Minutes-PC 2001/09/24•
•
~ J
09-24-01
Page 1
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
RECONVENE 70 PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Item 1-A through 1-B on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. 7here 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Boydstun abstained from 1-B pertaining to the August 13, 2001 Minutes and
Commissioner Eastman was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1-B, as recommended by
staff (with a change on page 8 of the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes as read into the
record by Commissioner Koos). Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate discussion.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
~
A, a)
b)
c)
CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061 (b)(3)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00396
Concurred with stafF
Approved initiation
Approved initiation
~J
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00060 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated, Community
Development Department, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to consider initiation
of the following:
1) A General Plan Amendment from the General Commercial to
the Low-Medium Density and Police Station (P) land use
designations for Area No. 2.
2) A Reclassification of Area No. 1 from the CH (Commercial,
Heavy) to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone, and a
Reclassification of Area No. 2 from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple Family), CH (Commercial, Heavy), CL (Commercial,
Limited) and RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) to the
RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple Family Zone).
Property is located at 100 and 120-320 South Beach Boulevard.
OPPOSITION: 2 people representing West Anaheim Neighborhood
Development Council (WAND) spoke in opposition to the
reclassification request; and a person from the Anaheim Union
High School, Board of Trustees, spoke in opposition to the
request and indicated the negative effects the proposal would
have on the school system.
(Vote: 4-2, Commissioners
Boydstun and Bostwick voted
no and Commissioner
Eastman was absent)
09-24-01
Page 2
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the
definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from
the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation.
Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Bostwick voted no and
Commissioner Eastman was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby initiate General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00396
for the redesignation of Area No. 2 from the General Commercial land use
designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential and Police Station (P) land
use designations; and to initiate Reclassification No. 2001-00060 of Area No. 1
from the CH to the CL Zone and Area No. 2 from the RM-1200, CH, CL and
RS-A-43,000 Zones to the RM-3000 Zone.
•
•
SR2091 DS.DOC
09-24-01
Page 3
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
, B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with a
Meeting of August 13, 2001(Continued from August 27 and September 10, correction on page 8, last
2001 Planning Commission meeting). (MOTION) paragraph
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner
Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun Boydstun abstained and
abstained and Commissioner Eastman was absent), that the Anaheim City Commissioner Eastman
Planning Commission does hereby approve the August 13, 2001 Planning was absent)
Commission minutes with a change on Page 8, last paragraph, adding the
word "hundred" as indicated below:
"Ms. Perry stated that their organization received several
hundred letters and e-mails in opposition to the project, but
they were not ready to submit them for public record."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission ----------------------------------
Continued to
Meeting of August 27, 2001 (Continued from the September 10, 2001 October 8, 2001.
Planning Commission meeting). (MOTION) (7his item was not discussed)
(Vote: 6-0, Commissioner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman was absent)
----------------------------------
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to
•
Meeting of September 10, 2001. (MOTION) October 8, 2001.
(This item was not discussed)
(Vote: 6-0, Commissioner
Eastman was absent)
•
09-24-01
Page 4
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item 1A as a City initiated request. There are two
requests with this item: a general plan amendment and a requested reclassification. The subject
properties are
located generally south and east of the corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue.
Public Testimony:
Esther Wallace, West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND), requests Commission do
not change the reclassification portion which is Area 22 Rm-3000 residential. This is at the corner of
Beach and Lincoln. It is a very busy corner and all corners are Commercial. WAND requests to keep the
southeast corner as Commercial Zone. Three-fourths of properties in West Anaheim are going to be
changed into residential from Commercial. They feel they have already lost over 60 acres of industrial to
non-profit groups. They are interested in keeping this property as commercial because they feel it is a
busy corner and there are businesses that would like to come to this particular site. One of the
businesses, Sir Speedy, on Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard has indicated that they want to enlarge
their building. He has already taken over several of the units there, and is now asking Dave's Trophies'
which is at the very end of his unit to move out. He personally has stated that he would like to buy the
entire section. WAND has asked Redevelopment if they would seek out businesses for this area and they
have not done so. Housing seems to be the easiest thing to put there. TargeYs manager stated that at
one time they had considered closing because they are building a new one in Fullerton, instead they
decided to stay and enlarge it by 20%. Apparently, he feels it is a vibrant neighborhood. Property values
have gone up about 20-30%. Very few homes in West Anaheim are for sale because people who are
there want to stay. Homes for sale are sold very quickly. When this study was made the population for
West Anaheim was at 81,000. Ms. Wallace stated that they knew it was not accurate and questioned it at
the time, and they have consistently said that the population of West Anaheim was not correct. They
~ have known for 5 years that there are 90-100,000 people in West Anaheim, and when the new census
comes in it will prove to be at least 120,000 people. She feels since three-fourths of commercial is going
to go for residential, they would like to keep the southeast corner, which is a very vibrant corner, for
commercial only. She wants it known that at the time WAND members okayed the vision they were told
when it came time to take the vote on the vision, if they did not okay it nothing was going to happen in
West Anaheim. Therefore, they conceded believing that it could perhaps all be changed in the future.
She asked Commission not to reclassify this property to residential.
Katherine H. Smith, president of the Anaheim Union High School Board of Trustees, a resident of West
Anaheim since 1964, stated the single most important issue Anaheim Education is dealing with today is
overcrowding. Services for youth who move in cannot be provided, and changing this section from
commercial to residential should not happen. Education is stretched thin trying to provide services.
There is a little known law that is applicable to this situation and which applies to Anaheim, that if
educational scores are not raised by a certain point in time by a certain score average there will be a take
over of the areas' schools by the State. She stated the school district has run out of ideas and has done
everything possible including raising standards, and providing retention programs, but part of the problem
is that the area has deteriorated and the environment that these children come from is not healthy. In
spite of the school district doing everything possible, not a lot can be done about the children's home
environment. The State government has requested that class sizes be reduced and the school district
feels they cannot handle it. A research of the community schools to discover the relocatables on the
schools will prove to be very discouraging. She stated playground spaces for children are filling up and
they are ugly and she personally would not want her children educated in them nor does she think they
are good for other children. She urges, that a better community must be left to our children in the spirit
that was passed to us by our ancestors. She asked Commission to think strongly before allowing more
homes to go up, no matter what kind of homes they are because it is a terrible deleterious effect on the
• school system.
Judithanne Gollette, a representative of WAND'S Land Use and Business Development Committee,
stated they would like to have it recorded in public records that they oppose the reclassification of the
09-24-01
Page 5
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• southeast corner of Highway 39 and Lincoln Avenue; as it does not achieve the objectives of the West
Anaheim's vision created by the residents, business owners, the West Anaheim's Vision Task Force, and
WAND. Ms. Gollette points out that it was stated at the Vision Task Force that housing would be
considered as a last resort, and because of that WAND did not feel they wanted to hold the study and the
plan going forward, but felt nothing was going to be put in concrete. She stated they needed to continue
to look at all of the areas and explore what would come into West Anaheim; although they have been told
over and over and over again that no one wants to come to West Anaheim; that it is a blighted area and is
full of crime. This information is not only given by the newspapers, but also City staff, and travel agents
throughout the United States.
It was reported that a conference booked for 67 rooms at one of the motels on Beach Boulevard was
canceled because a travel agent told them not to go to that area because it is full of crime. She stated
that it is one of the reasons a new vision for West Anaheim needs to be created, and not just piece-
worked; the quilt work is over and done with, it was done in the `70's, and it has been done all the way
through West Anaheim. So she appeals to Commission to create a vision of quality and zeal that
everyone can work together with the City for a positive outcome in the area. Ms Gollette informs that as
an appraisal when a piece of land is taken for housing and it goes on the market for sale and a bank looks
at it, the first thing that a lender is going to do in the appraisal process is look for nuisances. She notes
that on Freeway 5, Santa Ana Freeway, and all Anaheim freeways, Caltrans has installed walls and vines,
etc., in an effort to stop the noise barrier; but it does not, and the property value sti(( goes down.
She fervently asked why would anyone in their right mind, knowing this fact, go ahead and put housing on
Highway 39, a state highway; knowing that these houses are going to be immediately turned around and
devalued once they try to sell. She stated that the City Zone Study shows that all economic and retail
growth should be centered at main intersections and main corridors, and there is not anything more main
in West Anaheim than Highway 39 and Lincoln Avenue; that is the focus point and the entrance to West
~ Anaheim, Anaheim, and Buena Park; it is a highly traveled intersection. She recalls that when the task
force vision was performed, there was a big red circle around the area and it was called the Civic Hub; the
alternate use would be housing. She feels exploration in this area for Civic, retail and commercial uses
has not yet begun and a true fashion of study must be done in order to look at the entire area as one; not
just piece-work; not go ahead and put the cart before the horse. WAND feels reclassification at this time
is not warranted and a balanced vision to create a life of quality for the residents of West Anaheim deems
necessary.
ApplicanYs Rebuttal:
Brad Hobson, Deputy Director, Community Development, stated that his comments are by way of
background and context. In 1997, the West Anaheim community approached the City and requested that
they look af the West Anaheim area in regards to feasibility for redevelopment, which they did and
subsequently adopted a redevelopment plan for West Anaheim. Some of the issues addressed as they
went along and identified blight and solutions to some of the problems out there included an abundance of
motels that were being misused, and subsequently crime and everything that goes along with that; an
over abundance of strip retail centers on all of the major corridors certainly a landfill at Beach and Lincoln
on the northeast quadrant fhere. The Redevelopment Land Use Plan adopted an alternative, generally
residential land use for many of the motel sites and much of the strip commercial between the major
intersections. The Redevelopment Plan also included certification of a program environmental impact
report that addressed the environmental impacts for that type of residential development. Following
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for West Anaheim, we worked with the community to develop a
vision plan for the area, genera((y around Beach Boulevard. This vision plan identified a major
commercial node at Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard and residential as an alternative land use for
excessive strip commercial and motels. At the request of the West Anaheim community, Community
• Development once again took a look at the vision for West Anaheim on Beach Boulevard and expanded
that analysis east all the way to Euclid Avenue. This was approximately a year long process, it included a
stake holders group made up of residents and community leaders and West Anaheim, members of school
boards, members of Planning Commission, Housing and Redevelopment Commission and City Staff.
09-24-01
Page 6
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• One of the significant findings of that study indicated that there is over 4 million square feet of existing
commercial-retail space in West Anaheim. The Economist, Kaiser Morriston, indicated that area could
support perhaps 1.5 to 2 million square feet of retail space. The vision plan that was ultimately drafted
identified major retail nodes at intersections like Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard; Lincoln Avenue
and Magnolia Street; Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street; Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street, as well as
major intersections along Ball; and identified residential as a re-use for the majority of the mid-block strip
commercial that exist. Focusing on Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, over this period of time the
agency staff has been moving towards implementing this vision. The Lincoln Landfill northeast quadrant
of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, the agency current(y controls, or owns or has an option on the
majority of the parcels within that block, and is working with a commercial retail developer to develop a
regional commercial node.
The issue of commercial on the southeast corner of that particular block, working with our economist and
talking to retailers is not an appropriate location for an additional retail, unless you wanted to build another
strip commercial center, of which the City already has an excess of over 2 million square feet in the West
Anaheim area. Further implementing initiatives in the West Anaheim area and near Beach Boulevard and
Lincoln Avenue include acquisitions and consolidations of parcels in the residential tract. Those are also
being acquired also for affordable housing development and the acquisition of all of the frontage, either in
escrow or already acquired on the eastside of Beach Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue and the flood
control channel. Throughout this entire process there were several elements that were important to the
community including a West Anaheim Police Station and a community center. The request before you
today, initiates the entitlements that would be required for the City to move ahead with implementation of
this vision plan including residential development on the majority of that site and accommodating a West
Anaheim Police Station and youth center near the flood control channel in that block. Community
DevelopmenYs request is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, and both vision plans that have been
reviewed by all parties, the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Housing Commission and
~ concurred with by the City Council in March of 2001. So they recommend that Planning Commission
approve the proposal.
Commissioner Koos referred to Brad Hobson and stated that specifically at the meetings, staff's
consultant, Architect John Colossky, and others brought in examples of different housing types that could
actually fit on some of the boulevard parcels, and as it was presented to the group a lot of them were
single-family whether detached or attached. Therefore he asked, if the RM-3000 Zoning Classification
would be the direction that would accomplish their goal. He stated that he supports the mid-block
residential because he believes what is said is true; the City has too much poor commercial, and more
ownership housing is needed to support the kind of commercial that the neighborhood wants; but it seems
to be moving in the direction of multi-family housing which is what the school districts and neighborhoods
are most concerned about.
Mr. Hobson responded that throughout the Redevelopment plan adoption process and the ongoing vision
process that was finished in March of 2001, Community Development has always indicated that it would
be for sale housing in West Anaheim, and that is what is being proposed today. He stated that many of
these parcels have been purchased with affordable housing money which is the funding source available,
and Community Development is interested in homeownership. It is not known the exact product-type that
would be developed there or the other locations in West Anaheim and throughout the City. However, in
West Anaheim it is expected to be in the range of 10-13 units an acre; it may be attached or detached, or
a mixed of attached and detached, there is not a clear zone that addresses mixing those two housing
types; this will give flexibility to do either or both. Architect John Colossky works for the Redevelopment
Agency and he has done a number of prototypical studies to confirm whether or not a single-family
development or for sale development on Beach Boulevard is feasible. Unlike South Anaheim Boulevard
where the City adopted an overlay zone last year and also adopted a specific boulevard residential
• product-type, because of the limited depth parcels on South Anaheim Boulevard, Beach Boulevard and
most of the major corridors in West Anaheim have significantly deeper lots, and Community Development
is quite certain it is possible to develop for sale neighborhoods; taking into account the busy streets, there
are not going to be little driveways pulling out into traffic onto Highway 39 or anything like that, they will be
09-24-01
Page 7
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ self contained. Overall, the agency currently owns or controls 33 acres within the City of Anaheim
designated for residential development and we are preparing to start releasing some of those sites for
development by residential developers in the private sector in partnership with the Redevelopment
Agency. Community Development recently released a request for qualifications at a brie~ng session with
about 35 residential developers and plan to narrow down the group to the most qualified so that as these
properties come online they can quickly be assessed to get a request for qualifications. Along the
planning process, Community Development has touched bases with many residential developers to test
some of the concepts prepared by the agency architects. So Community Development feels that the RM-
3000 would give the flexibility to attached or detached, single-family, for sale housing projects or a mix of
those two types.
Commissioner Koos asked if the projects would come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hobson replied that each individual project will come to the Planning Commission, City Council, and
Redevelopment and Housing Commission on its own merits; and ingress, design, set-backs and all
detailed issues would be looked at again. He stated that as they have done in the past, and will continue
to do, they will work closely with the school districts as the specific projects come online, which has been
indicated to them. He cautions that one has to keep in mind that one of the conditions with regard to
motels on Beach Boulevard is that there are students that reside there as well. One of the comments
heard from the school districts is that not only as students move around are they changing schools but
they are also changing districts. To provide a stabilized neighborhood where these people can live and
operate and go to school is a desirable condition and would lessen the impact on not only the
neighborhoods but also the schools.
Commissioner Arnold stated that the comments by both the community and staff were very helpful but he
wished to confirm that all is being done today is initiating further proceedings.
~ Mr. Hobson confirmed his understandings and stated that they would be coming back with specific zoning
and general plan actions at a later date.
Commissioner Arnold clarified that the vote today approves nothing other than to agendize the discussion
for a future date. He asked staff if it were possible, since having gained good input, to have a copy of that
portion of the minutes attached to the staff report on that item.
Mr. McCafferty assured Commissioner Arnold that it would be done.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that it has been rumored that there would be a police and a gym or some
type of youth project on the property, so she inquired of the type of zoning required and if it were
necessary to go RM-3000 on the entire project.
Mr. Hobson replied that they would be civic, public uses that could be accommodated in any zone.
However, there is a general plan amendment that relocates a designation for a police station from Lincoln
Avenue to that specific Beach Boulevard location.
Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Hobson how much of the property would he assume to use for the
combination.
Mr. Hobson responded that the City is currently evaluating whether or not they can reuse the Banner
Carpet Building or a portion of it or if it would make more, since to have new construction and that would
be the Banner Carpet Building and a portion of a mobile home park to the north that is currently owned. by
the agency; so approximately 11/2 acres or 2 acres. Residential development in that block could range
• from 4 to 6 acres.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the street behind it would be used to enter and exit since they are going
to be self-contained so that using Beach Boulevard would not be necessary.
09-24-01
Page 8
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSlON MlNUTES
• Mr. Hobson answered that the ultimate design of any residentiai project out there would be self-contained,
however he does expect it to have some access on Beach Boulevard and there is pubiic access behind in
the form of an alley and they may look at that as well; not in the form of an alley but a decent and good
looking residential access. However, it is not known yet and they will do it in conjunction with a selected
developer for that project.
Commissioner Boydstun wished to verify that there was not a master plan as to how it would be laid out.
Mr. Hobson answered that there are conceptual prototypes that show everything from a frontage road to
an interior street system with a single access and also utilization of existing public alleyways.
Commissioner Arnold asked that given the fact that we are obviously going to get into these issues in
much greater depth and a variety of input in the future if it is placed on the agenda, he is going to offer a
motion to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption, Section 15061 B3.
•
•
09-24-01
Page 9
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04433
OWNER: Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard,
#150, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: Interpacific Asset Management, 5505 Garden Grove
- Boulevard, #150, Westminster, CA 92683
LOCATION: 1052-1098 North Colleqe Boulevard* and 2021 East
La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 6.9
acres located north and east of the northeast corner of
State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue
(Granada Square).
~1
~_J
•
* Advertised as 1052-1098 South State College Boulevard.
To establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use
requirements for an existing commercial retail center, laundromat and
liquor store and to permit a convenience market.
Continued from the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-134
Approved
Granted
SR1023CW.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit, 2001-04433, for
property located at the northeast corner of La Palma Street and State College Boulevard to establish land
use conformity for an existing center and also for the laundromat and liquor store and to permit a
convenience market. At the direction of the Planning Commission this was continued from the September
10~h meeting in order for the property owner to be present.
Jerry O'Donnell identified himself for public records as the property manager for the leased-held owners of
the property.
Commissioner Bristol stated that there were a lot of conditions of approval and he asked Mr. O'Donnell if
driving that center would the conditions of approval would impact those uses, especially with signage and
he wanted to make sure the applicant was clear with fhat.
Applicant's Statement:
Mr. O'Donnell replied that the staff report is pretty clear.
Commissioner Bristol wished to confirm that he was okay with it and that the liquor would comply with the
condition; stating that right now it can hardly be seen inside the liquor store because of the signage and
that will be gone.
Mr. O'Donnell assured that they wanted to proceed the proper way and they would do whatever it takes.
09-24-01
Page 10
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner Bristol confirm once again that if the applicant was aware of what all the conditions stated
and if he was okay with it, asserting that that was his concern.
Mr. O'Donnell replied that they would go along with them. He felt it did not do any good to oppose
anything, judging from past experience.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak on Item 2.
Seeing none.
THE PUBLlC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. McCafferty confirmed that staff had no other changes or recommendations to revise the requirements
of the CUP request.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman 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.
~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04433 subject to the conditions of approval as
stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:15-2:19)
1~
09-24-01
Page 11
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 3a.
3b.
3c.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 8, 2001
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04420
OWNER: Gary D. and Linda L. Schnaible, 11331 Barclay Drive,
Garden Grove, CA 92841
AGENT: Farano and Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Suite
235, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1333 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately
0.27 acre located at the southwest corner of Euclid
Street and Chalet Avenue (Serenity Hall).
Requests to retain an unpermitted meeting hall for self-help groups with
waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) required site
screening.
Continued from the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8096CF.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated that there was not a full staff report with the Item because the
applicant previously requested continuance, he stated that Item No. 3 was continued from the August 27`h
~ Planning Commission Meeting and was continued in order for the applicant to attempt to find additional
offsite parking within the immediate vicinity of their proposed facility. Staff's understanding from the
applicant is that they needed a little bit more time to nail down the fundamentals of agreement. As
originally advertised, this is a request to retain an unpermitted meeting for self-help groups with waivers of
parking and site screening.
Applicant's Statement:
John Kirkland, stated that he resides about a block from the site proposed and is present to ask that
Commission do everything they possibly can to not allow the site to stay as it is and not allow any
Conditional Use Permit to be retained or initiated. He stated he has lived there for 30 years and drives up
and down the street at least twice everyday; on the way to work and on the way back and occasionally to
lunch, shopping, etc., and because of the parking along that block, and not just as a result of this site
being there but of other issues, the parking is atrocious; it is dangerous. He stated that in the mornings
the sun is blinding, and he defies anyone no matter how good their glasses are to be able to see down
that street about 7:00 o'clock in the mornings when the sun comes up. He stated that too many cars park
solid for the first block to a block and a half into the tract off the corner and it is impossible to see the
children going to school. The street is basically a residential street and therefore there are children who
do not pay attention as they would at larger thoroughfares. The children do not look both directions; they
ride their bikes where they want; and they ride their skateboards where they want; and he feels that is just
part of being children in a neighborhood. He stated he could not speak for the building or the use of the
building other than to report that he observes a lot of people there standing around and sitting in the
parking lot, folding chairs, etc., and whenever all of the cars belonging to the members are there he
doubts they all fit into the building because it is a very small building. He assures that he supports
programs of this nature and feels they are good for the community and good for the people who need help
• in those areas. He stated that he realizes they have to be done some place, but he thinks it is a condition
where, as he illustrates, he likes ice cream but he does not buy it in 5 gallon buckets, and this is "a quart
size building with a 5 gallon bucket full of people and a 10 gallon bucket of parking problems". He
09-24-01
Page 12
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. appeals to Commission to support not continuing this site and support not allowing for a new CUP. He
feels the wrong tenant is in this building.
