Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/04/24O'~P~~'MCA`~Z CITY OF ANAHEiM ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~VNDEO ~8y1 DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Boydstun called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Boydstun, Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Malcom Slaughter Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Fred Fix Sgt. Russ Sutter Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Deputy City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Senior Code Enforcement Officer Anaheim Police Department/Vice Detail Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, April 21, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, March 30, 2000. H:DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTES~AC042400.DOC planningcommission(a~anaheim.net ~~ 04-24-00 Page 1 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Pianning Commission Meeting of Approved March 27, 2000. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, Continued from Commission meeting of Aprii 24, 2000 for revisions. Chairperson Boydstun ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner abstained) Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the March 27, 2000 Planning Commission minutes as revised. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Approved April 10, 2000. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained), that the Vanderbilt Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the April 10, 2000 abstained) Planning Commission minutes. • • 04-24-00 Page 2 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~_J 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04195 - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3956): Riley F. Marquis Jr., 5772 Garden Grove Boulevard, #147, Westminster, CA 92683, request for determination of substantial conformance with previously-approved exhibits (of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3956) in order to construct two additional restroom buildings in conjunction with an existing church and private school. Property is located at 641 South Western Avenue (Orange County Christian School). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. ~1 ~ Commissioner Bostwick offered a mofion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the request to construct two additional restroom buildings in conjunction with an existing church and private school is in substantial conformance with plans approved in connection with Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3956 based on the following: (i) That the proposed restrooms are an accessory to the church and private school facility, are uses which currently exist on the property and are authorized within the CL Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. These uses will not adversely affect the adjoining residential and commercial land uses, nor the growth and development of the area in which they are proposed. (iii) That the size and shape of this property is adequate to allow the existing church and school buildings and the new restroom buildings in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding residential and commercial area, nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance (Vote: 7-0) (iv) That the addition of restrooms will not increase traffic generated by the church use and private school facility and will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. SR7724KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is a request for a substantial conformance for the Orange County Christian School, which is requesting to add two additional restroom buildings to their private school and church facility. • 04-24-00 Page 3 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~J B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04210 - REQUEST Determined to be in FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE substantial (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3724): Saint conformance Thomas Korean Catholic Center, Attn: Paul M. Chey, 412 North Crescent Way, Anaheim, CA 92801 & Andrade Architects, Attn: (Vote: 7-0) Stan Andrade, 24501 Del Prado, Suite D-1, Dana Point, CA 92629, request for determination of substantial conformance to permit the use of an existing metal building for limited social gatherings in conjunction with a previously-approved church. Property is located at 412 North Crescent Avenue (Saint Thomas Korean Catholic Center). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the original approval for Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3724 based on the following: C~ (i) That the proposed limited use of this accessory building for social gatherings will not adversely affect the adjoining industrial land uses, nor the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed. (ii) That the size and shape of this property is adequate to allow the use of the accessory building for social gatherings in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding residential and commercial area, nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. (iii) That the use of the accessory building for social gatherings will not increase traffic generated by the church use and will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. (c) That the petitioner stipulated at the meeting that the accessory building would not be used for separate simultaneous events. SR7725KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is a request for substantial conformance for the Saint Thomas Korean Catholic Center, which is requesting to permit the use of an existing metal building for social gatherings in connection with the previously-approved church. r~ ~J Chairperson Boydstun asked whether there is a condition being added that this can only be use for limited social gatherings following church services but should not be used for receptions, weddings, etc. 04-24-00 Page 4 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty responded staff is requesting that the applicant stipulate to use it exclusively for the accessory gatherings after church activities. Since this is a Reports and Recommendations item fhey can not add any conditions. Applicant's Statement: Paul Tray, Saint Thomas Korean Catholic Center, stated they would like to use that facility for social gatherings after the church services and it would not be used for receptions, weddings, etc. ~ • 04-24-00 Page 5 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ U PUBLIC HEARtNG ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. VARIANCE NO. 4394 (READVERTISED) Granted 2c. TENTATlVE TRACT MAP NO. 16034 Approved 2d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 2000-03 Approved OWNER: Deterding Family Trust, Attn: Leo G. and Margaret M. Deterding, 7655 Siiver poilar Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Canyon Crest Estates, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1501 Westcliff Drive, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 104 South Canyon Crest Drive. Property is 3.8 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 155 feet east of the centerline of Martin Road. This property also has frontages of 205 feet on Canyon Crest Drive (private street) and 671 feet on Saddleback Lane (private street). • Variance No. 4394 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to scenic expressway and (b) waiver of private street width and improvements. Tentative Tract No. 16034 - To establish a 7-lot single-family residential subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No, 2000-03 - To permit the removal of twelve (12) specimen trees. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 10, 2000. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-46 SR1044TW.DOC Applicant's Statement: Thom Falcon, LaQuinta Development, stated they are the devefopers of the proposed Canyon Crest Estate site. They forwarded a package to staff, which included their site plan, landscape plan, and elevations to try to show what they are proposing. They have worked with staff trying to develop a theme for the project to make it very rural with nice quality homes and keep them single story in order to avoid blocking any view. They have some items of concern regarding staff's recommendations: Condition No. 2(page 8 of the staff report), required that they construct Canyon Crest and Saddleback Lane to conform with Exhibit No. 1. The private drive going into their development is not an issue. The only issue they have is that there was a condition which appeared that they widen Saddleback Lane by 1- foot, which is currently 15 feet, and has serviced the homeowners for many years at 15 feet. • Commissioner Bostwick stated on their plans it is shown as the north side of Saddleblack Lane as 16 feet and the south side as 20 feet. 04-24-00 Page 6 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Thom Falcon indicated currently there is a 15-foot easement for fhe benefit of the homeowners that gives them access to the back of their properties. They are prepared to dedicate an additional 1-foot. He tried to explain to Engineering that in order to establish an additional easement there has to be a beneficiary to it and not being able to control what they may or may not want to happen, they can not necessarily take this 1-foot and maintain it. Therefore, they are offering to dedicate 1-foot so that if they decide they want to widen it they can, although he did not think putting an additional 1-foot of pavement there is going to make a big difference in the situation. It is not their primary access for their homes, their homes are being accessed ofF of their private drive and that particular easement does not benefit their homeowners. Chairperson Boydstun asked Ms. Melanie Adams to comment on this. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, suggested having homeowners of Saddleback Lane that it serves testify first. Public Testimony: Carol Geronsin, 321 Old Bridge Road, stated she lives in the area and is very famitiar with the area. Just like the Mohler Drive this particular area is designated a half-acre. None of those two particular areas have sidewalks or street lights because it is their intent to preserve the rural ambiance. Old Bridge Road is a way for many people to get their chifdren to EI Rancho Middle School. !f a car is parked on one side of the street it is almost impossible for two cars to go by. The streets there are generally narrower, the same as the Mohler Drive area. She has reviewed everything that La Quinta Development has proposed and they do not feel that those streets in that area need to be widened at all. There are not many residents there and it is a rural ambiance. Mr. Fafcon is correct; it is not the main entry into that development. There is a very small street that comes right off Santa Ana Canyon Road and you can • either go right to other homes or go left. Wilma Harris, 100 Saddleback Lane, stated she lives at the top of hill. It is very dangerous and there are not many people that live there. There have been people who have driven off the hill coming down. She is concerned with the other side of that road, where Mr. Deterding's property is because he has taken out that whole hi!! and made it very dangerous. They have a renter who had his car damaged by that and later moved out when the road began to be torn up. Mr. Deterding, 7655 Silver pollar Lane, stated he has lived at the property since 1953. He was partially responsible for putting that 15-foot road in, but when it came time to install the asphalt on the road the neighbor, Mr. Galanis, who had a 20-foot easement on his property would not cross grant easements for some reason. If people want a wider road all they have to do is to prevail upon Mr. Galanis to cross grant an easement and there would be a 35-foot road there, up to the point where the road turns to a 30-foot easement. He sees no reason why another foot added onto that road would do any good whatsoever. He does not know whether the City could force a cross granting of the easement but the curb in the middle of the road would preclude the possibility of the people using the other side of that road. The curb is there because Mr. Galanis threatened to sue Mr. Deterding if he did not install the curb when the road was asphalted. He did not want water from Mr. Deterding's property running down on his road into the storm drain, which was at the bottom of the road. Commissioner Bristol asked if the Saddleback easement is on Mr. Deterding's property. Mr. Deterding confirmed it is. Commissioner Bristol wondered why the developer was questioning 1-foot. John Lynch, 120 South Derby Circle, submitted a letter, into the record, from Mr. Anthony Galanis and ~ requested it be read into the record. 04-24-00 Page 7 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Boydstun read Mr. Galanis's letter as follows: "I have been a resident of 123 South Derby Circle since 1976. First I would like to thank the developers for taking the first step in buying and developing that lot. I do have a few concerns that I would like to address. The first being the width of Saddieback Lane. This is a street that is at best 15 feet wide. I feel this creates a hazard to all of us in the area, if a fire were to break out back above these homes, the Fire Department would be at a disadvantage in reaching those homes quickly. One of the residents now has to bring this trash down, so that the pick up can be made from our street, because Anaheim Disposal refuses to go up that street. Secondly, the street is paved to shed its run off water unto our street, rather than towards its own gutter. A berm exists there, because I threatened to sue them if the water ran unto our property. The private storm drain that exists on my property is for the run off behind, and above my lot, like Owens Drive. This storm drain has a hard time handling that water run off as it is, without taking on more. The last concern I have is the proposed block wall. I feel this wall should be continued through the back of their property as well to insure the noise from Santa Ana Canyon Road, the freeway, and their back yards is not carried upwards to our homes. Anthony Galanis" THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the 20-foot easement is an easement to the City. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, responded it is a private road easement and the City has some right for utilities. • Chairperson Boydstun asked whether the City cannot say it is combined with the other road. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer responded no. These are private easements and the parties would have to grant each other rights. Applicant's Rebuttal: Thom Falcon stated this road really should not involve their development because they are not utilizing this for access. This is a road that private homeowners developed themselves over the years. The homeowners have the responsibility to maintain it and to service that road themselves. The fact that they are proposing a development should not necessarily give the homeowners the ability to impose something on a developer. This is a situation where they have tried to improve that neighborhood with the addition of this nice development. Staff has recommended that they replace the trees with 24 inch-boxed trees. It is very likely that they will do that but they have not indicated that they are going to install 2 to 1 for those trees. What they have indicated is that they are going to install 2 to 1 for those trees, but they are also going to install an additional 60 plus trees. They are actually installing 84 trees in the development for 12 trees that they are actually going to have to remove. Those 12 trees that they are removing are diseased and need to be removed anyway. He asked that they consider not making it mandatory that those specimen trees be 24- inch box but rather let their landscaper chose where the 24-inch boxed trees should go. He asked that they be given some latitude to deve(op fhe landscape plan, as it should be done. They are going to have to either delete some trees overall to make up for the difference in cost or try to rebalance the trees somehow. The other issue is the block wall along the Saddleback Lane. They know that they must comply with the ordinance and the sound attenuation along Santa Ana Canyon Road, which was their intent to install a • block wall along Santa Ana Canyon Road. They hired a professional landscape firm to look at a plan for the development. Their recommendation was to not allow people to install a solid block wall on the properties along Saddleback Lane. They have designed intermiftent pilasters with wrought iron and the 04-24-00 Page 8 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • intent was to grow flowering vines on the wrought iron, which will be very attractive. They have run into a lot of extra cost on this site. They are trying to keep the integrity of the development and develop a good quality project. Chairperson Boydstun asked if Mr. Falcon is stating that he does not want to install 24-inch boxed trees if he could put them wherever he wanted to. Thom Falcon responded she was correct. The ordinance indicates that they must replace on a 15-gallon basis2 to 1, which they have agreed to do. In addition to that, according to their landscape plan, there are a number of trees they are installing. They are installing 84 trees total. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they could place the trees where they wanted to, could they be 24-inch boxed trees. Thom Falcon responded he would like to say yes but he does not know because he knows they have budget that they have given the landscape architect to work off of and they do not state whether those trees are 24-inch boxed trees, 12-inch or even 36-inch. Commissioner Koos asked if a landscape plan could return for Commission's review stipulating in this CUP that the applicant will follow the Code 2 to 1. Thom Falcon stated they have some small minor slopes at the site and it makes it very difficult to plant a 24-inch boxed tree on a slope. It would require a backhoe or a tractor, which can not be done on a slope because the tractor would tear-up the slope. Chairperson Boydstun stated that was why she suggested installing 24 of them but the applicant would . have their choice of locations. Thom Falcon stated with the conditions that were placed on them and the cost factor that they are almost to the point where it is not feasible to go forward with the development. The cost of grading this site and retaining walls alone is close to $300,000. That is a considerable amount of money to spend simply on site work. Commissioner Koos stated it seems Commission can afford to wait on the landscaping issue. The applicant is going beyond the minimum amount of trees and so they should allow some leeway for their landscape architect to see what type of landscape plan they put together. When reviewed, if it is less than 24-inch boxed trees then they may have a valid justification giving the whole landscape theme. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, advised the landscape plan is something staff could review if Commission is comfortable with that. They could ensure that there be 24-inch trees somewhere on the property. Commissioner Koos stated that some of those trees, as indicated, might go beyond 24-inch boxed trees. He is uncomfortable with mandating that they must be 24-inch boxed trees since they may have a justification given the fact that they want 84 total trees and may justify different varieties. Thom Falcon gave an example that the entryway may have probably in excess of a 24-inch boxed tree. If they are required to install 24-inch boxed trees then he may have to take those down to 24. They are simply trying to leave it for a professional to actually do the site plan for them. Greg Hastings suggested Commission place a condition on this that there be a mixture of 15-gallon to 24- inch box and 36-inch box to be brought back as a landscape plan which gives a flexibility to either the Commission or staff to review it. • Commissioner Koos agreed it should return as a Reports and Recommendations item with similar language as Mr. Hastings stated. 