Minutes-PC 1994/09/19z''v
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
11: 0 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
(NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED)
1:30 P•M• - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLJC TESTIMONY)
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE,
PERAZA, TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
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 Commission'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 cc:nplexity 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 oath hearing.
Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in Its opinion, the
ends of fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with
any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or
norrdocumentary 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.
f
'~,~ AC091994.WP
ti
ia. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
tc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3685 Granted
OWNER: EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA
92804
AGENT: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, 1342 Bell Avenue, Ste 3•k,
Tustin, CA 92680
LOCATION: 1600 West Ketella Avenue. Property is approximately 18.6
acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid
Street.
To permft a 1,989 square foot drive through restaurant within an existing
commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and
minimum landscape setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary.
Continued from the June 1, June 27, and August 8, and August 22, 1994,
Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94126
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
'x OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Scott Duffner, Vice President of Faucher Development Services, representing Taco Bell,
1342 Bell Avenue, Tustin, CA. He stated the original direction they received from the
Planning Commission was to investigate any alternatNe sites within the center. He
stated they did that. He explained all of the sites have been taken and there are no
alternative sites within the center. He spoke with staff to see ff they could revise the
plan to minimize the concerns expressed on the part of staff and the Commission in the
previous hearings with regards to noise. He added they had an acoustical analysts
prepared by Gordon Brlcken & Associates.
He stated they have read the staff report and concur with staff's findings and the
recommendations with the exception of Recommendation 27 (a) regarding the closure
or fuming off of the outside device between the hours of midnight and 7:OOa.m.
He referenced item no. 17, Environmental Impact Analysis and the Gordon Brlcken &
Associates acoustical study. He stated that the db level they would expect at the
property line for this particular building would present a db level of 40 dbs at night; 45
dbs during the day; and the ambient noise level of background associated with Euclid
Avenue was found to be approximately 55 db. He added that was during the day and
would be reduced during the night with a reduction in traffic.
09/19/94
~, Page 2
~ He stated that given the evidence prov(ded in the Gordon Bricken report and the
Mitigation Measures proposed as well as the additional recommendations for addtional
landscaping, they have met the concerns and reduced the noise level to an acceptable
limit.
He stated they would also point out that in their letter, they have agreed to mitigate any
problems that are found to the satisfaction of planning staff and any other agency that Is
Involved. They request that they at least be allowed to try the 24-hour operation with the
drive-through. He further stated if they find that a problem does arise, they will mitigate
the Issues and satisfy the concerns to whatever level it takes.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Duffner to explain the operation of the sound board as
far the "automatic" attenuation.
Mr. Duffner explained they have a separate menu board which is situated about 4-1 /2
feet to 5 feet away from the curb at such an angle so that at the order position the
person ordering can see the board cleady. He stated to avoid having to turn the
speaker or mic up, they have a separate speaker/mic pedestal that is right next to the
curb and adjacent to the vehicle so that they are not trying to shout that distance across
but rather have it right outside the window. He explained at night they could set this
whereby it works on a timer to reduce it by 5 dbs during the evening hours from
S:OOp.m. unt117:00p.m.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification what time would h switch down and
attenuate the sound?
Mr. Duffner stated from midnight to 7:OOa.m. it would be set to the lower sound level
and if ft is found that that poses some problem it can be adjusted. He stated the noise
drop off in terms of background ambient noise is closer to 70:00 or 11:OOp.m. He
stated H necessary they could trip it down a little earlier, however, that is the present
proposal.
Commissioner Henninger stated the problem he has been addressing is the noise
created by the order board and the problem they are concerned about is the noise of
automobiles idling and perhaps with their radios turned up.
Mr. Duffner stated the proposal staff came back wfth was to close down the menu board
and to have patrons order at the window. He explained the problem they foresee is one
of speed of service, yet the reason they place their menu board on the fourth car is
because h provides a sufficient amount of time from the point that the order is actually
received to the time that person gets through and cycle up to the pick up window for an
efficient speed of service.
He explained you can only go as fast as the car in front of you. He explained by
turning off the speaker board at night, they found they have people pulling up to the
menu board wondering why it is turned off. He further explained k is out of the norm
and when anything is out of the norm you tend to get people stopping and trying to
figure it out so there is a delay associated with that.
09/19/94
~,, Page 3
He stated once they figure ft out and they cycle up to the window, they are frustrated
and want their food at that time. He explained now they place their order and then you
get the cycle repeating and that is their concern so they are actually defeating the
purpose of the menu board in place.
Commissioner Henninger stated they submitted a request justffying their waiver with
their application and he addressed the number of parking spaces, He asked what
findings could they make that would allow them to waive this landscape requirement?
Mr. Duffner stated they are proposing to maximize, to the extent possible, and still be
able to fft the project within the constraints of the property line boundaries; the existing
drive aisle and driveway onto the right-of-way. He thought the unique topography is
perhaps applicable in terms of the design situation as well as they are correcting a side
yard setback that was set in place before this Increased standard was implemented.
He explained they will have over 20-foot of landscape over the majority of that section of
the drive-through with the proposed plans where ft abuts residential use. He stated
where it abuts Commercial use Is where they come back down to the 4-foot minimum
and the driveway comes back over to the property line.
Commissioner Boydstun asked ff any of the stores have the new system that are coming
out where they pick up a phone and talk Into it so there is no shouting back and forth?
Mr. Duffner stated there is one in Huntington Beach that has that and unfortunately, it is
more of a problem and more often than not, the phone serves as an attraction for
vandalism. He explained in that facility they are finding they are repairing ft more often
than having it in service.
r
Chairwoman Boydstun asked H he would be agreeable to lowering the decibels at
10:OOp.m, rather than midnight?
Mr. Duffner stated his only concem was the ambient background noise and ff people
cannot hear at that level obviously the background noise is going to be so high that
order activity will not be a problem for the residents. He suggested if it Is found to be a
problem, they will adjust it. He stated they will need to tailor it upon the actual findings
of the operation when they get in there and see what the noise levels aro at particular
times of the day. He stated if the Commission would like, they will agree to come back
and review that after a period of time with staff or provide appropriate actual operation
data that can make such adjustment appropriate and based upon fact.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated it would at least have to be brought dc•,vn to 11:OOp.m.
because 12:OOa.m. is too late for the people behind you.
Mr. Duffner agreed. He stated whatever hour they find that that background level drops
off, they need to adjust it and they are certainly willing to do so. He added he cannot
tell them what that Is at this point, but he would be happy to adjust that as appropriate.
Commissioner Caldwell asked what 45 dba sounded like at the property line, i.e., what
would be a good analogy of 45 dba at the property line? It is noted by the secretary
that Commissioner Caldwell's mic was not working properly.
09/19/94
~ Page 4
~ Mr. Duffner stated this is about 45 db right now.
Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated human conversations are about 60 db or
greater, it is not 45.
Chairvvoman Boydstun stated she thought it should be turned down at 11:OOp.m. no
matter what. She added you do not have the traffic on Euclid at 11:OOp.m. that you
have during the middle of the day.
Mr. Duffner stated ff that would satisfy the Commission, they are happy to do that. He
stated the only reason he was concerned about the time was the actual noise levels. He
stated Euclid Is a pretty busy street. He pointed out ff the street is louder than 60 db,
you may be able to hear it at the car as you are making the order, but k may also be
drowned out by the ambient noise of the street.
Commissioner Peraza asked if they are going to have a security guard also in the
evening?
Mr. Duffner stated they have proposed as one of the mftigating measures, to provide
security during the hours of 12:OOa.m. to 4:OOa.m. He stated once again this comes
back to their willingness to mftigate with whatever they find is a problem. He gave some
examples.
Commissioner Messe asked ff the landlord had any problem with them adding acoustical
treatment to the block wall?
He stated that is the only real viable alternative in short of taking the wall down in order
~~~' to provide some addftional height. He explained in order to go any higher they would
have to take the wall down and go in with a structural footing to carry that additional
weight. He stated the acousticai panels are found to be a better idea than any of the
above in that it actually serves to absorb the sound.
He stated what they are proposing to do along that length of the wall from the building
on back to where the property line ends, is to mount on the full height of the wall,
acoustic panels that will serve that purpose.
Commissioner Henninger addressed Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, and asked if it
was possible to condition this item with a condition that says that the hours of operation
of the dr(ve•through lane will be specified to the satisfaction of Code Enforcement?
Ms. Mann stated it is pretty unspecific and they may wish to have a somewhat narrower
range within that rather than just leaving it wide open so that they have approved a
certain range of operations, ff that is what they are choosing to do.
The Commission suggested between 10:OOp.m. and 7:OOa.m. and that would be
specified by Code Enforcement to their satisfaction.
Ms. Mann explained ff they would have a purpose for the regulation so as to minimize
Impact on the residential properties.
~..., Page9594
~ She stated the Commission might request an update (a staff report) to come back for a
certain period of time, possibly 3 or 4 months after they commenced their operation to
let the Commission know how things are going since the Commission does have the
authority at any time to call back a Conditional Use Permit for a review.
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to make their evening hour operation
flexible to the satisfaction of Code Enforcement and leave Code Enforcement with the
responsibility of looking out for the Interest of the neighbors. He added ff they started
having a problem then Code Enforcement could limit the hours.
Mr. Duffner stated they would agree to a condition where in the event Code
Enforcement determines there is a problem with the hours of operation of the drive-
through the applicant would mitigate those concerns to Code Enforcement's satisfaction.
He stated they would ask that this be based upon the Joint satisfaction of Code
Enforcement and the Director of Planning or Code Enforcement and the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Henninger asked what Code Enforcement thought about this condition?
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated a stipulation such as that Is somewhat
difficult. He explained they do have a sound ordinance of 60 decibels. In investigating
these types of complaints, if the noise level does increase they could Issue written
notification to comply with the Code and if they get complaints from the neighbors they
have to respond to those complaints.
Commissioner Henninger stated he Just brought in another element which is the noise
ordinance and he did not intend that. He stated the criteria he would like them to use in
'~'; following this condition is the level of dissat(sfaction of the adjacent residents.
Mr. Froeman indicated they could do that.
Commissioner Henninger suggested the condition read as follows: "That the specHic
hours of operation for the drive-up window between 9:OOp.m. and 6:OOa.m. shall be
determined by Code Enforcement with a view of protecting the adjacent neighbors from
unwarranted night time noise."
Ms. Mann stated she was checking the staff report in terms of whether they had said
until 6:OOa.m. or unt(I 7:OOa.m.
Commissioner Henninger clarified he would change it to 7:OOa.m. He stated he was
giving the Code Enforcement Division the ability to vary between 9:OOp.m, and 7:OOa.m.
He stated if ft works out they will tell them they will be allowed to be open all night.
However, if it does not work out they may tell them they may have to close at a
particular hour.
Mr. Duffner stated it should not be a problem.
Commissioner Henninger stated he was trying to Invent some leverage that Code
Enforcement had over them in order to make sure they do the right thing.
09/19/94
~a Page 6
~ ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION
CARRIED to approve the CEOA Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 17, page 6 of the
staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION
CARRIED to approve the Waiver of Code Requirement (findings in Paragraphs 24 and 25, page
7 of the staff report.
Commissioner Messe commented he listened to the tapes for the meetings he did not attend.
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-126 to Grant Conditional Use ermft No.
3685 (findings in Paragraph 26, page 6 of the staff report) and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommended conditions and subject to the following modifications to Condition
Nos. 4, 6 and 7 to read as follows:
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance wfth plans and
speciflcations submitted to the Cfty of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on
file with the Plann!ng Department marked Revision No. 2 of Exhihft No. 1, Revision No. 1
of Exhibit No. 3 and Exhibit Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
6. That a unfformed security guard shall be present at the subject restaurant as required by
the Code Enforcement Division to prevent loitering and noise disturbances.
7. That plans submitted to the Building Division shall indicate the following:
a) Installation of sound absorption panels on the east boundary wall adjacent to the
a ; residential area opposite the speaker board.
b) Signage requesting patrons to lower their radio volume on approach to the speaker
board.
c) The speakerboard sound system shall be designed with a day and night setting that
produces not more than 60 d6 at the property line. Said system shall be designed
such volume adjustment is controlled from within the restaurant.
Added the following conditions:
That the evening hours of operation of the drive-through window between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.
shall be determined by the Code Enforcement Division using the protection of adjacent
residences from unwarranted night time noise as Its guide.
That the applicant shall pay for any Code Enforcement inspections resulting from complaints
received by adjacent neighbors.
That an unsubordinated reciprocal access and parking agreement in a form satisfactory to the
City Attorney shall be recorded with the office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the
recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division.
Vt?Tc: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
09/19/94
(~,/ Page 7
a
~~
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~ ^.ontinued to
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ~ October 3, 1994
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3669
OWNER: MANUEL GARCIA and RUDY A. BALDERRAMA, 1200 S.
Highland Ave., #108, Fullerton, CA 92632
LOCATION: 606 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 end further described as 606 E. Orangewood Avenue.
To permit a church with waiver of minimum setback for instftutional uses
adjacent to residential zone boundaries and maximum structural height adjacent
to residential zones.
Continued from the April 4, May 2, June 27, August 6, and August 22, 1994,
Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL U3E PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _ .
FOLL(SWING ~S A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
" ~ ACTION:
Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer (Commissioner Taft
absent) and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued
to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 3, 1994 in order for the applicant to submit
revised plans.
09/19/94
Page 8
3a. ~EQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
3b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 93.9411 October 17, 1994
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3687
OWNER: WILLIAM TAORMINA, P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA 92815
AGENT: DAVID STOLL„ 327 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 423 North Anahelm Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.08
acres located on the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard
and Sycamore Street.
Reclassflication from the CG and PD-C Zones to the CL Zone.