Public Testimony:
Gary Huniu, stated he is opposed to the Conditional Use Permit and is also opposed to the continuance.
He stated that he reported at a prior Planning Commission why he opposed the Conditional Use Permit
and today he wished only to add a couple of comments regarding the continuance. Mr. Huniu recalled
that the applicant reported being in the process of negotiations with the Anaheim Union High School
District, but on Friday, when he spoke with the Mr. John Larner, the Assistant Superintendent for the
Business Division, he discovered that there was a phone conversation with the applicant regarding the
parking lot at Weir High School, the property that is right next to the building used by the fire station, and
he told the applicant that that property would not be rented, leased or sold. So he feels the only
conversation the applicant could have possibly had was with the actual parking lot which is located on
Cerritos Avenue, between the fie{d and the gymnasium, the parking lot that is used by the students. The
superintendent told the applicant that that parking lot could not be leased during school hours, which are
7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Larner stated that to date he has not received
anything in writing regarding this proposal, and once he receives something, and if he comes to terms
with the applicant he has to take the agreement to the Anaheim Union High School Board of Trustees, or
Superintendent for approval, and that process could take anywhere from 3 to 5 months and he would
expect, even if he comes to terms with something, it will not go before their board until early January or
February. Mr. Huniu reminded Commission that the applicant has been operating at the site in opposition
to City regulations since February 2001. Since the last meeting the community has continued to see
problems with the members at the site; there has been traffic on residential streets; illegal U-turns being
made by the members on Chalet, either after they are parked when they are leaving to go back to Euclid,
or when they are arriving and see parking on residential streets; tandem parking is continually observed,
• and there is a lot of socializing that exists in the streets. Mr. Huniu stated his concern is that Commission
do not allow this continuance and a vote be performed and that the CUP is denied.
Willis Baker, stated he has been a resident in the Chalet area for over 20 years, and strongly oppose
renewing the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed operation. He stated it has turned their
neighborhood into a commercial type zone with parking, people meeting outside, coming and going to
meetings, trash being thrown onto the street, U-turns being made, traffic, etc; it is a residential area and is
zoned as such and the residents do not want the proposed business to continue.
ApplicanYs Rebuttal:
Tom Kieviet, of Farano and Kieviet Attorneys, on behalf of the applicants Gary and Linda Schnaible,
reiterated their request for a continuance. However, he stated that he has listened to the comments made
by Mr. Huniu and wished to report that he too has had recent conversations with Mr. John Larner of the
Anaheim Union High School District, and he has indicated that they would look with favor upon reaching
some arrangement to use the Loara High School parking lot for the additional parking that is needed.
Since the last meeting he has explored several other alternatives of surrounding property owners, but the
Loara High School parking lot seems to be the most viable adjacent property and they are currently trying
to work out an agreement with the school district. He has not heard the 3 to 5 month time frame and he
would presume, against his better judgement of presumptions, that Mr. Larner would have informed him if
it would take 3 to 5 months to accomplish since they discussed the time perimeter they were on with the
City at this time. Therefore, he wished to renew their request for continuance.
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Kieviet to clarify the statement "some sort of parking arrangemenY' and
the fact that since the high school is not going to allow parking during school hours, would he be referring
. to late afternoon parking.
Mr. Kieviet responded that Loara High School would be primarily the parking they would be looking at
possibly early morning or late afternoon. Those would be the peak times that Serenity Hall would need
09-24-01
Page 13
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• the additional parking. During the school hours they basically do not need it. They have a parking study
that pretty much establishes when the peak times are and feels it wouid still fit within their needs.
Commissioner Arnold desired to verify the peak times.
Mr. Kieviet responded that there generally is a 5:00 and a 8:00 o'clock meeting on Thursdays and Fridays
in the afternoon and the early morning meeting starts at 6:00 o'clock for approximately 1 hour.
Commissioner Koos wished to reiterate a concern stated in the early morning meeting regarding
continuing the proposed site insomuch as it has been there since February, and he feels if it is permitted
to continue then the City will be allowing an illegal use to perpetuate. Although he admits there might
have been some issues with Building regarding the business license being transferred, etc., and there
might have been an administrative snafu with the City, he cannot be certain, but if the school district is the
only lead, it does not seem like there is a lot of progress being made. So he stated he could possibly
support another two-week continuance. He reminded Commission that they did not allow it for the church
on Euclid that was there illegally for about a year and he does not think they should encourage illegal
uses to continue here either.
Commissioner Bostwick reminded Commission that they gave the church a continuance to look at ways
they could change the landscape and do some things and they failed to accommodate the requirements.
However, he stated that Serenity got a bad start by whatever way they got their business license, so he
suggests maybe if Commission allows a two-week continuance, but ask Mr. Kieviet if he would get a letter
from the school district as proof that they are working on an agreement, so that in two weeks there would
be concrete evidence that a solution is being worked towards.
Commissioner Arnold stated he would like to see a lot of details and therefore would not support a
• continuance even though he understands all of the reasons why it might be a good idea, but he just thinks
it is a practical matter, and it does not look terribly promising, and it seems like it is going to be quite some
time before the issue is resolved, so he is concerned that it will drag out in a rather piece-meal fashion.
Commissioner Bristol stated he wished to go along with Commissioner Bostwick on this one because
Commission gives continuances all of the time, and if what is being heard from the neighbors it is not the
use, it is the traffic, then giving the applicant a couple more weeks to get some type of written letter of
understanding that they are going to be able to park off that area and not on the street, he is in favor of
giving the applicant two more weeks to comply; if not then he concurs that it is not going to fit.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to October 8, 2001, seconded by Commissioner
Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried.
OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Eastman was
absent), to continue the subject request to the October 8, 2001, Planning Commission
meeting as the applicanYs legal counsel, Mr. Thomas Kieviet, submitted a letter requesting a
2-week continuance to allow time to attempt to finalize a tentative parking agreement at Loara
High School with Anaheim Union High School District officials. The applicant must also
• prepare a parking letter for the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager to be submitted with the finalized parking agreement for Planning Commission
consideration.
09-24-01
Page 14
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Arnold and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Eastman was absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (2:20-2:35)
•
•
09-24-01
Page 15
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
~
•
4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved
4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00395 Recommended adoption of
4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00054 Exhibit A to City Council
Granted
4d. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04443 Granted
4e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 16254 AND 16255 Approved
4f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2001-00001 Approved
4g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 4a, 4c, 4d, 4e Recommended City Council
review of Items 4a, 4c, 4d, 4e & 4f
AND 4f
OWNER: Hazel I. Maag Revocable Trust, Attn: Lloyd
Copenbarger, 4675 Mac Arthur Court #700, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
Melvin and Marriam Schantz, John & Jo Schantz and
Robert and Alice Pernell, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana
Point, CA 92629
AGENT: JL Hare Associates, Atfn: 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 centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00395: Requests a general plan
amendment from the Generai 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, (c) maximum lot coverage and open
space requirements, and (d) minimum lot width, to establish a 128-unit
detached single-family subdivision.
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 97
specimen trees.
Continued from the July 30, August 13, and August 27, 2001 Planning
Commission meetings.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-135
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-136
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-137
SR1168JD.DOC
09-24-01
Page 16
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
, Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 4 as Maag Ranch, continued from the July 30th,
August 13th, and August 27th Planning Commission Meetings. It is a request for a general plan
amendment for the northwest 3.9-acre portion of the site from general commercial to low-medium density
residential. There are some labors being requested and those are: required frontage on a public street,
maximum permit fence site, maximum lot coverage and open space requirements, and minimum lot width
to establish a 128 single-family residential sub-division and to remove 97 specimen trees. This request
was originally advertised for the July 30`h meeting and was further continued from the August 13~h meeting
at the direction of the Commission in order to afford the public additional time to review the mitigated
negative declaration.
Further, the City as lead agency decided to circulate the mitigated negative declaration for a 30-day
review and to order the document to the State Clearinghouse to coordinate agency review. The 30-day
review period ended on September 21 S`. Since the August 13`h meeting, the document has been available
for review for a total of 42 calendar days. As indicated in the staff report dated September 24`h, all
comments received on the mitigated negative declaration on or before September 17`h, have been
responded to and are included as attachment B of the staff report. Comments received on or after
September 18`h have been included in a supplementary attachment and is presently being provided to the
Commission by staff, responding to all of the letters that we received after September 18~n
Comments received by the staff after September 17'h included a letter from the Orange County Sanitation
District, dated September 20`h; a letter from the Southern California Gas Company, dated September 18`h;
a letter from the Department of Fish and Game, dated September 18th; a letter from the State Regional
Water Quality Control Board, dated September 20`h; a letter from the County of Orange, dated September
19`h; a letter from the City of Placentia, dated September 215~; a letter from Stefanie O'Neill-Perry, of the
Concerned Citizens of the Canyon, dated September 19`h; and a letter from Patrick Pepper of the
~ Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, dated September 24`h. In addition to addressing these letters in the
supplemental attachment where appropriate, staff has amended the mitigation monitoring plan to address
any potential impacts and is recommending revisions to certain conditions of approval. Both attachments
are presently being passed out; the first one being the Mitigation Monitoring plan essentially adds
mitigation measure B2. B2 addresses comments that were received by the Department of Fish and
Game as well as the State Regional Water Control Board. With regard to the conditions of approval staff
is presently issuing a document with proposed modifications to the conditions, and copies have been
provided to the applicant as well.
Commissioner Arnold verified that there were a couple of corrections to the staff report.
Mr. McCafferty confirmed his concern.
ApplicanYs Statement:
Christopher Townsend, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., representing the applicant, GME Anaheim, on
behalf of the Maag Ranch Project, presented hard copies as well as a video screen illustration of the plan.
He stated that it has been a long road to get to this day and he gave a brief history so that everyone would
understand what they have gone through to get to this point and why they think today's plan is a
significant improvement. History proves that the project is in its fourth year, there have been two previous
plans and presently a current plan is being offered that the applicant feels best responds to the feedback
of the Planning Department and the community. In the summer of 1997, the first plan was submitted
which had 100% retail use consisting of a 250,000 square foot commercial center that was unanimously
approved by the Planning Commission. However, there was extensive community opposition to the
commercial use and a clear message that the community requested and preferred 100% residential use,
• so subsequently, the applicant withdrew the plan in July 1998.
The second plan submitted m the spnng of 1999, was a mixed use of retail, residential and senior
housing, including 185,000 square foot commercial center, a 75 unit senior-assisted living complex and 50
09-24-01
Page 17
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ single-family detached homes. A meeting was held with members of the community, and the applicant
shopped the plan around thinking it could be an appropriate compromise and appropriate uses for the site.
However, the community made it clear there was opposition to any commercial use on the project and
made a request for 100% residential use; subsequently the applicant withdrew the plan in May 2001. The
applicant stated that the third time is a charm; the message has been received clearly; it is 100%
residential use; single-family detached homes and feels it responds to the community demands to remain
consistent with the intended general plan. The plan is referred to as reduced zoning by the applicant
because it down zones 3.9 acres from general commercial to hillside low-medium density. It will allow for
a Maag project that is 100% residential, provide for reduced traffic impact and allows the project to be in
compliance with the general plan as amended. Furthermore, the project is reduced density.
Under"the current zoning after the general plan amendment, the maximum number of units that would be
allowed is 147 single-family homes; the proposal is for 128 units; 20% would be 3 bedroom homes, 40% 4
bedroom homes, and 40% 5 bedroom homes. The lot size for the homes are bound by a City requirement
of a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The average lot size of the proposed project is 6,125 square
feet; no lot is less than 5,000 square feet.
The applicant presented some of the benefits of the proposed project: First is reduced traffic impact.
Under the current City general plan it was designed to accommodate a little more than 3,000 daily trips
being generated from what was perceived as the future development of Maag Ranch. As proposed, the
project will generate 1,700 fewer daily trips. The project will also provide for improved traffic flow; as
proposed, the homes along Solomon Drive will not face onto Solomon, there will not be 8 driveways on
Solomon that create traffic congestion issues. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of
Solomon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and also the applicant will be funded a scoot system which
is a synchronization of the traffic signals; the four traffic signals along the Santa Ana Canyon Road
Corridor that is managed by the City centrally out of City Hall and allows to improve traffic control and
~ ease congestion. The final highlight of the project is the extensive landscape mitigation. The required
mitigation for the tree replacement that will need to take place on the site is two trees for everyone
removed. However they are proud to report that they propose to provide four trees for everyone removed;
double the mitigation requirement, which equates to 313 trees planted on site, 89 trees planted offsite, for
a total of 402 trees. Mr. Townsend advises that last minute discussions at the morning's meeting may
result in unintended misrepresentation, however they agree to support whatever staff and Commission
recommend for the final number on trees.
To address the community concerns about what the appearance of the project would be along Santa Ana
Canyon Road, he assures that they have been advised to try to make it consistent with the Anaheim Hills
experience that is enjoyed in other areas of the canyon. As a result, there will be a 50 foot setback of the
project and the wall from the Santa Ana Canyon Road, so there is going to be a nice sense of distance
and plenty of opportunity to plant a lot of trees and with the offsite trees being provided the City will have
an opportunity to further enhance the streetscape.
Regarding Solomon Drive, where there are so many constraints with abilities as to how much can be
planted because of the large storm drain right underneath, he reports they have done an aggressive job
with tree pockets, vines along the perimeter walls, and again with the offsite trees being made available,
other enhancement opportunities that may make sense as determined by the City along other portions of
Solomon Drive. Mr.Townsend stated this has been really difficult at times and educational at times; a
process with a piece of property that is obviously drawn a lot of attention, and there is a lot of emotional
attachment to, but it is private property that has been properly zoned for private development and he feels
they have come up with a development that is consistent with the general plan, does not provide for
commercial uses, has less residential densities than could have been allowed, will reduce traffic impacts
and provide extensive new landscaping for the community. They fully concur with the staff report and all
• of their conditions and therefore respectfully request Commissions' approval of the project.
09-24-01
Page 18
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Public Testimony:
Sonja Grewal, speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition,
referred to a letter which was previously submitted to Commission and offered to highlight a few points:
They have talked to people with varying opinions; one is "we do not want anymore development" and
another is "we are so happy GME has come back with a residential alternative", and some people want a
park or nothing, and others like the residential but they want to design it. The Board of Directors of the
Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition continues to believe that the best use for the land would be for the
recreation of their children, and they want to emphasize that they do not think what they have heard today
will preclude that, even if it is approved today, they think if and when the plans are aligned perhaps that
can still happen. Also as a board, we believe that the project is consistent with the general plan.
Of the seven items listed in the letter, she would like to highlight a few and hopes they are responded to in
the minutes: No. 1 regarding how the fees will go back into the community; No. 3 because not having lots
coming out on Solomon might be construed as enhancing traffic safety but if the streetscape were
observed, it might make sense to have them come out on Solomon because it seems to finish off the
neighborhood; so she asked Commission to evaluate that feasibility.
She stated that there has been a lot of discussion and detail on what the project looks like from Santa Ana
Canyon Road and from Solomon Drive but they would like to make sure it is consistent with the scenic
highway element, determine what it is going to look like from the freeway, and feels, perhaps, some
heavier landscape might be needed on that particular corner. Regarding No. 5, Ms. Grewal asked
whether or not the project is developed as a gated community and will there have to be a homeowners
association, because the staff report refers to an association but there is not a condition, so they feel there
may be something in the zoning code that requires an association, but they are not sure and asked that it
• please be discussed for the record. They feel that CC&R's are only as good as the association that
enforces them. Overall, they continue to believe that the entire project should go with the general plan
amendment for review by the City Council.
Dan Gilliam, stated that a couple of things he would like to discuss are the response to all of the letters
that were written regarding the mitigated negative declaration. He wrote a very extensive letter on that
and today was the first time he heard that there had been some responses, so he is trusting that the City
Council and staff have addressed all of the issues because there were several issues that seemed like the
mitigation did not fit the problem and in other cases where it was based upon some insufficient data.
Generally, he is not totally opposed to this residential area, his focus has been always that they comply
with the regulations and the issues that are in place, beginning with the mitigation negative declaration
that they go through the entire process and adequately mitigate any negative impacts. The other thing is
that they listened to the City ordinances that are in place and certain City ordinances require a certain
amount of green space in a residential area and that those things not be offset by throwing some money
in some areas that will not impact the proposed area, but basically that green space is provided for
children to play in instead of on the streets and in the areas.
He also made some recommendations and it looks like in some cases they are being adhered to. He is
definitely opposed to making this a gated community which would drive a wedge between the existing
neighborhood and the other one. It appears that at this time the gated community is no longer a
requirement, he hopes that the City places a condition to ensure that.
One of the interesting things he sees all of the nice pictures here, and he hopes it is not of a 20-year
outlook when those trees are grown to that size, but he read in the negative declaratipn that they were
using smaller, there were limits on certain trees, referring to 40-gallon trees that are not going to be that
• size. He would like for Commission to, if it is approved in this to ensure that it is developed in the way that
it is shown and there are not later conditions that come along and suddenly disrupt everything that they
fought for and have asked for in this area and that the property would be developed in the manner it is
shown and keep those houses in the range consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.
09-24-01
Page 19
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Stefanie O'Neill-Perry, read a prepared statement which stated that over the 3%2 years the Concerned
Citizens of the Canyon have worked hard on behalf of the Anaheim Hills Community to ensure a
reasonable and responsible development of the Maag Ranch property which they feel is a true diamond in
the rough for their community. The overwhelming requests from the community is that Maag Ranch be
used as a community park or as a site for a full residential project that would look like the surrounding
neighborhoods and conform with the Anaheim General Plan. She feels they have worked closely with
their community and appear to have reached a compromise that appeases all involved parties. Ms.
O'Neill-Perry offered three specific requests from the residents: (1) that the project not be gated, (2) that
the community, with the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon functioning as its o~ciaf representative, have
direct input on the placement of approximately 89 trees to be planted offsite, (3) that a small and dignified
monument or plaque be placed on the Maag Ranch property. The monument or plaque should
commemorate the history of Maag Ranch and honor the woman from whom the property was named;
Hazel I. Maag. She stated if a developer will agree to the conditions, the Concerned Citizens of the
Canyon offers to withdraw their opposition to the development as planned.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Christopher Townsend, stated he would attempt to address as many issues as possible with the help of a
couple of his consultants. He stated that first and foremost everyone has heard the issue of the need for
park and recreational opportunities, both passive use and active sports fields. He feels that is clearly a
public policy issue that not only impacts this community but everywhere in Orange County. Mr. Townsend
affirms his belief that there will be opportunities with respect to other pieces of properties for development,
and that he is sure funds will be made available that will compliment the fees that such a project
generates that can make such type sport fields realities, but he stated, in America where we are today,
which is something we are all more sensitive about than anything, private property rights are one of the
• most important features of being an American citizen. He feels it is clearly a policy decision of the City if
they would want to invest the millions of dollars needed to acquire Maag Ranch property for a park.
However, he as the applicant believes that is clearly not the best use of public resources and he suggests
there are more creative, cost efficient ways to acquire fields to be developed in an appropriate manner
and still protect the American system of private property rights.
With respect to Mr. Gilliam's comments about making sure this development take place as proposed, he
feels it is important to know that traditionally the builder for this project has not yet been selected and
normally if it had, they would be standing before Commission today with detailed elevations, plot plans,
and the like that could give people a greater comfort level as to how the project would actually look. But
as staff s report notes this project is fully conditioned that all detailed building plans, elevations, and
detailed landscaping, have to be approved by the City and the Planning Commission; so he assures there
will be full oversite and review by the public to insure that the final development matches the groundwork
as laid out today.
In response to the requests made by the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon, GME's intent was to develop
a project that would have the ability to be gated; that decision was to be made by the builder, and as
known to everyone, GME has been fighting to keep its options and flexibility open as to what the builder
ultimately thought was the best marketing decision. However, hearing a lot from the Community and the
Planning Staff regarding this issue, and in the spirit of trying to bring resolution at this junction, GME
accepts the condition to not have a gated community in order to culminate a final resolution.
The second request regarding community input on the placement of the offsite trees, he feels that clearly
is not their call rather it is the call of the City and their processes and their desired procedures, and he
assures GME would have no objection to the placement of offsite trees. Acknowledging discussions
about the enhancements on Solomon Drive along the corner, Mr. Townsend agrees that it makes good
• sense, so clearly they would have no problem with the condition, but advises again, it is the call of the
City. Regarding the monument to commemorate Ms. Hazel Maag, he stated that they think it was a really
good idea in trying to create some type of monument signifying the history of Maag Ranch and the role
09-24-01
Page 20
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• that Hazel Maag has played in the community, and they would be happy to concede to a condition
memorializing that commitment as part of moving the project forward.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jack Kudron, Superintendent of Parks and Golf, the question of the in lieu fees basically are driven by a
state legislation called the Quimby Act and requires that the money be spent in the same region from
which it was generated. So Community Services' process would be that once the fees are paid, to give
City Council some options relative to recreational opportunities, in particular, sports fields in the area.
