Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/12/15 (2)~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2003 (Conditional Use Permit No. 1098 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04801), Item No. 8) • • r~ ; k ,~ ,, COMM(SSIONERS P~ ~ n '~ ,.-~>~ ,~ ~;V ; ~~~r ~; ~ e ~>;~ COMMIS$IOI~ERS AB ~ ~ ~H , ~ ~n #~ ~ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ; ~ ~ . -~- . e, ~ ,a ~ , .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ `~ .~~ . ~~~` ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ Councik~Cham~ers, ~ity H~II ~ :°` a ~ South Anaheim Bou~e~,~ard, Anaheim,~Califo4r'nia ~ ~ ., a . ~ _ °, ~, ' ~ m ~ ~ = °~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ° " `°' '' ~ _'~ ~~~~µ a~ ~ .~ F ° ~ ~ , ~ ~~ .~~~~ °~~ ~.~a~,~ ~~ ~5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VAND~RB~LI"~~L~NAR~ ~ENT;:` PAUL BOSTWICK, KELLY BUFFA; G~AIL`EASTM~ ~~y CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'COI~NELL~~~AVI~ ~ t. ^~, ~~`~~ - ~_ - ~. ~ NT: NONE ~~ ~tl~r~` m . ,- ,~„ e , - _ : 4~ F- ~~~,. ~, ~. ~~ -~ ~ r . ~ ~: ~ ~. ~ ~, ~ , ` ~ ~ ~ '~t ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~, r ,' ~ ~ ~. ~ ~"~~ ~~,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~;~~: '~'; r ~ s ..~..~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Attorney ,~~~ ' AlfCed Y~Ida;~F't~ncipal 7'ran~po~tation F n lan MERO Support Supv. , ,, o $.§ i~~ ` f ~s,~,,;- ;v'~ ~ Y§ . s ' _ ~ fr,~.V ~~t r„ ~;~" ~ s j . , a ~ . ~, ~ °~ < ' .' ' ~ s ~~.~~ ~ 0 ~3 '~ , ~ :~ ,~. _ ~S, ~ ~ ~ .~ , r ~ „~~ ~ , '~ ~ ~ . ~ y ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ `~ ~ , ~ e g ,s~~v~~ ~,. r~~, , ,, ~^_ ._ .~ ~ ° -~~ x ~ ,~_. ------------~---- - -------------- - ------- ------- --~~ - .:.cr---.._. --~~ -------------------------------------------~------ r p.~~ H:~DOCS~CLERICAL~MINUTES~SUPPLEMENTALMINUTES1~15~OO~fVo.~:DOC lannin commission anaheim.net ~ Selma Man;n~; Assist`an Greg Hastin,gs, Zonir~c Greg McCafiferty, Priri~ Sergeant MiC~ael Lozi Charity Wagn'"er°;, Pla~n 12-15-03 Page 1 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1098 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04801) OWNER: Huarte Family Partnership, 5036 Tierra Del Oro, Carlsbad, CA 92008 AGENT: William Talley, Talley and Associates, Inc., 25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATtON: 320 North Park Vista Street. Property is approximately 29.5 acres, located at the southeast corner of Park Vista Street and Jackson Avenue (Park Vista Mobilehome Park). Request to amend exhibits for a previously-approved mobilehome park and to permit accessory management offices. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-170 Concurred with staff Approved request to amend exhibits and to permit accessory management offices. sr1135cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 8 as a petitioner's request to amend exhibits for a previously-approved mobilehome park and to permit accessory management offices. He stated that there were essentially two things before Commission: ~J (1) There was an exhibit approved in 1969 by the City Council that had certain square footages allotted to certain uses within the clubhouse. The applicant asked to amend the exhibit. (2) That Commission determine the appropriateness of having the accessory management offices within the clubhouse beyond those necessary for the operation of the park. He asked Ms. Mann to elaborate on some of the jurisdiction issues. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated when a Conditional Use Permit is approved, it is required to operate in conformance with the conditions of approval. Ordinarily there is a condition of approval that required the project be constructed and maintained substantially in conformance with exhibits that were approved on the original approval. From time to time there may be changes that are necessitated that appear to be reasonable changes that substantially conform to what was originally approved that may be done administratively. From time to time there may be changes that deviate to an extent or there is significant disagreement as to whether they deviate to an extent that staff relays that determination of substantial conformance to the Planning Commission to have the Planning Commission determine if there is substantial conformance. In this instance, the staff elected to have the entire item to come to the Councii so that amended exhibits could be reviewed and passed upon by the Planning Commission, which would then be the exhibits for the Conditional Use Permit if approved hereafter. The Project would need to be substantially in conformance with the exhibits as they are amended. ~ The second part of the request is to have accessory management offices located in conjunction with the recreational facility. And, the Planning Commission would be making a determination whether that is an appropriate accessory use. Whether there are differences between management or the tenants with regards to other issues; the leases, the rental, etc., is something that really needs to be addressed between management and the tenants, and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. What would be most helpful to the Commission would be testimony that directly addresses the decisions that the Planning Commission would be making. Under the Brown Act you (anyone) are permitted to address the Commission and you (anyone) are permitted to tape the proceedings. There is nothing under the Brown Act that would preclude that, providing that there are no disruptions to the proceedings. 12-15-03 Page 2 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated that the applicant submitted, for Commission's review, a packet of information, which was available to anyone in the audience for review. ApplicanYs Testimony: Bill Talley, 25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA, representing the applicant, Huarte Family Partnership, stated he would summarize their request historically because they were dealing with a situation that was a third of a century old. In 1969 the use was permitted, but at that time it was a mobilehome park, and an exhibit showed a proposed draft of a community building for a senior citizen park. In point of fact, that building was never built. As best they could determine the building that is there now was built sometime subsequent to the approval. Also, the jurisdiction of the subject park and other parks had varied between the State and the City. So frequently, mobilehome park owners would go to the State for permission and then the City would come up with the use. But, the actual construction of the building and the occupancy in the building was generally approved by HCD (Housing Community Development). So what happened was that in 1969 the City approved a building of approximately 7,300 square feet. That was not built. What they believe was built was a building of approximately 8,000 square feet which incidentally, is a huge building for a clubhouse. The other three mobilehome parks that Kort and Scott own in Anaheim, one has 266 mobilehome spaces, approximately 50% larger than the subject park, and it has a 4,100 square foot clubhouse and a 1,600 square foot auxiliary clubhouse - 5,700 square feet. The subject clubhouse would be approximately 3,900 square feet if it were the same size. They have another clubhouse for a 100-space park, approximately half of the subject site - 1,650 square foot clubhouse. Lastly, they have a 1,035-space clubhouse in Brea, CA, which is approximately two- thirds of the 3,700 square feet. A 7,000 or 8,000 square foot building is a huge building, • comparatively. Also, as it was built for senior citizens activities, it had a room for pool playing, billiard playing, snooker playing, etc., things that he is not sure whether anybody does anymore. But in the 33 years that has come along since then, there was a major change in the park in the `80's and that was that the legislation said, "if you are going to run a senior park, you have to provide certain services". The services were very expensive and were fraught with legai problems. So nearly every mobilehome park in Orange County changed from what they were. When the subject park was built there were only two to his knowledge that were family parks in the County. fVow, nearly all are al!