To permit a bicycle racing track with accessory uses, including a .stall area,
concession stand, and picnic area.
Continued from June 13, Juiy 11, August 8, and September 7, 1994 Planning
Commission meetings.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
,"-' FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 2 people opposed; submitted a petition with 22 signatures
Chairwoman Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning
Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., (n that Chairwoman Boydstun has a
property listed very close to this property and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes,
declared to the Chairman Pro Tempore that she was withdrawing from the hearing in connection
with Reclassification No. 93-94-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3687, and would not take part in
either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of
the Planning Commission. Thereupon Chairwoman Boydstun left the Council Chamber.
It is noted by the Secretary that Commissioner Tait, Chairman Pro Tempore, took over the meeting.
09/19/94
Page 9
PETITIONER:
David Stoll, 17256 Nissan Rd., Tustin, CA 92680. He stated as per the last meeting, the
Planning Commission requested an official noise study done by an accredited engineer. He
stated they met wfth Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, and their engineer and went over
all of the parameters that were going to be needed for the noise study, produced a noise study
and submitted it back to Mr. McCafferty. He explained in the staff report it states everything
they have tried to state in the past, and that is that the noise would really not be that much of a
problem.
Ted Lindberg, 13801 Shirley St. #64, Garden Grove, CA, staff engineer with a consulting at~d
acoustical engineering firm. He was available for any questions regarding the acoustical report.
Casey Chang, (no address given). He submitted a petition with signatures from 22 immediate
residents. He stated he understands that the noise Ievei measurements are modeled after a
speaker mounted 9•feet below the sidewalk or street Ievei. He wondered ff all of the speakers
throughout the field would be mounted no higher than that level? He stated if some of the
speakers, or those furthest away from the west property 11ne are at a higher level, then it could
be a different story.
He stated this same report falls to address the noise generated by the parking lot. He stated
the first report prepared by Gordon Bricken and Associates indicated that the parking lot noise
level will vary from 60 to 70 dba. He expressed his concerns regarding the west property line
as the cars enter and leave the site and in addition patrons talking; doors slamming and
parking lot activity extending to about 10:OOp.m. He thought something should be done about
the west property line along the parking lot. He stated the closest window of the apartments is
only 12 feet from the property line.
He stated in conclusion he did believe that it Is a zoning principle that any new land use should
respect the pre-existing land use in the neighborhood. He stated he is a developer in the City
and everyone likes to see the City grow bigger and better, but not at the cost of penalizing
those who have made the contributions in the past and who are still making contributions and
have made the City what it is today.
Esther Viljak, 1296 L(ghthouse Lane, Anaheim, CA. As previously stated they own 4 properties
in the area of which 122 W. Sycamore borders right up against the proposed site. She stated
they also had the opportunfty to take a look at Grieve (phonetically spelled) Associates study
and there are several points she wanted to bring forth.
She stated the study evaluates only the estimated noise that is going to come from the BMX
track and does not factor in the ambient noise or the noise that is already existing from the
heavy traffic on Anaheim Blvd. and Sycamors Street as well as Lemon. She stated the
recommended Mitigation Measures that were listed in the report include the construction of a 6-
foot wall; a 4•foot berm; speaker power limits and speaker placement along the property line
which hopefully will reduce the noise level to 59 dba. She questions the validity of a study that
concludes that the noise level will be one decibel less than the Code requires. She asked that
they remember that this does not factor in the ambient noise.
09/19/94
0~ Page 10 4
i
She stated there is no reference in the report as to what the interior noise levels would be at
wfth the speakers and concession stands less than 10 feet away from the 122 W. Sycamore
house. She stated the report also states that the starting gate will be designated not to make
any noise during normal operation. She added there is no deflnftion as to what normal
operation is.
She stated the report is in error when ft states that the project site is bordered by one
residential lot directly to the west. Sho explained next to 122 Sycamore there is another house
that borders the property and then on the corner of Lemon and Sycamore is an apartment
complex and all of those areas are affected.
She stated the report also recommended that an earthen berm be constructed between the
sidewalk a~~td the west property line. She was not familiar wfth an earthen berm. Her question
would be is the earthen berm an inexpensive method of reducing noise in Ileu of putting up a
block wall?
She stated the Anaheim City Code permits amplHication of sound equipment 200 feet outside of
the residential areas. She stated the noise levels that are coming from this property, as has
been pointed out before, start within 10 feet of the residential area.
She stated she would like to outline some things that they would like to see done ff the
Commissioners end up approving this request. That the noise level study be reviewed to
encompass the effective existing noise; that studies be conducted to determine the effect on
the noise level of an 8 or 10-foot wall as compared to a 6-foot wall; that the earthen berm be
seriously reviewed for its ability to absorb noise and be compared against a block wall
structure; that the "not" constructed starting gate that will nog be making any noise during
normal operation be more defined; that restrictions be placed on the operating hours of the
ampl!fication equipment so ft does not operate for 12 hours a day thus destroying the quality of
the IIFe of the residents that live on Sycamore and Zeyn Streets.
She submitted a summary of what she just presented and she submitted a letter from her
father. She stated his concerns are noise and that based on the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
setback is not correct. Sha added based on that he is asking that the Commission decline the
request.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated copies of these documents should also be presented
to the applicant for review.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Stoll stated all of the issues brought up were valid. He stated the speakers in question
would all be 9 feet below the street level. He stated they do have plans o`. the speaker
diagrams to show exactly where they would all be placed and they would be under the 9-foot
Ievei.
He referenced the sound of the parking lot. He stated at the last hearing Commissioner
Caldwell stated they cannot control the noise of cars starting or turning off and setting off
alarms. He stated the property that is going to be a parking lot has always been a parking lot.
He explained they have limited the hours by closing by 9:OOp.m. and they will race 3 days and
2 evenings out the week. He further explained that the children will race first; that everyone I
leaving at once will not be a factor as there will be a continuous exodus.
09/19/94 j
~ Page 11 1
n Mr. lJndberg presented his views on the noise Issue and indicated they made sure that they
stay at the 50 db Ievei. He explained that berms are acceptable and effective. He stated they
conducted a single barrier analysis and explained if they took into account the berm, it would
be lower, I.e., 59 db,
Commissloner Messe asked about the bleachers?
Mr. Lindberg explained they are located half way down the slope. He gave some statistics and
commented that the tower was going to be placed closer to Anaheim Blvd.
Commissioner Mayer asked about the starting gate and wanted to know ff it would be
hydraulically controlled.
Mr. Lindberg explained he had not seen the design, however, that ft will not make contact with
the ground and that it will not Impact anything. He stated the normal hours should be 9:OOa.m.
to 7:OOp.m.
Commissioner Mayer asked if they reviewed any sounds coming from the concession stands?
Mr. Lindberg indicated, no, however, k would not be a problem.
Commissloner Messe asked ff the speakers directed towards the stands on the left side were
moveable?
Mr. Lindberg stated he did not think they could be turned up and redirected.
Commissioner Caldwell asked iF they could betaken down at the end of each day?
~-
Mr. Lindberg indicated they could.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if they could be redirected to change the sound?
Commissloner Messe stated it could affect what escapes over the west wall.
Mr. Lindberg stated the earthern berm works to absorb the noise.
Commissioner Messe asked ff all speakers were below 9 feet?
Mr. Lindberg stated they are III located below grade except for the announcer's tower.
Commissloner Mayer asked for clarification if the tower was not amplfied?
It was determined that it was not amplified.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
09/19/94
Page 12
FURTHER DISCUSSION:
~ Commissioner Henninger addressod Aifred Yalda, Traffflc Engineering, and stated staff
recommends 129 parking spaces.
Mr. Yalda indicated that was correct.
Mr. Stoll stated there will be parking at the Sons of Italy; Set Free and down by Cypress where
the employees wili be parking. He added parking will not be a problem.
He stated if parking ever got to be that big of a problem, they could use the whole Inside of the
building which would probably be another 75-125 parking spaces.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff there were 70 parking spaces avaliable on that site?
Mr. Stoll indicated that was correct and also H need be, they would be Interested in doing what
the Parks and Recreation Department does with the Ampitheater and that is to contract wkh
Pacific Bell to use the latter part of their parking lot.
Commissioner Henninger asked if all of these parking spaces were going to be provided via a
recorded agreement?
Mr. Stoll explained that Mr. Taormina owns all of the properties in the area that they are using
for the parking, therefore, he said there would be no problem with that.
Commissioner Messe asked about the parking lot on Adele which is kitty corner to the actual
track. He stated he noticed that they encroach on properties to the west and to the south. He
asked iF he had permission to encroach on those?
r
Mr. Stoll explained that Mr. Taormina owns one of those properties and the other is owned by
Ms. Vlljak, however, he did not believe that they were encroaching.
Commissioner rhe~~e pointed out that according to the model they are encroaching and that is
where people are entering.
Mr. Stoll stated the people are entering there, however, they are coming through from their
property to the other property.
Commissioner Messe stated then that model is Incorrect.
Mr. Stoll stated it may be off scale a little.
Commissioner Messe stated then you would have to get a written agreement from that piece of
property for encroachment, otherwise you have no access from your parking lot to their track.
Mr. Stoll explained that Ms. Vlljak's property line comes down at a 90 degree angle. He stated
they are not using any of their property to enter from the parking lot onto the track she itself.
He clarified they own a property on the other side and they are using that as their entrance
way.
os/1s/sa
t,,,/ Page 13
~ Com+~~Issioner Messe clarified that the property Mr. Stoll was describing was the property to the
south. Commissioner Messe reiterated that they would need a recorded agreement wfth the
property owner that says you can encroach across there, because without that you do not
have an access.
Commissioner Caldwell clarified also that they need to have a written recorded agreement and
a letter is not sufficient as well as the access through the property that is south of them.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they do have a condition that Ms. Flores has added to
this.
Cheryl Flores, Planning Department, stated they do have a standard condition that states: "An
unsubordinated reciprocal access and parking agreement in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney shall be recorded with the office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the
recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division."
Commissioner Henninger asked what the purpose was of that condition?
Mr. Yalda explained it was to make sure that the additionai parking lots are available at all
times.
Commissioner Henninger asked when they have a use, do they normally have fully dtxflcated
parking for k?
Mr. Yalda stated they could modify the condition to be more specific. He added they will need
this prior to Issuance of any building permit.
"~ ~ Commissioner Henninger asked if they needed this 24 hours a day or could they get by on
weekends, evenings and events?
Mr. Yalda explained it is very difficult to tell at th(s point. He explained based on this study it
did not indicate the specific hours of the need of all of the parking because of the nature of this
area. He stated they could add a condition to do an additional study perhaps 6 months after
they open to see ff they really need to havo all of these available 24 hours a day or maybe a
very specific time of day of the week.
Commissioner Henninger asked about the parking for the buildings on Anaheim and Adele?
Mr. Stoll stated they park inside the building and they have access to all of the outside parking
that is in back which is a fenced in and enclosed area. He stated there will be no affect on
their parking.
Some further discussion took place regarding the parking is:~ue.
Commissioner Mayer asked how they address the Issue abc ut people that bring their biKe~ in
on trailers? Where do they park the trailers and do they remain attached to the vehicle? She
did not see any over sized parking spaces.
09/19/94
L"J Page 14
n Mr. Stoll stated over In the Sons of Italy parking, it is straight on both sides. He stated the
trailers that they are talking about are about 10 feet long. He stated the nice thing about that is
you may take up 2 to 3 parking spaces with the car and the trailer. He stated they would
actually be using less parking spaces because they could load several bikes at one time.
Commissioner Mayer asked ff that had been factored Into their study?
Mr. Yalda stated they will have to determine what really works because the parking spaces are
8-1 /2' x 18' and obviously ff you have a trailer attached to it, it is nai going to fit. He stated
they may want to unhook that trailer to park ft next to the parking lot. He stated another
parking space will not take the drive aisle away from the rest of the parking lot.
Mr. Stoll stated on an average race night, there might be 3 to 4 trailers.
Mr. Yalda stated depending on how busy they are, they could designate a corner of the parking
for these trailers.
Commissioner Mayer asked about the Pearson Park Amphitheater.
Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, stated he left a message for Terry Lowe in Parks and
Recreation and he has yet to get back to him.
He stated ff the Planning Commission wishes to Include a condftion so that events at Pearson
Park do not conflict with Mr. Stolls's BMX track, they will go ahead and Incorporate that into the
conditions of approval.
Mr. Stoll stated when he met with Mr. Yaida and his boss, Terry Lowe was at that meeting and
they had already come to an agreement that prior to their setting up their summer schedule,
they would get together and make sure none of their events conflicted with their events in order
to make sure there was no problem wfth parking, noise, etc. He added they would be more
than happy to have that put Into the stipulation.
Mr. McCafferty stated staff left out the Negative Declaration paragraph even though the top of
the staff report Indicates that Is the recommended action. He stated based on the ir;formation
they received and the public testimony, staff is still recommending a Negative Declaration for
the project.
Commissioner Messe stated the fact that the drawings are not complete and they do not show
the structures of the stand, when do they plan to have final drawings?
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated she would 11ke to clarify something with regard to the
Anaheim Municipal Cade. She stated off site parking, where the property is actually under joint
ownership and where the same person owns the adjacent off site property, Code does not
require a recorded agreement, so they may decide under the circumstances if is appropriate to
have some kind of recorded agreement. She stated it may not be reciprocal parking since it
would not be Mr. Taormina granting parking to himself, but rather something that clarifies that
this parking is going to be made available to this particular use if that is something they wish to
require, but that would be separate from the Code requirement.
09/19/94
6,~ Page 15
She explained the Code itself actually indicates that all property used for such off-site parking
shall be under joint ownership or under agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney.
