Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/01/17t'~'NFIMCq`, CITY OF ANAHEIM A O A ~ ? ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~vNDED lby1 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2001 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos Napoles, Vanderbilt ~ COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Greg McCafferty Senior Planner John Poole Code Enforcement Manager Don Yourstone Senior Code Enforcement Officer Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Linda Johnson Principal Planner Sgt. Randy West Anaheim Police Department Lt. Kahle Switzer Anaheim Police Department Morgan John Anaheim Police Department Ossie Edmundson PC Support Supervisor Elly Fernandes Senior Word Processing Operator AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 12, 2001, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, December 21, 2000. H:DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC011701.DOC la ~ 01-17-01 Page 1 • • • ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to December 4, 2000. (Motion) January 29, 2001. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to December 18, 2000. (Motion) January 29, 2001. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continuance to January 3, 2001. (Motion) January 29, 2001. 01-17-01 Page 2 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00009: Rick Mendoza, Orange County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, request to determine conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan for development of a field research laboratory. Property is located at 4060 East La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the Orange County Water District's proposal to develop a Field Research Laboratory at 4060 East La Palma Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Pian (Vote: 7-0) SR7895MN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for General Plan Conformity for land located at 4060 E. La Palma Avenue. Staff is recommending that the Commission find the proposal in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. ~J • 01-17-01 Page 3 JANUARY 17, 2001 C{TY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 AND CLASS 11 b) FfNAL SITE PLAN NO. 2000-00017: Larry W. Gibson, 3537 Enterprise Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan to install one parking lot toll booth, two ticket dispensers, two free-standing directional signs and a 42- inch high wrought iron fence at the Radisson Hotel. Property is located at 1850 South Harbor Boulevard (Radisson Hotel). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3 and 11, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Approved (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7 on file in the Planning Department), based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. SR7886DH.DOC Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for approval of a final ~ site plan to install one parking lot toll booth, two ticket dispensers, two free-standing directional signs and a 42-inch high wrought iron fence at the Radisson Hotel on Harbor Boulevard. Staff has reviewed the plans and finds that they are in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, therefore, staff recommends approval of the final site plan. \ J 01-17-01 Page 4 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CI 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1043 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04310) OWNER: Ben Karmelich, 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.7 acres located on the south side of Lincoin Avenue, 670 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (Lincoln Inn). To consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (reinstated on May 22, 2000, to expire on January 15, 2001) to retain an existing 129-unit motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-4 Approved Denied reinstatement SR2055DS.DOC • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner: Item 2 is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 for property.located at 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. It is known as Lincoln Inn and the petitioner is also requesting deletion of the occupancy limitation. Chairperson Koos: We have received 2 additional letters regarding this public hearing item, which are available for review from the staff. I will open the public hearing now. The appl'scant? ApplicanYs Statement: Ben Karmelich: 2748 West Anaheim, Lincoln Inn. I've owned the Lincoln Inn for the past year and a half and I am extremely proud of my accomplishments here. I didn't purchase this property as a redevelopment deal, instead I took over this property by foreclosing on the second trust deed note that I was personally guaranteeing. The property was in terrible shape when I got it, all the rooms needed major renovations and about 25% of the existing tenants were troublemakers that needed to be evicted. I was not planning to takeover this property, but I needed to protect the loans of some family friends that I was guaranteeing. I did not have a lot of money to invest, my father lent me the money to foreclose and pay the substantial back interests and I took out a$100,000 line of credit out on my house and my father "maxed ouY' his line of credit in his house, and we put all of that the money into refurbishing the rooms of this property. The reason this investment is so important to me is because this motel is not just a motel. It is a home for over 100 low-income families and low-income senior citizens. The people that live in my motel are here because they cannot get an apartment. Either they cannot afford one, or do not have the credit or the security deposit to get into one. This motel is a home for a lot of people and I'm very proud that I've been able to improve the quality of life for these people. Besides an affordable rate, the motel has large rooms with kitchenettes; there's a community room for parties' events. We have Bible studies, church services, • there's after school activities for the kids, and groups like Project Dignity, Orange County Rescue Mission 01-17-01 Page 5 JANUARY 17, 2001 CfTY OF ANAHEfM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and others are at the property at a regular basis offering food, medical and health services to my guests. I'm very proud that this motel can offer these services. I'm not going to argue that families belong in a motel or f'm not saying this place is designed for families, it's not. But there are certain realities that have to be faced. The average rent on an apartment in the past few years has skyrocketed. The demand for apartments is overwhelming right now. For each apartment that comes up, there's an average of 50 calls to get 1 apartment and an average of 25 applications. The one with the best job or security deposit, cleanest credit is the one who's going to get the apartment and a lot of the people are shut out. Also, because of skyrocketing rents a lot of landlords are no longer taking Section 8 Vouchers. The market rent is now higher than what the government is wil{ing to pay for Section 8, and if someone is on the waiting list for housing, that list can now be as long as 2 years before they can get in. Unfortunately, more and more people are not able to get apartments. Anaheim is full of low income jobs and there is simply not enough low income housing for everybody. Disneyland advertised for months to fill up their low-income jobs for their new theme park. Where are these people supposed to be living? I call it a crisis. It is a crisis, iYs going on right now in your community. From one census there's 18,000 people fiving in motels in Orange County. By the West Anaheim Motel Owners Association own head count, there are 1,500 people living in motels in West Anaheim alone. Fifteen hundred. The sad truth is that the City of Anaheim and the neighboring cities are not only doing very little to help people to get apartments, they're passing policies that throw families out of the only shelter they are able to get. With thousands of people in motels, certainly there's a better policy than to blame the motel owners and say that we are not doing our job right. If someone cannot get an apartment, either because they don't have the money for deposits or they don't have the best credit, isn't living in motels better than living on the streets? Especially, if being in a motel enables them to get back on their feet and eventually into an apartment. From talking to previous owners, neighbors, I'm sure there are people living in my motel when it was built. There were residents there. Certainly 20 years ago, the Lincoln Inn was full of residents. ~ The difference was, back then, Lincoln Inn, the EI Dorado, Valencia, and Ha Penny mostly catered to residents. Right now every motel is overflowing with people needing a place to live and are full right now too. Right now, I am probably turning away 20 to 30 families each month that need a place to live and I do not have the space to put them all, thaYs just my overflow. The overwhelming majority of guests in my motel are either low income seniors living on small social security checks or hard working low income families that simply do not make enough for an apartment, or have credit problems and can't get one. They can afford to pay over $600 a month to stay in a motel, but they can't get an apartment right now. If they can't stay in a motel, where are they suppose to live? When I talked to City officials about the needs for low-income housing or the problems of the motels, the responses I usually get is 1 of 2: One, is that West Anaheim has so many motels that we're not only taking care of our poor, we're taking care of the neighboring cities too. Providing shelter for low-income families is something the City of Anaheim should be proud of. IYs not a trend that we should be trying to reverse if other cities cannot do it because either they're unwilling, or unable to. The City of Anaheim can provide their shelter thaYs something we should be proud of. The other argument that I heard more often, even from our own Mayor, is that Anaheim already does a lot for its poor, referring to how many low- income apartments there are in Anaheim. But does that give you the right to stop caring when there's a serious housing crisis going on, and thousands of people can only afford to live in motels. You know you can't say "we gave at the office" and that gives you the right to kick people out of motels. There are also so many children living in motels. Now what message are we giving the children? That they are unwanted where they are right now. You know the statistics. You know how the population is growing the last few years, you know how many low income jobs have been created last few years, and you know how the comparison number housing start. The numbers don't match up. Where do you think everyone's living? lYs not just the motels that are overflowing, peopfe are living in garages, apartments are overcrowded, homes that was designed for 1 family have several families living in it. Knowing that all of. these people, I mean how many new low-income apartments have you guys approved in the last 2 years? ~ 01-17-01 Page 6 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES ~ How many apartments have been approved in West Anaheim? I know haw many. You guys have the reputation for turning down more than you have built. Right now thousands of people in this town have only 2 options: living in motels or living on the streets. Why would you want them to choose the latter option? There `s a condition in my motel, on my premise, it says I'm supposed to kick out families every 30 days. That's a terrible thing for you to make me do. Absolutely terrible! Why would you want to do this to your own citizens? Why would the City of Anaheim want to kick families out of the only shelter they're able to obtain? What kind of policy is this? The Anaheim Collaboration of Agencies that assists motel families wrote a 4-page letter to you outlining how terr+b4e the situation is, but your own motef task force chose to ignore this letter and continue this policy. The Collaboration was also supposed to help find homes for everybody, homes for all the families and seniors. In the past year and a half they were able to place 1 family in my motel. Just one, and that's because mostly Project Dignity paid for it out of their own pockets. There are many great agencies in the Collaboration, some great people with great hearts that come down to the motel and they help a lot of people. But when it comes to finding housing, the best they can do is to assign everybody for aid, subsidize housing, and they put them on waiting list. A year has gone by, not one of those people they put on the waiting list has obtained housing in the past year. I run a nice, clean business. My motel is full of clean rooms. IYs a full time job to run the motel, to get it back in shape and iYs a full time job to collect the rent sometimes too. I hear everybody's story. I'm not the kind of person that runs a slum property. I just got an award yesterday from the City of Placentia, for best redevelopment project in their city last year. This whole business with the City trying to close me down has been almost a nuisance. IYs more realistically been an experienced of harassment. I got clean rooms there. The Code Enforcement has written me up from everything from cracks in the sidewalk to dry palm tree leaves. At least 1/3 of the violations on my motel are for people having cooking appliances in their own room, in their own kitchenettes. Why is it a code violation for people that cook in their rooms ~ if they have kitchenettes? Why is having a microwave oven in your room a code violation? The family is struggling to make ends meet. Now, being able to cook soup or Top Raman on their stove, you know, compare to going out to lunch with their family everyday, it can cost ten times as much as to go out to eat than it is to cook in your own house. The overwhelming majority of violations are for small minor wear and tear things and iYs for outside stuff. Of all said, the police misrepresent this property to you. Officer Medina, who used to come to these hearings, used to say he had 2 full time police officers assigned to my property. The God honest truth is, he was there at my property 15 minutes a week. All he did was run the driver license numbers of my guests and arrest those who had unpaid tickets. When I got the property, it took about 3 months to evict the troublemakers and after that the crime disappeared. Since that day, my property been filled with elderly people and families with small children and nobody feels unsafe here. I stay in this motel myself, my children play here. The only calls for the police are for minor things often associated with low-income housing. There is a great community here. People look out for each other. The main reason there is no crime is because I'm not enforcing the 30- day restriction. The people who got kicked out are usually new people who come in. I don't know who they are, if they're causing trouble, they get kicked out. The ones who remain are the best tenants. You kick out the good people; it leaves you the "rift-raft". When people move from motel to motel, they don't have pride in where they're staying, they don't have pride in their community, they know they're being kicked out in a few days. Still iYs a 30-year-old motel and iYs a lot of wear and tear from the history of this motel and from people living there. I spent a lot of money refurbishing the rooms so that people have a nice place to live and they can make the best of their situation. It took me long time to get where I am at today and I still have work to do. The outside of the property needs the most work. The parking lot needs to be repaved. The whole building needs to be painted, patch the stucco, the balconies need to be refaced. The cost of this is about $200,000, I don't have that kind of money right now. It is so next to impossible to borrow money against the property that the City is trying to close down, you can't have it both ways. You can't say spend this kind of money on your property, but at the same time, here's the • restriction that kicks out all of your business. Do you want to help the motel improve so the families that 01-17-01 Page 7 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ live there can be in a better environment? If this restriction is taken off and I know that this property is going to be around because the demand is so overwhelming for housing right now, I might be able to borrow the money to finish doing the rest of the work. So I'm asking, please for the sake of humanity, take off this terrible 30-day restriction, let me have a new permit to finish the work on the property and continue to provide a home for over a hundred families that otherwise would be living on the streets. And also take off the dumb restriction that says people can't cook in their own rooms, and change the requirement for security guards from two armed guards to one unarmed guard. And by stating that, even though this property financially may have been a disaster to me, the cost of renting this place and code requirements and the policies of the City have made of many lost nights of sleep. 1 still love this property. Now, whaYs going on, the plights of motel families, their struggles everyday, I got to know these tenants, they're my friends. I enjoy their company and my heart goes out this these families and to all the seniors that live here. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Mr. Karmelich, a clarification question regarding something you said, that you mentioned our City a number of times, our Mayor. Can you clarify, do you live in the City of Anaheim? Mr. Karmelich: No. 1'm at the motel a lot. Chairperson Koos: I}ust want to clarify that. We have a number of speakers. The first speaker is Kathleen Huntington? Mr. Karmelich: Can I have the manager speak first. Chairperson Koos: I received these in this order so I'm going to go with the cards in this order. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Mr. Chairman, it may prevent repetition if they actually go in the order in which they had initially planned. If you have a list of the order of the speakers, if you could ~ provide that to the Chairman of the Commission that may help the Chairperson Koos in handling the meeting. Chairperson Koos: So beyond the managers, is there a particular order? Se1ma Mann: Mr. Karmelich, do you have an order list? Mr. Karmelich: I would like the manager of the property then Linda from Project Dignity to speak first because Linda has to leave, and then beyond that there's no special order. Chairperson Koos: All right, sir, please state your name and address for the record. Public Testimony: Najee Williams: My name is Najee Williams, I'm the past president of the West Anaheim Hotel/Motel Owners Association. I don't know how much you know about the organization but we are an organization of the motel and hotel owners who have been trying, basically, to try to improve the West Anaheim areas as far as the hotels and motels are concerned, as far as the ownership, as far as the management and as far as the tenants are concerned to improve their standard of living. The organization was started in the summer of 1999. 7he Lincoln Inn has been a member since then also. There was concerns in the beginning with quite a few of the motels in the way they were operated, so forth and we used our organization to share information with regarding problem tenants, sharing our "Do Not Rent LisY' so that we can get the "rift raft" out of the area. Again, the Lincoln Inn was very much a participant in that and they did share their lists and so forth and I can see that it has helped. It definitely has helped. In October of this year of 2000, I became the manager of the Lincoln Inn. Previously, I was the manager of the Parkway Inn. Since I have been there, there have been a lot of improvements. I saw and read a ~ lot about the Lincoln Inn prior to 1999 and I take it that was prior to Mr. Karmelich owning it or coming 01-17-01 Page 8 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • back to own it. Since I've been the manager, I know for a fact that the problems that I've read in the report no longer exist and they have not been since I've been there. If I remember correctly, there was something like 17 police calls a month, t find that extremely difficult to believe, we have security guards. I have told them that any time a police officer comes to our property, to write it down if they're going to see a tenant, if there's a problem with a tenant, 1 need to know about it. Because I am a no nonsense type of manager, I get rid of people for the slightest thing that can be a problem. We don't need problems in our property and we get rid of them as soon as they come. The extreme vast majority of our tenants are elderly people and family people who are working. They are not drug users, they are not prostitutes, they are not criminals at all. If we see or even suspect any criminal activity, they are asked to leave and this has been strictly enforced. The place basically has, again, families. And I am concerned about the families, because they are good people. We have also made many, many repairs to the p{ace. Even Don Yourstone, commented the last time we spoke, that it was the best that he has ever seen. There's stilf a lot to be done and we are definitely doing it. The momentum is on our side. And I am just concerned about the people who do stay in the complex because indeed they are working people who cannot get apartments, who don't have the credit, who don't have the 1 St and last or who just cannot find an apartment to live in and it is a transitional place. I have talked to several people who have moved out on their own and found apartments, but they could not have done it had there not been the Lincoln Inn. So in making your decision, all that I ask, for you to realize that, indeed, whatever your decision you come with, it will effect hundreds of lives. Definitely, at least a hundred lives and childhoods for the kids that are growing up there. That's all 1'd like to say. Thank you very much. Chairperson Koos: Thank you sir. Linda Dunlap? Linda Dunlap: My name is Linda Dunlap and I am with Project Dignity. We have been in the Lincoln Inn for a number of years. Ben invited us into the motel. He has supported and assisted us every week in food distribution and medical care. Then he helped us with a large relocation event to hefp the residents • find a permanent place to live. And after that, he followed up with an Employment Fair and several people found jobs as a result of the Employment Fair. We are here today to speak of the amazing, very unique and caring assistance that we have received from Sen to do some very special work at Ben's motel. In one of our weekly conversations with Ben, we spoke of the trailer that we had constructed that was stored in the construction ground with no place to go yet. Without any hesitation whatsoever, Ben extended an invitation for us to bring it to his motel grounds for the children there. It is a large vehicle. It has 2 classrooms and fibrary access to it, our children cannot use public library because they do not permanent addresses. On opening day, in the first half-hour that it was opened, we registered 43 children to attend this school and these classes. Ben chose the location that was safe for us to put the trailer. He had trees trimmed back, he had several parking spaces removed, etc., to access that location for us. Nothing appeared to be too much work or sacrifice for him to help the children with an education. It is so successful that we have been in touch with the Department of Education for the possibility of having a full-time teacher and aid on grounds working with the children. WhaYs going to happen there has a great deal to do with whether it comes to fruition or not. We have a situation where there are children in there, who are neither registered in school nor attending. I know that there are several people who argue with that fact, that all the children that are in there are in school. Monday, two of the children were reported to us that they were not in school, and they had been there for a while. The children, their parents, Project Dignity and Ben himself, are all very happy and thrilled with the results that have come from this operation. If this work is broken up, so many are going to lose so much. We'll have to leave now and go because we actually have a tutoring class that we're going to have to run and everyday we thank God for having the ability to do that for these children. These children are re- introduced to the real fun of learning and being accepted somewhere and having things go well for them. Project Dignity would like to thank you very much for your full attention, for the consideration of our • children and their lives that mean so much to all of us. 01-17-01 Page 9 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Koos: Ms. Dunlap, since you're leaving, Commissioner Boydstun wants to ask you a question. Commissioner Boydstun: How often or how many classes do you hold a week? Linda Dunlap: We currently have classes. They vary if there's a holidays. But while they are in school, they come to us Wednesdays and Thursdays, after school and we work with them on Saturdays in fun things and things that they can learn. We are moving forward with a musical program. We want them to hear Beethoven and things like that, that they just don't know about, and artwork. Many of our residents come in and work with these children, one of them is an artist and works specifically with that. Altrusa has donated $5,000 worth of books to our library. There is an awful lot going there, and we don't know where else we can be positioned to have access to this. Commissioner Boydstun: What hours are you tutoring on those days? Linda Dunlap: We're tutoring after school, on the Wednesdays and the Thursdays and in the afternoon on Saturdays when we move with that. Unfortunately, it gets darker early now, but, we know during the summer we will be out there with them a lot longer. We also have people now, since they`ve heard about it, retired teachers are coming forward. We want to fill in Mondays and Tuesdays as well. Chairperson Koos: Kathleen Huntington? Kathleen Huntington: Thank you for your time. I am Kathleen Huntington. I am a tenant. I live in 214 over at the Lincoln Inn and I'll make this very brief because I know there is a lot of people. I've been there almost 2 years and iYs a complete turn around from what it was when I first moved in. And, it is one of the last places for me as a single parent in a low-income situation to go other than the street. So please, • beg you to listen to Ben. I stand behind him 100 percent and so do a lot of people. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Venessa Huntington? Venessa Huntington: Hello, my name is Venessa Huntington and basically my situation is that I am a single parent of three small children. I was on the Welfare Work Program and was promised my housing two months after I was supposed to be working, keeping a steady job and I did not get it. I had moved in February, been there almost a year now and I am still waiting for my housing. I've been waiting for quite a while now and I don't think it's fair because this is my Anaheim. I have lived here all of my life, I have put money into my community , done what I can and I am not getting anything back for it. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Rickey Ewell? Rickey Ewell: Hi, my name is Rickey Ewell. My last name is spelled E-W-E-L-L and I am a tenant at the Lincoln Hotel and I just like to address to the Council on one thing: Me, my wife, and my father live at the hotel and we are handicapped. A month after we moved in, I didn't know Ben, but when he found out we were handicapped, he made everything easy for us. I mean, everything accessible, when we needed something and we couldn't get to it, he'd have someone help us moved it. I'm dying and my wife and my father are both handicapped and I just wanted to say as far as him making the place very accessible for handicapped, I was surprised and very pleased that he helped us and I hope you consider that too. Because it means a lot to us. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Charles Lane? Charles Lane: My name is Charles Lane and I lived at the Lincoln Inn right now for situations that are out of my control. One of the things that {'m thinking is why would you want to take away things that are helping people to better themselves. By offering church service on Sundays, Bible study on Wednesday. • They have a computer trailer come by, I think, once a month to help people get computer skills to learn 01-17-01 Page 10 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and get better jobs. I don't think it's fair that the City of Anaheim, which I have lived in for close to near half of my life would want to do that. I love this City to death. I work for Disney and I see them doing so much for the City of Anaheim, taking care of certain organizations to see that people get affordable housing. Now, why can't the City of Anaheim, in the process, do that same thing that this great and wonderful company does. Even though, I don't make a lot of money with Disney right now, I still put in what I can to the community fund that they collect every week. I put in like $5 every week to help out other people beside myself that need the help more than I do. And that's all I would like to say. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Robert Armstrong? Robert Armstrong: My name is Robert Armstrong. I lived in room 210 there at the Lincoln Inn. I've been there for about 5 months because I was evicted out of the apartment here in Anaheim. I've lived here for the last 10 years. I guess the main thing that I want to say is, I am not there because I want to be, iYs because I got put in a situation, I had no other choice. But one thing I can say about the place is, I don't feel threatened by leaving my wife and my kids at home because I drive semi-trucks on the road. I feel safe with them being at home and me not being there. ThaYs a lot because of what Ben has done to the place and I know for a fact when I'm home, when the 10 o'clock hour rolls around which is their curfew for noise, it's quiet at this place. You don't hear people out running around, making a lot of noise, a lot of parties. And I know in the 5%2 months that my family's been there, we've seen the police there twice and the Fire Department there, 3 times. The Fire Department, because we have one very elderly lady, who has to go to the hospital once in a while. But outside of that, there is no trouble to this place and if it would be, I would not be there If I didn't fieel safe leaving my family there. I lived in parts of Anaheim, where there were a lot worse than this motel. ThaYs basically what I have to say. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Carl Wagner? Carl Wagner: I am Carl Wagner and I live at the Lincoln Inn and the reason how I ended up there was my ~ best friend, David Smith, and I were living in the back of my truck and it was affordable for us to move there. I've seen the changes, been there about a year and a half, he has done a lot. I work nights, I've been up since 7 o'clock yesterday, it meant that much for me to come down here. I would like to stay there. Appreciate it. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Art CastiHo? Art Castillo: Hi, my name is Art Castillo. I lived a 1431 West Chatea~, Anaheim. I'm a President of Northwest Orange County (LULAC) and also with other organizations and representative on the Social Concern Committee of my church. I've gone to go look for myself to see and wage both sides of the views of the City looking at the property and met Ben and loved his hospitality, who brought me in and let me see the dwelling. I have been involved in the Jeffrey Lynn revitalization issue there and other parts of Anaheim and I try to compare my notes to what 1've seen there. I've been involved with all City entities and persons in charge. For example, Jeffrey Lynn where the City owned the property where the walls are falling down and it was wet, it was not the tenants' problems, but it was a tragedy what I had witnessed with others. I went to the Housing and negotiated and decided not to go any further with others, but to get these people moved right away. Ben should be at least patted on the back for what he has doing and that it's livable. The dwellings are livable. They do need to be repaired, but they're not seeing things that are tragic things that would caused any kind of health or anything to the detriment of anybody's health. As a community activist or a concerned citizen and a taxpayer, I hope you guys want to leave a legacy and no skeletons in our closets, that we do things for the community. We have a problem here with the housing. I recognized that for a long time being the fourth generation here, watching the growth of Anaheim. ~ 01-17-01 Page 11 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • { was at Placentia when he (Ben Karmelich) was getting the award. I was there supporting things for the community. You don't really have to live in Anaheim to be concerned for all human beings in our life. I am not here to try to bring in some people to say IeYs argue, let's fight over whaYs right or wrong, but just to come and ask you to have some compassion for the community. You guys got to do your job. I'm learning to be at least a neutral person to say well, you know, the City has to do its job, Ben has to do his job and these people are doing the job for us. I represent a large part of our community and every time I go places they ask me to go, help these people out, try to bring things to at least a gray medium area where things can be worked on. I would like to ask you to give Ben a chance. I saw what he did over at Piacentia, I saw the property and what he did. If there was a chance, it's not saying that it could be done overnight, but I think thaYs what I would be advocating for, to give Ben a chance. Also go there yourselves and meet these people, they were so nice. Without trying to repeat everything that he said I agreed with and I also agreed with your part of the City, but sometimes I know this is more of a development and policy money, but I want to make sure that these people are heard and it sounds pretty good today with they are telling you. If anybody would want my (telephone) number, talk personally, want to know more about the City of Anaheim from another perspective in the community, I'll be willing to talk with anybody and let them know how I feel or how the community feels that I represent, but basically, God bless you all and hopefully that you guys will make a good decision. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Sir, can you please elaborate on what you mean by "a chance". I am not sure if you understand what is before us today. This is pretty much the same issue we had about a year ago. Are you suggesting that we change our Municipal Code to accommodate a number of these things that are Code violations. Are you suggesting that we just turn our back on the standards that we set forth for the City? , Art Castillo: No, not to turn on the standards. No, iYs basically, compassion, that was the word. It was compassion. Main thing to say is that, right now we don't have affordable housing and you are aware of that. That you, as the panel or as your job, consider the situation and say "ok, I can understand what he has to go through, maybe teaching him, may be showing him CDBG monies that can be used, or other alternatives. More or less if there's something educating him than what he can utilize. I know, sometimes I got involved where there are bitter feelings, that we fight each other over something that you have your job to do and we don't understand it as a people. We don't know the rules and violations or what the outcome of it is. But if we keep on, if the person keeps on getting ticketed and he's a low income person, he's not going to ever be able to pay those tickets and to feel free. There's no forcibility to saying that you have to do what you gonna make a decision on. This is up to you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you, sir, I appreciate that. A number of these cards don't indicate whether they are in favor or opposition so I am going to just take a chance on some of these. I assuming they are probably in favor. Judy Martinez? Judy Martinez: Hello, my name is Judy Martinez and I live at the Lincoln Inn. For living at a motel, this is the one the best places to live that I have lived in. I have a husband with a good job. He's been there over 2 years and two sons that go to iocal schools and they haven't had to change school in 2 years. We are finally stable enough to get on with our lives. If Lincoln Inn closes or we have to move from there, that will hinder all of what we've accomplished here. Ben has done a very impressed makeover of the former Seville Inn. The rooms here are very clean, comfortable, reasonable rates. Ben has been having every problem fixed. If we have to leave here, my children will have to go to different schools, if and when we ever did find a place. IYs very hard, as I've experienced. The apartment owners do not cater to people who lived in motels. Also the rents are very expensive as you probably have read in the papers. The average Orange County rent is $1,212 per month and thaYs a little sky high. I'd appreciated if we could keep this place. Thank you very much. ~ 01-17-01 Page 12 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Patsy Davis? Patsy Davis. Hi, my name is Patsy Davis and I lived at 2736 West Lincoln Avenue at the Harbor Village, I'm the neighbor next door. I used to live at the Lincoln Inn for 4 years. I've known Ben for a long time and I was a maid there too. You shouldn't close that place down, I lived there for 4 years and that place was bad and when I left to get an apartment, it was cleaned and everything and I am behind Ben 100 percent and I know this man, and he does keep it clean and 1 don't see a lot of police over there. They do have security 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week). I hope and pray, you guys, please do not close it down. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Dana Lugo? Dana Lugo: My name is Dana Lugo and I live at the Lincoln Inn. I would like to say that it is very clean and quiet. I rarely ever see a police car there. My husband and I are there because we both have money taken from our paychecks and we can't afford the deposit on an apartment. 1 would like to assure you, I am not a prostitute or a criminal and most of the people who lived there are every day people, who just for various reasons can't afford an apartment. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Sharyn Mattio? Sharyn Mattio: Hi, I am Sharyn Mattio. I lived at the Lincoln Inn. On behalf of the residents unable to attend and those present, I'd like to represent them. The residents of Lincoln Inn wish to address the Commission and the group on behalf of the Lincoln 1nn, our home, and Mr. Ben. As tenants of Lincoln Inn, we would like to express our concerns regarding the matter at hand. Because it affects both our home and Ben's business. We, tenants, at Lincoln Inn, are trying hard to find and understand the real issue here. Some say iYs the City Code violation, some say iYs really real estate "hanky panky". A few even say some member of the City government. For whichever reason. Most feel that the City isn't ~ concerned with the fact that because iYs the 30-day move out restriction compete with its half fuN of rules and regulations. Most families would be forced into the city streets and be enforced to be hoping around every month looking for a new place to live, and new schools for their children to attend and even worse, homeless. Those of us that have long-term residence called the Lincoln Inn, our homes and t am one of them. We are closely knit neighborhood. We make up mostly of hard working people. Some short ones, tall ones, skinny ones, fat ones, white ones, black ones, young ones, old ones. But despite the difference, we still function as a family. A family that cares for one another. We lived in a clean, newly renovated apartment. Safe because Ben provides us with a 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) security protection along with a well lit property. As neighbors and friends, we watch out for each other and everyone watches over the children. We don't have to five in a constant worry of burglaries, harm or rape for our women and children on the premises. As many spread out neighborhoods do. There is no gang violence related incidents, destruction of properties of Ben's is not existent. The reason being is that Ben has cleaned it up and previous owners have allowed it to happen. And we as a neighborhood, make that no one bring it back, in fact, we rarely needed to call the Anaheim P.D. on the premises. We, the resident of Lincoln Inn, have a lot to be thankful for. Ben continually shows his true concerns for his tenants, trying to provide us with a better way to live. He has always been willing to take time for any one who seeks him out and willing to help resolve any situation that may arise. Most of the long-term tenants have come to look as Ben as a friend, more than a landlord. lt appears to the City believes that the most hotels are just a bunch of slums and that the people who lived there are prostitute and drugs addicted. I can't say that other motels don't have that problem, but we that stay at the Lincoln Inn, in no way, a slum and because we live here more are not prostitutes and drugs addicts. The Lincoln Inn, through Ben has a concern for our physical and spiritual need. Providing a facility for church service every Sunday for adults and Bible studies and medical vans staffed by doctors and nurses are permitted regularly on the premises providing free medical attention to all tenants there. There is a ~ mobile library set up on the property to help our children with reading and other educational projects. Ben 01-17-01 Page 13 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • generally assists us in providing Holiday parties for the children and BBQ for all of us here, which often, is at his own expense. Does this sound like a slum to you? Chairperson Koos: Sorry to interrupt you, but much of what you have just said had been said by other people. So could you please perhaps provide us some additional, new information on what goes on at the hotel? Sharyn Mattio: Ok, please give the children a chance. It's been said, but I want to enforce that right now. You make us leave every 28 - 30 days and our children, like one said, wouldn't have library card because of no permanent address. I believe that iYs a problem. Be thankful that Ben is concerned with the future and the well being of the Lincoln Inn in the long-term residents. All of us are happy at the Lincoln Inn and with Ben. If nothing else we ask the committee to please think of our children and vote today. The vote today may have a lasting efFect fact on our children and rights to reach full life. We would like to take this time to thank you and all of the Committee here. May God bless you in your final decision. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Tim Mattio? Tim Mattio: Good afternoon. I'm Pastor Tim Mattio, Calvary Christian Fellowship. We have our services and I am a resident at Lincoln Inn. To let you understand what was going on why so much is being repeating by my wife was that was a letter from the residents. She was just reading it for them and she was supposed to be right after the Manager, but because of the card mixed up, thaYs why she is ended now. My wife and I have been there for 6 years now going on 7 years at the Lincoln. When we first came, Ben had it and was taking care of it and that was one of the best places in Anaheim to live. We had the 28-day move out, we had to move out every 28 days, but then you can move back in again and that worked. It was a pain in the neck but it worked. But then, 2 new owners came in and I was really curious as to why the City Council or the Commission didn't bother when the other guys were letting dope ~ addicts in, pushers in, prostitutes in. When the place was falling apart, we were actually ready to move oursefves. There were no repairs, nothing, the City didn't say anything then. Ben comes in, takes it back over, starts straightening it up before the City says anything, trying to getting things right again, throwing these people out...and all of a sudden, here the City harassing him. Now it gets down to these people here, Ben has done a lot. He has made this a home for these people, I've seen it over the years. When the other owners were there, there was nothing but who bothered with grass, sounds like something silly, but we have grass, we have plants there. IYs a place to live, it's a home, it's a neighborhood. And these people, I guarantee you, if they got to move out every 30 days and come back and move back in the next day like they used to be able to, where are they going to go? Down to Valencia fior another 30 days? Down the EI Dorado for another 30 days? Down to the Covered Wagon or Weekly Suites. Every 30 days, iYs going to take them, from the day they move in, iYs going to take them 30 days to get moving again. Not to mention, as they get moved around, they have to change the school for the children because of different school districts. And we talked about being concerned about our children, but the City doesn't even care whether or not these children can stay in the same school for a whole year? They wou4d rather see them change school 3 times every three-months? Pm sorry but I have a hard time with that. We talked about the violations. Where were they at when all the "scums" were in there? Where was the City then? IYs extremely hard, a lot of these people say to have to move out every 30-day is a problem. Some don't use cars, some don't have cars, all they have is buses for transportation. So it is an extreme hardship. You have the hardship of moving, ~nding a place to move to, finding a school for the children, after 30 days? It's going to get to the point the school is going to say, "Hey, we don't want to bother with your kids". Another thing about deposit, even if they were going to another motel, they got to have deposits to move in it's the same thing. Deposits are not as big as apartment deposits but there smalf deposits so continue out laying your money and then what's going to happen? The City is going to have trouble with Ralphs, Food 4 Less, and all of the rests when all of the shopping carts start disappearing because you will have ~ a lot of people on the streets. I am not trying to make it sounds like threatening, but if you really stop and 01-17-01 Page 14 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • think about it, what you asking these people to do, and what you're asking Ben to do to these people. IYs just not compassion there at all. No consideration for the people. 1 thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. William Mittler? William Mittler: Hi, my name is William Mittler. I actually lived in Orange, 1 don't live in Anaheim. I am local Orange County playwright, I've done 35 productions last year. Doesn't bring in a lot of money. I also managed, I work for Togg Enterprises, which is not run as well as Ben runs his company. I also have worked part time for Ben whenever I needed extra money, he's been very helpful. I've known Ben through the art field as well. He's a musician. I just did a local punk rock show. What I wanted to say is regarding the 30-day policy, I know about codes and violations. I know the same inspector can come in and look at the same room and either find violations or not find violations. It is understandable when people move out, there going to be violations. I can look around the room and pick 3 discolored spots on the wall and right that up right now. A little nervous thaYs why I hide behind the pen, but what I really want to say is I used to manage at the Fire Station Motel, I wouid not work there anymore. They did enforced the 30-day move out policy or as they call the 28-day. They used to be much like here, families, people that knew each other and any motel situation, you gonna have people that don't make it out of hotels and thaYs a sad fact. Sometimes it's their own faults, sometimes it circumstances around them. When I first moved to California, I lived in motels for 4 months put myself through Fulferton Colfege, put myself through UCLA. I don't believe everyone here can do that, I do believe they can make their lives better though. Once the 28-day policy was effected at the fire station. Started the same way with multiple violations being written. More pofice attention to the property, so it looks like they were more calls than they actually were. It became hard to justify that motel and in fact put that policy in effect, they made all of the old families moved out every 28 days, they have to leave the property. Where they go is not the City's concern. What do they do? It is very hard on them, it is hard to get in schools. It is hard to have a sense • as a manager who's staying at your hotel, you have no way of knowing who's living there, you don't know who's to trust, you don't know who's in the motel. Common way of getting around the 28-day policy, you have someone else come up, sign the registration card and you stay at the motel. Unfortunately, if the police are looking for someone or if they wanted to know who's in the motel room, they really no longer have a way of knowing who's honestly living there. I've worked at the Weekly Suites in Orange. It's a quieter motel than may be the Lincoln Inn is because iYs a smaller motel. The police come in once a week. I could tell them everyone thaYs in that room. Who supposed to be there, who's not. They don't enforced the 28-day policy even though it is on the books. lt is much easier to manage a motel like that, if you know who your people are. Thank you thaYs all I really wanted to say. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Jaye Curtis? Jaye Curtis: My name is Jay Curtis and I resided at room 245 at the Lincoln Inn. I moved in there last April, the day before I started working for Disneyland. Now, my son and I, I'm a single mom. The week before we moved in the Lincoln Inn, we were in homeless shelter in Costa Mesa. I don't know if any of you know it what thaYs like, but especially with a child, it can be very rough. And if it wasn't for Sen putting up with me and everything, I would probably still be back in the shelter now. I just want to say please, because of all these kids, I don't want the families to go through what we had. Yes, we do need more affordable housing here in Anaheim. Thank you very much. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Robert Rodriguez? Robert Rodriguez: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having us here to speak may be, hopeful saving us from the ocean getting suck under. I am one of those artist that Project Dignity imagine. I am also, my wife and myself, are tutor. We have a program, which I reside at the Lincoln Inn ~ for the past 7 years come this September 1St. The reason I have been there, is like I said, not by choice. 01-17-01 Page 15 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • I would rather be living in a house where I can do a little more of what I like to create. My drawing I used to work at Disneyland but my eyes gave out, I had to have operation, I couldn't work there anymore. I have converted our skills, my wife and myself, to tutor the children. Due to Project Dignity, my wife and I are volunteers and to distribute food on Thursdays, to distribute bread on Saturdays. We furnish as much as we possible can education and helping the children understand the school system, which we're trying to tell that they have a friend, a parent, if they feel neglected at home or whatever. They can come to us anytime. Not only have my wife and I done that, about 2 years ago, we started to save some money because we heard of such an incident like now is happening, that the place was going to be close down, Ben wasn't there. There were other people there and they gave up on us. The place was full of roaches, but we hung in there for the same reason, we cannot afford to pay $600 plus may be from $200 on up on the security services. Some pay the water and the gas, but now that the lights are going up nine percent, resident is gonna closely get into the amount of $700. I am a retiree, my pension has been cut in half because of my age that I am 65, social security gives me the other half. I only total $15,000 a year. When you go and rent a place, they demand that you make 3 times as much as the rent. I can not cut it, I tried very hard, because like I said, { rather have and wish and pray that I could get a little house, even a fixer upper. When Ford Company was shut down in 1981, I spent practically 8 years in the street, wherever I could. I am also a veteran from the Korean War, I still can't get in. I voted for housing, and I'm still out here. Ben has worked with Project Dignity which I am very much a part of as a volunteer. I explained to people, we only a pimple on a pinhead because we try so hard to help these people. It cuts us to ribbons when somebody has to vacate because they don't have the rent to come across with it. Ben slacks off on a lot of us. I've come to Ben a million and one times. Example, just recently, we, Project Dignity and myself and Ben produced a Halloween party so the children wouldn't have to go and expend themselves to danger of the drugs that are out there, outside the Lincoln Inn. We furnished as much as possible closed to $2,000 with the candy and all kind of gifts that were furnished. We also produced another Christmas • party. We even had a lady as Mrs. Santa Claus and another lady giving out candy and all that. Our classes start a 3:00 to 4:30 on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. As you will see that hardly any motel, as you can go anywhere, there only furnished with certain foods from the Rescue Mission. Project Dignity go there also, but not as lavish as we are because Ben gave us all of the opportunity to do that. Imagine I've been there 7 years and I speak for the rest of us. I don't think any of us here can afford to pay $800 for rent even $600 is tough. Because now, as you will know, if it hasn't been for Project Dignity helping us with the food on Thursdays and bread on Saturdays, we have to spend 90 percent of the time looking for sale: Albertson, Stater Brothers and spend most of the time buying food at the 99 cent store. That goes to show you that we're not there by choice, we have to be there. If you go to another motel, I used to live at the Fire Station, it was infested with drugs, people come in around 2 o'clock in the morning furnishing free drugs. Prostitution was nothing. Since I came here I ran from there. After 2 years I just bit the bullet because I couldn't afford to move. I come in here, I've been there 7 years come September 15t I know 90 percent of the people are horrified like I am. I don't have the means to move. I was thinking that you people, with God's will, if you were understanding and have a little compassion as to where we are at, and understand the money is very tight. Ninety percent of us are like in the fixed income, $15,000 don't go anywhere. I am still paying taxes on everything that I earned. You can imagine people with children, how hard it is. I tell you one thing, I was going to go because of the fear what's happening now that you're close down, January the 17th~ we get horrified, where are we going. I've been looking because I was scared. Where am I going to go? At my age, 65, I don't have a car, I've had 2 heart attacks and 2 strokes. I got the 2 strokes recently because of unpredictable situation, the pressure. When you lived so many years in the place like that, as you will know it, you group of people here, you look like a family together, you work together, you go through all kinds of things together and thaYs where we all grow. Like I told Ben, don't you think I feel bad leaving like I am running like a little puppy with my tail between my legs? Even though these people have grown with me. People used to knock at 1:00, 3:00 in the morning, our phone, we used leave in between us...answering our phone..."Bob, could you please help ~ us?" crying, i said "What's wrong?"..."I just lost my job, I need $71." Cindy, that's my wife..."Give her the 01-17-01 Page 16 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • money" People.."I don't have clothes for my kids"."Let her have $100".. Where is my $2,000? I don't know...only God knows. But 1 don't care about the paper. What I care is that I cared for these people. I tried to teach them," This is your food, this is your school" I treat children as if they're my own. 1 don't have any family, neither is Cindy. No children, no nothing. These kids are our kids. Our concern is that they learned and comprehend when they're in school. We helped them at any time our door is always open. I don't even lock my door. They come in here, they knock..."Come in", people with trouble.."Bob, do you have any food?"..."Sure". We empty at times, our pantry. When we go to get grocery, people see us here. We go get things from the 99-cent store, Stater Brothers, and from there we give them. Ben has been conscious of everything. But because I care about people, in hope that in God's name, Jesus name, you would have the same consideration for all of us. We're not in the position to go look at a better place. We're not there for our health. Thank you for listening and your time. Chairperson Koos: Thank you sir. Victoria Gill? Victoria Gill: My name is Victoria Gill and I live at the Lincoln Inn and I think I speak for a lot of us here. A lot of us, we don't have first and last months rent. A lot of us, we would be in a car if it wasn't for the Lincoln Inn. Ben and William, they help us out as much as they can. Years before I had heard about the Seville Inn Lincoln Inn, but I tell you what, I had seen it now and iYs a big, 100 percent difference. And I wouldn't mind even bringing my kids up there. We have our financial troubles, but, iYs a place we can call our own and we're not out on the streets, and now that it's getting cold and iYs hard especially us with kids. We're like between a rock and a hard place and 1 just, please, please, after we're all done and everything, please take into consideration all of this and we have 2 good men on our side that really, really care. That's all I have to say. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Frank Weiser? • Frank Weiser: Afternoon, Frank Weiser, I am the attorney for the Lincoln lnn and for Mr. Karmelich. You've heard a lot good personal reasons by people here who are living on a day-to-day basis at Lincoln Inn. Why? From a social stand point you should not deny this application and I just stress some of the legal points that I think compliment and go along with what they are saying. I think you're going to be getting into a lot of legal issues. One of the issues, I think, is raised through your General Plan. The State of California specifically indicates that there is a housing shortage here in the state for low and moderate-income people. That requires, under the Government code that you make provisions in your General Plan to implement your Specific Plan, that in fact you have an adequate housing element in the . There is zoning code provision in the Government that says that if any zoning ordinance that has a hazard despair impact on low to moderate-income people, that zoning ordinance or that zoning law is voided. And I think that it's a significant factor that has to be taken into consideration. What we seem to have here is a problem where the City is not taking into consideration what the impact will be here, from the legal standpoint for the low and moderate-income type housing. So that is 1 factor. Another factor 1 think is from the standpoint of the Federal Law. The Federal Fair Housing law, specifically under the Federal Law, indicates that if there's a despaired impact for a protected group, which I think we have here. and I think we have a lot of people here who would fall within the category of minorities, that you would have a violation possibly of the Federal Fair Housing Law. Thirdly, from Mr. Karmelich's standpoint, as a property owner, there is a direct case on point, I think, go to Old Tavern vs. the City of Costa Mesa. In that case that was also an extension of the CUP application that was denied. The owner owned a bar in Costa Mesa, there were a lot of allegations of nuisance activities and crime around his property. He had invested a substantial amount of money in the bar and he was denied by the City of Costa Mesa, as far as his application goes. When he came up for independent review by the court, the Fourth District here, same District that applies to the City of Anaheim, indicated that under the Independent Judgment Test, you had to balance and weight, not only the public need, but also the private property owner's fundamental property interest. The fact that he had • invested a substantial amount of money into this property, that he had a fifelong investment in this thing 01-17-01 Page 17 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEfM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and that the nuisance, alleged nuisance, activity did not necessarily out balanced his particular interest in the property. I think, what we have here, everybody indicated the substantial amount of effort he's put into this property to try to turn it around. From what I understand with the problems before that preceded him. I think that the major factor under the Goat Hill Tavern Test, as a legal test that Planning Commission has to take into consideration over and above what the tenants are claiming. Fourthly, I think there is a problem on your TOT. There are 2 cases I litigated that are published. One in the 9`h Circuit and one particularly in this District. One is San Bernardino Hotel/Motel Association vs. City of San Bernardino at 59 Callehath Fourth 237 in which I was able to invalidate the TOT Tax in San Bernardino. That seems to be the leading case now in the State. That case, I think, raises the potential conflict with what you're telling Mr. Karmelich: No. 1. In that case, the City's tax was found to be unconstitutional in its face because it included the word "dwelling". The word "dwelling" was found to be inconsistent with a TOT Tax that taxes only for transit occupancy because the Fourth District found that the word "dwelling" can also mean long term occupancy. Now iYs my understanding, that the City of Anaheim has collected a TOT Tax from Mr. Karmelich over the years, still is collecting a TOT Tax. A review of your particular TOT Ordinance does include the word "dwelling". I find that a bit inconsistent with your 30-day rule claiming that he's not allowed to have long-term residents. How can the City on one hand say we collect money for people who may be coming there from day 1 to live, and on the other hand say we're not going to give you any right to have long term occupancy. So I think there is a legal problem there. Another case I had which was a case called Patel vs. Penman, thaYs at 103 F 3~d 868. ThaYs a Federal Circuit case here in the 9~h Circuit and that case, I think, stands for the proposition that due process is clearly implicated. That was the motel case by the way, a motel that was closed down for alleged code violations and due process was implicated. The requirement that, even when there is alleged nuisance violation, that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't have a right to a fair and adequate opportunity to • rebut that. I don't think that's been given to him. What we're hearing is a lot of stuff about code violations, but nobody ever hauled him in for a public nuisance hearing. The City is not taking in any independent action of going to court if they are that concerned about the fact about this operating is a public nuisance. Why do you wait until the end, convenientfy while in its application for an extension for CUP, instead of giving him an independent form to hear the allegations of a public nuisance. So I think the Patel case implies in this case also. Once again I would stress, I think these tenants have more than adequately addressed the social issue here and I think the City really must balance that with Mr. Karmelich's particularly economic interest here, and to find a way to accommodate him. If not, I would say a 1 year CUP quite frankly, is clearly not enough. I would think that there has to be a way to even extend it beyond a year, I would think 5 years. There was another case that we just had before the City Council last year in which I think...l forget now the name, but it's on Rainbow Inn...whatever...that I came in the at the City Counci! leve{ with which this Commission only gave a 1-year extension and the Council gave them a 5-year extension. I think the Council properly balanced the interests as I just indicated the legal interests here along with the social considerations. I would asked the Planning Commission to do that now, so we can avoid having to go up to the Council and extend this thing. Chairperson Koos: Can I ask you a clarification question? Are you asserting that Anaheim is not shouldering its responsibility for the State requirements of our share of the low and moderate-income housing? Are you asserting that Anaheim doesn't do what's responsible duty on that requirement? Frank Weiser: I don't see anything in your housing element in the implementation of your housing where you are. What we are hearing is a lot of people who can not afford to go. This is a problem we see in a lot of cities, they cannot afford first and last month rent. There seems to be extremely fow vacancy rate ~ 01-17-01 Page 18 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • here. The hotel community is generally oriented towards Disneyland and the vast tour market here. So, I think, there has to be special provision for these people. Chairperson Koos: No, what I am asking you is... Frank Weiser: I don't see anything in your General Plan that has implemented a Specific Plan for the Housing Element for these kind of special needs. Chairperson Koos: You seem to be an expert on some of these issues and knowing Southern California. Do you think that Anaheim has not done its fair share in providing low income housing in comparison to other cities. Frank Weiser: No, 1 do not. In fact.... Chairperson Koos: So are you asserting also that almost every city in the County that must not be doing its fair share? Frank Weiser: Well I can't say that, but I can say this also in my discussion privately with several City attorneys here, that I won't mention names, that this is a problem that I understand the City is now thinking about and addressing. So apparently even some officials here at the City think at iYs a problem. Commissioner Arnold: Can I ask a point of clarification. What precisely is having these disparate impact on housing. What are you complaining? You said that there a disparate impact on housing, but what is having the disparate impact. Frank Weiser: These low to moderate-income individuals were living at the Lincoln Inn will not be able to find affordable housing care. They have indicated that they would not be able to put first and last month • rent ...There is a one percent vacant rate here in this City. Arnold: What is it that it has a desperate impact... Frank Weiser: Disparate impact on a low to moderate-income individuals. Arnold: But what is having the impact? Frank Weiser: The impact is that you are taking out the housing market a building or a property that is providing them this low to moderate income housing. Arnold: Are you contending that the building code has disparate impact by requiring sufficiently safe wiring, etc. Frank Weiser: No, I think the code violations area different issue. I think the code violations have to be balanced from a public nuisance standpoint. If you telling me that the code violations make this uninhabitable forever and iYs a public nuisance along the level of the Patel case that Jim Penman, the City Attorney, felt he had to close down all the apartments and in all the Arden Guthry Group out there in San Bernardino. I mean thaYs one issue, but I don't see that because nobody has come down to the Lincoln Inn within the last year, summarily closed it down, declared it as immediate health hazard. Nobody has hauled Mr. Karmelich in, in the last for a public nuisance hearing; nobody has gone before a judge for injunction. So it seems to me that even if we take your arguments that there are violations here, the violations don't accumulate to the level of a public nuisance that requires No. 1: a media closure, No.2: permanent closure. There must be a way for him to be able to address it. And I think given his property interests, the fundamental property insists protected under state law under due process clause, and the disparate impact on these tenants, you have to find a way to address it. And address that allows solutions reasonable to the city. He can't of course let violations exist there, but at the same time, do it in • a way that iYs not going to have a permanent impact on these tenants and extinguish his interests. 01-17-01 Page 19 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos: Are you contending that he has had no notice of these violations? Frank Weiser: Not notice in the level of what you're trying to do. You're trying apparently extinguish permanently his interests. He has not had notice where you have told him this is a public nuisance to the level that we are going to shut you down. I would think that you had a power within the last year to call a special hearing if these violations were so serious and declare him a public nuisance at an administrative level and find a remedy if you felt it was that serious and close him down. Chairperson Koos: Perhaps, the other route we've have taken, is we have given him a year to address these very same issues, he has failed to do so. Frankly, he snubbed his nose at us. I mean, may be we don't want to be so confrontation, give him the opportunity to do the right thing. He hasn't done it, we are here now. Commissioner Arnold: I have a hard time believing that a court will penalize the City for giving him additional time, additional leeway, when he's been on notice of Code Violations of a serious nature. I think the record's probably pretty clear, we can go back and dig it up. I just have a hard time believing that a court would penalize the City for giving him additional time, as Chairperson Koos said. Frank Weiser: Anybody is dealt in the public nuisance area with properties or motels, who had to see how Judges operate in this area. If you were going into the Court of Law and ask for an immediate Closure and Injunction based on Code Violations, what the Judge would have to do is balanced the City interest vs. the private interest, whatever those interests are, once again, his property interests vs. the Tenants. In most Judges, I've seen, it is a very, very harsh remedy to permanently close a property. There normally a set of conditions that are first placed on it, the Judge oversees those conditions, then, if, at the very very last resort, if it rises to the level where it poses as a eminent health hazard or against the public safety, then the Judge will take the final remedy of permanently closing that. I don't see thaYs • happening here. Commissioner Bristol: If it's Ok that the Planning Commission suggests the Code Violations Safety issues be taken care of that pertain to the City Ordinance and Code? Just like a Judge would under restriction property? Just like this Commission has done several times to try and make things safe for the people? Frank Weiser: I think you, as an Administrative body has a right and a duty to look out for the public safety, I agree with that, but I also think that has to be look at if you looking in operating in a traditional capacity here, or some kind of quasi traditional capacity. Like a Judge, in terms of balancing, you got to do the same balancing test and I think The Goat Hill Tavern Test tells you because that was an allegation of public nuisance. Chairperson Koos: May be we'll get more into these issues after public hearing. Perhaps, you'll have a rebuttal to any opposition but we're going to move on with the public testimony. Is there an Officer Duff here? Officer Duff: Hi, my name is Officer Duff and I've been working with the company for about 6 months. I have seen a lot of big ... There's no prostitute there, no slums there, no nothing. Ever since I've been working there, it's been really nice. Especially at night, iYs very quiet, and all of that. And all that I have to say. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Sofia Guzman? Sofia Guzman: My name is Sophia Guzman. I reside at the Lincoln Inn, #103. There is security 24/7 and there is room tract, 10'oclock curfew. If you don't live there, 11'oclock, from room to room, and if you • don't live there, they escort you off the premises. If they feel anything is not in accordance with rules 01-17-01 Page 20 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEtM PLANWING COMMISSION MINUTES • when you live there, they do room check, they go inside. As to everybody been said. I'm living there and that goes to the 30-day law, what are we going to do with our kids if we have to change from school to school, as addresses, get to school with different address every single time. It looks bad on the kids, embarrassment, high school, junior high. The schools start looking back, checking in where we lived at. The social services start calling and then what are we going to do? Get our kids taken away into Orangewood because we can't provide a home? We start being homeless. I have 3 kids....One, she's at my mom right now because I don't know if we going to have a home to live pretty soon. She's straight A student, I don't want to take that away from her. Having another daughter, who's sixteen, she's in high school, my son is seven. I know all of us have children. Some about to be born or not born...l don't know what else to say because everything else above myself has been said. Chairperson Koos: Thank you Ms. Guzman. Sofia Guzman: Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Kim Walker? Kim Walker: Hi my name is Kim Walker and I am resident at Lincoln Inn. I've been there for about a year and a half and i~ you saw me on the streets, I look like a normal person to you. I am a Officer Manager. I do work in Anaheim and I lived in Anaheim, I was born in Anaheim. I feel the way you guys are doing to the Lincoln Inn would put a strain on my family and my daughter. If we have to move every 30 days, she wouldn't have stability and I'm just praying that you guys at least help us in some way to find permanent housing. I have tried looking, I've been looking for at least a year. The first 6 months I had to save money and 1 have put out at least $400 in the last year and a half in credit checks and nobody will accept my credit because I have medical bills, I have no evictions, I have nothing. I have bought a car, they take my money to buy a car but they won't take my money to move in to a permanent house. I just want you guys to take that into consideration. I've was taken off the housing list because my income level had • increased in year and a half I was on the list. They took my off the list, because I make too much money now and I still cannot move from where I lived. This is a place we have to call home as a family. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Cornelia Vennell? Cornelia Vennell: My name is Cornelia Vennell. I lived at the Lincoln Inn for at least 9 years. It's clean, it's quiet, it's beautiful. As you see, I'm a little too old to be a prostitute. I don't think iYs smart to take drugs. My home has been Lincoln Inn. IYs clean, quiet. There are children but they are well behaved. In fact, let me describe a family, they ran their own business, they lived in a lovely home. And one day everything came crashing down on their heads. They lost their business, their home, their furniture, they were forced to move into a motel. Did they cry? No! They sent their children to school, clean. They helped with their homework and one day soon God going to give them back all their loss. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Jack Schwartz. Jack Schwartz: Hi, I am Jack Schwartz. I have a business across the street form the Lincoln Inn. I just like to say that I guess I am the only guy that Ben hasn't brought in today. There are a lot of good people that lived there, evidently, and we still have crime in the area. Vandalism, in the night time particularly. A lot of my customers won't come into my business at night, they don't want to be in the area. I am sure there are a lot of good people who lived there. It sounds to me like, you know, over the years this place was never really been run to code as a motel. So my thinking is, iYs either should be run as a motel and the City of Anaheim should run all of them as motels or else possibly, may be make Ben here, convert it to apartment building or something. Spend some more money and then make it a full time apartment building. There's apartment building next door so may be thaYs a solution, I don't know. But it should be one or the other. It should either be a motel or apartment building because I think the way it is now, we still have a lot of probfems in the area. • 01-17-01 Page 21 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol: Alright, Mr. Schwartz, may I ask you a question? Jack Schwartz: Yes. Commissioner Bristol: You are the restaurant? Jack Schwartz: I am in the car wash. Commissioner Bristol: The last time you were here I remember that you had some very poor things to say about this property. You seem to have softened a little bit or you seem to think that may be things are better. Are they? Jack Schwartz: I don't know if they're better, tell you the truth. I don't lived in the area, I'm there everyday, but I'm not there in the nighttime. Business next to me, I know that he sees more problems. He was going to come today but he couldn't get away. I know that if he leaves the car out overnight, if he has to, out of the shop there, they've been vandalized, things have been stolen off of him. I get a lot of vandalism at night, trying to break into the vacuums and my vending machines and stuff like that...That hasn't changed, and 1 still get a lot of people come in through, bothering some of my customers but, I can't say that I spent that much time that I can really tell a big difference, honestly. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Tracy Thomas. Tracy Thomas: Hi, I am Tracy Thomas. I am a tenant at Lincoln Inn for the last 5 months in room 308. I've been there for about last 5 months. I don't know Ben very well. I talked to him a few times but when we had a problem arise, he had been very supportive. My husband and 1, not going into why we here because I am sure you are tired of hearing the same stories, we all have our problems. My husband is in reserves and it's funny, because everybody kept saying we need the City's help which is true But you • know what, my husband is in the reserves, we don't' have the same benefits as an active Military because we're part time. I'm comparing us this, because you know what, yeah, iYs our fault we're in our predicaments. You can be sitting up there, thinking, well jeez, iYs your fault... you're in this situation. It's true, but give us a chance. Please, Lincoln Inn is a transition place to help us get on our feet! Not all of us are drug addicts. I have a wonderful husband. I have 3 wonderful girls, 7, 9 and a 3 year old. I am housewife, yes, I can be working, and I am trying to find a part time job. Please don't punish us by closing down what is our home. Thank you. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Mr. Karmelich, would you like to make some closing statements sir? Ben Karmelich: Just regarding to your comment, I don't think I've ever thumb my nose at the City. I just been adamantly opposed the 30-day restriction. IYs a terrible thing to do to the families. Chairperson Koos: I close the public hearing. We are going to take a 10-minute break. The staff needs to take care of some issues so we'll be back in, I guess 3:25. Thank you very much. Following the break: Chairperson Koos: Everyone, please come into the Council Chambers if you want to participate. We now going to go to a staff report from our Code Enforcement, Manager John Poole. John Poole: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I wanted to give some background on how we got to where we are today and why this matters before the Planning Commission. As Commission might recall, we have been dealing with several problem motels in the City for years, and the Lincoln Inn, is the only one of a 146 motels that we have in the city. About a year ago, City staff identified over 20 problematic motels and from those we got compliance down to 6 and currently there are only 5 motels in the City that have the time restriction imposed on the length of time that tenants can stay. u 01-17-01 Page 22 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ And the reason that those conditions were imposed because there were on going Code Enforcement problems, on going police problems, and conditions of the original approval were not being met. The City doesn't have an issue with the tenants, at the Lincoln Inn. They are very nice people. We met a number of them over the time that we've been working there, they are hard working. But the City does have an issue with Mr. Karmelich, in the issue we have is that, his property was approved to be operated as a motel. In the testimony today you've heard, indicates that iYs being operated as a apartment house. In this issue before you is, is he abiding by the conditions of approval? That the Planning Commission has imposed upon him? We will give testimony that he has not. Is he having an inordinate amount of code violations and police activity and we will have the Code Enforcement officers and the police Lieutenant testify concerning that. We have had ongoing problems at this property for years. Mr. Karmelich's attorney said " Why haven't we done something before?" Well, we have. The Commission imposed the conditions that he hasn't met at the previous hearing. We prosecuted Mr. Karmelich in criminal court. He's on probation for that. The owner before Mr. Karmelich, we prosecuted and then Mr. Karmelich took the property, so it's not like nothing has been done. There has a lot been done. He hasn't met the conditions. You hear a lot of talk about the 30-day rule and I explain why that came about. Things like, daily maid service that a normal motel/hotel would have, he hasn't done that. He hasn't hardwired the smoke detectors, there are a lot of things out there that he could have done. The real reason that we are here today, is because he hasn't complied with the condition of approval and there enormous amount of code violations and police activity. I'll turn it over to Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Don Yourstone to talk about the inspections and the code violations and I'll ask Lieutenant Switzer to brief you on the police activity and we'll be willing to answer any questions that you might have. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer. On May 22"d, 2000, the Planning Commission reinstated and approved COP 1043 to the Lincoln Inn, Mr. Karmelich to operate as a motel or hotel. Since that action, by the Planning Commission, Code Enforcement has conducted a monthly inspection • of the Lincoln Inn, located at 2748 W. Lincoln Avenue. As the result of these inspections, I have observed numerous substandard housing such as, deteriorated walls, ceilings, mostly in the bathroo also there were inoperable smoke detectors. There were appliances used for heating and cooking, preparing food in the rooms. The room has not received daily maid service. Since, I have been conducting these inspections, some of the violations have been corrected on the interior of the rooms The quality of the repairs were a band-aid effect and I discussed this with Mr. Karmelich on numerou occasions at the completion of my inspections. On January 2, 2001, I conducted an on-site inspection of the entire property and determined that the following conditions of approval of resolution PS 2000-58 have not been complied with: • That appliances for the heating and preparation of food shall not be permitting in guestrooms. • Smoke alarm shall be hardwired rather than battery operated in the guestrooms. • Every occupied guestroom shall be provided daily maid service. m, s • This property and these buildings and accessories structures shall be maintained and compliance with the statutes Ordinance Law and Regulations of the State of California as adopted by the City of Anaheim including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electrical Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code. Permanently, thereafter, in compliance with such Statutes, Ordinance, Laws or Regulations. • The on-site landscaping needs to be refurbished. In the back section, far South side of the property, the dirt area has been dug up and hasn't been leveled out and they planted grass seed. • The guestrooms shall not be rented, let or occupied by individuals for more than 30 days within the 90 ~ days period. Excluding one manager's unit. Subject to the following: 01-17-01 Page 23 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1. Existing guests who have occupied a unit, on the premises, for a continuous period over 30 days and are occupants on May 22, 2000 shall be permitted to remain on the premises until and including January 15, 2001. 2. The owner shall provide the Code Enforcement Manager with a list certified under Penalty of Perjury of all existing guests who satisfied of subparagraph A above. The following vacancy of any unit by a qualified long-term guest, any occupant of said unit shall be for a period of not more than 30 days within a 90 days period. 