The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/05/05[~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 5, 2003 • • COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS STAFF rRESENT: Selma Mann, Assis Greg Hastings, Zor Greg McCafferty, P Annika Santalahti, ~ Della Herrick, Assc~ AGENDA POSTIN~x~ Thursday, May 1, 2~~Q outside display kiosk~ PUBLISHED: Anah Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California -;' ~ , ~~ °~-.~ N: PAUL~ B TV1rt w °3S~t~N,,~E~PH~I ~ ~TOL, JOHN KOOS, i,O~~,IAME ~`~~..;` 1~~~ B I~°~~' (arrived @ 2:37 p.m.) ., 3., ~, ~~ . ~ ~~2 N F ~ ,~,~~ "~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~~ AI Brady, Senior (~t%~e E~#o~`cerii~~it Officer Cheryl Flores, Seriior~P~a~ine~ ~ ~ ~~~Alfr~~f~Yalda.._Prin~i~al Zr~ris`portat~Qn Planner A compl~~~ c~'~F'of~,ie Plan~' g~~cam~nissia~~AgerSd~~w~~posted at 3:30 p.m. on 3, insi~~the~iisp~a~~cas~c~t~~ ,~ e~rfayer of th~Go~nc~~ Char~~ers, and also in the ~ ~ ~ °~,~ ....~ ~~,„~' ~~~°y, ~ n~ „ ;~ ~ ~ _` ~ ~ , , „ ~ "~ ~_. ;~- _ ._, ~~..: ~ '~ ~,, ~ ~ J~ ~ ~trt~ Bulle~i ~Ve~sp~pe~.ot~Th - da ;g~pr~l 14;.~2003~,, ~ ~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ ``~~ ~ ~a"~g..~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~~',$~~ ' °'~ ~, ~ .~'~a~., 3 ~ °~- ~ ,..~ ?~ ~ 9yy~~,~~h ~." ~ 3 ~ ~` \ ~ °""5 ~-~ ~ '~i.;s'~~~ ~T ~ ~ ;,u'a'" a"'" .~6 ~~ ~ ~_ `~ ~ ~ -^~ ~M ~ ~ ~' -A ~~ ~'~~i`: PLANNING 'GOMMISSIpN°°MCJ~t1~ING'~~ESSIO~V ~t~i,;00 A„M • STAFF UPDA~~~~7~~~11I~~I~SION~OF~~i~tIO~,S !~"~~`~'~ DEVELOPMENTS'A . ~~,4~" ~ (A~uR QUES~ ` Y PLANNING COMMISSIC~ e~'N ~°"°""~°'°~°~" "~°`~~~ 'l333333'v U33^r,^.Ytaw • REVIEW OF DRAFT ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SECOND UNITS • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MAY 5, 2003 AGENDA RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-I on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman and Vanderbilt were absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-C through 1-E and 1-G through 1-I) as recommended by staff (Commissioner Boydstun abstained on Item 1-I; and with modification to Item 1-I on page 21 of the April 21, 2003, Planning Commission Minutes). Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-B and 1-F) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) (b) SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 5 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 (POINTE ANAHEIM OVERLAIn (TRACKING NO. SPN2003-000211 William Stone, Anaheim GardenWalk LLC, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive Suite #300, San Diego, CA 92128, requests Specific Plan Adjustment No. 5 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (Pointe Anaheim Overlay) to modify Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to minimum lot width, permitted architectural projections into setback areas, spacing between driveways and permitted signage in the Pointe Anaheim Overlay. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Concurred with staff Recommended City Council approval of Specific Plan Adjustment No. 5 and adoption of the draft ordinance, with modifications made at today's meeting. (Vote: 4-0, Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioners E.astman and Vanderbilt absent) sr8532dh2.doc Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, states they met with both representatives of Disneyland as well as GardenWalk representatives regarding the changes being suggested. Page 2 of 6 attachments, sub- paragraph (d), pertains to driveway spacing where they are recommending that the code be modified for the Pointe Anaheim project. They want to specify that the permission of a shorter distance between adjoining driveways on adjacent properties be permitted only along Disney Way, not generically possible across the Pointe Anaheim Project. Page 4 of 6, sub-paragraphs 5, (a) and (b), pertain to parking entry and identification signs for the project, which woufd be over the entrance to the parking structure. Inserting a new subparagraph Roman numeral (IV), stating that such signs shall be located a minimum of 80 feet back from the public right-of-way. Consistent with the drawings coming to Planning Commission's final plans. The final change on page 5 of 6 at the top of the page under paragraph 6, insert text in the last line, which states "Project identification signage, free street frontage provided however that such signs shall be a minimum of 200 feet apart as measured along the street frontage". • Chairperson Bostwick asked when the project would begin. 05-05-03 Page 2 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES William J. Stone, Price Legacy, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, San Diego, CA, states they have reviewed • the changes that have been suggested and are in accord with the changes. The intentions are to break ground late this summer. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan Adjustment No. 5 and adoption of the proposed draft ordinance to amend Chapter 18.78 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 `Zoning and Development Standards'. DISCUSSION: 1:47-1:51 (4 minutes) • • 05-05-03 Page 3 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1898 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04695 Dr. Howard Garber, P.O. Box 17099, Anaheim, CA 92817, requests determination of substantial conformance to permit and retain an existing outdoor truck storage yard. Property is located at 2325 West Sequoia Avenue. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition to the subject request; correspondence and photos were submitted. IN GENERAL: The applicant submitted correspondence. Approved Determined not to be in substantial conformance (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) sr2128ds.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 1-B as Conditional Use Permit No. 1898, 2325 West Sequoia Avenue, a request for determination of substantial conformance to permit and retain an existing outdoor truck storage yard. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states a Conditional Use Permit was approved on the property in 1978 for an outdoor contractor storage yard. Since that time a truck distribution center and storage yard has located on the property. The area is in a residential neighborhood; it is zoned commercial; and by today's standards the type of use would not be permitted in the zone. There is evidence through the Code Enforcement memorandum that the property has been operating to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends Commission not determine the use in substantial conformance with the original approval. Applicant's Testimony: Dr. Howard Garber, Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA, states Garber Properties, Inc. goes back 40 years. In 1964 when they acquired the property they drew up plans through an architect and a Civil Engineer for seven stores. The eastern part of the property is very difficult to work with because it comes down to a point. In 1968 the architect and Civil Engineer submitted the plans and they were not approved by the City of Anaheim because it was not zoned appropriately for the seven stores. Following that, on and off they had a really difficult time keeping the property rented. During the initial period of ownership they received many request from contractors and others that would have used it for more than the limited zoning and that is essentially why they requested a Conditional Use Permit. After that they had little problem renting it to contractors. Over a period of time, there were a number of different contractors, but they were discouraged from what they experienced from some of them. That being the case, they sold the property during the period of his ownership twice. Unfortunately, they had two foreclosures and had to take it back. They began negotiating because they contacted the City with their idea for changing the nature of the property by acquiring the adjacent property immediately to the north. During construction of the La Palma overpass they had real problems. The new hill created flooding of their property and they had claims for damages. For approximately 10 months when Sequoia Avenue was blocked off, it was not a situation where anyone could reach the property except going long distances around Brookhurst. They lost their tenant and while it was vacant they had graffiti, vandalism, etc. It was a bad period and they had claims to Caltrans because the City of Anaheim said Caltrans owned the property. They went to negotiate with the Department of Caltrans that deals with excess properties. Caltrans asked them to get a letter from the City of Anaheim, which has first choice at anything they regard as excess property. The property is essentially landlocked. It does not serve anyone's purpose; La Palma Avenue • is to the north, there's a hill where the water runs down, and no retaining wall or any swell to have the water run off. The only way to the area above their property is to go around back of their property, which is impractical and does not serve a purpose for anyone else. That being the case they decided they would be glad to develop the property in a way that the neighbors would appreciate the change. It would 05-05-03 Page 4 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES either be a residential or commercial development. Approximately 10 years ago, they took an area in • Bellflower, CA, that was being redeveloped, took down three small houses, and put up eight deluxe town homes and today they are the most deluxe apartment units in the area. He feels that the cause of the contingence and complaints they are facing regarding the subject tenant is due to controversy relating to Pacific Western Housing. Pacific Western Housing came up with an initiaf plan that included the parcels on the corner of Sequoia Avenue off La Palma Avenue, which is an old market built in the fifties, and would have been three deluxe two-story homes that are being put in all the way to Gilbert Street. There was opposition. A neighbor immediately adjacent to the market parking lot did not want the two-story dwelling next to her residence, which is single-story. She passed around a petition and received approximately 98 signatures. There was not one reference to the corner parcel or to the market but it was their opposition to the general development by Pacific Western Housing. Pacific Western Housing yielded to them, redid the plan and excluded the two-story dwelling. Before the final determination he assisted Mr. & Mrs. Park, the owners, who have a language barrier, in passing around another petition and received approximately 200 signatures. Because they were opposed to the initial petition, a lot of controversy derived. Since then, there have been ongoing bad feelings. Previously they had a tenant for two years who had a demolition operation. They had storage bins and 18-wheel trucks, which were in and out. They were a very messy operation and never once did anyone want to challenge the Conditional Use Permit for them. He contends that it is not so much the current use but due to the fact that he has had to call the police because of harassment he and the Parks have gotten from the aforementioned issues. The subject tenants' operation is cleaner, less noisy, and better in every way. They are much more reliable. He asked Commission to consider for the benefit of the neighborhood and the City of Anaheim to think in terms of a future plan, whether or not it rules in favor or against the current tenant, to help resolve the ongoing major problem of the future development of that entire corner and the parcel next to his. As of now, an official of the City wrote a letter to him saying that the City has no interest in the property. He • presented the letter to Caltrans officials and had a long meeting with them and that is when he learned from copies of their documentation that the City was in error. Otherwise, it would not be a concern today. Chairperson Bostwick states the Planning Commission cannot help him with any of the issues he has mentioned. He would need to work with Caltrans, with the City Engineering Department or whoever owns the property. If he wanted to