The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/05/20• CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPER.~QN:.,TONY~ARNOLD • ~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT ~~"<~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~` '~~'~ Selma Mann, Assistant Ci~~A#t~rney~ Greg McCafferty, Princi~('~?lanner ;; Jerry Austin, Fire Mars~, I', `~ Damien Delany, Senior~~ro~eGt,Marta AGENDA POSTING;=E` A~corri Friday, May 17, 200~„insjcle outside display kiosk~ ~ ,~ ,,,~ ~ PUBLISHED: Anah~im Bu CALL TO ORDER~ ~~~~ ~~ PLANNING COMMIS: • PRELIMIN Y~1~ • DISCUSSIO~~F I PLAN UPDATE~F • STAFF UPDATE l' DEVELOPMENTS _ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~t~`E;, ~.,. ~.~ ' z;, ~ "•a,,,,,; ' Melani~~Adam~, Rcinci Elly Fernan~s, 5~~ipi Pat Chandler, ~er%ior : the ~i~ ~- ~ ~ :oo~~'~~~ • ~ ~ ~=~ ~ ;~~~~ ~ ~ CIATED WITH GENERAL Y PLANNING COMMISSION) RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Boydstun PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC052002.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLlC 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-F on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-D) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Consent Calendar Item 1-E was continued and Consent Calendar Item 1-F was acted upon separately. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Item (1-F) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREVIOUSLY- Approved CERTIFIED) Approved retroactive b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 99-04 (TRACKING NO. FSP2002-00003) - extension of time (to expire REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Doug November 8, 2002 Anderson, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 120, Irvine, CA 92612, requests a retroactive extension of time for a previously-approved 4- story office building and parking structure within the Sports (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Entertainment Overlay Zone. Property is located at 2045 and 2099 Bristol absent) South State College Boulevard - Stadium Center. ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 321 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to expire on November 8, 2002, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code. 05-20-02 Page 2 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (ii) That the property is adequately maintained, with no Code violations, and further that there are no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. (iii) That this is the second and final extension of time for this permit. • C ~ SR8290AN.DOC 05-20-02 Page 3 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 3024, 2157, 1805 AND 1799 Terminated (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04552) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: CMC Investment, Inc., Attn: Ming-Cheng Chang, 27520 Hawthorne (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boulevard, Suite 215, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274, requests Bristol absent) termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3024, 2157, 1805 and 1799. Property is located at 6501-6509 East Serrano Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-72 SR8298NA.DOC • • 05-20-02 Page 4 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) VARIANCE NO. 2523 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04509) - REQUEST Terminated FOR TERMINATION: Western Exterminator Company, 305 North Crescent Way, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests termination of Variance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner No. 2523. Property is located at 305 North Crescent Way. Bristol absent) TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-73 SR8297NA.DOC • • 05-20-02 Page 5 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) Concurred with staff b) MISCELLANEOUS 2001-00021 (TRACKING NO. MIS 2002-00031) - Recommended to the City REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION: City of Anaheim, Planning Council approval of draft Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, Resolution. request for recommendation to the City Council for approval of a draft Resolution enabling the City of Anaheim to participate in the voluntary (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Orange County Adult and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Bristol absent) program. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the attached draft Resolution to meet the County of Orange requirements for the City of Anaheim to participate in the Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Guidelines program. SR8206CF.DOC r~ ~J • 05-20-02 Page 6 MAY Z0, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SEC710N 15061 (b)(3) Continued to b) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NEW APPLICATION AND POLICY June 3, 2002 PERTAINING TO PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY REQUESTS: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Bristol absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff. SR8311GM.DOC ~ L ~ 05-20-02 Page 7 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2002. (Motion) (Continued from the May 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting.) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 6, 2002. (Motion) Approved Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bristol absent) Regarding the Planning Commission Meeting on May 6, 2002, Item No. 1-F was pulled by request of Commissioner Vanderbilt who felt an error occurred during the action that the total vote was 7 to 0 but believed it should have been 6 to 0 due to his departure immediately following Item No. 4. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, explained action for Consent Calendar Items continued or withdrawn are taken prior to the recognition of the item within the contexts of the meeting. • • / - ! 11 I I ! : • . e - - - • I1 11 • - e • - ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meetings of April 22 and May 6, 2002. • ~ 05-20-02 Page 8 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04537 2c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00003 OWNER: Russell D. Miller, 415 South Anaheim Hilis Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, Attn: Russell Miller and William Wilkens, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 415 South Anaheim Hills Road. Property is approximately 8.13 acres located at the southwest corner of La Paz Way and Anaheim Hills Road (Anaheim Hills Racquet Club). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04537 - Request to expand an existing tennis club by modifying previously-approved exhibits (which included accessory food/beverages and alcohol sales) to construct three (3) additional tennis courts for a total of twelve (12). ~ • SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00003 - Request for retroactive approval for the illegal removal of seven (7) specimen (Eucalyptus) trees. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to June 3, 2002 SR8308K6. DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to provide staff with a revised specimen tree and landscape plan. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-20-02 Page 9 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00402 June 17, 2002 3c. RECLASSlFICATION NO. 2002-00070 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04530 OWNER: James H. Kroll, 1970 Aspen Street, Los Osos, CA 93402-2402 AGENT: RHL Design Group, Inc., Attn: James Forgey, 1201 South Beach Boulevard, Suite 207, La Habra, CA 90631 LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.2-acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street (Arco AM/PM Service Station). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00402 - Request amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the property from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00070 - Request reclassification of Portion A from the property from County of Orange, County C-1 (Commercial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone or less intense zone. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04530 - Request to permit a gasoline service station with an accessory convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and an accessory car wash with waivers of a) maximum structural height abutting a single- family residential zone boundary and b) minimum distance between driveway openings adjacent to an arterial highway. ' Waiver (b) has been deleted. Continued from the April 22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8300KB.DOC • 05-20-02 Page 10 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by Leslie Burnside, program manager representing Arco, due to a change of architectural firms and to allow the new architectural firm to submit revised plans for the service station building and car wash structure for staff review. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • ~ 05-20-02 Page 11 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Withdrawn 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00061 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas Homeowners Association, TSG Independent Property Management, 27129 Calle Arroyo, # 1801, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless/Whalen, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No addressl. Property is approximately 16.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the November 5, December 3 and December 17, 2001, ~ January 14, February 11, February 25 and March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8293VN.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of Reclassification No. 2001-00061 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 due to rescinded property owner consent and authorization. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 05-20-02 Page 12 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5b. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2670 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04517) OWNER: Italian Bruno's, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: EI Patio Restaurant, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1750 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.12 acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Mohican Avenue (EI Patio Restaurant). Requests to amend a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously approved semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Continued from the March 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to June 17, 2002 SR8302AN. DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by Aurora Angel, representative for the property owner, in order to readvertise the case as a public dance hall rather than a restaurant. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. u 05-20-02 Page 13 MAY 20, zoo2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00072 (READVERTISED) Granted 6c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04499 (READVERTISED) Granted OWNER: Choco Realty Corporation, Attn: Kerri Rupert, 455 South Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 AGENT: Mercy Housing California, Attn: Ben Phillips, 500 South Main Street, # 110, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2761 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.77- acre with a frontage of 100 feet on the north side of Ball Road located 465 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00072 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04499 - Request waivers of a) minimum number, type, and location of off-street parking spaces, b) maximum structural height, c) minimum unit size, d) minimum setback abutting one-family residential developments and e) additional incentives in lieu of a density bonus to construct a two to three story, 23-unit affordable "special needs" apartment complex. • Continued from the May 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-74 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-75 SR2097DS.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Reclassification No. 2002-00072 and Variance No. 2002- 04499, a request to construct a finro and three story "special needs" apartment complex at 2761 West Ball Road, Mercy House of California (MHC). Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed based on information provided from Commissioners at the morning session staff has supplemented the staff report with additional justi~cation for recommendation of denial of the waivers and the applicant, as well as Commission, has been provided copies concerning the following matters: • Staff believes when Commission entertains rezoning as part of the reclassification requirement, they want to see that a development can feasibly occur on the site without waivers. Because the subject project has not demonstrated it can comply with site development standards in the RM-1200 zone, staff does not support rezoning. • A total of five waivers are being requested. Staff feels for the waivers that relate to the site development standards, excluding parking, the site is sufficiently regular in shape and can comply with City development standards. A model example is a project on the west side of Dale Avenue, north of Ball Road, with a similar lot configuration of 110 feet by 230 feet deep. The subject site is ~ actually deeper than the site to the west. Staff feels the site can accommodate a multiple-family product and meet City zoning code. 05-20-02 Page 14 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • Because the applicant is asking for financial incentives in lieu of the density-bonus, City code further required that they submit a financial analysis. They submitted the financial analysis, which was reviewed by the City's outside economic consultant, Keyser Marston, and there is discrepancy. Keyser Marston values the density-bonus at $106,000 and Mercy Charities values the density-bonus at $299,467. Mr. McCafferty states all combined plus the government code section that allows Planning Commission to deny a housing project that does not meet the City's written standards, staff recommends denial of the project. Chairperson Arnold informs in the interest of fullest and fairest discfosure he and his wife contributes charitably to the applicant, MHC, however he has spoken with the City Assistant Attorney, Selma Mann, acknowledging that he does not receive any benefits from MHC and feels very confident that he can be objective, fair and critical. It was determined there is no conflict of interest. ApplicanYs Testimony: Dora Kovel, 500 S. Main St., Suite 110, Orange, CA, representing Mercy House of California, introduced their team as: Ralph Metra and Doug Myers from the Ralph Metra and Associates Architects, Ken Ginzer, Land Use Consultant, Scott Mcfee from Marston Forrester, Land Use Attorney, Ben Phillips, Project Manager, Phil Yaeger from the AIDS Services Foundation, the proposed service provider for the subject housing. Ms. Kovel states given the fact that it is a relatively extensive staff report containing new information recently received on Friday (May 17, 2002) time is needed to walk through the proposal to fully inform why it is a good proposal and why they believe Commission should support it. ~ She states within the context of the overview she will present the community outreach process as well as the development proposal and Ben Phillips will address the Planning Commission request and MHC's concerns with the staff report with regards to the density bonus and the center and how they can be supplied to support the project. She believes the presentation will show findings can be made to recommend the development. The Community Outreach Process and Development Proposal: • Familiarity with MHC, to the majority, stems from the senior development on West Lincoln Avenue. • MHC is a mission-based organization that was established to create and strengthen healthy communities through the provision of affordable quality service enriched housing for people who are economically poor. • MHC is one of the largest nonprofit organizations providing affordable housing development and one that is the most respected in California. • MHC serves 50 communities throughout the state including having 4,500 units that are currently in operation. In Southern California alone, Mercy Housing has approximately 800 units in development serving 9 communities and several developments serving people with HIV (Human immunodeficiency virus) and AIDS (Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), including one most recently completed in San Diego, which is 24 units of housing people with HIV and AIDS, a beautiful development. • So why is this development a good proposal and why is MHC proposing it? - The site is a really good site. - It is general plan designated RM-1200. • - It has surrounding multi-family properties on either side of it that gives it a context that it is very appropriate for multi-family residential. 