Minutes-PC 2000/12/04I•
t'~'Nt IM C,,`I
~ °: CITY OF ANAHEIM
° ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~~vNDED ~~,1
DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2000
MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at
11:00 a.m. at the field workshop on telecommunications.
10:30 A.M. • Nodes (equipment enclosures) workshop
• Staff update to Commission of various City developments and
issues (as requested by Planning Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review
~.
PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m.
in The Council Chambers and welcomed those in attendance.
1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Arnold.
)MMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt
STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney
Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager
Greg McCafferty Senior Planner
Kevin Bass Associate Planner
Karen Dudley Associate Planner
Don Yourstone Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Randy West Police Sergeant
Richard Mayer Park Planner
Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner
Melanie Adams Associate Engineer
Peter Gambino Associate Engineer
Margarita Solorio Planning Commission Secretary
Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at
10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 15, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the
Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk.
PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, November 9, 2000.
~.
H: DOCS\CLERICAUM I N UTES~AC 120400. DOC
12-04-00
Page 1
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(•
(.
Approved
Recommended
adoption to City
Council
SR2044DS.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to allow conforming
uses on properties within the existing legal non-conforming uses located within the Brookhurst
Corridor Commercial Overlay Zone. Staff recommended approval of the Code Amendment to the
City Council.
(.
1TEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
None
Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to
November 20, 2000. (Motion) December 18, 2000
A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 319 (PREV.-CERTIFIED)
b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00006: City-initiated (Planning
Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard #162, Anaheim, CA
92805, request to amend Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to
permit new conforming uses on a parcel which contains an existing
legal non-conforming business (which is now prohibited in the BCC
(Brookhurst Commercial Corridor) Overlay Zone)), for all properties
located within the BCC Overlay Zone.
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified
EIR 319 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation
for subject request.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of the
draft ordinance attached to the staff report dated December 4, 2000,
amending Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit new conforming
uses on a parcel which contains an existing legal nonconforming use (which
is now prohibited in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay Zone), for
all properties located within the BCC Overlay Zone.
12-04-00
Page 2
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(.
B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04217 (CUP Trackina No.
2000-04308) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FlNAL
PLANS : Western States Engineering, 1150 North Richfield Road,
Anaheim, CA 92807, requests review and approval of final
landscape, floor, lighting, sign, elevation, and roof-mounted
equipment plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04217 (to
construct a gasoline service station with accessory convenience
market and waiver of permitted encroachments into required yards,
minimum required landscaped setback adjacent to arterial highways,
minimum structural setback adjacent to interior property lines, and
minimum landscape requirements adjacent to interior property lines).
Property is located at 3085 East La Palma Avenue.
Approved
Approved final pians
with stipulations
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun 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.
(.
SR7861 KP.DOC
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby approve the floor, lighting, sign, convenience market elevation, and
roof-mounted equipment plans on the basis that they comply with Code
requirements and Condition of Approval Nos. 4, 10 and 21; and, further,
approve, in part, the final canopy elevations and final landscape plans with
the stipulation, that (1) the colors used on the facia panels of the canopy shall
be compatible with the earth tone colors on the convenience market building
elevations and shall be consistent in color on all four sides and that (2)
stepping stones be provided from the public sidewalk to the property as
required by Condition No. 3.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for review of final
plans (Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04217).
Commissioner Vanderbilt thanked staff for encouraging pedestrian usage of these types of
developments.
Greg McCafferty advised that the pedestrian walkway from the corner of the intersection is on the
plans submitted to staff. They are stepping stones from the corner into the site. Staff
recommended that paragraph no. 18, subsection (c), be incorporated into the plans submitted for
building permits.
(.
12-04-00
Page 3
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04272
OWNER: Ellas Properties, Attn: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
Canyon Commercial Center, Attn: Mark Poochigian,
5000 Birch Street, #510 East Tower, Newport Beach,
CA 92660
LOCATION: Portion A: 5375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is
1.1 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and Brasher Street.
Portion B: 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1370-
1400 North Brasher Street. Property is 5.02 acres
located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue
and Brasher Street.
(~
Portion C: 5401 East La Palma Avenue.* Property is
12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma
Avenue, 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher
Street.
To permit an expansion to an existing automotive dealership facility with
waiver of (a) maximum number of monument signs, (b) minimum distance
between monument signs, (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted
encroachments into required yards.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 23, November 6,
and November 20, 2000.
'` Originally advertised as 5401, 5403 and 5405 East La Palma Avenue.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
December 18, 2000
SR7862KB.DOC
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for continuance to December 18, 2000, 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 December 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
in order to allow the petitioner additional time to finalize outstanding leasing issues.
VOTE: 7-0
(.
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
12-04-00
Page 4
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(•
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2973
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04270)
OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, 13539 Foster Road, Santa Fe
Springs, CA 90650
Approved
Approved amendment
to the conditions of
approval
AGENT: The Regents Group, Attn: David Rose, 420 McKinley
Street, Suite 111, Corona, CA 92879
LOCATION: 304 South Maanolia Avenue. Property is 0.52 acres
located at the southeast corner of Broadway and
Magnolia Avenue (Arco Gasoline Service Station and
Food Store).
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the license for
the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption for a
previously-approved service station with a convenience market.
Continued from the Commission meetings of October 23, and
November 6, and November 20, 2000.
(~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-133
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to amend conditions of
approval pertaining to beer and wine for Conditional Use Permit No. 2973. The agent for the petitioner
requested this item to be trailed since the property owner was not present.
Chairperson Koos then announced that Item No. 3 would be trailed. This item was later heard following
Item No. 4.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this request is to amend or delete
conditions of approval pertaining to the sale of beer and wine.
SR7860KP. DOC
ApplicanYs Statement:
David Rose, Regents Group, 420 McKinley Avenue, Suite 111, Corona, CA, 92879, stated a year or two
years ago they were approved by the City Council to amend the original conditional use permit that
allowed them to operate a service station. It was originally amended to add a provision for the retai! sale
of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. The condition at the time was an attempt to purchase a
license within the existing census tract. After much time negotiating the purchase of a license, they
decided that it was not feasible and reviewed the alternatives available to them they are proposing to the
Commission. There are currently 6 licenses in escrow. They propose purchasing 3 of them, transfer 1 to
their facility and terminate the other 2 licenses.
He indicated that in the staff report on page 5, Item 17(c), Condition No. 32, should actually indicate
licenses will be terminated.
~~
The applicant provided in writing to Commission the license type, the name of the operator, name of the
business and address. One license is Type 21 (full liquor license) located at 1895 West Katella Avenue
and the other five are Type 20 licenses (off-sale beer and wine).
12-04-00
Page 5
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. Commissioner Boydstun advised that four of them have west Anaheim addresses (Ball Road, West
( Lincoln, West Katella).
David Rose stated that last time they were before Commission the crime rate was 85% above and has
now dropped to only 40% above, as indicated in the staff report.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Rose to describe the nature of the types of businesses.
David Rose explained that the only license that is functionally a liquor store is 1895 West Katella. The
other five licenses are all convenience stores not associated with gasoline stations.
Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Rose if Commission were to approve their request, would they
consider taking the four in West Anaheim, keep one, and terminate the other three (Brookhurst, Ball
Katella and Lincoln). She felt the Katella license must be terminated.
Commissioner Bostwick summarized by stating that the Type 21 license would terminate and transfer one
of the Type 20 licenses and terminate the other Type 20 ficenses.
Commissioner Boydstun asked how many licenses are currently active.
Barry Berkett, Thrifty Oil Company, stated one of the delays in responding back to staff is that all of these
are currently in escrow. They are either active or suspended. The impact to the City would be the same
in the absence of their acquisition of the licenses. As of November 27th one of those licenses was in a
temporary suspension because they paid the fees and it is sitfing in escrow pending the transfer and
pending Commission's approval. It may not actually appear as an active license, but rather as a
suspension. There was no way to be able to follow each license. Some of the licenses are active, but he
could not say with certainty.
