The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1994/05/02 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OP THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 2, 1994 1, 110:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED) 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING BEGINS (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MAYER PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Comm!SSion's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what Is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will wfthhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Comni ssion reserves the right to deviate fron' the foregoing if, In fts opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda Items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. ACA50294.WP Ve/ ~' la. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to ~Ib. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT May 16, 1994 1c. ^^ti^rTIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2905. 3253. AND 3414 (Readvertised) INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNERS: SO CAL CINEMAS, INC., Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660; DEBEIKES INVESTMENT CO., Attn: Richard DeBeikes, 2300 Michelson Drive, #200, Irvine, CA 92715-1336 LOCATION: CINEMAPOLIS -Property is approximately 5.5a acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (5635 E. La Palma Ave.). IMP~,P`,?, PROMENADE -Property is approximately ~:: acres located north of the northwest corner of'La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway (5645-5675 E. La Palma Ave.). Possible revocation or modffication to conditions of approval of an existing movie theater complex and commercial retail center. Continued from the January 10, 24, February 7, Marct, 21, and April 18,1994, Planning Commission mes,i;,as. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Alfred Yalda, Cfty of Anaheim, Traffic Engineering Department. He explained he met wfth both property owners, Mr. Bruce Sanbom and Mr. DeBeikes, on April 27, 1994. They discussed all of the items and recommendations regarding the parking study. He provided the Commission with a'tist of recommendations. They agreed with some of the recommendations that they spoke about, and some of them they did not agree with. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ 05-02-94 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Chairman Peraza stated for the record they receNed a letter from Mr. DeBeikes regarding the items Mr. Yalda spoke about. Commissioner Messe suggested that they take Mr. Yalda's recommendations one at a time and see ff they want to make those a part of the condtlons of approval for the continuation of the conditional use permfts involved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED TO HEAR BRUCE SANBORN'S COMMENTS. Discussion took place regarding the various Issues in subJect memorandum from Mr. Yalda dated April 28, 1994, and the Parking and Circulation Study for Cinemapolls and Imperial Promenade Shopping Center Ms. Ciandella, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., gave a presentation on the Parking and Circulation Study for Cinemapolls and Imperial Promenade Shopping Center. Audrey Williams, 1300 Qua!! Street, Newport Beach, CA. In favor of access. Paul Singer, 7163 Columbus Dr., Anaheim, CA, former Traffic Engineer for the City of Anaheim. He discussed previous attempts to obtain a temporary access point for 3 properties along Imperial Hiflhway. They had an approval from Caltrans for a very short time. Working through Caltians, and through the political process, ft will take the City Council to get actively Invo"red. This is the type of level ft will require in order to accomplish this. It will not be accomplished through the administrative area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Discussion again took place regarding the various Issues and hems listed in the Parking and Circulation Study. Commissioner Messe suggested that they tell staff what conditions they would like to have investigated and written up relative to each piece of property. He suggested they start wfth the parking study. He referenced the first two items at the bottom of page 35 marked by bullets: 1. Provide more parking on-sfte for both the Cinemapolls and the Imperial Promenade uses. 2. Provide additional parking off-site both efther Cinemapolls or Imperial Promenade. Mr. Yalda suggested they combine Condition Nos. 6 and 7 and come up with a number of additional parking, whatever the Commission desires, and make that a condition. Commissioner Taft referenced Mr. Yalda's memorandum of April 28, 1994, and stated he had a problem wish no. 6 and no. 7. He did not think it was fair and appeared to be impractical. He would like to see the recommendatlonsfvom the Traffic Engineer be implemented without going to tho extent of nos. 6 and 7. He had no problem with no. 1 through no. 5. Commissioners Messe and Peraza agreed. ~ 05-02-94 Page 3 Commissioner Messe referenced page 35 of the Parking and Circulation Study once again and stated they would like to see the two Items at the bottom of the page (marked by bullets) as conditions placed on the proper CUF: by staff and remove the thoughts about movie starting times and eliminating space for already approved CUPs. Commissioner Tait asked how h could be worded. Commissioner Messe suggested the wording "provide additionaE parking' Chairman Peraza stated they would have to go off-site especlaily for peak period times. Commissioner Messe stated also the ability to build higher on the parking structure. Mr. Yalda asked if they would like for him to recommend separate number of parking ::falls for Imperial Promenade and Cinemapolis7 Commissioner Messe stated he would like to have the whole thing opened up, however, he d6~1 not know K that was a feasible condition. Commissioner Mssse asked H they could condiion a property owner to have open parking? Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated that would be placing a condition that the applicant would really have no control over, because efther one of them could make k Impossible to fu1011. She explained the parties do have separate ownership and should be considered separately. It may be that the Commission would be willing to consider some modKicatlon of its findings if the owners of the two properties would be willing to cooperate in finding a way to make h a reciprocal parking arrangement. Chairman Peraza clarffied to Mr. Yalda that t,e needed to treat them separately and find out how much each one needs. Commissioner Messe referenced page 37 regarding Access-A2. (Item no. 2 on Mr. Yaida's memo). That would be a condition placed on both of the properties and would have to be written differently and researched. Mr. Yalda asked what his feeling was as far as a time limitation on ft? Commissioner Messe stated right now they have 6 months for implementation which means construction. He thought 6 months was fair. Commissioner Tait suggested 9 months. It seemed more practical. The Commission agreed on 9 months for completion from the date of final approval by Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Messe stated regarding improving the pedestrian access, the traffic ` consultant stated that was mostly a matter of lighting. Commissioner Peraza stated also additional signage as referenced In condition no. 5 of ~ Mr. Yalda's memorandum. 3 yi ~ 05-02-94 Page e ~d 9 Commissioner Yalda asked what would the time Ilmft be to submft a plan for Commission's approval? Commissioner Messe stated ft has to be part of the A-2 Access plan. He stated signalization should be part of the condftions for bott~ properties. He added Mr. Sanborn does not agree. Gommissioner Boydstun suggested that the condftion be worded that ft is a 4-way splft. Mr. Yalda explained that the agreement does call out for individual payment, i.e., 25% Cinemapolis; 25% Imperial Promenade; 25% for properties on the south side of the street and 25% by the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Messe stated, for example, then the condition could be '.hat Cinemapolis enter Into an agreement whereby they will pay for 25% of the signalization cost. Then the CUP for the other entity should read the same way. Chairman Pereza stated that is already being drawn up. Mr. Singer expressed his concerns that this condftion may complicate or even possibly delay the installation of the traffic signal because them appears to be some disagreement. Commissioner Messe referenced bullet no. 6 on top of page 37 of the parking study. "Remove or reconfigure the center landscaped area separating the two centers.' This would Improve the circulation. This has to be part of the Improvement of the A-2 Access. Mr. Yalda explained they could make that part of no. 3 when l: comes up. Perhaps they should disregard that one. Commissioner Taft agreed. Commissioner Messe referenced that last bullet on the top of page 37. "Restripe the parking along the east side of the theater building, to make i. angled r.~rking. This would require restricting the drive aisle along this side of the theater building to one way (northbound)." He stated ft is a matter of how you reconfigure the circulation around the building. Mr. Yalda stated that is correct, ft could be part of what they call condftion no. 3 (or the condition on top of page 37), i.e., widen and Improve Access A-2 to provide wider drive aisles, and a larger turning radius. This would result in the loss of 5 to 20 parking spaces, depending on the final design. Commissioner Boydstun stated they should spell o~~t the last one (bottom of Page 37). They do not want anymore square-footage going to food use then what is already existing. Commissloner Messe explained no more can go to food use wfthout a CUP coming before them. Commissloner Boydstun stated they should know ft up front. Commissloner Messe stated ft would not hurt to put in a condftion about addftional food use. -' 05-02-94 Page 5 Mr. Yalda asked how about stating no addffional food uses be permitted? ~' Commissioner Messe suggested they change the square-footage and modity the CUP to the current square-footage that is being used for food. Then further modffy a condition that says there will be no further square-footage devoted to food. Commissioner Taft stated the carpooling is not needed and Commissioner f3oydstun ag:aed. Commissioner Messe referenced the bottom of page 37, fourth bullet. He explained "provide parking attendants and develop a parking and circulation plan for peak periods' is a very Important thing they should require and should be brought back to the Traffic Department for approval. Mr. Yalcfe asked about the condition as far as encouraging Imperial Promenade employees to par!; at the parking structure during non peak hours, for Clnemapolis. This !s an Issue that they could work out betweon themselves. (Condition No. 3 of Mr. Yalda's memo). Commissioner Messe suggested they write it up as a condition and then the Commission can review it at the next meeting. Commissioner Messe suggested . should have a condftion that Clnemapolis provide parking for their employees for peak times off-she. Mr. Yalda asked how about ff they provide them wfth some kind of agreement that will state how many parking spaces and where those are taking place? Commissioner Messe stated tho' would be fine. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff they could get the recommendations and then get written responses from all parties involved? Mr. Yalda stated the staff could put the conditions together within the next two days and fax them to property owners. This way they have ample time to respond and be prepared in case they have any questions at the next meeting or ff they want to ^,ppeal ft to the City Council. Commissioner Messe asked Ms. Mann ii she would review the conditions before they are sent to the property owners? Ms. Mann indicated she would do that. Ms. Mann explained ff they are expecting some kind of additional testimony, whether written or oral, from the property owners, they wll need to reopen the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Mr. Sanborn stated he was promised a report today on his roof screens so they could try tr yet their bond back. The Commission was suppose to go out and look and tell him whui they thought. Mr. Hastings stated that is a condition of approval placed on the theater expansion. 05-02.94 Page li They advised Mr. MRch Nakamura that he can apply for an amendment to the condition ff he feels he does not want to put the roof screening up in the way it is described in the r; condition. Mr. Sanborn explained that the roof screen is a foot away from where k is suppose to be-ft Is so close. This is not a big deal. Commissioner Messe stated he did go out and look and could not find any problem. Mr. Hastings explained the problem staff has is that the condition requires the roof•mounted equipment to be screened in the (dentlcal way that the original part of the building was and that is not the case. He suggested that Mr. Sanbom could bring photographs or drawings for the Commission to review during the next meeting. ACTION: Reopened public hearing. Continued subject request to the May 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to come back with a final list of proposed condklon revisions for each condftlonal use permit, as discussed at the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Messe offered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the roof equipment screening now in place at the theater is In substantial conformance with Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. PC91-110. The applicant shall submit a plan or photographs to document what is existing. t VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~ 05-02-94 Page 7 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 'Yb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT June 27, 1994 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3889 OWNER: MANUEL GARCIA and RUDY A. BALDERRAMA, 1200 S. Highland Ave., #108, Fullerton, CA 92632 LOCATION: 806 East Orangewood Avenue. Property is approximately 0.34 acre located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and approximately 156 feet west of the centerline of Spinnaker Street and further described as 606 E. Orangewood Avenue. To permit a church wfth waiver of minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zone boundaries and maximum structural height adjacent to residential zones. Continued from the April 4, and May 2, 1994, Planning fommission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTtoN. nu i i u ne Gvwo~ucncu OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 27, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to complete the revisions requested at the April 4, 1994 meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 05-02-94 Page 8 ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION IMPACT REPORT Determined to be sufflclent within the OWNER: CAMPANUL4 PAOPERTIES, Attn: Jack Stanaland, 1590-10 meaning of Government South Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Code Section 65863.7 with the recommended AGENT: TALIJ=`( AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 500 N. State College Blvd., revisions to the relocation Ste. 1020, Orange, CA 92668 cost requirements LOCATION: 1400 S. Douglass Road (ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK . Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road and approximately 1080 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Review of a submitted Conversion Impact Report to closs an existing mobilehome park pursuant to Government Code Section No. 65863.7. