Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/11/22SUMMA~Y ACTION AGEN~A CITY OF ANAHEIM PLA~NNING GOIVIMISSION MEEI~ING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1'999 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELUPMENTS ANQ ISSU~S (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSl'UN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES,VA~ JDERBILT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Linda Johnson Della Herrick Don Yourstone Russ Sutter Happy Medina Etrent Schultz Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita So!orio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Depu!y Planning Director Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Police Sergeant Police Officer Redvelopment Agency Principal 1'ransportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary ~ P:IDOCSICLERICALIMINUTES1AC112299.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 1 .~- 17EMS OF QUBLIC INTERFST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA FOR THE I Approved PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25,1999. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Sostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Cummission does hereby receive and approve the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of October 25,1999. RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA FOR THE ApProved PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8,1999. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun abstained because she was not present at that meeting), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 1999. I Commissioner Koos thanked the secretar;~l staff for the good job they do on the minutes. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. ORANGE COUNTY CENTERLINE RAIL TRANSIT PItOJECT: Recammended to Request for the Planning Commission, by motion, to provide a the City Council that re;,ommendation to the City Council regarding the Orange County if they decide to Transportation Authority "Staff Recommended AlignmenY' for the Orange supp~rt a"Build" County CenterLine Rail Transit Project in the City of Anaheim. Alternative and if there is an ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner alignment in Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission Anaheim, that the does hereby recommend to the City Council that if the Council decides to alignment in support a"l3uild" Alternative for the CenterLine Project, and if there is an Anaheim be the City alignment in Anaheim, that the alignment in Anaheim be the City staff prepared staff prepared Locally-Preferred Alignment (including thc station locations) and requested Locally-Preferred mitigation as described in the October 25, 1999 Istter to O:C.1".A. and Alignment (including summarized in Attachment A to the Planning Commission staff report dated the station November 22, 1999, correcting Item No. 4 to read as follows: locations) and requested mitigation "4. La Palma Avenue widening at Anaheim Boulevard to retain four through lanes;° {Vote: 7-0) SR7628LJ.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner stated this request is for the Planning Comnission to make a recommendation to the City Council reyarding the Orange County CenterLin~ Project. As indir,ated in the staff report and in this morning's study session O.C.T.A. circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report which evaluated three Build Alternatives including one elevated and two street level alternatives for a 28-mile rail transit system from the city of Fullerton through Anaheim, to the city of Irvine. 7he Draft EIS/EIR also evaluated a"No Build" alternative. City staff reviewed the three build alternatives and has prepared a City staff Locally-Preferred alignment and recommended mitigation for the segment of the CenterLine within Anaheim. This alignment links 9 station locations including the Civic Center, the Anaheim Resort and Edison Field as well as business corridors and nearby residential areas. City staff reviewed this alignment with tfie Planning and Redevelopment Commissions and the City Council bPfore forwarding it to O.C,T.A. as part of City-staffs comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. On November 8, 1399, O.C.T.A. staff released a staff recommended alignment and requested ihe Corridor cities to comment on this alignment. This alignment is provided as Attachment B to the ~lanning Commission staff report. As indicated in the staff report, the O.C.T.A. staff recommended alignment differs in two locations frem the City-staff prepared alignment. It has a different connection between Fullerton and Anaheim and a different alignment along Cerritos Avenue. In addition, O.C.T.A. staff alignment does not incorporate the mitigation measures that City staff believes are necessary to reduce the impacts of the CenterLine Project on Anaheim. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 3 City staff continues to recommend that if there is a CenterLine alignment fn Anaheim that the alignment be the Ciry-staff prepared alignment including the recommended mitigation which is provided in Attachment A to the staff report. She noted one correction to Item 4 of the staff recommended mitigation. It should read, "La Palma Avenue widening at Anaheim Boulevard to retain four through lanes." Item 4 currently reference six through lanes. She also noted that O.C.T.A. staff recently indicated that they are now recommending that, given the city of Santa Ana's recent decision to support a No Build Aiternative, that d.C.T.A. Staff is now recommending a minimum operating segment between the Irvine Transpo~tation Center and South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa. Given that the shortened alignment is still only an O.C.T.A. staff recommended minimum operating segment, and given that the Anaheim City Council has not yet taken a vote on the policy aspects associated ;vith the CenterLine Project, City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a recornmendation to the City Council regarding the CenterLine Alignment. Specifically, City staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that if the City Council decides to support a Build Alternative for the CenterLine Project, and if there is an alignment in Anaheim, that the alignmeni be the City-staff prepared alignment and mitigation which is documented in Attachment A to the November 22nd staff report including the correction to Item 4. The City Council is scheduled to consider policy aspects related to the CenterLine Project on December 7, 1999. Commissioner Koos stated, for the record, that he fully supports the CenterLine Project and it is unfortunate that the city of Santa Ana City Council's position I~~st week seems to have a detrimental affect on this alignment in Nortfi County. It is unfortunate because thi~ EIR showed that this project performs very well in Anaheim given their housing and job demographic~~ as well as their tourism. O.C.T.A. will be "shooting itself in the fooP' if they ignore North Counry given Santa Ana's concerns. He supports staff's re;:ommended alignment in Anaheim. Chairperson Boydstun agreed with Commission Koos. She felt this would be a major asset to the area. Commissioner Bostwick stated he is also in support. They need to look to the future instead of just today. Given the mitigation that the City staff has recommended, this project would rvork in the City of Anaheim and wouid benefit all of our industry and residential areas and would hopefully bring back some of our neighborhoods, to a walking and transit type rather ihan all the cars and continuing to build highways. B. FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9&-12, REVISION 1: Shirish Patel, c/o Withdrawn Desert Palms Suites, 631 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 and Chuck Terry, 3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 235, Newport Beach, CA (Vote: 7-0) 92660, request review and approval of a revised Final Site Plan to construct new 550-room hotel complex. Property is located at 2065- 2085 South Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Cornmissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Final Site Plan Review No. 98-12, Revision No, 1. SR7619KD.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1959 Page 4 C. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR7 N0. 317 (PREV: APPROVED) Approved b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW N0. 99-07: The Wa1! Disney Company, Approved Attn: Doug Moreland, 500 South 6uena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521, r2quest Final Site Plan Review No. 99-07 forThe Disneyland (V~;te: 7-0) Resort Specific Plan Theme Park District setback areas adjacent to the west side of Harbor Boulevard generaily located between Manchester I Avenue to the north and Candy Cane Inn to the south. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planr~ing Commission does hereby determine that the previousiy-certified EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol of~ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosiwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7 on file in the Planning Department), based upon o finding that the Finai Site Plan is in conformance wifh The Disneyland Reso~t Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7555DH.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated before Commission is the setback area along Harbor Baulavard from Candy Cane Inn to Manchester Avenue. There was also a representative from the Walt Disney Company as well as the landscape architect (SWA Group) available to answer any questions. Commissioner Bostwick asked where the sign would be located. ~ella Herrick responded staff has not officially seen any signage. They have submitted various designs but have not proposed an exact location at this time. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, added that they are looking at signage at Freedom Way/Harbor entrance, which is the main visitor entrance off of Harbor Boulevard. As notec~ on the landscape plan there is ~ patched out area in that entry which shows that it will be reviewed as a separate plan when that is available. Commissioner Vanderbilt thought it would be helpful to see the plans on the northern section of Harbor to see how it relates to this but did not know if any of the other Commissioners felt like extending this. Therefore, he would be voting "no" or supporting a motion for a co~tinuance. Commissioner Bostwick stated he asked at the morning session whether there would be sidewalk from the employees entrance north to Ball Road or up to the freeway entrance and exit. Staff indicated there would not be. They are going to put signs at Ball Road referring all pedestrians to cross the street and use the east side of Harbor Boulevard rather than in that area: City of Anaheim Pla~ming Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 5 J~:; Linda Johnson clarified that this final site plan is for the setback area on the Disney property, private property, and it is not for the pubiic right-of-way. The quest(on was is ihere a sidewalk connection between this side of Harbor and going over the bridge. That street impravement plan was approved as part of the Harbor Boulevard street improvement plans as well as the Caltrans improyement plans. There is a full sidewalk from Ball Road, on the east side of Harbor. People staying in the hotels in that arba will be able to walk along that sidewaik, cross the freeway and then cross the street at the "Esplinade" signal. There will not be a sidewaik connection on the west side of Harbor Boulevard. There will be signs directing pedestrians to cross the street at Ball Road. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 6 D. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SEC710N 15061(b)(3) Concuned w/staff b) CODE AMENDMENT N0. 99-08: City-initiated (Planning Department), Recommended 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request for adoption of t~e consideration to amend Title 1 S pertaining to self-service laundry draft ordinance to facilities. City Council ACTION: Commissioner Bristoi offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoies and MOTION CpRRiED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission (Vote: 7-0) does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project fails within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EiR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~ier Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Ciry Council adoption of the draft ordinances 3ttached to the November 22, 1999 Planning Commission staff report. SR7531CF.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is Code Amendment No. 99-08 and that would permit coin- operated (self-service) laundry facilities by conditional use permit in the Commercial, Limited Zones,_the Northeast Area (SP90-1), Commercia~ Area (SP94-1, DA-5), Specific Plan, PacificCenter (SP88-3) and the Festival Specific Plan. it was an action item from the Community Planning Program. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1367 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Leonard Chaidez, 507 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92815, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No.1367 (to (Vote: 7-0) establish an outdoor recreational vehicle storage area). Property is located at 507 South Lemon Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-197 SR7544VK.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is a request for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1367 which was a condition of approval that was required for the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 7 CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4093 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Leonard Chaidez, 5U7 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92815, requests termination of Canditional Use Permit No. 4093 (to (Vote: 7-0) permit a contractor's storage yard). Property is located at 507 South Lemon Street. TERMINATlON RE30LUTION NO. PC99-198 SR7545VK.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. G. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -SECTION 15061(b)(3) Concurred w/stafr CODE AMENDfMENT N0. 99-11: City-initiated (Planning Department), Recommended 200 Soulh Anaheim Boulevard #162, Anaheim, CA 92805, Pr~posal to adoption ofi the amend Section 18.86.030 of Chapter 18.86 pertaining to draft ordinance to signs in the PR "Public Recreation" zone. City Council ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfirvick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Con.missioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the draft ordinance attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated November 22, 1999. SR7633AS.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the current regulatiuns pertaining to signs in the "Public Recreation" Zone require that any signs that are not owned, ~perated and maintained by the City first obtain a conditional use permit. The proposal would except the area that is covered by Sportstown Anaheim, located in the Public Recreation Zone and also subject to Area Deveiopment Plan No.120 as well as the Redevelopment Plan for the Stadium and the Stadium baseball lease. The signage that will be taking plac~ in the 8portstown area is subject to review by the Planning Commission, review by the Redevelopment and Housing Commission, review by staff and approval by the City Council. Therefore, they felt it was unnecessary that conditional use permits be processed for this type of sign. The proposed amendment would only impact the Sportstown properties, specifically, which is primarily City-owned property. Staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend City Council adoption of the ordinance. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE UtGLAKAI Iun Hpprovea 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4160 (READVERTISED) Granted, in part OWNER: Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Attn: Mike Johsz,1452 Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 AGENT: Edmund Olson,11560 Tennessee, Los Angeles, CA 90064 LOCATION: 130 South Knott Street. Property is 2.7y acres located on the east side of Knott Avenue, 440 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. To permit a self-storage facility with waiver of (a) required structural setback adjacent to a residential zone, (b) mir.imum number of parking spaces and (c) required site screening abutting a residential zone boundary. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 8,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIQN N0. PC99-199 SR7627KB.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Irv Pickler, 2377 Maul Avenue, Anaheim, (fonvarded copies of a fetter from their lender, Prism Financial Corporation, and a memo from Melanie Adams to Kevin Bass) stated they are returning on the continuance of CUP 4160 for the approval of a self-storage facifity. He listed the benefits o~ this project as foliows: . It is a ron-invasive, unobstructive use and the most quiet of all uses. . As published in the self-storage almanac (98-99) the self-storage facilities generate very low traffic flow. . It is a clean and safe use. They will have security gates and employees on duty and security cameras that will keep vagrants and transients from using the property. . The owners are committed and will comply with the condition to clean up graffiti within 24 hours. . They will be adding landscaping. . There is a need for a public storage in the area. There are only 3 others in the neighborhood and those have reached 90% capacity. . This use will have a minimal impact on services such as police and fire. As evidenced by a memo addressed to Kevin Bass, Zoning Division from Melanie A.Lams, Public Works, Development Services dated October 7, 1999, she states that the sewer capacir,~ in this area is under study. Item C, "If the CUP proceeds at this time the Public Works Department reccmmends that the developer be restricted to the use of self-storage so that there will be no additional impacts on the sewer." 7hey believe that almost every other use wou~d have a tremendous impact on the system that has almost reached its capacity and should be taken into serious consideration before granting any other type of City of Anaheim Planning ~ammission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 PagQ 9 CUP. The main reason for staffs denial and Commission's concern has been the City Councii Policy, which is vague, ambiguous, and leaves much to ones own interpretation. They supplied a letter from a lender, Phil Walsh with Prism Financial Corporation (Item A), who would not lend to commerciai because the property in the surrounding area has a high rate of vacancy and the commercial development already established in that area is having a lot of probiems, He referenced page T, Item 24, of the staff report, which states staff ~~as directed to define what is an "irregularly-shaped" lot. Currently, staff considers any lot that is not an approximate rectangle or square as irregularly shape. Furthermore, a rectangularly-shaped lot where one dimension is much greater than the remaining dimension (length and width) would also be considered an irregularly-shaped lot:' He asked Commission's approval of this project. The new owner will compiy with all the conditions that staff has presented. The applicant is looking forward to being a part of the community and will be a plus to the neighborhood by maintaining the property and enhancing the appearance. OPPOSITION: Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, Chairman of W.A.N.D. (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Councii), stated she takes exception to some of the things Mr. Pickier said. He said there were 3 storage units around this area. She looked in the phon~ book and found within a 2Yrmile radius of this lot there are 18 storage facilities. There were 29 pages of storage facilities advertised. She concluded that there were many storage facilities with 2'/: miles of this property. She did a population study in the late 80's of this area since she was interested in the population in West Anaheim because there seemed to be several apartments in their area. She found that this was the most populated area in Anaheim. This is a very highly populated area. Motels were not considered in the study. This area needs some green space and not more buildings. She has found that there are other uses for the proposed site such as a college off-site for Cypress Community College. This storage facility would ~nly have two employees. They are interested in employment for residents in West Anaheim. UVhen they were shown the plans they were told that there were only gein~ to be two new buildings in the facility and now there are going to be three. They were told that 60% of the~e units would be for business storage. She felt there are other uses that they could use for this property. She does not consider it an irregular lot. She is sure there are other business in Anaheim that have the same size lots. This company is paying more that $2 million dollars for this property that is largely over priced and are willing to pay it because storage units are lucrative. She asked the Commission deny the proposal for the storage facility. Donna Chessen, Chessen and Associates, 458 Pinehurst Court, Fullerton, stated she wanted to address Ms. Wallace's testimany. Staff supplied ihe information regarding the total amount of storage units. There are only 19 storage units in the entire Ciry of Anaheim. Staff has verified the amount in West Anaheim and verified that there are more in East Anaheim than West Anaheim. That is not something that they made up. They took that from staff's records. