Minutes-PC 2000/09/11~~
'.
STAFF PRESENT:
Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30
p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in
attendance.
Public Hearing Testimony
The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Boydstun.
Arnold, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt,
Bostwick
Selma Mann
Greg Hastings
Greg McCafferty
Don Yourstone
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
Assistant City Attorney
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Principal Transportation Planner
Associate Engineer
Planning Commission Secretary
Senior Secretary
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at
9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 8, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the
Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk.
~
CITY OF ANAHEIM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DATE: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos cailed the Morning Session to order at
11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber.
10:30 A.M • CDBG Funding Requests Pertaining to Code
Enforcement/Graffiti Removal Activities and General
Plan/Zoning Code Update for Fiscal Year 2001/2002
• Presentation on Urban Forestry and Major Street
Beautification
11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City
developments and issues (as requested by Planning
Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review
PUBLIC HEARING:
1:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, August 17, 2000.
H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC091100.DOC plannin_gcommission(c~anaheim. net
09-11-00
Page 1
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSIOM MINUTES
C.D.B.G. Funding Requests for Fiscal Year 2001/2002
" Planning Commission Morning Session - September 11, 2000
Code Enforcement Division
Richard La Rochelle, Code Enforcement Supervisor, gave an update of Code Enforcement activity within
CDBG target areas for this past year which consisted of 48,058 inspections which found 46,425 violations
and responded to 37,515 complaints. Graffiti removal from the CDBG areas was 233,459 square feet at
6,832 locations.
Their weekend enforcement program completed 8,034 inspections and observed 7,716 Code violations
and responded to 7,587 citizen's complaints. There were 193 cases referred to the City Attorney and
they also conducted 20 office conferences. They lost one full time position and $5,000 in graffiti removal
program which they would like fo get back.
They have also received over 42 court referrals that were given to them as convicted graffiti vandals.
There is a zero tolerance and the City seeks restifution after offenders are caught by charging them the
amount of money and time it takes to clean it off, plus they are required to do between 100 to 300 hours
of community service.
There are three crews working with the Police Department, CHP (California Highway Patrol) and OCTA
(Orange County Transit Authority) railroad police to hopefully catch offenders. Percentage of juveniles
doing graffiti has gone down due to public awareness programs at public events and schools.
They would like to get the $5,000 back plus additional funding. They have a mobile paint lab, but it takes
specialized paint. They are removing the patch look and getting walls fo be one solid color.
'. Joel Fick, Planning Director, explained that CDBG-based funding of Code Enforcement activity originated
because there was a desire in these neighborhoods to receive an enhanced level of Code Enforcement in
their neighborhood above and beyond what the City traditionally provides. This funding provides a
greater level of service within the block grant areas that does not exist elsewhere in the City and funding
that comes from block grant is confined to those block grant neighborhoods.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked under what instances Code Enforcement approaches property owner to
remove graffiti because their conditional use permit states it has to be removed.
Richard La Rochelle advised they give written notification to the business indicating they need to comply
with their conditions of the CUP. However, if it is profanity or gang-re(ated graffiti, the City works to take it
off immediately. Mr. Fick stated the biggest challenge is Caltrans right-of-ways because they often have
safety issues where they have to block off lanes or do it at certain times of the evening to remove it.
Commissioner Arnold asked if there was any program in which property owners who are victims can pay
the City to remove it. Richard LaRochelle advised there is no such program and Mr. Fick agreed it was a
good idea and should be investigated.
Advanced Planning Division
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained that the City is launching a major project of updating the
General Plan and revising existing Zoning Code. It is anticipated to be a$2 million project spread out
over five years. They did seek funding through the budget hearing to get the project funded through one-
time money associated with the County bankruptcy proceedings, however, City Council only authorized
an initial one-year allocation of $550,000. They are requesting $326,600, which is 16.33% of the $2
million cost. They arrived at this figure by taking a look at what percentage of the City is CDBG eligible in
• terms of total land area and found approximately 16.33% of the City is CDBG eligible. The
Redevelopment Agency is also committed to providing $250,000 towards the total amount based on the
percentage of the City that is in a Redevelopment area.
09-11-00
Page 2
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~, Chairperson Koos stated the way it is presented to CDBG will be complicated and the best way to present
The major issue with the block grant funding is that it is limited and there is competing interest that goes
into it. In order to compete in that funding they need to demonstrate why it is important.
it will be to show how it will save money in the future, reduce crime or do something that is very tangible
so they understand. The formula arrived at the requested funding for the General Plan could be
questioned because CDBG may say that it would have to be taken care of anyway through the General
Fund, and therefore why should they pay the whole cost of it. Mr. Fick advised they would gather some
information together.
Chairperson Koos offered a motion that the Planning Commission is in support of the CDBG requests
presented, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
~~lnt~CtirC,J
Simonne Fannin
Senior Office Specialist
1.
•
09-11-00
Page 3
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
',
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
None
Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to
August 28, 2000. (Motion) September 25, 2000.
(Vote: 5-0,
Commissioner
Boydstun abstained
and Commissioner
Bostwick absent}
f~
~
DISCUSSION ITEM:
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO Appointed Chairman
PARTICIPATE IN A SERIES OF UPCOMING COMMUNITY MEETINGS John Koos
RELATED TO FUTURE WEST ANAHEIM REVtTALIZATiON EFFORTS.
ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Chairperson John Koos
to participate in a series of upcoming community meetings related to future West
Anaheim revitalization efforts.
09-11-00
Page 4
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNfNG COMMISSION MINUTES
t,
1.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.- APPROVED)
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4084 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-
oa2a~) REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME:
Jeffrey L. Farano, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806,
request for a retroactive extension of time in order to comply with
conditions of approval for a previously-approved outdoor recreational
vehicle and boat self-storage facility with an on-site manager's
office/living unit (approved) with waivers of maximum fence height
(approved), minimum landscaping for fences/blockwalls (denied) and
minimum setback adjacent to residential zones (approved in part).
This petition was originally approved on January 4, 1999 and expired
on January 4, 2000. Property is located at 1631 South Euclid Street.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and MOTtON CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine
that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve the requesf for a one-year
retroactive extension of time to expire on January 4, 2001, 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.
u
(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.
Approved
Approved extension
of time
(To expire 1-4-2001)
(Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
Bostwick absent)
SR7817KP.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for an extension of time
for Conditional Use Permit No. 4084. Staff recommends approval for a one-year retroactive
extension of time to expire January 4, 2001.
09-11-00
Page 5
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
"
B. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 316 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) ~~ Approved
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3566 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- Determined to be in
oa2ss) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Paulette substantial
Alexander, consultant for ponahue Schriber, 27255 Villanueva, conformance
Mission Viejo, CA 92691, request for a determination of substantial
conformance for modifications to original exhibits for a previously- (Vote: 6-0,
approved regional shopping center to permit the construction of a Commissioner
new 9,800 square foot office building. Properry is located at 420 Bostwick absent)
North Euclid Street.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
CommissionerArnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine
that the previously-certified EIR No. 316 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request to modify
original exhibits for a previously-approved regional shopping center to permit
the construction of a new 9,800 square foot office building is in substantial
conformance with plans and exhibits approved in connection with Conditional
Use Permit No. 3566. SR2035DS.DOC
',
~
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for substantial
conformance for Conditional Use Permit No. 3566. Staff recommends that Commission find the
revised plans in substantial conformance with Conditional Use Permit No. 3566.