04-24-00 Page 9 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Thom Falcon explained the landscape architecture has not really specified the actual size of all the trees. He recalled that this site has slopes and as he stated eariier you can not plant a 24 or 36 inch boxed tree on a slope. Those would probably need to be 15. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the applicant would have the option. Mr. Faicon mentioned eariier that there may be larger trees which would then make sense that larger trees might be the 36-inch variety. He asked Mr. Falcon if it is possible to have larger trees. Thom Falcon responded he would prefer that they just do the 24-inch boxed trees and if they end up having to cut the amount of trees back then they can do that. They are trying to do what is best for the development. He felt they are concentrating too much on the actual size of the trees. They are actually talking about one growing season difference in the size of the trees. Commissioner Arnold explained the proposal is that the applicant return with a plan developed by the landscape architect and that there is no particular number in any particular location, as long as they have a variety of trees. This seems to be what Mr. Falcon had requested. Thom Falcon agreed as long as they do not end up in a situation where staff later requests for more trees. They postponed their last hearing due to issues with the Engineering Division and they cannot afFord more delays or they will have to abandon the project. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Hastings to rework Condition No. 2, page 9, to reflect what was just understood and to include a landscape plan which must return to the Commission incorporating a variety of trees as an R&R item. • Chairperson Boydstun added that it specify that 24 out of all the trees will be 24-inch boxed trees or larger. Commissioner Koos did not agree with Chairperson Boydstun's suggestion because the applicant is going beyond the 84 trees, therefore, he should be given some leeway. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they were specifying that there would be 84 trees. Thom Falcon explained that he is not specifying that he is going to install those trees. His intention is to provide weli covered landscaping at the site. It is his understanding that landscape plans are absolutely not required. They are simply discussing the replacement of some specimen trees, which they have agreed to meet the Code. He emphasized he is concerned with timing. Commissioner Arnold stated he initiafly heard a request for an alternative to return with a landscape plan. As he understands it, Mr. Falcon would like to move forward without any particular conditions on the trees but he is not certain that Commission can do that. They need to specify a specific number of trees or allow the applicant to return with a plan. Thom Falcon suggested if Commission wanted to specify a certain number of trees then specify 12 trees must be 24-inch boxed trees and they can work with that. Commissioner Koos asked staff if they approved this project with a stipulation that the applicant return with a landscape plan, could the applicant concurrently move forward with the Building Division or would the applicant need to wait until the landscaping plan is finalized. Greg Hastings advised between the Building Division and the step they are at today there is a requirement to finalize the map itself, so the applicant is probably a ways away from obtaining Building • permits, depending on the recordation of the map and having City Council review it as the final map. Chairperson Boydstun pointed out that returning as an R&R item does not affect the applicant in any way. 04-24-00 Page 10 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg Hastings stated that a landscape plan was not required, however, a tree replacement plan is required as well as the slopes according to Title 17. There are requirements for the number of trees and the size. Commissioner Koos stated his quandary is that he is trying to give the applicant some flexibility and Mr. Falcon has indicated that he wants approval with less than the condition. Thom Falcon stated he is not asking that Commission do something outside of the Code. He has been asked to follow the Code all through the development and he is asking Commission to let him follow the Code and let him use his development experience in developing a neighborhood. If Commission wants him to return as an R&R then he is in agreement with,,~tha~t but if the neighbors decide they do not like this , / landscape plan and they negotiate back and forth it may fake more time. y Chairperson Boydstun explained this would return as an R&R and not as a public hearing item. Commissioner Koos stated it is not simply fhe Code. There is an element of Commission and Council trend. They have been requiring 24-inch boxed trees and the applicant is trying to deviate from some practices. Thom Falcon felt that the Code should be changed. Commissioner Bristol asked staff if there is any latitude on the issue regarding the 6-foot block wall along Saddleback and referred to page 9, Condition No. 7 that the applicant prefers not to do and he understands the applicanYs reasoning. • Greg Hastings advised it be totally up to the Commission. Commissioner Bristol asked the appl~cant about the gradmg of the lots at Saddleback Lane. Thom Falcon responded that they would be lower that the street. What they are proposing would go along the street and the lot would be down below. There is going to be ample privacy. Commissioner Bristol stated that he and Commissioner Bostwick walked that lane this weekend and they guessed why the curb was on the side of their easement and looked around for any drainage potential that would come off of Saddleback Lane down and around Canyon Crest. He asked Mr. Falcon if he had anything on the plans on top of that that would eliminate that. Thom Falcon explained all of their site will drain onto their private street and then it will go down their private street into a City storm drain that they will maintain, and out to Santa Ana Canyon Road. He felt that a great deal of the current problem would be alleviated. He explained that after a recent rain it appeared that the debris is coming from the other side of Saddfeback Lane (Derby Circle). He thought a curb on Derby Circle would probably alleviate all of the debris getting into the storm drain. Commissioner Bostwick stated currently the drainage comes down and around the house on the west side of Canyon Crest and has eroded that. He asked if they are going to have a collector box to take the water from there into the storm drain rather than letting it course around. Thom Falcon stated theirs will catch it at the base of their entryway, it will not even go across the street. There will be two catch drains on either side of their entryway. Commissioner Bostwick stated on the plans submitted it shows an existing storm drain and asked if that is what they are going to connect to. • Thom Falcon confirmed that was correct. 04-24-00 Page 11 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Bostwick stated there is no catch basin at the end where Canyon Crest divides into Saddleback and around to the development to the west. Thom Falcon responded that he was not certain. There may be a catch basin on the other side where Canyon Crest veers to the right. He spoke with Mr. Gene Secrest about it and was informed him that there was one there but it seemed to get plugged up very often. He felt the reason it gets plugged up is because there is not proper drainage coming from the other properties along Derby Circle. Commissioner Bostwick stated Canyon Crest has a"V" ditch on the west side of the street. Thom Falcon stated he did not understand why the developer who built Canyon Crest did not continue it around. In the conversation to Mr. Secrest he indicated that another neighbor has at one time hauled a lot of dirt there and had perhaps done a"cold" patch and it has probably eroded over the years. He pointed out that they are making sure that their drainage is not an issue and felt that it will actually improve the situation there. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated regarding the dedication requirement for the additional 1- foot and the applicant indicated it was not of use to people who might purchase his parcels. His understanding was that there is a circular drive in which people from the subdivision, under the right circumstances if they had to, could get out of this area by going across Saddleback Lane up through the hills and around. Assuming this is true, if for some reason Canyon Crest Drive should be obstructed then it would appear that those people are benefited by adequate streets going in the other direction because they can escape the area in the event they had to. Thom Falcon explained that there is not road, it does not continue around nor do they have the right to travel on that. He further explained that they have a right to go up to a point where it is not their property ~ anymore, but after that they have no rights - Saddleback Lane is actually their property. Commissioner Bristol indicated that the applicant was asking about Condition No. 2 page 8. Thom Falcon stated according to staff, Exhibit No. 1 was their tract map. He simply wanted to be clear that they are not expecting them to take up an entire road and construct it to the City street standards. Their obligation is to widen it to the centerline. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, recommended that the applicant's obligation go the centerline of the street. To the extent that the street would need to be regraded to meet any minimum grades that would go to the centerline of the street. They do not have enough information in front of her to advise whether they can just do the minimal 2-foot widening or whether they would need to go the centerline of the street. Thom Falcon stated they are going to have to defer this as an R&R item and go to the centerline. They cannot improve all of the local streets in that area, it is not economically feasible. The street that comes into Canyon Crest is actually a City owned street and it is only 20 feet wide. Commissioner Bristol stated there was not anyone present today that wants a large wide street there. Thom Falcon stated in addition to widening the street they are going to provide an additional 4 to 5-foot walkway with some split rail fencing, a pedestrian pathway. Commissioner Vanderbift stated Mrs. Geronsin had mentioned Mohler Drive as an example of what this project would look like. In light of the request installing wrought iron fencing on the back side of some of these lots and it occurred to him that there are instances of that on Mohler Drive. He was concerned that the individuals that purchase these homes may not be satisfied with the wrought iron fence and decide to • erect their own fences, which would perhaps not be uniform. 04-24-00 Page 12 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Thom Falcon replied that they intend to provide a set of CC&R's for their homeowners that wili identify design guidelines and one of those guidelines would include the types of perimeter fencing that would be allowed. They have done a lot of development throughout Orange County and have a very good reputation. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he is looking for something that would maintain the properties and would have consistency amongst the properties that are uniform but does not require them to install a masonry wall. He asked if there is anyway for them to tie their CC&R's any further. Thom Falcon stated he is suggesting that they are going to record covenants on each of the lots that spells out the requirements. Their landscape architect is going to come up with standards for them. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to the intersection of Canyon Crest and Triple Crown Circle. Thom Falcon stated that they have met with one of the homeowners and there was a concern about visibility. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if by virtue of the development, does it become blind visibility? Thom Falcon responded that it could if they are required to install a block wall there. In the CC&R's they are also going to require that there be a certain setback for that wall that it be maintained and along with their Engineer decide what that needs to be to give people plenty of visibility. They are going to cut the corner and probably pave the corner, which will make it a nice transition. They realize that it could be a safety hazard there. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that is where there is the 1-foot issue which is of concern to him because • coming into that intersection, if the driver can see more of it, then they can anticipate the angle of attack needed in order to round the corner. If that visibility did not exist then he could see the argument for the extra foot. During the action: Commissioner Bristol suggested deleting Condition No. 7(under Tentative Tract Map conditions) and leaving that option up to the developer. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, suggested replacing Condition No. 7 with a condition requiring that the corner cut off be shown on the final map for Triple Crown Circle and Canyon Crest. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, suggested on (TTM condition) Condition No. 6 be reworded by striking the words "vehicular access rights" and put in its place "any access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road." He did not think that this property has those rights, but if it does, they are to dedicate them as a condition. Also (TTM condition) Condition No. 4, strike the words "Water Engineering Division" since the dedication is to the City and not to a particular Division. Thom Falcon stated he has a problem with giving up the access to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Their block wall is going to be built on the top of the wall. Their people will need to be able to maintain their landscaping along Santa Ana Canyon. Vehicular access is fine, but pedestrian wise they need to be able to get maintenance crews in there. The way it was originally written as "vehicular access" was correct. He pointed out that he sent staff 2 or 3 letters. That right has already been done before and there was a recorded document but if they want to add it that would be fine. He did not want to prohibit any access whatsoever because they have some slopes out there that they need to maintain. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, indicated that their slope is not in Santa Ana Canyon right-of- ~ way. This would only apply from their property. Thom Falcon stated that was fine. 04-24-00 Page 13 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commission discussed Condition No. 2, regarding the replacement of trees (under Specimen Tree Removal Permit conditions) and ultimately decided leave the condition as stated in the staff report. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. I SUPPORT: 2 letters in favor of the project were received. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke with concerns. 1 letter with concerns was received. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4394 subject to the conditions of approval listed on the staff report. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16034 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 4, 6 and 7 to read as follows: 4. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement 20 feet in width for water service mains. 6. That the legal property owner shall relinquish any access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road to the City of Anaheim on the final tract map. ~ 7. That the corner cut-off for Triple Crown Lane and Canyon Crest Drive shall be shown on the final tract map. Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-03 subject to the conditions of approval listed on the staff report. ~~ VOTE: 7-0 Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items. DISCUSSION TIME: 52 minutes (1:37-2:29) 04-24-00 Page 14 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT May 8, 2000 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4187 OWNER: Islamic Institute of Orange County, 1220 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca 92806 AGENT: Dr. Gamal E. Nour, 1221 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1220-1230 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard (Islamic Institute of Orange County). To permit and construct a church with an accessory private elementary school with waiver of (a) institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 10, 2000. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7730KP. DOC Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. C ~ 04-24-00 Page 15 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04190 Granted OWNER: Cameron Cord, 4660 Spring Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45232 AGENT: Tony Duong, 577 North Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92668 LOCATION: 1651 East Babbitt Avenue. Property is 0.86 acre located on the north side of Babbitt Avenue, 410 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard (D&D Recycling). To permit a carpet recycling transfer facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-47 SR7713KB.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Dan Levine, 537 North Batavia Unit D, Orange, stated he is present with Walter Wong, the owner of D&D Recycling. The petitioner for this proposal is Cameron Cord, who is the current owner of the building and has assigned them as his agents. They are in the process of purchasing this property, depending upon ~ receipt of a conditional use permit and at that point they will execute the escrow. They were in agreement with the conditions except for one condition on page 6, item 10 stating that no outdoor storage or other carpet related materials shall be permitted on the premises and no trucks or trailers shall be stored on site. They do not have a problem with materials not being stored outside. The issue is no trucks or trailers. They need a place to park their transport trailers and containers that go out to clients and to have some overnight parking two to three days. It would not be permanent, but they need it occasionally and there is 12,000 square feet on this property that will allow room for this. They are proposing a 20-foot wall on both sides of the 26-foot, 6-inch driveway, which is currently gated with a chain link fence. They propose a solid barrier door so that when it closes at night the lot will not be seen at all. Commissioner Arnold asked Ms. Melanie Adams whether the standard verbiage of the "no washing language" should added to this permit. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, responded it is not an issue here because they are just bringing the trucks on site, and are not proposing to maintain the trucks. Dan Levine stated they have containers that the trucking company will bring in and park at the dock at the back of the lot. When they are full, they exchange trailers, so it leaves an empty trailer there in the meantime. They hope to help the City reduce the amount of waste that is going out to landfills; last year they diverted 32 million pounds away from landfills. They unload materials onto a conveyer and go right into the building where they sort and process. Commissioner Bristol asked if they would have piles sitting on the property. Dan Levine responded they do not intend to have any piles outside. He can not guarantee that there will . not periodically be some, but their objective is to make sure they are inside when they close at night because materials cannot sit outside. 