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 14 people spoke in opposition PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated Item no. 3 is a review of a Conversion Impact Report for Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Calffornia Residency Law establishes the exclusive grounds for termination of tenancies of mobilehome park tenants by park management. Civil Code Section 798.56G authorizes park management to terminate park tenants due to change of use of the park. The change of use appears to Include cessation of use or closure of the park and the applicable government code sections that refer to change of use Includes cessation and closure of parks. The report has to discuss the Impact of the change of use and that is discussed in some detail in the staff report that is before the Commission and is placed in evidence in this hearing. The Planning Commission as the delegated advisory agency of the City Council must review the report prior to any change of use and require as a condition of that change, that park management take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion, closure or cessation of the use on the ability of displaced mobilehome residents to find adequate housing In another mobilehome park. The steps required to be taken to mitigate may not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. One or more of the residents have, as is provided by law, requested a public hearing and that is why this hearing is being held today. The recommendation is that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing and following the receipt of all testimony and evidence relating thereto, take the following actions: A. Determine whether the Conversion Impact Report is or fs not sufflcient within the meaning of Govemment Code Section 65863.7, i.e., does it adequately address the impact of the closure of the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park upon the displaced residents of the park; the availability of adequate replacement housing In outlying mobile home parks; and relocation costs? ~, 05-02-94 Page 9 The report is not insufficient simply because h Indicates that the closure will have an adverse Impact on the displaced residents or that there is not adequate replacement t'~. housing available in other mobilehome parks. B. Determine whether the park owner should take steps to mitigate any adverse Impact of the closure on the ability of the displaced residents to find adequate housing in another mobilehome park. The steps required to be taken may not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. Unfortunately, State law does not define reasonable cost of relocation. There are some provisions in the Anaheim Municipal Code that deal with a situation when property that is part of a mobiiehome overlay zone, is being rezoned, provide that certain factors may be considered in determining relocation benefits. These sections are not applicable in the sense that you are ruqulred to take th'm Into ^•onsideration, however, you may consider these factors in your determinations of what constitutes reasonable costs of relocation. The Commission have been provided with copies of that section. In addfflon, addfflonal materials have been submitted by both the owners of the mobilehome park and by the Tenant's Association that has requested this hearing. The owners have submitted the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park Conversion Impact Report, Supplemental Information dated April 28, 1994, which has been made available to the Commission and which Is entered into evidence. She would request that the mobilehome park owners make a copy of that document available to the Tenant's Association. The Tenant's Association has submitted a docume: t entkted Orange Tree Mobilehome Owner's Association, Posftion on Closure of Grange Tree Mobiiehome Park and Establishment of Amount of Relocation Benefits dated April 29, 1994. She placed this document in evidence as well and request that the Tenant's Association make the document avaiiabie to the mobilehome park owner. In addition, today the Tenant's Ac:sociatlon has provided a packet of Information. It Is not actually named. The first document that is included is dated May 2t, 1990, entffled Park Update, copies of which have been provided to each of the Commission members and are placed in evidence. It is her understanding that the Tenant's Association will be employing this packet and its presentation. She had an extra copy for the park owners for their review. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS: Vicki Talley, President and owner of Talley and Associates. She is here today representing the owner of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Exhibits were put on display. There are approximately 1,000 mobilehome spaces available (ust in Orange County. There were other mobilehome parks with spaces outside of Orange County as well. She gave her presentation. She has worked with the mobilehome park owner for well over 12 years in the mobilehome park Industry and Talley and Associates have been Involved since the Inception of the park closure project and is responsible for putting together the Conversion Impact Report. They have been involved in park closures throughout Southern Calffornla. 05-02.94 ~ Page 10 Mr. Stanaland has actually owned the park for the past 25 years, i.e., owned and been responsible for managing the property. Rob Evans has been Involved in the mobllehome park Industry for the last 0 years and handled the compiling of information and working wrih mobllehome parks throughout southern CalHomia within the 125 mile radius to negotiate and identify empty spaces; negotiate relocation benefit packagea and has been the person who has kept very extensive files. Rob Coldren, as the attorney, has represented Mr. Stanaland on this project since its Inception as well and is here should any legal questions arise. She stated ri has been her experience in dealing with this project for the last several months that the park owner does care. They have taken a very strong position in caring about what happens to the residents of this park. They feel a very strong more! obligation in terms of relocating and making an easier process. However, they do not feel ri is a legal obligation. She referenced the staff report, page 4, no. 17 where ri specHically states that the relocation costs are required. It is their posrilon that they have no legal obligation. It has been ruled unconstitutional in sevaral courts and they feel they are not legally obligated and ft would be unconstitutional to require moving costs. That is not how they proceeded. She explained the park is closing and the issue is how are they going to mriigate that process? She gave a brief history of the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park. She explained ri was about a year ago that the owner decided that this was probably going to be his decision based on the extraordinary changes in land use around the property and ri just became more apparent that this might not be an appropriate location for a mobllehome park. At that point he inrilated the notification process to any prospective residents Indicating that the potential of this park closing and going out of business was being considered. One resident moved in with full knowledge of the park closure and signed the notice. After that point ri became cc:nmon knowledge among the people in the mobllehome Industry, i.e., those who sell mobilehomes, etc. In June, 1993, the park owner began communicating on a regular basis with all of the residents of the park with a newsletter called the Orange Tree Review. In January he formally offered the first mitigation package which was a $5,000 rent deferment or offer. They began holding relocation or empty space expositions for the residents of the park. This is how they got their exhibit map. They invried park owners throughout the 125 mile radius to come to the park and talk to the residents about the spaces that they had available. They had several parks there and severel thousand spaces represented at the first expo. They have since had a second expo wrih the same success. Residents have been counseled over the last several months and were gNen very specific information about various specific needs. She stated many people were taking advantage of this opportunity to determine whether or not they want to continue INing in a mobllehome park. Many are going to move to apartments, purchase a home or condominium. There are all sorts of options and those options are presented to each resident. 05-02-94 w Page 11 On March 4, 1994, the official 12 month notice prepared by their legal counsel was delivered ~„~ to the residents of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Along wfth the notice was a copy of the Conversion Impact Report. Their efforts to work wfth the residents have been very well received by the vast majority of the park. She referenced the packet that was delivered to the Commission dated April 28th and stated they continue to work dally wfth the residents of the park and they find that the residents are deciding what they want to do and what their relocation choice will be. As of May 2nd, they would like to update the figures of the park. They actually have only 31 residents Qess than 1596 of the park) who have not made them aware of what their specific relocation plans are. They think the results of their efforts certainly show the success and the acceptance of their mftigatlon process. She reviewed the laws governing mobilehome park closures including California requirements, City of Anaheim requirements and what Orange Tree has done. The Conversion Impact Report that they prepared and the owner of the Orange Tree has exceeded the State requirements. The City Ordinance is very specific and they did prepare the Conversion Impact Report to comply with the City Ordinance. "Comparable relocation park" is significant. They took an extensive amount of time in the Conversion impact Report to identify comparable parks. In this relocation opportunity, some of the residents are choosing to move to parks that are much n(cer than the Orange Tree. In those cases, there may be some upgrades roquired, however, that is beyond comparable. In addition, as they move their mobilehomes there may be some deforred maintenance and repairs on the homes which would not be included as Improvement costs. The improvement cost in the City Ordinance (they believe) refers to the cost of improving the site, i.e., the landscaping, etc. in a comparable park equal to the Orange Tree park. There was a handout on the cost of moving a mobilehome. Gregory Construction Company which has done quite a bit of work for moving mobilehomes out of the Orange Tree ha: come to their expos and their bids are included in the exhibfts. According to Gregory Construction, and ail other bids they have received, ft Is important to note that a mobile home la easily transported with all of the fumfture in the mobilehome. The residents had an opportunity to sign the agreement and receNe the rent deferment. At the same time they worked diligently to Identify mobilehome parks that will pay all or a portion of the relocation costs. They have negotiated some pretty good deals on behalf of the residents of the Orange Tree. One of those is Tustin Village. She explained there was acut-off period of time for the $5,000.00 offer. That was offered for a 11ri1e over 3 months. She explained further that there was a reason for that cut-off In terms of the schedule for park closing. The amount of free rent deferment offered then stepped down to $4,000.00. Of course they were trying to have the free rent end at the same time the people move. They published in the Newsletter that the $4,000.00 offer was available from March 11th to April 10th and now that has keen extended to May 10th. She d(d a summary of how the rent savings program works. She stated they are in a very interesting economic time where there are a lot of empty spaces for mobilehomes in Orange County parks and beyond Orange County. They will accept any age mobilehome and they will pay to move the home. 05-02-94 Page 12 The total moving Incentives to the resident (in this particular case) was $10,1300.00. The total and actual moving costs fn this case was $5,920.00. In this specific exam; ra, the potential r~ net to the resident was over $4,000.00. This is the type of mklgatlon that has been popular. Over 88 residents of the park have signed k. It has been well received and they feel k Is incredibly fair and reasonable offer. Their goal is to have the Commission accept the Conversion Impact Report that they have submkted as sufficient. It meets the requirement of the State of Calffomla Code and their goal is also that the Commission will find that k meets the requirement of the Cky of Anaheim Code. She reviewed the offer made to the residents. Ail of the mobilehomes were relocatable. She stated moving was difficult for some of the residents so they scheduled a seminar that was open to all residents of the park and hired a psychologist specializing stress reduction. She attended that seminar and they had a very nice handout that they will make available to all of the residents. it was interesting to note that only 6 residents showed up for the seminar. They consider all of these things combined is making a difficult move easier and they are doing all they can to address the opportunky to mkigate the Impact on the residents of the Orange Tree. The relocation consultant is available full time. They have called every resident that has signed up; they have sent written communications; they have bent over backwards to set up meetings and make themselves available to meet wkh the reskients to show them what their options are and then go beyond that to call parks to Introduce them to one another. They feel they have done a good job communicating and that Is 99% of the battle. The Conversion Impact, on page 23, estimates the cost to move an average double wide home to a comparable park based on the bids that they included in the CIR to equal $4,925.00. In ~ ~ light of the current economic skuatlon and in light of the fact that many of the parks of where the residents have already relocated have taken advantage of relocation benefks being paid. When they identified comparable mobilehome parks they identified what they were paying in relocation benefks and that averaged out to $2,600.00. The actual moving costs to the residents is a little over $2,000.00. Based on the mkfgation and the average cost of the move and the relocation benefks paid, this is the actual out of pocket cost and what they have offered in terms of all of this package of mkigation, the primary concern is what portion of that Is the park owner paying. Every resident and 69 took advantage of the $5,000.00 in actual cash payment. In summary they respectfully request that the Commission find the Conversion Impact Report sufficient to meet State and Cky Code Requirements. OPPOSITION CONTINUED: Patrick Collins, Attorney, 2601 E. Chapman, Fullerton, CA, representing the Orange Tree Mobiiehome Owner's Association. Ha stated wa have (ust heard Ms. Talley giving a glowing report on what Mr. Stanaland has done as he takes all of the actions to protect ail of the wonderful people he cares for in the Orange Tree Mobiiehome Park. 05-02.94 Page 13 All of these actions taken by Mr. Stanaland is wfth one Idea in mind and that is to minimize the financial impact upon himself in closing this park. This ~.~~mmission should understand that the reason for the closure of this park has nothing to do v;•fth the change in the neighborhood. The park residents, by a vast majority, would have stayed in the park and remained in the park for as long as they either lived or wished to own their mobilehome wfthout regard to the change of the neighborhood. The Commission is well aware that the major change in the neighborhood is the Pond and many of the residents of the Orange Tree have en)oyed their closeness to the Pond. The residents do not oppose the Pond. What they oppose would be to remain in the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park under the ownership of Mr. Stanaland. If there was an option for them to purchase the park, then they might have taken that option, however, the financial reality of this situation is that that acreage will he of great commercial value or is of great commercial value and the residents could not see themselves to take the financial step of attempting to purchase the park. This choice of closing the park was Mr. Stanalands or Campanula Properties alone. It was done as a business decision. He can understand the business declslon. The property is much more valuable to them wfth the mobilehome park removed, no matter what the future use is. This Is not a closure based upon a desire to protect the residents. It is a closure based upon a desire to place money in ones pocket. Since this declslon the owner has put on a good show. Everything that Ms. Talley has said the owner has done, he has fn fact done. The benefit of those actions, however, is not what Ms. Talley wishes this Commission to understand. They talk about a 55,000.00 rent deferment agreement. What is not talked about are the addftionai terms that were placed on this agreement. This agreement would In effect tie the residents in such a tight legal knot that ff they took any misstep, ff they were in default under any of the terms of the agreement, several actions could be taken by the owner. One was all deterred rent would immediately become due and payable; a bill of sale was to be signed by the residents in regards to their mobilehome and all the personal property on the lot; Mr. Stanaland would be named as the Attorney In Fact in regards to the residents as it applies to their property on the mobilehome lot. Addftionally, the agreement and all of the security placed upon the resident's property and all of their fumfture and furnishings would survive the removal of the mobilehome from the Orange Tree Mobilehome park. In essence, until Mr. Stanaland decided that ft was time to let go of this security, he had a hold of all of the assets that were on the park property at the time of the signing of the agreement. He was sure that many of the 89 people who signed the agreement did not understand the full impact of this agreement. In regards to relocation choices. There is no argument that there are spaces to be found in Orange County and outside of Orange County. (It is noted that space 78 that was shown on the overhead has not receNed any relocation benefits). 