time now. Selma Mann, City Attorney, noted there wUl be an opportunity for the applicant to have rebuttal time. Chairwoman Boydstun stated there were six people who raised their hands and wanted to talk and that they have something new and different to say and then she will close the public hearing. She explained there is a thirty minute time limit. Maryanne Runge,, 1400 S. Douglass Road, Space 80, one of to two remaining reskJents of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, stated regarding the park Incentives for other parks that they could move into, they were not eligible for parks that they consklered suitable because of the size of their mobilehome, which is 28 feet by 61 feet. One of the parks that offered a $5000 incentive was Green Rfver and the largest home they would take was 24 feet wide and theirs was four feet too wkJe for that partkular park. Another park that was recommended, she believed by an agent of Talley and Associates, was the Fountain Valley Mobilehome Estates. They dkl offer a $1350 incentive, eventually. They spoke directly with the owner, and he was rather skeptical as to when that money would be coming to them. A concrete driveway was required there which would have cost from $1300 to $1650, not $380. Another mobilehome park was recommended through Bob Evans that was completely and totally unsuitable. It was run down, many of the mobilehomes were sub-standard and soma were really dd. The $4650 that is In the CIR is not going to cover the cost of their move. She stated she had submitted a bkl two weeks ago. She mentioned the earthquake tie-downs which are now required by law and that is going to cost a minimum of $2000. 03/20/95 Page 12 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Richard Haines, 1400 Douglass, No. 80, stated he has spoken to the Commisskxr before; that the residents are supposed to be allowed to have a bonded contractor submit bkJs and most ~ them have no bonding or insurance. It >s a state law that the house h>~t ~m~ ~o P op~rtie~s tnot~ $2000, and it is not something that anyone can step aside from, the Scarbroughs, or anybody else. They can not move their house for the amount they are talking about and be protected without being into bankruptcy. Mr. Haines stated he does not have the best of health and twice In the last Year had to go to the hospital. Campanula Properties has hung a Ixk on the gala of the mobAehome park. If he was home alone and had to dial 911 to get help to go to the doctor, asked how they are going to get to him because they are locked out. He explained they were gNen a key but he was concerned about how emergency service would get in Iftthe sho Id harve a guard present to let emergency He thought if they want to lock the property, Y services in. He continued that the law says that after they have made the decision, they have sbc months. They are supposed to get six months notice after the rules have been changed and he has not heard any changes yet. He added when he went home from the last Planning Commission meeting here, Mr. Coldren made sure he got copies by flooding the mailbox with another three or four envelopes full of eviction orders. Edward Lelon, President of the Orange Tree Reskients Association, 2362~La ostis on Space 53 Linda CA 92687, passed out information showing the breakdown of spec two bath home, and K is not a and 205. He noted In Space 53, the coach is a four bedroom, they deleted most of - trailer. His mother's coach was in Space 205. He pointed out while waiting, the items on the Site 53 price list and Girded only items specifically that are induded in the law. The law specifies it shall cover the costs to move and improvements of the mobilehome and~~e space, inducting skirting, awnings, landscaping and other applicable categories. Othor appl categories is a very definite inclusion in Code Section 18.92.060.0403 that spells ot.•t the details. Mr. Lelon continued that Ms. Talley had said that they exceeded costs because in some cases they used a professional to do the landscaping. The Code specifies in writing that the costs will be established on the basis that the work is to be clone by a professional contractor hired by the owner rather than by the owner performing it himself. Ms. Talley vitiated the Code in that specific phrasing in Section .0403 when she omitted that category. He pointed out the figures on the price list as fellows: 1) building permits -$236; 2) tear-down, move of home and reset - $5000; 3) skirting - fP3641; 4) interior wall repair -$223; 5) electrfcal hook-up of the home - $80; 6) air conditioner re-charger installed - $413.61; 6) exterminator for the red ants; ~ interior repaint where patched. Mr. Lelon stated this is an estimate and they still haven't had that done six months after the move because they don't have the money to do it yet. Next is materials to save existing plants - $24.03; and then new landscaping material estimate - $700. He noted they had $1000 worth of landscaping in the Orange Tree park and lost all of it, except sbc little plants, so that would be the 03/20/95 Page 13 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Marci± 20, 1995 cx~st ff they hired a professional to re-landscape. Mr. Lelon stated adding all these figures, the total is not $4000 like Ms. Talley saki, but $10,682.03, only of allowable categories under the law. He referred to his mother's horse, the shorter list with lower price, and the first item is building perrnfts - $120 (allowed under the law); teartlown of home and reset -$2815; cheap vinyl skirting - $1078; two back stairways - $700, noting she couldn't use her okl stairways at all, and had to have them totally rebuin; air coy viitkxrer re-charge -$277; exterminator for ants - $95, and then landscaping - $500. She dki hav~+ a man who works around the park put in the landscaping and the total cost there is $5586, not $2000. He passed out a sheet showing a comparison of estimates and noted these estimates were gathered by the resklents back in February and March of 1994. He explained he took seven estimates that had used the same skirting and seven estimates that said 'ff you get new skirting". At that time no resklents had moved. He stated Ms. Talley is saying between $3000 - $4000 to move a home, or $5000 at the most. The figures for the first seven ftems on the list he presented average $5489, not $3500 as in their current CIR. Items 8 through 14 average $8091. Adding skirting and other factors, makes a dffference of about $2600. None of these estimates include lodging, TV, hook-ups, landscaping or furniture moving. A strict interpretation of the move, includes landscaping by a professional, not by the homeowner doing the landscaping himself. Mr. Lelon pointed out tho red asterisks and noted upon completion of their actual move, five homes required new skirting and the park operator of the last two that didn't get the new skirting, saki things like, 'it was questionable" and 'skirting is broken and they may have to have it redone anyway." He pointed out the list of potential movers that was provided by Frank Bamgrover at a meeting about February 1, 1994. He referred to Stickel Trucking's estimate that it would cost $2050 to move his Mom's single-wkie coach and a sun porch and $4960 to move his double-wide, and that was without installation at the new sfte, and without putting in the stairs, the porch, the skirting, and the awnings after the move. He stated iCahler gave a ballpark figure of $5000 to $6000, without adding new skirting. He referred to Cornish and noted according to Kehler, (,ornish is a house wrecker, he will move the home but he'll tear it apart. Mr. Leion noted Attachments 1 through 14 which are the specffic estimates and he has highlighted specific ftems and indicated he would leave those for the Commission to look at. He stated he dki talk with Grace Peterson who is 93 years del on the phone last week for the first •ime. She said the manager of the Orange Tree, Frank Bamgrover, tdd her it would cost her $5000 to move, and that the actual cost to her was $8000th ~ ~; antdo thenaadded the same and air corxtftioner. He asked how a 93-year del pay way his 89-year old mother is paying for it, with a new loan. 03/20/95 Page 14 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1y95 ~; He continued that according to Ms. Talley's estimate, they know how to move a home for as IRtie as $5000. In order to accomplish that, they residents would ha~a to: .r avokl commercial movers and use Independents; .r reject any mover who refuses to move the furniture inside your home; go only with those who move ft inside; .r move only to a level lot; ff the park you want doesn't have a level lot available, find another park that is level, even ff it's in downtown Santa Ana among the gangs .s~ chose a park with no move-in fee -now in this economy most of them are not charging it, so that's okay; .r Insist that the same skirting and awnings be used; ff the mover won't use the same skirting, turn down hIs offer and estimate and find another mover who will use the same skirting, even ft ends up broken on your house; .r pack your own fumtture lnsida your home, inducting breakables since you have no money for a storage locker because the budget is too tight, so you have to put the breakables inside padding, inside closets and drawers and everywhere and then make sure it's away from the centerline so they can rdl up the carpet over the top of your furniture .r then stay wfth friends and eat meals wfth them, even ff you over-stay your welcome .r dig up your own trees and plants to transplant; don't hire a professional gardener, even though the Code says you should; err take any fencing out of the dd lot to install in the new lot because you can't afford new fencing, even ff the dd park manager complains; ~cr re-stack furniture after the move, once you get in the new site; re-stac our car is because it's spread out on the floor, re-stack ft higher and shampoo y pe with a rented shampooer because your house is dirty after that move; ~ unpack your own furnishings; .