Commissioner Arnold stated that he wanted to make certain for the record of some materials that were
presented to Commission in a briefing session about the City's capital improvements project, that the City
does not have any particular plans for acquisition of this particular site for parks or recreational facilities
on this particular property.
Mr. Kudron confirmed that to date there were no plans. However, he stated the City has a standard of 2
acres of park land per thousand population, and this development would develop about 432, which would
give less than 1 acre of park land which would not allow much more than a piece of play equipment. He
feels the money would be befter used to enhance an existing facility or to contribute to a new facility.
Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to Ms. Grewal's question about the fees being dedicated for the Anaheim
Hills area and stated that he looked through the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan that
Commissioner Arnold referred to and did not see any projects on the books included in the Anaheim Hills
area, so he asked Mr. Kudron to address that issue.
Mr. Kudron stated Community Services is working on three specific ideas in terms of sport fields, and one
• of them is in the Capital Budget; the expansion of Yorba Regional Park. There are 6 acres west of the
existing bail fields at Yorba Regional Park and they have been in discussion with the county in terms of
being able to use that property and develop more sports fields on that 6 acres. In addition they have been
exploring the idea of lighting some of the school athletic fields in the canyon area that would more than
double the capacity for sports team practices, and they have also been in discussion with Caltrans relative
to a Caltrans surplus site that is between the river and the freeway off of Imperial as a possibility of a
sports complex; it is about 18 acres. He stated that there are substantial constraints on that piece of
property, ingress and egress being the primary ones, but that they have had some positive discussions
with Caltrans and feels there may be something they can do there. Mr. Kudron stated that those are just
three options that are on the table now that are actively being pursued, in addition there may be others
that come forward by the time the fees are actually deposited, at which time they can make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that there were three or four individuals who spoke during the public
hearing portion who had certain questions that were not addressed, so he presented the issues to the
applicant for better clarification, beginning with landscaping from the freeway.
Mr. Townsend responded that he would have to defer to his colleague regarding the issue of landscaping
from the freeway. However, he believes that as early as this morning there were some additional
conditioning clarified along the backside that points out extensive plans for offsite and onsite mitigation.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that his response provides an area view but he desired the elevation
available to give a perspective from the freeway.
Mr. Townsend answered no, there is not an elevation available with perspective from the freeway, but
• there are elevations for the perspective from Solomon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Gary Marone, GME Development, stated that along the sound wall that borders the freeway there will be
trees along the inside along the wall within the subdivision and trees will be planted on the outside of the
09-24-01
Page 21
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• wall facing the freeway, and what is not shown on the landscape plan at this point is that an additionai 8
trees will return down the easterly border.
Commissioner Koos asked for the approximate number of trees on the perimeter.
Mr. Townsend answered there are 50 trees on that perimeter.
Commissioner Bostwick asked regarding the northwest corner of a point that sticks out, what the plans
were for that area.
Michael Benganic, principal with RPA Landscape Architects, San Juan Capistrano, stated the Caltrans
sound wall is separating Caltrans' property to this tract. So there is a retaining wall with a sound wall on
top and they will be planting Eucalyptus Globulus which is one of the approved replacement trees. There
are approximately 50 trees that will be planted in that 5 foot area which is offsite Caltrans encroachment
permitted improvements in that area and they will have to do a separate Caltrans' drawings for that, also
they are proposing vines on the sound wall.
Commissioner Koos confirmed that the 5 feet was actually Caltrans, and asked if the 50 trees were part of
the 89 offsite trees that was identified in the presentation.
Mr. McCafferty, responded that as the Case Planner, Judy Dadant, indicated there is a total of 58 trees on
the exhibit that would be required on the freeway side of that wall, if the proposal were approved today.
Commissioner Koos asked if the 58 trees were a part of the 89 offsite trees as part of the project.
Mr. Benganic responded that the 89 trees were offsite in the medians to be placed in specific locations.
i Mr. Townsend stated that if staff determines additional trees are needed along that area they would be
happy to plant them.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that the reason he asked about the northwest point is that there really
needs to be some additional recreational space for the residents, therefore he asked if there is going to be
any plan for recreational equipment, etc., on that area or perhaps on lots 69 and 70 where there is the end
of the cul-de-sac and the water pipe going through; he wonders if the two lots could be taken out so to
create a regular street in front of the houses rather than a narrow easement and also create a play area
there that would serve the residents of the community.
Mr. Townsend stated that the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) easement is probably the most
appropriate location for a tot lot or such, however it all has to be subject to approval by MWD in case they
need access. In terms of giving up anymore lots, they feel they have given up a lot already and feels it is
just not feasible at this juncture but they believe some fees generated and some creative aggressive
approach of some, perhaps nearby surplus Caltrans property, could reaHy address the issue in a manner
that really addresses the community needs.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that GME is building 5 bedroom houses and there will be lots of little
people residents and most projects such as this put in some kind of a tot lot. She advises it would
eliminate one of their waivers because then there would be street access to the two houses if they took
out 69 and 70 and with a little greenbelt strip there they could have the street and a decent play area.
Mr. Townsend stated he would have to take that under advisement but could not commit to it at this point.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if there would be parking on both sides of the street throughout the
• complex.
Mr. Townsend responded, yes.
09-24-01
Page 22
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the question regarding the homeowners association and stated that as
was noted there is some mention of it in the staff report but he desired the applicant to give qualifying
statements.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney stated that the way that it was handled in the conditions of approval
is through Condition No. 16 on page 15 and Condition No. 6 on page 16 which actually refer to a
maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement is sort of a pre-cursor to the Conditions,
Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's). It is an agreement between the developer and the City to put in all
of the private improvements and all of the sewers, the streets, everything that is going to be required to be
maintained by the development by the association and the developer is made responsible for installation
of the maintenance of all the private improvements until such time as the unsubordinated CC&R's are
recorded, establishing an association that would take over the responsibilities from the developer. That
has served a dual function. First, we have gotten some very fine CC&R's that establish some very clear
responsibilities for maintenance because if that does not happen the developer remains on the hook, and
it also has taken the City Attorney's office out of the business of reviewing what are sometimes several
hundred pages long CC&R's that have a great deal more information than what the City is really
concerned with, which is the maintenance portion of the CC&R's. It is a longwinded answer but a
backdoor answer that yes there is an association, yes there are CC&R's and they will be recorded against
the property.
Mr. McCafferty stated that Commission also should have received a fax just received from Caltrans, and
staff has taken a look at it and the Environmental Consultants have taken a look at it and the letter does
not raise any additional environmental issues that they have not responded to in either of the
supplemental responses received by the Commission.
~ Mr. Townsend stated that they fully support the Homeowners Association and the conditions are in the
report.
Commissioner Bristol referred to Mr. McCafferty and wished to confirm regarding the trees on the northern
part of the wall if the footage was approximately 1,400 feet along the freeway.
Mr. McCafferty responded that on the location map it proves to be approximately 1,418 linear feet.
Commissioner Bristol asked if it were the same requirement of 20 feet on center as the interior on the
property line.
Mr. McCafferty stated that it was not the standard but the replacement mitigation that is required from the
municipal code that would require 2 to 1 replacement overall, but as a mitigation measure the
recommendation is 4 to 1; in this specific case there will be 58 trees on the freeway side of the wall.
Commissioner Bristol asked why 58 trees.
Judy Dadant responded that the applicant has proposed 50 trees along the portion of the property that is
parallel to the 91 freeway and the 8 additional trees are trees that are actually not shown on the landscape
plan, they wrap around the easterly wall on the project and just for the spacing there is 8 and there are
also clinging vines proposed along the entire wall that also wraps around to the easterly edge of the
project.
Commissioner Arnold clarified that the intent was 50 trees along the linear footage referred to by
Commissioner Bristol.
• Ms. Dadant confirmed his statement.
09-24-01
Page 23
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner Bristol clarified that they were Eucalyptus Globulus.
Chairperson Vanderbilt confirmed that Commissioner Bristol's concern regarded the screening that the
trees would provide.
Commissioner Bristol stated that they grow fast and if there were 20 on center there would be 70 trees;
but there are 50 on the plan and they must be spaced pretty far, and the plan showed 28 feet apart, so he
wondered how long it would take to screen that area.
Commissioner Boydstun clarified 50 trees over 1400 square feet would put them 28 feet apart.
Commissioner Bristol replied yes but on the plan they were clustered in certain areas, so he feels there
would be a very large space, approximately 30 feet between them.
Commissioner Bostwick suggested that the other thing they could do is not to use Eucalyptus but use a
broad head tree that would give them more shade and sound barrier. He feels the Eucalyptus is not
indigenous to this area anyway, it is planted as a windbreak but is really a dirty, nasty and ugly tree.
Mr. Townsend replied that the detailed landscaping would have to be brought back and reviewed and
approved by the City and Commission, and he feels that the key decision that is being made today is that
you have now taken what has been a 2 to 1 tree mitigation requirement on this project, and secured an
excess of 4 to 1 mitigation and there will be approximately 90 trees offsite the project beyond the 50 that
can be used at the City's discretion as to how it should best be placed.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that this issue is important, not so much for the replacement, at this
particular discussion, but in regards to the screening. When it comes to elevations there would be a
• concern from the citizens as well as Commission as to what kind of screen would exist on the northern
portion of fhe property that separate the freeway from the project. So whether it is a matter of what
species of trees selected or what type of design the homes take, are all things that will be of importance.
He illustrated for example, the developers in Ontario as you are taking the 60 freeway east towards the
airport, you see the condominiums without windows, but all walls. He affirms that he does not expect that
would be the case, but that is a concern that all will be looking out for.
Commissioner Arnold wished to clarify, with respect to Chairperson VanderbilYs statement that it is not
that tree replacement that are a concern but it is important to maybe think about the plan for broad head
trees along the 91.
Mr. Townsend assured that the message had been received and that it may also go nicely with the
condition that was recommended by the Concern Citizens regarding community input role since the
discussion is not only of spacing but types, size, clustering, how much relative to, and if more there versus
on the front end of Solomon. He affirms they will support the condition. He asked permission to present
Ms. Labell to discuss Condition No. 17.
Carollyn B. Lobell, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, requests Condition No. 17 change to read
instead of "shall" to "may" also include water quality enhancing detention basins to the extent practicable"
and then add "in open space areas."
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff if they would be comfortable with the modification.
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, replied that on Condition 17 there were two sentences added. The
first sentence reads: The WQMP shall include measures to maximize the use of pervious materials onsite
Ms. Adams affirms it really is the City's goal to maximize the use of pervious materials, so that
• recommendation would hold. She acknowledged the second sentence where the applicant would like to
add the phrase "in open spaces" and stated they are agreeable to that modification.
09-24-01
Page 24
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Arnold clarified that GME also requested changing "shall" to "may"; making it permissive
and not mandatory, so he wanted to know if Ms. Adams was agreeable to that.
Ms. Adams replied that on the second sentence "may" could be used because on this matter the water
quality management issues are rather sensitive. In reviewing the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
comments their desire is to include measures that they believe are agreeable at the earliest point
possible. The City is a co-permitee with the County on a permit with the board and it is a rather serious
measure to the extent that the City, if found out of compliance with permits in being overly permissive with
developers, the City is subject to fines and penalties. This site is particularly sensitive in that it directly
discharges into the Santa Ana River, and so where in other cases the ianguage may be more relaxed, in
this instance it is actually appropriate to add as many specific measures as possible.
Commissioner Arnold stated that his sense is that Regional Water Control Boards are being much more
stringent with development and that there has been more and more attention to how residential land
development effects water quality, runoffs, etc.
Ms. Adams verified his statement and stated this is one of the key issues they are looking at in this next
phase of permit review.
Commissioner Arnold wished to get a clear sense of the words "shall" versus "may'.
Ms. Adams stated that she prefers to keep the word "shall" and the phrase "to the extent practicable", and
advises that it is not infringing any of their lots or developed areas, but in the open spaces where things
could be worked in is their aim.
Ms. Lobell confirmed that it was acceptable to GME.
• Chairperson Vanderbilt acknowledged their agreement.
Mr. McCafferty desired to add one other amendment; Page 17, Condition No. 22, in order to cover all of
Caltrans permit and regulatory processes that it read: All necessary permits or other approvals required
by Caltrans shall be obtained prior to construction. He stated that the amendment is for Tract 16255 but it
should also be included on Tract 16254 as an added condition.
Chairperson Vanderbilt returned to the list of items of the individuals who spoke during the public hearing
portion whose questions were not addressed during the applicanYs rebuttal. He informed that there was
an opportunity to meet with the applicant at the site and at one point he joined Commissioner Bostwick
where they viewed a Tract Map and discussed the use of that area possibly permitting access to Via
Cortez as a pedestrian walkway. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated it is an area that he is still curious about
and is concerned that it has not been brought up again since last discussed.
Mr. Townsend responded that it should be looked at in context of first proposing a 250,000 square foot
commercial center, and changing to the mixed use center and then down to basically working to make a
residential project work and still make everything pencil out. And then being willing to not gate the
community, which further erodes the sells value to a builder, and being able to agree to all of the other
conditions. He suggests they could probably make that condition work in conjunction with doing a tot lot
that is about 7,500 square feet on the easement, but if he is asked to eat two more lots then that would be
probably pushing it. So he requests keeping with the existing lot configuration and trying to work with
7,500 square feet from an access and internal relief mitigation in terms of tots within that community who
would use the lot instead of impacting local parks, he feels that would be fair. He stated that he did not
feel at this juncture and this late in the game, to ask them to "eat" two more lots would be something they
could live with right now.
• Chairperson Vanderbilt acknowledged his answer and referred to the Commissioners for further
discussions.
09-24-01
Page 25
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner Bostwick stated that it is a large project with a lot of homes and a lot of bedrooms and he
really believes they should have a recreational facility. He admits there will be a lot of park fees but given
the worst case scenario the lots could have been RS7200 with a lot less density; simitar to the ones
across the Santa Ana Canyon Road. He explains that GME is still benefiting because they are getting a
waiver on the number of bedrooms, and for the two lots they lose only one variance. Commissioner
Bostwick expresses it would help the ecology to have less vehicle traffic travelling from Solomon to
Cortez. He suggests putting in a tot lot and a walkway with an access to Via Cortez so the residents
could walk to the shopping center next door rather than drive.
Commissioner Boydstun stated she is really concerned about the people parallel to the freeway because
when viewing the illustrations presented, she determines that it is a long drive in which to exit in case of
an emergency. She suggests if they took the two lots and made the street they would get rid of the waiver
and they could put in the entrance to the walkway; perhaps closed off so that it could not be driven
through, but have it set up so that it could be driven through in case of an emergency. She stated that
they could either have a knock box or a post, like many places in the city where there have been areas
closed off that could be used for driving through but are only used to walk through until the case of an
emergency.
Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to staff and asked if they had any perspective on the suggestion as far as
it being required of other developments or considered appropriate or advantageous.
Mr. McCafferty responded that he is not aware of it being required for other developments and the
Anaheim Fire Department and Traffic Engineering reviewed the subdivision in the circulation and at that
time did not require an emergency access code. However, he stated that Ms. Dadant informed him that
when the original plans were to put up a pedestrian gate along Via Cortez, the Police Department
• Community Services Division did have some concern about pass through traffic from the retail uses and
the security concerns related to that.
Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Greg stated they did not want pedestrian traffic going from the
project to Via Cortez.
Mr. McCafferty clarified that the police department had concerns because of its proximity to the
commercial development to the West and because of that they were not supportive of access from Via
Cortez into the development.
Commissioner Arnold clarified that it was from the development through the neighborhood as opposed
from the neighborhood to the commercial development.
Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the park fee that the developer would have to pay because of the
limited amount of recreational space that they would have on site. Considering Commissioner Bostwick
and Commissioner Boydstun proposals, he asked if they were to utilize the two lots for recreation would it
be sufficient in size to remove the need for paying developers' fee for parks.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded that he spoke with Mr. Kudron and discovered that
the fees would still be required, and it does not offset it anyway. It would be a private amenity to the
community and would not be considered parkline.
Commissioner Koos clarified that it would not be a private amenity if it were a community park that was
accessible by everyone.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that he doubts if everyone is going to walk over to use the park, and they
• have required tot lots on much smaller developments in West Anaheim and throughout the city.
Commissioner Koos clarified that they were gated communities.
09-24-01
Page 26
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
t Mr. Kudron stated that his department would prefer the fees. The fees would offer more recreational
opportunities for many more people than a small tot lot which is basically in a smali neighborhood.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the fees were set according to the number of houses or acres
Mr. Kudron responded the fees are set per dwelling unit.
Commissioner Arnold wished to clarify if the fees offset it by two units; if the applicant is giving up two
units would they then pay two units less in fees. He asked how Commission would go about setting the
fees and if there is a standard process or formula, because the word "prefer" suggests that it is totally
discretionary and not mandatory.
Mr. Kudron stated that the fees are set by City Council by resolution every year when the budget is
adopted. The City has the option to accept land or in lieu of the land, take the money in terms of what the
recommendation is relative to and where the most opportunities exist. However, the provision of fees in
this case, allows more opportunity to provide recreational amenities to this tract.
Commissioner Arnold clarified that he was saying that even if the tot lot was required, the benefit from the
land itself, in terms of ineeting recreational needs would not be at the same value as the fees generated.
Mr. Kudron confirmed his statement and explained in particularly as it relates to the deficiency that has
been identified in terms of sport fields, whether there is a tot lot there or not does not satisfy that
deficiency.
Mr. Townsend asked to make a comment on that remark. He pointed out if they lost two lots and with the
• lessening of fees at $7,500.00 a unit it equates to approximately $15,000.00 savings. He feels the
savings do not compensate the applicant for the loss of two lots. He explained that the 7,500 square feet
of tot lot would have to be privately maintained, and it is supposed to be there to basically serve the uses
generated by the proposed project so that it would not overly burden tot lots elsewhere in the community,
and the feedback they were getting from the community of sports fields, ball fields and the creative things
that could be done by using lights and different turf or other projects to greatly leverage spots causes him
to suspect that there is not a realistic strategy between the dedication of trying not to encourage tots
elsewhere in the community to come and use the site as opposed to who is responsible for the
maintenance and insurance.
However, he stated that with their 7,500 square foot open space used as a tot lot, he feels it is appropriate
because of Metropolitan Water District's access and that access services City's additional emergency
vehicle egress.
Commissioner Arnold stated he wished to hear from some of the members of the communiry who
commented about this particular issue, in terms of the needs; the tot lot, the park fees, the sport field, etc.
Ms. O'Neill-Perry stated she agrees with the developer on this one, because taking away two lots for a
square footage of 10,000 feet would not do anything to offset the needs of the community. However she
feels that 7,500 square feet for a tot lot is sufficient because their aim is to serve the needs of the tots in
the community because encouraging people from other neighborhoods to the tot lot would only increase
traffic on Solomon which is already a concern. She suggests it go into a new facility, lights, new turf, or
something along those lines.
Gary Marone, of GME Development, stated that in his original plans when he proposed a gated
• community he recommended that there be a powered gate that would be card access or something else
to minimize the traffic on Solomon, but since the plans have been changed to eliminate the gated
community he thinks adding a gate or an access would be a severe detriment to security for that
neighborhood. He explains that there is a hotel in close proximity and a lot of open areas that would pose
09-24-01
Page 27
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• a threat to the protection of chiidren if a gate were added to allow people freedom to come in and out of
the community.
Commissioner Koos offered a personal anecdote regarding parks in Anaheim Hills. He explained that he
has three children who live in Anaheim Hills and they never have a problem finding slides and those kind
of things, but they do have a problem finding facilities when his daughters can have a softball game. He
does not think Anaheim Hills is deficient, per se in tot lots as much as the larger recreational facilities; so
he agrees with the applicant on this one.
Commissioner Boydstun clarified that she was not suggesting to do away with parks for a tot lot, she just
thinks that a tot lot is a good service for the family living there. She explains 5 bedroom homes will bring
a lot of little people. She asserts that she knows as well as anyone does, the desperate need for more
fields not only in Anaheim Hills but in Central and West Anaheim, and that Anaheim Hills is shorter than
the rest of the city. So the difference they would pay for either would not make a difference in one way or
the other. She contends that it is not feasible to go some place to swing a child for a few minutes, and
the tracts that have come in Central and West Anaheim have been asked to put a tot lot in so that there is
something there that children could walk to and play rather than loading them up and travelling elsewhere
for recreation.
Mr. Townsend responded that he agrees with Commissioner Boydstun's sentiment and in previous
discussions they have made it clear that they would be willing to make it available for a tot lot, subject to
Metropolitan Water DistricYs approval which they think they can achieve.
Commissioner Koos stated that the applicant is demonstrating their willingness to do fairly large lots in
comparison to what the market is bearing right now, and normally he would not factor in financial aspects
in land use decisions and realizes that he should not, but that he really has a hard time seeing the
• applicant take a hit on the two lots.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked to set aside this item for a moment because he desired to discuss another
item to see if there would be an agreement, and that is concerning Solomon and the position of the
homes. He asked Commissioners, given all the input from the community if they had any strong feelings
about the orientation of the homes.
Commissioner Koos responded that the question should be directed to the applicant.