-age parks because of that. Consequently, as they started renting to families there were children and the park was not designed at the time for children. Today, there are approximately 150 children in the park and he felt their needs should be addressed. They believe that family parks are much more management intensive than senior parks. There is a lot more activity; a lot more chances for problems because of children playing in the streets, etc. In the senior parks, they did not have those kinds of problems. The other thing that happened was that as it changed into a family park the use of the clubhouse diminished substantially. Sometime before the owners bought the park (late 2000 or early 2001), there was such little use that the previous owner who owned the park for 10 years or more, locked up a number of the spaces because they were not being used. So when the subject owners came along and found the park, they found the rooms locked up and made the assumption that the spaces were nof needed. But the owner spent a lot of money, in excess of $100,000, totally refurbishing the clubhouse. They also redid the streets. If Commission were to drive out there today they would see that it is a very beautiful park; if they were to walk into the building, it is a gorgeous building; and if they were to drive the streets, they are very clean. Plus when the park was built it had an extreme excess of parking spaces that continues today. So when the new owners looked at the park and found that in this building there was this unused space, they consolidated some of their management activities there. The corporate office is in • Los Angeles, but the management of the park and other parks are now centralized in the subject building. All of the people in the building are office-type workers. They work basically a 9 to 5 operation. They do things such as accounting, risk management, human resources, lease administration, billing/collecting, etc., things that are typical of mobilehome parks in general and 12-15-03 Page 3 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • specifically to the park as well as others. There are no other outside businesses being conducted there. However, a number of the residents brought to the management that they felt they had the right to the space that had been boarded up for years, which nobody said anything about. At the same time, management was attempting to communicate with their residents and had identified the fact that it was correct that they had a different clientele today and was probably appropriate to build an expansion on the existing clubhouse and also bring in facilities for children. So they recommended that they create an addition to the existing hall plus add barbeque and fenced tot lot areas. And because it was brought up that there was going to be a charge and therefore some way the residents were going to be "cheated" out of something because they were going to "pay for it", management also declared that management would absorb those costs. There would be "no charge and no pass through". Nothing would add any expense to the residents. Also it was mentioned that there was a problem with the parking. So they went out and took parking all around the building last Thursday around 11 o'clock in the morning, and there is not a parking problem. The occupants of the building work Monday through Friday, normal office hours. In an all-age park, that would be the time to find the most vacancies if there was a shortage of parking. But they do not have a shortage and it more than meets the City standards, even with the additional people. There are no issues from a parking standpoint. Lastly, to talk about what went on in the past, they have tried to resurrect that somewhat but the tenure in the park has changed dramatically. Ninety-percent of the residents have moved in within the last 10 years and fully half of them within the last 5 years. So, they could not find when a!I of the issues took place. The oldest lease they could find began in 1984, fifteen years after the permission was granted. The most recent one was 1988, nineteen years after it happened. So sometime between 1988 and 2003, the changes took place. Virtually many of the seniors moved out; the all-age park was established; the children moved in; and parts of it were locked up. In talking to the City they felt that they should come before Commission and ask that it amend the • original 1969 exhibit for a building that was never built, to reflect the building that exists today, along side fhe addition that they have committed to build, so that starting in 2004 the exhibit that was approved would be one that reflected the actual usage and the actual footprint of the building plus the area outside. The reason that they are unclear on exactly how many square feet they are talking about is that some of the residents have said that they do not want the tot-lot, barbeque area and to take down the "vegetation" that covered one fence that bfocked sight of an oil lease. So they are going to take as much as possible from the area, between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet, without disturbing the view. The other reason they are a little uncertain of how many square feet there is is because when putting up tot lots, swings, etc., there are certain drop zones and other accommodations that they must make by law and they have not been able to "spec" all of that out yet. But the original 7,300 square feet would be somewhere between 12,000 and 12,500 total square feet. In taking everything originally proposed for use by residents are support services, such as laundry rooms that were never built or food courts that were never built, pool facilities and pool support facilities, equipment, etc., and add it up to approximately 7,000 square feet, it would add to approximately 8,300 to 8,800 square feet. Therefore, they think that they have more than met the test of not diminishing services. In conclusion, they do not believe there has been a demolishing of services or facilities. The residents are getting more than they call for, and the proposed amendment fully meets the standards that the City has aiready established to the extent that the City has jurisdiction over it, because they are all still confused about where HCD stops or starts and the City comes on from there. Public Testimony: • Johnnie Evington, 320 N. Park Vista, Space 104, Anaheim, CA, stated that she has lived in the mobilehome park since 1985 and the changes that the applicant talked about never took place because she has never seen anything locked up (prior to the applicants coming). The applicants let them start having parties in the party room but they were locked out of every other thing. The 12-15-03 Page 4 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • card tables and pool tables were moved into the big party room, the only room they now have. While she and a few ladies were in the room trying to play cards some young people came in to play pool, and they could not play cards because of the noise. It was mentioned that they did not use the facilities, but they did use the facilities. On September 11'h they even had prayer meetings in the card room for the victims. The reason they currently do not use the facilities is because they are locked out. The building is closed at 5 o'clock, but they would like to have something in the evenings, such as a card game, They would like to have their card room and their facilities back and they do not want the other things. She stated that when the applicants first came they sent out a survey and they were told that the residents wanted a playground for the children. There are still senior citizens living there. She would soon be 81 years old and there are some older than her. She still likes to do shuffleboard but it is all faded out. It needs repainting so that they could use it. The applicants made a lot of mistakes in what was told to the Commission but she was telling the truth. She has lived there since 1985, in the front in space 104, and could see trucks coming in and out, though she did not understand what it was all about. One day they had an appointment to play cards in the big room and the girl that made the reservations had been told that the room would not be available. She did not know it was not available and went over anyway and trucks were lined up there. She sees the trucks coming in and out all of the time and knows something is going on besides renting apartments because it does not take many people to run their mobilehome park. John Conlon, President of the Rio Vista Homeowners Association, 320 N. Park Vista, #52A, stated that he represented 111 homes out of the 190 present. The applicants proposing to amend CUP 1098 was a direct result of a code department violation resulting in Code Enforcement action. Park management proposed to use a private residential community for multi-park management offices. The applicant referred to the management offices as accessory management offices, but they were multi-park management offices and corporate headquarters • for all other Lee Kort and Michael Scott owned enterprises. The issues began in 2002 when he made a complaint to HCD, and formally began with the City of Anaheim on December 13, 2002, when he reported to the licensing