(~ Commissioner Bristol stated that Mr. Berkett indicated that there are 4 in escrow, but Mr. Berkett did not
know if they are currently operating.
Barry Berkett indicated that he could not say today whether they are operating because he was there two
months ago when they were operating, but since that time they may have closed the license down so as
to not loose their license pending transfer. The individual working on this prior to Mr. Rose is no longer
working with their company.
David Rose explained that when they placed the actual license in a period of escrow what happens is
under both the City of Anaheim standards and the ABC standards is that if they found someone that was
going to go out of business and they purchased their license and were going to subsequently terminate
that license, under the State of California (Alcoholic Beverage Control Board) criteria as well as the City of
Anaheim, someone could walk back into that facility. The license is active and it goes with the property
unless the person transfers it, but after 1 year it becomes an inoperative license. Their contract prohibits
anyone from going back in and reacquiring that license. They are proposing to have a"restrictive"
license, which means it is subject to the criteria of the City of Anaheim whereas all of the other licenses
are unrestricted licenses. They are actually getting rid of licenses that have been around for 25 to 30
years.
Commissioner Bristol asked Sgt. West to address the calls for service for this site.
Sgt. Randy West, Police Department, stated the calls for service have gone down to 46% from 85%, but
that is a trend that has been seen throughout the City. He went into more detail as to the type of calls for
service received.
Chairperson Koos stated that if some of these are not actually operating businesses should Commission
'• consider them differently.
12-04-00
Page 6
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~• Commissioner Sristol stated if some of these are 25 years old that do not require a conditional use permit
Chairperson Koos asked if Sgt. West has modified his recommendation.
Sgt. West replied they had not changed their original recommendation, but if Commission approved this
request then he requested adding some conditions of approval on the license.
(. Commissioner Arnold stated that the reason they are considering crime rates in census tracts is a
correlation to crime rate, is a major concern. He asked Sgt. West if they could obtain any evidence that
the impact of the elimination of these 4 licenses on crime rate is a good trade for the City.
Sgt. West replied that it would take some time to accomplish. Once the elimination of the alcohol outlet
and the accessibility to alcoho! then it would take a year longer to determine whether or not that actually
had an impact. Who knows what may come before the Commission during that period. To determine the
specific impact from a specific license it would be very difficult to do.
Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Rose if they would be willing to purchase 5 licenses instead of 4 since they
are very close to a compromise.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that the license at 1067 North Harbor Boulevard is right by La Palma Park
where there are many problems and alcohol related problems. That would be another license that would
be nice to get rid of.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he is interested in knowing more about each site.
David Rose stated that they are willing to accept Chairperson Koos' proposal for 5 licenses. The
standard condition would be 5% or 10% of total sales which is something that they will not have with an
unrestricted license. He did not think they will be able to find out from the owners of the businesses that
they would be willing to teff them what that would be. They are willing to accept the standard conditions
that staff would require of any new restrictive license. They are wiA to add Harbor Boulevard as the
request of Commissioner Boydstun.
I•
then they probably do not have a crime issue. However, they do not actually know that because they do
not know who they are exactly. The City Council made it very clear what they wanted to see and it did
not happen. If this were a new issue today, he would vote to deny it again because he does not see the
public convenience or necessity on this site with a crime rate of 46%.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the Sgt. West to explain "allowed" versus "active" and how they
determine what would be allowed in a census tract.
Sgt. Randy West replied that it is determined by the.State and they have no say in that. The populations
will be changing in the near future with the new census information, which may affect the number of
alcohol outlets per census tract, but the current statistics are based on the last census.
Commissioner Boydstun asked Sgt. West if he was familiar with any of the locations that they were
discussing.
Sgt. West replied he was not, but for the applicant to purchase a Type 21 and eliminate that license he
felt that is always a plus as far as the Police Department is concerned. If they can pull licenses with no
conditions such as the applicant has stated it is always better to have conditions on the license because it
gives the Police Department enforcement capabilities that they would not already have. An older license
is not as good for enforcement purposes.
12-04-00
Page 7
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• In 1996 cities in California by the Caldera legislation were given certain criteria and standards that prior to
( that date were not given. Discretion for beer and wine license was handled at Sacramento and very little
if any discretion, aside from a CUP, was given to the local government bodies.
Commissioner Arnold would be convinced if there was evidence of where those proposed licenses to be
eliminated are, that they have been active until recently and about the crime rate. He is not necessarily
interested in trading off licenses that are operating in areas that do not have a significant negative impact
on the neighborhood. It would be helpful if they could give some evidence that they are getting some
trade off in terms of impact on the local neighborhood.
David Rose indicated that he did not have with him that information that Commissioner Arnold requested.
All the licenses they are purchasing are "mom and pop" type of businesses. Arco has a PM-12 which
means that they have more than 12 licenses in the State of California and do not have fo go through the
normal background checks. The dealer not only has to live up to the City and State requirements, but
also Arco's requirements as well as BP's (British Petroleum) requirements.
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Rose if he could tell Commission anything about what those 5 licenses
are.
Chairperson Koos announced there would be a short break. When meeting was called to order, Greg
McCafferty produced a census map with the 6 properties in question marked.
Commission then laid out the census map and reviewed the information with staff and the applicant to
see where the sites are located.
Sgt. West stated the following:
• 201 South State College Boulevard is the Shell gas station car wash which is an active license until
• 10/31 /01. '
~ • 1067 North Harbor Boulevard is Van's Mini Market and the license was surrendered on 7/15/00;
however on 10/27/00 they conducted an ABC decoy program and they were still selling alcohol at that
location.
• 1112 North Brookhurst was Cheer's Market, Suite 1, is an active license. They had a 20-day
suspension, however Mr. Yourstone (Code Enforcement) through that store is currently closed.
• 3024 West Ball Road, #J, Kiran Liquor, is an inactive license. They did not renew as of 11/15/98.
• 2778 West Lincoln Avenue, Poor Man's Liquor, which was automatically revoked on 1/1/94 by ABC
and the Police Department does not show any activity there since 12/19/95.
• 1895 West Katella Avenue, F&S Market, which shows active until 9/30/01 with no documented
incidents of sales to minors, etc.
There was further discussion with Commission and staff regarding the location of the sites.
Commissioner Bostwick asked about the site at 2778 West Lincoln Avenue in which Sgt. West had
indicated that it was revoked since 1994 and that they would need to reapply.
Sgt. West advised that this information was obtained from Sacramento and ABC so it is not first-hand
knowledge of the location as to the status of the license. It shows that it was automatically revoked by
ABC on 1/1/94 and the Police Department does not show any enforcement activity for alcohol violations
since 12/19/95.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked based on the information that Sgt. West researched and testimony
regarding this period of once a year is up, one year from the date of closure whether the license could be
extinguished.
Sgt. West's knowledge of the licenses at 801 South Harbor Boulevard is that when they purchased the
~ liquor store it still showed "active" for a year after the license had been purchased until it became inactive.
12-04-00
Page 8
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. After that year if it is not purchased during that time or if it is transferred to another location it will show
( inactive until it is suspended or surrendered to ABC.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if they are inactive could they be reactivated if there had not been any
problems.
Sgt. West responded that the owner of that license could sell it or transfer the license during that period
Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated that in theory all those licenses listed are viable and possibly they
could be resurrected.
Sgt. West replied that the one license at 3024 West Ball Road, Suite J, shows it did not renew as of
11/15/98 which would put it outside that window period. So, the status on that is not certain. As for 201
South State College Boulevard is a similar type of operation as the ones the applicants have proposed. It
is a very busy intersection where the gas station mini mart is, which is an active license until 10/31/01. At
1895 West Katella shows that their license is still active. At 1112 North Brookhurst is also an active
license.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that the one on State College Boulevard is of more value in terms of
volume, but it is not in West Anaheim.
During the Action:
Barry Berkett suggested that that they will transfer one license (Type 20) to the location and make sure
that all others are terminated. That will resolve this issue in terms of the discrepancies and they felt that it
would be an easier way to address the issues with respect to the Commission. There are a variety of
ways that they can work with staff in order to give them the comfort level that Commission is looking for.