Mr. Townsend stated that he would like to point out that a lot of work went into the plan and how they
could maximize meeting as many City requirements as possible without variances and make the site
work; particularly with the topography of that site and the grading requirements. He points out that it is not
kind ofjust an either or, it is designed. There is a 3 to 5 foot grade level increase of the lots up against
Solomon that by turning the houses around would represent a significant engineering challenge. That is
why when working with Planning Staff an agreement was arrived that having the homes face towards the
west rather than the east made sense; and considering the traffic issues which is 8 driveways exiting onto
Solomon Drive exacerbating that situation. He cautioned that it is not just a marketing issue of which way
to face the houses it is an engineered design for specific reasons.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that all of the issues have been addressed to everyone's satisfaction with
the exception of the thoroughfare or tot lot or open space that is adjacent to Via Cortez. Having a good
understanding of Commissioner Boydstun's and Commissioner Bostwick's stand on the issue, he wished
to hear from the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Bristol stated he thinks the tot lot is fine, however he feels reluctant to take away two lots.
• He explains that the applicant would have to take out two homes and it could be that there are some
children, who would use the tot lot, but he grew up in an area that did not have a tot lot and they found
places to go. He stated that he does not see this as a really big deal and especially with a really
aggressive development that is merely trying to compromise with everything. Ne does not feel it is fair to
09-24-01
Page 28
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• penalize them for something that the community may or may not do that much with. So he agrees with
the community, let the fees go some where else and maybe put in some lights some place where it would
be of better use.
Commissioner Koos stated he feels the same way. Regarding the pedestrian issue, he thinks the green
belt could serve both functions without removing the two lots, provided there is a gate that a small child
could not open on the Via Cortez side.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he is neutral on the lots, but it is important for him that there be
pedestrian access to Via Cortez simply as a circulation issue. It would reduce trips when there are
individuals who could walk to the shopping opportunities to the west as opposed to having to get in a car
and having to drive east and south and west and then into the shopping center.
Commissioner Arnold stated that he has a little bit of concern about taking away the two lots. He feels the
practical reality is that if the two lots are asked, they will get less elsewhere. He feels that the green belt
area does serve as a useful place for small children to play if it could be worked out that way. He is in
favor of pedestrian access and feels that it is a good place for that to happen. He stated he is in favor of
some sort of security mechanism to make sure that there are not just regular pedestrian traffic back and
forth through the neighborhood so that children playing in the area would be relatively safe.
Commissioner Koos asked if a simple decorative wrought-iron gate would be sufficient.
Commissioner Arnold responded that it depends on the nature of access. Somebody mentioned keycard
or something of that sort.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he lives in a gated community which has a pedestrian passage and
• every resident is issued two sets of keys and all of the children who walk to the bus stop use that key to
get in. What would concern me is that if a pedestrian walk was not created there and that the wall was
just retained you would probably have high school students jumping over the wall.
Commissioner Arnold stated he does not think at all that this should be a gated community and he is not
suggesting by trying to make that edge of the development safe in terms of the neighboring commercial
uses and people that that necessarily mean he thinks the whole thing should be gated.
Commissioner Koos stated that his concern is that the neighborhood made it clear that as much as
possible they wanted a more seamless neighborhood, and he would hate Commission to start straddling
the line between gated and not gated. He would prefer the pedestrians from the existing residential not
have to walk down Santa Ana Canyon Road. It is his desire if a pedestrian wanted to go to LA Fitness
they could actually stroll through the neighborhood as though it is a normal neighborhood; a part of their
neighborhood. He feels that is the goal.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that he thinks the community wanted the consistency of the neighborhood
to the east of Solomon Drive to not be a barrier to them and so by leaving it open, it would allow them to
use it as well. Also the high school children that live in that neighborhood could go that way on the
sidewalk and across at a light to school rather than trying to walk along Santa Ana Canyon Road where
there are no sidewalks.
Commissioner Arnold asked to hear from the staff. He stated the police had some concerns about this
and he wondered how concerned they were and what kinds of potential for crime the proximity to a large
commercial development would be. He asked if it was a serious concern, kind of standard, or just what
was the police's level of concern.
~ Mr. McCafferty responded that it was not a strong concern it was primarily really a design concern and
since that was taken off the table it was no longer factored into their recommendations.
09-24-01
Page 29
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. Yalda stated that the streets were designed as private streets and he would not think Commission
would want to encourage people driving on Solomon Drive to walk there. He reports that there is a
problem in another section in Anaheim that was approved back in 1970's where the City Council allowed
the school children to crossing there and the residents are having a problem with vandalism and with
other people coming and stealing their cars. He stated that this situation is in West Anaheim, so he
suggests if Commission wants to ask them to provide pedestrian access and give them the option. He
feels if the homeowners choose to have a pedestrian walkway at Via Cortez, they would do it and if they
do not want to have one they will keep it closed permanently.
Commissioner Koos stated that he thinks Commission could establish here so that it is not an option for
the future homeowners. He asserts Commission is trying to protect the entire area and the existing
neighborhood as well, and at the same time make sure it is a seamless community. He affirms
Commission could set it up for now and not leave it up to the future residents.
Mr. Yalda responded that the only problem he has is that those streets are designed as private streets
including the sidewalks.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if it meets Code for parking on both sides.
Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the streets were going to be private if it would be a liability to the
homeowners of this association.
Mr. Yalda responded that if it is a private street and people are walking there from another area that would
be a liability for the homeowners association.
Commissioner Koos asked why did they have to be private streets.
• Mr. Yalda responded that there is no reason for the City to take over something that would be of
absolutely no use to them.
Ms. Adams responded that actually in this case they are designed to private street standards. A public
street would have parkways on both sides of the street. In this case, they only have a 4-foot sidewalk on
both sides of the street. A public street would have a 71/2-foot landscape parkway between the curb and
the sidewalk. So that would be a substantial difference in this development.
Commissioner Koos asked what kind of approval process, if they were public streets, would Commission
go through or should they even entertain that because they would want them to full standard.
Ms. Adams answered if you were proposing them as public streets then we would ask that the project be
redesigned to include landscape parkways.
Mr. Yalda stated that also we have to look at the cost to the City and what benefit would the public have if
the streets were public because the City has to take over the maintenance of the streets. So is it
something that the City would look at and decide it does not want to take over the maintenance of streets
that is only serving one neighborhood and which is not serving commuters.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he wanted to propose variations to narrow this down. One would be a tot
lot with pedestrian access and a gate, or a tot lot with pedestrian access without a gate.
Commissioner Arnold stated that what he is reading between the lines is that the police are not that
concerned about it and really it is more of a private street issue, which he is not particularly persuaded by
• in terms of the locked gate.
Commissioner Bristol asked how many private streets were known to anyone that is not gated and the
liability is open to the community who would encourage access into their private street.
09-24-01
Page 30
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Koos stated that he is aware of a community in Anaheim Hills that do not have the
parkways, he used to live in one of them and it is a public street.
Commissioner Bristol asserted his statement, "that encourages". He stated in his opinion if there is
pedestrian entrance into Via Cortez, Commission would be encouraging access from outside the project
on a private street and he asked if that is what they wanted to do.
Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Yalda if there were other areas in Anaheim Hil(s where there are private
streets with pedestrian access.
Mr. Yalda responded that the only areas he recalls, the majority of them have a gate. However he does
not recall any area that is similar to this. He reminded Commission that the last project they approved on
Weir Canyon and La Palma Avenue has only one access and it is gated.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that there are private homes just east of Mohler Drive on the southside of
Santa Ana Canyon Road that are private streets and it is not a gated community. Pedestrian can walk
through there or ride horses, etc.
Commissioner Bristol asked if there were 100's of homes that might be accessed to that.
Chairperson Vanderbilt responded no, not that he knows of.
Commissioner Bristol affirmed that there were a 100 plus in this proposal and many others in the existing
adjacent community.
• Commissioner Koos asked if he was most{y concerned with liability.
Commissioner Bristol responded, yes to a certain extent.
Commissioner Koos asked if there was a way to address that issue with the City.
Ms. Mann clarified if he was requesting whether the City should assume the liability for these rather than
having the private development to do so.
Commiss+oner Koos stated that it is a good deal because the community would be paying for all of the
maintenance perpetually, and if they were public streets the City would have to pay and that would be a
drain on the City. So there is a benefit from them being private streets and the trade off is that the rest of
the public could use them.
Ms. Mann stated that whether it is a private street or a street that has been accepted by the City does not
go to who uses them. It goes to who maintains them and who is responsible for them. How this has been
analyzed by all the departments of the City that have been reviewing the development as with most
significant residential development is to have the development pay its own way, because having
something have public improvements; including streets, the sewers and everything else also means a
significant expense to the public entity, both in the assumption of liability for anything that happens since
the City is a deep pocket in many of these instances and also in the continuing maintenance obligations,
so that rather if it were a public street the association would not maintain it. If it were a public street it
would be the City.
Commissioner Koos responded that he understands those issues but it is obviously a sentiment
expressed by the public that wants this to be a seamless community and Commission approve tracts all
• over Anaheim Hills that are opened to the public.
09-24-01
Page 31
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Bristol stated that if he were going to buy in the community and it were private and he were
Commissioner Boydstun stated that she does not understand how it makes more liabiiity if ihey are
private streets. She asked if the police is going to service it and the fire department is going to service it,
then what would be the difference if someone is walking down the street.
paying an association fee then he would want to decide whether he would want access to the outside. In
this instance he is fine with not requiring a gate.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that if it were left out of the approval, the Homeowners Association could,
at their will and pleasure, either open the fence up and put it in, or if they want to leave it open they could
leave it open; they can do what they want. He thinks the gate is a good idea. He suggests Commission
get off of this point, move on and just leave it out of the approvals and let the Homeowners Association
decide what they want to do with it.
Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if he means to eliminate the gated option too, or condition that there
is no gate.
Commissioner Bostwick responded that the community has stipulated that it is going to be a non-gated
community,
Commissioner Koos stated that that in itself opens up the community to liability if a neighbor walks
through.
Commissioner Bostwick responded that they are going to have liability no matter what, and he suggests
not to condition it today but leave it up to the Homeowner's Association in the future.
. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he wished to return back to Mr. Yalda's recommendation of allowing
the residents to have the option and he would like to follow the suggestion that an association make a
determination if they want a gate or no gate or key access, etc. because when he first brought the subject
up his only interest was serving the residents most immediately. So he wonders if there is any fine-tuning
that has to be done.
Mr. Yalda responded that he liked Commissioner Bostwick's idea and feels he gave Commission an
excellent choice; leave it to the Homeowners Association and let them decide on it.
Chairperson Vanderbilt wished to clarify if there is a way to design this CUP so that residents are not
moving in and seeing a wall there and never having had the option to choose.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that he thinks that if Commission moved on it, it is up to them. However,
after they have bought it, it is their property, it is part of their Homeowner's Association, they own it, they
own a portion of common area and they can make the choice.
Mr. Yalda stated that Lot C has to have accessibility to it anyway; it is not going to be a blocked wall.
Mr. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that if Commission liked, they have suggested
wording for placement of a plaque that was brought up earlier. Also for the participation of the community
and selecting the location of the trees on Santa Ana Canyon Road and also the vehicular gate issue. Mr.
Hastings read the conditions and amendments.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked just one more clarifying question of Mr. Yalda. Returning to the access to
Via Cortez, he stated that the diagram on the screen shows a wall and he wondered if Mr. Yalda was
saying that they are required not to have a wall there.
• Mr. Yalda responded that there is a Lot C which is the access and they have to have it opened with a
fence. They cannot put a wall on it because of the Metropolitan Water District.
09-24-01
Page 32
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
, Commissioner Boydstun asked if they could specify that there would be a tot lot in the conditions in that
area.
• • ~ •- • ~ • • ~ •
CONCERNS/
SUGGESTIONS: Sonja Grewal representing the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition spoke with
concerns/suggestions to the subject facility and referred to the letter submitted on
September 24, 2001; Stephanie O'Neil-Perry representing the Concern Citizens of
the Canyon spoke requesting to impose three conditions on the subject request; and
Dan Gilliam spoke with concerns/suggestion to the subject facility.
A letter from Caltrans was received during today's meeting.
ACTION: Determined that the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmenta( documentation for subject request.
A supplemental attachment was provided to the Commission at the meeting
responding to comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration after
September 17, 2001.
The following mitigation measure was added to Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 116:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any construction activities within or adjacent
• to the concrete drainage channel, the applicant will consult with (404) Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) and reach agreement on whether or not the project requires a
Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq of the Fish and
Game Code. If it is determined that no such agreement is required, the applicant will
be considered to have complied with this mitigation measure.
If such an agreement is required, the applicant shall complete the mitigation measure
as follows:
The applicant shall provide evidence of authorization under a Streambed Alteration
Agreement with DFG, and shall comply with the conditions of that Agreement.
Amended First Mitigation Measure:
The project developer shall replace all specimen trees removed from the project site
at a 4:1 ratio in locations determined by the City, in compliance and exceeding City
Code requirements. The project developer shall coordinate with City staff to plant
trees as specified by the City in the median on Santa Ana Canyon Road, or other
public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the project along Santa Ana Canyon
Road. Community Services staff will meet with community representatives to
seek input regarding the placement of off-site trees prior to the p{an being
finalized and approved by the City.
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-
00395 (to redesignate the northwesterly approximate 3.9 acre portion of this property
• from the General Commercia! land use designation to the Hillside Low-Medium
Density Residential land use designation).
09-24-01
Page 33
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00054 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A-
43,000(SC) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) Zone) based on the RS-5000(SC) Zone being
an implementation zone of the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use
designation and that such zoning which allows single-family residences on minimum
5,000 square foot lots would be an appropriate transition between the existing
CL(SC) and RS-5000(SC) zones, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in
the staff report dated September 24, 2001.
Granted Variance No. 2001-04443 for waivers (a) pertaining to required frontage on
a street, (b) maximum permitted fence height, (c) maximum lot~coverage and open
space requirements, and (d) minimum lot width, subject to the findings and the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001 with the
following modifications:
Amended Condition Nos. 4, 6, 16, 17 and 28 to read as follows:
4. That not more than eighty (80) percent of the total 128 units shall be developed
with 4-bedrooms and 5-bedrooms, and of all the units, not more than forty (40)
percent of the units shall be developed with 5-bedrooms. Information regarding
the limitation of the number of permitted bedrooms for the individual lot shall be
provided to the homeowner at the sale of the home. Said information shall also
be identified in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the
association.
6. That the proposed subdivision, which includes tracts 16254 and 16255,
shall not have vehicular gates or any other type of vehicular barrier
~ separating the private streets from Solomon Drive.
16. That the developer shall submit landscape plans for the median island of Santa
Ana Canyon Road and other adjacent public rights-of-way as determined by
the Urban Forestry Division, Community Services Department. Community
Services staff will meet with community representatives to seek input
regarding the placement of off-site trees prior to the plan being finalized
and approved by the City. The plan must be approved by Community
Services prior to issuance of a building permit. A bond in the amount of
$20,000.00 shall be posted to guarantee that landscaping shall be improved as
approved by the City. The improvements shall be installed prior to final Zoning
and Building inspection.
17. That the legal owner shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
specifically identifying best management practices that will be used on-site to
control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall
include measures to maximize the use of pervious materials onsite (such
as use of concrete pavers in driveways and sidewalks along the private
streets). The WQMP shall also include water quality enhancing detention
basins to the extent practicable in open space areas. The WQMP shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for
review and approval prior to obtaining a grading permit.
28. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year
• from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 22, 25 and 26, 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
09-24-01
Page 34
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows:
31. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year
from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 13, 14,
15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 above-mentioned, shafl 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.
32. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan to place a plaque on the
property commemorating the history of the Maag Ranch shall be prepared.
Said plan, which shall include wording, design, materials and focation shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plaque shall be
placed prior to final occupancy of the first unit and shall be maintained by the
homeowners association and made accessible for public viewing.
Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16254 (to establish a 22-lot, one lettered lot,
detached single-family residential subdivision) subject to the findings and the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001, with
the following modifications to the conditions of approval to read as follows:
Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 18 to read as follows:
3. That not more than eighty (80) percent of the total 128 units shall be developed
with 4-bedrooms and 5-bedrooms, and of all the units, not more than forty (40)
• percent of the units shall be developed with 5-bedrooms. Information regarding
the limitation of the number of permitted bedrooms for the individual lot shall be
provided to the homeowner at the sale of the home. Said information shall also
be identified in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the
association.
18. That the legal property owner shall submit to the City of Anaheim a sewer study
for review and approvaf. Part of the approval process includes the addition
of any conditions to comply with City Standards.
Added the following condition of approval to read as follows:
27. That all necessary permits or other approvals required by Caltrans shall be
obtained prior to construction.
Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16255 (to establish a 106-1ot, 3-lettered lot,
detached single-family residential subdivision) subject to the findings and the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001, with
the following modifications to the conditions of approval to read as follows:
Modified Condition Nos. 3, 22 and 24 to read as follows:
3. That not more than eighty (80) percent of the total 128 units shall be developed
with 4-bedrooms and 5-bedrooms, and of all the units, not more than forty (40)
percent of the units shall be developed with 5-bedrooms. Information regarding
the limitation of the number of permitted bedrooms for the individuaf lot shall be
• provided to the homeowner at the sale of the home. Said information shall also
be identified in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the
association.
09-24-01
Page 35
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 22. That ail necessary permits or other approvals required by Caltrans shall be
obtained prior to construction.
24. That the legal property owner shall submit to the City of Anaheim a sewer study
for review and approvaf. Part of the approval process includes the addition
of any conditions to comply with City Standards.
Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001-00001 subject to the findings
and the conditions of approvai as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001
with the following modifications:
Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows:
2. That eighty-nine (89), minimum 24-inch box, specimen trees shall be provided in
landscape medians on Santa Ana Canyon Road or public right-of-ways in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed tract maps of a species and location
determined by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services
Department. Community Services staff will meet with community
representatives to seek input regarding the placement of off-site trees
prior to the plan being finalized and approved by the City.
Recommended City Council consideration of the mitigated negative declaratian,
reclassification, variance, tentative tract maps and the specimen tree removal permit
in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the General Plan Amendment.
• VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the
City Council and presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map Nos. 16254 and 16255; and
the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour, 54 minutes (2:36-4:30)
A 10-minute break was taken from 4:30-4:40 p,m.
i
09-24-01
Page 36
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5c. CONDITIOWAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04435
OWNER: Palmall Properties, Attn: Arthur Shipkey, 1428 Bay
Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92661
AGENT: Pacific Design Group, Attn: Alex Burrola, 1747 South
Douglass Road, #B, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 900 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately
0.58 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Ohio Street (Anaheim Carwash).
To retain and expand an existing car wash to include accessory take-out
fast food service with waiver of minimum number of required parking
spaces.
Continued from the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLIlT{ON NO. PC2001-138
Concurred with staff
Denied
Granted, in part
SR1024CW.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04435.
• The property is located at 900 West Lincoln Avenue. It is the Anaheim Car Wash. The ftem was
continued from the September 10, 2001 meeting in order for the petitioner to revise the plans to accurately
reflect what the proposal actually is. The plans now reflect everything that is being recommended by
staff.
Applicant's Statement:
Louis Garrett, Jr., stated that they are debating on specific items from the revised version of the staff
report from the Planning Department. The items are No. 3; no canopies being permitted, No. 8; there
should be no onsite tables, and No. 11; air compressors. He presented facts of the stipulations that the
City of Anaheim requires that car washers have in order to bid for the City's contract. He feels their bid
was accepted on the basis of the stipulations. He pointed out that the air hoses are a required stipulation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Vanderbilt thanked Mr. Garrett for providing the specifications of the contract with the City of
Anaheim. He clarified that the specifications were not a requirement in order to do business in the city,
but a requirement to do business with the City of Anaheim. So to address each item in its respective
order he started with the portable canopy. The portable canopy located in the back of the business used
for detailing and waxing automobiles. It is a permanent structure and the City code does not permit
portable canopies or awnings. So he referred to staff and asked if the fact that it is permanent in so far as
it is cemented in place changes its definition in anyway.
Mr. McCafferty replied that this condition was intended to correct the fact that there was a portable canopy
on the Lincoln Avenue frontage and to make sure that the business operates without such canopies in the
future. Staff does not have a problem with the one on the East property line that is permanent in place.
• Commissioner Bostwick asked if it did not preclude the applicant from having the covers over the tables
out by the waiting area.
09-24-01
Page 37
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Mr. McCafferty responded no, it would not.
Commissioner Bostwick clarified that he wished to make certain that someone from Code Enforcement
did not misinterpret it to mean the umbrellas were a portable canopy.
Mr. McCafferty responded that if Commission approves the tables today, it would allow the umbrellas over
the tables. The condition was strictly dealing with the canopies that were used to park the cars under to
do detailing.
Chairperson Vanderbilt announced that Item No. 8 was in regards to the tables on the outside located on
the southeast corner of the property; there are four tables and four umbrellas. The condition is intended to
prohibit the four tables and the four umbrellas in that location.
Commissioner Bristol clarified that it was also for the internal ones as we41 because the condition stated
, "onsite tables or seating areas for the consumption of food".
Mr. McCafferty wished to get clarification from the applicant that if in addition to the tables and chairs at
the southeast corner of the property would they also be proposing anything else inside for seating other
than the normal bench seating that is customary inside a car wash.
Chairperson Vanderbilt first wished to know if staff was talking about all seating or outdoor seating in
Condition No. 8.
