Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/05/22I~ ~ '~PHEIM C4l~OZ CITY OF ANAHEIM = ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~VNDFD 1b~1 DATE: MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 10:00 A.M. • Workshop on the SFX Downtown Theater Project present by Redevelopment staff ; • Review proposed South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay Zone 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 Bostwick. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick, Bristol, Boydstun, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Kevin Bass Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Rob Zur Schmiede Randy West Happy Medina Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Redevelopment Manager Police Sergeant Police Officer Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, May 19, 2000, inside the display case Iocated in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, April 27, 2000. • H:DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTESWC050800.DOC planninqcommission(c~anaheim.net 05-22-00 Page 1 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Becky Marshant, 501 Fairmont Circle, Anaheim, stated she is a resident of Anaheim Hills. The reason she is present today is that she discovered that the area next to her home is a very popular location for communication btaildings and antennas for the cellular industry. Anaheim Hills is very beautiful with a lot of natural area and trees and is concerned that the cellular communications industry is going to continue to build sites, which is going to change the residential community. Recently she finished working with Sprint PCS, who built a communications building at that site. The construction was from the middle of July until the end of December, which involved the digging up of the street and tearing out natural vegetation in the area. Their approved plans were adjusted along the way, which resulted in a change in the look and height of the building. The landscaping is still not growing at the site. She felt as Commission reviews and considers these proposals it is important that they take a look at how it affects the residential community. Many of the buildings that she sees along the freeways are in school yards and parking lots where they affect people in a general sense, but when these communication buildings are placed next to someone's residence there is a lot of interruption and change of the quality of life. When activity started happening at the site, it would occur at Midnight or 3:00 a.m. She found out that the only time they were allowed to come work at that site was during the hours of Midnight to 5:00 a.m. because that is when the cell phones are used least, which means that during the time her family would be sleeping would be the time that they would be working on this communications building and the equipment housed here. She reiterated her purpose, which is to remind and inform everyone what it is like to have to go through such an ordeal. During the course of the construction at that site she made approximately 200 phone calls. She would like to see that the community maintains the greenery and to have Commission consider these proposals carefully. She felt that the companies mean well but as a resident it is a"David and Goliath" situation. ~ She understands that PacBell has proposed another building on that same easement which is next to their home. They are the only residence that is next to the easement. Commissioner Koos asked if she was within the Hunter's Point Homeowners Association. Becky Marshant confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Koos asked whether the homeowners association was the applicant on those projects. Becky Marshant responded that the applicant was PacBell. Commissioner Koos stated on the Sprint project the applicant was Sprint but they went through her homeowners association and suggested she might want to contact them. Becky Marshant explained that the night before they purchased the home was when they found out that building was going to be built. Therefore, they did not have any say in the first process with Sprint, but Sprint did speak with them because the Hunter's Point Homeowners Association owns the land and Sprint pays a lease fee to the homeowner's association. She called them and they referred her to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Koos suggested to Ms. Marshant that when the public notices goes out for that project that she express her concerns to Commission again at that time. Commission definitely treats the communications industry with a careful eye, especially in Anaheim Hills because there is a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Becky Marshant stated she received that same impression of concern when she called the Planning Department and spoke with Ted White. (. Chairperson Boydstun stated that Ms. Marshant has pointed out issues to Commission that will make them ask different questions than they have asked in the past and thanked her for that. 05-22-00 Page 2 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. ~. ~~ RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 8, 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 2000. Approved Chairperson Boydstun abstained from the voting as she was not at the meeting of May 8, 2000. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99-05: City-initiated (Pianning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to amend the Zoning Code requirements for parking lot lighting in order to enhance the safety and security of parking lots and parking garages/structures servicing commercial, industrial, multiple-family and institutional properties. Continued from Commission meetings of February 14, March 13, March 27, and April 10, 2000. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept staff's request to withdraw Code Amendment No. 99-05. Withdrawn (Vote: 7-0) SR1010SK.DOC 05-22-00 Page 3 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4157 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Vietnam Ministries, 1900 North Paradise Street, Anaheim, CA 92803, _ requests review and approval of final buiiding elevation plans (to permit a church and private recreational facility with accessory living quarters with waivers). Property is located at 1100 North Paradise Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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 Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building elevations plans as presented. SR7743KB.DOC Applicant's Statement: Approved finai plans (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no) John Graham, 2526 North Baker Street, Santa Ana, stated he is the general contractor working with the Vietnam Ministries on this project. Their concern is that the staff is recommending a"hip" or ~ "ridge" roof for this particular structure. They do not feel it is appropriate for many reasons. Their ( architect and draftsman involved in drafting the building do not see it as necessarily an enhancement to the architecture of the project because it is going to add to the height of the building, which seems to be a concern of staff. Some of the residences are 200-plus feet away from this building and it is not going to have a very visual impact. They feel there are other ways to mitigate the appearance of the building. They need to have the flat space on the roof of the building for mechanical equipment. He suggested softening the building by installing specimen trees and landscaping which would be a much more effective way to further screen it. It is well screened now with trees around the block wall that surrounds the entire association, but they have made room for the use of trees to soften the look of the building to make it more amenable to the surrounding area. Reverend Phu Ho, 2528 East Belmont Court, Anaheim, 92806, stated that when he received the recommendations from staff for modifications he showed them to the people in the community. In order to comply with staff's recommendations for modification it will cost them a considerable amountof money of which they have fimited financial resources. Yesterday they obtained 50 signatures from people in the community, which he submitted. He indicated there were supporters in the audience in support of the project. He asked that they approve this project so they can service the community. Chairperson Boydstun announced that this is Reports and Recommendations item and not a public hearing. She asked a raise of hands of how many people were present for this item. (There were 2 people who raised their hands.J Commissioner Bostwick stated that they have done a number of changes to the plans which includes the building look to give it some definition and moved it over, put the parapet around the ,• top to give it a more residential look, topped out the front at the porch and put another porch on one of the other sides to give it a much better look. If they would like to plant some trees around the building to soften the look then that would be acceptable. 05-22-00 Page 4 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I. ~) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) ~) VARIANCE NO. 4383 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL COVENANT: Tim O'Neil, Evergreen Devco Inc., 2920 East Camelback Road #100, Phoenix, AZ 85016, requests review and approval of final covenant to hold properties as a single parcel. Property is located at 940-956 South Brookhurst Street - Proposed Walgreens. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold 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. Approved Approved final Covenant (Vote: 7-0) Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the covenant to hold properties as one parcel based upon the review and recommended approval by the City Attorney as to form, and that the covenant satisfies the condition of approval. SR1153JD.DOC (. ~~ Applicant's Statement: Tim O'Neil, Evergreen Devco, Inc., 2920 East Camelback Road #10, Phoenix, AZ, stated he is in agreement with the final covenant to hold properties as a single parcel as presented by the Office of the City Attorney. 05-22-00 Page 5 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (! D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04205 (MASTER Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Thomas G. Kieviet, (To expire 9-29-2000) 2300 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806, request for a retroactive extension of time (until September 29, 2000) to comply with conditions of approval. Property is Iocated at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. (Vote: 6-1, ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a Bostwick declared a conflict of interest), that the Anaheim City Planning conflict of interest) Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one-year retroactive extension of time to expire September 29, 2000, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that there are no current Code violations on this property. i• (ii) That the property is adequately maintained and further that there is no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. SR7780VK.DOC C~ (Commissioner Bostwick announced that he was abstaining from this item since he owns property within a 1,000 feet of subject property.J Applicant's Statement: Tom Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Suite 235, Anaheim, stated he is present on behalf of the property owner, Lederer-Anaheim Limited). They reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with the recommendations. Chairperson Boydstun informed the applicant that this is the last extension that Commission can grant on this proposal. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, encouraged the applicant to comply with Condition No. 2 right away since it simply requires submitting a letter terminating the Conditional Use Permit No. 3817. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that there is a new numbering system that is in effect. It is actually a computer numbering system. It is not to suggest that there is any sort of new conditional use permit that is operating here. It is the same conditional use permit and is simply a tracking system that is in place. 05-22-00 Page 6 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ ~~ (~ E. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04223 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4165) - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVED OF FINAL PLANS: Sprint PCS, Attn: Adan Madrid, 18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612-1029, requests review and approval of final fencing and landscaping plans for a previously-approved telecommunication antenna facility. Property is Iocated at 1200-1400 West Audre Drive, 1650 South Ninth Street and 1651 South Walnut Street (Southern California Edison Easement). 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. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final fence and landscape plans in part, with the following stipulation (as agreed to by the applicant) be shown on plans submitted for building permits: Approved Approved final plans (Vote: 7-0) "Ground cover shall be planted and maintained between the property line at Walnut Street and the proposed plantings adjacent to the existing chain link fence." SR7737KP.DOC Applicant's Statement: Adan Madrid, stated this is a request for landscaping at an existing wireless telecommunications facility. He reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with staff's recommendation, which is to add a condition of approval for the planting of groundcover between the existing chain link fence and the property line along Walnut Street. Commissioner Arnold asked whether there would be any interest in satisfying that by widening the grassy areas along there that is currently maintained by the City instead of groundcover. Mr. Madrid responded that they would prefer not to do that because that would necessitate moving the sidewalk. They would prefer to plant the groundcover instead. 05-22-00 Page 7 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 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 (Lincoln Inn). City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to consider modification to conditions of approval including the length of stay limitation and to consider reinstatement of this permit (originally modified and approved on November 22, 1999, to expire on July 25, 2000) (to permit a 129-unit, 3-story motel with waiver of maximum structural height). PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1043 (READVERTISED) staff Modified conditions of approval and approved reinstatement (To expire 1-15-2001) Continued from the Commission meeting of April 10, 2000. ~. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-58 Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a City-initiated request for Conditional Use Permit No. 1043, Lincoln Inn. At the direction of City Council, Commission set this item for modification to conditions of approval regarding the length of stay limitations. Staff also recommends that Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 be modifed to expire January 15, 2001. Applicant's Statement: Ben Karmelich, owner of Lincoln Inn Motel, stated the motel houses people in transition who need a temporary place to live. Project Dignity, Orange County Rescue Mission, YMCA all use his community room on a weekly basis to provide services to the guests. The community room is also used for bible study, church services and Friday night movie night for the children. Rooms have kitchenettes and look more like an apartment than a motel. Security gates are on the front of property and parking lots. There are security guards on the property at all times. The motel offers daily and weekly rates, which includes utilities and maid service. All guests must sign and agree to house rules, which are no loud music, drug trafficking, open containers of alcohol, and no hot plates. Any violators are evicted within 24 hours. The motel will not rent to anyone who has been evicted out of any other motel in Anaheim. Lincoln Inn is a member of the West Anaheim Hotel/Motel Owners Association who are all working together to solve problems associated with these motels. When he took over the property a year ago there were many police problems and code violations. Due to problems with the previous owners, a restriction was placed limiting the length of time that a guest could stay on the property. SR7782GM.DOC He is a vocal opponent of the restriction because it hurts the good, law-abiding guests and the restriction does not help the property or the City. A 30-day restriction limits the length of time no matter what kind of ', guests that they are. He already evicts one in four guests during the first week that they are there because they cause problems and are not following house rules. For every one that he evicts, he has a reason for not wanting them in the motel, but for everyone else he is forced to evict them out simply 05-22-00 Page 8 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES because the City of Anaheim does not want them there any more. People tend to group guests into one ~ -eategory as motel people/motel children. These people do not fit under one category. They are all ~ individuals with names and faces; each has their own story as to how they ended up there. Some are on their way up and may have been previously homeless or lived in shelters and have since made a transition of living from week to week, and are now working and making the step up to eventually be living month to month in an apartment. Some are on their way down and have owned houses and lived in apartments, but lost them due to loss of jobs, divorce, lawsuits or a myriad of other personal crisis. To them the motel is a safety net that keeps them off the street. Many just need time to save up to get an apartment. For some, the process of getting back on their feet may take a month, but for others, it may take over a year. For many a motel is the only aifordable housing that is readily available. Many do not qualify for apartments; some can qualify but do not have money for a security deposit, last month's rent or utility deposit. Most of the guests are working people who work at other hotels, Knotts, or Disneyland. Some are elderly living off of social security and a motel is all they can afford. Many of the guests are on waiting lists to get into government assisted housing and are there until housing is ready. Prostitutes and alcohol users go to motels because they are unwanted in other places but he does not want them at his motel, they only bring down the motel and scare away the good business. The motel association is working on a way to share the eviction list. A 30-day restriction wi11 affect the good people there; it will not affect those who already move around from motel to motel. One thing that is undeniable is the demand for motels like this. It has been said that there are too many motels in West Anaheim, but they are all running at full capacity. One suggestion was that they give the existing guests more time to find a new place to live and not allow any new long term guests to check in, however, the problem would still be the same. No one is a long-term guest when they check in. The overwhelming majority of the weekly guests are there because they need a temporary place to live. At the end of 30 days, he has to evict them with no place to go, and for no other reason than because the City of Anaheim no longer wants them there. Many come from other motels because rooms are bigger, nicer, cleaner, safer and have kitchenettes. A 30-day restriction will not solve the problem of people living in motels, it only forces people to move from motel to motel and eventually end up on the street. It disrupts the family (, and does not allow them to get back on their feet. There are state laws that prevent him from evicting guests without cause; two motels in San Francisco are being prosecuted for requiring guests to check out every 30 days. He has been asked why he doesn't convert the motel to an apartment. The motel already looks like an apartment and to the guests that is what it feels like. To convert to an apartment would require a great expense to bring it up to the specified standards. To bring it up, rents would have to be raised, it would require first and last month's rent, security deposit, utility deposit and people would not be able to afford it. Advantage to being a motel is that, if there is a problem. A guest can be evicted within 24 hours versus months for a resident of an apartment. House rules can be more easily enforced in a motel. If someone is in immediate need of a place to stay, they can check into a motel for little money and planning. As a motel, he pays transient occupancy tax to the City, which is $6,000 per month or $72,000 per year, which goes into the City's general account. Money would be lost if converted to apartment. Motel also pays license fees, property taxes, business taxes, inspection fees to Code Enforcement and other City and County services. Since he took over in August, he evicted the trouble makers and by the beginning of the year, calfs to police were down to less than 10 per month compared to 70 calls a month before he took over. The condition of the rooms have been improved at 15 to 20 rooms per month by gutting them, patch them, painted, re-carpeting, and making necessary repairs in the rooms and replaced furniture. To date 97 rooms have been refurbished and 20 remaining should be completed by next month. Once - rooms are done, balconies will be resurfaced, parking lot repaved, gate trash bin area and provide more landscaping. Currently, there are no code violations in any of the rented rooms. Maids are in the rooms every day and report any repairs or violations that need corrections. He is in favor of helping people _- move into permanent homes, but the reality is, if there was someplace better for them to go, they would already be there. He has allowed the Anaheim collaboration of agencies that assist motel people families ', to have two housing fairs there to help find permanent residences for the guests, however, no families have been placed as a result of their efforts. Until the bigger problem of affordable housing is resolved, motels will continue to be the only viable option for those who need temporary housing. 