go through the process of acquiring a CUP to build something on the property he could return with a plan for Commission to review. The item today is strictly to determine whether or not he keeps the use that he currently has and to determine if it is in conformance with what was originally approved for the property, which was an outdoor construction material storage yard. Mr. Garber states there is a principal in the law and a related or analogous situation would be a prescriptive easement where a particular parcel or piece of land is used for a long period of time without an easement, but if it is used for a certain period of time without any kind of objections or neighboring properties it is called a prescriptive easement. They have used the property with the current CUP on it and the previous tenant was there for two years. In the same way of a prescriptive easement, for years now they have had contractors using heavy equipment, heavy trucks. The question would be why were they not challenged and why didn't he have to come before Commission at that time. Therefore, he appeals to Commission to at least let the current tenants use the facility as they have been using it for the few months that remain. Chad Nakazone, 2325 West Sequoia Avenue Ave., Anaheim, CA, states he is one of five owners of the company along with Christian Sanchez and they have been there since October. They started with one truck and now have approximately 20 trucks. Their business hours are from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. as far as dispatching, administrative and clerical work. The truck yard hours are approximately from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. There have been exceptions where they have been there before the hours of 7 a.m. and after the hours of 5 p.m. The logistics of their business is that they are a carrier. They carry general freight from • the west coast to the east coast and back. They carry general commodities; non-perishable, non- hazardous and non-refrigerated. Most of their drivers stay out a week to four weeks. So there are rarely any trailers that are left for more than a day. If trailers are left longer the company is not making money and they are in business to make money. As far as he knows, they have been in compliance with their 05-05-03 Page 5 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES permits and with their lease. They are just trying to make it to the end of their lease and explore options • from there. Christian Sanchez, also one of the owners, 2325 West Sequoia Avenue Ave., Anaheim, CA, states they are fortunate to have begun their business in the City of Anaheim. After he graduated from Chapman University in Orange, CA, he and his family decided to start the business in Anaheim. His family depends on the business. The company has been pretty successful for them and they would like to get to the point where they are going to out grow their business. They would like to continue at the current site just long enough to finish their contract. They really do not want to cause any problems for the City and for the neighborhood. If he were to turn it around and were in their shoes maybe he would not want to live in an area like that either. They did not consider those things when they first began, but they are in there now and it is difficult for them to try to move out without completely taking a hardship in their business. Since his family depends on it so much, they would just like to continue it to the end of their contract and then they would definitely look into different options of going somewhere else in the City of Anaheim. Seventy- five percent of the time most of their trucks are never there. If they are, it is only about 4-5 trucks at a time that will stay over night. They try not to have them there but if they are there they try to keep them between business hours because they know sometimes a diesel truck can get a little noisy and nobody wants to hear that at 8:00 and 9:00 at night. They try to keep it between their business hours. They just hired a new employee to clean the place and keep graffiti off the walls. They try to keep it nice and clean and do not want to bring down the value of the neighborhood. They do not have traffic as far as customers coming in and out; they do not sell anything; they do not have any dogs there; and they do not load or unload anything. Their trucks come in, park and store. They stay for a maximum of one day and go back out for approximately three weeks. He does not see most of his drivers for approximately three weeks. It is only on holidays or maybe on the weekends that the trucks will be there for approximately 4- 5 days and then just to park. Other than that there is nothing else they do there besides just drive in. The drivers come into the office, get the paperwork and leave. They go pick up their freight in different areas; San Diego, Los Angeles, Ontario, etc., and go back east. They never have anything stored as far as freight or cargo in their yard. Everything is in different areas. Therefore he asks Commission to permit • them to finish their contract. They have to start looking for somewhere to move their property within the City of Anaheim and would appreciate the consideration. Public Testimony: Manny Irizarry, 1011 N. Moraga Street, Anaheim, CA, states he lives just cater-corner from the subject lot. He is the newest person in the neighborhood, and just to point out what he has noticed since purchasing his home in January. The noise from the trucks in the middle of the night and early in the morning is unbelievable. Although the applicants say they do not start until 7 a.m. he has heard them there as early as 5-6 a.m. and as late as 7-8 p.m. blowing their horns and driving big 40-foot trailers on to Moraga Street just so they could back up over the curb into their lot. There have been 8-10 trucks there at a time and drivers can be seen working on the tractors. On the corner of each entrance to Sequoia Avenue are big signs posted stating no trucks over 3 tons allowed on the streets. However, the applicants have huge 40-foot trailers with tractors, etc. It is a residential neighborhood with children running around. There is a school and a public park down the street. The noise and the trucks are detriments to the neighborhood, not to mention what it is doing to property values. He does not appreciate having the trucking company in the neighborhood and asks Commission to remove them. Michelle Cardenas, 1015 N. Moraga Street, Anaheim, CA, states the photographs she submitted to Commission is what she sees from her front window as well as her front yard several times a day. Her property is directly cater-corner to the subject lot and she is present to ask Commission to reject the petitioner's request for a Conditional Use Permit. Diamond Transport (the subject business) has become a terrible nuisance as weff as an eyesore, and has damaged her quality of life. One problem, of course, is the noise. She asked Commission to imagine an eighteen-wheel diesel truck backing constantly in and out of the property as well as using the residential streets to turn around. It is a daily in and out occurrence. She and her seven-year-old son have been awakened before dawn as well as late at night. • She was asked by Code Enforcement to keep a log of their activities, and because of the length of the log she offered to read only a portion of it: 05-05-03 Page 6 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ^ December 17, 2002, she went outside to start her car and discovered a diesel truck parked curbside along the entire length of her property blocking her driveway. The driver was obviously waiting for someone to open the gate so that he could back up. ^ February 12, 2003, she was awakened by a truck backing up at 11:30 p.m. ^ February 13, 2003, she was denied access to La Palma Avenue and had to wait approximately 10 minutes for a truck to clear the corner of Moraga Street and Sequoia Avenue. ^ February 21, 2003, she was denied access to Sequoia Avenue and waited approximately 10 minutes for a truck, which was at that location to clear Sequoia Avenue. Traffic was backed up in all directions. This truck could not even back up into the lot. She was 10 minutes late for work. ^ February 10, 2003, she was awakened by honking at 6 a.m. Someone waiting to have the gate opened. ^ February 7, 2003, she and her son were awakened by a diesel truck honking and backing up at 11:00 p.m. That was a school night. ^ March 26, 2003, she was awakened by honking at 5:20 a.m. ^ April 13, 2003 there was a truck backing up at 10:40 p.m. ^ May 4, 2003, on a Sunday, two trucks came, dropped off, changed trucks and left. ^ Monday, May 5, 2003, she was awakened at 5:40 a.m. due to a truck leaving the property. ~ She is greatly disturbed by these activities and understands they are trying to run a business and has no Liz Simpson, 939 N. Siesta Street, Anaheim, CA, states the applicant's statement of the trucks coming in and out of the neighborhood only by La Palma Avenue is not true. They also come in off of Brookhurst and go through the neighborhood to back their trucks up. They go through the neighborhood not just between 5 and 7 p.m. but also during the evenings, late at night and early morning. Residents cannot get out Sequoia Avenue to La Palma Avenue because the trucks block the streets during the day. The neighborhood already has a traffic problem at the other end with the high school so they tend to go out ~ Sequoia Avenue to La Palma Avenue but they cannot get out there either because the trucking company has it blocked backing their trucks up. She concurs sometimes it is 10 minutes that they have to wait to get out of their neighborhood. There are also personal vehicles parked on Sequoia Avenue blocking driveways, it is not just the trucks. There is not adequate parking for their employees. They have 10 ill feelings towards that at all, but do not feel this is the proper place for it. It is clearly marked at the entrance off Brookhurst as well as La Palma Avenue, no trucks over 3-tons. She is also concerned about the damage to streets. They are currently working with Steven Swaim, City Neighborhood Service Division to clean up the neighborhood as well as taking care of a drainage problem, which is at the corner of Sequoia Avenue and Moraga Street. She also referred to the staff report, and stated a lot of items in paragraph 8 are untrue; 8(a) she has witnessed truck maintenance on the property. One truck sat there at the same spot with the engine hoist nearby for nearly two weeks. Activity at 5 a.m. and or after 7 a.m., Monday thru Friday is not occurring infrequently but almost on a daily basis. Two trucks came into the yard yesterday, May 4, 2003, on a Sunday. I believe the statement that the number 4-5 trucks stored on this property to be untrue as per the photographs she presented. Just yesterday there were seven trailers and eight tractors stored on the property. The applicants stated their trucks enter Sequoia Avenue only from La Palma Avenue It is physically impossible for trucks to enter Sequoia Avenue only from La Palma Avenue and then backing up. But, to enter from La Palma Avenue and come east on Sequoia Avenue, they could not possibly back up without turning around on a residential street. There are no sidewalks throughout the neighborhood. It is an old neighborhood. Children ride bicycles in the street because there are no sidewalks. She is concerned about the safety of the children. There are no ill feelings towards Diamond Transport but she feels her quality of life has been diminished greatly by them being there. 