04-24-00 Page 16 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt asked whether the public could bring in their carpet themselves. Dan Levine explained conditions permit the public to come in periodically, but very few people do this, it is primarily a commodity to carpet stores and installers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. During the action: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised if there ss going to be interim outdoor storage then Condition No. 5 needs to be modified. The second line of the sentence where it states "refurbished" needs to change to "refurbished and interwoven with PV slats to comply with Code". OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04190 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: 5. That the existing six (6)-foot high chain link fence along the north property line adjacent to the existing truck loading dock shall be refurbished, interwoven with ~ PVC slats and permanently maintained in good condition. Vines shall be planted adjacent to the existing 6-foot high screen walls facing Babbitt Avenue. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 7-0 Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (2:30-2:38) • 04-24-00 Page 17 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 32 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04191 Concurred with Denied OWNER: Sumanbhai N. Patel, 426 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Chevalier, Allen, and Lichman LLP, Attn: Berne Hart, 2603 Main Street #1000, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.36 acre located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 460 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Pacific Inn Motel). To retain an existing non-conforming 23-unit motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-48 SR2011 DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: Berne Hart of Chevalier, Allen and Lichman LLP for owners of Pacific Inn, stated Mr. Patel is present for questioning. Over the past several months the Pacific Inn has been encouraged by City Attorney's office and the Planning Department to reapply for a Conditional Use Permit. They have been given assurances that in light of recent improved conditions over the last two years at the Pacific Inn, specifically the ~ significant reduction in police service calls and criminal activity, in their opinion there should be no reason why a Conditional Use Permit should not be issued. However, the staff report recommends that the CUP be denied. Staff recommendations to deny the CUP are based on three factors, which appear on page 6 of the recommendations. One is history of operations since 1992, specifically an inordinate number of calls for service. Two is history of code violations and criminal activity. Three is negative secondary effects that motels have had in the Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue areas. With respect to number one, the number of calls have been reduced significantly since February 1998. Earlier reports provided by the Anaheim Police show that from January 1990 to early 1998 there were an average of 70 calls per year at the Inn. Beginning 1995 through 1997 the number of calls began to decrease dramatically while calls to other motels increased. According to the Anaheim Police Department April 11, 2000 report, during the 25-month period from February 1998 to March 2000, there were 107 calls (report says 108 but listing says 107). That is approximately 1 per week resulting in 9 arrests and 12 reports being taken over a 25-month period. That is one report being taken every 2 months and one arrest every 3 months. He asked that Commission compare that to the City's other 145 motels, not just on Beach but throughout the City. If you analyze the calls, many of them are police stops near the property, there were two natural deaths, prowlers and trespassers and several bomb threats from off the premises. These types of calls were not generated by the Pacific Inn or it's occupants. With respect to code violations, if you look at the type of violations that occur in any motel, inoperative air conditioner, chipped bathroom floor tile, reattach toilet paper holder to wall, these are discrepancies that are in exclusive hotels. For example, complete on- going repair on bathroom ceiling is ordinary maintenance. Past code violations have been repaired within the time allowed. The report that accompanies the recommendation shows no ongoing repeated violations. That notice also allows until May 3~d to correct the discrepancies that were discovered. ~ They do not believe it would be appropriate to deny a CUP today based on repairs that will be completed within the next two-week period. With respect to item 3, (That the granting this conditional use permit will 04-24-00 Page 18 APRIL 2~, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • be detrimental to the peace, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to the negative secondary effects that motels have had in the Beach Boulsvard and West Lincoln area,..." That is not specific to the Pacific Inn. It taiks in general about moteis and if that statement is true, and it is grounds for denying a CUP, then no motel on Beach Boulevard or West Lincoln should be issued a permit. Item 3 also references drug sales and prostitution. According to Police DepartmenYs April 11 report there has been 1 narcotics investigation since February 1998 with no arrests, no reports taken and no prostitution. They are mindful of the fact that the City is working with a developer to acquire and develop the Pacific Inn property and adjoining property. They have reason to believe that one of the reasons for denying the CUP is to drive the sale price of the property down; however, sale of the Pacific Inn is contingent upon the sale of adjacent properties so shutting down Pacific Inn is no guarantee that the property will be acquired on behalf of the City. They request that Planning Commission approve CUP for Pacific Inn. If Commission is inclined to deny the CUP, then they request matter be continued to May 22 meeting in order to consider recommendations of the Motel Task Force with respect to their review of Lincoln Inn and Covered Wagon Motel. Lastly, the Patel's have made an honest good faith effort to improve the operation and have succeeded in reducing the criminal activity and number of service calls substantially. If Commission denies the CUP, it will result in the Patel's being forced to close down the motel, subject them to criminal prosecution, and force the family perhaps into bankruptcy. It will also constitute a taking of the property by the City and they don't believe that the Commission wants to do that based on this report. Public Testimony: Judith Ann Gollette representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council, Land Use and Business Development Committee), stated she has been there on several occasions regarding . motels on Beach Boulevard asking that they maintain a business efement and quality of life for residents. Obviously, this motel has been in violation of numerous items and has been operating without a permit for the last two years. If they were so well intended to come back to the City, then all of the repairs and upgrades should have been done prior to this application. They accept the City's recommendations and request permit be denied. William Craig, 426 South Beach Blvd., Anaheim, stated he does maintenance for the Inn. In last six months they have replaced carpet in every room. There are 10 rooms left to replace linoleum but other than that there are no leaks and they are clean. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked him to quantify cleanliness of rooms. William Craig responded as part of maintenance he has to make sure the rooms are clean. For exampfe, if there is a spot on the wall then he needs to clean that wall. If it is very bad he repaints the whole room. He will clean it off first then paint over it. Commissioner Koos asked if he saw photographs that Code Enforcement Officers took on March 31 that showed molding on the walls and ceilings of units. William Craig confirmed he had and just specified that this was no longer. There might have been people there before that stayed longer than a month. Now it is mandatory that everybody has to leave on 28 days and part of his job in that 28 days is to make sure that everything is out and no holes in the walls. He has to do that weekly, not 28 days. Commissioner Bristol asked how often he gets into a room and can he get into a room anytime he wants to and is he responsible for replacing batteries in smoke alarms. • William Craig stated yes. He gets calls from Sumanbbai Patel and from people in the room when there is something wrong. No alarms have batteries, they are all electric. In the last inspection there was one that didn't work and he replaced it that day. 04-24-00 Page 19 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Fred Fix, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated the Code Enforcement records indicate that since the current property owners purchased the Pacific Inn at 426 South Beach Boulevard in April of 1992, there have been 92 inspections, staff has investigated all of the complaints and found 467 code violations which include incidences of substandard housing, hazardous wiring, hazardous plumbing, deteriorated walls and flooring, inoperable or missing smoke detectors and cockroaches. These inspections were conducted as joint inspections with Orange County Health Department and the Anaheim Police Department. During inspections it appeared that individuals occupied numerous rooms for long periods of time. The owners and occupants have acknowledged that there have been occupants in the rooms for