Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California October 26, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. A special meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administra for of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; John Lane, Administrator of Advance Planning; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Jack McGee, Assistant Planner; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - LAND USE ELEMENT 3-81 (GPA - LUE 3-81): ITEM "A" - REDESIGNATION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT ON A 3.58 ACRE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MAIN STREET, PALMYRA AVENUE, LIME STREET AND COLUMBIA PLACE FROM LOCAL COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (15-24 UNITS PER ACRE) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-'6 UNITS PER ACRE) TO PUBLIC FACILITY USE. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 735 hi AS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT. Norvin Lanz presented this item, stating that Item "A" is requested by Saint Joseph Hospital of Orange for an irregularly shaped area of approximately 3.58 acres. The present Land Use Element desianation is for Local Commercial, High Density residential (15-24 units per acre) and Low Density residential (2-6 units per acre) . The request being considered would redesignate the area to Public Facility use. Mr. Lanz explained that the acreage contains 21 parcels owned by the applicant, one additional parcel is in escrow to close in January, 1982 (1140-42 Palmyra Avenue). Two additional parcels may be acquired by the applicant (sites are at 1234-36 and 1202-04 West Palmyra Avenue) . The area is generally bounded by Main Street on the west, Palmyra Avenue on the north, Lime Street on the east and Columbia Place on the south . The request excl udes four adjoining parcel s on the north- west corner of the described area. Three of these four parcels front Main Street, one fronts Palmyra Avenue. Mr. Lanz pointed out that of the potential 24 parcels in the request, the central 20 are zoned R-M-7 (Residential Multiple-Family District, 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). The only parcel fronting Main Street is zoned C-3 (Commercial District) and three parcels fronting on Lime Street are zoned R-1-6 (Single Family Residential District, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). Removal of all structures in the project has been completed except for three single family dwellings on Lime Street, plus a four-plex and three duplexes. Salvage studies of units removed found they would not survive relocation. L\ Mr. Lanz explained that surrounding land uses include one single family dwelling abutting the subject area to the northwest. Thi s unit fronts on Palmyra Avenue. Commercial uses west of this property extend in strip fashion along Main Street. Duplex to 10 unit apartment structures occupy a row of deep lots along the north. These back-on to the West Orange Elementary School building and site. Single family houses are northeast and easterly of the project area on Lime Street and Palmyra Avenue. The existing Saint Joseph Hospital complex is southerly of the area. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Two In providing some of the background, the Providence Speech & Hearing Clinic site wi thi n the Saint Joseph Hospital Complex was rezoned i n February of 1981 to facilitate a six story structure. This created a demand for more parking space in the complex. This hearing is the first step i n meeting th es e parking needs . Mr. Lanz stated that Saint Joseph Hospital representatives will be required to request a zone change prior to construction of a pro- posed three story parking structure that will wrap around the existing garage. Upper floor access in the new structure will be from the existing garage by ramps between buildings. Lots fronting Palmyra Avenue are planned to house a series of small two story structures with access oriented southerly to the new parking garage. Lime Street frontage is to be developed into a hospital park site. Mr. Lanz that one Saint Joseph Hospital staff member coordi Hated family relocations. This employee dispersed rental information, one month's rent and other assistance as needed, Moving costs were paid for two families and nearly al l tena nts failed to pay the last three or four months' rent. No collection efforts were imposed. This in- directly subsidized all tenants. After reviewing the property's confi gurati on, 1 ocati on, present uses , surrounding uses, proposed uses, circulation and access restrictions to be imposed, it is found the amendment will: 1. Provide a logical extension of the Public Facility use. 2, Encourage removal of some unsound structures from the area. 3. Allow uses which will be less intense than the residential uses presently permitted. 4. Help to alleviate potential hospital user's intrusion on surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration #735, provided the applicant for develop- ment adheres to the following mitigating measures: The siting and design of future structures and uses on Palmyra Avenue and Lime Street be compatibl e with surrounding residential uses, Internal circulation and access to parking structures or other subsequent planned uses i n the subject area shall be oriented away from Palmyra Avenue. Staff further recommends approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element from Local Commercial, High Density residential (15-24 units per acre), and Low Density residential (2-6 units per acre) to Public Facility on parcels owned by Saint Joseph Hospital within the area generally surrounded by Main Street, Palmyra Avenue, Lime Street and Columbia Place. Commissioner Master questioned a study referred to in the Staff Report, "Saint Joseph Hospital Parking Management Plan", dated June, 1981, asking if this was something which the Staff had reviewed. Mr. Lanz replied that he has read this but Staff did not assess the study, as this item is a land use change, not a zone change. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Three ~J Commissioner Vasquez questioned the study, wondering if there is an indication as to what the life span of the study is. Mr. Lanz felt that he should defer response and let the applicant address this question. Commissioner Vasquez wondered if circulation would be centered to go away from Palmyra and also if 700 vehicles are what is projected. Mr. Lanz explained that the number of cars now will be 1170. Commissioner Vasquez stated that it was his understanding that most of these vehicles wi 11 exit on Main or La Veta and wondered if this is correct. The answer was in the affirmative. Commissioner Vasquez then asked if there was any plan for the widening of Main Street in that general area. Mr. Lanz suggested that the City Engineer may wish to respond to this question. Vice-Chairman Coontz recognized Mr. Johnson, the City Engineer. Mr. Johnson replied that he believed that ultimately the street would be widened again some day. However, he didn't know the time frame for such a project. He explained that there will be a fixed rail transit type of facility scheduled for that area in the future. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there is a trend toward high rise redevelopment on that street. He thought that the Transportation Systems Improvement Plan, which is being looked at by Orange and Santa Ana, is probably addressing itself to the high rise situation along the street. Commissioner Coontz thought because Commissioner Vasquez is quite new on the Commission that perhaps Mr. Johnson could explain to him what the Transportation Systems Improvement Plan Study boundaries are. Mr. Johnson believes the boundary i n Orange is Chapman Avenue on the north, the area extends south to the Santa Ana Freeway, and east to Glassell Street. On the west it is bounded by the Orange and Santa Ana Freeways. This area was envisioned as a potential area which would contribute additional volumes of traffic. It is an area of high potential for redevelopment. Therefore, the City of Orange and the City of Santa Ana joined together for a study of this area; such a study having come out of the Continental Cities development, which is on the corner of Parker and Town & Country Road. That study is just beginning and there is no result at this time. There is a re- development fee being proposed for this area. The specific purpose is to pay for future improvements of roadways and transit facilities. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. John C. Goldthorpe, Administrator of Saint Joseph Hospital, 1100 Stewart Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, showing a plan of the Saint Joseph Hospital Complex. He pointed out the streets which are used for traffi c coming and going from the hospital complex. He explained where the proposed parking structure will be placed and how the traffic will flow from this parking area. He also pointed out where the Providence Speech & Hearing Center will be erected. Mr. Goldthorpe also spoke of the other buildings which are being contem- plated. The parking structure will be three stories in height and will contain 1170 new parking spaces. It is planned to service the needs of the entire site: Providence, CHOC and Saint Joseph Hospi tal , in the foreseeable future. Mr. Goldthorpe further explained that the surface level parking now in front of the hospital will be transformed into a park to create a parkl i ke atmosphere for the entire hospital complex. Commissioner Vasquez asked questions with regard to the 1981 Parking Management Plan and Saint Joseph Hospital Master Plan; both mentioned in the Staff Report. He wondered what the projected timing is for these plans. Mr. Goldthorpe replied that the projection is, hope- ful ly, wi thi n the next five years . \~~ Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Four There being no one else to speak for or against Item "A" of the GPA-LUE 3-81, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart stated that there is a special circumstance for a General Plan Amendment hearing, and wanted to know exactly how they should go about this . John Lane explained that the State law only allows that the General Plan be considered for amendment three times a year. However, the City of Orange and other cities have found that it is almost impos- sible to take this law literally, because they get a number of different items for consideration each year beyond the three items allowed. The law, basically as they construe it, means that three times the Commission and Council can consider amendment of an Element of the General Plan and it may have a number of items. This particular amendment package consists of four items. Mr. Lane explained, however, that they have asked the Commission to take individual actions on each of the items and then the total number of items will be sent on to the Council for public hearing. Therefore, this amounts to one hearing on the General Plan Land Use Amendment with four separate items and four separate decisions. It does not matter what the decision might be on each application. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 735, provided the applicant for development adheres to the following mitigating measures: 1. The siting and design of future structures and uses on Palmyra Avenue and Lime Street be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 2. Internal circulation and access to parking structures or other subsequent planned uses in the subject area shall be oriented away from Palmyra Avenue. AYES: NOES ABSENT: AYES: NOES ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Land Use Element from Local Commercial, High Density residential (15-24 units per acre), and Low Density residential (2-6 units per acre) to Public Facility on parcels owned by Saint Joseph Hospital within the area generally surrounded by Main Street, Palmyra Avenue, Lime Street and Columbia Place, better known as General Plan Amendment- Land Use Element 3-81, Item "A". Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED ITEM "B" - REDESIGNATION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT FORA 7.8 ACRE AREA ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TUSTIN STREET AND MEATS AVENUE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MAJOR COMMERCIAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 721 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS ITEM. A TENANT DISLOCATION IMPACT REPORT IS INCLUDED IN EIR 721. Jim Reichert presented this item to the Commission, stating that it concerns the redesignation of 7.8 acres at the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue from High Density residential (15-24 dwelling units/acre) to Major Commercial. The property is presently developed as the Lamplighter Village Mobile Home Park. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Five Mr. Reichert explained that on March 24, 1981 residents of the Lamp- lighter Village Mobile Home Park, upon receiving word that th e property owner was anti ci pati ng closing the park and converting i t to another use, appeared before the City Council to express their concerns over the situation. At the conclusion of that meeting, the Council directed Staff and the Housing Advisory Committee to prepare a report which outl i ned recent state 1 egi s 1 a ti on affecti ng mobi 1 e homes and mobile home park conversions, statistical data relating to mobile home parks in general and the Lamplighter Park in particular, and the timing involved in converting a mobile home park to another use. Mr. Reichert indicated that the report provides background information relating to this amendment item. He explained that of particular note i s the State 1 egi sl ati on which requi res the preparati on of a Tenant Dislocation Impact Report which, in this instance, is included as part of Environmental Impact Report 721, physical and demographic characteristics of the Lamplighter Park and its residents, a chrono- 1 ogical history of activities relating to the Lamplighter Park property, and the flow chart which depicts the steps and timing involved in con- verting a mobile home park to another use. Mr. Reichert explained that an argument can be made to retain the High Density residential designation on the property because of its close proximity to shopping and public transportation facilities, but the same argument can be made to redesignate it to Major Commercial because of its location at the intersection of two arterial streets, its orientation towards Tustin Street and the close proximity of sur- rounding commercial uses. Regardless of the intended use of the property, the primary issue involved in this application is that of closing a mobile home park and displacing approximately 115 residents. The situation is complicated further by a number of factors. The units are generally older and relocating them is difficult, due to their age and structural condition, and by the fact that many mobile home parks will not accept older units. The residents themselves are mostly elderly persons living on fixed incomes, many of whom moved to the park to be near relatives, doctors, medical facilities, and probably due to the relatively low monthly rental fees. Mr. Reichert pointed out that it is generally acknowledged that avail- able mobile home space in Orange, and throughout the County, is extremely limited. With few exceptions, those tenants displaced by mobile home park conversions must either move to other parks in out- lying communities, or seek other living arrangements. It was explained that the denial of the General Plan Amendment will not insure the continued use of the property for mobile home park purposes. The applicant has stated that it is not economically feasible for him to make the major improvements which would be necessary to keep the park open. The approval of the Amendment, however, implies that at some point decisions will have to be made regarding the dis- location of the current tenants. The applicant has prepared a Tenant Dislocation Impact Report, as required by State law, which is included on Page 71 in EIR 721. As indicated in that report, the applicant has surveyed several mobile home parks in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties regarding the number of vacant spaces available, as well as under what conditions mobile home units will be accepted into other parks. Mr. Reichert went on to point out that, at present, the applicant is offering $3,000 per coach for relocation assistance, which is within the range of moving expenses as determined by Staff through interviews with a number of mobile home transport companies. Whether or not this is an equitable figure is an issue that must be determined by the Commission and Council, as no simple formula exists to determine if any particular given amount of money is fair and equitable to all concerned . Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Six Staff supports an amendment to the Land Use Element, subject to the condition that the change would not take place until the relocation assistance issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Brett Swanson, 1800 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana, attorney for Mr. Kennedy, the applicant, addressed the Commission on his behalf. He explained that when they begain with the initial written advisement to the tenants in 1980, there were 80 occupied spaces. Since that date, there have been 26 mobile homes which have actually left the park, 5 more homes who have accepted the relocation offer and six homes will probably be removed by the middle of next month. This leaves 49 homes remaining in the park. He explained that nine of these are double wides, with the balance being single wides. Eighteen of these homes are for sale and the bulk of the homes which have left the park have been sold to other individuals who have moved them from the park. A $3,000 relocation offer has been made. In addition, the applicant has told the residents that if they move out prior to the 15th of any month, they will receive half of their rent back. Mr. Swanson explained that the applicant has had to borrow the money for relocation fees at 21% on a short term loan. He pointed out the tremendous administrative problem here and the emotional problems that go along with the moving of these mobile homes, particularly when the majority of the tenants are not actually moving their homes. He also pointed out that unless a ceiling were put on the relocation amount to be paid to any individual, then those individuals who moved earlier could receive a larger than their pro-rata share of the available $3,000 per space so that those who move toward the end would find that there was less money available. Therefore, there would have to be a maximum amount if they were to take an individual case by case approach. The only other alternative is to put together a pool and not distribute the money. After everyone has moved out, it would then be divided among the former residents on a pro rata basis. Mr. Swanson explained that they have extended the offer through the end of March of the coming year for the following reasons: 1. The original offer was made in September, 1980. It has been his experience that as people begin to move out there is a security problem. This becomes an attractive nuisance. 2. The cost to operate a partially full park and one that is paying full rent is essentially the same. Therefore, they are faced with an economical problem, 3. They are also hopeful to have the park completely vacated by this coming spring so that they can commence demolishment. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Reichert to repeat the Staff recommenda- tion regarding. the Relocation Assistance Plan. Mr. Reichert repeated #4 of the Staff's recommendation as follows: Recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element from High Density Residential to Major Commercial at the northeast corner of Tustin Street and Meats Avenue, subject to the condition that said redesigna- tion will not take place until the relocation assistance issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council. Mr, Swanson stated that he had a different impression of what was recommended by Staff. It was his impression, upon reading the options given in the Staff Report, that the Staff was saying the Commission may approve the project subject to the applicant putting in an appropriate form his existing relocation offer, or the Commission may consider alternative relocation options. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Seven Toni Carlton, 3106 Hillcrest, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of her mother and other residents of the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. Her mother purchased a coach in August of 1980 and moved in September 3, 1980. She was notified shortly thereafter that they would be asking fora zone change and moving the residents out. Many of these residents are on a fixed income of $500/month. Most are elderly and/or disabled. She stated that she has been a real estate broker in this area for about 13 years. She realizes that there is no easy solution to the matter of the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. However, she feels a delicate balance exists between free enterprise on one hand and justice and responsibility on the other. Ms. Carlton explained that those who are staying in the park until next spring are staying pending the decisions at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Some have already relocated and moved to apartments, nursing homes, retirement homes, some have died and their heirs have disposed of the coaches. Many of those remaining have been offered ridiculous sums for their homes, as low as $1,000 to $1200 for their coaches, amounts that would in no way pay for replacement of the coach. Ms. Carlton further explained that Mr. Kennedy has told these people that they can move their coaches to Hemet and to Arizona. She wondered if he had some idea of the stress and tension that these senior citizens are under with the prospect of moving so far away from friends and family. She spoke further of the many problems these elderly people have, among them the cost of moving a double wide coach to Arizona being approximately $1100, a single $563. A move to Hemet would be similar in cost. This does not include moving of furniture or per- sonal belongings. Ms. Carlton stated that she could not believe that Mr. Kennedy cannot sell the park for a profit since it is well located. She pointed out what other cities have done under these same circumstances. Should the Commission approve this zone change, Ms. Carlton asked that the very least restrictions to be placed on the owner should be that he pay the entire cost of relocation of all those remaining in the park on his deadline. This would mean relocating the tenant and coach in another park at no cost to the tenant, or if the tenant chooses to go into an apartment, a total reimbursement for the actual cost of a tenant's coach and then the owner can either sell the coach or move it to Arizona or Hemet himself. This would not begin to pay for the anguish these people have gone through, but it would help protect their initial investment. Woody James, 446 S. Tustin, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she lived formerly in the El Mirador Mobile Home Park and this is the second time she is facing being put out on the street. She stated that she was speaking for all mobile home dwellers when she asked the Commission to please kill this sale and rezone existing mobile home parks in the City of Orange to M-H. John Nix, 15333 Los Salos, Whittier, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that the Commission is being asked to approve a zone change to build 460,000 square feet of office park complex on 7.8 acres. He compared this to a similar plan which is going in in the City of Tustin, with less square footage on more land. He explained about the congestion occurring with the extra traffic from a project such as this and other problems going along with this kind of a situation. The General Plan Land Use Element states that the City should maintain a mix of housing. He wondered if we really need this project, explaining that 85 homes will be lost if this park is converted. There is no way that this affordable housing can be replaced. These Orange citizens are an average age of 74 years with fixed incomes of approximately $475/mo. They have no place to go. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Eight Mr. Nix explained that he had checked out the "own your own lot" mobile home park at Almond and Flower and the restrictions will keep most of these residents out of that park. He further explained that his parents have lived in the Lamplighter P4obile Home Park for 15 years and they cannot afford to go anywhere else. To replace these homes with something of like nature will cost $40-42,000. The EIR does not give one alternative for these mobile homes, which are all quite old. People are coming in, offering $1-6,000 for these coaches. The owner has offered $3,000 if the residents move out by March. These people are in a panic with their limited incomes and being told that their homes are worth practically nothing. Mr. Nix then passed out to the Commission copies of an editorial which had been written in an Orange newspaper, dealing with this subject. Vivian Moore, 2125 N. Tustin, Space 83, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She stated that she is the president of the Lamplighter Park Council. She started this to try to help the people keep their homes. As of November 15th, there will be 57 coaches left of the original 85 coaches which occupied space in the park. People are panicked and moving out to other areas. Some people have moved to places like Yucaipa and Hemet, at costs such as $1900 to make the move, plus additional costs after they got to the new space. Ms. Moore explained that she purchased in this park eleven years ago and works in the City of Orange. However, she and her husband cannot afford the high rents in the City of Orange. A year ago in April, new people moving into the park were guaranteed that they would live there fora long period of time and now they are being asked to move. John Krainik, 4005 Horseshoe Lane, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that in 1979 he had to move his parents into the Orange area. He placed his mother in the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park after being assured that she would remain in the park for the rest of her life. His mother is alone now and wants to remain near her son. The closest place she can move to will be 56 miles away. Vincent Jantz, representing the Orange County Legal Aid Society, 2700 N, Main Street, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that he taught law and has been in the legal profession. He spoke of compassion, pointing out that the law is supposed to be compassionate. The City has an obligation to its citizens. These people lived here long before this Commission was appointed. The parks are closing so quickly it is hard to keep up with them. The City has a contract with these people, Commercial development will not provide for afford- able housing. The Commission has not even made a decision yet and one-third of the people have been stampeded out in a panic. He felt that the EIR is woefully inadequate. If this zone change is passed these peopl e wi 11 never be citizens of the City of Orange again. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Mr. Jantz represented the Legal Aid Society and he replied in the affirmative. Karl Bjork, Space 2, Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that five years ago, when he was contemplating moving into a mobile home park, he questioned whether Lamplighter would stay a mobile home park. He was shown round circles within the park and told that this was where a former owner drilled down to find a permanent base to put permanent homes. None was found. This was sufficient for him and he purchased a coach in that park. This mobile home park is the same as any other. It has both single and double wide coaches. If it costs $3,000 to move a single wide coach, it would cost twice as much to move a double. All of these things should be taken into consideration. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Nine Earl Lane, 760 4!. Lomita, Harbor City, Director of the Golden State Mobile Home Owners League, requested to speak on behalf of the mobile home owners in Lamplighter Mobile Home Park and other existing parks. He stated that these elderly people are all afraid that this kind of thing is going to happen to them. He runs into this all the time in most of Orange County. He hoped that the Commission would have com- passion. He explained that this is a non-profit organization, primarily legislative. They try to help people out in meetings such as this, also attending City Council and Board of Supervisors meetings to try to assist the people in going to the proper authorities for assistance. Glen Irving, 2111 S. Manchester, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he is not a resident of the park, but he was asked to attend this meeting. His mother is 83 years of age and moved into a mobile home parka short time ago. He felt that this is a sad state of affairs with nowhere for these people to go. He thought that we must think beyond our own immediate situations. With the cost of housing in Orange County as a whole and with the displacement of moderate and low income housing in the County, and these are totally tax paying entities not supported by the munici- palities, there is going to come a time when the municipalities will have to come to grips with this situation and then it will become a burden upon all of the taxpayers to pay for low and moderate income housing at inflated rates. Where will we put these elderly people? He pointed out that high rise complexes have been a dismal failure in other areas where this has been tried for the elderly. Ruth Vorkner, a resident at Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she works at B eckman Instruments in Fullerton and if she is forced to move to Hemet it will take her an hour to drive to work. She looked at apartments in the area and has found nothing under $565/mo. She cannot afford this kind of rent. Ron Calkins, 10281 - 16th Street, Garden Grove, addressed the Com- mission in opposition to this application, stating that he was representing his ex-wife who lives in the Lamplighter P~obile Home Park. She is also on a low income. When they purchased in the park, they were assured that it would be a long term residency. He referred to page 92 of the EIR, the paragraph referring to the "no project" alternative and read from that paragraph. He wondered if this means that if the zone change is not approved, will~the owner still close the park. Mr. Calkins also referred to page 95, paragraph 5.5 of the EIR, re- ferring to an alternate site location, wondering if there are sites within the City of Orange that could be developed. Commissioner Coontz thought that there were. However, they are not listed. She explained that this EIR follows the format of the State of California requirements for an EIR and the issues that must be addressed are all. similar. Mr. Calkins then read from page 77, the second paragraph of the EIR, asking if this could become a contingency upon a zone change, that a site be provided by the City and that the owners be required to make the necessary improvements to this site and that these people in this park could have the first opportunity to occupy these spaces. Commissioner Coontz explained that the EIR provides alternatives be- cause that is what it is supposed to do according to the State law. However, whether all of these are viable or not is questionable. By questioning the points in the report as he has done, however, this becomes part of the permanent record of the EIR. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Ten Pat Kisch, 1400 Douglas Road, Space 90, Anaheim, addressed the Commission, referring to a Staff Report on mobile homes which was prepared in October of 1979 by the City of Orange Planning Staff. She pointed out that in their comments, they state that "the closing of any of the mobile home parks in the City would create a severe hardship for at least some of the residents. The figures on vacancy rates make it clear that finding another space in the City of Orange would be unlikely, finding a space anywhere in Orange County would also be unlikely." Ms. Kisch explained that she has been a mobile home owner for the past six years. She was previously a consultant to Supervisor Ralph Clark and served on a National Mobile Home Council and was also on the panel for the Capistrano Mobile Home Review Board, in addition to the Housing for Senior Citizens Council. Based on this experience and involvement, she assured the Commission that there is no place for these people to relocate. It doesn't matter how new or old these coaches are, the practice is to fall back on an existing State law which allows park owners and managers to require homes 17 years and older to be removed from the park and replaced by a new one. She asked how much more commercial we need along Tustin Avenue. She referred to the many vacant offices in the Orange area. What is needed more deserately is senior citizens housing. Commissioner Coontz asked to see the 1979 report referred to by Ms. Kisch. This was given to her. H. Edward Hogg, 2125 W. Huntington, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he had purchased a mobile home at Park Royale for his parents several years ago. We are talking not only about Lamplighter, but about all of the spaces in the mobile home parks throughout the City of Orange, Anaheim and throughout the entire Orange County area. The judgement to be made this evening represents hundreds of people in the City of Orange. There are some 300 spaces in Park Royale and some of those residents are here tonight to see what will happen. They do not want to go through what Lamplighter people are going through. He stated that he hoped the judgement will be for the tenants and the City of Orange itself. Woody James again addressed the Commission, referring to E1 Mirador Mobile Home Park. She explained that the tenants in that park had to move two years ago. The lot is still empty - just weeds. Four people died as a result of that traumatic move. Yvonne Pfingston, Vice-President of American Association of Retired People (AARP), 13102 Partridge, Garden Grove, addressed the Commission, stating that she moved into a mobile home on February 1, 1981. She has been on disability since 1974 so she knows about fixed incomes. Most of these people are from other parts of the United States. She pointed out that if living quarters and employment can be found for people from other countries, like the recent boat people from Vietnam, why can't something be done for senior citizens who have lived, worked and paid their taxes in the United States all. their lives. Mr. Swanson again addressed the Commission in rebuttal, stating that the issues raised are certainly not insignificant. However, there is another side to the problem and that is the fact that the applicant is not rich, he is essentially just a small businessman. He couldn't afford to pay the relocation fees which were suggested. Mr. Swanson pointed out that mobile home parks have traditionally and uniformly in this state been designated as interim uses of land. They were built as an interim use. The park is of an age where the utility systems are no longer usable and must be replaced. To replace under- ground utility systems, the applicant will probably have to spend around $300,000. Roads in the park are no longer in good condition and are in need of repair. That will probably cost another $100,000. It is not economically feasible to keep this park as a mobile home park. It can only be kept open if the rents are raised beyond where people could afford to stay there. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Eleven Mr. Swanson stated that we are facing one of the most serious problems in the world today - what to do with elderly people on fixed incomes. Mr. Kennedy cannot afford to take this on personally. There was never any promise to keep the park open forever. People who live in mobile home parks should recognize that they are interim uses only. He pointed out that this would be particularly true of a park located across from a major shopping center. It is obvious to any reasonable person. He pointed out the EIR and Staff Reports which recommend that this request be approved. Mr. Swanson stated that emotionalism makes a decision difficult. In answer to the questions raised, his client cannot economically keep this land as a mobile home park. Regarding the possibility of his client developing another mobile home park on available land, if there is land available it then becomes a question of whether it is economi- cally feasible. It is impossible to address that issue at this point. Mr. Swanson explained that they have attempted to arrive at some kind of relocation program which would make sense and be affordable. They have tried to maintain the attitude that they are trying to find reasonable ways to solve the moving problems of the residents. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Swanson with regard to the EIR statement, under the question of alternatives, one alternative was to close the park. He wondered if that was the intention if they fail to get a favorable recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Swanson replied that it is not economically feasible for any period of time for them to continue to operate the park. Therefore, the answer would be yes. It will be necessary to close the park in the very near future because it is uneconomical to continue to operate it. Commissioner Master pointed out that since the property is already zoned high density residential, other options could be another high density residential use or don't do anything on it, but continue to pay taxes on it. Mr. Swanson stated that it is more economical to stop operating the park and having revenue than to continue to operate at a loss. It is impossible to get the money to continue operating a mobile home park. They cannot get loans for this type of operation. Commissioner Vasquez asked if he had the statement correct that it is not economically feasible to provide an alternate site or to operate this site as it is, and after March tenants would not be entitled to any relocation fee. Mr. Swanson replied that the development of the property is .contingent on economics. There are a number of reasons which make it appropriate to have the park emptied by the end of March. There will be a substantial security problem as the park empties. There will be no upkeep on the empty spaces. They must continue operating the park with the same staff and the same expenses as they would have if the park is full. They cannot continue to do this indefinitely. Commissioner Coontz epxlained further that with regard to a closing date for moving from the property, this would be for negotiating pur- poses as far as real estate transactions are concerned. Commissioner Master commented on the observation that this is a Catch 22 situation. The applicant has made his own Catch 22 situation by serving a 12-month notice to the residents and people have already been leaving the park, thus posing the security problem. Mr. Swanson explained in further detail why the applicant had acted in the way which he had done. Commissioner Hart called attention to the fact that some people had purchased a coach in the park and a month or two later received notice of vacation of the property. He pointed out that if the property owner had delayed that notice and in the meantime more people had purchased coaches, there would have been a worse problem than we have now. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Twelve Mr. Nix again addressed the Commission, wishing to clarify Commissioner Hart's question as to whether the applicant was intending to vacate and close the park. He referred the Commissioners to the California Civil Code, Article VI - Termination of Tenancy: "...no person can be evicted until he has secured all necessary permits for this use change 60 days thereafter." Mr. Nix felt, therefore, that Mr. Kennedy could not discontinue the use of the park and evict these people unless the Commission gives him a zone change. Mr. Minshew explained that there is no law that says someone must stay in business. Mr. Swanson thought that the City Attorney is correct. There is no premise that the owner must stay in business. He felt that this aspect is being looked at improperly. They are not threatening. They are dealing with an economic fact of life. Criteria was established by the state and local government for mobile home parks to be an interim use of 20 years. They are simply facing the consequences of what government did at that time. Mr. Minshew stated the position of their office is to look into the intent of the applicant if the park were to be merely closed. If the intent is to evade that which is properly called out in the law, the City would be concerned about this. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification with regard to the offer and wondered if there was a formal written offer. Commissioner Coontz explained that there are three recommendations and it is up to the Commission to choose any one of the three or some other recommendation that they might feel is stronger. Mr. Reichert agreed that there are an infinite number of relocation assistance plans that could be developed; that three of these options were included in the report for consideration. Commissioner Coontz explained with regard to the EIR that according to Staff this was written for the worst possible case. It is not to say that what is described in the report would be what would go in that area . Commissioner Hart felt that the issue of what is going in there is not important. The issue of what is coming out is important. Commissioner Master thought that in the past they have always identified with the EIR as a living document. The comments made by the public are stated in the minutes and thus become part of the EIR. This is just a matter of taking a position on what is in the current document. Commissioner Coontz said that she disagreed with the EIR because she thought that it does not give proper impact of what a building such as is described would do to an already congested area. It was pointed out that this EIR has been prepared by an independent firm. Staff has not made a significant comment in this area. Mr. Reichert stated that thi s application is a GPA application and Staff has not seen an actual project developed to date on that particular property. If and when such a development is actually proposed on that site, further environmental analysis would be in order at that time. A discussion of environmental impacts is difficult at the General Plan level because they are not talking about a specific project. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Thirteen Commissioner Hart asked hypothetically if the applicant chooses to let time run out and close the park, what would his financial obligation be at the end of this year to the residents without this amendment being approved. He wanted to know if the law covers this possibility. Mr. Reichert deferred to the legal counsel on this question. Mr. Minshew stated that this is a new law and this has never been handled in the state before. You cannot evade the law. On the other hand, you cannot force someone to stay in business. You would go on the facts that existed at the time, gathering the reasons for going out of business, etc. It just is not clear at this time. Commissioner Hart stated that assuming the applicant's statements are true and that it is going to cost him $400,000 to upgrade the park and it would not be economically feasible to invest this amount into the park, would this be a justifiable reason to close the park? Mr. Minshew replied that at some point he could close the park. At what point he could do this would be the concern. There would be certain things he must do to wind things up. Commissioner Master thought that there might be a compilation of their thoughts in regard to the EIR, such as inadequate circulation with re- gard to both Tustin and Meats. Another point would be the inadequacy of the relocation assistance plan. Another point to consider would be addressing the true impact of the dichotomy within our own planning or the range of the spectrum they go through, i.e., what can the City do to provide housing, looking at the existing properties which are in the domain of the city, encouraging private enterprise, finding suitable alternate sites for much of the housing that is being phased out. He felt that these questions are 1 acki ng i n the EIR. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend to the City Council that EIR 721 not be certified as being completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and state and local guidelines, in that the EIR does not address major concerns as follows: 1. Inadequate circulation with regard to both Tustin and Meats. 2. Inadequacy of the relocation plan. 3. It does not address the true impact of the dichotomy with our own planning, i.e., what can the city do to provide housing looking at the existing properties which are in the domain of the City, encouraging private enterprise and finding suitable alternate sites for much of the housing that is being phased out. Therefore, the EIR should be revised and reviewed by either the Planning Commission of the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickel son MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master wondered if there is a problem with this for the next level of review. John Lane responded that obviously the Com- mission finds inadequacies. Those inadequacies have been addressed by the Commissioners and the minutes will reflect what they are. The applicant has an opportunity to address these prior to the Council meeting and he probably will do that. Commissioner Coontz then explained that they were studying the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report vs. anything that the Commission thinks should be done additionally. She further explained that she had asked Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Fourteen Ms. Kisch to allow her to see the Staff Report dated 1979. What occasioned this report was a memo which Commissioner Coontz had written to the City Council, asking many of the questions which were heard at tonight's meeting, relating to social concerns and what the status of the parks were as far as zoning was concerned. She had only asked questions, not coming to any conclusions, as she did not know enough about the subject at that time. However, she had sug- gested that perhaps we might want to zone the mobile home parks to their own zone. There were a number of study sessions regarding this subject and this report and Commissioner Coontz's memo were shelved, the reason being that everyone involved felt that by zoning these mobile homes, which were originally thought of as interim housing, and because the community did not even want to accept the idea of mobile home parks unless they were of an interim nature. The Planning Commissioners, City Council and Staff felt that we were going against the free enter- prise system by not allowing a land owner to do what he wished with his property. Commissioner Coontz felt that the only other alternative is that if the city fathers do not want to retain mobile home parks by having M-H zoning, then they must be sure that any relocation plan that is brought to the Commission is one that is fair and addresses all of the problems, individual by individual, including perhaps a relocation person who would assist each of the homeowners to locate somewhere else. Commissioner Master commented that up to this time other mobile home parks that have been converted to other uses were not zoned residential. This is the first one which is zoned residential. There are other parks zoned for industrial or commercial that will probably come up for the same reason. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recom- mend that the City Council not accept the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report as being completed in accordance with state law. Commissioner Coontz felt that the Tenant Dislocation Impact Report is according to state law, but the Commission's concern is that there be a better relocation. It is not equitable - according to the state law, but just not enough. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to remove Item "B" from the General Plan Amendment-Land Use Element 3-81 and to direct the property owner to prepare a comprehensive relocation assistance plan which indicates the amount of relocation fees, how they were determined, how they will be distributed, as well as other efforts to assist the tenants to either relocate or seek other living arrangements, including the hiring of a relocation coordinator to assist the tenants on an individual basis; and that this plan be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days for subsequent review and action by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Master asked that the motion be amended to include an implementation time frame (the time over which the plan is to be ef- fected). Amendment was accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion. Commissioner Hart wondered what the legal position is for taking an item off of the General Plan. He questioned whether it could be acted upon separately or would it go with the next package of items for con- sideration under the General Plan Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Fifteen P-1r. Lane explained that, as he understands the legal position, General Plan Amendments are technically initiated by the City of Orange, not in the same way that a zone change is. A zone change can be petitioned by any property owner, where he pays the fee, gets a hearing and gets some action. For all practical purposes, both the Commission and the Council have the prerogative not to hold the public hearing fora General Plan Amendment. If they choose to delete this item from the group of items in order to amplify the relocation plan and have it back in 30 days, Mr. Lane assumed that the Commission wished to readdress this after the Planning Staff analyzed it. This would then be heard with the first package of General Plan Amendment items in early 1982. This will not impede the other items in this group from going to the City Council. The Commissioners then voted on the motion on the floor. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend that the City Council reconsider and restudy the future of the existing mobile home park, reviewing the present zoning, and considering special zoning for mobile home parks and also considering what the future of the parks will be. Mr. Lane wondered if it would be appropriate for the City Council to consider that issue prior to the resubmittal of a tenant relocation plan on this particular property. He suggested that after the revised or new tenant relocation plan is reviewed by the Commission, if they still feel this way, then go ahead with the next step. Commissioner Coontz felt that this could be sent to the Council and they can decide what to do with it. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED ITEM "C" - REDESIGNATION OF THE LAND USE ELEP~ENT FORA 7.5 ACRE AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FL ETCHER AVENUE, EAST OF BATAVIA STREET FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 725 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS ITEM. Jack McGee presented this application to the Commission, stating that this item consists of eight (8) parcels on the north side of Fletcher Road, west of Fletcher Elementary School. The area is about 7.5 acres in size, is currently zoned M-1 and M-2, and is shown on the General Plan Land Use Element for Low Density Residential use. Mr. McGee explained that this action is being initiated by the City of Orange to amend the Land Use designation for the area from Low Density Residential to Industrial, thereby making the General Plan and Zoning consistent. This action is initiated as a result of one landowner's desire to redevelop his property in a manner consistent with the existing zoning. Since the zoning and land use designations are not consistent with each other for this 7.5 acre area, this amendment is needed to achieve that consistency required to allow development/redevelopment of the property. Mr. McGee pointed out that the area was shown on Orange's 1960 General Plan as industrial, as was the entire area west of Orange-Olive Road. The site area was annexed in portions between 1962 and 1965. Zoning upon annexation was M-1 and M-2. During ensuing years surrounding properties to the north, east, and west were changed to residential zoning and developed accordingly. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Sixteen The existing Land Use Element was adopted in 1974, indicating this area as low density residential. In 1976 the City initiated Zone Change 771 to change the zone from M-1 and M-2 to RD-6 and establish General Plan and Zoning consistency. That 1976 action was denied by the Planning Commission. Rather than process a General Plan Amendment for the isolated individual requesting action, and only partially address the problem, a solution for the larger area is necessary. Such action will bring the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning into consistency, and facilitate development/redevelopment of the area. The other alternative is to rezone the area from M-1 "Light Manufacturing" and M-2 "Industrial" Districts to some form of low density residential zoning. The present situation is untenable. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the finding of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 725. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element from Low Density Residential to Industrial for the subject area. Commissioner Plaster wondered if there is a record of comments of residents regarding industrial activities in that wedge of property. Mr. McGee replied that there have been many complaints from adjacent residents concerning noise, dust, etc. There are truck yards and outdoor manufacturing uses in that area which create problems, being adjacent to the residential area. Commissioner Coontz felt that if there is new construction in the M-1 and M-2 zones on these pieces of property, that the problem situations could be improved. Commissioner Hart wondered about the intent of the original General Plan that placed the zoning on this property. It was brought out that this site was originally zoned Industrial and then the adjacent Residential zoning was established. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Steve Miller, 725 W. Fletcher and 817 Brookshire, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that his livelihood depends on that little piece of property. He has a business there and was there long before any residences were there. They were not know- ledgeable enough at the time to say that someone could not develop their property into a residence. Their company, for the last six years, has been stymied in any development of that piece of property. P1r. Miller explained that he would like to totally enclose the whole piece of his property and make it very presentable, but they cannot do anything right now. Robert Carter, 715 W. Fletcher, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he has been in his property since 1962. They asked the City if they could come in with an M-1 zoning and the City was happy to have them. He explained that they also live there. He pointed out that there is no consistency in the zoning of the area. 1 Jim Potter, 1749 Greengrove, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he is a real estate broker in the City of Orange and he feels that we will upgrade the area in general by realigning the General Plan of existing zoning. He felt that it is not economical to convert the six parcels in question and mark the area as residential. This should continue to stay as a heavier in- dustrial area. Planning Commission Minutes October 26 , 1981 Page Seventeen Judy Martin, Martin Electric, 2075 Freeman, Signal Hill, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She explained that if they would have approval to build whatever building that the City would allow, they would go in within six months after approval and build an 8,000 square foot building. They would have to have the right space for their equipment. She explained that they work all over California and they would like to see industrial zoning in this area. Ron McCartney, 709 W. Brentwood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he has lived on that site for 10 years with his family. His child goes to Fletcher School. He pointed out that the area has always been unsightly, but now it has become very trashy. Recently Fletcher Avenue was widened, which makes the street faster. The area generally smells of diesel fuel and other types of pollutants. He also pointed out that there have been three fires in recent months. The business people, in general, have been unresponsive. The parcel in question and the organization which in- habits it are an unsightly anomaly in the area. He pointed out that this is a growing residential area. The housing market will not always be depressed and that area will be built up residentially. He would not like to see this go industrial. John Sharpe, 727 W. Brentwood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He felt that there is enough noise and other problems there now. He pointed out that completely sur- rounding the area in question is residential. Since 1960 this has been consistently permitted as a residential area and this request for rezoning is not in good concordance with the general City plan. Yvonne Torrance, 2547-2549 N. Capri, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, explaining that the rear of the property which they own abuts the property in question. Their tenants constantly complain about the noise. 4~Jhen the land use was planned, that area was probably planned to be brought into some type of homogeneous situation. She pointed out that the children going to Fletcher School are subject to all kinds of danger and the tenants in that area are suffering from noise pollution. She felt that this rezoning would be a giant step backward. She would like to see a land use that puts this back into perspective. The housing shortage only shows up in two areas today - in rentals and senior citizens housing. We need the residential use - it should be a priority in the minds of the Commission. John Charlebois, 706 W. Brentwood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, explaining that a representative from the Orange County Noise Control Center has been out to his house three times and all three times these businesses have been in violation of the noise ordinance. With regard to the electrical supply company, he explained that the trucks go out early in the morning and their noise starts at 4:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Then it starts again at 4:00 p.m. going on until 9:00 p.m. They have exceeded the allowable noise limi- tations inside of his house. He stated that he was not in favor of a company who would be coming in and making noise during the hours stated. Regarding the dust in the area, Gary Bancroft, a representative of South Coast Air Quality Management, has come out and said that these businesses are in violation of dust control. lJpon being told about this violation, they watered the storage lots for approximately three weeks, but then they stopped and the residents have the problem again. Dean Taylor and Deanna Clark, code enforcement officers, have been out to his home for noise and dust violations. Mr. Charlesbois then explained that he had sent to him from the City of Orange a plot showing that there should be trees across the back of his property. These trees are missing because a truck has gone through Planning Commission P1i nutes October 26, 1981 Page Eighteen them three times. They have been forced to replace these trees. There are now vehicles parked back there which are in violation of the code. Expensive trees have been planted, but have been run over and killed. They then replanted the trees and they lasted 30 days because they were not watered. The code enforcement officers got immediate response, but after they left, the situation just got bad again. Mr. Charlebois stated that he would like to reinforce the fact of the fires. He has been on his roof watering it down to keep it from catching on fire. There have been noise and dust violations, even with code enforcement. He does not want more vehicles parked back near his property. It is a disaster. He explained that he moved into his home in January of 1976 and conditions are worse now than ever. He does not want to see the area go industrial. They do not need more vehicles in the area. All they bring are terrible diesel fumes and pollution and even more terrible language used by the truck drivers. Warner Deff ner, 2557 Berkeley Circle, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that the discussion which has been heard has been toward bringing the General Plan into con- formance with the General Plan. Why not bring the land use into conformance with the General Plan? This area is mostly residential and the industrial use does not conform to what is already there. James Fry, owner of property at 2501-03 N. Capri, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he is familiar with the problems inherent with the property. He pointed out that this use is so outside of the conformity to the area, he does not understand why duplexes and residences are allowed to be built next to this industrial use. He explained that he is a real estate broker and felt that it is very feasible to keep this as a residential area. He would like to see the integrity of the area maintained and keep it all residential. Bill Lambert, 803 W. Brookshire, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he was a little shocked at the very little in depth analysis in the Staff Report. The Environ- mental