05-22-00 Page 9 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. Public Testimony: iinda Dunlap, Founder and Executive Director of Project Dignity, stated in the past 5 years they have gone into motels in Orange County where children can benefit from their services consisting of inedical, education, food, clothing and basic overall involvement with the families. They are in 14 different motels and just received a certificate of appreciation from the City Council due to their efforts with helping them contact and count motel guests for the Census 2000. A year ago, the Lincoln Inn was very difficult; they had to be careful when they sent volunteers there due to crime. It was not a good p(ace to live and they worked with children and dying patients there. Since Mr. Karmelich has taken over, he is one of the few owners that will work and function with Project Dignity. It has been a long time since they have seen a police car at the property. Security guards are there and work with the peopie. Project Dignity is very proud and pleased with the work that Mr. Karmelich has done to make the motel a good and safe place for children. Hopefully, they will not have to move and be displaced from the school. It is indescribable what they have to go through and society will have to pay the price with the dislodging and moving of the children. They have never seen anyone work as hard and improve a motel as well as Mr. Karmelich and Mr. Parkins, who is from the Covered Wagon. She would be happy if they could continue to do what they are doing with the families. Deborah Harpole, lives at Lincoln Inn. She has been there one year and is on disability and has been undergoing different surgeries. They have done wonders at the motel and if she had to move to a different motel every month, she would be in real jeopardy especially since she is having surgery. She has no family. There are no problems there, they have cleaned it up and there are no drug problems. She cannot afford to live anywhere else on the Social Security that she receives. Tim Madio, 2748 West Lincoln at Lincoln Inn and pastor of Calvary Christian Fellowship. He has been there 6 years. They have gone through various owners that have destroyed the place since Mr. ~. Karmelich left several years ago. He did not move because he felt the Lord wanted him to be there to help the people. Since Mr: Karmelich returned it has completely changed. People there are becoming a community, and if they are forced to move out, the City will have to bare the cost because they cannot afford to go elsewhere. The children will have a problem if they have to change school every month. Judy Gaylor manages 711 Motel and RV Park. Since Mr. Karmelich has returned there has been a difFerence. He has corrected several problems and has controlled the children and clientele has improved. She knows that it is difficult to throw people out at the end of 28 days. She knows that there are still drugs on the property and she has approached Mr. Karmelich with it, but the problem is still there. She does not want to see him get hurt by this and she wants to help him. Judy Martinez, resident of Lincoln Inn, has been there for almost a year with 2 children who are 11 and 14. They have been in school all year for the first time in a long time and she would like to keep them in the same schools. Her husband has been working and is taking classes to advance his career and they need a steady address to receive mail. If they had to move every 28 days if would be a problem. She is also the caregiver of Cornelia Vernel, a 76-year-old lady living at Lincoln Inn. She is disabled with a brain aneurysm that can not be operated on. If she had to move she would loose Ms. Martinez as a caregiver and it would hurt both families. Wally Gonzalez, volunteer for Project Dignity, stated a year ago he would have been terrified to go in there to deliver food; but is no longer afraid to go in there. If children have to move, there will be no continuity. They also have a mobile medical van go in every couple of weeks and for many families, that is their primary physician. Mr. Karmelich and Mr. Parkins, from the Covered Wagon, have done a great job to try and cfean up the place. Dana Lugo has lived at Lincoln Inn for 4 years. She and her husband both have jobs but get half of their ~ check taken for child support each week. A couple of months ago the City of Anaheim went there and offered them assistance to move to an apartment, it was a one time rental assistance. They did everything that they were asked to do, but they had to get her husband's birth certificate, which took a 05-22-00 Page 10 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES month and a half to get. By the time it came, she called the City and was told that there were no more .- - funds for the program-and to call back in July to see if more funds would be available. I THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked to hear from Code Enforcement and Police Department. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer. Stated the Code EnforcemenYs records indicate that since the current owner took over on June 30, 1999, Code Enforcement has conducted 6 inspections at the location. All complaints have been investigated and have found 507 Code violations which include incidences of substandard housing, hazardous wiring and plumbing, deteriorated walls and flooring, inoperable and missing smoke detectors, cockroaches, trash graffiti, etc. The last inspection was on March 30, 2000. Staff met with the owner and advised him of the Code violations. Joint inspections by Orange County Health Department and Anaheim Police found numerous occupants were there for long periods of time. Occupant and owner acknowledged that they had been living there for several months and over 3 years. It is apparent that the rooms had not been cleaned on a daily basis because carpeting and flooring were dirty, full trash cans and musty odor in many rooms. Several occupants verbally verified that maid service is not provided on a daily basis. Per owners request, he conducted inspections orr September 23, 1999, January 20, February 26, and March 2, 2000. He found the previously mentioned Code violations. On December 16, 1999, they received a citizen's complaint that there was no hot water in the building so a notice of violation was issued and it was corrected the next day. March 30 and 31, he conducted an inspection of the 117 rooms with the exception of 15 rooms. Owner told him he has 3 maids for the entire complex, but it is not sufficient. They have also observed coffee makers, microwaves, toaster ovens, crockpots, and electric skillets in the rooms. Rooms do have an area (, designed as kitchenettes with limited equipment. There are 117 rooms at the Inn; total Code violations from January 1, 1999 until December 31 1999 amounted to 323 Code violations and ratio of Code violation per room indicate 2.76. There were 537 Code violations from January 1, 2000 until April 1, 2000 with a ratio of 4.58 per room. On the inspection on the March 30th, he went back to the rooms which had been inspected in September of last year and found that the rooms had other Code violations. Officer Medina, Anaheim Police Department, stated a couple of months ago he was very concerned about the children at the motel so he called the front desk and asked how many children were there. At that time only 18 of the rooms had children. Even though the number is low, the Police Department still has a concern for the children. He has been in some of the rooms and personally he would opt to move the children (when it comes down to the issue of whether to move the children and the consequences of it), rather than letting them stay in rooms with hazardous conditions and violations. There is a big difference on the issue of ownership and management. Mr. Karmelich has cooperated with the Police when they initially went in as a Community Policing Project in August. For the record, it shows that Mr. Karmelich has owned the property throughout this time, he may have not managed it, but he has owned it and that shows a vested interested in the property and it was neglected for quite a number of years. Applicant's Rebuttal: Ben Karmelich responded as far as Code violations, 97 rooms have been completely refurbished and most of the violations were in the rooms that had not been refurbished yet. Wear and tear from tenants are corrected immediately. He owned the property since December 1994 with a partner, sold it May 1996 . and carried a second trust deed on the property, had no interest in the property except as a lien holder, ( went through a long process of foreclosing the property and re-acquired it August 1999. 05-22-00 Page 11 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bostwick asked Officer Medina how many hours a month are put in at the Lincoln Inn. (. O~cer Medina responded that the last time they came before the Commission, they had documented over 2,000 hours between his partner and himself, not including other police resources. The amount of resources that were put into this was tremendous. A copy of his report is in staff report, but there is not an updated count, although it could be provided. There has been a considerable effort on behalf of Police and other City resources to take care of the criminal aspect of the property and they are very pleased with the efforts put forth. Within the last couple of months he has purposely stayed away from the property to try to give the owner an opportunity to run it and see how it develops. It is too short to see the outcome of that. He supports staff recommendation to allow the permit to continue to January, when they will have the opportunity to enforce the 30 and 90 day. Greg McCafferty stated in November 1999 the Police Department testified that it was expending 2 officers at that location at that time. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there were 2 officers, full time and there were 2 officers because they were afraid to go by themselves. O~cer Medina explained he is still assigned to the Seville Inn until the fruition of whatever happens. They are not as active there, but he has to say that it is because of the tremendous amount of resources and enforcement effort that they invested in the property that has resulted in the positive change. He believes that the criminal element that used to occupy and frequent the establishment knows that after months and months of police being there, it is not permissible or tolerated. Staff at Seville Inn has been cooperative, but he does not want to short change the Pofice Department because they did their job and are pleased with the results. Commissioner Koos stated none of the Commission wants to shortchange them either. It was (, unfortunate that of all the speakers, no one mentioned the efforts of the Police Department in the last year and wanted to personally commend them. In the framework of land use, two months ago a couple of motels came before Commission. One was for reinstatement like such as this one and the other was a new conditional use permit because it was a permit revoked by City Council a few years ago and was operating illegally. He asked at that time, for that project, if they would approve a conditional use permit for a brand new project in West Anaheim in this day and age. The answer was no and the project was denied. It is clear that Commission would not approve this as a new Conditional Use Permit if it was a new proposal because that land use would not be supported in West Anaheim. 7he key part of the discussion in the staff report is paragraph no. 12, where it mentions the maximum density for apartments allowed by City's current Zoning standards would be up to 36 dwelling units per acre. He asked Code Enforcement how many units were acting as apartments, but the pictures alone show it; they are acting as apartments. The staff reports it is an equivalent of 76 dwelling units per acre, that's 40 more dwelling units per acre than is allowed in the highest density residential zoning standard. In Mr. Karmelich's presentation he used the word renters many times. He has no problem with this or any other motel use. Looking at this purely through land use eyes, these are motels and we do not want to encourage activities that have gone on in the past. They have to draw the line and say these are temporary, transient accommodations for people. For that reason alone, it is easy to support the staffs recommendation. The evidence is clear. The direction the City is moving in, the City Council is the policy body for this City and -- they are not going to deal with the overriding issues of housing in this City at this level. That is the City Council's issue and they wiil be developing their own policy on this matter, but for this particular land use, they have to go with staff recommendation. It is generous to continue with this land use the way it has been, 30 out of.90 because it is not a land use they could support today. Commissioner Arnold stated his concern is primarily with the continuing Code violations. For a good ~~ portion of this Country's history, slumlords justified the conditions for which people with economic hardship live on the basis that they need some place to live that they can afford. It has been a fortunate 05-22-00 Page 12 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES development of the 20th century, both between municipal enforcement actions and courts in the . development of legal standards, that we no longer allow substandard rental housing. Any land use ( activity regardless of how worthwhile it is in principle, if in operation it provides substandard housing, is a nuisance per se: 1Y is something that is not allowed. He is troubled by the report from Code Enforcement with more than 500 violations. He understands the needs of the people who want to stay there but is baffled why the applicant has not presented a very clear, detailed and forceful plan to remove every single Code violation. He is not certain that he wants to continue reinstating a CUP on a property that is not improving. There are general statements about trying to improve things, but he is not entirely clear what the plan is and why the inspections show something different than the intent. He is questioning the carry through. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Karmelich if maids go to every single room daily. Mr. Karmelich responded once a week they get full maid service where linens are changed, and carpets vacuumed. They go in rooms every day to make beds and take out trash and inspect the room. Commissioner Bristol asked why there are so many Code violations in last four months. Mr. Karmelich indicated that most violations are in rooms that have not been redone yet. He went through each room, one at a time. He has gone through 97 rooms and those rooms have no Code violations on them today. Mr. Yourstone was supposed to inspect the property that morning but cancelled. There is wear and tear from people living in the units, but maids go in and they correct the problem as fast as they can. He has eight maintenance workers full time on the property and are working long hours. He has refinanced his house to put money into the property, his dad has a line of credit on his house and they have put most of this money on the maintenance staff and cleaning up every room. Commissioner Bristol asked about the difficulty of getting the criminal element out. ~. Mr. Karmelich explained it took him 3 months to evict everybody when he took over the motel. Currently everybody checks out every 28 days for one day, then they check back in. Everyone is a guest, not a resident and any troublemakers are gone within 24 hours. There has not been any Police presence on the property for the past several months. Police can take credit, but he also takes credit, he is the one who evicts everybody and enforces the house rules. Chairperson Boydstun asked if any of this would have happened if the Police would not have been there for months. Mr. Karmelich responded the Police were a great help and when he received the property back it was in bad shape and he appreciates their help. Commissioner Bristol stated with everything he has said today, it appears that he wants to operate as an apartment not a motel and asked Mr. Karmelich what he wants to do. Mr. Karmelich responded it is a motel in the sense that motels rent rooms by the day and week. There are no laws that state that people cannot stay in motels as long as they rent on a week by week basis. As a motel they stay as guests, versus residents so you can evict problems right away. When they live week-by-week they do not need security deposits, it easier for them to check right in. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Karmelich again, according to the Conditional Use Permit and the City - Code; does he want to operate #he way Anaheim indicates a motel should be operated or does he want to operate the way that he has been operating. _ Mr. Karmelich responded that he would like to continue operating a motel renting rooms by the week, and let people stay there as long as they want to stay. He does not want to evict anyone out who has no . place to go. The reality is that the people that are there are there because they need a temporary place ( to stay and evicting them out in 30 days is not a fair thing to do, it is not ethical to evict people for no reason, and as a human being he does not feel very good about it. 05-22-00 Page 13 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (~ -- ---Commissioner Koos stated the Reverend has lived there for 6 years by choice, which is not temporary. --Mr. Karmelich explained he pays his renfi every week when it is due. What is he supposed to do, say, "Pm sorry you have been here too long, iYs time to go now". Is he supposed to say they cannot stay there after a certain time period because they are not a tourist? Commissioner Koos responded yes. Mr. Karmelich stated he cannot do that and does not think it is right. Commissioner Bostwick stated there are 3 maids, 117 rooms, which are 40 rooms per maid per day, 12 minutes per room. Some get a complete cleaning and other emptying trash. He asked how could they clean them? Gloria Ortega, Manager at Inn, responded the housekeepers do approximately 20 to 35 rooms per day on a fuil weekly service and about 30 to 40 on daily service. They go from floor to floor and help each other. On a daily basis they do 20 to 35 full service rooms. Greg McCafferty stated the intent of that condition is that each room, each day, gets a complete cleaning. Commissioner Bostwick stated it means complete service, not just emptying trash, but fresh linen, towels, clean bathroom, shower, and vacuum carpets. Commissioner Bristol stated this is a very hot issue because of 30/90 vacating and safety. !f there is one thing that he has been consistent about as a Commissioner is the concern for the safely of the residents _ which he has not deviated from. The testimony heard from Code and Police show there are still safety issues. (~ Don Yourstone advised that there were still safety issues as of his inspection on March 30tn Commissioner Bristol stated there are a lot of letters regarding the insensitivity about the people in the units and they are not uncompassionate whatsoever, and he would hate to be in any position like that, but this is a land use issue. If he voted to extend it and give it another day where somebody could get hurt, he has to deal with that and the fact that the Police has been there for months, even if they have been given a little time off, the security officers are there consistently, whereas before they weren't. Looking at what the d'+rection the City Council had given regarding extending this, with all of these violations they are talking about, they are increasing violations. He has a problem with that. Chairperson Boydstun indicated that the applicant felt that a large number of violations were in the units that were unoccupied and asked Code if they agreed. Don Yourstone stated there were some rooms that were unoccupied, but felt that the majority of the violations were in occupied rooms. Commissioner Bostwick stated there are two issues, one is the land use. The land use is a very dense project; it was developed without any open space, without any amenities and was not designed as a long- term residential project. It was designed as a motel for short-term stays. To keep this as an apartment complex under the guise of a motel is wrong land use. The representative from Project Dignity mentioned the price to pay in society for these families and children. But to keep having the unsafe conditions and lack of facifities, they are not growing up having the benefit of the facilities that they should have and not having the life that they should have in any normal situation. Commission is no4 helping by maintaining this on the long term. ~• 05-22-00 Page 14 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg McCafferty explained staff's recommendation. The reason why staff is recommending to allow the .- CUP until January 15, 2001 was in order take care of the long-term occupancy problems. It was at the ( strong recommendation of the Motel Task Force. Chairperson Boydstun stated they want this cleaned up but they also cannot tell everybody they have to pack up and leave now. There has to be time for relocation and let them work their lives out and make arrangements before they leave. They cannot just lock the doors. By giving them until January of 2001, they know what they need to do but it gives them the time to do what they need to do and also work with the different community groups to help them find placement and more satisfactory permanent homes for themselves and families. She felt Commission should agree with staffs recommendation that has been made. Commissioner Bosfinrick agreed. It is a method in which to transition this back to a motel and conditions are that they do get daily maid full service in all units. There is also a condition that appliances for heating and preparation of food are not permitted in guest rooms so they will need to go out to have meals. The conditions will help to make this transition. Commissioner Arnold stated he is leaning more towards what Commissioner Bristol has stated which was to continue the CUP when the conditions are as they are, is not transition, it is continuance of unsafe conditions. When there is a situation of unsafe conditions, fairly strong measures need to be taken and hopefully there are other resources that step in and unless you force the issue, it is just going to continue as is. He is not in favor of staff s recommendation. Chairperson Boydstun further explained by setting a deadline, they are forcing the issue. Commissioner Bristol stated in the original conditions Commission talked about it. Commissioner Bostwick alluded to it. He does not have the impression that Mr. Karmelich wants to run a motel. He cares about the children but this is not the place. They are allowing these people to be in an unsafe (, environment, to vote for that bothers him. Chairperson Boydstun stated, for the record, Commission received letters both for and against this proposal which they will be made part of the record. Action: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to approving CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 21, seconded by Commissioner Koos, vote taken, motion carried. Offered a resolution to approve reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 to expire on January 15, 2001 with the amended conditions, Resolution No. 2000R-15 to PC 99-203 and 68R540. Chairperson Boydstun commented that there is a coalition that is working in the City that is trying to work out a solution and housing for families that need it and this is an example of what they feel they needed to do. Resolution passed with 5 yes votes, Commissioners Bristol and Arnold voted no. SUPPORT: Correspondence was received in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke in opposition to the request. Correspondence was received in opposition. . ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within 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. 05-22-00 Page 15 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . - Approve a reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 to expire January 15, ' 2001. Amended Resolution Nos. 2000R-15, PC99-203 and 68R-540, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval on the basis that the modifications are necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this motel: That this Conditional Use Permit shall terminate on January 15, 2001. 2. That the property owner shall pay the cost of random Code Enforcement Division inspections totaling six (6) during this one (1) year reinstatement period and as often as necessary thereafter 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. That appliances for the heating and preparation of food shall not be permitted in guest rooms. 4. That smoke alarms shall be hard-wired (rather than battery operated) in the guest rooms, and shall thereafter be operable and maintained in good working order at all times. 5. That the trash storage areas shall be refurbished to comply with approved plans on file with the Maintenance Department, Street and Sanitation Division. 6. That licensed uniformed security guards in such number (not to exceed 2) as required and approved by the Anaheim Police Department shall be provided (, upon the premises specifically to provide security and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name, address, verified driver's license or legal identification and vehicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rates; and that said registry or guest card system shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 8. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. 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. 10. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 11. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the office area, and that the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. '. 12. 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 05-22-00 Page 16 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES operator's coliection duties of transient occupancy taxes. '. 13. That this property and these buildings and accessory structures shall be maintained in compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Nationaf Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 14. That on-site landscaping shall be refurbished as necessary and permanently irrigated and maintained, including regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 15. That a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card to be completed by each 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. 16. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliance is determined by the appropriate City 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. 17. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. (. 18. 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 May 22, 2000 shall be permitted to remain on the premises until and including January 15, 2001. (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) above (the "qualifying long-term guests"). (c) Following vacating of any unit by a qualifying long-term guest, any occupancy of said 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. 19. That any new signage beyond that legally existing on the date of this resolution, shall be subject to review and approval by the Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. . 20. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, Condition r Nos. 4, 5, 13 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 05-22-00 Page 17 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request ~ only to the extent#hat it complies with #he Anaheim Municipa{ Zoning Code and ' any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not - - include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Arnold and Bristol voted no) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 18 minutes ~~ /. 05-22-00 Page 18 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXMEPTION-CLASS 21 3b. VARIANCE NO. 1229 (READVERTISED) INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite V, Fullerton, CA 92833 Concurred with staff Modified Conditions of approval and approved reinstatement for 1 year (To expire 5-22-2001) 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). City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to consider modification to conditions of approval including the length of stay limitation and a request for reinstatement of this permit (originally approved on November 22, 1999*, to expire on February 1, 2001) (to construct and operate a 70-unit motel and coffee shop). * Originally advertised as November 22, 2000. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 10, 2000. (~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-59 Applicant's Statement: SR2017DS.DOC Gregory Parkin, 823 South Beach, Anaheim, stated that he received the staff report just yesterday. He pointed out page 4, paragraph no. 17 of the staff report states, that the Anaheim Police Department and Code Enforcement records indicate that this motel has reduced criminal activity and abated the code violations that had initially prompted the Commission to consider revocation or modification. They are actually a 66-room motel and 4 1-bedroom apartment units with full kitchens and dining areas. They want to run a motel. When they were before the Commission they requested and it was agreed that they could remove the 4 apartment units from the motel facility, for their employees. He noticed in the staff report it indicated only 1 unit but the City Council had indicated that it was an appropriate procedure since a 1-bedroom apartment with full kitchen, dining, etc. is not really an appropriate facility for running a transient or daily or weekly motel room. (. He checked his-records and with the exception :of employees there are only 4 people at #he Covered Wagon Motel now that were there a year ago. There has probably been, at least, 1,000 people, at least, that have gone through the Covered Wagon Motel in the past year. People do not come to the Covered Wagon Motel because they want to live there the rest of their lives, they do not even want to live there a year or even 6 months. They come to their motel because for some reason they do not have a place to stay. Many of them are working, so it is not a situation where they can not rent they just have to have a place to go for whatever reason. Typically, they think they are going to be out of there in 2 to 4 weeks but that just does not happen. One of the reasons it does not happen is because there is a iot of great low cost housing in the Anaheim area, but the problem with that housing is that it is full of people. He has 200 rental units, himself, they are all low cost at $500 to $600 range, which is what these people need to have. Someone making minimum wage only earns about $926 monthly gross and so they can not go into a$650 to $700 a month apartment and pay for utilities and live, even if they were available. But the $500 to $600 a month apartments, there are very few of these and these 05-22-00 Page 19 nnaY za, Zooo CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES people look on an active basis. He has vacancies once in a while and most of this is what most of these ', people are waiting for, is some place to go. He read the Orange County Register this morning and checked the ads for apartments in Anaheim, Stanton, Garden Grove, Westminster and Buena Park for any apartment that was advertised under $600 and he could not find any listed. He knows there are vouchers out there and wonderful things for people to take advantage of but there are no available apartments. If there were, then he would have some. He has put some of his motel guest in his apartments but he does not have a vacancy, there are none around. Rarely do they come available and these people watch very diligently for any possibilities and when they find something that they can get in they move, and that is why there are only 4 people there out of 1,000 to 2,000 people over the past year, because there are no kitchen facilities. They do not want to stay there permanently but they can not make it in 30 days. If you try to move them in 30 days it is just going to mess them up because if they have put in applications for apartments or jobs and if any apartment was to become available 3 to 5 weeks after they put in their applicant and the people call the number listed then the person would not be there and would therefore not be informed of the vacancy. They do not know where they go after they leave. He does not think they have a problem at the Covered Wagon Motel as far as whether it is a motel or not. They provide daily maid service, which includes 4 people in housekeeping plus 3 people in maintenance. It is simply a motel, but a motel where people get "stuck" and it takes them some time to get out, but they do. The vast majority of them get out in 4 to 6 months. They cannot possibly find a place for $500 to $600 with all the competition for those places in 30 days. Actually that is the good news. The bad news is because we are building all of these new hotels, he understands there are 17 more hotels slated at the City of Anaheim which he felts is wonderful. Disneyland is expanding which is also wonderful but all of these businesses create minimum wage or low paying jobs. If there were no people to work at those businesses then those businesses would fail and could not exist without these people. These people have to live in this area; they have to have a place a '~ stay. There really needs to be more low cost affordable housing built but everyone says "not in my neighborhood"; but that is what the real answer is. There is going to be more competition for these low priced apartments than there is currently which tends to make landlords raise the price of their apartments because of the competition which makes the problem even worse. Mr. Karmelich discussed the 28-day checkout, which is also a concern for him. They do make all the people check out. They come back a day later and clean the room completely, strip it, all the furniture goes out, carpet is shampooed, painted if needed. If the room needs more work then they can not return to that room and have to go to another room. He is not certain it is legal for them to do that. They did some research sometime back and found that government code and some other cases seemed to indicate that an inn keeper (someone who operates a place with 4 rooms or apartment units or less) can not legally refuse to accommodate a guest that is otherwise qualified, technically not even on the 29 days. What they have done to get around that is that they find them another room at some other motel. If they are ever presented with a lawsuit they could at least say that they did not rent to them, but provided them with rental space somewhere else. He does not know what they are going to do if after 30 days; they have to tell an otherwise qualified guest that they can not rent to them because the State law states that they have to. He feels that is a problem. There are some positive aspects to a long term or an extended stay for more than 30 days. Someone mentioned about the 2000 Census and indicated that every citizen that gets counted in the City of Anaheim, the City receives $200 per year for that person times 10 years which is $2,000 per person. That is why it is very important to have everyone in the City counted. He learned at the Motel Task Force meeting that Orange County is the only county in the entire Country that is having long term motels have the Census count their people. The Covered Wagon averages about 3 persons per room so the Census takers should have counted ', approximately 200 people at the Covered Wagon. He figured 200 times $200 equals $40,000 yearly or $400,000 over the next 10 years which the City would not be getting if that was not an extended stay facility or if it was an office building or a commercial use. 05-22-00 Page 20 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. - The Covered Wagon paid to the City of Anaheim last year for services, bed tax, licenses, permits a total of $67,470. By contrast he has a 16,000 square foot office building in Fullerton for which he pays the City of fullerton for services and licenses less than $4,000. In addition, the Covered Wagon paid approximately $14,000 in property taxes. When the restaurant is open it will have to generate a least $40,000 a month in gross safes in order to survive. That would generate an additional $30,000 in sales tax revenue. The local business people and WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), in particular, are encouraging businesses and residents to shop locally to keep the money in the community. ~n 1999, the Covered Wagon spent $94,562 on merchandise and supp(ies. Most of that was at the West Anaheim Home Depot but virtually all of that money was spent in West Anaheim. The Covered Wagon from time to time has certain specific people who come there for a specific period of time. They have had people from the telephone company that were assigned to the area as troubleshooters that have stayed there for 90 days. They have people who are medical students who take their medical exam and "cram" courses at the Buena Park Hotel. It is too expensive to stay there so they prefer to stay at the Covered Wagon for a 4-month period while they study. They will lose that business completely if they have to evict people after 90 days. They know they have to be there for 3 or 4 months. The people who come to the Covered Wagon off the street do not believe they are going to be at the motel for one month. That block of business is going to be lost. If there is no problem and it appears when they read the staff report that there is not then he does not see the reason to impose that. They are not trying to get people to stay on a permanent basis. They are full every night and would like to see everyone there to find a place, but they know as a practical matter that it is just not possible and is not going to happen. It has not happened; but they do find a place. He suggested possibly putting a longer restriction on it, but 30 or 90 days is just not practical. All it is going to do is hurt these people and not help them. It is not going to cause them from running a motel because that is what they want to run is a motel. '~ He suggested they reconsider that and perhaps come up with some other arrangement. It seems that one of the things that City Council, Planning Commission and staff are concerned about is whether or not, even though there is no problem now, it will revert to being a problem. They are going to be returning in a year and if it is, he is certain they will let him know about it. They pay for the monthly inspections. The City Council was only going to impose 1 inspection every 2 months. Actually they want an inspection conducted once a month. They want to be sure they are on their toes, doing what they are suppased to do and so it was changed from every other month. They are inspected and pay for those inspections. When Code Enforcement brings things to their attention they do everything that they can possibly do to make the situation better. He felt that staff and the Police Department know that they are trying the best they can and he appreciates the good comments that have been made about the Covered Wagon Mote1. Chairperson Boydstun asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak in favor or against this item. (There was no response.] THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated since he has started his monthly inspections at the Covered Wagon there have been substantial improvements to the property and to the rooms. He does on occasion observe Code violations and when the owner is notified either verbally or in writing the Code violations are corrected promptly. He did a study with this property regarding the Code violations from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999. There are 70 rooms at this motel. They had 203 code violations and the ratio per rooms was 2.9. From January 1, 2000 to April 1, 2000 there have been 17 Code violations and that ratio drops down to .24. They are very cooperative to work with and once they are notified they take prompt action to correcting the violations. He recommended a 1-year continuance ', on this Variance. 