05-02-94 Page 14 What the residents are looking for from the City of Anaheim is some help in paying for the r1 move. This move would not have been necessary but for the actions of Mr. Stanaland for ! choosing to close the lot. It only seems reasonable and fair and moral that this gentleman that stands to make several dollars on this deal, be required to make a reasonable payment to all residents in place on the date of the Notice OF Intent To Close so that they can move their homes or be recompensed for the move of their home. They have two classes of Individuals In this park; one is who has signed this rent deferral agreement and because of the terms of this agreement they are bound to ft and there is nothing that this Commission can do in regards to those Individuals and there is nothing you should do. There is another class of individuals and those are the ones that have not signed. Of that class they have people who have moved prior to the Notification of Closure and those people are on their own and have no right to request that the City take any action to help offset their costs. Now we have the rest of the residents-the residents who H411 not sign the rent deferment agreement because of the additional terms. These residentc, some of them, since the date of Notification of Closure have been able to finance the move and thes~o ^esidence still have a claim to be repaid should this Commission decide that some relocation c_~st benefft should be awarded. They received the Notification of Closure, they acted upon ft, they moved, but they should be under the umbrella of any order that this Commisslon makes. Then they have the rest of the residents (31 plus) who have not moved; have not made plans simply because they cannot afford it. The bold statement that all of these coaches are susceptible to relocation is one made without acknowledging that some of these older coaches may be relocated, but not in comparable parks. The Anaheim Municipal Code states that any relocation beneffts should be applied to each mobilehome. It speaks in terms of looking at the cost of moving each mobilehome. Mobilehomes are unique items. The cost of the move differs between the types of awnings, porches, skirtings, out buildings, type of interior of the mobilehome and any number of factors. For this Commission to come out and do as the owners of the Orange Tree Mobilehome park request, to set a blanket amount of money for all of these units to be moved is a ridiculous request. All of them are different; they all moved to dffferent areas; the cost of transportation will be different and the cost of resetting these mobilehomes is going to be different. If new Items have to be put on the homes such as skirting, that should be considered new and they should not pay for h. The Anaheim Code states that the relocation benefits are to Include the reasonable requl;~ments of the new park. The reasonable requirements may change the skirting. Some parks no longer want the aluminum skirting, they want the vinyl skirting; some skirting, even ff h is o.k. for the new park may have to be replaced because of the positioning of the coach and the new lot is different then the positioning of the coach in the old lot. It depends on lot size, pad placement or any number of things. If this cost is due to the move which is duo .the closure, then this should he Included In any relocation costs. ~ 05-02-94 v Page 15 The owner may argue with the Commission that the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) does ~ not apply. The AMC talks about change of use and what they have requested is a closure. i, The AMC also talks about relocation benefits ff property previously used wfthin the previous two years as a mobilehome park now seeks a change of use. This Commission, in making this decision, considers that as a practical matter, this land will not lay fallow for two years. If you wish to put off any relocation benefits until a change of use is actually requested, then in essence what you have done, is to sentence the owners who cannot afford to move their homes to losing the value of their homes or to losing their homes entirely. If there are no benefits until the change of use is requested, then they will have set up many of these people to lose virtually everything. Their estimate of the costs of moving the mobilehome does not take Into consideration a lot of actual expenses. The Gregory Construction pamphlet is an Interesting pamphlet. In their papers they have submitted to the Commission an estimate from the Gregory Construction Company dealing with a move on one of the homes-the Wail residence. In the estimate they have estimated the cost of moving that home in excess of $6,200.00. This does not Include the furniture. The Walls were Informed that they needed to move the furniture out of that home. One is an Insurance question. Are they bonded to cover the unit with the furniture in the ~:iit ff something happens? It makes sense for them to get the fumfture out of the unit. The mobilehomes all ride on axles and ff you load one up with a lot of furniture they may overload the axle system. It is not a wise Idea to move fumfture in any of these unfts, therefore, anything that you decide to award as relocation benefits should Include an allowance for the moving and storage of furniture. They need to store ft because ft takes 3 to 5 days to move and set up a mobilehome. The AMC talks about 3 to 5 nights in a motel. The Commission should think of each IndNidual move. To set a blanket amount ignores families with more than 2 people. There are a lot of familiss wfth more than 2 people in the park. They suggest that the Commission award a reasonable sum of money to offset the actual costs of the move of any of the mobilehomes in the park as of March 1, 1994. (That being the date of the notice of change of use). In deciding what those amounts might be, he would suggest, that instead of coming out with a flat rate, a procedure whereby individuals who have a right to a relocation benefit submit either to a City office (and they prefer a City office because as you will hear from the residents there is not one of them that will tell you they trust Stanaland's offlce). Either paid invoices for those who have already moved and to have them repaid for the actual cost of the move; or bids that are going to be used in the move with the Idea that the moving company can make claim either to the City office or to whatever procedure they put in place for payment. Many of these people do not have the iunds to move these homes. Thera are costs for repair once they are put In place. Repair due to damage because of the move. They will have patch and paste and touch up on homes that have dry wall. (These are the newer homes). The older homes with the woad paneling, may have cracks in the seams of the paneling. They will have to be resealed. This is part of the cost of relocation. It is not as simple as the owners would want you to believe. It is an expensive move. ~ 05-02-94 Page 16 They showed one home and the cost of the move was $10,00.00. That is probably ,,mss representative of the cost of moving a double wide mobilehome. Anywhere between t $8,000.00 and $10,000.00 to move it; set h up; repair it; to hook up the air conditioning; electrical, water and sewer hookups, etc., and to bring h up to the recommendations and the rules and regulations of the new park. That question s also addressed in the AMC. He urged the Commission to take a close look at the Code. In passing this Code the City of Anaheim has recognized that mobilehomes are unique. They are 'movable' when in fact they are not. That they routinely sit on property that the owners do not own and they should be -afforded some protection. In this situation they are not seeking an order preventkrg the Orange Tree from closing. They request a reasonable sum of money to pay for the actual cost of moving. If that actual cost of moving happens to be reduced by some sort of benefit from the new park, then sc be it, but he did not believe that the cwnership can average Into their cost of moving a mobilehome an average benefit to be conferred upon a resideiwe. If a resident (s able to work out that deal, great, let the resident reap the benefit, ff r;at, don't penalize that resldent by taking away some of his relocation beneffts. Each one rJf the moves is unique and the Commissicn must take a look ai each one of them. He Is going to argue and ask when they do give the residents soma relocation benefits that they set up a mechanism whereby each individual owner Is given the benefit that they are due. They cannot base it on an average. The AMC does not talk about an average relocation benefit. It talks about comparable parts and the cost of relocation of 'each" mobilehome. The Commission should set up some procedure whersby "each' mobilehome owner can be recompensed for their actual costs in ^ moving. He did not question that 89 residents had signed. He questioned whether or not all 89 will be able to move because of the $5,000.00. WIII that be enough money? Some of these pmople may find themselves being in breach of that agreement because they cannot afford to move prior to their agreed termination date. He did not want the Commission to think thst all 89 residents are happy and set up in a new home. The quality of Iffe has degraded in this park fs not because of the Pond, not because of change In the neighborhood, but because the Infrastructure of the park has been al:owed to deteriorate. There have been no Improvements made, no maintenance other than a few pot hcles filled for an extended length of time. The facilities of the park, though not new, are serviceable ff they had bean tended to. They are not arguing that it should remain open. The degradation and quality of Iffe fn the park is due solely to the actions of Mr. Stanaland and his employees. Ed Lelon, resldent of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, 1400 S. Douglas Road, Space No. 53. He is President of the Resident's Association. He explained he moved his mother Into the park because she was not able to care as well for herself. She is now 88 years old. Their arrangement worked fine with her being only ane minute away (n the same park. Now due to the way the park closure is being handled, they have been forced to accept an offer from another park to pay for his mother's move. They could not afford to move her unless the other park offered an Incentive. OS-02-94 Page 17 They have moved her to the Tustin Village Mobilahome Park. That park is a seniors only ~ park so his family cannot move wfth her because they have an 18 year old son and he and ~ his wffe are not yet seniors. They are now Forced to move In the opposfte direction because another park, a famiiy park, has Just come up wfth an offer to help pay for their move. This puts them a half an hour away from her and even a longer duration during peak commu6a hours. Initially they had assurances from the management that the Orange Tree was staying. This was confirmed by the first letter in the packet which he made av,ilable to the Commission. He referenced photographs showing the park's condition. They were sho4+n the top letter by the manager when they asked questions on what will the effect of the Arena be on the park. They were told that the Orange Tree was staying. They were told that certain actions were being takan by the Cfty to safeguard the park. They were also later informed that the owner, Jack Sta~4Jand, won a settlement wfth the City that not only Included this, but alsa included about $4u0,000. He could not verffy that. The Commission would have fo check with the Deputy City Attorney or other sources. From what he can tell, not one penny of that money has gone Into the park or to the benefit of the residents. In the summer of 1993, they began to hear rumors that the park was closing. Ms. Talley commented that somevmere in the spring of '93 that they had already had some kind of actions in that regarr±. They did not tell the residents. He (n~fted a few residents to his home to discuss thu rumors. He thought perhaps they could approach management about ft. The result was a general resident's meeting that they held in the Orange Tree Ciub Hous: cn September 19, 1993. It was very well attended. At that meeting they became aware through a copy of a fax they obtained that the management had Indeed planned to close the park as early as March of 1993. He explained the Commissbn could find the facts included in the packet he provided. They had deceived them for about 6 months. They had not told them and this began a pattern that continued from that time on of lack of ~-~dibility on the part of the management with the residents. He explained there was a mean that went through the audience in the club house as they saw and read the document signed by Mr. Stanaland himself dated March 1993 about the Intent to close the park when none of them had information. At the same meeting the residents unanimously voted to form an association and they asked him to serve as their president. Dur(ng the months since that time, a dialogue has continued within the park. Much of the dialogue has been put into print as newsletters from the management or from their association. He has prepared copies of many of the newsletters for the Commission. The focus of most of these publi:ation Issues are related to the moves from the park. In addition to the newsletters you will find several key letters between the management and himself which are very informative about the owner's posftton. One of them confirms the Intention of paragraph 3d of the agreement (the "gag' cla ;e) to prevent residents from coming to this forum and others like ft. One of the residents who is here signed the agreement and said he probably better leave and she has left the room. 05-02-94 j Page 18 ;; i i Other issues brought up by Mr. Lelon were Expos 1 and 2; 9096 of tha exhibkors were not able to accommodate his mobile home; facilftles have not been maintained; rents have been (~ exorbkantly high averaging $650 to $700 a mornh. Future rent Increases have been used as threats by management. Threats of lawsuks have been promised to block their actions. They have found half truths, lies, and deceptions and intimidations by management representatfveswMch have been constantly reported to their association. The CIR states that the Arena has adversely affected Ike in the Orange Tree. In their experience, they have found k is not the Arena that is the problem, the problem is an atmosphere of fear and 'ntimidation and declining IHe style created by Mr. Stanaiand himself and his representatives wkhin the park. He summarized their poskion. They in good faith trusted Jack Stanaiand's business, The Omnge Tree iVlobiiehome Estates, by moving their homes Into his park. Now they are asking him in good fakh to allow them to move their homes out of this park wkhcui going into debt. They are asking for a relocation benefk to help them wkh the move. They have gathered much data on the cost of moving their homes. They calculated the average cost Just to move a double wide mobilehome by looking at actual estimates obtained by current residents in the park. The average is $5,700 using only Independents and not commercial movers. This calculation does not count the separate move of the furnishings; k does not count a motel room for a week; the new utilky service hookups or any other costs. In realty k will cost approximately $8,000.00 to move a double wide home. He referenced his letter dated March 29, 1994, to Mr. Stanaiand that states he is unable to complete the payment for his move wkhout financial assistance. He stated Mr. Stanaiand has taken them prisoners in his park because most residents cannot afford the cost of the move. Those that can afford have left-those who cannot afford still remain. They are having to pay ransom to buy their own homes out of bondage to a park in which the qualky cf Ike is deteriorating rapidly. If they cannot afford to move they face eviction by the Sheriff next February. They need the Commission's help to set them free. He stated ff the incentive offered by other parks is used to discount the amount of benefk to them, instead of them factoring in the incentives out there offered by the parks, what they should use to calculate that figure is the amount of incentives taken by the residents and actually used. Bernard Pernick, presently living in Brea. He is a former resident of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, Space 91. He is one of those who moved. In order to do that he had to wkhdraw $11,000 from his 401K plan for which he has to pay a penalty to the IRS. He does not argue about Mr. Stanaland's right to close the park. He does argue wkh him about his moral and legal right to compensate the paople for his actions. He explained he did not accept the $5,000 benefk because he would have given up his right to speak at the Planning Commission or to go to court. He further explained In this particular agreement you would be signing an on demand note. You give a gentleman, one you do not trust, the right to sign for you by naming himself as Attorney in Fact. He did not ask for compensation for more then what he deserves. He deserves the reasonable price for moving. He used Gregory Construction. His costs were $5,500.00. 