09-11-00
Page 6
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'~
C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREV.-APPROVED
Approved
Approved final plans
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-
o42ss) - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL. OF FINAL
PLANS: Chris Lewis, Bunton Clifford Associates, 4615
Enterprise Common, Fremont, CA 94538, request review and
approval of landscape plans for Conditional Use Permit No.
4075 (to permit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot
industrial building for the expansion of an existing private
elementary and junior high school and administrative o~ces with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Property is
located at 1575 West Mable Street.
ACT10N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
(Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner
Bostwick absent)
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final landscape
plans as they comply with code requirements and satisfy Condition No. 10
of Resolution No. PC2000-76. SR1158JD.DOC
'.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4077 - REQUEST FOR Terminated
TERMINATION: Lazar Gog, 1770 West Cerritos Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92804, request for termination of Conditional Use
Permif No. 4077 (to permit a church in a 37,196 square foot
building with waiver of minimum setbacks for institutional uses
for residential boundary, minimum parking lot landscaping and
minimum number of parking spaces. Property is located at 631
South Brookhurst Street (Heritage International).
TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-104 II SR7814VN.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for review and
approval of final landscape plans for property located at 1575 West Mable Street (Fairmont Private
School). Staff recommends approval of the final landscape plans.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 4077. Staff recommends, per the applicant's request, that this permit
be terminated by resolution.
~.
09-11-00
Page 7
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
',
~.
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00380 Rec. adoption of Exhibit "A"
to Ciry Council
2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00029 Granted
2d. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04406 Granted, in part
2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16128 Approved
2f. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 Approved
Zf. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2c, 2d, 2e and 2f Approved
OWNER: Polygon Development c/o David Evans and Associates,
Attn: Walter Clendenon, 23382 Mill Creek Drive, #225,
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
AGENT: David Evans and Associates, Attn: Walter Clendenon,
23382 Miii Creek Drive, #225, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
LOCATION: 8200 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 16.27 acres
located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Weir Canyon Road.
General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00380 - To redesignate this
property from the Commercial Professional fand use designation to the
Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation.
Reclassification No. 2000-00029 - To reclassify subject property from
the CO(SC) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) and RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) Zones to the RS-5000(SC)(Residential, Single-Family; Scenic
Corridor Overlay) Zone or less intense zone.
Variance No. 2000-04406 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to
arterial highways, (b) minimum lot area, (c) minimum lot width, (d)
maximum lot coverage and open space requirements and (e) maximum
structural height, to construct 88 single-family residences and 4 lettered
lots.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16128 - To establish a 92-lot detached single-
family residential subdivision with 88 residential lots and 4 lettered lots.
Continued from the Commission meeting of August 28, 2000.
GENERQL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-105
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-106
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-107 SR7760KS.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for General Plan
Amendment No. 2000-00380, Reclassification No. 2000-00029, Variance No. 2000-04406, Tentative
Tract Map No. 16128, and Waiver of Council Policy No. 542. Staff recommends that Commission
approves the Generai Plan Amendment, the Reclassification, the Variance, in part, with the
09-11-00
Page 8
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
recommendation for denial of Waiver E relating to structural height, and approve the Tentative Tract Map
" and Waiver of Council Policy.
Applicant's Statement:
Stan Smith, project manager, The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Pkwy. #400, Seal Beach, CA 90740,
stated that each Commissioner was provided with a copy of the site plan. While he gave the presentation
his engineer displayed a full size plan for Commissions review and explained this project is an 88-unit
subdivision, single-family homes in the RS-5000 designation. They also have 4-lettered lots for entrance
and landscaping around the perimeter. They reviewed the conditions of approval and are in agreement.
They are also in agreement with staff on the height requirement and are going to redesign roofs.
He provided Commission with a colored site plan of their landscape plan that has been preliminarily
designed and to be implemented on their property.
He presented an exhibit display board showing a cross-section of their neighbors that are west of their
project.
The proposed homes to be built will be from 3 separate floor plans (Plan 1, 2, and 3).
Unique to their project is that this site is basically a large hole in the ground and so they will be bringing in
approximately 220,000 yards of dirt to fill in this site. They are filling it up to an acceptable range that will
work for the neighborhood. This is also an infill site which is what the Olson Company specializes in.
In the waivers they will be addressing many walls that they will need to accommodate. To the north of
their project is a railroad track. Eventually the State of California (Caltrans) will be installing a wall that is
going to come across there, but until that time, they will be building their own site wall to the north which
', will provide sound attenuation.
They will be presenting final landscape conceptual designs and signage for their tracks. They will have
low-level signs that will accent the entrance on both sides. At the south of the project they have what is
called a"right-in/right-ouY' turn. There will also be a signal that will be installed at the corner of Jenifer
and La Palma. Staff has been very helpful to them in this process.
They had a number of ineetings with the neighborhood and received input from their neighbors.
Chairperson Koos stated for the record that the Anaheim Highlands Homeowners Association and the
Anaheim HiAs Citizens Coalition submitted letters dated September 11, 2000.
Public Testimony:
Bob Koch, 8124 East Woodsboro Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he is representing the Anaheim
Highlands Homeowners Association. He thanked John Killen of Polygon Development and the
representative of the Olson Company for meeting with them and discussing this project. They feel they
have had good interactions. He stated they favor the rezoning of this area to residential and feel that the
use of that property for homes is much preferred over the previous proposal.
They are in favor of the signal that is being installed at Jenifer Drive, but noted their original letter had
some concerns about the U-turn pocket that was originally designed into the plans and understand that it
has beer~ removed from the plans. There is some need for a U-turn facility some place along La Palma.
The solution for that may not be within this project, but it is something that Commission should be aware
of.
. He submitted drawings that illustrated the routing of traffic into the neighborhood with respect to the new
' entrance and to the Olson project. The original drawings showed that Old La Palma, just north of the
entry off of Jenifer, would be resized to two lanes of 18 feet on each side of the centerline. On the south
09-11-00
Page 9
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
side of the entrance of the project they would like to see a turn-out pocket and an additionai 6 feet taken
~, out of that land and the area restriped in that region for finro 12-foot lanes that would allow traffic to enter
the new project as well as existing homes would evenly to allow for smooth flow at both neighborhoods.
It seemed to meet with the goals of the Traffic Engineering Division and the Olson Company which they
have given a verbal indication that this is acceptable:
On the north side of Old La Palma, adjacent to the existing homes there is about 20 feet of landscaping
space, a boundary wall, a sidewalk and then landscaping. There will be about 6 additional feet added to
that strip. They asked that the strip be re-landscaped in coordination with the new landscaping area and
that it be explicitly stated on the plans. The Olson Company has also agreed to that verbally.