division that numerous commercial businesses were being operated out of the location zoned for residential land use. The licensing division determined that the issue needed to be turned over to the Code Enforcement Department. The clubhouse, for their legally binding leases, is for the exclusive use of the community residents and guests but a private community now houses multi-park management offices and 25 plus, Kort and Scott corporations, LLC's and LP's. The subject space no longer provided exclusive use for anyone but the aforementioned commercial entities. Mr. Arrigotti and the representatives of Kort and Scott in response to his HCD complaint made the following statements: ^ That oniy 12 percent of the clubhouse has been taken. (That is not true. The maps, etc., provided for Commission would show that it is an untrue statement.) ^ Mr. Conlon's concerns and complaints have no merit and are unfounded. I can assure you Rio Vista Management will and always has endeavored to diligently comply with all applicable laws, ordinance codes and policies pertaining to the operation of the park. ^ Only nine parking spaces are used at any one time for management personnel. (That is untrue. They use the entire side of the lot next to the swimming pool so that at summertime it is completely unavailable for any residents and their guests. The office space being utilized or sections of the clubhouse, i.e. that are not used, i.e., storage rooms and vacant window spaces, have taken up all of the window spaces in the front.) ^ Evaluation of construction is $1,000. (That is the report that they put on their HCD permit that was filed in 2003, when the construction actually took place in 2002.) • Further there was no diminishing of service; rather we increased the services and amenities. 12-15-03 Page 5 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DE7AILED MINUTES • ^ There are only 4 employees who work out of the newly created offices. (Their own report shows that there are more than 4 employees.) ^ I trust this letter will assist in providing a clear picture to everyone that has a valid pack stating Mr. Conlon's complaints, and that you find his complaint unfounded and without merit. ^ The request to approve modifications of the existing exhibits will not change the actual use of this building. (True, they will not because corporate headquarters are already there.) ^ Business hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with some modified hours common to management business practices. (That is consistent with people who are doing business on the east coast and have location central and who operate with more than one shift. "Well, I don't think here they have more than one shift. I leave work for 5:30 a.m. and their offices are already open.") ^ Why did Lee Kort, Michael Scott choose Rio Vista mobile estates with a 10,000 square foot clubhouse building? (This formerly, private, peaceful community of Rio Vista Mobile Estates provides them with a very cost effective replacement for the 8,000 square feet of prime commercial space that they vacated in Irvine, CA.) (On December 11, 2003, and again on December 13, 2003, we received an update from Rio Vista community management team outlining the facts as they see them as misconceptions perpetrated by a few misinformed residents in opposition to the occupation of the park.) • ^ Exactly what is being proposed: (Let's be honest, this is not a proposal. It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission. This is what is happening here, the construction of the office spaces. Not renovation of the indoor recreational facilities almost two years ago, and which was completed well over a year and a half ago. This is not a proposal.) Why are some residents opposed to making changes and adding new facilities? Probably because they are not well informed and they may think that the cost of proposed improvements will somehow result in an increase in rent. (7hat is just not the case. In fact, we are very well informed. These so called renovations of our clubhouse is the commercial endeavors of Lee Kort and Michael Scott have already cost over $160,000 with no small amount of $103,000 being passed to us as a permanent rent increase. This is not a conjuncture of our part. We have examined the invoices and the general contractors proposal for the renovations of our clubhouse. We can tell you by name of the person occupying an office and what exactly was done to convert it into an office space. There are many adjectives that can be attached to Rio Vista mobile homeowners, but uninformed is not one of them.) (Applicants insist they took over underutilized space in the clubhouse. They claim that they did not often observe residents playing cards or reading in the library. Quite frankly, homeowners did not sign a contract with the conditional use clause "use it or lose it" in our leases.) ^ Is the kitchen area available for residents use when the clubhouse is open? Yes of course it is. Residents are encouraged to utilize and enjoy the clubhouse facilities. Unfortunately, a few folk in the park are passing on silly rumors about residents not being ~ able to use the kitchen and other facilities. This is not only a serious misrepresentation, but it is absolutely silly. (Though we are unaware of any kitchen rumors, silly or otherwise, it certainly did not escape our attention that there is a line item in the staff report that says the applicant proposes to move the spa pool equipment and 12-15-03 Page 6 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES . kitchen to the new multi-purpose room. Mr. Arrigotti and representatives are absolutely correct when they state there is a serious misrepresentation put forth, but it is clear the misrepresentation and misleading statements belong to management, not the homeowners.) We seek clarification and explanations to these misrepresentations. Is there a proposal to relocate the kitchen whereas the homeowners would completely be closed off from a 10,000 square foot building and relocated into a 1,800 square foot multi-purpose room? We ask the legal occupancy of this room, and also request a proposal to look into the kitchen. Regarding the map: The clubhouse building dimensions translates to just about 10,000 square feet. The applicant, in fact, is asking for the City's permission to replace over 7,000 square feet of the residenYs exclusive usage with less than 1,900 square feet, located in a muiti-purpose room that would secure the homeowners away from their commercial endeavors. Community homeowners categorically reject all proposals in any form that would have a commercial business operating inside a private residential community. The community was zoned for residential land use and residents will not accept anything else. If Kort and Scott find that their onsite management team is insufficient to manage the park, then Kort and Scott needs to make business decisions to install a new management team that can handle the day to day operations. As evidence has shown, Rio Vista Mobile Estates business management is no more complicated and time consuming than any other park that Kort and Scott own. Lela McDuff, 320 N. Park Vista, #42, Anaheim, CA, declined the opportunity to speak, but • presented a speakers' card in opposition. Rosalind Kasen, 320 N. Park Vista, #17, Anaheim, CA, stated that she had a sweet-sixteen birthday party for her daughter last January, on a Friday and asked the manager of the office if it would be alright if they came in anytime of the day to get the decorations, table, area for D.J. etc., set up. The manager said no problem, come in. She went in with her daughter, son, and two of her friends, with a very small radio, her CD's and all of the decorations. They were in there having fun. They believed it was their little area that they were supposed to be able to have fun in. The manager of the mobile home estates came in and asked them to quiet down because they could not run their business with all the racket going on. But, as far as she knew, there was only the manager and his wife there. She wondered who all the other peopfe would be; she did not know who the people in their clubhouse were. She went out to get lunch and brought back ice for the party, sodas, etc., but when she went to use the kitchen area, she had to move so much stuff in the refrigerator and freezer just to get her things in, and some cabinets were locked up. People were coming in and out of the offices and appearing a little irate because she had moved their lunches around in the refrigerator to accommodate her party that she had to pay a down payment on just to cover the room. To her it seemed as though she was intruding even though the kitchen is supposed to be open for them to use at anytime. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that while he appreciated their input and the speakers were free to speak their minds, he wished to reiterate that there were some issues that fell into management/tenant issues and issues that were spelled out in the lease. The Planning Commission was not really in a position to enforce items stipulated in the lease but it was for other jurisdictions to handle. And that Commission had received quite a few e-mails that touched on areas that talked about how limited the parking was, UPS deliveries, hours of operation of the clubhouse, etc., that were very well stated and documented. He asked that for the purposes of the subject public hearing, if fhey could focus their comments on the change in the structure that ~ the clubhouse originally was constructed under, and the applicants seeking modifications to it, as well as the issues of the leasing companies' use of that space for commercial purposes. 12-15-03 Page 7 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Susan Figueroa, 320 N. Park Vista St., #147, Anaheim, CA, stated she and her husband moved into the park in 1997 and at that time Dorothy Dewer owned the ground lease to the park. One of the major factors for them moving in was the fact that there was a clubhouse amenity, because they have a Disc Jockey business and liked to have parties. But unfortunatefy, they have been locked out of the clubhouse for a long time. She offered to show photos and a clubhouse function request form dated May 30, 1998, showing that they used the recreational room, card room and kitchen. In addition to having pictures showing that they had a Christmas party the same year. After the current park management took over, they requested the use of the clubhouse for five months every other Sunday from Ms. Amy Miller, the Senior Asset Manager for Sierra Corporate Management. So for the applicants to claim that they were not using the clubhouse is not a true statemenf because they used it for five months, and she had a copy of the letter to show as well. The reason she wrote to her was because she had a couple of compiaints. One of which they were double booked and another time no one came to unlock the ciubhouse, which should show that it was locked every weekend. She also offered to show a couple of other documents that she believed Commission might not be interested in which was a copy of their rules and regulations and their lease. Rosalie Gomez, 320 N. Park VisYa, #52, Anaheim, CA, agreed going back to the past, in 1969 was not relevant, but believed what was relevant was what the building looked like when they bought the business to run the park and to what the applicants turned it into. There were 190 spaces but a floor plan was not drawn and she believed that the applicants could have drawn a floor plan to show what it looked like when they bought it. Laura Millard, 320 N. Park Vista #52A, Anaheim, CA, stated they spent a substantial amount to buy their home, over $60,000. They have two small children and thought they were buying into a residential community, and now find that the applicants want to change it into a commercial enterprise. The businesses being there have dramatically increased the nonresident, non-visitor • activity in the park (and that is when they are trying to lay low and not let anyone know that they are actually operating there). So she cannot imagine that if Commission does approve it, what the business portion of that would be at that time. One of her main concerns is that she has two young chifdren and needs to know who belongs in the park and who does not. She does not want people walking through and/or having keys to areas that were only exclusively to the homeowners. People access restrooms on the other side of what their kids would access so she no longer lets them go in the restrooms by themselves, and just does not feel that the commercial activity belongs in the mobilehome park. Milt Burdick, a GSMOL, Vice President of Zone C which covers Orange County, San Bernadino County, and Los Angeles County, 5900 Carbon Canyon Rd., #131, Brea, CA, stated that the people there are not tenants; they are not residents; they are homeowners. They have a dual personality; they are a homeowner and a renter. They have 134 spaces, not 135. When the office was put in they had 88 spaces, not 134. They cannot extend their clubhouse because mobile homes were buiit around the clubhouse when the 88 spaces were built in 1965. So it would be a misnomer to say that they have the small office because of the fact that they had 135 spaces. He stated regarding Item No. 17, page 4(December 15, 2003 Staff Report}, that he had three concerns: 1) lt would be considered a change of the rules and regulations of the park. When the rules and regulations of the park are changed there is a state law that covers it called a mobite home residency law, No. 798.25. The law states that when the rules and regulations of a park are going to change the owner must meet with the residents of the park or the homeowners of the park and give them a 10 day written notice prior to the meeting. This was not done; theyjust changed them. 2) That it would be changing the lease that he signed. When he moved into the park his signature was given and the park owner signed it with him, They are changing the contract that he signed with the park that stated he would have the clubhouse to use. 3) Article ~ 2798.15, Item (e), description of the improvements during the tenancy talks about rental or lease , agreements. They would have to spell out in writing the improvements and the duration of the tenancy he has with the owner. 12-15-03 Page 8 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt apologized that he had to reiterate asking that the speakers focus on issues not related to the lease. He clarified that although the speakers' points are relevant that if they had a dispute with the leases they should either take it to a state agency or a fegal entity such as a loca! court system and not the Planning Commission. He asked, as a courtesy, if speakers could limit their comments to areas with respect to the change of the square footage of the facility or the commercial operation on the site, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to review. Mr. Burdick stated that they should have complied with the mobilehome residency law before they ever brought it to the Planning Commission, which they did not do. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Commissioner Romero, who has a real estate license, to speak to the speaker. Commissioner Romero clarified that although the Planning Commission is not making light of his concerns regarding his lease and items, they cannot hefp him because the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the stated concerns. Mr. Burdick stated he was not asking for Commissions help to interpret the law because it is a civil law and they have the civil courts. But regarding the size of office spaces or clubhouses, he covered three counties and has been to many mobilehome parks in the three counties and he found on the average the office space is about the size of a double car garage. He stated that on page 6, No. 22 (b) &(d) (December 15, 2003 Staff Report), it stated that traffic was okay, but it was an adult park at one time and now it is a family park. He does not know how many spaces the applicant uses for the business going in and out and customers coming in and out, but children play in the park, the park is located directly next to a swimming pool. So • although the applicants may not be using the spaces, there are children running around playing in the park. It is a danger to the children. He stated that he understood Commission stating they could not do anything about the laws (lease), but felt Item No. 23 (d), (e) and (f), page 6, (December 15, 2003 Staff Report), were sufficient for Commission to terminate the Conditional Use Permit that already existed. Wallace Trigg, 320 N. Park Vista St., Anaheim, CA, stated he would like to discuss things that he would assume are the business of the Planning Commission, such as the applicants building a tot lot. And he would not argue that it might not be nice but would question the necessity of it because he has heard the word "necessary" from them; "they need this and they need that". But directly across the street from their park there is an immense City park with all kinds of equipment, far more than they would have in their tot lot, with supervision during the hours if is opened, and toys given out, etc. A nice park which the taxpayers spent a lot of money to build. He asked why if they do not want to walk 25 feet across the street, it is necessary to build a tot Iot. From a standpoint of the necessity of the big buildings, residents had all the buildings they needed for their