several months to over three years. Before the Commission are photos taken at the last inspection on March 31, 2000 and it was apparent that during the inspections of the rooms they had not been cleaned on a daily basis, as the carpeting and flooring was dirty, trash cans were full and there was a musty odor in many of the rooms. Several of the occupants verbally indicated that the maid service was not provided on a daily basis. He also observed kitchen appliances such as refrigerators, microwaves, coffee maker, toaster ovens, toasters, electric skillets and a crock-pot in several of the rooms. Occupants indicated that these items are used to prepare and reheat food in the motel bedrooms and bathrooms. It should be noted that the motel rooms do not have an area formally designated as a kitchenette. Sgt. Russ Sutter with Anaheim Police Department, stated in regards to the calls for service, there are 107 for two year period up to March of 2000. If you look closer, you will see that in the previous year February 1999 through March 2000 there were only 37 calls for service from February 98 to February 99. In the last year there has been 71 calls for service. There are more than 71 listed in the computer. They went • through every single call and there are 11 at the bottom listed as police initiated. Those are initiated with activity at that location, not a car stop, accident, or somebody walking by the front that gave that address. As far as comments about no prostitution or narcotics arrests being made there, because of the record keeping system, quite often they will pick up (he is officer in charge of vice detail), a girl or guy who walks out of a location such as the Pacific Inn, and arrest them at some other location. In the computer it will show that they were arrested at a different location such as Beach and Lincoln where it terminated. The report would specify that they were picked up coming out of or walking in the 800 block and individual officers, unless they specifically recording activities directly related to a business, they will not keep a statistic like that. Personally, in the years he has driven around on Beach Boulevard, he has picked up half dozen girls himself that have exited from that hotel. Whether or not they are guests there he could not speculate but they did come out of the hotel. The curious thing is that they used to regularly see a security guard out there and they attributed that to some of the decrease in some of the activities that went on there. They do not regularly see them anymore and as the statistics show, in the last year there has been a dramatic increase of activities at that business. The most calls for service there are disturbances and quite often those are attributed to the long-term residents that have family disturbance related problems that require police assistance. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Berne Hart stated in response to the lady (Ms. Gollette) who said that all the repairs should have been made prior to applying for the CUP. When Mr. Fix visited the Pacific Inn, he acknowledged that all of the violations from the previous report had been corrected and actually commended Mr. Patel for having done that. With respect to people being arrested in other locations who may have come out of the Pacific Inn, he thought you could say that is true of most any motel in that area. They do not think it is equitable • to single out the Pacific Inn for problems that occur in the streets and in that area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 04-24-00 Page 20 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t Commissioner Arnold asked Zoning staff if a CUP was not approved for this property, what economically viable uses exist under the current zoning for this property. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated the property is zoned CL which is a retail zone. You could do commercial office, or senior housing with a CUP in that zone. There is a whole host of freestanding uses that are permitted by right that could be done in this zone. Commissioner Koos stated he made a statement at the morning session that given this is a new CUP, and as disturbing as the code violations and police activity are, he has an easy time looking at this as purely a land use decision, as if this is a project coming forth today with a site plan for a motel of this size and caliber, and would this be allowed in this City in this day and age. He felt the answer would be no. Commissioner Arnold's question was in response to the agent's claim that this is a potential taking, but there is no way that this is a potential taking when it is clear that there are economically viable uses that could be put on this property in the existing structures. It is purely a land use issue and he has no problem with the findings on land use alone, aside from the previous activity on this property. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Koos. The agent for the applicant stated that when the Sgt. Sutter picked up some prostitutes, it could have originated from the motel or maybe not. The agent also indicated that one could make an argument that most motels in this area could have that happen and that is true. The staff and City and West Development Community groups have all acknowledged that. If you take away the current violations that this property has had for the last four or five years, does anybody want that land use? The answer is going to be from a historical no, because around that area the great majority of these motels have adversely misused City services. To grant another use in this area, that is similar to this, he equates to what they have to go through when they talk about alcohol use and public convenience and necessity. Is this necessary and the answer would have to be no. He ~ cannot support this. Commissioner Arnold stated he echoed those comments and thought it is important that the applicant mentioned equitable treatment. It is important to treat similar situated properties similarly, but this is a property, which has no valid CUP on it at the moment. The question is whether they would approve a land use of this sort on a vacant parcel or on a parcel with structures, but no existing use at the time. They would not do that because of the very clear adverse land impacts that facilities of these sorts do have. He did not think any Planning Commission would feel bound by past approvals and existing uses in their cities that have turned out to have adverse impacts. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the project. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 32, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-4191 based on the following: 1. That since 1992, this motel operation has been exercised in a manner resulting in an inordinate number of calls for service to this property, causing a disproportionate draw upon Police Department and Code Enforcement Division resources causing secondary detrimental impact to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 2. That a history of Code violations and criminal activity indicate the owner's inability to operate this business in compliance with City, County, and State regulations • even after revocation and/or modification proceedings for the previous conditional use permit by the Commission, Hearing Officer, and City Council. 04-24-00 Page 21 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3. That the granting of this conditional use permit will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to the negative secondary effects that motels have had in the Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue area, including the use of motels as substandard apartments which are not designed for long term residency, causing overcrowded housing conditions, having a negative impact on local public schools, negatively affecting adjacent single family residences, and causing a high incidence of criminal activity, including drug sales and use, prostitution, and disturbances, causing blight and degradation to the area, and drawing a disproportionate burden on City services because of excessive calls for service. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:38-3:02) Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. A 5-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN FROM 3:03-3:08 ~1 ~~ ~ 04-24-00 Page 22 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04193 ~MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMf7 NO. 3928) OWNER: Prahalad Bkakta, 420 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 Concurred with staff Granted reinstatement for 1 year (To expire 4-24-2001) LOCATION: 420 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.76 acre focated on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 530 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Best Budget Inn. Motel). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on May 12, 1997 to expire on November 12, 1999) to retain an existing 45-unit motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-49 SR2012DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: ~ Samir Bhakta stated he is part of management for Best Budget Inn Motel, 1664 West Cindy Lane, Apt. B. He agrees with staff's recommendation except for time limitation. They would like it deleted off of CUP because they are trying to obtain long-term financing to make improvements suggested by staff, but if they can not get the loan they will have to work slowly on improving the property. Secondly, the 30-day time limitation that is imposed on them. There is a fiber optic company doing work in the area that sends it's workers to stay at their motel, but their project is three to four months long and if they have to be out in 30 days, they are losing good tenants. Chairperson Boydstun asked if it was the same person for the full time or is it different workers coming in with the same company renting it. Samir Bhakta responded it is the same person coming in who will leave after the project is completed. Noted that all the problems that were stated were prior to 1995 when they took over the property. They have made significant improvements regarding the property and will continue to work with the City to improve it. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) indicated she had not had a chance to read through the staff report but had questions. The applicant talked about wanting to get long-term financing, but wants long-term affordable financing, asked if this is it for affordable housing and is this an affordable housing project? Also, she does not think their neighborhood would be willing to have a motel granted with a 5-year permit especially when it has had problems. She requested they have a time period of one year imposed on them. Applicant's Rebuttal: Samir Bhakta stated they need money to upgrade the property and the only way they can obtain financing to upgrade the property would be if the property was showing a profit. Financiers will deny a long-term loan if the property has a time limitation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. u Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Yourstone what percentage of the units would he estimate are in the truest sense a motel use versus quasi-housing on the West end. 04-24-00 Page 23 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANIdING COMMISSION MiNUTES • Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated when he conducted his inspection on April 11, in checking the registration cards and talking to the owner, there were 10 rooms out of 45 units that were indicated to be longer than 30 days for long-term occupancy (22°/o). Sgt. Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police Department, Vice Detail, stated they did a survey from May 1999 to April 1 2000 and there were 35 calls for service listed for this focation and 16 were directly related to that. It is dramatically down from the old owners. Personal activity is the same as other hotels, there are people coming and going. He personally knows of a girl who was staying with a long-term renter there and she was a parolee prostitute and they arrested her there in the last 6 months. Other than that it is quiet compared to what it used to be. Commissioner Arnold asked staff if this was a new permit; this is the sort of use that they would not believe would be appropriate because of the impacts of these kinds of uses. How is this situation different and what standards are being considered. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated this CUP request is a reinstatement. Therefore, basically the CUP is still effective. In this case the Code requires that you need to still make the findings in the original use permit, however, there are other findings that are listed in the staff report relative to the existing operation. They are not looking at a new operation, they are looking at an existing operation and how well it is being operated and complies with the original conditions of approval. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff about the contractors. As far as occupancy is concerned, there are many contractors that come into the City to work for several months, is there any way that a tenant can be differentiated differently than someone who is making this their home. Don Yourstone responded when they do an inspection of the units ~referred to photos submitted at the morning session], the rooms that are ready for occupancy have no hotplates or other evidence which • indicate fong-term occupancy. The rooms that are ready for the "vacation" person have a small microwave, but under the long-term, some of the rooms had computers along with hot plates, toaster ovens and general belongings of the room. For the workers, they would have to determine that their primary residence is off the property. If they are doing business for a company that could be taken into consideration. Chairperson Boydstun clarified that it could be taken into consideration so that they would not have to move until their job was done. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised some of the recent hotels that Commission has approved, like the Country Suites in the Stadium area, are set up for long-term residency. They have separate suites, kitchenettes, data ports and other things the business traveler would need. The older motels along Beach Boulevard are not set up for long-term occupancy. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Arnold. This is a reinstatement item and it appears that they are improving which is a good sign, but he is not in favor of the 5-year permit, only one-year maximum. Commissioner Bostwick commented Condition No. 5(a) on page 6 should be changed to September 1, 2000, to give them time to allow contractors to finish theirjob and move on. If these motels want to have long-term customers, they need to convert their units into something that is a long-term stay hotel by combining units to put a kitchen and bedroom together and they need to create something that is a habitable unit not just a motel room. Condition No. 22 on page 7 states, that hot plates, toaster ovens and microwaves are not permitted in the guest rooms because this allows something to go on that is not wanted and creates a problem. Asked . staff if the original requirement had maid service every day. If it is not there, it is appropriate that it be conditioned. 04-24-00 Page 24 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated page 6 needs to be corrected following vacating. Greg McCafferty advised that Condition No. 6 of Resolution PC97-56 states that every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. Commissioner Koos asked if the City has a clear definition of what is an extended stay, is it in the Code or is Motel Task Force actually coming up with definitions differentiating between traditional short-term motels versus a true extended stay motel? Greg Hastings responded yes, there is nothing currently in the Code, however the Motel Task Force is looking into the differences between the hotel/motels. If there is any decision from either Commission or City Council to convert any of these facilities to long-term facilities, the task force is looking at standards for those uses. Commissioner Koos stated that some of the things Commission is currently grappling with will be easier for them to deal with because there will not be gray areas. In the near future it will be more standardized and they will not have to decide on a case by case basis as they have been having to do. Greg Hastings advised if this is approved according to staff's recommendation, next year at this time, Commission will have a better opportunity to be able to standardize it into one or the other. Commissioner Arnold asked about Commissioner Bostwick's concern with Condition No. 22. It seems that in the past, conditions Commission has imposed has related only to hot plates and not microwave ovens. He recalled that there was some justifications about the microwave ovens which were more consistent with brief vacation use. He understands the concern that it sounds like there is kitchen activity undertaken that is not consistent with the type of room and wants to ensure that they are being consistent • in following a clear policy. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated when this was discussed it was suggested that a hotel could have a microwave in the lobby area, which would be a way to accommodate. Commissioner Bostwick stated in his travels, he has found there are no microwaves in hotel/motel rooms. Coffee pots and convenience refrigerators are maximum. A microwave in the lobby would be acceptable but not in every room. If rooms are extended stay then they need a kitchen, facilities to go with it, and sufFicient closet space. Samir Bhakta stated that major hotel chains are starting to put microwaves and refrigerators in for convenience. For example, Hampton Inn in Blythe is doing that. Commissioner Bostwick advised he gets Hotel Business Magazine and has not seen anyone promote that. They promote data terminals and computers in rooms. Samir Bhakta explained the reason they have it is that there is a 3-year project going on in Blythe and have contractors in and out and would like to provide that for them. The Hampton Inn in Blythe provides it simply as a matter of convenience. During the action: Commissioner Arnold asked staff to comment on Condition No. 22. Greg McCafferty advised that typically when the microwaves are integrated as part of the kitchenette facility, you see a microwave, a small refrigerator and the portable compact coffee makers. The other motels that were retrofitted afterwards, lends to the preponderance of those being let for long term • residency which is the distinction that staff is trying to make. 04-24-00 Page 25 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ There was further discussion amongst Commission regarding the issue amenities, particularly microwaves, and long term stays. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy Gity Attorney, suggesting wording, "That appfiances for the heating and preparation of food shall not be permitted in the guest rooms." (See added Condition No. 22.J • • ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project fa{fs within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3928 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04193) for one (1) year (to expire April 24, 2001). Modified Resolution No. PC97-56 (adopted in conjunction with Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3928) as follows: Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 21 to read as follows: "5. That guest rooms shall not be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for more than thirty (30) days within a ninety (90) day period, excluding one (1) manager's unit, subject to the following: (a) Existing guests who have occupied a unit on the premises for a ~ continuous period over thirty (30) days and are occupants on April 24, 2000 shall be permitted to remain on the premises until and including September 1, 2000. (b) The owner shall provide the Code Enforcement Manager with a list, certified under penalty of perjury, of all existing guests who satisfy the conditions of subparagraph (a) (the "qualifying long-term guests"). (c) Following the vacating of any unit by a qualifying long-term guest, or on September 1, 2000, whichever occurs earlier, any occupancy of any unit shall be for a period not more than thirty (30) days within any ninety (90) day period. (d) The owner shall notify all guests of the occupancy limitations set forth herein within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution, and shall continue to notify all guests of said limitations upon occupancy. 