05-20-02 Page 15 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ - MHC has a lot of experience doing this type of housing and has been approached by the largest service provider for people with HIV and AIDS to work on the subject development as a team. - Based on MHC's experience, as well as ASF's (Aids Services Foundation) experience, a huge need in the City of Anaheim is noted for the subject housing. - ASF has received 180 calls for permanent housing by people who are disabled by AIDS. - This is an independent living facility; it is not a healthcare facility or any kind of license-care facility. - It will allow people to continue to live in Anaheim, independently for a long time. - It is well served by transportation, services, and community support. Ms. Kovel demonstrates that on the site plans the proposed site is in the center, to the west is a very large multi-family development, to the east, in the front, is a much smaller multi-family development, in the back is a single-family home development that is land-ocked but has an easement across the multi-family development in the front, the property in the back is Dale Jr. High School and there are several multi- family developments on the south side of Ball Road. She states Ben Phillips will talk about how the features constrain the site and make it challenging to develop. Ms. Kovel states initial Community Outreach process was started in June. The subject site came to Mercy Housing through the Children's Hospital of Orange County and Mercy started to introduce the idea with the neighborhood association and with immediate neighbors and received positive support and therefore, started the full-blown community outreach process. The process included three major community design workshops. They went door-to-door inviting renters in the area, as well as business owners, making sure everybody received the notices and they mailed over 400 invitations. The community design process was very productive with participation from 7 to 20 participants at any given meeting. The process was completed at the end of April 2002. A good amount of time was spent with Community Development going through the major design review ~ process out of which major design modifications came. Support statements were received from homeowners, business owners and immediate neighbor participation in the outreach process. Also the immediate next door neighbor who owns the single-family home who is by far the most impacted by the subject development, participated in every single, community design meeting. As part of the process, people actually got to take massing blocks and move them around the site so that they could create priorities around height, open space and parking. Community participation was appreciated and really affected the way Mercy approached the site, the site plan and the elevation design as well. One of the things Mercy heard from Community Development is to orient the development towards the street and not to stack parking out front. Therefore, it has been moved to the back. Ms. Kovel feels this also decreases the impact on the setback and would be a relatively small incursion into the setback if it were the building however, the setback is created by the single-family home. Landscaping was a huge issue as well as creating a step faCade from 1, 2, and 3 stories. Landscaping was increased along the western perimeter, as well as the back and the side. Mercy initially proposed studio units as the greatest need believing single persons households in Anaheim are by far the most affected by the disability caused by HIV and AIDS but heard very strongly from the community that studio units were a lesser impact on the site in regards to parking and also the units could be smaller accordingly. To give a sense of perspective on the site, she illustrated that on one side is a 2%2-story building with a pitched roof that actually makes it a full three stories and then a multi-family on the other side. Mercy Housing will be a step between the two buildings and down proving that it actually is very consistent with the surrounding area. Mercy made a presentation to the school board of Dale Jr. High and received an abundance of support from the principal and staff at the junior high school because it has really been too attractive of a nuisance • for junior high school students who are jumping the fence, crossing the property and skipping school. They were excited to see the proposal come before them. Ms. Kovel states this was the first rendering and honestly people had mixed reactions. Some liked it, but overwhelmingly strong feedback was 05-20-02 Page 16 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • received that the project was not going to fit into the City of Anaheim. Mercy felt the colors and contemporary architecture were probably a little overstated and took that feedback, returned to the drawing board, the architects worked hard and Mercy returned with a revised rendering of more traditional architecture. A roofline has been created that is more traditional in style, a lot of clapboard siding has been added and the architects have come up with a more traditional scheme to integrate into the neighborhood. Community support letters were presented to Commission, specifically the letter of the single-family homeowner next door who is most impacted, a letter from CHOC the Children's Hospital of Orange County who has been trying to sell the site for almost ten years but has not been successful because of the site constraints and approximately 40 signatures from other residents of Anaheim who would like to see the development move forward. Ben Phillips, 500 S. Main St., Suite 110, Orange, CA, representing Mercy Housing California, states the design is in direct response to a number of the priorities that were identified during the course of their community outreach process in their meetings with City staff. The key issues that people raised as design direction was open space and trying to maximize the open space, both for public views and for resident benefit, making parking not visible from the street. Mr. Phillips states there used to be a couple of spaces in the front for guest parking but it has all been moved to the back or under the building, maintaining a scale on the overall development that is in alignment with the neighboring buildings and articulating the farade in the massing so there is not a boxy development. He affirms achieving the goals on such a constrained site was not easy. The site faces substantial constraints due to size, shape and neighboring uses and it is very narrow; only 100 feet wide. In a survey of the street no other properties were found that are similar with the same width and level of depth of the subject property. Proportionately it is much narrower than a less deep property of a similar width. Even more pronounced is the fact that the single-family home adjacent to the property is along the ~ side property line, which is unique, sort of an abnormally, whereas other properties along the street that have a single-family adjacency are always in the back on a narrow line so the effect on the lot is much less substantial. He states in developing the site, they attempted to make the deviations from code as limited as possible in degree. For example: the degree to which the property encroaches into the single-family setback is relatively small and based on some communication with the owner of the property it is oriented away from that property so it does not create a visual intrusion. That was done with each of the waivers. Therefore, they believe that each of the waivers being requested are reasonable in of themselves and that strict applications of the codes regarding standards to the site would result in a deprivation to the owner of developing opportunities that are available to similar properties. He states the neighboring properties are developed as relatively medium to high-density multi-family housing and feels they would not be exceeding them in height and density, etc. The unusual site constraints: • The single-family dwelling is a 20-foot setback in which not anything is supposed to be built and an additional setback of another 30 feet where only a 1-story development could be provided. • The setbacks really renders the entire back half of the site substantially more difficult to develop than if the single-family home were farther back and there were only the 30 feet section to deal with in terms of additional setback area. • Mercy's request is that Commission approve the zone change and the unit mix as incentives for affordable housing that the subject project qualifies for and because Mercy will be foregoing the 25% boost in density that is also allowable under that same ordinance, they would substitute the three other variances that have values assigned to them regarding the setback height and parking. ~ Primary concerns raised in the staff report, which are substantial: 05-20-02 Page 17 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • The change to RM-1200 Zone - Mercy believes that the proposal will provide a viable high quality multi-family residential project that will accommodate single occupancies, their families, guests and visitors. Mr. Phillips states this kind of development is consistent with the RM-1200 Zone as evidence by the fact that at this particular site, it was specified in the Housing Element as a multi-family opportunity for development in order to meet the City's need for housing development. In addition, he states the findings that are necessary for the zone change can also be made and are in the application. Regarding parking, the City Transportation Traffic Manager approved for use in Mercy's application a Traffic and Parking Study that indicated the parking demand was less than what they would be providing on site. The staff report indicated it is because the site is proposed as all studio units, which have a lower parking requirement and that if Mercy complied with the percentage of studio units that are allowed they would have a higher parking standard. Mr. Phillips concurs they would have a higher parking standard but feels the parking study would still have the same identical conclusion because the parking study was conducted based on similar developments that are all one and two bedroom units, with zero studios. Therefore, the parking demand would be the same. Mercy does not believe that all residents will have cars. He states they have operated a number of facilities similar to the subject facility and has worked in AIDS housing in the Southern California area for the last several years and it is atypical for all residents to have automobiles, particularly single-person households. Mr. Phillips states Phil Yaeger, who is familiar with the project operated in Laguna Beach, will talk about what their parking demand is. • Regarding the unit mix and type, which he feels is probably the most substantial concern raised in the staff report, Mr. Phillips states it is not a SRO Development, they are not SRO units. They are full size studio units that meet the City standards for studio units. He explains A SRO Development is typically characterized by shared bathrooms and/or shared kitchens. The subject project has neither. Every apartment has its on full size kitchen, full bath, private patio and although it is one room that room is ~ divided into several different areas including the sleeping area, a dining area and a lounge/living area as well as even a small study area where a computer could be installed. There are substantial amenities in the development and units. Mercy believes the development can be restricted to disabled households and restricted to occupancy by certain household sizes that is not atypical and as a result since the various waivers are directly related to that use and to that household type, Mercy believes by approving it Commission would be approving a unique development that would not be replicated citywide, development after development and cause health and safety problems that one might be concerned about. Mercy believes, in addition, that the unit type in particular as it is directly related to the need for single person households who are disabled by HIV and AIDS is a reasonable accommodation to request from the Planning ordinances and standards in order to meet the needs of the disabled population. • The California Government Code requires the City to make certain findings before rejecting any proposal for low-income housing. The indication in the staff report was that since the proposal does not comply with certain standards it is exempt from that state law. However, Mercy does not believe that is the case, in particular, because the proposal complies with all City standards other than those from which Mercy requests waivers and Mercy believes the waivers can be granted according to the incentive ordinance. • Regarding City funding, Mercy asks for land use entitlements on the subject development and is working with the Community Development Department on their concerns about the total cost of the development and the City's level of subsidy. In June, Mercy presented a preliminary budget based on an all studio unit development (that has been the intention from the beginning) which identified the same funding level they are currently asking for. He states they received indication at that time that the concept was supported and should they receive entitlements staff would be open to considering funding. He understands the particular selection of the incentives is at the discretion of the Commission and the City Council and there are guidelines as to what should guide the selection of • those incentives. Mercy believes that the requested incentives meet all the standards and contributes significantly to affordability, it is compatible with the surrounding area and there would not be a detrimental impact on services or infrastructure. 