recreational facilities. The applicant's excuse is that they were not being used. But they were not being used because they let them run down to the point where the residents could not use them. The pool table pockets were so that if you hit a ball it fell through to the floor and you would chase it across the room to get it. If they wanted to play shuffleboard, they did not have the equipment with which to do if. And that is why they were not used. The excuse that the residents did not want to is not true. Those things are important. They are important to those who live there. About the parking spaces, there are a lot of spaces vacant there but it is because if you wanted to park in them, you would have to pay for them. Ann Cassidy, 320 N. Park Vista St., SP 119, Anaheim, CA, stated that before when they had ~ Dorothy Dewer as the owner or the leaser of the land, they did not need a GSMOL and they did not need a homeowners association. They knew each other and they were really happy to be living where they were living. They had a great clubhouse. They played cards. They had a reading room with a fireplace and they used it. The banquet room that they are being allowed is 12-15-03 Page 9 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETA(LED MINUTES ~ a small room where they used to do their aerobics or dancing around, and they would get together and play pool. The rooms were a!I separated so that if others were playing pool, someone could go into the reading room and have a nice quiet area with the fireplace going just to read a nice book from the bookshelves. There was a separate area that the applicants are now using for their office spaces, and that the residents are being locked out of, where they would play cards or bingo or arts and crafts. She makes quifts for children with cancer at CHOC and she used to use the area to lay out her fabric because she did not have the area in her home, but it has been closed off to her. So while it might not seem necessary to the Planning Commission it meant a lot to the children because she could not make as many quilts because she no longer had the room to lay out her fabric. A lot of the homeowners were working and could not come but they wanted her to express their sincere hope that Commission would understand that they wanted things like they were. They wanted their clubhouse back. She is a retired interior designer and is disabled. They had a management team that had a nice large office (approximately, an 8x10 room) and the rest of the clubhouse was theirs to use from 9 in the morning to 9 in the evening and they used it, But when the new owners came in they locked them out. They did not allow them to have their meetings anymore nor their card games and reading room. They reconstructed everything and put the cost on to the homeowners with an increased rental allowance. She is on disability and is given a 10% monthly stipend for rental. It is getting to the point, even though she owns her home, that she is going to have to move out because she cannot keep affording the huge rental increases and does not know where she would go. She did not want to go into anything that was not relevant but to her the relevance is that the clubhouse was theirs. The applicants gave them only one room in the ciubhouse but they wanted to build on. She felt what they already had is what they wanted to build and they should give it back. There are so many people working there that she can never get into the handicap parking because they are using it, • She asked the many Rio Vista homeowners present to stand in support of what they had all been stating. She stated that the homeowners present were the people who took off from work that could actually afford to take off and that there were a lot of disabled, like her, and older homeowners who could not come leave the house because they were on machines, but that she wanted Commission to know that half the room was filled with people who were in disagreement or in opposition to the applicant's request. Chairperson Vanderbilt wished to understand if she stated that khere was a handicap parking space that she could not use because it was being occupied. Ms. Cassidy replied, but not with a handicap car. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it was a resident Ms. Cassidy replied that she believed it was on the side where Kort and Scott were working. It was easier for her to park in the handicap spot and walk to the office instead of having to walk all the way around the building because their employees were parked there. Karen Dupack, 320 N. Park Vista St., Space 150, Anaheim, CA, asked why the necessity to build more. She stated that the applicants were pawning off the "cheap little" tot lot and four barbeques on them and the rest of the building would be used for the applicants. The applicants went on and on about how big the clubhouse is so she asked, "Well, isn't it enough; isn't it enough to handle what we need?" The applicants need to remake and rebuild and it is not for the residents. Nothing that is going down is for the residents and she is in extreme opposition to the request. Charles Hugill, 2901 E. Greenhedge Avenue, adjacent to the mobilehome park, stated that when he received the card (City notification) he wondered what it was about. But it seemed to him what ~ Commission was about to decide had to do with zoning and approval of projects within a residential area. The home he and his family live in is also in the residential area and they share a wall with the mobile home park. And what is being discussed today goes back to the originai development of the property from when it was an avocado grove and he was getting the 12-15-03 Page 10 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ impression that the applicants were planning major offices that did not have to do with the residences and the spaces in the immediate vicinity. It would be an increase in non-residential activity in a residential area and the only non-resident business would be the apartments, which was a residential function. Also, directly across from the entrance was a bus stop for school children. Therefore, he felt it important to keep the area residential and not commercial in activity. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Talley wished to clarify two things both for the residents and the other members of the public who might be iistening: 1) Part of the CUP is to align what exists versus what was approved in 1969. So when staff stated they wanted to relocate the spa or the pool equipment or the kitchen or remove the food court, that is because they are recommending to have the exhibit reflect what was built after 1969 rather than what the original draft proposal said. They are not proposing to move any of the facilities and are not proposing to get rid of those things. They are merely letting the new exhibit reflect what was built in 1969. 2) Last Thursday photographs were taken of all the parking around the facifity. The park is very over parked from a City standpoint. Each space is supposed to have two spaces but there are a!ot of extra spaces and so what has happened is that the mobile home park management at tenants request have rented 20 spaces out that they could revoke on a 30-day notice to free up the 20 spaces that nobody is using, other than the folk who are renting them now, because some of the families have need for more than two spaces so that in cases where they would want to store a boat, etc., that would be allowed. But, if parking ever became an issue management had the right to withdraw the permits and not allow the people to park there. But there has been so much availabls parking that they have not done it. Lastly, under California State Law management could change provisions in a lease, with notice. Management could close the clubhouse with a six-months notice and not violate any law. However, they were not proposing to do anything like that. As a matter of fact, they were ~ proposing to extend the hours because they were answering the request that the residents did not like closing at 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. A statement from Dorothy Dewer, the owner of the park for over 10 years before the current owners purchased it, stated that her clubhouse hours were until 4:30 p.m. So regardless to what had been stated today, all they can go by is what the prior owner stated in the letter to fhem, as well as being told by her that they closed the spaces out of lack of use. The statement was made that the pool tables were so beat up that balls feil through, etc., and maybe they were, they do not know; they just know that when they took over a few years ago, it was all locked up. They had to go out and buy equipment when they took two of the pool tables out of the locked up