She stated since this is a conditional use permit, they do have authority to require something that
is more stringent than what the Code requires, but she wanted them to have the information
before them at the time they make the decision.
Mark Thomason, 160 S. "B" Street, Tustin, CA. He stated he designed the project. He explained
the final drawings have been up in the air as things have changed in the past few months.
However, it would not be a problem to get the drawings in 4 to 6 weeks.
Commissioner Messe stated he wondered if the Commission feels comfortable with the
documentation that they have available to them.
Commissioner Henninger asked to see the aerial photo of the old Set Free site. He had a hard
time believing that there were 70 parking spaces on the site.
Melanie Adams, Public Works Department, stated there was a minor correction on Condition No.
6 and that should read as follows: "That all driveways at the parking lot sites shall be
reconstructed to accommodate 10-foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering
Department standards."
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he had a correction on Condition Nos. 11 and
12. Condition No. 11 should read as follows: "That prior to commencement of activity authorized
by this resolution, or prior to issuance of a building permit, etc."
Condtion No. 12 should read as follows: "That prior to commencement of activity authorized by
this resolution or final Building and Zoning In ~,:M!~rn, whichever occurs first, etc'
.-
' He stated staff would also recommend two nee ~ c :,~dftions:
1. That the property owner shall be responsible for payment of Code Enforcement
Inspections resulting from complaints received pertaining to subject facility.
2. That the tract shall be graded so that no portion is above the curb level at the public
right-of-way.
Commissioner Henninger stated he has the ~;ense that this is still not the right place for this use.
He has been out at the one at the Orange "Y" and k is fairly isolated and is next to the freeway
and a ball field. He stated somehow it did not feel right to put this In the middle of a residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Mayer stated she was still feeling the same hesitancy. She did not like the
vagueness of a starting gate that has not been built yet and she was nut comfortable with the
parking issues.
The Planning Commission and Mr. Yalda went over the aerial photo and a discussion took plac:-
regarding the 70 parking spaces.
Mr. Yalda explained that the applicant indicated if they cannot tit in the 70 spaces, they stilt have
additional parking available to them which would be accommodated within the property owned
by Mr. Taormina.
09/19/94
~ Page 16
,:
~,,
Commissioner Hennln er asked H those parking spaces were committed to other buildings that
9
~ they own in that area?
Mr. Stoll stated the ones behind the old Set Free are committed to himself.
Commissioner Henninger asked specKically where are the parking spaces for the Set Free
building?
Mr. Stall stated the people working inside the building where the chu,ch was, park Inside.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff Mr. Taormina was willing to commft to that?
Mr. Stoll indicated he was.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification that Mr. Taormina will never come back and ask
for any other use?
Mr. Stoll stated not while the BMX track is in operation.
Mr. Stoll stated 95% of the time this facility is open and the 74 spaces they have given will not be
taken to capacity. He explained if they race 3 nights a week, they might need some additional
parking. He stated the Sons of Italy have offered to allow them to use their parking because they
are not open that much.
He stated they have 30 parking spaces plus the 74 which is 104. He stated their employees will
be parking off-site which is an additional 22 spaces which totals about 125 spaces and that is not
using the Set Free parking.
He stated the reason they wanted to allocate the Set Free parking in the back was in the event
there was a large race it would already be there and they would not have to handle it at a later
date.
Commissioner Messe stated the truth is shat when people come to these events, ff given the
choice of parking a block or two away or using city streets, they will clog the city streets.
Mr. Stoll stated the BMX family is very dedicated. There are not very many places when they
can go and race. He stated if they direct them where to park they will park there. He explained
they will not want to rock the boat; they do no! want to see a facility like this brought up and then
taken aut because the people do not want to listen to the rules. He stated that is not to say that
people will not park on the street because you cannot control Shat. He stated no matter what Is
put on this property, that same problem would arise.
He stated they will do everything in their power to make sure that the people who come to use
the Anaheim BMX facility will park in the proper areas.
Commissioner Henninger stated they have continued this from 5 different meetings to get a noise
study and they finally got it. He stated he does not have a good sense of where the parking is
and all they have is a promise from them. He stated they were told there were 70 parking spaces
in the back and it looks to him that there may be 20 parking spaces. He stated someday they
need to figure out what they want to do there and tell tha Commission.
09/19/94
Page 17
Mr. Stoll stated he thought he had been very clear with what they want to do here.
t~!
Commissioner Henninger stated no he had not been real clear. The Commission has been
asking them about the parking and they do not even know where the parking spaces are. He
told the Commission one thing and they looked at the aerial and it turns out not to be true. He
stated they do not have this worked out and this has been continue, a lot of times and they have
spent a lot of time on this.
Commissioner Henninger stated there were suppose to be 70 spaces on the southeast comer of
Adeie and Anaheim and that is Just not true. He asked Mr. Stoll to show him where the 70
spaces were on this site.
Mr. Stoll stated ff there is a miscalculation in the number of spaces, he apologizes fully. He
stated these were the numbers given to him to bring to Mr. Yalda. He stated with all of the other
parking they have allocated to them, the spaces that they would be using back In the Set Free
site would only be for an overflot~. at a large event which probably will not happen within the first
two to three years of operation.
He stated he cannot guarantee that-he cannot say they will never use the parking In Set Free,
but like he stated ff need be they will get the some type of agreement that the Amphitheater has
and rent the space at the Pacific Bell building. He stated thoy are going to do whatever it takes
to make the Planning Commisslon happy.
Commissioner Caldwell stated you are asking us to approve a facility and in order for us to do
that, we have to have findings; we have to some kind of idea as to what you are going to do and
the Commission is saying that they are just not clear. He stated the reason they are not clear is
f„ because Mr. Stoll is not clear as to what he is going to do. He stated the Commission needs to
~ see 129 parking spaces or they need to ask for a variance on their parking. He stated all they
are trying to do is establish exactly what they are going to do and how it is going to affect the
neighborhood. He added the Commisslon needs to have clear, concise information and they
have not gotten it.
Mr, atoll asked what they would like him to do in regards to :he parking so they can get this
issue behind them? He asked H he should get another study done to show exactly how many
spaces are behind Set Free?
Mr. Stoll went over the number of parking spaces once more. He stated the parking spaces add
up to 125. He added he was sure the Commission would agree that there are more than 4
spaces behind Set Free.
Commissioner Mayer ~cked ff the Sons of Italy was also owned by Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Stoll stated he belies i so.
Commissioner Peraza asked ~7r. Yalda K there were 30 spaces at 117 W. Cypress and 30 at
408 N. Anaheim?
Mr. Yalda stated he had two letters signed by Mr. Taormina that indicates that at 408 N. Anaheim
Blvd., which Is the Sons of Italy, there is about 30 parking spaces available; and also they are
talking about 30 additional parking spaces at 117 W. Cypress Street which is a total of 60. He
added the letters were signed by Mr. Taormina.
~~ 09/19/94
Page 18
Commissioner Taft asked ff Mr. Yalda was satisfied with the parking?
~~
Mr. Yalda stated when they met with the City Traffic and Transportation Manager they went over
all of the parking Issues extenshrely and as long as he provides 129 parking spaces within that
close prox(mfry, there should be adequate parking for this site. He stated specffically the
employee parking would be separated from what he is proposing, I.e., the employee should park
in the parking lot that is farthest from the project.
He stated they conditioned this to provide the parking plan showing them 129 parking spaces
and that meets their minimum requirement as far as the size and location is concerned. He
stated there is a condition that before he pulls a building permit he should show them 129
parking spaces available to hire.
Commissioner Caldwell asked based on the configuration shown them today, do you agree with
the applicant that after the 74 spaces are filled up at the southwest corner, that people will then
drive over and park behind Set Free; the Sons of Italy; down on Adele and walk back or will they
park on the street?
Mr. Yalda stated the easiest way would be common sense that you park as close as possible to
any area, so if you could use the street, the people will use the street to park.
Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Yalda based on the criteria, in spite of these satellite parking
lots, did he feel it still meets our Code?
Mr. Yalda stated based on the parking study and the location of these satellite parking areas
which are approrlmately less than 1,000 feet, people normally do walk within these distances. He
added however, if people find it easier to park close to the site and it is on the street, they would
park there.
commissioner Caldwell asked ff that would be a problem for the Traffic Engineering Department?
Mr. Yalda stated he did not think it would be a problem for Traffic Engineering, but it could be a
problem with ttie neighborhood, however, they do not know about that. He agreed that there
was a possibility that people would park all around that neighborhood.
~:ommissioner Mayer asked Mr. Stall if he was successful in convincing his clients that they need
to park on the other side of Anaheim Blvd., and does he see them first off loading their children
and their bicycles or will these children and bicycles be crossing Anaheim Blvd?
Mr. Stoll stated most of the time they will off load them at the site. He explained these are
expensive bikes that you would not normally ride.
Commissioner He~rninger asked to see ?he graphic that they saw this morning where ff shows the
additional off site parking.
Mr. Stoll stated ff he were a parent and he was driving his children, they would be dropped off
right by the parking lot and not over at one of the satellite parking areas and then ride over. He
stated they will have people in the parking lot at all times at all satellite locations. He added ff
they are using the satellite parking there will be someone there for safety and to patrol the area.
09/19/94
~,,,~ Page 19
~ Commissioner Henninger discussed the graphic. He stated parking area 2 showed twenty-two
spaces and there is a building on that she. He stated it Looks like there are approximately 5
spaces and this is a use that needs ks own parking.
Mr. Stoll Sated that is a church. He explained Mr. Taormina owns the property adjacent to the
church.
Commissioner Henninger stated there aoe not twenty-two (c2) spaces thErs.
Mr. Stoll stated he has seen many more than 22 cars parked them at one time.
Commissioner Henninger stated on the photo there are i2 cars and some are 3 deep.
Commissioner Messe stated there was no sense in trying to draw up a plan here at the public
hearing.
Mr. Stoll stated aRer meet(ng with Mr. Yalda and his superior, they would have come better
prepared but they were told that the parking was not an Issue anymore. He explained the staff
report indicated that everything was satisfactory.
Commissioner Henninger stated the parking would be o.k. ff they actually had 70 spaces. Mr.
Yalda was under the impression that the Set Free building was going to be removed and that it
was going to be developed as a parking lot. He stated if they would like to do that they could
probably condition this and let it go.
Mr. Stoll explained he did not have the authority to do that. He added it Is Mr. Taormina's
property.
Commissioner Taft asked ff they would be willing to continue this once more until the parking
matter is Ironed out? He stated he is generally in favor of this. He stated the parking was not a
major concern to him, however, the noise was and that seems like it will be mitigated. He stated
it is not a perfect use, however, he sees a need for something like this.
Mr. Stoll explained they are working closely wfth the D(sney's GOALS program with their two ice
rinks that will ba going in. He explained they want to do something positive for the kids, I.e., give
them a place to go; get tf:em off of the streets where they are not pressured by bad Influences
and Into a supervised environment.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he agrees, however, the Issue is, Is this facility compatible; does it
meet Code requirements; will h not be a negative Impact on the health, welfare and quality of life
of the people who own properties that live around the facility? Ho stated at this particular time
and based on the information he has, he would vote no.
Commissioner Tait asked Commissioner Caldwell if he solved the parking problem would he still
vote no?
Commissioner Caldwell stated he did not see how he was going to solve the parking Issues.
Commissioner Tait asked Mr. Stoll if he wanted to request a continuance or a vote?
09/19/94
Page 20
Mr. Stoll indicated he would not like to request a vote at this time. He stated obviously there are
some flaws in the parking that he noeds to address. He stated he needed to get whh Mr.
Taormina and get the exact number of parking spaces so they know exactly where they are
coming from and also get whh Pacific Bell for a parking arrangement ff more parking spaces are
needed. He apologized because he was under the impression that the parking had beon
handled.
Commissioner Mayer asked that he also address the Issue ff they are parking people across
Anaheim 131vd., they need a safe unloading area where parents can drop children off whh bicycles
and then drive away somewhere elss to park.
Commissioner Mosse stated they need a parking she plan.
Mr. Stoll explained there were parking plans submhted when they handed everything in, so the
blueprints are there.
Commissioner Caldwell expressed his concerns regarding encouraging people to park in the
satellite parking areas and how they were going to handle that.
It was determined thet this item be continued for 4 weeks.
ACTION:
Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION
CARRIED thansideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulariyacheduled
meeting of October i r', 1994, in order for the applicant to submit revised plans ani solve the
parking issues.
Mr. Yalda asked that the applicant provide them whh very spacfflc deta!!~ on every location he is
providing and the actual drawing showing the number of parking that meets Code.
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to see him come to some conclusion on when
they think they need these parking spaces. He stated ff they need them all the time, then they
need to be fully committed parking spaces. He stated as he looks at tha spaces that are
currently proposed, thesa optional spaces are already committed to a use. He stated ff they are
shared spaces, then let's make sure we understand they are shared spaces and they believe that
works.
Mr. Yalda stated perhaps they could come up whh the timing that woitld be acceptable to the
applicant for the designation of those parking spaces and the uses that are already there.
Commissioner Messe stated ff there Is a church and they have a bike race on Sunday affemoon,
then those spaces may not be available.
09/19/94
~,,,~ Page 21
Acr,~N:
Gommissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION
CARRIED to continue subject request to October 17, 1994 Planning Commission meeting In order
for the applicant to submit a detafied parking plan providing 129 parking spaces and an
unloading area for this use. '
In addition, the Planning Commission requested that Traffic Engineering staff determine when
shared parking spaces will be needed.