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 10 Jim Bonsteel, 1203 North Groton Street, Anaheim, stated he would like to see this proposal denied. He would like to see other type of business or greenbplt within fhat residential area. They oan best use that area for senior citizens, children or teen centers. He has been an active member of W.A.N.D. for over 2 %: years and recently started a neighborhood council group known as Island 591. He does supports everything Ms. Wallace said and hoped that Commission would take his testimony in consideration. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Irv Pickler stated he also belongs to W.A.N.D., he lives in West Anaheim. He is also a Board Member to the Cypress College Foundation and has ~ot heard the aspect that Cypress is looking for a location on Knott Avenue. They have a lot of open space if they need some buildings they c3n build them at the Cypress College. He acirees there is a lot of traffic at the corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenue. He drove on Lincoln and stopped by 3174 West Lincoln (near the proposed site) and out of the 15 stores, 13 of them are vacant. He checked trs no~thwest corner of Kr~ott 7nd Lincoln and there are 4 vacancies there. They will be installing 10 feet of landscaping. There is a wall on the north and east and a wire fence on the south. He felt this proposal would enhance the location. He asked Redevelopment when they are going to do something with it but apparentl;~ they have no plans at this time. He did not know where the $2 million figurs came from and it is up to Mr. Olson if he would like to discuss that. Commissioner Bristol asked what the percentaye of professional (business) storage versus self-storage would be at the proposed facility. Donna Chessen responded 33% of it would be professional storage. They are definitely marketing and advertising, first and foremost, to the business professional. They will be providing lighting and carpeting which very few professional storage facilities offer and also provide pickup. Maria Longbergen, 211 South Loma Linda Drive, Anaheim, stated she is against this proposal. The buildings (referring to the current vacant public telephnne exchange facility) are full of graffiti and the neighbors that live there are very aggravated because the build;ngs are not taken care of. They do not need !rore storage facilities. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold felt this project would be more appropriate if the Council Policy were amended to include not only irregularly-shaped but also deep lots. His understanding of the case log precedent on this, which is not much in California, for other states that have addressed this is that deep lots are legally different than irregularly-shaped lots. Given the fact that there is a Council Policy it seems that if the Council believes that it is appropriate to place these facilities on deep lots then that would be the first step. He did not feel he could vote for this given the Council Policy. Chairperson Boydstun stated that is something that does need to be addressed, because in the past they have approved other proposals under the Edison lines for storage which are rectangularly-shaped and City Council also approved those. Commissioner Bristol stated that this item was a split vote at the previous meeting and both sides have a good argument and the issue comes down to whether this is an irregularly-shaped lot, per Council Policy or is it potentially a regular parcel in a location that may be undesirable for other uses ihat were suggested by staff which will ultimately be decided by City Council. He has visited this site several times and has seen the transformers on the poles, the razor wire to the east and the apartments to the south and concluded that he could not see a school with children at that site, This proposed use would be less City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 11 intensive in terms of trips, noise. He was also concerned with the amounk of traffic and high speed in that area. Therefore, he concluded the proposed use is good for the area particularly because it is going to have professional use that wouid not have the amount of trips :hat other uses would have. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated regarding professional use, staff had indicated that if this property were used exclusiveiy for professionai use then it would not be aliowed by zoning, it would be required to be in an industrial zone. He did not feel that the definition of irregular or regu~ar shape provided very much help. He is, therefore, back where he was two weeks ago in terms of trying to understand Council Policy and understanding what guides they want. Commissioner Koos stated the question of whether the lot is irregular or not is central to the issue given the fact th~t there is a Council Policy. It should be recognized that where the lot is Iocated as opposed !o its mere shape. If this lot were located at another location, for example, on the corner of Lincoln and Knott then it would charge its characteristics and might work as a commercial property. He felt the pro~osed use is a passive use and supports the project given the circumstances of the prnperty and the surrounding uses. Chairperson Boydstun stated it is unfortunate that this proper;,~ is shaped the way it is but being that the property is deep then there are not many practical uses that can go there. It is a problem are~ with graffiti. If this property was cleaned up, maintained and someone on duty at all times then it would eliminete many neighborhood problems. They have looked extensively for alternative uses for this property and there are some possible uses but no one is wanting to develop it. She stated, for the record, that she read the minutes, listened to the tapes regarding the discussion of this item and concluded that this is the best land use for this property at this time. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record, she wanted to repeat what she stated at the morning session, which does not appear in the sta~f repoR. At Commission's request they looked into a definition of what an irregulerly-shaped lot is. Commissioner Arnold located some cases out of California that make a distinction between a regular lot versus one that is irregularly-shaped. In her own review of California law, she found that ;here were very few cases that actually describe a shape when they use the term irregularly shaped. I! was almost an understood type of thing. There was one case that might or might not have been a very deep rectangular lot where it was 120 feet wide by approximately 1,700 feet long. Other than that, every other situation in which irregularly-shaped lot was actually described was something that was a triangle or something other than a rectangular shape. The staff report does suggest that staff would consider a rectangularly-shaped lot ~vhere one dimension is much greater than the remaining dimension to be considered irregularly shaped. That would also be something for the Commission to consider but the recommendation, regardless of what the Commission's action is, is that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Council Policy to clarify the first item so that there is consistency in the review of the projects. Commissioner Bostwick stated it has been stated that they do not want more apartments. There is no need for another motel in the area; schools want read,y-made buildinys that they can move into or lease rather than spending money to build. As far as a medical building the medical profession is cutting back, they are utilizing more intense~y wh2t they already have or lease structures. Given those perimeters and also given Ms. Wallace's facts regarding the number of apartments and people in the motels, there is obviously a need for storage in that area. He concluded that there is a need for the proposed use whether it be professional or public/residential storage. Being fully occupied, landscaped with vines and employees on duty is going to help cut down on the graffiti. It is going to be a benefit for the community even though some residents may not believe so. Greg McCafferky, Senior Planner recommended adding a condition to read, "That there shall be no storage and/or overnight parking of trucks or other vehicles permitted in connection with the delivery portion of this storage facility and all delivery vehicles shall be stored off-site:' That is consistent with the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 12 FOLLOWING IS A SUMM/~RY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the proposal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as failows: Approved Waivers (a) and (c) and denied lNaiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that said waiver was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4160 with the fcllowing changes to the conditions of approval: Added the following condition of approvai: That there shall be no storage and/or overnight parking of trucks or other vehicles permitted in connection with the deliver~ portion of this storage facility and ail delivery vehicles shall be stored off-site. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Arnold and Vanderbilt voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (1:54-2:28) City of Anaheim Planning Cnmmission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 13 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEhT Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4069 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to the conditions of OWNER: Khoda B. Ostowari, Parvin Soroushian and Irandokht approval Djahanian, 6263 E. Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, ~A 92807 LOCATION: 801 South Harbor Boulevard anc1510 West South ' Street. Property is 0.8 acre located at the southwest corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and tc amend plans pertaining to the proposed freestanding sign and required screening adjacent to a residential zone with waiver of (a) permitted location of freestanding signs, (b) required site screening abutting a residential zone and (c) timing of required improvement of right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meetings of October 25, and ~ovember 8, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-200 SR1134JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Khoda Ostowari, 6263 East. Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, stated he is requesting to amend plans pertaining to the proposed freestanding sign and required screening adjacent to a residential zone and also forjustification for a delay in the street improvement and a beer and wine license permit condition which they felt they already met. The staff report regarding the beer and wine and wall screening explains the situations clearly enough and since s4aff has recommended the approval of the request, he deferred to the staff report for the justification of their request. Regarding the s!-eet improvement, the Public Works Department requires public improvements for the widening along Harbor Boulevard and construction of the new street, curb and gutter for the property. Their understanding from the beginning was that they would post a construction bond to the time the City is going to widen the street. They are required to msintain the landscaping until the fime of the street widening. They are proRosing to postpor~e itiis improvement for 5 years so they can post a construction bond ~nd sign a covenant and accept any conditions reguired by Commission to the originally approved CUP. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated he met with the applicant and he explained the situation of the bond and the improvement to him. He agreed with the applicant. At the morning session staff commented if this item was approved then they could discuss a 5 year performance bond. He visited the site again and looked City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 14 at the bus stop and concluded there is still ample room for the bus to a stop. Until such time that this street is widened then it would be a financial hardship on this applicant. Commissianer 9ostwick agreed as long as the applicant is willing to pay for the widening when they ciry is re~dy for it. The land has already been offered for dedication then it is a matter of pulling up a bond to pay for the widening when the City is ready. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer confirmed that is correct, if they go for the 5-year period that they requested, or any other time or period. Chairperson Boydstun clarified until the street is ready to be widened. The applicant is dedicating the property away. Asked if the other property owners are going ta pay their fair share. Melanie Adams responded, according to Code, as properties deve(op they would be required to dedicate and improve properties. ;f they were not making improvements to the property then the City would purchase the property as part of a capital improvement project. Chairpe[son Boydstun stated that the applicant is dedicating the property, there is no q~estion about that. Are they purchasing the other properties and pay far the work, whereas the applicant has to dedicate the property, as well as complete the work. Melanie Adams responded it is a City-wide pmcess. According to the Site Development Standards, if a property is being developed, new building permits and construction greater than 1,000 square feet, then by Code, they are required to make the dedication and improvement unless the requirement is waived. Melanie Adams stated if you go longer than 5 years, the value of the bond has a certain inflation of construction costs over a long period of time that would not offer the City the same protection. Commissioner Bristol advised the appiicant would probably want to complete it around the 5~' year because it will be less expensive for him. Khoda Ostowari stated if they would have known abcut this issue last year they would have asked for a variance for the street widening. At this point if the entrance is moved 15 feet back, it is going to have a major negative impact to the success of the business. They are willing to do the improvements in 5 years, but at this time they have their permits, plans are approved and they are starting construction in a month and did not expect this. Commissioner Bristol thought 5 years would be acceptable. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: Nore ACTION: Determined that the previo~sly approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement. Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4069. Modified Resolution No. 98R-266, as follows: Amended Condition Nos. 56 and 60 to read as follows: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 15 "56. That subject property shail 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 No.1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 5, and as conditioned herein. 60. That approval for the off-premises sale of beer and wine shall terminate on January 30, 2000, if the appiicant has not obtained an Aicoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license prior to said date and further that the total number of active licenses in the census tract is reduced to ten (10) licenses. No sale of beer and/or wine for off-premises consumption shall be Nermitted on the property unless and until the applicant has obtained an ABC license no later than January 30, 2000:' Added the following conditions of approval: "65. That the proposed wrought iron portion of the proposed fence along the west and south properry lines outside of the front setback area, shall be reduced to a height of four (4) feet so that the maximum height of the fence does not exceed six (6) feet in height. In addition, the 3-foot high block wall within the landscape setback shall be reduced to two (2) feet to match this fence. 66. That the owner of subject property shall record an unsubordinated covenant agreeing to remove any freestanding signs on subject property which may be located within the future public right-of-way at no cost to the City and at such time as the petitioner/property owner makes the public improvement and widens the public street to the ultimate right-of-way. 67. That street lights shall be installed on Harbor Boulevard as appro~ied by the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. 68. That the water backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Division in either behind the street sf;tback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfactic~n of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. In addition, if required by the Anaheim Fire Department, the fire line will be upgraded. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 69. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all 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 window areas of ~djacent properties, and that said lighting information shall be specified on plans submitted for building permits. Photometric plans shall be submitted to the Anaheim Police Department, Community Services Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 16 70. That prior to fssuance of a buflding permit, a bond shali be posted and a covenant shall be recorded, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City Attomey's Office guaranteeing the ,construction of the public right- of-way improvements as required by the Public Works Department within a period of five (5~ years from the date of occupani;y." VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal ri~~hts. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:29-2:41) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1899 Pac~e 17 ~ 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV: APPROVED) Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEN7 12-20-99 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3954 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Sa-Rang Korean Church of Southern California, Attn: Young-Min Chung,1111 North Brookhurst Streef, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Clean World Engineering, Inc., 9480 Telstar Avenue, #208, EI Monte, CA 91731 LOCATION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street. Property is 10.2 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street,190 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Sa-Rang Presbyterian Church of Southern California). To permit the expansion of a previously-approved church facility to include a 2-story, 7,600 square foot day care center, to modify a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation, and to permit and retain an existing freestanding sign with waiver of (a) permitted number, (b) locakion and (c) distance between freestanding signs. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 8, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. • • • • • • 1 person was ~resent in the audience to speak on this item. He indicated he would come back on December 20' to speak on the matter. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request tu the December 20, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow for readvertisement of mndifications to this project. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 18 Sa. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Withdrawn 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~J. 4162 ~ OWNER: Leonard Joe Chaidez 8~ Cyndie M. Chaidez, P.O. Box 29, Hnaheim, CA 92815 AGENT: Michaei Clarke, 8421 Yorktown, Huntington Beach, CA 92686 . LOCATIQN: 507 South Lemon Street. Property is 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street. To permit a contractor's storage yard. Continued from the Commission maetiny of November 8, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1028TW.DOC There was nc discussion of this matter. • • • • . • OPPOSITiON: None ACTiON: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Conditior~al Use Permit No. 4162. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:35-1:36) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 19 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4163 12-6-99 OWNER: Marvin Frederick and Vivian Marie Rogers, 321 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Allen Golden, 2888 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91107 LOCATION: 321 North State College Boulevard. Property is 0.69 acre located on the west side of State College BoulEVard, 310 feet south of the centerline of Reowood Avenue. To permit a substance abuse recovery center for women and their dependent children. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 8,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1025TW.