area. And after they refurbished the clubhouse, put them in where they could be used, with new balis, cue sticks, etc. Also, they were not talking about a 10,000 square foot buiiding because everybody knows that the building is approximateiy 8,000 square feet. It is not what was planned. Of that, they want approximately 2,900 square feet for offices. All but two of the 11 employees work on current park activities and they work on other parks also. A major corporation needed people for risk management, accounting, leasing, purchasing, etc., and that has been centralized at the subject site. And if Commission did not allow them to have that they would have to go somewhere else because they could not stop sending bills out of Accounting, etc. Their mobilehome park is in the business of renting space to a number of people and they have to protect themselves from a leasing standpoint, a purchasing standpoint, etc., and the subject site is what the owners have chosen. It was being done in a nonobtrusive manner and would meet the City code. They are willing to add every bit of space back that may have existed in 1969 and until some point after that and more, reflecting today's residents, including the children. In answer to the person who asked, "why don't you take them across the street to the park? " They asked residents how they felt about that and was told that it was more convenient to be able to walk in their own park ~ instead of having to cross the street into the other park, and that they were a little concerned sometimes about activity over there and would much rather have the tot lot at the subject site. And that is why they are proposing to build a tot lot. 12-15-03 Page 11 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSiON SUPPLEMENTAL DETAiLED MINUTES ~ They conducted a survey of how much activity was going on af the pool, the spa, and in the clubhouse, that was provided to Commission before the hearing. The survey showed observations made by various peopfe from May 2003 until December 2003, over six months time that would support their contention that fhere was not a lot of activity there. They are prepared to continue to expand the clubhouse at no cost to the residents, but it was not one of the things where the residents chose to go in there and were in someway treated poorly. They just were not there. He believed they were doing the right thing; believed they were being good landlords; and believe that they have tried to communicate with the homeowners and are trying to give them what they want, other than the homeowners just do not want anybody there and they cannot ever reach that compromise. They have tried and the homeowners just said, "there is no way we will accept that no matter what you propose, no matter what you agree to do, we just won't agree." So management had no place to come except to the Commission to see the CUP exhibit amended. They would like to carryon with their business, which they are entitled to do, in a business-like way and continue to serve the residents with expanded and better facilities. THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores stated that Commission could not do anything about the cost and if they wanted to do the renovation that was fine, but she questioned what type of business would be conducted in the management office. Mr. Talley responded the only business that was currently conducted there and the only business that would be conducted there was the operation of mobilehome parks owned by Kort and Scott period. ~ Commissioner Flores asked if they had the business over in Irvine. Mr. Talley responded they rented some space over there but that apparently the residents knew more than he did about it because they said in their presentation that they rented 8,400 square feet. He knew they were occupying less than 3,000 feet and that was all they were asking for. They have 11 people there and do not know what they did in Irv+ne or why, and that he did not personally have the answer to her question. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify whether or not he knew if the business that closed was taking over the subject business. Mr. Talley responded that he believed if they were there (~rvine) that the employees working there were relocated to the subject site. And if there were 8,400 square feet occupied over there he did not know where the 5,000 plus square feet of use went. But they are talking about 11 people, all office workers, all working on mobile home parks owned by Kort and Scott period. Commissioner Flores asked what the office hours were. Mr. Talley responded the office hours are primarily 9 to 5, except if there was a need to have flexible scheduling. In such a case they would probably work 7 to 4 or something. The exception would be management people who typically did not work the normal hours of 9 to 5, and who might be found there at 8 p.m., etc., which would be found under any circumstance in any park. Commissioner Flores asked if they were only doing Rio Vista management work. Mr. Talley responded no, Rio Vista and other mobile parks owned by Kort and Scott. • Commissioner Flores asked how many parks Kort and Scott owned. Mr. Talley responded over 20. 12-15-03 Page 12 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt stafed that in regards to the operation of the subject park and the other 19 or 20, there had been some photographs and exhibits presented with respect to deliveries and he wondered if he had any sense for whether the deliveries were of parts or maintenance, etc., or if they were small package deliveries or large deliveries. Mr. Talley responded that there were three kinds of operations: 1) Corporate, which was located in Los Angeles. 2) Maintenance; each park had its own maintenance where they might have mowers or things to maintain the facilities. Those were located in the parks. 3) Office; both park office and general multi-park office activities, which he believed they were talking about. They would deliver envelopes or once in a while a copying machine or a computer, but they do not have any kind af bulk activity there or any heavy equipment or anything such as that. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked what category would be identified for the business ficense. Mr. Talley responded one of the problems they had is that when they went to HCD and received approval for the capital improvements they went to the City and got a business license for mobile home park management offices and they thought they were covered until Code Enforcement said they could not do that because it was bigger than the 1969 or the subsequent exhibit. They already have a business license there and they believe they have the construction approved there. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked what was the category of the business license. Mr. Talley responded it just states mobilehome park management office. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained that he asked because he wished to get a sense for the nafure of things because real estate management could be very administrative or it could be very ~ industrial. Mr. Talley responded that they do not own any industrial and they do not buy and sell through the offices. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified that he was stating in terms of the fact that he was operating a park that had pools and a pool was not an office-type operation. Mr. Talley responded no, and they would pay the bills for poo! maintenance there but the pool maintenance activities would be conducted at the park itself. The same as an apartment house where there were two or three apartments. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that Commission received two sets of exhibits, one set came from the applicant that showed photographs of some of the parking spaces adjacent to the clubhouse that were taken last Thursday at 11 a.m., and then there were exhibits that the residents provided on a weekday, also pictures that were brought on a weekend and they paint two different pictures. The residents' weekday pictures showed a lot that was full and the applicanYs photos showed a section of the parking lot that was not full. Mr. Talley responded that he did not know what to say. He could not comment regarding the weekends because obviously the office workers were not there and they would expect that there would be more people who would want to park around the pool area or the general building. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that the photos he provided at 11 a.m, on Thursday showed the parking spaces empty. He asked if any employees were there at that time. Mr. Tally stated they take 10 parking spaces. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the parking spaces shown in the picture were the 10 spaces. 