05-02-94 Page 19 He lives in a mobilehome which the manuFacturers states in their agreer~~ern v~ ;s ail •-, warranties if he moves the home with fumfture in k. He used a trucking firm coiled Hannah r which due to insurancd regulations refuses to move mobilehomes wfth fumfture. He moved into a mobilehome in Brea which gave him zero benefits back. He moved there because he wanted to move there, not where they wanted him to move. Total cost for picking up, storing and delivering his fumfture was almost $1,OOD.00. He spent 13 days in a motel till he could get back Into his home ($356.00). This did not Include additional costs of meals that had to be eaten out. His Ifte has been disrupted. He is a business man in a tax oreparation business. Other cost Issues were skirting; brick work (the way it was when he moved ft out). He wants enough money to put back into his retirement fund. This is an attempt to circumvent the tighter rules which are Imposed by the Anaheim Mobilehome Park Closure laws Into a much broader and less de0ned State of CalKomia law. Do not give him more than he deserves, but what he deserves. Richard King, 1400 S. Douglass, Space 7t. ~ le supports ail of the statements presented thus far. Although he disagrees with the strategy that Mr. Stanaland has used to try to move them out of the park, he completely agrees wfth his rights to close the park. He has a right to make money, but rights imply responsibility, especially wfth regards to mobilehome use. He asked that the Commission be fair. Sheila Murphy King, 1400 S. Douglass Rd., Space 71. She echoed the past speakers. In a reasonable situation ft seems that there would be an agreement that !s mutually beneficial to both sides. in this situation the agreement seems to be beneficial on Mr. Stanaland's side. It also asks the residents to do something distasteful to where she would be participating and agreeing with something where coercion would potentially take place. Therefore, she had to make a decision between financial ruin and her morals. She believed if she gave up her morals she would give up her dignity and in sense you give up yourself. This has caused stress on her and she has MS. Strass can cause the condftlon to worsen. She asks that a reasonable agreement for both sides be put Into place. Grace Lelon, 1400 S. Douglass. She has lived there since August 1990. They do not oppose the closure of the Orange Tree Mobile Home park. they do oppose the manner in which ft is being closed. Jo Ellen Jevons, +400 S. Douglass Road, Space t33. She has lived there since September of 1982. She is planning on moving her home on May 9th. She Is moving because of the announcement that the park is closing. She has no objection to the closing of the park, but it has nothing to do wfth the building of the Arena. The real reason for the closing of the park is because the amenities have been allowed to deteriorate over the years. With the condftions below standards she no longer feels safe and secure. She expressed her concerns regarding the increase of vandalism and theft of the park, not because of the arena, but because of the neglect condftlon in the park. Nothing has been done to give the residents a sense of security. Other Inconveniences were fon!varding mall, who would help pack and move; where would you store your belongings; where would you stay; and where would you eat; what about phone, cable, new checks; landscaping in your new location? In an emotional plea she asked for a fair and reasonable amount to help her pay for this Involuntary move. Some of them are on a limfted income--she is unemployed. She was not able to make the stress management meeting. She will be contacting them next week. i ~ 05-02-94 Page 20 i J She wanted to put a face on something for the commission. She admitted she ~ contemplated suicide; she is the one with a mammogram that has come back negative. r She cannot deal wtth this at this moment as she has to get her home moved and herself settled. Deborah Gilberg, 1400 S. Douglass, Space 90. She referenced the overhead exhibit. She was listed as one receiving relocation benefits. It news to her. It is true she is negotiating wtth the park In Dana Point; tt is true that $3,500 has been offered. That is contingent upon her lender that holds a $40,000 mortgage on her 1983 coach to give her a mortgage deferment of $4,000. If he refuses to do ~ that she does not have the money to movs her coach. She addressed the idea of the uniqueness of moving each coach. The porch she has cannot be moved. The estimates of her coach have come in at almost $12,000. She has a 24'X48' coach whfcir Is shorter than most coaches, yet she has had trouble finding a she that where she can move her house; put skirting on where there is no skirting because she cannot move her porch. As a result when she moves her coach she will move tt without a front porch. She asked them to consider the uniqueness of each house. Barbara Dexter, 1400 S. Douglass Space 73. She submitted a handout. She gave a brief summary of some of the estimates and problems she ran into when obtaining estimates. One had no Insurance; one did not return phone calls; one would only move you out of Orange County. These are the quality of the 3 movers that they have put in the C.I.R. They have the largest home on the property. The estimate is $6,000.00. The neM estimate is from Hannah Trucking Co. and that is $1,200 to transport the home. The next bid is for $6,700 plus the air condttioning which is extra. Another bid for $7,600 from Gregory '" Construction. They made 2 appointments with the relocation expert and he did not keep etther appointment. They have found a lot due to their own efforts wtth 3 months of looking for a spot. It will cost an additional $1,500 so that their home will fit on that lot. They haver fund 2 spots in LA. Cow~:ry in the same park that will fit their home. You cannot move your home in half the places they would like far you to think they can. Ed Buller, 16 Senora Lane, Tustin Village. They moved into Orange Tree Park 8 years ago. They did receive $5,000 from Tustin Village when they decided to move in there. T, 't'vas the sole reason they moved in there. It would not have been the park of their choler. 'hen they moved Into Orange Tree they moved In with adream-a small nest egg and looking forward to not being a burden to their family or to society. Their dream is greatly dim and their nest egg is gone. All they want is fair compensation to both parties. Total cost of moving is $5,200 for moving costs. Their front and backyards are bare earth. No landscaping has been done. They are out of money and they have borrowed money from their children although they did not want to be a burden to them to finish the move. The $5,200 did not cover all of the costs. There was the moving of the shed and trucking costs; restoration of the air conditioning, etc. Tippy Lewter, former resident of the park, Space No. 44. He has presently moved out and Is in the process ai :;ettfng his home back together. He was not fully Into tt yet, and was not sure of the exac~ costs. He borcowed a 15-foot trailer from a friend and spent 10 days wtth his wtte In his mother-in-law's drh~eway. They went Into the house to use the restroom facilities. He could not afford to rent a motel room He ate at MacDonalds and Burger King. 05-02-94 Page 21 He moved Into the Orange Tree in August of 1992. The Arena was well upon completion. He wanted to be there for the concerts. He asked fora 30 year lease when he moved in. They told him because of the economy they would not offer more than a one year lease. He had friends that had a 3 year lease. They would not even offer that. He understood economics, bad times, etc. At the end of his one year lease, he did not get the $15 or $20 rent increase that he was expecting. He got a $150.00 rent Increase. He was at a point of desperation. He had just mortgaged everything he could to get Into that home. He was virtually penniless. A $150.00 rent Increase was well beyond what he could make. He approached Mr. Stanaland and worked out a deal with him. He was allowed to work off part of his rent Increase by doing maintenance arourd the park. He has been 23 years in the construction Industry. There is very Ihtle he cannot do or f(x. He offered to fix up things around the park and he was told no. He was told to do Just cosmetic clean-up. His wife has been under stress and doctor's care and medication. It has affected his quality of work at the workplace. Many nights he has had nightmares. His IHe has not been the same since the announcement of the closure of the park. He moved to a comparable park. Gregory construction moved him. He did move his furniture whh him. There was a lot of damage to the furniture. That is not recovered by Gregory. He said I am sorry I told you that h should not be moved and he took a calculated gamble and he lost. He cannot afford to replace the damaged furniture. He borrowed money and took out another loan. The actual cost of the loan is going to be well over $6,000.00 with interest paid over 15 years. It has affected him long term for the rest of his life. It almost cost him his marriage due to the stress. He is asking for their fair share. AI! they want is what h cost them to move and they would like their money back. Mary Wall and Mark Wall. They moved Into the park on September 11, 1992. At that time she asked ff the park would br closing because of the Arena. She was told no and that it had no impact whatsoever on the park, but instead, h has been a nightmare from that night on. Not only for her, but for her husband who Is very ill with Bells Palsy which is stress related. She is a heart patient and is now under a doctor's care. She cannot move her home anywhere because she has only one awning. Gregory said they ran only put a porch part up, the rest of h they must come up whh out of their own pocket. They came up with $15,000 to move into the park out of his 401K plan. They are the ones that are losing. Her husband works nights and she is afraid to be by herself. Her coach was fi0 feet and they finally found a place which is an extra 15 minute drNe on the 91-Fwy. !n an emotional voice she asked the Commission to put themselves in their place. Dorothy Cisneros, Space No. 61. She has a 1971 home; she is single and not over 55; all she wanted to do was to get close to her Job so she would not have to drNe very far. When she moved in she asked H the Arena would make a difference. They said no. She asked for a 5-year lease and they said they were not offering h. One year was the best she could get. She told them what she could ahu-d and $571.00 was quoted. They said h would not go up more than 596, more than what the City would allow. The next year she was raised $156.00 to $756.00. That Is not including her mortgage. She did this on her own and never asked her parents for any help. She just now took out her retirement fund to pay off all of her debts so that she could get a loan to move her home. 05-02.94 i„~ Page 22 Y 7 9 She cannot afford to move her home and she does not want to lose h. Ail she wants is f 9 what is fair. She wanted to be able to keep her home, move it and not file bankruptcy so ~ she can keep her credibility. ! i Barbara Echevarria, Space No. 170. She stated they U'Kf not sign the rental agreement, an accumulatfre amount of $5,000.00 which could be save up ff they had signed the agreement on Janua~ 1st and gave them a deadline of October 1st to move out. In that time they would then be forced to find a place to move. Had they not found something they would have been In default of the contract they signed. They are close to possibly moving. Their curcent rent is $650.00 so that is $650.00 times 3 full months which equals $1,950. That is not $5,000.00. The place they are thinking of moving into does not offer an incentive. ', People can only save up $5,000 ff they waft until the very end. One of the previous speakers presented some pictures to the Commission. REBUTTAL: Robert Coldren, attorney for Hart, King and Coldren. They aro located in Santa Ana. He has been representing the park throughout this process. He represents hundreds of mobilehome park owners throughout the State of California and has been involved in many conversion efforts and various change of use Issues. He specifically wanted to address some Issues brought up by Mr. Collins from a legal standpoint. He referenced the relocation agreement. He wanted to make crystal clear, all of the legalese and boiler plate about security agreements, bills of sale, etc. only comes into play ff a tenant signs the agreement, accepts the benefits of the agreement and then does not perform their obligation under the agreement. Their principle obligation, of course, is to move from the mobilehome park by the time they have contractually promised. This does not Involve a situation where Mr. Stanaland has bought their mabilehomes, nor does it involve a situation where Mr. Stanaland has taken their tumffure from them or anything like that. So long as the tenant does what the tenant says they are going to do under the agreement, then the only real functional thing that goes on in this agreement is the tenant gets to keep the $5,000 in relocation benefits paid. It is only ff the park does not get what ff bargained for that these other kerns come into play and the park in effect is entitled not to have to pay the $5,000 in relocation benefits. That is the net result or extent of the penalty. Commissioner Caldwell stated then their home Is not in Jeopardy? Their fumffure is not in jeopardy? They are not restricted from speaking against Mr. Stanaland, and there is no gag order? Mr. Coldren explained they have given Mr. Stanaland a security Interest to secure the performance of their obligations under the agreement. The way the agreement was structured was that any tenant who wanted to take advantage of this offer and receive $5,000 could sign the agreement. The rent then would not be immediately forgiven or abated or credited. Rather every month they would continue to receive a bill for their rent showing the rent. However, the park would not collect k because they are agreeing to give them that amount of money. At the end of the agreement, and the moment they move out of the park, then all of a sudden that deferced rent toms Into a rent credit instead of a deferral. That Is how they get the $5,000. 05-02.94 ~/ Page 23 On the other hand if they don't a%,ide by the agreement, and they breach the agreement by refusing to move, then k is quite true that the deferral does not tum into a credft and they owe the whole $5,000. Commissioner Caldweil asked tf this could tum out so that Mr. Stanalend takes their home and their furniture? Mr. Coidren stated the answer is yes. Commissioner Caldwell asked about the gag order. Mr. Coidren explained ft states H you want the benefits under this agreement, they want to know that they do not have to f(ght the Commission when they seek to do whatever they need to do at the Ctty Level to close the mobiiehome park. Commissioner Taft asked if anyone has defaulted wider this agreement? Mr. Coidren stated no one has had their home or fumfture taken. Mr. Coidren stated the park owner is not as empathetic an entfty as the residents are. But the Commission should keep in m(nd that some balance has to be brought to bear here. A number of the residents stated all they want is a fair agreement, etc. For the record he has never seen Mr. Collins or received a phone call from Mr. Collins or a letter. He has not heard of the existence of Mr. Coliins until today when he arrived and was handed a copy of a document entftled 'Home Owner's Association Response to Proposed Park Closure.' Avery extensive document which was apparently delivered on April 29th. It has not been any secret that this park closure has been under way for some considerable period of time. Mr. Lelon did approach his client and he objected to the same things he told the Commission he found obJectlonable. Mr. Stanaland addressed those concerns. Those may be some of the things that since have been deleted from the agreements. He referenced paragraph 2.2 of the proposed agreement and paragraph 6. Those were the 2 out of 3 that were taken out He did not know what the third was. He referenced sub paragraph 'n" of the agreement. In effect ft says go sea your own lawyer and he urged them to do that. Mr. Stanaland changed twa terms of the agreement due to Mr. Lelon talking to him. They do not what other terms could have been changed because Mr. Collins never gave him a tail. He stated the agreement has to be boiled down to fts simplest components. The agreement really says they agree to move out by a certain date, i.e., you move out by that date and you get $5,000. If you don't move out by that date then they want the money that they advanced or loaned to them totalling $5,000 back and they want some security for that. As long as a resident who signs the agreement does what they say they are going to do, absolutely no harm ever befalls them. Chairman Peraza stated like the one woman said If they are only there for 3 months and you decide to move you only get whatever your rent was times 3 and not $5,000? 