The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/07/30CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 30, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California ~ ,~ k € 3 , i.. AGENDA POSTING A mp~ef~°:~opy t~fthe Plann • ~: Friday, July 27, 2001 ~~~nside ~he di~p1~~~~se fi~~~a~ outside dis la kiosk ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ' ~ P Y ~= E ~E. PUBLISHED: Anahei ~;~Bulleti~ ~tew~p~per ~rJ~ TF ~.. .:. d ~; 1 CALL TO ORDER '~~ * ~~~' `~~~ ` ~ ~~.W~ ~tN ~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TO,I ~~ COMMISSIONERS ABSENT u s°f~Al ~ . ~ °` STAFF PRESENT: ~~ Selma Mann, Assistant G~ Attc~rney Mary McCloskey, Depu#jr'Pla~nir'ig Qi Greg Hastings, Zoning~l~ivision ~ila[~a , ~ E ;:" Greg McCafferty, Princl{~,~°~I~€EPIarlner Sgt. Randy West, Po1iCe,De~~r~me~f= Brad Hobson, Deput~ ~~ c ~a'irectar,,~ :RBILT 51~~!?1~, STEPHEN BRISTOL, ~ ~ ~.~ .~~' ~~ Alfred Yafda, Fir Peter Gambino, Don Yourstone, Qssie Edmunds Elly Ferr~rldes;' Planner nent Officer 11:00 A.M. on and also in the • ~ ~ .~ ~~:: ~~: PLANNING COMM~°SSI~(~ t7~'I~TI~~S~~SI~?N F'~~1 ~fl~A.M. ^ STAFF UPDATE TO~C~Q~ISSItJ~I S?F ~I~RIOII~(>#TY DEVELOPMENTS AND IS~UEa~(7~"~"~R~Q;1IES~T'ED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEG(ANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------p -----g------------~ ------------------------~ H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTES\AC073001.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 07-30-01 Page 1 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Presentation of a plaque to Robert (Bob) Napoles in acknowledgement of his 4 years of service on the Planning Commission. Former Commissioner Robert Napoles along with his wife were present to accept a recognition plaque for his service on the Planning Commission. Oath of Affirmation of Allegiance: New Planning Commissioner - Gail Eastman Cynthia Daniel-Garcia of the City Clerk's Office officially conducted the swearing in of new Planning Commissioner Gail Eastman. Mr. Art Castillo, a 28-year activist in the community, informed the Commission that he represents issues that pertain to small business people of Latino origin. In this case, Mr. Castillo was present because De La Torre Landscaping passed the Commissions' and the City Council's requirements to operate for the land use. He stated that after the 4`h visit by Code Enforcement, the property was disapproved by some of the actions needing to have certain codes and ordinances. Therefore, he asked, since both the City Council and the Planning Commission passed it, at this point, what procedures are necessary? Chairperson Vanderbilt informed Mr. Castillo that he was not familiar with the particular property in • question, but directed him to ask staff individually fior an in depth insight of the status on the property is as far as any particular Conditionai Use Permit process is involved, and perhaps, which steps are ahead incase of being supportive of or opposition of activities pertaining to that address. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. One person spoke regarding a past action taken by the Planning Commission. He also informed staff that he filled out a speaker card, and after doing so he spoke with John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. Therefore, he will continue to follow-up on his concerns with John Poole. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-H on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol abstained from Item 1-A; Commissioner Eastman abstained from Item 1-H; and Commissioner Bostwick was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-B, 1-F, 1-G and 1-H) as recommended by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR WAS UNANIMUUSLY APPROVED. • 07-30-01 Page 2 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Consent Calendar Items (1-C, 1-D and 1-E) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3115 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- Approved two (2), one-year 04391) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Extensions of time Mark Rossington, 222 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, (one retroactive) to expire on requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of May 22-2003 approval (approved May 22, 2000 to expire on May 22, 2001) for a previously approved 14, 475 Square foot classroom building and a 576 (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner square foot maintenance building in conjunction with an existing Bristol abstained and church and accessory private school (preschool and elementary) with Commissioner Bosfinrick was waiver of parking spaces. Property is located at 222 North Eas# Street. absent) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning • Commission does hereby approve the request for two (2), one-year extensions of time (one retroactive) to expire on May 22, 2003, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation for this property. (ii) That this request for an extension of time will not extend the approval beyond 2 extensions of time, with each extension not to exceed one year as specified in Resolution No. PC2000-67 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3115 (Tracking No. CUP2000-04212). (iii) That no Code amendments have occurred that would cause the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. (iv) That the property has been maintained in a safe, clean, and aesthetically pleasing condition with no outstanding Code violations or complaints affecting the property. (v) That there is no additional information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3115 (Tracking No. CUP2000-04212). SR8031VN.DOC r ~ L J 07-30-01 Page 3 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 874, 2293 AND 3182 AND b) VARIANCE NOS. 635, 1938,1964 AND 2281 (TRACKING NOS. CUP 2001-04405 AND VAR 2001-04448) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Great American Land Company, Attn: Jim Edmondson, 1380 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 874, 2293 and 3182 and Variance Nos. 635, 1938, 1964 and 2281. Property is Iocated at 1400-1414 South Harbor Boulevard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-97 VARIANCE TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-107 • r ~ L_J Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR8024ASK.DOC 07-30-01 Page 4 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • . • C. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00004: County of Orange, Probation Department, 909 North Main Street, Suite 1, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of 7,000 square feet of office space to the Orange County Probation Office. Property is located at 150 West Cerritos Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bristol and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County of Orange Probation DepartmenYs proposal to enter into a 3-year lease for office space located at 150 West Cerritos Avenue for an Independent Living Program is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Introduction by Staff: Determined to be in conformance (Vote: 4-2, Commissioners Bristol and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR8040JW.DOC Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the County of Orange Probation Department has requested that the City determine whether its proposal to enter into a 3-year lease for 7,000 square feet of office space at 150 West Cerritos Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. She stated that the property is owned commercial limited and is within the South Anaheim Blvd Corridor Overlay, and is also designated General Commercial on the General Plan and Regional Commercial in the South Central Redevelopment plan. Ms. McCloskey noted that the Paul Revere Elementary School is also located at approximately 750 feet North of the project site, and approximately 3,000 square feet of the corridor area would be utilized as administrative offices for Probation DepartmenYs staff who do not serve clients. Ms. McCloskey informed that the staff would be transferred from the probation departmenYs headquarters located in the City of Santa Ana. The remaining 3,500 square feet of office space would be utilized by the Probation Department's Independent Living Program, which is a voluntary program. This program would provide career counseling to juvenile probationers between the ages of 16%2 to approximately 18. The program would accommodate up to 20 full time Phase 1 participants that will be picked up at their residents and transported to the site by two Probation Department vans. The staff would also monitor another 40 youths who are Phase 2 participants who have progressed beyond the initial first phase of the program, and or either employed interns or enrolled in vocational or other career development classes. As mentioned earlier, the site is located in the Commercial Industrial South Central Redevelopment Project Area, which was adopted by the City in 1993. The intent of the Redevelopment plan is to eliminate blighting conditions and improve the South Anaheim Blvd., area. However, the Redevelopment Staff has indicated that the use would not alleviate any of the blighting conditions present in the project area, and that the long term leasing of this and other facilities by the County in this complex may, in-fact, hinder the effective reuse of this site in the future. Ms. McCloskey quoted an excerpt from the Redevelopment plan as such: "Any interim use of land within any redevelopment project area shall comply with the land use limitation set forth and said applicable plan until such time as set plan expires or is amended to conform to the otherwise applicable land use limitations set forth in the Anaheim general plan." Therefore, Ms. McCloskey stated that inasmuch as the project is not in conformance with the Redevelopment plan, and/or falls within the redevelopment element. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission by motion, determine that the County's proposal to lease office space at 150 West Cerritos Avenue, for iYs Independent Living Program is not in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. 07-30-01 Page 5 JULY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ApplicanYs Statement: Thomas Wright, the Chief Deputy Probation Officer of Orange County, pointed out that they have leased space at this location for several years, and have a very good reputation with the neighbors in that community and the landowner. Mr. Wright suggests that the Independent Living Program will bring twelve to twenty older minors to that location during the weekdays to learn independent living skills. The remainder of the property would be used for staff without the ability to see clients. Linda Barry, the property agent, stated that the proposed property occupies approximately 20,000 square feet at the Anaheim Business Center. It currently operates two Youth and Family Resource Centers; one for youth between the ages of 12 to 15 years, and one for youths between 1 the ages of 6 and 18 years. Each of these sites can accommodate up to 60 youths. The County has the first right of refusal in the event of available space. Therefore, Ms. Barry presented her proposal to lease the Dale Macintosh Center located next door to the current property in use. Ms. Barry stated that though the Dale Macintosh property is approximately 7,000 square feet, her clients would use half for staff offices that do not see visitors, and the other half for their Independent Living Program. Ms. Barry addressed several of the issues that were brought up in the staff report, including proximity to the Revere Elementary School, parking, blight, and the land use designation and zoning. With regard to proximity to Revere Elementary, the first Youth and Family Resource Centers was opened in 1996 next door to the property at 1401 South Anaheim Blvd., which is now known as the Anaheim Opportunity School. Ms. Barry stated that Staff informed them that a good working relationship with the school and the Independent Living Program has been established. The Independent Living Youths will be bused to and from the school site, and due to this great rapport, she does not anticipate having any impact on Revere Elementary. With regard to parking: there are twenty-eight parking spaces provided in the lease. ~ Twenty-five will be used for staff and van parking, leaving 3 visitor spaces. Ms. Barry feels this is more than enough to accommodate anticipated visitors. With regard to blight: Ms. Barry pointed out that the staff report states that the use of this property will do nothing to alleviate blight, but upon the initial leasing of this space, there was a very high vacancy rate in addition to already existing blighting conditions. She feels that their occupancy has helped to reduce those blighting conditions. Ms. Barry noted that the land use designation in the general plan provides for the property to be designated General Commercial, however, the Redevelopment plan put into effect in 1993, designated the property as Commercial Professional. And, it was under this designation that the Planning Commission approved the Youth and Family Resource Centers, finding it to be in conformance with the General Plan. Ms. Barry informed that the overlay plan, which still exist today provides for Commercial Limited zoning, and is therefore assured their youth program is in conformance with the General Plan. Shawn Small, an Independent Living staff member, reported to the Commission the 8% studies in the resulting Youth and Family Resource Centers throughout Orange County; some of which are right here in Anaheim. He reported that successes with this program are becoming evident, and additional needs have been identified. One is the increasing amount of space and services, and the other is the need of a whole system approach; starting with probation services and transitioning to humanity involvement and linkages. Mr. Small stated that the department finances are consistent with both those of the Juvenile Justice Commission and the Orange County Grand Jury. The Independent Living Staff indicates that the local juvenile justice system needs more programs that emphasize emancipation opportunities and a continual support and linkage system beyond the determination of probation. Mr. Small pointed out that in August 1998, the enactment of Bill 2261 made 54 million dollars available for juvenile justice systems to improve the continual care and the services to reduce recidivism. As such, probation applied for and was given a grant by the Board of Corrections. The grant was funded for the purposes of developing a pilot program, and to demonstrate to the Board of Corrections and a juvenile justice community, that providing intensive services and partnering up with the community to increase community linkage and services, can increase • public safety, reduce recidivism, and increase productive community participation. However, because of the grant, the department has specific obligations, including the justification of spending, as well as showing quantifiable outcomes. Mr. Small suggests that The Independent Living Program is simply the 07-30-01 Page 6 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • next natural step in addressing the needs identified, in conjunction with successful Youth and Family Resource Centers, as well as those financed by the Juvenile Justice Commission, and the Orange County Grand Jury. Additionally, it prepares the community to receive their own back into the community. The goal of this program is emancipation of minors by the development of independent living and life skills. This program offers vocational training and career oriented placement, increasing exposure to existing community services and developing community linkages that continue to provide support to the youths after minors are off probation. It is divided into three major components consisting of education, vocational training and career placement, and lastly, community mentoring and support services. The targeted population is the older youths between 16.5 to 18 years old, who have shown some level of success and a desire to take advantage of beneficial programs while on probation. As previously stated, this is a voluntary program, therefore, in an attempt to better utilize community resources, they have partnered up with two established community service providers; Aspen House Services, who will be assisting by providing advance vocational and educational training, job placement and career oriented paths, and the Youth Mentoring Connection, which will contact local businesses and corporations that will provide job shadowing and career opportunities to provide a sense of belonging. In many cases this may be the first time that these type of minors have had a sustaining role model which exemplifies positive worth ethics and shows positive outcomes. The ultimate goal of The Independent Living Program is that youths will be better prepared to leave the structured life probation, have established connections within their own community, and that the community they reside in will step in and provide any additional support services that the youths require. Mr. Steve Muller, owner of the Anaheim Business Center, stated that he acquired the business center in May of 2000, and have come to understand the County's use at the facility and is therefore in support of their expansion at the site. Mr. Muller stated that since he has owned the project, he has spent more than a million dollars rehabilitating the property, and feels he has done a lot to help the blighted nature of the • area. In addition, he has also developed the all style apparel building on the opposite side of the street, but have not been able to attract any retail users to this project. Some of the advantages are public transportation to the area, parking (4 per thousand) and park recreation. In summary, on a shorter-term tenure, and given the economic conditions, it is important to have tenants. Mr. Muller assures that he has enjoyed a long-term relationship with the County and have had no complaints, from existing tenants. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Wright what his current use is with his space in the Business Park. Mr. Wright responded by saying that the use right now is a day reporting center; one of 6 youth and family resource centers throughout the County. Better known as a program for delinquent youth that are at risk and brought onto the site. The delinquent wards of the court and their families are entered into a holistic type of treatment program Monday through Friday. The youths have already been arrested and are on probation as would be those that are being proposed to continue the lease in the Independent Living Program. The difference being Independent Living Wards are older; 16%2 to 18 year olds. The Youth and Family Resource Centers Wards are younger delinquents. Mary McCloskey stated that the information received from the County indicates that they would be seeing about 40 Phase 2 youths who would be coming to this site by their own means of transport, which was not mentioned by any of the County staff, relative to whether or not Phase 2 youths would also be seen. Phase 1 youths would be brought in by van. Mr. Wright responded by saying that the Phase 2 youths would be reporting to the leased property periodically. But, they will also be involved in full-time vocational training or mentoring programs off site, in the community. Nevertheless, all are still on probation or will be and will remain with the program, Independent Living, for a total of 6 months. Phase 1, is on site every day for the first 45 days, and Phase 2 will already have jobs or entered training programs and will report back to their counselors for continuing • social living skills. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked how many residents would be from Anaheim. 07-30-01 Page 7 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Wright answered that the program has purposely targeted the central part of the County; bringing minors into this site from Orange, Garden Grove, and Anaheim. Commissioner Boydstun asked, of the 40 in Phase 2, how many wouid be there per week or per day, if they come in intermittently? Mr. Wright responded by saying that intermittently is defined in The Independent Living Program as, probably 2 hours a day, to meet with counselors or their mentors. So, he estimated that on any given day there would probably be a maximum of 5 doing a given hour. The youths would come in daily and would be working at different times, and at different locations. Mary McCloskey commented that staff did look at the parking in this facility and as the owner indicated they are 4 per thousand, the uses that are proposed operates precisely the way that is indicated with no overlap of people coming and going. She agrees that they would meet code as far as parking and therefore, staff does not have any ability to condition this project inasmuch as an approval is not being determined immediately, but staff is ruling on making a finding relative to the general plan conformity request. Brad Hobson, Deputy Director for Community Development, confirmed that improvements were apparent when the Muller Company purchased the site and performed renovations. However, Staff had extensive discussions with them with regard to the long-term liability of that use and more regional commercial uses. Its current condition, in Staff's opinion, is an interim use. The Overlay Zone does designate this site as Regional Commercial; that is Staff's preferred use and the objective of the Redevelopment plan for this particular project area; to see the area develop overtime with Regional Commercial uses, big box • retailers, hotels, and restaurants. A concentration of the proposed type uses that are providing services, and are adjacent to a residential area, which is adjacent to an elementary school, inhibits the enhancement of the area. Therefore, he requests that Commission not find this proposal in conformance with the Redevelopment plan. Commissioner Arnold recalled that it was not long ago that Commission dealt with similar property, the indoor swap meet property, and the Commission approved a 10 year extension of the CUP on that property as an interim use even though it is not consistent with the long-term goals. Mr. Wright stated that the minors who are going to be coming into the site, will not be there without supervision. The Independent Living staff and all of their peace officers will be onsite the entire time. Commissioner Koos asked for an elaboration on any direct contact with the school district. Monica Gallagher was one of the probation staff that opened the original 8% Youth and Family Resource Centers and in doing so, met continuously with the Anaheim School District. The program currently uses the Department of Education to service their minors and also work in tandem with the Anaheim School District for transitioning kids back into their regular schools. Ms. Gallagher personally met with the principal of Revere Elementary and developed a great working relationship. She states that for the 3 years of her assignment in that area there was absolutely no incident involving their minors. Ms. Gallagher explained the difference between high risk and probation kids as proactive versus reactive. Therefore, servicing high-risk minors, which are youth that live in any given community and come from profile characteristics in terms of family problems, early drug and alcohol, and runaways. Youth and Family Resource services are provided before they get really deeply involved in the system and results have been very promising. • Mary McCloskey contended that Ms. Gallagher implied they had met with the school district for Youth and Family Resource Center, which is servicing younger, probably elementary school age children. But, the 07-30-01 Page 8 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • clientele that would be serviced through Independent Living is 16%2 to 18 year olds which are more of the high school age children. Commissioner Koos asked if Ms. McCioskey was impiying that the Revere Elementary School District did not know about the Independent Living Program proposal. Mr. Thomas Wright confirmed that the Revere Elementary School District is aware of the full context of the Independent Living Program. Mary McCloskey conceded that staff had, indeed, contacted the school districYs operational section to let them know that this general plan conformity request was going to be considered. Commissioner Arnold commended Staff on their attempt to really being attentive to what is happening on South Anaheim 8oulevard. Nevertheless he stated that he has a hard time reaching the required findings on this particular proposal, that it is not in conformance with the General Plan. They are coming in with a three year lease. Commission does not have any immediate Redevelopment plans, even though there is some difference in terms of the age of the people being served, it is essentially an extension of an existing use, there is no school district opposition, and Commission approved the indoor swap meet across the street with the idea that it is an interim use. Although with the indoor swap meet, the City was able to impose conditions in a way that would meet the sort of conditions expected of a private entity. However, the fndependent Living Program, at this point, with respect to conformance with the general plan, appears to be in conformance with how the General Plan is currently being implemented as a merely interim use. Mary McCloskey, along with Staff, recalled that they had also recommended denial of the action on the swap meet across the street, as well. However, she agrees that in the redevelopment element of the ~ general plan, it actually does state that any interim use of land within any redevelopment project area, shall comply with the land use limitation set forth in set applicable plan until such time a set plan expires or is amended to otherwise conform with the limitations set forth in the Anaheim General Plan. Commissioner Koos agreed with Commissioner Arnold. He thinks that Commission is finding a gray area in the South Anaheim Boulevard plan; with the Overlay Zone. He suggests that Commission go for zone changes rather than Overlay Zones. If Commission stands firmly behind these findings, and say "this is the direction we are going", then it creates a dilemma in regulating the underline zone as one thing, but then questioning determination on another. Commissioner Koos feels that it really does not benefit anyone. And, he recalled that it was this same type dilemma Commission faced with the indoor swap meet, which prompted them to determine the interim use. Commissioner Koos feels, had this been rezoned, then certainly Commission would be looking into a whole new process. But, under the current constraints and current findings, he feels Commissioner Arnold is correct. Chairperson Vanderbilt also agreed with both Commissioner Arnold and Commissioner Koos, insomuch as he is familiar with the area and the property, which is adjacent to a freeway. He feels by virtue of its location, it would draw a rea! interest in retail use or some other big box use. Commissioner Bristol asked that if Commission agreed that the proposal is conforming to General Plans, would the Independent Living Program have to resubmit their proposal once their three-year lease is expired. Mary McCloskey informed that if Independent Living Program wanted to re-enter into the lease. In 3 years they would need to come back to the City and seek the General Plan Conformity request, and the county also has a right to enter into the lease. Currently all the Youth Family Resource Center has to do right now is notify the City that they intend to do that, and then they are suppose to take into consideration . whether or not Staff approves. The law requires Staff to notify them whether or not it, in fact, does conform to the general plan. At this point, Staff finds that it does not actually conform to the General Plan inasmuch as it does not conform to the Redevelopment plan, which is part of the Redevelopment element, 07-30-01 Page 9 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ which is part of the Anaheim General Plan. However, Staff recognizes that the County has the ability to lease this property irrespective of that finding. Commissioner Bristol also agrees with fellow Commissioners. And, as he stated, he argued along with the indoor swap meet, believing that within the ten years capital pre-enterprise would overrule and take it over. However, he feels that this is a really different use; being next to the school, the alcohol that is available there, and bringing in young adults that committed crimes as opposed to young delinquent children. Commissioner Bristol stated that he has seen it all over the community. The impact comes in, and it comes in more and more, as evident with the two examples at hand. He asked, when it is going to stop and does it coincide with the plan thaf the City has right now. He feels that a decision can be made either way on this issue. However, he does not feel that this fits the use right now. He strongly feels that if the youth program is now changing the age, that it is just a matter of time that there will be a change to the amount of young adults permitted. In conclusion, he asks the Commission to consider whether or not they wanted to allow this type program next to an elementary school. Mary McCloskey stated that staff has met proactively with the County on a number of these type facilities to develop criteria where they may look in the City to find locations that would be acceptable to the General Plan. As part of this criteria, a decision was agreed upon to not locate in close proximity to schools and residential uses. ~ • 07-30-01 Page 10 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00005: County of Orange, Health Care Agency, 515 North Sycamore Street, Suite 618, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of 10,000 square feet of office space to the Orange County Health Care Agency. Property is located at 300 West Cerritos Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County of Orange Health Care Agency's proposal to enter into a 10-year lease for office space located at 300 W. Cerritos Avenue for a proposed alcohol and drug abuse counseling facility is not in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Introduction by Staff: Determined not to be in conformance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR8041 JW.DOC Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the County of Orange Health Care Agency has requested that the City determine whether its proposal to enter into a ten-year lease for 10,000 square feet of office space at 300 West Cerritos is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. She affirms that the property is zoned Commercial Limited and it is within the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor • Overlay which designates this side as Regional Commercial and is also designated General Commercial in the General Plan. The Paul Revere Elementary School is located approximately 750 feet north of the project site. The County Health Care Agency proposes to lease the 10,000 square feet for a proposed alcohol and drug abuse counseling facility. Approximately 60% of the clients using the proposed facility would be court mandated while the remaining clients would come from referrals or walk-ins. Office hours would be from 8:00 a,m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., on Fridays. The proposed facility would be providing counseling services for alcohol and drug abuse. No drug rehabilitation or medical services would be provided at this site. The facility would house 25 staff members, and would counsel approximately 25 clients on a typical day. This number would increase up to 50 clients on days when group counseling is conducted. The average session time would be 50 minutes. The group counseling would occur during the evening hours generally or typically from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and could serve as many as 25 clients. But, the County staff has indicated, however, that there may be occasions when group counseling occurs during the daytime hours. This site is located in the Commercial Industrial South Central Redevelopment Project Area which was adopted in 1993. The intent of the Redevelopment plan was to alleviate blighting conditions and improve the South Anaheim Boulevard area. The general plan, also, is part of the redevelopment plan, and is governed by the redevelopment element. Ms. McCloskey quoted an excerpt from that element: "Any interim use of land within any redevelopment project area shall comply with the land use limitations set forth and set applicable plan until such time as set plan expires or is amended to conform to the otherwise applicable land use limitation set forth in the Anaheim General Plan". Redevelopment Staff has determined that the proposed use would not alleviate any of the blighting conditions present in the project area, and that the long-term leasing of this (this is a 10 year lease), and the other facilities by the County in this complex may hinder the effective reuse of this site. Ms. McCloskey suggests, that the Redevelopment plan, the project proposed, and the subject of the Genera( Plan Conformity request does not conform with the • Redevelopment plan nor is it consistent with the Redevelopment element. Therefore, Staff is 07-30-01 Page 11 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • recommending Commission find that this proposed ten-year lease does not conform to the Anaheim General Plan. ApplicanYs Statement: Dr. John Van Sky, the program manager for the County operated substance abuse program, offered a presentation on the proposed use for the substance abuse program, who the program is, who it serves, what it does, how it works, and why the program does what it does. He explained that the 25 staff are either licensed counselors or either working on getting their licenses. The program includes a support staff, a part time medical doctor on site, a part time psychiatrist and a total of about 20 to 25 staff members. Of the 20 staff members, approximately half are off site at any given time, either in schools or community resource centers serving the surrounding areas. Affirming that at any one time, there is usually about half the staff there. The program serves substance, pregnant and parenting women and their small children. In addition, the