(. Greg McCafferty indicated that the Police Department is recommending that the Shell station license be
the one that is transferred over to the location because it is a"like" license and it is active. Mr. Rose is
concerned that if one of the licenses were to fall out of escrow that they have the flexibility within the
same census tracts and other census tracts in the City to substitute that for a similar license within the
census tracts, subject to an R&R review by the Commission.
Commissioner Bostwick suggested if one of these licenses would not be able to be purchased that the
replacement license to be purchased would be in the census tracts west of Euclid Street and the change
would return as R&R item.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that it was his understanding that the list of 6 licenses was di~cult to
come up with. It sounds as though they have exhausted all other possibilities. Now the applicant is
indicating that if one drops out then they will find another license in its place, but that would appear to be
difficult based on earlier statements.
Barry Berkett responded that in the past they have had a license in escrow where the transfer could not
take place. They do not want to be placed in the position that they are not accomplishing what they
intended. They would like to have the flexibility to return to staff with what was agreed upon.
Greg Hastings suggested that Commission ask staff to return each zoning entitlements for review for
modification or revocation to ensure that there would not be a possibility of another business starting up
without a new conditional use permit on the property.
~•
12-04-00
Page 9
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(. Following Action:
Commissioner Bostwick explained it does not matter which license the applicant would transfer. Anyone
of the Type 20 licenses could be transferred, but the one Type 21 license (located on Katella Avenue) will
be terminated.
• • ~ ~- ~ ~ • ~ ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved amendment to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 2973.
Amended Condition No. 32 of Resolution No. 98R-236 to read as follows:
"32. That approval for the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption shall
terminate on December 4, 2001, if the applicant has not purchased the off-sale
Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses from 1067 North Harbor Boulevard, 1112 North
Brookhurst Street, 3024 West Ball Road, #J, 201 South State College Boulevard,
2778 West Lincoln, and 1895 West Katella Avenue, #F, prior to said date. Only one
of the five Type 20 licenses shall be transferable to this location, all the other licenses
including the Type 21 license at 1895 West Katella Avenue, shall be terminated. If
one of aforementioned licenses should not be able to be purchased, the replacement
license to be purchased shall be in the census tracts west of Euclid Avenue and
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations item. The purchase agreement shall effectively require that the
~ previous owners of the permit and the owners of the properties where the permits
i were previously located refrain from applying for new licenses or for the transfers of
existing licenses within the same census tracts for a period of one (1) year following
the effective date of the transfers of the permits to the applicants. The purchase
agreement shall provide that the City of Anaheim is a third party beneficiary for the
purpose of enforcing the application restriction. A copy of the purchase agreement
shall be provided to the Zoning Division. No sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption shall be permitted on the property unless and until the applicant has
purchased said licenses no later than December 4, 2001."
Added the following conditions of approval (unless already contained in Resolution
No. 97R-144):
That the sales of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35% of the gross sales
of all retail sales during any finrelve (12) month period. The applicant shall maintain
records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic
beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by
any City of Anaheim official when requested.
That no advertising of beer or wine shall be located, placed or attached to any
location outside of the interior of the building and any such advertising shall not be
visible to anyone outside of the building.
That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property under the control of
the applicant.
That the parking lot of 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.
12-04-00
Page 10
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(. That the lighting in the parking area of the premises shall be directed, positioned, and
shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window area of
nearby residences.
That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining a litter free area adjacent to
the premises over which he/she has control.
That there shall be no pool tables or coined-operated games maintained upon the
premises at any time.
That no display of beer or wine shall be located outside of a building or within five (5)
feet of any public entrance to the building.
That the area of beer or wine displays shall not exceed 25% of the tota! display area
in a building.
That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the
customer is in the building.
That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell
any beer or wine.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 2 minutes (2:58-4:16 [BREAK FROM 3:33-3:49j)
'~ ,~~~,~~~,~~~,~,.~~~,~~ ~~,~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~a~~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~~~ ,~,~,,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~m~~,~~,~,~,~~~,~
The Planning Commission directed staff to bring back each on of the zoning entitlements that may exist
on the properties located at 1067 North Harbor Boulevard, 1112 North Brookhurst Street, 3024 West Ball
Road, #J, 201 South State College Boulevard, 2778 West Lincoln, and 1895 West Katella Avenue, #F, for
modification or revocation to ensure that there would not be a possibility of another alcohol related
business starting up without a new conditional use permit on the property.
~
12-04-00
Page 11
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1.
4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved
4b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14429 Approved
4c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-00005 Approved
OWNER: Ed and Linda Stern; Gary and Donna Lee Lyons; et al.,
Attn: Lori Glastetter, 617 South Birchleaf Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: La Quinta Development, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1124 Main
Street, Suite D, Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION: 300 block of Henninq Wav. Property is 8.4 acres
located on the west side of Henning Way, and is 350
feet southwest of the centerline of Quintana Drive (300
block of Henning Way).
Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 - To establish a 6-lot, RS-HS-
22,000(SC) single-family residential subdivision.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00005 - To permit the
removal of 28 specimen trees.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 23, and November 6,
2000. SR1071TW.DOC
(~
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for Tentative Tract Map No.
14429 and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00005.
Applicant's Statement:
Thom Falcon, La Quinta Development, stated that they are requesting to remove 28 specimen trees
during their construction and one of the conditions calls to replace those 2 to 1 with 24-inch box specimen
trees. Due to the steepness of the slopes he proposed that 14 of those trees be deleted and replace with
2815-gallon trees. This would result in more trees, but will not be as difficult to plant. Essentially, a 15-
gallon on 24-inch box size are about one growing season difference. It is very difficult to plant at 24-inch
box on a steep slope because they need to lower them down on ropes. They will try to keep the larger
trees along the frontage of the development and plant the 15-gallons along the slopes where they can.
Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Falcon what would the new proposed total of trees would be.
Thom Falcon replied essentially there will be 56 15-gallon and 14 24-inch box trees which totals 70 trees
as opposed to 56 trees.
Commissioner Vanderbilt wondered whether they have a species of tree in mind.
Thom Falcon replied that there is no particular species dedicated at this time.
•
A letter from the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition requested that there be a condition on remainder Lot 6
restricting further subdivision of the lot. It is not their intention to develop on that remainder portion.
Economically, it is probably not feasible to devefop that site and that is why they choose not to try to
develop a larger subdivision. It is very doubtful that it would ever be feasible and in addition there is
coastal sage scrub that would have to be considered. The fees required by the County would probably
make it unfeasible to develop it.
12-04-00
Page 12
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
', Chairperson Koos stated that for clarity Lot 6 is remainder lot.
Thom Falcon stated that the owners will deed them the 5 lots in front and the remainder will go back to
the existing owners.
Chairperson Koos indicated that it appears to basically be a ravine.
Thom Falcon confirmed that was correct. It is very steep and he was not certain it was possible to get
sewage to flow to their sewer system unless there is a sewage pump installed which is very expensive.
They have allowed for the right to be annexed into their maintenance association.
Frank Duarte, Canyon Acres Children's Services, stated that they have a concern regarding drainage.
Two years ago when there was EI Nino along with some brush clearance from the Fire Department, the
debris fall ran down against the existing property line and caused extensive damage to the existing storm
culvert and drainage system which result in property drainage for their facility. It actuaAy wash through
one of their living quarters. He had photos to show what had happened.
Greg McCafferty stated that generally a drainage report is required prior to the final map and advised that
Ms. Melanie Adams from the Public Works Department would be present momentarily to respond to
questions.
Greg McCafferty advised that Item No. 9 addresses the draining issue. It requires a drainage report and
storm drain improvement plans to be submitted to Public Works prior to the grading plan approval or final
map approval whichever occurs first.
Cleet Mekinoso, Canyon Acres, 160 South Fairmont Boulevard, Anaheim, stated his concem was
. regarding the proposed equestrian hiking trail. Their facility is a home for 30 abused and neglected
( chifdren. The public interest is best served if there is no public access to their property as a hiking trail
might provide. They are not in favor of the easement to be granted for the equestrian hiking trail because
that wilt eventually lead to that hiking trail being built. It is not in the best interest of the public.
