Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/18/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California January 18, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; John Lane, Admi ni strator of Advance Planning; Jack h1cGee, Assistant Planner; Jim Reichert, Associ ate Planner; Bert K. Yamasaki , Director of Planning and Development Services; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 1982 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve the minutes of January 4, 1982, as transmi tted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: STAFF REQUEST TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO SET A REVOCATION HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERP~IT 1078 FOR FAILURE TO COP~PLY WITH CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT APPROVAL. Jere Murphy told the Commission that the applicant has requested a continuance of this matter, in order to comply with the condi- tions of the permit approval. He went on to explain why Staff i s seeking revocation of Condi ti onal Use Permit 1078, tel 1 i ng them that the action which would be taken at this time would be to set a date for a publ i c hearing i n order to consi der revocation of the condi tional use permit. He said that the Staff has had no substanti al discussion wi th the applicant with regard to any possibl e extension of time on this matter. Joseph ~ticton, 2047 Rainbow Dri ve, Santa Ana, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that he would like a continuance i n order to sit down with the Staff and try to figure out what must be complied with in the conditional use permit. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the pros and cons of granti ng a Conti nuance on this item, since the matter has gone on for some time. Commissioner Coontz suggested a postponement to the next meeting, which woul d be i n two weeks . Commissioner Hart felt that this should be acted upon this evening since there have been many Conti nuances already. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to continue this item as an agenda item to February 1 , 1982. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Two IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED LAMPLIGHTER MOBILE HOME TENANT RELOCATION PLAN. Jim Reichert presented this item to the Commission, explaining that at the work session on January 11, 1982 a number of concerns were expressed by the Commission regarding the Tenant Relocation Plan. These items were: 1. The role of the Relocation Assistance Coordinator. 2. The existence of other housin opportunities than those identified in the Relocation ~lan. 3. The time frame contained in the document. 4. The method of payment and the method of calculating payment under the repurchase offer. Mr. Reichert explained that Staff has reviewed the revised Tenant Relocation Plan and felt that the applicant has addressed the con- cerns which were stated. Therefore, Staff feels that the document is now in a form to be reviewed and acted upon by the Commission. Commissioner Master felt that there should be a time line presented for the benefit of the people attending this hearing which indicates the timing involved in processing this application. Mr. Reichert explained that a General Plan Amendment was heard by the Commission in October of 1981. This item was removed from the third General Plan Amendment package for 1981 and carried over to the first General Plan Amendment package of 1982. This should be heard around February of 1982. Along with this item will be an Environmental Impact Report which was prepared for the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Reichert further explained that once the Commission makes a recommendation on the General Plan Amendment it will go to the City Council for action. It could be heard by the city sometime in April. If the amendment is approved at that time, rezoning can take another 12 to 14 weeks. The rezoning proceedings could be concluded by July of this year, under ideal conditions. Chairman Mickelson made several statements which he explained came about as a result of his very recent meeting with Staff members and the City Attorney and Deputy City Attorney. 1. Since this application was made in July of 1981, those portions dealing with termination of tenancy are being processed in accordance with California Civil Code provisions in effect as of January 1, 1981, and not under the most recent revisions which became effective January 1, 1982. He explained that there are some differences in the two and saw three options which were available to the applicant at this time, namely: (1) Close the park. Therefore, no land use permit would be required by the city. However, a Tenant Impact Report would be required and the city could req,wire certain reasonable mitigation measures and they could theoretically include tenant assistance of some form. When the application is initially filed with the city, a 12 month notice of the pro- posed change is given to the tenants. In addition, there is a 60 day notice required after the 12 months have expired, which is a notice to quit, fora total of 14 months. The second option for the applicant would be to change from a mobile home park to a use permitted under the present zoning - RM-7000. Under this situation, a land use permit would perhaps be required, but a Tenant Impact Report would still be required. The city would have the option of requiring mitigation measures which might include a tenant assistance plan. This would also require a 12 month notice to the tenants, plus an additional 60 day notice. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that there is a statement in that law that says no tenant can be required to move until Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Three all permits are approved. Therefore, if permits were required for perhaps the building of an apartment building, the tenants could opt to stay in the park until all permits were approved. Chairman Mickelson then pointed out that the third option is closer to what is actually taking place. The applicant could request a change from Mobile Home Park to a use other than allowed under the current zoning. He has asked for a General Plan Amendment from Residential to Commercial and if that is successful, he will probably follow up with a zone change to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. Again, a Tenant Impact Report is required with a 12 month notice, plus the additional 60 days. No tenant can be required to move until all permits are approved. Chairman Mickelson then explained that the Commission has before it a revised Tenant Relocation Plan and this public hearing is to determine the adequacy or inadequacy of this Tenant Relocation Assistant Plan and the options before the Commission at this point are: (1) they could deny the plan if they do not think it is proper and adequate; (2) they could approve the plan as submitted; (3) they could approve the plan with modifications; or (4) they could continue the hearing if those modifications are significant enough that they think they should be restated and rewritten. He pointed out that at some later date the General Plan Amendment will come before the Commission for another public hearing, at which time proper notice will be given. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Brett Swanson, 1800 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he did not entirely agree with Chairman Mickelson's opening comments. He explained that he has been actively reviewing the legislation with regard to the relocation plan statute which was referred to by Chairman Mickelson. He did not believe that it was the intent of the legislation in the first two instances referred to by Chairman Mickelson that the city or the county would have the option of requiring relocation assistance plans to be prepared. He also did not read the requirement in the second instance where the applicant would ask for rezoning that he would have to wait until all permits are approved before he could ask the people to move. Chairman Mickelson replied that he recognized that these items are subject to interpretation and it was not his intent to try to solve the difference in interpretation. He pointed out that the third instance is the one we are dealing with and he would hope for agree- ment that the city does have land use permits required and a Tenant Impact Report is required and, as a result, mitigation measures of whatever the Commission resolves would be required. The 12 month notice plus 60 days notice to quit are also required. He asked Mr. Swanson if he agreed that in that instance the law says that no tenant can be required to move until all permits are approved. Mr. Swanson said that he would read that to say that if they were to obtain the General Plan Amendment and zoning change, that this would be sufficient and the applicant would not have to go beyond that to receive the city's permission to impose the requirement that the residents move. Chairman Mickelson explained that options 1 and 2 were academic and do not pertain to tonight's action. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Four Commissioner Coontz referred to Article 6, #2 in the revised Tenant Relocation Plan, "...provided, however, that no tenant shall be required to vacate until all required permits for a change of use had been obtained..." saying that she could see this statement affecti ng the September 15, 1982 date and thought that the Commission has the option to amend the September 15th date. Commissioner Hart brought up the comment that the first two alterna- tives were academic, saying that he thought they are not. He maintained that they are, indeed, a possibility and a probability if the Commission does not pass on some sort of Tenant Relocation Plan that both the owner and the tenants can live with. Ch airman Mickel son explained further how he saw the al ternati ves pertaining to tonight's discussion and action. Mr. Swanson then went on to say that he had been in error in a statement which he had made at last week's study session, in response to a question by Commissioner Vasquez regarding what his understanding was of the housing available in retirement homes. He explained that, upon checking within the past week, there are presently 10 vacancies now and another 10 vacancies which will be available shortly in Santa Ana. In addition, there are an unspecified number of vacancies available in the Casas. There is also a new unit opening in Fullerton which will have a number of vacancies. Therefore, there is a strong possibility of 30 immediate vacancies in retirement type homes. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Swanson for his definition of a retirement home. Mr. Swanson explained that this is a living unit with meals provided, as well as recreational activities, etc. Commissioner Coontz clarified just exactly what a retirement home is, as opposed to a convalescent home. Mr. Swanson explained that he had tried to get numbers on reti re- ment homes because of what he thought was Commissioner Vasquez' concern. He pointed out that the key issue is what is to be gained if this relocation plan is not approved. He did not feel that anyone benefits i f th i s happens . The ques ti on must be asked, why shoul d approval of this relocation plan be withheld. The root of the issue is the change of land use. From the location of this property, commercial use is the only reasonable use that can be found. It is not economically possible to continue the existing mobile home park, nor would it be economically feasible to replace it with a new mobile home park. The commercial use is the only economically use available at this point for this piece of land. Mr. Swanson felt that the relocation benefits which are being offered are most generous. The applicant is trying to solve the problem and satisfy the concerns of the city and those that the residents have expressed. He pointed out that in his perception of the law, if the land is devoted to no use or if it is devoted to the residential use for which it is now zoned, there would be no requirement that the appli cant pay any relocation benefits . He said that the applicant has at no time attempted to pressure the Planning Commission and is, in fact, offering to spend well over $300,000 on tenant relocation benefits regardless of whether the plan is approved or not. It is obvious that he i s operati ng i n good faith with the city and the residents . Mr. Swanson saw no reason to deny approval. He felt that everything that is possible to do has been done. The applicant is most willing to work with the residents and with the city to the best of his ability. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Five Commissioner Coontz said that in speaking with the Assistant City Attorney and referring to Article 6, #2, she would feel strongly that the September 15th date should be modified and it should be stated "...or until all required permits are obtained, whichever is the later date." She asked for an amendment to this effect and asked for a response from Mr. Swanson on an amendment of this type. Mr. Minshew stated that his interpretation of this is that the tenant can stay as long as the law allow, giving up the relocation assistance bonus. However, the applicant's plan does not have to read th i s way . Mr. Swanson explained that the relocation plan does not address this issue, nor do any of their notices address this. The plan has been structured on the basis that there is an additional economic cost to operate the park after September 15, 1982. He felt that the concern they would have is that if people were stil l i n the park at that time th ey would have to continue to pay salaries and expenses, no matter how many people were there. He felt that .~. there could be a fl exibi 1 i ty on the time, but at this point he did not know how much time. Commissioner Vasquez brought up the statement that they had solicited comments from she people regarding ideas and suggestions in this matter, asking for clarification of these comments. Mr. Swanson explained that he had solicited comments from Vincent Jantz, representative of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, speaking on behalf of a number of the residents, asking him to tal k to these peopl e and come back with thei r ideas and suggestions . He has made the same request of the residents with whom he has met wi thi n the 1 ast several weeks . Thi s offer i s sti 11 open, but so far he has been given no ideas or suggestions. It is their intention to have a relocation plan which is a successful one. Commissioner Vasquez asked what the original number of coaches was i n the park. The answer was 85, of which 45 coaches sti 11 remai n in the park. Commissioner Vasquez asked if any pattern studies had been done in regard to the tenants who had left the park. Mr. Swanson replied that no studies had been done in this regard. June Peel addressed the Commission, stating that she works at Tustin Manor, which is a retirement home housing 100 residents, the largest retirement home in the area. She explained that there is quite a difference between a retirement home and mobile home living. She pointed out that couples are not allowed to live in the same room together. No one has a private room, there are two people sharing a room and meals are taken in a public area. She did not believe that the people who live in mobile homes would be happy in a retirement facility. Vincent Jantz, 2700 N. Main St., Orange, Director of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, addressed the Commissi on, pointing out that they believe that the owner of the park has a vested right. What they are talking about is compensation for out-of-pocket losses. He explained in his written statement that he thought the Commission should look at the applicant's books . He mentioned the $400,000 figure which has been used in speaking to the relocation plan. $100,000 of this has already been used for the tenants who have already 1 eft. Thi s 1 eaves $300,000 to be divided between the tenants who are still in the park. This would bring up a figure of approximate- ly $6700 each. He thought the tenants might be more interested in a figure of $6700 apiece. This would come to approximately $2200 more than what has been offered up to this point. It was his understanding that part of this $300,000 figure is based on the repurchase of the residents' coaches. Therefore, the applicant will probably make a Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Six r profit on the purchase of those coaches. Regarding the September 15th date, he pointed out that the people are really frightened. 40 have already left the park in fright. Regarding retirement homes, he did not think the people who live in mobile homes have any desire to 1 i ve i n retirement homes . Commissioner Hart asked for an interpretation of the figures quoted by Mr. Jantz. He asked for clarification of the $6700 amount mentioned, wondering whether this would include the purchase of the coaches. The answer was in the negative. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the applicant does not want to purchase the coaches. Obviously he does not want to make a profit, if he does not with to purchase the coaches. He wondered if perhaps some plan could be put into effect whereby the applicant gives $6700 to each of the tenants and the tenants, over a period of time, handle their own sales, thereby giving them the profit. Mr. Jantz explained that he was just trying to suggest the possibility that the $300,000 figure is a larger per capita amount than $4500 per tenant. Mr. Swanson responded that they have said in writing and verbally that they estimate that the repurchase program of the mobile homes will cost approximately $75,000. If the residents want to take that $75,000 and spend it some other way, they are free to do so. The applicant does not want to purchase and resell the coaches. He would be happy to delete that portion of the plan if the tenants have other ideas. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Jantz if the memo from the tenants i n response to the relocation plan was prepared by his office. The answer was i n the affi rmative. It was pointed out that everyone in the park should have received a copy of that memo. John Nix, 15333 La Salas, Whitter, addressed the Commission, ex- plaining that his parents live in the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. He pointed out that historically the U.S: has never taken a person's piece of property without adequate compensation. $4500 is not just compensation for these people's homes. He brought up the fact that E1 Mirador Mobile Home Park has been constantly used as a comparison, ~ which he feels it is not. He pointed out that if this rezoning is approved, the Commission has the right to require the applicant to replace th es e homes i n a nearby park or purchase th em at market value as a condition to the rezoning. The applicant has stated that he will have to borrow money at 18% interest,which he cannot afford to do. These poeple will also have to borrow money at that same interest rate, and since most of them are elderly and on pensions they will not be able to do so. Mr. Nix pointed out that if this rezoning is granted, the people at Lamplighter will not want to leave the city of Orange. The people who have already moved out of the park have had to leave the city because there is no place for them to go here. Mr. Nix stated that they would like to have the September 15th date removed because he felt that the time 1 imits and ul timatums are a form of harassment and are upsetting to the residents. The notification which has been received by the residents states that the date of moving will be 60 days after the permits have been approved and that i s what th ey wish to abide by . ~ He further stated that at the City Council meeting of March 24, 1981 Mr. Swanson had said: "We have also been maki ng some contact with other park owners here in this area to see if we can find spaces for these folks to move to and have gotten some tentative commitments from other parks that yes there is ." He wanted to know when they will find out about these vacant spaces. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Seven Mr. Nix stated that the amount of money offered is simply inadequate and the date of September 15th must be removed from any plan. Chairman Mickelson questioned Mr. Nix with regard to his statement that the applicant should replace the mobile homes or buy them at market value and that he estimates that money would be returned to him within three years out of his investment in the joint venture, wondering if he had estimated the value of those mobile homes. Mr. Nix replied that he did not have the figures with him this evening but that he had estimated them on the basis of what he had seen and going into other parks, what it would cost to purchase another home i n another park , i n comparison to what these peopl e have in Lamplighter. He explained that he had received some of these figures confidentially and would prefer to give them to the Commission in confidence, rather than stating them publicly. Woody James, 446 S. Tustin, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she was a former resident of E1 Mirador Mobile Home Park. She said that they had gotten $900 in relocation fees when E1 Mirador closed. This is the second mobile home park which has been destroyed in the city of Orange and she explained what a terrible trauma this is for the residents of these parks. She felt very strongly that there must be a rezoning for the mobile home parks in the city of Orange. She suggested that the two councilmen running for a second term might consider her remarks. Commissioner Coontz stated that the Planning Commission has sent a memo to the City Council on the question of rezoning. Walt Cook, a resident of a mobi~ the Commission, stati ng that he of the Senior Citizens Advisory this morning and found out that up has awaiting 1 ist of 400 to this many people. le home park in Santa Ana, addressed is a member of the Housing Committee Council and he attended a meeting every single retirement home going 1,000. They simply cannot accommodate Carl Schorre, a resident of the Riviera Mobi 1 e Home Park i n Anaheim, addressed the Commission, stating that he felt that we are not dis- cussing tenants in mobile homes. We are discussing destroying people's 1 Ives . He explained that these peopl e have put thei r money into these coaches and when they are talking about $6,000 they can- not replace their homes for that amount of money. He spoke about retirement homes. This would be like putting the people in jail. At 1 east i n jail they would be warm and be fed. They are not asking for anything for no thing. They have been paying thei r way fora long time. He mentioned a figure of $650/month to live in a retirement home. He pointed out that there are no affordable homes in Orange County for these people to move to. They are being thrown to the wolves. He didn't believe that the city fathers want to see these people out on the street. John Daly, Associate Director of the Golden State Mobile Home Owners League, addressed the Commission, stating that he was speaking on behalf of all mobile home residents in Orange County and especially in the city of Orange. He pointed out that the only affordable homes that are in existence are mobile homes. Mobile home people are proud people. They enjoy their personal pride in taking care of thei r own homes . The city has no cost for taking care of streets and policing. The people take care of th ese things themselves. Mobile home people are self-sufficient. The people pay .for everything - their water, utilities, etc. The owner of the park does not pay for anything. Pla nning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Ei gh t C~ Mr. Daly pointed out that the age of the mobile home does not mean anything. These people do not want to go on welfare and be subsidized. They are self-supporting and are willing to take care of themselves i f th ey are al 1 owed to do so . H e wondered why the applicant does not spend the $300,000 for tenant relocation on upgrading his park and allowing the residents to stay there. Isabelle Cays, a resident of Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission and explained that she has only lived in the park for the past two years . She had no hint of any rezoni ng or selling of the park when she purchased her mobile home. She said that five years ago she had a stroke and had to go into a retirement home. She paid $750/month to 1 ive there and figured that today if you wish to have two rooms in such a home it would cost $1200/month. She pointed out that they do not feed people in a retirement home the way they would eat in their own home. She explained that she does not have any living relatives, she is totally alone and living on social security. She wondered what she is to do when she is put out of the park. She did not agree with the depreciation figures, since when you have adults living in a mobile home, there is very little they can do to depreciate the property. In a house, usually there are children and animals living there and it depreciates faster than a mobi 1 e home where a single person or couple 1 i ves . She sai d that the depreciation on her mobile home of only two years is over $5,000 and she felt that this was ridiculous. She stated that the market value of her coach today is $15,000. Therefore, the figures quoted for the purchase of her coach are too low. She was concerned about where she wi 11 go with no family and no one to turn to . Th e depreciation is on the property and not on the mobile homes. Chairman Mickelson asked Miss Cays when she purchased her mobile home if she paid $18,000 and he wanted to know if the coach was in place in the park at the time. She answered that it was. Commissioner Coontz questioned the market value figure which was mentioned. Miss Cays explained that she had called for the market value which was quoted at $15,000. Maya Dunn, representing the Fairhousing Council of Orange County, 1525 E. 17th Street, Suite E, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that she is a housing analyst. She explained that the ~ Fairhousing Council has received many calls from concerned county citizens directly affected by the conversion of their mobile home park and she pointed out that this is a frightening and often confusing experience for these peopl e. Ms. Dunn urged the Commission to view thi s relocation plan with three major points in mind: 1. If this relocation plan and subsequent approval of rezoning occurs, the city will be in essence setting policy regarding the conversions of mobile home parks . Al though separate situations may be considered individually, this action will be regarded by other owners as more of a possibility. What policy does the city see as best furtering the needs of its residents? 2. The cumulative effect must also be considered. This city is not alone in its considerations. Other cities are considering conversion or have already approved a conversion. What will be the cumulative effects of these conversions? Where will these seniors move? a Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Nine 3. The developer/owner who might receive a General Plan Amendment wil 1 be creating more housing need with an office park and yet eliminating existing city affordable units. How will this impact be offset? The city needs to have available al l types of units for its residents . Ms. Dunn then addressed the specifics of the Relocation Plan, questioning six. points: 1 . Why does the owner not allow rel ocation benefits after September 15. If a rezoning is not approved, won't the year notice to tenants not be i n effect? 2. Why is it necessary to only allow the additional relocation benefits if the city approves the rezoning amendment? Why should residents be penalized? 3. Item 10 discusses financial assistance. What financial assistance would be available? 4. Are there any relocation opportunities to other mobile home parks in Orange County and where? 5. How long are the waiting lists for Senior Citizen housing projects? (To the knowledge of Fai rhousi ng, the 1 i sts are at least two years.) 6 . How would other types of housing be found i n Plan D? Ruth Forkner, Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, Space 46, addressed the Commission, stating that she had paid $25,000 for her mobile home about four years ago. Two years ago she had been offered $30,000 for it. The deal did not go through because the elderly person who proposed to buy it became ill and the deal did not go go any further. She explained that the fact that her mobile home is located in Orange is a large selling point, but the major selling point is the fact that Lamplighter is located across the street from a large shopping mall, grocery store, cleaner and the bus stop directly in front of the park. She wondered what the applicant would gross per year from the developers for the use of his property compared to what he is grossing now. Due to the fact that her coach will have to be moved, she has been offered $10,000 for i t, when two years ago i t was worth $30,000 . Pat Kisch, 1400 Douglas Road, Anaheim, addressed the Commission, stating that she did not see anything creative or innovative in the revised Tenant Relocation Plan, since the city's Staff included the same options in their report of 1979, which included rent an apartment or other living unit, buy a condominium or a house, move their mobile home to Hemet or some other geographically fringe community, or buy another mobile home. She brought out that Plan A of the revised proposal which addresses moving to an apartment offered no assurance that the resident would ever get an apartment, also stating that if the resident could not find an apartment, the applicant would purchase their mobile home at a price to be computed under their mobile home repurchase plan. Plan A also stated that if the resident were accepted by an apartment house but the apartment would not be available by September 15th, the applicant would work with the resident to try and achieve a solution. She then addressed Plan B, which speaks to the relocation of the mobile home to other mobile home parks, pointing out that the statement ~ is made that the applicant will attempt to help the resident relocate. Statement is also made that relocation to a nearby mobile home park will almost always entail the purchase of a new mobile home. Ms. Kisch then went on to Plan C - relocation to Senior Citizen housing, pointing out that it states that this is a lengthy and uncertain process, recommending that if senior citizen housing is Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Ten the residents' first choice that they pursue another program at the same time, once again acknowledging the uncertainty of senior citizen housing. Ms. Kisch then addressed the Repurchase Plan, pointing out in paragraph b the figure of 1.25% depreciation per ~o,nth., which she considered a phantom figure, having never heard of that figure