program serves local youth, adults, and the general public. The general public might be a grandmother, a grandfather, an aunt and uncle who simply want some information and comes in seeking some help for their loved one. The program meets with individuals in small groups, usually under 12 individuals by appointment, to discuss alternatives, options, and resources as alternatives to substance involvement. Professional consultation is provided, as Orange County is, perhaps, the most professional substance abuse treatment program in the state of California. There is not an ongoing medical treatment, and the offices, serve as a home base for about half the staff. They are simply used for purposes of returning phone calls, using the computer, correspondence, etc. The consultations are provided to individuals and families by appointment. The hours are typically 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and Fridays, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The mothers are coached and taught parenting skills. The waiting room is limited to approximately 4 or 5 clients at a time. The program is federally and state funded to provide these type services, and the clients are members of any typical . community. Every year for the past two years approximately 600 Anaheim residents are treated; 28% of who are typically youth for substance involvement. These 600 Anaheim residents are now going to the Santa Ana site, Fullerton site, and Westminster Site, because there currently is not an Anaheim site; they are driving distances that for pregnant and parenting women are not really supportive of what they are trying to do with their lives. Dr. Van Sky described blight in the City's areas as having two faces. One is the physical environment and the other is the quality of life of the people who live in that environment. He feels that the people his program serves are doing something positive with their lives. They are trying to turn their lives around and become better contributing citizens. He affirms, blight has a human face; they are not people coming in from outside the area. Six hundred of these people every year are served at the program's other facilities. Establishing a facility in Anaheim would make service more convenient for Anaheim residents. Thurman Hodges, the real estate manager for the County of Orange Health Care Agency, rendered the historical rapport between the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim Planning Department. He stated that since 1999, they have unsuccessfully combined efforts to relocate their behavior health care facility within the City. He feels that the approval of the proposed site would end a 2'/2 year search. By way of computer technology, Mr. Hodges illustrated an existing facility in Westminster, where many of the current clients, and residents of the City of Anaheim go for their treatment. His intention was to demonstrate the basic office use of the facility. The demonsfration included a typical office building, a reception area, clerical support with files record storage, waiting area, etc. The offices are generally 110 square feet for the professional staff; allowing the staff to meet with individuals and, possibly with, family members in private consultation. As the clients are seen by appointments, many times the professional staff is basically working on paperwork, and are there without clients. Approximately 25 clients per day are seen on scheduled appointments of 50 minutes each. Conference raoms and group meetings are provided for the staff to get together and talk about cases. They measure about 150 square feet for conference rooms, and the group rooms are usually set up so that they can be divided for smaller groups. • Generally the groups run about 12, excluding graduation ceremonies where there may be as many as 20 or more. Mr. Hodges strongly feels that staff is important, so a staff lounge is also provided. The prenatal or reception area is a separate component, bearing a similar design as one might see in any professional 07-30-01 Page 12 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ office building. The child development area is used to coach parenting skills. These skills allow the parents to interact with their children and gives them positive reinforcement and coaching techniques to help the child devefop interaction with the adults. Usually there are only 2 or 3 children in parenting sessions at a time. Additionally, fhere is a child development observation room where a staff member will observe a parent interacting with their child. There is a prenatal counselor's office, which is typically 110 square feet, and a group room. For this program it will be about 200 square feet. Mr. Hodges noted that the prenatal group just completed a graduation, and these graduations are usually recognized by board members and City Counselor members. The subject property consists of a 2-story office building and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, within a business park, at 300 West Cerritos Avenue. It is part of the Anaheim Business Campus which consist of 8 buildings, totaling over a 163,000 square feet located, on 11.7 acres of land. There are four professional office buildings, totaling over 86,000 square feet, and four industrial office buildings, totaling over 76,000 square feet. The property is bordered on the west by the Santa Ana freeway, on the south by a vacant Caltrans property, on the north by a mobile home park, as well as a vacant property at the intersection of Cerritos and Anaheim Boulevard, and on the east by Anaheim Boulevard. The County is proposing to locate in Building No. 7, which is basically adjacent to the Santa Ana freeway. It is at the back end of the complex. The proposed lease consist of approximately 10,000 square feet, and is to be located on the second floor of the east and north wing of the building. The use includes approximately 40 parking spaces, which is adequate for the use of the subject business. The property is located in the center of an area designated as general commercial on the Anaheim General Plan. The surrounding land uses include general industrial, and business office mixed use industrial. The property is zoned commercial limited, and the Caltrans property located to the south is zoned light industrial. The property east of the subject property is zoned light industrial and includes an all style apparel and a manufacturing company. It is leased in an industrial office building complex. All Style Apparel Co. occupies an industrial building, consisting of over 500,000 square feet, and is a large manufacturer of tee-shirts and other apparel. Lease All of Anaheim is a Business Park ~ development, consisting of eleven buildings totaling over 195,000 square feet. The property located northeast of the subject property includes a restaurant and an indoor swap meet. That property is zoned commercial limited. The property located north of the subject property is the mobile home park. A vacant property is also located north of the subject property at the intersection of Cerritos and Anaheim Boulevard. The County Staff believes that the proposed facility is compatible with the surrounding properties. Therefore, County of Orange requests that Commission find that the proposed lease of office space conforms to the General Plan of the City of Anaheim. Mary McCloskey stated that her recommendation would still be the same. Due to the General Plan Conformity findings, and its relationship with the Redevelopment element, and the wording within the Redevelopmenf element of the General Plan, Staff confirms that this proposal is not in conformance. Commissioner Arnold asked what the differences between the two leases would be. Tom Hodges answered that this is a new facility; an investment by the owner. So, in order for the owner to be able to recapture his investment over the term of the lease, the term has to be substantial. Brad Hobson, Community Development, reiterated that the lease is more than an office use. It is a long- term lease with a proposal for 10 years, and the immediate mid-term plans are for the Regional Commercial land use in the entire area. Again, it is adjacent to residential development, and the agency is pursuing properties adjacent to that for new residential. The City's future plan is to own the vacant corner at Cerritos or near Cerritos and Anaheim Boulevard for leasing purposes. Therefore, since the City consistency between the redevelopment plan, and the general plan, the subject proposal would be inconsistent with the Redevelopment plan, and recommends that the Planning Commission find it inconsistent with the General Plan. Mr. Hobson informed that Staff has met with John and Thurman before to talk about this particular use and consolidating with other county uses. He adds that • unfortunately, this proposed lease request is not in any of the areas that were discussed, and it is not adjacent to residential, not on a major arterial, and it is generally industrial. 07-30-01 Page 13 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold holds a different viewpoint on this one, because it is a 10-year lease as opposed to a 3-year lease. He feels that 10 years is a vastly different situation. One, it is a great use, and it will serve citizens of the area. But, given what the City's overlay is with the plan for a more long term situation, the lease would not appear again until well into the time in which this plan is probably going to be implemented. Commissioner Boydstun suggests that 10 years is too long; it is not an interim use. She thinks that three years is acceptable and 10 years is stretching it somewhat. ~ • 07-30-01 Page 14 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ E. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00006: County of Orange, Sheriff-Coroner Department, 320 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of 1.9 acres of vacant land (Southern California Edison Easement) to develop a parking lot. Property is located at 1510 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner DepartmenYs proposal to enter into a license agreement for property located at 1510 South State College Boulevard for the purpose of developing a parking lot for their employees who work at an adjacent warehouse commissary operated by the County Sheriff-Coroner Department is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. ~ ~ Determined to be in conformance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR8042JW.DOC 07-30-01 Page 15 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . F. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3860 - REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Condition No. 2 contained in Resolution No. PC2001-80 adopted in connection with CUP No. 3860 (Tracking No. 2001-04375). Property is located at 5620 East La Palma Avenue. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-98 ~ • Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR80450E.DOC 07-30-01 Page 16 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~ ~J G. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. - APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3935 (Tracking No. 2001-04429) - Approved the final sign REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: Bob Patel, 24351 Plans ReDeGauguin, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, requests review and approval of final sign plans (for a previously approved restaurant and (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner banquet facility). Property is located at 1125 North Magnolia Avenue. Bostwick was absent) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final sign plans subject to the modifications described in paragraph No. 10 of the staff report dated July 30, 2001, as follows: • That the proposed sign on the south wall be designed with brass (or other similar material) individual channel letters, with external illumination only, from the ground or roof (only if roof lighting can be achieved without running visible conduit along the building elevation). • That no sign be permitted on the east elevation, since adequate identification is provided along this frontage by the existing previously approved pole sign for all southbound traffic. SR1009CW.DOC Following the action: After approval of Item No. 1-G Deen Bakshi came forward to speak. Mr. Deen Bakshi protested that this is the fourth time and he has had to wait long intervals in between. He explains that what is needed are the colors on the building to be the same as the colors on the pole sign. Chairperson Vanderbift thanked Mr. Bakshi for his explanation, and apologized that he had to face a similar situation four times. However, since he surveyed his fellow Commissioners and no one expressed interest in pulling the item up to revote, he directed Mr. Bakshi to write a letter or contact Council and perhaps they could address the matter. . 07-30-01 Page 17 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ H. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of July 2, 2001. (Motion) (Continued from the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting). Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Pfanning Commission Meeting of July 16, 2001. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent and Commissioner Eastman abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meetings of July 2 and July 16, 2001. ~~ ~_I • Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Eastman abstained and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) 07-30-01 Page 18 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CJ r • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Continued to 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 13, 2001 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00395 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00054 2d. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04443 2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 16254 AND 16255 2f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2001-00001 2g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, AND 2f OWNER: Hazel I. Maag Revocable Trust, Attn: Lioyd Copenbarger, 4675 Mac Arthur Court #700, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Melvin and Marriam Schantz, Jolm & Jo Schantz and Robert and Alice Pernell, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana Point, CA 92629 AGENT: JL Hare Associates, Attn: Holly Sandler, 505 N. Tustin, Suite 212, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 5801 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 24.5 acres with a frontage of 1,306 feet on the west side of Solomon Drive, located 112 feet north of the center{ine of Santa Ana Canyon Road. General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00395: Requests a general plan amendment from the General Commercial land use designation to the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00054: To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04443: Waiver of (a) required frontage on a street, (b) maximum permitted fence height in the rear yard", (c) maximum lot coverage and open space requirements, and (d) minimum lot width, to establish a 128-unit detached single-family subdivision. *This waiver has been deleted. Tentative Tract Map No. 16254 - To establish a 106-unit detached single-family subdivision. Tentative Tract No. 16255 - To establish a 22-unit detached single- family subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001-00001: To remove 51 eucalyptus trees. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR1164JD.DOC 07-30-01 Page 19 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ •- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the agent for the property owner in order to readvertise the subject request to include additional trees (for a total of 103 trees) in the specimen tree removal permit. VOTE: 6-0, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. r ~ 07-30-01 Page 20 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 27, 2001 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3349 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04381) OWNER: Western Medical Center, Attn: Patrick Rafferty, 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 965-1075 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 9.2 acres with a frontage of 1,020 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 485 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Western Medical Center). To modify previously-approved exhibits for an existing hospital and to construct a new three-story medical office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 18, July 2, and July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2085DS.DOC ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff to further address outstanding parking issues. VOTE: 6-0, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 07-30-01 Page 21 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ . 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00053 Granted 4c. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04442 Withdrawn 4d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 4e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04430: Granted 4f. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-157 Approved OWNER: Dahn Cong Ho, 25726 Demeter Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 LOCATION: 203 North Coffman Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acre with a frontage of 61 feet on the west side of Coffman Street located 430 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Reclassification No. 2001-00053 - To reclassify this property from RS- 7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04430 - To establish a one-lot condominium subdivision to consiruct 3 detached condominium residences with waivers of a) maximum fence height within required setback adjacent to a local street, b) maximum structural height and c) required landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-157 - To establish a one-lot condominium subdivision to construct 3 detached condominium residences. Continued from the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-99 SR8037KB.DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTtON NO. PC2001-100 ApplicanYs Statement: Dahn Cong Ho informed that the required distant is for the property south of 2021 E. 4'h Street, which in General Plan calls for 2,400 feet. He feels this is close to what he currently obtains. Mr. Ho explains that his property is set back 50 feet to the property line, and also on that property there is 42 feet from the property line to the building line, to the garage line, which he feels is a long distance of use to the green bell. • James Mallard states that he and his family lived on Evelyn Drive since 1949. This length of time has awarded him the opportunity to see many changes; most of them for the better. Mr. Mallard describes Evelyn Drive, as a good community and one that continuously upgrade its homes. He stood in representation of a fellow resident that he felt was most effected by this proposal; who was unable to attend due to the necessity of earning a living. He realizes that in no uncertain terms would his community be able to stand in the way of progress, because where there is empty land, it proposes an opportunity to be filled. Their concern is that once the City starts waiving code requirements, such as distances from prope~ty lines, one would wound up stepping into his back yard, and looking up at a 2- story high vertical wall with windows in it. Mr. Mallard advised that it really destroys ones sense of 07-30-01 Page 22 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • privacy. in view of these concerns, he asked that the City Council continue requiring the builder to adhere to the existing code; as far as not being able to back up against Evelyn Drive any closer than the existing code requires. Alsa, that they consider making the backside that abuts the property on Evefyn Drive blank wall; excluding windows. Ms. Marcella Torres lives right behind Evelyn Drive. She states that children jump over the bars, and constantly throw rocks at her two dogs and cat. So, she agrees there should be bars as opposed to windows. Applicant's Rebuttal: Dahn Cong Ho reported that most of the requests were resolved through interaction with Staff. There is a 50 feet second-story building, and also a plain wall in the specified area. Nevertheless, any further requests will be accommodated, if possible. Gregg McCafferty clarified the waivers in question: The waiver regarding structure height, pertains to the property that is south. The waiver regarding landscaping pertains to the west property line. So, the waiver on the west is only for landscaping it is not for the building. The building, which is the third unit, as Mr. Ho is proposing, complies with City's code in regards to height. The waiver is only for the two parking spaces that are encroaching into the 20-foot {andscape setback along the west property line. Commissioner Arnold stated, for the purposes of clarification to Mr. Mallard that it is not the buildings that are going to be closer than the code allows. It simply means that there is going to be parking a{lowed in that area instead of some of the landscaping that would normally be required. • Mr. Mallard asked what would be the approved distance from where the property on Evelyn Drive ends to where the building would be built? Greg McCafferty answered, for a two-story structure it would be 50 feet. Chairperson Vanderbilt directed the applicant to the staff for further questions before moving on to the next item. OPPOSITION: A letter was received this morning with concerns and suggestions regarding the subject request. Two people spoke with concerns regarding the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00053 (to reclassify this property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion to withdraw Variance: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the withdrawal of Variance No. 2001-04442 since the variance is no longer the appropriate action for the subject request. • Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirements, as follows: 07-30-01 Page 23 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Denied waiver (i) pertaining to permitted maximum fence height since there are no special circumstances that directly relate to the waiver being requested; and approve waiver (ii) pertaining to maximum structural height, and waiver (iii) pertaining to required landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family zone based on the following: (i) That with regard to waivers (ii) and (iii), there are special circumstances pertaining to this property because of its narrow frontage, making it difficult to comply with the multiple-family site development standards. (ii) That with regard to waivers (ii) and (iii) strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the petitioner of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity pertaining to the encroachment of parking spaces into the required landscaped setback areas. (iii) That the waiver pertaining to maximum structural height and required landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family zone should be granted because the RS-7200 Zoned property to the south is actually developed with multiple units and should not be considered a single-family zoned development; and that the narrow lot makes it difficult to comply with the required landscape setback adjacent to the west property line. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04430 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 30, 2001 and based on the following: (i) That the detached condominium subdivision is properly one for which a conditional • use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code. (ii) That the detached condominium subdivision would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. (iii) That the size and shape of the site for the detached condominium subdivision is adequate to allow the full development of the 3 detached dwelling units in a manner not detrimental to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. (iv) That the traffic generated by the detached condominium subdivision would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. (v} That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04430 under the conditions imposed, would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-157 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 30, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the tentative parcel map and the 22-day appeal rights for the reclassification and conditional use permit. • DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (2:47-3:05) 07-30-01 Page 24 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3124 Denied (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04397) OWNER: Sanderson Jay Ray, Attn: Lisa Lovely, 2699 White Road, Suite 150, irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Bart Rainone, 3364 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 2.79 acres with a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of Riverside Freeway, accessed by 32- foot wide access easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 1,240 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley). To modify the operationai conditions for an existing bowling alley to permit live entertainment and a cover charge for promotional events as an accessory use to existing the bowling alley. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-101 SR8033KB.DOC ~ Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement Officer, reported that on Friday, May 11, 2001 at approximately 10:00 p.m., he conducted an inspection at the Anaheim Concourse Bowling Alley. Upon arrival, in the north parking lot, he observed that the front door was closed and there were security people there directing patrons to use the east entrance door, which is the main entrance to the bowling afley. As he approached the east side door, he observed a temporary chainlinked fence placed around the vestibule area outside the building, and it had two openings in it to allow the patrons to enter into this area. The on-site security officers searched the patrons before entering into the bowling alley. There was also an area to the north south side, which would be adjacent or in the area of the 91 freeway. This area was also fenced off with a temporary chain linked fence, and was used to allow people to come out, smoke and get some fresh air. Mr. Yourstone entered the building with Mr. Rainone, and observed a DJ playing music, and some patrons inside the bar area which was controlled by several security officers screening patrons for proper identification. ln the mist af the energized activity of the DJ playing and patrons dancing, there was smog being mechanically emitted into the air. After a certain number of patrons entered the building, several blocks of lanes were opened at the request of Mr. Rainone. This procedure continued as more patrons entered the building. Mr. Yourstone affirms that the inside business was conducted in an orderly manner, and several security officers were present to oversee the general operations of the Rock-a-bowl activity. Mr. Yourstone advised that if the Commission decides to approve the request, the hours of operation should be shortened from 3:00 a.m. He feels it is too late. Also, he recommends putting a one-year time limit on the Conditional Use Permit. Sgt. Randy West, Anaheim Police Department - Vice Detail, provided statistical information regarding the proposed area as such: It is located within reporting district 1432, which currently has a crime rate of 205% above average. This area is mostly industrial commercial along the 91 freeway which is largely populated during the daytime hours due to the commercial area. The Police Department has logged from July 2000 to July 2001, 21 separate calls for service at this particular address. The calls consist of minor ~ incidents such as "check the welfares," seven 911 hang-up calls, drunk driving arrest, two disturbance calls, a battery, one audible burglar alarm, one lost & stolen property report, two suspicious circumstances investigations, one vandalism, one auto burglary, one towed vehicle, one stolen bicycle and a trespassing 07-30-01 Page 25 JULY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ call. In light of this report, Sgt. West states that at night, virtually the only thing open tor business would be Mr. Rainone bowling alley, which typically is opened quite late in the evenings. He acknowledges that may or may not be contributing to the specific crime rate in the area. Sgt. West concurs with Code Enforcement, advising the hours of operations be iessened from 3:00 a.m., due to potential problems. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Rainone, overseer for the operations at the Anaheim/Riverside Concourse, if he had any feelings about the possibifify of modifying the hours of operation based on Code EnforcemenYs and Sgt. West's recommendations. Mr. Rainone offered his proposal on behalf of the landowner, Sanderson Jay Ray. He extended commendations to the staff, stating that he had no qualms with the report as it is proper and professionally done. However, he did wish to address differences. The first major difference being economics. Mr. Rainone stated three years ago when he came before the Commission, he requested cover charges for rock-in-bowl two to three nights a week. This cover charge made a difference of about $50,000 worth of income; a total of $60,000 worth of income to him personally. He states that when he was no longer allowed to do that, obviously he incurred a loss of $60,000. Mr. Rainone stated that the decline of league bowling has been radical throughout the county, the state, and nationally, and it is continuing to drop daily. In the last 3 years, Concourse Bowling Alley's revenues dropped another $120,000. So, coupling the lost of the cover charge income of $50,000 to $60,000 and the league decline of another $120,000, they are experiencing a substantial loss. He suggests this is virtually bottom line maney, because most of this was not a cost associated with production. Therefore, Concourse Bowling is down approximately $180,000 worth of income in the last 3 years. To emphasize the trouble that the industry is having and the prob(ems, Sequoia Lanes, Buena Park, just announced that it is closing on August 15`h . Connor Lanes, Costa Mesa, a 50 year old bowling center, will close as of January 15` . ANF bowling, the largest bowling ~ center operators in the United States, and who also own a couple of bowling centers here in the County, filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Rainone states that second of all, the last time he was here, he asked Commission to allow cover charge for under age children to join in with older bowling patrons; bar patrons, normal bowlers, etc. as a mixture. However, this time he has changed his request to no liquor allowed under age as compared to the previous request to have a mixture with the ongoing operation. Thirdly, Mr. Rainone is changing his request from none specific amount of time, to Friday nights from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., approximately 5 to 6 hours of the 112 hours the bowling alley is opened weekly, which is less than 5% of their operation. Mr. Rainone assures that the integrity of the bowling center in Anaheim is still 95% bowling, and that is what they want it to remain. He assures that they are a bowling center family. Back in the late `80's early `90's the family possessed 4 bowling centers, but today they are down to two bowling centers. He affirms that bowling centers is the root of his family's financial structure and they do not want to be in the ni~ht club business. He is concerned that Commissioners could possibly perceive the center as a dance ha(I. Therefore, he explains that at 5% of operation or 5- 6 hours a week, this can never be a dance hall because he suggests no one could run an operation as a dance hall only, for 5 hours a week. He acknowledged a concern of staff believing that if the center were sold, the next owner might try to convert it into another use other than bowling. Mr. Rainone referenced the City Attorney's advice on whether or not an approval could be made with the caveat that if a sale was accomplished, the permission would be rescinded. To further address concerns of staff, Mr. Rainone explained that the reason for the cover charge was because 5 years ago, in doing his normal rock-in-bowl and charging for bowling only, he found out that 400 children would show up just to enjoy the free music. He affirms that if he did not ~ charge a cover charge but offered music and a beautiful facility, every Friday night there would be a thousand kids standing in line to get in and another thousand in the parking lot waiting. So, he asserts, 07-30-01 Page 26 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the cover charge is more of a controi issue than it is an indication of a night club type operation. Mr. Rainone stated that it has been over 30 years since the bowling center was built in the County of Orange and since any other bowling center has ever been built in the County. He believes he wouldn't be making a proposal today if he had built a bowling center in '92 instead of in 1990, because when he started looking for land in '88 it was very expensive. Because the pricing during that time was very prohibitive, bowling could not afford the commercial properties that would have been proper. The pricing at that time '88, 89, was very prohibitive. With the help of staff, together they worked out a situation where he acquired a piece of property, and with CUPs, parking restrictions working he was able to build the bowl in the City, basically, financially free. Mr. Rainone believes bowling and entertainment goes hand in hand, and has been in Anaheim for the last 50 years. Ne recalls the Wonderbowl of Anaheim, located on Katella and Lewis Street, was probably one of the finest places in Anaheim. Additionally, he recalls the Guilded Cage, located in a bowling center, but was a fine dining steak and lobster house with live entertainment. And, Anaheim bowl on Lincoln and Brookhurst, where his parents used to go and catch broadway shows. Mr. Rainone states that Anaheim Concourse was built as a"lean, mean, bowling machine". It was built just for that purpose. It is free of banquet rooms, and there are no meeting rooms. The Concourse centers were built