05-20-02 Page 18 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • The staff report also indicated there was an additional guideline with regards to a need for a CUP for certain types of waivers in regards to parking and height, etc. Mr. Phillips feels it is important to know that specifically is restricted to developments that are proposing to serve qualified residents which are defined in that ordinance as seniors and since the subject project is not senior housing that CUP requirement does not apply. Regarding the application of affordable housing incentive, Mr. Phillips states there is one key misapplication that has been made in the staff report that Mercy feels is clear in the citation of the ordinance for the density bonus. What Commission is looking for in terms of the in-lieu request is to compare the value of the requested waivers to the value of the density bonus and additional incentives. It is not just that a request has to be equal to the value of a density bonus but all of the requests have to be equal to the value of the density bonus and the two incentives. He feels the project already qualifies for both the density bonus and the two incentives. He confesses they have not had a real opportunity to review the Keyser Marston numbers in depth and most likely would not concede in every case their deviation from their numbers that they provided with their application. For example, taking the financial analysis at face value and accepting it, he believes there is a simple calculation to use in determining the assertion that the incentives are of equivalent value. For example, if you take the density bonus and the two additional incentives and select a zone change and a unit mix variance for the two additional incentives they add up to $485,000, according to the Keyser Marston report. However, the value of all of Mercy Housing requested waivers, according to the Keyser Marston report, is less than that at $470,000. To take issue with the concept that all of the waivers need to be justified economically, Mercy believes that many of the waivers if not all of them are justified based on the constraints of the site as well. • Mercy feels this is the appropriate interpretation of the ordinance in addition to the language because • the project qualifies for the additional incentives in part due to the waivers being related to the targeted population. The reasonable accommodation request is a special needs population, which is a unique situation and deserves special consideration. Therefore, Mercy does not believe that it will set a precedent for development citywide and believes the use can be restricted to the targeted population. Mr. Phillips states turning directly to that concern which is paramount for many of you, Mercy sees no reason, based on the analysis of its consultants and attorneys, that the property cannot be restricted in perpetuity to disabled households. It could be done in a number of ways; it could be done as a condition of approval that Commission approves with the proposal and it could also be done as a part of the affordable housing agreement that Mercy is required to enter into in order to apply the affordable housing incentives being requested. He states that is quite independent of the City funding but is just part of the qualifications for the incentive and even if there were not City funding involved that would still need to be done. Alternatively, if the City is uncomfortable with that procedure Mercy would be happy to impose a restriction on themselves in favor of public safety for whatever terms is appropriate and that would stay with the property regardless of whether or not they sold it or whatever else happens. Mr. Phillips affirms it is certainly not their intention, they do not sell property, but realizes it is a concern to some people. • Mercy believes all requests are reasonable and findings, as stated in the presentation, can be made which are necessary to approve them. He presented a handout that essentially lays out the staff report side by side with their comments, which makes all the findings that need to be made. Ms. Kovel states they are present because they want to provide quality affordable housing in the City of Anaheim. She feels all the requests qualifies under the density bonus ordinance and that necessary findings can be made as proven in their planning application by going through the exercise, looking at each incentive and justifying it on its own basis. For that reason they feel very strongly that each one is ~ justifiable. She affirms they will restrict the subject property for the use of people with disabilities and 100% affordable and states they are committed to that and will do that however the City sees fit. 05-20-02 Page 19 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Kovel feels the subject development will meet a need that is established in City Planning documents as well as being a particularly identified site for affordable housing and that community support is really substantial. Mercy Housing has embarked on a one-year process and they are present with that support and feel they have developed a plan that is substantially in compliance with people's concerns and with the needs of the City and the Code. She affirms in terms of the waivers themselves, they would not be asking for them if they did not have to and that they have minimized waivers to the greatest extent possible so as to be able to justify them. She suggests giving that Mercy Housing proposes 32 units an acre and RM-1200 allows 36 units an acre without the density bonus, it is really an appropriate use for the site. She states they are actually very excited about the prospect of constructing another development in the City of Anaheim and look forward to working with Commission and staff. Public Testimony: Maya Dunne, representing St. Joseph Health System, 500 S. Main St., Suite 1000, Orange, CA, states her work is to oversee their community benefits planning for their hospitals in California and Texas. They are one of the largest employers in Orange County and their organization's mission is to increase the health and quality of life of their communities. They also have a vision to address health issues, not just at their hospitals when urgent care is needed, but to try and increase prevention and wellness throughout the community. One of their initiatives is their healthy community initiative in which they do needs assessments every three years. One of the outstanding needs that they have in many of their communities, including Orange County, is affordable housing. As a part of that they actually have been sponsoring Mercy Housing as a partner in Orange County with another health system called Catholic Health West. The reason they chose Mercy Hospital was for some of the reasons previously identified. They have great respect throughout the community, ~ they have great management skills as well as they are great developers and do good work. So they are very proud to have them as a partner. She states they took the project as a bold move, not too many employers in Orange County have stepped forward to help in the affordable housing area and they consider themselves a leader in that area. Ms. Dunne states they also have sponsored Mercy Housing in this project as well in a competitive loan fund that they offer. It is a community investment loan fund and as their income dollars go down, this has become more competitive and Mercy Hospital was able to secure funds through that for the subject project. She states her education is in the area of urban planning and therefore she partly looks at the project through the lens of an urban planner and is very impressed with Mercy Housing as an applicant in the sense that they went out to the community and spent quite a bit of time working with the community on design issues which some applicants do not do. She feels that health care is directly related to affordable housing because if people do not have affordable housing they really would suffer as far as health care, which is particularly true for the subject population group. Ms. Dunne states she was impressed in the demonstration of the presentation with addressing some of the issues related to surrounding properties because she realizes Commission looks for compatibility and the subject site is very compatible for the project. She affirms Commission should do everything possible to support the project and feels that later on they will see it as a mode! similar to the organizations such as the APA and the ULI. The City of Anaheim will be very proud of it. Joseph Singh, 7870 E. Viewmount Court, Anaheim, CA, states he is a resident of Anaheim as well as being employed by Orange County Community Housing, and he is present to urge Commission to approve the project. He states as indicated in many of the City's planning documents, and as previously mentioned, the housing element has approximately 4,000 units that need to be built for low-income people in the City of Anaheim. He feels this is the first step in taking advantage of the first class • development team that they have with Mercy and the AIDS Foundation to fill that need. Mr. Singh states Mercy Hospital has done a tremendous amount of design work and getting community support. He feels it 05-20-02 Page 20 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • is an asset they will be proud of in 30 to 40 years when they can come back and say there was some real leadership when the project was approved. He urges Commission to support the project. Scott Darrell, 32861 EI Toro Rd #401, Cabe Forest Court, Executive Director of the Kennedy Commission, states they are a coalition of community residents organizations and employers in Orange County that support the reduction of housing affordable to the county's extremely low-income households and are absolutely in support of the project. He states Mercy Housing has shown amazing leadership within the community in terms of working with neighbors and community organizations to develop a project that the community and the City of Anaheim can be proud of. As mentioned earlier, the subject site was identified specifically in the housing element as a site appropriate for affordable housing development. The housing element is not currently approved by the state HCD and they believe if Commission moves forward in terms of approving the project it would show a strong good faith effort to the state and community that the City of Anaheim supports affordable housing development. Charles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Drive, Anaheim, CA, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), states they have met with the Mercy Housing group approximately 3-4 times in the last 7 or 8 months and they have brought a lot of things to their attention. The community has made numerous requests to do changes of which Mercy Housing accommodated. He feels the main thing it would do is provide refuge as there is no place in the City of Anaheim that has any place for a person with special needs of the people who would be living there to go. Mr. Bradley states Mercy Housing has assured them they will take candidates first from the City of Anaheim and they will have a waiting list of people from Anaheim to even get in. He feels the variances requested are necessary because it is a special situation and also considering that Dale Jr. High is on the north side of the subject property separated by a chain linked fence which is an escape route for the children to leave the school grounds before school is actually dismissed. He states as Dora and Ben (Ms. Kovel and Mr. Phillips) mentioned earlier, it is only 100 feet wide and there is not much that could be put there. • Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, representing WAND, recalls speaking with Commissioner Bostwick in regards to the subject manner and feels the need to explain where WAND stands on the subject and why they have not requested a denial of the project. It is because there seems to be a void in the City of Anaheim's ordinance laws for special needs housing which is the first thing that needs to be addressed. She states as residents of Anaheim along with the City staff they need to take a step back and create an ordinance because WAND is and always has been in support of building a quality community for balance. It is not that WAND wants high-end or low-end but is present to support building facilities for all of their neighbors. If special needs housing is what is needed, then that is what they need. She poses the question why did WAND not support the other unit on the other side compared to the subject project and states it is because the subject project is for special needs and that is an address that needs to be taken. She states WAND has been working approximately one year with Dora, Ben and Phil, (Ms. Kovel, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Yeager) and the architects, and they have come to the community and involved the neighborhood. And, WAND thought this was going to be the "biggest issue" they had to address in West Anaheim. WAND thought the neighbors and school was going to rise up in arms but there has not been one voice against the units. WAND has asked Mercy to go to the school district and community, and as they have stated WAND supports the communities that are involved with the project that being the neighboring residents and the school system, and no one voiced objection. She admits there have been concerns, and there are still concerns today but no one has voiced objection to the project. Ms. Gollette states through education WAND has become familiar with what the term "affordable" means to different people. They take the stance that it is building affordable housing and affordable housing is building quality housing for an entire community; a balanced community. WAND has looked at the residents of West Anaheim and Anaheim and have asked what housing is needed in the area and determined there is definitely a need for special housing; the developmentally disabled, challenged and special needs and the subject project addresses one of the issues. She states the very first thing WAND • asked of Dora and Ben and the AIDS Foundation was to tell them if there are Anaheim requests for the subject type housing. The very first night they said they did not have a list and did not know but would come back to them with the information because it had been documented. Upon their return they 05-20-02 Page 21 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • reported there were 180 requests from residents of Anaheim that needed that type of housing. She feels that points to a priority of part of the balance that everyone needs to address. Ms. Gollette states WAND has looked at housing for seniors, and low-income residents and is now looking at housing for special needs. WAND asked that amenities be built into the project and feels they were. WAND asked that the project would be managed positively and Mercy Housing has presented a record of quality management. She poses the question, can the property be sold and what would happen afterwards and affirms that can all be written into the restrictions and that goes back to the need to create an ordinance that is tight and