05-05-03 Page 7 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES employees and approximately two parking places in front of their business. The area is not an adequate • place for a commercial trucking business. Theresa J. Spencer, 1014 N. Moraga Street, Anaheim, CA, states she lives across from the trucking company and has lived on her property for 15 years. She concurs with Mr. Garber there has definitely been problems with the tenants that have been in and out. Mr. Garber is not always aware of what is going on. The police have been to the site several times, but she has tried to live with her neighbors. Since the new tenants they have had a few problems and have talked to them about it. They are very nice people and she is sure they did not know all of the problems they were going to get into in moving on the property. When backing up their trucks they go across her front lawn, so she has had to place boulders there. She has marks on her lawn where the grass has dropped 5 to 6 inches. She concurs that while they are backing up, the traffic comes to a standstill. Their employee's cars have become a hazard on the corner. People coming off of La Palma Avenue cannot see what is going on and the people coming up Sequoia Avenue can see what is going on but try to drive across her lawn. With the boulders on her lawn, they now have to stop. She concurs the trucking company goes all night long. Unlike the applicants, she does have dogs on that corner and anybody walking around the property or anybody walking up the street will cause them to bark. When the dogs bark someone in their family goes out to see what is going on. There was a man out there one night with a flashlight wanting to park his truck and a day ago two tractor-trailers backed into the property. The prior tenants did not have eighteen- wheelers and did not have 40-foot tractor-trailers. They were flatbed, approximately two and half ton vans. She concurs it is not anything against the tenants but feels Mr. Garber misrepresented the property. When she moved to the area there was only a small termite company on the corner. It appeared to be a little house with a huge lot behind it. Now, you can drive by the property at any given time and probably see 7-8 trailers. Applicant's Rebuttal: • Mr. Garber states they also have photographs of the previous tenant and they left mountains of debris but there was never a challenge to the CUP. He does not live in the area but lives in East Anaheim so he was not aware of traffic in the evenings. It is regrettable because that is not the way he understood the operation. He proposes if the tenant would promise for the remainder of the lease and if the Commission would indulge them to finish off the three or four months and then terminate their tenancy that would be satisfactory to him. Commissioner Bristol states when Dr. Garber came before Commission in 1978 he proposed a Conditional Use Permit, which quotes, "Petitioner proposes to retain an illegal outdoor construction storage yard". Shortly thereafter the Commission granted the outdoor storage yard. Today it is not an outdoor storage yard. He visited the site over the weekend and cannot imagine what it is like for the trucks and trailers to get around on the street. There is no way the use conforms to what Dr. Garber received in 1978. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states with regard to the statement made of a prescriptive easemerit by reason of the fact that it had not been brought up before; there is no such doctrine with regard to an illegal use. One cannot acquire a prescriptive easement by reason of the fact that he has been operating property illegally for a period of years. Also, with true prescriptive easement those are not applied against a public entity in any event. However, the subject property is not public property. There might be a slight confusion amongst legal concepts. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the request to permit and retain an existing outdoor truck storage yard and truck 05-05-03 Page 8 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES distribution center would not be in substantial conformance with the previously-approved conditional use . permit for an outdoor construction material storage yard. DISCUSSION: 1:52-2:37 (45 minutes) • • 05-05-03 Page 9 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved • (b) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16412 Approved traffic calming (TRACKING NO. SUB2003-00005) plan as a condition of Olson Urban Housing, LLC, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal approval Beach, CA 90740, requests review and approval of a traffic calming plan for a previously-approved 26-unit detached single-family residential condominium subdivision. Property is located at 226 North (Vote: 5-0, Rio Vista Street. Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the traffic calming plan (described in paragraph no. 7 of the staff report dated May 5, 2003) required as a condition of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 16412 (for the proposed construction of a 26-unit detached condominium subdivision) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the traffic calming measure proposed would alleviate traffic and parking concerns as recommended by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. sr1113cw.doc ~~ ~~ r 05-05-03 Page 10 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES D. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved • (b) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 Approved retroactive (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04556 extension of time for one Don Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, Unit Q, Orange, CA 92867- year (to expire on 5529, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with September 25, 2003) conditions of approval for a previously approved 2-fot single-family residential subdivision. Property is located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to expire on September 25, 2003, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current zoning and existing General Plan land use designation for this property. Further, there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project • inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. (ii) That this is the first request for a time extension, and Code permits a maximum of two extensions of time to comply with conditions of approval. (iii) That the property as modified by the applicant would be in a safe and clean manner with no outstanding code violations affecting this property. (iv) That there is no information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support the required findings for approval of Variance No. 2001-04432. sr3018ey.doc i 05-05-03 Page 11 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES E. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) Approved • (b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00410 Approved initiation of (c) RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 2003-00097. 2003-00098. 2003-00099 Generai Plan Amendment City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim and Reclassification Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning Commission proceedings initiation of the following for annexation of properties into the City of Anaheim: (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Area No. 1- Properties north and south of Orangethorpe Avenue, Eastman and Vanderbilt west of Kellogg Drive. A General Plan Amendment to the Land Use absent) Element Map of the General Plan redesignating a cluster of properties from the Low Density and Low-Medium density residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density residential land use designations, and initiation of a reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, R1 "Single-Family Residential" to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone or a less intense single-family residential zone. Area No. 2- Properties west of the Santa Ana River, east of the Orange Freeway, south of South Street, and north of Cerritos Avenue; a reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, A1, "General Agriculture", to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone. Area No. 3- Properties south of the Riverside Freeway, north of Lincoln Avenue, divided by Glassell Street. A reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, A1, "General Agriculture", to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) . Zone. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the initiation of General Plan Amendment No. 2003-00410 in anticipation of the proposed annexation to redesignate several properties within the County of Orange from the Low Density Residential and the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the initiation of Reclassification No. 2003-00097 for Area No. 1(from County of Orange zoning designation, R1, to the City of Anaheim RS-5000 zoning designation), Reclassification No. 2003-00098 for Area No. 2(from the • County of Orange zoning designation, A1, to the City of Anaheim RS-A- 43,000 zoning designation) and Reclassification No. 2003-00099 for Area No. 3(from the County of Orange zoning designation, A1, to the City of 05-05-03 Page 12 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim RS-A-43,000 zoning designation) in order to reclassify several ~ properties within the County of Orange to the appropriate zone designations in the City of Anaheim in conjunction with the proposed annexation. \ J • sr8596av.doc 05-05-03 Page 13 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • F. (a) CEQA 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE (b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00102 City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests initiation of Reclassification proceedings for the Colony Historic District as requested by the Anaheim Colony Neighborhood Council. Properties are located within nine study areas in the Colony Historic District as identified in the staff report. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) OPPOSITION: A letter was submitted in opposition/concern pertaining to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 4 people spoke in favor of the subject request. 8 letters were received in favor of the subject request (prior to the meeting). Concurred with staff Approved initiation of Reclassification proceedings sr8588cf.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 1-F as Study Areas 1 thru 9. Starting with Study Area No. 7: ~ Study Area 7- Consists of 57 properties on the east and west sides of Lemon Street and the east and west sides of Zeyn Street, with a combined area of approximately 9.17 acres, located between North Street to the north and Wilhelmina Street to the south (702, 703, 706, 711, 710, 714, 718, 720, 721, 725, 729, 730, 731, 732, 735, 738, 741, 742, 745, 746, 747, 750, 751, 755, and 756 (2 parcels) North Lemon Street, contiguous parcels 211 West Wilhelmina Street and 202 West North Street and 700, 703, 706, 707, 710, 711, 714, 715, 718, 719, 720, 723, 726, 727, 730, 731, 734, 737, 738, 739, 742, 743, 746, 747, 750, 751, 754, 757, 760 and 761 North Zeyn Street). Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner states staff is working with the neighborhood council on properties that contain single-family homes but zoned for multiple-family homes. The purpose is to redesignate the properties to keep the single-family characteristic of the neighborhood. Commissioner Koos abstained due to his ownership of real property within 500 feet of the Study Area. Commissioner Boydstun abstained due to her office building being in the area. Commissioner Bostwick states a number of e-mails were sent to the City on the item and all were favorable except one, which was not favorable to the rezoning classification. Commissioner Bristol asked in the morning session if the zoning takes effect eventually in the future, what would happen to those that own apartments. He feels his question was addressed by staff on page 4, Item No. 10, where it states, "If is the intention of staff to include provisions for grandfathering of existing legal and legal non-conforming uses and structures such as second units, granny units, duplexes, triplexes and apartment complexes in a draft ordinance to be presented for Planning Commission review and approval if the Commission approves initiation of Reclassification proceedings". Chairperson Bostwick introduced StudyAreas Nos. 1-9, excluding Item No. 7: ~~ ~ Studv Area 1- Consists of 17 properties on the north and south sides of Chestnut Street, with a combined area of approximately 2.83 acres, located approximately 165 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard (512, 516, 517, 520, 521, 524, 525, 526, 529, 530, 533, 534, 537, 539, 540, 542 and 543 West Chestnut Street). Studv Area 2- Consists of 45 properties on the east and west sides of Resh Street and the west side of Janss Street, with a combined area of approximately 5.72 acres, located between Santa 05-05-03 Page 14 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ana Street to the north and Water Street to the south (502, 506, 507, 510, 511, 514, 515, 518, • 519, 522, 523, 526, 527, 530, 531, 534, 535, 539, 540, 543, 544, 548, 549, 550, 551, 555, 556, 558, and 559 South Resh Street, 612 and 706 West Santa Ana Street, and 507, 511, 515, 519, 523, 527, 531, 535, 539, 543, 549, 553, 555, and 559 South Janss Street). Studv Area 3- Consists of 35 properties on the north and south sides of Broadway, with a combined area of approximately 6.4 acres, located between West Street to the west and Citron Street to the east (804, 809, 808, 812, 815, 816, 817, 825, 900, 902, 903, 904, 907, 911, 915, 919, 923, 924, 928, 930, 936, 940, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1007, 1011, 1015, 1018, 1021, 1022, 1024 and 1025 West Broadway and contiguous parcels 216 South West Street and 217 South Illinois Street). Studv Area 4- Consists of 12 properties on the east side of Citron Street, with a combined area of approximately 2.0 acres, located between Sycamore Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south (302, 308, 312, 318, 324, 328, 400, 404, 410, 414, 420, and 424 North Citron Street). Studv Area 5- Consists of 10 properties on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, with a combined area of approximately 1.73 acres, located between Sycamore Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south (301, 307, 319, 331, 401, 407, 415, 417, 421, and 427 North Harbor Boulevard). Studv Area 6- Consists of 7 properties on the east side of Lemon Street, with a combined area of approximately 1.15 acres, and is located between Adele Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south (302, 306, 308, 312, 316, 320, and 324 North Lemon Street). Studv Area 8- Consists of 5 properties on the south side of Adele Street and the west side of Emily Street, with a combined area of approximately 0.74 acres, located between Claudina Street to the west and Emily Street to the east (206, 214, and 216 East Adele Street and 317 and 321 ~ North Emily Street). Studv Area 9- Consists of 6 properties on the south side of Broadway, with a combined area of approximately 1.0 acre, located between Claudina Street to the west and Philadelphia Street to the east (202, 204, 208, 212, 218, and 224 East Broadway). Public Testimony: Andrew Bartel, 206 E. Adele Street, Anaheim, CA, states he is wholeheartedly for the project. He and his family live in a single-family residential block. There has been one in fill across the street, which is currently zoned, single-family since it has been down zoned about 10 years ago. The remaining of the block is single-family residential. He would like to see it remain such. The street is not very large and cannot handle the density for having apartments. Gail Kramer, 331 S. Ohio Street, Anaheim, CA, states she is a resident of the area since January 2001. She is also in the real estate and mortgage business and moved to the area because of the incredible potential for appreciation of values they have experienced in a very unique way in the Anaheim Colony. Anaheim, for years in the past, was not up to the values of other Historic Colonies in Orange County, but in the last few years with such an increase in interest in Historic properties it is really taking off, and there is an incredible amount of energy that is happening because of the historic values of property. It is probably the fastest appreciating historic area in Orange County. One of the things that make the area unique is the ability to preserve City properties as they are. Just because the City's fathers allowed some multi-family units to be built in the wonderful neighborhoods several years ago certainly does not give precedent to continue. Since purchasing her home on Ohio Street she has actually purchased three other properties in the Colony: Zeyn Street, North Helena Street and the property right next to her on Ohio Street. She did that with the knowledge and the hope that the neighborhoods were going to be ~ preserved and the property values were going to rise. As she shows properties to clients in the neighborhood, if there is an area where there is an apartment building that is mixed in with single-family residences, it is just not as desirable and those neighborhoods are going to suffer. She feels if the City 05-05-03 Page 15 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES allows this to happen, it is going to be impacted negatively. She encourages Commission to preserve the integrity of the City's single-family residence neighborhoods as much as possible. Frank J. Razo, 549 S. Resh St., states there are six apartments directly in front of his home and every apartment has three or four cars. There are a lot of children that go to school in that area and they have to be very careful because of so much traffic. Traffic is jammed thick as if driving on Harbor Boulevard. There is so much traffic that if they put in any more apartments they would be worse off than now. He loves Anaheim, and although he has an older home he keeps it really nice. He is against the apartment project. Barbara Gonzalez, 330 S. Ohio St., Anaheim, CA, states she is a resident of the downtown area and she has been very active with the neighborhood council for what seems like decades. She attended the most recent neighborhood council meeting where the only opposing individual spoke, and he spoke regarding Study Area No. 1, which is Chestnut Street, which is a cul-de-sac street. At the time he made reference to the fact that the neighborhood on Chestnut Street was a multi-family neighborhood, but actually the feel of the neighborhood is very single-family. There are some granny quarters, which she does not feel the neighbors in the area have difficulty with. However, it recently came to her attention that in 1999 he came to the Planning Commission for eight variances because he wanted to add a triplex to his existing two units on Chestnut Street, and it was denied at that time. She asks Commission to again reject his request because there is a petition against it. Every person on the street with the exception of the owner of 516 W. Chestnut voted against the variances. Regarding Study Area No. 2, which is located on Resh and Janss Street, two blocks away from her residence, she feels if the owners on the street were to tear down an existing single-family and add a duplex or triplex, property values would probably increase $100-$150,000. However, the unfortunate occurrence with the other 25-30 neighbors on the street would be that they would lose value. One person gains maybe $100-$150,000 but 25 to 30 residents would lose anywhere from $25-$50,000 if they were across the street, down the street, or next door to apartments in a single-family residential neighborhood. ,~ That would be fairly consistent throughout the Historic Colony. 9he is in support of the reclassification and has been very active with the neighborhood council and is overwhelmingly supportive of the action. Commissioner Koos asked regarding Study Area No. 3, located on the corner of Broadway and Citron Street, if it is zoned single-family or residential multi-family, because behind the study area is an alley and the first street that fronts on Citron Street is a residential multi-family, but all the other properties on the north side of Citron Street are single-family. Ms. Flores responded according to the map, the property is zoned multi-family with all the others south and west of it as single-family. Commissioner Koos suggested including the property as part of the downzoning if it is zoned multi-family because it is adjacent to all single-family as well as the proposed downzone on Broadway. In general there are scattered parcels in the Colony Area that are not included on the different study areas that potentially could be proned to taking advantage of their full zoning rights. In the morning session he asked, using Study Area 6 as an example, if it would be worth it between the time of the hearing and the actual hearing on the downzoning if they could include some properties in the study areas that are proximate to the properties being suggested to down zone. With respect to the single-family properties on the block of Adele, Lemon, and Sycamore Streets, there are three single-family properties in that multi-family block. Since no one knows if there will always be a good properry owner there, he hopes they will at least consider the property on the corner of Lemon and Adele Streets for being downzoned to single-family even though it is adjacent to many other multi-family residential properties. At the workshop it was brought up that it could be considered spot zoning, but staff feels if done in a comprehensive manner it probably would not be considered spot zoning if done all at once. He encourages staff to get together with Ms. Gonzalez and some of the other leaders in the Colony to look at the study areas closer and identify proximate properties that may not be neatly bundled in a block, but are close enough to ~ include in the study areas so that they can make efforts to protect those as well from future demolition and multi-family development. 05-05-03 Page 16 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states the property on Lemon Street, which includes the entire • area between Cypress and Adele Streets and across the street may all be considered as one neighborhood and not included as spot zoning property. The other ones on Sycamore Street are zoned commercial. Because legal descriptions must be acquired on any property that comes through, he asked Commission if they could go ahead with what's before them today, including the property on Lemon Street, and then bring back another group of properties as a group that could be bundled together or if Commission wished to postpone going forward with the proposed portion, it would give staff time to put together the information. Commissioner Koos states he is comfortable either way, but if after the property has been approved and staff finds properties fairly close, within a block or two that are isolated incidents, and Commission would not want it to fall into a spot-zoning category, he asked if staff could determine whether it would be better to include them now as opposed to later. ~. Mr. Hastings asked the City Attiorney if staff would need to bring those back as initiations or to be initiated if staff finds properties that are not before the Commission today. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states the Commission is simply initiating, but it can only initiate with regard to the properties that were included in the description for initiation. Currently, there is no other action that is before the Commission. If there is going to be modification of the areas, an amended map and the decision of the Commission with regard to what property is going to be considered, could be brought forward at the actual hearing on the reclassification of the properties. Both could be considered at one hearing at one time. With regard to spot zoning, the City Council could rezone the entire Colony District single-family residential. The City has zoning powers and it does not really require the consent of the property owner, provided due process is followed in giving the property owners an opportunity to address and present their views on the matter. • Commissioner Koos wished to clarify since there has not been a public notice, why Commission could not just state it was including the two parcels, the one on Citron Street and the other on Lemon and Adele Streets. Ms. Mann clarified it is a matter of the Brown Act and what has been agendized, it has to appear on an agenda. It could come before Commission on an agenda as a Consent Calendar item at the next meeting with the two properties to be added to the particular areas. Commissioner Koos asked staff when they expected a public hearing on the items. Ms. Flores responded approximately 6 weeks. Commissioner Koos suggested they move forward with the items and also work with the community to potentially identify other properties, and at subsequent Planning Commission meetings, prior to the public hearing, include the results of the discussions to be initiated for the public hearing. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Koos and Boydstun abstained and Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. (AREA 7), VOTE: 4-0 Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED • (Commissioners Koos and Boydstun abstained and Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim , City Planning Commission does hereby initiate Reclassification No. 2003-00102 to allow for a public hearing to reclassify the properties in Study Area 7 to the single-family zones indicated in paragraph (4) of the staff report dated May 5, 2003. (AREA 7), VOTE: 4-0 05-05-03 Page 17 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falis within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. (AREAS 1-6, 8 and 9), VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent),,that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate Reclassification No. 2003-00102 to allow for a public hearing to reclassify the properties in Study Areas 1- 6, 8 and 9 to the single-family zones indicated in paragraph (4) of the staff report dated May 5, 2003. (AREAS 1-6, 8 and 9), VOTE: 6-0 Planning Commission requested that staff study additional potential properties that may be added to this request. DISCUSSION: 2:38-3:02 (24 minutes) (Commissioner Vanderbilt arrived @ 2:37 p.m.) • • 05-05-03 Page 18 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES G. (a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 2003-00026 - REQUEST Determined to be in • TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE conformance with the ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN TO AMEND AN EXISTING LEASE: Anaheim General Plan County of Orange, Attn: Stephen L. Chaffee, 401 Civic Center Drive West, P.O. Box 808, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests determination of (Vote: 5-0, substantial conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to amend an Commissioners Eastman existing lease of office and garage space to the County of Orange. and Vanderbilt absent) Property is located at 2100 East Howell Avenue, Suite Nos. 406, 407, 408 and 409. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County of Orange's proposal to amend an existing lease of office and garage space at 2100 East Howell Avenue, Suite Nos. 406, 407, 408 and 409 is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from fhe date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Councrl at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by May 14, 2003, as the application was submitted on April 4, 2003 for the subject request.) sr1144tw.doc ~~ ~~ ~ 05-05-03 Page 19 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES H. (a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 2003-00027 - REQUEST Determined to be in • TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE conformance with the ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN TO CONSTRUCT EQUIPMENT Anaheim General Plan BUILDINGS: Max Rasouli, Orange County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, (Vote: 5-0, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, requests determination of substantial Commissioners Eastman conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to construct equipment and Vanderbilt absent) buildings at three Orange County Water District retarding basins. Properties are located at 3151 East Miraloma Avenue (Miller Basin), 2941 East Lincoln Avenue (Five Coves Basin) and 1150 North Lakeview Avenue (Desilting Pond #3). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Orange County Water DistricYs proposal to construct equipment buildings for their Basin Cleaning Vehicle operator rooms at three retarding basins (Miller Basin, Five Coves Basin, and Desilting Pond #3) is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the applicafion is submifted, therefore it is given accelerafed processing and provided to the City Council af an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by May 14, 2003, as the application was submitted on April 4, 2003 for the subject request.) sr1143tw.doc ~ \ J 05-05-03 Page 20 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • I. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with Meeting of April 21, 2003. (Motion) modification to page 21. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun abstained and Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City (Vote: 4-0, Commissioner Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Boydstun abstained since Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 2003, with the following she was absent for the modification: April 21, 2003, meeting; Commissioners Eastman Corrected page 21, the 4`h paragraph as follows: and Vanderbilt absent) "Mr. 9'~+er~ Asturias responded they would look at as many issues as possible with the owner." ~ ~ 05-05-03 Page 21 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • r~ ~_~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Withdrawn 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04669 2c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2003-00010 OWNER: Yong Sub Kim, Thomas Liquor, 1015 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 AGENT: Leon Alexander, Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1000 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.35-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Illinois Street (Thomas Liquor). Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04669 - To permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing legal non-conforming convenience market. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00010 - To upgrade an existing Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 (Off-Sale General Alcohol) alcoholic beve~age license to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing legal non-conforming convenience market. Continued from the March 24, 2003, April 7 and April 21, 2003 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. sr8586av.doc OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the applicanYs request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04669 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00010 due to the business owner's concern with recommended conditions of approval. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. r 05-05-03 Page 22 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2681 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04682 ) OWNER: Robshan Inc., 3210 Belt Line Road #140, Dallas, TX 75234 AGENT: Bryan Kahng, Press Box Sports Bar and Grill, 480 North Glassell Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 480 North Glassell Street. Property is approximately 0.59-acre, located at the southeast corner of Glassell Street and Frontera Street (Press Box Sports Bar and Grill). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 8, 2002, to expire March 26, 2003) to retain three billiard tables and public entertainment with a cover charge in conjunction with a previously- approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. i ~ Continued to May 19, 2003 sr8591 av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2681, 480 North Glassell Street - Press Box Sports Bar and Grill, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 8, 2002 to expire March 26, 2003) to retain a previously-approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverage for on- premises consumption with three billiard tables and public entertainment with a cover charge. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed that the applicant had to leave, but submitted a letter requesting continuance to the May 19, 2003 meeting. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNIIVG COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTlON: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), to continue the subject request to the May 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant at today's meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-05-03 Page 23 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04558 4c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16492 4d. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 (READVERTISEDI OWNER: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Community Development Department, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Joe Richter, John Laing Homes, 895 Dove Street, Suite 110, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 501-541 South Anaheim Boulevard and 100-142 West Santa Ana Street. Property is approximately 5.6 acres, located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street (Trucking Site). VARIANCE NO. 2003-04558 - Request waivers of: a) minimum structural setback adjacent to a collector street, b) minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway, and c) required recreational leisure area to construct 20 detached and 36 attached "affordable" single-family dwelling units with incentives in lieu of a density bonus. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16492 - To establish a 21-lot, 56-unit detached and attached single-family residential subdivision. COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 - Waiver of Council Policy pertaining to ~ sound attenuation for single-family residences adjacent to railroad right- of-way. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 19, 2003. sr1115cw.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), to continue the subject request to the May 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the property owner, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, in an effort to submit a revised site plan and readvertise the project. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 05-05-03 Page 24 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04679 OWNER: John Carlson, City of Fullerton, 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92832 AGENT: Roger Stahlhut, 621 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 627 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 5.8 acres having a frontage of 569 on the north side of La Palma Avenue, located 570 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. To construct a parking lot accessory to an existing church with waiver of setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone. ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-64 Concurred with staff Approved Granted sr8593vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04679, 627 West La Palma Avenue, a request to construct a parking lot accessory to an existing church with waiver of setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone. Applicant's Testimony: Roger Stahlhut, PastQr of Calvary Chapel Open Door, Anaheim, CA, states they request additional parking adjacent to the present church location. Chairperson Bostwick asked if he read the staff report and agrees with the conditions. Mr. Stahlhut responded he has read the staff report, but has concerns with Condition No. 4. Chairperson Bostwick explained Condition No. 4 should have stated 6-foot high instead of 8-foot. Mr. Stahlhut states currently there are only two properties that do not have a 6-foot high wall. He asked if staff is stating he should install an additional 6-foot high wall beyond what is currently on the adjacent properties. Mr. McCafferty states staff wants him to fill in areas where there is not a chain link wall. Chairperson Bostwick states he should fill in where there is not currently a 6-foot block wall on any of the properties adjacent to the subject property with a 6-foot block wall. Mr. Stahlhut states concern with Condition No. 11, regarding lighting. Presently, the guidelines states there would be no evening parking unless there is a special event, and the gates in the additional area are to be locked so that no one would be permitted in. So, it seems unnecessary. Commissioner Koos clarified that Condition No. 11 does not state that he must install lighting, but that lighting should be decorative. Mr. McCafferty clarifies because it backs to residential, staff's primary concern is that if lighting is put in, it should be decorative and at the height that complies with Code, which is 12 feet. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if it would be a problem if the applicant installed decorative lighting at the ends of the turnaround, etc.; to ensure people saw the curbs. 05-05-03 Page 25 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. McCafferty clarified it would not be a problem. ~ • • ~ •- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falis within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04679 (to construct a parking lot accessory to an existing church), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 5, 2003, with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 4 to read as follows: 4. That at~-ei~es~ a six (6) foot high decorative masonry block wall shall be constructed and maintained along the north property line for those residences that currently do not have a block wall separating their rear yards from the proposed parking lot. Clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities shall be planted on maximum 3-foot centers, irrigated and maintained, adjacent to said wall. • Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning and Building Division approval. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:03-3:10) • 05-05-03 Page 26 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV.-CERTIFIEDI 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04686 6d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2003-00003 OWNER: Michael Moore, Tejas Partners, 1748 West Katella Avenue, Suite 206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Michael McCormick, McCormick Construction, Co., 2507 Empire Avenue, Burbank, CA 91504 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douqlass Road. Property is approximately 7.25 acres, having a frontage of 1,560 feet on the west side of Douglass Road, located 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04686 - Request to permit a vocational school within a new office building and accessory commercial event parking with waivers of: a) minimum number of parking spaces, and b) minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2003-00003 - Requests review and approval of a final site plan to construct two-story office building within the SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. r~ ~J • Continued to May 19, 2003. sr8595av.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOStT10N: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), to continue the subject request to the May 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the property owner in order to revise the parking study and to enhance the design of the proposed office building. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-05-03 Page 27 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04685 OWNER: Carl J. Lugaro, 1145 Glenview Drive, Fullerton, CA 92835 AGENT: George Hoeing, Western States Engineering and Construction, Inc., 733 North Main Street, Orange CA 92868 LOCATION: 590 and 510-542 North Maqnolia Avenue. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.49-acre, located at the southeast corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 4.05 acres, located south and east of the southeast corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues. Request to construct an automobile car wash facility with an accessory fast food restaurant and accessory retail sales. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 19, 2003. sr5004jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04685, Parcel No. 1: 590 North Magnolia Avenue and Parcel No. 2: 510-542 North Magnolia Avenue, a request to construct an automobile carwash facility with an accessory fast food restaurant and accessory retail sa{es. He informed the applicant requested a continuance and asked if the speaker who was present would prefer to speak or return to the hearing on May 19, 2003. ~ Public Testimony: Paul Melanson, 503 N. Harcourt Street, Anaheim, CA, states opposition to the potential carwash and restaurant because of the continuation of noise. It is a 24-hour facility. Peter Marshall School is across the street and there are a lot of children. The amount of in and out traffic would be excessive with a carwash. He asked if they would have a 24-hour attendant on the property to oversee any difficulties that may arise. He already observes a lot of trash on the street from children going in and out of the fast food restaurant and from a convenient store, which is also a liquor store. The carwash would add more trash on the street and sidewalk, which nobody seems to want to clean up except somebody who owns a piece of property and does not like the sight of it. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition pertaining to traffic and trash from the fast food restaurant. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent), to continue the subject request to the May 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the representative of the land owner, in order to allow more time to revise the proposal and submit an acoustical analysis to demonstrate compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Eastman and Vanderbilt absent) ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute 1:42-1:43 ~ ) 05-05-03 Page 28 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04684 OWNER: Alex Abary, 8192 Hynes Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Adrianna Rubio, 1624 West Dudley Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 700 West Oranqewood Avenue. Property is approximately 0.18-acre, located at the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Mallul Drive. Request to permit a W.I.C. (Women, Infant and Children) store to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a legal nonconforming commercial retail center and with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-65 Approved Approved Granted, with stipulation made by the property owner at todays meeting. sr3017ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04684, 700 West Orangewood Avenue, a request to permit a W.I.C. (Women, Infants and Children) Store and to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a legal nonconforming commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. . Applicant's Testimony: Adrianna Rubio, 1624 West Dudley Avenue - Apt. A, Anaheim, CA, states they are proposing to open a W.I.C. Store at 700 West Orangewood Avenue. They have read the staff report and have concerns. The pre-file requests that the parking area be repaved. Currently there are three other tenants so they are hoping they get assistance from the property owner. Chairperson Bostwick states there are a number of items in the staff report, which has to do with the retail center. Condition Nos. 9 through 29 are basically what the retail center needs to be comfortable with. Condition Nos. 1 through 8 deals with the applicant's convenience market. He asked the applicant if she read all of the conditions and agree with them. Ms. Rubio responded yes. Teresita M. Abary, 8192 Hynes Road, Anaheim, CA, states she has read all of the conditions in the staff report Items 9 through 29, which deals with the entire center. She agrees to all of the conditions and has begun some of them. Commissioner Bristol states there are utilities going to the rear of the building with wires hanging from them where it connects to the building and it does not look safe. Ms. Abary states she is aware of the wires and if they are not safe they will have somebody take care of them right away. • ~ ~ ~ ' • ~ • • • OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement 05-05-03 Page 29 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04684 (to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a W.I.C. [Women, Infant and Children] convenience store), with stipulation made by the property owner at today's meeting to have a safety inspection conducted of the wires in back of the building and for the wires to be repaired, if necessary; and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 5, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:11-3:17) • ~ 05-05-03 Page 30 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2003-04683 OWNER: Chinh K. Ngo, 1300 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1300 South State Colleae Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.65-acre having a frontage of 126 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, located 425 feet north of the centerline of Winston Road. Request to permit and retain an existing outdoor building and materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile warehouse with accessory retail sales with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 19, 2003 sr8589vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04683, 1300 South State College Boulevard, a request to permit and retain an existing outdoor building and materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile warehouse with accessory retail sales with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Testimony: Chinh K. Ngo, 1300 South State College Boulevard, the owner, states he received the staff report ~ yesterday. Chairperson Bostwick asked if he read through all of the conditions. Chinh K. Ngo states he has a language barrier. He read the staff report, but is not too sure if he understands all of the conditions. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, suggested continuing for two weeks in order to give the planner an opportunity to talk over the conditions with him to ensure he understands. Chairperson Bostwick explained to the applicant that the meeting would be continued for two-weeks and a planner would go over all of the items so that he understands them. Commission has concern that he has outgrown the property due to his storing items outside above the fence and outside of the fence, the trash that has accumulated from all of the crates and cartons, and using the forklift out in the public right- of-way areas. Mr. Ngo states the items outside the fence are just temporary. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), to continue the subject request to the May 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to review the recommended conditions of approval and to meet with staff to ~ discuss any necessary issues. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) 05-05-03 Page 31 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ` DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:38-3:44) (This item was trailed at 3:18 p.m.; since the applicant was not present; and was heard following Item No. 13.) • ~ 05-05-03 Page 32 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 10b. VARIANCE NC1.1229 (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04559) OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2~00 West Orangethorpe Avenue #V, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.3 acres having a frontage of 192 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, located 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Covered Wagon Motel). City-initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the operation of an existing motel. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-66 Concurred with staff Approved amendment to the conditions of approval (to expire on July 25, 2005) sr3020ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Variance No. 1229, 823 South Beach Boulevard - Covered Wagon Motel, a city-initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approvaf pertaining to the operation of an existing motel. ApplicanYs Testimony: Gregory Parkin, 823 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, the owner of the property, states he has concerns with Condition No. 14. As written, it looks like the property would have to be brought up to ~ today's code, which would be impossible because the width of the hallways are different from 1960 when it was permitted. Therefore, the entire building would have to be demolished because the piumbing codes are all different. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states the word "applicable" is in the condition, which means within each one of the codes they generally have provisions for grandfathering. The intent is to make sure everything is done properly at the time it was installed and that it is maintained properly according to today's requirements. Chairperson Bostwick asked Mr. Parkin where the trash enclosure was located on the property. Mr. Parkin responded the trash enclosure was conditioned on their permits 3 to 4 years ago and it was built on the north side of the property towards the front, but not facing the street. The only thing visible to the street is a block wall. Chairperson Bostwick states when he visited on Sunday he noticed large amounts of trash by the swimming pool on the south side parking lot. He asked why they piled bags of trash there. Mr. Parkin states he was not aware they were there, but would check. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the microwave outside, behind the office, on a table plugged into the wall was convenient to the residents. Mr. Parkin responded yes, but now that the conditions have changed it is no longer needed. Commissioner Koos asked under the stipulations, how many occupants it would affect. ~ Mr. Parkin responded approximately 35 to 40. Commissioner Koos asked if he considered the residents permanent. 05-05-03 Page 33 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Parkin responded they are not permanent, but people come into the area as entry-level employees • trying to find a job and permanent housing, It is very difficult to find housing in the City of Anaheim and anywhere close. The people think they can do it within two or three weeks and it usually takes 3 to 4 months. However, even when the restriction went in to effect he does not feel there was any one staying at the motel that had been there for a year. tt is a stop over for people who are trying to find housing. Chairperson Bostwick states he would like to see, as an added condition, all pay phones, vending machines, and etc., to be placed in an area not visible from the street. Mr. Parkin states the pay phones are inside, but they recently purchased a Coke machine, which is sitting at the side of the building. Chairperson Bostwick suggested he move it by the stairs. Mr. Parkin responded the gas meter is by the stairs and there would be no room for it. Commissioner Vanderbiit asked if it is true there was security posted in front. Mr. Parkin responded yes, they have had it in the past. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Chairperson Bostwick if Commission's concern was aesthetics. Chairperson Bostwick states Commission has taken vending machines away from stores and gas stations, etc., and put them where they cannot be seen so as not to litter the front of the building with vending machines. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved the amendment of Variance No. 1229 (Tracking No. VAR2003-04559) to amend or delete certain conditions of approval pertaining to an existing 70-unit motel, to expire on July 25, 2005. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. 235, (Series 1959-60), PC97-89 and 2000R-150 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Two conditions of approval were added at today's meeting): 1. That this variance shal! terminate on July 25, 2005. 2. That the property owner shal! be responsible to pay the cost of random Code Enforcement inspections (not to exceed twice a year) to ensure compliance with these conditions of approva! and with all applicable state and local statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 3. That cooking facilities may be included in the guest rooms provided that such ~ facilities are hard-wired (microwaves excepted) and comply with all applicable building codes, including provisions for proper venting. No portable hot plates or similar cooking devices shall be permitted in the guest rooms. 05-05-03 Page 34 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4. That all guest rooms shall be equipped with properly operating hard-wired (not • battery operated) smoke alarms. 5. That the trash storage areas shal~ be maintained to comply with approved plans on file with the Maintenance Department, Streets and Sanifation Division. 6. That licensed uniformed security guards in such number (not to exceed two (2)), as required and approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall be provided upon the premises specifically to provide security and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. 7. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name, address, and verified driver's license or legal identification and vehicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, and room rate; and which shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 8. That guest rooms shall not be rented or let for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours. 9. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. 10. That the owner and/or management shall not knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of prostitution; or to any person for the purposes of selling, buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illegal drug or controlled substance, or for the purpose of committing a criminal or immoral act. ~ 11. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 12. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the office area, and that the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. 13. That the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection duties of transient occupancy taxes. 14. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, this property and these buildings and accessory structures shall be brought into compliance with the applicable statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, inciuding the Uniform Building Code, uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 15. That the on-site landscaping shall be refurbished as necessary, permanently irrigated and maintained, including the regular removal of trash or debris, and removai of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from the time of occurrence. 16. That a statement shall be printed on the face of fhe guest registration card, to be ~ completed by the guest when registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by the Anaheim Police Department or other Anaheim personnel for law enforcement purposes. 05-05-03 Page 35 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 17. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliance is ~ determined by the appropriate division or department with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the Sfate of California, as adopted by the City of Anahe+m, including the Uniform Building Code, uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanica! Code. 18. 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. 19. That any new signage, beyond that legally existing on the date of this resolution shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 20. That the 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 ordinance, regulation or requirement. Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That no pay phones shall be located outside of the building. That no vending machines shall be visible from the public right-of-way. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (3:19-3:30} ~ 05-05-03 Page 36 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3928 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04690} OWNER: Bhakta Prahalad, 420 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 420 South Beach Bouievard. Property is approximately 0.76-acre, having a frontage of 137 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, located 530 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Best Budget Motel}. City-initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the operation of an existing motel. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-67 Concurred with staff Approved amendment to the conditions of approval (to expire on June 13, 2005) sr3016ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 11 as Conditionai Use Permit No. 3928, 420 South Beach 8oulevard - Best Budget Motel, a city-initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the operation of an existing motel. ApplicanYs Testimony: Samir Bhakta, 1664 W. Cindy Lane, Apt. B, assistant to the owner, states he is present to answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick wished to add the condition that all vending machines would be out of public view. Mr. Bhakta states they have already enclosed the vending machines. ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Soydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Faciiities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved the amendment of Conditional Use Permit No. 3928 {Tracking No. CUP2003- 04690) to amend or de(ete certain conditions of approval pertaining to an existing 45-unit motel, to expire on June 13, 2005. lncorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC97-56, 2000R-106 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Two conditions of approva( were added at today's meeting): ~ That this conditional use permit shall expire on June 13, 2005. 2. That a minimum of six (6), minimum fifteen (15) gallon sized, trees shal( be maintained in the westeriy planter adjacent to Beach Boulevard. 05-05-03 Page 37 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely • manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 4. That the landscaping shall be shall be permanently irrigated and maintained by providing regular landscaping maintenance, regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from the time of occurrence. 5. That a minimum of one (1) licensed uniformed guard, approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall be provided on the premises specifically to provide security and to discourage vandalism, trespass and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. Said security guard shall remain on-duty as determined to be appropriate by the Anaheim Police Department. 6. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name, address, and verified driver's license or legal identification and vehicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rate; and which shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 7. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. 8. That the owner and/or management shal! not knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of prostitution; or to any person for the purposes of selling, buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illegal drug or controlled substance, or for the purpose of committing a criminal or immoral act. ~ 9. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18} years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other lega! identification. 10. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the office area, and that the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. 11. That the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection duties of transient occupancy taxes. 9 2. That the property owner shal! be responsible to pay the cost of random Code Enforcement inspections (not to exceed twice a year) to ensure compliance with these conditions of approval and with all applicable state and local statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 13. 7hat a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card, to be completed by the guest when registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by the Anaheim Police Department or other Anaheim personnel for law enforcement purposes. 14. That the petitioner shall obtain building permits to construct an eight (8) foot high block wall adjacent to the east property line, to provide additional screening of the pool area from the adjacent single-family residence. ~ 15. 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. 