~,
~ ,
09/19/94
~,,,~ Page 22
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3713 Granted
OWNER: ORE HOLDING COMPANY, 865 S. Figueroa St., #3500, Los
Angeles, CA 90017
AGENT: TRANSTAR REAL ESTATE SERVICES, 2115 W. Crescent Ave.,
#201, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: Parcel 1: 2101-2121 West Crescent Avenue. Property consists
of two (2) irregularlyshaped parcels of land: Property is
approximately 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of
Crescent Avenue and Valley Street (having approximate
frontages of 490 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue and
240 feet on the east side of Valley Street.)
Parcel 2: 700 - 720 North Valley Street. Property of
approximately 9.2 acres located north of the Orange County
Flood Control Channel (having a frontage of approximately 840
feet on the east side of Valley Street, having a maximum depth
of approximately 890 feet and being located approximately 360
feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue.)
To permit a 4,542 square foot child day care facility.
Continued from the September 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94127
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Margaret McLaughlin, Property Manager for Tri-Freeway Business Park which is the proposed
location for the day care center.
She stated they investigated the three concerns still lingering as a result of the staff report. She
stated the first one was with regards to the zoning and the land use and the second was with
regard to traffic and the third with ncise. She stated on a very short Time scale they tried to
address each of those Issues.
Land use and zoning. She stated they have looked at the compatibility of the day care center
with a multi•tenant Industrial park. She presented a situation where this Is already in existence
in at least two areas that they were able to identify where a school and day care center exists
in General Industrial zoned areas.
~.../ 09/19/94
Page 23
She showed some exhibits. She explained they are located very close to each other in East
~"'~ Anaheim right off of l2 Palma near Imperial. They are both zoned General Industrial. They
are the Yellow Brick Road and the Vineyard Church and school combination. She gave a
presentation based on a land use zoning capacfty.
Traffic. She stated they looked at lots of other day care centers existing in the City of Anaheim
and they have discovered about 15 or so that have traffic situations which they feel are more
dangerous than the traffic sftuation that would be at their facilty. She showed a display board.
She stated a number of these day care facilfties are located right on very busy surtace streets
such as Brookhurst, Kateila and Ball. She stated their playground areas are directly adjacent to
the street separated from the frequency of traffic by nothing more than efther a wrought Iron
fence, a chain link fence or in one case a wooden picket fence. She gave some examples.
She stated the day care location at their site is going to be at the very far corner in the quietest
back quarter, cul-de-sac position that they have to offer. She stated they will be able to see
when the board she has comes around to them, that at the right hand side they will see shots
taken from the street looking Into the property and how far away from the street itself this day
care facility would be.
She explained the driveway which runs from the street to the proposed location already has 4
existing speed bumps, one of which is right at the corner close to the proposed day care. She
stated traffic down that driveway is Iimfted only to servicing their tenants and ft is not regular
street traffic. She stated there are speed bumps there to Impede its progress. She further
stated ft is also the part where traffic is very, very light.
She stated they have proposed to put in concrete filled bollards to further protect the
playground area. In addition they would have a wrought Iron fence to protect the playground
area which is more than existing playground areas have that are on major thoroughfares.
She stated also related to the traffic Issue was the turning radius at that part of their property.
She stated according to the site plan ft ends in a very tight apex of an acute angle. She stated
they are proposing taking 20 feet of that point of the angle away. She explained it is not a part
of the turning circle that is currently used by any vehicle manipulating that turn. She stated It
still leaves a tremendously wide turning radius at the end of that building. She stated ft could
accommodate big rig trucks ff they had them.
She stated this is a small type of rnulti-tenant user. She stated the delivery trucks that come to
their property are typically vans or cars, therefore, the turning radius is more than adequate
even after they have taken off the 20 feet at that tight angle.
She stated another concern was the drop off point being located too close to the building.
Staff felt ft was too close to adjacent users. She stated they have proposed relocating the drop
off point to .' ~-h side of the playground area against the perimeter fence where they will be
away from any of the buildings. She stated it will almost be in a dedicated area for themselves
for off loading. She stated the children would then go directly Into the playground area and
walk through ft in order to gain access to the building.
~ 09/19/94
Page 24
She stated the third issue was one of noise. She stated the initial staff report had indicated
~ sounds that were apparently higher than she had anticipated, therefore, they had agreed to go
- ahead and get an Independent sound level testing done. She stated they have had an
acoustical engineer commk a test and his findings came back with readings that are in the low
70 decibel range.
She stated they indicated that 67 decibels is the desired or required Ievei and with the
installation of plywood that would be attached to the existing wrought iron fence, would reduce
the sound level by those 7 decibels in order to bring ft down to compliance. Therefore, they
feel they can overcome the noise issue.
She stated the plywood would also be a physical barrier to the oleander which (s a poisonous
plant. She stated the plywood would be installed between the hedge and the wrought Iron
fence and would form a physical barrier between those two elements and the children will not
have access to touching that plant at all.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger asked for staff's comments on putting plywood on the existing
wrought Iron fence. He asked about any openings in the plywood.
Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be no openings. She read information from her report
Into the record concerning the matter.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated she assumed the school would be licensed from the State. She
asked ff they had done any inspections as yet?
Regina Margaret, (phonetically spelled), Executive Director for the program. She stated the
State has seen the plans for the school, but they will not actually come out until the variance is
given.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked if this was also approved by the County since these children are
the responsibility of the County?
Ms. Margaret stated Social Services was backing the project and they know where it is also.
She clarified that the County has been out to the site. She further stated that the Orange
County Social Services Children's Division are bar.' r,tg the project and they are paying for the
yearly budget. She clarified they are not covering the seed money, but they are familiar with
the proposal and the plans and they have actually been out there.
Commissioner Tait asked if they have officially commihed to financially backing the project?
Ms. Margaret indicated that was correct for tho yearly budget, but they cannot do anything until
they get the variance.
Commissioner Tait asked about the plywood. He asked staff ff that affected their
recommendation no. 22b as far as the nose (s concerned? He asked ff that adequately
mitigated the noise levels? He stated they have a recommendation to deny the project based
on hazards associated with noise. He stated he did not have a feel for the decibel levels that
they are talking about.
` G/ i J; g4
"' F age ?r
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he thought they would have to have some type
(,., of study of that actual location and the type of materials being used.
Ms. McLaughlin stated children playing will generate a lot of noise and will be louder than any
of the ambient noise around them. She stated they are only looking to reduce the decibel level
by 7 decibels- they are not requiring a tremendous drop in the db level.
ACTION:
Commissioner Mayer asked Ms. Margaret ff she had read the staff report where it states the
Traffic and Transportation Manager has said that this is an incompatible and potentially
hazardous condition this close to the railroad track and the traffic on the freeway?
Ms. Margaret explained there was a quite a bit of property between the railroad tracks, the
freeway and the school.
Further discussion took place regarding the constant freeway noise, fumes, air quality and
possible toxic spills.
Commissioner Messe stated he would abstain from any vote on this issue as he was not able
to hear the tape of the last meeting.
Mr. McCafferty stated the survey recommends a 3/4" plywood attached to the wrought Iron
fence wfth some foam in between the plywood. He stated this is not unlike some of the noise
attenuation measures that have been done for some of the Redevelopment areas. He stated
not being a sound engineer, he cannot really tell them for sure, however, the thing that they
measure is surface densty and from past noise studies that he has read, 3/4" plywood is
equivalent to a concrete masonry wall in terms of surface density and the 7 db reduction that Is
identified in the survey is the average reduction that is achieved through that type of
attenuation,
Commissioner Henninger stated ff they are comfortable that that is the right standard perhaps
the way to handle this is to put that risk on them and have a condition that they will mitigate
the noise down to that level and they will test ft when they finish this improvement to the wall
and prove to them that ft works.
Mr. McCafferty stated it would work.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait
(Commissioner Messo abstaining) and MOTION CARRIED to approve the CEQA Negative
Declaration (findings in Paragraph 14, page 6 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-t27 to grant Conditional Use
Permit No. 3713 (Commissioners Peraza and Mayer voting No and Commission Messe
abstained). Findings in Paragraph 21, page 7 of the staff report and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee recommended condftions, and with the following added
condftions:
That the playground area shall have noise mitigated to a level of 67 dBA. Once the
Improvements are done to mitigate to said level, a noise consultant shall conduct a noise i
study satisfactory to the Ciry's Environmental Planner to ensure that it conforms. I
(Action continued on next page}
S
~ 09/19/94
Page 26 s
(Action continued from previous page -CUP 3713)
4
~.
\„/
That a traffic barrier shall be installed at the termination of the vehicular turnaround area
consisting of a minimum of seven (7) trafFlc bollards placed at 4 feet on-center on the
outside of the proposed chainlink fence and immediate adjacent to the outdoor play area.
That a speed berm shall be installed approximately ninety (90) feet west of the outdoor
play area.
That the child loading/unloading area shall be relocated from that area Immediately
adjacent to the buliding to the northernmost parking area located at the northwest comer
of the outdoor play area.
That two (2) pedestrian access gates shall be installed in the chalntlnk fence enclosing
the outdoor play area.
VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Peraza and Mayer voted no and Commissioner Messe abstained)
09/19/94
Page 27
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3711
OWNER: TEXACO REFINING and MARKETING, Attn: Doug Elston, P.O.Box
7812, Universal Cky, CA 91608-7812
AGENT: FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES, Attn: Patrick Fiedler, 2322 W.
Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057
LOCATION: 5650 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.0 acre
located at the southwest comer of La Paima Avenue and Imperial
Highway.
To permk an automotive service station wkh an accessory automated car wash,
convenience market, and drive•through restaurant (with no seating) wkh waivers of
permitted identiflcatlon sign, permitted number of wall signs, permkted hours of sign
IIIumination, minimum number of parking spaces, minimum drive through lane
requirements, required setback from arterial highways and required improvement of
setback area.
Continued to
October 31, 1994
Continued from the August 22, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAr_ USE PERMIF RESOLUTION N0.
'' , FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer
(Commissioner Tak absent) and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
October 31, 1994 for readvertisement of subject request to include a request
for sales of beer and wine for off-premise a.isumpdon and submittal of
revised plans for staff review.
09/19/94
ti~ Page 28
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.9495-05 October 17, 1994•
OWNER: CLAYTON EUGENE SCARBROUGH AND DONNA JEAN
SCARBROUGH ET. AL, P.O. BOX 18957, Anaheim, CA 92817
AGENT: JACK STANALAND, 1590-10 South Coast Hwy., Laguna Beach,
CA 92651
LOCATION: 1400 South Douglass Road. (Orange Tree Mobilehome Park)
Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of
Douglass Road approximately 1080 feet north of the centerline of
Katella Avenue with a frontage of approximately 1060 feet on the
east side of Douglass Road.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (MHP)
(Residential/Agricultural-Mobilehome Park Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000
(Residentlal/Agricultural) Zone.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke (n opposition/correspondence was submitted
!ETITIONER:
Jack Stanaland, 1590 S. Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA. He asked fora 2 week
continuance untii October 30, 1994.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated there was an error on recommendation Item no.
22, page 7 and she did communicate this to both the tenants and to the mobilehome park
owner that there was not going to be a recommendation on a continuance. She read
paragraph no. 22 of the staff report into the record. She stated she left a message for Mr.
Leon last Friday which was when the staff report would have been made a~oailable and also
prior to that time she contacted Mr. Robert Coldren's office, the attorney for the mobile
home park owner.
Commissioner Henninger stated then some of the existing tenants may have picked up the
report here and they may have read this and decided they did not need to come until
October 3rd.
Ms. Mann stated that Mr. Leon is in the audience today.
Edward Leon, the President of the Orange Tree Residence Association. He was originally
notified of the petitioner's request for the removal of the mobilehome overlay and that It
was scheduled for this date. He stated then he was informed last week that the
Commission had decided to continue this until October 3rd.
09/19/94
Page 29
He stated he received a message Friday that it was not to be continued and that it was
going to be heard today at the request of the petitioner. He stated he has not seen the
staff report and the recommendations nor has he seen any of the other details about what
(s to transpire here toifay.
It is noted that the petitoner is stilt requesting a continuance. Mr. Stanaland stated their
attorney missed a fl(ght in San Francisco. He stated as to the amount of mitigation or
dollars that will go to tenants, that matter is before the City Council tomorrow which is the
same thing they would be doing here today and it might be more appropriate for that
decision to be made first.
It was determined that there are going to be only 4 Commissioners at the October 3rd
meeting. Mr. Leon decided to go ahead today.
Mr. Leon presented a Relocation Impact Report. He stated it was designed to go right
down the Ilne with what the Anaheim Ordinance requires on a Relocation Impact Report
which is the age of the mobile home park; the number of mobilehor.•es existing in the park
and as of today that is 11 out of 219; a description of the park and the landscaping; the
length of time res(dents lived in the park; and an analysis is available of replacement
housing within 125 miles. He stated they have estimated the cost of relocating the
mobilehomes which was the subject of one hearing before this Commission and probably
some 12 or 13 hours of testimony before a Hearing Officer.
He stated when they were here in May under the Government Code Section on relocation
benefits, the tenants submitted a number of bids snd the average bid was $4,858.00.
He stated they have arranged relocation benefits for a number of other parks for tenants.
~, The tenants average between four and five thousand dollars from other parks and that
more than covers the relocation costs. He explained the relocation costs under the
ordinance are: the cost of moving and landscaping which includes tearing down the
mobilehome, moving it and putting it back together. He had copies of the bids as
presented by the tenants. He stated a copy of the Hearing Offlcler's recommendation is
attached to the staff report which breaks down to $4,925 for an average of $2,803 in
benefits from other parks.
He stated he believed what the Hearing Officer found was relocation benefits of $2,149.00
per person for those remaining in the park.
It was determined that there are 11 persons that have not signed an agreement. In
addition there are 15 or i6 people who have signed agreements that are still in the park.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if the final figures of the relocation costs were determined by
some of the incentives given by other parks?