12-15-03 Page 13 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMtSSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Mr. TaAy responded they park on both sides, but pictures 1 and 2 primarily showed where the office workers parked. Occasionally, an employee might park in the area shown on picture 5. But the areas shown in pictures 1 and 2 were where the heaviest concentration of parking spaces were that residents rented, in addition to the two on their sites. Picture 5 showed only one parking space; Picture 4 showed two parking spaces; Picture 3 showed four parking spaces; but in pictures 1 and 2 there were 5 or 6 parking spaces that were rented to residents. A total of 20 parking spaces located around the building were rented to residents. He did not know how many parking spaces were occupied by the residents who pay, when he took the pictures, but felt they would not take any more than 10 under any circumstances. He encouraged anybody who found a handicapped space occupied by a non-handicapped person, to call the police to have them cited, because there should not be a reason that the employees would occupy a handicap space, since none were handicap. Commissioner Eastman asked if police would actually come onto private property to issue a ticket. Audience unison responded no, (because someone called). Mr. Tally suggested writing down the license plate number and giving it to management to handle. Commissioner Flores said she could not say anything about the changes and recreational amenities that they wanted to do, but she was concerned about the on-site management offices, and would be opposed to having other businesses there. Mr. Tally stated it is very common for mobilehome parks, when an owner has more than one park, to have offices in one of the parks serving all the parks. In Stanton, CA, one of the parks ~ built a building on-site, and Sunkist Manor had a central office for a number of years. The owners had to have somewhere fo conduct their business, and the best place to do it is in a mobilehome park. It would give more on-site management, and he could not understand why accountants, risk managers, human resource personnel, secretaries, etc., would cause a major problem during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, to the residents or anyone else. Commissioner O'Connel! referred to Mr. Conlon and wished to understand issues regarding the clubhouse. He asked of the 8,000 square foot building if he understood that the applicants were proposing to take up approximately 3,000 square feet of the building for offices and the other 5,000 square feet would be for the residents' clubhouse, including the amenities as far as the pool room, kitchen, etc. Mr. Conlon responded no, it was not correct. Originally, of the 8,000 square feet of space there were 500 feet for management. It was for the manager; normally a husband and wife team, and a maintenance person. That was the only office they had. There was a pool table room, which was approximately 1,000 square feet; card table room, which was approximately 700 plus square feet; kitchen, hallways and restrooms. But in the additions, the applicants stated they were adding up all of the other things such as fhe restrooms, hallways, etc., which they were stating that it was for the residents exclusive use, but the residents would have to share all of those things with management. The 2,900 square feet that the applicant stated was for them only, was just for the offices. That would not include the bathrooms, hallway, kitchen, etc., that they would use for their breaks, and the "Great Hall" as they call it, that they wouid use as their lunchroom. Additionaily, it would not include the fact that they would go out and have cigarette breaks out by the swimming pool, or that they would take their lunch breaks there. There is not 5,000 square feet left for the residents. The total currently left exclusively for the residents use, is the "Great Hall", which is approximately 1,900 square feet and Jacuzzi area, which is approximately 700 square feet. He felt the applicants' estimates were a little different than the residents. ~ Commissioner O'Connelly wished to understand if he was saying that the applicants basically condensed their space from 8,000 to 4,000. 12-15-03 Page 14 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Mr. Conlon responded yes, actually they have 2,000 square feet remaining. Commissioner asked if he understood him to say the kitchen had become community; that they could go in there at anytime but they might find employees in there. Mr. Conlon responded yes, and if they opened up the refrigerator they might see all of their lunches. When the residents signed their leases, it was for their use only and for the management that was there, which were two people. But they lived on-site and did not really need the kitchen as a break area. And now there were people in the "Great Hall," which is supposed to be the residents' room. Frankly, Mr. Tally said they did a survey and that nobody used the facilities or uses them now, and that the survey was from May until now. He concurred that they do not use it because they have been locked out of it. And when they do use it the applicants come and mingle around and the residents are told that they are making too much noise. They have file cabinets in a back corner that was not mentioned as part of their space, which is approximately 200 square feet. They go in there all day long and get their files without a care as to what the residents are doing. They have also suggested that, during the parties that the residents have to pay a$250 deposit to reserve the great hall after hours, residents are allowed to use the facilities even though it is being opened for someone to have a private function. But, most residents had enough regard for their neighbors and friends to know that if they were having a party which would include the pool table, not to bust in and disrespect them. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, clarified that staff verified with the applicant and determined that the exhibit approved in 1969 showed that the total square footage of the clubhouse was 7,320 square feet of floor area; of which, approximately 300-400 square feet was allotted for offices. Chairperson Vanderbilt concurred with Commissioner Flores that he was in favor of the proposed ~ changes but had concerns regarding the commercial use in the residential area. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he met with Mr. and Mrs. Talley and had a phone conversation with Mr. Figueroa, and he visited the park on Saturday at 11 a.m. He drove around the park and looked at the new spaces being built; parked on the north side of recreational hall and walked the entire building, inside and outside. He felt if the residents' were questioning whether people were strangers, the restrooms were wide open and he could have been the molester of the month, but there was no one around. He advised that parents needed to take care of their own children; it was not up to park management to take care of children, the residents needed to do that as parents. Traffic wise, a resident with a lowered Chevy who came from one of the far corner homes almost ran him over. So he did not believe the outside traffic was the problem, but that younger families and younger drivers tended to squeal their wheels and drive excessively. He believed the parking around the complex was tremendously great. He worked in the mobilehome field, and serviced and repaired mobilehomes throughout Orange County for 37 years and does not believe there is a park anywhere with as great of parking; on the backside and sides of the clubhouse, and on the north side. He suggested that maybe they could work out something so that everybody would be able to use the south side next to the pool. He further suggested that on South Street, along the fence on the south side of the park, was a great asset for additional parking for families that had three cars. He stated that there was no requirement in the State code for a recreational hall; it was strictly a business decision. Trucks would come and go out of the park on a normal basis for normal operating issues. It is part of life. It is not as though they were parking commercial trucks. He does not feel that they are doing a business that is accessory to the operation or that they had some other type of business there, but that it is management and accessory to the business. He ~ explained that if they did not have the offices there, a number of people would visit the site on a sporadic basis. Risk management would have to evaluate the park and see what insurance requirements were necessary, and maybe do an inspection with their carrier, etc. 12-15-03 Page 15 