In general, they feel that this is a good addition to the neighborhood. They are in favor of the project,
however, they wanted to bring those issues to Commission's attention.
',
'.
John Killen, representing Polygon Development, the owners of this property, stated the Olson Company
has been working with them in showing a great concern for the surrounding property owners, grading
issues that came up initially and the relationship of the plan to the surrounding property to the west.
They have worked with staff who has been very supportive assisting in the transition of this use to a
residential use. They support this project.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that he asked the applicant how many truck trips
would be generated by the 220,000 yards of dirt. They would like the applicant to access on La Palma so
they would not impact the neighborhood during the filling of the site.
ApplicanYs Rebuttal:
Stan Smith stated they would agree to a plan that they would develop before importing the dirt to the site.
They are in agreement with the issues of the lengthening the curb on their side of the street by an
additional 6 feet and add the extra strip of landscaping on the north side of Old La Palma that the
homeowners association brought up.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if they are going to have any open space for a"tot lot" with 88 homes on
small lots.
Stan Smith responded that they do not have any tot lots presented at this time.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that if they are building 4 to 6 bedroom homes then there are going to be
children in the development in those small lots.
Stan Smith stated it is something that they can take a look at, but at this point that is not in their plan.
Chairperson Koos stated that was also his concern. Many new developments of this size address the
recreation needs that the development will produce. Due to the topography there are some open areas
that might be considered.
Stan Smith indicated that could be a possibility. A tot lot area could be very easily designed and
acceptable.
Chairperson Koos gave the example of Anaheim Hills which has a regional or City park, but because it is
really not a walking environment people would still need to drive to the park.
Stan Smith stated they could certainly design a tot lot in this area.
09-11-00
Page 10
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chairperson Koos stated that could be incorporated into the final site plans when the elevations return to
'. Commission as a Reports and Recommendations Item.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if they are planning an entrance sign so people can find this development.
Stan Smith stated they will design an entrance sign and also the tot lot and present that during the R&R
process.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the railroad tracks and the proximity to this project. Since they are
going to be using a lot of dirt as top soil he asked if there are any issues of vibration that is going to be
magnified due to the introduction of this new dirt.
Vince Scarpati, civil engineer for this project with David Evans and Associates, stated any soil materials
brought into this site would be approved by a soils engineer and would be placed to a relative compaction
of 90% or more. He did not feel that it would be a problem at all for different soils material to be placed
and compacted with approved methods and would adequately support the proposed development.
Naturally any dust, etc. that may arise from the placement of the soil would be mitigated through watering
and other efforts. Once the soil materials are properly placed and compacted the rail use to the north will
not pose any difficulty to the proposed development.
Stan Smith explained one of the items that they would be addressing on the site is the compaction and
soils report that goes along with that compaction. They will make sure that the soils report addresses
Commissioner Vanderbilt's concern.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, advised that it could be added as a condition of approval to the
Tentative Tract Map that the report be complete and specify about the railroad and any vibration or
effects from the vibration as it relates to the grading operation which would be submitted to the City
'~ Engineer before grading plan approval.
Commissioner Arnold asked staff to address the pedestrian patterns.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that there is a sidewafk around the project and
there is a sidewalk on La Palma and surrounding streets. Therefore, there should not be a problem for
pedestrians.
Chairperson Koos stated he had a concern regarding the number of variances requested. He
understands that the topography and the shape of the property is unique, but asked the applicant to
explain how they arrived at 88 homes and their configuration explaining why some of the setback
variances are needed along La Palma Avenue.
Vince Scarpati explained that the site planning is a very delicate issue, difficult at best. They have a lot of
relief along Weir Canyon Road down to the site. They have quite a large greenbelt area. They have
conditioned along Lots 21 through 26 and Lots 27 through 39 where they are matching existing properties
and existing elevations. Similarly, along La Palma they are working to match existing elevations and
working with existing features. They did not have an opportunity to move further to the north because
they would loose depth in Lots 21 through 26 and could not move further to the west because they would
loose depth and perception in Lots 27 through 39. They tried to achieve a long east-west internal street
where they double loaded and fronted on this interior street as well as a connector street to the north and
an additional one in the east-west direction. The property has a unique shape and certain unique
features.
They have certain utilities that would be continuing in these roadways. In the north-south roadway there
is a water inter-tie that would be accommodated there. There is an existing sewer main that would be
accommodated through the configuration of the entry street. So there are certain constraints on-site that
(, they were attempting to utilized within the proposed roadway configurations.
09-11-00
Page 11
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Stan Smith stated the proposed zoning originally approved 156 homes, but they reduced that to 88 units
'~ by narrowing the density and increased the size of the homes. Once they try to match the grade at one
side then they are forced to match the grade on the other side causing a"domino effecY'. They
conformed exactly to the shape that they were given and that is where there has been an excellent job
done on the design.
Chairperson Koos appreciated that they explained that for the record because they need to make findings
for those variances. He asked if staff had received copies of what was presented on the display boards
for the record.
Greg McCafferty stated they received a copy of the landscape plan as well as the turn lane plan, but they
do not have the cross-section.
Stan Smith stated that they could certainly provide that to staff.
Commissioner Arnold understood that the analysis of this by the staff is that the density is appropriate for
this site combined with the unique characteristics of this lot. Perhaps the inflexibility of the Code
requirements in conjunction of those finro would require these waivers.
Greg McCafferty responded he was correct. The density is actually under the General Plan Density to
allow the maximum density for that designation. The topographical constraints iimit the shape of the lots.
Actually, the average lot size is actually larger than 5,000 square feet.
Commissioner Arnold stated that it may raise some issues to think about as they look towards the Zoning
Code amendments and reconsideration.
Commissioner Bristol stated an observation that he recalled with the previous proposal for this site was a
~, major concern with the line-of-sight as well as the amount traffic generated. The commercial proposal
was 9,000 trips versus this proposal is under 900 trips. The line-of-sight on the pad elevations are at
least two feet less. He felt this is a much better project.
Greg McCafferty recommended changes to the conditions of approval in the staff report as follows:
• Page 18, combine Conditions Nos. 5 and 6. The second sentence of the combined condition would
read, "That the legal owner of subject property shall execute and record an unsubordinated
maintenance covenant - providing for the following," and the rest of the condition would remain the
same.
• Page 19, Condition No. 9, that the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15128 is also granted subject
to the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00380, Reclassification No. 2000-00029 and
Variance No. 2000-04406, now pending.
Melanie Adams recommended the following changes to the conditions of approval in the staff report:
• Page 15, Condition No. 4 of the Variance that the timing of that should be, "Prior to issuance of a
building permit or approval of street improvement plans whichever occur first."
• Page 16, Condition No. 16, that the security for the street light shall be posted prior to approval of the
Tentative Tract Map.
• Page 16, Condition No. 18, should be relocated and placed as a condition of approval of the
Tentative Tract Map.
~. • Page 17, Condition No. 29, the second sentence should read, "Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits and street improvement plans."
09-11-00
Page 12
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Page 17, Condition No. 30, the payment for the SCOOT System should be paid prior to final
'. Tentative Tract Map approval.