Mr. Stanaland indicated that was correct.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Anaheim Municipal Codes specifically states that
payment shall not be reduced by any Incentives or bonuses which a mobilehome owner
may be able to negotiate with a new landlord.
Mr. Stanaland stated he was not sure where that was. He stated those were not things that
the tenants negotiated, but thing:t they negotiated.
(°"~ 09/19/94
Page 30
Selma Mann, Deputy City Engineer, stated the Conversion Impact Report that is before the
Commission Is the one that is dated July 25, 1994. She stated it is a Closure Impact
Report that was prepared specifically for the reclassifcation to remove the Mobilehome
Park Overlay. The matter that was previously before them is a separato Issue and
obviously some of the Information may be the same, however, they are looking at the
evidence that is received today in terms of the information on the July 25, 1994 report as ff
may be supplemented by Mr. Stanaland and his consultants and by the tenants that are
here today that is unrelated to the Items that will go to the City Council tomorrow evening.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked for clarffication if they just needed evidence on removal of the
overlay?
Ms. Mann explained that the removai of the overlay involves a number of other Issues; ff
Involves meeting the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code as set forth in 18.92. It
means looking at those Issues and h means looking at those Issues differently from the way
they were viewed at the original hearing. She stated at that time they were looking at the
Anaheim Municipal Code for guidance, but could not actually apply that or Impose
requirements for payment as a condition of the reclassification as they are actually required
to Impose mitigation conditions, so there is a difference.
She stated in both Instances the benefits cannot exceed the reasonable cost of relocation
which as before are not defined anywhere in law. She stated previously they used the
Anaheim Municipal Code as guidance in determining what those reasonable costs were.
Commissioner Messe asked ff the o~::y consideration is for those people who are currently
living ~vithin the park?
Ms. Mann stated under the Anaheim Municipal Code, yes.
Commissioner Messe asked what about those people who era living in the park and have
signed an agreement to move under a date specified?
Ms. Mann stated people who are Irving in the park and have signed the agreement with the
property owner for the altemate beneift arrangement that has been previously described
even though it is not before them, that would be a separate agreement and would be
outside the purview of what they would be deciding today. Sho explained their Code
specffically indicates that payments are in Ileu of or Instead of any other benefits to which
the park owner may mutually agree. Therefore, ff there is a signed agreement whereby the
tenant and the park owner have reached alternate agreements to what the Commission
ultimately decides, that would be their deal with the owner.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff today they are considering, according to the
testimony, 11 residents?
Ms. Mann stated according to the testimony received so far, yes.
Commissioner Caldwell stated Ms. Mann made a common: earlier that the cost could not
exceed reasonable moving costs.
Ms. Mann explained what State law indicated was reasonable cost of relocation.
`/ 09/19/94
Page 31
OPPOSITION:
Edward Leon, 23621 La Palma Avenue, Suite H-154, Yorba Linda, CA 92687-5531. Ha is
President of the Resident's Association and formerly a resident of the Orange Tree. Ha is
representing many of the 11 still remaining as well as the former residents who have
moved.
He addressed Ms. Mann and stated that it was his understanding that •.he Code does not
specify that the residents must be in the park at the time of final notice. He asked that she
address that.
Ms. Mann stated she would request that the testimony of the tenants proceed and she will
take a look at the Code again. She stated the City Attorney has taken a look at our Code
and the conclusion was that there really is not anything that would say as to the original
notice of the park closure.
She stated it would be very dKflcult to determine what propcrry owners would have moved
anyway and to try to establish something that would be fair both to the tenants and to the
park owner. She stated that really was a separate process with regard to the original
Notice of Closure and this one is a process for the reclassNicat on for removal of the
Mobilehome Overlay. She stated that notice was just served in the recent past as opposed
to the original one which was in February of this year.
She stated she will take a look at the Code and H there is anything different that she sees
she will address the Commission on it. She stated they do have a memorandum from the
City Attorney's Office and she will be happy to provide a summary of the review of the
Issue. She provided a copy of that to the Commission and she will also provide a copy of
that to Mr. Stanaland and Mr. Leon and there will be a number of other copies by the
speakers pailum.
Mr. Leon stated the sections of the Code that talk about the rezoning and reclassification of
the park are very week and not specified. but tho intent of the Code as stated in the Code
is to balance the Interest of the park owner with the Interests of the residents. He stated
the Cale does not speciry anywhere the date to which residents must remain In the park In
order to qualify for relocation benefits. He stated it is to?ally silent simply saying that
residents who are displaced are to receive relocation benefits.
He stated the owner of the park, Jack Stana!and, as evidenced in the past, has a strong
tenancy to use the law or tricks of the lav: for this own advantage to obtain posttions of
unequal bargaining power against the residents and also to try and leverage his own
position. He stated for example, in February when the CIR was first published, it waa
clearly indicated to every resident that there was an diiclal Notice of Closure of the Park.
He was careful in the CIR to specify that he was not yet requesting a change of use. Mr.
Stanaland has an attorney and they cannot match that kind of legal power.
He stated when the document was issued in the park and a document was sent to every
resident, then a second copy was hand delivered to every resident so they made double
sure that everyone in the park got that official notice of change of use and announcement
of closure of the park.
09/19/94
Page 32
He stated management and Mr. Stanaland's agents and officers from that time on made a
very Intense effort to get as many residents as possible to move out of the park. He stated
as far as who was in the park, it would be very easy to notice the official date of filing or
the official date of mailing of the CIR and note who was residing in the park as an owner at
the time that the CIR was issued in February. He stated that would not be a hard matter to
research.
He stated when the agents and officers of Campanula Properties were pushing hard for
residents to vacate the park, there was also a very onerous rent deferment agreement. He
stated some of the Commissioners looked at h and said they would not sign it and many of
the residents decided not to either.
He stated displaced residents have been moving since February, 1994 under the
understanding from management that the sections of this City Code which is Intended to
balance the Interest of owner and rasident were now in effect. He stated they realized with
counsel of their own attorney that anyone that moved prior to the issuance of the CiR
would not qualify for any beneffts at all.
He stated the agents and officers of Campanula Properties encourage residents to relocate
as soon as possible once that closure was announced. He stated at the May 2nd meeting
before this Commission, Vicki Talley representing Mr. Stanaland, stated that those who had
already moved were "cooperating" wfth management. Her own words are on testimony
before this Commission.
He stated at this time only about 15 remain in the park, but they are in the park only
because thay have been unable to move either for lack of money or lack of a space to
move to. He stated everyone who was able to move could move and ff you survey the
remaining tenants you would find that to be the case. He stated the other group in the
park are those that have already signed the agreement and do not come under these
proceedings.
He slated it is interesting because he did not think there would have been enough
mobilehome movers In tha State of California nor enough room on the streets of the
mobilehome park to accommodate moving 215 coaches within a 60 day period considering
it takes 3 days to tear it down and 3 days to set it up plus the day of transport.
He stated the group of residents, including those in the park and those who have already
moved and hava not signed the agreament that were a :asident in the parkas of February,
are approximately 130 families. He stated 115 families have already moved and were in the
park in February at the time the official Motice of Change of Use came out frr..m
management and was distributed (one in the mall and one Band delivered).
He stated at that time the big push came to move from the park. These people were in the
park in February and they have moved at their own expense with the understanding that
they v,~ould not come under the provisions of the Anaheim Code Intended to match the
interests of the owner wfth the residents in the event of closure or change of use of the
mobilehome park plan. Included in the 115 families that moved are young families with
children; disabled people and seniors. Most of these people moved at significant expense
using high interest credit cards and one 89 year old woman borrowed from her burial fund
to move because she was promised she would be reimbursed by the park manager after
the move. They are unable to get hold of the manager because he does not answer this
phones.
09/19/94
Page 33
He stated that does not even bring up the Issue of how much a move costs, so he just
wanted to address this one Issue only of to whom the benefits should apply. Should it
apply to the 130 families or should it apply to the 15 families remaining?
He stated management pushed for their own ast Interest which vas to get as many
people out of the park as quickly as possible. The first push was to get as many as
possible to s(gn the rent deferment agreement and that was done in January. They did not
get enough, only about 25% of he park signed it. They withdrew the offer and reoffered it
again in lace February and March and they got as many as 40% to sign it by using a
position of unequal bargaining power with promises at the end of the annual lease renewals
their rent would be Increased. He stated many of these people rould hardly afford to pay
the rent they were paying already. He gave sorn< .xamples and stated that some people
Just walked away from their investments and bankrupted their mortgages and went Into
a;artments.
Commissioner Henninger interrupted at this point and asked iF he was going to get around
to talking about what the relocation benefits are going to be?
Mr. Leon asked that a relocation benefit allowance in accordance with Anaheim Zoning
Code be paid to the residents as required by the word(ng of the Anaheim Mobilehome Park
Overlay Zone Code. He read some points from the Code pertaining to benefits.
Mr. Leon stated Mr. Stanaland must pay out the money before they can remove the
overlay. They cannot act today on the request of Mr. Stanaland for removal of the
Mobilehome Overlay because such removal is allowed by the Code after his compliance
with the requirement to pay that money to displaced residents.
~_ They era here to oppose the request for removal because to this date this Company has
not paid one penny to any of the residents under the terms of the Anaheim Zoning Codes.
He stated the only benefit received by any resident was through the rent deferment
agreement which 60% of the residents did not agree to sign.
They ask the Commission to ensure compliance with this Code because they have
discovered during their conflict these past months that the agents have not always
complied with the laws. First they violated the provisions of the California Civil Code
Section 798.27 by not making residents aware the park existed through a conditional use
permit or that it was on leased land.
He had a copy of the Orznge Tree Mobilehome Estate Rules and Regulat(ons dated August
?, 1989 that they sign a when they came Into the park. It specifically states that the park is
not operating under a conditional use permit.
They noticed what they feel is an abuse of their lawful position as landlord through that rent
agreement and they have used the leverage of their legal ability to raise rents annually at
lease renewals and more frequently for monthly renters to create an advantageous position
of unequal bargaining power to encourage residents to move before the reclassification and
to encourage residents to sign the agreement.
In February, 1994, the management delivered to them the offlclal Notice of Change of Use
notHymg them of the Intended closure of the park. He stated in the Conversion Impact
Report the owner said he was not reelly ohanginL the u.;e of the land, he s(mply decided to
close the park and go out o: business.
`% 09/19/94
Page 34
He referenced an article in the June 19, 1994 edition of the Orange County Register on the
page titled Pond (8). He told a reporter that he is planning as many as 3,500 parking
spaces on his land and he also said to the reporter that he might put shops, restaurants
and other entertainment attractions on the land.
He stated under oath 2 months later in August, Mr. Stanaland testified that he has not yet
decided what to do with the land. He guessed he lied to the reporter. He submitted a
copy of the article to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Henninger stated what they are here to decide is what the reasonable
relocation benefit is.
Mr. Leer. asked ff they should decide that the Ove~iay be removed, without his having
complied with the Code sections he has quoted, then those 130 families and possibly the
15 remaining will receive nothing and will have moved at their own expense. He submitted
some letters from the residents to the Planning Commission.
Barbara Dexter, 17350 E. Temple #15, La Puente, CA and former member of the Orange
Troe. She stated the actual cost of her move was $13,888.06.
Ms. PAann stated she thought h needed to be clarified that this is a new hearing; that if
there is any information that is being submitted it has to actually be submitted; that fl there
is a copy of information that has been submitted and is being submitted again, it should be
brought in. She stated references to prior hearings do not bring that evidence Into this
particular hearing.
She further stated that the Planning Commission's action on the prior hearing was vacated
by the appeal to the City Council. That means it was cancelled out and then what took the
place of that was the hearing that took place before the Hearing Officer and the decision of
that is going to take place tomorrow by the City Council.
She stated any information that is being brought before the Commission needs to be
brought anew to the Planning Commission and this applies tc Stanaland with regard to any
references to a prior document and ft appiies to the tenants as well with regard to any
Information that is being provided to the Commission about the reasonable costs of
relocation.
She stated fi there is going to be a blending of this and what has happened before, she d(d
not believe that was the Intent of anyone. She believed that the owner has brought forth is
anew Conversion Impact Report just on the closure with new evidence. If you feel
additional information is required regarding that smaller document dated July 25th, it would
be aparopriate to request Mr. Stanaland to provide that, i.e., the park owner or his
representative. And similarly, any tenants that are coming before you need to provide their
Information to you anew.
Ms. Dexter Indicated she could provide all of the documentation the morning.
Commissloner Henninger stated to the extent that she remembers she could tell them what
sort of things she spout money on.
Commissioner Messe askew who moved her?
~"'~ 79/19/94
Page 35
i
I
Ms. Dexter stated the mover was Gregory Construction. They were the second family to !
sign with Gregory Construction, so they did not fall under the umbraf;2 deal they made if
they could get ".X' number of families to go wfth them, they would move their home for
$5,000. Her home was 28'x68' which is and was the largest home in the Orange Tree.
She stated ft is the largest that the law allows to be moved on the streets and highways in
the State of California, therefore, her mobilehome cost more to move then some of the I
others.
She explained new skirting had to put on because that v: is a requirement by the new park
and that was $1,100; the transportation was in the area of $9,500 to tear down, transport
and reassemble the home at the site.
He stated on top of that they had to spend an additional $1,700 for a freestanding carport.
She gave some further input. She found a gentleman that was able to use their existing
panels which are the flat top pieces and then billed them for the additional poles that were
needed for a freestanding structure which cut the cost down in half.
she stated they have not begun to landscape because they are out of money. There have
been no improvements made to their home. She stated Mr. Stanaland can no longer be
trusted. He has every right to stop doing business, but according to the Anaheim City
Code he must pay relocation benefits to the residents.