~ patch your own roof leaks; get up on the roof and use hydro-seal and shingles, even ff you are 93 or 89 years dd and a female; ~ hook up your own tv service and .r pour the cement yourself to replace any shed pads and any walks. He added he was amazed at how well the residents did in spite of the hazards they had to go through. Barbara Dexter,17350 E. Temple, No.15, La Puente, stated payments that were offered by the new parks have no basis to be used, they're not in the law. She stated Mr. Cofdren wrote a letter to Ms. Mann and the fourth statement is, "it >s my understanding neither my client nor the applicant, Mc Scarbrough, have been approached by staff with regard to any effort to come to an agreement or accommodation or a mechanism by which the Issue of relocation benefits can be resolved'. She asked isn't that what we are i~rying to do now? She read from the same paragraph, "While h is my client's position that no relocation payments can be required as a pre-condftion for removal of the overlay zone, naturally wa remain open to 03/2x/95 Page 15 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 trying to find a way to work with the City to accommodate'.he City's desire to have such relocation benefits pakl"• She read Code Section 18.02.051.040, as fellows: 'said mitigatbn measures shall be limited to the payment of relocation benefits to the displaced mobnehome owner by the person or entity proposing such change of use consisting of the fdlowing amounts...' Ms. Dexter presented a copy of the eviction notice to the Runge's, ands ~k t~ ~~nge Trse termination is for the reason that effective March 1, 1995, the property Mobilehome Park is presently located, has been changed to another use pursuant to the Notice of Change of Use which was served upon you on or about February 25, 1994.' Ms. Dexter stated they were resdents at that time and thts says they are entitled. AI Pemick, present address 83 Paseo De Toner, Brea, formerly Space 91 in the Orange Tree, noted Ms. Talley saki she had spent 40 hours putting together overlays and other things to show the Commission. Unfortunately, the members of the homeowners association are not getting paid to do 40 hours worth of research to present to the Commission. He stated the Commission has spent the time in reviewing the documents that have been placed before them and that he would like to give what time he has for the Commission to ask him any questions about his move. Tippy Lawler, former resident of Orange Tree, Space 44, relinquished her time to Ed Leion. Mr. Leion stated one mover did try to move people for $5000. Gregory Construction tried moving twenty double-wide homes for $5000 each. He went bankrupt and is no longer in business. There were too many problems. Mr. Leion referred to the white folder noting the yellow tab section addresses the issue of Incentives. There are a number of hazards and abuses and ft is going to open the door for abuses ff the Commission allows Incentives to go through the reskfent's hands into the owner's hands. He mentioned graft and corruption among park owners. You're going to have the bucket of worms of figuring out low rents and how to convert that into a cash Incentive. You have average costs of relocation pakl to residents, some are going to get more than enough; some are going to get less than enough and it will help offset that kind of extra expense. If Mr. Stanaland Is allowed to pocket approximately three to five thousand dollars per resident in incentives, multiplied by the number of residents, then there is a windfall profit. He stated there is an issue of who qualifies. There are three CIRs, and they went from seven pages of people down to seven people. All of those who moved, moved because of the actions of Mr. Stanaland, Ms. Talley and their agents. They made concerted efforts and he referred to a list of 21 different problems residents encounter. PETITIONER'S REBUTTAL: Mr. Hayes responded from the audience that he thought he had adequately stated their position and yielded his rebuttal to others. 03/20/95 Page 16 March 20, 1995 "~. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Vicki Talley stated she thought Mr. Leoon, once again, has proven their entire presentation in terms of costs. He actually came up wdh an Itemization that he felt was allowable under the City Code, and that total, whether they agree with it or not, was $10,682. The issue here is whether or not there has been an effort to mitigate the Impact of the dosure on the residents. Mr. Lebn had an opportunity with $10,000, which is what he says is allowable under the City Code. He received $5000 from the park where he relocated. Mr. Evans did a considerable amount of research to put that park into Mr. Lelon's hands. Mr. Leon testified that he found this park by himself. She stated during the testimony in front of a Judge, they actually took out the file and showed that Mr. Leon first found out about Green RNer, where he moved, and received a $.`i000 moving allowance, as a result of their efforts and the efforts of the owner of the Orange Tree. He was paid $5000, in good part, due to their efforts and their suggestion that the park ovine on the list is want to pay relocation benefits to entice people to move into their parks. Every park in that category. Mr. Leoon chose not to take the $5009 payment from the Orange Tree, but had he taken that $5000 payment, he would have had $10,000 and h(s move would have been paid for. Ms. Talley stated she could review every one of the people on the Ilst with the same situation aixi in every case they had the opportunity to receive substantial benefits to mitigate their move. That doesn't mean the annoyance of moving, and that is not what is to be paid for h~ to mitigate thef the City Ordinance and the Intent of what the Commission is doing ~f"windfalls rofit. She added Impact of the move and tho cost and not to give people some type P the amounts they received from the parks where they relocated were substantial. Ms. Talley stated the average from the Orange Park Association, the residents association, survey actually shows that the average relocation benefit paid by the pad mentethey would haveohads over $4700. That means that if each one had taken the $5000 pay nearly $10,000 to pay for their move. If they wanted to upgrade, they could have used that $10,000 to upgrade. If they wanted new skirting, they could have had it. ~deeiVery s~pecificaliY, not provide for new skirting, or to pay for deferred maintenance or to up-g it is to tear down and re-assemble in a comparable mobilehome park. If they warn to move to a park that requires upgrades, different than lirange Tree, the Code says that you move what they have to a comparable park. If they chose to move and upgrade, or buy new skirting, that is not allowed under the Code. She stated she thought it fs important that those things not be inducted. She mentbned the Runges and Haines in Space 80, and explained they actually had an offer to move into a beautiful park in Faurnain Valley, paying $350U of their expenses. and they alp testified at the hearing before the .lodge under oath, that they thought they would be able to move for $5000• She noted they did give that backup infomration as part of the reconi. Commissioner Messe referred to the average figure of $4769 for the relocation payments and asked ff they arrNed at that by adding up all the $5000 payments and dividing it by number of people there rather than by the number 31. 03/20/95 Page 17 March 20, 1995 ~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Ms. Talley responded, 'no'; that she divided it by 21. She explained their numbers focus on the respondents who had bkls and that was 21. Therefore, looking at the 13 out of 21, is the average payment. Commissioner Messe stated dividing $62,000 by 21 is not $4769. Mr. Coldren stated this is a perfect example of why they wanted more time and he thought it is also an example why one of the Commissioners indicated that they would like to at lean consider having those who presented testimony under oath. He stated they did provide sworn testimony. It is the hearing offtcer's testimony and he noted specifically the testimony of Mr. Leion. He indicated that Mr. Lelon had testified that he found Green River himself and the sworn testimony will show that Mr. Ron Evans with Talley and Associates actually had given him Shat name (a memorandum to Ed Lelon, Space 53, from Robert Evans, dated March 7,1994). Mr. Cddren explained he used this example to indicate credibility of witnesses and their recollections are significant. The State law says "~, "rnaY require the payment of relocation benefits." The City of Anaheim local ordinance doesn't even use the word'may." It says, "the relocation benefits, if any, shall be limited to,....', and then It describes the categories. Yet all these hearings seem to focus on "what is the maximum amount that possibly could be defined as reasonable relocation beneftts?" He further stated he points this out because Anaheim's ordinance simply says that whatever benefts are decided have to be timfted to these specifted He fated certai ly gYivent hose two ve to award any relocation benefits. it says that you may. pieces of statutory direction, he thought the Commission should condude that at the very least, Otherwise, they would be getting a wirxJfala nd that istsomethng nefther the ordinance nor theo State law envisioned. He stated the issue is the resdent's ability to find replace„„a^t housing and nothing in terms of this park closure has in any way inhibited or impaired one displaced resident's ability to ftnd replacement housing. There has been no tastime tatmovb to~All but two bevel relocated from hundreds of mobilehome spaces for these peopl the mobilehome park. Mr. Coldren stated he understands that Gene Scarbrough fUe:l his redassiftcation petl:ion in January of 1995. At that time there were only seven reskents left in the mobilehome park. He referred to Jack White's memorandum, and rested that he makes it abundantly dear, and unless he has changed his legal position, he said in that memorandum that K was only the eighteen who were in the park when the reclassification petftion was ftled in Juiy that are entitled to the benefits. He added he thought the Commission needs to deal with the issue of w tition films b Mri and uses the July date when there were eighteen reskents or the January pe Y Mrs. Scarbrough, which they believe would be more appropriate. Mr. Coldren stated there was no cessation of use of this mobUehome park untU the end of February of 1995. The notice that had been given the prior year was a notice of proposed or 03/20/95 Page 18 March 20, 1995 ~' ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION t; ~ENDA k intended Change of Use. The mobAehome residency iaw, CivN Code, Section 798.56, t~dks about the process and the process says that rt you are going to dose the park and cease the use of the ,You give atwelve-month notice of Your intent. The Code specifically says You can't actuai~ly change the use of the mobilehome Park, and Y~ can't even make a determination to change that use until after that twelve months has expired. He stated that is what they dk1 on or about March 1, 1995. The ground lessee, not the applicant, made a decision to change the use of the mobilehome park, based upon and pursuant to the tweh-e-month notice °f Intended Change of Use that has prevbusiy been given. So no one was displaced as a result of the ir~ended change of use at all. He stated now they have a sbdy~lay notice Pending at a time when there are only two families in the mobilehome park. So under that analysis, under State law certainly, only two residents, ff any, could be required to Piave relocation benefits paid. As to the amount, he indicated he had already talked about the distinction and the Ifmitatkx~ in the State law that it has to be "displaced reskfents~; and Anaheim's ordinances have a dear directive that it has to be a'mobuehome the mobs ehome park asaof thee dat ofthe change of use He alsol a ks ede who actually pays for n the relocation. He stated they are not the applicant here, but the ground lessee, Campanula Proper~les, and as the ground lessee, they have an interest in the outcome of this but they have already done what they are going to do. They've already dosed the mobilehHme a ~ ~e ~ilsso understand how g for a removal of the overlay zone that is on hMrpSgrl~..ugh. the City can impose this pre-condition upon ~. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Caldwell asked if it is Mr Coldren's position "Jiat the ground lessee, should not be liable for any relocation costs to any of the people who have Lived in the park? Mr. Coldren answered that is beyond the scope of this hearing. Commissioner Henninger asked the City Attorney if the Commission is ecamin~iny ~ onephal~wats dosure report today. He noted the one that's referenced in the staff repo put together by the property owners and thought it is dated in Januar~/.~ Deputy City Attorney Mann responded the removal of the overlay zone is before the Commission today. As part of the procedure for the removal of the overlay zone, there is a requirement for a cornersbn impact report under our ordinance, and that cornersion impact report is described in SecHrt o that a~•Or2a0tion and whsi t thsdwnversiontimpact report should consider~~ report which is pa PPl She stated previously the Commission had a conversion impact report to review. That ~k~ for proceeding under State law provkied that ff one of the residents of a mobAehome pa a public hearing, the matter was to come before you to determine the adequacy of a cornersion 03/20/95 Page 19 ' ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 t' impact report. The adequacy of a conversion Impact report ~ not before the Commission today. A comrersion Impact report is one of the things that has to be submitted and needs to be served upon certain individuals as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code as a part of this proceeding. The CIR which is a part of this applicatbn would be the most recent one that was teed in conjunction with the application and that is the one the Commission would be consklering at this hearing. To the extent that references ar:'s made to other conversion impact reports, they can be accepted as evidence that's just being presented on the record as statements Ynat are being made with regard to prevkws matters that have gone on in connection with the same property and the same use on the property. Commisskx~er Henninger asked ff that is the same report that v:~as the sub]ect oft ahth~a~ h was officer hearings in these fourteen hours worth of testimony, acrd Ms. Mann respond not. Ms. Mann responded to Commissioner Henninger that the Commission does not have to make a Judgment on whether this >s adequate or not? She added there are specific findings, but not as to the adequacy of the conversion impact report. Commissioner Henninger asked what the Commission needs to do with regard to relocation benefits at this hearing. Selma Mann answered that the Commission needs to make the findings of fact required for reclassification, which are in AMC Section 18.92.070, which is to determine ff the evidence presented establishes the existence of certain facts. In addition, concerning relocation benefits in Section 18.92.060.040, there is a requirement that prior to approval of any redassffication, you must have the duly noticed public hearing and determine mitigation measures to mitigate any identifiable adverse impacts of the change of use on the ability of displaced mobilehome owners to find adequate replacement space in another mobilehome park. Commissioner Henninger darffied that the Commission shall require, as a condition of approval o any such reclassification, that the person or entity proposing said reclassffication, which he thought was the property owner today, has to take reasonable measures to mftig toetake the identffiabie adverse Impacts of the change of use. The Commission is supposed condition that is proposed on the reclassification which talks about relocation benefits and give ft some more detail. benefitishiould be and the~numberoorgwhohthe par'~es are thatwou'dl receive itu Commissionetfon Caldwell agreed. Commissioner Henninger suggested reviewing which categories the Commission is allowed to conskler. those rel location beneffts shall~be paid tit hoseo owner/residents rending at the site ton t d i ~t os/2o/s5 Page 20 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~t, with the exception of the inftlal dosure notice was ghren and he thought that was February,19~8 who signed the any of the residents who signed the rent defermenrt agreement. The f~ a who lived there in deferment received money to compensate for the move already. The peopl February, 1994 are the ones who have Ectually been displaced and the ones who had to take steps to move and had expenses related to that move. Commissioner Henninger stated the Code seems to give some guklance on that subject because It talks about these relocation benefits in terms of when this redassiflc;ation is before the Commission, whk;h is today. It talks about a mobgehome park whkh may then be existing and K may be that this one doesn't exist anymore. Referring to page 590-W, it says, 'or upon a mobgehome park existed at any time within the prey in atwo yeaw~ ~~ reskient twove this two year time element defined and suggested pe ps Yb~Y years from today should qualify Commissioner Anesse answered that would give relocation benefits to those people who might not have been reskling there or owned a motor home and suggested anyone Ifving there at the time of the dosure notice. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought these costs fall to the own0 r~~yhWO Id lust move If someone was renting a mobilehome there and got this notice, they p 1 and leave the problem with the owner. of the staff eport~ ghtrbeforehe sectionnthat indicateslepermitted uses and ~ctures, and short thought ft was Section 18.92.020.030. Commissioner Henninger felt the Come of the attachment. with what the Code says, and Selma idann pointed out it is on the first peg Commissioner Messe stated the only question now is whether to go back two years. Commissioner Caldwell stated he strong y e were directly 'forced or motivated to move' because of the pending change of use and that that was on or about 2d/24/94 and that~he date he felt should be used.n during these hearings, Commissioner Peraza stated he felt it sW~uold~be I vhinn thereobefore and moved n thei~ownand for two years might indude somebody 9 he did not think they should get anything. I beli ves that the intent would be to mitigate those who ICease o~lrator caused thee sides s to th[nk beforeftha t ime that there was going t ~ ~ or the pe closure. a3/2o/s5 Page 21 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA i ~` Commisskxrer Messe stated all the numbers have been suspect and that he reviewed the numbers himself and was sure each Commisskx~er probably dki the same and came up with his own idea of what it should be. Commissioner Henninger felt it is important to consider the categories directed by the Coci~ in because he thought a lot of the testimony heard and el~oaf thlelndftedreon~ ~lo~ng amourds, what is allowed. Basically, the Code says these paym and it talks about the estimated costs of dis-assembling and re-assembling the mobilehome, inducting the accessory structures and the transportation costs; ~ i~~ e ~ ~~~ the area improvements that are required, on average, by mobiehome pa led by the the Commission hasn't really heard much about. The information that was suppl residents references where new skirting was required, a new carport; a drNeway, etc. Commissioner Masse though th inducting requirements for skirting, Commissioner Henninger asked the Code? ese improvement costs could be categorized as to their type, awnings, landscaping and other applicable categories. staff ff the earlier carnen;lon report addressed this category of Commissioner Caldwell stated he d`d not see anywhere where it talks about any benefits that the mobiteh~~e~wcallyrgo backfto the~dd mobilehome parkaownertothelp ompetnsatehhim or t es would a cost of relocating. - Commissioner Henninger agreed that is not Included. It talks about estimated costs and estimated additional costs. Commissioner ~Aesse added he thought that was an innovation created by this particular closure. Commissioner Caldwell added he thought it is also due to the economic times. Chairwoman Boydstun asked about the gates being locked, and the problem if there was an emergency and someone couldn't get in there. She asked ff there isn't a knot box or something like what the fins department usually uses? Mr. Colftee=nls h~ea~i 9 ar dtthey~can focus at sometta9ng elseythe w~ deal wfth ft aShing about it b appropriate. Mr. Coldren pointed out that Ms. Talley did give the Commission all the information on what the requirements are of the other parks. Commissioner Masse stated ff skirting is removed from a mobilehome, and there's some damage, He thour ht that fs included in Section .0403, and noted~that Section ,0401 says the ith skirting. 9 03/20/95 Page 22 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~% estimated cost of dis-assembling and re-assembly of displaced mobneMome including existing awning, skirting, etc. Commissioner Henninger said .0403 contemplates a requirement by the new park and from the reports from the reskJents, ft seemed like maybe half of them successfully relocated their existing skirting and the others were required to have new skirting. Commissioner Caldwell stated ff the skirting comes oif and is damaged in the move, he thought that would be the responsibAiry ~ the mover and should not fall on the head of the owner of the mobilehome park. That is the reason he Fas Insurance. Commissioner Messo stated this section talks about park requirements. if skirting is somehow and reachithe grouand or some hing ofsthat natu e~then the skirt ng haus to be brough9up to hat park's requirements. Commissioner Mayer stated the attorney for Campanula referred to the skirting and Indicated that it would be acceptable lust as long as ft matches and is in good condition. Then the requirement would be that ff it was damaged in the move, ft would have to be replaced in order to be in good condition. The same is true of the siding. She explained she was referring to the lot Improvement requirements survey of comparable mobilehome parks from the Talley handout. Commissioner Henninger stated it seems most of the parks have a landscape requirement that needs to be completed within sixty days or ninety days and they talk about evergreen, grass, ground cover, flowers, shrubs, etc. The language of the Ordinance 'talks about these required costs for impro ho a ht ~°etcosts Ike landscape ~eglu ements wou d bet appropriate home being relocated. Het g Commissioner Henninger asked AI Pemick ff he Incurred any costs for new skirting? Mr. Pernick responded "No, that he was very fooxlmatebethe same as it was in Oranige T ~ into the new area, the height of the coach was app Y therefore, no new skirting was required. It had to be repainted due int~uffs ind~e ~glnalff was not replaced. He also responded that his space was No. 91 and po impact study, there is a picture of his coach in the center folder and they used that as a typical picture of a coach on the main street. Commissioner Henninger asked Ms. Talley where were the costs of building permits and other fees In the original conversion Impact study. Ms. Talley answered that actually, they are included in the moving bkis. She referred to the fifth page and noted Gregory Construction's estimate, included tear-down, set-up, mobilehome to be transported, porch