Mr. McCafferty responded that the condition referred to not all seating but the seating that directly related
to them eating food. Staff does not want the facility to turn into a separate, independent food place
• because it has been described as a car wash where a client can pick up a hot dog, as they are on their
way out to observe their car being dried. So where the car is being dried and if a client chooses to sit and
eat their food, staff does not have a problem with that, but opposes an independent eating facility.
Commissioner Arnold asked staff if they would have a problem with a condition that simply stated: onsite
tables and seating areas shall be limited to those shown on the plan submitted by the applicant.
Therefore the applicant could not expand it infinitely.
Mr. McCafferty stated that it would be fine.
Chairperson Vanderbilt announced Item No. 11 regarding air compressors. He clarified that this condition
would not apply to all car washes but only those adjacent to residential areas.
Mr. McCafferty clarified that all car washes in the City are permitted through a Conditional Use Permit so it
would be through any conditions that the Commission would impose on that particular business. But with
regard to this business when it opened originally there were no air compressor hoses. Staff's concern is
that the business is right across the alley and right next to residential and the air hoses are fairly noisy
and that was the recommendation as to why they should not be used there.
Commissioner Bristol stated he concurs.
Commissioner Koos asked if there is an existing CUP.
Mr. McCafferty replied that there is not a CUP for the business and that it has existed so long that it
predates the apartments.
• Chairperson Vanderbilt stated then that brought about an interesting point. The apartments were
constructed after the existence of the car wash, so there is sort of a status rule.
09-24-01
Page 38
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner Bristol stated that the compressors came on two years ago, and from that time on the
residents have had to listen to the noise, not to mention that they are going to add detaiiing which will
create more noise.
Commissioner Boydstun and Commissioner Bostwick interjected that they have always had detailing.
The previous owners of the car wash had detailing in the back of the building for years.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that staff has noted that the air compressors make a high pitched noise
when used, so he asked if there were not some new technology with a silencing effect or someway to
reduce the noise, or even if the applicant could come up with a mitigated solution to reduce the sound
problem.
Mr. Garrett responded no, but between two weeks ago and today they plan to put in a new reverse
osmosis system; it will take out many of the particles in the water so that the water will pretty much dry
clear. He feels that will cut out the air drying significantly. Right now they are using it 80% of the time
whereas once the new system is installed it will probably be used 20% of the time. The noise will come
down and the air compressor will not run as much. He stated they are trying to figure out ways that they
can coexist; they want their neighbors to be happy with them and they want to be happy with their
neighbors.
Commissioner Bristol stated that the air compressors are a different issue but it is the high-pitched noise
when the air hits the vehicle. So he wished to know how the applicant could prevent the noise.
Mr. Garrett responded that they could not, all they could do is try to cut down on the use so that the air
compressor does not run as much and the high-pitched noise is not used as often.
• Commissioner Bostwick clarified that it is a use that does not go on all night when people are sleeping or
hanging around in their apartments. It is only in the daytime and there are no windows or doors to that
side, there are garages on the ground floor and a stairway and a walkway on that building. It has existed
there for a long time.
Commissioner Bristol concurred and stated that he does not mean the use and they have not yet talked
about the added use. There are some things regarding parking that they would look at more closely but in
this issue it is the noise and he advises if anyone has not sat there and listened to it they should because
it is tough, and there is no way he would want to be 20-30 feet from it. He feels they have a lot of other
avenues to take and one would be the other side of the station.
Mr. Garrett replied that it is impossible to wash vehicles on the other side of the business.
Commissioner Koos asked Commissioner Bristol if on Saturdays 9:00 a.m. as opposed to 8:00 a.m. would
make a difference to him.
Commissioner Bristol stated no, he did not feel he is going to win this battle but he would fike to win the
battle of the horns and put a sign up which states there would not be trespassing across the alley.
Mr. Garrett immediately presented a ready-made sign. He stated he had them made up for the benefit of
Ms. Eastman who wanted to know his good faith and who asked if once Commission approved the
proposal how could they be sure he would comply. He stated the signs would be posted in their seating
area, the entrance and exits of the car wash and if the apartment building desired they could even put
them on the apartment building facing the car wash.
• Commissioner Bristol clarified that it included no honking horns.
Mr. Garrett confirmed no honking horns.
09-24-01
Page 39
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner Bristol stated he was fine with the solution.
I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman 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.
Denied Waiver of Code Requirement since it has been deleted.
Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit Na. 2001-04435 subject to the conditions of
approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001 with the following
modifications:
Modified Condition No. 8 to read as follows:
8. That on-site tables and seating areas shall be limited to those shown on exhibits
submitted by the applicant, and approved by Commission.
Deleted Condition No. 11.
• Petitioner stipulated that signs had already been posted throughout the property advising
customers to not loiter or trespass on adjacent properties.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (4:40-4:57)
r
09-24-01
Page 40
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
6a.
6b.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04404 October 8, 2001
OWNER: Synod of Southern California, 1501 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, Ca 90017-2205
AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Dayna Aguirre, 18500 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 2580 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately
2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange
and Magnolia Avenues (St. Pauls Presbyterian
Church).
To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted
equipment.
Continued from the August 13, and September 10, 2001 Planning
Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8075VN.DOC
•
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), to continue the subject
request to the October 8, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the
petitioner additional time to finalize revised plans.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent}
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
~~
L J
09-24-01
Page 41
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04417
OWNER: Leedy Ying Trustee, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier,
CA 90602
AGENT: GPA Architects, Inc., 1240 North Jefferson # J,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 101 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.4
acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and
Anaheim Boulevard.
To estabfish a three-unit commercial retail center with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Continued from the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N
Continued to
October 22, 2001
SR8092KB.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
u
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), to continue the subject
request to the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the
petitioner additional time to meet with staff regarding site planning issues associated with
development of this site.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent}
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
\ ~
09-24-01
Page 42
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 8a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT NO. 2001-04366
OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation,
2431 West ta Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92801
LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North
Hubbeil Way. Property is approximately 40.4 acres
located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Gilbert Street, and at the northern terminuses of
Hubbell Way and Electric Way.
To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the June 4, July 16 and August 27, and September 10,
2001 Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
u
r ~
~._~
Continued to
October 22, 2001
SR1110TW.DOC
I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), to continue the subject
request to the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff
time to review the submitted studies and make available for public review the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
09-24-01
Page 43
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 4 Concurred with staff
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04329 Approved
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04445) reinstatement
OWNER: Krishan UKA LLC, 650 Town Center Drive, #1720,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT: Anaheim Marriott, Attn: Mark A. Vasquez, 700 West
Convention Way, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 700 West Convention Way. Property is approximately
15.06 acres with a frontage of 995 feet on the south
side of Convention Way located 480 feet west of the
centerline of Harbor Boulevard (Anaheim Marriott
Hotel).
To reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04329 with a waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces to permit the use of a temporary tent
for convention operations at the existing Anaheim Marriott Hotel through
December 31, 2002.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-139 SR8095GK.DOC
• Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as a request to reinstate Conditional Use Permit
No.2001-04329 with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit the use of a temporary tent
for convention operations at the existing Anaheim Marriott Hotel through December 31, 2002. The
Anaheim Marriott Hotel is located at 700 West Convention Way. Staff has reviewed the proposed request
and based upon the information in the staff report and inasmuch as the Marriott Hotel is undergoing a
major renovation and needs convention facilities during the renovation period, staff is supportive and
recommends approval of the reinstatement based upon the findings in this staff report and the
recommended conditions of approval.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Mark Vasquez, stated he read the staff report and did not have any questions regarding its contents and
agrees to abide by all stipulations set forth by the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on Item
No. 9. Seeing none.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
09-24-01
Page 44
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• • • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ ~
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 4(Minor Alterations to Land), as defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04329 to permit a temporary
tent for convention operations at an existing hotel through December 31, 2002 subject to
the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001, (as
amended and renumbered to delete Condition Nos. 9 and 10 and modified Condition No. 12
of Resolution No. PC2001-23).
"12. That by January 1, ~98~ 2003, the tent shall be removed and the thirty-five (35)
parking spaces which were displaced by said tent shall be returned to, and made
available for, parking use:'
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
• Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:58-5:00)
~
09-24-01
Page 45
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447
OWNER: William C. and Cynthia L. Taormina, 128 West
Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Dick Boranian, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 201 East Center Street. Property is approximately
0.09 acre located at the northeast corner of Center
Street and Claudina Street (Kraemer Buiiding).
To permit the conversion of an office building into a mixed use
development with residential units and accessory office and retail uses.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-140
Approved
Granted
SR2092DS.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447. It
is for property located at 201 East Center Street; the Kraemer building. It is a request to permit the
conversion of the office building into a mixed-use development with residential units and accessory office
and retail uses.
•
Applicant's Statement:
Mr. William (Bill) C. Taormina, stated that as staff has indicated in reference to the comments he provided,
they have all been worked out with staff during the morning's session.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there were still some existing concerns.
Mr. Taormina confirmed that all concerns had been taken care of with staff.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that for the records he would read the conditions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Hastings summarized the revisions.
~
Condition No. 1, staff is in support of removing the wording business, trade school or training center from
the list of prohibited uses and added it to the list of permitted uses. Also modify the use No. 8, dry
cleaning establishments to add with onsite dry cleaning, that would be prohibited. Condition No. 2, adding
in dry cleaning drop off and pickup convenience center, added to the use of allowable uses. Condition
No. 5, revising the first sentence to read "that the owner developer of the property wiil negotiate in owner
participation agreement LPA for consideration by the City of Anaheim redevelopment agency.
(Redevelopment has reviewed it and is in concurrence.) Condition No. 6 should read that no unscreened
roof mounted equipment shall be permitted on the building. Condition No. 21 would be revised to read
that prior to commencement of exterior improvements for within one year from the date of this resolution,
which ever occurs first, and the conditions noted shall be complied with, with Condition No. 15 being
stricken. Condition No. 22, strike condition No. 14 out of that list. Add one additional condition relative to
parking that based on the availability of 128 parking spaces in the parking structure to the east and a
parking requirement of 43 spaces for the 21 residential units, the non-residential uses shall not exceed a
parking requirement of 85 spaces. This will allow the mixed use of non-commercial uses up to a certain
amount beyond what would normally just be office.
09-24-01
Page 46
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked that since the trade school option was added as a possibie use, for the
inclusion of language that stipulates that the school would need to be licensed by the state and before
opening to operate that they have all state and county requirements.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the City ordinarily does not become involved in what
other agencies will need to stipulate.
Commissioner Arnold stated that he is gathering that since the coffee cart issue was not addressed that
somehow the staff and applicant are fine with the condition as it will accommodate that.
Mr. Hastings replied that it probably would have to be looked at a little bit later in terms of the uses. The
list can be readvertised to add or modify any time the applicant wishes to come back before the
Commission and after he has talked to Redevelopment and Planning Staff about their recommendations.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Taormina if he had any concerns with what was stated or added.
Mr. Taormina replied that he did not and was very happy with the results and thanked staff and the Zoning
Department and Redevelopment for all their help and cooperation. He informs that it has been a
challenging project because they are "writing a new chapter" and they hope it can set a really fine
precedent for downtown. He stated they are grateful and really appreciates all the time City has taken on
this and he is very happy with the way it now reads.
Commissioner Koos stated that he loves it and thinks it is a great step. He stated often times people see
233 units per acre as something frightening but he thinks it is an exciting form of adaptive reuse and
hopes it is at the stage for future similar developments somewhere along Anaheim Boulevard and
• elsewhere.
Commissioner Bristol stated that all he has is compliments for Mr. Taormina.
• • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447 subject to the conditions of approval as
stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001 with the following modifications:
Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 21 and 22:
That the following listed commercial uses shall be prohibited on the subject
property, and that an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney's Office so-prohibiting said uses, shall be recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder, a copy of which shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division:
1. Bars, Nightclubs, or Public Dance Halfs
2. Arcades
3. Liquor Stores
4. Pawnshops
• 5. Laundrymats available to the general public
7. Tattoo Parlors
09-24-01
Page 47
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES
~ 8. Dry Cleaning Establishments, with on-site dry cleaning
9. Churches
10. Sex Oriented Businesses
11. Banquet Halls
12. Take-Out or Fast Food Restaurants
2. That the proposed office and retail uses shall be limited to the following listed uses
or such other uses as approved by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and
Recommendations" item; and that an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney's Office so-limiting said uses, shall be recorded in
the Office of the Orange County Recorder, a copy of which shall be submitted to
the Zoning Division:
1. Accounting - Bookkeeping, CPA Firms or temporary CPA Firms
2. Advertising
3. Appraisers
4. Banks or Financial Firms
5. Brokers - Real Estate, Business Opportunities, Etc.
6. Business System Companies
7. Communication Consultants
8. Computer Analysis Firms
9. Credit Reporting Agencies
10. Designers - Industrial, Interior, Graphic
11. Development Companies
12. Facility Maintenance and Planning
13. Insurance Companies/Agencies
• 14. Inventory Services
15. Leasing Companies
16. Management Consultants/Companies
17. Marketing Research
18. Personnel Agencies
19. Quality Control Analysis
20. Sales Offices
21. Secretarial and Business Services
22. Full-Service Restaurants, Coffee Shops, Sandwich Shops and Delicatessens
23. Antique Shops
24. Bakeries
25. Barbers, Beauty Shops, and Nail Safons
26. Book Stores
27. Clothing and Shoe Stores
28. Confectionery or Candy Stores
29. Art, Music, or Photography Studios
30. Drugstores or Pharmacies
31. Hobby Shops
32. Jewelry Stores
33. Medical or Dental OfFices
34. General Professional Business Offices
35. Business/Trade School or Training Center
36. Dry Cleaning Drop-Off and Pick-Up Convenience Center
5. That the owner/developer of the property will negotiate an Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) for consideration by the City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency.
. An unsubordinated covenant shall be submitted to the Planning and Community
Development Departments, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney's Office, stating that any future building modifications and rehabilitation
09-24-01
Page 48
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• shall be consistent with the National Park Services Standards for Historic
Preservation, Anaheim Colony Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Downtown
Guide for Deve(opment in order to preserve a(f significant, historic features of the
interior and exterior of the building. Moreover, the owner/developer shall install
materials and finishes of high quality with expert craftsmanship and design, and
state-of-the-art amenities. Said covenant shall be recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
6. That no unscreened roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on the building.
21. That prior to commencement of exterior improvements or within a period of one (1)
year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 5, 7,
14 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
22. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 20, above-
mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following condition of approval fo read as follows:
That based on the availability of 128 parking spaces in the parking structure to the east a
parking requirement of 43 spaces for the 21 residential units, that the non-residential
uses shail not exceed a parking requirement of 85 spaces.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
•
DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (5:01-5:14}
~
09-24-01
Page 49
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
i
11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04439
OWNER: Lederer-Anaheim, LTD., 1990 Westwood Boulevard,
3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025
AGENT: Pamela R. Marcum, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
approximately 14.74 acres located north and east of the
northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim
Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Swapmeet).
To permit on-premises sales and consumption of beer and wine in an
existing restaurant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-141
Concurred with staff
Granted for 1 year
(to expire on
September 24, 2002)
SR8091 VN.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04439. It
is located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard; The Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. It is a request to permit
on-premises sales and consumption of beer and wine in an existing restaurant.
~
Commissioner Bostwick abstained from Item No. 11 because he owns property within 1000 feet of the
subject property.
ApplicanYs Statement:
Pamela R. Marcum, Manager of the Anaheim Marketplace, stated she read the staff report regarding the
application filed, however there are some reasons why they feel the CUP should be granted. She stated
that even though she is the manager of the Marketplace, she wished to represent Rincon Michoacana
Mexican Restaurant at this time. They currently have a CUP 3606 which grants the permission of the on
premise sale and consumption of beer and wine within a proposed restaurant in conjunction with the
indoor marketplace facility which expires April 22, 2010. They ask that Commission grant the permission
within the same time period as the CUP since it is a family restaurant, it is not a bar or nightclub and they
are only open until 7:00 p.m. She points out that there is another site that is within close proximity to the
applicanYs site, Gasino Latino, and they currently have only 10 tables, which on the weekends is filled to
capacity and her applicant has been asked several times if he serves beer and he does not. They feel
that other malls have multiple restaurants with onsite beer and wine products and they are in the same
type of refail business. There has been no complaints or police regarding the site because of the beer
and wine. In one of the conditions it is stated that the alcohol consumption will remain in the designated
area and all other conditions in the CUP as well. Staff has recommended conditions to expire September
24, 2002 and they would like to get the opportunity to prove themselves.
Carlos Munoz, stated he would like to acquire permission to sell beer and wine. It is a small place and a
family restaurant and it is not a bar or nightclub. It is a very safe ptace and he would like the opportunity
to prove that he will comply with the rules and regulations of the Planning Commission.
~~
~J
Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if he were aware that Condition No 12 state that only 9 beer
would be sold to anyone customer at any one time.
09-24-01
Page 50
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Ms. Marcum replied that it is in conjunction wifh only serving food. A client cannot just come and order
beer, and only one beer can be ordered per client.
Commissioner Arnold stated that Commission received some updated information and he wanted to point
out for the record that the memorandum from the police department had an inaccurate description and the
census tracf boundaries are considerably larger and the census tract map has been provided with the
identification of the variotas ABC licenses there. The licenses tend to be concentrated at the boundaries
of a really large tract and there are four concentrations rather distant from each other. He asked staff to
clarify Condition No. 13; there shall be no sale or consumption of nonalcoholic beer. He stated that he
does not understand the logic because it seems like one wou(d want an option so that people could
pursue a nonalcoholic option, especially if they were driving, etc. Ne is confused as to why that condition
is proposed.
Kelly Young, Police Department, replied that concerning this particular condition the way it is worded, the
only thing she can think of that would actually make sense +s being able to distinguish what is an alcoholic
beverage and what is not considering the type of containers that they are poured into.
Commissioner Arnold stated that it seems to him like there are restaurants everywhere that serve both
alcoholic and nonalcoholic and he asked if this is something Commission regularly does.
Commissioner Boydstun responded that they have never seen it before.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that there were some discussions this morning in regards to statistics
census tracts and the like.
Commissioner Koos asked that when they talk about the proposals do they normally talk about them in
• terms of census tracts or reporting districts and do they interchange or both.
Greg McCafferty responded that in terms of what they normally bring to them it is actually both because
the state code with regard to licenses references both crime rates and concentration.
Ms. Mann clarified that the over-concentration figures are based on a census tract. The crime figures are
based on reporting districfs.
Commissioner Koos stated that it seems that the concentration issues are skewed with the fact that the
population per square mile is so much lower based on the land uses, and apples to apples comparing this
to someplace like downtown or someplace else is not really very comparable. So saying there is 21 here
versus in another census tract is kind of misleading to him looking at the geography. Furthermore, he
visited the site and feels the conditions are very tight. Whether it is transitional or intransitional he is fairly
convinced that if a restaurant like Chili's or somebody else came in and proposed something on Cerritos
Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard he would support a beer and wine license for them and probably other
type licenses because they serve cocktails. He wondered about equity in this case, and stated that he
could see nothing tying the alcoho! uses to potential crime directly. Obviously there are studies but there
is an existing establishment in this building that is similar to this and they have not had any incidents so
given the tight conditions he is inclined to support the proposal.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he believes that question was raised in the morning's session
regarding any possible crime statistics attached to the existing establishment, so he asked if the police
uncover any since then.
Ms Young responded no, at the present time they were unable to be able to determine that there were
any. She stated that would actually have to be in testimonia! from the officers who actually initiated the
• cost for services as to whether or not it was the result of something that occurred on the premises.
09-24-0 "1
Page 51
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified that there were no negative statistics at this point with regards to the
operation of the existing alcohol license.
Commissioner Arno(d wished to offer a few comments. He agrees with Commissioner Koos that the
nature of this particular census tract skews the over-concentration. It suggests an over-concentration that
when you actually look at the map and the spacious distribution of these licenses simply bear out that
there is an excessive concentration in this portion of the census tract. Furthermore, the reporting districts,
which are broken down in much smaller segments, show a below average crime rate. If Commission's
primary concern is crime, there is actually a below average crime rate for this particular site and staff has
a very tightly conditioned CUP that will last for only one year. He feels it gives Commission an opportunity
to monitor the site and hopefully with very good assistance from the police department and Code
Enforcement a determination can be made after a year on how this is working
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman 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 Quafity Acf (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04439 for 1 year (to expire on September 24,
~ 2002) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated
September 24, 2001 with the following modification.
Deleted Condition No. 13
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (5:15-5:30)
•
09-24-01
Page 52
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 12a. ENVIRONMENTAL lMPACT REPORT NO. 323 (PREV. - CERTIFIED) Approved
12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04444) Approved modification
12c. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04458 Granted
12d. 7ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-105 Approved
12e. REVIEW OF FiNAL SITES, FLOOR, SIGNAGE AND ELEVATION Approved
PLANS
OWNER: Anaheim Gateway LLC, Attn: John Manavian, 120
North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048
LOCATION: 9500 North Lemon Street. Property is approximately
26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon
Street and Durst Street (Anaheim Gateway).
Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 (Tracking ~No. CUP 2001-04444):
requests the following: a) to modify exhibits for a previousiy-approved
commercial retail center of regional significance and b) approvaf of final
site, floor, signage and elevation plans for a freestanding, fast food drive-
through restaurant pad and a health club building pad.