Gerald Bushore, P.O. Box 18581, Anaheim, CA 92817, stated that his neighbor at 361 South Henning
Way was not able to attend this public hearing, but handed out photos of the drains that cover the west
end of the Canyon that drain most of the west hillside. There is a lot of water that drains down which he
realizes is an engineering problem, but wanted it added as part of the record.
There is no way to get to the Canyon except through this property. They talked to the adjoining property
owners and went across their properties and cleared back so far from each of the lot lines on the west,
north and east end of the Canyon. He called the Fire Department at that time and informed them thaf
nothing is being hauled off. It is being thrown down in the gully and he was told that as long as it is not
stacked more than 3 feet high, it is not a fire hazard and is permissible. (t is now in the storm drain and is
plugged up. The Canyon has water running through it all the time not only because of natural drainage,
but because of all the drainage that is done from up above on the lots watering the lawns, etc. He
thought the reason for the remnant lot was because they do not want to deal with it because it causes its
own problems. It is very irresponsible to ask for the prime piece of the property to be developed. He is
not opposed to the development, but it needs to be done in a manner that was neighborly. He felt
Commission needs to specifically address that as a condition of approval.
He spoke with Orange County regarding the "California Gnatcatcher." He is not very concerned about the
California Gnatcatchers or the coastal sage scrub, but what he is concerned with is the fact that nobody
contacted Fish and Game about the concerns. There are also bobcat, deer, coyote and fox that live in
the canyon. The only place the animals are going to get out of the canyon is down at the bottom where
the 5 lots are going to be. There needs to be a condition that if the canyon is not developed that it
• remains open and not fenced off. Otherwise the animals are gone. Where the property exists out on
12-04-00
Page 13
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. Henning Way is an opening into another canyon and goes all the way down where the animals traverse.
That remnant lot has some other affects, which are not being mitigated in terms of the environmental
impact. The County at one time came to the orange grove adjacent to this and set traps to catch the
animals, fruit flies, etc., which they have not done that in years.
Because of the poor line of sight Henning Way is dangerous and the properties is probably the worst
location that could be. It needs to be put as close to that fire hydrant as possible. You need to make a
"Y" there. There needs to be a stop sign for this development, and that will enables them to see the traffic
coming up the hill. There is tree foliage that blocks the view and make it a dangerous situation. That
driveway needs to be moved. It will make it onfy one biind side/sign but you will give the people coming
down the hill as much warning as possible coming out of there. The other bad spot down there is Canyon
Acres because the stop sign sets too far back from the road. People do not stop coming the other way.
Before long one of Canyon Acres buses is going to hit someone because they are unfamiliar with the
traffic up there.
When Tract No. 11600, on the other side of the canyon, was done the tree replacement was 3 to 1 and
not 2 to 1, as Code requires. It was determined that the foliage is so thick up there that by the time these
trees reach maturity it takes away from the environment. From an aerial view of Anaheim Hills you can
see that the area up there is probably one of the thickest foliage in all of Anaheim Hills. They need to
install more trees to mitigate the factors. It should be 3 to 1.
The neighborhood has the following concerns:
• The animals need a way to get in and out of there.
• That the development not block that off and therefore get rid of the animals.
• To work on the tree removal.
• Water drainage is very heavy especially in rains and even when it does not rain.
~. Chairperson Koos asked where the animals exit the canyon.
Gerald Bushore replied where the fire hydrant is. There is a dirt road on the property that is used to clear
the brush. There are two other spots, but they are temporary spots. One of them is temporary because
the trees have fallen on the fence.
ApplicanYs Rebuttal:
Thom Falcon stated that al( considerations were given. The County of Orange reviewed their report.
They requested that the applicant conduct three more inspections. They complied with all of the
regulations having to do with the California Gnatcatcher, which is the only endangered species in the
area. They are not aware of any additional animals that are protected in the area nor has the County
identified any additional animals. ~t is probably reasonable that whoever purchases these lots will not
develop the slopes themselves and the animals will be able to continue to traverse those slopes. He
emphasized that they are only proposing to remove a small percentage of the coastal sage scrub
because most of it in the area that they are developing has already removed,
The drainage issue should be improved by their subdivision. The water will actually drain onto their
private street and go into a storm drain rather than simply rolling down the hill. Water should not be
coming down through the canyon. The property owner is responsible for controlling their water and the
water should not be going onto someone else's property. Whoever is doing that needs to control their
own water.
Currently the road is very narrow, but will be widened to allow for better traffic flow and the consideration
of conflicts with other vehicles.
u
12-04-00
Page 14
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. He felt that they are proposing to improve the situation by reducing the number of lots, reduced the
amount of grading to minimize the amount of trucks traveling up and down the hill. The site should not
require any import or export of soil.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bostwick indicated that page 7, Condition No. 1(under Tentative Tract Map) of the staff
report addresses the equestrian trail and asked why the equestrian and hiking trail easement is required
since it does not go anywhere.
Richard Mayer, Park Planner, stated it is actually not an equestrian/hiking trail. The condition that he
recommended asked for just a hiking trail in this area. It is the continuation of some trail easements that
are already existing in the area as well as developed trails that are existing in the area including one that
is an easement that is over Canyon Acres property, which was in the conditions of approval for their prior
development that when this particular one gets developed then he is suppose to develop the one down
through his property also. They have several different connection points that are already waiting for this
trail to be connected to. There is an easement adjacent to the development, an easement across a
portion of Canyon Acres, an easement coming up Anaheim Hills Road and all of these will eventually
connect together and that is the reasoning for the dedication of the trail right-of-way. He emphasized that
is only a hiking trail and are trying to implement a section of the master plans of the hiking trails for the
City.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if this would create an avenue for the wild life to use as well.
Richard Mayer replied that this is always a possibility because the right-of-way would be there for that
type of use. He was not certain how much wild life uses the trail systems in Anaheim Hills. The mountain
lions use the existing trails in Coal Canyon underneath the freeway.
(• Greg McCafferty stated that the only issue that they were required to address by law was the coastal
sage scrub. The County is the local enforcement agency for fish and wild life with regard to coastal sage
scrub. The County reviewed the report and are in concurrence, there are conditions of approval of
address their concerns. Other species are not threatened or endangered and therefore staff did not
require them to be analyzed.
Chairperson Koos asked if there is any knowledge to the wi(d life patterns and how they move around the
canyons. If the development is approved will the wild life be affected.
Greg McCafferty responded that over the years when tracts have been proposed in the hills those issues
have been raised over and over. It seems that as property deveiops in the hills it seems that the wild life
finds a way to get through the residential areas, as evidenced by Mr. Bushore's testimony. There are no
studies established in the wild life corridors.
Chairperson Koos asked if the applicant would be supportive of a reclassification of the southern portion
(Lot 6) to open space a less intense residential zone such as RS-A-43,000.
Thom Falcon felt that that would be a"taking" and the City would have to purchase the property from the
current owner. They are not purchasing Lot 6 and it will remain with the current owner. He did not see
how that property could be economically feasible for them to develop the property.
Chairperson Koos asked staff to address the drainage issue.
Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer for the Public Works Department, stated that this tentative map was
reviewed and approved some time ago. At that time a drainage study was prepared to evaluate the
feasibility of being able to capture the drainage and flow off the site and deliver it in a safe manner into an
~ existing drainage system. Staff evaluated that study and it looks very feasible. They concluded that the
12-04-00
Page 15
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(, existing drainage facilities out there are adequate to accommodate this development. Overall drainage
will improve with this development. The drainage will be controlled and captured at certain points and
then delivered directly into this system. Once everything is in place having sediment and debris wash off
the site should be eliminated once the applicant implements their landscaping, streets and homes are
completed, etc.
Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Bushore if he wanted to add any comments.