3. The owner shall notify guests, of the occupancy limitation set forth herein within 30 days of the day of this resolution. It was observed during the inspections that the rooms have not been clean on a daily basis as the carpeting and flooring were dirty, trashcans were full, and there was a misty odor in many of the rooms. Appliances such as heating and preparation of food were observed in the rooms. Smoke alarms were not hardwired in the rooms as required by the CUP And there were areas of landscaping throughout the complex that needed refurbishing. Though in this inspections, I observed 314 Code Violations which included substandard housing, plumbing, a hazardous plumbing, deteriorated walls and flooring, broken window glass and cockroaches, trash, graffiti, dry rot fascia boards on the exterior of the building, holes in the exterior walls of the building. Mr. Karmelich told me that he would not comply with the long term occupancy because he feels that his motel serves as an apartment complex until his tenants are able to move out. He further stated that he had no intention of complying with this long-term condition. { would like to introduce Lieutenant Switzer from the Police Department to give a report. • Lieutenant Switzer: Good afternoon. Lieutenant Switzer of Anaheim PD. Last July the City went into the The other ones that I compared it against with the Anaheim Hills Best Western at 5710 East La Palma, the Red Roof Inn at 1251 North Harbor, The Ramada Inn at 800 S. Beach, the Comfort Park Suites at 2141 South Harbor, Anaheim Stadium Travelodge at 1700 East Katella, and the La Palma Inn Motel at 2691 West La Palma. In 1998, the total, I won't call them calls for service because these will also include what we call pro-active activity by the police. In another words, when the police officer sees something suspicious, they're inclined to go ahead investigate that on their own without actually receiving a call from to go to that location. So for 1998, the total number of police incidents at the Lincoln Inn were 711 and in all fairness that did include 269 pro-active incidents by the police. So another words, they initiated 269 of those incidents themselves. For that same period of time, 1998, Anaheim Hills Best Western had 20 calls for service and 2 of those incidents were pro-active or self initiated by officers. The Red Roof Inn had 61 for 1998 with 1 incident of pro-active activity. The Ramada Inn had 33 incidents, 7 of those self initiated by police officers. Comfort Park Suites had 29 incidents, 6 of those were self initiated. Anaheim Stadium Travelodge for'98 has 10 incidents, 2 of those were self initiated. La Palma Inn Motel had 44 incidents and 3 of those were self initiated. District Policing. Since that time, I assumed responsibility for the West District of Anaheim. I guess because the Lincoln Inn is in my district that's why I was asked to be here to represent some statistical information, that was compiled regarding the Lincoln Inn and comparing calls for Police service to varies Southern motels about the City. So what I did was, I got stats here, 1 am going back from '98, '99, and for 2000. I'd like to read off some numbers here to give you comparison how the Lincoln Inn stacks up against other motels. In 1999, the Lincoln Inn had 665 calls and again in all fairness 267 of those were pro-active of self- initiated. That still leaves us over 400 incidents for calls for service. For that same period of time, 1999, Anaheim Hills Best Western had 19 calls with 4 of those being self initiated, Red Roof Inn had 99 with 8 being self initiated, Ramada Inn had 24, 10 being self initiated, Comfort Park Suites, 23 and it was no self u 01-17-01 Page 24 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • initiated incidents that year there, Anaheim Stadium Travelodge had 12 incidents, 4 of those being pro- active or self initiated, and La Palma Inn Motel had 26 incidents, 5 being self initiated. Then we came up to the year 2000 and what I did was 1 ran the stats for the Lincoln through the date, it would be January 1St through November 16th and for the other 6 motels, I only got the statistic for the first half of the year, January 1 S~ through June 30th. For that period January 1 St through November 16th for the Lincoln Inn, there were 168 calls and 45 of those were self-initiated. Now for the first half of the year 2000 for the other 6 motels: Anaheim Hills Best Western had 14 with no self initiated calls, Red Rood Inn had 46, 3 of those being self initiated, Ramada Inn had 21, 4 being self initiated, Comfort Park Suites had 27, 1 being self initiated, Anaheim Stadium Travelodge had 8, 2 of those being self initiated, and the La Palma Inn Motel had 10 with 1 being self initiated. I don't know how fair it is to really project statistics. Worst case scenario the Red Roof Inn, first 6 months of the year 2000 had 46 calls. If we double that we still only have 92, and if you look at the Lincoln Inn just up through the middle of November had 168 calls. So thaYs pretty much where we were then. What I also did was I compared totaf number of police related incidents for the year 2000 up through November 16th for the Lincoln Inn, the Covered Wagon and the Rainbow Inn. The Rainbow Inn is at 831 South Beach. The Covered Wagon is 823 South Beach. Comparing those 3 motels the Rainbow Inn had 141 incidents, Covered Wagon had 142, and the Lincoln Inn had 175 for the same period of time. Chairperson Koos: This is not a public hearing...Officer Switzer the applicant earlier characterized Officer Medina's previous statement as just ingenuous regarding the level of Police involvement at the property. Could you discuss how often the police is currently involved in the patrolling the site? And verses may be what they were doing a year ago, a year and a half ago? Lieutenant Switzer: I think Officer Morgan John is more probably more qualified to do that. He's been in the community policing a longer period of time, I took over in July. He was there prior to that during the • time that Officer Medina was at the Lincoln Inn. Officer Morgan John: I am Officer Morgan John. I've been with the Community Policing Team of the Anaheim Police Department for approximately a year and a half now. At first I was assigned there with Officer Medina as well as Officer Fife and we were assigned the Lincoln Inn full time. So 3 Officers dedicated to nothing but this property. Mr. Karmelich likes to make light of what we were doing that we were just there 15 minutes a day. Nothing can be farther than the truth. It was not only 3 Officers, but we involved other details within the department. If there was a gang problem, the gang details became involved. If there `s a narcotic problem, our street narcotic unit became involved. You have number of Officers, the resources that were involved with this motel at the height of our involvement with it, you can't calculated. He also stated that the crime nearly disappeared and that it's gone now. The crime did decrease at our height of presence there. I think that's natural, when you have that many cops around then using that much pro-active, behavior crime is going to go down. This was in the area of approximately from the end of'99 in the beginning of 2000. About March, April of 2000, we pulled out of the Lincoln Inn. We no long made it a target area. Myself, Officer Medina, and Officer Fife went to different areas and started to work in different areas and what we did was put the Lincoln Inn on what we called "Maintenance" in the hopes that it would not got back to what it has. It has not gone back to what it was at its height of activity but it has gone back to once again, a crime concerns for the Police Department. They said that it's impossible for 14 calls for service to be happening per month, that is the stats that we have. Unfortunately, they do not have the ability or the where with all to know with what was going on at that premises all the time. There can be crimes that occurred on that property that are not reported where the police are not called out to the property. Cars broken into and the person goes down to the Police Department to file that report. Once again thaYs a problem on that property but their security officer and the manager don't see it. • 01-17-01 Page 25 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • To better do a comparison, sometimes iYs difficult to compare the Lincoln Inn to say a hotel that in Anaheim Hills. Sometimes people will say that's apples and oranges. Well I did a comparison on the statistic for the EI Dorado Inn, which is not far from it, it's approximately the same occupancy. The statistics I have are 235 rooms at the EI Dorado and I have a 117 rooms approximately at the Lincoln Inn. I then broke that down even further as calls for service per room so iYs completely non-bias. The amount of calls per service per room in the year 2000, the EI Dorado had .99 approximately a call per service per room. As where the Lincoln lnn near{y had 1%2 ca11s per service per room. I just like to end by saying that the consensus among Community Policing Team, Patrol Officers, and the people that are out on the property is that it's still needs attention, still needs more attention than other motels in the West End area. Chairperson Koos: Thank you Officer. Mr. Poole, would you like to close? Mr. Poole: I just like to close by saying that staff and city government believes that affordable housing should be safe, clean and livable in certain conditions and that property, certainly aren't safe, clean and livable. In staff is recommending denial of the reinstatement of this Conditional Used Permit based on the testimony provided today by staff and also the information that we provided to the Planning Commission in the report, you have before you. And thaYs all I have, unless you have some questions. Chairperson Koos: In an effort to allow the applicant opportunity to comment what has been presented by staff, I am going to reopen the public hearing for the applicant and his council. So, would you like to.. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman I did want to mention a few things. I believe that Mr. Weiser may have been discussing an earlier draft of the City's TOT Ordinance. The ordinance was amended last year and you can obtain a copy of the amendments from the City Clerk.. I have a copy that I pulled from our computer system, but it's not an official copy that I'll be happy to provide for you. What sort of alerted me to that was the mentioned to of the term "Dwelling" which has been removed from the most recent draft. So, I do have a copy of that available for you. There were a number of other things that were sort of quasi-legal • type things that were mentioned that 1 would like to address prior to your rebuttal period. The first is, I think that some of that was discussed and possibly more appropriate for Mr. McCafferty to be discussing with regard to the Housing Element in the fact that the City does have a Housing Element that is in compliance with State Law and has been complying on the revisions to the Housing Element, which I believe have recently been submitted. There was a comment made about a zoning ordinance with disparate pair impact on low-impact people is void. There is no zoning ordinance that is applicable in this instant. There isn't a limitation on the length of occupancy that's generally applicable to hotels and motels. I have participated in the task force that has been looking at some of these issues and unlike some of the other jurisdictions in Orange County and other places that have actually made illegal in the entire city for people to be in a hotel or a motel for an extended period of time, Anaheim has attempted to address the issues of problem motels on a case by case basis. There are, I believe, about 146 hotels and motels located throughout the City. There were several years back, I believe 21 motels, were addressed as having some police and code enforcement issues. The police and Code Enforcement Department worked with those motels and obtained voluntary compliance in all but 6 and it was those 6 motels that were called up for review of the Conditional Used Permits to determine if modification of the conditions of approva! wou{d be appropriate based on a case by case basis on the particular record at each of these motels, based upon the types of Code Enforcement violations, based upon the type of criminal violations, of for example: The security guard condition being imposed where there was a high incident of crime at the particular motel. But every effort was made to have conditions that actually had an nexus to the types of impacts that were being identified. The were issues that were identified by Code Enforcement with regard to a number of the hotels where, because of cooking that was taking place and because storing of belongings that the smoke detectors were being disconnected creating what was perceived to be a very hazardous situation particularly in a location that had a number of children. So, there were conditions including the condition that the extended stay was seen as related to declining maintenance of the hatels and motefs. And because the • extended maintenance doesn't give the opportunity that the typical transient occupancy would give of 01-17-01 Page 26 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • having a period of time where a room is vacant, where there is maintenance that takes piace on a particular location and also the continuous maintenance puts a far greater wear and tear on rooms that were intended for a transient occupancy. There has been no direction to our office to prepare any sort of ordinance, unlike some other jurisdictions, that would actually limit occupancy at all motels. This is strictly been done on a case by case basis to address issues. With regard to ordinances that we have been directed to prepare, we have been directed to prepare an ordinance for conversion of motels to senior or long term occupancy and that is something that our office is involved in with the focus being on providing livable units that are suitable for long term occupancy. Again, particularly in a situation where you have families, where you have a safe environment and where the issues of long term occupancy are addressed. Where certain number of compromises are made but minimum livability standards are still being observed. I believe there was a discussion of Goat Hill Tavern case which I don't believe is applicable under these circumstances and I would request that Mr. Weiser take a look at some of the recitals on the resolution that possibly the most recent resolution with regard from the City Council with regard to this motel that has a history of the property and what has happened and it may, think, throw some light on some of the distinguishing characteristics between the vested rights situation in Goat Hill and the situation that we have here. And I believe that's all that I did get on the record. Chairperson Koos: Thank you. Mr. Weiser? Mr. Weiser: Thank you. I just want to raise for the record, a procedure due process objection, there a case Merlaine vs. Central Hanover Bank in 1950 U. S. Supreme Court Case that says, that everybody knows, even laymen, that you have a notice and opportunity to be heard under the due process clause, but Merlaine delineates that , that means other things too. It means getting the report, the staff report in time, getting all the evidence that the City is going to be using in building its case to deny the application • or deny the extension, so he has a meaningful opportunity to respond. What the Officers and the Code Enforcement Officers have said here is brought in new evidence... First of all the staff report apparently did not come to Mr. Karmelich until two days ago, last week. Chairperson Koos: We didn't get it either until... Mr. Weiser: I understand that but I mean...but that ...he's the one who's got the property interest at stake. Chairperson Koos: He's no different than any other applicants we have. Mr. Weiser: But the evidence that is being put into the record now is additional evidence that certainly he hasn't had a adequate opportunity to verify, dispute, check out, and find some independent witnesses and so forth...l just wanted to put it on the record... Chairperson Koos: Alright. Mr. Weiser: ThaYs No. 1. No. 2: I find it interesting that the evidence itself I'm going to raise a hearsay and not an irrelevance objection. First of all as far as the police report, '98 and '99, I think, are irrelevant. What we're talking about here is a 1-year CUP, the extension of that 1-year CUP. Even if we were looking at '98, '99, we have the police telling us that there is a significant drop in the calls that have been made from the Lincoln Inn. We heard about, if I'm not mistaken, in year 2000...No. 1: The comparison in the year 2000 is not fair. You're talking about calls for the Lincoln up to November 16th and only calls for the other places up to June. The Red Roof Inn, if I'm not mistaken, that was the one that we said if you double it, it would be something like 92? But the Lincoln Inn which has what 168 or 165, that was still a significant amount that was proactive. So I think, we're talking about a very limited of time. I think even the police admit there's been a reduction in the calls. We don't know what the calls are. We don't know • where the callers are coming, we don't know what the final results of those calls are. We have no way of 01-17-01 Page 27 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • verifying those calls. I know the City of L.A. has a policy. Chief Parks has put in a policy that when it comes to nuisance activity at apartment units or motels, he would not allowed police to testify unless they have personal knowledge, can verify with direct evidence, that they were the ones taking the ca11s and what were the results are. And I know that is an internal policy for LAPD and I think that is a wise one. Chairperson Koos: You in the charter of City of Anaheim. Mr. Weiser: I understand that, but I am just raising that as a well. Same thing goes with Code Enforcement..... Commissioner Arnold: Are you're trying to help illuminate the evidence itself or are you trying to suggest that the rules of evidence as formally applicable in courtrooms apply in quasi-judicial decisions that are made by Planning Commission? I think you can clearly find plenty of legal precedence to suggest that's not the case, that whatever procedural due process rights you have, it does not extend to the formal application of the rules of evidence. Mr. Weiser: I would tend to disagree, I know the cases that you're talking about. They talked about that the strict rule courtroom rules of evidence don't applied that doesn't applied in all situations, it doesn't apply across the board on al{ kinds rules. Hearsay evidence can still be in, there can still be a general foundational objection if there's no supporting non-hearsay evidence to support the hearsay evidence. ThaYs one rule under the California Constitution, the cases say. No. 2: The US Supreme has set a case Elliott vs. the University of Tennessee that if you do not appeal for administrative collateral Purposes. If you do not appeal for administrative collateral estoppel purposes, if you not appeal an administrative ruling, you loose. You'll lose in State Court, you'll lose in Federal Court as long as the State gives it res judicata collateral estoppel effect. The State of California has applied the Elliott in whaYs called the Utah Construction Test to say that • requires the administrative of body to have been acting in quasi-judicial or judicial capacity. There are cases that say that means you have a right to cross-examination, hearsay evidence rules do applied. So I would think that if iYs just an application for a CUP might be one thing, where you have a fundamental property interest and that's being extinguished and that's potentially protected under the due process clause and you are acting in the quasi-judicial capacity, I think these rules do applied. So I am still going to raise it for the record. As far as City Attorney's argument about San Bernardino case, I assume that was amended in light of the San Bernardino case that I litigated. However, there was a recent follow up to that case in June of this year in an unpublished decision though, where the San Bernardino ordinance was once again found to be potentially unconstitutional. 1 don't know how they amended the definitional section. I'm going to assume for the record, they took out the word "Dwelling", if the word dwelling is in there, iYs clearly patently violative of San Bernardino. If the word "Lodging" remained but "Dwelling" was taken out, I think by experience I can tell you the 4th District has still found that to be potential void for vagueness. So I'm not sure, I think there are some potential problems still with your ordinance and that's being litigated by the way in a separated case. Finally as far as the Goat Hill Tavern case, I didn't hear anything what distinguishes, what's the resolution, how's it distinguishes Goat Hill Tavern. Clearly Goat Hill Tavern was a case was a public nuisance allegation. It was an extension of an existing CUP. There was same genera4ize allegations of crime in the area, crime around the bar. But property owner's interest has to be taken into effect. Here, you do have evidence of a lowering crime rate. We don't even know that this is all attributable to this property, but even under the Police DepartmenYs assumptions, it's lowered and it's gone down. lt seems to be signifiicant even if you do take '98, '99 into consideration. So I think you have to use that test, at least use the test in making your determination and balance these interests. And finally, once again, I don't hear anything that is a permanent public nuisance, an irremediable public nuisance. If it is, then, that might be different. But this is something can be fixed, even under the assumption that you're going ~ 01-17-01 Page 28 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • to take I assume that, there're these problems at the property. If they are irremediable, I think, you have to find a way to balance the public and private interests. Commissioner Bristol: We've asked your client to fix it before and he didn't, we may be able to talk about that in the minute. Mr. Weiser: The problem that I have is that I don't have anything in front of ine that tells me what he was told to fix, when he was told fix. Where is the evidence on that? Commissioner Bristol: Did you go back to May of 2000? When the Conditional Used Permit that was extended for 6 months on the hot wiring? Mr. Weiser: But we're talking now about the extension of the CUP. We're talking about the time period in which you gave him the extension. Commissioner Bristol: Did you read the extension CUP in May of 2000? Did it have compliance issues such as hard wiring like Code just mentioned? Did he comply. Yes or No? Mr. Weiser: I have not heard any specific evidence of where the hard wiring was not ~xed. What units it was not fixed in, when he was giving notices. There's nothing here in the record to that effect. Chairperson Koos: Would you deny that he's not complying with the 30 out of 90? Would you deny that there's no food being prepared in the rooms? These are clear, there's no mistakes about these things. Mr. Weiser: I think the issue is that you are acting in a quasi Judicial capacity. This man has a due process interest protected under the United States in California Constitution. It's the burden on the City if it's going to extinguish somebody's property interest. The Republicans all talk about property interest ~ being sacrosanct under the Constitution. Chairperson Koos: WhaYs this got to do with the Republican. Mr. Weiser: Why is that not now placed the burden on you to give specific evidence of where in fact these violations exist, where are they existed, what units, when he was given notices? Chairperson Koos: The staffjust gave evidence. Do you want to make a final comment Mr. Karmelich? Mr. Weiser: That's how the Court of Law would look at it. Mr. Karmelich wants to respond to the police. Chairperson Koos: Respond to the police and I'll close the Public Hearing. Mr. Karmelich: Ok, first of all, the Police, they gave three comparisons. The first one was with a bunch of motels. Chairperson Koos: A bunch of motels?... Mr. Karmelich: Well, first comparison was in my motel, the Red Roof Inn, Anaheim Hills... Chairperson Koos: Right. Mr. Karmelich: Ok, the call for service in '99, I took over the property in the middle of '99 and it only took me 3 months to evict the troublemakers. The calls in '99 was approximate 700... • 01-17-01 Page 29 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos: Your Council just stated that he feit that iYs irrelevant to bring up 1999. Are you going to say the same thing? Mr. Karmelich: No, I'm going to bring for comparison, '99 to 2000 to now. Right now, our own phone system keeps track of how many 911 calls I made, our security keeps track how often the police are here. By our own records, the police were at the property no more than 4 or 5 times a month. According to their records that 17 times a month is an average. But from the difference, by your own records, from 1999 to 2000, whaYs the difference? Officer Switzer: From 1999, we show a total of 665 police related incidents at the Lincoln Inn. Mr. Karmelich: Right, for 2000? Officer Switzer: For 2000 and up through, what did they say, November of 16th I believe it was. It was 168. Mr. Karmelich: So, you call that a substantial improvement? Chairperson Koos: Please address me if you can. Mr. Karmelich: I call that iYs a substantial improvement. Commissioner Bostwick: Mr. Karmelich, you owned the property before? Mr. Karmelich: I owned the property, December 1994, I sold it to July 1996. It went to two owners and I was guaranteeing a 2"d Trust Deed Loan. I was foreclosing on the property and I got a Deed in lieu of foreclosure in July or August 1999. • Commissioner Bostwick: In 1996 there were 168 calls when you owned the motel, and then they went up preceedingly higher... Mr. Karmelich: Yes, it went through some bad owners. Commissioner Bostwick: Worse in '98 and then '99... Mr. Karmelich: It was in bad shaped when 1 got it back. Commissioner Bostwick: And at the same time, in that time frame, the police put in a special operation in your motel with officers there on a daily basis. Mr. Karmelich: They were not at the property on the daily basis. They're at my property once a week for 15 minutes running license numbers. There were never an officer stationed at my property, ever. Commissioner Boydstun: We heard testimony on our first hearing that they were there all the time and at that time you agreed with it. Commissioner Bristol: And you were very happy because they brought down the crime rate. Mr. Karmelich: They did a raid on a property a month after 1 got it. But since then, their time on the property was never hanging out on the property. They came by, I mean, I sure I was happy for the help. They help us get rid of some troublemakers, 1'm not objecting to the help. I'm objecting to the fact that because the police helped me I should be punished for it. Chairperson Koos: Your not being punished. • 01-17-01 Page 30 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Karmelich: No you're saying because of the police help, does that mean I'm in trouble? Chairperson Koos: You're in trouble because of the code violations. Mr. Karmelich: We were talking police right now. Chairperson Koos: Do you want to continue rebutting what the staff said? Mr. Karmelich: Ok, I'll move on to code violations now. Commissioner Boydstun: Can I ask one question? What is your rent schedule on these units? Mr. Karmelich: Right now the rent is $161 per week. It's $140 rent, $21 transient tax. They pay $161 per week, everyone pays weekly. There's very few monthly, mostly the senior citizens, they each get one social security check but everybody else pays daily or weekly. Commissioner Bostwick: You're charging them tax after the first 30 days? Mr. Karmefich: No, after 28-days they checked out for 1 day they checked back in. So everybody's a guest, nobody is a resident, everybody pays tax, with the exception of the few seniors. Commissioner Bostwick: What p~ovision do you have for heating and cooling these units? Mr. Karmelich: There are air conditioner and a heater in every room. Commissioner Bostwick: Can I ask why that in all the pictures that we receive from staff inside the units that there are many fans? • Mr. Karmelich: There was one room, one guy has four fans and I am not sure why he does that. I think there was a picture of one room but as far as regular fans/cooling fans. Commissioner Bostwick: Is there any provision for ventilation for the cooking facilities? Mr. Karmelich: Yes, well there's a fan in the bathroom, there's window...l don't recall any room with a blowing fan in there? Commissioner Bostwick: There's no kitchen vents? Mr. Karmelich: Yes there is, I'm sorry there is kitchen vents. Commissioner Bostwick: Do they work? Mr. Karmelich: Yes. They all have kitchenettes. And you know, one of the first items on there is that most of the code violations I get are for people having microwaves, cooking appliances in their own kitchenettes. WhaYs a point of the kitchenette if they can't cook in there? If people are living, trying to survive week to week, being able to cook a meal, would saved them quite a bit. Chairperson Koos: Sir, please continue with the code enforcement issues. Mr. Karmelich: Smoke alarms. How many smoke alarms were not working last time you were there at the property? Do you recall any? Don Yourstone: No, there were several that fell off the wal1, as we were tested them ~ 01-17-01 Page 31 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Karmelich: As we tested them, they fell off, but they were all working. All of the smoke alarms are • working. Last three times you were at the property was every smoke alarm you recall working? Commissioner Boydstun: Wasn't it required the last time around that they hot wired in or wired in? Don Yourstone: There is a condition the current CUP that requires that all smoke detectors be hard wired. Commissioner Boydstun: ThaYs what I remember. Selma Mann: Comments should be directed to the Commission and it's up to the Commission to be asking staff questions if they feel that that is appropriate. Mr. Karmelich: Well, we go through the code list, the requirements they want me to do, especially the exterior stuff. the parking lot, painfsng, patching, resurfacing the balcony, totaf cost of everything is about $200,000 of the remaining. Right now I don't have that kind of money. I put everything I can into this property. We financed my own house, we financed my father's house. We put our own line of credits, every dollar into this property. It's not paying for itself. I took property full of high interest that hopefully and can get an SBA loan when iYs running better and work it out. Right now, because of the 30-day restriction though, if I am kicking out all of my business, you can borrow...l won't have any business on a 30-day restriction. The demand for temporary housing is outrageously overwhelming. I'm turning away 20 to 30 families each month. Commissioner Vanderbilt: I don't understand, you're saying if you're kicking everybody out, you won't have any business, but yet you have a waiting list. Mr. Karmelich: Well the waiting list is for people needing a place to live. If they only could stay here for 30 days they can go down to motel where they can stay longer. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt: You're saying that demand is only for long term housing? Mr. Karmelich: Yes, there are fifteen hundred people living in motels in West Anaheim alone. The number is growing and I'm turning away families every month. There is a need for it, you should be thankful that motels are here. These people have a home, have a roof over their head if it wasn't for these motels. Chairperson Koos: Do you have any more issues with the code or staff report? Mr. Karmelich: I can go through this whole list. Landscaping on the property. There is no place for the grass not growing on the property. The 30-day restriction, I opposed my objection to. Cockroaches, I went to 3 different companies that guaranty the work before the roach problem was finally gone. I think the last time, there were only 2 rooms they found any roaches in and that was probably more do to how the tenant lived than it was to the shape of the motel as a whole. The violation, to the most part, are very minor wear and tear stuff. The rooms are all nice, clean rooms. My heart and soul are in this property. And the people here, if you listen to how, what they have to say, they're happy of where they're living, they're happy with the environment. Let the testimony of the people stand. Chairperson Koos: Thank you, sir. I close the Public Hearing. Commission can address staff or the applicant. Commissioner Arnold: I just want to make a suggestion about how we proceed. I think, clearly there are some underlying concerns that the Commission has regarding code violations, regarding the safety of the property, in particularly, safety to the residents and the children that are there, obviously, the crime and so forth. And there has been a variety of things raised by the staff and by Mr. Karmelich and his counsel. I • would like to propose that before we go further, especially since Mr. Karmelich's counsef suggested that 01-17-01 Page 32 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • he might like some additional time to take into the account the whole staff report and being able to response to that. And given the fact that there was a suggestion that may be Mr. Karmelich would rather that the City pursue some sort of formal nuisance action against him. It becomes what necessary to make this place safe. ThaYs the first step, the first concern of the City that it might be beneficial for us to continue this and have City Staff look into options at the same give Mr. Karmelich an opportunity to have full rebuttal, full response whatever he wants to share. I think that some of the legal arguments represented today were faulty. But nonetheless, I think that if what we have here is a situation in which our primary goal is making sure that it gets up to code and so forth. Let's see what we have...what City staff can do in terms of pursuing that option. Commissioner Bostwick: I think in either case, they have a right of appeal to the City Council and I am sure that iYs going to be the option they're going to exercise. This isn't a problem that we're about families or children or the aged or race or ethnicity. IYs really about a problem about how the building being used, and I think that this is a project that's being used as an apartment building and not a motel, and so it needed to be brought in as an apartment. Mr. Karmelich needs to make it fit into the code as an apartment building rather than as a motel. As far as t am concern, I'm truly concerned with what we do here, because I don't want to see anybody die in one of these apartments because of cooking or overcrowding, smoke alarms that aren'Y working. To make the finding in our findings that this property is one that which is used under its proper Conditional Used Permit, I can't find. I also can't find that if the granting of the Conditional Used Permit under the conditions imposed if any, would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. So, I think we ought to act on this today. Commissioner Bristol: As I watch the audiences here and I see the tenants reacting to certain things or tenants...l even said tenants, and the word should be "guests" because it suppose to be a motef. The two comments that were recently made by the Commissioner absolutely correct. This is not being run as a motel, it is an apartment. I've heard comments from people that I know, that have read about this in the • paper and things like that, that we're some kind of inhuman, Board or the Council is because we're going to throw people out. You're all totally wrong about that. I keep hearing passion here, I keep hearing Mr. Karmelich is done a good job and helped and I have suspected that he might done just that. You could see the sincerity coming out of you. But as Commissioner Bostwick just said, we look at land use. IYs our job to look at land use, it's not our job to be Council and to direct policy. Therefore, Commissioner Bostwick pointed out and Commissioner Arnold, we have to look at specific things and one of the primary issues of this is, safety. We just heard that the owner of this building has owned this building or had an interest in this building for several years. Meaning, that when the crime rate and activity reporting is up he had some interests in this property. Now that he's active in it, the crime rate for other reasons, may be because he's paying attention, the fact that the police had to go in there and practically make a full time job of it, the fact is, crime is down anyway across the City, and the fact is, whatever we issue, whatever we do on this property, is going to stay on that property. Whether he's here or whether he's gone. 7hat concerns me, because in his letter that he wrote to us, it indicated that he would like to get "my long term plan is to can't continue to run this property as a motel and eventually get new financing that would make this property pay for itself again and become marketable again." Which tells me, if it's marketable, it may be sold again or tried or attempted to be sold. If that the case, this man who has done a good job may not be here to help. Whatever decision we make, stays with this property. I'm in the agreement with Commissioner Sostwick, until the safety issues are addressed, until 1'm convinced, myself, that no one will die because of the action here or lack of action on the wiring and things that we've gone over so many times. I don't know how we can approve this or let it continue. We have got to do something to address it. Mr. Karmelich (Away from the microphone.) • 01-17-01 Page 33 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty: If this does go to Council, there are few conditions that we would like to modify and read into the record. Action: Commissioner Bostwick: I'll offer a motion to approve this CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 1, Section 15301. Chairperson Koos: Motion made by Commissioner Bostwick, second by Commissioner Bristol, all of those in favor? Chairperson Koos: Motion carried. Would you like to have clarification now? Selma Mann Yes, excuse me. I interrupted prematurely. When the Chairman was first discussing the letters that have been received, I believe you had said, there were 2 letters and I see that there are 3 from one dated 1/16/2001 from G. I'm not terribly clear, it was hand printed...G. Lavasor? There's one from 711 Park Mote{, James Pauldy that was faxed January 17, 2001, there is one from John and Candice Schwartz, dated January 16. In addition, there's another package that was received that separate from the staff report that was received by the Zoning Division, January 16 to the Planning Commission from the residents of Lincofn Inn and it has attached a list of signatures of Lincoln Inn residents. There a separate letter dated May 12, 2000 that apparently was resubmitted, January 16, 2001 from the Anaheim Collaboration that was attached to that letter from the residents. And finally, there was also attached a document that entitled, "Lincoln Inn Monthly Profit Loss" and that stamped received January 16, 2001 by the Zoning Division and iYs not clear on what the source of that particular document is. Mr. Karmelich is raising his hand in indicating that it is his document, "the Average Monthly lncome". Commissioner Boydstun: Mr. Karmelich. I had a question on that statement. You have a 117 units? • Mr. Karmelich: Yes. Commissioner Boydstun: You gave us a figure that without the TOT, it's a$140 a week. You're showing your gross income is $60,000 and then on my calculator that figures out to $75,348. Mr. Karmelich: Well, but what you actually collect sometimes, some people behind...The average income has been about $60,000 a month. There's 100 rooms occupied, some 10 or 12 rooms are down right now, 3 rooms are staying down because we're reglazing the bathtub and people are moving around to different rooms. But my average income has been $60.000 a month. So, some people are paying less rent, some of the senior citizens I never raised the rents on. They're paying monthly. Commissioner Boydstun: So how is their rent? Mr. Karmelich: For example, Connie pays $500 a month. Some are paying a little more than that. And the question I had before is that if the code violation were gone is that mean that the 30-day restriction would be gone? Chairperson Koos: Sir, we closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Vanderbilt: I'd like to ask the City Attorney in regards to the issue of due process and possibility that acting as quasi judicial group that we might be bypassing a due process step in term of acting today. Can you shed some light on those comments? Selma Mann: In view of some of the statements that were made with regard to when the staff report was received and the opportunity to response to some of the police comments and the Code Enforcement's • comments. There is an appeal process that is available from any decision of the Planning Commission 01-17-01 Page 34 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and upon appeal to the City Council, the Planning Commission's action is completely void. And there's Denovel Hearing. There's a brand new hearing in which the evidence is completely resubmitted to the City Council so that there would be a new opportunity to present all evidence and there is the opportunity in the interim period between the Planning Commission decision and the City Council Hearing, of course, to look over any evidence, any statistic that have been presented. Commissioner Arnold: I don't feel particularly strongly about the idea of a continuance. I think there is plenty of evidence in the record including the photographs, including the statements of the applicant himself; statements of Code Officers and so forth, there's plenty of evidence. I generally approach any decision that we have with the assumption that we give broad respect to property rights and to the productive use of property, but whenever there is the implication of the public health and safety, that's problematic. I just want to raise the point here. I'm trying to explain the approach Obviously, the residents at the Lincoln Inn are good people with important needs and very much care about the Lincoln Inn as a place to live, but I have represented in my career, a number of low income people, in some of the poorest census tracts in the U.S. and I have seen arguments that because we need to make housing affordable, iYs ok for people to live in housing that's not safe, thaYs not kept up to code, that's not standard housing. I am grateful that the courts have not agreed with that. The courts have viewed that property owners and that landlords and so forth have to bring housing up to a minimum standard of quality and that is where I am coming from on this. That our responsibility is to all those who lived in Anaheim, including those who live in the Lincoln Inn, to insure that there is no detriment to the public health and safety. For that very reason, I cannot support the CUP. It appeared to me that the applicant was interested in pursuing some other means for the City to force the conditions up to the appropriate level. It sounds like he's backing off from that to some degree. LeYs see where things go between here and the City Council. In my view, the key here, is to take these conditions that we see in these photographs and bring them up to a level at which there is not a risk. Whether it's perceived or not, by the residents, but what evidence shows is that there a real risk of danger to people. • Chairperson Koos: Before Commissioner Bostwick continues I'm going to say one thing about Anaheim. Anaheim, in this County and in the Region, is shouldering its,fair share of Regional low to moderate income housing, without a doubt. We have zoning densities allowed in our code higher than any other city. We have more rental housing than in any other city. So I take it personally when anybody says that Anaheim isn't doing enough. We are continuing looking at ways to provide more housing, we are not opposed to housing, we are not opposed to rental housing, we are not opposed to affordable housing. We have many programs and we are doing many things to accommodate this Regional problem. Hear it at all these motels meetings that we're kicking people on the streets when we are clearly doing a "Yohmen's" job on this. Commissioner Bosfinrick: Why don't you wait. My resolution obviously would be to deny the reinstatement of Conditional Used Permit 1043. Given the statements provided in the staff report, provided in the applicanYs letter refusing to do the conditions that have been submitted and also giving the testimony here today. Chairperson Koos: This is a resolution and a button vote to deny. Ossie Edmundson: Resolution for "DENIAL" pass with 7 yes votes. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission's action on this item will be considered final in 22 days. Unless, an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. The Planning Commission has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the Cafifornia Environmental Quality Act and it has denied reinstatement of Conditional Used Permit 1043 for the reason indicated by the Commission. 7~] A R~]h-I h[rl E•'~_!.'iU 14 h~l /_1 ti L~] ~ 1:1 ~ J A_1-1- I h[eiK~] 141 PII f.'f.'i C~7- I_~~i 1 N IN FAVOR: 24 people spoke in support and 1 letter was received in support. r 01-17-01 Page 35 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF APIAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition and 2 letters were received in opposition. ACTION: Approved CEQA Categorical Exemption, Ciass 1 Denied reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 (CUP Tracking No. 2001- 04310) to retain an existing 117-unit motel, based on the following: (i) That since initial revocation proceedings in 1999, and as evidenced by the memorandums submitted by the Code Enforcement Division and Anaheim Police Department, this motel continues to operate in violation of conditions of approval and in a manner detrimental to surrounding land uses. (ii) That this property has been a source of a disproportionately high number of calls for service by the Police Department, has been used for long-term occupancies and substandard apartments and have created unsafe and dangerous living conditions and caused overcrowded housing conditions, has had a negative impact on local public schools, and has been a threat to the public health and safety, and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. (iii) That this property has been operating in violation of the conditions of approval previousfy-approved by the City Council and Planning Commission at numerous public hearings held since November of 1999. VOTE: 7-0 • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours, 54 minutes (1:38-4:32, with a break taken from 3:10-3:27). ,~%~,~~~,~,~,~,~-~~,~,,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~~~-,~,~%~,~,~,~~~,m~,.~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~%~,~,~,~,~,~,~~.~,.~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~~ Item No. 14 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04309) was heard following Item 2. ,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,,~,~,~,~,~,~,,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,.~,~,~,~,,~,~,~,~,~~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,,~,~„~,.~,~~~~,~ • 01-17-01 Page 36 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04286 Granted, in part, for 1 year OWNER: Nader S. & Zahra M. Safaie, 13741 Clinton Street #46, (January 17, 2002) Garden Grove, CA 92843 Denying the request to serve beer and wine in LOCATION: 2235 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.18 acre the outdoor dining area. located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Kathryn Drive (Pizza Town). To permit on-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and outdoor seating in a sit-down restaurant in conjunction with an existing take-out restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of January 3, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-5 II SR7849VN.DOC • • Chairperson Koos stated for the record that this item was continued last meeting due to a tie vote. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated there is nothing else to add from the previous staff report. Chairperson Koos asked staff if there was any new evidence. Greg McCafferty stated there is additional information from the applicant, 166 letters of support from the surrounding residents. Chairperson Koos asked the City Attorney if the public hearing should be open, again. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated she wasn't present for the past meeting when the subject item was continued. Ordinarily, they deem the hearing be reopened if the hearing was continued. Commissioner Arnold stated for the record that he has read the staff report, the minutes of January 3, 2001, and the material presented to the Commission from the applicant. He explained that his vote today is important since there was a tie vote at the last meeting and asked if there is any additional input on the item. If so, please expedite the input as he needs to leave very shortly. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Nader Safaie, 2235 W. Lincoln Avenue, he stated he has a big overhead and has to compensate to keep going. If he pays $6,000 overhead from his pocket, he would be forced to close after 10 months. To be able to compete with other stores, he has to be able to have seats and give appropriate service to his customers that request beer and wine along with their piua. The people who signed the letters in support are immediate neighbors to the subject business. They support him because they know what was there before and what is currently existing. A closed business will not help reduce crime, but an open business with a good owner and good management will reduce crime. He requests the Commission to keep the business open. 01-17-01 Page 37 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold addressed to Sergeant West indicating that it seems to be the approach that wherever there is a census tract with over-concentration of crime and over-concentration of alcohol licenses that they are trying to prevent those types of uses because of the impacts they have on surrounding land uses, crime, and public safety. The Police DepartmenYs testimony is always very valuable to the Commission, but the problem with the subject request is the permit runs with the land and they' re approving the request as an appropriate land use regardless of who the applicant happens to be. Therefore, he asked Sgt. West if any part of their recommendation has to do with this particular operation, not who the owner is but how the alcohol is going to be served. What they are approving with the CUP, not the who but based on the type of activity on how they impact the surrounding properties and the general public safety. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Sergeant Randy West, Anaheim Police Department, he stated Commissioner Arnold is correct. It is a land issue, they have consistently stated when iYs over-concentrated and too many licenses that iYs a very important factor to be considered. Especially since 6 months down the road, you may not know who the owner of the property is going to be. He explained that after talking with the owner of the subject property that he feels the owner would be very responsible. But, it is an issue looking at the situation Iong-term. He spoke relative to the alcohol issue and stated currently there are 11 licenses in the tract that is on sale. But, historically speaking the on-sale restaurants have not been problem locations. He explained from a police respective that the most problems they respond to are from off-sale locations. Commissioner Arnold asked the City Attorney if there is an appropriate distinction between on-site and off-site locations that the Planning Commission should use as their starting basis for alcohol sales in general. • Selma Mann stated she is not aware of the distinction in the studies that have been done, but she can look into some of the studies. In making a distinction, she feels it is appropriate to consider the Police Department's input. • ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ ~ 1N FAVOR: 166 letters in support. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the information contained in paragraph nos. (17) and (18) of the staff report and the recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager to limit the number of seats to 40 (14 outdoors and 26 indoors). (Vote: 5-2, Commissioner Bostwick and Commissioner Bristol voted no) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04286 (to permit on-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and outdoor seating) in part, den in the request to serve beer and wine in the outdoor dining area, but approvina the request to serve beer and wine indoors) for 1 year (January 17, 2002) based on the following: (i) That as conditioned, the proposed intensification of the restaurant use to include the on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine would not have an adverse effect on the adjoining land uses and the growth and • development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 01-17-01 Page 38 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (ii) 7hat the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate (provided seating is limited to 40 seats) to allow the full development of the proposed restaurant expansion in a manner not detrimental to this area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare; (iii) That the granting of the conditional use permit even under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, hea{th, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, especially to the residents in the adjacent residential neighborhood. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioner Bostwick and Commissioner Bristol voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (5:28-5:40) Commissioner Arnold left following action on Item No. 4. ,~,~~.~,.~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~~,~,~,~,.~,~,~,~,~,.~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~~~,~,~~~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~o,~~.~,.~~~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~ ~ u 01-17-01 Page 39 JANUARY '17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04272 Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: Ellas Properties, Attn: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 Canyon Commercial Center, Attn: Mark Poochigian, 5000 Birch Street, #510 East Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Portion A: 5375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion B: 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1370- 1400 North Brasher Street. Property is 5.02 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion C: 5401 East La Palma Avenue * Property is 12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. • To permit an expansion to an existing automotive dealership facility with waiver of (a) maximum number of monument signs (deleted), (b) minimum distance between monument signs (deleted), (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted encroachments into required yards. Continued from the Commission meeting January 3, 2001. * Originally advertised as 5401, 5403 and 5405 East La Palma Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-6 SR7892KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced the item stating this item was continued from the prior meeting in order for the Traffic Engineer to work with the applicant on two issues. One was the driveway on Brasher Street on the eastside closest to La Palma; and to work with the applicant on off-site parking on the eastside of Brasher Street. He indicated staff has included conditions of approval that no longer require that the driveway on Brasher Street be closed but that the petitioner work with the Traffic & Transportation Manager relative to painting the curb along the east side of Brasher Street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: ~ Don Bering, 5395 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim. He thanked the Commission for allowing today's continuance. They reviewed with staff the items of concern and he feels there is a general consensus relative to the issues. He asked for clarification pertaining to the staff report on page 12 (No. 24), which states "sidewalks are required along La Palma Avenue". He indicated that portion C is on leased property 01-17-01 Page 40 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ and it's their understanding since there is to be no modifications to the building then the sidewalk requirement would not apply. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated relative to the installation of the sidewalk that it might need to be addressed to the City Engineer. He believes the applicant is adding some square footage, therefore the condition should be complied with. If not, they should fi{e an appeal to the City Engineer. Commissioner Boydston asked if Land Rover has sidewalks. Commissioner Bostwick replied no. Mr. Yalda indicated that Land Rover didn't add any square footage to the building. In this case, they're adding a parking structure which would intensify the use of the property. Commissioner Bostwick noted it is on their property only, not the lease property to the east. Mr. Yalda replied if you want to modify the conditions so they only provide a sidewalk on their side. Commissioner Bristol asked if there is any sidewalk on that side of La Palma. Commissioner Bostwick replied yes, there is sidewalks down most of both sides of the street other than a few places. One is the property in front of the Land Rover and the other is the said lease property. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant has a right for an appeal. • Mr. Yalda and Commissioners discussed the appeal issue relative if it would be an appeal to the City Engineer or City Council. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated once you insert it as a condition of approval without a provision for a waiver of that then it is sort of "set in stone". Therefore, you would create it by inserting it as condition of approval. She further explained if it's a condition of approval but states unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer then that would {eave it so that they coufd address it to the City Engineer for an appropriate nexus determination. There are certain incidents in which the Planning Commission and/or City Council would make certain determinations, but those would need to be advertised as specific waivers of the particular requirement and she doesn't believe that was done in this incident. Chairperson Koos asked if the Brasher Street curb issue was resolved. Mr. Yalda asked the applicant for clarification if they're going to close the driveway. Mr. Bering replied yes, not closed but just not paint it. Mr. Yalda stated they are not going to create a new driveway. They have worked out the circulation which would be much better than the plan that was submitted. Chairperson Koos asked how would it impact the recurbing. Mr. Yalda replied there would be minimal impact, they are going to paint at the curb return (northeast corner) and on the proposed driveways they are going to put about 10 feet on each side. But overall it • won't reduce their parking situation. 01-17-01 Page 41 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • For clarification, Commission Bostwick asked Mr. Yalda if he's referring to Condition No. 12. Mr. Yalda replied yes. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Deciaration Denied Waivers (a) maximum number of monument signs and (b) minimum distance between monument signs since they were deleted by the petitioner. Approved Waivers (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted encroachments into required yards. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04272 with the following modifications to Condition Nos. 12 and 24: 24. That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue as required by the City Engineer or as waived by the City Engineer in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 12. That the developer/property owner shall pay the cost of installation of red curbing on the east side of Brasher Street at approximately 300 linear feet at ~ an approximate cost of $300.00 prior to the issuance of a building permit. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (5:41-5:52) ,~-,~,.~,.~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~-,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,.~,.~,~,~,~„~,~~~,,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,.~,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~~~,~,~,~~~,.~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~.~, ,,~,.~,~,.~~,~~~,~,.~,~~,~,~ There was a break following this item (5:52-5:59) before proceeding to Item No. 7. ,~~~,.~,~,~,~,,~,~,~,~,,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~~~,.~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~~,.~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~.,~,~,~~~,~,.~,~,~~.~,~,~,~,~,~ • 01-17-01 Page 42 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. 5b. Continued to February 12, 2001. OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp, 151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: Property consists of two parcels located on the east and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Wav and 1621 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. * 1600 South Anaheim Boulevard address was originally advertised but has subsequently been deleted. C J To establish a multipurpose storage yard for building materials, recreational vehicle/boat and vehicle storage with accessory modular office building. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 4 and 18, 2000. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7893KP. DOC Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-17-01 Page 43 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. 6b. Continued to February 12, 2001. OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp, 151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: Property consists of finro parcels located on the east and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Wav and 1621 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South C{audina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centeriine of Katella Avenue. To permit a wholesale automobile auction facility with on-site storage of vehicles. ~ Continued from the Commission meeting of December 18, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7894KP.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting as request by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 01-17-01 Page 44 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4155 Approved (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04320) 7c. FINAL ELEVATION AND SIGN PLAN5 REVIEW Approved, in part, 7d. EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH final elevation plans CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL withdrawn Approved OWNER: Devtech Inc., 1812 Fairford Drive, Fullerton, CA 92833 (to expire on December 6, 2001.) AGENT: WCDS, Inc., Attn: Roger Watson, 1820 East 1St Street, #550, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 500-528 South Beach Boulevard - Sav-on Drugstore. Property is 1.91 acres located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard (500-528 South Beach Boulevard - Sav-on Drugstore). Request to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the number of units permitted for this commercial retail center, review and approval of final elevation and sign plans, and approval of an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously approved commercial retail center including a drug store with drive-through lane and sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption and retain an existing convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption with waivers. • Continued from the Commission meeting of January 3, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-7 II SR7891KB.DOC ~ J Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to review of final elevation and sign plans and also an extension to comply with conditions of approval for property located at 500- 528 S. Beach Blvd., Sav-on Drugstore. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Roger Watson, President of WCDS, Inc., 1820 E. 1 St Street #550, Santa Ana, CA 92705, representing Sav-on. He stated the request is to convert over to Sav-on which was originally approved as a Rite-Aid, the configuration is basically the same. They submitted plans to the building department for approval, they were racing against the deadline for the CUP and they didn't make it by 2 months. Therefore, they will pull the permits in 3 months. He explained they have shown good faith efforts but just ran out of time. He spoke relative to the request and stated they don't need to retain the beer and wine license because they have taken Circle K out of the center. There is no need to overlap their beer and wine licenses with their off-site license. The two licenses are gone and only the Sav-on will remain. They are asking for the commercial building to be allowed to have four partitions instead of three because the Circle-K is gone, they will not be expanding the square footage. Two of the businesses will be the existing tailor shop and the existing donut shop which have been there for a long time. 01-17-01 Page 45 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The other request is the approval of the sign and elevation plans and also the extension of the conditional use permit for one year. Commissioner Bristol referred to Condition No. 39, page 12 of the staff report which pertains to the "decorative tile band" around the building and asked Mr. Watson if he concurs. Mr. Watson replied yes. He then referred to page 7 of the staff report, Condition No. 5, pertaining to the Lot Line Adjustment. Staff is aware that they are proposing to have a lease lot for the commercial building, for the person who would be leasing it from Sav-on. Currently, there are two lots and they are proposing a Lot Line Adjustment to keep two lots. Chairperson Koos referred to a speaker card and asked for Beverly Turner. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that Beverly Turner left the meeting since she wasn't able to wait for this item to be heard. Chairperson Koos indicated that the speaker card doesn't indicate if she was in favor or in opposition of the subject request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated when the elevation plans were presented to them that he made a comment relative to the inclusion of a tree. Since the new elevation doesn't show the tree, he is guessing that staff asked the applicant to remove it. He referred to the elevation plans in regards to the box with stripping and expressed it appears to be blatant, therefore relative to the aesthetics it appears to be lacking. • Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. McCafferty if there's a landscape plan. Greg McCafferty stated there's a landscape plan with the previous proposal. IYs part of the exhibits that were previously approved. Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioner Vanderbilt relative to the aesthetics as it does appear to be lacking and he feels the landscaping would improve it. Greg McCafferty asked if the Commission would like him to retrieve the plans. Chairperson Koos indicated he doesn't feel landscaping alone would take care of it. He is concerned about the Beach Blvd., frontage. The Planning Commissioners reviewed the plans and continued discussion on the aesthetics of the said area. Chairperson Koos asked the applicant if it would be an inconvenience to him to come back with new plans for final elevation. Mr. Watson explained they can either come back before the Planning Commission or they can leave it as a condition upon staff's review and approval of the enhanced elevation plans. Commissioner Bostwick stated they can do the approval based upon final elevations under a R&R item. Greg McCafferty indicated they would like to modify some conditions. The previous CUP approved 4 units. The applicant today is requesting 5 tenant spaces instead of 3 and 4 which is reflected in Condition • No. 32. 01-17-01 Page 46 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • They would like to delete Condition Nos. 28 and 30. Also, the Public Works Department would like to modify Condition No. 5, "That a Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, to adjust the existing parcels such that Sav-on is on one parcel and the commercial retail center is on the second parcel. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder." Commissioner Bostwick stated to make the change to Condition No. 39 relative to the decorative band/final elevations and for it to come back before the Commission as a R&R item. Mr. Watson clarified if he needs to work with staff relative to a suitable elevation. Chairperson replied yes. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff for clarification relative to the R&R proposal. Greg McCafferty responded with regard to 7c, perhaps the applicant may wish to withdraw that part of the request and come back later. The resolution for the CUP can have a condition for the applicant to come back. OPPOS{TION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4155 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04320) of Resolution No. PC99-214, in its entirety, to be replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval based on the finding that the modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this commercial retail center: Deleted Condition Nos. 28 and 30 and Condition No. 42 to be adjusted to reflect to the deletion. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Pub{ic Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from the adjacent arterial highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers, or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 2. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 3. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided in compliance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610, and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall • be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 01-17-01 Page 47 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4. That all air conditioning facilities and any roof- and/or ground-mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 5. That a Lot ~ine Adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, to adjust the existing parcels such that Sav-on is on one parcel and the commercial retail center is on the second parcel. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That the developer shall pay the Sewer Capacity Mitigation Fee based upon the square footage of the new construction that exceeds the amount of square footage demolished. That the property sha11 be served with underground utifities in accordance with the Electrical Rates, Rules and Regulations (the most current fees shall apply) and the City of Anaheim underground policy. 8. That the legal property owner shal{ provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement along/across the property to be determined when electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 9. That any required relocation of City of Anaheim electrical facilities shall be at • the developer's expense. 10. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Any existing water services that are not approved by the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department for continued use shall be either upgraded to current standards or abandoned by the developer. If the existing services are no longer needed, they shall be abandoned by the developer. 11, That since this project has landscaping area(s} exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) sq.ft., a separate irrigation meter shall be installed to comply with Chapter 10.19 "Landscape Water Efficiency" of the Anaheim Municipal Code and City of Anaheim Ordinance No. 5349. 12. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with the most current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 13. That afl driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137. Said information shall be specificaNy shown on plans submitted for building permits. 14. That the wall signage for the new drugstore shall be limited to the name of the drugstore on the north building elevation, the name of the drugstore and the ~ "RX Drive-through" sign on the west elevation, and the name of the drugstore 01-17-01 Page 48 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ and one accessory service on the south elevation. No advertising for the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the exterior of the building. That monument signage shall be limited to dimensions of 7 feet high by 10 feet wide identifying "Sav-On Drugs, RX Drive-Through" and one other tenant with a total combined sign copy area of 28.5 square feet and dimensions of 6.5 feet high by 10 feet wide with a total sign copy area of 31 square feet. Said information shall be speci~cally shown on plans submitted for building permits. Any additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 15. That the drive-through lane shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 16. That lighting fixtures in the proposed parking area and located adjacent to residential properties shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent residential property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area and such information shall be specified on the plans submitted for building permits. 17. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 582 (to permit a service station); Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1513 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 502 South Beach Boulevard), 1836 (to permit a drive-through donut shop with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces at 528 South Beach Boulevard) and 2791 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant at 508 South Beach Boulevard); and Arcade Permit Nos. 1007 and • 1014 (to permit a facility with a maximum of 50 amusement devices at 510 South Beach Boulevard) to the Zoning Division. 18. That three (3) foot high street address numbers shall be dispfayed on the roof of the building in a color, which contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 19. That the developer shall submit a photometric plan to the Police Department for review and approval. 20. That the property owner shall provide a"knox box" to provide roof access to the interior of the new building as required and approved by the Police Department. Said "knox box" shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 21. That any business selling alcoholic beverages shall continuously adhere to the following conditions, as required by the Police Department: a. That sale of alcohol beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. b. That the sales of alcoholic beverages at the drugstore shall not exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the gross sales of all retai{ sales for each business during any three (3) month period. The business shall maintain records on a quarterly basis showing the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine/alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be subject to audit, and made • 01-17-01 Page 49 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • available, when requested by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. c. That no advertising of alcoholic beverages shall be located, placed or attached to any location outside the building. d. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises. e. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted anywhere on subject property. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. That the areas of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total display area in the building. That the safes of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is inside the building. That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall sell, or be permitted to sell, any alcoholic beverages. k. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and • that wine coolers shall not be sold i~ packages containing less than a four (4) pack. That all trash generated from the commercial uses shall be properly contained in trash bins located within City-approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid for by the business owner(s). 22. That an eight (8) foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed and maintained along the east property line; provided, however, that the City Traffic and 7ransportation Manager shall have the authority to reduce the height of the wall to protect visual lines-of-sight where pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation intersects. Clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities shall be planted on maximum five (5) foot centers adjacent to said wall, and said landscaping shall be irrigated and maintained. Said information shall be specified on plans submitted for building permits. 23. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. ~ 01-17-01 Page 50 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 24. That a final landscaping and irrigation plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department and the Community Development Department for review and approval. Said landscaping plan shall include Washingtonia Robusta palm trees (25-foot clear brown trunk size) as street trees to be planted on maximum thirty (30) foot centers. Washingtonia Robusta Palm trees (25-foot clear brown trunk size) and Tipuana Tipu trees (24-inch box) shall be planted in the landscaped setback areas adjacent to Beach Boulevard and Orange Avenue in compliance with Code requirements and the draft Beach Boulevard Design Guidelines. The landscaping plan shall also include an additional four (4) foot wide landscaped planter located adjacent to the west building elevation of the new drugstore (facing Beach Boulevard) and adjacent to the south building elevation of the existing convenience market (facing Orange Avenue). 25. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 26. That the landscaped planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 27. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be located outside the required setback areas, and said locations shall be specified on the plans submitted for building permits. The plans shall also identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e., landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments. • 28. DELETED AT THE MEETING. 29. That the property owner shall remove the existing pole sign located adjacent to Orange Avenue and replace it with a monument sign matching the approved monument sign located on Beach Boulevard. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 30. DELETED AT THE MEETING. 31. That there shall be only one (1) ABC license in this commercial shopping center permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. 32. That a maximum of #e+~{~I~} five (5) units shall be permitted for this commercial retail center. 33. That the hours of operation for the drive-through window shall not be permitted during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 34. That all exterior lighting shall be decorative fixtures, which are architecturally compatible with the new/remodeled building. Said information shall be specified on plans submitted for building permits. 35. That no outdoor storage shall be permitted; and that shopping carts shall be stored inside the building(s). 36. That no vending machines shall be visible to any public right-of-way. ~ 01-17-01 Page 51 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 37. That any public telephones proposed on-site shall be located inside a building. 38. That no outdoor storage, display or sale of any merchandise or fixtures shall be permitted outside the building(s}. 39. That plans submitted for building permits shall show a decorative tile band on all building elevations (to replace the painted band) and accent tiles on the south and west elevations. That the final elevation plans incorporating these design elements shall return to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a Reports and Recommendation item. 40. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 13, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 3, and as conditioned herein. 41. That no convenience market shall be permitted at this property unless a new conditional use permit application is submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council at a noticed public hearing. 42. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, and 34, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete sa+d conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Further, if an extension of time is requested for the alcohol sales portion of this request, it shall be considered at a noticed public hearing. • 43. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 40, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 44. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Planning Commission accepted the applicanYs request for withdrawal of the Final Elevation Plans and approved Final the Sign Plans. Approved a one (1) year extension of time, to expire on December 6, 2001, for Conditional Use Permit No. 4155 based on the findings that the approval remains consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and CL Zoning. No code amendments have occurred that would render this project as non-conforming, and that this is the first request for an extension of time for this project. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (5:59-6:15) ~ 01-17-01 Page 52 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved, in part 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3545 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04303) (to expired August 29, 2010) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3606) Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04300) (to expired August 29, 2010) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3688 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04302) (to expired August 29, 2010) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3817 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04299) (to expired August 29, 2010) OWNER: Lederer Anaheim Limited, Attn: Les Lederer, 1990 Wesfinrood Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Farano & Kieviet, Attn: Thomas Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue #235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). Conditional Use Permit No. 3545 (Cup Tracking No. 2001-04303) - Request to consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on September 21, 1992 and reinstated on September 14, 1998, to expire on April 22, 2001) to retain the outdoor installation of auto alarms and stereos, window tinting, tire rims, auto accessories, upholstery, auto detailing, storage of piant materials, and batting cages in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet. Conditional Use Permit No. 3606 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04300) - Request to consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on June 14, 1993 and reinstated on June 23, 1997, to expire on April 22, 2001) to retain an existing restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet. Conditional Use Permit No. 3688 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04302) - Request to consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on June 13, 1994, to expire on April 22, 2001) to retain an existing outdoor roller hockey rink in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet. The petitioner further requests the additiona{ use of said outdoor rink for soccer activities. Conditional Use Permit No. 3817 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04299) - Request to consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approvai pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on February 5, 1996 and reinstated on March 17, 1999, to expire on April 22, 2001) to retain an existing indoor entertainment facility for a television taping studio and an indoor stage for concerts, live theatrica! productions, movie screenings, and an outdoor event area in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3545 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3606 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3688 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3817 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-11 SR2050DS.DOC r 01-17-01 Page 53 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3545, 3606, 3688, and 3817 for property located at 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim Indoor Market Place. Commissioner Bostwick indicated he is abstaining from the subject request, as he owns property within 1000 feet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Thomas Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet, 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim. He is present on behalf of the applicant, Lederer Anaheim Limited which owns the property in the Anaheim Indoor Market Place who actually operates the Indoor Market Place. He stated because of the length of time that has already transpired with previous hearings today, he will keep his comments short. He explained in the past six months they had an extensive hearing on the indoor market place, CUP No. 3400. Subsequently, the City Council approved it for 10 years to expire on August 29, 2010. There were four conditional use permits for individual uses, within the market place, that had concurrent time extensions that expired in 2001. Now that the indoor market place CUP extended, they are seeking to extend the subject four CUPs to the same time limit. They have reviewed the staff report, and he indicated he appreciates staff's involvement in preparing the information as it was an excellent summary. He concurs with staff's recommendation for an extension to expire concurrently with the underline CUP for 3 of the 4 conditional use permits. They have reviewed the conditions relative to replacing the ofd CUPs with new CUPs that basically have the same conditions. They are satisfied for the three that have • been recommended for a 10-year extension. With regard to CUP 3817, the entertainment area and outdoor event area staff is recommending a 5 year CUP apparently because of concern that those type of uses may change over time. He pointed out that currently the indoor entertainment area is used on weekends, primarily on Sundays, for a musical concert. The outdoor event area is used on weekends, primarily on Sundays, for wrestling events. The events attract spectators and also customers to shop at the market place. The said uses have been ongoing for a number of years and have not caused any concerns or problems. Also, the subject request is to consider extending CUP 3817 for 10 years along with the other three CUPs. They feel the conditions imposed are adequate for the City to keep control over the entertainment style use. The current conditions of approval limit indoor entertainment use to music concerts, closed television, broadcasting, and catered banquets. The outdoor entertainment area has been limited to sporting events which has been focused on wrestling. By having the conditions they feel that there is a control that can be retained, they can't go beyond those areas which would cause a concern. The entertainment area has been frequently used by charitable and civic organizations during the time that they've been in operation. He feels they have proven themselves, for example, CUP No. 3545 has been subject to five reviews; CUP No. 3606 has been subject to four reviews; CUP No. 3688 has been subject to two reviews; and CUP No. 3817 has been subject to three reviews. For a total of 14 times that they've came before the Commission and/or Council to get an approval or extension. Therefore, they would like to have all the CUPs expire on the same date. He then referred to page 14 of the staff ~eport relative to the conditions that are being proposed for the entertainment use. Condition No. 9 currently states that the property owner shall provide the Anaheim Police Department with a minimum 30-day advance notice for any outdoor entertainment event. They have been using the outdoor entertainment event for many years withaut notifying the Anaheim Police • Department. He understands staff's concerns relative to using outside promoters. Therefore, they would 01-17-01 Page 54 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • be willing to propose that the condition be amended to say "in the event outside promoters are used then the property owner shall provide the Anaheim Police Department with notice". He explained currently they use in-house promotion of the wrestiing and so forth, that occurs outside. It has proven in the past not to be a problem, and they don't anticipate any problems in the future. It would become a cumbersome if they have to notify the Anaheim Police Department every time they have an outdoor event, past experience has shown that it's not necessary. Therefore, he asks the Commission to consider modifying Condition Nos. 1& 9 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3817. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner 8ristol asked staff what their feelings are regarding the 5-year extension instead of 10 years. Greg McCafferty stated it was based on the Anaheim Police DepartmenYs input at the R&R meeting. The police wanted to be certain that they were aware of the types of activities that occur in the outdoor entertainment area. They were concerned relative to giving a 10-year extension and were comfortable with a 5-year extension along with the condition for them to be notified when a promoter comes in. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty if Condition No. 9 should be tied to Condition No. 1, as if it was written for outside promoters. Greg McCafferty stated he is unsure if the outside events are directly related to businesses that are in the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace or are the events coming from outside promoters. Mr. Kieviet indicated there is a wrestling contact person who provides wrestlers and they have wrestling • events every Sunday. The Anaheim Indoor Market Place does iYs own internal promotion either through publications and/or radio advertisements for their outdoor events. There is not an outside promoter that promotes the event. Commissioner Boydstun indicated she has been a Commissioner since the marketplace began. She recalls many years ago that there was a problem with an outside promoter that the marketplace never used before, but indicated there hasn't been any other problems. Greg McCafferty stated there have been restaurants in the City that used promoters and it created problems for the Anaheim Police Department. Commissioner Boydstun stated she feels they should report to the Police Department whenever they are using an outside promoter. Otherwise, she is comfortable when iYs something the marketplace is promoting. Greg McCafferty indicated they would be supportive to amend the condition. Commissioner Bristoi asked what staff feels about the extension of time. Commissioner Boydstun replied she doesn't have any problems with the CUPs expiring the same date. Greg McCafferty indicated there is also an amendment to one of the conditions. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for clarification on what defines "outside promoter vs. internal promoter". For example, when the carnival comes and sets up in the parking lot would that be an outside promoter. Mr. Kieviet replied it would be an outside promoter but the carnival has their own special permit allowing ~ them to setup in the parking lot. 01-17-01 Page 55 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what the percentage is for outside vs. indoor, over the last 5 years. Mr. Kieviet replied it's fairly close to 50/50. It's a routine for them to have musical events inside and wrestling events outside, every weekend. Commissioner Bristol explained his views stating such an event as wrestling generates aggravation for the participants, therefore it may be helpful for the Police Department to be aware of such events. Mr. Kieviet stated he believes they're aware, since iYs been occurring repetitively for quite a few years. Commissioner Bristol spoke refative to the wrestling events and stated there hasn't been any problems that he is aware of. Chairperson Koos asked if the 30-day notice would tie the hands of the owner and are the events planned way in advance. Mr. Kieviet stated if it's limited to outside promoters it would work. Greg McCafferty stated there is a recommended amendment to a condition of approval on page 11, Condition No. 13 that reads "that food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first on each day of operation." He would like to modify that from 10 p.m. to 7 p.m. to coincide with the closing of the market place. Mr. Kieviet asked if they could take out the time reference all together, in case the market place changes their closing time such as during the Christmas season. • Greg McCafferty indicated that would be acceptable. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3545: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3545 (CUP Tracking No. 2001- 04303), in part, this request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3545 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04303) to retain the outdoor installation of auto alarms and stereos, window tinting, tire rims, auto accessories, upholstery, and auto detailing in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet to expire on August 29, 2010 concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04230} and denied the storage of plant materials and batting cages component of this permit. Amended Resolution Nos. PC92-113, PC93-129, PC94-132, PC95-95 and PC98-146 in their entirety to be replaced by a new resolution as follows: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04230) for the Anaheim Indoor ~ Marketpface, on August 29, 2010. 01-17-01 Page 56 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 2. That the proposed outdoor uses shall be limited to installation of auto alarms, stereos, window tinting, tire rims, auto accessories, upholstery and auto detailing, and that at no time shall the mechanical repair of vehicles or paint and body work be permitted. 3. That the outdoor installation shall be screened from view at all times, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 4. That there shall be no outdoor storage of tools and equipment relating to the outdoor installation operations, unless approved by the Planning Department. 5. That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement inspections as deemed necessary the City's Code Enforcement Division to maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws, or regulations. 6. That no inoperable vehicles or parts shall be stored on the premises outside the building. 7. That the outdoor storage of tires shall be prohibited and all used tires shall be disposed of properly. 8. That the existing screen fence to the west of the outdoor uses shall be maintained with interwoven PVC slats and "scrim" shall be maintained on the back side of the fence to screen the existing work area from public view. 9. That the outdoor installation uses shall be limited to Wednesday through . Monday, 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 10. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Conditional Use Permit No. 3606: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3606 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04300) to retain an existing restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in conJunction with an existing indoor swap meet to expire on August 29, 2010 concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04230). Amended Resolution Nos. PC93-70, PC94-57, PC95-67 and PC97-78 in their entirety to be replaced by a new resolution as follows: • 01-17-01 Page 57 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04230) for the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, on August 29, 2010. 2. That the restaurant operator shaif maintain signs in the restaurant seating area, in both English and Spanish, informing the patrons that alcoholic beverages shall not be removed from said seating area. 3. That the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be confined to the food service area, which area shall be maintained with permanently installed barriers surrounding it so as to confine customers to said area. 4. That the entrance/exit to the food service area shall be adjacent to the service counter of subject Alcoholic Beverage Control (A.B.C.) licensed business so that persons entering and leaving the food service area ("confined area") will be clearly visible to employees of the licensed business. 5. That no sale, consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by customers, sellers or employees shall be allowed outside the confined area licensed by A.B.C. 6. That the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be in conjunction with food sales only. 7. That all alcoholic beverages shall be sold in distinctive containers available at the A.B.C. licensed premises onfy. These containers shall not be taken out of the licensed area. • 8. That alcoholic beverages shall be sold in containers no larger than sixteen (16) fluid ounces. 9. That not more than one (1) serving of an alcoholic beverage may be sold to a customer at any time. 10. That there shall be no sales or consumption of "non-alcoholic beer" at the subject premises. 11. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Susiness and Professions Code. 12. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcohofic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 13. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time unti! closing time of the swap meet, on each day of operation. 14. That there shall be no pool tab{es maintained upon the premises at any time. 15. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. i 01-17-01 Page 58 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16. That the sales of beer and wine shail not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 17. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted within the restaurant premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 18. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 19. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any • other applicable ordinance, regulation or requireme~t. Conditionat Use Permit No. 3688: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3688 (CUP Tracking No. 2001- 04302) to retain an existing outdoor roller hockey rink and add the use of said outdoor rink for soccer activities, in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet to expire on August 29, 2010 concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04230). Amended Resolution No. PC94-78 in its entirety to be replaced by a new resolution as follows: That this conditional use permit shall expire concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04230) for the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, on August 29, 2010. 2. That this outdoor rink facility shall be utilized by organized, supervised groups only, and shall not be open for the general public. 3. That licensed and uniformed security guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. ~ 01-17-01 Page 59 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with • plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and as conditioned herein. 5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Conditional Use Permit No. 3817: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3817 (CUP Tracking No. 2001- 04299) to retain an existing indoor entertainment facility for a television taping studio and an indoor stage for concerts, live theatrical productions, movie screenings and outdoor event area in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet to expire August 29, 2010. Amended Resolution Nos. PC96-18, PC97-29 and PC99-47 in their entirety to be replaced by a new resolution as follows: 1. That this conditional use permit to expire on August 29, 2010. • 2. That alcoholic beverages shall not be sold or consumed within any indoor or outdoor entertainment area or in conjunction with any entertainment events. That the indoor entertainment facility shall not exceed the maximum oCCUpancy restrictions as required by the Anaheim Fire Department and Building Division. The business owner shall be responsible for maintaining the proper number of occupants in the assembly area as shown on previously-approved exhibits. When the number of occupants reaches seventy five percent (75%) or greater of the posted capacity, the owner shall place personnel at the entrance and a counting device shall be used to maintain the occupant load at or below the posted limit. 4. That any indoor or outdoor entertainment event shall not occur any later than the operating hours of the main indoor marketplace business, until 7 p.m., seven (7) days a week. 5. That the indoor entertainment uses shall be limited to live music concerts, sporting events, closed N broadcasts, and catered banquets. That this permit is granted to operate in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (permitting the indoor swap meet) and shall only be valid as long as said indoor swap meet is an authorized use on the subject property. 7. That the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be maintained as required by the Fire Department. ~ 01-17-01 Page 60 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF APIAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8. That a fire alarm system shaff be maintained as required by the Fire Department. 9. That if an outside promoter is used the property owner shall provide the Anaheim Police Department with a minimum 30-day advanced notice of any outdoor entertainment event. This notice shall include the name, address and phone number of the promoter and detailed information on the type of event including dates, hours, anticipated attendance and nature of event. 10. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: Conditional Use Permit No. 3545 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Arnold absent.) Conditional Use Permit No. 3606 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Arnold absent.) Conditional Use Permit No. 3688 • 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Arnold absent.) Conditional Use Permit No. 3817 4-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voting no, Commissioner Bostwick abstaining and Commissioner Arnold absent.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (6:17-6:41) • 01-17-01 Page 61 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4175 (CUP TRACKING NO, 2001-04307) Continued to February 26, 2001. OWNER: Helmut and Ruth Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Richard Damron, 127 West Borromeo Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870 LOCATION: 825 North Euclid Street, Unit D. Property is 0.94 acres located on the west side of Euclid Street, 130 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue (Kim's Acupressure). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on January 31, 2000 to expire on January 31, 2001) to retain an existing acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center. • • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7885VN.DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to February 26, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLAfVNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOS1710N: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 26, 2000, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the property owner to comply with a previous condition of approval. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-17-01 Page 62 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4073 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING N0. 2001-04297) (to expire January 3, 2006) OWNER: Harlo-Kinder Limited Partnership, Attn: Paul S. Elman, 9808 Pangborn Avenue, Downey, CA 90240 (Vote: 6-0) (Arnoid absent) AGENT: Kyu Nam Bisaiflon, 2054 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 2054 South Euclid Street, Unit H. Property is an irregular "L" shaped 2.43-acre portion of an integrated site located north and east of the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street (Golden Pain Massage). To consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a time limitation (originally approved on November 23, 1998, reinstated on January 3, 2000, to expire on January 3, 2001) to retain an existing acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-12 ~~ SR7877VN.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to consider reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a time limitation to retain an existing acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center for property located at 2054 South Euclid Street, Unit H. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Kyu Bisaillon, 2054 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim. Stated they request an extension of time and they have read the staff report and are in agreement. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF TNE PLANNING GOMM1551UN AG I IUN. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4073 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04297) for five (5) years, to expire on January 3, 2006. Amended Resolution No. PC98-188 and Resolution No. PC2000-3 in their entirety and replaced with a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: ~ 01-17-01 Page 63 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. That the subject massage facility shall expire in five (5) years, on January 3, 2006. 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven (7) days a week, with no more than four (4) employees working at any one time. 3. That this business (including the conduct of al! its employees) shall be operated in full compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.29 pertaining to Massage Establishments. 4. That all records of treatment shall be maintained on the premises for one (1) year and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized City official during regular business hours. 5. That this business shall be subject to unscheduled inspections by authorized City of Anaheim personnel in order to observe and enforce compliance with all applicable Code requirements. 6. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 7. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other appficable Ciiy, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request ~ regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (6:42-6:44) ~ 01-17-01 Page 64 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4061 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04301) OWNER: Dong S. and Myoung Ai Kim, 969 La Paz Road, Placentia, CA 92870 AGENT: Tim Hill, 17831 Morrow Circle, Villa Park, CA 92861 LOCATION: 1652 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.3 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 440 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street (Chain Reaction). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on November 23, 1998, reinstated on January 3, 2000, to expire on November 23, 2000) to retain a public dance hall. u CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-13 Approved Approved reinstatement (to expire on November 23, 2002) SR1085TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation to retain a public dance hall for property located at 1652 West Lincoln Avenue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Tim Hill, owner and manager of Chain Reaction, he stated he was in agreement with the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4061 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04301), to expire on November 23, 2002. Amended Resolution Nos. PC98-185 and PC2000-2, in their entirety to be replaced by a new resolution as follows: That subject use permit shall expire on November 23, 2002. 2. That this public dance hall shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 6.70 'Sound Pressure Levels' of the Anaheim Municipal Code. • 01-17-01 Page 65 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3. That at ail times when dancing is permitted, adequate security measures shall be provided to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. The business operator shall provide a minimum of four (4) security guards at all times or any other number of security guards as determined to be appropriate by the Anaheim Police Department. 4. That any and all security officers shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Professions Code. 5. That the operator of any business under this conditional use permit shall not be in violation of any provision of the Anaheim Municipal Code, or any State or County Ordinance. 6. That dancing shall commence no earlier than 6:00 p.m. nor continue beyond 1:00 a.m. of the same evening. 7. That the numbers of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs specifying the maximum occupant load shall be posted and maintained in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. 8. That the doors shall remain closed at all times that entertainment is permitted, • except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and defiveries. 9. That the business shall not be operated in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 10. That all entertainers and employees shall be clothed in such a way so as not to expose "specified anatomical areas" as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 11. That all floor spaces provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth and safe condition. 12. That any violation of the application, or any attached conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke this conditional use permit. 13. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that which is shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 14. That there shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles in any required parking area. 15. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted unless screened in accordance with Code requirements. 16. That the front landscape planter shall be maintained in accordance with approved plans and in healthy condition. Any trees or other live plant material • that become diseased or dying shall be replaced. 01-17-01 Page 66 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 17. That this public dance hall shall be operated in accordance with the following rules, as stipulated to by the petitioner: (a) No one under the influence of alcohol or drugs shall be admitted. (b) Absolutely no alcohol shall be served or permitted on the premises. (c) No "in and ouY' privileges shall be allowed. (d) No smoking shall be permitted on the premises. (e) No backpacks shall be permitted. 18. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. That chain link fence surrounding the area shall be maintained with PVC slats. 19. That the rear of this property shall permanently be maintained free of debris, litter, and overgrown vegetation. 20. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and • any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION 71ME: 1 minute (6:45-6:46) • 01-17-01 Page 67 dANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4151 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04306) OWNER: Karl Sator, 900 East Katella Avenue, # J, Orange, CA 92867 Approved Approved reinstatement (to expire on October 25, 2005.) AGENT: Salvador Magana, 3148 East La Paima Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 3148 East La Palma Avenue. #C. Property is 6.4 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved October 25, 1999, to expire on October 25, 2000) to retain an automotive repair facility for the restoration of minor auto body damage. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-14 SR7887KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit 4151 at 3148 East La Palma Avenue, #C. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Veronica Corona indicated she was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Bristol asked if this was a hobby. Veronica Corona explained her dad is the owner of the business, he has a full-time job and this is his hobby. It is open from 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ F~LLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF 7 NE PLANNING GOMM1551UN AG I IUN. ~ OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4151 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04306), to expire on October 25, 2005. Amended Resolution No. PC99-189 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: 01-17-01 Page 68 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. That the subject use permit shall expire on October 25, 2005. 2. That there shal{ be no vehicfe rental or saies at this property. 3. That window signage shall not be permitted. 4. That no freestanding signs shall be permitted. 5. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed and that no special event permits shall be issued for this auto repair business. 6. That wal( signage for subject facility shall be limited to that which is shown on Exhibit No. 3(photograph) submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional signage shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 7. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday with a maximum of 3 employees. 8. That trash storage areas shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. 9. That the storage or overnight parking of vehicles, vehicle parts, or business-related materials and all work on vehicles (including the washing of vehicles) shall be confined entirely to the interior of the buildings. • Absolutely no vehicle body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicles, vehicle parts or materials shall be allowed in the front or rear yard areas, or on the roof of the buildings. 10. That there shall be no outdoor storage in any required parking area. 11. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, through 4, and as conditioned herein. 12. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnofd absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (6:46-6:47) • 01-17-01 Page 69 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMlSS10N MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2910 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04280) Continued to January 29, 2001. OWNER: Asmail and Mahin Rastegari, Attn: Mahin Sophia Rastegari, P. O. Box 3465, Fullerton, CA 92834 LOCATION: 1108 North Acacia Street. Property is 0.34 acre focated on the east side of Acacia Street, 525 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive (Montessori Child Care Center). l"o permit an expansion and increase in enrollment of an existing preschool facility with waiver of (a) institutional setback adjacent to a residential zone, (b) minimum number of parking spaces and (c) permitted encroachments into required yards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2054DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this request is to expand the preschool and increase enrollment at 1108 North Acacia Street, Montessori Childcare Center. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Sophia Rastegari, owner/director of the preschool. They're requesting to expand their schoo! to 50 students. The students will not be there all at the same time as they have morning and afternoon programs. The daily average in the center is 26 children. There are no longer any tenants in the other building on the property, therefore they have extra parking spaces. Magdalena Chavez stated she has worked there for six years and there haven't been any tra~c or parking problems. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the car that is always parked in the handicap stall can be parked elsewhere. Sophia Rastegari replied yes and that iYs her car. She also stated since the tenant of the middle building has moved out, they will occupy that building for after-school activities. Commissioner Bristol stated he is concerned with the middle building regarding the overhang and afso asked where are the people parking. Sophia Rastegari replied her number one priority is to change the overhang. Also, they have 5 spaces in the back of the building for staff parking. Commissioner Bristol asked if it would be safe to say that there are never more than 32 children at one time in the facility. ~ 01-17-01 Page 70 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Sophia Rastegari explained they have been operating for almost 15 years and never have aii the kids been there at the same time. Staff is always there to help parents get in and out as quickiy as possible. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol feels the use outweighs the problem with coming in and out, as there's approximately 7 parking spaces. He suggest to the owner to park her car in the back and would definitely want the overhang removed. Commissioner Bostwick indicated he has a problem increasing it to 50 children. Commissioner Bristol asked staff if Code Enforcement has visited there. Greg McCafferty stated after the original approval Code Enforcement visited there because there were code violations at that time, but he doesn't know the specifics of the violations. Commissioner Bristol indicated he would like to know more about the buildings because there have been some issues with the front buifding. Commissioner Bristol offered motion for continuance to January 29, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 29, 2001, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to request a building inspector to inspect to the property and obtain definitive information of what the parking situation is at the property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent.) DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (6:48 to 6:59) ~ 01-17-01 Page 71 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 14c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04309 Continued fo February 12, 2001. OWNER: Lamb of God Evangelical Lutheran Church, 621 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Pamela Kay Benson, 621 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 Compass Telecom Services, Attn: Marc Myers, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 621 South Sunkist Street. Property is 2.53 acres located at the northwest corner of South Street and Sunkist Street (Lamb of God Lutheran Church). To permit a 64-foot high "monopalm" telecommunications antenna and accessory equipment with waiver of required rear yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR7889KP.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04309 for property located at 621 S. Sunkist Street. It is a request to permit a 64-foot high monopalm telecommunication antenna and accessory equipment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Marc Myers, Compass Telecom Services, representing Sprint PCS, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614. He stated that they are requesting the installation and operation of a 58 foot high antenna pole and a number of BTS equipment cabinets. The installation is located at 621 S. Sunkist Street, Lamb of God Evangelical Lutheran Church. The installation involves a monopole structure, to minimize the impact associated with the structure it will be disguised as a palm tree. Based on the information in the staff report, it is his understanding that staff is not fond of the "monopalm". He stated they feel in this particular case that the setting of the property presents a unique opportunity for them to minimize any aesthetic impacts which may be commonly associated with wireless installations. To further minimize the impacts of the wireless installations, he stated they are locating the associated BTS equipment within a block wall enclosure behind the existing garage structure on the property. The enclosed wall will be textured and painted to match the garage that is there and at a height so the equipment will not be visible. It is his understanding, that there are a number of stealth monopoles existing in the City that may or may not be of "high quality". C ~ He stated Sprint goes to great lengths to use manufacturers that provide a good quality installation. For example, the company they use provides a tree that has a warranty on most of the equipment relative to the color, bark and the materials. In addition, as for it to blend in they make a number of different types of species and heights associated with these types of installations. He stated that the trunk would be round as oppose to square or rectangle. 01-17-01 Page 72 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He stated that the antennas are mounted from the pole typically between 3 and 4 feet (from the outside of the pole to the outside of the antennas). Some of the newer technologies have the palm fronds extend 7 to 8 feet beyond the antennas. This is a relatively new technology and they can construct the palm fronds to provide a more obscured view of the antennas as opposed to the antennas being in front of the tree and painted the same color while using the tree as a back drop. He referred to some of his photographs of the subject site and stated that the height of the tree is unique because it presents a perfect opportunity for an installation. They have a church facility parcel that is large with 6 existing palm trees. In addition, there is a pine tree behind it of similar height amongst other landscape. He explained that they are providing a stealth installation which is similar to the existing trees which will minimize any impacts. It will have a similar height and species of the existing trees. Based on a survey of the site, the existing trees range in height of 57-66 feet. The proposed installation was 58 feet to the top of the antennas, but due to the "stealth" nature in providing the palm fronds it does extend up to 64 feet. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Myers what the height is of the church. Mr. Myers replied that information is not on the drawings, and he wasn't sure about the height of the church. Chairperson Koos stated it seems to be about 25 feet tall. Mr. Myers said it would be his guess to be 25-30 feet tall. Ghairperson Koos pointed out that Mr. Myers indicated the palm trees are about 60 feet tall. Mr. Myers stated they have a license survey as part of the drawings that specifically indicate the tops of • the tree heights and a grade elevation, which is LS1 in the drawings. They feel the existing trees present a contextual setting, unlike other ones. Their initial proposat was for the tree, however the City requested that they explore other alternatives as for it to be integrated into the building or perhaps a new type of freestanding structure. Relative to the lack of candidates in the area, they presented an alternative plan at the subject site for a freestanding steeple structure. However, due to constraints regarding the coverage and structural components that staff was not content with the proposal. Therefore, they went back to the palm tree setting as they felt it provided the best opportunity. The proposed site does not omit or impede on any parking ar landscaping. It does not pose any type of imposition on the existing uses of the property. Relative to the equipment enclosure, it is his understanding that they are requesting a waiver of the side property line, which is the rear. They are still requesting the waiver as they feel it is the most logical location for the equipment enclosure. Also, the property owners suggested the location as it would be the least obtrusive location on the property. He explained how they arrived at the subject property and stated they evaluated a number of properties in the area. One being, State College Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue as it is a large commercial area, but according to SprinYs Engineers it is out of the ring. The subject property is outside of SprinYs search ring, which is a primary area for them to achieve their objectives. Fortunately, the subject area is zoned residential. They have been fortunate in a number of cities to have opportunities such as churches and parks for their zone residential that are non-residential use, that tends to lend itself to these types of installations allowing them the coverage. He explained for them to build a site they have to have four components being a willing landlord, obtain a conditional use permit, be able to build it and for it to meet their radio frequency objectives for the area. Therefore, after evaluating a number of properties, they arrived at the subject site which met all the criterias. ~ 01-17-01 Page 73 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He referred to the staff report and stated he has read the conditions and they would be willing to compiy. Relative to the aesthetics, he doesn't feel the staff report identifies any significant aesthetic impacts. The only comment is that the subject request would be visible from arterial streets and residential areas. Of course it is visible, but asked does it make it detrimental and/or aesthetically pleasing or displeasing. He felt it is a matter of opinion. He stated that the existing setting and with Sprint's willingness to provide a good quality installation it would be beneficial to those in need of the coverage and will allow Sprint to remain in compliance with their FCC licensing agreement. He spoke relative to staff's concerns about no landscaping being identified around the equipment enclosure. They didn't propose any landscaping because they fill it is an obtrusive location and they don't feel it is necessary. But if the Commission determines that it is applicable, they would be happy to comply. He presented photographs to the Commission which show the proposed location of the equipment which is behind the existing garage. It is not indicated in the staff report, but was fold verbally that the location of the garage received a code waiver as well for iYs location to encroach into the setback. They are proposing for it to be consistent with that and to extend slightly towards the west for the equipment enclosure. He feels based on the findings for a wireless installation that the findings can be made in support of the installation. Typicaffy, when they can't locate a building they will pursue a pole, an existing tree or monopole. But, obviously, they couldn't pursue that in the subject area. fn closing, he feels that the findings to be made, can be made. The proposed use is a permitted use in the subject residential zone. The "stealth" installation will not have an adverse affect on the adjoining • land uses or on the growth and development of the area. He explained that churches are good locations because they are willing to provide a service to the area without imposition. He stated that granting the conditional use permit would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. These types of installations is such a integral part in our society, it is a benefit to the health, safety and general welfare for EMS. He respectfully requests the Commission to overturn the recommendation of denial and to approve the subject request. Opposition: Ted Pesyna, he stated he is representing the surrounding neighborhood who opposes the subject request. The church has voluntarily submitted their property as a site, income generating means without consideration to the surrounding neighbors. The church secretary informed Mr. Pesyna that there were two other interested sites, but the church accepted the applicant's proposal. A petition was composed by Mr. Mark Logan who lives less than 100 feet from the base of the antenna and power structure. He noted that there are two separate petitions. He stated a neighborhood resident brought a 50-foot boom which was placed directly over the marked point of the proposed location. They took photographs and estimated the height of the trees to be about 60-62 feet. Originally, they proposed to make the "monopalm" 64 feet. After the neighbors visually viewed the potential request, the neighbors signed the petition rejecting the antenna design. He referred to the electro magnetic radiation and electro magnetic interference. • 01-17-01 Page 74 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos explained to the applicant that those issues are not under Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Pesyna replied that it is a health issue. Chairperson Koos stated the health issue is covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act and it is not under ourjurisdiction, therefore it is not relevant for the Planning Commission's decision making process. Mr. Pesyna replied that he is a testing engineer for Toyota and they perform said test in different places with vehicles to see the effects upon gauges and other electronic devices in the vehicles. He has actually witnessed things occur, in very strong fields in relations to the request. Commissioner Arnold explained that they are a local government that is subject to the supremacy of the Federal Government. The Federal Government has preempted this field, therefore the Planning Commission is not allowed to consider those issues as they don't have the power to do that. He informed Mr. Pesyna to address it to the appropriate congressman, if he so wishes. Mr. Pesyna stated that his house has a direct television antenna pointing directly at the proposed antenna site. His neighbor has the same situation. Chairperson Koos informed Mr. Pesyna that the telecommunication devices are afl licensed by the Federal Government and are governed by the Federal Government. Chairperson Koos apologizes to Mr. Pesyna if it seems as the Commission is dismissing the issues, but he reiterated iYs not relevant to their decision making process. Mr. Pesyna replied he understands, but they are under a contract and pay fees. He asked when they • have problems with the television reception is the church going to reimburse them. Mr. Pesyna stated the power unit structure is suppose to be 8 feet tall, which is 3 feet above the neighboring walls, therefore it is visible. Also, on top of the unit there is suppose to be a GPS antenna. It will make it an eye soar for the neighboring rear yards as there are many homes on the perimeter of the subject power unit. He indicated one home is actually 15 feet from the proposed location and less than 50 feet from their dwelling. Also, power lines may need to be dangled to supply power to the unit. He asked if a cooling fan will be needed and how much noise will be generated. Also, why is the residential area being used for the subject request as they will be exposed to the visual blight of the tower and power supply, along with long-term health risk, television reception problems, and the potential noise of the power unit. He stated they don't have an objection to the church generating funds, but not at the tangible and intangible cost to the surrounding neighbors. The residents urge that another site be selected. Don Myers indicated that there were 42 signatures, but they contacted 45 people. Therefore, there were 3 people who didn't sign the petition out of 45. He referred to the photographs Ted spoke about and indicated it was a 50 foot boom that they used from his work. It appears to be about 60 feet and they are talking about 64 feet so it will be above the palm trees that are existing. When exiting your home it is not a pretty thing to fook at. Ne stated they saw the "monopalm" along the 55 freeway, there are two other palm trees with the "monopalm" and iYs easy to tell it's not a palm tree. He understands the needs of the subject requests, but doesn't feel it belongs in a residential area. He spoke relative to his concerns about the enclosure (as it does take 3 feet above their wall); the noise ~ that will be generated, and the lights that may be used at night. 01-17-01 Page 75 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Myers which one is his house. Don Myers replied he lives on the north side of Alden Avenue, the 3`d house. He explained as they go out the front door of their home that they can see the palm trees. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Myers if he was aware that they currently have a cell site down the street at the other church on Sunkist. Don Myers replied no and asked for more details on the location of the site. Commissioner Bostwick gave him specific information and stated iYs in a residential neighborhood. Chairperson Koos pointed out that it's completely hidden from view. Commissioner Bostwick indicated comments are made from people because they don't want them in their neighborhood, but they don't realize they may already have an existing one in their neighborhood. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Myers if it's the use existing in residential areas that they're opposed to or is it the visual impact that will occur in the subject residential area that they're opposed to. Don Myers replied their biggest concern is the visual impact that will occur in their neighborhood. Also, they are concerned about the enclosure being so close to the wall, the noise and the lighting. As far as the overall antennas existing he doesn't object because most people have cell phones and the coverage is needed. But, he feels they should be in an industrial area not residential as the subject request is being proposed. • He referred to previous discussion made about the existing building having a waiver to be put closer to the wall. That building was built for the purpose of storing church equipment and he feels the waiver was necessary for that purpose. James Fitz filled out a speaker card but he indicated from the audience that the previous speakers already addressed his concerns. Chairperson Koos asked staff if the surveys of the letters presented is the only correspondence received for this item. Greg McCafferty indicated that a letter of opposition was received to the Planning Department and should have been included in the Planning Commission packets; also, this morning a petition was received; and this afternoon another petition was received. Therefore, there are a total of 3 petitions. Applicant's Rebuttal: Marc Myers stated he received the letter of opposition. He called the person who wrote the letter and spoke with him about the proposed request. He referred to the petition/signatures and stated it is easy to sign something when someone walks up to your door. He asked are the people in opposition present. He clarified that the monopalm at the 55 Freeway/5 Freeway is not Sprints. They understand that there are people in the City of Anaheim who are not pleased with the way previous installations have been maintained. He wants to ensure the Commission knows that they are using a top quality product that would be maintained, have a warranty, and provide a good "stealth" installation. He indicated they are permitted in all zones and in order to provide the coverage that people demand they have to be in all zones. It has become an integral part of our society, something that Sprint is trying to maintain in terms of staying in compliance with their FCC license. • 01-17-01 Page 76 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He spoke relative to the equipment enclosure and stated the location was chosen by them and the property owner because they felt it was the least obtrusive for the site. There is an 8 foot wall around it to match the building to obscure the view of all the equipment, except the GPS antenna. The GPS antenna globally locates the particular installation in the world. It stands up about 12 inches tall, but it has to have a clear view, three-quarters around it, to receive the signal. They are willing to drop the wall down and if it pleases the Commission they could move the installation to the other side of the garage. That would clearly put them outside of the 25 foot setback area. He clarified that the pole, antenna, and equipment cabinets would not have any lights on. But, if an emergency situation occurred at night (substantial power outage) the lights would be needed. Otherwise, the unit would be routinely maintained during business hours. Chairperson Koos asked if there is ever an emergency situation relative to the pole. Mr. Myers replied he was referring to the whole facility, but relative to the pole itself there shou(dn't be any type of emergency. He explained that all the power lines and telephone lines are underground. He spoke relative to the noise issue and stated that is why they leave it open. Sprint uses lucent cabinets that are self-sufficient and do not require any type of cooling as long as they are open to the air. If they have to enclose it, then they have to use air conditioning units that generate noise. He stated he respectfully requests the Commission's approval on the subject item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the pole has to be that high. • Mr. Myers replied if iYs necessary they could lower it 3 feet maximum and it would still meet their coverage objectives. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they considered South Jr. High School. Mr. Myers replied yes, but it was eliminated as a selection because its too far south were there would be interference with some of their other sites. Chairperson Koos stated he has a problem with their findings for a variance because it states "the owner wants it there, iYs an appropriate place". There is no special circumstance required by you for a special consideration of the code. Mr. Myers replied that he was given the form today at 12:45 p.m., and apologizes that iYs not thorough. In terms of findings with topography and special site circumstances, he agrees there are none. They just feel the subject location is a logical place to put it. Chairperson Koos stated in light of his recognition was he willing to change it. Mr. Myers reiterated that he would be happy to move it over. Chairperson Koos asked if they would move it out of the setback. Mr. Myers replied yes, if the Commission wishes. Commissioners discussed amongst themselves and to Mr. Myers relative to moving it out of the setback and out of view from certain homes. • 01-17-01 Page 77 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Myers if they considered moving the monopole site closer to the building and add some palm trees to surround the monopole site, to make it look as a grove rather than just in line with the existing line. Mr. Myers reiterated that because there is an existing line of palm trees that the property owner and himself felt staying consistent with that would be ideal. If they needed to add more palm trees that would be fine as long as the property owner can choose where to put them. Commissioner Vanderbilt spoke relative to the palm trees being equal and he stated that initially they would be uniformed in height, but the trees would continue to grow and the "monopalm" would not. Therefore, the trees would be uniformed as in a line but not to their height. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the "spirals/steeples" were ever discussed as a possible location rather than a "monopalm". Mr. Myers replied yes, that their first submittal to the City was for the palm tree, but there was a negative response so they suggested trying to do an integrated structure. They worked closely with the church, in light of the churches' future plans for expansion. He referred to the drawings and stated that they did propose a freestanding "spiral/tower" structure in front of the main building, but that wasn't supported by staff. Because of the structural size, staff felt it was out of scale with the existing buildings as the buildings are about 1 story. Commissioner Bostwick stated if they were to move the structure around were its not visible from the neighborhood and move the tree over and grove it. He would then be in favor of the subject request. Also, he explained that he would like to see some type of tower in front of the building since the building has a distinctive round "hoop shape". • Commissioner Boydstun asked how tall is the building. Greg McCafferty replied they would have to check the building records, but it is about 25-30 feet. Commissioner Bostwick pointed out that the "monopalm" would be more than double the size of the building. Mr. Myers presented the alternative drawings to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it may be a challenge because of the churches' future expansion. He asked if there was discussion with the church relative to the building height being increased. Mr. Myers replied that the church didn't have any specific plans to increase the height of the building. Chairperson Koos expressed his views and stated he would favor the "spiral/tower" structure versus the "monopalm". Therefore, he was in favor of continuing the subject item to allow other options to come forth by the applicant. Commissioner Bristol expressed his views and stated he understands the neighbor's concerns and if voted today he would deny the request because it would visually impact the neighbors. Commissioner Boydstun stated you need to move the equipment cabinet around so it's not hanging over anyone's backyard fences. Chairperson Koos stated he believes the applicant has agreed to get rid of the variance. ~ 01-17-01 Page 78 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Myers replied yes, it will take the property owner some convincing but he is open to it. He referred to the alternative proposa! and stated since iYs located in front they would do an underground vault because there is no location for their equipment. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, vote taken and motion carried. Following the action: Commissioner Bosfinrick asked the applicant to work with the neighborhood to do a simulation, refine it with their minimal height so they can bring it into conformity. He indicated to do it both behind the building where the palm tree is now or out in front on the corner. OPPOSITION: Petition in opposition was submitted with 31 signatures (and another petition submitted on January 16, 2001 with 13 signatures). There was also 1 letter in opposition submitted. ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in order for applicant to submit revised plans as requested by Commission. VOTE: 7-0 • DISCUSSION TIME: 54 minutes (4:33-5:27) Item No. 14 was heard following Item No. 2. ,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~~~,.~,~,~,~~~,~~~,~,~,~~~,~~~,~,~,.~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~.,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~.~,~,~-,~,.~,.~,~,~,. • 01-17-01 Page 79 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES u 15a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 Continued to 15b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04404 February 12, 2001. OWNER: Watt Commercial Companies Inc., 2716 Ocean Park AGENT: San Pedro Efectric Sign Company, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington, CA 90744 LOCATION: 5729-5799 East La Paima Avenue. Property is 9.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue (Canyon Village Plaza). Waiver of prohibited signs to construct roof-mounted signs on a new parapet building wall. Continued from the Commission meetings of August 28, September 11, October 23, and December 4, 2000. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. II SR7888KP.DOC ~ L J Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTtON. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 12, 2001, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommended that no further continuances be granted for this item due to the time limitations of the Permit Streamlining Act and the numerous previous continuances. VOTE: 7-0 DlSCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Boulevard, #3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218 01-17-01 Page 80 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 16b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04407 16c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 1999-194 Continued to January 29, 2001. OWNER: Craig Painter, 6905 West Route 242, Ellicotteville, NY 14731 AGENT: Anacal Engineering Company, 9900 East La Palma Avenue #202, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 371 Timken Road. Property is 2.01 acres located at the terminus of Timken Road, 200 feet west of the centerline of Mohler Drive. ~ Variance No. 2000-04407 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width and (c) maximum* number of panhandle lots to establish a single-family subdivision. Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194 - To establish a 4-lot, RS-HS- 22,000(SC) singfe-family subdivision. * Originally advertised as "minimum". Continued from the Commission meeting of November 6, 2000. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7854KP. DOC Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for continuance to January 29, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 29, 2001, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the property owner to be present at the public hearing. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. . 01-17-01 Page 81 JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ADJOURNMENT AT 7:00 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~~~~ ~.~a~ ~ Elly Fernandes Senior Word Processing Operator s ~ ~~~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist • Received and approved by the Planning Commission on '~~ /~ ~ r~ ~~ 01-17-01 Page 82