Variance No. 2001-04458: waiver of required lot frontage on a public or
private street to establish a 7-lot commercial subdivision.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-105: to establish a 7-lot commercial
• subdivision..
142
1
-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC200
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-143 SR2090DS.DOC
Greg McCafferty Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 12 Conditional Use Permit No.4179, Variance
No.2001-04458, Tentative Parcel Map 2105 and review of final site for signage and elevation plans at
1500 North Lemon Street for Anaheim Gateway. Proposal to modify previously approved exhibits for
commercial retail center and request waiver of required tot frontage on public/private street to have 7-lot
commercial sub-division and for approval of final site, floor, signage and elevations for free-standing drive-
through restaurant and healfh club.
Chairman Vanderbilt stated one letter was received from Bryan Industrial properties with questions about
current development of project.
ApplicanYs Statement:
John Robles, project manager for McDonalds, one of the applicants. Asking for consideration fo approve
signage for Item 21. He explained they would like to keep signage for architectural and vis+bility reasons.
Chris Bailey, director of construction, for 24 Nour Fitness, 76 Perell Avenue, Foothill Ranch, was available
to answer questions.
John Manavian, director of real estate development, for Robertson Properties Group. Major master plan
components haven't changed, but as new tenants come in they want to fit their exact building
• requirements, and he explained how they try to do that. He discussed signage and who was getting what
panels. Once approval is received, they will begin site improvements, so there would be no need for
hydro-seeding as stated in staff report. They are working with a major tenant on the 10 acres. They want
09-24-01
Page 53
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION M(NUTES
• to get that parking lot repaved and significantiy reduce amount of area that is pad area. He rejects the
Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, represents Planned lndustrial Properties Incorporated. They are
not against the project, but submitted a letter to Commission with three bullet points that should be
emphasized and put back into the conditions. They also would like to have no parking on either side of
Dirst Street added to the conditions.
northern neighbor's comment and assertions because he is resfricted in terms of what truck traffic is
allowed on Dirst. He explained the changes he did to the street to accommodate truck traffic. He prefers
to not put in the loop road, but staff stated it is a condition so he will put it in. He questioned the word
unsubordinated in condition 1 and he questioned "CC&R's to be recorded" when they already have
recorded CC&R's on this property.
Joe Faust, principal of Austin Faust Associates, traffic engineers at 2020 North Tustin, Santa Ana,
retained by Bryan Industrial Properties. Dirst is only 32 feet wide and residential streets are 36 or 40 foot
wide. Dirst cannot support two, turning 16 wheelers at the same time. Commission needs to look at the
directionality of the trucks approaching and leaving the site because most trucks will be going to or
coming from the 91 freeway. When they leave the site, they must make a right turn up to Orangethorpe
where they have to turn again. They have to go through other towns fo feave. They need to make a one
way circulation for trucks in Dirst and out the main entrance so they can make the left turn.
John Moresca, represents Bryan Industrial Properties. They are in favor of the projects but have
concerns. There is a need for circulation of truck traffic. They are asking for 3 conditions. One is all
parking and driveway accessways to south of Lowe's as originally approved shall be asphalted and
completed to allow for traffic circulation on-site; two, all undeveloped areas on project be hydro-seeded or
have ground cover; and three, with regard to helping maintain openness of truck traffic, that no parking
• signs be placed on both sides of Dirst to alleviate congestion.
Mr. Manavian advised that Mr. Faust needs to look at the diagram for industrial collector streets.
Industrial collector streets is a 64 foot right-of-way and included in that 64 foot is a ~ 0-foot sidewalk and
parkway. Industrial collector street has a 32 foot road width allowing for two-way traffic. Another turning
radius has been created at the end of Dirst so they can turn. They spent the money to create a roadway
that can accommodate 2 way traffic. He agrees that no parking should be on Dirst Street.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Chairman Vanderbilt closed pubic hearing after seeing no one wanted to speak for or against the item.
Commissioner Bostwick asked and it was noted in the report that they would pave the roadway around
the project so that the trucks could exit out the front onto Lemon at the signal. Commissioner Bostwick
doesn't have a problem with this because applicant said he will finish the highway as requested, and
hydro-seed property that is not being built on.
Commissioner Koos stated he doesn't remember the phasing at the hearing, he thought they were going
to do the entire parking lot all at one time. Asked how it plays out with a development of this size if it is
approved.
Commissioner Bostwick said he thought that too, he doesn't have a problem if they wanf to pave the
roadway and hydro-seed the pads.
Greg McCafferty said a specific site plan was approved when Commission approved the conditional use
permit, but as part of that approval they had conditions of approval that required them to come back with
• final plans for those individual building plans that could require them to look at drive-through lanes and
parking. Commission also required them, with the phase 1 landscape plan, to hydro-seed pad areas and
it hasn't been done, and they were required to pave an access around the south end of Lowe's until such
time that the major in-line tenants were constructed and thaf hasn't been done. Lowe's is operating on
09-24-01
Page 54
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES
~ temporary certificate of occupancy. Staff couid hold up certificate of occupancy until they did that or they
could add timing to this proposed modi~cafion to say that they do that within 30 days because it was
stipulated as part of the previous approval.
Commissioner Koos said it was such a long discussion that he thought it would have been taken care of.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if applicant and adjoining property owner woufd go to the City and ask for
no parking signs, they would go out and paint the curb red.
Commissioner Bristol asked where is staff saying no to this in the staff report.
Chairman Vanderbilt asked about the McDonalds sign.
Greg McCafferfy stated paragraph 21 recommends denial, but the way this project was advertised and
consistent with Commission's interpretation of what a roof sign is, Commission cannot move forward
based on that interpretation.
Commissioner Bristol asked what did they do on Denny's at Katella and State College.
Greg McCafferty said he couldn't remember how the conditional use permit was advertised, but it had a
specific sign program that Commission approved. Denny's came in afterward for their own CUP because
they had changed.
Commissioner Arnold said that some of the times they dealt with these issues there has been a distinction
made with respect to signage that is part of the architectural feature.
• Greg McCafferty said Carl's Jr. at Stadium Crossing has gotten creative with the building design and he
can't recall any other instances.
Commissioner Koos said McDonalds on Harbor in the resort has a tower.
Greg Hastings said the Resort Area has it's own set of specifications.
Commissioner Arnold is referring to churches where a determination from Commission relative to
architectural features was doubling as advertising.
Mr. Manavian said he is confused because they did the same thing as Denny's. They have a sign
program and architectural elevations and concepts that show this architectural element being used for
signage. They understood it was a conceptual plan that had to be reinforced by fhe specific tenant, and
they forced the specific tenant not to use their archifecture, but to comply with the design theme for the
project. They did and used the architectural element for signage like they suggested and thought that was
approved by Planning Commission as a conceptual sign program.
Chairman Vanderbilt asked if they obtained sign program.
Greg McCafferty said they will iook at the stamped exhibits to make sure they are consistent.
Selma Mann asked about the question of CC&R's that are already recorded against the property and what
an unsubordinated covenant means. On page with regard to the unsubordinated restrict, it should be
"restrictive" covenant regarding reciprocal access and parking. If CC&R's have afready been recorded
against the property that perform all of the functions that the City would be reviewing for, there would be
• no need to have an additional one. However, those CC&R's would need to address satisfactory reciprocal
access and parking (to Traffic and Transportation Manager and Zoning Division) and provisions
guaranteeing the entire complex be managed and maintained as one integral parcel for purposes of
parking, etc., all of those provisions would need to be in there. In addition to that, there are some specific
09-24-01
Page 55
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• provisions that City Attorney Office requires and you can't terminate portions of the CC&R's that relate to
what the City's requirements are on the project without the City's prior written consent. This way you don't
have a situation where these are recorded, then approvals are obtained, then covenants are terminated
and removed from the property. With regard to unsubordinated, it means that there aren't any superior
liens on it that could foreclose out the covenant. Make sure there isn't a lender that has a superior lien
that is higher than the covenant.
Mr. Manavian said they have all those conditions, they have City National, memorandum of lease with
Lowe's and CC&R's. They have reciprocal parking and ease access, all issues outlined. He isn't sure
how they create unsubordinated position and would investigate it. He has to become more familiar with
how their CC&R's dovetail with City requirements.
Selma Mann said they wouldn't ordinarily require it in a CC&R except with regard to those aspects that
had been inserted at the request of the city as conditions of approval.
Mr. Manavian said he has to go back to his tenant and City National, and whether or not they cooperate
can't be controlled by him because it has already been executed recorded.
Commissioner Koos wanted to applaud the applicant's team for working with McDonald's and trying to
come up with this, it deviates from their corporate look.
Commissioner Arnold asked what kind of signage would be allowed if they came in with a standard
McDonald's.
Greg Hastings said typically a stand a(one cou(d have a monument sign plus 10% of each one of the walls
could be covered with signs unless Commission conditions less signage. They are trying to make sure
~ that most fast foods have visibility in both directions on the street and to see a monument or wall sign. It
would be more signage than this, the sign code is very liberal in terms of wall signage.
Commissioner Bostwick clarified that the only thing they can approve today is the wal! sign on the finger
wall at the top. Asked if it has to be a variance.
Greg Hastings said it could be a waiver under this conditional use permit that would have to be applied
for.
Commissioner Koos stated unless they consider it as an architectural feature.
Greg Hastings said that there are a lot of other uses in the City that are looking to be able to put signage
above the roof line. We need to be consistent with this and any other above roof signs.
Commissioner Koos stated this Frank Lloyd Wrightesque could be considered unique in its proposal as
opposed to some of the standard stuff that they see.
Greg Hastings agreed it was very unique for a McDonald's.
Commissioner Arnold said it has been a comprehensive/design type of program.
Greg Hastings isn't sure that any roof signs have been approved since the code changed to prohibit roof
signs. Denny's had a vestibule where the wall went up above the rest of the building.
Greg McCafferty stated page 15 of the sign program conceptua!!y shows an area for a sign. Staff reports
• that evaluated the sign program indicated that this signage wasn't to the level of detail that the other
signage was, which was approved on that date. All freestanding and Lowe's signs were approved, and
because this was more conceptual in nature, our actual recommendation was for Commission to approve
09-24-01
Page 56
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES
. a phase 2 sign program. At the meeting, we stipulated that they would work with staff on the additional
details. On page 15 of the sign program shows the availability of a panel on that architectural projection.
Commissioner Koos stated that the uniqueness of this Frank Lloyd Wright's proposal lends itself to being
an architectural feature rather than a protrusion above the roofline, and they could easily justify it based
on the conceptual drawings and what they see today and it won't set a precedent.
Chairman Vanderbilt stated this is staff s first look back at the sign plan.
Commissioner Arnold said he agrees with Commissioner Koos. He wants to underscore the idea that this
is an unusual architectural design and therefore is not the typical proposal from the typical applicant
looking for signage above the roof. This architecture is unique and unusual and he would support it.
Commissioner Bristof asked about the fact that it is a logo and not a name. Staff is saying that there are a
lot of these. Would Commission consider this if it was McDonald's on there.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if Commission would be happy if the pad on the corner came in
with a similar building but wing said Pic n Save.
Commissioner Arnold said each variation from this situation might go over the line. We are talking about
a very narrow fact, specific circumstance.
Commissioner Bostwick said it needs to be pointed out to the applicant so he doesn't comes back later
with another building and request for sign on the roof. Commission needs to be very specific if they are
going to approve this.
• Chairman Vanderbilt asked if "M" or arches are being proposed.
Applicant rep(ied they are proposing the arches, the iogo.
Greg McCafferty stated staff has suggested conditions to make sure the circulation is taken care of. Add
condition 38, that within 30 days of the date of this resolution, irrigated landscaping coverage including
turf, hydro-seeding, or ground cover shall be provided on the undeveloped portions of this property at the
south end of the home improvement store and on the vacant parcels adjacent to the Lemon Street
frontage. Add condition 39 that within 30 days of the date of this resolution, a paved driveway shall be
provided at the south end of the home improvement store to allow for truck and vehicular access.
Mr. Manavian said they have parcels that will break ground for improvements so he needs a better
definition so he is not in violation of it.
Greg McCafferty said last time the landscape plan said all pad areas that weren't developed be hydro-
seeded, so that would be staff s recommendation now, with the exception of the parcel that is not under
their control, Caltrans has ownership of it now. All the rest should be hyrdo-seeded.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
FAVOR: 3 people spoke with concerns regarding the truck traffic circulation.
ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 323 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for subject request,
• Approved modification to exhibits for Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 (Tracking No. CUP
2001-04444) subject to the findings as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001.
09-24-01
Page 57
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Amended Resolution No. 2000R-166 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution
which includes the following conditions of approval:
3. That a Phase Two (final) Sign Program shall be submitted indicating the wall sign
location, material, colors, wording, and logos for Pad Building Nos. B and C, and Major
Tenants B, C, and D, including fhe specific wording and location of all directional and
guide signs. The Phase Two Sign Program shall be submitted to the Zoning Division
for Planning Commission review and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations"
item.
4. That the advertisement for any single tenant shall not appear on more than one
freestanding sign with the exception of the freeway oriented sign.
5. That the banners on the eight (8) decorative monument structures shall not be used for
advertising.
6. That the advertisement of any single tenant shall not appear on both the freeway-
oriented sign and south elevation of the Major D tenant building.
7. That Phase Two (final) landscape plans indicating the provision for fully-improved
permanent planting on the CalTrans parcel at the southwest corner of the property,
around the building pad and parking lot south of the Lowe's building, on the restaurant
pads adjacent fo Lemon Street, and on the pad at the southeast corner of Durst Street
and Lemon Street, shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Planning Commission
review and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations" item.
• 8. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures
within assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with the attached
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 113 as adopted by the City of Anaheim and as required
by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.
9. That a conditional use permit shall be obtained for any outdoor seating or alcohol sales
in conjunction with the restaurant uses.
90. That irrigated landscaping coverage, including turf, hydroseeding, or groundcover, shall
be provided on the undeveloped portion of this property at the southeast corner of Durst
Street and Lemon Street, until such a time as that undeveloped portion commences
development.
11. That this development is limited to a maximum of eight (8) tenant spaces. The
subdivision of any retail space and/or the development of the vacant parcel at the
southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street shall only be permitted by the
application for, and approval of, a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission.
12. That a landscaped earthen berm and or a row of hedges shall be incorporated into the
entire length of the setback adjacent to Lemon Street with the exception of
ingress/egress areas. Further, dense landscaping shall be provided adjacent to Lemon
Street to adequately screen the drive-through lanes. Where possible, existing mature
landscaping should be preserved. Said information shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
• 13. That final site, floor, and elevation plans for the two (2) freestanding full-service
restaurants shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Planning Commission review
and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations" item.
09-24-01
Page 58
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 14. That all roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view of the public rights-of-way
and surrounding properties in compliance with Section 18.44.030.120 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
15. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor
storage uses.
16. That if public telephone service is installed, the telephones shall only be installed within
the restaurants or retail buildings.
17. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing
regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti
within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
18. That the existing mature trees in the planter along Lemon Street frontage shall be
retained where possible. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
19. That no exterior vending machines shall be permitted within the view of the public
rights-of-way.
20. That the landscape planters shal! be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant
materials.
• 21. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limifed to,
electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable
devices, etc., shali be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also
identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening,
color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the
review and approval of the appropriate City departments.
22. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review
and approva(.
23. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering
Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
24. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his
review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 137 pertaining
to sight distance visibility for the sign or wall/fence locations.
25. That all drive-through lanes shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager.
26. That the owner shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91 R-89
relating to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies by joining and
participating in the Anaheim Transportation Network and developing a TDM program
~ consistent with the demographics of the labor force.
09-24-01
Page 59
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'fES
~ 27. That a plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his
review and approvai showing the loading space for trucks in conformance with Code
Section 18.06.060.
28. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his
review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering
Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway
locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in
conformance with said plans.
29. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely
affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall
conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
30. That three (3) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof
in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from
the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
31. That prior to the operation of these businesses, valid business licenses shall be
obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance
Department.
32. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to
the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with
~ approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed,
located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or
highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities
by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines, planted on
maximum 3-foot centers, or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown
on the plans submitted for building permits.
33. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with decorative lighting of
sufficient power (recommended minimum of two foot-cand(es) to il(uminate and make
easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking
lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not
to unreasonably illuminate adjacent properties, and that said lighting information shall
be specified on plans submitted for building permits.
34. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the
building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building
materials; and, further, such information shall be specifically shown on the plans
submitted for building permits.
35. That window signage shall not be permitted.
•
09-24-01
Page 60
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 36. 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(Revision No. 1), 2, 3
(Revision No. 1), 4(Revision No. 1), 5, 6, 7, 8(Revision No. 1), and 9(Revision No. 1),
Final Plan Nos. 1 through 5(Phase One Landscape Plans), 6 through 18 (Phase One
Freestanding and Lowe's Building Signage Program), 19 through 25 (Fast Food Drive-
Through Restaurant Pad Building Sign Program), and 26 through 33 (Health Club Pad
Building Sign Program), and as conditioned herein.
37. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from
the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 and 32, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with.
38. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 4, & 34, above-
mentioned, shall be complied with.
39. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to
the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or
findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows:
~ 40. That within 30 days of the date of this resolution, irrigated landscaping coverage,
including turf, hydroseeding, or groundcover, shall be provided on the undeveloped
portions of this property at the south end of the home improvement store and on the
vacant parcels adjacent to the Lemon Street frontage.
41. That within 30 days of the date of this resolution, a paved driveway shall be provided at
the south end of the home improvement store to allow for truck and vehicular access.
Granted Variance No. 2001-04458 (pertaining to waiver of required lot frontage on a public
or private street) based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated September 24,
2001.
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-105 for a 7-lot commercial subdivision subject to
the findings and the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24,
2001.
ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby approve the final site, floor, signage, and elevation plans for a
freestanding drive-through restaurant and a health club on the basis that said plans are
consistent with previously-approved exhibits for this regional shopping center.
This includes a determination by the Commission that the unique architectural features of
the McDonald's building showing the double arches be considered a unique architectural
feature integral to the building limited to the very narrow facts of the subject case with
• respect to the design of the building and the overall design of the entire development of the
project and the signage program and would not set any precedence or attempts in other
circumstances to place signage above the roof. (This statement pertained to the sign
proposed on the north and south elevations of the McDonald's building.)
09-24-01
Page 61
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Parcel Map
No. 2000-105 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions.
DISCUSSION TIME: 57 minutes (5:31-6:28)
A 10-minute break was taken from 6:28-6:38
•
~
09-24-01
Page 62
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
t 13a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04441
OWNER: Robert Smith Trustee, P. O. Box 54400, Los Angeles,
CA 90054
AGEN7: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 2225 East Katella Avenue. Property is approximately
5.48 acres located at the northwesterly corner of
Katella and Howell Avenues
To permit an auto collision repair and auto rental facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-144
Concurred with staff
Granted for 10 years
(to expire on
September 24, 2011)
SR8094KB.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04441. It is
for property located at 2225 East Katella Avenue. It is a request to permit an auto collision repair and auto
rental facility.
Mr. McCafferty reported, just for the record, that staff visited the site and there appeared to be existing
storage on the property, abandoned vehicles, boats, RV's, tractor-trailers, a wrecked car, a door that was
• ripped off and left in the parking lot, and there appears to be some parking outside of that storage area
where tractor-trailers are being parked. It is not in conjunction with Price Auto Outlet, it was strictly an
auto sales facility.
ApplicanYs Statement:
Phillip Schwartze, of Caliber Collision Center, stated he is present this evening to request approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to refurbish the existing and what was formerly the Stadium Pontiac Dealership
into Caliber Collision Center. He explains with regard to the automobiles that are onsite that the site is on
a lease. The existing lease that was on the property was owned by Bank of America. Bank of America
donated that lease to Mothers' Against Drunk Drivers and that organization is collecting automobiles and
other things and storing them on the site. It is their understanding that the lease terminates on the 28`h of
October and they will be gone. Caliber Collision Center does not have any control over the site and will
not until their approvals are granted and their lease is initiated.
Mr. Schwartze stated with regards to the staff report when they first came in and met with staff there was
concern that they would have some visibility problems from their location eastbound on Katella. They
spent time and effort to figure out what they could do to best screen the facility and any potential
~ foreseeing damaged cars. In an effort to accomplish their goal they decided to place all damaged cars in
the rear behind walls or fences and landscaping. Subsequently, there was some concern that they might
be observed from the four new high rise buildings that were coming in. They determined that the closest
high rise going next to them would actually be a mid-rise which is owned by Verizon east of their site.
From the top floor of the Verizon building and looking directly west towards their building measures over
two football fields in distance. So being able to tell what type of vehicle might be easy, but determining
whether it is damaged or not is a subject to some debate. Mr. Schwartze stated that the tallest building in
• their area is the 2400 building on Katella and most of that building is actually housed by the brokers who
are leasing them their building.
09-24-01
Page 63
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISS{ON MINUTES
~ Mr. Schwartze stated that they have concerns over Condition No. 1 on page 7, where they are requesting
a 3-year time limitation. They are putting in several hundred thousand worth of improvements for a 3-year
condition of approval and feel it is impossible to amortize improvements made within that time period.