Gerald Bushore stated that in his earlier testimony he forgot to address a major concern. The roads there
are private and not City roads. When Tract No. 11600 was done they required the developer to repave
the road should there be any damage, which the road was repaved due to the traffic from the trucks. The
roads were not designed to have the amount of traffic anticipated by this heavy construction. There is a
road agreement that the developer should be aware of. It is a legal document that has not been
recorded. The developer should also be required to furnish the people that buy those lots with a copy of
that agreement. The agreement states is that as the road wears out they are responsible for their
percentage up through their property line. The people down below are going to have to iive with
problems more than those up the hill. There needs to be a sign that indicates there is construction in
progress indicating the times of the activify to be posted during the development to direct the trucks.
Otherwise they take other roads where they cannot make a turn-around. He suggested that be included
as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Bristol asked stafF to comment on the specimen tree removals be 15-gallon versus 24-inch
box trees.
Greg McCafferty responded that the Commission has consistently required 24-inch box trees and that is
their reasoning for requiring that size of trees. It is up to Commission since Code only requires 15-gallon
trees.
~. Commissioner Arnold asked about the remaining Lot 6 and staff's feelings about what should be its
ultimate treatment. His concern is at this point there is a single large parcel. If they were to impose
limitations on development now, it would only be on roughly five-sixths of the property and not on one-
hundred percent of one parcel. Therefore, the applicanYs statements about inverse condemnation would
not be applicable if the conditions were imposed prior to the subdivision. He asked staff to comment on
what they felt should be done.
Greg McCafferty stated that their primary concern with regard to the remainder portion is that someone
maintain it so that it does not create a maintenance problem or fire hazard. It does have some habitat
value as evidenced by the fact that there is coastal sage scrub wifhin fhat remainder parcel. In order to
meet the goals of the Coastal Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) it might be preferred to
give it a less intense zone. There is a condition that requires a maintenance exhibit or covenant to
address maintenance of the common slope, drainage facilities, the private street, etc.
Commissioner Bristol asked if they are requesting that this property be split prior to building.
Greg McCafferty advised that, because it is going to be its own lot, that it has technically being split.
When tracts are received that could have habitat value for animals other than those being protected by
federal or state law, the question becomes whether they want to step in and redesignate parcels as part
of tract maps which is more of a larger policy decision.
Chairperson Koos thought it might be better not to split Lot 6, but instead keep it part of the responsibility
of Lots 1 through 5 to maintaining it.
Greg McCafferty agreed with Chairperson Koos and stated the fact that the applicant is not developing
Lot 6 indicates that the value of that piece of property in terms of development is low.
~
12-04-00
Page 16
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES
~ Commissioner Arnold stated that in the future when there becomes more pressure to develop land, etc.,
~ he would not like to see the owner of that remnant parcel come to the Commission and indicated either
they be allowed to develop fhe lot or the City purchase it from the owner.
Chairperson Koos felt that they need to address the issue of the decrease in wildlife which is a value to
the environment in Anaheim Hills.
Commissioner Boydstun suggested adding a condition that a sign be posted with very specific directions
for the trucks going in because, if they miss the road, there is no other place they can turnaround.
Commissioner Bostwick added that there are no clear street directional signs in any of the streets in that
area.
Commissioner Bostwick was still concerned because there did not seem be a clear direction to what to do
with Lot 6 and what it is going to mean in the future. He did not want to leave the City open to future
problems. There needs to be someone responsible for the maintenance and clearing the brush and other
fire hazards out there.
Thom Falcon stated that this parcel, although it is referred to as a reminder parcel, is part of this
subdivision and conditions apply to that site as well and maintaining their property is included in those
condition. They will develop a maintenance agreement and will be approved by the City prior to a final
map. Should they not take care of it then the 5 owners of the new homes will have the ability to enforce
lean rights onto Lot 6.
Commissioner Arnold indicated that Mr. Falcon stated before that at that point they would determine that
that parcel is not appropriate for development and because it is a single stand-alone parcel that it
becomes a taking of the property by the City. Commissioner Arnold did not agree with that analogy.
~i Thom Falcon stated that he has been involved in situation like this where the City of Irvine asked that
certain conditions be imposed by essentially building a bridge to try to stop their development and the City
Attorney determined that it was a taking of their property. To ask him to rezone the property to a lesser
density he sees as a taking of property. The Commission must conduct a hearing and allow everyone to
attend including the property owners and revise the General Plan. But to go and take someone's property
and reduce it down is not reasonable. That is an unreasonable condition of approval in his opinion.
There is a statute that restricts what a governmental body is allowed to do for a subdivision.
Commissioner Arnold advised that the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers does it regularly for a smaller
number homes. The courts have held that the developer was able to build an economically viable
development of, for example, 5 homes instead of 6, which is economically viable because Lot 6 is an area
that is environmentally valuable. He does not want the City to get pushed into a position where they have
to allow development onto the lot simply because they are subdividing now and then the Lot 6 will be
dealt with at a later time.
Thom Falcon stated that if they are trying to find a way to restrict development on that lot then the City
should simply purchase it because the owners are willing to sell it, but to put it as a condition of approval
is going to restrict development of the site which is not reasonable.
Commissioner Bristol indicated in his testimony that his logic was that the Lot 6 might be purchased later,
but doubted it due to the coastal sage scrub, etc., but now he is directing the responsibility for the lot. He
is taking the prime property, which makes Lot 6 a remnant piece, which may not be maintained.
•
12-04-00
Page 17
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Thom Falcon explained that the owners wanted to sell the property for a particular price and he
~ concluded that they could not pay that amount of money because that portion is not feasible to build on.
Commissioner Arnold would not want the City to get pushed into a position where they have to allow
development on this lot simply because it is being subdivided, by focusing on 5 lots then dealing with lot 6
later. The timing of conditions is what concerns him.
Thom Falcon indicated if the City restricts development on a lot, then he felt the City should purchase it
since the owners are willing to sell it. Commission will restrict deveiopment on this site if they impose a
condition of approval that is not reasonable.
Commissioner Bristol suggested a continuance of this item and to allow time to evaluate what to do with
Lot 6.
Thom Falcon preferred Commission to take action and proceed to City Council. If the City wants to
protect the property in the back he suggested fhey buy the property.
Commissioner Arnold stated that it does not exist as a separate piece at the moment. For example, if
Commission were to require a 10-foot setback, Mr. Falcon's argument would be that because they are not
allowing development on that 10-foot setback, the City needs to buy that 10-foot setback even though it is
considered in relationship to the parcel as a whole. Currently there is one parcel and if Commission
decides that the applicant can develop five-sixths of that lot, then that is not a taking. The applicant is
able to build on 5 lots of this land and Lot 6 ends up being a mitigation to offset the impact of the
development on the other 5 lots.
Thom Falcon felt that the City is going to end up purchasing the property.
(~ Commissioner Boydstun stated that this should not have anything to do with a City purchasing the
property. It is one parcel and if you are going to build 5 lots on it, you should take the whole parcel and
have maintenance agreement on the balance.
I.
Greg McCafferty advised that Commission has done that on cases like this for slope lots that are not
developable, indicated that it be maintained in common by the other lots. That is an option here to revise
the map to include that as a Lot A(Lot 6) not to be developed but maintained by other 5 properties.
Thom Falcon stated if Commission would like to stipulate that the property will be "undevelopable" then
they will go from there, but he did not believe that it is reasonable and legal.
Commissioner Boydstun explained that has been done in the hills. There are a lot of large slope areas
that are maintained by the associations that they are connected with, and this should be handled the
same way.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Planning Commission has option to continue,
approve or deny. If Commission wishes to approve the subdivision, what is before the Commission at this
point is not the option agreement, but an application for one entire parcel. The Commission is familiar
with nexus constraints to the extent that it is appropriate to impose conditions such as those that have
been considered and suggested by Mr. McCafferty, then that is appropriate. If it the Commission's wish
to deny the subdivision, then it needs to be on the basis of one of the factors that is listed on page 5 of
the staff report. One of those factors is that the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. To the extent
that they can find facts that would justify making that finding, that is a possibility. Commission has
considerable discretion in this matter based upon evidence presented.