21. That this permit shall expire one (1 } year from the date of this resolution, on April 24, 2001." Added the following conditions: "22. That appliances for the heating and preparation of food shall not be permitted in the guest rooms. 23. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, condition no. 14, above mentioned, shall be complied with. . 24. That effective immediately, condition no. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with." 04-24-00 Page 26 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ VOTE: 25. That guests vacating the premises shail be required to remove all personal belongings from the guest rooms. 26. 7hat 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 Suilding Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 27. 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, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code. 28. 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 thereafter be maintained in good working order at all times. 29. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shal{ not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 30. That guest rooms shall not be rented or let for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours." 7-0 Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (3:08-3:35) • 04-24-00 Page 27 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04194 Granted (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1742) OWNER: In-N-Out Burgers, Attn: Natasha Shakov, Job Captain, 13502 Hamburger Lane, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 In-N-Out Burgers, 4199 Campus Drive, 9'" floor, Irvine, CA 92715 AGENT: Richard S. Herman, AIA, RS Herman Architects, Inc., 6009 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90038 LOCATION: 600 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 0.51 acre located at the southeast corner or Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street (ln-N-Out Burger). To construct a second service window for an existing fast food drive- through restaurant with waiver of (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, (b) minimum drive-through lane dimensions. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-50 Applicant's Statement: Richard Herman, architect, 156 South Wilton Place, Los Angeles, CA 90004 and (business address) 6009 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, stated he is the representative for the applicant. He reviewed the staff's recommendations with the owner and is in concurrence. SR7722KP. DOC THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated that the staff report mentioned that the stacking should improve by adding this window. He was there on last Saturday about funchtime and there was stacking onto Brookhurst and asked Mr. Herman to comment. Richard Herman responded if anything it would improve. It is not going to do anything to make the situation worse. The addition of the window by nature could speed traffic through the drive-through in and out. Other fast food drive-through restaurant ordering are very customed and do not do very much precooking, therefore, there is a tendency for the cars to have to wait at the pickup window. This could aid that, but not necessarily. Commissioner Bristol agreed and thought that if the ordering window was approximately one car length to the east then that might alleviate one car off of Brookhurst when they are very busy. FOLLOWING 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 documentation for subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement as proposed. 04-24-00 Page 28 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04194 (Master Conditional Use Permit No. 1742) subject to the conditions of approval listed on the staff report. VOTE: 7-0 Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeaf rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:36-3:39) ~ L ~ 04-24-00 Page 29 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. Parvin Soroushian, 6263 East Twin Park Circle, Anaheim, CA, invited the Planning Commission to attend a meeting on May 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. concerning the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for the service station/convenience market located at 805 South Harbor Boulevard. She will be contacting the Commission to inform them where the meeting will take place. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Ms. Parvin Soroushian, 6263 East Twin Park Circle, Anaheim, CA, stated she would like to discuss a project on the corner of Harbor Boulevard and South Street, 805 South Harbor Boulevard (COND/T/ONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069], that was before the Commission in November 1999. There was a condition regarding the number of ABC licenses in their census tract. The condition was modified and was approved. It was pulled for a public hearing and was ultimately approved at a City Council meeting on January 25, 2000. She explained they had a deadline to get their ABC license by January 31, 2000, so they applied for a license towards the end of December 1999, after it was pulled for public hearing because they knew that it was going to take a long time. Their appeal period started December 24, 1999 and ended about January 24, 2000. The next day January 25, 2000 there was a City Council meeting where this condition, approved by Commission, was approved by a 4:1 vote. Councilwoman McCracken said that the 1-year expiration of their license was too early and wanted to change that to 3 years, which was also approved. There was protest against the project and it was made clear that since they already received their CUP ~ approved that the project could not be denied anymore. The January 25, 2000, hearing was limited to a few items that were on the agenda. A couple of weeks later ABC received some protest regarding their license. They were notified that since their appeal period had ended that they could not accept it. Someone contacted the ABC Legislative O~ce in Sacramento and the local officer was told, by the Sacramento lega{ office, that their appeal period would be reopened and extended for 1 month. They were not really told why. They called and found that John Pierce, an attorney with the legal office of ABC, had been contacted by Assemblyman Lou Correa's office and told that Assemblyman Correa's office had determined that they had changed their CUP on January 25, 2000 and therefore there were legal grounds to reopen the appeal period. They really do not have a problem with that, they are very confident with their license. The local office is going to recommend approval of their license. They have reviewed everything and have even given them the minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to review. She contacted Chris Leo, chief of staff for Assemblyman Correa's office. They (the applicant) were very upset and wondered why they were not contacted by Assemblyman Correa's office when they received the protest in order to review the history of this case. The protestors are under the impression that this is a new license. The number of total licenses was 11 at the time and now including their license is go'sng to be 10 in the census tract; none of this was considered before they decided to request the reopening of the protest period. She requested Chris Leo to set up a public meeting with the protestors, which is going to be May 25, 2000. She extended an invitation to all Planning Commissioners to attend the meeting. The Mayor's office contacted Chris Leo directly to put in a protest of this license after it was approved by the City Council. She realizes Commission does not take ABC licenses lightly and she has tried defending Commission, but she thought it would be great if some of the Commissioners would attend this public meeting on May 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to perhaps answer some of the questions that the local population • has. She does not know the location yet but it will be local. The City Council was going to approve their request on January 25, 2000, but extended their deadline to March 31. It was ready to be approved, but because of this new protest there is going to be a court hearing in a few months and they will be 04-24-00 Page 30 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ requesting an extension of the March 31 date. It is going to be before Planning Commission on May 8, 2000. She will call the Commissioners to inform them of the location of the meeting. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised Commission that Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-4207 (Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4069) is set for a public hearing before the Commission on May 8, 2000. ~~ ~ 04-24-00 Page 31 APRIL 24, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR STAFF PRESENTATION ON DOWNTOWN ANAHEIM CONCERT THEATER PROPOSED BY SFX ENTERTAINMENT INC. Respectfully submitted, Q ~.r~.~ ,~,.G,~..i' Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary , ~.~~ ~ ,~:,~.~- ~- Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~- v- 06 ~ 04-24-QO Page 32