• Page 17, Condition No. 34, if necessary the approval should be obtained prior to issuance of building
permits or approval of street improvement plans, whichever occur first.
• Add a condition of approval on the Tentative Tract Map conditions that the geotechnical reports (soil
engineering and engineering geological report) shall specifically address any effects of the railroad in
terms of vibration or settlement. That report should be submitted to the City Engineer prior to grading
plans approval.
• Regarding the street improvement plans, add to Condition No. 27 that those street improvement
plans would also provide two 12-foot eastbound lanes on Old La Palma, one would be a dedicated
right-turn into the project and the other would be dedicated for the existing development adjacent to
that. That landscaping would be incorporated at the north property line of a depth of 25 feet with
curb, parkway, sidewalk and landscaping north of the sidewalk.
Chairperson Koos questioned whether the landscaping improvements on the north side of Old La Palma
should be added to the conditions of approval, since this is something that they do not normally condition
and questioned it in terms of good planning practice. The applicant could complete the improvement by
working with the City without it being part of this entitlement.
Melanie Adams explained what they were looking at the impacts on the neighborhood by the traffic being
added into that area and thought that by adding the landscaping it would mitigate portions of the impact,
but that is up to Commission's discretion whatever they feel is appropriate.
Chairperson Koos wondered how far they consider the traffic impact of a project on the circulation of the
', surrounding properties. Where do they draw the line to stop beautifying the general area because of the
project's traffic impact? He did not feel that is something they should add to the entitlement, but instead
encourage the applicant to work with the City on this and did not feel comfortable imposing this.
Alfred Yalda advised it is already shown on their exhibit plan submitted by the applicant.
Chairperson Koos is concerned that this is probably something that they do not want to encourage even
though it is a good idea.
Stan Smith stated that by having this as a condition of approval they are conditioning to a piece of
property that is in the process of going through the City to be abandoned.
Alfred Yalda suggested possible wording.
Chairperson Koos stated they are still conditioning landscaping across the street. He wondered if there is
a mechanism for the applicant to do this without it being a part of this entitlement.
Melanie Adams responded that the applicant could simply include it on their street improvement plans as
something that they choose to do.
Commissioner Koos wondered where they draw the line in terms of improvements outside of their
property.
Melanie Adams felt there is a direct connection with the circulation, the neighborhood and the additional
cars and that the applicant is requesting abandonment of a portion of a public street. In order to
accommodate their development these landscaping improvements are necessary.
(. Commissioner Arnold felt that this particular condition does not commit Commission to a precedent of
requiring off-site improvements on a regular basis.
09-11-00
Page 13
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I. Stan Smith requested they be allowed some flexibility, a range of 20 to 25 feet for the landscape area
~ discussed rather than imposing an exact footage.
Commissioner Boydstun explained to Mr. Smith that they are not putting any specifications on it now
because the applicant may find another location that works better but as long as it is somewhere in the
project.
Commissioner Boydstun suggested that the plans for a tot lot return during the Reports and
Recommendations Item process.
Greg McCafferty stated that it could actually be added to Condition No. 5 to include review of final plans
to include a tot lot and also an entry sign if the applicant choices to have an entry sign.
Melanie Adams recommended adding a condition that prior to grading plan approval, the grading haul
route shall be approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00380 (Exhibit "A")
to the City Council.
Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00029 subject to the conditions of approval listed
', in the staff report.
Granted, in part, Variance No. 2000-04406, as follows:
Approved waivers (a) pertaining to minimum lot depth adjacent to arterial highways,
(b) pertaining to minimum lot area, (c) pertaining to minimum lot width, and (d)
pertaining to maximum lot coverage and open space requirements; and
Denied waiver (e) pertaining to maximum structural height.
Modified the conditions of approval as follows:
Deleted Condition Nos. 18 and 30 (these conditions were moved to the tentative tract
conditions).
Modified Condition Nos. 4, 5, 16, 27, 29 and 34 to read as follows:
4. That prior to issuance of a building permit or approval of street improvement
plans, whichever occurs first, all property owners shall have adequate street
frontage to provide an area for a minimum of three barrels for trash collection
and be able to store these barrels out of the public view. The developer shall
submit a plan for barrel storage to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. That final plans showing additional architectural enhancements for the
building elevations for all three models, a tot lot, an entrance sign, and the
. additional landscaping described in Condition No. 27, herein stated, shall be
' submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning
Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
09-11-00
Page 14
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'~ 16. That the developer/owner shall install street lights along La Palma Avenue
and Weir Canyon Road street frontages; and that security in the form of a
bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said security shall be
posted with the City prior to approval of the final tract map, to guarantee the
installation of said street lights prior to occupancy of the first building.
27. That prior to occupancy of any residential unit, the property owner/developer
shall construct/install a traffic signal at the intersection of Jenifer Drive and La
Palma Avenue. That two, 12-foot eastbound lanes shall be provided on Old
La Palma, one dedicated for right-turn into the project and the other dedicated
for the existing development adjacent to that. Landscaping shall be
incorporated at the north property line at a depth of 20 to 25 feet with curb,
parkway, sidewalk and landscaping north of the sidewalk. Prior to approval of
final tract map or street improvement plans, whichever occurs first, a plan
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering for
review and approval by the City Engineer. That traffic signal/striping shall
provide for the modification of inedian island (if necessary) and existing
striping to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed
project.
29. That all internal private streets shall be designed to provide for adequate
parking on both sides of the streets. Said information shall be specifically
shown on street improvement plans.
', 34. That prior to issuance of building permits or prior to approval of street
improvement plans, whichever occurs first, the developer shall be responsible
for obtaining approval from the County of Orange prior to any modifications to
the median islands on La Palma Avenue, including such modifications
necessary for the installation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Jenifer
Drive and La Palma Avenue. A copy of said approval from the County of
Orange shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and the Traffic and
Transportation Manager prior to issuance of building permits or final map
approval, whichever occurs first.
Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16128 with the following changes to the
conditions of approval.
Deleted Condition No. 6.
Modified Condition Nos. 5 to read as follows:
5. That the developer shall execute an unsubordinated Declaration of Covenants
to maintain the private improvements. The legal owner of subject property
shall execute and record an unsubordinated maintenance covenant providing
for the following, where applicable: (1) maintaining the landscaped portion of
parkways of arterial highways (La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road),
landscaped areas adjacent to local streets (Jenifer Drive and both sides of Ofd
La Palma Avenue), parkways adjacent to Association maintained slopes
and/or common areas, and all median islands installed in conjunction with
said subdivision; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless for
'~ damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall
09-11-00
Page 15
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. A copy of the recorded
', covenant shall then be submitted the Zoning Division. The developer of the
subject tract shall improve and maintain the herein above described parkways
and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated
therefore as herein above provided. A bond shall be posted in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the
developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance
and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office
prior to approval of the final tract map.
9. That the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16128 is granted subject to the
approval of and finalization of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00380,
Reclassification No. 2000-00029 and Variance No. 2000-04406, now pending.