Chairperson Koos asked if the owner was present.
12-04-00
Page 18
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. Thom Falcon explained that it is a large trust of people and they are not present. He was not sure if they
have a representative. He would prefer that Commission take action today so the applicant can go on to
City Council and make sure the property owners are there for the Council meeting. (f Council decides
that is what they should do, they can make a determination there as to whether or not they want to give
away the property.
Commissioner Arnold thought Commission should either continue this or impose conditions that are
appropriate to their view of the land use issues.
Crystal Glastetter one of the owners with a small percentage, indicated that she cannot make any
decisions without input from the other owners.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if there was a trustee in charge to make a decision.
Ms. Glastetter replied that there is no one trustee in charge. They decide together.
Thom Falcon stated that this property was an approved tentative map for 7 lots. It has now gone down to
6 lots and they are being asked to go down to 5 lots. Possibly the way to handle this is that there be a
condition on Lot 6, that if it is to be developed that it must return to Planning Commission for their review.
• • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ •
OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke with concerns.
Correspondence was received.
ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
1. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 with the following changes to the
conditions of approval:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
1. That the legal owner of subject property shall provide an irrevocable offer of
dedication for a five (5) foot wide hiking trail easement adjacent to the west and
northwest property lines and a ten (10) foot wide equestrian and hiking trail
easement on the south boundary of the property as approved by the
Community Services Department. The five (5) foot wide easement along the
northwest and west property lines shall be offered immediately adjacent to the
existing dedications on the adjacent subdivisions (Tracts 9217 and 14353).
Final tract map plans shall indicate the trail easement alignments on the plan to
the satisfaction of the Community Services Department.
Added the following conditions of approval:
That Lot 6 shall become Lot A on the Final Tract Map and shall be maintained as
open space. Said Lot A shall be maintained through the CC&R's, Homeowner's
Association Rules and Regulations, and Maintenance Agreement and covenants
established for Lots 1 through 5. (This condition has been imposed based on the
evidence presented at the public hearing regarding the environmental value of Lot
No. 6 and that the topography is such that the lot would not be suitable for future
development.)
(.
12-04-00
Page 19
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. That the developer of the lots shall place temporary traffic control signs at the road
junctions of Quintana Drive and the drive to Canyon Acres Children's Home and,
Quinta Drive and Henning Way to keep construction traffic from using the wrong
streets. Further, that a temporary construction sign shall be posted stating `There is
no turn-around beyond this point".
Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00005 with the following change
to the conditions of approval:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
1. That the twenty-eight (28) specimen trees authorized for removal shall be
replaced on-site by a minimum of seventy (70) trees, fifty six (56) of which shall
be 15-gallon and fourteen (14) of which shall be 24-inch box size, and shall be
properly maintained. Any replacement tree planted on-site shall be replaced in
a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or
dead.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No.
14429 and the 22-day appeal rights for Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00005.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 11 minutes (1:44-2:55)
I.
~.
12-04-00
Page 20
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'.
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11
5b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04404
Continued to
January 17, 2001
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. Property is 9.9
acres located north and east of the northeast corner of
Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue (Canyon
Village Plaza).
Waiver of prohibited signs to construct roof-mounted signs on a new
parapet building wall.
Continued from the Commission meetings of August 28, September 11,
and October 23, 2000.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to January 17, 2001, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried.
'. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in
order to allow the applicant time to review the site with the architect and contractor to
develop building details.
VOTE: 7-0
(.
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
12-04-00
Page 21
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1~
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04282
6d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-00006
Approved
Approved
G ranted
Approved
OWNER: Spieker Properties, L. P., Attn: Mitch Ritschel, 19600
Fairchild Road #285, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 150 North Riverview Drive. Property is 4.3 acres
located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Riverview Drive.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04282 - To permit and construct a 45-
foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment with waiver of
required structural setback adjacent to a freeway.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00006 - To permit the
removal of 16 trees (4 eucalyptus and 12 pepper trees).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-134
SR7776KB.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request to construct a 3-story
office building with waiver of structure setback adjacent to the freeway. Also to remove a total of 16
specimen trees.
~.
Applicant's Statement:
Jim Harper, Speaker Properties, stated he was available to answer any questions or concerns with the
project. Regarding Condition No. 17, traffic signal fees paid, he asked if those would be paid at the
issuance of a building permit.
Greg McCafferty confirmed they would. Staff had one concern with regard to the retaining wall that would
be viewed from the freeway. The applicant did a good job of providing the exhibits to illustrate how that
would look. The only concern is that there was not a front view of the retaining wall to see how that would
look from the freeway. In the end the objective being that it be adequately screened from the freeway
view.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that the proposed building will be closer to the freeway and it would
appear that the visual impact might be the most intense of any of the other development that exist.
Greg McCafferty stated that they are totally supportive of the land use being an office building, the
architecture, etc. is very high quality. The distance from the property line to the building, which is
significantly up slope from the freeway and is in keeping with the setbacks along the freeway is there is
now.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there was another correction that Mr. Yalda might wish
to comment on. On the growth management element analysis it indicates that it has been determined
that the project does not fit within the scope necessary to require an analysis but she thought that was
incorrect.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, verified that it was incorrect.
(.
12-04-00
Page 22
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. Selma Mann added that there is a trigger that is set forth in the growth management element that
indicates that if a trip is going to have 100 or more trips that there will be a traffic analysis conducted.
She asked if it has been done for this.
Alfred Yalda replied it had. A traffic study was required initially and it was completed and was reviewed
by staff. That is the reasoning for those conditions included.
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. 2000-04282 with the following changes to the
conditions of approval:
Modified Condition Nos. 23 and 32 to read as follows:
23. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination
of Variance No. 3882 (waiver of minimum structural setback and required site
screening to construct a 3-story commercial office building) to the Zoning
Division.
32. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year
from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
~. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; 27 and 30, 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.
Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00006.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:18-4:29)
(.
12-04-00
Page 23
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I.
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2000-04284 December 18, 2000
OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas,
14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp,
151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: Portion A: 1611 and 1621 South Claudina Wav.*
Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of
Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline
of Cerritos Avenue.
Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Wav.
Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of
Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of
Katella Avenue.
* 1600 South Anaheim Boulevard address was originally advertised but
has subsequently been deleted.
To establish a multipurpose storage yard for building materials,
recreational vehicle/boat and vehicle storage with accessory modular
office building.
'.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. II SR7848KP.DOC
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to December 18, 2000, seconded by
Commissioner Arnold, vote taken and motion carried.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
in order for the Commission to hear this case and a separate request for a wholesale
automobile auction facility with on-site storage of vehicles at this property on the
same meeting date.
VOTE: 7-0
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
(.
12-04-00
Page 24
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
',
8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04285
OWNER: Adams Steel, Attn: Phil Anthony, 3300 East Frontera
Road, Anaheim, CA 92806
Approved
Denied
Granted, in part, for 5
years
(To expire 12-4-2005)
AGENT: Phil Anthony, 14101 La Pat Place #10, Westminster,
CA 92683
LOCATION: 3400 East Frontera Street. Property is 19 acres
located on the south side of Frontera Road, 1,015 feet
east of the centerline of Newkirk Road.
To permit and expand an outdoor steel and lumber storage yard with an
accessory modular building with waiver of (a) minimum landscaped
setback adjacent to a freeway frontage road, (b) maximum number of
freestanding signs, and (c) minimum distance between freestanding
signs.
/,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-135
SR7775KB.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit and expand an
outdoor steel and lumber storage yard with an accessory modular buildings and all of the waivers have
been deleted subsequent to advertisement.
Applicant's Statement:
Phillip Anthony, 14101 La Patt Place, Westminster, stated that he is representing the applicant, Adams
Steel. Just over two years ago the CUP on this site was approved for the installation of a new steel
storage yard, where new steel could be brought in and distributed to Anaheim and the surrounding area
by truck. They are now requesting to slightly expand the use by enlarging the acreage and also adding
lumber to the new steel as materials that can be stored on the site. Along with this expansion will be the
elimination of the parts yard next door to it. This is the "Pull Your Part" yard where people come and take
parts off of wrecked cars and the cars eventually go to the shredder next door and are completely
recycled.