05-22-00 Page 21 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Sgt. Randy West, Police Department, stated statistically from January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2000 (first . quarter) there were 38 calls for service. Eight of those were directly related to the Covered Wagon Motel, + which resulted in criminal type activities. Looking at the statistics for last year he noticed there were 60 calls for service in the whole year. That encompasses a lot of "community policing activity" which is proactive law enforcement activity being on the property, doing inspections, etc. The Police Department is in agreement with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Arnold stated Code EnforcemenYs report indicates "minor" Code violations. He gathered from their testimony that this item is different in nature than their report on the previous item (Item No. 2). Don Yourstone explained that these Code violations are such things as a missing shower drain cover, broken bed frame, loose tiles in the shower and mildew around the base of the shower. They do supply a daily maid service to the rooms. As Mr. Parkin indicated, they do move people out every 28 days and go in and redo the rooms by taking the necessary action to clean them up before the tenant returns. Commissioner Bristol stated it appeared there has been a significant improvement from the time Mr. Yourstone first started inspections at this motel. Don Yourstone agreed that since he first started with this property it has improvement tremendously. Commissioner Bristol asked if he felt anyone is being placed in an unhealthy position by staying there. Don Yourstone stated he did not think that was the case. Commissioner Bristol stated that he noticed on Sgt. Sutter's memo that there was a lot of activity mentioned, but there were no arrests and asked Sgt. Randy West if that was what he meant by proactive community policing. ~~ Sgt. Randy West asked if he was referring to the 8 incidents. Commissioner Bristol confirmed he was. Sgt. West responded that was correct. When they pulled up the actual statistics by the address, as he indicated there were actually 38 calls that are tied to that address but those could be traffic accidents in front of the motel, pedestrian checks on the sidewalk in front of the motel; things that are not directly related to the motel itself. These were 8 particular incidents that are directly related to the motel itself, whether it be arrest or non-arrest situations. Commissioner Bristol stated he felt much differently about this because there has been significant improvement and he has been involved for a long time with this property and it is much better than it used to be. Chairperson Boydstun felt that they need something in the ordinance to address the situation of people that come in and work for various companies. Her husband did this for years, when they stay some place it is very inconvenient and difficult for them to move and sometimes their job requires them to stay 30 days, but other times it may be 60 days. They need to work out something in the Code to cover these people. They are not making permanent residents out of it, but if their company sends them here and they are here for 3 months they should not have to be moving around. There must be some way to accommodate these people. Commissioner Bostwick stated there are extended stay facilities in the City such as the Marriott and Residence Inn. Commissioner Koos stated when those last two motels came forward Commission discussed the differentiation between extended stay and standard motels. This was going to come forward as a result ', of a11 of the Motef Task Force activity. He thought they shall be seeing something over the next few months and asked staff to verify. 05-22-00 Page 22 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . - Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, explained one of the things that the Motel Task Force is looking at ~ is the possibility of cominq forward with some kind of an ordinance which recognizes transitional living facilities, provided that certain amenities are provided in those facilities that would provide a safe livable environment for the individuals living there. She is certain that the Planning Commission will be involved in that effort as well. Therefore, that is something that would be coming before Commission and it is one of the things being considered by the Motel Task Force. Commissioner Arnold commented regarding "safe and livable environmenY' that Ms. Mann just made and reiterated what Commissioner Bristol was stating was that this is a vastly different situation than Item No. 2 in terms of the quality of living conditions. He does not share the same concerns about this project that he did about Item No. 2. Commissioner Bostwick stated they have seen this project change over the last couple of years and the owner needs to be applauded for his work on bring this into better conditions and a much better facility in the City as the statistics show and the police reports. The idea of people moving out of the room at the end of 28 days and then coming in and overhauling it proves that if the room is cleaned up and fixed that it works. There is a need for that, when they stay longer than that then it tends to go down hill. They need to have the daily maid service to keep it clean and healthy. Following the Action: Gregory Parkin asked if there was anything done about the 30 and 90 days, which is his real concern. Commissioner Bristol explained the permit is approved until January 15, 2001 and suggested reviewing this with staff. Gregory Parkin stated regarding these people who want to stay for 3 to 4 months, what can they do? '. Chairperson Boydstun responded hopefully the Motel Task Force during that time will come up with a solution that they can all live with. Commissioner Bostwick stated if they set standards then perhaps Mr. Parkin can change his motel to change the standards that they come up with if that is the direction he would like to go. Mr. Parkin stated he wants to discourage that kind of living. To put in a refrigerator, etc. makes the problem worst. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a condition that there is no food preparation in the motel. Commissioner Koos stated by January 15, 2001 these recommendations will come forward and if he chooses to have a standard day-to-day motel type operation then he could stay operating as he is and the 30 or 90 will stay in place. But if he choose to transition into some sort of long term facility as defined by the new development standards then he can choose to do that as well and that might require adding some amenities, etc. Mr. Parkin asked suppose someone comes in today and rents a room for a week and ends up staying 28 or 30 days and want to stay longer, does he have to evict them? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission's actions today will be considered final in 22 days unfess an appeal to the City Council if filed within that time. What the Planning Commission determined that this was Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and it has in affect reinstated this permit until May 22, 2001 subject to the conditions of approval as they are in the staff report. They do speak for themselves. He did submit some definitional provisions with his , letter that were provided to the Commission this morning and also a partial copy of Sections 1940 and ' 1940.1 of the Civil Code. Those were also provided to the Commission and she made copies of the entire section that she can have available for him. 05-22-00 Page 23 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .- -Mr: Parkin stated that it seems when he appeals it that he is arguing with the City and does not like for it ( to seem that way because he does not want to argue with the City. Commissioner Arnold asked about the Motel Task Force because it seems that many of these issues are going to be addressed in a more long term manner with the Motel Task Force and wondered whether there are mechanisms for public input as these issues are being considered by the Motel Task Force to obtain different ideas from the public. Se1ma Mann stated one of the ideas is to get some input from the hotel and motel community with regard to some of these issues. They recognize that there are some situations where some facilities are being used not as a primary but as a secondary residence while someone is away from their home on a temporary occupational assignment of one type or another. These are all things that are being considered and that will be taken into account and certainly input will be sought from the hotels and motels which are directly affected. Mr. Parkin stated he attended the last Motel Task Force meeting. It is open to the public and no one is excluded. It is not necessarily advertised widely, but anyone who wants to come and sit in can do that. He was just hoping that he could obtain some type of a moratorium on that 30 and 90 until the Motel Task Force makes its recommendation of what to do. Asked if that could be done? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, explained that it would be a decision that would be up to the City Council. Mr. Parkin thanked Commission for their time. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • '. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EfR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved a reinstatement of Variance No. 1229 for one (1) year (to expire May 22, 2001). Amended Resolution Nos. 235, PC97-89, 98R-249, PC99-202, and 2000R- 19, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval on the basis that the modifications are necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this motel: 1. That this Variance shall terminate one (1) year from the date of this resolution, on May 22, 2001. 2. That the property owner shall pay the cost of random Code Enforcement Division inspections totaling twelve (12) during this one (1) year reinstatement period and as often as necessary thereafter until the subject property is brought into compliance, and/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. 3. That appliances for the heating and preparation of food shall not be permitted in the guest rooms. 4. That smoke alarms shall be hard-wired (rather than battery operated) in the guest rooms, and shall thereafter be operable and maintained in good working ', order at all times. 5. That the trash storage areas shall be refurbished to comply with approved 05-22-00 Page 24 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES plans on file with the Maintenance Department, Street and Sanitation Division. '. 6. That licensed uniformed security guards in such number (not to exceed 2) as required and approved by the Anaheim Police Department shall be provided upon the premises specifically to provide security and to discourage vandafism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. 7. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name, address, verified driver's license or legal identification and vehicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rates; and that said registry or guest card system shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 8. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daify maid service. 9. 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. 10. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 11. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the o~ce area, and that the property owner and/or motel ', management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. 12. 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. 13. That this property and these buildings and accessory structures shall be maintained in compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 14. That on-site landscaping shall be refurbished as necessary and permanently irrigated and maintained, including regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 15. That a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card to be completed by each 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. 16. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliance is determined by the appropriate City 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 05-22-00 Page 25 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Uniform Mechanicai Code. (. 17. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timeiy manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 18. 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 May 22, 2000, shall be permitted to remain on the premises until and including January 15, 2001. (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) above (the "qualifying long-term guests"). (c) Following vacating of any unit by a qualifying long-term guest, or on January 15, 2001, whichever occurs earlier, any occupancy of said 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. 19. That any new signage, beyond that legally existing on the date of this ~~ resolution, shafl be subject to the Report and Recommendations of approval by the Planning Commission. 20. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 4, 5, 13, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it compfies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (3:04-3:28) 1, 05-22-00 Page 26 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00376 4c. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00002 4d. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00023 4e. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 4d Approved Recommended adoption of Exhibit A to City Council Recommended adoption to City Council Granted Approved REQUESTED BY: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Subject area consists of approximately 430 acres located along, and surrounding, Anaheim Boulevard between Broadway to the north and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway to the south. ~J General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376 - A proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to: a) redesignate properties from the General Industrial, General Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation; b) redesignate properties from the General Industrial, Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial, Commercial Professional, Medium Density Residential and Low-Medium Density Residential designations to the General Commercial designation; c) redesignate properties from the General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential designations to the Commercial Professional designation; and, d) redesignate properties from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential designations to the Special Park Site designation. Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 - To amend Title 18 by establishing the South Anaheim Boulevard Commercial Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone which would serve to: a) permit new land uses in the Overlay Zone area in addition to those allowed under existing zoning; b) establish a design review process for future development projects within the Overlay Zone area; c) adopt, by reference, a Master Plan for public and private landscaped areas; d) restrict establishment of additional locations for off-premises sales of alcoholic beverages, and; e) adopt a sign amortization program which would require the removal of freestanding signs not in conformance with the sign regulations contained within the Anaheim Municipal Code after a 15-year amortization period. Reclassification No. 2000-00023 - To reclassify subject area by combining the South Anaheim Boulevard Commercial Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone with each parcel's existing underlying zoning designation while removing certain properties located north of Katella Avenue, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison Easement and west of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way from the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone. - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-60 (. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-61 SR7777JB.DOC 05-22-00 Page 27 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES [Chairperson Boydstun and Commissioner Bostwick abstained from this item, as they awn property in the ', proposed area.J (Commissioner Koos acted as Chairperson for this item.J Staff s Statement: Robert Zur Schmiede, Community Deve{opment Department, stated that this item has been a joint effort of the Planning Department and Community Development Department. There were 2 consultants that worked on the plan and were in attendance (John Kaliski, AIJK Architecture & City Design and Tijana Hamilton, Parsons Transportation Group). The proposal is for a long term land use plan for South Anaheim Boulevard running from the Santa Ana Freeway on the south, northerly along Anaheim Boulevard to the downtown and Broadway. They have a series of recommendations that basically are categorized into the area south of Ball Road and the area north of Ba11 Road. The land uses proposed under this plan are proposed in addition to the existing zoning, so they are not proposing to change existing zoning. Those uses could continue to operate indefinitely. This is intended along with the General Plan revision that is before Commission to provide a vision and long-term proposal for the street. On the area south of Ball Road, a number of fairly large parcels have been proposed to be designated regional commercial. The idea behind this designation is that with the completion of the freeway improvements and Resort Area improvements these parcels, due to their visibility, proximity and accessibility, have a good potential to transition to regional commercial uses over the lifetime of this plan which is a 15 to 20-year period. On the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, within the triangularly shaped area, there is a combination of Regional Commercial and Neighborhood Residential with an a{ternative that a11 of this could go to Regional Commercial. The reason being this parcel has excellent freeway visibility. If it were to be combined with the parcel to the north, the combined parcel could enjoy the same benefits. However, as ', part of the work leading to the Commission hearing, they met with a number of major property owners along the corridor and they felt that in dealing with these two groups, the investment time horizon of each will not coincide. This area, because of its proximity to Revere School and other residential to the north should be Neighborhood Residential designated. However, if it could be combined, there could be adequate buffering to separate that from the residential uses to the north. Along Anaheim Boulevard they have proposed a new residential product type which they refer to as "Boulevard Residential". It is essentially a town home configuration that allows for garage access at the rear of the lots; the access to garages would be via existing public alleys with a density of 18 units per acre. It is analogous to the town homes on Center Street; the difference being these units would allow a third level loft. They would be oriented to the street and in conjunction with another alternative use which is a residential mixed use that's primarily found at the major intersections. Generally at the major intersections there is an alternative that allows ground level commercial with residential units 2 levels above. At the intersection of Santa Ana Street there is another alternative designation which basically a{lows for a continuation of the Neighborhood Residential which lies to the east and west of the intersection, in addition to the Boulevard Residential uses. Reason for that alternative is because they felt that with site assemblage it m'sght prove to be a better layout to allow the Neighborhood Residential product type to continue and have frontage on Anaheim Boulevard. Under Neighborhood Residential designation, if one has a minimum one-acre site, they would allow a smaller lot single family at 4,400 square feet per unit to be developed or town homes at the RM-3000 density. All of the properties that lie within the Redevelopment Plan Boundary, which is a subset of the Overlay - Zone, would be subject to a design review process to make certain that the projects have been tested for neighborhood compatibility and various adjacency conditions that they are going to experience as it builds ', out over a 15 to 20-year period. 