05-02-94 Page 24 Mr. Coldren stated he thought it was accurate to say that the agreement is structured as a deferral. This means ff you glue up your tenancy before you have taken advantage of ail the ~ deferrals, then you are entirely correct, you do not get the full $5,000 benefft. That is entirely and completely wfthfn control of the resident. The Commission asked when they were first allowed to sign the agreement? Mr. Coldren stated early January of 1994. Commissioner Taft asked ff they were able to stay there for the $5,000 credft, l.e., for everyone wtio signed the agreement? Mr. Coldren explained ff someone signed the agreement in January, then they would not pay for Fe~ruary except for utilities. He added the amount depended on what their rent was. Commissioners Taft and Messe asked specifically ff they signed the rent agreement in January, stayed 2 months and their rent was $500.00 per month, would they get $1,000 plus $4,000 cash and Mr. Coldren stated no, not true. Vicki Talley. They agree whole heartedly with the residents. The Issue here Is fairness and reasonableness. They also think there is anothor very important component and that is responsibility. The mobilehome park owner is not the only person in this room who has a responsibility. The residents who own the mobilehome, have a responsibility and the Commission can see the number of pers_ns who really did take that responsibility seriously. They have moved. They understood Just like everyone in this room understands. The mobilehome residi,.ncy law says that a mobilehome park may close at any time wfth 12 months notice. These people know that. The folks who got up and said they wanted a 30 year lease should have had a clue that this was not happening in this park. The same wfth a 5 year lease. This is a shared area of responsibility. The Issue is one of fairness and what is reasonable. She asked is a million dollars reasonable? That is whst Mr. Stanaland has offered to pay. That Is what he has put on the table. Two-hundred spaces times $5,000 is a million dollars. He has paid more than that in extensive fses In terms of the consulting services to negotiate wfth and to bring to the table and to the mobilehome park hundreds of mobilehome parks and thousands of available spaces. In addition, an extraordinary amount of time to put all of this information on a computer so ft is readily available and accessible to the residents. Talley and Associates have been available, Rob Evans has been available to meet wfth and Mr. Stanaland himself was available to meet wfth. If you read the newsletters they all said they will meet wfth the residents. The charge before the Commission today is have they meant the challenge of mftlgating the Impact of the relocation? She thinks they have done everything they can to demonstrate and to communicate to these folks how they can come out ahead. A very teartul lady got up and you would think ft was just a horrible sftuation-her personal misforune in terms of the health Issue, however, her full relocation benefits are being paid by the park she is moving to here in Orange County. These folks do not have to move very far; they can move right here in Orange County. In almost every single case they are going to make out significantly on rent. There is a signiflcant benefit in moving that they will save In the thousands of dollars !n rent. 05-02-94 Page 25 94 3 ~t a Ms. Talley stated the gag order was removed upon request. She understands why the residents want to be paid upfront, but he cannot image anyone in their furthest imagination ~^ would ever agree (or a legislative body) demand that a resident INing in a mobilehome park be paid upfront. That simply does not happen. There is no way a mobilehome park owner is going to give a resident a cash out payment before the home is removed from the park. Remember, the park is closing and the park cannot close wfth mobilehomes on site. Their goal Is to remove them. They have a responsibility ff they want the $5,000. Part of their responsibility is to take advant;ige of the information they have provided them. They will Ifterally hold their hand to help them find a place. She asked ff ft was possible that the folks that signed the agreement are not here because of any gag order, but because they signed that agreement and are happy with the terms? THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe addressed the Ciry Attorney. He asked ff they are to determine whether any relocation costs should be involved or do they have to waft for a reclass to be submitted? Selma Mann, Deputy Ciry Attorney, stated the law requires that you re~lew the CIR prior to the change of use and require management to take steps to mftigate any adverse Impact of that closure on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate housing in another mobilehome park. She explained further that whatever steps they take, there is nothing that is defined In State law that she is aware of that actually defines what the reasonable costs of relocation are. The items in the Code were placed there as guidance. It appears to her that the Planning Commission has discretion to determine what type of mitigation measures need to be taken, in its opinion, and ff the applicant or the residents disagree they do have an appeal process before the Ciry Council. Commissioner Henninger asked then the change of use, or the closing of the park, is an event that gives them the opportunity to review what reasonable mitigation should take place anr' to decide that and enforce it as a condftion of the closing? Ms. Mann stated that is where ft gets a little bft confusing because there really is not any process for enforcement of that. If they were asking for a reclassification, and ff they were to come in for a reclassfficatlon wfthin 2 years of the closure, then they would be able to deiinftely Impose that and then have all of the power behind the police power, zoning, misdemeanor remedy and everyth(ng else and the Code to back up what their condftlon is. Here what you are doing is actually placing the condftion but ft is not really clear how that condftlon thereafter would be enforced. Commissioner Henninger asked what is the effect of them saying this is not an adequate report? 05-02.94 ~„~ Page 26 __ ___.._. ___._.._...W... _._.___.__ ,~ . ~ .. Ms. Mann stated she is not completely clear on that. She thought they would need to be specific wfth regard to what aspects of ft are Inadequate. She thought ft was pretty clear ~ from the staff report that the fact that k is having a negatNe Impact upon people in the park is not sufficient to indicate that ft is not an adequate report. She thought they would need to state specfflcaily what aspects of ft were inadequate and that the park owner would have an opportunity to revise that report to correct the perceived deficiencies or to appeal their determination to the City Council. Commissioner Henninger stated ft sounds like the State has this requirement but ft has no teeth in ft. Ms. Mann stated she is unaware of `teeth in ft" for a closure. Commissioner Messe stated under mftlgation under the State of Calffornla, the mobilehome park has Indicated ft does not require mftigation measures be taken or that relocation costs ba paid. However, our ordinance is different. Ms. Mann stated she thought ft was saying that ft does not require in the sense that ft says that the advisory agency "may' place condftions, I.e., ft doesn't have to place condtlons, but certainly you do have the authority to place conditions and that is considered in the State law. It may be that the attorney for the tenants association has addftional legal authority on that point ff that is the specfic ftem you are Interested in, or that the Commission ask for her office further research anti come back wfth an answer. Commissioner Henninger stated or they could condftion this as deemed appropriate to them and let someone else worry about how it might be enforced or not. ~/ Ms. Mann stated there is an appeal process to the City Council, so ft is not as though either side would be foreclosed from appealing whatever their decision Is. The Planning Commission's decision is flnai unless ft is appealed. Commissioner ^aidwell stated this is leaning heavily toward the benefft of the owner. F!e has heard enough today to make him feel very strongly that the effort on the part of the owner, however admirable, has come somewhat short. He did not believe that the residents because of this closure should Incur any costs in moving. Mr. Stanaland has the right to develop his property to fts highest and best use, he also believes that each owner has the right not to Incur costs in that involuntary move. Therefore, how do they determine what is a fair cost? How do they decide what is fair? He would submit that they have some arbftratlon process and that the arbftrator should be paid for by the owner and that the cost of moving each and every resident should be studied case by case. He did not think they should not incur any costs for the move and they should also not Incur any financial benefit. He did not think ff they should move to a park that offers Incentives, that has nothing to do with their present sftuatlon. Commissioner !vlssse asked to the extent that someone is receiving a benefit from a park on moving costa, did he think that the present park owner should pay that benefit again? Ot:-02.94 Page 27 i f e Commissioner Caldwell stated he felt that the park owner should pay the cost of moving the resident in whatever deal he strikes. What will they do wrih the guy who moves to a park f, and receives no benefris? Commissioner Messe stated economically they are forcing the residents to move to those parks. They do not have as much cholco as the report shows. Commissioner Caldwell stated ha did not believo that the resident should incur any ffnanclal liability for the move and ri should be Iimried to their move and setting up their home as ri is currently set up now. Commissioner Tari stated then the residents should not reCeNe a windfall from moving. If you move to one of the Incentive places then certain people would receive a windfall. By doing it on an individual basis it seems like ri would be impossible to administer. Discussion took place regarding the various moving costs from resident to resident. Commissioner Henninger stated he has read the contract that the owner has tried to get these people to sign and he can tell you that he would not sign such a contract. He was not even sure that you could contract away your bill of rights and that is what was asked here and he thought that was disgusting. He thought there was a policy of Intimidation that has been going on and he worries that this owner cannot be trusted. We really need to liquidate this problem. He stated Ms. Talley asked ff a million dcllars was enough and I think not. I think the real number is two million dollars, and he thought that is what they ought to do. They should put in a condrilon that he is going to pay $10,000 and that seems to be a reasonable relocation expense and r liquidate ri at that. He does not want to put these people in the position of having to be intimidated by this man. He read the newsletter they put out. They talked about ff they came here and asked them to do this they would sue and these people would not see their money for 5 years until the end of the lawsuri. That is intfmldation. He thought they really had an Irnbaianced negotiation. These folks are not in the same posrilon as the property owner to negotiate. It is not a situation that is contracting among equals. He worries about that and he would be tempted to liquidate the problem wrih a given number. Commissioner Henninger stated he was not Just concerned about the remaining 31 resldents, and that anything the Commisslon adopts should be retroactive so that ri covers all the people who have already moved. Commissioner Messe added he thought our ordinance covers that and ri is retroactWe to the time the notice was given. Selma Mann explained our ordinance would not be applicable wrih regard to the people who did sign the agreement wfth the owner and that is really outside the consideration of whatever the Planning Commisslon does at this hearing. Commissioner Messe added that contract wrih the owner really had nothing to do wfth relocation costs and was a contract to move off the premises. 05-02-94 Page 28 Ms. Mann continued that our ordinance indicates the property owner and the resident may enter into their own private agreement and it appears that this agreement they entored into ("~' would have been such an agreement to take care of the relocation cost Issue; that they accepted the owner's offer with regard to that; however, the ones who have not signed an agreement, whether they have doubt or not, she thought it we ,Id be appropriate to consider whatever reasonable relocation costs are appropriate. She stated the Commission may wish to consider that the state law indicates that the steps required to be taken to mitigate, shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation; and that many times the costs of an arbitration-type proceeding, especially with this kind of a comparatively small amount of money, for that type of proceeding, may well exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. Commissioner Caldwell asked about a flat fee for each resident, pointing out each home would be different and the costs would be somewhat different and he thought they could vary as much as $6000, and asked ff offering $10,000 to each resident, would that then not be exceeding reasonable relocation costs. Ms. Mann stated it would be up to the Planning Commission to determine what Is reasonable and what it will need to be based on; and that the owner of the park has tried to get some average amounts, and she thought there had been some testimony regarding the costs of certain types of moves and there Is a difference between a single w(de and a double wide mobilehome and the Commisslon can use that information to establish what they consider to be a reasonable amount for the different types of move. Commissioner Messe referred to Ms. Mann's statement regarding the agreement signed by the residents and added he thought from reading it, that it is an agreement to terminate residency, without limiting the obligations of the rssident in connecticn with such termination; the resident shall, at his or her sole cost and expense, vacate the home site. He stated so this agreement lays the costs and expense of relocation on the resident. Ms. Mann stated h is framed in terms of a deferral. Commissioner Messe added it is rent deferral, in exchange for an agreement to leave the premises. Commissioner Henninger added h is a cost of "not relocation" but of 'removal" and asked how much of this is a cost of removal and how much is the cost to set up at the other location. Commissioner Messe continued reading, "at his or her sole cost or expense, vacate the home she of the park and remove or cause to be removed his or her mobilehome." C'nairman Peraza suggested a more or Isss sftuaticn, such as "no less than $6,000, and no more than $10,000." Commissioner Caldwell stated the difficulty with that is who decidos what are fair and reasonable moving costs. He stated at this point, he would not want to hand that over to the owner; and h would not be fair to the owner to have the resklPnts wrfte their own check and that is the reason for the arbtration. He added he thought the residents have said, they just want what is fair. He stated his definition of what Is fair is that the incur no flnanc(al Iiablliry. 05-02-94 ~ Page 29 fi i U I~ He asked how we determine what that flnanciai liabilfty Is and who decides what is fair and that Is why Commissioner Henninger's suggestion is rather nice, but ff each resident got ~ $10,000, that Isn't fair to the one who has to spend $12,000 to relocate, or the one who uses $6,000 would get a $4,000 windfall, and that is not fair either. Commissioner Messe asked how this has been handled with condominium conversions, and added he thought ft was done on an average cost basis. Greg Hastings responded that ft has been a long time since a condominium conversion was processed and he did not know the answer; and added the Housing Division assisted wfth ft. Christy Rleff, Community Deveiopment Department, Housing Deveiopment, stated the Community Development Department has had experience in certain kinds of relocation and conversions, but they are not the same as what is occurring here. She added ft is possible for them to do some research and come up with some average costs or what things they take Into consideration or how ft has been done in the past, ff the Commission would like for that to be done. Commissioner Messe asked ff those numbars would be the average costs for asingle-wide coach and adouble-wide coach and show what was included and that he thought the Commisslon could decide what those items might be. Ms. Rieff responded ordinarily they would do ft based on the family size, but the factor here seems to be the coach size, and also the eMras they have such as skirting. Commissioner Caldwell stated there are some other factors involved, and ft seems ff the coach is of a particular size, ft Iimfts the park they can go to, so that means a smaller range of parks and based on "supply and demand" someone could maybe pay a premium ~ because they have a coach of a specHic size which is difficult to fit. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commissioner has heard a lot of testimony today and the applicant even admitted that maybe $8,500 was a reasonable average and there is not tha: much difference and he thought k should be faidy easy for the Commisslon to look at all these numbers and find a reasonable amount and thought there is enough information to make a decision on what is reasonable. Commissioner Henninger stated one of his questions was, "does reasonable mean "averaga?", and that he did not think ft does. He stated there was a range from $6,000 to $12,000. He asked ff the Deputy City Attorney felt comfortable wfth the testimony the Commission has had so far. Ms. Mann stattJ as long as the Commission gNes fts basis for whatever decision is reached, whether it is based on the testimony wfth regard to the moves, the information provided by the tenants, the information provided by the association, etc so there is same back up wfth regard to the figure reached. She added ft appears that what Is required Is "reasonabie costs of relocation" rather than "actual costs of relocation" so the process doesn't seem to really consider that there is going t~ be a case by case analysis for each coach, but that there is going to be a reasonable amount that is going to be determined, considering the types of factors that would come into play. 05-02-94 `,,,/ Page 30 t ti+ y Commissloner Caldwell stated he thought "reasonable' would be the worst case scenario because he would not want to see a resident who could be INing on a fixed Income and } f^ getting $10,000 and having to fork over $2,000 which could be devastating to their financial a sftuatlon and he did not Tike the klea that people would have to pay "out of pocket". P I Commissioner Taft stated using the worst case scenario could mean 9996 of the people would be getting "windfail'. He suggested taking an average number, realizing it is not fair to everybody, and half could get a windfall and half could lose, but h seems fair. He added, otherwise, the property owner is penalized who does have the right to close the park Justly. He stated he thought the numbers were broadly ranged and he would like to see staff or Housing bring back some estimates of typical relocation costs, maybe staff would be an independent party. ~j Commissioner Messe stated some of things that would make up a move could be: Commissioner Henninger stated he was not Just concerned about the remaining 31 residents, and that anything the Commission adopts should be retroactive so that h covers all the people who have already moved. Commissioner Messe added he thought our ordinance covers that and ft is retroactive to the time the notice was given. Selma Mann explained our ordinance would not be applicable with regard to the people who did sign the agreement with the owner and that is really outside the consideration of whatever the Planning Commission does at this hearing. Commissloner Messe added that contract with the owner really had nothing to do with i Nocat(on costs and was a contract to move off the premises. Ms. Mann continued that our ordinance indicates the property owner and the resident may enter into their own private agreement and h appears that this agreement they sntered Into would have been such an agreement to take care of the relocation post Issue; that they accepted the owner's offer with regard to that; however, the ones who have not signed an agreement, whethar they have doubt or not, she thought it would be appropriate to consider whatever reasonable relocation costs are appropriate. She stated the Commission may wish to consider that the state law indicates that the steps required to be taken to mitigate, shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocating; and that many times the costs of an arbitration-type proceeding, especially with this kind of a comparatNely small amount of money, for that type of proceeding, may well exceed the reasonable casts of relocation. Commissioner Caldwell asked about a flat fee for each resldant, pointing out each home would be different and the costs would be somewhat different and he thought they could vary as much as $6000, and asked 'rf offering $10,000 to each resident, would that then not be exceeding reasonable relocation costs. 05-02-94 l„i Page 31 S Ms. Mann stated k would be up to the Planning Commission to determine what is reasonable and what k will need to be based on; and that the owner of the park has tried to ~` get some average amounts, and she thought there had been some testimony regarding the costs of certain types of moves and there is a difference between a single wide and a double wide mobilehome and the Commission can use that information to establish what they consider to be a reasonable amount for the different types of move. Commissioner Messe referred to Ms. Mann's statement regarding the agreement signed by the resldents and added he thought from reading k, that k Is an agreement to terminate residency, wkhout limiting the obligations of the resident in connection wkh such termination; the resident shall, at his or her sole cost and expense, vacate the home ske. He stated so this agreement lays the costs and expense of relocation on the resident. Ms. Mann stated k is framed in terms of a deferral. Commissioner Messe added k is rent deferral, in exchange for an agreement to leave the premises. Commissioner Henninger added k is a cost of "not relocation" but of "removal" and asked how much of this is a cost of removal and how much is the cost to set up at the other location. Commissioner Messe continued reading, "at his or her sole cost or expense, vacate the home she of the park and remove or cause to be removed his or her mobilehome.' Chairman Peraza suggested a more or less skuation, such as 'no less than $6,000, and no more than $10,000." Commissloner Caldwell stated the diiflculty wkh that is who decides what are fair and reasonable moving costs. He stated at this point, he would not want to hand that over to the owner; and k would not be fair to the owner to have the resldents wrke their own check and that is the reason for the arbkration. He added he thought the residents have said, they Just want what Is fair. He stated his deflnkion of what is fair is that the Incur no financial liability. He asked how wo determine what that financial Ilabilky is and who decides what is fair and that is why Commissloner Henninger's suggestion is rather nice, but ff each resident got $10,000, that isn't fair to the one who has to spend $12,000 to relocate, or the one who uses $6,000 would get a $4,000 windfall, and that is not fair either. Commissloner Mess3 asked how this has been handled wkh condominium conversions, and added he thought k was done on an average cost basis. Greg Hastings responded that k has been a long time since a condominium conversion was processed and he did not know the answer; and added the Housing Division assisted wkh k. Christy Rieff, Community Development Departme~it, Housing Developmer~i, stated the Communty Development Department has had experience in certain kinds of relocation and conversions, but they are not the same as what is occurcing here. She added k is possible for them to do some research and come up wkh some average costs or what things they take into consideration or how k has been done in the past, ff the Commission would like for that to be done. 05-02-94 II Page 32 3 f i i :~ k ;~ Commissioner Messe asked iF those numbers would be the average costs for a single•wide ~: coach and adouble-wide coach and show what was included and that he thought the i t^ Commission could decide what those items might be. Ms. Rleff responded ordinarily they would do ft based on the family size, but the factor here seems to be the coach size, and also the extras they have such as skirting. i Commissioner Caldwell stated there are some other factors involved, and ft seems if the coach is of a particular size, ft limfts the park they can go to, so that means a smaller range of parks and based on "supply and demand' someone could maybe pay a premium because they have a coach of a specific size which is dfHicuit to fit. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commissioner has heard a lot of testimony today and the applicant even admitted that maybe $8,500 was a reasonable average and there is not that much difference and he thought ft should be faldy easy for the Commission to look at all these numbers and find a reasonable amount and thought there is enough information to make a decision on what Is reasonable. Commissioner Henninger stated one of his questions was, "does reasonable mean "average?", and that he did not think it does. He stated there was a range from $6,000 to $12,000. He asked K the Deputy City Attorney felt comfortable wfth the testimony the Commission has had so far. Ms. Mann stated as long as the Commission glues its basis for whatever decision is reached, whether it is based on the testimony wfth regard to the moves, the Information provided by the tenants, the information provided by the association, etc so there is some back up wfth regard to the figure reached. She added it appears that what is required is "reasonable costs of relocation" rather than "actual costs of relocation" so the process doesn't seem to really consider that there Is going to be a case by case analysis for each coach, but that there Is going to be a reasonable amount that is going to be determined, considering the types of factors that would come Into play. Commissioner Caldwell stated he thought "reasonable' would be the worst case scenario because he would not want to see a resident who could be living on a fixed Income and getting $10,000 and having to fork over $2,000 which could be devastating to their financial situation and he did not like the Idea that people would have to pay "out of pocket". Commissioner Tait stated using the worst case scenario could mean 99% of the people would be getting "windfall'. He suggested taking an average number, realizing ft is not fair to everybody, and half could get a windfall and half could lose, but ft seems fair. He added, otherwise, the property owner is penalized who does have the right to close the park Justly. He stated he thought the numbers were broadly ranged and he would like to see staff or Housing bring back some estimates of typical relocation costs, maybe staff would be an independent party. 05-02.94 ~ Page 33 ':l q Commissloner Messe stated some of things that would make up a move could be: 7 ~ a. tear douon and set up coach b. rehook coach at destination ~ c. transport coach to detlnatlon d. move fumfture e. insurance f. hotel g. meals h. landscaping i. reskirting and extras '; Commissioner Henninger added some estirr:..ces included recharging the air condftioner, setting the air condftioner, re-establish phone service and utilities. Commissioner Boydstun stated something should be allowed for the older homes which have to be updated before being allowed Into a lot of the parks. Commissioner Taft asked ff the Commissioners are talking about moving to identical housing or to adequate housing and Ms. Mann responded she thought the word used was 'comparable.' Commissioner Taft pointed out the staff report refers to adequate housing and asked that that term be defined. Chairman Peralta stated he thought ft should be comparable to where they currently live. Commissloner Taft stated he would like for staff to bring back an Independent typical relocation cost. •~- Ms. Mann explained the statute does say adequate' and ff the Commission is going to recommend that staff bring back soma addftlonal evidence to be Introduced, the public hearing would be reopened to consider the addftlonai evklence, and added ff that is the case, she would request counsels for both sides submit any in(ormatlon they have regarding reasonable relocation costs, including any legal auttrorfty of some of ttre things that were said during the hearing. Ms. Talley stated on behalf of the park owners, that the first time they saw much of what the residents had submitted was a few days ago and they are hearing that the Comm(sslon's concern is what does k cost to actually move and there is a wide range between their experiences and what is actually being paid and what some of the residents are experiencing and they would suggest getting together wfth staff, Including Housing, and compare the bids. She stated they would like to work wfth the residents, and hear what they say that they want reasonable and fair relocation and she thought they all want the same thing. She stated they would need three or four weeks to meet wfth staff and they could then come back wfth something the Commission would feel Is responsible. Commissioner Henninger stated he would not be comfortable wfth those meetings unless counsel for the residents was in attendance. 05-02.94 ~ ~ Page 34 F Ms. Talley stated the residents may not want to incur the expense of having their Counsel present, but whoever the Commission feels is an independent third party could be present at Fes' the meeting, and establish the credftabilftiy. She added doubts have been cast upon their credftability and they would like an opportunlry to amend that concept. Commissioner Messe agreed that ff such a meeting was held, a representative of the homeowners' group could be in attendance, whether ft be counsel or not. Ms. Talley continued she thought the Commission needs to be shown wfth an Independent party verfffcation that what they are proposing and what the residents want is acc!uate Information and ff the Housing staff can perfoi,n that role, that would be great, and that would give the Commission what is a "fair and reasonable relocation costs'. She stated ff attorneys Independently want to cite cases, that is a dffferent sftuation. Commissioner Henninger stated we know a number of residents have relocated already and maybe the Housing staff could furnish the Commission wfth a list of people and their curcent location, ff known, and they could be interviewed by Housing staff to get a sense of what their actual costs were. He added he would like for the Housing staff to review the list made by Commissioner Messe to make sure there is a complete accounting of all expenses. Ms, Rieff stated this Is not her area of expertise but she did a Iittlo research and one of their relocation consultants does have some Information and has worked on mobllehome park closings in the past, and ft would really be helpful for the applicant to glue them data on actual costs. She responded to Commissioner Henninger that such a report from their consultant would cost about $2,000 because they would have to provkle the comparables. Ms. Talley stated she would have to ask Mr. Stanaland about funding such a study. She - stated she thought the Commission should set some guidelines, such as Invoices, actual bids, etc. She added she thought what the Commission legally can be looking at needs to be defined. She stated there are people who have moved out of the park, and the focus here are the people who are still In the mobllehome park who are not corrfortable signing the agreement and that is a rather Iimfted number of people. She added focusing on costs of moving those people may not been that big a task since ft is a small number. Chairman Peraza and Commissioners Henninger and Boydstun responded they are nat Iimfting ft to a small group of people. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff ail the people who moved after they were given ttie notice the park was being closed had signed the agreement. Ms. Talley responded she did not know . Commissioner Henninger pointed out the Ilst showed 89 people out of 219 had signed the agreement, so there are a number who did not sign the agreement. He added he was not ready to give up yet, even on those people who signed the contract and would like our attorney's office to think a little more about that Issue. Ms. Rieff, Housing, responded to Commissioner Boydstun that she did not know how long ft would taka to do the research, but ff they had an outside resource, ft would go a lot quicker. 05-02-94 ~.