Added the following conditions of approva{:
That prior to final map approval, all residential lots shall be assigned street addresses
by the Building Division. Street names for any new public or private street (if
requested by the developer or required by the City) shall be submitted to and
approved by the Building Division.
That prior to final tract map approval, the property owner/developer shall pay for the
implementation of the SCOOT System at the intersection of La Palma Avenue and
Weir Canyon Road. The implementation includes new traffic signal
equipment/cabinet, using/installing a 2070N traffic signal controller and scoot loops at
an estimated cost of $25,000. Payment shall be made and bonds shall be posted
', prior to approval of final tract map or street improvement plan, whichever occurs first.
That prior to grading plan approval, the developer shall submit a soil engineering and
engineering geological report as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 17.06
and the City's Grading Design Manual. The report shall include an analysis of effects
of railroad activity upon site grading including, but not limited to vibration and
settfement.
That prior to grading plan approval, the grading haul route shall be approved by the
Traffic and Transportation Manager.
MOTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve Waiver of Council Policy No. 542.
MOTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby request the Council to consider the
Reclassification No. 2000-00029, Variance No. 2000-04406, Tentative Tract Map No.
16128 and Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 in conjunction with their mandatory
review of the General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00380.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be set for a notice public hearing before the City
CounciL
'. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (1:40-2:33)
09-11-00
Page 16
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~~
3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11
3b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04404
Continued to
October 23, 2000
OWNER: Watt Commercial Companies Inc., 2716 Ocean Park
Boulevard, #3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218
AGENT: San Pedro Electric Sign Company, 701 Lakme Avenue,
Wilmington, CA 90744
LOCATION: 5729-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canyon Village
Plaza. Property is 9.9 acres located north and east of
the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma
Avenue.
Waiver of prohibited signs to construct roof-mounted signs on a new
parapet building wall.
Continued from the Commission meeting of August 28, 2000.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
SR7818KP.DOC
ApplicanYs Statement:
~~
Mark Frank stated that he noticed on page 2, item 8, "that no information has been submitted indicating
the proposed building materials and colors of the parapet:' Asked if that was submitted by the architect
(a color drawing of the elevation and a full rendering of the building)?
Mark Frank then forwarded a color drawing from the architect to Commission. He was not certain why the
Commission never received the information. This same case was before the Commission approximately
2 years ago, but he was not involved with that. At the time they were proposing two pole signs and the
parapet which they were referring to as a roof sign.
This center was built over 30 years ago and when it was built it was the only shopping center in the area.
It had a town and country theme in what was a rural area. Now there are 5 to 6 shopping centers in that
immediate vicinity.
They hired an architect to develop a nice look to the building. Before it had been a sign company that
had a band above the parapet, similar to the Carl's Jr. He then referred to exhibit display boards showing
similar shopping centers that had a very similar canopy overhang over the walkway. He indicated that the
tile roof could not be raised. Businesses in the immediate vicinity have their sign above the roof line and
if the Code is what it should be then he felt the City should have made those businesses put their signs
below the line, which would make them too low. The roof is a cover of a building with upright walls and
he would like to have Commission look at this as a canopy. The architectural dictionary describes a
canopy as "a covered area which extends from the wall of a building protecting an entrance of loading
dock."
He sees the center across the street as being similar to what they are proposing with a slight design
difference of the building.
'~
The way buildings are designed today, they are much more efficient for visibility, but their buildings are
set way back from the street and cannot be seen as well. By remodeling the building, they can stil{
maintain the town and country feel and create better visibility to help the tenants.
09-11-00
Page 17
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. He described the view under the canopy and explained if there is a new band created all the way across,
ln summary he stated that they are trying to bring the center into a modern look and be consistent with
what is being done in the area. The question is how do they go about declassifying a roof sign into a
newer building with a parapet wall.
Wendy Campbell, Watt Commercial Properties, stated that the reason they are before Commission is
because they are trying to help their small tenants survive. The center is setback far off the street and
they really do not have the visibility they would like to compete in this market today. That is their goal and
to accomplish that they hired an architect to develop a better design. They have added more color,
lightened it and made it brighter. They feel it will make the center as well as the community look better
and will help the small tenants considerably.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
it is simply closing it down and it is not visible from the other end of the parking lot.
Greg McCafferty stated when staff looked at this request they looked at what the Code indicated and
Commission's past interpretations of roof signs versus wall signs being that there was some precedent for
a similar proposal that was denied both by the Planning Commission and City Council. According to
Code, when a sign is above the roof line, which it is in this case, by creating the parapet it is above the
roof line and therefore can be considered a roof sign and not a wall sign.
Commissioner Arnold asked staff to comment specifically on the other examples to which the property
was compared to make sure that they are clear on how these differ.
Greg McCafferty asked to be able to review the exhibits that were presented to Commission.
~, Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that a property that was not shown, which is very similar, is the Vons
shopping center on Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He asked staff if Vons came forward with the
same request would they also be denied.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded on Crossroads, the Vons and Rite Aid Pharmacy
those signs have been up there almost 3 decades. They did take down the names of the other tenants
that were there previously. Those two that are on the roof are truly sign variances and have been there
for almost 30 years and indicated he would have to look at the rest of the signs since he has not seen
them.
Chairperson Koos asked if the smaller tenants in the Crossroads are all below.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, recalled that none of them were above the roof. That is an
example of that being a roof sign because it was a theatre and found special circumstances there. Other
uses with that center would be defined as wall signs because they are on a wall where there is no roof.
Regarding the Anaheim Hills Plaza located on the southwest corner of Imperial and La Palma, staff would
need to research that. That center has also been there for several years and it looks like some of those
could be considered a roof sign under today's Code.
They did have the same situation before Commission approximately 2 years ago and did not analyze all
the signs out there. The Rite Aid Pharmacy sign and the Vons sign are the only examples of sign
variances approved in the Scenic Corridor, in this particular area.
Commissioner Arnold asked when this particular provision of the Code became effective.
Greg Hastings responded it has been in effect for several years, probably back into the mid 1970's.
', However, there was a difference in interpretation brought forward to Commission to determine what
would and would not appear to be a roof sign. Staff brought forward several examples and Commission
09-11-00
Page 18
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~~
~ J
determined that in cases such as this one where there is a simulated roof, anything above that would be
considered a roof sign and that determination was very clear.
Commissioner Arnold remarked that was an interpretation the Planning Commission and City Council
have been following for the past several years.
Greg Hastings responded that under the Zoning Code the Planning Commission and City Council are
asked to make interpretations in these particular matters.
Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Hastings if the canopy were to be reconstructed into something similar to
the Ralphs Center off of Serrano or the Festival into virtually a wall then anything such as that would be
acceptable.
Greg Hastings confirmed that was correct. Some of the examples are the center to the west across
Imperial. There is no simulated roof along a wall but simply a wall straight up from the ground considered
a wall sign.
Commissioner Bristol stated he reviewed the applicanYs justification of waivers to see if the hardship
proposed was justified, but could not find one.
Commissioner Boydstun explained at one of the center they installed a new fa~ade that came out straight
even with the roof line and it allowed them to put neon box lights straight across.