05-22-00 Page 28 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Another aspect of the proposed plan is, that in addition to the plan map they have developed, a plan for ', Anaheim Boulevard that is an opportunity for infilling the existing street tree system that has been installed to-date. The Redevelopment Agency, through various funding sources, has built median islands and installed parkway trees and median trees. In that plan they have identified everything that is currently in the ground, particularly the area north of Ball Road begins to build out and driveway approaches begin to disappear. They will have opportunities to infill those street trees. They will also have opportunity potentially for additional median islands. The plan that shows that if this proposal is approved by the City Council it would be incorporated by reference and would have the force of the ordinance behind. The items before Commission are a CEQA action related to the initial study, there is a Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with the proposal for the project. There is also a General Plan Amendment. There are two zoning items; one is the actual creation of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone and a second ordinance, which is the application of the zone to specific parcels. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, regarding the General Plan Amendment, he referenced the exhibits. One exhibit shows the existing General Plan, which shows a mix of land use designation, which did not necessarily flow very well together. The intent of the General Plan Amendment, as seen on the other exhibit, was to reflect what the preferred land use plan. The comparisons being the existing designation and the Exhibit "A", which are the proposed designations are outlined in the staff report in detail. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold felt it was generally a great proposal but had a concern about the design review language and ordinance that indicated that all projects requiring some sort of application with the Planning Department would come under design review by the Community Development Department. It ', suggested that designed guidelines might not be adopted which raised questions of property owners and developers being subject to a review for which there might not be any clear guidelines and there might be some wide discretion. He is sure that staff is going to be very professional and careful of that, but that is not generally a good practice. He suggested on page 2 of the ordinance, under Section 18.56.030, second paragraph, the last sentence be revised as follows: The Executive Director shall propose for the Planning Commission review, and the Redevelopment Agency shall adopt design guidelines to assist in the review of the applications:' This would basically add Planning Commission input on the design guidelines and making it mandatory that such guidelines be adopted in order to limit the discretion and give better guidance to property owners. This will help everyone come forward with a project from the outset that fit with the purpose of the Overlay Zone. Rob Zur Schmiede indicated that would be acceptable. Their intent with respect to these new designations in this corridor is to develop some guidelines. Typically on projects that the Redevelopment participates on, they typically handle design review on a contractual level. This is something new for them. They are basically stepping into a regulatory mode and would be happy to bring those back to Commission for their review. Their major concerns are the Boulevard Residential project. The provisions of this ordinance to a great extent governs the review of those Boulevard Residential projects. He recognized there are other uses that they need to consider and felt that Commissioner Arnold's point was very well taken. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that these are draft ordinances and are still subject to further City Attorney's Office review. There will actually be two ordinances. The one before Commission and a second that would rezone the property into the Overlay Zone as well. They will make the modifications as suggested by Commissioner Arnold, if that is Commission's wish, and in addition they will be doing general clean up of the language, but it will be primarily in the form presented to Commission. I, 05-22-00 Page 29 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Testimony: '. Paul Bostwick 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim, 92805, stated one of the items in the proposed ordinance is prohibition of alcohol sales within the District. There are now 3 or 4 licenses. Near the freeway there is a 2-acre parcel that is presently Caltrans property that could possibly become a mini market/gas station. Every one of them are going to come to Commission and ask for permission of beer . and wine sales as part of their requirement to put in a mini market. He thought that needs some thinking. Should they ever get Ball and Anaheim to remodel with something a little more upscale similar to what was done at the ARCO station (at Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway), they would have a prohibition against the alcohol sales and that would probably stop that Redevelopment from happening. Rebuttal: Rob Zur Schmiede stated they do propose to prohibit additional points of sale of alcohol within the Overlay Zone, however they do that using the same provisions adopted with the of Brookhurst Overlay Zone, where they do allow alcohol sales in connection with the development of a restaurant. They also allowed in the Brookhurst Zone off-premise sale of alcohol with the CUP for stores with floor area over a certain threshold. It is basically larger outlets. What they were basically trying to control with this provision would be the establishment of additions a smaller scales neighborhood level alcohol sales outlets. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked under what situation would prevent the 7-Eleven at Anaheim and Ball Road from remodeling or making improvements to their property if this is in place. What caused Commission to re-examine their CUP and preclude them from taking positive steps toward improving the lot. But they will not because they prefer their "grandfathered" status. Rob Zur Schmiede explained that it would preclude a new {ocation. They would not allow new uses. ~~ Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated that the existing property owners are not precluded from making some type of change to their property and yet able to keep their beer and wine license. Rob Zur Schmiede indicated that was correct except under the conditions that he stated. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated this is going to facilitate a long-term plan to change the area for the better. During Action: Rob Zur Schmiede stated a correction concerning Section 18.56.041.0202 Subsection 3, the second line from the bottom should read, "Any windows located less than 50 feet away." OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended approval of General Plan No. 2000-00376, Exhibit A, to the City Council. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent), that the .-Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 to the City Council with the following revisions to the . draft ordinance attached to the staff report dated May 22, 2000: ~ On page 2, under Section 18.56.030, second paragraph, the last sentence was 05-22-00 Page 30 / MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES revised as foilows: ~~ «~.-„~., +;w.e +„ +;w,,. + The Executive Director ~shail propose for the Planning Commission review, and the Redevelopment Agency ~shall adopt design guidelines to assist in the review of the applications." On page 4, under Section 18.56.041.0202, Subsection (3) was revised as follows: "(3) Any structure over 1-story in height shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20'0") from any adjacent single-family residential zone. In addition, any windows located above the first floor which face an adjacent single-family residence shall utilize opaque glass. Such treatment shail be required of any windows located ~ less than 50 feet away from such adjacent single-family residences." Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00023 as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that they consider Reclassification No. 2000-00023 in conjunction with Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 and Reclassification No. 2000-00023. '. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun declared a conflict of interest) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (3:34-3:58) A BREAK WAS TAKEN FROM 3:59-4:07 1! 05-22-00 Page 31 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ` 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04197 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 830) Cantinued to June 5, 2000 OWNER: Yie Sang Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Amy Lee, 3600 Wilshire Boulevard #1905, Los Angeles, CA 90010 LOCATION: 1845 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.30 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 225 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Happy Day Preschool). To increase enrollment at an existing preschool with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 8, 2000. '. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2021 DS. DOC Commissioner Bristol, offered a motion for a continuance to June 5, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion car~ied. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow adequate time for the petitioner to provide parking and circulation information as requested by the Commission. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ', 05-22-00 Page 32 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04202 Concurr Granted OWNER: Hanshaw Enterprises, Attn: F.J. Hanshaw, 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643 AGENT: Lovay Yacoub, 1280 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATtON: 1280 North Euclid Street. Property is 2.89 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive. To expand an existing tire sales and installation facility to include automotive repair. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 8, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-62 SR7778VK.DOC Applicant's Statement: Lovay Yacoub, 2141 Scenic Ridge Drive, Chino Hills, stated he is the owner of Union Auto Service and has been there for 7 years. They have a 5-bay operation in front of the business and a 3-bay operation in . the back. There is very limited noise. They operate 6 days a week, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to I 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. They have 214 square feet of signage frontage allowed by the Code and they currently display 204 square feet of signage, which is below the requirement. He asked for the approval of the signage and continued operation of the business. George Casto, 11471 Gill Drive, Garden Grove, representing Hanshaw Enterprises and Properties, Executive Vice-President. He agrees with the findings of the staff and the approval of the CUP. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun stated she was not present when this project was heard two weeks ago, when there was a vote taken that resulted in a split vote. She explained that she spent an extensive amount of time at the property examining subject property and its relation to the nearby apartments and concluded that she would be voting in favor of this project. Commissioner Vanderbilt explained there were two resolutions proposed that day, one failed and he suggested another but then later withdrew it as a compromise. His major concern was the retaining wall. Chairperson Boydstun stated she visited the site on a Sunday, a Saturday and on a weekday evening. The building itself is solid. If there were also a solid wall there it would be a perfect location for loitering and illegal activities. When the business is closed there is nothing, aside from the fact that they keep the alley lit, to prevent this from being a problem. If it is open and well lit it will be a safety feature and the police could see it from the side and drive down the alley while patrolling the area. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he also went back to the site and was concerned with the proximity to the residents and the fact that noise would likely be a factor. During the time he was at the site he did not encounter the types of sounds that concerned him previously. For that reason he is in agreement and in • favor of the resolution with removal of the 8-foot high concrete wall. 05-22-00 Page 33 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised that staff did in fact delete the requirement for the block wall ', and their recommendation is that the existing chain link fence be maintained. On Condition No. 3, there currently is some signage on bays and as long as those are not special event-type of banners and the intent is for them to be directional only then staff does not have a problem considering those directional signs. On window signage, it is still staff s recommendation that if Commission is going to permit the window signage that it be limited to 20% to comply with Code. Chairperson Boydstun asked where there is window signage. Greg McCafferty advised that there is a very small window in front of the door, beside the storefront. Looking at that window from the outside from top to bottom it is sign. The applicant is willing to eliminate or reduce that signage. Commissioner Koos asked if it is essential to have the rear bays open. Lovay Yacoub responded it was essential because they have cars in and out; lifts are on both sides Commissioner Koos explained he voted no before because of a compelling argument that Commissioner Arnold made regarding compatible land uses from an environmental standpoint. Commissioner Arnold stated that he was surprised with the result of the tie vote at the last meeting because he felt it was going to be the only vote. He recognized the pragmatic aspects of this but he felt it was a matter of conscious. Actually it was something that Commissioner Bristol stated at prior meetings about voting what you believe to be right. He felt that this was not a compatible land use and was concerned especially given the fact that the residents were concerned. (. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls 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. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04202 with the following change to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That window signage shall be permitted as authorized by the Code. Additional signage on the building shall be subject to the Report and Recommendation review of the Planning Commission. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Arnold and Koos voted no) DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (4:08-4:21) (. 05-22-00 Page 34 MAY 22, 2000 CiTY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04204 Approved reinstatement (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 40231 of Master CUP 4023 for 5 years OWNER: Handkook Property Management Company Inc., Attn: Kec Whan Ha, 3240 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 570, Los (To expire 5-22-2005) Angeles, CA 90010 AGENT: Santiago Cervantes, 837 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 837 East Oranqethorpe Avenue - S. Cervantes Tire Service. Property is 0.80 acre located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park (a private street) (S. Cervantes Tire Service). To reinstate this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on August 2, 1999, to expire May 27, 2000) to retain a tire sales, repair and installation facility and to amend conditions of approval pertaining to the types of automobile repair/service permitted in conjunction with this business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2QOQ-63 '~ SR1047TW.DOC ~J Applicant's Statement: Jose Aceves, 818 East Commonwealth, Fullerton, Apt. F, 92831, stated he is a friend and customer of Mr. Cervantes and is present to translate and answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Aceves whether Mr. Cervantes understood all the conditions. Jose Aceves responded he did understand the conditions. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Cervantes has made quite an improvement and it looks much nicer. Chairperson Boydstun asked who maintains the sign on the private street. John Aceves responded they believed it is the manager of the center. Mr. Cervantes is going to be working with staff in order to change the signs to improve them. OPPOSITION: None " ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4023 (Conditionaf Use Permit No. 2000-04204) for 5 years (to expire 5-22-2005). Amended Resolution Nos. PC98-89 and PC99-144, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 05-22-00 Page 35 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES "1. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts, - including tires, shall be permitted. ', 2. That the business shall operate as follows unless specifically modified by the Planning Commission: Type of business: Tire sales, repair and installation; brake repair and installation, and alignments Business hours: 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily Number of employees: Maximum three (3) employees at any one time 3. That this conditional use permit is hereby granted to expire on May 22, 2005. 4. That all existing landscaping shall be maintained in conformance with landscape plans approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 4023. Any dead or diseased plants or trees shall be replaced in a timely fashion. 5. That signs shall be limited to those permitted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 4023. Any proposed new signs shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 6. That no vending machines shall be placed outside the building. 7. That no window signs shall be permitted. (. 8. That no public phones shall be placed outside the building. 9. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed within the service bays facing the public right-of-way unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained to authorize said display. 10. That the 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 (Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4023) and as conditioned herein. 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation, or requirement." VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:22-4:25) (. 05-22-00 Page 36 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04206 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750) Approved modification of exhibits, as advertised OWNER: Hanford Hotels, LLC, 4 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 102, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Compass Telecom, Attn: Mike Blackwell, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 201 North Via Cortez. Property is 2.8 acres located on the west side of Via Cortez, 930 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (formerly Hanford Hotel). To modify previously-approved exhibits to construct a parapet roof extension and to permit a roof-mounted telecommunication facility (antennas and equipment). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-64 SR7740KP.DOC Applicant's Statement: (. (. Joe Thompson, 17870 Skypark Circle, Irvine, stated this is a request to install a wireless data facility at the existing Fairfield Inn (formerly Hanford Hotel). This facility will provide a wireless Internet service to the residents, business community and visitors to the City of Anaheim. The proposal includes 24 panel antennas, which are located at the existing stairwell of the hotel. Their stairwell is built up approximately 5 feet from the roof. The 5 feet will be made of a fiberglass material, which screens the antennas from view and is painted and texture coated to match the existing hotel. When the installation is complete it will be fully screened and not be seen from any direction of the hotel. The system includes a backup battery that would enable the system to continue to work in the event that the regular telephone service is down. They have designed this installation with help from the City. The facility will not generate noise, odor, or cause additional traffic. It will need to be serviced perhaps once a year. They concur with staffs recommendations. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they would need to dig up the streets to install this. Joe Thompson responded they would not need to do that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked whether any work would be done at night. Joe Thompson responded that under no circumstances would they be working at night, only during the day. Commissioner Koos asked what the master CUP number was for. Greg McCafferty, Senior Pfanner, explained it is usually the underlying entitlement for the use that is there, in this case it is the hotel. Commissioner Koos was not certain whether the previous wireless facility on that location had a condition about maintaining the coloring of the antennas to match the hotel. If it did, that condition needs to be brought to their attention because it has faded. 05-22-00 Page 37 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that the Scenic Corridor requires that when the . equipment is on the roof; that there be a conditional use permit. If it is anywhere else on the building then ' it is permitted by right, provided it is completely screened from view. The antenna panels that are on the building themselves were originally intended to blend in with the building; therefore they were approved administratively. At this point, they need to be blended in with the building again so that they can continue to be administratively approved. The conditional use permit that you saw before is for the roof mounted antennas. Commissioner Koos stated that they were built and are clearly visible with no architectural treatment. Joe Thompson indicated they would be painted and would not mind if Commission conditions them to paint the existing flush mounted antennas. Commissioner Koos stated he is considering conditioning applicant's permit to maintain it. Greg Hastings stated that would be appropriate in this case since the underlying GUP is for that. Joe Thompson indicated their only concern is getting permission from the existing carrier, but does not foresee a problem. Greg McCafferty explained that staff wants to ensure that if the use ever goes away, the hotel is reverted to its original building elevations. He suggested adding a condition that says if the use that is authorized by this Conditional Use Permit is abandoned; the building elevations shall revert back to the exhibits approved in conjunction with Conditionaf Use Permit No. 2750. Commissioner Koos explained that sometimes when they have the roof-mounted screens, they look nicer in renderings and plans than they actually end up. The Nextel Communications facility on Santa Ana Canyon and Weir Canyon, you can clearly see the bolts, it does not look anything like the building. Also a (, facility just outside the Anaheim City lines, the Country Inn on State College Boulevard, between the roof and the screen, the screening can be clearly seen. He wants to make sure that the Building Division adequately determines that they are conforming to the plans approved today. He is not conditioning it, but wants to be very certain that it is screened properly. Greg Hastings suggested that staff could go out and inspect the site, if they feel it does not meet the quality of the exhibits. They will work with the applicant, and if that does not work they can return it back to Planning Commission for their review. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Gonditional Use Permit No. 2000-04206 with the following added conditions: That if the use that is authorized by this conditional use permit is abandoned, the building elevation shall revert back to Exhibit No. 5 approved in conjunction with Conditiona! Use Permit No. 2750. That the existing wall mounted cellular antennas shall be painted to match the color of the stucco surface of the hotel. VOTE: 7-0 • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. I DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:26-4:34) 05-22-00 Page 38 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~! 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04208 Approved Approved Granted OWNER: The Alber Family Trust, Attn: Shirlea Alber, 4178 Hayvenhurst Drive, Encino, CA 91436 AGENT: Psomas & Associates, Attn: Jennifer Kurlak, 3187 Red Hill Avenue #250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 1200 North Magnolia Avenue. Property is 1.6 acre located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Woodland Drive. To establish a non-industrial medical/health care training school with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-65 SR2018DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: Jennifer Kurlak with Psomas, 3187 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, 92626, stated the proposal is for medical health care training school in the former FHP Medical Clinic. They are requesting a CUP for a non-industrial training school in the industrial zone, as well as a parking waiver to maintain the ~ existing 133 spaces to serve a limit of 178 students on site at any given time. They support staff's ~ recommendation of approvaf and accept the conditions as proposed. They would like Condition No. 2 to read, "Monday through Thursday 7:45 a.m. to 10:30 p.m." instead of 10:20 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Kurlak to explain why they did not need all the parking spaces. Jennifer Kurlak explained that many students would use public transportation. In the study done at their Los Angeles site, only 65% of student population drove their own cars, everybody else walked, bicycled, carpooled, used busses or was dropped off. Because it is Orange County and not Los Angeles, they bumped the percentage down and they also assumed 100% attendance where there is usually an 8% to 10% absentee rate on any given day. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated in paragraph no. 15, the Traffic Engineering Division would recommend approval instead of denial of the waiver based on the fact that there is sufficient on-site -- parking to accommodate the number of employees and students proposed, and as conditioned herein which limits the students at any one time to 178. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked what the school intends to do to ensure the number of students do not exceed the 178 at one time. David Pile, 530 Santa Ana, Newport Beach, explained he is in a highly regulated industry in the State of California and has to be within State, City and Federal laws at all times of operation. If he is out of compliance with the CUP, he loses his business. Also, if the City Attorney were to notify the bureau in Sacramento, his license would be denied, they in turn would notify the accrediting body who also notifies the Federal Department of Education. Also if they are limited to 150 students and neighbors are upset, it (, will be unaffordable to him. 05-22-00 Page 39 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it is true that his office wif{ keep statistics on the number of people who attend everyday so that he can monitor on a day-to-day basis. David Pile responded they take attendance not less than 3 times a day. Students sign in and out of class every single day which ties into a tracking system called Satisfactory Academic Progress, which ties into their Financial Aid disbursement. Any member of the Commission can walk into the campus at any time during hours of operation and ask how many students are on campus and they will have a count that runs in a three-hour cycle. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04208 with the following change to the conditions of approval: 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Thursday between 7:45 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. and Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Changes to these hours shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE: 7-0 1. /, Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (4:35-4:45) 05-22-00 Page 40 MQY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /. 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVfOUSLY-APPROVEDj 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04209 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4114) Approved Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4114 for 2 years OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street #105, La Palma, Ca 90623 AGENT: Jose R. Viilaflor, 6127 Sunfield Avenue, Lakewood, CA 90712 LOCATION: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue. Suite 128. Property is 1.21 acre located south and east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue (EZ Dancing Company). To reinstate this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on June 7, 1999, to expire on May 10, 2000) to retain an existing dance studio and public dance hall within a commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-66 (To expire 5-22-2002) SR2019DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: . Evelyn Afenir, 2375 West Crescent, #49 Anaheim, 92801, stated she is representing EZ Dancing ~ _ Company: They are applying for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4114 and deletion of a time restriction. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick asked staff why there is one-year time extension and could it be extended longer. Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager, advised it can be extended longer; it is in place because of the type of use, especially in West Anaheim, where it needs to be fairly well guarded against any effects. Also, the fact that it is very close to a residential area. There has not been a problem with this and because of staff would like to keep it that way, but it is up to the Commission. Commissioner Bostwick stated the restaurant next door has more traffic than the dance studio does and a lot more impact on the neighborhood and he would like to see it for at least 2 years. Commissioner Bristol stated they have 4 or 5 vending machines at the 99-Cent store and one at the liquor store and asked if that was a Code issue. Greg Hastings responded the CUP covers the entire center, if the Commission directs staff, they could have Code Enforcement contact the owner of the property. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated for the record, this is a previously-approved Negative Declaration, Commission should concur with that, since staff did not advertise a new one for this item. • • ~ ~ - • ~ ~ • ~ • • OPPOSITION: None 05-22-00 Page 41 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve - as #he required environmental documentation for subject request. ~~ Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4114 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04209) for 2 years, to expire May 22, 2002. Amended Resolution No. PC99-101, in its entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval on the basis that the modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this dance hall: Dance Studio and Dance Hall 1. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation for the dance studio and public dance hall shall be limited to the following: Private Lessons Public Dancing Monday: closed closed Tuesday: 5:00 - 11:00 p.m. none Wednesday: 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. 8:00 - 12:00 a.m. Thursday: 5:00 - 11:00 p.m. None Friday: 3:30 - 7:30 p.m. 8:00 - 12:00 a.m. Saturday: 3:30 - 7:30 p.m. 8:00 - 12:00 a.m. Sunday: group lessons from 3:30 to 8:30 p.m. none 2. That the rear door located on the east wall of this tenant space (3150 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite 128) shall be used for emergency exiting purposes only and shall remain closed during hours of operation. 3. That the dance studio and public dance hall shall expire two (2) years from the ', date of this resolution, on May 22, 2002. 4. That any activity described in Section 18.89 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as a "sex-oriented business" shall not be permitted on these premises. 5. That all public dance activities shall be conducted in compliance with Chapter 4.16 pertaining to public dance halls. 6. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises. 7. That a maximum of fifty (50) patrons shall be permitted on the premises at any time. 8. That no live bands shall be permitted on the premises. 9. That noise levels associated with dance lessons and/or public dancing activities shall be in compliance with Code Section 6.70 and 6.72 pertaining to maximum permitted sound pressure levels and amplified sound. 10. That, as stipulated by the petitioner, security guards shall be provided for the dance studio/public dance hall during all public dance hall hours, to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. Liquor Store with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption 11. That no window signs shall be permitted at any time to allow unobstructed ', visibility of the store interior from outside. 05-22-00 Page 42 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 12. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be - permitted anywhere on subject property. 13. That no advertising of alcoholic beverages shall be iocated, placed or attached to any location outside the building; and that any such advertising shall not be audible either inside or outside the building. 14. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises. 15. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. 16. That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any alcoholic beverages. 17. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage use. Commercial Retail Center 18. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 19. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 20. That roof-mounted balloons or other inflated devices shall not be permitted. ', 21. That af1 trash generated by this commercial retail center shall be properly contained in trash bins contained within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins and/or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid for by the business owner. 22. 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 adjacent properties, and that said lighting information shall be specified on plans submitted for approval by the Community Services Division of the Police Department and the Zoning Division of the Pianning Department. 23. That no exterior vending machines which are visible off-site shall be permitted. 24. That the required trees adjacent to the public rights-of-way shall not be unnecessarily pruned so as to provide increased visibiiity of the facility. - 25. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall conform with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44.030.120 pertaining to the "CL" Commercial, Limited Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Zoning and Building Division approval. /, 26. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to twenty eight (28) units as shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission. 05-22-00 Page 43 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. -27: That the owner of this commercial retail center shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 28. That, if required by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department, street trees shall be planted by the property owner within the public rights-of-way adjacent to Western Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. The size, type and number of trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Urban Forestry Division. 29. That all public telephones shall be located inside the building. 30. That no outdoor storage, display or sales of inerchandise or fixtures shall be permitted. 31. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Zoning Division requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2926 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant) and Conditional Use Permit No. 3003 (to permit on-sale alcohol in an encfosed restauranUpublic dance hall). 32. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 33. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed requesf only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not ', include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:46-4:50) (. 05-22-00 Page 44 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 14 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04212 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3115) Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church, Attn: Pastor Tom Meyer, 222 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Juergen Milezewsky, 3040 Saturn Street, Suite 201, Brea, CA 92821 LOCATION: 222 North East Street. Property is 8.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Cypress Street and East Street (Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church). To construct a 14,475 square foot classroom building and 576 square foot maintenance bui{ding in conjunction with an existing church and accessory private school (preschool and elementary) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-67 ', SR7779VK.DOC (Commissioner Bristol declared a conflict of interest since he is a member of Zion Lutheran Church.J ApplicanYs Statement: Juergen Milczewsky, 3040 Saturn Street, Suite 201, Brea, stated this project is a culmination of an expansion that started 7 years ago. They would now like to build a permanent school. Part of the project will include removal of 3 existing portables. They are in agreement with the conditions of approval except for a few minor ones as follows: • Condition No. 1 indicates the number of children shall be limited to 436 inclusive of pre-school, daycare and elementary populations. Pre-school should not be included in that because it is limited in Condition No. 2. • Condition No. 2 indicates that there is a maximum enrollment of 110 children. Pre-school is licensed to have 100 children but there are times when children share the same classroom. He would like the word "enroNment" changed to occupancy or change the "110" to 125, either one of those two would allow the pre-school the flexibility to meet demographics of the needs. • Condition No. 3 states that the daily hours of operation for school and church facilities shall be limited from 6 a.m, until 6:30 p.m. He asks that "church facilities" be taken off of the line item so they can have Lenten services and bible study services. Condition No. 4 implies that sanctuary and fellowship hall cannot be used at the same time for any purposes whatsoever. They feel it is an unfair restriction and asks that the entire statement be removed. If statement is left as is, it means the church cannot have a funeral in the sanctuary and a school activity in the fellowship hall. The intent of facility is clearly outlined in Condition No. 15 that says if for some reason the church intensifies the use of the entire facility to where it goes beyond what the parking can handle then there is an opportunity for the City to come forward. • Condition No. 19 asks that portable classrooms be removed from the property prior to occupancy of " the permanent classrooms. They expect to begin construction this summer and expect completion by Christmas vacation. In order for them to move children into new facilities, it has to be phased. Portables are being used by 3 classes, children can move into the new building once the new building 05-22-00 Page 45 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING CQMMISSION MINUTES is finished, then portabies will be cleaned up, sold and removed, and the area wiA have to be re- graded and paved:- If modification is made to say "shall be removed within 60 days following ~~ occupancy of the permanent classrooms", it would allow them enough time to make a transition. • Condition No. 22, first line says "or prior to issuance of a building permit for any phase" is probably a typographical error. Condition Nos. 5, 9 11, 13, 16, 19 and 21, cannot be complied with unless the building is in place, so they would have had to have a building permit in existence in order to complete the other items. • Condition No. 23, they want to make sure that they will be able to get a temporary certificate of occupancy in order to move children from the portable into new classroom, then comply with Condition No. 19, which is the removal of portables. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff to go through the list and state which typo's they are in agreement with. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated Condition No. 2 needs to be reworded. Staff's understanding is that the daycare population and e(ementary population are the same children. Mr. Milczewsky indicated they are, and if they are, staff has no problem with the number of daycare being limited to the number of elementary children because the prior CUP limits the elementary school to 436. As long as they are the same populations, staff has no problem with limiting it to 436. Juergen Milczewsky indicated 436 does not include the pre-school. Commissioner Bostwick stated that Condition No. 1 states the maximum number of elementary school students on site at any time shall be limited to 436 inclusive of daycare and elementary school ', populations. Greg McCafferty stated that is correct and suggested deleting the word "pre-school". Commissioner Bostwick stated Condition No. 2 states pre-school sha11 be limited to a maximum enrollment of 125 children and asked staff if daycare is stricken. Greg McCafferty advised that staff does not have a problem with Condition No. 3 to remove "church facilities" as long as Commission is not concerned with any events the church would have during special holidays which are a given with any church. He suggested deleting Condition No. 17 entirely because it is duplication. In Condition No. 19, staff's only concern is to ensure that the portables are moved off as quickly as possible and 60 days after the TCO would be acceptable. Commissioner Arnold suggested each existing portable classroom shall be removed within 30 days of occupancy of the corresponding permanent classroom facility that way it could be phased. Juergen Milczewsky indicated it will all be done at one time and they will not need a phasing period. Greg McCafferty stated Condition No. 22 can be modified to "prior to commencement of activity authorized by this resolution or prior to issuance of a building permit for any phase or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 above-mentioned shall be complied with" Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager stated Condition Nos. 5, 6, 10, need word'+ng that requires that the information be shown on the plans. The intent is to have everything shown on the plans before ', issuance of a building permit. 05-22-00 Page 46 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold stated on Condition No. 4 he could envision a large church activity and large school '~ activity going on simultaneously and creating a parking crunch and can staf~ reword this item to get at the primary goal. Juergen Milczewsky stated Condition No. 15 covers the intent of Condition No. 4. Commissioner Arnold stated it depends on how Condition No. 15 is interpreted. Intensity of use sounds like a large ongoing programmed change in the overall use of the land as opposed to big events every so often. There is a middle ground i~ between 15 and 4 that can be achieved. It seems like Condition No. 15 does not cover all of the potential for parking, whereas Condition No. 4 is far too broad. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated they are required to have 876 parking spaces if they want to use both sides simultaneously. The purpose of that condition is to not have two completely different services that will create a parking need. It is acceptable to have a service and a school activity going on at the same time. Juergen Milczewsky stated it is not the intent to fill both of the facilities at the same time. The need does arise when there is a funeral during the week and the school uses gym. Alfred Yalda stated the use by the school and a funeral will not create a parking problem. Commissioner Arnold suggested that the "sanctuary and fellowship hall shall not be used for separate simultaneous events in such a manner as to create a parking problem". He felt the applicant is saying they understand the flexibility in the interpretation, but is anxious about very broad language. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they could add "excluding fellowship hall by school students" Juergen Milczewsky stated he would like to see the exception more broad and actually tied to the parking ', because that is the intent. Alfred Yalda is not sure how they could control that. The whole reason to have the condition is to make sure they do not use it simultaneously for a big event. Commissioner Arnold indicated it could read, that the "sanctuary and fellowship hall shall not be used for separate simultaneous events in a manner such as to create excessive demand for parking". Alfred Yalda asked how he would define excessive demand. Commissioner Arnold explained that would sufficiently convey the intent and if there were a problem and they were misusing the condition, they could pull the permit and bring it before Commission. During the Action: Greg McCafferty advised Condition No. 22, change the actual conditions noted there. Deleted what is there now and replace with Condition Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 20 above-mentioned. In Condition No. 23, delete Condition No. 6. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical - Exemptions, Class 14, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ', Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04212 (Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3115) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: 05-22-00 Page 47 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to read as follows: ' 1. That the maximum number of elementary students on-site at any time shall be limited to 436 inclusive of day care and elementary school populations. 2. That the pre-school (early childhood) shall be limited to a maximum enrollment of 125 children. 3. That the daily hours of operation for school shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The school related evening events shall be concluded by 10:00 p.m. 4. That the sanctuary and fellowship hall shall not be used for separate simultaneous events in such a manner as to create excess parking demand to ensure that adequate parking is provided on-site at all times. Deleted Condition No. 17. Renumbered and amended Condition Nos. 18-24 to read as follows: 17. That lighting fixtures in any proposed parking area located adjacent to any residential property shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent residential property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area (a) and shall be so- specified on the plans submitted for building permits. 18. That the existing portable classrooms shall be removed from the property ', within sixty (60) days following temporary occupancy of the permanent classrooms. 19. 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 and 3 and as conditioned herein. 20. That a letter requesting termination of the portable classroom portion of Conditional Use Permit No. 3613 (to permit three portable classrooms in order to expand an existing private elementary school with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) to the Zoning Division. 21. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to issuance of a building permit for any phase, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 22. That prior to final building and zoning inspections Condition Nos. 8, 18 and 19 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 23. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request ', regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 05-22-00 Page 48 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol declared a conflict of interest) f, Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (4:51-5:17) 1. (. 05-22-00 Page 49 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. 12a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved 12b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00021 Granted 12c. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04395 Granted 12d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16059 Approved OWNER: Raymond E and Joanne S. Rocks, 5910 East Marsha Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Richer LaPorte, 8523 10th Street, Downey, CA 90241 LOCATION: 6100 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.21 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Hilis Road. Reclassification No. 2000-00021 - To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-7200(SC) (Residential, Single-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Variance No. 2000-04395 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to a Scenic Expressway and (b) minimum lot width. Tentative Tract Map No. 16059 - To establish a 5-lot single-family residential subdivision to construct 5 single-family homes. ~. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-68 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-69 SR7741 KB.DOC Applicant's Statement: Ray Rocks, 5910 East Marsha Circle, Anaheim, owner of property, stated they are proposing 5 single- family homes and asking to reclassify the property. He gave overview of lot shape and stated neighbors are in favor. Rich LaPorte, 8523 10t" Street, Downey, stated he is the developer for property and is in agreement with conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, suggested C.ondition No. 11 have Condition No. 8 added to read, "That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first." Insert Condition No. 8 between 7 and 9. In Condition No. 12, delete Condition Nos. 2 and 3 and insert Condition No. 10 ". Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, suggested that Condition No. 9, which mentions street lighting should be moved to the Tentative Tract Map conditions so that the bond shall be posted prior to approval of the final tract map. Commissioner Koos stated he wants to see an orderly transition of the sidewalk and is it to be reflected on revised site plans or is there a reason why applicant did not do that. ~. Rich LaPorte responded it is going to transition over to the other sidewalk. 05-22-00 Page 50 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Koos stated he spoke to the applicant a couple of months ago and he re-faxed a changed '~ version and asked if they can assume it is going to happen or should it be conditioned. Melanie Adams advised it could be added to Condition No. 9 that talked about the street improvement plans. Commissioner Koos stated he is concerned with the consistency to the rest of the neighborhood and did not want to see a stark difference between the homes. Greg McCafferty advised it is addressed in Condition No. 7. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated staff was going to review those, but if Commission wants to see those as a Reports and Recommendations Item then it can be changed. Commissioner Koos asked if it is an administrative function. Greg Hastings responded staff is not concerned about that because of the information they received and feel they can work with the applicant. Commissioner Koos stated he is comfortable with staff taking the lead on it. Greg McCafferty clarified since there are a couple of different zoning actions, when they mention the modifications to the conditions; they were the Variance conditions. Commissioner Koos stated he was concerned that they would go to the Building Division and pull permits and build something that was not necessarily compatible. Although he is certain that the Planning staff will review that carefully. ', Greg Hastings advised that absence of this condition, that would be the case. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. SUPPORT: 1 letter was received in favor of the project. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00021 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Granted Variance No. 2000-04395 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 9(moved to Tentative Tract Map) Modified Condition Nos. 11 and 12 to read as follows: 11. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ', 12. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 10, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 05-22-00 Page 51 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSI0IV MiNUTES . --- --Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16059 with the following changes to the ( conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 9 to read as follows: 9. That street improvement plans shall be submitted tothe Public Works Department, Development Services Division for the completion of the Baja Drive cuf-de-sac. The street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable City standards. Further, that the sidewalk shall be transitioned from the existing sidewalk. Added the following condition: That street lights shall be installed along the Baja Drive cul-de-sac. A bond shall be posted prior to approval of the final tract map. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 16059 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes ~ J /, 05-22-00 Page 52 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. RECLASSIFiCATION NO. 2000-00020 Approved Granted OWNER: O.C.T.A., Attn: Rick Grebner, 550 South Main Street, Orange, CA 92863 AGENT: Chuck Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 867 South Cottonwood Circle. Property is 0.195 acre located on the west side of Cottonwood Circle, 280 feet west of the centerline of Citron Street. To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) and the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones to CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to construct a parking 1ot for the abutting automotive dealership facility. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-70 SR7742KB.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Chuck Hance stated he owns 828 West Vermont Avenue (Coast Corvette). He is proposing to replace 15 to 19 parking spaces of the 31 that were lost due to I-5 Fwy. widening, by expanding 60 feet to the north . of the property. Caltrans and OCTA agreed to sell the property to the north with a contingency that he ' use some of it for parking. To minimize impact on the neighborhood, he is going approximately 50 feet into the first lot. Pre-file was completed 8 or 9 months ago and it was recommended that parking was tentatively approved for parking replacement. It was also recommended that he do an abandonment process with the City, but it was not possible when he tried to do it. Zoning advised him that an encroachment permit would not require a full hearing and would not be quite as involved, but that did not work out either. Staff report recommends he do only half the project on Vermont Street. That parcel only allows for about 5 spaces if the setback requirements were not required, but if they were, he doubts that he could get any spaces and comply with the zoning requirements. He is trying to create a buffer between the residential and his business by placing the lot here. Public Testimony: Lori Heulen, stated she is co-owner of the apartment building at 629 West Vermont and is representing a whole association of property owners and residents. She gave a history of neighborhood and how it has changed from high crime to a good place with the help of the City. Residents do not want to look at a -- parking lot and would like to see green space #here instead. Last October a small child was-hit by a car in one of the local lots and died, so they do not want another parking lot there. Applicant's Rebuttal: Chuck Hance explained his proposal in only across from one house and that is the only house on the street that would see ihe parking lot. If he acquired the land he would install nice landscaping, it is his entryway and he wants it to look nice. Staff recommends that he develop to Code, but because the lot is so narrow, it is impossible because of the setback along the freeway. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, advised there is a correction to paragraph no. 11 on page 3 of ', the staff report. The staff report states the petitioner currently has an encroachment license to use Vermont Avenue right-of-way. The petitioner has an application with the Public Works Department; an encroachment license is pending Commission's decision on what the land use should be. 05-22-00 Page 53 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES '. Greg McCafferty,-Senior Planner, stated #hey would like to revise some Reclassification conditions. In Condition No. 10, it should state, "That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on - - an agenda for City Council consideration, Condition Nos. 3, 6, 5 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The rest of that condition would remain the same. Condition No. 11 and 12 would be deleted. Melanie Adams suggested Condition No. 7 be changed. The City of Anaheim owns the Vermont right-of- way, so if there is going to be a lot line adjustment, the applicant would first need to purchase the right-of- way before it could be merged into his property. Commissioner Bostwick asked if it was OCTA's. Melanie Adams stated the shaded area consists of two pieces, the Vermont Avenue right-of-way is the City of Anaheim's and the remainder is OCTA. Commissioner Bostwick asked if Mr. Hance was purchasing property under an OCTA option or an option from the City. Chuck Hance responded OCTA told him that they own the underlying right to the middle of the street and this is the street area for this project. He owns the underlying right to his side of the street and assumes they own the underlying right to their side, but they have not done the research to determine that, so it is in limbo. He is not certain whom he is buying it from, but he is wiUing to purchase it from either party. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner, explained staff has done research with OCTA who state they own Lot 13 and do not own the underlying northern portion of the Vermont right-of-way, it belongs to the City of Anaheim. '. Chuck Hance stated OCTA said they would not sell to him because it would be a"piecemeal" sale. That is what their position was then, and nobody has really clarified who owns it yet. Commissioner Bristol asked if Mr. Hance had to purchase all the way down Cottonwood. Chuck Hance responded that is the only way they will sell it to him, they will not simply sell the piece he wants. Kevin Bass stated the southern portion of the subject area is the Vermont right-of-way that would be either abandoned or an encroachment license and City ofi Anaheim has the right on it. Chuck Hance stated he owns the southern portion because he owns the reversionary rights. Once the street is abandoned, it becomes his property again according to his deed. Commiss'soner Bostwick clarified that this is 33 feet that Mr. Hance owns, 33 feet that the City owns and the rest is OCTA. Chuck Hance explained there are two problems, one is that he is being asked to provide title documents as to who owns it and title companies he has spoken to have not been able to determine that. That is a provision that he is asked to comply with before he gets his permit. He wants to ask the City to prove that they own it, then he will buy it to simplify matters. The other problem is he would like it to be voted on as to whether or not his proposal, as presented, could be done because it says he has to comply with Code, which is impossible on such a narrow parcel and still get parking. Chairperson Boydstun asked what he would do with the rest of Cottonwood if he had to buy the whole property. ', Chuck Hance responded the Redevelopment Agency told him they would like to see it made back into residential. He did not want to do it, but would be willing to do it just to get it back out of the condition of 05-22-00 Page 54 MAY 22, 2000 CfTY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES dirt so that it is nice again. Redevelopment suggested changing it to RS-5000 to make it easier to comply .