in all her years of mobile home advocacy. She pointed out that mobile home builders, on the other hand, state that their product is not depreciating, but appreciating. This is why rents are raised in mobile home parks. In her opinion, she did not believe that this plan does anything to help the people in the park and she felt that it is the people that we are concerned about, not one person. She pointed out that some of these people have been residents of this city from 11 to 15 years. She brought up the statement made by Mr. Swanson that "it would not be economically feasible" to allow the mobile home parks to remain on that site. She pointed out that this reason has been stated in similar cases when before a Commission or governing body, but not once has a Commission asked for proof of this. She felt that this statement should be proved. She stated that the reason for denial should be the welfare of the people living in this mobile home park. Commissioner Hart asked, hypothetically, if Ms. Kisch were willing to gamble in a poker game that the benefits of these people will be taken away later on down the line. Ms. Kisch replied that she would be willing to gamble in this regard, stating that the Commission is in a very bad position at this point. She asked that this same question be addressed to the people involved. Commissioner Coontz stated that perhaps some people don't realize that this is a gamble. Perhaps the land will become vacant and the people will get nothing. The rights of the tenants under the law do not transcend the right of the land owner to sell his land for what- ever reason. He does not have to have a reason. In this country we do not force someone to prove whether they are making a profit. This is not an easy thing that the Commission must do. Ms. Kisch replied that the state law leaves much to be desired. The law is much more in favor of the land owner than the tenant. She said that she would like to see the City Attorney determine whether or not a mobile home park, considering the gas, electric and water services to the people, if in fact that kind of business can be closed down overnight what kind of ramifications there are involved. Commissioner Hart wondered if Ms. Kisch would like to speculate how many mobile home parks would be developed with very restrictive laws. She replied that she would not hesitate to develop a mobile home park even with restrictive laws, because it would not take her more than 30 days to fill the park to capacity. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Minshew whether or not we had legally ascertained that if the applicant decided to go with a residential or no use designation, whether he would have to provide a relocation plan or funding and Mr. Minshew's response was that according to all of his information he would. Mr. Minshew stated that there is a requirement for an impact report and from that the city has the right to ask for a mitigation plan. Chairman Mickelson asked Ms. Kisch what her interest was in this situation and she replied that she was here in the position of mobile home advocate. She explained that she lives in a mobile home park in Anaheim, having lived there since 1975 and she has volunteered in many areas, including the county, the city and the national level, on behalf of mobile home owners. She is on the national council, which was advisory to HUD prior to the implementation of mobile home standards. She has been involved in all aspects of the mobile home area. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Eleven 1 Chairman Mickelson pointed out to Ms. Kisch that there is ;no way that the owner of the park can be forced to continue to run the park i f he does not wish to do so. Ms . Kisch replied that the issue of permanent mobile home park zoning has come up before and was not handled. Chairman Mickelson explained that even if this were permanently zoned for a mobile home park, the owner could still ask for a change of zoning. There is no way to guarantee the zoning. He then explained why he had to challenge some of Ms. Kisch's statements . He felt strongly that the city cannot force the applicant to keep the park open if he chooses not to do so. He further ex- plained that there may be some mitigation measures that can be imposed which brings back to the plan before the Commission tonight. He brought out that Ms. Kisch had said that this plan is not acceptable and he wanted to know if she could tell the Commission how the plan could be made acceptable or is there no way? Ms. Kisch stated that the main concern is where do these people go? The next concern i s the 1 oss of their i nvestment i n that mobi 1 e home. So we are talking about what the park owner is willing to compensate for this loss. In this case a depreciating figure is being used as opposed to what the people might feel i s fair, which would be the going market price for that kind of home in other parks in Orange County. They want to be compensated for the in park market value, not as a pullout. Chairman Mickelson wondered i f th e relocation plan would be more acceptable if th ey were tahking about market value for the mobile homes and Ms. Kisch answered i n the affi rmative. She then went on to say that another big concern is the uprooting of these people from an area where they have lived for many years. This is a traumatic experience for an el derly person to 1 eave his medical , shopping and relatives. Commissioner Coontz asked what the average difference is between market value outside of the park and i n a park. She also asked for the history of these differences . She explained that they are negotiating land that does not belong to them. Ms. Kisch stated that there is a drastic difference. She cited a mobile home in the park where she lives, 12' x 60', approximately 10 years old, which recently soli! for $21,000. Depreciation occurs instantly when a moving notice is given to the residents. Haul away value would be put anywhere from $2 - $5,000, but not over $5,000. Commissioner Coontz thought that mobile homes depreciate like an automobile. Ms. Kisch stated that this was not so. It might have been true 10-12 years ago, but that is not true today. This is true across the country. Appreciation is the rule rather than depreciation. Commissioner Coontz said that they do not have any information wi th regard to costs i n this area . Ms . Kisch suggested that the Commission contact an organization called California Multiple L' i sti ngs , which i s an organi zation of mobi 1 e home brokers, who publish a book which i~ categorized by park, etc. She thought this would give them all the information needed for answers to their questions. Nellie Jane Schorre, 300 W. Katella, Orange, a resident of the Riviera Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stating that they got an unofficial notice for a change of zoning. She explained that they are s ti 11 paying on their mobi 1 e home and i f i t must be moved it is worthless. She has looked for other places to move. They have gone to 28 mobile home and trailer parks and there is nothing avai 1 abl e. They found one space available and the managers of the park came and i nspected her three year old coach and told her i t was too old to be 1 ocated i n thei r park. She wondered why there can't be an alternative for placing these people i n a relocation park in Orange so that they are not lost by this community. With regard to the appreciation of mobile homes, she gave an example of a mobi 1 e home i n their park, sold three times i n the 1 ast several years and the coach went from $7,000 to $20,000. Pl a nni ng Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Tw elve Mary Wetter, 12560 Has ter, Orange, a resident of Fairlane Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stating that she is a widow and has lived in the park for the last 10 years. At the time she moved into the park there were all kinds of spaces available. She stated that she is an intelligent person and intends to make her own decisions as to go into a retirement home or not. Barbara Barker, 300 N. Rampart, Space 91, Orange, a resident of Park Royale Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stating that she was born in Orange, and went through school in Orange. She pointed out that the cheapest home in her park is $45,000. They purchased thei r coach si x years ago for $23,000. They added a room and right now she can get $50,000 for it, but because of the i nsecuri ty, thi!ngs are not movi ng too fast. However, i f you took her coach off of the site it would not be worth $5,000. She pointed out that none of the senior citizens can afford this today. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that at these prices this is not affordable housing ei ther. Bob McMillan, 301 Delores, Placentia, addressed the Commission, stating that his mother lives in the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. He does not believe that there i s going to be a pl ace for these people to go. However, something the Commission can do is to make sure the mitigation package is a good one. He pointed out that every month that this thing goes on he will lose $300.00. There is a time factor in this situation and the Commission needs to take this into consideration. He explained that on September 30th when the 1 etter went out from the owner the bottom dropped out of their mobile homes. There is a difference in what the various people would accept. Some would like to relocate. He is interested i n the purchase price. Someone else might want help to get into an apartment. Each case is an individual one. The plan must be com- prehensive enough to meet the individual needs. Also, something must be done about the condition of the park so that it be maintained in a safe and orderly fashion. He spoke with regard to the relocation allowance - if this is not approved by a certain date he loses money. He asked that some of these items be considered. Commissioner Hart pointed out that Mr. McMillan represents a point of view that many others do not have. He explained that the Com- mission is faced with a lot of unhappy people and are also faced wi th a situati on that is unsolvable. They are faced with the possibility that the park will be closed in the near future if the zoning is not changed. Then these people would get nothing. There was discussion between Commissioner Hart and Mr. McMillan regarding the mitigation plan. Laurel Stevens, a resident of a mobil e home park i n Santa Ana, addressed the Commi ssion, stati ng that she feels i t i s time that the mobile home owner gets fair market value for his investment. She said that if we continue to allow the swallowing up of mobile home parks here in Orange County we will be participating in what she considers genocide. Rosemary Taylor, 300 N. Rampart, Space 71, Orange, a resident of Park Royale Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stating that she is the president of PR Association and she then read a statement of protest against the closing of mobile home parks in Orange. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Thirteen Laverne Lasky, 5215 E. Chapman, Orange, stated that she is the manager of a mobile home park and is disturbed that this park is being closed. She is concerned about the other 10 parks in the city of Orange. What is going to happen to the other parks and what will happen to the people in them? Yvonne Cranston, President of American AssociatTOn of Retired Persons in Orange, #3108, addressed the Commission, stating that there are over 13 mi 11 i on senior members and i s the 1 arges t senior organization in the world. She explained that these people are the backbone and intelligence of the nation and have worked hard all of their lives. It has been published that Orange County has the most Asian people of. anywhere in the United Sates, They are furnished with housing, food, clothing, etc. If this can be done for foreigners, why cannot this be done for the senior citizens? Why not consider the seniors first before taking care of the forei gners? Mary Garci of a, 300 W. Lincoln, Orange, formerly a resident of the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stating that she lost $15,000 when she moved from Lamplighter. She moved pre- maturely because of i 11 health . She explained that she had a seven year old coach which she paid $27,500 for. Chairman Mickelson wondered if the $15,000 was actual cash and she explained that she paid $19,500 for the coach , 1 i ved i n i t for one year and got $5,000 for it when she moved. Mr. Swanson again addressed the Commission, responding to the question a~keld by Commissioner Vasquez regarding retirement homes. He said he was not suggesting that the residents move into a retire- ment home. He brought out that there were letters received in favor of this plan and Chairman Mickelson stated that this would be made part of the record. Mr. Swanson explained that Lamplighter Mobile Home Park was intended to be a short term use of the property. This has been the history of mobile home parks that they have a life span of about 20 years. He found it inconceivable that the government ever intended that the applicant either stay in business or pay the full market on-site value of the residents' coaches, as they are requesting. He ex- plained that it is not possible for the applicant to pay market ,~, value for the mobile homes and it should not be expected that he do so. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out a provision in the plan that allows for relocating more than 400 miles from the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park that there would be an additional $500.00 given. He wondered how this figure was arrived at. Mr. Swanson replied that after talking with several movers they had come up with this figure to cover the cost of moving further away. Commissioner Vasquez then pointed out that in the various plans which have been presented, there have been references made to the fact that the plan is somewhat a copy of the E1 Mirador plan. He wondered what kind of methodology was used to arrive at the figures quoted for such things as retirement housina and senior citizen housing, since he saw many obstacles in the plans which he did not think should have been there if the proper study had been done in the first place. Mr. Swanson replied that they have attempted to cover all of the various types of housing and they intend to seek every alternative form of housing that they can find. I t i s anti - cipated that they will have to work with each individual resident to try to find the best possible place for that individual to live. L~ Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Fourteen Commissioner Vasquez then talked about the four options given and brought out that one of them is not a viable alternative. He asked just how they came up with their plan. Mr. Swanson explained why they have given the alternatives that they did. They are aware that these are not all good alternatives, but they felt that they all should be listed. There was further discussion between Mr. Swanson and Commissioner Vasquez in this regard. Commissioner Coontz commented that there are all kinds of senior citizen housing, citing the Garden Grove Towers and one other facility that she knows of where people she knows living there are quite happy with their surroundings , There seems to be a very small turnover in these places, She thought that the door should not be closed on the fact that there are all kinds of possibilities, even though they may be difficult to come by. She thought that the idea of the relocation counselor is to provide the people with the different opportunities available to them, Commissioner Master commented upon the various types of senior citizens housing that is available. He stated that he had some of the same reservations as those voiced by Commissioner Vasquez and asked for clarification on the disparity in the figures in the plan. Mr. Swanson explained that the residents have said that they are getting quotes of $3,000 to move a single wide coach and this figure is not consistent with the figures the appl icant is getting. They have told the residents that they will be happy to help them find someone who will move them for the prices which they have quoted in their Plan B, paragraph #5, which is $2,000 for a single-wide coach and $3,000 for the double-wide. He was confident that the figures quoted will cover tearing down and moving a mobile home within 200 miles. Commissioner Master expressed a lack of confidence in the prices quoted for moving these coaches. Mr. Swanson stated that they will guarantee the prices in their relocation plan. They have total confidence in what they have proposed and will put their commitment in writing if it is needed. However, he pointed out that the avail- ability of housing is not in their control. He did not feel that they have misrepresented this fact. They will do their best to relocate the residents in the housing of their choice. Commissioner Coontz felt that the crux of the dissension is: 1. Being closed down at all 2, Fair market value. She wanted to know why they picked this particular schedule and what they have to say about fair market value. Mr. Swanson replied that the depreciation number was one that he came up with based primarily on the fact that the Commission would be more concerned with the residents who had purchased thei r homes wi thi n the 1 ast few years, pai d more money for them, and had a lesser opportunity to amortize that cost. They tried to strike a medium figure in terms of how many people fell within this cateaory and the money available and they worked i nto their figures backwards . These figures were designed to fit their particular park. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that they have said they cannot afford to pay fair market value of a coach on-site. She wanted their point of view on this. Plr. Swanson explained that the appreciating value of mobile homes is based on the land on which they sit, land which they do not own. Therefore, the i nr.pl~ace value of the mobi 1 e home i s not thei r value because they do not own the land. If Lampl i ahter were to remain a mobile home park, theoretically, the only two things that would be concei vabl e to do would be (1) fix i t up or (2) empty i t out, clean it up and build a new mobile home park. However, the Planni ng Commission Mi nutes January 18, 1982 Page Fifteen economic investment which would be made in order to do either of these things would necessitate raising the rents to the point where these people could not afford to continue to live there. Even i f, by chance, some of the people found a way to pay the higher rent, the value of thei r mobi 1 e homes would be no more than they are right now, moved off the site, because no one would pay several hundred dol Lars a month to 1 ive i n a si ngl~~- wi de mobi 1 e home. Commissioner Coontz felt that the disparity is so great between the figure the applicant gives and the figure given by the residents she was hopi ng for more of an insight into why this was so. There was a proposal suggested that the mobile home owners buy their own lots. Chairman Mickelson explained that this had come up just recently at a previous Commission meeting. Chairman Mickelson brought up Mr. McMillan's statement that in dragging this situation on the residents are hurt on the depreciation schedule. He asked i f the applicant had ever instituted the 17 year rule, which is if the coach is over 17 years old it can be required to be moved out of the park if it is sold. Mr. Swanson replied that they have not been enforcing that rule. Chairman Mickelson stated that part of the problem he saw with the relocation plan is that they covered every alternative, but now it must be decided which plan would work the best. He personally thought that everything they have before them should now be put into a proper perspective. He thought perhaps there could be two possibilities: 1. If you take your coach with you and move you get X amount of dol 1 ars . 