Mark Frank asked for a continuation so they can look at other centers and evaluate the situation.
Commissioner Arnold asked what a continuance would achieve because they do not meet the
requirements for a variance, and if they pursue a different course of action, they only need to get a
building permit.
Commissioner Boydstun stated they may need to re-file again depending on what they do.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion to for a continuance to October 23, 2000, seconded by
Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried.
Following the Action:
Commissioner Arnold asked whether the public will be notified again in order to have sufficient notice to
come and participate. He feels they need to give the public maximum possible chance to participate.
Greg McCafferty explained that staff does not typically re-notice unless there was an additional waiver
that needs to be advertised.
Greg Hastings advised that, if the Planning Commission directs staff they can re-notice, but there is no
requirement because it is the exact same waiver.
Commissioner Boydstun noted that this is not a center that has residential close to it.
Commissioner Arnold thought that it was a matter of principle and felt they ought to give public notice
when it is different.
OPPOSITION: None
~`
ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to consider redesign of the proposed roof-mounted signs.
09-11-00
Page 19
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (2:34-3:06)
'~
',
09-11-00
Page 20
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~.
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04233
Continued to
October 23, 2000
OWNER: Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road,
Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT: SBA Inc., Attn: Steve Stackhouse, 3151 Airway Avenue
F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres
located on the north side of Riverside (91) Freeway,
and is accessed via a 652-foot long, 32-foot wide
ingress/egress easement on the south side of La
Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline of
Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley).
To construct a freestanding "monopalm" telecommunication antenna
facifity.
Continued from the Commission meeting of July 17, and August 14, 2000.
'.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR7815KP.DOC
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote
taken and motion carried.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to address the non-conforming status of the existing
telecommunication monopole, to discuss design issues with City staff and to
investigate the feasibility of a co-location with the existing telecommunication
monopole at this site.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
"
09-11-00
Page 21
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'~
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04245
Approved
Approved
Granted
OWNER: Samuel Magid, P.O. Box 290, Dallas, TX 75221
Samuel Magid dba Ball and Euclid Plaza LLC, P.O. Box
5272, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
AGENT: Armet, Davis, Newlove Architects, Attn: Victor Newlove,
1300 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404
LOCATION: 969 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.50 acre located at
the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Ball Road (EI
Pollo Loco).
To construct a fast food drive-through restaurant with waiver of (a)
minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum drive-through lane
requirements.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PCZ000-108
SR7806VN.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this proposal is for property located at 969
South Euclid Street (EI Pollo Loco), a request of two waivers. One is for minimum number of parking
spaces and the second is for minimum drive-through requirements. Staff is recommending that the
', Commission approve Condition Use Permit No. 2000-04245 as well as the finro waivers based on the
findings of hardship for the drive-through lane and finding that the parking is adequate for the parking
waiver.
ApplicanYs Statement:
Victor Newlove, architect with Arnet, Davis, Newlove Architects, 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica,
stated he has worked with staff to improve the project and urged Commission to approve this proposal. It
will improve the corner and be used by families for take home meals and therefore is not like the normal
fast food establishment.
Public Testimony:
Linda White, 1725 West Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, stated she is against the project. Having a new
commercial building on this corner would be the beginning of a development in a deteriorated, unsafe,
unhealthy piece of property that the owner has neglected.
She asked that a conditional use permit not be issued until she has had the opportunity to review
documents and make sure CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements have not been
violated and is asking for a 90-day extension. The Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was not
noticed for the 45-day review period, notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was not provided
under Section 15072, initial EIR study document. Reasons to support the Findings was not sent with
public notice required under Section 15071.
They have been asking the City for help regarding the safety and health issues on this property on Euclid.
The owner will not provide trash bins and adequate storage areas for the trash, they are full and
" overflowing 5 out of 7 days a week to the extent that it has caused rats and unhealthy conditions to the
point that they are going into her home.
09-11-00
Page 22
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The owner will not clean up the graffiti, so neighbors and Code Enforcement have taken over the
', responsibility. The owner will not paint the building or keep a manager at the property to stop tenants
from violating the Code. Since the driveways are not to Code, trucks or trailers use their street for
deliveries.
She stated this owner cannot be trusted to properly mitigate soil and provide true and accurate
documentation regarding toxins that are present because there was a gas station on this property since
the 1950's. During her quest to locate files on the property she became concerned that the staff in
charge of handling this project did not have proper education to be in charge of the serious health hazard.
Chairperson Koos asked if she was speaking to the project or making a complaint against City staff.
Linda White stated that was her only statement about City staff and feels a geotechnical engineer should
be in charge of the inspection due to toxins of benzene and MTBE in the soil with a fast food restaurant
over it.
Greg McCafferty explained that a legal notice is published in the newspaper 20 days in advance and a
30-day review is required when there is a State or responsible agency involved in the approval. Since
this is a local land use permit, the only approvals that need to be received are from the Planning
Commission and City Council if they choose to hear it. Staff notified 21 days in advance of the hearing
and actual zoning cards are mailed out within 10 days of the hearing in accordance with State law. Staff
did comply with the Code.
Linda White stated she read CEQA requirements last night and it is 30-days for lead agencies if it is not
State and it is not an "and/or" requirement that they do not mail information to the neighborhoods. It is a
requirement.
" Greg McCafferty stated they notify in all the three ways that the Code requires. They publish in a
newspaper in general circulation within the City, post the site, and notify within 300 feet of the property
which is the State zoning law notice requirement. Staff believes that they have complied with the notice
and requirements that are required by CEQA and by State law regarding zoning actions. It is, in fact, a
20-day review period for this Negative Declaration since there is not a State or responsible agency that
has approval authority over the local land use permit.
Linda White felt that was not correct.
Chairperson Koos stated at the morning session they discussed the matter of one or two parcels and its
relevancy to this public hearing, asked if there was a clear understanding of the lots.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated it consists of two pieces of property. The top portion is
one lot and all of the bottom, which is the medical center, restaurant and subjeet property is one legal
parcel of record. If the owner has different information he can testify on it.
Chairperson Koos requested that comments from this point be separated on the parcel to the north in
respect to complaints that one may have, since it is not relevant to this particular land use decision.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the only exception would be regarding circulation.
Linda White stated she wanted to inform Commission of the history of this owner and asked if there was
mitigation taking place on this property and does not see it as part of the conditional use permit. She
asked if the property was completely mitigated.
Chairperson Koos stated they may get to that, but it is not part of conditions of approval.
"
09-11-00
Page 23
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Greg McCafferty stated Dick Wilson from the Public Utilities Department and in accordance with other
', regulations outside of CEQA, the City is handling the on-site remediation efforts. They view that as
separate from the land use permit and the CEQA approval for that land use permit.
Public Testimony:
Esther Goodman, 1749 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, stated she is glad Ms. White discussed what she did
because she said more than she even recognized. There are already restaurants in the area. She feels
this proposal is not for the best.