05-05-03 Page 38 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16. That three (3) foot high address numbers shall be dispiayed and maintained on the • roof of the building in a color which contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the street or adjacent properties. 17. That signage for subject faciiity shall be limited to that for which building permits have previously been issued and approved. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 18. That subject property shall be developed as conditioned and substantiaAy in accordance with plans and specifications labeled Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6(site plan, elevations, and eight photographs) and which exhibits are on file with the Planning Department. 19. That cooking facilities may be included in the guest rooms provided that such facilities are hard-wired (microwaves excepted) and comply with all applicable building codes, including provisions for proper venting. No portable hot plates or similar cooking devices shall be permitted in the guest rooms. 20. That all guest rooms shall be equipped with properly operafing hard-wired (not battery operated) smoke alarms. 21. That guests vacating the premises shall be required to remove all persona! belongings from the guest rooms. 22. That guest rooms shal! not be rented or let for periods of less than twelve {12) consecutive hours. 23. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, this property ~ and these buildings and accessory structures shall be brought into compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 24. That Condition No. 14, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. 25. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliance is determined by the appropriate division or department with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code. 26. That the 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 ordinance, regulation or requirement. Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That no pay phones shall be located outside of the buiiding. ~ 7hat no vending machines shall be visible from the public right-of-way. 05-05-03 Page 39 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSI~N TIME: 2 minutes (3:31-3:33) ~ ~ 05-05-03 Page 40 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ ~ 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 244 AND 564 (TRACKlNG NO. CUP2003-04691) OWNER: Ritz Realty, 2030 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 LOCATION: 1800 West Lincotn Avenue. Property is approximately 0.84-acre, having a frontage of 102 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, located 785 feet east of the centerline of Broadview Street (Executive Inn). City-initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the operation of an existing motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-68 Concurred with staff Approved amendment to the conditions of approval sr3019ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 92 as Conditional Use Permit Nos. 244 and 564, 1800 West Lincoln Avenue - Executive Inn, a city-initiated request to amend or delete condition of approval pertaining to the operation of an existing motel. ApplicanYs Testimony: Steve Talwar, 535 Scout Trail, Anaheim Hills, CA, states they acquired the property approximately 11 months ago, and as far as the recommendations he has a problem with Condition No. 2, "That a site screen shall be located along any second story portion of the building on subject property facing the adjacent residential properties". • Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states the condition goes back to when the original Conditional Use Permit came into effect. It is just to ma+ntain it the way it is. Chairperson Bostwick states it is to block the view from the residence. Mr. Talwar states they have an 8-foot brick wall adjacent to the apartment complex. Mr. Hastings states it is for the higher floors. His understanding is, that the way the apartment is currently developed complies with the condition, but in case he ever wished to remodel, staff would like to make sure it is maintained. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Pfanning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved the amendment of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 244 and 564 (Tracking No. CUP2008-04691) to amend or delete certain conditions of approval pertaining to an existing 52-unit motel. . Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 62R-937, 1142 (Series 1963-64) and PC99-216 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Two conditions of approval were added at today's meeting): 05-05-03 Page 41 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. 7hat 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 Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and Exhibit Nos. 3 through 5; provided that trees, fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet in height, shall be retained along the west property line to shield the single-family residential development from the two-story motel development, as stipulated by the petitioner, and as conditioned herein. 2. That a site screen shall be located along any second story portion of the building on subject property facing the adjacent residential properties. 3. That cooking facilities may be included in the guest rooms provided that such facilities are hard-wired (microwaves excepted) and comply with all applicable building codes, incfuding provisions for proper venting. No portable hot piates or similar cooking devices shall be permitted in the guest rooms. 4. That guest rooms shall not be rented, fet or occupied by any individual for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours. 5. That the property owner shall be responsible to pay the cost of random Code Enforcement inspections (not to exceed twice a year) to ensure compliance with these conditions of approval and with all applicable state and local statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 6. That as required by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department, one (1), twenty-two (22) foot brown trunk Washingtonian Robusta hybrid street tree and one (1), twenty four (24) inch box Tipuana Tipu street tree, ~ both with an on-site irrigation system, shall be installed by the property owner within the public right-or-way adjacent to Lincoln Avenue as specified on the approved site plan, in accordance with the City of Anaheim Tree Planting Specifications and as specified in the Lincoln Avenue Corridor Master Plan. 7. That a!! guest rooms shall be equipped with properly operating hard-wired (not battery operated) smoke alarms. 8. That trash storage areas shal! be 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. The walls of the storage areas 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 tal! shrubbery. 9. That any existing or proposed ground- or roof-mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view of surrounding properties and streets in compliance with the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 10. That, if deemed necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, a minimum of one (1) uniformed security guard, shall be provided upon the premises at all times specifically to provide security and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. 11. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card • system which includes the full name, address, and verified driver's license or legal identification and vehicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, and room rate; and which shall be made available upon demand by 05-05-03 Page 42 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of • Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 12. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. 13. That the owner and/or management shall not knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of prostitution; or to any person for the purposes of selling, buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illegal drug or controlled substance, or for the purpose of committing a criminal or immoral act. 14. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 15. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the office area, and that the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. 16. That the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection duties of transient occupancy taxes. 17. That this property and these buildings and accessory structures shall be brought into compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained • thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 18. That the on-site landscaping shall be shall be permanently irrigated and maintained by providing regular landscaping maintenance, regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from the time of occurrence. 19. That a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card, to be completed by the guest when registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by the Anaheim Police Department or other Anaheim personnel for law enforcement purposes. 20. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 21. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitation Division. 22. That three (3) foot high address numbers shall be displayed and maintained on the roof of the building in a color which contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the street or adjacent properties. 23. That sufficient lighting be provided to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. ~ 24. That the number of units shall be limited to fifty (50) guest units and one (1) manager's unit, in conformance with the approved plans. 05-05-03 Page 43 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 25. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that for which building permits . have previously been issued and approved. Any additional signage shall be subject fo approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 26. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, condition nos. 17 and 22 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 27. That the 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 ordinance, regulation or requirement. Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That no pay phones shall be located outside of the building. That no vending machines shall be visible from the public right-of-way. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:34-3:35) • u 05-05-03 Page 44 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00096 OWNER: Robert L. Wetzler, 31722 Paseo Terraza, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1218 South Beach Boulevard and 2954-64 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 2.4 acres, located at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Ball Road. City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of the properties from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) and CL (Commercial, Limited) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, or a less intense zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-69 Approved Granted, unconditionally sr8590av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 13 as Reclassification No. 2003-00096, 1218 South Beach Boulevard and 2954-2964 West Ball Road, a city-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of the property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) and CL (Commercial, l.imited) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, or a less intense zone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00096 to reclassify subject properties from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) and CL (Commercial, Limited) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presenfed the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:36-3:37) (Item No. 9 was heard following this item.) ~ 05-05-03 Page 45 MAY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISS(ON MINUTES i ~ ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 19, 2003 AT 19:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chan ler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 05-05-03 Page 46