The parts yard will essentially be broken in half. The eastern half will go with this application and the
western half will go with the existing Adams Steel salvage operation and DB non-ferrous recycling
operation to the west. With that dividing and elimination of the parts sales operation, it essentially
increases the site from 16 acres to 18.87 acres. This application involves enlarging the property and
adding to the new steel storage and the lumber storage. To keep this operation economicalfy efficient
and to be able to negotiate the best deal with the railroads they proposed this new steel where they could
have the cars bring in the new steel, leave it on the site and later truck it away to uses in the area and the
cars would be filled with the recycled steel parts and taken away.
At the morning session, a question came up of how much truck traffic would be generated by the
proposed use. It is actually a very small amount because it is limited by the amount of train cars that
come.
I.
By choosing these uses carefully they are helping to make the whole recycling operation more efficient,
but are essentially eliminafing traffic from that area. They feel that this combination of affects will improve
the operation and will help them get more use out of the rail line to baiance the trains coming in as they
12-04-00
Page 25
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
', take away the steel shreds it will actually provide a service to the community because this brings in
materials that local businesses need to use and have a net affect of eliminating traffic in the area.
Mr. Anthony addressed the following conditions for clarifications:
Condition No. 1- They requested a period of 5 years for the approval period instead of 3 years. Two
years have already gone by. The operation has been trouble-free in all respects. Also negotiating with
the railroads what is the contract period that they like and to get the most favorable arrangement with
them they need a reasonable period of time to let them plan ahead.
Condition No. 16 - The staff report recommends removing the pole sign that is currently there which has
been used for both the parts yard and for the Adams Steel purchasing of cars for recycling. They would
like to keep that pole sign. It is not attached to this application before Commission except in the sense
that one side of the sign was used to advertise the parts yard (which is going away) but the other side has
always been used to advertised the steel recycling operation. He requested that the pole sign be kept
and used only for the steel recycling operation that will remain on the site.
Condition No. 19 - Clarification requested. Their letter of operation indicated that besides those two
materials (steel and lumber) to be stored and later taken away there is another group of material such as
plastic pellets and some edible solids and liquids which are actually taken directly from the train car by a
tube or pipe into a truck and taken away immediately and not be stored. He felt the clarification would be
helpful.
Chairperson Koos asked if his preference would be that Condition No. 19 read, "That only new steel and
lumber materials shall be stored at the property." It currently states "shipped" and should be changed to
"stored".
'. Condition No. 20 - This is the question of how high the material can be stacked. The condition indicates
Condition No. 22 - Indicates that there shall be no more than two forklifts to move the material around off
the train cars onto the ground and into the trucks. Now that they are adding another class of material and
would like to have a maximum of four forklifts.
6 foot then the next sentence states that it cannot be higher than the fence. Along there the fence is 6
feet but it is also on top of a berm (3 or 4 foot berm) which varies depending on the elevation of the
freeway. It may make more practical sense to say that the material cannot be stacked higher than the
fence instead of imposing a 6 foot limit and then stating that it cannot be higher than the fence. It would
be better to use the top of the fence as the criteria instead of both 6 feet and no higher than the top of the
fence. Although they agree with the intent that they will make sure that material is not stacked above the
fence in view of the public right-of-ways.
He discussed the pole sign which he thought was the most controversial issue. The sign was approved in
1989 and it has always advertised the businesses on the premises. The sign is now painted out and the
parts yard is being shut down. The objectionable part of the sign is gone forever. He proposed installing
a sign similar to the one on the other side which has always advertised recycling vehicles and still keep
the sign which would benefit the essential part of the steel recycling business. The shredding operation
and the other recycling with it is unique and there is nothing like it in Orange County. He asked that the
sign be allowed to continue.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, asked the applicant regarding a clarification of the map that
accompanies the staff report. It appears that the side is composed of several small parcels. She asked
him if that was true and if they would be opposed to consolidating these into a more reasonable number
of parcels.
'.
12-04-00
Page 26
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
', Phillip Anthony indicated that those are very old parcels and have never received a request to consolidate
them before, but Mr. Adams confirmed they would have no problem doing that. Those parcels are all
under single ownership at this point.
Chairperson Koos asked if Mr. Bass had any comments on Condition 20. He would be supportive that
the materials not be stored higher than the fence or be seen from the public right-of-way.
Kevin Bass advised that staff's concern is that they are changing elevations along the 91 Freeway. in the
east of west direction. There will be opportunities in one direct of not seeing something, but you will in the
other direction. He suggested the condition be reworded to state, "Not visible to the public."
Phillip Anthony was in agreement.
Commissioner Bostwick suggested that Condition No. 19 indicates that only new steel and lumber
materials shall be stored on this property and leave the rest of the condition as is.
Chairperson Koos stated that he would be supportive of the applicanYs request for a 5-year permit
recognizing that they have done significant improvements to the landscaping and that 5 years has been
recognized by Commission as an interim use on other land uses.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, commented on Condition No. 16 by indicating that if the sign
currently shows an off-site business then it would be considered off-site sign which would not be
permitted out there. He was not aware that the other side of the sign said something about another
business. Secondly it would be more appropriate for the signage that is on there right now to actually be
placed on the building that it refers to relative to any activity that is going on there. Staff strongly feels
that sign should be removed because there is no need for a sign there other than what they have on the
condition which would be very small directional monument sign adjacent to the entrance to make sure
', that the trucks are going in the right gate.
Commissioner Bostwick stated all of the property is under one owner and suggested the signs be painted
and left the way it is.
Phillip Anthony stated that the applicant does request to keep the sign for the reasons he has given.
They wouid be happy to return with wording for staff and Commission to review this as an R&R item.
Commissioner Arnold asked if it is correct that it is not permissible under the Code currently to advertise
activities not occurring on the site.
Greg Hastings confirmed that was correct. That would establish a billboard which is prohibited adjacent
to a freeway as well as in this zone. If the applicant is willing to combine all the parcels out there along
Frontera all the way up to the hotel site then that works. Staff would still recommend that the sign come
down even with the combining of parcels.
Phillip Anthony stated that the sign is contiguous with properties that connect with the directly with the
shredding properties. They will be willing to consolidate the parcel that are part of this project, the others
cannot be totally consolidated because there is another ownership that the DB non-ferrous recycling
operation has a couple of parcels separate. Two acres are under separate ownership. Of the 32 acres
total between the hotel and the main railroad line they can consolidate all but 2 acres.
George Janis stated that the sign itself will be right on the border of the recycling property.
Commissioner Arnold stated that in the past they have recorded a deed of trust issue by having an
unsubordinated recorded agreement to hold parcels and asked if this is a possibility in this case.
'.
12-04-00
Page 27
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF QNAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated that it may be a possibility, but would turn that question over
to Ms. Mann. Commission recently used that on the Sav-on property at Brookhurst and Orange.
Commissioner Arnold stated that the point of that would be then to somehow get around the technicality
that they are currently facing.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that works when they are trying to accomplish something
such as having the property held as one parcel for purposes of maintenance or for circulation, but when
they are discussing it be held as one parcel for purposes of having it meet a Code requirement because it
would otherwise be violative for the Code. That seems to be a different character of requirement. She
did not think that holding it as one parcel satisfies the Code requirement.
Phillip Anthony stated they assumed that it satisfied the Code requirement whether it was in one parcel or
not because it is under common ownership.
Greg Hastings stated that according to Code it refers to on-site versus off-site and does not address
ownership.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he would like to know where the sign rests and preferred to side with
staff on this.
Chairperson Koos asked about the consolidation of parcels and asked how do they handle that in crafting
a condition contingent on an R&R.
Melanie Adams responded that they could do it several way. They could do a contingent on an R&R,
stipulate a maximum number of parcels that they are interested in or they could stipulate the purpose of
the parcels.