ApplicanYs Rebuttal:
Victor Newlove stated Mobil Oil Company is providing monitoring wells and vapor extraction per Code
and City and State standards. The building will be placed away from the wells. He explained how they
are taking care of the situation. The company will make sure that the site is maintained in a good way
and will cooperate in keeping things clean. The client is being asked to dedicate and give to the City 12
feet for street widening on Euclid and Ball Road which will leave a 10-foot buffer of landscaping.
Mark Magid stated he is the son of the property owner, and manages the property. They are working with
Mobil Oil Company to remediate the property. He has opened up the rear of the property so trucks can
come from Ball Road and not off of Beacon where the women (Ms. White and Ms. Goodman) live. He
has eliminated parking spaces and submitted a letter to Commission from Mr. John Lower, Traffic and
Transportation Manager, that stated he is working with him. He is also working with Code Enforcement.
Esther Goodman is concerned about parking and this area is very crowded.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
tr Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, recommended adding a condition that the proposed
driveway on Euclid Street shall be constructed with a 10-foot radius curb return as required by the City
Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137.
Commissioner Arnold asked what prevents construction of new development on a property that may not
be sufficiently remediated. In the absence of a condition, is there authority in the Code for it.
Greg McCafferty stated they have a"red tag" on that parcel and there is a check so that during the plan
check process it will not allow it to move forward until such time that they have received an indication from
the responsible agency that it has been cleaned up. There is a"catch-all" condition that requires
compliance with all local, Federal and State codes in addition to the plan check process and whatever Mr.
Wilson from the Public Utilities Department uses to check to ensure that the building could not proceed on
that parcel until there is verification from those agencies. In some cases there is a health risk assessment
that might have to be done that is regulated by the County Health Care Agency.
Dick Wilson, Public Utilities Department, explained when there is change in land use on a site which has
carcinogen in the soil, the Orange County Health Care Agency (and in Anaheim because they operate the
underground storage tank program), require a health risk assessment. The amount of contamination in
the soil, the area of the facility that is to be buift, the use of it, depth and all characteristics of the site and
chemical itself and cancer potency factors are in a formula that must result in a less than one in 10 to
minus 6 chance of increased lifetime cancer risk. The allowable increased cancer risk is one in one
million. In this case Mobil is the responsible party because they owned it and are responsible for
completing the clean-up. They would not allow the Planning Department to approve the conditional use
permit unless it met the criteria of one in a million.
Commissioner Boydstun asked Code Enforcement if there have been any problems with the parcel to the
" south of the property.
09-11-00
Page 24
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Don Yourstone, Senio~ Code Enforcement Officer, stated there have been minor problems with flags and
', banners and trash, but they were corrected by the owner when he was notified. Most of the problems
come from property to the no~th of that parcel.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there were trash problems with property to the north.
Don Yourstone advised there have been problems with the bins overflowing and graffiti and other Code
violations, which will be addressed at a meeting to be held by the prosecuting attorney (Michael Burke,
Deputy City Attorney) on September 20, 2000. OverFlowing bins cause wind to blow trash around onto
other properties.
Commissioner Bristol agrees the overall appearance of this center is the worst he has ever seen in
comparison to other centers. EI Pollo Loco site could make it look much better.
Commissioner Arnold stated if there is evidence of Code violations on this particular property, it is
customary to have the applicant pay for Code inspections.
Commissioner Vanderbilt disagrees with Mr. Newlove that the Pollo Loco will be used by families or
people who purchase items and drive home. He is inclined to believe a great deal of trash is generated
with this type of business. If there is already a trash problem it will get worse. Foster Freeze is also going
in there and items wilt be consumed in the vicinity and thus has potential to contribute to the trash. Also
the traffic study stated 10% of customers will eat on-site.
Commissioner Napoles stated at one point in time that shopping center was a good place, but that area is
now the worst that he has seen in a long time and feels this is not a good place for EI Pollo Loco. Traffic
is bad and it is a hang-out for a lot of teens. The area to the north needs to be cleaned up.
', Chairperson Koos asked staff if this stretch of Euclid has plans to improve the area through proactive City
efforts.
Greg Hastings stated he is not aware that it is. He does not believe that it is in a Redevelopment area
and there is no specific project in this area.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated that the critical intersection street widening project
should start in July 2001, and there will be some landscaping installed on Euclid and Baf1 that may
enhance the corners.
Commissioner Bristol asked Code Enforcement how the westerly side was compared to the north.
Don Yourstone stated the more severe portion where the trash problems occur is on the west side of the
northern part of the shopping center, between the buildings and the west alley. That is where they
usually keep the trash bins and the overflowing bins occur in that area.
Commissioner Bristol asked if there were some medical buildings that would discard items such as
needles, etc.
Don Yourstone responded that there are medical buildings but he has not seen any problems with any
discarded needles.
Commissioner Bristol suggested modifying Condition No. 23, that the trash enclosure behind Little
Caesars be refurbished to City Standards.
Commissioner Arnold asked whether there are Code violations on the southern portion because at the
last meeting the issue came up regarding Code viotations and it was determined that if there are Code
" violations then the owner must pay for the inspections until they are remedied.
09-11-00
Page 25
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Don Yourstone responded no, there is no evidence of Code violations.
'~ • • ~ ~- ~ ~ ~
IN SUPPORT: 1 letter was received with thirteen (13) names in support of the project.
OPPOSITlON: 2 people spoke in opposition.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration (Vote: 4-2, Commissioners Napoles and Vanderbift
voted no and Commissioner Bosfinrick was absent)
Approved Waiver of Code Requ.irement (Vote: 5-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted
no and Commissioner Bosfinrick was absent)
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04245 with the following changes to the
conditions of approval:
Modified Condition No. 23 to read as follows:
23. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and
in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage
areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable
from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be
protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials including
minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall
shrubbery. The trash enclosure behind Little Caesar's shall be refurbished to
City Standards prior to issuance of a building permit. Said information shall be
'~ _ specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
VOTE ON CUP: 5 1(Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 54 minutes (3:07-4:01)
'.
09-11-00
Page 26
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'~
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY
6b. VARIANCE NO. 4389
(VAR TRACKING NO. 2000-04408)
Approved
Denied
OWNER: Goldstone Holdings, LLC, Attn: Joon Kim, 32685
Caspian Sea Drive, Oana Point, CA 92629
AGENT: Sheldon and Associates, Attn: Steve Sheldon, 695
Town Center Drive, Suite 410, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 511 North Brookhurst Street. Property is 3.29 acres
located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue
and Brookhurst Street.
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation
(approved for three (3) months to expire on July 21, 2000} for the use of
this facility with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
"
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-109
SR1058TW.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for amendment or deletion
of conditions of approval pertaining to the time limitation that was set to expire on July 21, 2000 and the
maximum number of students for the use of the facility which was limited in the conditions of approva{.
Staff is recommending approval of this variance ~equest.
Applicant's Statement:
Steve Sheldon, 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 410, Costa Mesa, 92626, stated they are requesting a
variance for this site. The main issue is that they have completed a parking study for the actual use and
not the envisioned use. Their parking is more than sufficient. They are at maximum occupancy at 65% of
the parking spaces needed.