re-installed, transportation, etc. 03/20/95 Page 23 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CpMMISSiON, ACTION AGENDA :. She explained the practice of Gregory Construction has been they have three or four attachments is~included in t eecastimate f3ut~on Space ~~has a big190 in the ght hand comer off what Ms. Talley stated typically they say permfts and inspectbn are included and that Mr. Evans dkl all interviewing of movers and in every case, the estimate included the permits? In every case, that is part of the moving process and that is the responsibilfty of the mover and the transporter. She added they have to get a permit before they can move ft Responding to Commissioner Messe, Ms. Talley reviewed the information on Space 90 as to the tear-down, transport and set-up of a 24 x 51 mobnehome; remove and install two awnings; remove skirting and replace wfth new skirting; install new 'oof w h, ~~ Pm1es ~ ~ dsse,~ milts and inspection, transport shed aril install new 10X35' po steps and carport, air conditioning unft installed, and that was $6147. She added she was probably expected to eliminate the new roof and the new skirting. This bkl includes new skirting an k~andhne sk rtl ng wouk)n't be ncluded~SheTexplained that is why t pis onegs a little bftcle pa higher. Commissioner Caldwell asked why ft was not fine in this particular case. Debby Gilberg, owner of the coach in Space 90 explained the skirting had to be replaced because her skirting was aluminum and ft won't stretch, and (n almost every case when the house is reset on the new sfte, ft is never the same height. My coach sits 3-1 /2 Inches taller on ~y the new existin 2 i~hes off Ithe ground and that's why ft hadtotbe eplaced.he skirting would have been 31 / Commissioner Caldwell asked ff ft was a requirement of the new park to not allow her to use the existing skirting because ft was 3-1 /2 inches off the ground. Debbie Gilberg answered she had three separate movers give estimates and in every bkl, they told her inftially that in all likelihood the skirting would not fft down to the ground when the house was placed on the new site. GI berN added that is the equirement and ftihas t sift to the ground skirting has to fit. Ms. 9 Commissioner Caldwell asked ff Ms. Talley would still believe the skirtings are not included. Ms. Talley responded, 'Yes, that is their answe-'; that ff they move to a comparable park, the existing skirting should be accepted. If they move to a park that's ~,bt comparable, a much nicer park down by the beach, that is by choice. r,,ommissioner Caldwell asked ff most other parks would have allowed her to use that skirting, In spfte of the fact that ft was 3 -1 /2 lnches from the ground? 03/20/95 Page 24 Manch 20, 1905 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~; t_~ Ms. Talley answered that the Code refers to the cost to move to an average. comparable mobilehome park, therefore, what was a ~P~h ven oved into parks that robably wer~nd~ at another comparable park. Some peopl comparable and dki require upgrades. But ff they moved to a comparable park, then they should have been able to move that skirting, ff there was no deferred maintenance. She added iF Lie skirting was in bad shape and needed to be replaced because of deferred maintenancb, that 6s also an issue. Commissioner Mayer asked ff Orange Tree was not dosing, and another park was, closing, woa~ld Talle Is saying that sihort skirts g its acceptablea 0 nge Tree Mobil skhomegPark~ askedrf Ms. Y Ms. Talley responded she did not believe that is what she said. She stated actually you would want to have the skirting go to the ground, and obviously you would have to change the grade or sk in ~aShe answe8edlnCommisslone~r Caldwell that sher dk1 notnknow ffo 3- /21nct-es would be e 9 okay at Orange Tree? Commissioner Caldwell stated he thought the answer is really Important ff they are going to say the park is comparable. Ms. Talley stated ff the existing skirting is in ill repair and needs to be repaired or damaged, then a dtiffeaent parkmhat has differente equirement andkthey are going do hadeo paten w skirting on. Commissioner Messe asked again, ff that skirting on the mobilehome was in kl repair but was situated in Orange Tree Mobilehomn ar~knot duringthe~losure) (It was clarified the question pertains to when the park was ope Ms. Talley stated she cannot respond to that question because she did not know their policy. The owner of the park, or the management of the park would have to respond. Commissioner Mayer asked how she can argue to the point of comparable parks ff she did not know what they required? Ms. Talley pointed out there was a whole section on ~ amenftiesawere offoredawere theyvery specific. Comparable parks had to do with what type double-wide mobilehomes, the age limit, etc. Commissioner Mayer stated that is not the issue. The Issue is skirting and ff you arrive at the new Location and can't set your trailer with the same Length of skirting, Ms. Talley is saying they should accept iG Commissioner Henninger saki Ms. Talley doesn't know what the requirements are or what the operational procedures were at that park and suggested probably someone else should provkie 03/20/95 Page 2.5 March 20, 1995 3 ANAHEIM CfiY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ,4" ~i the answer. Chairwoman Boydstun stated she has had several friends move mobflehomes and they have all had to replace the skirting to meet the park requirements. She dkJ not think a park would let you go in with a'gap'. Ms. Talley stated many people moved without replacing their skirting. Their response to that is that ff they had to replace the skirting, probably nine times out of ten, ft was for one of two reasons. Commissioner Caldwell stated this was that one time out of a 100 when the skirting was 3-t /2 Inches short, and ft had to be changed for the partkular park where this home moved. He felt this is an important Issue because this is one of those additional costs which the park operator does not want to pay. He felt the Intent of the while thing is that they want to change the use of tha property; the people need to move and they shouldn't be penalized financially to move nor would the owner of the property make 'windfall profits,' and all of a sudden become wealthy because of this closure of the park. It is a matter o tk in ui a ~e lrskain n91 tFdiat wouldHbe a cost ft seems that when the person moves, ff the new pa eq home by the mobilehome park owner to move them without them having to suffer costs. He stated that this isn't to move them onto the beach in Corona del Mar, but it is to move them to a comparable park in the north Orange County area. Commissioner Henninger stated one of the problems is that the Code down"t say that they ate to move these people without any cost. He thought one of the problems for the Plar fining - Commission is that is what they would like but that is not what the Code says. Commissioner Caldwell stated h inbeliev ~ the 1nCode doesn't say that they should ilncurtcosts. He shouldn't have to Incur costs, po 9 thought the costs should be mftigated. m mmiedioThey areilimited to certain things and he thoughtthatssyunfortunateelement should be 9 Commissoner Caldwell stated it appears from the testimony of the mobilehome park owner, k is not their Intent to pay for any of those additional items, other than picking that mobilehome up and dropping it on another site. Some of those things Ilke the skirting is almost like a test case. Commissioner He~~ninger asked where the cost of things like disconnecting and reconnecting the phone system in the mobilehome is itemized? Ms. Talley answered that is not Includdd. At least she would not think a antd abeuca~u on ofthow discretionary ftem and someone may have a phone er not have a phon many phones they want, etc. She wasn't sure about hooking up o~ making sure that phone service is there. 03/20/95 Page 26 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTIOty AGENDA ~. h ~.f H asked if the bkisithey rked with include elocating the air condtioning system~~ kem. recharging it? Ms. Talley answered, 'yes, some of them ' She stated they worked with the resdents' bids, and used no other bids than the reskieMs. Commissioner Henninger said a lot of the residents appeared to have pakJ separately for air conditioning. Ms. Talley answered that they gave the Commission copies of the bkis, and that there were any number that included the air conditioning, and in other cases it is not and that she dkl see several that included the disconnect. Commissioner Messe explained he had approached this much the way Ms. Talley approached it. That he went through all the bids, or all the statements in the book ftom the residents, and averaged them out and then went through the detail and pulled out that detail which he thought our ordinance didn't cover and came uP fnc anoaverage move.HHe asked how others ~ about $19,200 and came up woached it. ~~ Commissioners had app Commissioner Mayer responded she did a similar exercise and thought she was a little more prudent in pulling things out and came up with an average of $8400. Commissioner Messe asked H that was a combination of double wkle and single wades and Commissioner Mayerhe double wkles shoo dlbeady looking at the double wades and that $8400 fs what she thought t isobecausie he thoughtgthe e a eha lot of the actual expenses thamare neot covered by~the and that ordinance. Commissioner Caldwell stated it is too bad that there is not some unbiased third parry who would arbitrate each move and determine what the costs are, based on the Code, but can see that would be a nightmare. He added certainly after having looked at this, that what the Commission did originally appeared to be at bast fair, certainly fair to some and not fair to others. And that may work both ways, not only for the mobiie11ke ft ~r not Andrthat may be the Host IlexPedientt ultimately the figure is going to fit everybody, way to do it and it may be the only way to do ft. Commissioner Caldwell continued that it doesn't appear the Commission was very far off originally. He fel' still, there's a lot ambiguity here about a comparable park, a requirement of a concreta drNeway, and that is a relatively expensNe item, new state requirements requiring earthquake strapping and wind strapping, and that costs almost $2000• 03/20/95 Page 27 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA f Commisskxrer Masse stated he has heard three number's discussed here and he just averaged ado ble wide coach and suggested t Commission recotmi mend that thatsbe the mitiga bn~ for figure that should be pakl. Commissioner Masse explained that both and Commissioner got to their figure e-1lminating the costs shown which they thought didn't pertain to the ordinance. He asked how ~".ommissioner Henninger arrived at his figure. Commissioner Henninger answered the moving costs all seem to run $4800 and that is probably as good a number as they are going to get on the actual tearilown, set-up and transportation. Then there (s the Information provkled today by Talley and Associates from the previous report which shows comparable parks and their requirements, noting they all have landscaping requirements. From reviewing that information, he thought landscaping means, not just landscaping, but ft is Improvement of the lot which indudes things like flat work, landscape rock, etc. and he saes that as a $600 bill, not $200 as indicated by Talley and Associates. He explained he added $100 for phone relocation and connection and he believed that is part of the structure and one of things that needs to be Included. There seemed to be requirements for reskirting, mod ocah/n s Hisaflgure is about $7000 land he included air coedit onerrecharging o for those type 9 etc. Commissioner Caldwell stated he felt that Is not quite enough, but that he wouldn't add a lot more to it. He just dkl not think in all cases that everything is going to be coverEd, and It is ~' going to leave some people a substantial shortfall. Commissioner Henninger saki the Code talks about averages and it doesn't qufte get what maybe the Commission would 11ke, but he thought probably they ought not try to bend ft because in all likelihood, the City will be tested on this. After some discussion, Commissioner Masse suggested retie ~ ~ ~ thamt ~ ~~ ~ leeundehe three they have come up with ($7000, $9500 and $8400)• was not onetofnthe things listed in the vCodegthat acanabe allowed but~that a interpreted toha a t ir<tle bit more broadly. Chairwoman Soydstun stated she came up with a figure of $8100. She asked about storage, and moving furnishings separately? Commissioner Henninger noted the Code doesn't talk about moving the c;;,ntents and just talks about moving the mobilehome itself. Commissioner Masse explained he reached his figure by reducing the homeowner's cost by what he felt dkln't fit into the ordinance. 