They plan to refurbish both the inside and the outside of the building with tenant improvements and
landscaping improvements and other building improvements. He stated with regards to the other view of
the buildings that might occur or the view of the cars that might come onsite, one has to recall that 75% of
the cars that arrive to be repaired are driven on and do not arrive on the end of a tow truck. His other
concern is a misstatement on page 4 at the bottom, No. 14 in bold, reads "the petitioner states the car
rental will not be provided to the general public from this site". However, the petitioner stated actually if
someone walked on the site and wanted to rent a car, he would not be precluded from doing that but they
just do not advertise offsite. He informs Caliber has a close relationship with Enterprise Rental Car in
most of their locations and he is certainly aware that most of the people who visit this site rent a car from
Enterprise while their automobile is being repaired.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff with regard to the overlay zone if it is the intent to protect the integrity
of it and he noted that it is interesting enough that this particular parcel is not included.
Mr. McCafferty stated that staff explained to the applicant in the meetings that we have had with him and
he is aware that that parcel has difficult access along Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue and along the
Katella Avenue Corridor District where staff assigns the highest FAR of the whole Stadium Plan. Staff
had to pick and choose where the density was allotted because everyone could not be given a FAR. Staff
chose and recommended to the Commission and Council the parcels where it made sense to have that
sort of density. Because of the access limitations of this parcel staff did not incorporate that into the
Katella corridor district. Based on the surrounding land uses in the area and surrounding the site to the
• south and east, are all office buildings and further down Katella to the west they are sports entertainment
uses and the retail uses. Over the long term staff does not think that this is a good fit for this location and
made that distinction in the evaluation as they stated "over the long term, even though this is not in the
district that it is still a land use that we feel is incompatible with the existing land uses that are out there".
Commissioner Arnold desired to clarify if it is the overlay zone that is designed ta create incentives and it
imposes additional restrictions on parcels of land. For example: the South Anaheim Boulevard is largely
an incentive-based overlay zone and he wanted to know if this one is the same.
Mr. McCafferty responded, yes.
Commissioner Koos asked if there were not an afternative zoning classification identified for this property.
Mr. McCafferty responded that it was an incentive-based zoning program. There were some mandatory
provisions that applied throughout the Stadium Area and that pertain to signage and landscaping. Staff
calls it the existing district; basically understanding that it would be retained as the zoning that it currently
has with the exception of those parts of the overlay that were mandatory regardless of where the parcel
was located; signage and landscaping. Staff allows the opportunity at the right time for the property
owner to come in and request to be incorporated into that overlay zone, because over the long term if it is
consolidated with the gas station parcel it may make sense to be part of the Katella Avenue Corridor
District. However, he stated hearing over and over again from the listing broker and others that have
come in on this site that the cumbersome property and lease arrangements limit the ability for anybody
that goes on the site to make a substantial investment. They suggest we scrape the site and start over.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he would repeat his statement.
• Mr. McCafferty responded that his understanding just from meeting with various business interest that
wanted to develop a site over time, is that the existing property ownership and the multitude of leases that
exist on this property in long term leases, prevent the property from redeveloping to a new use. So
09-24-01
Page 64
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• essentially what everyone has come in to do with that site is to use the existing improvements and try to
make something fit on the site. That has restricted the ability to get something that is more consistent with
the land use pattern in the area.
Commissioner Boydstun asked how long would the site be tied up with leases.
Mr. Schwartze answered that there is a 20-year lease remaining on the property. He concurs with Mr.
McCafferty that it is certainly a factor but the most important factor is the traffic. The directions for tra~c
dictates a right in and a right out only. He feels that is the greatest restriction on the property even if it
were completely vacant dirt, trying to put something on the property with right in and right out only.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that it seems with those kind of restrictions Commission would want an
interim lease. She feels this would certainly be a good solid one especially since it is zoned for it, they
would not have to ask for any waivers or anything.
Chairperson Vanderbilt desired to ask a quick question with regards to the objections of staff; Use versus
appearance. He stated the thing that occurred to him is that when it comes to auto repair facilities and
auto storage, the concern is that there are vehicles that are visible and especially if they are in a damaged
condition they could create a blighted situation, but if the cars are not visible then would staff be more
amenable to it. He points out that the solution he is suggesting is based on a drive through that he took
this morning where he observed that the bays or the essential car ports, provide opportunities for the new
applicant to work on the cars and store their cars underneath the roof which would essentially block any
visibility from the existing high-risers and perhaps new high-risers and maybe even the train. So he asked
if we get a condition that requires the applicant to store or work on the vehicles under a roof would that
satisfy staff s concerns to some extent.
• Commissioner Bostwick stated that Condition No. 6 in the staff report basically states that all vehicles to
be repaired should be confined entirely to the interiors of the buildings.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he met with the applicant last week and at that time he expressed that
they did not anticipate having a lot of vehicles to work on in which to create an overflow, and it may be
possible to store all of the vehicles they are working on in the work bays.
Mr. Schwartze responded that there are two large service bays. All of the cars that would be in the area
adjacent to Katella Avenue would either be employees' cars or the Enterprise rental cars. Everything else
that would be worked on or in any kind of condition would be totally enclosed in that area and all the work
that occurs on the cars, occurs inside the service bays. The only cars that would be around that might not
be prestige might be in the parking area located in the center which is screened from all sides and that
would be cars that are just coming in or going out of one of the service bays being worked on. Again, he
stated that at the distance they are from surrounding structures, whether it can be detected if a car is
damaged or is debatable.
Commissioner Koos referred to staff and stated that he is impressed by the level of landscaping
considering especially it is a ML Zone property. He asked if it were staff s opinion that the (andscaping
that is depicted on the simulation matches the landscaping that is depicted on the site plan.
Mr. McCafferty responded that he has taken a drive to the site and from his observations the landscaping
is accurately depicted on the exhibit.
Commissioner Koos clarified he meant the landscaping depicted in the simulation because looking
closely, there are trees and palms visible behind the building and new ground cover, and new trees. He
• stated sometimes Commissioners see the lovely simulations but they do not necessarily reflect what is
actually happening on the site plan and what is turned in at the Building counter.
09-24-01
Page 65
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. McCafferty responded that his understanding is that the only new landscaping proposed is simply to
refurbish the landscaping along the Katelia Avenue frontage where there is a slope, underneath the
railroad overcrossing.
Mr. Schwartze responded that a landscaping plan is part of their packet and it shows that they are
refurbishing not only the Katella Avenue but also the Howell Avenue side and also some interior
landscaping. The computer simulation tries to depict very accurately the landscaping that would be added
to enhance the existing landscaping.
Commissioner Bristol stated that he thinks that this is a fine use. He stated that he has visited the site
and met with Mr. Schwartze and he also travels the area quite a bit and used to work at an office nearby,
and from part of the 2400 building, visibility is inhibited due to the high trees along Katella Avenue. Then
he tried to imagine the Verizon building trying to see how much line of sight would not be pleasing and he
really could not tell and if it becomes a high-rise, it will be dictated by the marketplace. So he feefs the
use can remain and Commission does not have to decide anything on it, it could either stay the way it
looks or they can improve it, and when things get better that will dictate what will happen to that piece of
property. It has had problems in the last few years trying to get anybody in there, it is hidden, it is almost
like a remnant piece, and it is mostly forgotten. He feels the use is fine and stated that he does not see
the same problems that the staff is seeing for this item.
Commissioner Arnold stated that just in general he disagrees with the idea that a use should be denied
because it is inconsistent with the overall goals of an incentive based overlay zone. What happens is that
when the overlay zone is proposed, it looks like something positive that is supposed to be something that
landowners can take advantage of and then it gets applied in such a way as to be a basis for denying
uses and becomes a mandatory restrictive element. He understands that staff pointed out an alternative
concern of the impact of the use on surrounding land uses but in general Commission has seen similar
• reasoning in 3 or 4 CUPs that they have dealt with lately. It seems to be something more restrictive than
what the landowners in the area thought they bargained for when they received the overlay zone. He
stated if the City wanted to do a more restrictive overlay zone in an area to try to force land uses in a
particular direction it would make sense, but in this case it seems that if we hold this particular parcel with
all of its constraints to the general vision of the overlay zone without providing any means for it to move
forward, basically we are taking the property and we are not letting them do anything that is feasible on it.
Mr. McCafferty responded that he would agree if they were basing their recommendation solely on the
incentive based zoning and if it appears that way in the staff report he clarifies that is not staff's intention.
Rather it is two-fold, it is actually the incentive based zoning and the commonality between the
landscaping and signage for that incentive based zoning but as well as the findings that Commission
makes for a Conditional Use Permit, given the existing land uses around the site that were not developed
under the overlay but were developed under the zoning that is there now, which is the office building. It is
based on the overall vision for the area but more importantly the fact that staff believes it is going to be a
detriment to the surrounding land uses and therefore the findings for the CUP could not be made.
Commissioner Bostwick reminded fellow Commissioners that he was the only one to vote against the
overlay zone and one of the reasons is that he felt it would deny potential projects and inhibit existing
projects. He feels the facility has been in the automotive area for many years, it is screened from the view
of Katella Avenue, and it will not have things in front that are any worse than when it was a car dealership
or a used car sales lot.
Commissioner Koos stated that he was trying to reconcile the simulations against the landscape plan, and
maybe they can be reconciled between staff and the applicant because the simulations show total
refurbishment of the Katella Avenue frontage while the landscape plan does not mention it. So he wants
• to make sure it does not slip through the cracks once it goes through the Building and Permit Department.
09-24-01
Page 66
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Bostwick stated that what they see shown on the pian is planters up close to the building,
so he asked Commissioner Koos if he was referring to the one on the street and along the slope down to
the railroad.
Commissioner Koos responded yes, whatever the applicant is showing on the plan is what he would like
to see as the final result. Furthermore, the type of screen of the mesh ar the type of chain link that is on
the actual fence is see through and he is concerned if they are going to have a bunch of cars back there
and suggests that the mesh should be darker.
Mr. Schwartze responded that he understands what Commissioner Koos is saying but Commission may
recall that the area in the front is either the rental cars or employee parking.
Commissioner Koos responded that if that is the case and it is conditioned where all the collision cars are
in the back then it is good.
Mr. Schwartze interjected to inform Commission that they could not do it for less than the lease awarded
because they are putting $1,000,003 into the building and they cannot amortize it back out in the length of
time Commission suggests, so they would need something that would run longer than that or the length of
the lease.
Mr. McCafferty commented that they have heard that they cannot make a substantial investment in this
property because there is a property owner, there is someone that is leasing the property and then there
is a sub-lease to that, so staff would recommend strongly that if Planning Commission is considering
approving the proposal for longer than 3 years that it be 5 years because staff's concern is that if it gets
approved for a long term it is basically going to stay there. He stated if Commission believes that this is
an interim use then staff believes respectfully that the number of years awarded be thought through
• strongly.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if he believed that if this property was wanted for some development that
potential owners would not buy the lease out and she stated furthermore the market seem to be going
away from high-risers and are cutting buildings down.
Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that he feels like they would have to have the RV storage behind it to
create a big enough parcel in which to do something with high-rise and parking. However he does not
think it is enough ground there to do a high-rise without any parking.
Commissioner Boydstun reminded Commission of the site behind Palm Street where builders have come
back in to lower it to more of a cottage business center, which are becoming more popular than the high-
risers are.
Mr. Schwartze stated that they would be happy to have it tied to their lease of 20 years because he did not
feel they would be there any longer than that.
Commissioner Arnold clarified that one of the reasons why Commission limits CUPs is to ensure that
conditions are being complied with, there is a monitoring process in the City of Anaheim, but when uses
get approved for a CUP and they are set for a certain amount of time there is a certain momentum to the
CUPs. So it is not that Commission cannot deny the reinstatement of the CUP but the idea is that
Commission does not generally grant such open ended time frames. Twenty years is a long time.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that there is nothing that precludes coming back in 5 years and asking that
it be reinstated.
~ Mr. Schwartze stated no, only if you put $1,000,003 into it you are not going to gamble that you cannot
use it in 5 years, that would be a probfem.
09-24-01
Page 67
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that the building seems to be fitted to a certain extent for this use aiready
and so he asked if the $1,000,003 investment was mostly on the building.
Mr. Schwartze responded that on the tenant improvements there are the building configurations, and the
interiors that are going to be done. The entire site is going to be refurbished, relandscaped and
everything. The construction cost approximately $1,000,003 to do that, and trying to amortize that back
out over the lease would require a longer time to make it work. He informs that is the struggle that
everybody has had and also how do you make something work where traffic is right in right out only. He
feels it is because they are a low traffic generator that they are able to do it.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if 10 years would work for him.
Mr. Schwartze responded that the way they are configured they could only do it on a 20-year approval.
Commissioner Bristol stated that the amortization is 15 years and that is the tax law, but he has never
seen Commission ever go beyond 10 years.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that she agrees and if the business has been operating correctly for 10
years she could not imagine anyone would turn them down for an extension.
Commissioner Bristol stated that any bank with a 10 year CUP would give them money on that even
though they cannot amortize but they would still have 5 years to gamble with, but 10 years is the longest
he has ever seen.
Commissioner Koos referred to Mr. McCafferty's statement of the facility being an interim use and he
pointed out that he did not vote for it as an interim use so he asked Commissioner Bostwick hypothetically
• if they had a track record would he be willing to reconsider.
• • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick oifered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby concur with staif that the proposed project fal{s 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 Bostwick offered a resolution to Grant Conditional Use Permit
No. 2001-04441 for 5 years (to expire on September 24, 2006) subject to the conditions of
approval as stated in the staff report dated September 24, 2001 with the following
modification:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
1. That subject use permit shall expire in five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on
September 24, 2006.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
• Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, did not present the appeal rights as the
applicant proceeded to speak regarding the expirafion date. Discussion then
proceeded by the applicant, staff and Planning Commission.
09-24-01
Page 68
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
i
Commissioner Bostwick offered an alternate resolution, amending the previousiy-offered
resolution, to Grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04441 for 10 years (to expire on
September 24, 2011) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated
September 24, 2001 with the following modification:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
1. That subject use permit shall expire in ten (10) years from the date of this resolution, on
September 24, 2011.
VOTE: 4-2, (Commissioners Arnold & Vanderbilt voted no; Commissioner Eastman was absent.)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (6:38-7:15)
•
r ~
~
09-24-01
Page 69
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
14a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11
14b. VARIANCE NO. 20Q1-04455
OWNER: Seung U Choi, 2213 Ardemore Drive, Fullerton, CA
92833
AGENT: Leonard Van Zanem, 5428 Bushnell, Riverside, CA
92505
LOCATION: 101 North State Coliege Boulevard. Property is
approximately 0.14 acre located at the northwest corner
of Center Street and State College Boulevard
(Weinerschnitzel).
Waiver of lighting of parking areas adjoining residential premises to
construct three 20-foot high light standards within the parking lot of an
existing drive-through fast food restaurant.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
Withdrawn
SR8089KB.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
•
ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal, that was submitted at
today's meeting for Variance No. 2001-04455.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
~
09-24-01
Page 70
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
.
15a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04440
Concurred with staff
Granted for 3 years
(to expire on
September 24, 2004)
OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street #105, La Palma, CA
90623
AGENT: Daniel Hwang, 2626 West Baylor Circle #213,
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 3174 West Lincoln Avenue - Suite 108. Property is
approximately 6 acres located south and east of the
southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western
Avenue.
To perm'st an internet cafe in conjunction with on-site computer rental,
cellular phone and accessory sales, drinks and miscellaneous snacks
within an existing commercial retail center.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-145
•
~
SR1022CW.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 15 as Conditional Use Permit 2001-04440. It is
for property located at 3174 West Lincoln Avenue - Suite 108. It is to permit an internet cafe ir-
conjunction with onsite computer rental, cellular phone and accessory sales, nonalcoholic drinks and
miscellaneous snacks within an existing commercial retail center.
Applicant's Statement:
Irv Pickler, representing Danief Hwang, the applicant. Mr. Pickler stated that of the 20 conditions on page
6 and 7 they only have concerns with Conditions Nos. 1, 2, and 10 and a question regarding No. 14. With
reference to Condition No. 1, the applicant is investing approximately $400,000 in the facility for a 5 year
lease, the computers run approximately $43,000 and he is cleaning up the facility with a new floor,
painting, installing tables, chairs, hiring employees, and the payment of the rent, etc. The business is a
controlled environment; everything is done on the inside and there is no outside business at all. He would
be providing a technical service for people that want to come in and communicate with their relatives
abroad.
Staff has offered a 1 year Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Pickler asked, considering the investments and
since these type facilities are throughout the country and other cities have them and they are doing what
this gentleman wants ta do, if they coufd be awarded more time. He stated working with staff as a whole
has been rewarding, it is a staff that goes the extra mile to help people out when they come in. Mr. Pickler
stated it is a new thing and he does not know why they call it an internet cafe. Mr. Hwang is not going to
have any food and he is not going to prepare any food, the only thing he will have is cold drinks and
maybe some coffee and candy. Staff seems to compare this use with an arcade. He feels an arcade has
a Iot of youngsters running around and they go from one machine to another, but when these people
come in they are situated by a computer and they stay there for an hour (computers will be rented out by
the hour for approximately $2-$3.00). The Conditional Use Permit for 1 year makes it difficult so he asked
if he could have 3 years to start out and he could come back later to request more time. Mr. Hwang
picked this location because there is a police station in the complex.
Regarding Condition No. 2, the applicant had requested hours from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., as he would
be catering to many ethnic groups who would be communicating with their friends and their relatives in
other parts of the world. Other stores similar to this are open until 5:00 a.m. He thought the applicant
09-24-01
Page 71
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• would be willing to go from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. from Sunday to Thursday and if he could have Fridays
and Saturdays and stay open until 4:00 a.m. it would be greatly appreciated.
Regarding Condition No. 10, requiring two employees at all times might create a hardship. Mr. Pickler
feels the condition and the volume of the store would dictate how many employees were necessary. If
one could handle it until 3:00 a.m. and there were no minors during that time, one person alone could
handle it and if it gets busy at that time he would put two on because there will be approximately 50
computers. However, the economy would determine what he actually needs. 7his is more of a service
and the applicant and his employees would control the environment on the inside.
Regarding Condition 14, Mr. Pickler feels it is unfair to ask only a particular person in a big shopping
center to put numbers on the top of his roof. He feels this is something the landlord should do. Somehow
it belongs in his arena, his building has 6 tenants that might be in that one phase of address. Given the
size of that operation, and its location on Western Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, if they have a helicopter
over it to direct police, finding them is not going to be very diffiicult. Mr. Pickler concludes that these are
the only things that concern Mr. Hwang and he respectfully ask if someway the Planning Commission can
accommodate him with those 4 items it would be greatly appreciated.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Arnold stated that on the last question about the address numbers he is assuming that if
the address of the entire complex is already on the roof then they are in compliance and it is just a
standard condition that is imposed.
Mr. McCafferty responded that he believed that they would, depending upon the suite number if there is
activity at that suite number, they would want to distinguish it out. He informs that he could not get in
• contact with the police department in order to specify reasons, but he imagines if there is already
identification on the roof that perhaps at the maximum all they would have to do is paint their suite number
on. It is for the helicopter for public safety.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that during the morning meeting they had a discussion to try and identify
the category of this type business. In talking with staff and Commissioners he arrived at an understanding
that their descriptions were based on personal experiences. Staff's concern is the arcade quality of
certain facilities that already are existing and multiplying throughout the county. Chairperson Vanderbilt
feels these facilities are Internet; they are a server that is provided onsite with a number of computer
stations and terminals. All of them are used for gaming and cater towards teenagers and younger
individuals. The cost is approximately $2.00. However he feels that the proposed site is somewhat
different so he asked the applicant if there would be any sort of computer gaming and if he was targeting
the youth and teenage audience.
Mr. Pickler responded that he was sure there would be some people, whether teenagers or young adults,
that would come in for the purpose of playing games but the key area the applicant desired to cater is
Cypress College and ethnic groups that wished to communicate long distance with their parents and
acquaintances. The applicant will advertise in the Cypress College Newspaper to target his desired
element. Mr. Pickler stated that his understanding of an arcade is a bunch of machines being played with
guns, etc.
Chairperson Vanderbilt concurred with Mr. Pickler's understanding of arcades and stated that although it
is not a machine that you pop quarters into, it is essentially a computer screen sitting on a table and the
individual operates a keyboard that has the same effect; there are guns flaring and a speaker on top
which provide sound effects to the game. Because of the technology the computers can be installed to
• play any of the games at the same speed and the same kind of interaction that you would get in an
arcade. It is almost indistinguishable.
09-24-01
Page 72
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. Pickler stated that popping in a quarter is a little different than when a youngster has to pay $2-$3.00
to play a game in a structured setting. They are not jumping and running around, they are sitting in one
place and maybe two of them are competing in a game. But between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. when
school is in session he will not allow any of the students in the student center that may want to come in
just to play games. From 6:00 p.m. and later it will just be the adults that come in and use the machine to
communicate long distance and do paperwork.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he thinks what the applicant is saying is that he is going to have a
setting that is like an arcade in terms of the sound produced and the energy that exist, which will draw
young people. And then at some place it is going to switch into a more academic environment where
people are writing and communicating via the Internet. But given his personal experience with these type
facilities it is not the kind of environment that people can write papers or communicate on the Internet. To
make that transition one would have to be very dramatic, and stop all current activities to set up a
completely different atmosphere. He stated, given what the applicant described and what he has seen in
some countries, it is a totally different environment from what he is seeing here in Orange County. He
feels as though the applicant's facility is intended to have the flexibility to be both, but given the amount of
interest and the speed at which the places are opening up seems to be where the market is headed rather
than leaning towards the college paper crowd.