She stated those who left the park did so only because Mr. Stanaland sent a latter of intent
to close, dated February, 1994. She elaborated and gave some further details.
She stated Mr. Stanaland is requesting that the overlay be removed. She cannot stress
strongly enough that fl he is allowed to do this without any restrictions he will not pay them
a dime. He has already indicated he would not. She stated he should ba given a definite
date for the compe:~sation to be paid by and that should include all who were residents at
the Orange Tree as of February, 1994 when the Notice of Intent was delivered to them.
She stated there are many false statements in th,. CIR dated February, 1994 that were not
addressed. One of them is that relocation incentives could be used. She stated the law
does not say that incentives can be used. She stated that should not be taken Into
account. Tha full amount that people are having to pay out of their packets to move thatr
homes should be taken into account. If someone was lucky enough to receive some sort
of an incentive then more power to them.
She stated the Hearing Officer also cfted that incentives should be taken Into consideration,
but that is against the City Code. She understands that there are two supplemental CIRs
dated April, 1994 and July, 1994 and they have new Information that Mr. Stanaland wants
included. She stated according to the Anaheim Civil Code, 18.92.060.030 they have a right
to that updated information. No one st(II residing in the park was Informed of the existence
of these two documents. She asked why they were not given this information? k3y law
they should have been and they should have been notified as to their existence.
She stated she received a copy of the July, 1994 CIR this afternoon and it still has false
statements in it. She referenced page 3, item nos. 7 and 8. She read some information
from the report. In addition she referenced page 4, bottom of page. She stated the
bottom line is that Mr. Stanaland should not be granted the removal of the Mobilehome
Overlay unless he pays the original residence for the relocation of their homes. She stated
without this stipulation he will not pay one cent due to the residents.
L/ 09/19/94
Page 36
She further stated by law he must pay and they are the only ones that can force that issue.
She implored them to do what was right and moral and more importantly what is just under
the law.
Other opposition and their major concerns:
Grace Leon, 23621 La Palma Avenue, H-154, Yorba Linda, CA 92687-5531. Concern
expressed regarding payment of reasonable relocation benefits. She asked the Planning
Commission to not remove the Mobilehome Zoning Overlay until Mr. Stanaland comptles
with the laws and ordinances and pays reasonable benefits.
She stated they have not seen the supplemental CIRs and have nct had the opportunty to
review them. Their personal moving costs were $13,000 and they still have painting,
cement work and landscaping to do which will be an additional $2,000. She gave some
background.
Commissioner Messe asked who moved them?
Ms. Leon stated Thomas and Anderson.
Commissioner Henninger asked what was included In the $13,000?
She explained they were originally scheduled to be moved by Gregory Construction, but
Gregory Construction offered a special rate to the residents of the park so he could get as
many clients as possible however, he over extended himself. They told him that they knew
John Anderson's company. John Anderson's company agreed to take the t~~~± that Gregory
had offered, however, it was a little more because they had a double size shed, so Instead
of I~.r :the straight $5,000, it was $5,100 and that was tear down, actual move of the house
and then reassembly. She elaborated. They had a flmited choice of parks t they were
trying to find Incentives. Shs stated they managed to get a $5,000 move in Incentive.
Eliminating the $5,000 Incentive, they are left with a $10,000 debt which they put on an
extended credit Visa.
She asked that they determine a reasonable relocation benefit. She stated t was never
mentioned that they woui ~ have to remain in the park the last 60 days to receive benefits.
They were encouraged io cooperate and move as soon as possible. Mr. Stanaland stated
he would fight any attempt to get benefits paid other than through his rent deferment plan.
About two thirds of the park residents refused to sign this agreement because of the strings
attached.
She stated there is a gag order and Mr. Stanaland holds power of attorney; he holds the
bill of sale on the home with no termination date of the agreement. She also requested
that Incentives received from the new park should not be considered in determining
benefits.
She stated there is something called Collateral Source Rule of Tort law which could be
applied. She understands that is suppose to be applied only where there is injury inflicted.
She stated t you think there is no Injury inflicted here you should talk to our two residents
that tried to commt suicide or the residents who hold letters firom their doctors regarding
medical problems resulting from the stress ?n the Orange Tree Park or those repairing
damaged homes or those who suffered physical Injury while trying to do some part of the
move themselves. She added especially talk to those who have lost their homes because
they cannot move them.
1,.,~
OS/18/94
Page 37
Mary Beach, 1214 W. Diamond #103, Anaheim, CA . She stated until the first of
September she was a resident of the Orange Tree Mobilehome park. She moved into
Orange Tree in 1971 and her unit is 23 years old. She stated either their home was too o!d
or they were not old enough. They did find a park that would take them, but only 'rf they
resided the entire house, put on a new roof; new skirtings; new porch and awnings. She
stated their lowest bid was $6,500.00 and that was from Gregroy Construction.
The Company's that were giving b(ds through the CIR were a lot higher. She stated they
owe $29,000 on their home. They tried through almost every lending agency to borrow the
money to move their home and because of the age; structure and the mobilehome
Industry, the lenders outright laughed at them. She was very upset. She explained she has
cancer and the medical bills are horrendous. They made the choice to wholesale their
house and they got $5,000. They still owe $24,000 and they cannot bankrupt ft because
her father-In-law owns the title on it so they have to pay him off. She stated K was
appraised 2 years ago at $45,000 and now it is worth nothing. She stated they are
currently renting an apartment in Anaheim and they are spending more a month on rent
than what their space rent cost and they are making a house payment for a house they no
longer have.
She stated they were given no choice to move, rather it was something that they did not
want to do, but they had to c:o it. She asked the Commission to not remove the
Mobilehome Overlay until this is resolved with the relocation benefks paid to the residents.
She did not feel Mr. Stanaland was fair to them and she honestly does not think H the
Mobilehome Oveday is removed that he will ever make the situation right.
Loretta Shaddock, a resident of the Orange Tree Mobilehome park in space no. 200. She
stated they are having financial probloms. They Just recently owned the IRS $2,000 so they
are not able to move their mobilehome. They are one of the tenants that will have to walk
away from their mobilehome. She stated right now they are living in their mobilehome but
they are living with rats.
She explained because of the other mobilehomes mov(ng out, and the trash 1oh around
the mobilehomes, they have Just now begun to have a rat problem. They are w~able to get
the rats out of their home because they are in their ceiling and walls. She cannot cook a
meal because the rats are in her oven and they have eaten all of the vrires in the oven,
therefore, her and her husband will have to walk away from their mobilehome with 5 other
people on their street. They owe too much money to do anything for their ftrture.
She stated after 20 years they have worked to have good credit they now will have bad
credit for 7 years and it is because they chose the mobilehome park that they are If~ing in
now. She stated they chose the Orange Tree because it offered a good life for her and her
husband.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Stanaland stated he would not try to answer all of the questions because most of the
comments do not affect what he is doing. He stated back in February on their fiFSt
proposed possible closure, they had about 75 vacancies. He stated there are only 279
people in the par;<. He stated 92 people signed agreernents with them and took the rertt
deferments which is 2/3 of the people who were living in the park.
~/
05/19/94
Page 38
He stated there has been no testimony on what the costs are for the coaches in the park
and Code requires an estimated moving cost. He stated the Leons had a bld for $4,5R-~ to
move their coach and what it finally cost them he did not know. He stated they have gone
through an estimated cost of moving the coaches; they have moved coaches over the
years and that list is In Exhibit D in the back of the Closure Impact Report. Some of those
people are no longer in the park since the report has been prepared.
He stated the Code calls for the estimated cost of moving to an average comparable park.
They do not require a lot of landscaping and neither do average comparable parks. He
stated Cade does not provide for new skirting. He stated the cost of tearing them down
and putting them back together just is not that high. He stated if somebody goes to and
wants to buy new skirting, they move to a better park, a park that requires something else,
then that may not be an average comparable park because they do not require those
things. He stated they can spend a lot more money, however, but that Is not what the
Code requires to be spent. He stated it is the cost of moving to an average comparable
park. The only evidence of an average comprrable park is contained in the CIR and the
only estimated costs of the coaches remaining are contained here.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger addressed Ms. Mann. He stated they had the othsr public
hearing on the previous closure report and now they have this new report. He asked
where does that leave the old report? Is it being substituted? Why does the City Council
have to take action on the old report ff there is a new report?
Ms. Mann stated this (s a very unusual proceeding. Obviously it may be that the
mobilehome park owner would concur with this, and that it would have been better to Just
go ahead from the very beginning and do everything at one t(me. She explained they do
find themselves with two separate proceedings.
She stated the one that was initiated for the closure of the mobilehome park that was the
hearing that has already taken place that goes to the Clty Council tomorrow, just speaks to
benefits that would need to be paid pursuant to State law for closure without involving any
sort of City approval at that point.
She further explained for purposes of this hearing it is as though that had not occurred
unless they see a reason to interpret it differently, but it certainly has not been brought into
this hearing. She stated it has not been brought in by the applicant or by anyone else Into
the evidence. Shs stated what Is before them is that July 25th report and within the
parameters of that you can determine, based upon the evidence presented, what the
benefits should be considering that the Conversion Impact Report is the July 25, 1994
report. She stated that is the one before them.
She stated with regard to who should receive the benefits, what the Anaheim Municipal
Code is talking about is that the person or entity proposing such reclassification shall make
availe5le a copy of a Conversion Impact Report to owners of all mobilehomes within the
mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the report by the City hearing
body.
~ 09/19/94
Page 39
She stated she was told that this July 25, 1994 report is the report that was so served. She
f+~, actually does not have a certification of that so if the applicant has a copy of that they
would need that for the record. She stated so this is the report that is being considered
and the information here, or what the applicant has proposed as far as payment of benefits
is somewhat different from what was in the original document. She referenced page 3,
item no. 8, and stated of course it is up to the Commission to determine within the
information that has been submitted what the actual benefits should be. Therefore, on
page 3, hem 8 is the proposal which is actually for payment of certain benefits to the
property owners and it is her understanding then from looking at this that it would be to
those owners of those spaces that are indicated on Icxhibit D.
Speaker. Did not Identity herself. She stated she Ib~es in the mobilehome park and she
has not seen that report.
Commissioner Henninger stated there was a question asked at the beginning regarding
who should receive these benefits.
Ms. Mann stated it appears that they do have a relevant concern if there are persons who
are living in the mobilehome park now who did not receive a copy of the Juiy 25, 1994
report.
She stated that would be an Issue that will need to :~e specHically addressed because their
Code does require at subsection .U30 that the person proposing the reclassification has to
make that document available at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the report.
Therefore, that would be a separate Issue.
:he stated with regard to the actual language of our Code, it talks about the Conversion
Impact Report that is served in conjunction with the reclassification application and that is
the Juiy 25, 1994 report. It does not really address the Issue of what happens in a situation
where there has been a previous Conversion Impact Report also filed for another purpose.
Commissioner Messe asked what if we find the Conversion Impact Report not acceptable?
Ms. Mann stated they could certainly do that-they can determine that it is not adequate for
some reason, that it does not provide the information required.
Commissioner Messe stated if the Anaheim Municipal Code talks about relocation benefits
to displaced mobilehome owners, then the definition of displaced mobilehome owners
becomes very important and he feels that the CIR is lacking (n who is displaced and who is
not displaced. He stated the Municipal Code says that the owner must pay relocation
benefits to displaced mobilehome owners and yet this CIR only addresses some 17 or 18
spaces.
Ms. Mann stated h was her understanding that those 17 or t8 spaces were all the spaces
that either had not already vacated or were not under agreement with the mobilehome park
owner at the time that the Juiy 25, 1994 Conversion Impact Report for closure assuming
that it was served.
Commissioner Henninger stated certainly there were people displaced before that due to
the closure of this park.
1,,,i
09/19/94
Page 40
Commissioner Messe stated obviously some did not sign an agreement and they were
displaced. They did receive a letter saying the park would be closed. He stated at this
time he would find that the CIR is inadequate.
Ms. Mann stated that the CIR is Inadequate for its failure to considor its Impacts.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked about the difference between the two reports.
Commissioner Tait asked did the first Conversion Impact Report address the previously
displaced individuals?
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to hear what the Code says about the costs.
Is this atrlctly the cost ofi moving or what other costs are there? He stated he knew it was
not very spec;: ^, but he asked Ms. Mann to read ft to them.
Ms. Mann read the following information into the record: "Bald Mitigation Measures shall be
limited to the payment of relocailon benefits to the displaced mobilehome owner by the
parson or entity proposing suci~ reclassi0cation consisting of the following amounts:
Subsection 0401: The estimated cost of disassembly and reassembly of the displaced
mobilehome including existing awnings, skirtings, porches and storage structures.
Subsection 0402: The estimated cost of transportation of a displaced mobilehome to an
average comparable mobilehome park. 0403: The estimated additional cost the displaced
mobilehome owner will be required to spend to meet an average comparable mobilehome
park's lawful requirements for Improvements to the mobilehome space and the mobliehome
which Is being relocated. Collectively referred to herein as Improvement costs. The person
or entity proposing the change of use shall establish the improvement costs of an average
comparable mobilehome park by surveying a representative number of comparable
mobilehome parks where available replacement spaces can be identNied wfthin a 725 mile
radius from the mobilehome park to be converted. These improvement costs shall be
categorized as to chair type including requirements for skirting, awnings, landscaping and
other applicable categories. She explained these are directions to the park owner as to
how to determine the average comparable park.
She continued. The estimated additional cost for each displaced mobilehome owner to
conform to each of these categories shall also be established. These costs will be
established on the basis that the work is to be done by a professional contractor hired by
the mobilehome owner rather than the mobilehome owner performing the work himself.