03/20/95 Page 28 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNING COti~MISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~~ commissioner Caldwell asked ff the Commissioners are in agreement that all those residents who were in the park on 2/24/94 would be eligible for the relocation beneffts, except those who had signed an agreement wfth the ovmer. mC jghmre~ceivergoingwbacko the park owner. He noted it isn t If tad in the o dinance. dents Selma Mann responded she did not think the fees have anything to do wfth the park owner She explained that would be a private contract between the mobilehome owner and the park owner to where they relocate. Commissioner Cadwell agreed and explained he is talking about the incenthres that a potential mobUehepc: ~ park would pay, and that ft is not listed in the ordinance. He asked ff ft is right to draw a condusion that ft is not part of this. Selma Mann answered the Commission heard testimony presented by the park owner and testimony that was presented in wrfting by the tenants, and she thought as long as the Commission Indicates the reasons for their decision, and that ft is not an arbftrary and capricious decision, they can proceed. Commissioner Henninger stated ft is h<s sense that the next time there is a deal like this in the city, the operator of the park needs to be encouraged to do the right thing rt ~ the ri ht thin offering an incentive that has been arranged vrfth other parks is probably pa 9 g and that the park operator should get credft in cases where they arranged the relocation benefft. be madeland .who makes~tfrat determination? She added thelCommissiohn has already hearduld differences of opinions as to who arranged what. Chairwoman Boydstun stated that would be a private contract between the mobilehf me owner and the park. Mr. Lelon asked if he could give a point of information on that issue? It was pointed out that the public hearing is dosed. Commissioner Caldwell stated ff the mobilehome park owner was to facilitate a move of one of the residents, wfth the agreement of the mobilehome owner, and there was some deal that he resident and the parkowneWthey're moving o he did nct see how the owner gets ~ bvolvedn the Commissioner Masse stated a lot of the Ifterature from the parks did indicate that certain parks were giving relocation beneffts. Commissioner Caldwell asked ft the other parks gave the beneffts just because Orange Tree 03/20/95 Page 29 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~~1. referred them, or did they give the benefits because they were trying to get people into their park? He also asked who detemnines who gets the money and why wwtld they hand someone ~,~. Commissioner Mayer stated they should have it in writing ff they had an agreement with the owner and he was going to gNe an incentive. if they dkJn't have it in writing, then it is a private contract and is a fair Issue. Commissioner Henninger stated the while purpose of this ordinance is to mitigate these costs of relocation and certainly it is talking about the costs and the impacts to the owner of the mobilehome. Commissioner Caldwell said he was still trying to find a nexus for the owner of Orange Tree getting compensated by the new park owner through an agreement betwP,an the resident and the owner. He thought it should be the resklent's decision ff they move to a park and that park reimburses them or has some incentive to get them to move there. Commissioner Mayer stated the Commission certainly has piles of written documentation and none of ft shows any of those kinds of agreements. Commissioner Henninger saki the Commission could be silent on the subject, and let that take place when flnal negotiation takes place amongst all these participants. Commissioner Caldwell stated he thought after hearing the testimony, that by being silent, the "' Commission is saying they don't agree. Selma Mann stated one of the pc!nts that has been made in some of the materials is that there are several types of IncentNes that are made by receiving mobilehome parks. In some instances, the Incentive was reduced rent and asked ff the Commission is considering just a particular type of Incentive. She thought any clarffication that the Commission can make with regard to what they are considering a relocation benefit, may be useful in whatever negotiations are taking place subsequent to this between the park owner and the tenants. Chairwoman Boydstun added this is why she feels that is deflnitely between the park owner and the tenant and has nothing to do with this hearing. There is a variety of dffferent incentives given and i[ could be a reduced rental rate, or help wfth move-in costs, ~ O~eeV She did not ti~i~k to offer, and they are offerir rg it to the tenant, not to the previous pa they should be considered. ACTION: Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED to approve the CEDA Negative Declaration. (Findings in Paragraph No. 9 of the staff report.) os/2o/95 Page 30 March 20, 1995 f' F ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA !° ~_~ Selma Mann asked ff there is to be any consideration with regard to whether the mobilehome is single-wide or double-wide, adding she dki not believe the Commission discussed that issue in temps of what dffferentiation should be made between the two. Commissioner Caldwell stated although the Commission dkJ not do it spec~lye would Y in a rather ambiguous way by stating that he thought in some cases some peopl compensated while others would incur greater costs and others would incur lesser cysts by finding an average. That took in all circumstances, whether the mobtlehome was a sl~ge ~ less double, whether they moved to a comparable park or a park which was more expens expensive, etc. The Commissk~n has tried today to find a reasonable average cost that would fairly mitigate the .Hove of the residents to a new park. Commissioner Caldwell offered a resolution approving Redassiflcation No. 94-95-06 wfth the fdlowing adjustment: (Findings in Paragraph No. 24 of the staff report.) Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rlc ~ine gh~Mpoaby eehaocrhne Park (MHP) Overlay Zone, the mobilehome pa mobilehome owner who resided at the park on February 24, 1994 (with the exception of any mobAehome owner who signed the rent deferment agreement) a reasonafle relocation benefit as determined by the Planning Commission, in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). Commissioner Henninger clarifledrto et ~ condit~ona ly hten they wou d leave these conditiolns (n they act on it, assuming they app and it then loses fts discretionary nature for awhUe within this time frame and the applicant gets to satisfy the conditions and then the ordinance is passed. Selma Mann explained there is a two-step process. The first step is the decision by the Planning Commission. if the decision is not appealed to the City C°for t e applicant toto appeal the~matter decision of the City CouncU. Then there is the opport fty to the City Council. If i< goes to the City CouncU, then the City Council (s the one that does that first step of the two-step process. Then there is the second and final step which is when the City Council makes its determination that all of the conditions have been satisfied and actually orders the city zoning map changed. However, there is some discretion allowed to the City Council even at that final step when it comes to the point of changing the zoning map. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff Commissioner Henninger is trying to impose a time IImiG And Commissioner Henninger responded that it is time limited now, and that he was Just pointing out that this is the normal procedure in the Code. not an unusually talloedhcondiUon forg ht(s particular aPProhvai and the ~ i idonhas to do Tmore 03/2o/s5 Page 31 March 20, 1995 ( ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~,: with the timing and with whenu~ u~~ thepcorrditions, iFanyy on the reclassfflca ion have~been not placed before the City Co met. VOTE: The resdution passed with six Yes votes. Selma Mann presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within twenty-two days. Chairwoman Boydstun thanked everyone for coming to these meetings, realizing ft has been a long time. 03/20/95 Page 32 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~., 4a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.281 (Previously C+rrtinea) ~ ~~~ 4b. VESTING TENTATIVE'rRnGT MAP NOS 15120 15121 15122~~~ i ~~+°" +5125 15126 15129 AND 15144 (Readvert~sea) I OWNER: THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Ave., Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Property is approximately 87.8 acres, adjacent to Development Area 9 of the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan SP88-1 to the north, adjacent to Development Area 2 of The Mountain Park Specific Pian SP90-4 to the east, abutting Oak Canyon Dfi-e to the scwth, and adjacent to Development Area 203 and 209 of The Summft of Anaheim HUIs Specific Pian SP88-2 to the west, and further described as Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15120, 15121, 1512?., 15123, 15124, 15125, 15126, 15129, and 15144 (located within Development Area 204 of The Summft _~ Anaheim Hills Specific Plan). Petftioner requests approval of the fdlowing nine vesting tentative tract maps in order to develop 248 single-family detached dwelling unfts within Development Area 204 of The Summft of Anaheim Hills: V~stina Tentative Tra Mau No. 15120 to establish a 7.4 acre, 27aot, single-famiy detached residential subdivision including 26 residential lots and 1 open space lot. V~Mlna Tentative Tra Mao No. 15121 to establish a 8.8 acre, 32-lot, single-family - detached reskJentiai subdivisbn including 30 resdential lots and 2 open space lot. V~;tirc Te^•~~!