'. Greg McCafferty suggested on Condition No. 27 it requires a termination of Conditional Use Permit No.
3031 and asked that it be stricken so that the only termination required would be Conditional Use Permit
No. 4044.
• • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that all of the proposed waivers
were deleted following public notification.
Granted, in part, Conditiona! Use Permit No. 2000-04285 for 5 years (to expire
December 4, 2005) with the following changes to the conditions of approval:
Deleted Condition No. 16.
Modified Condition Nos. 1, 19, 20, 22 and 27 to read as follows:
1. That subject use permit shall expire three (5) years from the date of this
resolution, on December 4, 2005.
19. That only new steel and lumber materials shall be stored at this property. At no
time shall any used, recycled or salvage materials of any type (including, but
not limited to, shredded metal wastes, vehicles and vehicle parts, etc.) be
(, stored on this property.
12-04-00
Page 28
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. 20. That the storage of new steel and lumber materials shall not be visible from the
Riverside Freeway, Frontera Street or other adjacent and nearby properties.
At no time shall the materials be stored at a level equal to or higher than the 6-
foot high slatted chain link fence. Said materials shall be stored on open
pallets, and no cargo or other shipping containers shall be stored on the
premises.
22. That heavy duty forklifts shall be permitted to handle the loading and unloading
operations on-site, and that there shall be no cranes, derricks, etc. used at this
location for the operations of the steel storage yard.
27. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination
of Conditional Use Permit No. 4044 (to permit a steel storage yard with a
temporary modular building with waiver of minimum landscaped setback
adjacent to a freeway) to the Zoning Division.
Added the following condition of approval:
That the parcels on the subject property shall be consolidated with such additional
consolidation as is necessary to have the existing 30-foot high freestanding sign on
the consolidated parcel.
VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Arnold voted no)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
', DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (4:30-5:07)
(.
12-04-00
Page 29
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1.
9a. CE~A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2000-04283
OWNER: Boon Hoo Yee, et al, 1761 South Harbor Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92802
AGENT: Tien H. Chu, 3354 East Colorado Boulevard,
Pasadena, CA 91102
LOCATION: 1761 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 0.17 acre
located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, 215 feet
north of the centerline of Katella Avenue (ABC Market).
To permit the modification of an existing legal nonconforming retail
building with waiver of interior structural setback and yard requirements
from adjacent interior lots.
'.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-136
Concurred with staff
Approved
Granted
SR7840KD1.DOC
Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for a conditional use permit
to permit a modification to an existing legal non-conforming retail building.
Applicant's Statement:
Tien Chu, 3354 East Colorado, Pasadena, stated he is representing the owner and available to answer
any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun thoughi the proposal was an improvement on the property.
• ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare
additional environmental documentation.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement based on the findings listed on page 4 of the
staff report.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04283 subject to the conditions of
approval listed in the staff report.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
DISCUSSION TIME; 2 minutes (5:10-5:12)
(.
12-04-00
Page 30
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1.
10a. CE~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04286
Continued to
January 3, 2001
OWNER: Nader S. & Zahra M. Safaie, 13741 Clinton Street #46,
Garden Grove, CA 92843
LOCATION: 2235 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.18 acre
located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Kathryn Drive (Pizza Town).
To permit on-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and
outdoor seating in a sit-down restaurant in conjunction with an existing
take-out restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOI.UTION NO.
SR7849VN.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit on-premises sales
and consumption of beer and wine and outdoor seating in a sit-down restaurant with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Applicant's Statement:
Nader Safaie, owner subject property, is requesting outdoor seating for his restaurant and explained the
', background of what he did in establishing his business and how helpful it would be for the City. When he
purchased the property he had to clean it up because it was extremely dirty and had homeless people
living outside and a problem with prostitution. He spent a considerable amount of money cleaning up the
site. He received 12 violation letters from Code Enforcement regarding graffiti, dumping of trash on the
side. He indicated neighbors were willing to attend in support of his request and requested a
continuance.
He indicated that he received more than 50 letters of appreciation from the neighbors. This is a business
that is active with the community and generates revenue to the City. Currently his clients do not have
anywhere to eat their food because he does not have any tables.
Chairperson Koos asked if he was requesting a continuance of this item.
Nader Safaie requested a continuance since his traffic consultant, who conducted the parking study, was
not able to be present. He also wanted to invite neighbors in support of his project to attend the public
hearing.
Commissioner Bristol stressed to Mr. Safaie that the main concerns are the seating and the parking
analysis.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to January 3, 2001, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried.
• •- - ~ iiu~e • . e-- - ~iiii •- e •-
OPPOSITION: None
(.
12-04-00
Page 31
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
'. ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as
requested by the applicant at the public hearing in order for the parking consultant to
be present at the meeting and for the applicant to meet with staff to try and resolve
outstanding issues related to staff's recommendation for denial.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (5:13-5:28)
'.
(.
12-04-00
Page 32
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(~
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
11 b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00040
11 c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-218
Approved
Granted, unconditionally
Approved
OWNER: Tri-Star Group Inc., 12741 Bellflower Boulevard #206,
Downey, CA 90242
AGENT: Pablo Villanueva, 12741 Bellflower Boulevard #206,
Downey, CA 90242
LOCATION: 131 South Hardinq Avenue. Property is 0.33 acre
located on the west side of Harding Avenue, 290 feet
north of the centerline of Del Monte. Drive.
Reclassification No. 2000-00040 - To reclassify subject property from
the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RS-5000
(Residential, Single-Family) Zone.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-218 - To establish a 2-lot, single-family
residential subdivision.
~~
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-137
SR7839VN.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reclassification from RS-
7200 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone and a tentative parcel map to establish a 2-lot subdivision.
Applicant's Statement:
Pablo Villanueva, 2373 Camino Rey, Fullerton, stated that he is available to answer any questions on this
project.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if this is a lot split into two residential lots. She felt that this was a good
proposal and appropriate for this property.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
• • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00040, unconditionally.
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-00218 subject to the conditions listed in
the staff report.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Parcel Map No.
2000-00218 and the 22-day appeal rights for Reclassification No. 2000-00040.
(.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (5:30-5:32)
12-04-00
Page 33
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(.
12a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 300 (PREV: CERTIFIED) Approved
12b. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-1 - FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN Approved
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2000-00019
OWNER: Festival Hotel Associates, L. P., 13217 Ridge Drive,
Rockville, MD 20850
AGENT: Tarlos and Associates, Attn: Craig Richie, 17802
Mitchell North, Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION: Property is 4.6 acres located on the southwest corner
of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Festival Drive.
Request review and approval of Final Site Plans to construct a
freestanding restaurant with outdoor dining. SR1079TW.DOC
~.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for review and approval of
final site plan to construct a 7,296 square-foot freestanding restaurant with 689 square-foot outdoor dining
area. Request to permit restaurant with outdoor dining area.
Applicant's Statement:
Craig Richie, architect, stated he is representing the owner. They are in agreement with the staff report
and request that Commission approve their request.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: MOTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR
No. 300 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby approve Final Site Plan Review No. 2000-00019 (to
construct a 7,296 square foot restaurant with 689 square foot outdoor dining area)
based on the consistency of the submitted site, elevation, landscaping and sign plans
with the Festival Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines; and further, that the
proposed freestanding restaurant with outdoor dining will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
1.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:33-5:34)
12-04-00
Page 34
DECEMBER 4, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
,~,~~~~~~~%~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~%~,.~~~,~,~,~,~,.~~~~~~~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~~~,~~~~,~,~~~,,~~~,~~~,~~ ~~~~~~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~%~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~,~,~~
The Planning Commission directed staff to agendize a workshop with a representative from Alcoholic
Beverage Control to get a overview of what their process is and, that research be conducted to determine
if there is a relationship between crime and alcoholic licenses in general.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 P.M. TO
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
Respectfully submitted,
(~
Ossie Edmundson
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on F~ ~~u a.~r ~ ~ 2-. Z- o 01.
1~
12-04-00
Page 35