She stated h requin;s that the information specified be included in the Conversion Impact
Report. She stated they need to determine that the Information required has been provided
(n the Conversion Impact Report that was supplied, July 25, 1994, Conversion Impact
Report.
She stated there was addftional Information with regard to who are displaced mobilehome
owners that was provided to you and there were some extra copies of that that were
provided to both sides on this Issue. That the Anaheim Municipal Cade does not have a
definition of displaced mobilehome owners. It does provide that the Conversion Impact
Report has to be made available to all tenants and contain information relating to all
tenants and then presumably this rneans the tenants in the park at the time the report is
prepared, and the park owner may not be able to locate former tenants. She stated
displaced should be read to mean displaced by the change in use of the park. This would
include mobilehome owners who are Involuntarily displaced or not evicted for reasons other
than the park closure, so h would not be just somebody who was displaced for reasons
other than the park closure and would not be included in that.
~_;
09/19/94
Page 41
She stated she believed the issue of the offset For any benefit received from another park
has also been mentioned. 1'he park owner takes the position In the paragraph mentioned
t before, that there should be an offset and there is nothing that they are aware of that
requires that such an offset be made. She stated that would be a benefit that is provided
to the tenants and they are unaware of any reason why that should be passed onto the
park owner.
She stated there was one statement made that the overlay should not be Iffted unless the
actual payments are made. She explained this procedure would establish what the
conditions would be for the overlay to be lifted. If conditions were not met and ff the
payments were not actually paid as determined by the Commi,sion, the City Council would
not thereafter pass the ordinance that would actually remove the oveday.
Commisslone; Meese asked the ordinance would not be Introduced until such time all the
payments were made?
Ms. Mann indicated that was corcect.
Commissioner Peraza stated this appears to be only for approximately 18 people. He
asked what happens to the rest of the people that were displaced from the first conversion
report? He stated ff he approves this, it appears they are only talking about 18
mobilehome owners.
ChainNOman Boydstun asked ff you can rewrite a CIR anytime you want to eliminate
people?
Commissioner Henninger asked ff they continue this, will he revise this because two more
people have moved out?
t~
Commissioner Tait stated pie was very confused on this. He stated they have a report of
the Hearing Officer and Recommendations. He asked what the affect of that was? He
stated that (s looking at the previous CIR and its supplements and that Hearing Officer said
that is adequate.
Ms. Mann clarified that the Hearing Officer Is making a recommendation that the Ciry
Council find that ff was adequate. She stated this will go to the City Council tomorrow and
the Ciry Council will make its decision and they can make a decision that is different from
the Hearing Officer as long as ff is based upon the evidence that is in the administrative
record that is before the Ciry Council. She further stated that the administrative record
does have all of the specifics and the information that were provided by the various
tenants.
Commissioner Mayer asked ff that covered the people who were there in the beginning and
have now moved, and we are now just dealing with the people who are left? She asked
does it cover the group of people who have already gone?
Ms. Mann explained that had, as the sole relocation benefit, the forgiveness of rent
provisions. She clarffied she is just going by her own understanding on some of these
questions.
Ms. Mann thought that some of these questions would properly be answered by the
applicant, however, it Is her understanding that the sole relocation benefit under the
previous CIR was the forgiveness of the rent program that was established under an
09/19/94
Page 42
agreement so that that was the only program that was in place and Indeed it appears that
there is a group of property owners or tenants that fall in between the ones who did not
sign the agreement and who were not at the park at the time that the July 25, 1994
Conversion Impact Repot was (she was assuming) served on tha• date.
Commissioner Messe stated they have taken testimony in today and according to his
memory, they can close the public hearing and not take a vote and make a decision for
something like 45 days. He asked ff that was correct, therefore, waiting to see v~hat the
City Council does with tomorrow's hearing. He further stated they can reconvene and take
a vote on what they heard today.
Ms. Mann stated they can do that and you can also leave the public hearing open so that if
there is additional information that is received h does not need to be readvertised for a
hearing on this particular item. She stated if there is Information that the Planning
Commission feels Is something that would provide guidance in making fts own decision,
even though the earlier CIR is not before them, thon a continuance would bo in order,
however, she would recommend that the public heark~g be reopened.
Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to hear more detailed Information about
these relocation costs. He stated he understands from what Ms. Mann read to them that
they are dealing with average relocation costs-not the high end or the low end, but the
average and he does not feel like they have had very good testimony. He stated the
people who were living there came prepared to do that and he would like to gNe them a
chance to prepare and coma and give them that information.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED.
-~4CTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of October 17, 1994, in order for the residents to submit more
detailed information on relocation costs.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked if there was any background information to find out if they
could Just continuously rewrite these CIRs? She stated she did not understand why they
had all of the problems with the first one and that now that it is thrown out.
Ms. Mann stated she did not know ff there really was an answer. She stated she did not
believe that one could continue to rewrite them, S'.:e thought at this point it was before
them for a decision.
The Planning Commission requested that:
A report of the City Council's action on September 20, 1994 regarding the hearing
officer's recommendations on the original submitted Conversion Impact Report.
Report of the status of the residents at the time the original notice was given. How
many were in the park, how many agreed to move voluntarily and how may were
uncommitted and not subject to displacement?
The City Attorney define the word "displacement" and come up with some guidelines
to use for subject request.
09/19/94
Page 43
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 3830 Readvertised Approved for a
one year extension
OWNER: JULIA AMARAL, P.O. Box 9415, San Rafael, CA 94912 (to expire 11-2-95)
AGENT: MICHAEL CHO C/0 ABC Licensing Service, 160 Centennial
Way, Ste. 8, Tustin, CA 92680; EI Vaquero Family Restaurant,
1168 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1168 S State Colleae Boulevard. Property Is approximately
1.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Almont Avenue and
State College Bouievard
Petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of approval
pertaining to the limitation of time of an existing public dance hall with on-
premise sale and consumption of alcoholic heverages in conjunction with an
existing restaurant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _~~4--128
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
~ , The Secretary notes that the tape malfunctioned and the applicant's name and address
t were not audible, however, for the written record the owner's name is Julia Amaral, P.O.
Box 9415, San Rafael, CA 94912; and the agent for the owner Is Micahel Cho c/o ABC
Licensing Service, 160 Centennial Way, Ste 8, Tustin, CA 92680.
^areg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated Melanie Adams, Public Works Department,
had to leave, however, she asked him to mention that there is a condftion that needs to be
compiled with requiring a 10-foot radius curb return (reconstruction of the driveways) which
was required with the original conditional use permit. It was determined it was the one on
State College and apparently it is the only outstanding condition on the conditional use
permit.
The applicant stated at this point they request that this condition be removed as a
requirement because there is no rational nexus between public improvements of the curb
cuts and the operations of the existing restaurant. He stated they were originally placed as
a condition and they have complied with all of the other conditions and this is just one that
is extremely expensive and they feel it is not ne^?ssary because there is no rational basis
between the request and the operation.
Commissioner Messe stated they are causing traffic to came into their facility and slow
down because of lack of proper curb cuts.
~,./
09/19/94
Page 44
The applicant explained it was apre-existing facility. He explained they have not intensffied
the use as a restaurant. It was there before and they do not feel that they should be
responsible to make these additional improvements. He stated ff they wanted to continue
this as a condftion then that would be their purview, however, considering the fact that they
do not believe there is a rational basis between the two, it should not be required.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked for clarification ff he was a lessee and not the owner of the
property/t
The applicant Indicated that was correct.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated this condition was imposed a year ago and there
(s a statute of limffations on a challenge to a condition that has long since expired.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked which means legally they cannot remove it?
Ms. Mann stated ff the Commission wishes to entertain the request for the removal of the
condition, this would need to be readvertised to Indicate that there is also a removal of a
condition that Is involved. She stated apparently the operation was permitted to commence
prior to the compliance with all of the conditions.
Commissioner Henninger stated they are extending this for one year, therefore, they could
have them work that through with staff and bring th(s back in one year from now and have
this discussion. He thought perhaps h would be a good time for the City to talk Internally
about what appropriate conditions are because this nexus Issue has become a little more
sensitive than it was a couple of years ago.
.- , Ms. Mann stated they are working on that.
~ ,
Commissioner Messe stated for clarification in granting this request, they are not changing
the condition.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated the condition will be carried forward.
ACTION:
Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer (Commissioners
Caldwell and Peraza absent) and MOTION CARRIED to approve the previously approved
Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 9, page 2 of the staff report).
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC94-128 to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 3630 (~ommissfoners Caldwell and Peraza absent) for a period of one (1) year to
expire on : fovember 2, 1995.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Peraza absent)
~,/
09/19/94
Page 45
8a. CEOA NEGP.TiVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Continued to
fib. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3389 Readvertised October 17, 1994
OWNER: RANK LEISURE USA INC., 5401 K(rkman Road, Ste. 200,
Orlando, Florida 32819
AGENT: E!.FEND AND ASSOCIATES, 610 Newport Center Drive, Ste.
1290, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 1859 S. Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 2.93
acres located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue and
approximately 780 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way.
Petkioner requests modification to a condftion of approval pertaining to the time
limitation to comply with conditions of approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSI11ON: None
PETITIONER:
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1290, Newport Beach,
CA 92660, representing Rank Leisure. He would like to break the discussion down Into two
~- parts: Procedural or technical in nature; and the more practical aspects of where their client
currently finds themselves.
He stated on a procedural note, they were here approximately some time in July and at that
time had asked for an extension of the conditional use permft for one year. He stated prior
to that July meeting they came In and met with staff (Greg Hastings and Joel Fick) and
indicated to them at that time that their clients seek more than one year to be able to meet
some of the requirements they have to allow th(s project to move forward. The reason they
are asking for those two years back then was because of some of the concerns about the
economy and the uncertainty in the marketplace which they will hear later on in his
presentation.
He stated in having that discussion with staff, their suggestion, which they concurred with,
was to first come back to the Planning Commission which they did and request a one year
extension as a Report and Recommendation item. He Mated the Anaheim Municipal Code
does not allow the Planning Commission to grant a two year extension as a Report and
Recommendation item as it is in excess of the original time limit provided by the original
approval on the conditional use permit. Therefore, as he indicated, they agreed to have the
Planning Commission approve the extension and based upon that technical procedure they
are back hers today.
He stated what their client is asking for and what they provided for in their letter to the
Commission, was an additional two (2) years to be able to honor their conditional use permit
so they do not have to come back should that be necessary.
09/19/94
Page 46
He stated they want some sort of assurance from the Cfry that they would be able to
proceed with their project with a certainty of conditions, etc. as the Cfry would provide in
their normal course of business. He stated they intend to build the project (it is about a
sixteen million dollar project) and h is going to create about 350 new Jobs for the local
economy.
Mr. Elfend stated the second reason fs regarding the uncertainty In the marketplace. He
stated right now they have another facility in Buena Park known as Wild Bills and they are
right now accessing the marketplace for the King Henry's Feast project. He stated when
they speak of uncertainty, they speak about some of the fees that the Gity may be exacting
for this project vis a vis the Anahelm Resort Area Specific Plan.
He stated from the day they make their business plan decision to construct on a certain
date, they estimate that it will take them a certain time period to actually start to turn dirt on
the site.
He stated he met with Chad Martin who is the President of Rank Leisure a few weeks ago
and they talked about this project. Mr. Martin said he was going to meet with his board and
that he wanted to sft down with them and give them a construction schedule. He stated
they sat down with them and they asked about the fees that the project would likely be
Impacted by.
He stated this brought back to him one of the more favorite topics that they have +vhich they
will be addressing tomorrow with the City Council and that is the uncertainty of the area
wide fees that are related to Anaheim Resort Specfic Plan. He stated a few weeks ago Tom
Wood indicated to the Planning Commission that the numbers that they were provided with
for another project was somewhere in the vicinity of twenty-five million dollars, and those
,.. were defined as worse case.
He stated the next question is that Mr. Martin asked him when would this Issue be resolved?
He explained to him that they will request the Planning Commission that the Issue regarding
area wide fees be resolved consistent with the approval of the Resort Area Specific Plan and
not some time in the near future especially given staff's comments in terms of whether or
not there will be a TOT Increase as has been suggested.
He stated what staff has indicated to them, and as a condition of approval of another
project, they said that this area wide Impact fee could be resolved within 60 days.
He stated the CUP for this project was approved in July and ff you consider that there may
be an area wide fee program approved in October or November that (s a sixth month
period. He stated at a minimum they believe that their CUP should be extended without any
new conditions for 6 months or until December, 1995. He stated no one is going to tell
them what h is going to cost to develop their property until the end of this year, so they are
saying lets Just move it forward 6 months which is a time period that has been lost because
of the uncertainty in the marketplace in terms of what those fees would be to construct.
He stated in reviewing some of the minutes and also being at the meeting, the comment
made by Tom Wood was that the fee would be in place when development occurs.
Unfortunately, that is not quite the way it works. He explained the development community
needs to have an idea of what those fees are before they can get their projects in line so
they can obtain the financing. i
;,
~ 09/19/94 j
Page 47 _
t
He referenced the staff report and referred them to page 4 which basically indicates that
they have reviewed their request and they feel that they could support an extension to Juiy
1996 and they have 3 recommended conditions listed. He stated the third one is a layered
landscaping which is something they agreed to when they extended the CUP a few months
ago. He stated one is to demolish the building in 60 days. He stated conditions (a) and (b)
are not very practical based upon the foregoing.
He submitted a letter from Rank Leisure which is sent on Wild Bills letterhead from Marilyn
Hanes (phonetically spelled) indicating that there was a problem regarding the maintenance
of the facility that they would go ahead and resolve some of the concerns that the City has
regarding the statements Included In the attached memorandum to the staff report which is
provided by Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement.