~, Page 35 5 7 °S Commissioner Caldwell asked ff the owner had any desiro to pay for the consultant. the Secretary and planning staff observed a negative response from Mr. Stanaland's who was seated in the audience) Commissioner Caldwell continued that ff helps him. He stated he would be willing to go with the worst case scenario to save the whole and therehhassnot $12,000. He stated he did not think ff is the Intent of the owner to be been any indication of it and he would prefer not to get Into another debate or argument, and thought $10,000 is too low and would vote In favor of a $12,000 payment to each and every resident of the mobilehome park. He offered that as a motion. (There was no second to the mc,tion.) Commissioner Henninger asked the appropriate way to move forward. hat there are some~recommendations otnopages 4 and 5 of the staff eportswhich suggests ff he Commission feels readyto make those determinations,ithoy can goi forward. he stated is what heohas troubleswfth~l going to the top $12,000p~sonable costs of relocation and that Ms. Mann continued ff the Commission doesn't feel ff has sufficient information to do that, they may wish to continue this hearing, by motion, having reopened the public hearing to associa lonhthe o~ane~s antd Housinglstaff, toiwork on somen omprom se amouint.nts' Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission has heard a lot of testimony on this and he nhoufeel comfortable with the very top, but felt maybe a 18096 percentile meght be righto does I` n Commissioner Caldwell stated he would hate to penalize those who are going to have to the park,oeven ff ff IsOon~y oneepersonthHe tld ledhf a woulda certainly change his motion,) but it appears there is not a majority in favor anyway. He added he would listen to a new motion as presented and make a decision then. Commissioner Boydstun asked the attorney to check to see ff the people who signed that agreeent are eliminated, or ff that can be undone and whether the action can be retraactNe to the date they gave notice of the park closure. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, recommending that they pay $10,000 to every person eligible with adouble-wide mobilehome, and $8,000 to every person eligible moving a single•wide mobilehome. and one would be the adequacy of this Clfft~and then any conditlo~ns thatnwould becision on Imposed. hat as submitted rtherC Rtis nsufficientand w421sthe changd i being suggested~it would is then be sufficient. O.,.J 05-02.94 Page 36 ~ 1 x Commissioner Messe added he thought the report could be fcund sufficient, even though the relocation costs are not st>fficient, or even if there wasn't adequate housing available in (~"'` Orange County or wkhin 125 miles, the report as k stands still could be sufficient. Commissloner Boydstun stated the way k Is worded, k should address all those things, and k k doosn't address the right relocation, then k Isn't stfficient. Responding to Commissloner ~ Messe, she stated k addressed the relocation costs, but not adequately. Commissloner Henninger added he thought the relocation costs were underestimated or were Inadequate. Commissioner Boydstun continued wkh her motion, that thfl CIR Report would be adequate with the correct relocation costs and also that the Commission would like k decided who is actually eligible; whether people waived their rights by signing the agreement. Ms. Mann recommended two separate motions; one motion considering the adequacy of the CIR and the second one considering any condkions. Commissioner Boydstun continued that her motion would be that this CIR would be sufficient wkh the corcect relocation costs as recommended;and Commissioner Henninger suggested ttie motion be reversed to indicate that as submkted, k is Inadequate. Commissioner Boydsturn agreed to amend the motion as stated. Ms. Mann referred to the three Items regarding what is stdficlency; 1) whether the Impact on the displaced residents is adequately addressed; 2) the availability of adequate replacement housing; and 3) relocation costs. She asked that the Commission indicate what the motion ..., is wkh regard to each one so that k is clear for the record. A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, that the Conversion Impact Report is not sufficient because: 1) the Impact of the closure upon the displaced residents was not adequately addressed, and 2) k does not allow for reasonable relocation costs; 3) and that there is availability of repiacement housing in outly;ng areas. Commissloner Henninger seconded the motion, adding that the relocation costs were not adequate and that Is one type of impact on the residents. The motion passed wkh fNe (5) yes votes, (Commissioner Tak voting no and Commissioner Mayer absent.) Commissioner Boydstun offered a motior ".hat the relocation fees for a dout•lewide mobilehome to be moved shall be $10,000; and the relocation fees for a ~Int;iewide mobilehome to be moved shall be $8,000, to cover all their expenses moving and replacing their home, realizing specifically that these fees are based on an average, but about 80-85% of the average and Includes the full casts of relocation including tear down, set up, rehook, trucking and transportation, moving fumkure, insurance hotel, meals, landscaping, utilkles, recharge air condkioning, skirting. Commissioner Mosse added the Commission has heard adequate testimony today which indicates that would be "reasonable costs to relocate.' Ms. Mann asked ff the motion considers the Impact when the accepting park pays part of the costs of relocation. 05-02.94 I~ Page 37 i i I Commissloner Henninger stated he thought ft should be net of any amount the accepting park pays. Commissloner Messe asked about rent credits given by the owner and Commissloner Henninger responded ft should be net of that as well. Commissloner Boydstun added to her motion that there would be credft!or rent credit given and for any concvsslons paid by the new park. Commissioner Messe seconded the motion, and MOTIOtd CARRIED (Commissioner Taft voting no and Commissloner Mayer absent). Selma Mann stated the Planning Commission's action on this hem will be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the Cfty Council is filed wfthin that time. Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim City Planning Commission meeting of May 2, 1994. ITEM NO 3 ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC HEARING. PROPERTY OWNER: CAMPANULA PROPERTIES, Attn: Jack Stanaland, 1590-10 South Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. AGENT: TALLEY AND ASSGCIATES, INC., 500 N. State College Bivd., Ste. 1020, Orange, CA 92668. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1A00 S Doualass Road (ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK). Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road approximately 1060 feet north of the centerline of Katelia Avenue. Request for review of a suhmftted Conversion Impact Report (CIF) to close the existing mobilehome park pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65863.7. The Planning Commission conducted a hearing and, following the receipt of all testimony and evidence relating thereto, took the following actions: A. Relating to the recommendation that the Planning Commission determine the sufficiency of the CIR wfthin the meaning of Government Cade Section 65863.7 (Item 1Sf~; of Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 2, 1994): A I N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, that the Conversion Impact Report is not sufficient because: a. the impact of the closure upon the displaced residents was not adequately addressed; b. the CIR does not allow for reasonable relocation costs; and c. the CIR adequately addresses the availability or replacement housing In outlying areas. Commissloner Henninger seconded the motion and the MOTION CARRIED with five (5) yes votes (Commissioner Taft voting no and Commissioner Mayer absent.) (Exceprt continued on following page) ~..~/ 05-02-94 Page 38 i Z B. Relating to the recommendation that the Planning Commission determine whether, as a condftlon of the change, the park owner should take steps to mitigate any adverse Impact of the closure on the abilfty of the displaces: residents to find adequate housing in another mobiiehome park (Item 19(b} of Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated May 2, 1994): A I N: Commissionar Boydstun offered a motion that the relocation fees for a double-wide mobiiehome to be moved shall be $10,000; and the relocation fees for a single-wide mobiiehome to be moved shall be $9,000, to cover all their [the resid9nt's] expenses In moving and replacing tholr home, realizing spectflcally that these fees are not based on an average, but are about 80-8596 of costs and including the full costs of relocation including tear down, set up, re-hook, trucking and transportation, fumfture moving, Insurance, hotel, meals, landscaping, utilfty hookups, recharge air condftioning, skirting, parches and appurtenant structures; with cradft [setoff] for rent cretlft given znd any concessions paid by the new park [to the residents]. Commissioner Messe seconded the above motion, and MUTTON CARRIED (Commissioner Taft voting no and Commissioner Mayer absent). ~I 05-02-94 Page 39 d 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REO IREMEP;T Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3676 Granted for 3 years (to expire 5/2/97) OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., 10th Floor, Ste. 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: vi1 West Broader 'roperty is approrlmately 3.28 acres locates 1 on the north side of Broadway, having frontages of 560 feet on the south side of West Harbor Place and 300 feet on the west side of Clementine Street. To permit temporary classrooms and office space within the ground floor retail space of an existing parking garage with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9450 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Phillip Henderson, Assistant Dean with the University of Celffomla, Irvine. He also resides In r~ , Irv!ne. They have been working wfth the Redevelopment Agency and also some other l . private developers trying to locate a sfte they could have Univer ftY extension classes In the Cfry of Anaheim for the benefit of those people In the northern part of Orange County. He explained most of their classes are held in the evening and they find that the majority of the students are professional people wfth many different professions who work full time and take their classes in the evening and cannot get to Irvine In time to take their classes. They have in mind an interim facility which would be 3 classrooms. After a porlod of time they hope to have a more permanent home in Anaheim. He did not have a chance to road the staff report. Chris Terrell, Redeveiopment Agency, Cfty of Anaheim, 201 S. Anaheim. Blvd. The parking will be provided (n a ground lot somewhere in the vicinfty and walking distance from the temporary facility-either across the street on West Harbor Place adjacent to where they will be putting the pennanent parking for the Ice rink or Just to the east of where the structure is now, i.e., north of where the relocated post office will be. She explained further that they are going to put up to 70 spaces on that lot and then they have about 10 spaces they can provide in the structure behind the facility. Through a lease agreement wfth First Interstate Bank they reserve spaces for themselves to service their retail. So they will have a total of 80 spaces pro~•ided for UCI. 05-02.94 `.~ Page 40 Mr. Henderson stated he has reviewed the staff report and has no problem with any of the conditions. Commissioner Messe stated h is a temporary use and asked for clarification ff Mr. Henderson would accapt a 3 year term? Mr. Henderson agreed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger asked when they have this off-site parking do they normally do that through a written parking agreement? Ms. Terrell explained they have a temporary lease that is going to Incorporate both the parking lease and the facility. She explained the agency owns both pieces of land. Commissioner Henninger asked to amend CondRlon No. 2 that says spaces will bE provided off-she through a written parking agreement subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer with a 3 year Iimft. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Condfflonai Use Permit No. 3676 for 3 years (to expire 5-2-97) with the possibility of further extensions of time in connection with a public ~- hearing. Modified Condfflon No. 2 to read: 2. That a minimum of eighty (SO) parking spaces shall be provided off-sfte far daytime student use through a written agreement wffh the Redevelopment Agency and subject to the approval of file City Traffic and Transportation Manager. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent} -,:~ 05-02-94 ~ Page 41 5a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 265 (Previously Certified) Continued to fib. AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO.88-2 June 1, 1994 THE SUMMIT OF AGAHEIM HILLS OWNER: THE BALDWIN COMPANY, Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Ave., Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Prooertv is aooroximately 13 67 acres located on the west side of Weir G~nyron Road approximately 1 220 feet north of the centerline of Oak Canyon Drive and further described as The Summft of Anaheim Hills Saecific Plan ~SP88-2) designated Park Ske (Lot No ~2 0} Tract No 14071 . Amendment to Condition No. 77.a. of Resoiulion No. BBR~395 (adopted by Ordinance No. 4977) pertaining to the completion date of the proposed 13.67 acre park she. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None STAFF'S COMMENTS: r- Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained that the residents would be renoticed for this project before the June 1, 1994 (Wednesday) meeting. It has been determined that the request involves some addftional hems that they need to Include in the public notice that was not Included in the first notice. ACTION: Continued subject request to the Wednesday, June 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise the proposed specific plan amendment to change the formal designation of the park sfte (from 'neighborhood' to 'community') as well as modify other condftlons to incorporate .;.e proposed agreements between the petitioner and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) OS-02-94 Page 42 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved ib. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3675 Granted OWNER: GLENDALE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, ATTN: Earl Clark, 201 W. Lexington Drive, 5th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203 AGENT: DAVID R. JACKSON, Fairmont Private School, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 2200 West Secuola Avenue. Property is approximately 1.43 acres located on the west side of Sequoia Avenue and approximately 130 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. To permit a private educational facility (9th through 12th grades) and a caretaker's unit with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9451 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 2 concerned people spoke PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: David Jackson, 7975 Winvick Rd., Corona. He is the Executive Director of Fairmont Schools. They hae~e read the staff report. He asked Mr. Yalda to address the parking. They have made some changes. They show they have 83 parking spaces available with some adjustments that they have been able to make. They are requesting that they leave the numbers that were originally stated as 350 students. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated he had the latest copy of the parking layout that seems to be adequate to provide 83 parking spaces wfth some modHication on the site. Mark Devon, (phonetically spelled) Recreation Community Service Superintendent for the Parks and Recreation Community Services Department. They have been in contact wfth oiflclals from Fairmont Schocl In regards to use of facilftles. At this time they do not have any space available for Fairmont School for use of facilftles. They have been in contact with them specHically for providing space for interscholastic athletic practice times largely in the afternoons and evening periods at which time the facilftles at Brookhurst Park are in use by various groups. They wanted the Planning Commission to understand that athletic facilities, as proposed by Fairmont School, would be unavailable. Rita Newman, Anaheim Union Hlgh School District, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services. She expressed her concerns about the space being used as a school. Their maJor concern is (n regards to athletic fields, gyms, showers or locker rooms that may be anticipated being used at Brookhurst Junior High by the Fairmont school. ~~ 05-02-94 Page 43 Their school is from September till June from 8:OOa.m. to 2:30p.m. which the athletic ~ facilkles are being used. Their schedule runs from September through May 26th and those days are Monday through Thursday from the end of school to approximately 4:30p.m. or S:OOp.m. They do have a wrftten agreement wfth Anaheim Park and Recreation, that when their facilfties are not being used for their school programs for the gym and athletic fields, they are used by the Park and Recreation Programs. She believed that Mr. Jackson has spoken to the principal at Brookhurst Junior High, and he was directed to speak to someone at the District office regarding any request to use the property for the athletics from Fairmont School. They do want ft recorded that there Is no space available at Brookhurst Junior High School. They have Savanna High school very close and when they run out of space they use the Brookhurst site also. Brookhurst Junior High School is the third highest enrollment of 8 comprehensNe Junior High Schools and does have the smallest athletic field. Commissioner Messe asked ff the meeting between Mr. Jackson and the Principal was a request for util(zation of the athletic fields? Ms. Newman stated ft was her understanding that Mr. Jackson and or a representative from Fairmont did approach the Principal regarding the use of the fields, gyms and the locker rooms, stating that ft was their understanding that Brookhurst Junior High School was not being used at all times. She thought that may have cone from some misunderstanding regarding the act(vities --~ going on at Brookhurst Junior High School this year. We did have four million dollars worth of work done In modernization. That included the P.E. area and the Locker rooms. During that time the water was turned off at Brookhurst which meant the fields were not used. Also note during this time Parks and Rec will not be using the fields at Brookhurst because they are reseeding and getting the facility back up to speed. If there was an observance that the fields were not being used during the first part of the fall semester, ft was because of the modernization project. Commissioner Messe stated she made one other statement of concern to him, about a school backing up to a school. He asked what are the problems associated with that? Ms. Newman stated they have several schools in that area. They do have some concerns when school is out with some security problems. They work very closely with Brookhurst Junior High School and Savannah High School being in the same district, that there is communication between those two schools ff there are any problems (n the park or at the two schools wfth the older children. They also do work wfth the elementary school age children. Where this particular building is, all they have is a chain Zink fence. Brookhurst Junior High School will be right around 950 students (7th and 8th graders). She thought Fairmont was looking at about 350 high school students, and that is a lot of students all in one area. 05-02-94 ~ Page 44 Commissioner Henninger asked how much student parking did they have at their school per student? Ms. Newman, stated probably 4 to 5 students per space. Basically, their parking Tots are not totally utilized. REBUTTAL: Mr. Jackson stated he did meet with the Principal at Brookhurst Junior High. Their primary plan would be that they would have their own bus transportation. The cost of having to start a private high school and having to buy football fields, etc. was prohibitive In this area. Finding a location that was 2 miles from their existing location where they were going to house the high school students makes it very workable to go ahead and transport the students back to their gymnasium and playing fields. In the meantime, they are cont(nuing to pursue the possibility of Joint use of effher Brookhusrt or any other facilfties. Thby do feel they could adequately take care of their sports needs with their existing parking lot with some practice area for basketball, but most of ff will be at their other location just 2 miles away on Mable Street. They have been wafting for other developments before they meant with the High School District. They still needed to work out what their requirements for sports would be. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Gummissioner Henninger asked ff they provided some transportation for their students? Mr. Jackson stated thoy do have their own school bus system. At this point about 6096 of their high school students do ride the school bus to and from school. They do have pre-schoolers through ninth grade. (They will add one more grade each year). Many of those students ride with their younger brothers and sisters. Further discussion took place regarding transportation to and from the school. Commissioner Henninger was concerned about student parking. Mr. Jackson stated they would be restricting parking to juniors and seniors. They will control that by giving them parking spaces. Their projection is that when they meet the 350 level, they will have approximately 55 to 60 parking spaces needed for students and that is what they would limit ft to. Commissioner Messe asked ff they would have parking by permft only? Mr. Jackson Indicated he would. They would also restrict ff according to their driving habits. Commissioner Henninger stated 60 spaces would be appropriate. Commissioner Messe a:;ked about the on-sfte caretaker. ~ 05-02-94 Page 45 Mr. Jackson explained that the on-site caretaker is an employee of the school and will be working at their other campus and will not be on-sfte during the day time at all. They are there strictly in the evening to make sure the facility is locked up, etc. Commissioner Messe asked how he was going to address the security Issue of a school next to a school? Mr. Jackson stated they felt having a high school next door would work out fine. One nice thing is that the junior high school is at the other end with sports areas and a football field in between. They would eventually put up an 8-foot block wall to give them more of a separation. They have also offered a tutoring program wfth their high school students tutoring the junior high school students as part of their community service requirement. All students are required to give 120 hours of communfty service during their high school years. They have found ff they are willing to work together there is very little difficulty. There is a lot more opportunity to wor{c together by being close. Commissioner Henninger suggested adding two conditions as listed below. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Condftlonal Use Permft No. 3675. fAodifled Condftlon No. 1 to read: 1. That the maximum student enrollment shall be Ilmfted to three hundred fifty (350) students, 18 teachers and 900 square feet of office use. Added the following conditions: That eighty three (83) on-she parking spaces shall be provided; that all employees and students shall park on-sfte; and, that school administration shall limft student parking through the use of parking permfts so that there is no overflow parking onto ad)acent public streets. That the petftioner shall coordinate with the Anaheim Union High School District regarding security matters. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) '~.~ d5-02-94 ~„~ Page as . CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3872 Grented for 1 year (to expire 5-2-95) OWNER: CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, James E. DoBrott, General Partner, 3146 Redhlll Ave., Ste. #150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: ESSEX REALTY MANAGEMENT, 3146 Redhill Ave., Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: x717 East Santa Ana Canvon Road Property is approximately 8.06 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permft a public dance hall in conjunction wfth an existing full service restaurant wfth on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9452 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ~' Kevin Petrimcuix, 5717 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. He (s an officer of the Fox Fire restaurant. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated she wanted to be sure that the applicant understands that at the end of one year this approval actually expires and there is no requirement or vestod right for any extension of this approval. It would be a completely new decision that would be made by the Planning Commission at that time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Boydstun asked ff there was going to be a cover charge to go in the restaurant? Mr. Petrimouix stated the lounge area is where they would have to pay the cover charge. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to add a condftion that the applicant pay the reasonable costs of Code Enforcement Inspections should they be needed. (Action continued on next page) ~~ 05-02-94 Page 47 ACTION: Approved Negativa Declaration ~, Granted Condkional Use Permk No. 3677 for 1 year (to expire on May 2, 1995) wkh the possibllky of furthar time extensions, in connection wkh a public hearing. Modified Condklon No. 2-D to read: -D. The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be prohibked. Addad the foliowfng condklon: That t;~e applicant shall pay the cost of future Code Enforcement InspeCdons, should they be needed to address existing violations. VOTE: 6.0 (Coinmissioner Mayer absent) .-, 8a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved `3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3671 Granted OWNER: SIOUY. HONEY ASSOCIATION COOPERATIVE, AN IOWA CORPORATION, P.O. BOX 388, SIOUX CITY, IA 51102-0888 AGENT: SANTEE DAIRIES, INC., ATTN: Peter Costigan, 231 E. 23rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90011 LOCATION: 511 East Katella Ave. Property is approximately 6.0 acres located on the east side of Claudine Way and approximately 500 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To permit 5 modular units (for office and storage use) in conJunction wffh a proposed dairy product distribution faclity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC84S FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Applicant way not present at hearing. ~I ^ Cnrnmissioner Boydstun stated no one was here from electrical to speak about the access. Alfred Yalda, TrafFlc Engineering Department, stated when they were looking at the design of the I.5 Freeway, the Substation has to be removed. There was some kind of access agreement established between Caltrans and the Utility Department on Claudine. They were to Dome back and look at the access on Katella Avenue also. All of this is taking place with the widening of the I.5 Freeway. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff that means they will let these people use the access? rvtr. Yalda did not know ff there was any agreement or not. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated it was her understanding from the attorney for the Utility, that S(oux Bee has an existing easement on the east side of the new Substation site and that will be allowed until November, 1994 when other arrangements will need to be made for access easement from Caltrans. What is being proposed is an easement on the north boundary of the Substation. Commissioner Henninger stated they could approve ff and add a condition that it would not become effective until the access issues had been approved subject to the Traffic Engineer. (Both the future and the current access. They probably should do both). ~, 05-02-94 Page 49 Ms. Mann stated the applicant may be able to provide exactly the information. This could ~ be continued ar h can be decided. ~ Mr. Yalda explained dudng the IDC meeting they were aware of the access concerns and they did not have any problem. He could contact them and speak with them, but they did understand the circumstances. Ms. Mann explained that this may place the applicant in an awkward posftion negotiating with Caitrans. Her only concern is that negotiations with Caltrans are not exactly a model of speed. Commissioner Henninger stated he would amend the condtion. Provided that the use as established shall not be established until sutable access to the satisfaction of the Transportation Manager has been assured and further that the use shall only continue so long as k has suftabte permanent access by November, 1994. Ms. Mann stated ft would work to have a date when ft is going to be checked for suitable access since they know ft Is going to expire by November, 1994. ACTION: Approved NegatNe Declaration Granted Condftionai Use Permft No. 3671 and added the following condition: That the permitted use shall not be established until sutable future and interim access has been assured to the satisfaction of the Traffic and .•~ Transportation Manager. The use shall only continue so long as ft has '~~ sutable permanent access beyond November, 1994. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) NOTE: Condtion No. 11 should be charged to read as follows: 11. That prior to final building and zoning Inspections, Condition No. 5, 7 and 9, above•mentloned, shall be complied with. 05-02-94 ~.~ Page 50 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved ~3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3674 Granted, In part OWNER: VICTORY BAPTIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY, 227 N. MAGNOIJA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CA 92801 AGENT: B.F.& C., 3913 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807 LOCATION: 227 North Magnolia Avenue Nictorv Bait Church of Orange Countv). Property Is approximately 5.5 acres located on the west side of Magnoila Avenue and approximately 875 feet on the north side of the centedine of Lincoln Avenue. To retain one (1) mobile caretaker's unit, ih:e (5) temporary modular classrooms and two (2) storage buildings in conjunction with an existing church with waivers of minimum setback of Institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary and maximwn structural height. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9454 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None `~ _.~ETITIONER: Pat Batte, BFC Associates Architect, 3913 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA. 90807. They are assisting Victory Baptist Church wfth the CUP process. He gave a brief summary of the history of the church. Commissioner Henninger asked ff he understood that staff was asking them to relocate the storage? Mr. Batte stated they do agree with that and will comply with the 20•foot setback that is required for the storage shed. He explained there has been some vandalism at the church. They need a Caretaker's unit to monitor some of the after hours school activities. The church would 11ke to have a trailer on the site rather than a mobile unit. This would be a lot easier. They are requesting a concrete pad for the trailer. They will limit the trailer to two adults as staff has recommended. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, asked about the two travel trailers. Mr. Batte stated those will be relocated and a concrete pad is going to be provided so h will serve as a Caretaker's unit, but will be a trailer. Commissioner Henninger stated for clarification, the trailer is not a permanent mobile home but a travel trailer and Mr. Batte indicated that was correct. 05-02-94 ~-~ Page 51 i °S ~y Mr. Borrego stated they saw two different aitematives that were presented by the applicant. One was to let the Caretakers reside in a travel traiier and the other was in a (^ mobile home. That is why they have CondN.lon Nos. 1 and 2 . They felt comfortable in hav(ng a travel trailer out there for the reason k is not visible from the public right-ofway and also as long as they were willing to accept the limftation of limiting the occupants to two adults. Robert Knutson, 1423 West Westmont Dr., Anaheim, CA. He is the Senior Pastor of the Victory Baptist Church. This skuation came about as a result of our annual f(re inspection. He explained the Fire Inspector came by and she had completed her Inspections, she asked if they had building permRs for all of the buildings? Commissioner Henninger stated the staff repcrt stated there were some unpermitted electrlcai wires. He asked iF those were up to Code or were they planning on bringing thorn up to Code? Pastor Knutson indicated that will be brought up to Code subsequent to this. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: No further discussion took place. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement because the petitioner agreed at the public hearing to relocate the structures from the south property Ilne. ~- Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3674, in part. ~ ~ Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: 5. That the petitioner shall obtain proper building permits for any unpermftted Improvements on the property. This includes the finalization of all previously obtained permits. VOTE: fi-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) .:,,~~k 05-02.94 Page 52 10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3573 - REQUEST FOR AONE- Approved YEAR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH (to expire 3-2-95) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Tim Bundy, 20331 Irv(ne Ave., Ste. 7, Santa Ana, CA 92707, requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply wfth condklons of approval for Condkional Use Pernik No. 3573 (to permk a car wash wfth waiver of minimal structural setback and minimum landscape setback) to expire March 2, 1995. Property Is located at 201 E. Ball Road. Continued from the Aprii 4 and April 18, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. DISCU:iS1ON: Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the applicant was here earlier and submitted some photographs which would appear to illustrate that they have taken care of all of their concerns. ADJOURNMENT: MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P.M. TO THE MAY 16, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION ~"'~ WORKSESSION AT 10:00 A.M. „ ~~ ~,' 05-02-94 Page 53