2. If you move out and ask us to purchase your coach we will purchase it for X numb er of dollars. He wondered if there is any value in going to that simplified approach . Mr. Swanson explained that the way the plan is now this is the essence of the relocation plan and they would go along with that. It would depend on the dollars they have to work with. They have a budget they are working wi th . Commissioner Coontz explained that they are s ti 11 to 1 ki ng about the same money, it just comes down to how it is divided up. What they are talking about is that everyone would get the same amount and she felt that the people haven't had a chance to think about that principle. She didn't feel that she would want to make that kind of a decision for them. The question is, to the individuals, how much are they going to get for their mobi 1 e home. Mr. Swanson explained that the way the plan is now structured, everyone gets exactly the same amount, with a very few exceptions, if you move more than 200 miles or if you don't use the relocation director, with the exception of the repurchase of the coach. Th e repurchase process of the mobile home favors a certain group of residents - i t was designed to do that . He said that i t i s possible to take that total budget and eliminate the favoritism and everyone in the park will receive the same amount of money. Mr. Swanson also pointed out that Mr. Jantz had suggested that they open their books to the Commission. He stated that they wi 11 provide a letter from their accountant, if the Commission so desires, that the relocation benefits that are presently in this program are significantly in excess of the total profit which the applicant has made from the mobile home park during the full 17 years that Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Sixteen he has owned it. He is prepared to give the Commission that number and have it verified independently from the applicant's tax returns, if the Commission feels that this is appropriate. Chairman Mickelson did not feel that this is an issue with the Commission, going on to say that this is an academic question and somewhere along the line they must come up with a fair amount on both sides. Mr. Swanson expressed his concern over the feeling that has been stated that they are making huge profits and, unfortunately, that is not the case. They have no more resources and they must stay within the budget that has been stated in the relocation plan. Chairman Mickelson explained that his suggestion of simplifying the offer was to make it easier for the residents to understand and accept. Rather than figuring out the dollar plan individually and minutely, some assumptions must be made. He wondered if it was possible to take the money they have available and come up with a figure per individual resident that they could count on right now and know that figure would be good until September 15th or November 15th, whatever is decided upon. If this could be done, he asked if it could result in higher payments for the coaches within the budget that the applicant is talking about. After some refiguring, Mr. Swanson came up with a possible figure of $6200.00 per coach, which would be only $500.00 lower than what was suggested as a possible acceptable figure by Mr. Jantz. He then explained that what this would amount to is that they could pay each of the residents $6200.00 and they could se11 their coaches themselves and keep the proceeds. He wondered if this would perhaps be more acceptable to the residents. Commissioner Hart found some fault with this approach, pointing out that some coaches have no economic value outside of the park. You would be benefiting the people who could get more for their coaches on an appreciated scale. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that most of the coaches are single wides, which, if they are going to be purchased, would be depreciated way down. Mr. Swanson explained that their approach would work without regard to the age, size or condition of the mobile home to a large extent, because it is based more on time and the additional purchase price. There being no one else to speak for or against this agenda item, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart said that he had trouble with the depreciation schedule on this plan, feeling that it is not equitable. He did not have an alternative at this point, but felt that this is the weak area. Commissioner Master agreed with Commissioner Hart's comments and further commented that, regardless of how the vote goes this evening, it is possible that a relocation plan could ultimately be approved but a park change not be approved on the property. Commissioner Coontz had trouble with the depreciation part of the plan, not because she did not understand what the park owner is trying to say about the value of the mobile homes, but she thought that something better must happen with this part of the plan. She repeated her thoughts about the September 15, 1982 date, stating that she felt that this is important to determine, as it would give more confidence to the people. She had no solutions because they do not have enough backup or references to come up with an alternative to what they have been given. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Seventeen Commissioner Hart did not want to make a motion to deny this plan because then he felt the owner will close the park and the people will get nothing. He would like to continue the hearing to give the applicant time to change the depreciation figures. Commissioner Vasquez also felt that the depreciation schedule is an element of weakness in the plan. Commissioner Master said that if we ask the applicant to revise his plan, it seems that we cannot expect him to do that by himself. How can we implement something that relates to what is going on in the world of mobile homes. Perhaps we should call in some mobile home appraisers for some input. The city needs some expertise given to them in this area. Commissioner Coontz felt that this suggestion is valid and it is time that the city becomes involved in the mobile home problem. Moved by Commissioner Hart to continue this hearing to allow the applicant to revise his depreciation schedule and to have some form of expert appraisal of the mobile home values. Commissioner Master felt that we need an unbiased expert witness to give us the proper information. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Minshew how they would go about getting a mutually acceptable expert appraiser and Mr. Minshew explained the process which would be followed. Commissioner Coontz thought that they need mediation, but thought that it will be difficult to find this type of mediator. Chairman Mickelson brought out the point that we must go back to the position that the budget is only so big and cannot be made any bigger. If we accept the fact that the pot is only so much money, we do not need to talk about appraisal. The question is are we going to take money from another area of the relocation plan and allocate it to the purchase of the mobile homes or not. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue this hearing to February 1, 1982 to give the applicant the opportunity to come back with a revised depreciation schedule. Commissioner Coontz brought up the matters of the extension of time and Commissioner Vasquez' concerns, hoping that the applicant has made note of these concerns and would voluntarily do something about them. Chairman P1ickelson commented on the extension of time, pointing out that the applicant has offered to extend the time to November 15, 1982 and said that he did not support Commissioner Coontz' position that the time should be extended until all of the permits have been approved for the reasons that this could be some lengthy period of time. He felt that the law did not exactly state thi s and he i nterpreted i t to say that no tenant should be required to vacate until all reauired permits have been obtained and he felt that this is different than extending the relocation benefits. He felt that the applicant should have some leverage to get compliance with the relocation plan by a certain time, because if it is forced out to the end, which may be some months away, it could end up with just a few people who opted to stay in the park, which would force the park to remain open. He felt that this could create some very serious problems. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Eighteen Commissioner Master pointed out that the Commission does not know anything about exactly what amount of money the applicant has to work with. He knows what he has and should judge accordingly. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioner Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED There was some discussion between P1r. Swanson and the Commission members with regard to whether the applicant must give notification to the people of this continued hearing. There was also discussion as to whether this should be continued to a special meeting rather than the regular one. Commissioner Hart agreed to amend the motion to read to continue the hearing to February 8, 1982, which would make it a special meeting. Commissioner Coontz seconded this amendment. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1176 -HUMDINGER BILLIARD HALL: A request to permit the operation of 10 coin operated amusement devices occupying over 5 percent of the floor area accessible to the public i n the C-3 (Commercial ) district on the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Columbia Place. (Note: Thi s project i s exempt from Envi ronmental review . ) Ralph Slayton, 9872 Teresa Avenue, Anaheim, the applicant, addressed the Commission, requesting a continuance to the next regular meeting of the Commission. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to continue this application to February 1, 1982. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelso n, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez none none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1164, VARIANCE 1667, REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11625 - RONALD A. DAVIS: A request to permit the construction of a 5 unit condominium Planned Unit Development in the RD-6 (Residential Duplex) district and to deviate from the maximum allowable density and coverage standards on the north side of Palmyra Avenue, approximately 633 feet east of the centerline of Cambridge Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 741 has been previously approved for this application.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow construction of a 5 unit condominium Planned Unit Development in the RD-6 district and to deviate from the maximum allowable density and coverage development standards. The property is located on the north side of Palmyra Avenue, east of Cambridge Street and contains .43 acre of land. It contains a single family residence and is zoned RD-6. Mr. Murphy explained that on November 16, 1981 the Planning Com- mission reviewed a request for approval by this petitioner for a 6 unit planned unit development which proposed more units and coverage than permitted by code, and which proposed the use of two compact parking spaces. The Commission recommended denial of Variance 1667, Conditional Use Permit 1164 and Tentative Tract 11625. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Nineteen It was further explained that on December 15, 1981 the City Council held a public hearing on the aforementioned application and approved the filing of Negative Declaration 741, then referring the item back to Staff and the Planning Commission fora new public hearing. Concensus of the City Council was that the density was too great and that 4 or 5 dwelling units would be more appropriate for the property. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the applicant has since modified his proposal to a five unit condominium planned unit development with deviation from the maximum allowable density and coverage standards. The staff feels that the new modified proposal is more practical for the site compared to the previous proposal for two reasons: 1 . That the proposed density of the new 5 unit project is 11.5 DU/AC which is .61 unit/acre or 6% over City Code of 10.89 DU/AC. If the project is scaled down to 4 uni is the resultant density of 9.33 DU/AC would be 15% or 1.65 DU/AC below that allowed by code. This 5 unit proposal is a minimal deviation from the code and is consistent with the intent of the City Zoni ng Ordinance and General Plan. 2. That the project has been redesigned with one-story units on the north and south sides, resulting in a design which is more compatibl e with the scale of nearby units of similar one-story height. Staff recommends that revised Tentative Tract 11625, Conditional Use Permit 1164 and Variance 1667 be approved, with the tract conditions required by the Engineer Plan Check sheet, along with the 21' condi tions as 1 i sted i n the Staff Report and deleting the second part of Condition #14. Ch airman Mickelson asked a question regarding the 1 andscapi ng along the western property 1 i ne, as to whether i t would be handled by the Design Review Board. Mr. Murphy replied i n the affi rmati ve. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Floyd B?lsito, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission i n favor of the application. He sai d that the applicant concurs with the Staff recommendations and conditions and had nothing to add to the Staff Report. He was available for any questions . Gary Walters, 1046 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application, stating that he was curious as to where the trash enclosure will be located and the number of off- street parking spaces which will be provided. He explained that they have a real problem on Palmyra with density. He realized that this is a unique piece of property, but he pointed out that there will be limited parking in this area. The neighbors' concern is that there is a density problem. He said that the rooflines are acceptable and compatible with the existing residences, but the biggest question is the density. It was explained to him where the trash enclosure will be and where the parking spaces will be located. Mr. Walters also wondered whether there will be a homeowners' association and if a landscaping maintenance project will be set up. The answer was in the affirmative. Mr. Walters then presented pictures of the density in the area and said that he hoped for a recommendation of denial by the Commission, since this is mostly a single-family residential area. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Twenty Heidi Burbridge, 1034 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. She asked how the sewage problem was handled, which had been brought up the last time this project had come before the Commission. Mr. Johnson explained that once in a while the mains have a maintenance problem and sometimes flood. He was not aware of a maintenance problem on that street. He thought that perhaps there could have been a probl em with the lateral . Chairman Mickelson explained that his understanding of the problem was that i t was alleged that there was an older col l ector sewer i n the street that was at capacity because of all the 1 aterals connected to it. Mr. Johnson then explained that they are just now completing a map of the city sewers and there is no indication of overloading i n that vi ci ni ty . Ms. Burbridge did not find this explanation satisfactory. She said that ever since Palmyra School was erected there has been problem with the sewer and she did not wish to see eight more toilets added to her line. Mr. Belsito, responded by stating that Ms. Burbridge was correct regarding his statement that there are two sewer lines on Palmyra, a six inch 1 i ne on the north and a 12 inch 1 i ne on the south . It appears that the six inch line was at or near capacity and the applicant has indicated that he would be more than happy to hook up to the line on the south to alleviate the potential problem. Mr. Belsito. also indicated that Mr. Davis is trying to make every effort to meet the density called out by the city . They have tri ed to conform with the density 1 imi tations called out on the property . There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1164, Variance 1667 and Revised Tentative Tract Map 11625, on the basis of the Staff Report and subject to the 21 conditions listed in the Staff Report, el imi nati ng the second hal f of Condi ti on #14; plus the conditions set forth i n the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners NOES : Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Plickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez non e none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz suggested that notice be given before the City Council meeting that this is the second time the Commission has heard about sewer problems in that area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1182 -NEWPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: A request to permit a condominium subdivision of office space in a proposed 6-story building in the 0-P (Office-Professional) district on the west side of Busfi Street between Providence Place and Stewart Drive. (Note: This project is exempt from Environ- mental review . ) The Commission did not feel that a presentation was needed in this matter, other than addressing the parking question. There- fore, Mr. Murphy made some comments in this direction. He explained that the Staff and St. Joseph Hospital are, at the present time, in discussions about both short term and long range parking at the hospital compl ex. The hospi tal 's engineers are presently putting together physical plans of the existing parking, as well as the contingency parking in the event that the parking structure is not completed at the same time as the six-story building. There will be surface parking provided in the event that the parking structure's first phase is not completed in tune for this project. The Staff is very confident that they are addressing the question Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Twenty-One that has existed i n the complex for some period of time. He felt that the Staff will be able to resolve those questions through discussion with the hospi tal 's representatives . Commissioner Coontz questioned lla on page 2 of the Staff Report which reads: 11.(a) That any parking agreement with St. Joseph's Hospital may prove inadequate to meet the future uses of the new Providence Building and a mechanism in the CC&R's of the Providence Association needs to provide the City a noti ce of future tenant changes . asking why we are addressing future tenant changes. Mr. Murphy replied that originally the six-story building was approved with a variance for parking. Part of the justification for that variance was the transfer of uses within the existing St. Joseph Hospital, thereby not creating an additional parking demand. Therefore, they need to know that the uses do not increase the parking needs . Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Jim Taylor, representing the Newport Developing Company, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. H e pointed out that the building itself has been approved and the condi tions have not changed since this approval . He also explained that the parking provisions that were the subject of the variance before have not changed and they will either have the permanent structure in place or the contingency plan that was also approved by the city will be implemented for the building until the permanent facilities are in place. H e said they would be happy to answer any questions that might be placed before them. 1 Commissioner Master asked for clarification as to whether the servi ces and uses to be performed will be the same as before, except that now it will be a condominium. Mr. Taylor explained that the ground floor of the building will be used by Providence and parking will be provided for that. The use that is already in the building will be moved to the second floor. The third to the sixth floors will be a condominium operation and the use will be the same. Geneva Fulton, 1801 N. Greenleaf, Santa Ana, addressed the Comm~ss~on, saying that she wanted to make sure just what the parki ng faci 1 i ti es will be. She explained that she had gone to the city and looked at the plans and if the first floor of St. Joseph's existing building is for doctors' parking would the patients and clients walk from the second and third floors? She explained that the reason she asked this question is that the people do not like to walk and her parking lot is more convenient so they park there. Chairman Mickelson explained that the question of the parking management plan is not the issue before the Commission this evening. He further explained that the parking plan remains the same as it was approved before. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1182 for the reasons stated in the Staff Report and subject to the three special conditions and four standard conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Twenty-Two AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1183, TENTATIVE TRACT 11728 - ARNT G. (BUD) QUIST: A request to permit construction of a two-story, 5 unit Planned Unit Development and townhome subdivision in the RM-7 (RCD) Residential Multiple Family district within a Residential Com- bining District on the northwest corner of Almond Avenue and Parker Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 747 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) The Commission requested that no presentation be given, as it was felt there was no need for one. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Mr. Quist was in attendance at the hearing, but did not address the Commission as he had nothing to add to the Staff Report. There being no one to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 747. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1183 and Tentative Tract 11728, subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, together with the conditions listed in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: SPECIAL REPORT - FLETCHER AVENUE STUDY Study of land uses and zoning within and surrounding the 7.5 acre area on the north side of Fletcher Avenue, east of Batavia, and adjacent to Fletcher School, as requested by the Planning Commission on October 26, 1981. Jack McGee presented this study to the Commission, explaining that the study was not distributed outside of the Commission. This is the report requested by the Commission at the time the item was withdrawn from the General Plan Amendment package in October, 1981. He expalined that the report gives more details than the Staff Report at that time, listing different alternatives which could be taken i.e. the General Plan designations, zoning options, and what kinds of development patterns that those could follow. Staff recommends that a medium density residential General Plan designation be applied to the properties. The main thing that Staff is trying for is to find a resolution to the inconsistencies that exist presently in that area so that we no longer have this incompatible land use designation and zone situation which has existed for quite some time. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Twenty-Three Mr. McGee explained that the purpose of this item being on the agenda is to have the Commission make a determination of what direction to take from here. The Commission has an option to seta public hearing for an amendment to the General Plan to indi- cate it as industrial on the General Plan so that it would be consistent with the existing zoning. The Commission has an option to set a hearning to hold a General Plan Amendment hearing to change it to medium density residential and implement an appropriate zoning designation. The Commission could leave the General Plan designation as it exists as low density residential and initiate a zone change to a single family residential zone. These are the various options open to the Commission at this time. Commissioner Coontz asked with regard to a residential duplex zone designation suggestion whether this was based on the surrounding uses primarily. Mr. McGee replied that Staff felt that medium density would be the most compatible. High density may be too intense in this area. Chairman Mickelson said if the Commissioner were to follow the Staff's recommendation and initiate the General Plan to medium density and follow up with a zoning to make it consistent, the result of that would be that all of the now existing industrial uses would be non- conforming. They could continue the matter of right until such time as they were to amortize themselves out of the area and pre- sumably the property would redevelop to a residential designation. He wondered if his understanding of this was correct. Mr. McGee replied that he was entirely correct. Chairman Mickelson then pointed out that the other option is to designate industrial and make the General Plan zoning consistent with the existing land uses, which would continue the compatibility question indefinitely. Commissioner Coontz asked a question regarding the medium density designation, if the Commission were to approve it and also added the residential duplex zone. She got the idea from what was stated in the Staff's report that from the nature of the parcels involved, it might be rather difficult and long range before they could get enough together to make a package. Mr. McGee explained that there are six separate ownerships and they are unusual in configuration, which may make it difficult to package them all together. This would not be a short term solution. Commissioner Hart felt that there is no short term solution in this area. He thought that if the truck yards are invading the privacy of the homeowners they should be cited, Chairman Mickelson felt that no matter what decisions is made, there will be an enforcement problem. He did feel that the Commission had one more option, which would be to consider amending the General Plan to industrial, with the idea in mind of going for specific planned zoning with specific performance standards because of its closeness to the residential use. However, this too, would be a long term solution. He went on to explain this option more clearly to the audience. He then explained that this is not a public hearing, but that the Commission would like to hear the position of the people in attendance regarding this matter. Glen Sandburg, 643 W. Fletcher, Orange, stated, that he was not aware that they are not in conformance with their zoning. He won- dered why there is no buffer behind him. t Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Twenty-Four Commissioner Hart pointed out that there have been complaints regarding noise from the truck yard and also complaints about trees being destroyed. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that Mr. Sandburg is in conformance with his zoning. Mr. Sandburg stated that he could not get enough for his two properties to pay off the mortgage. Therefore, he is forced to stay right where he is. Bill O'Connell, 734 Fletcher, Orange, said that his parcel adjoins the residential area and he has been talking to the city for several months regarding the zoning. They don't care what the Commission does as long as they do something, since they are ready to develop their property. Chuck Sandburg, 1643 Hunters Way, Orange, said that he agreed with Mr. O'Connell, that it is important to get some decision on this area. He knows someone who has not been able to sell her property because of the fact that there has been no decision made. Steve Miller, 725 W. Fletcher, Orange, said that this situation has been going on a lot longer than nine months. He pointed out as has been mentioned previously, it was a blunder that the residential properties even got into the area. He wants to see this remain industrial and put some kind of spot zoning in to protect the residents there. Robert Carter said that he lives in the area and has a business there. He would like to see the Commission make a decision one way or the other. It was brought out that there are people who wish to purchase property on both sides and put up nice industrial buildings. John Lane pointed out that the General Plan Amendment hearing could consider a redesignation to either an industrial or medium density residential use. Commissioner Master commented that in the Staff Report that would come back to them, there might have to be some special conditions set out if it is to be considered for industrial. He wondered if this would require special zoning regulations which are not enforced right now. Commissioner Mickelson explained that the option he referred to would require creating a specific plan for the area, which is in lieu of normal zoning. That plan would set the standards for all development standards. They could borrow from the Industrial Codes or they could ignore them and just write a code for the site. This would be a long term compromise, because the ability to enforce this would happen piecemeal as someone comes in to develop. Commissioner Coontz wondered if it would not be rather difficult to build according to a specific plan. Chairman Mickelson explained that the specific plan does not mean what it sounds like. There is a special section.df the Planning Act that allows them to create a specific plan. A special zoning ordinance would be written for that area, setting the standards regardless of the size, shape or configuration of the parcel. There was discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Several of the people in the audience mentioned that there could possibly be one developer come in and put up one project. They have all had several offers in this direction. The owner of the property at 615 W. Fletcher stated that she had had five offers, one of them for cash. However, when they came to the Planning Department they were told "No, because it is up for rezoning." Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1982 Page Twenty-Five She has been in that area for 15 years, long before all the houses and the school were there. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, for a General Plan Amendment to designate the area either medium density residential or manufacturing. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, February 1, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California; then to be reconvened to a special meeting on February 8, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, in order to continue the public hearing on consideration of the revised. Lamplighter Mobile Home Tenant Relocation Plan. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 18, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman P1i ckel son at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this meeti ng adjourn at 1 :00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 1982, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, February 1 , 1982 at the Ci vi c Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, and thence to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, February 8, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 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 Planning Commission held on Monday, January 18, 1982. Dated this 19th day of January, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. ,~ -, '~ ~ Jere P. ~ Plurphy, Ci ty.iPl anner'and Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. b 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 hel d on January 18, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on January 19, 1982, 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 January 18, 7982 was held. a