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMlSSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ He was satisfied that the applicants agreed to add square footage in the new room and was not concerned about the tot lot, because there was a park across the street. But, if it were a good sell and was a business decision the owners wished to engage in, that would be their decision. He just wanted them to get the plans to match what they were proposing. Commissioner Romero stated that the concerns before Commission were whether the owner had the right to make the changes to the building and whether he could have the accessory use to that building. He felt that if the applicants wanted to close the whofe recreational room, they could. The applicants absolutely had the right to make the changes and if they wanted to use the 3,000 square feet for accessory office spaces, they had the right to do so as well. If that meant the residents had to share the kitchen with 13 employees, it would be a fair trade to have the amenities. Commissioner Buffa stated that when she originally read the staff report it was not clear to her that of the 13 employees on site, 11 of them were in some way connected with the facility. That being the case, she did not know how they could make an accommodation that would not be an accessory office use. It is an accessory use and under the zoning of the City it is an allowed use in a residential zone. From today's testimony it was very clear that the space was not shared well. Her suggestion would be that the way the office space is laid out might not be the most conducive to sharing weli with the residents. She suggested that if the offices could be relocated and truly isolated and segregated from the community space, it would eliminate many of the conflicts about noise, feeling uncomfortable, and having to go between business offices to get to community space. Maybe there was a way that the operator and residents could work through some of the issues and make it more compatible, but that it was up to the property owner and tenants to work out and not the Planning Commission. Commissioner O'Connell stated that the issues before Commission were very dear to everyone, ~ but he concurred with Commissioners Buffa, Bostwick and Romero that the issues before Commission was whether the applicants should be able to run an office out of their clubhouse and although it was a tough choice it was one that they had to make. He suggested that Mr. Talley and ownership of the park work together with the residents because they were neighbors and did lease land from the ownership group. And that it was important that both be willing to bend to accommodate each other because there were so many people involved. Commissioner Eastman asked staff if they could state on the recommendation that the type of business be kept to be mobilehome and no other type. Mr. McCafferty responded that it was the only business they would approve through their codes and business license procedure. It is first and foremost a mobilehome park and needed to have an office to function for administrative duties. Commissioner Flores asked if the applicant could add more offices or more employees. Mr. McCafferty stated as long as what he was doing there was related to mobilehome park management that would be fine. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the CUP stated they could not exceed 9 employees, would it present a problem given the type of business. Mr. McCafferty responded it depended on how Commission conditioned it. Chairperson Vanderbilt wished to clarify if there would not be an overstepping of boundaries because it was a mobilehome park with state regulations and requirements as opposed to City regulations and requirements. ~ Mr. McCafferty stated that the applicants were complying with all of the Zoning Codes, with regard to City jurisdicfion for the office, in terms of the parking required. 12-15-03 Page 16 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bostwick stated they had on-site managers and assistant managers that were not necessarily a function of the managemenf company, and they could have maintenance personnel also available, so at any one time, the number could flex up and down. If they added more personnel and they needed more space, they would have to come back again for the changes to those plans. There would not be a need to put a number there because there was so much square footage and they needed to use it however they wanted to. Commissioner Eastman stated that she disagreed with some of her colleagues. She was concerned about it being a residential area and the potential to have a commercial operation. Commission had dealt with the neighborhood being very impacted before, and many people testifying about the number of people who lived in the general area. The area is all residential and the business was up to 13 employees. She felt three was reasonable to have at any one time; a maintenance person and co-managers that were on site, and 400 square feet sounded reasonable for that. She suggested that she would question how vital to the mobilehome park the people were and based on that she did not feel it was a good land use decision. She would be against allowing the applicants to have the accessory use. She concurred with Commissioner Buffa, that if the applicants put their offices on the shuffleboard courts, they would be separate from the club house and that might solve the problems. She suggested that obviously management and owners were going to have to come to some kind of an agreement they could live with. But Commission's duty was to decide on land use and to her permitting commercial usage in the middle of residential did not seem to be good land use. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 12 people spoke in opposition and material was submitted in opposition to the subjecf request. ~ Correspondence was received, prior to the meeting, in opposition. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Chairperson Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve, in part, by approving the request to amend exhibits for the previously approved mobilehome park, and denying the request to permit accessory management offices. The resolution FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: Eastman, Flores and Vanderbilt NOES: Bostwick, Buffa, O'Connell and Romero ABSENT: None Commissioner Bostwick offered an alternate resolution to approve the requests to amend exhibits for a previously approved mobilehome park and to permit accessory management offices. incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2002-168 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition ~ Nos. 1 and 2 are new conditions; Condition No. 1 was modified at today's meeting). 12-15-03 Page 17 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ 1. That the on-site management offices shall be limited to ' ' #erx~e-P-a~{Finanagement personne! affiliated with Park Vista Mobilehome Park and/or with other mobilehome parks owned or managed by the owner of the Park Vista Mobilehome Park. ~d 2. That plans for any additional recreation amenities and/or modifications to the existing amenities shall be reviewed and approved by Zoning Division of the Planning Department, prior to approval by any agency. 3. That abandonment of the oil well pump site shall be in conformance with abandonment procedures contained in Anaheim Municipal Code 17.1.080. 4. That a copy of approval from the Division of Oil and Gas be provided to the Zoning Division confirming compliance with a!I oil well abandonment proceedings required under State law. 5. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. ~ 6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 3, Exhibit No. 1, (dated August 27, 2002) Exhibit No. 2(Recreation building elevations) and Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 3(Recreation building floor plans and elevations of new recreation building) and as conditioned herein. That within ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 1 and 2 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 8. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Eastman and Flores voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 50 minutes (3:12-5:02) ~ Commissioner Romero left the Chambers. (5:02 p.m.) A 5-minute break was taken. (5:02-5:07 p.m.) 12-15-03 Page 18 of 19 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES u MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:04 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2004 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR A PRESENTATION ON THE BROWN ACT AND DUE PROCESS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ ~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on Monday, February 9, 2004. 12-15-03 Page 19 of 19