Mr. Hwang responded that it is true that there are some places that are very noisy but in some places
headphones are used to buffer the noise. He plans to make windowed rooms so people could have
privacy and it would not be noisy at all.
Commissioner Arnold asked staff about the land use nexus and if their concern is the games being played
at the site or the noise external to the building. He feels if the noise were solely internal and properly
buffered that would not matter. So he wished to clarify if it is the lots of lights flashing on the computer
• screens and the amount of traffic the atmosphere would generate. He wanted to know what land use
impacts would lead anyone to say that games being played inside are somehow more adverse than if
people are writing papers or communicating over the E-mail, or trading stocks or whatever?
Mr. McCafferty responded that he did not think it was so much the activity that goes on inside as long as it
is connected wholly within doors and as long as the desk top stations are visible so that the business
operator can view the screens at all times. They are concerned more with the secondary impacts of the
type of individual, whether teenage or adult, but the type of individual normally drawn to a facifity with the
intent to do interactive gaming. That is more like an arcade and the secondary impact to that is more
activity on the outside of the building with children hanging out and potentially bringing more traffic to the
site. That is what staff is trying to speak to and have included conditions of approval similar to
amusement device arcades that Commission has approved in the past where conditions have been added
to take care of that sort of potential impact. Staff favors the 3-year approval as well.
Commissioner Arnold inquired about Condition No. 7 having to do with extension of the hours for minors
without a guardian.
Mr. McCafferty stated that staff would recommend retaining Condition No. 7 as it is but if a distinction is
needed between more of the teenage crowd versus adult crowd that Condition No. 2 be modified to
accommodate that.
Commissioner Arnold stated that he guess what he was wondering is that if they had a curFew and were
concerned about teenagers hanging out in the area whether Item No. 7 should also include, in addition to
normal school hours and after 10:00 p.m.
. Mr. McCafferty stated that it was fir-e.
09-24-01
Page 73
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Koos suggested maybe it should not be referred to as an internet cafe because it would
confuse things. The primary use would be network gaming operation. It is a new style of entertainment
to the City of Anaheim and there probabiy needs to be a definition for it if they are going to start popping
up. It has its own unique characteristics to be identified and opinions of them will be developed as they
operate. Commissioner Koos stated that if the hours on the minors could be limited, he would be willing
to extend for adults beyond midnight during certain parts of the week. He asked Mr. Pickler to restate th
days that he suggested.
Mr. Pickler stated Sunday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and Friday and Saturday from
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.
e
Commissioner Bostwick stated that he thinks the business will evolve and it may have two entirely
different faces. During the daytime until afternoon it may have the young crowd and in the evening until
late at night it may change back to an adult crowd who would want to communicate with Japan or Korea
or other Asian countries or even Europe in the early morning. So he did not wish to tie down too many
conditions because he thinks this needs to evolve and he thinks it is appropriate.
Commissioner Bristol suggested that on Condition 7 where it states "no minor shall be allowed on the
premises without guardian supervision during normal school hours" should be changed to "no minors shall
be allowed on the premises during normal school hours without guardian supervision".
Commissioner Boydstun clarified that the Anaheim School System is on a year around school calendar
and that is how it is possible to have minors at the site in the daytime.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the condition was taken out of the condition that Commission approved for the
• Nickel Nickel Amusement Arcade.
Commissioner Bostwick suggested deletmg Condition 10 because the market would dictate the number of
employees more than the Planning Commission. The window signage would be based on what is
required by Code.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman 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.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04440 for 3 years (to expire on
September 24, 2004) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report
dated September 24, 2001 with the following modifications:
Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to read as follows:
1. That the subject use permit shall expire in three (3) years from the date of this
resolution, on September 24, 2004.
• 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., Sunday through
Thursday; and 10 a.m. to 4 a.m., Friday and Saturday.
09-24-01
Page 74
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. 7. That no minors shaii be allowed on the premises during normai school hours and/or
after 10 p.m., without parent or guardian supervision.
Deleted Condition Nos. 10 and 11.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (7:16-7:44)
.
•
09-24-01
Page 75
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
16b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3148 October 22, 2001
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04436)
OWNER: Taylor Bus Service, Inc., P. O. Box 1062, West
Sacramento, CA 95691
AGENT: Daniel Boulange, 917 East Gene Autry Way, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 917 East Gene Autry Way. Property is approximately
4.3 acres located at the southeasterly corner of Lewis
Street and Anaheim Way.
Request to reinstate this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on
July 17, 1984, to expire on September 1, 2001) to retain an existing bus
storage terminal.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8097KB.DOC
• • . .- ~ . ~ • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
•
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), to continue the subject
request to the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the
petitioner additional time to comply with the outstanding conditions of approval adopted in
conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3148.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
09-24-01
Page 76
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
17a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
17b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04443
OWNER: Mary Elaine Meyer Trust, 207 Via San Andreas, San
Clemente, CA 92672
AGENT: Jeff Jonsson, 22365 EI Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA
92630
LOCATION: 1028 East South Street. Property is approximately
0.86 acre with a frontage of 122 feet on the south side
of South Street located 155 feet west of the centerline
of East Street.
To permit an auto repair facility in an existing vacant industrial building.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
October 8, 2001
SR8088AN.DOC
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 17 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04443. It
is for property located at 1028 East South Street. It is a request to permit an automotive repair facility
within an existing vacant industrial building.
\ J
ApplicanYs Statement:
Jeff Jonsson, a licensed architect representing Auto Trend, stated that Mr. Richard Garcia, the owner of
Auto Trend runs a very clean business and is well respected in the industry. The new location will be
better suited for his needs because it is a larger building and he will be able to function better. Historically
the property has had a motorcycle repair facility there and for the last several years there was a company
that did powdered coating painting of inetal products and often running two and three shifts, working late
in the evening. The accepted use in the ML Zone, without a Conditional Use Permit, the fo{lowing
businesses could operate +n the proposed facility: cabinet and carpentry shops, which often have the big
vacuums on the roof and could operate two and three shifts; a cleaning plant including carpet dying,
machine shops are an allowed use; manufacturing; battery manufactory dealing with acids and corrosives,
soap manufacturer storing corrosives and irritants; metal working firms; plating, using metal presses and
could also work around the clock; paint mixing, print shops, tire rebuilding, including retreading and towing
services. Mr. Jonsson stated there is always an awkward condition opposed with industrial/residential
that are abutting each other, but with this particular property they have had harmony over the last 30
years and hopes that will continue.
Public Testimony:
•
Richard Garcia, President of Auto Trend International, stated he was present a year and a half go with a
Conditional Use Permit, he is currently located on Lincoln and Euclid and the lease expires December
2001. However during that time frame he has been looking for a suitable piece of property. As suggested
by Planning Commission he has worked with Redevelopment. He presented 4 different properties to
them and each time was declined. They purchased three of the properties presented to them. However
when the proposed site was mentioned they did not have a problem with it. Mr. Garcia informed that he
does collision repair for North County Toyota which just moved into Anaheim. He is their body shop of
choice. Also he is a direct repair facility for Mercury Insurance, USAA Insurance, and State Farm
Insurance. He stated they try to be good neighbors, the hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekly.
Saturdays, basically they are there just resting; there are no collision repairs. They are a quality repair
shop and'have received the honor of being a certified first shop which is approved by Good
09-24-01
Page 77
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Housekeeping, Underwriters Laboratories and other independent companies. It is basically an
advertisement status but one must go through some extended qualifications to become certified and their
shop has passed the qualifications. However, he stated that there are a few items they need to discuss
regarding the conditions. One condition restricts them from disassembling a vehicle but in order to repair
them they must be allowed to disassemble the vehicles.
John Ezell, speaking on behalf of his 96 year old aunt, Mary Elaine Meyer, who is the owner of the piece
of property for 30 years. He reminisced when he drove by that today the only trees on the street are the
ones that he helped Ms. Meyer dig holes for approximately 30 years ago. The area is easily recognized
because it is the only one that has curbs, a sidewalk, a parkway, and landscape; trees, grass even
planters and flower beds. He stated that it shocks him that the surroundings on both sides are still dirt
and no curbs and weeds; not only the industrial part but residential that is directly on the corner from
them. Mr. Ezell sfated it is quite disturbing and he was really surprised when he found there was a
Redevelopment District that had been sent out and had deliberately cut that section out. He stated over
the last 30 years they have had a very good relationship with the residential neighbors. For 30 years
there has been a sundry of industrial usage's all of which are applicable there and all of which without
exception are more offensive than the applicant here tonight. It is a pertect usage and the good thing
about the site is that the parcel is such that it has a 40 foot chain linked sliding gate that can easily have
the vinyl inserts installed to make sure there is absolutely no visibility. As far as the buffering between our
building and the residential, we have maintained a 6 foot block wall, 4 feet of chain link, vines and trees
which creates a nice buffer for the residential area. Everything on staff s report was positive with one
exception, where it states the proximity to residential prompted a negative recommendation. He is
perplexed since it was approved and set up in this manner 30-40 years ago. He thinks the proposed
business would be a very good use in the site and strongly urges Commission to approve the application.
Tom Mulrooney, Ashley & Associates Commercial Real Estate, representing both the lessee and the
• lessor on the property, states that the property is very hard to lease because there is residential nearby.
Clients taken through the property are reluctant because they are afraid things will be taken out of their
cars and they might get robbed. It attracts machine shop and metal workers. The high end users stay out
towards the East Anaheim corridor area where that does not occur as often. Also, the building is a
manufacturing building and it basically attracts manufacturing type tenants. It has 400 amps power, and
sprinklers. He stated it is the kind of facility that "if you do not need a Cadillac to operate in we have the
Chevy". In working with Mr. Garcia to locate a site for him he found out that he is really in a tough
situation. His insurance business and his insurance company dictates basically the areas he can work
and also the big account he has with North County Toyota Dealership requires him to stay relatively close.
Mr. Mulrooney stated that the proposed site is really the only location that has come up since the 9
months he has been working with Mr. Garcia.
Mr. John Ezell stated that proof of their good rapport with their neighbors is the fact that there is not a
single person present to talk against the proposal and he feels it was very well publicized. He felt they
understand they live in low cost housing in the middle of industrial area and they accept the synergetic
relationship.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Vanderbilt called Mr. Garcia forth to go through the conditions he mentioned having issues
with earlier.
Mr. Garcia stated that one of them is Condition No. 1, no window signage. Currently he has a big
American flag on the front of the window and other than that he does post some of the insurance
companies he does business with; nothing large but just to state that they are an approved shop by
~ certain insurance companies. He feels he really does not have signs that have to go on the windows, he
could put the signs inside the office wall but it is kind of limiting.
09-24-01
Page 78
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he would work with Commission and get a feel for the usage first and
then allow time for the individual items if it comes to that.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that Redevelopment stated this morning they were going to change the
zoning north of South Street to residential and feave this as an industrial area and if so, the proposed
business is an industrial use. He stated that when he looks at all of the industrial area, if Redevelopment
really wanted it out of the area they would buy out the residentia! towards the end of the industrial, keep
the whole area and do some nice landscaping along East Street, and widen the street there instead of
having the road narrowed down. That would be a little more creative than just trying to take out blocks
and blocks of industrial that the City need for businesses. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the
problem he has is from the picture Commissioner Koos took of the property with the amount of vehicles
that are parked there now. He wondered how they woufd function with all the vehicles coming in and out
of there and how would Commission limit the number onsite. He stated it looks more like an auction lot
than a repair facility.
Commissioner Koos stated that he concurs because the comments this morning were odd to him. The
entire block up and down is industrial but because these are adjacent to ill placed residential
Redevelopment has to decided to all of a sudden stop it. There are so many permitted uses possible here
that could be more offensive to a residential property, but picture speaks a 1000 words. The picture
provided in the application showed an empty lot, but he visited the site yesterday and there was tandem
parking up and down both ways and all of the stalls were filled. He agrees with Commissioner Bostwick,
the use is industrial it could be appropriate but if only certain checks are placed. He cautioned the owner
of the property that the City of Anaheim does not accept tandem parking, let alone over night storage. So
if the site is in such a horrid shape on a Sunday afternoon imagine the activity during the week. It is
probably like a thoroughfare. So he wondered how Commission could ensure there would not be tandem
parking.
~ Mr. Ezell answered that the site was in such shape because a couple weeks ago he was approached by
someone who asked him if they could store cars there over night for a couple of weeks on a week to week
basis. Since this is the only income his aunt has and for a year she has not had a tenant in there, in
desperation he agreed until they could get the full time tenant on board. He informed Commissioner Koos
that he chose the wrong week to come in and look at the property because it has been empty with new
brand new slurry coat for the last year.
Commissioner Koos stated to the operator that in looking at the operation on Euclid and Lincoln, his
success was hurting him from a City Code standpoint. There are so many cars on that location and they
have been limited to go to the back so since the area is smaller than the one on Euclid and Lincoln, he
asked how the operator would be able to keep it under control.
Mr. Garcia stated that the two buildings he currently has are less than 10,000 square feet and there is a
lot of wasted space. It was not really laid out to be automotive. The proposed building is 17,000 square
feet and they are going to be able to park most of their cars indoors. The tow-ins that will have to stay out
at night will be towards the back of the property and if allowed they could put up screening across the
front. The building was laid out to be a body shop. It is laid out perfectly.
Commissioner Bristol asked if a lot of the cars were in pretty bad shape when they were brought in.
Mr. Garcia responded, yes. Like the other shop that was here, probably 80% of them were drive-ins and
maybe 20% tow-ins and some of the ones that are towed in are very hard hit.
Commissioner Bristol stated that he does not live very far from the proposed site and he sees a lot of
• activity on this area. He agrees with all of the comments, this is a mixed matched spot zoning. This is
probably one of the poorest planning that the City of Anaheim has done. He stated that he cannot vote for
the proposal for the fact that there are residents next to where vehicles will be dismantled. Even if they
are low income, the point is they are people. He stated he visited the site and observed that the peoples
09-24-01
Page 79
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• windows are right above the fence. After sitting there he decided if he were to hear that kind of noise, and
Mr. Garcia responded that body shops do not beat on cars with hammers like they used to. Today, they
do mainly panel replacements and parts replacements. It is not as noisy as it used to be back in the
1960's and 1970's when they were hammering on cars, etc., things are not done that way anymore.
Today cars have to be repaired in a specific fashion. Manufacturer's specifications have to be adhered to
and parts are normally just cut off and replaced. He assures all repairs would be done indoors and there
would be minimum noise.
the fact that 20% are going to have trucks coming to deliver at who knows what hour, it would be very
unpleasant. It is very difficult to maneuver on South Street with a tractor-trailer. In fact, it holds up traffic
at that intersection. He assures it is not any fault of the applicant and it is not any fault of the owner of the
property, it is simply that he cannot support it when there are residents right next to it.
Commissioner Bristol stated that he remembers his issue very well and they really want him to stay in
Anaheim and find some place but he cannot support this area.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he was trying to envision how trucks would get in and out and pick up
vehicles and drop them off. He asked the applicant if It is generally the practice of tow trucks to have
sound making devices when they back up so that anyone behind it is aware that it is backing up.
Mr. Garcia responded that almost all trucks have that today for safety.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he would imagine given the narrowness of the entrance that is
adjacent to the residents, that a lot of backing up would have to occur to position vehicles and drop them
off.
~ Mr. Garcia responded that he realizes tow trucks would have to pull in and do some backing up, but as an
afterthought he stated that come to think of it he is not sure that they all do have backing alarms on them.
He stated that tow trucks pull up in front of their shop all day long and it causes him to wonder if he has
heard it, but then again perhaps he has become numb to it.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he is really on the fence with this one because the view he was trying
to take is that if a resident is moving into a property and the repair shop were there first then it is
reasonable for them to expect that they would hear noise and he would lean towards the repair shop's
side. But the residents were there first and this property has had other uses so it is hard for him to arrive
at a rationale to go one way or the other.
Mr. Garcia stated that it is heavy industrial. There will be trucks pulling in and making deliveries, but it is
something they are going to do during normal business hours. Normally the tow trucks will not be coming
in until 8:30 a.m. in the morning until about 5:00 p.m. at night.
Commissioner Arnold stated that he thinks it is really unfortunate that Commission is in this situation.
They are in a situation which residential is abutting directly a significant industrial area and he asked at
the morning's session when Redevelopment was talking about their vision for the area if there was
consideration of buffering which is basic good planning. He explains that if is not good planning to put
residential right next to industrial because there are so many things that could go in here by right, and part
of what was disappointing about their response was that they stated there really had not been very much
thought to that. It seems to me that Commission is in an awkward situation where at least one group of
landowners are going to be rather severely affected adversely because the proper planning has not been
done. He concurs with Commissioner Bristol, that Commission needs to start focusing on these type
issues and if it allows these things piece meal they will never accomplish City goals. He feels it may end
up being that the right thing to do is for the City to buy out the residential. But until that happens he stated
~ he does not appreciate being in situations where Commission allows this kind of adverse on neighboring
parcels in an ill manner.
09-24-01
Page 80
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Commissioner Boydstun asked if the driveway was wide enough that the tow trucks would drive in and
unload their cars and then they could turn around and leave.
Mr. Garcia responded, yes.
Commissioner Boydstun contended that there would be no reason for them to back cars in there because
that would be a lot different than just pulling them in. She stated the entire area was industrial and then a
few things were put on the front. Since it is surrounded by industrial she does not think they are piece
mealing, if anything she feels Redevelopment should buy the units, widen the street and do some
landscaping. She stated the building is zoned for this and it has had businesses in there that were
certainly more objectionable than what is proposed and there was never a problem. She feels
Redevelopment is wrong and she would vote for this.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that Redevelopment plans were to maintain the industrial zone south of
South Street, so he would say that this is a proper use and it is an industrial zoned area. There is
Condition No. 15 that does specify that at no time shall customer vehicles be stacked, double parked or
left standing in tandem of front or adjacent to the buildings. The question he has is Condition No. 20; no
dismantling permitted on the premises. He thinks maybe a better description of that is to say something
such as parts off the cars to repair them.
Mr. McCafferty stated regarding the dismantling yard, they understand that the applicant is going to have
to take parts off the cars, staff just does not want him to start doing something similar to a pick your part
where he is starting to stack vehicles.
Commissioner Koos stated that it is important to recognize that Commission has been telling this guy in
particular, to stay in the city, find something, and he is making a really strong effort to do so. He is even
• supporting a new dealership that is going to be generating tax revenue for the city. He concurs that it is a
weird area and the city has had an issue with the Quartz Auto Auction up the street impacting the
neighborhood. He stated of course it is not ideal, but how do you reconcile it in an easy way. He feels it
is becoming upon the city to look hard at this frontage on East Street, as Commissioner Boydstun said
there are so many more offensive permitted uses that could go here and the hours of operation are limited
to daylight hours. He supports the proposal.
Mr. McCafferty asked the applicant to clarify the hours of operation stated in the conditions of approval
and to indicate also any deliveries so that if someone wrecks their vehicle at midnight the applicant would
not have an auto club towing them into the facility.
Mr. Garcia clarified that he uses a towing service that offers 24-hour towing. They would pickup a vehicle
and take it to their facility and bring it to them during regular business hours.
Chairperson Vanderbilt announced a button vote. The resolution failed to carry due to a tie vote.
Chairperson Vanderbilt offered his position on the proposaf stating that he was sort of on the fence and
that he would feel more comfortable if he had a sense for the amount of noise that this kind of operation
produces. The owner has indicated that because of changes and technology, these type operations are a
lot quieter. So it would be helpful for him to go the next two weeks and visit similar facilities to get a sense
for the amount of noise produced. So whether this vote stands or they choose to continue it, is an option.
Selma Mann, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that there were two options, they could offer a different
resolution with possibly some other conditions that might be more palatable to some of the persons who
voted against the resolution or they could continue it until there is a full commission and thereby have a tie
~ breaking vofe. Commission does have the option under Planning Commission procedures to send it to
the City Council, but would need to do that by a specific motion. She cautioned that she has been to(d in
the past that the City Council prefers to have the Commission make a recommendation.
09-24-01
Page 81
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT~S
Commissioner Arnold stated that it seems to him that first of all Commissioner Eastman may want to have
an opportunity to participate and have her vote counted, and the other thing is, appears Chairperson
Vanderbiit wouid like to get more of a sense of the impacts of these type developments which wouid
require time, so continuing it seems to make sense.
Commissioner Koos offered a motion for a continuance to October 8, 2001, seconded by Commissioner
Bostwick. Motion passed.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~
OPPOSITION: None
AC710N: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Commissioner Bostwick offered a resolution to Grant Conditional Use Permit
No. 2001-04443 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated
September 24, 2001 and THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following tie
vote:
AYES: Bostwick, Boydstun, Koos
NOES: Arnold, Bristol, Vanderbilt
ABSENT: Eastman
~
MOTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman was absent), to continue the subject
request to the October 8, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to have a full
Commission present.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman was absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (7:45-8:20)
~
09-24-01
Page 82
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:22 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 8,
2001 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR A WORKSHOP ON CONFLICT OF
INTEREST UPDATE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
`.~..I
~
Respectfully submitted:
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001.
~
~
Pat Chandler
Senior Secretary
09-24-01
Page 83