--_ with the-{otsize, but it was #urned down during pre-file. He investigated RS-7200 but was told he could ' not comply with the setback requirements. Chairperson Boydstun stated, for the record, a letter from Community Services Department states it is not a priority and that they are building two parks in the area and are not interested. Commissioner Arnold stated a number of residents wrote in asking to keep it open space, but it can not just be made open space by the zoning if somebody else owns it. To make a decision on this particular application on the basis of some potential future use is somewhat difficult, but if this is a high priority for people who five in the area, perhaps they could contact the City Council. Lori Heulen stated at the City Council meeting of November 16, 1999, staff had a session that addressed a1f of the open parcel land along the 1-5 Fwy. They are looking at several areas where staff recommended open space. Commissioner Bristol advised he was on the site on Saturday and what Mr. Hance is proposing would be better looking than what is currently there. It would only encroach down Cottonwood by one width of one house on the corner of Cottonwood and Vermont. Mary Jane Chavera, 842 West Cottonwood Circle. Stated the proposed parking lot is in front of two homes not one. Putting a parking lot there is not keeping it a residential area; it is making it more commercial. The parking lot will depreciate their homes. Commissioner Bristol corrected her that it was one home. Chairperson Boydstun advised it is not big enough to build on, there is nothing that will fit and who would pay for landscaping and to maintain it. ', Commissioner Arnold stated this goes back to influencing City priorities and right now there are no plans to turn that into a greenbelt. Commissioner Bristol stated the plan proposes to go down one width of the corner house and if it goes further, it will be more decorative with more foliage than she ever imagined. The fact is, that just like she lost the homes across the street that were aesthetically pleasing, he lost the right to have parking spaces. He is not asking to disrupt the neighborhood. Lori Heulen explained that Mayor Daly has stated that they want several of the parcels to stay as green space, but it may take a while to do it. Chairperson Boydstun stated the problem is that OCTA wants full market value for these properties and City does not have the money to pick up all of the vacant property. Rob Zur Schmiede, Redevelopment Agency, explained that he made the presentation to Council in November 1999 with input from many different people. The nature of the presentation was a preliminary recommendation for all of the remnant parcels from the 22 Fwy. to the 91 Fwy. along the I-5 Fwy. The area to the north of Mr. Hance's property was identified as a potential open space site. The Council approved the preliminary recommendations, so the City has been in negotiation with OCTA to acquire the ability to control of what happens on these parcels. The City has suggested that OCTA grant the City an option, but it was rejected. It is an ongoing negotiation. The memo from Chris Jarvi, Director of Community Services Department, reflects the most recent thinking of that Department with respect to this parcel, and that is that they did not see it as a highly desirable park site. It may be possible to keep it as open space but it would not be developed with play - equipment. In as much as Mr. Hance has an option to purchase the property and is looking for an " economic use for it, Redevelopment suggested residential since it formerly occupied the property. The only application before the Commission is for his parking lot, but he has explored some of these ideas. 05-22-00 Page 55 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES He has verbally offered to assign his option to the City, if the City were interested in it for open space ', purposes. The response from the City to that offer is that this is not a high priority park site and they were not in a position to pursue an acquisition from him at this time. Commissioner Arnold asked for clarification on the memo because it seems to say that the City does not see this as a park site but suitable for landscape beautification but this site is not a high priority. Also, staff report paragraph no. 14, stated the City Council did not take any action on the plan with remnant parcels. Rob Zur Schmiede stated it was presented to them as a"PowerPoint" presentation and they took action recommending that the City proceed with preliminary recommendations and negotiate with OCTA for all of the remnants, not just this particular site. Commissioner Arnold stated it is a different scenario than the impression that the Commission had in the staff report. Rob Zur Schmiede explained with respect to the improvement of the area for landscape setback, the City is constantly on the {ook out for grant funds, state park bond funds to do these type of improvement projects, but there is nothing specific today that could be pointed to with certainty. Chuck Hance stated he has been told a number of times by City staff that nothing was formally approved at that meeting, that they were simply preliminary discussions. Rob Zur Schmiede further explained this was in response to a request from the Council who asked what the vision was for all the freeway remnants. They put together a Task Force to identify areas and come up with preliminary land use recommendations, then took it to Council to get direction from them, they said yes and it is an ongoing process. ', Chairperson Boydstun felt Commission should approve this as staff recommended and see what happens to the rest of the street. With it being landscaped, it will not affect what happens to the rest. Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Chairperson Boydstun except that entire parcel shown on the exhibits should be reclassified. Kevin Bass stated based on calculations, there are four suites. The total required spaces are 87 for all four-tenant spaces. The site plan submitted by the applicant indicates a total of 98 on site, not counting the spaces on Vermont and Cottonwood as proposed. Chuck Hance stated he was required to have 5.5 because he was zoned commercial. He is referring to his business, which has an auto repair, which is a small percentage of the building. He lost 31 spaces and is adding on 19 spaces if the setbacks are allowed as shown on the drawing. If he has to comply with Code and have setbacks on all three sides of the property, he will not have any. Kevin Bass explained that calculating the entire building at retail rate of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet generates a required 103 spaces, which would be 5 spaces short. Chuck Hance stated he had the minimum number of spaces that Code permitted and lost 31 spaces. Commissioner Bostwick stated if he does not have the right number of spaces there is a non-conforming use. Kevin Bass stated there is a non-conforming use due to the right-of-way take that was beyond the control of the property owner. t, Chuck Hance indicated even though he has parking behind the building, it is not suitable for customer use, he has to replace customer parking. Even if he replaces spaces, it wi11 not be as much as it originally was. He is trying to replace them so that he does not upset neighbors. 05-22-00 Page 56 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMiSS10N MINUTES '~ Commissioner Bostwick asked staff about the freeway setback. Kevin Bass: Code requires 10 foot setback from freeways for landscaping, however there is a 14 foot high soundwall, so staff can reevaluate that when he comes in with landscape plans. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated there is also a 10 foot landscape requirement adjacent to the northerly RS-7200 parcel, so the way he is presented it today is not how he can build it. He would have to come back with a variance if he wanted to do it that way. Commissioner Bostwick asked what the minimum setback would be for a home there. Greg McCafferty advised 5 feet. Advised he would extend that to give him the ability to make it work for him. Chuck Hance asked if he limited it to the one lot where he stops it across from the one house, he can do it with a 3%2- foot planter there rather than the 5 feet minimum. If he goes 5 feet, then he has to go to the second lot and that would mean rezoning commerciaf further down just to pick up 3 feet of landscape area. During the Action: Commissioner Bostwick advised it will need to come back as a variance. He then offered a motion to approve CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. He offered a resolution approving Reclassification No. 2000-00021 including both parcels with modified Condition Nos. 10, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and deleting Condition Nos.11 and 12. Commissioner Koos stated once before there were conditions on a zone change and Commission " decided not to do it. He asked whether that was normally done. Greg McCafferty explained if a rezoning is coming forward, staff requires that the applicant demonstrate that the property can feasibly be developed under that zoning standard. Staff has tried to tie those conditions that are really applicable to the rezoning here in the staff report that really relate to the right-of- way types of conditions. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated they frequently have unconditional reclassifications, but they also have them with conditions. They try to have them relate specifically to the reclassification itself, something that is related to what the change of use would be that would give more comfort in the change in the zone without actually making it conditional zoning. Commissioner Koos indicated that in the City of Los Angeles it gets really complicated, it is a large City and they have these zones, then sometimes they have these "Q" Conditions wh+ch are scattered throughout the city and they have special conditions attached to the zoning itself instead of projects. He is not certain whether he is comfortable with conditions being placed on zoning as opposed to conditions being placed on projects. Perhaps it is not a major issue. He asked if any of the conditions are outside the Code. It is unusual to see a condition for a zoning change. What if he decides not to do this and someone comes forward with something else. Hypothetically, from a good planning practice, he wondered what relevance would a block wall have on a new project. Would it only be tied to this particular potential project? What if this was a parcel that was appropriate for a number of uses and you attached conditions to zoning? Greg McCafferty stated Commissioner Koos was correct, most of these issues would be addressed when a project comes in, for example, a parking lot could not be constructed if it was zoned CL unless there was a wall there. " Chuck Hance stated the terms concern him also because as he talks to staff and the Engineering Division, some of them are not able to be complied with because he cannot find who owns the str eet and that is a precondition to rezoning. He thought he was applying for the project, not rezoning. His goal is to 05-22-00 Page 57 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES build a parking lot, but his understanding is that he is applying for rezoning. He is running out of options ', and #he time. Commissioner Koos #hought they did this once before and decided not to do any conditions on the zoning. Commissioner Arnold stated this item bothers him because it seems they are not making a thorough decision, trying to decide what could go on this property without a complete plan and all of the entitlements that are assoeiated with that, including waivers. It seems like some of the staff report has misinformation or missing information and it is unclear as to what is going on with the remnant parcels. They are trying to take care of a small portion without a clear vision of what is going on here. On the whole, they are rezoning two parcels of land without any idea of what they are doing. Greg McCafferty stated with regard to the conditions, the most important one that staff recommends be left in if it is gong to be modified is Condition No. 7. The rezoning allows a future type of land use that is not contemplated under the current zone. If Condition No. 7 was not required, conceivably someone could come in and develop that property separately for permitted primary commercial use that they would not approve. Staff recognizes that Mr. Hance could use that as part of the existing property, and as long as it is integrated into that, staff is comfortable, but if it is not, then they are not comfortable with that. They do not want a freestanding commercial business adjacent to that. Commissioner Bostwick stated Mr. Hance has presented a set of plans that basically represent that as the exhibits. Selma Mann advised a reclassification cannot be linked to a particular exhibit. Once the property is rezoned, it is rezoned. The Planning staff is trying to minimize the opportunities for using it as a separate commercial parcel by requiring the lot line adjustment. Requiring it in that way would be accessory to the uses that are already on the balance of the commercial property. It would not stop it from all being (, redeveloped for something different in the future, but once it is rezoned it is rezoned. Commissioner Bristol stated the OCTA letter states Mr. Hance has no choice but to make it surface parking if approved by the City. Greg McCafferty explained there are three things going on here, one is that the northerly parcel is low density residential and the implementation zone is RS-7200. The remnant Vermont Street parce! is part of the circulation element. Southerly one, his property, is General Commercial so because it is general, staff would consider the southerly parcel recommended as General Commercial, therefore that portion of rezoning be consistent with the General Plan. Chuck Hance asked whether there could be wording to allow him to build a parking lot on it. If so, he will be able to exercise his option, if not he is back to submitting the same plan again. Greg McCafferty stated the parking lot that is an accessory use to his primary use that is currently occurring, as long as he complies with Code's setback, trees, striping he can have a parking lot. Chuck Hance stated when he applied for this it was to build a parking lot, did not know he was just going to get a rezoning, because that does not help him get his option. Commissioner Koos stated that it does because it is a permitted use within the zone, and pointed to the Code, which permits him to do this. Greg McCafferty explained that the applicant would submit a parking lot plan that complies with Code and would not need to return to Commission. If he submits a parking plan that does not meet Code in terms of setbacks, he could request a variance. (. Chuck Hance asked if he has to submit plan again, pay more money and come back again. 05-22-00 Page 58 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol advised that is correct and apply for a variance. '. Commissioner Koos asked if staff was recommending no conditions. Greg McCafferty stated staff recommends that if Commission wishes to delete conditions, they can all be deleted but Condition No. 7. The intent there is that those parcels not be developed for a separate commercial use. Commissioner Koos asked if there are other cases where there is a parcel with a zoning designation that have any conditions on it. Greg McCafferty responded there have been reclassifications that the Commission has approved that has had some conditions that relate to dedication and other things not specific to a site plan or proposal. Commissioner Koos asked if years from now Mr. Hance returns as an applicant and comes to the City of Anaheim to see a parcel zoned CL that was reclassified a decade earlier with some conditions, would it be readily knowledgeable to the Planning counter staff and himself as an applicant? He could not see how that would easily be discovered. Selma Mann advised these would be conditions that would need to be completed prior to finalizing the zoning whatever the conditions were. Whether it is one or ten that related to the rezoning, they would need to be completed. The Commission issues the preliminary rezoning resolution, City Council finalizes it with an ordinance. Planning Department does not send a request to the City Attorney's office to prepare the ordinance to finalize the zoning until all conditions have been met. Once lot line adjustment is completed in this instance, then they can go forward and finalize it. At one time they did have some of those types of rezonings, but it was disfavored. Chuck Hance asked if the lot line adjustment is the only condition. ', Commissioner Arnold responded yes, but the parking plan still has to be submitted and if it does not comply with the Code, a waiver will be necessary. Commissioner Bostwick then re-offered a resolution approving the Reclassification No 2000-00021 including both northerly and southerly parcels, deleting all conditions except Condition No. 7 with the changes (see Action below). Melanie Adams recommended that the developer shall submit an application to abandon the Vermont Avenue right-of-way. The abandonment shall be considered by the City Council at a public hearing. It would be in addition to the lot line adjustment. If the City Councif determined that the abandonment is denied, then the lot line adjustment could not be approved and the rezoning would not occur. Chuck Hance stated he was told that abandonments were handled in Engineering Division without any public hearings. Melanie Adams advised an encroachment license is handled at a staff level. Commissioner Bostwick hoped that City staff would work with the applicant to get this accomplished and finished. • ~ • ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to this request. - Letters of opposition and petitions with approximately 260 persons opposed to the project. " ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration 05-22-00 Page 59 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00020 (for both the northerly and southerly , -- - parcels) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: ' Deleted all conditions listed in the staff report, except for the following: 1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning the subject property, a lot line adjustment plat shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section (Development Services Division) and approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the:Orange County Recorder to combine the Vermont Avenue right-of-way parcel to the existing automotive dealership parcel to the south to create one (1) commercial parcel. Further, the developer shall submit an application to abandon the Vermont Avenue right-of-way. The abandonment shall be considered by the City Council at a public hearing. 2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council consideration, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The City Council may approve or disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.085 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said condition is complied with within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. /, /, 3. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 6 minutes (5:31-6:37) 05-22-00 Page 60 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continued to 14c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04222 6-5-2000 OWNER: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Avalon Acquisition Corporation, Attn: Mr. Adam Cole, 495 North Commons Drive, Suite 200, Aurora, Illinois 69504 LOCATION: 400 West Lincoln Avenue and 100 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 3.0 acres {ocated at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. To construct a 5,000-seat live performance theater with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR1048TW.DOC Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to June 5, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Koos, vote taken and motion carried. ', OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the readvertisement of this request to accurately represent the operation and design of the proposed facility. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. /, 05-22-00 Page 61 MAY 22, 2000 CITY OF ANHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES l~ ~, // ADJOURNMENT AT 6:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. TO REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted, ~ v~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~~.C.~~tirt-2~ ~~x~~c~i Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~-S - C'a 05-22-00 Page 62