Study questionnaire just glosses over the facts and the comment in the report of questionable compatiblity he felt was absurd and totally inadequate. Speaking to the Negative Declaration, he was appalled at the answers to questions such as impact on the environment and public health and safety. He felt that the Master Plan laid out in 1974 was the way it was decided then and there is no reason to reconsider. Marty Adair, owner of property on the south side of Fletcher and the east side of American Way, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, explaining when they bought the property they own 12 years ago it was a part of the Master Plan to be developed industrially. They felt fortunate to have 10 acres to develop industrially, but in 1979 when they got under construction to build a multi-tenant industrial building, they realized that the nearby River Trail Homes were being developed residentially, which meant that they had to fight to try to develop their property industrially. Then they realized that somehow the Master Plan had been changed and a potential of 800 families were being placed west of Batavia. They decided that they had to go to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit to develop their property from industrial to a cultural center. They are now under construction for this. f~1s. Adair brought up a truck stop with women in independent vans coming in to entertain the truckers. She felt there would be a definite mis- use of the land if it is developed as they wish to develop it. The City should keep this as a low density residential area and not issue Planning Commission Minutes October 26 , 1981 Page Nineteen permits for any further industrial uses. A total residential complex would be the ideal use for the land there. It is feasible that two- story condominiums could be built there. She thought that we should consider what is good for the children coming down Fletcher to go to .school, Ms. Adair explained that a theater would bring cars at night to the area, but trucks come down the street during the day. She also pointed out that the Fletcher Pipe Coating Company has been in violation of the property codes for some time. How can they enforce codes for more industrial uses coming into the area when they are not enforcing those already there? There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master asked a question with regard to the question that was raised about whether the Commission had to hear the item at all. He proposed a motion to take this item off of the agenda and a further motion for Staff to do a low level study on what would be alternate uses for the property and alternate zoning. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that if the site were zoned residential that is not to say that they will not complain about the south side of Fletcher. The mistake that was made all along was in allowing residential next to industrial. It must be remembered that the residential came later. Commissioner Hart explained that this entire area was originally industrial and should have remained industrial, but it was changed. He further explained that we have heard about a certain lack of enforce- ment in thsi area. He felt that if there was a strong enforcement program there would probably not be so many problems in that area. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to delete this item from further consideration and further, that the Staff be directed to study the uses in general of the property. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented that he was on the Planning Commission back in 1976 and he made the motion in this matter because he was concerned about the fact that residential was developing in that area. He was hoping that industrial would phase out, but it did not. It only got worse. ITEM "D" - REDESIGNATION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR A 1± ACRE AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF BATAVIA STREET, BET4IEEN CHAPMAN AVENUE AND MAPLE AVENUE FROM L041 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOCAL COMMERCIAL. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 724 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS ITEM. V Jim Reichert presented this item to the Commission, stating that Item "D" consists of approximately one acre on the west side of Batavia Street between Chapman Avenue and Maple Avenue. The present Land Use Element designation is Low Density Residential (2-6 dwelling units/acre), and the change being considered is to Local Commercial. Mr. Reichert explained that one of the properties involved in this proposed change was the subject of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council earlier this ,year. The hearings were for the purpose of considering a Zone Change from R-h1-7 to C-2, a Con- ditional Use Permit, and Variance at 120 North Batavia Street, to allow the establishment of a machine shop on the premises. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Twenty On March 16, 1981, the Planning Commission acted to deny the applica- tion for the reason that the proposed use was incompatible with surrounding residential uses. The Planning Commission action was appealed to the City Council, which acted on April 9th to uphold the Commission's decision. Mr. Reichert pointed out that the General Plan Amendment proposal now includes the above parcel, and the remaining properties fronting on Batavia Street between Chapman Avenue and Maple Avenue. Mr. Reichert then explained that when the Staff Report for the prior Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Variance application was being prepared earlier this year on the single parcel north of the existing service station, a staff inquiry was made as to whether or not com- mercial zoning on the property would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. The Land Use Element map presently indicates both Low Density Residential and Local Commercial in the general vicinity of the property. Because of its relatively insignificant size and close proximity to existing commercial uses and zoning on Chapman Avenue, it was determined that commercial zoning on the one property could be considerdd without an amendment to the General Plan. However, in reviewing the larger amend- ment area, Staff cannot support the change to Local Commercial at this time. The general area is still predominately residential in nature and a change to Local Commercial would be an encroachment into the established residential neighborhood to the west and north. The size and shape of the parcels makes them unsuitable for typical commercial use. If the parcels redevelop to commercial on an individual basis, parking and interior circulation requirements would impose significant on-site problems. Multiple access points on Batavia Street would aggravate traffic movement problems and create unnecessary additional marginal friction on this arterial highway. Mr. Reichert pointed out that Staff realizes that this application was filed primarily on the part of the property owner at 120 North Batavia in an effort to pursue his desire to establish a machine shop on the premises. The approval of this General Plan Amendment will not ensure that the property could be used for that purpose. As discussed at the Planning Commission public hearing on the previous application, there is still a question of allowing such a use in any commercial zone. The resolution of that question should have been made some time ago. Mr. Reichert said that the approval of this Amendment could result in similar requests for commercial development north along Batavia. The denial of the request, however, does not preclude the property owners' development options. Present zoning on a majority of the parcels allows more intense residential use than presently exists. Staff recommends acceptance of the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 724. Staff also recommends that the City Council deny a redesignation from Low Density Residential to Local Commercial on the west side of Batavia Street between Chapman Avenue and Maple Avenue. Commissioner Coontz asked if she was correct in that the Seven-Eleven Store on the General Plan is shown as High Density Residential, but the zoning is Commercial. She didn't think this was compatible with the General Plan. Mr. Reichert explained that the store is located in a rather gray area on the Land Use Element that could be considered either Local Commercial or High Density Residential. Commissioner Vasquez asked if the subject property is in the same kind of gray area. Mr. Reichert replied in the affirmative on the parcel in question. However, the larger area in the General Plan Amendment is not in this gray area and could not be considered Local Commercial. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1981 Page Twenty-One Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Dave Daum, 122 N. Batavia, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he has lived in this residence for the past 22 months and would personally like to see the area there be redeveloped to Local Commercial so that it would comply with the general trend of the area. There is much commercial use in the area. As a resident, he sees problems of residents being in with commercial uses. There is a lot of truck traffic with a lot of noise involved. He felt that this area is almost uninhabitable for residential use. He would like to put a commercial business on his property and so would like to see this zoned Commercial. A petition has been dis- tributed among the property owners along Batavia and 5 out of 7 were in agreement with the Commercial designation. Per. Daum distributed a copy of the petition to the Commission. Commissioner Vasquez asked if this was all the documentation that was given to the people who signed the petition. The answer was yes. Mr. Daum stated that most of the documentation was verbal. Jim Daum, owner of the parcel at 122 N. Batavia, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that this property is really undesirable for living quarters. He went into the history of the property, explaining that he had lived there for 30 years. Several years ago there was a bowling alley across from them and it was un- desirable for them to live there. They did not make any complaints because they felt that people had to make a living. When their street was widened the structures on their property sit right on the