~~° ?"^- "!I?" No. 15122 to establish a 9.1 acre, 28-lot, single-fatuity detached residential subdivisbn including 26 residential lots and 2 open space lot. ~~ ina Tentative Tract Man No. 15123 to establish a 14.4 acre, 32-lot, single-family detached residential subdNision including 30 reskiential lots and 2 open space lot. Vesting Tentative TraM Mao No. 15124 to establish a 10.1 acre, 28-lot, single-family detached reskleMial subdivision including 25 residential lots and 3 open space lot. Ve,~tina Tentatye Tract Mao No. 15125 to establish a 19.5 acre, 28-lot, single-family detached residential subdivision including 26 residential lots and 2 open space lot. Vesting Tentative ?rant ~,Aao No. 15126 to establish a 6.0 acre, 37-lot, single-family detached residential subdNision Including 35 residential lots and 2 open space lot. Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 1129 to establish a 5.3 acre, 26-lot, single-family demched residential subdNision including 23 reskJentiai lots and 3 open space lot. Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 15144 to establish a 5.2 acre, 27-lot, single-famUy detached residential subdNision including 27 residential lots. Continued from the March 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 03/20/95 Page 33 March 20, 1995 ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. O^~OSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Dianna Hoard, Baldwin Company, stated these tract maps are basically a redesign on the east side and they are consistent wfth the specifk: plan land use rovedtin Development Area 204iand ft family attached lots. Previously there was anotherwe a ~edesi ~ to accommodate remedial allowed 287 lots and this is consistent. The maps 9 grading sftuatbns. She stated she has looked at the c~ndftbns of approval. She questioned, in particular, Tract No. 15124, Conditbns 3 and 4, and thought perhaps they are no longer appropriate and should be deleted. She referred to Condftion No. 1 and asked where this condftion falls in relationship to the Development Agreement that was approved, whether this is considered a n ov~uirement or is ft wfthin the realm of what was a part of the Public Facilities Pian that was app Commissioner Henninger stated ft did not seem the new condftbn is realty appropriate considering that this development has a Development Agreement. Chairwoman Boydstun pointed out the project is over 5096 completed. She asked if ft would be possible to come up wfth a new agreement so that when they open the trenches, the Cfty could lay the conduft. Commissioner Henninger thought that might work and ff the City desires to lay conduft, they would coordinate ft so that ft could all ~ would find such a condition ac P~ e~ftY could pay for ft, and asked ff the Baldwin Company Ms. Hoard answered she has talked with the telecommunications people and understands what they are trying to do and they wauld like to be able to work wfth them and they would be happy to include that in their plans and whUe the trenches are open, the cfty could put the conduft in. She would not want to have to waft if they were not there. Commissioner Henninger stated to really make the construction manageme ofe~ sable, they would have to contract for installatbn, and then possibly the Cfty could pay Commissioner Henninger referred to the revised e~stediochangi g that6~to read:~"chis nfrastructure shall be installed at no cost to the City," and su99 shall be installed, with the costs to be home by the City.' 03/20/95 Page 34 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 ~t t.~) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated we do not impose conditions upon the City upon a development. She suggested expressing k in temps that the developer shall cooperate with the City In terms of implementation of the telecommunkatk~n Infrastructure. Commisskmer Henninger stated the first sentence says the property owner shall install and the second sentence says the installation shall be no cost to the City. He suggested that condition be modified to say that the cost would be home by the City, requiring the developer to do the Installation but have the City pay for iG Selma Mann stated she thought there was more than one element to that condition and that she had spoken to Mr. Taghavi ftom the UtUities Department and the question was phrased whether what is being required is within the ambient of the Public FacUities Plan that was errvisloned wfth the Development Agreement? It is M:. Taghavi's opinion that this Is within the ambient of the Publk FacUlUes Plan, at least the revised condftion, for the backbone distribution. The electrkk~ll system aspect is within the Intent of the Public FacUitles Plan. In view of the offer of cooperation that has been made, perhaps it would be satisfactory to the applicant to have that be phrased in terms of a requirement for cooperation without imposing a specific obligation on the developer wfth regard to the telecommunication infrastructure. Commissioner Henninger asked if the Development Agreement fteezes tfv~ ordinances at the lime the Development Agreement was executed or does ft allow adjustments. Selma Mann thought "freezing the ordinance' is probably too strong a term because it does have a Public FacUities Plan that was included and there are varbus ways to implement whatever is in the Public FacUities Pian. With regard to the electrical system which includes a list but it does not suggest that this is an inclusive list. There are other items which would be essential for this development which are included and which are necessarily Included in any kind of residential development. Commissioner Henninger pointed out half of this development has been built under this Development Agreement without these facilfties and it is hard to say that this was in the plan in the beginning and he thought this is something new. Selma Mann stated she does not quite understand exactly what type of facilities are being discussed but to the extent that ft is necessary to Install a new type of cable in order to hook in with what is going to be in place in the City at the time that these are buUt which may be appropriate to consider as part of hooking into the system. To the extent that the Commission is talking about something completely outside the ambient having to do wfth telecommunications and as far as this map, the Commission needs to consider that the vesting maps that are under consideration here, not be burdened with having to do something once they have already been approved. Whatever requirement is placed on them si~ould be proportional to the Impact of these maps abne and not the entire development that has already been approved. 03/20/95 Page 35 March 20: 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA wa 1 thethe City~wants t put the condou inthe trench, theNy can or they canocontract wfth~the ~t Y developer to do it Ms. Hoard thought the condition would have to specify who wql pay for it, otherwise, ff they have no developer coming up. Baldwin Company would be stuck with those costs. Commissioner Henninger thought the c~ndfflon should read that tfa ~~ ~~f lik ft«hat onthe Commissioner Peraza added that the Commissk~n cannot impose City. Commisskx~er Masse suggested wonting that the Owner/developer shall coordinate with the provided that su hiicoordina~tion adds no cot nst uc~tion cysts or tl~me delayicc ~tkurs infraswcture, owner/developer. Ms. Hoard stated they would be happy to Put that in their design. Melanie Adams referrad 1o Trod 15124 and stated revised maps were received this morning and delet~Tho same fs we oft Cond Oift nr No. 4 since thetslopeirhasabeen red~i9 oil a that condition is no longer needed. Con :erring Trail No. 15120 whkh is a street proposed to be extended to the east Into the Irvine Company property, adjacent to Lots 14 and 15~~~esafs~kl dfther submit ai copy of the~recorded r to final trail map approval, the legal property agreement with ti9e adjacent property to the east to extend Street A and provide internal cul de sac to facilitate street sweeping, or redesign lots 14, 15, and 16 to provkle a knuckle leading to Trail 15124 as approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer." Ms. Adams stated there is also a dariflcation of a lot designation on Trail 15125. What is currently labeled Lot 20 should be Lot 'C. Commissioner Henninger asked ff that is an added condtion and Ms. Adams stated she was just making a darification on the record. Commissioner Masse asked ff th3 new condition is acceptable to the applicant. Ms. Hoard responded tt is. ACTION: requirred ernrnirontmental documentation for subject requite{Penile gs in Paragraph No. 13 of the staff report) 15125,r b126,t15129 andt 15144 with the fdlowing changes t 1 conditilons;15124, 03/20/95 Page 36 March 20, 199~.- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~~1 (Findings in Paragraph No.17 of the staff report.) Modffled Condition No. 1 on all Vesting Tentative Trat~ Maps to read as fellows: That the owner/developer shall coordinate with the Anaheim Public Utilities Department regarding the installation of Telecommunication Infrastn~cture provided that such coordh~atbn shall add no construction cost nor time delays to the owner/developer. Added the fdlowing condition to Vesting Tentathe Tract Ne. 15120: That prior to final trail map approval, the legal property owner shalt the eaa~ to submit a copy of a recorded agreement with the adjacent property extend Street A and provde an interim cul~de-sac to facilitate street sweeping or (b) redesign lots 14,15 and 16 to provide a {mucide ieading to Tract No. 15124 as approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Deleted Condition Nos. 3 and 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15124. Added the fdlowing condftion to Vesting Tentative Tract No. 15125: That, on the final tract map, Lot No. 26 shall be relabeled as Lot "C. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City CouncA. 03/20/95 Page 37 ANAHEIM GTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 1 ~. ~ cEOS NEGATIVE DEGLsRgTiON (Previously Approved) Appr~~ 5a. 5b. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT W0.36~6 (Readvertised)~~expire 3-20-96) OWNER: LEILA LOUISE SLAYTON AND RALPH E. SLAYTON, 2660 W. Uncoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: k,AMLESH PATEI, 2662 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: .~6~? West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.49 acres located at the southwest comer of Lincoln Avenue and Stinson Street. Deletion or modfficatkm of conditions pertaining to time Iimftation to retain a 2,264-square foot restaurant wfth on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-31 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ' _ PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: the conditions of approval. HoweverrConditioon No 14 setsia time limit of one yeaharxl asked ff he would have to file again in February of 1996. Comr~dssioner Messe stated he will have to file for a time extensbn or request that the time limft be deleted. Chairwoman Boydstun stated since he is a new owner, the Commission would like to see how things go for one year and at the end of that time, the applicant can request that that condition be removed ff there have not been any problems. Mr. Patel stated the previous owner had the same permit and he dkl not believe there were any problems. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated ff the applicant wants to come back in one year, he may not have to sign a new application, but Just go through the same process he did for this request and submit a letter and the fUing fee. The Commission can make a determination ff they want to grant another year or remove the time limit condtion all together. 03/20/95 Page 38 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~` i Greg Hastings, Zoning Division PJlanager, suggested the Commission change the time limit date to today's date so K is a complete year. ACTION• Determined. that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to • serve as tip required errvironmental documentation for subject request. (Flndings 3n paragraph No. S of the staff report.) Approved ~mendmeM to Conditlons of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3656. Modified Condftion 15 of Resolution PC94-16 to read as fellows: (Flndings .in Paragraph No.12 of the staff report.) '15. That subject use permit is granted for a period of 1 (one) year to expire on March 20, 1996.' VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning commission's decisiun in 22 days to the City Council. 03/20/95 Page 39 . , March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~~~ Continued to 6a. ~tiA NEGATIVE DECLARATION eadvertised) AprN 3, 199•`' 6b. CONDITIONAL ucE PERMIT N .1374 ~ OWNER: Wilshire B d. Ste 1EOO,.Los Angeles, CA n90025 12100 AGENT: DR. GENE LEE, 1100 South gaudina Place, Anaheim, CA 92805 I LOCATION: "R'" Soutt•~ Anaheim BoulevaM. Property is approximately 2.39 acres located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and approximately 125 feet north of the centerline of Palais Road. PetNioner requests review of revised plans for substantial conformance with previous approval for anon-industrial training center and retail distributing and service business firms to establish a court reporting college. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. (~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: meeting in onier for staff to contmplete th.yerevew of e~nv5(ronmental determination documents. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) 03/20/95 Page 40 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 ~_ 7a, ~Ee~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 7b. 1~IIAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AprU 17, 1995 7c, rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3~ OWNER: SHELL OIL CO., 511 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Ste. 711, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 3087 East La Palma Avenue (Shell service stationl. Property is approximately 0.51 acre located at the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard To permit the remodeling of an existing service station to include an accessory convenience market and automated carwash with waiver of minimum number of required trees, minimum distance between fteestanding signs, and minimum required landscaping for service stations. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Coi.iinued subject request to the April 17, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to address outstanding issues with the Public-Works Engineering and the Traffic Engineering Divisions. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) os/2o/s5 Page 41 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~i Approved ga. GEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION_ Approved gb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Grunted gc, ^^N^vlTl^NA' ~ 1C° PERMIT N0.3747 OWNER: ACANYOa ~~ obrottP3146 Red HR, Ste. #150,PCosta MTesaS~ CA 92626 AGENT: HARRY S. WEINROTH, P.O. BOX 1566, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693 LOCATION: 5741 5757 a_a "°' ~'^'" ena Canvon Road. Property is approximately 15.33 acres located at the northeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway and further described as 5741, 5757 and 5791 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. To Kermit 1,500-square feet of outdoor seatng area in conjunction with various restaurant uses with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOWTION N0. pC95-32 _ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 2 people OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Hany Weinroth, agent, Canyon Plaza S centerg Itt dnoes nottovers is a request for outdoor seating on approximately 1 /2 of the shopp g the area whare the FoxBre Restaurant is located. There are four uses royal. aT~hey are alcove had and will continue to have outdoor seating which did not have City app requesting additional square footage for the outdoor seating area for a total of 1500 square feet which can be used at any time. They would appreciate not having to come back before the Planning Commission if uses change so if there are other outdoor seating uses, this would become a blanket type request for not more Shan 1500 addtional square footage of outdoor seating. He stated the conditions recommended are acceptabl~a, except for one darffic~~ticn oon ga(b) in which the last sentence reads, 'the outdoor seating to be accessory only to th,9 app restaurant use and would not exceed a total of 15,0011 sq. ft. and he thought that should read 1500 sq. ft. 03/20/95 Page 42 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Masse dariNed that he is talking about the interkx of the enter where the broad Commissioner sidewalks are located. Commissioner Henninger stated in general it doesn't apply to any restaurant that has any alcoholk: Lenses. Those would be excluded. Mr. Welnroth explained the permit would include 5741 through 5791, except 5753• Chairwoman Boydstun asked how many square feet are currently being used and Mr. Welnroth responded about 622 sq. ft. Mike Shellrlck, operator of Cafe Gourmet, stated the tables and chairs outskfe their restaurants are very Important to their business. he dkJ not have tBhe olutside pat oa rea.pHe ahas 1 tufted nseating inskl ~ his lease at this center N THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger referred to Condition No. 1 and stated the way the condition Is worded, Lampost Pizza could have an outdoor seating area. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, thought that would be excluded. He added the Intent of that ~" do not cunenfiy have authorization to sell alcohdic beverages tondo sow those businesses which be uused by establishments which do not have thessale oof alcohdic beverages.~ing area may only Mr. Borrego stated staff was not sure about the outdoor seating for Delaney's and RJ's, but did not want this 1500 sq. ft. to apply to those two restaurants because in the past when parking waivers were granted for this center, that outdoor area had been accounted for in terms of Whether or not they havehautoBlzatio o have rutd,or seat ng is another isssudees for some time. Commissioner Masse clarified the appiicarrt indicat ft. for ail estaurantsn addftional 1500 sq. ft. and the staff report says it is for a total of 1500 sq. Mr. Borrego stated staffs recommendation would be for 1500 sq. ft. inclusive of those restaurants and that would roughly enable them to double what they have now. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the applicant's queston was that the 1500 sq. ft. does not include those restaurants and they are under separate permfts. ACTION: Approved Negatve Declaration (Findings in Paragraph No.10 of the staff report.) 03/20/95 Page 43 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 Approved Waiver of Code Requiremerd. (Findings in Paragraph No.16 of the staff report.) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3747. (Findings in Paragraph No. 15 of the staff report.) Modffied Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That subject use permit does not apply to any business which serves alcoholic beverages. VOTE: fi-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 03/20/95 Page 44 f i ~ iek a [ ~., ` ~, :~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3749 Granted OWNER: ELLAS PROPERTIES INCORPORATED, 5395 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: WARE AND MALCOMB ARCHITECTS, Attn: John Thomas, 18002 Cowan, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: ~0 N. Brasher Street. Property is approximately 1.34 acres located on the east side of Brasher Street and approximately 810 feet north of the centerilne of La Palma Avenue. To permft a business office in the ML (Limfted Industrial) Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95.33 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMi4RY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Patrick Scanlon, Southern Calffomia Water Company, explained they are aInvestor-owned water utility regulated by the Calffomia Public Utilities Cc-mmission. They are proposing to enter Into a lease to use subject site as their district office. They have read the staff report and agree to all the condftions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Approved ~iegatNe Declaration. (Findings in Paragraph No.11 of the staff report.) Granted Candftional Use Permft No. 3749. (Findings in Paragraph No.16 of the staff report.) VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy Cfty Attorney, presented 22-day app9al rights. 03/20/95 Page 45 PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ..one uFrATIVE DECLARATION .~A ~rEo nF r`ODE RE~r11REMENT ONDITfONAL USE PERMIT N0.37~$ ANAHEIM CITY ~,~ - 10a 10b. 10c. OWNER: T CHAR 0 ~ ~ 23 ~R~ q~, CA 92The Hunsaker FamAy AGENT: Vince Sc~cozza, 324 S. Palo Cedro, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 e~aG Raeat Park Drive. Property iS approximately 1.5 acres LOCATION: park DrNe and located on the north side of Regai approximately 240 feet west of the centeriinPa give. um Street and further described as 2765 Regal To permft a physical fitness training center (Kung Fu Scholl) wRh waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. or_o5. 4 _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~.CTION. March 20,1995 Approved Approved Granted OPPOSITION: None PETI'flONEi4'S COMMENTS: Cola B~ ~rtth us~~dnions~~er for Vince Scocoua, indicated they have read the staff report 9 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. roved Negative Declaration. (Findings in Paragraph No.13 of the staff report.) ACTION: App h No. 19 of the staff Approved Waiver of Code Requirement. (Findings in ParagraP report) h No. 20 of the Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3748. (Findings in Paragrap staff report) Selma Mann, Deputy C'dy Attorney, Presented the wrftten 22-day appesi rights. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) 03/20/95 Page 46 1 March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Approved 11a. CE NEre~ nFC~.ARATI,~f N Dented 11b. VARIANCE Np. 4269 OWNER: C VDVIOWAMS, and MONICA HOR~MAZA WIWAMSTEP~HE7N VAIa Terrace, Yorba Linda, CA 92666 LOCATION: 722 SoG~th Welnut~treet• ProPertY is approximately 0.13 acre located on tFs south skle of Walnut Street and approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Center Street. number of park n9 spaces to etainia second dwe lingt~~tk and minimum VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. ~5~9~--- ----------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke In opposition PETITIONER'S COMMENTS Stephen Williams, one of the owners of property at 122 S. Walnut, stated they have read the staff report and agree with the conditions. Henry Sanchez, 1120 W. Chestnut, stated he was concerned about the waivers of minimum twilding standards and felt this would have a negatNe precedernktinorah~e f h eeo fee dy a eir neighborhood. They are asking for a waN~me tst He also refereed to the waiver of recreational problem because of the heavy mix of ape area. Jonathan Boreego, Senku Planner, darifled that ft cal ~~° ~wass advertised requesting a waiver advertised with a waiver which was not necessary Y of minimum recreational-leisure area and igtbnaprobabiy noeeds to be readvertised unless the setback requirement. He added this appl issue of whether this is a 50-foot wide lot can be resolved and ff h is, then the minimum structural setback waiver Is not necessary. Kathleen Perez, 200 S. Walnut, stated according to the report, this will not affect the environment. They are already in deep trouble in this neighborhood and there is too much going on such as 03/20/95 Page 47 1 ` March 20, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA drugs, fights, etc. She felt not following the City's regulations wpl create more problems. She stated there are more and more people coming into the area because of the apartments whkh are being allowed and that parking is already a problem. She stated ff this is going to be allowed, they are going to need more pollee protection. Chairwoman Boydstun stated this Is an existing unit whkh has been there for about five Years and nothing wAl be added to the property. Richard Thomas Sd, resident on Walnut Street, recommended that this request be dented based on the fact that when this was originally bugt, it was to be a bonus nom with a bath and then it was converted to an Income unit Hs felt they should have fdlowed the rules when k was converted. In addition, the City's Traffic Engineer recommended that the parking be maintained. REBUTTAL Rudy Bracho, one of the owners and former reskJent of subject props ~, stamen living in t ete they are in this position today. This is an existing dwelling and peopl ftont and the back for some lime. During the time he lived there, there was never a parking problem but that he would admit in the surrounding neighborhood on oro~ble fe He stated he ~ a parking problem but at that location there has never been a parking p located former tenants and has letters signed by them and also the current tenants have signed letters stating there is no problem. He stated he feels the neighborhood has some problems and they are P tting wo ~ du ex soes - not attribute it to this property. He stated on both skies there is what a pea PI and the properties to the north, south and east all have a lot of recreational area. He explained there is a three-car garage in the rear and there has never been a parking problem even on street sweeping day for his tenants. Concerning the size of the property, he stated this is an dd neighborhood and at one time there was a barn in the rear and they removed h, and there is a question as to exactly where the property 11ne Is and added he really doesn't know but dkl not think it should be an Issue. Chairwoman Boydstun stated a title policy should show the property line and Mr. Bracho responded he probably has one, but thought with the amount of recreational space, ft should be approved. Chairwoman Boydstun explained the wavier for minimum recreational area was advertised, but is not necessary. Mr. Williams stated he did not think the number of people who would be residing there would contacted them ahbout the back land there wou d be noachange to the parking whethersthiselsdy granted or not. 03/20/95 Page 48 . , March 20, 1995 1 ANAHEIM GTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the applicant would check the the polky ff this matter is continued. Jonathan Borrego stated staff has a legal description on file which on a grant deed, but the Issue is whether or not that was a legal transaction. The property owner may have to make a chain of title search to figure out when that spilt between 50 feet and 46 feet actually took place. It is his t esplft probably is not legal. that~eally shou d be rectffied before additional entitlementstarete, granted. Resporxiing to Commissioner Caldwell, the applicant explained they built a 3-car garage and the bonus room above, and ft was rented to one family who used the while thing and ft was built wfth legal permfts. Mr. Williams stated ft was not built as a rental unft and explained when his partner moved out, they retained a management cobmpa~ki nil ~hrei~ ~~nges and t ey found outt later thatlthey had the rental value of the property y 9 made these modffications but they dkl not have their approval. Commissioner Henninger asked ff they obtained building permfts for those changes. Mr. Williams responded he was not aware of what they had done. Jonathan Borrego stated there was never approval for a unit wfth kftchen facilftles. Commissioner Henninger stated ft would be helpful ff someone from the Building Department would go out and see ff ft is up to Code. He thought the applicant would be interested to find out what ft will take to bring ft up to Code and ft might not be cost effective. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they can't br'ng ft up to Code standards because they do not have enough square footage. Commissioner Henninger stated assuming this is appm~ed, one of the requirements would be to bring ft up to Code standards and obtain building pe Jonathan Borrego pointed out that is a condftion of approval but that ft might be a good klea to have Code Enforcement and Building Division Inspections and determine what would be necessary to bring ft up to current codes. Commissioner Caldwell thought ff the applicants had brought this request to the Planning Commission originally, the Commission would not have approved ft and th(s is what happens when neighborhoods get left behind, and that they have absentee landloove andillegal unft.~~ is making decisions based on profft. He did not think the City should app This neighborhood has problems and heHe lives oin Broadwayonot far from this neighbofiood II lay the problems on things of this type. 03/20/95 Page 49 l March 20, 1995 j ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA ~~ and has seen the neighborhood go down. He though 'ft should not be approved and that K is wrong and was done Alegally. The owner of any property has a responsibility to take care of the property and not leave it up to somebody else who just has a profit motive. People who live tback to avbonus room amend used as recreational spa a by whoever ren etffhe ftoM un~ ~rnerted Commissbners Peraza and Mayee who do no knoiw leach other~and this wo Id belanother onell rent one bedroom to many peopl of those units. Commissioner Caldwell stated even ff these owners watch over this one, once it is approved, ft is there forever and ff they deckle to sell it, those who still live in the area would be left with the problem. He felt this would have a negative Impact on the neighborhood and he would not vote in favor of a Negative Declaration. Selma Mann stated the Negative Declaration is a determination that mates to environmental Impacts. If the Commission see ernironmentai Impacts, and could not make the determination that there is no substantial evklence that the project will have a slgniflcant effect on the environment, whether individually or cumulatively, then the Commission could vote for denial of this Negative Declaration. This is a case by case determination. Commissioner Caldwell stated the key word is "significant" and offered a motion to approve the Negative Declaration. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration (Findings in Paragraph No.9 of the staff report) Denied Variance No. 4269 deprive the peopesrty olf privileges enjoyed byi other properties U the sameozoneot and vicinity. VOTE: 6-0 (1 vacant seat) Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. WUilams pointed out the findings mad~~i in the approval originally~wa ~ He also slat ~ the circumstances. He added this is the be~,c maintained property bonus room Is rented to the tenants in the front unit, it would not be under their contrd and they could rent it out to 5 or 6 people. c>3/2o/s5 Page 50 L +. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20,1995 1 ~~ OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION: A, Chairwomen Boydstun requested that a discussbn pertaining to the possible downzoning of subject area be agendized. She suggested the homeowners contact the City and let them know ff they are interested in downzoning so the development will not continue so thick. That has bean clone in other areas of downtown and ft made a big dffference. B. Pal~mamto tthe fteeway alnd asked about the area southh of La Palmavard ftom La Melanie Adams stated she would get that information and have it at the next meeting. C, Commissioner Henninger asked about the mobilehome relocation ordinance and asked ff it is intended to cure some of the problems which the Commission saw over the last few months. Selma Mann explained that is what she is attempting to do. She explained she is working on many different things at the same time and that why that one Is not completed. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the definftion of a relocation expense will be expanded. Ms. Mann answered the only thing expanded was adding the cost of lodging and make a differentia! between single-wkle and double-widn cohae notice The focus was on the definition of a "displaced person' and specify g date applicabla. Commissioner Henninger asked about moving of the contents separately and Ms. Mann responded that was not expressly indicated and explained at the close of the last meeting, there eras a request to review the ordinance and the direction was actually to give a definition of a `displaced person"• Commissioner Henninger stated he thought moving of the contents separately should be included. Ms. Mann suggested Just bringing back the ordinance she had previously prepared in light of what happened at this hearing. Then the Commission can discuss !t. She thought that would give her clearer direction as to what the Commission wishes. She also has other sample ordinances which she can provkle for the Commission. p, it was noted that efther Commissioner Mayer or Peraza would be next Chairwoman or Chairperson 03/20/95 Page 5: ~ ' "' ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA March 20, 1995 t: APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE Commissioner Henninger nominated Commissioner Mayer as Chairwoman Pro Tempore to June 30, 199F, replacing Commissioner Tait. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PC MORNING 1NORK SESSION OF APRIL 3, 1995 AT 11:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, ~"'"~""' Edith L Harris Planning Commission Secretary 03/20/95 Page 52