Public Testimony:
Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated their
original concern was that there be adequate parking for this building and were against the applicant
obtaining the waiver because they felt they would need more parking.
Her understanding is that the applicant wants to delete the parking requirement. Whenever she passes
the building she has noticed the parking lot full, but there is a sign that indicates 20,000 square feet for
rent. Her understanding was that a portion of that building was not yet rented. Although Mr. Sheldon
assured her today that it was all rented and that Bryman College is on the second floor and another
company on the third floor. However, the manager for Bryman College indicated that they are on the 3~a
floor. She asked for a clarification whether it is fully occupied or not. If it is not fully occupied then she
asked that the approval of the parking waiver be extended until that building is occupied.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
"
Steve Sheldon, apologized to Mrs. Wallace. Their parking study shows that Bryman College is on the 3~d
floor and he was incorrect if he informed her it was on the second floor. The second floor is the Anaheim
Partners office space, which is fully leased out. The sign advertising 20,000 square feet is a sign that Mr.
Kim uses as a marketing device. If that sign is a problem it can come down.
09-11-00
Page 27
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
`. Greg Hastings advised that the sign should come down since the Code does not allow those types of
signs other than for leasing purposes.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there was another school off of Magnolia that came before Commission
in the past and they limited the number of students at any one time. His only concern with that is that it is
different from enroilment. The school is given some flexibifity and it is harder to enforce. He has a
problem with the condition and asked staff if there was a way to enforce that number since it seems to be
an important part of to the CUP.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated originally they did approve the parking study for the
site. At the City Council's discretion, they asked the applicant to resurFace that parking lot. Originally staff
advised Planning Commission that there was adequate parking and they continue to believe there is
adequate parking at that site.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Yalda to clarify the recommendation regarding a condition that the
students be limited to a maximum number.
Alfred Yalda explained that they are recommending a maximum of 120 students.
Greg McCafferty stated that regardless of whether they kept it at a maximum number of students or total
enrollment, there would always be an enforcement problem.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that it would seem more logical for enforcement purposes to go with
enrollment instead of a maximum number of students on any given day because there might tend to be a
degree of comfort that the school may have.
', Commissioner Arnofd stated that the applicant was limited to 100 students in each of the time frames and
they are over in two of those time frames. They were also suppose to pave and provide additional
parking which they have not done so. Basically, there are three instances of non-compliance and yet
Commission is being asked to grant this change. This may create some incentive for applicants to ignore
conditions that Commission imposes.
Greg McCafferty explained when someone applies for a variance there are specific ~ndings in the parking
Code that have to be made for Commission to grant the parking waiver. In this case, they returned after
the school was in operation and indicated they had a real case to study and based on that case staff feels
instead of 100 students the parking indicates that they can have 120 students at any given time, and still
have enough parking to satisfy this use plus the other uses on site. Based on that finding a parking
waiver can be made. He agrees, regarding the reclassification, staff felt and Commission was lead to
believe that there would be additional parking, but it is no longer being proposed.
Commissioner Arnold stated it would seem that the applicant would maintain a maximum of 100 students
and not violate the terms of the permit, but instead they are indicating that they are only using a certain
amount of spaces. Therefore, an additional 20 students would not cause a parking problem. It seems
that this action somehow sanctions lawlessness.
Alfred Yalda stated that perhaps the applicant could expfain the outcome of the City Council's approval of
the variance that expired July 21, 2000. After that they were required to do a new parking study or
resurface that parking lot. Once a project goes to the City Council the conditions approved become final
and supercede the Planning Commission conditions.
Commissioner Arnold stated that it showed that they were limited to a maximum of 100 students and
asked if that was a part of the City Council resolution. It seems that the applicant has violated the City
" Council resolution in two instances.
09-11-00
Page 28
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Alfred Yalda stated there is another condition on page 3 of that City Council resolution that also
~• addresses the parking spaces.
Greg McCafferty explained they are requesting that the time limitation be deleted. It is an unlimited
variance they are granting, but the applicant is indicating that they did an updated parking study and the
Traffic and Transportation Manager has reviewed and approved it and now they are requesting 120
spaces instead of 100 spaces. Essentially, they are asking for two things.
Chairperson Koos commented that they currently have 120 students when the City Council only permitted
100 students.
Commissioner Arnold noted that if everyone violated City Council imposed conditions and used that
violation as justification for a variance, then the City Council's conditions would be relatively meaningless.
Commissioner Arnold noted that if the City Council imposed conditions that were later violated by the
applicant and that same applicant later used that violation as justification for a variance, then the City
Council conditions would be relatively meaningless.
Chairperson Koos stated Commissioner Arnold had a good point. Overall that goes to all previous CUP's
and requests for variances on parking and institutional uses which he thought they were sti11 working on.
Greg McCafferty explained that the Planning Commission Agenda for September 25th is going to have
that along with some information on churches and schools and industrial zones.
Chairperson Koos asked the applicant why there is currently 120 students enrolled when the City Council
limited it to 100 students.
', Steve Sheldon stated he understands their position. After the City Council meeting they felt that the
required number of spaces was simply much more that what they needed. The Code for an occupational
school is 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is based upon a more traditional type of school. This
school was probably not envisioned when staff prepared the findings and documentation and significance
for that Code requirement. They fell far below that because of the type of students at Bryman College.
Many students are dropped off, carpool, or take the bus. It is 80% to 90°to female, many are on the
Welfare-to-Work Program. The issue of the 4 months variance, they did a grading plan for that in
preparation should they need to execute it. The Planning staff has signed off on it, but the Public Works
Department has not yet signed off. They did take this matter seriously. They simply felt it did not make
sense and would have cost Mr. Kim approximately $50,000 to improve that parking lot and then have to
tear it out.
Commissioner Arnold stated he understood what Mr. Sheldon is saying that they felt the condition
imposed was excessivefy restrictive and therefore they decided to violate it. He asked Mr. Sheldon why
they had over 100 students in two different time frames that they operate.
Steve Sheldon responded that it was his understanding that they wanted to get an actual basis of student
generation of what they were doing to demonstrate an actual study and not a theoretical study. They
thought that the student generation of 120 would not cause a problem. They also wanted to prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no problem with 120 students, which they showed with their
traffic study. He did not think they made an intentional act of going over that limit. He did not have
answer to the other question.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION:
„ ACTION:
1 person spoke in opposition
Approved Negative Declaration
09-11-00
Page 29
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEiM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Denied Variance No. 4389 on the basis that it was created by the applicanYs violation
', of City Council resolution, therefore creating an illegal action.
, VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (4:02-4:23)
',
~r
09-11-00
Page 30
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~/
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:25 TO
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 AT 10:30 A.M.
FOR DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO CHURCHES
AND SCHOOLS IN INDUSTRIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
'~
',
Respectfully submitted:
Q ~.~.~.lL/
Ossie Edmundson
Senior Secretary
~~L~~, ~GViC~C.t~v(.~
Simonne Fannin
Senior Office Specialist
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on `~ "~-$ -~~
09-11-00
Page 31