sidewalk. Mr. Daum explained that Mr. Pierce from the City of Orange made an offer to rezone as an incentive for them to give property over to the City. He felt that they are entitled to this zone change. Commissioner Coontz asked if this was a verbal commitment. Mr. Daum explained that Mr. Pierce canvassed the whole street in about 1967 in order to widen the street. Mary Widows, 1740 N. Shaffer, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She stated that she has spent most of her life fighting for good government and the private enterprise philosophy. The property at 122 N. Batavia has been in her family's possession for over 50 years. Her mother lived in that house and many years ago Batavia was a lovely residential street. However, the City has ruined it. They widened it and made it a direct route. She pointed out that the noise is so horrendous that it is impossible to live on that street. That property is contiguous to a service station which generates much traffic and noise. Across the street is an all-night market which also generates much traffic and noise. She explained that this young man is newly married and needs a start in a little business. He is not asking fora handout. She asked for rezoning of this property to Commercial . Lee Lawson, 176 N. Batavia, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has lived there since 1957. When the street was widened an official from the City came to ob tain a setback of his property and promised that a telephone pole would be relocated next to the curb. That never happened. The telephone poles are in the middle of the sidewalk, one of them 17 inches from the curb line. He explained that the City has gone to the expense of building a detour three feet out on the inside of the sidewalk around every pore. Regarding the street noise, Mr. Lawson explained that since the street was widened the traffic is very severe. His wife, who was sickly, had to move out. They purchased another home about four miles away, but he still lived on Batavia since he had a machine shop there. The traffic, the noise, will make this a less than desirable area for residential. Planning Commission Minutes Octok~er 26, 1981 Page Twenty-Two Mr. Lawson explained that Inspector Green was in charge of inspecting the telephone poles for the City. He called ~1r. Green about this pole and the fact that it should be moved. However, he found out that the City does not protect the public and he explained how they have to detour around the telephone poles. He pointed out that the street is already commercial. It should be zoned that way. Commissioner Master asked Staff if the uses in that area are in con- formity with commercial zoning. Commissioner Hart explained that in this application we are not supposed to be considering uses. But if a use is going in there that is not compatible with the zoning, we still have a problem. In his opinion, a machine shop is only allowed in an industrial zone, not in a commercial zone. Dorothy James, 1502 Cleminson, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that she owns property in the middle of the block on Batavia. She is in agreement that the zoning should be commercial because of the changes which have come about on the street in the past 15 years. She owns the old house that used to be the original ranch house there and she had thought about restoring this house, but she will not do that with the block the way it is. She is asking for some consistency in zoning in that area. Edward Nuessly, 745 S. Yorba, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he owns property at Maple and Clark and he sees no reason why this residential area should become commercial. The Master Plan shows it as residential and he thinks this should remain consistent. If we take all of the busy streets in the city and make them commercial we will have urban blight. The parking situation is already bad and it will only get worse if it is zoned commercial. Mary Sanchez, 131 N. Citrus, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that they are concerned about the plan to change that particular block. It will not become commercial because he has a machine shop. They have been here before and fought against this. The street is very busy now and what is going to happen to the residents around this property if there is a machine shop? They already hear much noise from surrounding businesses. She has lived in this area since 1964 and she is sad to see the west side of Orange has nothing but garages and machine shops, whereas the east side of Orange is very lovely. There are other residents on her block who also oppose this zone change. She said that Mr. Daum told her that even if she took him to court he would do whatever he wants on his own property. Betty Nuessly, 745 S. Yorba, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She opposed the use of a machine shop on that property. There is an imperative need for housing in the City of Orange. She pointed out that the people who live in this area are happy in their residential area and are not happy about encouraging commercial uses. She encouraged the Commission to vote against this zone change. Refugio C. Sanchez, 131 N. Citrus, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, pointing out that Mr. Daum previously was turned down by the Planning Commission and City Council to put in his machine shop. He stated Mr. Daum went up and down Batavia with a petition, but he did not take into consideration the fact that the people behind him will not put up with the noise. They asked Mr. Daum if there was another place to put his shop an dhe said there might be. They happen to know that Mr. Daum owns property on Main Street, which is already zoned Commercial. Mr. Sanchez pointed out that all of their money is in their home. They have lived there for 19 years. They can- not afford to sell it and move on just because someone wants to go Commercial and make a "killing". He hopes that the Commission will realize that they are fighting for a lot of things. Change of zoning will make this an unfit place to live. Planning Commission Minutes October 26 , 1981 Page Twenty-Three Mr. Daum responded to the statement that there was an intimation that he did something illegal. He did not do anything illegal. He went to the Planning Department to get permission to go through proceedings to get rezoning to build a shop for his son. They informed him that they were not in favor of this and he would have to do certain things. He proceeded according to all of the laws and rules. He pointed out that he believes in constitutional rights of property owners. He has done nothing crooked or illegal. The question that is coming up now is traffic and noise. This is not a legitimate complain. The traffic is there and they must live with it. If it becomes a problem of ingress and egress at a future time they will have to address that then. He explained that the noise does not come from their property. It is coming from elsewhere. They do not want to be made to suffer for conditions that are already there. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master asked Staff is a machine shop use is permitted in a C-2 area. Mr. Lane explained that the C-2 zone permits light manu- facturing uses with only electrical power. It has never been determined whether Mr. Daum's use is a legitimate use. Basically the code says light manufacturing only with electrical power. Dave Daum responded to this terminology by stating that his operation would come under light manufacturing as it is powered only by el ectrici ty. He has a fabrication shop which i s 1 i ke that of John Pruitt. He does some welding. Vice-Chairman Coontz again closed the public hearing, after hearing Mr. Daum's statement. Commissioner Coontz felt that as far as interpretation of the General Plan is concerned, she did not think they need to take into considera- tion the whole street of Batavia. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 724. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz pointed out that an explanation of the use should have been put i nto writing a 1 ong time ago . Commissioner Hart fel t that this is not an issue. Mr. Minshew thought they should have something in writing from Mr. Daum as to what type of equipment he has in his shop and what he intends to do. Commissioner Coontz asked for more clarification from Mr. Lane and he replied that the Commission's decision probably should be based upon the interpretation of the use. The decision probably should be deferred until they have a written interpretation from the City Attorney. He felt that there should be an accurate written description of the equipment to be used on that property submitted to the City Attorney's office in order for an interpretation to be prepared. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to defer a decision on this item for one week until the applicant submits a written description of the proposed use to the City Attorney's office, and until the City Attorney's office submits a written opinion to the Commission as to vrhether or not the proposed use would be allowed in a commercial zone. Planning Commission Minutes October 26 , 1981 Page Twenty-Four AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mic kelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Commissioner Master requested that Staff look at the microphone situation and perhaps try pin on microphones. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight, to be reconvened at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, November 2, 1981, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on ~, October 26, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on October 27, 1981 , at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of October 26, 1981 was held. p , ~~ ~7/~j//)'' A `Jer P. Murphy, Sec : tary ~ ^~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1981 . The regular meeting of the Orange City Planni ng Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that this meeting adjourn at 12:00 midnight on Monday, October 26, 1981, to re- convene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 2, 1981. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the '+a Planning Commission held on Monday, October 26, 1981 . Dated this 27th Day of October, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. P. Murphy, Ci ty ~'.I anner na tary to the Planning Co fission e City of Orange. ^~