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Allen Golden, 2888 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, stated he has been working with Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs in obtaining a conditional use permit for the use of the property. They have placed additional fencing on property due to concerns of the Police Department. Staff is concerned that the play area will disturb neighbors, but they are removing the pool and replacing it with grass, so there will be less noise from bouncing balls, etc. They have also modified the original proposal by offering to put several mature plants along the back wall of the property to help contain noise. They will accept the condition that limits hours of children playing in the area. This will not create any more children in the area than there are now and when the children are outside they will be supeivised which will be less noisy than children playing in a pool. If there are any complaints, they will be addressed immediately. Due to the density of occupancy, staff suggested that they withdraw the application and go back to the County and return with a different proposal, but there are contractual commitments to the owner of the property that would not facilitate that. Also, the use of this property is part of a program organized by the County of Orange who has asked them to provide a facility for up to 18 women with up to 2 children each. Actual occupancy is normally at 75% of the licensed capacity and they are willing to reduce the number from 54, but the staff's suggestion of 36 is too low. They need to be as close to 50 as possible. Solutions would be to build out the front of the existing six 1-bedroom units and create an additional bedroom, or increase the depth of kitchens. Lana Pal, Executive Director of Soulhern California Alcohol and Drug Programs. Brought an endorsement from Heritage House in City of Costa Mesa. She stated Mr. Bashvick pointed out that often times there are 3 and 4 families in the small apartments and this project is in no way endorsing this type of situation. David Feinberg, State Depa~tment of Alcohol and Drug Program,1700 K Street, Sacramento, explained the licensing and capacity regulations for the program. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 20 Nancy Harless, 2212 Placentia, Costa Mesa, stated she is the current program director of Heritage House and program director for the proposed proJect. She gave a history and explanation of program in Costa Mesa. ' Commissioner Bostwick asked if Orange County Rescue Mission had a facility in the City of Orange that did the same thing. Nancy Harless answered that this is the only treatment program. Rescue Mission has a 3-day shelter for homeless and domestic violence, but this is a 6-month residentiai treatment program where residents are educated. IN SUPPORT: Terra Velts, 2212 Placentia, Costa Mesa, explained the House of Hope that is more of a transitional living home for women and children. She described her experience with Heritage. This program is the only program that offers a place for a woman and her child to recover. Many women from South Court are referred to the Heritage House to avoid jail time. They offer recovery and give parenting classes. Sandy Shakeiand stated she is from Heritage House. Stie learned a lot from Heritage House and there should be more programs like this. Lisa Sorbel stated she is from Heritage House. It is one of the strongest programs for alcohol and drug problems. They have a wide variety of educational classes for them to interact and learn with their children and she encourages the program. Mary Yates, from Heritage House, gave a brief explanation of her experience and endorsement for the project. She explained mothers are forced to supervise their children when they are outside playing, so the noise around the piayground will be a controlled situation. Lila Elsophie stated she is Vice President of Commercial Banking for Sanwa Bank in Downey and member of board for Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs. Advised they have been considered good neighbors in all the facilities, sizes of families to facility are well matched and strongly endorse the project. Paul McNeese stated he has been a member of the Board for 15 years. He endorsed the project and advised that the organization is willing and able to conform to any conditions that are placed upon it provided they remain within the parameters of what they consider to be a reasonable program for the County and that which is mandated by the County. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Golden if there was enough living area and was there a way to expand units. Mr. Golden advised that there are funds in the grant from the County of Orange that will provide for that. Referred Commission to map, suggested extending the front wall of the apartments to create a new area of9x14. Chairperson Boydstun asked how it would affect parking. Mr. Golden responded due to nature of the facility, parking will be predicated on number of employees and they will continue to have 7 parking spaces. Ciry uf Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agends November 22, 1999 Page 21 Commissioner Koos asked how individuals are referred to program. Mr. Golden responded that some come through the courts, personal referrals, churches, social service agencies, and phone book; then some are referred from prior participants. Commissioner Koos stated he sees this as a County facility that services all of Orange County. He is concerned about it servicing North Orange County more so and asked the applicant to address that. Ms. Pai responded it was the expressed desire of the County to serve people from this part of the County and City. That would be the emphasis and recruitment of people for this facility. Commissioner Bristol asked how the children get to school. Ms. Pal explained they are driven by program vans or walked to school by mothers or with a friend. Commissioner Bristol asked whether is it highly likely that children will be attending Anaheim schools versus where they came from. Ms. Pal indicated the average age of the children tends to be below 6 years old, and are cared for in the facilitated centers. Number of children attending schools would not be that great. Commissioner Bristol stated he is concerned will the traffic from State College and children and asked if she felt it was safe enough location for the ~hildren. Ms. Pal responded they are putting a gate in front of the facility and the play areas will be far away in the back and do not feei this facility poses hazards for the children. Greg McCafferty advised that the only issue is that the Commission approved specific exhibits with the approval and the modifications that Mr. Golden proposed are not on the exhibits. Commissioner Bostwick suggested a 4-week continuance to bring back the proper exhibits. Greg McCafierty advised there is very little area for clients and if you compare the density of the existing apartments to what they are proposing to do with the modifications, staff feels there are too many people for the site. Staff agrees it is a much-needed use, but they are trying to place too many ~eople into this site. Commissioner Vanderbilt felt that if the children are below school age, the likeliness of them needing more space seems to be diminished, therefore the proposal is more palatable. Perhaps there could be language regarding the age limit. Ms. Pal stated the County has requested that children up to age 12 be admitted. Historic experience is that the average age of children is below 6 and there is no reason to anticipate thak it would be any different at this location. They will also be serving a large number of pregr~ant women who will not have any other children with them. The average stay is 5 months per family. Greg McCafferty explained if this is converted for this use, Commission should add a condition that requires the applicant to put it back to its original condition if the program ceases so that they do not have an apartment project that is double or triple the original density. Commissioner Bostwick agreed and felt that this is a land use issue, and if the project goes away and moves to another location, then Anaheim would be dealing with an apartment with double iPs density. Chairperson Boydstun asked whether they were leasing property City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actian Agenda November22,1999 Page 22 Mr. Goiden responded they are buying property and it is costing them close to $1 million. Stated organization has never left a property that it has acquired for rehabilitation in its 25-year history. Asked if Commission could approve project for 48 residents with the understanding that they will not convert the existing living rooms in the 61-bedroom apartments to bedrooms. He does not want to delay the project. Commissioner Arnold asked whether a delay would put the contract in jeopardy with the Counry. Mr. Goiden indicated they are a key link in thP precess with the courts, child welfare and social seNice organizations and it woul~ causz confusion. Commissioner Koos asked if they could delay for 2 weeks. He has a concern rushing the proposal through. Greg McCafferry Advised if the applicant submits revised plans by Wednesday, they could return to Commission on December 6~". Commissioner Bristol stated he would like more information where the children are going to be at the site. Sandra Fair, Acting Deputy Director for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Se~vices for the County of Orange, stated this is the number one prioriry to the board of supervisors and encouraged Commission to approve it as soon as possible. Commissioner Koos statc~ given Ms. Fair's comments, he felt Commission should take the time they need to thoroughly evaluate this proposal. If it is the highest priority for the County then it probably would progress through the process in a timely manner. He felt comfortable continuing this item. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to December 6, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried. • •~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ • • • IN SUPPORT: 5 p2ople spoke in favor of the proposed project. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans and to reduce the number of ciient residents. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 48 minutes (2:42-3:30) A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER TH/ S ITEM (FROM 3:31-3:39) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 23 It; ~`~: 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 7b. VARIANCE N0. 4376 1-3-2000 OWNER: John F. Lee, 517 S. Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 942 North Claudina Street. Property is 0.04 acre located on the east side of Claudina Street, 85 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Waiver of (a) maximum lot coverage, (b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum number, type, design and dimensions of parking spaces, and (d) required site screening to construct a single family home. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 25, 1999. VARIANCE USE PERMIT RESdLU7i0N N0. SR7626KP.DOC • • • ~" • • OPPOSITiON: None ACTION: Conti~;,ed ;~ubject request to the January 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to submit revised plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 24 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1322 (READVERTISED) Approved, as OWNER: Sidney E. Bickel Trust, 5585-B Via Dicha, Laguna Hills, CA readvertised, for 1 ysar 92653 (To expire i 1-22-2000) AGENT: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 Sam Governale, 633 S. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 633 South East Street. Property is 1.9 acre located on the west side of East Street, 182 feet north of the centerline of South Street (Quartz Dealer Direct). To permit and retain an autumobile wholesale and retail auction facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 11, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC89-201 SR1062VK.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCIlSSiON. (This item was initially trailed and was later heard following ltem No. 10.) ApplicanY;~ Statement: Sam Governale stated they have aggressively attended each concern from the neighbors and from the Commission to the best of their ability. They feel they have accomplished what they nave set out to do. Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim Hilis, requested the following changes: • Item 29, Condition No. 8, of staff reports requests that CUP expire in one yesr and they would like to request two years. • Condition No.15, they would like to offer retail sa!es to local residents on occasion so they would like this changed. • Condition No.16 pertains to no off-loading of vehicles from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The driveway will be blocked off so if someone comes to off-load in between times, they will not be able to put the cars on site. • Condition No. 19 regarding cars rinsed and runoff going on East Street. The last 10 feet of the property drains towards East Street and everything else drains towards the west towards the alley and you w~uld have to put a car in the driveway almost across the sidewalk to rinse it off in that direction. There is less than 25 gallons a day that drains off into that alleyway. He suggested digging a hole at the end of their valley gutter and install a dry well, water c~uld pera~late into that. • Condition No. 20. He requested the hours be changed to 10 p.m. and amend Sunday so ihat they could occasionally go in and move cars around to get them ready for Monday. John Maresca, 146 East Orangeth~rpe Avenue, stated he owns the industrial facility north of subject project. Advised that the applicant is washing vehicles on-site with full wash hoses not buckets, runoff is City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 25 affecting his tenants and it is damaging the alley. His recommendation is to keep all water runoff on East Street or retain water on site. Another concern is staging of transport and parking of vehicles in the alley. His solution is to not allow any staging of vehicles in the alley or transports to be parked there, He read a letter from Rick Blood at Flow Data, one of his tenants concerning the runoff. (Ne then submifted the letter to Commission.) He feels the applicant is insensitive to the concerns and asked that the CUP be approved only for one year. Jay Chambless, neighbor of applicant, stated they are impacted by vehicles that are in and out and the business continues to grow and problems worsen. They agree with staff and it should be declined. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Hamm~Il presented photographs taken after the rain addressing the alley. The alley, which is a City alley, is cracking from one end to the other because it is not well maintained. The water is there due to the rain and not from Quartz Dealer Direct. Regarding East Street, the problems are due to the construction that is currently occurring on that street. Mr. Govenale stated no one enters the auction without a ticket. Parking on street has been eliminated. There must be some wash down on Mr. Maresca's proparty because of the type of business that is there, they work with cement and mortar and they must wash down. He believes that the disrepair in the alley is much worse from his property line on down to washdown that occurs. He also feeis that if the pot holes were repaired, pooling would not he a problem. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos stated the main reason this item was continued was to understand the implications of allowing someone to assign parking to another parcel. They still do not know if the Code allows them to give up spaces. Alfred Yalda stated he has not received information regardiny a study from the applicant. Mr. Hammill apologized because it was a misunderstanding on his part. He thought Mr. Yalda was conducting the study and when he found out that Mr. Yalda was not doing it he did a study as quickly as he could. He distributed a copy of a map. Commissioner Bristol asked if his applicant had a signed agreemen[ with CHOC, the owner of the property, that they are parking in and if he hacl a map showing where the employees park on site. Mr. Hammill stated that they did have a signed agreement with CHOC. Explained that the map show~ uses of various buildings on the site and according to parking ordinance, what the uses might generate and parking spaces to meet the requirements. Site pla~ shows numbered spaces where employees park. Alfred Yalda advised building no.1 should be calculated at 5.5 per 1,000, therefore, approximately 50 parking spaces are lost. Commissioner Bristol asked if employees park at CHOC when they have the auction because it appears there ~s no parking for empioyees a couple of days a week. Mr. Govenale advised on Fridays there is no CHt~C parking, customers and employees all park on-site. On Mondays, people park at CHOC and full time employees park on the premises, the part time employses that come later in the day park at CHOC. City of Anahaim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 26 Commissioner Amold stated, for record, that he has reviewed the minutes of July 19, September 13 and 27~' and October 11. Asked which washing option was the teast likely to pick non-point source pollutants into the storm water run-off. Melanie Adams, Associate Civii Engineer stated the applicant offered ar altemative of a dry weil on the site, but she is concemed that another owner may come in at a later date and put oil or chemicals in it. Her primary concern is the quality of the run-off water, but the appiicant is only proposing to stay there for another year so they do not want to propose a massiVe and expensive system. The City's budget is limited in terms of the maintenance of the aliey and that street is not saheduled for re-pavement within the next year. The applicant is also entitled to have as much run-off as there would be on a rainy day. Commissioner Arnold asked if run-off on East Street would not pick up additional non-point source pollutants than runoff into the alleyway. Melanie Adams responded in terms of the quality she did not think there is much difference. Greg McCafferty stated he had a chance to look at the exhibit that Mr. Hammill submitted, and assuming that the uses and square footages are correct on the site plan including the parking counts and they meet current Code, Code would required 206 instead of 174 spaces. The difference between staff s calculation and Mr. Hammill's is that building 1 is considered retail, not warehouse, at 5.5 per 1,000. Chairperson Buydstun stated the applicant has outgrown the site and they have to look for another Iocation. She would only agree to one year. They cannot keep on entrenching this use on the neighborhood. Commissioner Bristol stated if this had come in as a new item it mver would be approved. Discussion during the action: Chairperson Boydstun asked if Condition No. 21 was needed. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated it was replaced with Variance 2699 that is no longer being exercised on the property. He asked if Commission was going to request a condition of approval for off- site parking or are they satisfied with current parking. Commissioner Bristol advised it should be included. Greg McCafferty questioned how many off-site parking spaces are needed. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, advised they lease parking spaces from other properties besides CHOC. Mr. Govenale stated they utilize parking for storage vehicles only, there is no other parking for customers or employees. Alfred Yalda stated their next door neighbor advised that he was leasing parking to the applicant. Mr. Govenale stated they lease 14 spaces from McLoSen, which is the same landlord, it is contiguous to the property. Commissioner Koos stated he can not support this request at this time given the uncertainties regarding the parking. Commission was supposed to have information to them at this meeting. Perhaps there was some miscommunicatic.n, but he did not know how Commission can move on without the Traffic City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 27 Engineering staff understanding the full range of issues. Therefore, if Commission goes forward with the CUP today then he will have to vote no. Commissioner Bristol suggested they could add another condition that the applicant respond to traffic within 30 days regarding ho~N many off site, number of locations and parking information requested on that plan a month ago. Commissioner Bosiwick added they need a copy of the agreement with CHOC. Commissioner Koos asked staff if there were oth~r cases where someone leased parking from a lot of other places. Greg Hastings stated the other auto auction in 'the Canyon has satellite lots but they own and control them. They are not a dual use as the case is here. Greg McCafferty recommended a condition that within 30 days of this approval, applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide the required number of spaces as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at the shopping center Iocated at 1215 East Lincoln Avenue. Such spaces shall be in excess of that required by this commercial retail center and a covenant shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Division and City Attorney's office, they record in the office of the Orange County Recorder and that a recorded copy shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. In such other sites should be included too. It would be a condition of approval not an R& R. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney stated the understanding is that it is to comply with Code not to have a special rule; that is up to the Traffic Engineer's discretion, but the Traffic Engineer will insure that it complies with Code. He will be able to use 14 spaces on the adjoining property to the extent that they are excess spaces that are not being double-counted. Also asked to change it to 60 days to accomplish everything. Greg McCafferty stated the Code requires that the number of spaces be determined by the parking study. • o • • • • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the request. Correspondence was received in opposition. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Conditional Use Permit PJo. 1322, as readvertised, to permit and retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility for 1 year. Modified Resolution No. PC72-145 by adding the following conditions: That this use shall expire one year from the date of this resolution, on Navember 22, 2000. 9. That the chain-link fence shall be refurbished and screened ~vith PVC slats. Said slats shall be maintained in good condition. 10. That all auction vehicles shall be operable and parked in the screened storage area only. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 28 11. That the 10-foot wide landscaped planter area adjacent to East Street shall be refurbished with additional ground cover and shrubs, an approved by the Planning Depa~tment. 12. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to the existing and legally permitted signage. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 13. That trash storage areas shali be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Depa~finent, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Departmenk. 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 frorn graffiti opportunities by the use of p~ant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines, planted on maximum 3-foot centers, or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Pubiic Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 14. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 15. That auto maintenance and repair shall r.ot be permitted, nor shall there be any retail sales/display. 16. That there shall be no off-loading of vehicles during the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 17. That off loading of vehicles shall be limited to Rose Street behind the auction facility. 18. That on-site car washing shall be limited to washing with tap water or deionized water without the use of soaps or detergents. Solvents or degreasers may be used on a spot basis, but must be wiped off before the vehicle is rinsed. 19. That cars being rinsed shall be located near East Street in order to allow water run-off to enter the catch basin south of the subject property 20. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following as stipulated by the petitioner; 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. on Monday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday through Saturday Automotive auctions on Monday and Friday (maximum 3-hours on each day) during hours indicated above. 21. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requestinc~ termination of Variance No. 2699 (waiver of permitted uses and minimum number of parking spaces to expand retail bakery sales). 22. That within iwo (2) working days of the finai approval of this readvertisement, a vaiid business shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 29 23. That any use of loud speakers shall not be audible to the residential Groperties. 24. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No.1, Revision No.1, and as conditioned herein. 25. That within 60 days of the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 9,11, 12, 13, 21, and 24, above-mentioned, shail be complied with. Extensions for further time to compiete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 26. That within sixry (60) days from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide the required number of parking spaces, as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager at the shopping center located at 1215 East Lincoln Avenue and/or such other nearby sites. The number of parking spaces shall be in excess of that which is required by said commercial retail center and/or any other off-site parking site. The covenant shall be submitted fo; review and approval by the Zoning Division of the Planning Department and the City Attorney's O~ce and shall then be recorde~ in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. 27. That approval of this apalication 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 regu(ations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ardinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Koos voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (5:01-5:45) Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 30 9b. VARIANCE N0.1229 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite V, Fullertun, CA 92833 LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.3 acre located on the west side of Beach Boulevard 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Covered Wagon Motel). ~ To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on April 18, 1960, and reinstated on November 17, 1998, to expire on November 17, 1999) to retain an existing 70-unit motel. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC99-202 Approved reinstatement for 1 ysar (To expire 11-22-2000) SR6981 DS.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Applicant's Statement: Gregory Parkin, 823 South Beach, Anaheirr~, stated they have diligently tried to comply with all the conditions. They wc~uld Iike to request the e~limination of the one-year time limitation for the reinstatement. Askr;d if there was an easier way to do it instead of returning every year. Chairperson Boydstun advised they have to do it this way. Police will be there for the next 6 months and it will depend on how that goes. Commissioner Bristol stated they see this so many times and still have a lot of reports coming in. Gregory Parkin stated they would like to have only one security guard on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and holidays. There are four 1-bedroom apartments with complete kitchen, dining area living room and separate bedroom, which they would like to use for employees and not rent them out to the public. Paragraph 9 states bringing the structure into compiiance, but they have done that and therefore request the paragraph be deleted. A new roof ho~ been put on and certification was submitted so Paragraph 18 could also be removed. Police calls have gone down because they keep a'no rent IisP which tells them who they will not rent to again. The name stays on list permanently. They are cautious about renting from those they don't know and that keeps police calls down. The; need to be able to compete for business and would like to see the recommendation of "150 consecutive days" (see page 4 of the staff repo~t, 20 (c), 3) be deleted. They do not mind having pat; ~ns move out, but they should be able to compete for their business. IN SUPPORT: Steven Wozny, 818 South Hayward Street, Anaheim, stated he is the owner of property directly behind the motel for 20 years. A year ago all the neighbors came to Commission because they were all against renewing Mr. Parkin's permit. They gave him another chance and he is now very pleased and is asking Commission to please renew Mr. Parkin's permit. Privacy issue has been taken care of, noise has been reduced and Mr. Parkin has done everything that the neighbors have asked for. He and neighbors request the permit be renewed because they are good neighbors. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 31 Ben Karmelich, owner of Seville Inn, agreed with Mr. Parkin that it is unfair to ask residents to leave after a month and not allow them to come back for 5 months. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun advised she has a client who lives in that area and has heard nothing but good things about the hotel. Don Yo~rstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated one of the conditions is the required bi-monthly inspections, which he felt should still stay in place. He feels the employees of the motel should probably use the 1-bedroom apartments. Regarding the time limitation, he would like to see a way to prove that the occupants leave the premises for at least 24 hours. Commissioner Bostwick asked staff if there was a 150-day restriction on the hotel across the street. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised it was done on the Rainbow Inn. Staff is trying to achieve conformance with what the use is supposed to be, a motel and not an apartment. Commissioner Bristol stated this condition seems to read that no one will be there 31 days so in a matter of 2 months, the Pntire facility will be changed as far as tenants. The applicant indicates this is a hardship for him because he will not be able to get these guests back for 150 days. Commissioner Bostwick stated this is a problem with many motels and the problem is that people do not move, they leave their things in the room and go down the street for a couple of days and come back. This is what leads to not getting the units cleaned etc. Commissioner Arnold asked staff where the 150 days came from. Greg McCafferty explained it has come out of various discussions from the Commission but it can be modified. If Commission agrees to Mr. Parkin's request then Condition No. 3 would need to be modified, regarding additional employee units. Commissioner Bristol felt that half of Condition No. 3 could be removed because it will not make a difference if someone vacates the property for 24 or 48 hours. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated if someone rents the room for 27 or 28 days, the 30-day threshold does not cross. Sgt. Russ Sutter from the Anaheim Police Department (Vice Detail), stated security guards have greatly contributed to the improvement with a 48% decrease in calis for service in the past year. The two security guards are helping to control the situation and if he goes down to one security guard, the calls for police may increase and it may hurt the applicant in the long run. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney addressed the condition with regard to the occupancy limitation. The reason the condition has been imposed from time to time is because of identified issues that rela~e to long term occupancies (i.e., hot plates and disconnection of smoke detectors). If Commission wishes to impose such a condition and the intent is to keep people from occupying more than a certain period of time within the 150-day period, the condition needs to be rephrased. As it reads now, as lor,g as they do not reach the 30-day threshold, they can go back for repeated occupancies. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 32 Chairperson Boydstun suggested it read that occupants cannot stay in a motel for more than 30 days during any 60-day period. Greg McCafferty agreed. Commissioner Bristol indicated that Commission does not want longer than 30-day stays. Commissioner Bostwick suggested 30 days within 90 days so it wili state "guest rooms shall not be rented for periods less than 12 consecutive hours nor shali guest rooms be rented or let for periods o; more than 30 days within a 90 day period, excluding four employee units. Guests vacating the premises after the 30 days shall not be rented a room for the next 90 consecutive days". Commissioner Bristoi corrected him to 60 days. Selma Mann advised the second sentence should state, "guests vacating the premises shall be required to remove all personal belongings from the guest room". She asked for a clarification of what the consensus was on Condition No. 3 with regard to removing the a.rticles from the room, asked if that was on any vacating of the room or after 30 days. Chairperson Boydstun stated ~vhenever their 30 days is compieted, they cannot re-rent for 90 days. Anytime they move out, they have to move everything. Commissioner Koos stated if they reach the 30`h day in that 90-day period, they have to wait another 90 days before they can come back. Sgt, Russ Sutter advised that often times there are two or three people and only one person is on the list as a renter. They turn around and change names so at the end of 90 days, the first persan is back up again and they never end up moving. A solution needs to be found for this occurrence. Greg McCafferty recommended the word "occupants" could be added to the Condition No. 3. Sa~~~~a Mann was concerned about micro managing of the facility and enforcement of the conditions that are being placed. They need certain simplicity so that they can go in and check. Commission is starting to make a complex condition that may be difficult to enforce. If Commission has identified issues relating to the long-term stays that are happening now that would warrant this type of a condition being imposed, then they can work on crafting a condition that would deal with all of the occupants in the room. Commissioner Bristol suggested they cauld use ""any resident". Selma Mann stated that guest rooms shall not be rented or let or occupied by any individual for periods of less than 12 consecutive hours nor rented or Iet or occupied for periods of more than 30 days within any 90 day period. ~- '. `.- FDL.LOWWG IS'A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AC710N: . IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls ~~ithin the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 33 e t, Appreved reinstatement of Variance No.1229 for 1 year (to expire November 22, 200Q). Modified Resolution No. 98R-249 as follows: Modified Condition Nos. 3,11 and 13 to read as follows: "3. That guest rooms shall not be rented, let, or occupied by any individual ror periods of less than twelve {12) consecutive hours, nor shall guest rooms be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for more than thirty (3q) days within any 90-day period euciuding four (4) employee units. Guests vacating the premises shall be required to remove all personal belongings from the guest room. 11. That the property owner shall pay the cost of random Code Enforcement Division inspections totaling tweive (12) during this one (1) year reinstatement and as often as necessary th~reafter until the subject property is brought into compliance, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 13. That this Variance shall terminate one (1) year from the date of this resolution, on November 22, 2000:' Added the following conditions of approval: "21, That hot plates shall not be permitted in the guest rooms. 22. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, smoke alarms in the guest rooms shall be hard-wired rather than battery operated and shall therefore be maintained in good working order at all times. 23. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the trash storage areas shall be refurbished to comply with approved plans on file with the Maintenance Depa~tment, Street and Sanitation Division:' VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 36 minutes (3:40-4:16) Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November22,1999 Page 34 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1043 (READVERTISED) Modified for 6 months INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Code Enforcement), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 (To expire 5-22-2000) OWNER: Ben Karmelich, 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.7 acre located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue 670 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (Seville Inn). Gity-initiated request to consider revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 (to establish a 129-unit, 3-story motel with waiver of maximum structural height). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-203 SR7540VK.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Ben Karmelich stated he is the owner of the Seville inn Motel, and has owned the property for the past 3%z months. He owned the property in 1995-1996. The property was then sold and he later reacquir~d the property. In order to save the money that he initially invested in the property he had to spend quite a bit of money to forec!ose on this property and then pay an enormous amount of back bills attached to the property plus the major expense of clean?ng up this property as well as the negative cash flow into the property. The main reason for the decline of the property was due to the previous owner, Giulio Guarnaschelli, who was convicted of being a slum landlord. Since he took over the property in August 1999 his first concern was the crime on the property. He has tried to increase security and remove problem tenants and is in the process of renovating rooms. There was an article written on the property in the Orange County Register a few weeks ago as well as a story in the Orange Cable News about the improvements and the changes on the property. While he had done a lot of work he still has a lot to complete. Calis to police have gone down by two-thirds since he took over the property. Staff reports indicates several problems and Code violations due to lack of management but that is before he took over the hotel. Agrees with all staff report but wants sacurity guards on property for nights only, not at all times. He would like to change the time limitation cn guests. Since the beginning of time, the average stay on the property has been from 6 months to a year, some have been there for 5 or 6 years. if he had to move people out after 30 days, he would loose 90% of his tenants on the first day. He was concerned with Condition No. 6(page 5 of the staff report) which requires a security guard to be on the pruperty at all times. Since he took over the property he has had security guards on the property during the evenings only. He does not feel there has been a need for securify guards during the day and feels it should be more of a management decision based on the current needs of the property. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 35 Regarding Condition No. 8 requiring guest to leave the property after 30 days and can not return after 150 days which has been amended to 60 or 90 days. More than 90% of the tenants have been there for more than 6 months and it is run like an apartment complex which is how it was and continues to be. The guests check out every 28 days for one day then check back in so that tt;ey can remain a guest and not a resident. They are the ones that actually pay most of the rent at the motel and if everyone was required to move out that has been there over 30 days then he would basically loose 90°/a to 95% of his tenants on the first day. He feels that this would be a great financial hardship on him. He is concerned with the requirement of daily maid service for all rooms. His policy i~ if patrons are paying a daily rate they get daily maid service, if they are paying the weekly rate they get weekly maid service. Since 90% of rooms are weekly rentals, they get weekly service. He was not clear the reason for this requirement about the daily requirement of maid service fron staff. He concluded that in 3%: months the property has turned around completely. He still has work ahead of him for renovations but with the good standing with the police and ccmmunity then this property will continue to keep doing well. OPPOSITION: Joseph Ortiz, owner of property west of the Seville Inn, stated this ~roject has been a problem since 1989. They have put up fences, security guards and people continuously break through the garage gate. It has somewhat improved ~uring the last 3 months but there are still problems. Jack Schwartz, owns the car wash across the street from the Seville inn, stateJ the project has been a slum for many years. The hotel is unsafe and some of his customers refuse to go back to the car wash because they have been accosted in the daytime by people fram the motel. Nighttime there is hardly any business because neighbors do not want to go out at night. He can not understand how police and City Council can tolerate this. He has been told that some of the security guards are doing drugs or are intimidated by some of the people who live there. Suggested having police on the property 24 hour.s. He asked what the number of calis has been on the property. Mr. Montenero owns the business across the street at 2731 West Lincoln, stated they have nothing but problems with the people at the Seviile Inn. They come in and sell drugs at the car wash or at his location and he calls the police every day but it has not stopped the problem. He is concerned for the safety of his customers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked the Police Department and Code Enforcement to speak on this matter Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enfarcement Officer stated he conducted an inspection of the property on September 23, 1999 at the request of the owner. He inspected 20 rooms and found 46 new Code violations, which consisted of deteriorated bathroom ceilings, walis, mildew, water stained ceilings, inoperable vehicles, broken windows, etc. On September 29, he mailed a letter with the violations to ttie owner, allowing him 30 days to make the repairs. On November 16`h he returned for re-inspection and observed that most of the repairs had been completed, however the workmanship was of poor qualiry. He inspected an additional 3 rooms and exterior of buildings and observed 33 additional violations (loose smoke detectors, wires, toile!s, mildew, leaking water, missing doorknobs, tra~h etc.) The letter of violation is pending to be mailed with these violations. The wor4manship that was done was very poor. Officer Medina, Anaheim Police Department, stated the Police Depa~tment is very concerned with the Seville Inn. It has had the most calls for service this year in the West End of Anaheim. There has been cooperation there but it should be expected, and not have to be solicited. There are 2 full time police officers assigned to the Seville Inn. He stated he does not go into the Seville Inn by himself and if he, as City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action :'~genda November 22, 1999 Page 36 a police officer, does not go in by himself, i~e would not feei comfortable sending a security officer in there either. In the first 7 months there were 535 calls for service, averaging 75 calls on property per month. Of 105 arrasts that were made; 36 were narcotics; 22 gang related. '~here has been a drop in the last 3 months. In Augiast the calls for service dropped from 75 to 49 per month but there were also 50 arrests made in that month. He pointed out that besides the 2 full time officers, they encourage other officers to do problem solving by proactive enforcement. In September they had 25 calls,l0 arrests and proactive enfercemen! brought officers there 3~ times. Last month there were 24; 7 arrests and proactive enforcement was 29. So far this month they are at 10 calls. The police are doing all they can but traditional law enforcement will not solve probiem at the Seville Inn. They have been doing it for the last 10 years but it does not seem to work within the property. There needs to b~ some long-term stability, especia~ly for the neighbors who have to deal with it first hand. Chairperson Boydstun stated the applicant has had 24-hour security provided by Anaheim as taxpayers, police cannot stay there forever and let other places get no support. Mr. Karmelich stated he has only had the property 3%: months and ~e is evicting fhe problem tenants, but added it takes time. Commissioner Koos interjected that that Mr. Karmelich's statement of that when he first bought the property it was treated as apartments and assumed he couid maintain the mot~l as apartments which is incorrect. It took three full time nfficers and tax dollars to get to where they are now. The reason they ar^ trying to limit the length of time is because these are motels and the City has never aliowed motels to be treated as apartments. Asked if he assumed it was an apartment complex when he bought the motel. Mr. Karmelich advised he did not buy it as a slum, or assumed it was a slum. It was bc:ught in 1994 as a bank foreclosure in bad shape and it was c!eaned up in a one year time period then it sc,ld due to family obligations. New owners let tlie property deteriorate. When he purchased the again, the rooms were already being rented o~at long term. Commission Bostwick adviseo he needs to treat it as a motel sinco it was approved that way. If he wants to turn it into an apartment buildiry, then ;~e would have to return with pla~s for a new CUP for an apartment building. Commissioner Bristol stated he went ir,to the property Sunday morning and in the 6 years that he has been on the Commission visiting properties, he has never been frightened to walk into a building as he was with this one. This property has also had the most calls for service than any property he has knawn. Mr. Karmelich stated he has only had the property for 3 months. Commissioner Bristol reinforced Commissioner Koos comment that this is a land use issue and Mr. Karmelich was there once and left. What is to say he will not disappear again? These c~~ditions have been placed to operate as a motel and not an apartment complex. He was concerned wit` the depletion of resources of the City, not to mention the unhealthy conditions for the people that are there. Commissioner Arnold felt Ivtr. Karmelich wants leniency here because he wants to make his mo~ey back on this p~ operty. There are repeated Code v~~lz;ions, but he does not want daily maid service when that helps spot potential problems and keeping things clean. The applicant does not want to provide security guards, but that provides for keeping property safe. If the property cannot be maintained in the manner provided for in the zoning code, is it really not worth continuing to operate at all. City of Anaheim Planning Commissio~ Summary Action Agenda November 2~. 1989 Page 37 Mr. Karmelich stated he has not been given a full chance to run the motel because it ta~es a long time evicting peopfe. He brought in security in the first day he took over the property. Police calls ha~•e gone down drama!ically over the 3%: months. He is spending money to fix up properry.' Chairperson Boydstun stated Mr. Karmelich wants to keep the tenants but it is not zaned for apartments. Commissioner Bristol asked Officer Medina if police had not stepped up their efforts, what would the assessment be on just Mr. Karmelich's efforts alone. Officer Medina responded that the police could not have accomplished what they have in three months with out the cooperation. It is a two way street, and as much as the manager has helped them out, the police has helped out the manager. For all of 1998 there were 711 calls there. The first 7 months, there were 515 so he is confident that they would have reached 1,006 calls if it had continued going the way it was. Now that the police have dealt with the criminal element, they have to deal with the Code Enforcement issues. He does not want to see Mr. Karmelich loose money, but he does not know ~.,, the soluiion is. Commissioner Koos stated he does not think it is fair that he is saying the situation has improved when it is all because of the police effort. The City of Anaheim has been paying for his securiry service for the last 3 months. ommissioner Bristoi stated his concern is the safety issue. There are many elderly people there and iey are placed in this type of environment where they are totally unsafe. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the proposal. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falis within the definition of Categorical Fxemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Modified C onditional Use Permit No. 1043 for six months, to expire on May 22, 2000. Modified Resolution No. 68R-540 by adding the following conditions of approvai: "8. 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 statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Buiiding 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 regulatior,s. 9. That a minimum of hvo (2) iicensed uniformed securiry guards, approved by the Anahe~m Police Department, shall be provided upon the premises at ali times specifically to provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to ths subject property. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 38 10. That the ow~eNmanager 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 shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Maheim during reasonable business hours. 11. That guest roams shall not be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for periods of less than twelve (12} consecutive iiours, nor shall guest rooms bo rented, let, or occupied by any individual for more than thirty (30) days within any 90-day period excluding one (1) manager's unit. Guests vacating the premises shall be required to remove ali personal bElongings from the guest room. 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 any person for the purpose 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, verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 15. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspic~ous place within the affice area, and that the properiy owner and/or motel management shali 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 on-site landscaping shall be refurbished and permanently irrigated and maintair,ad, ;ncluding regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 18. '1'hat the property owner shall pay the costs of Code Enforcement Division inspections once each month for six (6) months from the date of this resolution, and as often as necessary thereafter until the subject property is brougnt into compliance, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 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 City of Anaheim personnel for law enforcement purposes. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agende November 22,1999 Page 39 20. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliance is determined by the appropriate division or department, with statutes, ordinances, taws or regulations of the State of Califomia, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, inctuding the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code. 21. That this permit shail expire sfx (6) months from the date of this resolution, on May 22, 2000. 22. That the subject property shall be developed, as conditioned, and substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City~ of Anahe(m by the petitioner in conjunction with the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked ~xhibit Nos.1 through 6, and as conditioned herein. 23. That Condition Nos. 9, 11 and 20, above••mentioned, shall be complied witih immediateiy. 24. That Condition Nos. 8, 17,19 and 22 above-mentioned, shall be complied with, within 60 days of the date of the resolution. 25. That this Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with conditions of approvai and other City and State laws and regulations as a Reports and Recommendations item within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution. 26. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable Ciry, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any othEr ap~~icable ordinance, regulation or requirement:' VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 43 minutes (4. ~7-5:00) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Ackion Agenda November 22,1999 Page 40 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIDN (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approvea 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3955 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to the conditions of OWNER: Kaufman and Broad, Attn: Efrem Joelson, Project Manager, approval 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201, Pomona, CA 91768 LOCATION: Property is 4,6 acres identified as "Cypress Infill", tocated as follows: Parcel A: Property is 0.51 acres located the northeast corner of Olive Street and Cypress Street (304, 304'/:, 308, 308%z, 312, 312%z, 314, 314'/:, and 320 North Oiive Street and; Parcel B: Property is 3.0 acres located (1) on Cypress Street, 40 feet east of the centerline of Olive Street and (2) at the northeast comer of Pauline Street and Adele Street, and (3) at the southeast corner of Pauline Street and Adele Street, and (4) at the southwest corner of Adele Street and Sabina Street, (424, 605 and 605'/s East Adele Street; 300 North Olive Street; 300 301, 306, 306'/:, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 312'/:, 315 and 317 North Sabina Street; 300, 305, 307, 312, 318, 322, and 412 North Pauline Street; and 411, 415, 419, 421, 517, 521 and 527 East Cypress Street). To amend or delete a condition of approval perteining to fencing materials for a previously-approved 2-lot, 6-unit RM-2400 attached "affordable" condominium subdivision with waivers (Parcel A); and a 43-lot, 41-unit RM-3000 detached "affordable" one-family subdivision with waivers (Parcel B). CONDITI.ONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•204 SR7622KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. jChairperson Boydstun left following Item No. 8, CUP 1322, which was heard after item 10. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos conducted the balance of the meeting, whlch involved items 11, 12, 13 and 15.] (Commissioner Vanderbilt declared a conflict of interest and abstained from this item since his residence is in proximity to subject property.J Brent Schultz, Property Services Manager, Redevelopment Agency, asked for consideration of amending Condition No. 25. He overlooked it in the plan check process and would like Condition No. 25 changed to read, "a maximum 2 to 3 foot high block wall:' ApplicanPs Statement: Tad Creasey, Kaufman and Broad, 801 Corporate Center Drive, Pomona, asked staff if they couid consider anti-graffiti resin or application for the wall instead of vines on the wall. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 41 . ,. ~ -: ;s Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager advised that Code requires vines~or shrubbery in front of all walls in view of the public. Code Enforcement has advised staff that the coating that is put on walls does not last the life of a wall and would have to continuously reapptied. Commissioner Bostwick asked if vines could be planted on the inside of the wall. It was also mentioned that the wall be grooved to keep skateboarders off of it. Greg Hastings stated staff can work with him, they can be ptaced inside or along the autside to eventually traverse the wall. Tad Creasey stated he was not familiar with skateboarders on walls but will work with the City to improve it. If vines grow over the tap it would not be necessery to put the grooved block. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED OLLOWING,IS A;SUMMARY:OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION`ACTION:. ,", OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documeniation for subject request. Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3955. Modified Resolution No. PC97-107 by amending Condition No. 25 to read as follows: "25. That a maximum two (2) to three (3) foot high block wall shall be installed alonc~ the perimeter of the open recreationa!-ieisure lot at the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Afton Lane. This shall include landscaping materials including flowering plants and shall be full, irrigated, All solid fencing surfaces shall be covered with clinging vines (minimum 1-gallon size containers planted on maximum 3-foot centers) with the except~on of the sign area which serves to identify the tract name (LEGACY)." VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner was Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-da1~ appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (5:46-5:52) City of Anaheim Planning Commission 5ummary Action Agenda November 22, 1995 Page 42 12a. C~E~1A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 12b. CON~~TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4159 Granted, in part, for 5 yrs. 12c. DETERMiNATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Denied OR NECESSlTY NO. 99-06 (Sale of beer and wine OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company,13539 Foster Road, Santa Fe was denied) Springs, CA 90650 (To expire 11-22-2004) AGENT: The Regents Group, Attn: David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenus, #193, Riverside, CA 92505 LOCATION: 18~1 West Rall Road. Property is 0.43 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nulwood Street (Thrifty 0~I). Conditional Use Permit No. 4159 - To permit the conversion of a 1,471 square foot vacant service station into a convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-06-To determine public convenience or necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NU. PC99-205 DETERMINATION QF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION N0. PC99-206 SR7609VK.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. , Applicant's Statement: David Rose, The Regents Group, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, Suite 193, Riverside, CA, presented slides of property. They are proposing to modify the existing structure with new cornice and parapet type facility with glazing on front and will add 2,000 square feet of landscaping. There is no operation in the building next door. They will not be selling gas and will have just a convenience market, then when the entitlements occur ARCO will operate the facility. They will remove a 15-foot pole sign and replace it with Code matching monument sign. The applicant would like to see more unlimited hours relative to the 24 hour nature and limit sales of beer and wine to hours as represented in the staff report. He indicated that this crime district is over concentrated. In 1998 only 12 out of 1,521 crimes were alcohol related, less than 1 percent. Only 3 out of 1,521 crimes were directly related to this faciliry and those were 2 petty thefts and 1 traffic accident. OPPOSITION: Joan Dawson, stated she is the owner of the Nutwood Market at 944 South Nutwood, which adjoins the service station. It is a convenience market with an ABC license. The applicant is proposing an identical store to her store, which she feels is in conflict and asked that Commission deny this proposal. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 43 Joel Vance stated he is the Pastor for Grace Missionary Baptist Church down the street from subject property. He submitted a petition in with 44 signatures of neighbors who are opposed to the project. He drove through the area bounded by Ball Road, Brookhurst, Orange and Euclid and he found there were 13 stores where alcohoi can be purchased. Is it really a necessity to have a convenience market when there are already 4 major markets and other convenience markets within a half-mile of the corner of Nutwood and Bali Fcoad. When the Nutwood Market sold alcohol th~ church was constantly picking up the alcohol containers off of their property, but since there is no alcohol sold at that market the problem has gone down drastically. Within close proximity there is also the Living Stream Ministries Church, The Church of Anahei~n, Saint Justin Marytr Catholic Church, West Anaheim United Methodist Church. He asked that Commission not approve another convenience market that sells alcohol. James Harry Goyer, 943 South Nutwood across the street from project, stated in addition to what Pastor Vance has mentioned the largest education facility is directly across the street from 1881 W. Ball Road, which is Trident Educational facility. It educates over 1500 students per day. There is also an athletic field across the street and Modjeska Park, which is one-fourth of a mile that is constantly in use away, that is constantly in use. Feels this project is contrary to the goals and objectives of a peaceful environment and asked to decline sale of alcoholic beverages at the location. It appears as though items 15 and 25 in the staf~ report are contradictory because one refers to a 24-hour operation and the other refers to a limited time operation. Regarding landscaping, he felt the bottle brush and crape myrtle trees lhat they planted are lwo of the most undesirabie type of landscape trees. Also asked to reconsider the signs that it not look like carnival signs. He asked that the 12-inch high island and canopy be removed to avoid skateboarders from using it. Francis Ball, 1818 West Chanticleer Road, stated he is an Elder in the Church of Anaheim. 'i hey have three meeting places that are open everyday and most nights. They have a training center for young college graduates right next to the prooerty in question. They have no proble;n with a business being on tha! property, but do have a problem with the permission of the sales of alcoholic beverages because they are concerned for the young people, residents and churches in the area. Larry Wilde, 2001 South Eileen Drive, Anaheim stated he wanted to address two issues that have not yet been brought forth. He is involved with the youth center which is directly across the street from the proposed project. They have a considerable number of young people at that facility, There is a constant stream of children from the age of kindergarten through high school that transit this intersection going to Madison Elementary at Cerritos and Ball; tu the Clara Barton School, to Saint Justin Martyr School, to Francis Scott Key Elementary and to the Trident Educational Center. Additionally, they recently had a visitation from the Anaheim Police Department, Special Gang Enforcement Detail. They were informed that there is more gang activity on Ball Avenue between Euclid and Brookhurst than nearly any other place in the city of Anaheim. They feel that the addition of beer and wine at this location would only exasperate an already existing probiem with regard to gang activity. He strongly urged Commission to not allow ihe sale of beer and wine at this location. Esther Wallace, chairman of W.A.N.D. (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated W.A.N.D. wants to go on record as bein~ against this liquor license. She wanted to know where the liquor license is coming from. Also, in addition to the five churches and the three schools that are there, there is the Trident Continuation School, Polaris Jr. High School and Gilbert High School, which are continuation schcols. She strongly recommended that Commission deny this request. James Willison; 715 South Webster, Anaheim, stated he is an attorney and a member of the local church. The traffic there is primarily children and adults. Sometimes there will be 2,000 to 3,000 people going to conventions at the church. It is a non-conforming use. He totally agreed with tha findings of the staff in this regard and hope that this beer and liquor license will be denied. Richard Scatterday, resident at G29 South Greenwich Street, Anaheim, stated he is a physician in internal medicine, and has as a subdiscipline addiction medicine. He is a practitioner of addiction medicine with City of Anaheim Planning Comrr,~ssion Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 44 Kaiser Permanente and came today because he was concemed about the licensing of another source of alcoholic beverages in this neighborhood. Since much concem has been expressed already, he added his concern about the gentleman who presented the proposal implying that they do not have to worry about crime in the area related to alcohol consumption simply because of perhaps lack of documentation of crimes that were listed as being alcohol related. It is difficult sometimes to make a comprehensive assessment in cases of major and minor crimes. Studies in this field certainiy show that if alcohol is more freely available that crime will be affected adversely. If there were a way to more adequately measure those statistics they would not appear as was reported. There is a clear cut of unquestionable relationship between alcohol availability and the crimes that he is referring to. Since the study pointed to an over abundance in this area of alcohol licenses, and the 60% higher crime rate than the City overall, he urged Commission, for the sake of the safety of the children and residents in this neighborhood, to deny alcohol availability. Jim Bonsdale, 1203 North Groton Street, Anaheim, asked Mr. Rose if they did not get the permit to sell alcohol, or beer and wine, a~d just had the store would they still be able to operate or would they close up the store and fence off the property as they were told in the past at the Brookhurst and Broadway gas station. He is very concerned about that issue. Joan Dawson stated she has had a number of inquiries from mechanics that have come in and wanted to rent that space. There is a real need for automobile mechanic service and it is a thriving business. This would be a terrific location for that type of business and it would serve the community. Dan Goyer stated the reason that he does not want to have a gasoline service station at this location is because they have an Arco Station a half mile .way at Bali and Brookhurst. It would infringe upon them. But if they want to impose on the neighborhood to sell alcoholic beverages, then that is alright. It is a matter that they do not want to infringe on their own rights to the service station a hal~ mile away. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: David Rose, stated relative to a variety of the comments, their proposal is to pull down the pole signs. The reason the pole signs exist at Ball and Dale and Brookhurst and Broadway is because those proposals were not approved and lherefore the signs exist. Their proposal is to remove the gasoline islands as well as the canopies. As ~ioted on the plans, there will not be any remnants of a gas station facility anywhere on the property. They can submit a modified landscaping program to delete any reference to bottle brush trees. At present there are no species names forjacarandas. They are also willing to specify that there are no jacarandas on site. The name of the trees that Mr. Goyer referred to as a species named for a canopy tree, and if he has an issue with that. We are also willing to come back with an R&R with that item as well. There will be no remnants of a gas station there. Regarding competing with other facilities, they had about four facilities that were owned by Thrifly within a mile of this location throughout the City of Anaheim. He understands from a theological standpoint presented relative to alcohol, however, this business is looking to have an economic issue and it is their opinion that without the sale of beer and wine at this facility they would not be able to operate. He emphasized this is not a liquor license, but rather a beer and wine license, which is a significant difference. They are proposing to buy a liquor license in the City of Anaheim in this exact census tract, do a person to person transfer to this location, automatically downgrade it. . The propsrty is already fenced off and has been for several months. It is a vacant gas station. There is not the ability to turn it inio an auto seroice station because there is a Smog Pro facility located about a half mile away and in its contracts with its dealers, Arco has no compete clauses and therefore it cannot be leased. He actually obtained a conditional use permit for this property for automobile service stations back in 1994 or 1995, on behalf of Thrifty Oil. There was a gentleman at the location when Thrifty leased the property to Arco; Arco then suspended that lease because of its no compete clause. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 45 They are very interested in opening up this facility. They have looked long and hard at it. Arco is an oil company, iYs not a service station company, but they are willing to operate this facility and try to get as much benefit out of it as possible. In all truth, if it is operated at all, it will be subleased to another tenant because Arco is not in the business, once again, of operating convenience stores. Commissioner Arnold asked if he understood correctly that they are taking an existing liquor license from this census tract, so that the number of stores in the census tract selling alcohol will not increase by their operation. David Rose explained that about two years ago, when a legislation known as Caldera was adopted by the State of California, they came forward with a number of projects in the City of Anaheim. They were specifically requested by the Anaheim City Council that they did not want to adopt Det2rmination of Public Convenience or Necessity Permits but that they would Iove to get rid of several of the beer and wine licenses. At that time several of his clients, including Arco and Thrifty, sought out Type 21 licenses, which is liquor or spirits license. What happens is that they (1) do a transfer within the same census tract, automatically downgrade that, (2) we make the individual selling that license at the request of the City Attorneys Office sign a waiver. It basically indicates that within 12 months they can automatically reapply even if they have a Conditional Use Permit. What they have done in the previous cases that have been approved by the Commission or the Council, is to make it go 13 months. When directed by the City Attorney's Office, also asked those people to pay a revocation fee of any Conditional Use Permit. The problem is that most beer and wine licenses and/or liquor licenses in West Anaheim are legal non- conforming uses, and therefore, do not have a Conditional Use Permit to begin with. To answer his question, there would be a net gain of zero, but will be removing a liquor license "off the streets" and turning it into a baer and wine license. The ather issue that comes into play is that generally many of these facilities are "mom and pop" facilities and transferring it to one of the largest operators and owners of beer and wine licenses in the State of California. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if ha would describe the area around the site. David Rose responded it is on a commercial street. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the police statistics because it indicates that the location of this site is part of a reporting district that has 60°/a plus of crime. As Mr. Rose pointed out the types of crimes. When they focus on crimes that are alcoholic related it seems that it is a very small portion of that. He asked Mr. Rose if that was consistent with his statistics. Sgt. Russ Sutter responded he was not certain where Mr. Rose gets his statistics to track alcohol. He might be referring to traffic accidents with alcohol involved, a drunk arrested. There is no tracking system that tracks alcohol related crimes, however, there is a nationwide study convicted in 1997. Of those convicted of violent crimes (such as rape, robbery, mayhem, etc.) 80% of them indicate to be alcohol was involved during the crime. Of those convicted and in prison, for property crimes (theft, car stealing, etc.) 88% of those will indicate alcohol as being involved. The number one alcohol of choice is beer. According to their statistics, in that census tract there are currently 11 liquor licenses. They are allowed a total of 4. The figure 60% over comes by taking the total number of reports taken by the City and divide them by their total number of reporting district which gives you an average. Anything 23% above average is considered high crime. It is 60% above the average for that area. Across the street is another re.aorting district which he did not have those statistics off-hand. Commissioner Bristol stated Ms. Lawson indicated that she has soid beer and alcohol. Asked what type of license Ms. Lawson has. Sgt. Russ Sutter responded to his knowledge she has a beer and wine license City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November22,1999 Page 46 Commissioner Bristol the applicant is requesting a public convenience and necessity and yet there is a license within a few feet, there is 60% over crime and there is currently an over-ccncentration of beer and wine. Sgt. Russ Sutter stated the reason Ms. Lawson has a license is that the City Council and Planning Commission spent two years lobbying not to allow the alcohol. It was taken to court and upheld and when the TicToc/Circle K store that was there went into bankruptcy, pa~t of the desolution was to allow the person who they sold it to maintain the alcohol license. By a loophole they obtained their license but the City resisted and won to in court after two years against this license. Commissioner Arnold stated cempetition is a good thing. He is not particularly swayed by those comments. It seems to him that there are studies that indicate that overconcentration of stores seiling liquor particularly in older neighbors, have adverse impacts on those neighhorhood including property values, general decline of those neighborhoods, etc. Sgt. Russ Sutter stated there was an original study that got ABC and the State of California, League of Cities and everyone together to adopt the rules. There are many businasses out there and the reason there are 11 in this census tract is because there are other surrounding census tracts that have more licenses. If you draw a circle around the area then it would show more. The study basically showed that the more licenses there are, the more you can expect problems. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Rose if they would appeal this to City ~:,ouncil if they approved the convenience store not the beer and wine. David Rose responded they would. Commissioner Bristol asked if they are going to build it if they do not receive the beer and wine approval. David Rose responded yes. It becomes an economic decision. They are going to spend $250,000 to retrofit this building to make it look like a new building visible from the street and assist in the property values. There has been a"for lease" sign there for a number of months with no takers. They can not lease it to an auto repair facility. The Code requires gas stations that are closed for a certain number of months to level it. So then it becomes a vacant lot with a chainlink fence around it. Commissioner Bristol had concerns of not even approving tl ~e convenience market. David Rose stated there are currently no tanks there, so to operate it as a gas station requires tanks and his assumption is that it is legal non-conforming as is and then it would need to be re-entitled as a gas station. Staff confirmed to open it as a convenience store wi;h or without the sale of alcohol would require a conditional use permit. Based up present zone, it remains a vacant facility as such. The only CUP that is active would be the auto repair but because of a non-compete issue they can not list to an auto repair. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated the conditions of approval for the canvenience store require that it be built to the plans that were subrnitted. Commissioner Boslwick stated if it was sold to someone else for a convenience store then they would have to build it according to the conditions and plans submitted. Grag McCafferty added it has to be built according to the conditions and the exhibits approved by the Planning Commission. Read a condition into the record, "That the existing driveways closest to the intersection of Ball Road and Nutwood Street shall be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutter, sidewalk and landscaping:' City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November22,1999 Page 47 If they choose not to approve the beer and wine then he recommencied deleting Condi6on No. 3 of page 6. Modify Condition No. 15 by adding, "That the former service station canopies and associated pump islands and curbing shall be removed. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if staff had a comment on Condition No. 1 raised by M~. Rose regarding the hours of operation. If they do not approve the besr and wine portion, is the 6am to 10pm still staff's recommendation since the appiicant requested 24 hours. Greg McCafferty responded Condition No. 1 would remain the same. It is suppose to be a neighborhood convenience store and if so then there would not be the need for residents to use it after 10:00 p.m, which was the reason for their recommendation. Ms. Lawson interjected that customer at her store have commented a number of times how nice it would be to have a restaurant on that corner that wouid serve the neighborhood. Greg McCafferty recommended that Condition No. 4 be deleted. Modify Condition No. 9 to read, "That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises." Delete Condition No. 11, 12, 13, and 14. If Commission wants tu reconsider Condition No. 2, since the beer and wine portion has been removed. • • • e • • OPPOSITION: 8 people spoke in opposition to the sale of beer and wine portion of this request. ACTION: APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GRf1NT'ED, IN PART, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4159, to convert a vacant gasoline service station into a convenience market with NO retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption for a period of 5 years (to exp~r~ No~;~ember 22, 2004) with the f~llowing changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Modified Cond~tion Nos. 2, 9 and 15 to read as folicws: That subject use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on November 22, 2004. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises. 15. That the former service station canopies and assoc~ated pump islands and curbing shall be removed. Added the following c~ndition of approval: That the existing driveways closest to the intersection of Ball Road and Nutwood Street shall be remoa•ed and replaced with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. DENIED DETERMINATION 0~ PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY N0. 99-06 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 48 (1) That an additional ABC license in Census Tract No. 871.@3 would create an undue over-concenA•ation of licenses in this area (4 permitted;17 currently issued), and further that tl~a property is located within a reporting dfsMct'~rhich has a crime rate 60% above the City average. (2) That relocation of a liquor license fr~ this Census tract to the proposed convenience market, which is located adjacent to single-family residences tn the west, would not be beneficfal to the neighborhood or 4G crime detnrrent efforts. (3) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that this s<aquest would serve to benefit the public in terms of conve~ience or nersassity. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairpe~son Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented :he 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 54 minutes (5:53-6:47) CEtyr of q~aheim Planning Commission Summary Action A.gen~a November 22, 1999 Page 49 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 13~. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3962 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Argonaut Holdings, Attn: Dennis Linville, 515 Marin Street, ~'212, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 AGENT: Classic Chevrolet, Attn: Milt Barnes, Jr., 1001 North Weir Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA P2807 LOCATION: 1001 North Weir Canyon Road (northeast corner of Pullman Street and Old Canal Road). Property is 2.95 acres located at the northeast corner of Pullman Street and Old Canal Road (Classic Chevrolet). To amend or delete con~,t~ons of approval to permit sign plan revisions for an existing auto deaiership with waiver of (a) permitted freestanding signs and (b) permitted directional signs. CaNDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLIITION NO. PC99•207 Approved Amended conditions of approval SR1135JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicariPs Statement: Ed Vidales, stated he is with the sign contractor ponce and Sons, 725 North Cypress, Orange. He is requesting approval for the seme signage that was approved for the Buick/Pontiac dealership on the north side of subject property. It is a monument ,:`~n in a landscaped area and 3 direction signs also in landscaped areas to direct traffic on Savi Ranch and Old Canal Road. He asked if there would be a problem if he would address the relocation of one directional sign 5 feet from where he had originally proposed it due to tall bushes in the way. Commissioner Bristol asked which sign he was referring to. Ed Vidales responded it would be the one on the north Lot "B", the entrance off of Savi Ranch. It is the entrance direc!;;,~ iai sign. He wants to move it more to !he northeast. There is a lar~dscaped area there, it would be on the opposite side of the driveway, closer to sidewalk. Basically, he is requesting threa directional signs as opposed to the four that are on the Pontiac/Buick dealership and of the same size. Due to Planning's conGerns about the blandness of the monument sign, he added some small columns along the sid~ of the monument sign and changed red brick to be stucco that would be compatible witi the building. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if those there the same dimensions as the ones approved for the Anaheim Pontiac/Buick-GMC dealership. Ed Vidales responded yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated the only thing that would be required would be compiiance with the Code for the line-of-sight setback. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 50 F . .. .. . . .. . . . ; .. ,. . ..:. .: .. .. .... . . .:.." . ... 1'... . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . _.. , .. ... . . ~.-. :. . ~.: , . ` ~.,... . . . ; , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0?POSITION: None AC710N: Determined that the previously app~oved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved W,aiver of Code Requirement. Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3962. Modified Resolution No. PC97-124 as foliows: Deleted Condition No. 21(c). Amended Condition Nos, 21(d) and 31 to read as follows: 21(d) That the monument sign shall be limited to a maximum thirty-six (36) sq. ft., eight (8) foot high, seven (7) foot wide, double-faced sign, marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 7. Said sign shall be placed in a landscaped area and, if illuminated, shall be turned off at midnight as requireci by Code Section 18.05.091.052. 31. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and Q and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 7 and 8 Pages a through e, except, however, that the directional sign located adjacent to the north property line be moved five feet t~ the east of the driveway on Savi Ranch Parkway subject to compliance with Code for line of site, and as conditioned herein. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (6:47-6:53) A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER TH/S ITEM (FROM 6:54 P.M. TO 6:5$ P.M.) City of Anaheim Planning Gommission Summary Action Agenda November 72, 1999 Page 51 i .. .. :.. , . .: . . , ;; .., ...... ; . til .... ...... ,.~. .... ~ ' ' ~ - . . . ,. , { ~ . ~.~ . . ~... . .. . + - : . . . . ~ ~ _ ~ . . . . . ' 14a. CEQA CA"fEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3490 (READVERTISED) 12-6-99 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNER: Sycamore Canyon Plaza, Inc., c/o GE Cspital, Attn: Lisa Mitcheison, Asset Manager, One Boston Place, Suite 1810, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 AGENT: CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Attn: Ivette Barnett, 4141 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91764 LOCATION: 701 South Weir Canvon Road. Property is 11.9 acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue (Blockbuster Video). City-initiated request for revocation or modification of a previously approvad restaurant with beer and wine and outdoor seating where current use is a non-restaurant use. CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR7625DB.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. a • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to notify the new property ~wner about the hearing. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of.4naheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 52 15a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA110N Approved 15b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 99-00-09 Granted 15c. VARIANCE N0. 4380 Granted 15d. TENT,4TIVE TRACT MAP N0.15961 Approved OWNER: California Department of Transportation, District 12, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612-0661 AGENT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Atkn: Rick Juiian, 22974 EI Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 4000 East Riverdale Avenue. Property is 10.0 acres located on the south side ^f addington Street, 310 feet east of the centerline of Fauna Avenue. Reclassification No. 99-00-09 - To reclassify subject property irom RS- A-43,000{SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Ovcrlay) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone or less intense zone. Variance No. 4380 - Waiver of (a) required setbacks for lots adjacent to a freeway, and (b) minimum building site width to construct 43 single- family residences. Tentative Tract Map No.15961- To establish a 48-lot (43 residential lots and 5 lettered lots), RS-5000(SC) single-family residential subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RE30LUTION N0. PC99-208 ViIRIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC99-209 II SR7625KB.D~C SUMMARY OF UISCUSSION. Commissioner Arnold announced, for :5e record, after consulting with the Assistant City Attorney and Planning staff it was determined that his residence is at least 1500 feet from the beginning of this parcel and that it will not have an impact on his property values of more than $10,000. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest and he would be participating. ApplicanPs Statement: Rick Julian, Advanced Real Estate Services, 22974 EI Toro Road, Lake Forest, described subject property. The key issues are the traffic part~cularly on Riverdale, a bypass and does not have that many traffic control devices. There is crowding of the schools in the area; no major fund sources to speak of in the horizori for them; the traffic noise due to the freeway in close proximity; and the sound wall ends at the edge of this property. Subject property is an irrEg~~larly crescent shaped parcel of approximately 10 acres. Currently it is covered with weeds and debris and it has a history of fires, pests, vagrants and transients. The sound wall ends at the far eastern end of the property leaving the entire span of the property unprotected. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 53 At the no~thern edge of the property there are existing single family homes on Addington Street. Along the border of those homes is a block wall. In many cases the block wall is in disrepair. They propose to replace the block wall. The property is currently zoned R°-A-43,000 and the General Plan is RS-5000. Their reclassification will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Prior development proposals on the site included 146-unit condominium development, which was approved by the Commission in 1989. In March of 1998 they proposed a 98-unit detached condominium project. In January 1999 they presented to the residents a 60-lot subdivision. They continued to modify that plan. The current proposal is for 43 single- family detached homes on lots that average 7,400 square feet. Caltrans declared this property to be excess land under its obligation to the citizens of California to return all propzrties to the tax roll. It was placed for bid by to the City and other public agencies and then to public auction. in June 1997, Advanced Real Estate Services was a successful bidder on the property. They developed goals in planning this project. It was their intent to work closely with the neighborhood ard the City to identify common problems that exist and through their project to mitigate some of the problems such as: freeway noise; improvement overall of neighborhood with the high quality development that should increase the value; promote additional home ownership within the City of Anaheim; they would like to improvement of the existing traffic problem on Riverdale; and improvement of the conditions of thE~ schools within the neighborhood by negotiating with the Orange Unified School District in hopes of gettin;~ funding. They feel that they have achieved their goals. They are removing two homes to create the entry. They are going to dedicate 10 feet to the neighboring houses on either side thus giving them a 15-foot side to the road; creating a center island to separate traffic. Street grade is 7%. They propose a stop sign. Their site plan proposes full public streets. There wiil be a small private street. Proposed landscaping includes trees along the rear of the homes on Addingtcn. Their smal!est lots are 5,000 square feet, the rest are much larger and their largest lot is 20 square feet. Their avarage is 7,400 square feet which is 50% larger than the current homes in the surraunding neighborhood. Traffic is a major issue. He introduced Jim Kalamura, their traffic engineer, to discuss traffic. Jim Kalamura, traffic engineer with KHR Associates, 2355 Main Street, Irvine, stated the alternatives mentioned in the staff report regarding the location for access to the proposed project. They feel that the location that is being propo~ed by the developer is ths appropriate location for access to the property. The location being proposed provides an equal distribution of traffic within the project - traffic on either side of the main entrance. It is ~ more traditional design as far ss the T-intersection that will then become a 4-way intersection with Addington Circle. It wiil be stop sign controlled. 'The properties have already acquired. Finch and Redrock will be used as a route to Riverdale. The location proposed by staff at Bainbridge, further to the west of the project, has several problems as far as the location for a roadway access. By funneling all the traffic to one end of the project the; are also creating a tremerdous additional burden of tra~c within the site itself. The intersection will be fairly level at Bainbridge as opposed to the situation at the current location which is that the site itself if above the existing street and as cars come onto the project down to the street. During the evening hours the headlights are pointed down and not directly into the liomes. The situation to the west at Bainbridge wiil be a different situation where the headlights will be pointed directly into the homes. In conclusion, they feel that the Iocation that is proposed by the applicant is the most appropriate loc^!i^~ Regarding the amount of traffic that they are discussing and the trip generation rate used by the City, iPs different from the ones they us~u ~Nh~ch are out of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. He pointed out the trip generation rate that is currently used by the City is a very old rate. It has probably been in use fior 20 years. It does not take into consideration the fact that current trip making propensities are different than 20 years ago. A more significant number is to look at the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. They are talking about an increase of 11 additional !rips in the morning and 15 in the afternoon. They concluded tha; there City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenc~~ November 22, 1399 Page 54 is r~o difference between what currenUy exists out there in terms of ineasurable traffic impacts and comparing that with what will exist when these under are built. Basically, the level of services does not change. In March 1999 ths City conducted a traffic signal warrant study for both Riverdale and Redrock and Riverdale and Finch. They determined that a traffic signal is warranted at the fntersection of Finch and Riverdale and is not warranted at Redrock and Riverdale. When they did their analysis they added in the additional traffic generated by the project and the result were identical because of the insignificant number of trips being added to ihe system. Their conclusion was, in terms of tra~c signal warrants, tha signal at Finch and Riverdale is warranted and the traffic signal at Redrock and Riverdale is not warranted. That is why they wonder why staff is recomrnending a signal be placed at Redrock and Riverdale since th~ City's own study in March indicated that that particular intersection does not warrant signalization and their study adding in the their tra~c suggests the same. If there was any location that would warrant signalization it would be Finch and Redrock. The other issue regarding signalization is that they heard, even though the signal at Finch and Riverdale is warranted, that the City does not have any money to instali a signal at this time. He questioned that seriously because in this particular case the developer is requested to participate in four different transportation fees, including the traffic signal assessment fee, wl~ich is suppose to be monies that are used forjust such projects; signals at locations where they are warranted throughout the City. There is a Tran ~portation Corridor fee, a Santa Ana Canyon widening fee, and there is a transportation impact fee; the total of which they estimate to be weil over ~200,000 in transportation reiated fees that are going to be assessed to this particular project. In addition, it is being requested that the developer pay entirely for the new signal because the City has no money. They believe that the developer should pay for their fair share of the impact on the local street system and should be participating with respect to the fair share cost of signalization. He felt i! should not be both that and the assessment fee. Phil Dowdty, project engineer from Hunziker and Associates, 3 Hughes, Irvine, stated they are the consulting civil engineers for the applicant and they also prepared the Tentative Tract Map for the site. He requested a change to Condition No. 6 of the Tentative 7ract Map regarding the creation of a separate letter lot adjacent to the existing homes, a 20-foot wide lot. This separate lot would be for landscape purposes and would be owned and maintained by the new Homeowner's Association. They are proposing to create an easement for the same purpose, which would be landscaping, drainage and maintenance; maintenance to be performed by the association. The easement w~uld include the entire slope adjacent to the existing homes. There is a proposed descending slope behind the new lots. This would include Lots 1 through 20 and also there is a proposed surFace drainage ditch behind Lots 40 through 43, which would also be included in an easement to the homeowner's association. The reason for the request is that a separate lot, if one were to be created, would not allow them to maintain the minimum requirement fee of 5,000 square feet on some of the lots proposed. They feel the easement would provide the same restricted land use. The plant material lisfed in the condition would still be used in the easement area. They feel that this is a reasonable request and it fulfills the intent of the conditions. Rick Julian stated he spoke earlier about the goals they set. One of those g~als was to improve the existing problem on Riverdale. This plan includes funding for that signal. They have agreed with the Orange Unified School District to pay the entire mitigation fee, which is $8,377 per huusehold. The school district agreed that 100% of those school fees will go to the three schools that are affected by this property, which are Riverda~e Elementary School, EI Rancho Middle School and Canyon High School. He listed the benefits from their development as follows: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November22,1999 Page 55 • Installing a sound wall. They will be reducing the freeway noise by instaliing a 14-foot high sound wali that not only clases the gap of the sound wall for their property but for the entire neighborhood which is affected by this freeway noise. • Buffer zone. They are going to create a freeway buffer zone by the nature of their development with homes in-between the freeway and the existing homes on A.ddington. • Repiace crumpling wall. They are going to replace the crumbling block wall with something that is going to be first class, matching and is not going to be wobbling and in very good shape. • Clean up. They are going io cleaning up the vacant lot. • Promoting further home ownership. • Enhance property values. • Create jobs. • Creating a$12 million dollar value, which would result in $150,000 a year in taxes. • Generating $187,000 in park fees. o School fees would be almost $370,000 dedicated to go to the three schools in that neighborhood. • Install traffic stop sign. Help the traffic situation by championing the stop sign on Riverdale. He indicated thE~ e were a couple of people that were present to speak but had to leave and others that could not attend. He referred to a letter from Don Jimenez who lives two hom~s down from their entry, and read excepts from that letter (he was in favor of this proposal). There was another letter from Jim Van Dalsem who was also in favor of this project. He forwarded copies of this letter to Commission. Mr. Julian concluded that they have reason for the variance request. They believe that the lots subject to the variances are actually the prime lots in the development and will probably be the first ones sold. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked the audience by a show of hands how many people wanted to speak on the project. For both positions he asked that they not be repetitive with their remarks and limit their comments to what has not been said. IN SUPPORT: Hazel Sanders, 4140 Addington Drive, stated she lives next door to Mr. Don Jimenez and backs up to the proposed project. She is in favor of this project; and does not have a problem with the traffic in her neighborhood. Every morning at 7:00 a.m. she makes a left turn out of Finch onto Riverdale where there is not stop sign with no problem at ali. If this project was for condominiums, apartments or something of a higher density then she might have some concerns but 41 homes that are nicer and larger than her home are only going to increase the value of her home as well as the other homes in the immediate area. She used the parallel of the City of Cerritos, which was an erea of much growth, and as the development continued to grow, started building larger homes. With time that helped improve the property values, kept it a very nice and profitable city. In the long term this proposal is a very good thing for herself, the City of Anaheim, people in need of housing in North Orang~ County. Short term she had r,oncerns about the construction. She hoped if this is approved that the developer works closely with the community regarding the inconvenience of the construction. These are short-term concerns that can be overcome. Long term she is very much in support of this. John Woodard, 4130 East Addington, stated his home is one of two that are going to be next to the new en!rance way to this development, He has lived in this neighborhood for 11 years and this is the best thing he has seen for this neighborhood since he has lived there. When he purchased the home the buyer disclosed to him that there was an empty lot behind there and had to inform him by law because it was a hidden danger which this development would eliminate that. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 56 Having a development between his home and the freeway is going to lessen the noise. Everythfng stated about the project he agrees with. It is going to improve the values of all U~e homes in the neighborhood and whole heartily supports this proposal. Peter DePolo, 4343 Addington, stated he was outspoken against the project when it was oric~inally proposed, however, the main concern was the density, the amount of traffic. What they asked for at the time was for private homes on large pieces of property and a value comparable with the surrounding homes. As a result all of the main issues have been addressed. Some of the concerns still existing are tra~c. He disagreed with the previous speaker because he does feel there is a traffic problem, especially on Friday night when Riverdale is used as a short cut from the freeway. The people in the area know this and also use Addington. He recommended installing 3 stop signs along Addington to heip slow down that traffic. He is i~ favor of the project. it is a good project that has been well thought out. This properiy will eventually be developed and if it is not developed now then it may be developed in the future as an apartment complex. Christy Toomey, 4137 East Addington Circle, stated she had a letter from her next door neighbor, Marie Cruuetti at 4139 East Addington Circle, who was unable 4o attend and feels that they are very greatly impacted but she is for the project. This proposal will increase their property values. John Ripchick, 4135 East Addington Circle, stated he lives next door to Ms. Toomey. There were several issues that were resolved by Mr, Julian. Much of it was the traffic and the headiights but they have come to some conclusions that are going to resolve that. He is in favor of the project. He would rather see homes than condos or apartments at that site. John Sunderson, 4~~9 East Holtwood, Anaheim, stated his home is in the middle of the entire neigtiborhood. He was originally very much against this p:oposal an behalf of URGE wh~n there were 146 different dwelling units proposed several years ago. He is not a paft of URGE any more, the organization is basically a non-existent organization. Some people present today may even be speaking on behalf of it. When Mr. Julian came to the residents with a proposal of 60 homes in January 1999 he thousht it was an acceptable proposai then. So 41 homes sound like a very good proposa~ which is far better than they ever asked for. The waivers requested are very minor in nature. He asked Commission to consider that has happened over the last 8 to 9 years. This property is excess land from Caltrans. There have been many people who have said that it is going to be used for the freeway. When he was involved with URGE he sat with the branch nf Caltrans responsible for selling of properties. Caltrans is required by law to sell this property. There is no question this property is going to be used later. He has been following the plans for these freeways ever since he was involved and through 2020 it is proposed that no more work ~vill be done in this interchange. There is a single possible proposal that a ramp from the eastbound lane 91 fwy. will over the top of the entire interchange and come down as a truck bypass. It is probably impractical but it will not touch this piece of land. There are other pieces of land out in this interchange that can be used for that and it would be on the opposite side of the interchange. These plans involve the agreement between 5 counties (Orange County, San Diego, L.os Angeles, Ventura and San Bernardino). Therefore, he does not feel that this goiny to change at all. There have been other proposed uses such as parks. He was concerned for the safety of the children due to the closeness of the freeway to the park. On the other hand, with a wall and homes there instead would be a much safer altemative. Another proposal was to deal with the scenic corridor. Anything that is installed there to represent the Scenic Corridor, for example a large rock monument or trees, would not improve the problem of the vagrants or the rats anci maintenance of that would be nearly impossible since the access is a problem. He concluded by stating this is the best project that could possibly be there and urged Commission to vote in favor of the proposal. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 57 OPPOSITION: Janine Tolley, 4120 East Addington Drive, stated they would be significantly imFacted by this proposal. There is still an organization called URGE. There was an attempt, by the previous speaker, to jeopardize meeting and as a result he decided URGE no longer existed. She is concerned because Riverdale Elementary School has one portable building and just placed two portables on the land. It now has 600 children which makes it 200 children over capacity. If the school receives one more new student in grades K through 2nd the school will loose the grant money that Governor Wilson implemented. Tne schooi already has a problem because there is a morning and afternoon Kindergarten class that are currently overcrowded. There is a possibility that this problem could be worsened by this proposed development. She asked Orange Unified School District what they would do if a development went into their neighborhood and they thought they might need to put in more portables onto Riverdale Elementary School, however, there is no more room for portables and the same goes for EI Rancho Jr. High School. There is a 600-student capacity f~r EI Rancho Jr. High School but !here are 850 students currently attending. They also have portables and there is no more room for more portables at EI Rancho. The capaciry for Canyon High School is 1,800 %.nd they currently have 2,014 students. They also have portables and not more room for more portables. She met with the residents at Addington Circle before the developer met with the residents and warned them of what the developer planned to do. Commissioner Bristol asked if she was speaking on behalf of the residents at Addington Circle Janine Tolley responded she was. Raymond Clark lives on the corner but was unable to attend the public hearing. She wondered how the residents are going to enter and exit the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Bostwick pointed out that the residents are now currently entering 2nd existing. J~nine Tolley stated they get in and out now because of Addington but then they are going to have a unique area because then they are going to have the in and out of the two homES that they are going to demolish. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated that they are not going to be driving into that tract. Janine Tolley responded, no, they are going to have cars coming out that is yoing to add to the traffic on Addington. This is going to add to the residents trying to get in and out of their cul-de-sac. Headlights directed into the residenPs homes will be a problem at night. She directed her question to Mr. Yalda by asking whether ihere is going to be 4-way stop signs at Addington necessary for the traffic control. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner responde~ they have not looked at a 4-way stop sign at !his time. The City has its own requirements separate from Caltrans. It is or may not meet the 4-way stop sign criteria. Janine Tolley asked where they are on the list for allocation for the stop sign or stop light for Riverdale. Alfred Yalda responded there is a list that is compiled every year and reviewed by the Ciry Council and they determine the priority on it. Janine Tolley stated on a letter she received from their office it was listed as number 13. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 56 Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked how large the list Alfred Yalda responded there are approximately 20 intersections on the list. Every year the intersections on the list are evaluated and ranked according to the necessity of the need of each intersection. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney mentioned that all questions should be addressed to the Chairperson. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos advised Ms. Tolley that she might want to speak with Mr. Yalda separately in order fo allow the public hearing to continue since thr,re are other people waiting to give testimony. Tammy Sanchez, stated she is representing her parents who reside ~t 4116 Addington Drive. This is not the first time that residents have had to go through this. Her parents have lived there for 30 years. There are many issues cited by the Planning staff such as item~ 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, on page 6 of the staff report. There is a concern on item 19 about flag lots. Item 21 concerns the traffic. She travels in and out of there every day because her mother cares for her chil~ren while she works and experiences the traffic problem. The applicant stated there would not be 3 significan! impact on the traf ic yet it was mentioned that this project would warrant a traffic signal off of Riverdale. Item 22 ~s very siynifican: bacause it addresses the concern by staff of the density of this project. They are concerned with the possible lack of privacy that will result. It was mentioned that the fences would be replaced because the fence is wobbly but she is not aware of any residenPs fences that are wobbly. She is concerned that the developer offers a one-timp payment $369,000 of fees for the 3 schools. She feels that that amount is not a significant amount of money. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos explained to Ms. Sanchez that the City has no control over lhe school funding mechanism and Commissiori specifically has no control over that nor is it an issue relevant in this proceeding. Tammy Sanchez stated she understood that bu! wanted to mention that the additional residents would impact the schools. Ernie Lane, 321 North Redrock Street, felt staff did an excellent job on the staff report. There was on2 concern about an inconsequential date, he agrees with staff's conclusions concerning ihe waiver particularly the waiver requiring the 150-foot depth of lots. The only problem he has is with the Code, because it does not specify where the residences nave to be on lots. They have 150 foot deep lots but where are the residences going to be? The Code should state how far the residences should be from the freeway for a safety factor so ne would opposa any waiver that would change the depth of the lot that would get the residences closer to ttie freeway. People he spoke with less than 2 weeks ago that were opposed to this are now speaking in favor of this project. He obtained signatures for a petition that he circulated and spoke with over 100 people, of those people only 2 people declined to sign the petition. The~efore, he concluded that there is overwhelming opposition for this project. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he had the petition with him. Ernie Lane responded he did not have it with him. He indicated that Mr. Sunderaon brought up the issue cf the excess land iss~ie. He also attended those meetings with Caltrans. At the present time they have no plans to build on that but remember in 1989 they had no plans to build on 11 acres and by 1996 they have drawn up plans, selected contracts and were build~ng on 2 acres. In 1996 when it came up for auction there were only 9 acres. He does not think anyorie can say that there is not going to be requirement for m~re land use at that intersection. Cal!~ans has their hands tied and have to put on the market any land that they do not have present plans for. It indicates that it is going to be a private street, City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 59 flag lots proposed which is inconsistent with the adjoining neighborhood. Regarding distribution of tra~c to Redrock, is overflow traffic going to be forced to Redrock? Since the are near the river they are prone to rodents, rats and pcssums in the neighborhood. He agreed that eventually something is goi~g to be built there. He thought it will be a freeway inlerchange expansion, which is the appropriate use for it. He encouraged the Cammission to concur with the staff report. Langston Coffer, 4116 Bainbridge, stated he r•~as concerned with the safety issue in the neighborhood with more people in the area. Cheryl Lawrence, 135 North Redrock, stated she is in complete agreement and suppoR with people in opposition of this project, as well as her husband. They have been to many meetings and time spent speaking to neighbors. They brought with them 4 people to come to the meeting but had to leave. They are against this project because of the increased amounf of traffic on Redrock. it becomes a safety issue for the children on the streets when the traffic is increased. Commissioner Bostwick asked what her opinion would b~ if there were a traffic signal installed at Finch or Redrock. Cheryl Lawrence responded ~t would have no affect on Redrock. Either way there are going to be peoplE that are going to travel both direct;~ns. ApplicGnYs Rebuttal: Rick Julian stated it is important that they believe that it should be fair and reasonable. They have tried to be fair and reasonable with the neighborhood as much as possible. He has spcken with several residents and in many cases the residents changed tneir opinions of the project. He explained Riverdale is a bypass, it goes from Kraemer to Lakeview with Tustin Avenue in between, three streets that go to the freeway. You can take Riverdale and not hit very many lights, many cars do that versus the other alternatives. They want to try to take thousands of cars off that road, they would not be adding significantly more traffic. Regarding Addington Circle. There were two of the six residents in support and a letter from the 3`~ resident. They tried to reach Mr. Clark and sent a couple of letters to everyone on that street inviting them to meet with him. Fifty percent of the people who spoke are in favor of the project. He did not hear directly from the people opposed to it but someone indicating that they spoke with the residents several weeks ago. The school district indicates a 0.7 student per household is what they would generate, which would amount to 28.7 students and they are generatir,g $370,000 to the school district for these students for it. Regarding the 150-foot lots. The homes that exist along the freeway are 100 or fewer feet. Their prr,ject is 150 feet. They feel they have been reasona~le and hope they will reciprocate by also Ceing reasonable and fair on this proposal. It is a good proposal that will help the neighborhood with plenty of benefits. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commiss~:?ner Bristol stated this project is by far the best proposal that he has seen on this site. There are some questions regarding open space and parks. Caltrans, in his opinion, is not going to give anything to anybody including the City of Anaheim for a park. He agreed with the applicant that these are larger lots and actually larger than the adjacent property. He has visited the site seve~al times and as City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary A~,tson Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 60 recen;iy as yesterday afternoon and felt this project would be an asset for that neighborhood. He did not have a concern with the waivers and he thought the intention of the Council when they proposed the closeness of deptli of the lot is because there were not many walls. Some people might love the site and the flag lots. (A,t this polnt Commissioner Brlsto! had !o /eave the meeting.] Commissioner Boshvick stated he concurred this is a major step forward over the previous proposal. The proposal and the benefits for this project far outweigh the wai~•ers tha; are required. He felt the flag lot will be sold first because peopie will want the privacy and benefits living off the seclusion of some of those lots. The development is providing more school fees than are required by law. They are willing to pay for the traffic signal on Finch or Redrock, or where ever it is determined to be installed. They are building a project that will benefit the neighborhood and help with the property values in the neighborhood increase. He concluded it is a true "win/win" situation for the neighborhood in this case. He asked the Traffc Engineering Division staff about the location of the traffic light. He felt that Finch would be the proper location for the traffic light to slow the traffic coming over the fresway bridge, which would also benefit Redrock. Alfred Yalda stated they felt the installation of a traffic signal would serve better at Redrock. An assessment would need to be made to look at both intersections and examine what would be the benefit of the signal for either street and how the traffic is going to be distributed, because regardless of where it is installed, some of the neighborhood traffic would be diverted to the traffic signal and some would not. It is a question of what would best serve the community in that area. They are open to both locations. Commissioner Bostwick asked for clarification whether that is an issue of the Traffic Engineering Division working with the deveioaer. Alfred Yalda stated they need to examine the geometric design of the street and how it would best serve ihe whole neighbor by installing the traffic signal. Commissioner Bostwick stated the applicant indicated they are already paying traffic impact fees, traffic signal fees as well as the Eastern Transportation Corridor fees. Alfred Yalda explained that ttiere are three fees involved. One is the Eastern Transportation Corridor which is a fee that they are req~ired by law to collect and give it back to the Eastern Transportation Corridor and the City of Anaheim does not benefit from that fee. The traffic signal assessment fee is a very small fee, in this case it is approximately $86 per unit which will be approximately $4,000 which is not used to install a traffic signal, it is used to maintain the existing traffic signals throughout the City of Anaheim because they are getting old and need new parts. The other fee is for the Citywide street widening, they can not use that fee to install traffic signals, that fee has to actually improve the capacity of the roadway. It is not meant to install traffic signals. He emphasized to make sure that the applicant and his traffic engineer that none of these fees are going to go towards the installation of a traffic signal. Commissioner Bostwick suggested adding a condition that the developer install a traffic signal at the intersection appropriate or chosen by the Traffic Engineer and would pay the fees far that installation up to a maximum of $150,000. If the costs exceed that amount then the City will have to come up with the balance. Commissioner Arnold asked whether there are any figures of how much traffic would be served by such a light in comparison to how much of that would be generated by this particular subdivision. He understands that the Supreme Courts requirements on this is that they are required only be asked io be pay that which is roughly proportional to the impact of their development which would be the traffic generated by these proposed lots. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 61 Alfred Yalda responded there is an intersection that already meets the traffic signal warrants and does not have any traffic signal. ey putting additional traffic that this proJect wili generate, it is going to make that location worse than it currently is. Therefore, their recommendation is that if this property owner wants to go foryrard wilh this projPCt theti ti~ey should be paying for the installation of that tra~c signal. Chzirperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if there is a way for them to assess their contribution to the signai light being needed, from there assess a monetary figure to attach to the entitlement for that signal because he does not feel they can force the applicant to p~y for a light when the light is already established to be needed by the existing situation. Therefore, can they assess their contribution to that need? Alfred Yalda responded that is possible and easy to assess and figure out what the total cost of the improvement and what percentage af it would be based on this project. Commissioner Arnold indicated to Commissioner Bostwick that he would prefer that and a condition be added that the applicant contribute their fair share of the proportion rather than what he preposad earlier. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner advised Commission of an edit on paragraph 21 which should i~dicate instead of 13.5 average daily trips it should read 9.55 for a total average daily trips of 411 as opposed to 580. Alfred Yalda stated if the Commission chooses to go to the proportion of the cost then he requested fo add a condition that the developer shall prepare a study and pay for a traffic signal design study at either Finch Street and Riverdale or Redrock Street and Riverdale. The applicant shall pay a percentage of the fair share of the cost of the signal for the location as determined by the Traffic and Transportation ~Aanager. Commissioner Arnold thought that was fair based on the fact that they are reaching that threshold because of their development. Commissioner Bostwick ~~as cancerned whether the proposed wording would cost the applicant more than a set amount of $150,OQ4. Alfred Yalda advised it would actually be better for the applicant to do that because if they go through the City's process then it is going to take longer and because of the timing and other requirements of the project it might be even longer for them to do that than if the applicant was to do it. It is ultimately up to Commission and they will work with the applicant whatever way they desire. Commissioner Vanderbiit stated he is satisfied with the treatment of traffic. He complimer,ted the residents for coming to voice their opinions. In looking at the General Plan this project is actually less dense than what the zoning would allow for. Regarding the school fees, there will be new home owners who will be contributing annually to the tax rolls which would hopefully mitigate the impact that will occur to the local schools, in addition to the one time fee that the developer is v~illing to pay. There is some benefit for this project to go forvvard. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked staff about Condition No. 5, on page 11 of the staff report, would that give Commission some discretion over the design of the homes themselves, ensuring that they are of high quality. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager responded he was right. This would give Commission an opportunity for final review. Staff is recommending this because of the odd situation of the property in relationship to the surrounding neighborhood where they are single-family homes. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 62 Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated this is an irregularly-shaped lot and it lends itself to consideration of these waivers. These lots are very deep and he thought that a line-of-sight analysis would show that no one is going to be able to look into another person's home from the second story. It is reasonable to expect peopie would be living next to you since the GenEral Plan calis for that. These are going to be affordable high quality homes in a strangely shaped lot next to a freeway with a sound wall. For the record, he met with the developer last week and the developer actually has a version of a site plan that would eliminate all the waivers, alfhough he did not like the pedestrian flow of that version. However, this version is a better design concept. This wili improve the properry values of the existing homes on Addington and he supports this project. Commissioner Vanderbiit statsd there are quite a few homes that abut the various freeways, therefore, there are many examples of this situatinn that already exist and that might be another consideration to the degree of concern of this being a safety hazard. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he sits on the O.C.T.A. Citizens Advisory Committee and use tn work for a regional transportation agency and this intersection and freeway widening that was brought up by someone earlier, is not within anyone's 20-year planning efforts. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated staff is ac~reeable to the easement and read into the record an amendment to Condition No. 6, "That the final tract map shall include an easement to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association for the entire siope behind new Lots 1 through 20 and the drainage ditch behind Lots 40 through 43 for landscaping, drainage and maintenance. Tt~e landscaped areas shall include broad-headed treas planted and maintained on a maximum of 20-foot centers." The condition will then remain the same from the point on. • • o • • • IN SUPPORT: 6 people spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to ti~e proposal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Granted Reclassification No. 99-00-09 on the basis that the RS-5000 is th~ same zone as the neighboring zones. Granted Variance No. 4380 on the basis that this is an irregular-shaped parcel, that most of the proposed lots are larger than RS-5000 with an average of 7,400 square feet and that most of the lots conform to the setback for the freeway and there are special conditions for those that do not, with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: That prior to final tract map approval, the developer shall prepare and pay for a traffic signal design study at either Fir.ch Street and Riverdale or Redrock Street and Riverdale. Further, the applicant shall pay a fair share of the cost of that signal for the location as determined by the Traf`c and Transportation Manager. Approved Tentative Tract Map No.15961 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 63 1'_ Modified Condition No. 6 to read as foliows: 6. That the final tract map shall include an easement to be maintafned by the Homeowner's Association for the entire slope behind new Lots 1 through 20 and the drainage ditch behind Lots 40 through 4~ for landscaping, drainage and maintenance. The landscaped area shall include broad-headed trees planted and maintained on maximum twenty-foot (20') centers. That the final tract map shall include a separate lettered lot(s) for the creation of a minimum twenty (20) foot wide landscaped area adjacent to the property I!~s abutting the existing singie-farnily residences, which includes the drainage v-ditch and the screen wall. Said landscaped area shall include broad-headed trees planted and maintained on maximum 20-foot centers. A maintenance cover,ant shali be submitted to the Subdivision Section of the Development Services Division and approved by the City Attomey's O~ce. The covenant shall include provis~ons for maintenance of private facilities (including, but not limited to aomman area, perimeter fencing and required common area landscaping) and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrentiy with the final map. Added the following condition: That prior to final tract map approval, the developer shall prepare and pay for a traffic signai design study at either Finch Street and Riverdale or Redrock Street and Riverdale. Further, the applicant shall pay a fair share of the cost of that signal for the location as determined by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 15961 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 37 minutes (6:59-8:36) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 64 ACTION: CommissionerAmold offered ~ motion, secondedby Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Chain,oerson Boydstun (and Commissioner Bristop were absent), that the Anaheim Ci4y Planning Commission does heraby direct staff to develop proposed language that wouid amend the self- storage policy to include, as app~ opriate for seif-storage units, those deep lots where location or other conditions indicate a lack of viabie other uses and bring it back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to City Council as a Reports and Recommendations item. ADJCURNMENT AT 8:40 P.~JI. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 6,1999 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING PROGRAM - PRESENTATION OF NORTHWEST ANAHEIM ACTION PLAN. Submitted by: ~ ~v ~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary • ~G?,~/YLVNJ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 1~-~.,0- `~ ~! City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda November 22,1999 Page 65