without steak houses, and the lounging was not enclosed with a stage. He confirms that it was built to be a bowling center, and it absolutely works fantastic. Mr. Rainone states that with the decline of local, state and national bowling, his family is trying to make their way through to the transition of league bowlers. He strongly believes it will happen. Bowling has become a lot more recognized in the news, on the N, etc., so, bowling is coming back. And, the Rainone family would like to be around to be part of that. In the interim, he is proposing an under age night club, 5 hours, 6 hours a week for kids literally from age 13 to 18. He points out that there is an issue of finding activities to employ the interest of 13-17 year olds who literally are not allowed to go anywhere. Basically under age clubs are 18 and over; as anyone 20 and under is considered a minor. • In his research as an entrepreneur, Mr. Rainone observed cities struggling with entertainment ideas for children in this age group. Since no place can support nor afford to shut down on Friday and Saturday nights, when business is lucrative, Mr. Rainone admits that he sees it as a business opportunity to accommodate the under age group. Their facility is large enough, clean enough, and safe enough to control this activity. He suggests that years of experience in the business arena has allotted his family the skills and knowledge to accomplish such a goal. Mr. Rainone challenges that a lot of youth delinquent problems are due to idle minds. He suggests that the rave came about specifically for that reason; children having nothing to do. He illustrated that children found empty warehouses, and about 10:00 p.m. discreetly brought their equipment in. But, once the police became wise to this activity and started closing them down at 12:00 at night, they started coming to the Planning Department and requesting permission to run their rave parties. He stated that Planning has told him they probably get 2 to 4 request every month for another rave type party. So, he believes the need for this project is here and it is now. He states that their desire is to deal only with the under age children for this small amount of time, and also work in conjunction with high schools, and parents, to make their center a nice, safe, clean place to come. Mr. Rainone states that eleven years ago, when he came before the Commission and asked permission to put the bowling center in, one of the concerns was the eroding of the industrial base for Anaheim, and an incompatibility to the area. Overtime, compatibility has been proven. He invites the staff and Commission to visit on any given weekday, during lunchtime when businessmen patronize to have a sandwich and to bowl. He strongly believes his operation has become an acceptable use in the area, and that the 6 hours he is requesting will not jeopardize the City's Alpha Project. The exterior will remain the same, the signage will remain the same, and the hours of operation would be respected by City's decision. He firmly asserts the family business is an asset to the City of Anaheim. They give away thousands of free game passes every year to children and grandchildren in the area. The center works with schools, the Special Education Department , the YMCA, Boy's and Girl Scouts, the Indian Guides, • the Indian Princes, the churches, the sports organizations, and general fund raisers. Because of this community asset, he and his family would like to be able to stay around and continue this process. fn 07-30-01 Page 27 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • closing, he states that their centers attract people from all over other areas. The largest population is from Placentia, Brea, Fullerton, and now Buena Park. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to earlier comments of Rainone's regarding charging a fee to minimize the number of individuals entering the building. He wondered if there is any other means to limit access, since the center has a long driveway entrance into the business. Perhaps, a count of individuals entering the facility and cutting it off once capacity is reached. Mr. Rainone responded that if he were allowing children to be there free of charge the amount of children could become overwhelming. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Rainone, what number of patrons would he be comfortable with. Mr. Rainone responded that they were comfortable with 500 even though they are approved for 1000. Commissioner Boydstun asked, if Commission places a cap on the number required would he be comfortable with that. Mr. Rainone responded that since they were approved for 1000, and if the business became successful, he would be reluctant to accept a cap of 500. Chairperson Vanderbilt expressed concern regarding the hours of operation. He sensed that because 3:00 a.m. has been the traditional hours, basically for bowling purposes, that it has become a standard ~ request. However, in entertaining children who are 13 years old and 14 year old there was a potential danger as the police previously stated. Mr. Rainone responded that midnight is not possible. The function would not start until 9:00 p.m., because most children today do not really start going out until 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., and he is only trying to do this on a weekly basis; Friday nights. Since there are a lot of football games, and other activities, he does not believe the children would actually show until 10:00 or 10:30.p.m. And, if the hours are cut to 12:00 a.m. he does not feel it would work. Commissioner Bristol inquired how many present today, have children. He stated that he heard a report that teenagers are running more households than their parents. So, in comparison he feels thaYs what Mr. Rainone's comments are implying. Directing his question to Sergeant West, he asked "what is the Anaheim curfew?" Sgt. West answered that the curFew is 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol addressed the logic of Mr. Rainone's request. Based on the fact that the proposed area has a crime rate of 200% above normal, situations that the police have had with Camelot and congregation, his personal awareness since rearing his children during that time and not permitting them to go there in the evenings, and knowing the proposed area is right next to Camelot, he pointed out that 3:00 a.m. for 16 year olds, does not make sense. Mr. Rainone responded that they would be inside the facility, whereas Camelot was cruising and parking lot stuff. Commissioner Bristol contended the children would have to leave the facility at 3:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. . and, he asked, if Mr. Rainone could secure the children in that instance. 07-30-01 Page 28 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Rainone answered that as long as the children were inside the building they were very secure. However, he had no control in them driving home at 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. in the mornings. Chairperson Vanderbilt then turned his attention to the dance area. He asked clarification on the floor plan for dancing, asking if the children could congregate everywhere and dance anywhere. Mr. Rainone explained that the facility is a very open with little pockets that could house small groups of 20 to 30 sitting around talking and dancing. While on the other hand there would be another little pocket somewhere else. However, he stated that he would be happy to designate a dance area if necessary. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked him what was the Fire DepartmenYs opinion. Mr. Rainone answered that the Fire Department understood the limitation of 1000. And, he added, they have had a couple events where fire officials attended and they appeared to be okay with the circumstances. The building is well laid out for emergency exits, and currently three large exits exist. Commissioner Bristol clarified that under the hours of operation, people could bowl while others dance.. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she has 9 grandchildren, four of them are teenagers. And, if they went some place until 3:00 a.m. in the morning it would be unacceptable. They would never leave the house again. She agrees that while the idea is good, the proposed hours were outlandish. She stated that she has visited two of these out of state, with bowling and music. It is very successful and entertaining, The children eat a lot, and the snack bar is open, but not until 3:00 a.m. in the morning Commissioner Boydstun suggests if it were until midnight, no alcohol, no fog; because it is hard for security to see what is going on with the fog but strobe lights would be okay. She would be for it. But • otherwise, she would vote, no. Commissioner Eastman asked, given those kinds of conditions coupled with having to hire security, would Concourse incur enough money to make this a profitable venture. Mr. Rainone answered that he did not believe the attendance would be there, if he had to shut down at midnight, if there are football weeks, which there are 12 weeks out of a year they won't get there until 10:00 or 10:30.p.m. So, he thinks if they got there at 10:30 p.m. , by 12:00 they wouldn't incur enough. He suggests maybe 1:OOa.m. to 2:00 a.m. Referring to security, he stated that he would hope that if parents had their 14, 15 year old child at the center that they would be responsible enough to drop them off and pick them up. He stated that they are not advocating that the children leave their building at 2:00 a.m. and cruise the streets. Referring to Sergeant West, he asked if children are allowed to travel to and from a show after 10:00 p.m. Sgt. West contended that the curtew is 10:00 p.m. for underage children. However, if they are at the movies and the movie gets out at 12:00 a.m., he feels they have the right to travel home. Commissioner Arnold stated that if they are in transit, and they have their parents permission, which we can verify then that is different. Mr. Rainone challenged that the curfew is truly 10:00 p.m. for kids under 18, unless they are doing something. Given the answer sought, he heldfast to his proposal for longer hours "so the children can enjoy themselves". Otherwise, he feels they will not come. Commissioner Arnold stated that he agrees with the concerns raised by both Commissioner Bristol and Commissioner Boydstun. He feels it is a great combination, and feel it wi!! definitely work. And, like • Commissioner Boydstun, he has also been to one of these type centers out of state and seen it done very well. But contends that the hours are not workable. He advises that even though the facility is nice and open, at some point it simply is too many people to keep track of; especially with the strobe lights and the 07-30-01 Page 29 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ group dancing. He agrees with Commissioner Boydstun that the fog and dry ice is too much. Therefore, he feefs, if the Commission approves the proposal, they would have to be very limited in terms of the conditions. Chairperson Vanderbilt expressed that he thinks the uniqueness of this property is the way that it can be controlled. Having a narrow driveway that enters the property, and surrounded by businesses that have barbwire fencing, and the freeway. So, if the proposal could be modified to limit the hour, and limit the accessibility to the number of cars or number of individuals right off of La Palma he would feel very comfortable with it. He understands that the applicant is dealing with economics that dictates more of a liberal CUP, so, if the applicant feels he needs to stick to his position, he advises maybe giving some of these thoughts some room to consider and present the proposal to the City Council should it need to be appealed. Commissioner Koos addressed his question to staff regarding Paragraph No. 11 of the staff report, which points out, that the public dance hall component is not permitted nor conditionally permitted use. So, he wondered if staff was subtly saying this amounts to a use variance. Greg McCafferty answered that a public dance hall is not permitted in the zone that the bowling alley is in, and that would be defined if, they in fact, charged a cover charge. However, the Planning Commission can make a determination in this individual case. Requiring the business to assess a minimum bowling fee, in connection with their operations, so it wouldn't be determined a cover charge but an integral part of the existing bowling alley, and not a separate distinct public dance hall use, which is prohibited in this zone. If Commission wanted to make that determination. Commissioner Koos responded that the determination could certainly be made but that it is an interesting ~ concept to have people bowling regardless to whatever else is going on. So, he asked staff if that is what they are suggesting. And perhaps there is a way to link this together. Greg McCafferty responded that bowling is the primary use. It is already authorized by the Conditional Use Permit. However, if it were determined somehow that this was an accessory, and integral part of that as another entertainment option within the bowling alley, but not a separate distinct dance hall, where a cover charge was assessed, but more of a minimum fee to bowl, so thaf at feast he had one bowling game per patron. If not, then what we are saying here in Paragraph 11 is that public dance halls aren't permitted in that area. Commissioner Koos contended that it is his concern here, if this building seizes to become a bowling alley, and then someone put a stage on the bowling wings, and it transforms into a vessel for an entirely different use, could the business continue the bowling while bands played in the middle of all of the lanes. Mr. Rainone contended that it could very well happen that way. A band would take up maybe 5 lanes leaving literally 35 other lanes, so it is possib(e. He stated the they planned on offering both but dancing is not a main issue, not encouraged. It is basically the bowling that is encouraged, and the arcade, and the food, and the other parts. Commissioner Koos responded that he has seen the rock and bowl concept. But he states that he is not sure if he understands why it has to be taken to the next level. He apologizes that it is not penciling out anymore, but it is not really a land use consideration. He assures he does not have a problem with the concept of a DJ playing while bowling is going on. But, when the hours of operation are introduced, plus light music, it sort of takes it to the next realm. And, if Commission place conditions it redesigns the entire proposal. He states that he is leaning towards staff recommendations given the fact that he just does not think it really is a good mix for uses in this area. • Commissioner Bristol expressed a concern with the inability to see through the fog while trying to secure a vast number of people; approval of 1000 people with lanes supporting 250. He illustrated 5 lanes going, 07-30-01 Page 30 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and maybe 200 in one section while still in another section there may be 750 or a thousand children in the facility dancing everywhere, and an internal circulation situation. He felt the Fire Department would want to know specifics in regards to the location of 1000 people, and he did not feel confident the applicant would be able to answer them. Greg McCafferty stated he wasn't certain what the Fire Department would say about the occupancy. But felt, they would strictly go by the maximum occupancy load for the fire code for this particular use. Mr. Rainone stated that they have had a few other events over the last year and a half with the fire depar~ment present. He said there was a population of 700 to 1000 people, and the Fire Department did not seem to have a concern with it. He emphasized the building is a large building. Commissioner Bristol stated that he had been in it and agrees that it is a large building. Commissioner Arnold asked Sgt. West if he wanted to see security training included in Condition No. 8, since he had indicated that one of the critical elements with security is the fact that security receive some sort of training that will help them identify problems. Sgt. West responded, yes, absolutely, it is not the number of people you have out there, but it is the training that they have, as to what their job responsibility is. For example, if there were 500 to 1000 children there, there is a strong need to have people trained who know how to deal with the children in this type of environment. Not just employees of the bowling alley who put a shirt on that says "security". That would have a big effect as to controlling the crowds and controlling the problems if you had a strong, good, well-trained security force there to deal with any problems. He stated that he did not know what type of security arrangements the applicant had; whether he contracts with a reputable company, that is ~ licensed in the state of California, but trained security would be his recommendation. Mr. Rainone responded that they use a company by the name of staff Pro., whenever they do large events, and use their own security in addition. He stated that their security guards have been with them for 8 years, are well trained, and really know their building and operation. Commissioner Boydstun asked Sgt. West how many security guards for 600 people would he feel necessary for the proposed project. Sgt. West explained that he is not a security expert, however he illustrated that possibly the expert would conclude his determination by actually going to the venue and meeting with the applicant and someone from his contracting security service, go over the type of crowd that they are going to have, and the type of music they are going to use. He suggested there are a lot of variables involved, because for example, punk music as compared to house music would incite the crowd in different ways. Commissioner Boydstun suggested that if the Commission were to approve the proposal, to inciude a condition on how many security guards are needed and for it to be approved by the police department. Also for the security guards to be trained by the police department. Commissioner Eastman agreed with Commissioner Boydstun. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the Police Department would not actually be training the security guards. But, may provide suggestions to the management with regards to some ways that they can avoid the problems the Police Department is familiar with. And, it is up to the security guards to have the responsibility for that function. • Commissioner Boydstun conceded that the police department should approve the security guards, so the police are aware of the security training received. 07-30-01 Page 31 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt responded that as far as security training, if they are licensed by the state, they have to go to a licensed training facility for a minimum number of hours. Commissioner Boydstun was not confident that checking patrons at the door was too sufficient. Mr. Rainone exclaimed that to do much more than that would be extreme. He explained that they have had previous large events with 600 to 1000 people and employed over 15 to 20 security guards. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the 20 security guards were licensed. Mr. Rainone responded that they are hired through a professional security company but whether all 15 were licensed he could not say. Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Rainone, in light of the discussion, if Commission were to approve the proposal if he thought it would be viable financially. Mr. Rainone responded that at 12:00 a.m. he did not believe it would be. He expressed concern that he still had his other patrons, his regular bowlers, and that is why it would be hard for him to close before 3:00 a.m. Commissioner Eastman asked, what if you were allowed the 9:00 to 1:00 operating hours? Mr. Rainone responded that he thought that would be possible. ~ Commissioner Eastman asked, in view of his normal 3:00 a.m. hours, if there was a way of separating younger children from young adults that is not bounded by a curfew. Mr. Rainone responded that they have been doing rock and bowl for eleven years from 12:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday nights with a different type crowd, and it seems to work pretty well. He admitted that in running a situation with a mixture of music and alcohol there will always be some problems. But, he felt they had always managed the situation well. He stated that many times parents would call him and inquire of the rock and bowl with interest of celebrating a special event for their minor child. He would reply, "as long as you make your child stay in our facility and you drop him off and you pick him up, there is not a problem". So, he is aware that parents will allow their children on special occasions, in a controlled situation, to stay out late. And, he was confident the child would be safe inside the facility. Commissioner Eastman admitted that she was having trouble with the economics of the whole thing, as far as eliminating the afcohol since that is one of his high profits. Mr. Rainone responded that it would be exchanged with the cover charge. Commissioner Eastman asked him if he was going to make enough difference in the cover to make up for what is not sold in alcohol. Mr. Rainone responded very much so. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it would work to charge for one line of bowling, and then if they want to bowl more, have them pay. • Mr. Rainone responded that he did not believe they could do enough to make it worthwhile, because there were only so many lanes and it takes so long to bowl. Although there are other ways they could possibly 07-30-01 Page 32 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • look af it and not call it a cover, they could do it as a presale for bowling and other times they're buying bowling at a later date or something of this sort. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she imagined if some of them paid for one line of bowling they are not going to bowl anyhow when they go inside. Greg Hastings stated clari~cations, on Condition No. 1: These conditions are meant to replace the current conditions we have for the entire bowling alley. And, Condifion No. 1 refers to the operation of the bowling alley no earlier than 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, except on national holidays. And, the bowling alley and its accessory activity shall close by 1:00 a.m. He suggested the Commission may want to see about separating out the rock and bowl portion from the rest of the bowling operation. Commissioner Boydstun responded yes, she would like to change it to 9:30 until 1:00 for the Friday night Rock and 8owl. And the rest of the time at normal hours, 9:00 until 3:00 because they probably have some late night leagues scheduled after work. Mr. Rainone responded that he has to at least accommodate his bowlers and other patrons, that have been good to him for eleven years, until at least 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Boydstun responded that the hours would be 9:00 to 1:00 on Friday nights that they have rock and rofl and their normal hours until 3:00 a.m. the rest of the time. Commissioner Arnold stated he could not support a CUP that went past midnight on Fridays with the Rock and Bowl. ~ • • ~ ~ - • - ~ • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Boydstun offered a resolution for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3124 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04397) with changes to conditions of approval and THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN,EASTMAN NOES: ARNOLD, BRISTOL, KOOS, VANDERBILT ABSENT: BOSTWICK Commissioner Koos offered an alternate resolution to deny Conditional lJse Permit No. 3124 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04397) and THE RESOLUTION PASSED with the following vote: AYES: BRISTOL, EASTMAN, KOOS, VANDERBILT NOES: BOYDSTUN,ARNOLD ABSENT: BOSTWICK Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeaf rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (3:06-4:06) 07-30-01 Page 33 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04242 Approved of (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04395) reinstatement of massage parlor for 5 years (to expire on OWNER: Lakeview Investment Co, LTD, Attn: Kaye Richey, 1667 July 30, 2006) East Lincoln Avenue, Orange, CA 92865 AGENT: Paula Schiue, 430 North Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 430 North Lakeview Avenue. Property is approximately 3.1 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Lakeview Avenue and McKinnon Drive (Body Centre). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on August 14, 2000, to expire on August 14, 2001) to retain an existing massage facility within an existing commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-102 SR2081 DS.DOC • ApplicanYs Statement: Paula Schlue stated that the only comment that she has, refers to Condition No. 2 with the hours of operation. She said that the last time they stated that they could open earlier, even though the brochure stipulates 10:00 a.m. in the morning. However, she now feels they can open up at 8:00, incase her chiropractor and medical doctor needs to see a patient or client prior to 10:00 a.m. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if she was referring to only weekdays or Saturday as well? Paula Schlue replied, "Saturday and Sunday also; 8:00 in the morning". Gregg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated that Ms. Schlue is correct, because the original resolution does have 8:00 a.m. and staff would not be opposed to that change. Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement, stated that Code Enforcement would have no objection to the change of opening up earlier. Sgt. West agreed that the police department would not have objections to the 8:00 a.m. hour either. Commissioner Koos asked staff to rationalize, for the public record, why 3 years, since they seem to have done a good job, not even comparing it to other massage facilities, but just as a standard business. Greg McCafferty explained with regard to the recommendation, the first go round staff was concerned how ~ the operation would work in that center. staff did comment in general with regard to massage facilities, after having the chance to review with the police department and code enforcement, staff felt they would be coming back with longer term recommendations. So, that is why three years were recommended 07-30-01 Page 34 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • instead of one year. The concern with granting a CUP without a time limitation. Although, she does run a very high quality massage establishment, the CUP does run with the land, and staff wants to be mindful that if it does change ownership they have a handle on it. Paula Schlue stated that her lease is a 5-year lease with a 5 year extension. Commissioner Arnold asked about the use of the A frame sign on the public easement near the street. Since it is not allowed by the code, he wondered whether Commission should put in a condition in reference to the sign. Greg McCafferty responded that the a frame signage on the right-of-way is not permitted for City's sign code, so he agrees that it would be appropriate to put in that condition. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04242 (Tracking No. • CUP 2001-04395) for 5 years (to expire on July 30, 2006), to retain an existing massage facility within an existing commercial retail center. Amended Resolution No. PC2000-94 in its entirety with the following conditions of approval: Massage Facility: 1. That this permit for a massage facility shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on July 30, 2006. 2. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and Sunday 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 3. That any activity described Under Code Section 18.89 for Sex-Oriented- Business shall not be permitted on the premises. 4. That this business (including the conduct of all its employees) shall be operated in full compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.29 pertaining to Massage Establishments. That all records of treatment shall be maintained on the premises for one (1) year and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized City o~cial during regular business hours. • 6. That this business shall be subject to unscheduled inspections by authorized City of Anaheim personnel in order to observe and enforce compliance with all applicable Code requirements. 07-30-01 Page 35 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7. That should a security system be installed, a security alarm system and alarm permit application shall be obtained from the Anaheim Police Department, Community Services Division. 8. That portable a-frame signage is not permitted by the code and shall not be permitted as an advertising device for this business. Liquor Store with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption: 9. That no window signs shall be permitted at any time to allow unobstructed visibility of the store interior from the outside. 10. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted anywhere on subject property. 11. That no advertising of alcoholic beverages shall be located, placed or attached to any location outside the building; and that no audio advertising interior or exterior shall be permitted. 12. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises. 13. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. • 14. That no person under twenty-one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any alcoholic beverages. 15. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 16. That no fast-food service shall be permitted in the liquor store. Commercial Retail Center: 17. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage use. 18. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of gra~ti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 19. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 20. That roof-mounted balloons or other inflated devices shall not be permitted. • 21. Thaf atl trash generated from this commercial retail center shall be properly contained in trash bins contained within approved trash enclosures. The 07-30-01 Page 36 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanifary hand(ing and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shati be paid for by the business owner. 22. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonabfy illuminate the window areas of adjacent properties, and that said lighting information shall be specified on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division and Planning Department, Zoning Division approval. 23. That no vending machines shall be permitted on the property which are visible from the public right-of-way. 24. That the required trees adjacent to the public rights-of-way shall not be unnecessarily pruned so as to provide increased visibility of the commercia! retail center. 25. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.44.030.120 and ~ 18.84.062.032 pertaining to the CL (SC) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Zoning and Building Division approval. 26. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to fourteen (14) units as reflected on approved exhibits submitted by the petitioner. 27. That signage for subject facility shaff be timited to atl legal existing signage as of the date of this resolution. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 28. That the property owner shall be responsible for having the premises maintained free of litter at all times. 29. That all public telephones (existing or proposed) shall be located inside the building. 30. That no outdoor storage, display or sales of inerchandise or fixtures shall be permitted. 31. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. ~ 32. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does 07-30-01 Page 37 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4:07-4:12) C ~ ~ 07-30-01 Page 38 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04393 OWNER: Jillbridge Corporation, 2161 West 182"d Street, Suite 101, Torrance, CA 90504 AGENT: Kasumi Realty Inc., 2161 West 182"d Street, Suite 101, 7orrance, CA 90504 LOCATION: 839 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.6 acre with frontage of 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, located 340 feet south of the centerline of South Street. To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a convenience market without beer and wine. CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-103 Approved Granted SR1010CW.DOC Applicant's Statement: ~ Daisy Martinez stated that she was only present to answer questions regarding the convenience market on this proposed site. Public Testimony: Khoda Ostowari, the owner and operator of the Altma gas station less than a block north of the proposed project, stated that it is obvious the proposed market is in great contrast with the layout of this center, and therefore perhaps not the best use for this particular center. He feels the layout is a problem, mainly because of the parking spaces being in the rear of the property. The employees of the store would not have a view, and therefore no control of anything that could possibly happen in the rear parking lot. The increased activity in the rear parking lot would also be hidden from the view of law enforcement officers and others driving on the Harbor Boulevard. He feels this has the potential to create safety issues for the neighborhood and residents shopping at the market. He stated, if the Commission sees fit to approve this project, he would request the same high standards and conditions applied to all projects, with the goal of improving and beautifying this secfion of Harbor Boulevard, which is also considered to be the Gateway to Anaheim Resort Area. Mr. Ostowari feels that any new project approved should reflect and compliment the hard work of the Planning Commission, and the Anaheim City Council. ~ He stated that he strongly feels that the proposed project, with the current floor plan and conditions attached, is not sufficient to avoid many obvious potential problems such as excessive loitering. A very distinct example is as follows: Condition No. 6,:the window signage shall not be permitfed for the convenience market. All features, displays, merchandise and other materials shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the window areas. Mr. Ostowari feels, this obviously helps keep the interior of the store completely visible from the outside and vice versa. However, the floor plan calls out for the installation of a large eight-door walk-in beverage cooler in the north east corner of the store, adjacent to the windows facing Harbor Bou(evard. The cooler wili be essentially a wall blocking most of the store windows; especially, the ones on Harbor Boulevard. Therefore, if the Commission decides to approve this 07-30-01 Page 39 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ project, he strongly suggests revision of the floor plan such that the store is completely visible and open to Harbor Boulevard. On another note, he feels the lighting is not sufficient and hopes that Commission would suggest additional lighting on the exterior of the buifding and the parking lot. Nowever, his main concern is the avoidance of any potential problems around the property. He feels many problems have been eliminated in their corner, inciuding crime and loitering. So, he feels that achieving the same goal with the proposed project will be very difficult. Mainly, because of the limitations of the layout of the center. He states that if this project is approved, it will immediately serve a need, but it has to be subjected to the same high standards as their project, which consequently help to improve the area. Applicant's Rebuttal: Daisy Martinez responded regarding the parking, the required minimum spaces for the full shopping strip is 91, and in this location there are 106; 102 regular parking spaces and 4 handicap parking spaces. So, she feels that is above the requirement. Regarding the lighting, there will be reinforced lighting and landscaping in the whole shopping center. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt referenced the construction of the building with its large glass front side. However the floor plan showed the entrance to the west which would mean that the back of the business including the coolers and other things would be visible from Harbor. So, it seems as though It would create a blighted situation. Therefore, he asked if Ms. Martinez planned to tint the windows. • Daisy Martinez replied, no, they did not intend to tint the windows. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff if that is a concern for them. Greg McCafferty replied that it is definitely a concern if they are going to have cases on the frontage along Harbor. He feels, if they are going to do that, they should have the store front glass there completely tinted so you don't see the cases backing up to a clear window. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to staff in terms of deliveries, since it is a market, and there is a one hour parking limit in front of the business, his concern was that delivery trucks of a large size would probably prefer to pull over on Harbor and unload on the sidewalk and than go through the back entrance. Therefore, he asked if there was an intent to have the delivery trucks pull into the parking lot, into the back of the store. Daisy Martinez responded that delivery trucks would enter through the driveway for parking and pull around the corner to their left, which would be the back entrance to the delivery. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked, given the size of her store, if the frequency of the deliveries were going to be disruptive. Daisy Martinez responded, that deliveries would be anywhere from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., which she did not feel were very busy hours and should not disturb any incoming traffic nor the other locations in the , shopping strip. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it would be a problem, example, a Pepsi truck trailer to be able to turn around in the parking lot and go back out the driveway. • Daisy Martinez responded that since the driveway is two-way she did not feel it would pose a problem. 07-30-01 Page 40 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt illustrated that once a delivery truck parks in the front entrance or the proposed front entrance, the driver would either have to back up and make a 3 point turn or continue forward and make a hairpin turn to get out. The other concern is with regard to the one hour parking in front of the building. His experience, in driving up and down North Anaheim Boulevard, where there are some markets that are similarly oriented, where they have no set back and no fronf parking, and the patrons tend to park on the street. He felt it might be a potentia! problem because of the possible use change, and that it might be excessive in terms of that kind of access to the store. Commissioner Koos stated that he did not have any opposition in general to people using paraUel parking on the streets. It is done all over the place. If it becomes congested that is another issue. Commissioner Eastman stated that her concern is that there are so many windows fronting on Harbor. She stated in view of the photos submitted, that it appears to be tacky and junky to have the signage. She feels even if Commission stipulate signage, typically businesses tend to ignore the stipulation and still put up signage. She says it bothers her that Commission did not have any control over such issues. Daisy Martinez responded that the building has been empty for the past 5 years and the sign is still there. She agrees with Commissioner Eastman that signage looks tacky. She confirms that signage would not be included in the market. Commissioner Eastman asked Ms. Daisy if she had plans to use the door for anything but an emergency exit. And, would there be a plan for something that beautifies in front of the building, more than just sidewalk and glass. Daisy Martinez reiterated that they were planning on reinforcing the lighting and the landscaping. i Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Alfred Yalda, Principaf Transportation Planner, in regards to the truck deliveries in the parking lot if it appeared as though it is adequately laid out to accommodate truck trailer deliveries. Mr. Yalda responded that a regular sized delivery truck, of 30 feet, would be able to go on site and deliver materials. But, a bigger delivery truck it might not be able to go in so easily. So, a driver would try to avoid the situation and seek an easier place to park. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it was likely that they would park on Harbor. Mr. Yalda replied that if there is parking permitted they would stop and deliver. However, if a driver parks in front of the retail, he could potentially create a blind line-of-sight for people exiting the driveway. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Yalda if he thought it might be possible to have a"delivery only zone" to encourage and make available that sidewalk for larger size trucks or would he prefer to have the trucks go into the driveway, Mr. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that Transportation's preference is that they be able to deliver their goods on-site and not rely on public streets. But, in some occasions when they are not abie to do that, Transportation provide, upon request, a loading and unloading zone on the street. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition and voiced their conce~ns regarding the subject request. ~ ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within 07-30-01 Page 41 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmenta) Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04393, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 30, 200~. Modified Condition No. 6 to read as follows: "6. That window signage shall not be permitted for the convenience market. All fixtures, displays, merchandise and other materials shall be setback a minimum of three (3) feet from all window areas. Furfher, that tinting shalf be placed on the exterior windows facing east and north (facing Harbor) to the extent there are coolers and/or cases up against the windows." VOTE: 6-A, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (4:13-4:33) CJ ~ 07-30-01 Page 42 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIYE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04394 OWNER: Tom and Kay Hiramatsu, 3030 East Coronado Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Spirit of America Tours, 3Q40 East Coronado Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 3040 East Coronado Street. Property is approximately 0.92 acre with a frontage of i29 feet on the south side of Coronado Street, located 210 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Place. To permit a bus storage and dispatch facility with waiver of (a) required improvement of parking and outdoor storage areas, (b) required screening of parking areas, and (c) minimum landscape setback. CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-104 • Applicant's Statement: Approved Approved, in part Granted for 5 years (to expire on July 30, 2006) SR8035KB.DOC Dave Brown, Spirit of America, stated that they no longer had a problem with the paving of the area nor the landscaping, and therefore chose to withdraw the two waivers. For two years they have been searching for a property in Anaheim and desire to keep their business in Anaheim, for various reasons. Mr. Brown stated they have worked closely with Planning Department to make sure they found property that would support their operation. He said they had a lot of discussions with staff over certain things and have some questions, as oppose to problems with some requests. He stated that the City Code seems to think that when the wheels stop rolling it is a storage art. He declares his business isn't seif-storage. it isn't the place where they are going to park motor homes. It is a place like a driveway at home where the car comes when not driven and it leaves when driven. He feels his buses are the same. On a weekly basis there are probably one or two buses at the very most, on the property, because if the buses are there they are not making any money. Therefore, it is not a storage. It is a matter of not parking fhem on fhe street or in some residentiaf area where they are not allowed. He stated that they needed a facility where they could park them overnight or for a period of a day or two, but not as a storage area. Neither is it where there is a towing yard, where they are left for long periods of time and charging by the day for storage. He feels the main problem with staff's requirements is that it is leased land and, thinks that when owners decided to rezone this particular property as commercial, the requirement for the wall should have been part of the rezoning as opposed to waiting until somebody came along to occupy the now commercially zoned area. The wall should be the landlord's responsibility. But, still they don't seem to see what the need for the walt is because they are common owners of the two properties. There is a 6-foot wooden fence which covers 300 feet of property from front to back. It separates the operations on the commercial side from that on the residential and nursery, storage side. • Mr. Brown stated that the problem with the 3 years is that staff wanfs them to spend $100,000 for 3 years. The land used to be a berry patch and has to be totally developed, and paving is not cheap. He stated that staff wants them to put permanent foundation under the construction trailer that they are using 07-30-01 Page 43 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES • currently for offices for 3 years, and to build a$30,000, 300-foot wall for 3 years. He understands that they can come back in 3 years and get an extension, but there is no guarantee. Staff has requested special curbs and no one else on the street has them; they will be a unique thing. In addition, staff is requesting a 10-foot radius curve into the driveway of the house, and he does not understand why. He agrees to be doing a better landscaping job, and he understands that they have to survey. But he believes when the land was rezoned it shoufd have been surveyed then, to decide if the land was correctly laid out. Also, staff requests a 12-foot chain linked privacy fence. He feels no one would be able to see the buses from the road, the business would be hidden from passersby and there is no exposure to Coronado. The exposure for the houses and offices is the driveway, which has a 6 foot, privacy fence, with chain link privacy slats on it, as well as the fence that goes back of the house to the yard, to the open space. staff asked in the landscaping plan that there be vines on the screening fence, facing Coronado. However, that would be the gates to go in and out of. Mr. Brown stated that they do not have a problem with what staff asked, but some of the things requested for a 3 year plan did not seem feasible. He feels they would have to redevelop somebody else's property for the expensive cost of $100,000 and putting in things that are totally different than the rest of the street. Mr. Brown compared the towing company on the same street which has gravel, and he asked if there is more chances of his buses leaking oil into the ground through gravel than for a wreck that's in the towing yard to leak gas and oil. There are trucks backed against the fence, against Coronado, which is way above the fence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, responded by stating his understanding is that the applicant is willing to relandscape the front consistent with code requirements, and he is also agreeing to pave the storage area. However, with regard to the radius curve returns on the driveway, when Public Works recommended that condition, the thinking was that it is no longer going to be just plain vehicles coming in. • It is going to be large buses, and, large buses tend to run over and destroy curbs if you don't have the appropriate radius curb return on the driveway. So, he feels that at a minimum, staff would require the radius curb approach for the buses. And, with regard to the screening, the Code requires that outdoor uses be screened. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the 3 years. He asked Mr. Brown if he mentioned somefhing about a 5-year lease. Dave Brown answered that they have a 5-year lease. But, to put in $100,000 dollars, for that length of time would equal 30 grand a year. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the property to the West had the same owner. Dave Brown answered, yes, that is the Hiramatsu Family Trust. Commissioner Boydstun asked if all of the property had the same owner, what would be a problem with using the normal screening strips that are cover on that wire fence. Greg McCafferty stated that obviously, the Commission has the authority to waive the condition. But what stafF is looking at is what's next door, because aithough it could be the same owner now, two or three years down the road he could sell that property and it would be somebody else calling into staff and complaining about the buses starting up early, and the fumes, and everything else that is associated with the outdoor activity of the buses. Commissioner Boydstun recalled that it is no longer residential. • Commissioner Koos wondered if staff could elaborate further on their recommendation for 3 years, and why? 07-30-01 Page 44 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty stated that staff was open with it being a longer period. However he feels what summarizes their concern is Paragraph 19, in terms of what they are seeing over the long term with these sorts of outdoor uses occurring, especiaily in the Northeast Industriai Area, along Miraloma, alang Coronado, and satellite lots around the facility. Staff is concerned over the long term about that sort of use being a magnet for others in the industrial area. Commissioner Koos stated that he concurs with Commissioner Boydstun, at least 5 years, considering the expenditure. Greg Hastings, responded to putting the modular an a permanent foundation and stated that there is a choice for doing it as part of a permit building on the property or they can be left as temporary trailers. However, it would require a conditional use permit. He feels it needs to be part of the conditions because he understands that they are moved on with the intent to being a construction office. So, the choice is either to get a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to be there temporarily or to put them on a permanent foundation so they become a permanent building. Dave Brown stated that when they were asked permission to put them on they were told in Planning that they were allowed to have a construction trailer for up to a year, but in looking at the pages of requirements, it may be a year and they will still be constructing. He states that their long-term plan is if everything works out, to come back to the City to put their repair facility in and build their entire business there on the property, and probably take the house down. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked based on staff's options given in terms of the modular if it is preferable to act now, and seek the conditional use permits to keep them as modulars or if there was a way to combine that into this action by putting a continuance on. ~ Greg Hastings confirmed that it needed to be continued in order to readvertise it as part of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary trailers. Dave Brown stated that when they put the construction trai(ers on the property they were told that they needed to have all the tie downs as it was a mobile home. The inspectors came out and inspected and passed all the supports, tie-downs for natural disasters. Chairperson Vanderbilt felt the applicant may possibly come back in five years to seek a conditional use permit. He felt they could vote on it at this point, and, it would still require that you put a foundation for these trailers, or we can continue to readvertise the CUP to allow for trailers to be included temporarily and then maybe that will give the Mr. Brown enough time to make his decision about the purchase, and the layout that you woufd eventually want to have. So, he asked Mr. Brown if he would like Commission to act today or continue this item? Dave Brown responded that if Commission had been by the property, they could see they are in the middle of everything. They are waiting for electrical, and the City has to put in new transformers. There are a!ot of things that need to go into that property, and if they are going to keep those transformers, they need to have the trailers, and the new transformers, they are going to need to have anyway if they put it on a foundation, he asked how much time Commission would be willing to give them. Because by that time we may decide to come back to you and build the building. He just wanted one thing clarified, the whole idea here is not to have a storage lot but a whole maintenance facility is okay. Chairperson Vanderbilt assured Mr. Brown that Commission was looking at his request and not coming into this with any idea with what they wanted him to have as a business. • Commissioner Arnold clarified that some of these things that are requested are things that are in the code and the Commission really does not have a choice about them. 07-30-01 Page 45 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty confirmed that he was correct, and stated, for example, the 10-foot radius curb returns is a standard engineering pian that is controlled by the City Engineer. And, just for the applicant's information, it was discussed at the interdepartmental committee as well, under this condition they cannot repair or wash or do any maintenance on the vehicles. It is simply a dispatch and storage facility for the buses. However, over the long term if they wanted to come back and modify the CUP to allow that and have the structures in order to do that, they certainly permitted them in the code to do that with modification to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the house was on part of the property they are using now or going to be using. Dave Brown answered yes, it is fenced from the actual storage area, but it is part of the property. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Brown what he planned to do with the house. Dave Brown answered that a tenant is living in it right now. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he planned to keep a tenant there. Dave Brown answered, yes, for now. However, the long term plan would be to develop the property, and the house would be eliminated because it is a pretty old house or they would convert it into offices and move out the modulars. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirements as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to required improvement of parking lot and outdoor storage areas on the basis that there is no identifiable hardship for this property and that the surrounding neighbors (as those properties are developed and improved) have paved parking lots and outdoor storage areas. Further, potential fluid linkage from the buses and other vehicles has the potential to degrade water quality. Approved waiver (b) pertaining to required screening of parking areas on the basis that surrounding land uses are predominantly industrial and that the adjacent residential land use is legal nonconforming. Denied waiver (c) pertaining to minimum landscape setback area adjacent to a loca! street on the basis that the intensification in the use of this property for bus storage and dispatch warrants installation of the landscaping; and that there is no hardship pertaining to the property that would justify granting said waiver. VOTE ON WAtVERS: (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04394 for 5 years (to expire on July 30, 2006), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 30, 2001 with the following modifications. • Modified Condition Nos. 1, 14, 17, 27 and 29 to read as follows: 07-30-01 Page 46 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. That this permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on July 30, 2006. 14. That a 6-foot high chain link fence with PVC siats shal! be maintained along the west property line to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residence. 17. That a landscape and irrigation plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plans shall provide a 5-foot wide landscaped area adjacent to Coronado Street, with a minimum of six (6), 24-inch box trees to be planted in this setback area. The landscape plan shall also include the planting of vines on 3-foot centers and tall shrubs in front of the non-movable portions of the screening fence facing Coronado Street and refurbishment of the existing iandscaping adjacent to the caretaker's residence. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 27. That the modular building shall be placed on a permanent foundation within 180 days from the date of this resolution. 29. That within 90 days from the date of this resolution Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 26 and 28, 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. VOTE: 6-0, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (4:34-4:59) • 07-30-01 Page 47 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04396 Granted for 5 years (to expire on OWNER: Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut July 30, 2006) Grove, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Nextel Communications, Attn: M. Zimmerman, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 2720 West Yale Avenue. Property is approximately 3.9 acres wifh frontages of 265 feet on the south side of Yale Avenue and 265 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, located 360 feet east of the centerline of Syracuse Street. To permit a teiecommunication antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment on an existing electrical transmission tower. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-105 SR8039VN.DOC Staff's Statements: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner introduced Item No. 9 as a request for Conditional Use Permit 2001- ~ 04396, for property located at 2720 West Yale Avenue, and this is a request to permit a telecommunication antenna and accessory ground mounted equipment on existing electrical transmission tower. Applicant's Statement: Marty Zimmerman, with Nextel Communications, stated he has one major issue and 3 minor points to address with what Nextel is trying to do. The goal for this site is to provide high quality in building service to the few businesses in many homes near Lincoln and Magnolia. The idea location for us was at the intersection of Lincoln and Magnolia, at a height of 50 feet. He went out there and observed there are thin strips of commercial along the streets, backed by residential with one-story buildings; maybe a couple of two-story buildings, but nothing near 50 feet. To the west of that intersection is the large Edison towers, He asked his engineers if he could move over there, and they said yes, and this application is the result. staff has been extremely helpful, actuaffy; in spite of the recommendation today. The Planning Commission has looked at another Edison location for Sprint, very close to Disneyland, and felt that that was fine. Based on that, and the fact that this is the farthest from the residential, he went with this location. The major issue he has is, "is it a good idea for carriers like me to put out antennas on Edison towers?" So, he asked Commission to follow the precedent that they set with Sprint, up next to Disneyland, and say yes, they still think it is a good idea. Condition No. 2, on the second line, there is a small error he went over with his Planner, Vanessa Norwood, and she said to tell you relay this at todays meeting. Towards the end of the line it says proposed accessory ground mounted equipment. That should be tower. This refers to the little microwave dish antenna that they are going to put on the leg of the Edison tower. That would not go on the shelter. The second one, is Condition No. 4, this is a four-acre lot. His lease area is going to be entirely contained within the 4 legs of the Edison tower. And, anything that happens within that space, he would be happy to • take care of. !f anyone spray paints on their equipment shelter, they would go in there and clean it up. However, for the nursery and the rest of the property, there is not a lot he can do on that because that is not an area where he is allowed. So, he asked that Condition No. 4 be limited to that area. Second point, 07-30-01 Page 48 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • in Condition No. 4, this gives them 24 hours from the time that graffifi occurs to clean it up. He feels he would pretty well always fail that condition, because he would not know within 24 hours of the occurrence. He asked thaf he be given 3 business days from actual knowledge or notice, so that he would not violate the code, he feels within 3 business days he should be able to get it fixed. Condition No. 5 says that he is going to give an easement to the City of Anaheim for utilities. Chairperson Vanderbilt corrected that it states the legal owner of the property, which is Southern California Edison. Mr. Zimmerman asked for clarification regarding Condition No. 5 as he was not sure what the purpose is of giving the easement to the City. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty answered with regard to Condition No. 5, an easement would only be required if the City of Anaheim, as a public utility, was going to provide the service. However, if the City were not going to provide the service, the easement would deem necessary. So, it is only in there to reserve that right if the City needs to service that particular telecommunication facility. With regard to the graffiti, this is a standard condition that the City recommends to the Commission on all projects, and it is rea((y part of the City's aggressive effort to make sure that they wipe out graffiti as soon as possible. However, the City recognize that typically someone notifies the owner, and then 24 hours from the notification, that the graffiti gets cleaned up. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the City really does this on all the CUP's. as it is the standard. ~ Greg McCafferty suggested that the condition be take out because there is no landscaping proposed. Marty Zimmerman stated that he actually gave the City a nicer building and his Planner said that he did not need to do the landscaping if he did the nice stucco with the tile roof. Greg McCafferty stated with regards to Condition No. 2, we concur with that correction. In fact, that microwave dish is on the tower and not on the ground mounted equipment. Marty Zimmerman stated there was one other item in No. 2. And, that was that the height of the top of the antenna which was going to be 53 feet. However, on the plans, it is 50 feet to the center line, of the antennas. He apologized that it was misleading on his plans. The maximum size of the antenna is 6 feet. So, that would be 3 feet above the centerline. Greg McCafferty suggested that Commission make that notation. Obvious(y, our recommendation stands that we make the notation on the condition. Commissioner Koos referred to staff concerning an obvious trend of staff recommending denial of Edison towers. He wondered, given the scenario that the applicant outlined, whereby, you are encouraging them to go on rooftops, but when there are none available, and then there is an Edison tower right there what alternatives are you seeking? Greg McCafferty responded in terms of a trend, he did not feel there was a trend with regard to recommendations on lattice towers, because staff takes each case individually. And, with regard to the Disneyland tower, he felt that right next to tF~e Disneyland hotel and all of the improvements collectively that the City and the businesses were making there, that it wasn't appropriate to further clutter that area ~ with another cell site, and the same thing goes with this one. Mr. McCafferty feels there is a lot of focus on West Anaheim, and specifically attempting to beautify Lincoln Avenue within West Anaheim and staff did not think that being right close to the right-of-way contributes to that effort. 07-30-01 Page 49 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos contended that he did not think staff had recommended approval of any Edison tower placement since he has been on the Commission. And, going back to the first one that he saw, which was Cox Communications in Anaheim Hiils way up and Canyon realm where there would have been no alternative at that location, staff was strongly opposed. He felt these are pretty good opportunities; high antennas on towers that aren't going anywhere. Greg McCafferty concurred that staff s recommendation has been consistent, for denial of the lattice towers where they are visible to any public right-of-way or surrounding property with exception of, the middle of Yorba Regional Park, but it is hidden by trees, not on a lattice tower, but on a lightpole. So, anyone probably would get the same recommendation throughout the City from staff relative to placement on any lattice towers, since most all of them are visible. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04396 for 5 years (to expire July 30, 2006), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 30, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 2 and 4 to read as follows: ~ 2. That only three (3) antenna arrays with four (4) antennas each may be located on the existing tower and one (1) microwave dish antenna shall be located on the lattice tower. The placement of the three antenna arrays on the lattice tower shall be limited to 53 feet in height, and the microwave dish shall be limited to 43 feet in height. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 4. That the leased property shall be permanently maintained in an orderiy fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of notice. Deleted Condition No. 5. VOTE: 6-0, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (5:00-5:15) ~ 07-30-01 Page 50 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~ J 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Approved 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04398 Granted OWNER: Central Church Of Christ, Inc., 1590 West Sall Road, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Gaines Stanley, 1590 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1590 West Ball Road. Property is approximateiy 1.76 acre with a frontage of 164 feet on the south side of Ball Road, located 170 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street (Central Church of Christ, Inc.). To permit a pre-school and daycare facility in conjunction with an existing church. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-106 SR8038VN.DOC Applicant's Statement: Mike Stanley stated that he is a member of the committee acting on behalf of Central Church of Christ, . and in review of the recommendations, we are in full agreement with everything as it stands, so we don't have anything to add other than any questions that Commission might have. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty stated that because this outdoor play area is near residential, Commission might want to consider putting a limitation on the use of the outdoor play area. He suggested the hours of operation of the outdoor play area be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if he had a problem with the hours; the applicant concurred. • • • ~- ~ ~ • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED ,(Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categoricat Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04398 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 30, 2001 with the following modification: \J Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 07-30-01 Page 51 JULY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation for the preschool and day care facility shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. Further, that the use of the outdoor play area shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. VOTE: 6-0, (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (5:16-5:24) \ J • 07-30-01 Page 52 J U LY 30, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. • ~ Respectfully submitted: ~..~~.xs~J Ossie Edmundson Planning Commission Support Supervisor Received and approved by the Planning Commission on August 27, 2001. 07-30-01 Page 53