He stated this is an area of the City which they all know has a gang problem. He stated that
particular property is subject to vandalism and they are doing the best that they can to deal
with.
He stated hopefully what the City would be providing their client with 1s the fact that they
want this project to move forward; they understand that the fact that there is much
uncertainty in that marketplace, i.e., the Disney project and is it going to happen; and when
is it going to happen? He stated the Anaheim Area Resort is a nice plan; h is very well
done by staff and they may have an award for doing it, but again h is not going to be built
unless the people who have to revitalize their property are provided the Incentives to do so.
He stated in closure, what they would like to request an extension to July, 1996 without
condition (a) or (b) wfth the understanding that maybe there needs to be something more
formalized to make sure those maintenance Issues are resolved, or at least give them the
r- , extension of time that is related to the City's Inability to provide his client the costs that h will
take to develop their property in the City so they could potentially go to their board or bank.
He stated at a minimum they would like to have an extension to December of neM year,
again wthout the provisions that are provided with the exception of item (c) which is already
a condition on their existing CUP which was approved in July, therefore, either of those
would be acceptable to them. He stated they need more Information from the City before
they expend other monies on this project which he thinks they all can appreciate as
business people.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the water was on in that property?
Mr. Elfend stated that is probably the one question that he could not answer today, however,
he had a letter In front of him assuring him that they are going to handle the problem
regarding the maintenance of that area. He stated he was not sure ff that Included
temporary landscaping, but he was sure that h did not.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated the weeds are as tall as she is and it does not look like it has
seen water since the last rain and that was a long time ago.
1/
09/19/94
Page 48
Mr. Elfend stated that was something he could not answer. He stated again what they are
attempting to do is In tho context of their business plan, in order for them to spend the type
of money they may want to in either terms of demolishing those buildings or doing anything
out there, is that they need to know from the City exactly what ft is going to cost for them to
do business in the City which they do not have yet and that is why they are here asking for
more time.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated they agreed to maintain it and they have not.
Mr. Elfend stated if they are not maintaining it then they have the responsibility to do so;
they have a condition of approval on their prior CUP which Indicates that they will do so.
Commissioner Messe stated they appreciate that, however, what they do not appreciate is
the lack of attention to the detail of how that piece of property has looked.
Commissioner Henninger asked the Code Enforcement staff to find out what sort of
experience they have had in trying to get this property cleaned and to maintain it.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated this morning he spoke wfth Mrs. Hanes from Wild
8111s and was she emphatic that she wanted to maintain the property and was going to send
a fax. He stated that is the copy in front of the Planning Commission dated September 19,
1994. He stated he had another letter in the file dated November, 1993 from Marilyn Hanes,
General Manager, who also says the same thing. He stated the same Issue came up in July
of this year. He did not contest the fact that perhaps the property does need to be
demolished and all he is saying is that they would like some cooperation in maintaining the
property.
He further stated Mrs. Hanes told him that they have someone visit the property every
Monday and take care of any violations on the property. He stated they have photographs
indicating that the weeds are at least 4 feet high. He stated he does not know of a weed
that grows 4 feet in a weeks time. He did tell her about the problem with the fence that
encroaches onto the public right-of-way. iie stated it is a safety hazard and the buildings
are broken Into again. He stated nothing hos been done since his Inspection and
photographs and the date that he wrote the memo that Is included in the staff report. He
stated basically what they want is to have the property maintained.
He stated they would make some changes to the recommendations that is in the staff
report, but they think those changes need to be made in order to Improve the property.
Commissioner Messe asked if he thought fn 30 days they could have that property
acceptable?
Mr. Freeman indicated he did. He stated they have a requirement in the existing conditional
use permit that was approved in July that they make monthly inspections. This time
extension was approved in July of this year. He explained they will take no action at all unt(I
after the City Council ratifys that, therefore, that is why he personally made the inspection on
the date the memo was prepared. He stated normally they would do this every 30 days and
perhaps they need to do it more frequently. He crated he has explained to Mrs. Hanes that
they are becoming property managers for this piece of property and they do not have the
staff to do this.
Commissioner Henninger asked if they are billing them for those inspections?
09/19/94
Page 49
Mr. Freeman Indicated the Inspection that he made last week, they will be billed for.
Commissioner Messe stated he did not think that they needed to step up those inspections
and if they got the property up to speed and then do what she says in the letter, he thought
that probably is all that has to be done.
Commissioner Henninger stated in the past they have said this before and have not done ff.
Chairwoman Boydstun suggested as well as cleaning up the landscape, ff they do not want
to go to the money of knocking those buildings done, which she can understand, what
about ff they Just paint across the front of them all the same color so they match, so Icoking
from the freeway it does not look like a bunch of buildings falling apart.
Mr. Elfend stated they can discuss with them some options to Improve what those buildings
look like.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated they have done nothing with the landscaping.
Mr. Elfend stated he does know what the property looks like and he is not defending the
manner in which the property has been maintained, but he would say that that property has
a very similar look to it that many other properties do in that same area.
He stated Rank Leisure is a well established firm; the City of Anaheim has a great reputation
for working wfth the development community. His client is frustrated with their inability to
move forward on the project because of the planning process that is slowing down his
bus(ness plan agenda.
He stated we are all asking for some good faffh and the good faith hls client has fs that this
will be resolved in fi0 days. He stated do I believe that. This Issue has not been resolved
for over 2 years.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated you have not cleaned the weeds up since last November
either.
Mr. Elfend stated obviously the City has a concern in regards to maintenance. However,
there again if he were not to proceed with that project, that concern would be there anyway,
so maybe the compromise would be to provide him with some additional time and in that
time period he personally will take the responsibility to make sure that property is
maintained.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated we will give them 30 days to clean it up and then we will talk.
Mr. Elfend stated he would relate that to them.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought everyone was sensitive to the Idea that they
need to know what their fees are going to be.
Mr. Elfend asked ff it would be more likely or less likely that the Commission would act
favorably to give them some more time to meet those conditions without having to go
through this process once again. He added in fact he thought it was Commissioner Tait that
asked that question.
L./
09/19/94
Page 50
a
r
I
Commissioner Taft stated for himself, more likely and Chairwoman Boydstun and
Commissioner Henninger agreed.
ACTION: Commissioner Mayer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger
(Commissioners Caldwell and Peraza absent) and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of
the aforementioned matter be continued to the reguiady-scheduled meeting of October 17,
1994 in order for the applicant to clean up subject property.
The Planning Commission requested that Code Enforcement inspect the property before the
October 17, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to determine ff the property Is In
compliance.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Caldwell and Peraza absent)
~,
1..~
L1
.;;.~~
I
09/19/94
Page 51 '
'= 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
9b. WAIVER ~ CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3718 Granted, in part
OWNER: THRIFT' OIL COMPANY, Attn: Gerald Greenberg, 10000 Lakewood
Blvd., Downey, CA 90240
LOCATION: 1881 W. Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.43 acres
located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street.
To permit an independent automotive repair facility in conjunction with an
existing flasoline service station with waiver of minimum landscape requirements
at street frontages and m(nlmum landscape requirements adjacent to interior
property boundaries.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-129
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC7&157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning
Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that Commissioner Taft's firm
represents Thrifty Oil Company and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to
the Chairwoman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditiona~ Use
~°ermit No. 3718, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had
got discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon
Commissioner Tait left the Council Chamber.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Gerald Greenberg, Manager or Real Estate for Thrifty 011 Company, 10000 Lakewood Blvd.,
Downey, CA 90240. He indicated he would Ilke to address Condition Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
He referenced Condition No. 7. He stated they already paid fees for lighting.
Commissioner Masse clarified ff they have already paid the fees, they will not have to pay
again.
He referenced Condtion Nos. 8 and 9 regarding trees/landscape requirements. He stated
they have asked that these be waived because they have specffic problems with that site in
terms of visibility on the west bound Ball Street side. He stated he has taken some
photographs this afternoon and the first 4 photographs show the visibility at 150 feet from
the station and the last 2 photographs show it from 100 feet from the station.
i
He expressed his concerns about planting trees on Ball Road taking Into consideration that
they have some driveways there. He stated the trees w(II be so clumped together that there
will absolutely be no opportunity to see that station.
4
l x
t..,J ~~'
09/19/94
Page 52
I
He referenced the plantings on the Nutwood Street side and explained there is an easement
on the north side of the property to a driveway. He explained there is an addftional
driveway and there is not enough space to plant another 6 or 7 trees on that side. He
added there are no trees planted on the Ball Road side or the Nutwood Street side,
however, there are some interior palm trees.
He referenced the interior property lines. He explained they have (approximately) a 35-foot
length of the property from west to east that is an easement in common wfth their neighbor
to the north, so they cannot do anything wfth that. He stated then they have the building for
which they have planted trees along tho side of the building and then they have access to
the rear parking lot. He further explained that the Planning staff has asked that that area be
left open and although there is no agreement with that neighbor for access to the rear of his
property, he is virtually landlocked and without us keeping that open there is no access to
the rear of his property at all so there is another opportunfty that may be lost.
He stated the only other place is along the east interior property line for which they already
have 3 or 4 trees. He had some photographs. He explained photograph no. 71s the one
on the east property line up against the concrete block wall and photograph no. 8 is the one
that shows the trees planted against the building to the north. He asked that their request
for waiver on the plantings be approved.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Chairwoman Boydstun stated they are very familiar with that corner and he would lose his
visibilfty.
Commissioner Mayer stated she would Ilke to see some trees at least on the Nutwood side.
Mr. Greenberg stated he was sure they could work something out.
Commissioner Henninger stated the number of trees asked for by Code is 13. He stated the
planter boxes are about 700 linear feet and that would be a tree less than every 10 feet and
there would be too many trees there. He further stated he thought there could be one tree
added at the east property Ilne. Commissioner Henninger asked to see the site plans.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
(Commissioners Caldwell and Peraza absent and Commissioner Tait declared a Conflict of
Interest) AND MOTION CARRIED that the CEOA Negative Declaration be approved (findings
in Paragraph 14, page 3 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
(Commissioners Caldwell and Peraza absent and Commissioner Tait declared a Conflict of
Interest) AND MOTION CARRIED to approve the Waiver of Code Requ(rement (findings in
Paragraph 21, pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) and that 3 additional trees shall be added to
the plans as submitted.
I
I
f
(Action continued on next page)
3
09/19/94 t
~ Page 53
,i
i
P
(Action continued trom previous page -CUP 3718)
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-129 to Grant Conditional Use Pernik
No. 3718 in part (Commissioners Caldwell and Peraza absent and Commissioner Taft
declared a Conflict of Interest). Findings in Paragraph 22, page 5 of the staff report and
subject to Interdepartmental Commfttee recommended condftions wfth the following
modifications to Condftion Nos. 8, 9 and 13:
8. That a minimum of two (2) trees shall be planted, irrigated and maintained along
Nutwood Street. Trees shall not be less than 15-gallons in size at time of planting.
9. That one (1) addftfonal broadheaded tree shall be planted, irrigated and maintained in
a minimum 4' X 4' tree well adjacent the interior east property line. Said tree shall not
be less than 15•gallons fn size at the time of planting.
13. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to
Issuance of a building permft, or wfthin a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condftion Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with. F_:ctensions for further time to complete said condftions may
be granted fn accordance wfth Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Added the following condftions
That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to
final building and zon(ng inspections, Conditic:~ Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10 and 12,
above-mentioned, shall be complied wfth.
r-.
~ NTE: 4.0 (Commissioner Taft declared a Conflict of Interest and Commissioners Caldwell
and Peraza were absent)
~„/
~~
09/19/94
Page 54
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
tOb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 3, 1994
10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3719
OWNER: CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, Attn: James E. Dobrott,
3146 Redhill Ave., Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT: ESSEX REALTY MANAGEMENT, Attn: Bettina Scholar, 3146
Redhill Ave., Ste 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 5717 E. Santa Ane Canyon Road. Property is approximately
8.06 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Imperial Highway.
To permit the on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with asemi-enclosed restaurant/public dance hall with outdoor
dining area with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION:
~ Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer (Commissioner
Tait absent) and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 3, 1994 as requested by the
petitioner.
1„~
Q
09/19/94 ,
Page 55 !~
11
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. VARIANCE N0. 4182 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF Continued to
TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Blash Momeny, October 3, 1994
27762 Pebbie Beach, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, requests an extension of
time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 4182 (Waiver
of the required lot frontage, minimum building site area, minimum building
site width and required location and orientation of structures to construct 8
singie•famiiy residences) to expire May S8, 1995. Property is located at
2260 W. Orange Avenue.
Continued from the September 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3575 -REQUEST FOR RETR AO CT!VE Continued to
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF ~~• aPROVAL: October 3, 1994
Steve Macke with Pinetree Village, 3333 S. Brea Canyon Rd., Sty. 279,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765, requests an extension. of time to comply with
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3575 (to permit the
conversion of an existing 40-v^.it apartment complex to a 40-unit
condominium complex) to expire Jarnrary 25, 1995. Property is located at
500 North Tustin Avenue.
Continued from the September 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3449 - FiEOUEST FOR REVOCATION: Withdrawn
The City of Anaheim Code Enforcement Division requests that the Planning
Commission schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of Conditional
Use Permit No. 3349 (to permit a 208-unit single-room occupancy (SRO)
residential hotel). Property is located at 1360 South Anaheim Blvd.
DISCUSSION 11C:
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated he visited the property at the lunch hour and
the property is cleaned up. He stated they are required to maintain the landscaping on
a regular basis with Irrigation.
Chairwoman Boydstun requested that they turn the water on for proper irrigation.
Mr. Freeman clarified they are withdrawing this request.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:20 P.M:
t~ 09/19/94
Paga 56