complies with today's City laws but also meet the needs of the communities. One of the biggest concerns WAND had is the different opinions between staff members whether it is a senior project with variances or a multiple family project with variances going the other way; how much money are they actually asking for; what occupancy restriction can you put there; does the project covenants run with the land or when the project is sold could it be changed into anything. Ms. Gollette states the answers have all been attempted by Mercy Housing and City staff but she does not feel there is a balance or communication that is straight forward due to the lack of an ordinance. She states there are changes that need to be made which goes back to the need to create an ordinance that is tight and complies with today's City laws but also meet the needs of the communities. Restrictions WAND asked for are occupancy, an Anaheim resident, West Anaheim resident priority and drug violations. For example, what would happen if an occupant were cited or violated drug restrictions. They were told by Mr. Yaeger that their lease would be terminated. She states those are things that WAND would like to see written into the covenants and the ordinance with stronger language. Ms. Gollette stated she also voiced WAND's concerns to her son and he asked what they planned in the cases of drug felons, sex offenders and residents that say that they are Anaheim residents but that have only resided in the City for 29 days, would they be privy to priority. She states those are some of the facts ~ that need to be addressed; not being discriminatory but just to create a safe haven for the facility itself and for West Anaheim residents. In speaking with other people the question arose why an ordinance has not been written and the response was that the need has not been there in order to create one. Ms. Gollette feels there is a need now and in the future to create a balance community which would include special needs whether or not they have seen prop 36 houses and homes for developmentally disabled in the communities; they are all parts that need ordinances written in. She states WAND would also like to see other notifications with the City or restrictions added on because of what is happening at Hermosa Village regarding violations that are being brought to light that some of the same things being addressed now were there before; the overcrowding, the manipulation of the management system, the destruction of property, etc. Ms. Gollette states because City and community tax dollars are going into the project, WAND would like to see some type of notification to the City of any resident that has been expelled or that City staff would be allowed to inspect more than once a year. She feels a properry can be destroyed in one year so whether it is inspected every six months or whenever, the City needs to take a more proactive viewing of what is going on. Ms. Gollette poses a question in regards to the waivers and states, "yes, there are waivers that the applicant is asking for but would the waivers be there if an ordinance was written to address the needs that WAND is trying to deal with today". There is a need in Anaheim for special needs housing, AIDS housing and communities to come together and that is what WAND is trying to do. She states they are trying to come together to support a balanced community and housing for everyone. Ms. Gollette feels this is a great opportunity to take in order for the City to grow but if they just stop right here, then they are not doing any justice for children in the future. ApplicanYs Response: ~ Ms. Kovel states they appreciate people taking the time to come out and support the project. It is a great tribute to them for WAND, who has worked so hard in West Anaheim to prevent certain types of 05-20-02 Page 22 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • development, to come out and state it is something they would like to see in their community. She feels Ms. Gollette's ideas regarding special need ordinances are interesting and they agree to explore further with the City. She states they would encourage City financing that would come along with the development would also have requirements of occupancy of tenants' selection. Ms. Kovel states a lot of time has been spent on their tenant selection and screening processes which include home visits, credit checks and criminal checks. They are interested in creating a community that is healthy for everybody and cannot afford to have a couple of bad apples ruining it for the rest of the community, either within the property or the neighborhood itself. So, they are very happy that people decided to take the time to come out and speak. Mr. Phillips feels an important point to emphasize is the restricted occupancy issue. Essentially, if the primary concern is that down the road the property may be overcrowded with some other use or maybe fall into a general SRO use as opposed to being specifically for housing who are disabled by HIV and AIDS. He feels that question can be resolved and the rest of the concerns could vanish by restricting the occupancy either with Commission's condition of approval or as part of the affordable housing agreement, etc. Chairperson Arnold asked for a spokesperson from Community Development to respond. Commissioner Koos states one of the key aspects of the entire issue is the incentive in lieu of the density bonus issue and the discrepancy between their analysis and the analysis prepared by the departmenYs consultant. He asked for a discussion of the issues that the applicant brought up with respect to the analysis they received and how it relates to Community Development DepartmenYs recommendation of the project. Damien Delaney, Senior Project Manager, Community Development, asked the Keyser Marston representative to speak to the issues. ~ Julie Romey, 500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1480, Los Angeles, CA, representing Keyser Marston Associates, states based on the presentation currently previewed, it appears to be more legal questions than the actual numbers because of how the applicant rearranged the analysis. She asked that the question be raised that needs to be resolved first. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Ms. Romey is stating that the issues could not be resolved today without getting together with the applicant. He feels the analysis is an essential matter to be resolved presently because if the waivers cannot be justified on their own merits then the incentives would be necessary to get the project approved. If there is not a meeting of the minds on whose numbers are accurate then it would not be prudent for Commission to go forward. Chairperson Arnold feels the statement inferred it was not so much that the numbers differ as much as they are taking into consideration other bonuses, etc., and wonders if that is allowed. It is more of a legal question than an economic one. James Rabe, 500 S. Grand Ave., #1480, Los Angeles, one of the principles of Keyser Marston Associates, states the difference is in how the applicant initially calculated their analysis of the density bonus and the value of the waivers. He speculates they have set that aside for now and said, "we will accept the Keyser Marston numbers, we may differ with some of those but depending on how you add up the incentives and how you choose to do them you can effectively get to whatever answer you want to". He states that issue is outside of their purview but the question is what are the various incentives and waivers worth, which is what Keyser Marston has computed for Commission. The question then becomes at the Planning Department, Commission and City Council level, how would they want to add those up and choose to implement or not implement the project as the case may be. Commissioner Koos states with that being stated it falls back on the Community Development and • planning staff to respond to the applicanYs statement. 05-20-02 Page 23 MAY 20, Zooz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states it is up to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make the determinations with regard to which incentives are being considered depending upon the Planning Commission and/or City Council conclusion it wishes to reach with regard to the project. Commission has the flexibility under Authority Code Section No. 18.99, which in someway is more generous than state law, to reach a conclusion to approve the project or depending upon whether it agrees with the analysis of staff, to deny the project. She states the applicant is correct in stating that Authority Code Section No. 1899030020 indicates Commission is considering the value of a density bonus and two additional incentives but it is up to the Planning Commission to determine which incentives. 7he applicanYs summary of justification indicated four particular waivers; the building height, setback, parking and unit mix. And it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the value of those four as had been initially proposed by the applicant. On the City's economic summary there is no value that has been ascribed to the over 25% chance in the parking code variance or unit mix variance. However, from speaking with the Keyser Marston representatives she understands that it is not indicative that there is no value but because they were included in just one list that in fairness, rather than double count the value, a zero value was ascribed to it since the value of it would have already been included in the parking and unit mix variance values. Also, the parking variance assumes that the unit mix variance would be granted and that potentially there is an additional value to the unit mix variance if it was necessary to consider the additional value of the parking that would need to be provided. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine which of the incentives would be considered and which factors it considers being essential in making its determination. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if based on the presentation today they have moved passed the disputes over the numbers and the evaluation and instead now they are in the issue of which bonuses or incentives Commission should count and under what circumstances, etc. ~ Ms. Kovel states for ease of argument, they decided to presuppose that the numbers were accurate and feels that they could still come up to a conclusion that justified the incentives because it was okay for them not to spend a lot of time on whether or not the numbers were sufficient. She states they concur with Assistant City Attorney Mann, in regards to how one could get there in terms of the approval. They have spoken with legal experts in land use and their understanding is that you could slice and dice the numbers a variety of ways and what Mercy has tried to do is put together a summary that concludes that it is a supportable project. Ms. Kovel states there are probably other ways you could get to the conclusion that they are worth more than the density bonus and incentives but Mercy has tried to put it together in a way that supports the analysis and if Commission is supportive of the development they hope that they will concur with the analysis as well. (She handed out copies of their presentation and revisited the analysis on the projector screen). Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if there has not been any decision from the Community Development Department on the level of assistance for the project. Mr. Damien Delaney, Senior Project Manager, responded that is correct. Community Development believes they are separate issues and have not made any commitment to funding at this time. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Community Development fully concurs with Planning Staff's recommendations on the entitlements. Mr. Delaney responded yes. Ms. Mann advised Community Development has the option to make decisions based on land use considerations and if it is felt some of the waivers were appropriate based upon land use principles, it could certainly do that but is not required to go one way or the other and could certainly use any combination of them. • Commissioner Bosfinrick wished to clarify since the applicant mentioned a covenant or a deed restriction, how would that work and how could that be applied to the subject property. 05-20-02 Page 24 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. Mann clarified in situations where the City requires a deed restriction they would require an unsubordinated covenant to be recorded against the property, which means that any lenders would need to buy ofF on the property. She feels that the subject covenant would need to be one that was consistent with whatever HUD requirements were. However, the applicant states that a covenant could be recorded that required the use of the property for special needs and disabled individuals as defined by the various Federal and State Laws. If the use were no longer required for that, have an alternative that is in the covenant itself, possibly a conversion to senior housing, if that was something the Commission would like to consider or the applicant could return to the Planning Commission for consideration of reconfiguring the project. Chairperson Arnold recalls in previous months when Commission dealt with a mid-block, self-storage facility on Knott Street, which was on a long, narrow lot, one of the issues they dealt with was whether a long, narrow lot could be an irregular size or shape he wished to clarify if the City Council answered that in the affirmative. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Chairperson Arnold recalls it was a 3:1 ratio. Mr. McCafferty stated it was more proportionately deep than it was wide. Commissioner Boydstun recalled the applicant mentioned there was someone from the Laguna facility in regards to parking and she wished to clarify what they found happening there. Mr. Phillips states Phil Yaeger, Director of Housing for the AIDS Services Foundation, which operates a facility in Laguna Beach can discuss the parking requirements at that property. • Commissioner Boydstun feels there is enough parking there and concurs that everyone would not have a car. She wished to hear the true facts. Phillip Yaeger, Director of Housing at AIDS Services Foundation, Orange County, states ASF (Aids Service Foundation) is a project sponsor for the development in the City of Laguna Beach, Hagen Place. Hagen Place consists of 25, 1 bedroom apartment units. Their experience with the project is that they have less than one vehicle per unit. In most of the units they are single adult units. There is one that has two, but again, the real point is that less than one vehicle per unit. There are 30 spaces at Hagen Place and a total of 18 or 19 vehicles actually on site. Therefore, there are approximately 1/3 residents without vehicles. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if it is operated similar to the proposed project where there is a manager on staff. Mr. Yaeger responded, yes. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify what kinds of services come in for the residents. Mr. Yaeger clarified at Hagen Place there are food pantries, transportation services, weekly life-skilled classes that are held in their main office in Irvine and case management services. He affirms they will have more intensive onsite supportive services at the development in Anaheim and they plan to have onsite 12-step meetings and onsite mental health counselors to meet with residents individually if the need arises. He states it will be very service rich. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if there would also be services to help place them somewhere else if there was a need for extended care. • Mr. Yaeger responded correct. If somebody's level of care requires they are no longer appropriate for independent living that is where they would also step in. 05-20-02 Page 25 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Commission approves the reclassification as well as the project and for whatever reason the project is not built, would the reclassification still stand. He feels City Council's action would most likely be taken away before all of the financing is lined up. Mr. McCafferty clarified the way the project is currently conditioned the reclassification could stand on its own. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the answer is that zoning would change. Mr. McCafferty responded, yes. Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Gollette if she would support rezoning of RM-1200 regardless of the outcome of the project. Ms. Gollette responded, no. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if she supported the waivers on height and setback on the project on Ball Road. Ms. Gollette challenged him to go back to previous minutes and noted that WAND did not take a stand on the apartment building itself but it was the idea of high-density, multi-family on the site without creating quality of life. She affirms they are two different issues. Commissioner Koos stated he noticed that she has taken a hard stance on the setback waivers in the past and asked in this case if she feels it is justified based upon the use. • Ms. Gollette responded no, but justified because the community itself has supported the issue. She reiterates the community that would be an issue in this case is the neighbor. He has been at every meeting and has never once voiced an objection to the setback being next to his property. Ms. Gollette states that the community has worked with Ralph's and Associates Architecture Firm from the ground up and they appreciate the fact. All of their considerations and concerns were taken into fact at that point. She admits they were looking at more of a step up or step down situation but cost came into play as well as the City's need for more amenities to be built into the project. The configuration of the building was revamped so that a waiver was necessary in connection with the neighbor's property but there is no visual obtrusion to his property and his privacy will be retained which is the big issue. She asserts to say that WAND put a blanket, negative connotation to any waiver for setback is not true. They have looked at each individual fact and situation and whether it retains the privacy and the quality of life for the neighbors, and that is where WAND takes issue. In this case, the neighbor has stated he is not concerned about the setback on his property and that it will improve his quality of life by having the facility put in there so that it is not overcrowding. Commissioner Koos states he recalls that on Magnolia Avenue, regarding the Brandywine Project, although people signed off on the project she maintained to uphold the zoning code. He states he respects her for it and recalls she was still fairly strict on some of the waivers the applicant was seeking. So, in that situation he feels she still has consensus among the neighbors and yet she was still opposed to it. He wished to clarify what the difference would be. Ms. Gollette responded they were fighting mostly for an adjacent neighbor (Linda Mayes, PC Meeting 03- 11-02) which was a privacy issue regarding placing of the windows and it was the only property that was going to be addressed by the intrusion of a visual site. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if they did not also want a certain number of units per acre. ~ Ms. Gollette responded when Brandywine first came in they were trying to overcrowd but they have worked with the developers regarding the subject project. She asserts they would love to get it down to 5 to 7 units per acre but reality check says not likely but they will fight for whatever they can get and if they 05-20-02 Page 26 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • can get it down to 9, they will do that. And if they can make sure that the community that resides in the neighborhood is not going to be compromised, then they are all for going ahead and redeveloping. She states there is a renaissance in West Anaheim they are ready for rebirth. Ms. Gollette affirms they do not want to move out of West Anaheim until they are ready and do not want to be forced out and reiterates it is a product they thought would be concerns and objections but there was not any. The community has worked with the developer all along and from past history it is evident they were not a supporter of Mercy Housing. However, they have been tight on their back ends, watching every step that they make so that they do not get an influx of housing that would tend to lean the scales in West Anaheim. They are looking for a balanced community to be built and though the waivers affect one property, his privacy will be retained and he has no objections to it. Whereas Brandywine offered a three-story on one side and a two- story on the other of highly dense units on one side with absolutely no amenities the subject project will have a community room, greenbelt, and amenities for residents. The community asked for it and Mercy has put it in. She feels it meets all the needs. She states WAND is not privy to City dollars and the bottom line budget, that is not their premise of where they go but it is up to City staff, the Commission and developers to put that line together. Whether or not they will create a balance of living housing for West Anaheim or creates a balance community is where WAND addresses itseif and there is not anyone who has stated objection to the product going in. Ms. Kovel asked permission to speak in response to Commissioner Koos' question regarding the rezone to further clarify whether or not reclassification would stand without development going forward. She states their legal counsel has a slightly different interpretation. Commissioner Koos states City Counci! would act on it before they received funding and it would be rezoned. Scott Mcfee, Attorney of Morrison and Forester, representing Mercy Housing, states it would all depend on whether the zone change was granted as one of the additional incentives. He did not feel the • application initially called for it as being applied for as an additional incentive but staff is treating it as an additional incentive. So, if it were one of the additional incentives it bound with all of the other incentives. If a project were not to go forward all of the incentives are conditioned upon the project going forward. If it is not considered one of the incentives and if the subject project is being decided on its own merits, and Commission and City Council approve it then it would stand on its own regardless whether the project went forward, is his understanding of staff's answer. However, the question Mercy had was whether it was going to be treated in the bundle of incentives or not. Chairperson Arnold asked Ms. Mann to address the question. Ms. Mann feels staff has considered that would be an additional incentive but the Commission is the one who would make the determination on what would constitute the incentives and conditioning whatever approval that would be. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the reclassification could be packaged to make it contingent on the entire set of conditions of the project work. Ms. Mann states if Planning Commission considers the reclassification to be one of the incentives then there is a nexus to consider them as a package. Ordinarily, the City Attorney Office does not condition a reclassification as such but the subject project seems as though it is part of a package and a little different from other projects that come before Commission. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify which would create the nexus needed. Ms. Mann responded Commission could create a nexus. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Chairperson Arnold states Ms. Gollette made an excellent point that Anaheim does not have zoning code standards for special needs units and that is why Commission finds itself in a very unusual and difficult 05-20-02 Page 27 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • situation. Given that fact, certainly the City needs to work in the zone code amendments to provide some development standards for special needs units that fit the nature of those particular units but it appears that the disability laws, fair housing laws, and general recognition of the need that it has would require flexibility on behalf of the City to allow housing for people with special needs as a reasonable accommodation. He feels 1) that is exactly City's legal obligation to pursue flexibility where they have not yet developed zoning standards that would accommodate those particular needs so it would seem that waivers could be justified merely on that basis alone, 2) Secondly, the project can be justified on the fact that Commission has treated other properties as being unusually shaped; justifying variances, etc., on the basis of being long, narrow lots and 3:1 ratio in width to depth has been kind of threshold. The subject project is 3.35:1 ratio and it would seem only equitable to treat the subject parcel similarly and 3) The applicant has offered three different ways to restrict the property in perpetuiry to special needs housing; housing for people with disabilities. He feels the City should take advantage of that because it would mean that the worst case scenario would be precluded. Finally, and very importantly, local neighbors, area residents, neighborhood groups and schools are all supportive of the project. For example: Mr. Bradley (community resident) has been a very thoughtful, tough critic and commentator on the City's housing proposal and Commission has appreciated his input over the past years. He feels today, Mr. Bradley is expressing support that suggests that the area residents view the value of the project and the need to be flexible to respond to the particular needs. Commissioner Boydstun states it is a great project. It is something the City of Anaheim needs and the neighbors and community is happy with it. She cannot see what the objection is. Commissioner Bostwick concurs that by having a covenant or deed restriction on the subject property that it can be used only for special needs or seniors would preclude it from having a parking problem later and that is where most of his concern comes from. He feels the RM-1200 zoning would remain on the property unless Commission hears it again for another zone change but it has RM-1200 on either side other than the one single-family residence at the rear and it is appropriate. ~ Commissioner Koos asked Commissioner Arnold to reiterate his analysis in justifying the waivers so that he could see the staff recommendation and how he views the waivers standing on their own merit. Chairperson Arnold responded staff took it together as a package. Commissioner Koos stated they also provided a supplemental staff report demonstrating their recommendation for denial of each one. Therefore, from a comfort level with the project he requests to hear Chairperson Arnold's rationale for support. Chairperson Arnold responded staff is supportive of the traffic transportation, the Traffic & Transportation Manager is comfortable with the parking spaces based on similar projects. With respect to both structural height and structural setback, Commission has approved waivers of similar nature based on the fact that the lot is long and narrow. He recalls when that initially came up he was in opposition and did not feel long, narrow lots should be considered irregularly shaped but the City Council settled that. Therefore, it is only fair to all applicants that it be a basis of consideration. With respect to the minimum dwelling units, size and the additional incentives, he is persuaded by the chart that was posed on the additional incentives and feels by the very nature of the particular project, that simply the code does not address the proposed kinds of special needs housing. He states if there is a limit of any housing project to 20% bachelor units there would never be any sort of HIV/AIDS type of housing provided and the City of Anaheim Municipal Code has not kept up with the need. That would seem to him if nothing else to turn to Federal and State Law as pre-empting code and mandating a reasonable accommodation. Commissioner Eastman states changing the zoning is the only thing that bothers her otherwise she feels supportive of the project. She wished to clarify if Commission considers it as a package and as one of the incentives figured into the formula or if it means that it is a hard and fast zoning change and if it did not go as a package then that zoning change would not be applied. • Ms. Mann states there are finro ways of looking at it: 1) As stated by Chairperson Arnold, if it is looked at as one of the incentives a nexus has been created and a condition could be put upon it, 2) It provides 05-20-02 Page 28 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • housing for the disabled population and under Federal and State Laws there are requirements for reasonable accommodation to provide equal access to housing for the disabled population. Therefore, since it is an accommodation that is being placed on the property for a disabled population, it would alternatively be appropriate to place a covenant to ensure that it remains for that use. Commission has to require a covenant that would give comfort with regard to the use of the property for the use that is being considered. Commissioner Koos states he appreciates Chairperson Arnold's itemization of his support for the project, particularly with respect to the bachelor unit issue and how the City of Anaheim does not have code provisions for this type of use. He feels this is probably the only way of getting there and therefore, that justifies waiver a) regarding the parking. However, on the matters of the development standards for the setbacks and height, he has a harder time justifying because even with a special needs ordinance they are going to have development standards that need to be adhered to. He does not subscribe to the notion that the subject project is irregular so much so that this development could not have complied with the development standards of that zone. They would have just needed to build fewer units. So therefore, at the proposed density he does not support the setback waivers. He states since his concerns were not addressed regarding the rezoning and the fact that one of the leading community members concerns seems to be there as well he could not support rezoning at this time. He states he does not want it to come across that he does not support the use and explains that he talked to the community commission directly and is very supportive on finding housing strategies that work for the affordable housing community; people who need lower income units. He suggests staff work harder creating an overall City strategy to address the issue; particularly he would like to see proactive attempts that address the motel issues in conjunction with creating affordable units. He feels they could create an overall net increase of quality affordable living and reduce substandard housing stock that is currently in the form of motels. He reiterates it is not a message to the community that he does not support affordable housing in general but he is looking for very progressive solutions on that front. • DURING THE ACTION. Ms. Mann asked if there would be any conditions added to the reclassification. Commissioner Eastman concurred and recalled the statements regarding the covenant. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if the covenant should be on the reclassification. Ms. Mann clarified there were questions with regard to whether or not a covenant could be placed or some kind of requirement tied to the reclassification that would require development of this particular project. She states Dave See, Senior Planner, the planner for the project, pointed out that in the section entitled, "Additional Incentives" in the codes is a provision that states, "an additional incentive shall be deemed granted for the purposes of this chapter if any concession or incentives such as a change of zoning or general plan designation is granted within 24 months prior to or after the granting of density bonus". Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the intent is that it be conditioned in the reclassification. Commissioner Bostwick states under the reclassification Commission would add a condition that the property owner placed a covenant approved by the City Attorney that the subject property be utilized for special needs housing or senior housing and if either of those needs changing they would return to the Commission for rehearing. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Commission has placed covenants previously on rezonings. Ms. Mann clarified Commission has conditioned rezonings previously however, they generally tend to be unconditional. The conditions tend to be placed if a general plan amendment is required that needs to be • in place. There have been some conditions placed on reclassifications but not always. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the subject project does not go forward then what would happen. 05-20-02 Page 29 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bosfinrick states it can either be special need housing or senior housing and if nothing goes through it has to come back to Commission for rehearing. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify who would trigger the return. Commissioner Bostwick clarified if another applicant should apply for some other type of housing or some other type of use. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if staff tracks zoning conditions on a regular basis, perhaps every two years. He wished to see from an administrative standpoint how that would play out. Ms. Mann states if Planning Commission's actions on a reclassification are final it actually initiates the reclassification. It has to be finalized by ordinance of the City Council. If it is appealed then the City Council is the one that does the resolution that initiates the reclassification. Before the final ordinance of actually changing the zoning is passed, all of the conditions have to be met. The City Attorney's Office prepares the ordinance and receives a request from the Zoning Division that indicates all the conditions have been met prior to the City Attorney's Office preparing the ordinance. Commissioner Koos clarified that was not his question but rather assuming that happens and the project does not get its funding, it goes forward, a year or so goes by and the zoning is now RM-1200, does it revert back automatically, would Commission have to reset a hearing to get the zoning back or if someone else would have to come in to try to build other than what was approved today, what happens? Ms. Mann responded the details of that would be negotiated between the applicant and the City Attorney's Office to ensure that if for any reason it seems the project would not be going forward that some type of notice would be given to the City so that it could be readvertised for reconsideration of the ~ reclassification prior to the finalization of the ordinance. Commissioner Koos states he does not have any certainty from what staff is stating that the project is going to be funded and he wished to know what happens afterwards if it does not. His concern is that he does not want the zoning standing out there, by right, waiting for anything to come along in five years. Ms. Mann states if Commission has specific requirements it would like to have included in the covenant the City Attorney's Office would see that they are included and if there is some kind of assurance with regard to the funding being in place for the project to proceed, they could include that as well. Commissioner Koos states his point is that if it is rezoned for the project that it is the project that gets built. Commissioner Bostwick concurred and stated or a project which qualifies for the same reasons because he did not want to see it turn into "at market rate housing" with the parking and the other variances issued. Mr. McCafferty stated if the applicant were building under the variance they could not ignore the exhibits, and would have to comply with the exhibits as well. Chairperson Arnold feels there are so many different land use approvals on the parcel with a condition reclassification and a restricted covenant that is going to be recorded on the property that is enforceable; the various variances and exhibits, etc., the City would watch carefully given the sensitivity of the project. Commissioner Koos states he is leaning towards support of the reclassification if it is enforceable enough for the subject use. He states in the past he has not been in favor of conditioning rezonings anyway and feels +t is ugly and messy. He feels they should be treated separately as a policy action in each project. ~ Commissioner Bostwick concurred and reiterated RM-1200 Zone is on either side so it does not bother him so much but he concurs that the project is predicated on a lot of variances that the zoning allows. So, 05-20-02 Page 30 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commission needs to have some type of protection that it is going to be a certain type of development; a covenant for either special needs housing or senior housing or that it returns to the Commission if either is not developed. Commissioner Koos states he feels much better about the project now that the zoning is tight. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 5 people spoke in favor of the subject request and a letter in favor was received at the meeting from CHOC-Choco Realty Corporation; 2 letters in favor were received prior to the meeting from the adjacent neighbor and the Orange County Community Housing Corporation. A petition was submitted prior to the meeting with 46 signatures in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00072 (reclassification of this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RM-1200 Zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 20, 2002 with the following modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: ~ That an unsubordinated convenant shall be recorded on the property restricting its use to either special needs or senior citizen's housing. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's office then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. [Note: If the development changes from a special needs project to senior citizen's or other type of multiple-family housing, said change would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.] Granted Variance No. 2002-04499 approving waivers pertaining to (a) minimum number, type, and design of off street parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum unit size, (d) minimum structural setback abutting one family developments, and (e) additional incentives in lieu of a density bonus to construct a two- to three-story, 23-unit, affordable "special needs" apartment complex, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 20, 2002 with the following modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That an unsubordinated convenant shall be recorded on the property restricting its use to either special needs or senior citizen's housing. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's office then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. [Note: If the development changes from a special needs project to senior citizen's or other type of multiple-family housing, said change would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.] ~ 05-20-02 Page 31 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 47 minutes (1:45-3:32) A 10-minute break was taken (3:32-3:42) ~ ~ 05-20-02 Page 32 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 11 lb. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04494 Concurred with staff Denied OWNER: Equilon Enterprises, LLC., 2205 North Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91504 AGENT: A& S Engineering, 207 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 203, Burbank, CA 91502 LOCATION: 201 South State Colle e Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.72-acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue (Shell Service Station and Car Wash). Request to retain unpermitted modifications to an existing freestanding sign with waivers of a) maximum area of freestanding signs and b) maximum height of freestanding signs. Continued from the May 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-76 ~J ~ SR1080CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Variance No. 2002-04494, to retain unpermitted modifications to an existing freestanding sign at 201 South State College Boulevard - Shell Service Station and Car wash, Equilon Enterprises, LLC. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial and feels the property can easily comply with sign code requirements. Applicant's Testimony: Juan Sandoval, 207 W. Alameda Ave., Burbank, CA, representing A&S Engineering, states Equilon Enterprises LLC, asked A&S Engineering to come up with a concept of what transpired in respect to the two facilities that being, one on State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue and the other on State College Boulevard and Ball Road. He states they utilized the existing structural poles, maintained the existing height and maintained the existing pectin. In respect to the new pectin, it has been refaced and also they moved everything so they could utilize the entire structure but did not remove any of the columns or replace anything. They worked with what they had. They felt that they came up with a new concept and in respect to that felt there was something that was simple they could do and now they have asked to proceed with obtaining approval of the two locations. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Mr. Sandoval stated his firm prepared the new sign. Mr. Sandoval responded no, Equilon asked them to prepare a plan based on what they did. Commissioner Koos reverberated "based on what they did" and stated, "So, you are stating this after the fact." Mr. Sandoval responded, exactly. Commissioner Koos states, "basically you do not even know what they reconstructed or do you know if it was structurally sound because they did not go through the Building Division or anything". Mr. Sandoval responded correct, because they felt what they were doing was a simple reface. 05-20-02 Page 33 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos asserted that they took the entire sign down. Mr. Sandoval responded no, they did not take the poles down. They did not remove any of the columns or poles. They worked with what was already there. They orientated their price sign and some of the other panels there and utilized the existing columns. They maintained the existing height. They did not want to remove any poles because they felt they would then have actual problems structurally. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify with Mr. McCafferty if he was under the impression that the sign was structurally altered. Mr. McCafferty clarified the sign was structurally altered because the sign had a rotating top. The top was taken off and in its place, the sign was raised up in height to accommodate the same height but it just did not have the revolving top. There were cranes out there at night where they actually had to torch off the sign, prefabricate it at the site and then torch it back on. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify that because the original sign only reached a certain height combined with the rotating piece if when they took it down they had to extend the poles on either side because the new Shell logo is between the two. He feels they had to raise it up to put the logo between them. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Commissioner Koos states by adding the additional 4 feet it is not known for sure if the original column could support the additional weight. Mr. Sandoval states when the engineer calculates their footings they over calculate and never calculate for the actual height. Particularly, the engineer they use frequently over calculates for occasions such as ~ the present in case they have to add on a panel so that it would have the additional support. Commissioner Koos states for the most part it goes back to land use. It is almost cut and dry unfortunately, for the applicant, unless City Council wishes to address it on a policy level it is a situation where the owner has lost his nonconforming status by modifying his sign. Mr. Sandoval states what they modified was the look but as far as the sign itself they worked with what they had. Commissioner Koos states the point is that some of the older signs can go on in perpetuity but the moment an owner wants to modify any aspect of his property, it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission and the City decision makers to decide that issue, not the land owner. Chairperson Arnold concurred and states not only that but it is not at our discretion unfess there is something to justify a variance and if there is nothing to justify the waiver, the code prohibits it. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Sandoval what hardships he wished to express and if there was a visibility issue because when a variance is applied for the applicant is responsible for citing there is something about the property that deprives it from the rights of other properties that are similarly zoned. Mr. Sandoval states his understanding is that the variance was for the modification of the sign because they did not increase the height and there was not anything indicated to him in regards to the height other than they modified the sign. Commissioner Koos asked if he prepared the application. Mr. Sandoval responded no, his supervisor did. ~ Chairperson Arnold stated the materials changed. 05-20-02 Page 34 MAY 20, 2002 PLANN(NG COMMISSION MINUTES r ~ Mr. Sandoval responded no, the materials are the same, and they have not changed. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the materials were exactly the same because he recalls there was something that rotated. Mr. Sandoval responded the only thing they removed was the rotating.... Chairperson Arnold interjected, "they put something new up above where the rotating was, right". Mr. Sandoval responded they removed the rotator and the only other thing they did was extend the two columns and attach it to the existing sign. Chairperson Arnold reverberated, "'extend two columns, attached something' that woufd be stationery as opposed to rotating, right?" Mr. Sandoval responded that is correct. Chairperson Arnold asserted it sounds like three different things that are of a structural not merely cosmetic nature. It is not as though they just changed the color or price but they extended the columns. Mr. Sandoval responded that is correct, they extended the columns. Ms. Mann states when someone does anything to modify a nonconforming sign it is reason to lose that nonconforming legal status. Mr. Sandoval states the understanding that Equilon had is that if they were to take the sign completely down they would lose their nonconforming status and if they altered their existing sign they would not iose their nonconforming status. Chairperson Arnold asserted their understanding was incorrect. Commissioner Koos stated that is probably why they did it at night. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun temporary absent and Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the de~nition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Variance No. 2002-04494 pertaining to waivers (a) maximum area of freestanding signs and (b) maximum height of freestanding signs based on the following: (i) That the nonconforming status of the existing freestanding sign was lost when sign alterations were made without Zoning and Building Division approval; and that Commission has been approving Code-conforming monument signs for service stations. r~ ~ (ii} That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and 05-20-02 Page 35 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (iii) That strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other commercially-zoned properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun temporary absent and Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (3:42-3:55) r ~ ~ ~ 05-20-02 Page 36 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04495 Concurred with staff Denied OWNER: Equilon Enterprises, LLC., 2205 North Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91504 AGENT: A& S Engineering, 207 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 203, Burbank, CA 91502 LOCATION: 1200 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.49-acre located at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road (Shell Service Station). Request to retain unpermitted modifications to an existing freestanding sign with waivers of a) maximum area of freestanding signs and b) maximum height of freestanding signs. Continued from the May 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-77 ~ SR1081CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Variance No. 2002-04495, the same situation but different location, to retain unpermitted modifications to an existing freestanding sign at 1200 South State College Boulevard - Shell Service Station, Equilon Enterprises, LLC. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial and feels the property can easily comply with City sign code requirements. Juan Sandoval, 207 W. Alameda Ave., Burbank, CA, representing A&S Engineering, states his testimony is the same as in Item No. 7. THE PUBLIC HEARtNG WAS CLOSED. • • - - e ~iue: • . e.- - •~~~i •- e •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostw+ck and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Variance No. 2002-04495 pertaining to waivers (a) maximum area of freestanding signs and (b) maximum height of freestanding signs based on the following: u (i) That the nonconforming status of the existing freestanding sign was lost when sign alterations were made without Zoning and Building Division approvals; and that Commission has been approving Code-conforming monument signs for service stations; 05-20-02 Page 37 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (ii) That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and (iii) That strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:56-3:57) ~ ~~ • 05-20-02 Page 38 MaY Zo, Zoo2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 7 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2716 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04542) OWNER: JRH Inc., 5101 East Independence Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28212 City of Anaheim, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Alexander Development, 2766 Pomona Boulevard, Pomona, CA 91768 LOCATION: 8375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 9.3 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road (Weir Canyon Acura and Weir Canyon Honda). Request to expand the existing office and showroom floor areas for an existing automotive dealership facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to June 3, 2002 SR8301 KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2716, a request to expand office ~ and showroom floor areas for an existing automotive dealership facility, 8375 East La Palma Avenue - Canyon Acura. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval as conditioned in the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jon L. Veregge, 2766 Pomona Blvd. # 96, Pomona, CA, Director of Architecfure - Alexander Development, representing Weir Canyon Acura, states they are working with Weir Canyon Acura and the ownership to upgrade their existing showroom and add offices. It is an existing use and they are proposing that they improve the same, add square footage and improve it according to Acura National Standards. He states fhey are in agreement with the items except for the following: Page 3, Item No. 10, the height is indicated as 25 feet, their elevations have an entry feature of 28 feet, 6 inches. He asks that the building not be permitted to be any higher than 30 feet on the proposed showroom. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Veregee if there were corresponding conditions. Chairperson Arnold clarified the conditions starts on page 6. Mr. Veregee apologized and stated it then was just a modification to the staff report. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the height was shown on the exhibits. Mr. Veregee responded, yes and the next comment is on page 6, Condition No. 1 and states since the ~ existing facility has a public address system in operation he could not see where the new showroom would be any different in the operational aspects, so they would like to maintain that they have the PA system. 05-20-02 Page 39 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos clarified the key on the PA system is that it is audible off-site, throughout the neighborhood. He asked if Mr. Veregee could assert that it was probably just loud enough to stay on their property. Mr. Veregee responded it is but generally there is not a lot of residences around the perimeter. Commissioner Koos stated that is the City staff's concern and their intent and that is why he asked if he felt the PA system is loud enough to disturb neighboring properties. Mr. Veregee responded it may be, but he would need to find out. Commissioner Koos suggested he lower the sound somewhat. Chairperson Arnold states it depends on which neighboring properties and which direction it faces but that he frequently goes pass there on the other side of the street, along the bike trail and when hiking and walking, etc., and cannot hear the PA system. He states there are train tracks behind the property and he would be surprised if it were audible off-site. Mr. Veregee bantered fhe train is fairly loud when it goes by too. However, he feels as thaugh the term "off-site" may be a problem with his clients and he would prefer not to have it recorded as such but would have to find out. Commissioner Koos states the Anaheim Municipal Code would probably address that issue as well. Mr. McCafferty concurs and states Chapter 6.7 states zero sound pressure levels and the reason staff put it there is that it is a condition that they normally put on automobile dealerships as well as reading through ~ the volumes of minutes because when the dealers were originally approved the public testimony indicated it was a concern of the surrounding area. Commissioner Bostwick states the neighbors to the west would be the ones affected. Originally, the old tract was an open field that made it easy for sound to resonate across but now with the new walls in the new homes that are right up against Weir Canyon it is probably very difficult for sound to get across. Mr. Veregee states the PA system is already in operation and there would not be any modifications. Commissioner Bostwick clarified staff is not complaining about it. Commissioner Boydstun states if it were annoying anyone Code Enforcement would have heard about it and so would he. Mr. Veregge responded, very well. He referred to Condition No. 7, and states the existing facility does have roof-mounted equipment and as a result of adding a square footage they propose to have new HVAC units (heating, ventilafion and air-conditioning) on the roof matching the existing situation and is surprised to find out it is a new condition. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it is screened. Mr. Veregge responded yes, it is. Mr. McCafferty states it has to be something that is specifically requested by the applicant because in a Scenic Corridor Overlay, roof-mounted equipment is only permitted through the CUP process. And, if there is existing roof-mounted equipment it should have a Conditional Use Permit. ~ Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it would have been permitted under earlier entitlements. Mr. McCafferty states perhaps, but it looks like the original entitlements were back in 1985. 05-20-02 Page 40 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if it predated the Scenic Corridor. Mr. McCafferty responded no, actually it was in effect at that time. Commissioner Bostwick clarified that it is behind the parapet wall of the dealership. Mr. McCafferty responded Code actually requires that it be integrated as part of the building design so it is not really and issue as long as it can be designed to be fully screened but procedurally that would be something that would have to be formally requested unless the applicant wished to ground-mount his HVAC unit similar to other projects Commission has seen. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if he was adding or replacing. Mr. Veregge responded they would be adding units in the same manner they are now existing and they are adding square footage therefore would need a few more units. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it would be appropriate to continue Item No. 9 and readvertise with the additional entitlement. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Mr. Veregge stated the only issue with the timing of continuing is part of the ownership's obligation with Acura is that the dealership needs to be built before the end of the year and a substantial amount of money would be lost from the dealer if they could not build it by December 31, 2002. Commissioner Koos asked if two weeks would make a difference. ~ Mr. Veregge responded it is getting close because he has to build it also. Mr. McCafferty feels there is nothing that would prevent the applicant, since this is something that they are collectively supportive of, from submitting plans and start building plan check division to get that going. Mr. Veregge asked if that could be added. Commissioner Koos states it is subsequent, as in concurrently. Mr. McCafferty responded they could submit plans now before the entitlement however staff would not grant the building permit until after the entitlement has been approved. Chairperson Arnold clarified the zoning code requires that it be advertised to the public. Mr. Veregge responded that he understands and that he discussed it with Greg. He referred to page 7, Condition No. 13 and states on their previous variance application with signage it was waived at staff level. He proposes that ownership esfabiish a policy that states the trash lids would be closed at all times and confirms they would provide a letter on their letterhead stating such, as well as signage that would be posted in the trash enclosure to maintain that the lids be closed. Code Enforcement could check and see if that, in fact, has been done. Mr. McCafferty clarified it is a water quality issue and is something that is mandated beyond the local jurisdiction. He states staff proposes an amendment to the condition that states if required by the Streets and Sanitation Division the trash enclosure shall be roofed to prevent the entry of storm water and leave it to them and that division to work it out. • Mr. Veregge stated that is fine. He referred to Condition No.18, same page and states they are okay with everything other than the washing of vehicles. Typically, there is a mobile washing unit that goes 05-20-02 Page 41 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • throughout the vehicle inventory in the parking lot. Early mornings they will come and wash the cars. He feels it is a lot more advantageous than driving every car to the back, wasting gas, washing the car and returning it to vehicle inventory, not only in the gas aspect and energy as well as the time it takes to drive every car back from the service area and return it. Chairperson Arnold clarified it is an issue with respect to water quality the run off of dirt and oil and contaminants, etc., that the City requires everyone that would have automotive work done on a facility, be indoors or some sort of wash basin that captures the runoff has to be used. It is Federal and State requirements that are mandated over the City. Mr. McCafferty responded that is absolutely correct and Melanie Adams, Public Works is on her way to answer questions. Commissioner Bosfinrick states the only question he has is that every dealer in the county have service that comes through and they pressure wash their display vehicles off every Thursday or Friday morning roughly, and dry them off. The Acura site has very few display vehicles outside because there is a limit to the space but he wished to clarify how that plays out throughout the county. Mr. McCafferty responded that the district water quality standards in general have been tightening up over the last couple of years and are actually being checked and the Streets and Sanitation Division is busy trying to implement new internal policies but with regard to how existing dealerships are able to pressure wash their vehicles Ms. Adams could explain the difference befinreen existing businesses that do it presently without any water quality control and the expansion in the subject dealership. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, asked Mr. Veregge to reiterate his concerns about washing vehicles and the description of his operation. ~ Mr. Veregge feels Commissioner Bostwick stated it best in that it is fairly standard in any dealer operation where they have a mobile washing unit, they come through the parking lot either every day or sometimes a couple times a week and wash the cars. In lieu of wasting gas, taking the car to the back in the service area, and washing them down, which he feels is usually a dirtier area with more impurities running into the storm drain system as opposed to in the front of the lot. So, that is the way the dealer typically would operate. Ms. Adams responded as part of the expansion of the business, the subject businesses expanded area exceeds 1,000 square feet and that would bring them into a requirement to prepare a water quality management plan for the entire facility. So, as part of that they would need to document their car washing even if it is a mobile operation and demonstrate that there would not be pollutants going into the storm water system. They would have to layout their best management practices, that there are not other detergents, oil and grease running off the site. It would not preclude the applicant from having the mobile car wash. She feels many of those are operated quite well. The mobile car washing would be a component of Condition No. 9, which explains preparing the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if she is recommending that it be placed on Condition No. 18 where it states, "all work on vehicles, including the washing of vehicles, to the extent prohibited by the Water Quality Management Plan". Ms. Adams responded that would be acceptable. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if continuing the proposal for finro weeks (June 3, 2002) would be enough time to readvertise for the roof mounted equipment and the Scenic Corridor. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, two weeks is enough time. • Commissioner Bostwick asserted in the meantime the applicant should submit his plans to plan check. 05-20-02 Page 42 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITiON: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise the petition to include roof-mounted equipment and to allow additional time for the applicant to submit plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:58-4:14) ~ ~ 05-20-02 Page 43 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~ 90a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04543 Continued to June 3, 2002 OWNER: Eluteria Gutierrez, 1205 North Ralston Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Emiliano Perez, 306 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 306 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.17-acre with a frontage of 68 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard located 94 feet north of the centerline of Cypress Street. Request to permit a commercial retail center and to retain an unpermitted automotive repair business and banquet facility with waiver of a minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. r SR8303AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04543, a request to permit a commercial retail center and to retain an unpermitted automotive repair business and banquet facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces at 306 North Anaheim Boulevard. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed it is a request to use an existing building for three uses: 1) a banquet hall where they would utilize the warehouse portion of the building for events primarily on weekends, 2) an auto repair business that would also occupy the same space as the banquet facility and 3) under the Anaheim Municipal Code, since there are three units, the two retail units in the front plus the auto repair unit would require a commercial retail center. Staff has numerous concerns with the project, which includes public safety for exiting the banquet hall and therefore, recommends denial of the banquet hall. Regarding the parking constraints on the property it appears the only available parking uses would be inside the building. Staff recommends Commission either approve the auto repair or allow the existing two legal non-conforming retail units to remain on the site. Chairperson Arnold indicates that he understands from staff that the applicant might wish to continue the item. Mr. McCafferty states a Spanish translator is required and Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supervisor, is present to translate for the applicant. He states throughout the day Commission received a series of letters in opposition to the proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Testimony: Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supervisor, Spanish Translator for Mr. Perez, the applicant. Emiliano Perez, 306 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, states he is proud to be a resident and business owner of the City of Anaheim and wishes to continue his business at 306 N. Anaheim Boulevard ~ where he operates a commercial retail center, automotive repair and banquet facility. He submitted a petition of signatures from neighbors in favor of his business. Mr. Perez states he is currently not prepared to respond to present issues and requested a two-week continuance. 05-20-02 Page 44 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Perez if he read the staff report and understands the concerns staff has on the issue. Mr. Perez states he has not had a chance to completely go through the staff report and would need someone to translate it for him however, he realizes there are concerns regarding the property and would like to have more time to address the issues. Public Testimony: Chairperson Arnold extended an opportunity for the public to give testimony under the continued public hearing date or during the current meeting. Joseph Wang, 129 E. Cypress St., Anaheim, CA, representing Orange County Brethren Life Church, states the church is located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street, adjacent to the subject property and they are expressing opposition to the proposal specifically, the unpermitted automotive repair and banquet facility for the following reasons: 1) Safety of people in the building due to inadequate exiting provisions; if a major fire should breakout the place could become a death trap. 2) The proposed business does not have enough parking; therefore a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces has been filed. The current situation has the potential to force customers to occupy available street parking thereby causing chaos and traffic jams. 3) The noise generated by the banquet business is intolerable to the point of disturbing church services even when the windows and doors are close. ~ Mr. Wang states The Orange County Sread of Life Church is strongly against the proposal and recommends Commission deny it. Larry Torgoson, 216 North Claudina, Anaheim, CA, states he is representing his neighborhood block which consists of four homes and they oppose the banquet facility because the building is a corrugated building with metal roofing and when parties are held the music becomes very loud from his bedroom; parking becomes a probfem and during the mornings there seem to be more trash than normal. Michelle Leverman, 319 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, states she finds it her responsibility to be present because of poor upkeep and garish signage and feels it is one of the more visually unappealing businesses in the area. The parking situation is completely unacceptable and what goes on inside the building is appalling. Ms. Leverman states as a business owner Mrs. Gutierrez has a duty to ensure she is operating a safe and legal establishment and that her business does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood but that is clearly not being done. She feels Mrs. Gutierrez has shown a complete disregard for the City's zoning laws, licensing regulations, EPA standards, hazardous waste management, health safety and fire codes and that she has demonstrated she is an irresponsible property owner. Ms. Leverman asks Commission not approve the CUP and exacerbate an already bad situation. Alone Larson, 607 North Lemon, Anaheim, CA, states she does not feel it necessary to reiterate her concerns and supports Mrs. Leverman's position on the matter. Magen Shigo, 510 North Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA, believes businesses have responsibilities to neighborhoods in which they operate. She states the business at 306 North Anaheim Boulevard has failed to meet those responsibilities and neighbors who live a block away on Claudina Street have to tolerate party goers occupying all available street parking, littering the streets and community with beer • bottles, trash and dirty diapers on residents lawns and in the gutters. She asks Commission deny the CUP, which she feels would send a message to all businesses that have a blatant disregard for the laws. 05-20-02 Page 45 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Jerry Austin, Fire Marshall, states the property at 306 North Anaheim Boulevard is very unique due its type of occupancy. There are two issues the Fire Department has with the occupant: 1) life safety, and 2) it was never designed to be used as an assembly building. The State of California classifies buildings alphabetically; for example, an "A" would represent an assembly building. The owners are requesting to take a building that was never designed or built as an assembly building and convert it to an assembly building. Mr. Austin states that might be possible if they would meet all of the requirements that the State requires however, one of the major requirements the building does not presently have is that it does not provide legal exiting; roll-up doors are not legal exits. Mr. Austin affirms he would not want to see the City of Anaheim get into a situation similar to San Palo, Brazil, where someone threw a gallon of gasoline in the doorway of an apartment house basement that was converted into a night club and 165 people died because the doorway was the only available exit. He feels this particular occupant exhibits the same type of design. It is on a zero property line; there are no exit doors on the outside of the walls and the only way in is through the roll-up door. Mr. Austin feels if exits were to be placed in the building there still would not be setbacks that would allow for an exit width and customers would have to exit onto adjacent neighboring properties. He states another problem is that the property is 4,188 square feet and the CUP states that the occupant will have up to 50 occupants in it. It is illegal to have up to 50 occupants when the square footage is 4,188 square feet. Therefore, if the facility meets all the exiting and building standard requirements that the Building Division would impose the Fire Department would review the plans and evaluate the property based on the life safety conditions that would have to be met. Chairperson Arnold states generally Commission does not deny an initial request for a continuance and admonished Code Enforcement to ensure that the property is not being used for the proposed uses in the interim. He expressed concern with health and safety issues and did not want a continuance to allow any detrimental activities. ~ Mr. McCafferty states there is evidence that the applicant has been conducting assembly activities illegally, primarily on the weekends. The Code Enforcement staff patrolling on the weekends is limited and there would be no assurance that they could have someone out there every weekend to monitor the property to see if they are violating the Code. Mr. Austin states he has asked the Anaheim Police Department on the weekends to make sure the facility is not being utilized for an assembly and he has spoken with the owners and made it very clear to them that if they were found using it for that purpose the Fire Department would immediately respond and discontinue it. He feels it is under control at this time. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the flower shop and beauty shop have direct access into the garage. Mr. Austin replied they do. Commissioner Koos states he has a concern about a continuance but understands there is a language barrier issue. He asks if two weeks would provide the applicant with more understanding of the staff report. Chairperson Arnold responded that was the assumption and also acknowledged that the language barrier is a critical factor and it is important to ensure the applicant understands the nature of the discussion. Commissioner Koos concurs that it is very important the applicant understands the staff report before the next public hearing but that he has concerns of what happens in the interim. Maria Guadalupe Gutierrez, 306 N. Anaheim, CA, states the applicants are her parents and they are trying very hard to fix the problems, including taking out a loan if necessary. They are thinking of doing • the building all over again and not doing the auto repair shop. She states there is another hall across the street and there are people immediately in the rear of them who do not have a problem with their property. 05-20-02 Page 46 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnofd advised it is critical to talk to staff and understand the staff report regarding concerns and limitations of the property, as well as legal requirements with respect to the fire and building code. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify that although the applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a retail center and if it were not granted would owners still have rights for operating a beauty salon and flower business as a permitted use. Mr. McCafferty clarified even though the parking is deficient, because those are legal non-conforming units, they would be able to retain the two tenant spaces, regardless of what Commission does today. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the applicant has an unusual building and it has grown in different direetions for uses. Some uses fit, such as the hair salon and flower shop, but others present more challenges which is the focus at this point. He suggests the owner might want to consider the direction they wish to take since they have pursued all four different directions and now just focus on a couple. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify since the other businesses are operating legally if they were granted a continuance would the applicant be permitted to display merchandise out front and sell it. Mr. McCafferty clarified it is absolutely not legal because they are at a zero lot line and that is why there is a condition that states they cannot have any special events. 1t cannot go within the public right of way and therefore staff could not permit special events. If there were a retail use that required more parking than standard retail types of uses, greater than 5.5 spaces per 1,000, it would require a variance. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if they had access to the back lot and if parking was permitted. Mr. McCafferty believes the circumference of the building is at zero lot line and the church owns the back property. • Chairperson Arnold states everyone's comments have been heard and taken into consideration and welcomes everyone to come back when they rehear the proposal. Mr. McCafferty announced an additional speaker who arrived after the initial introduction. Dick Beranian, 128 W. Sycamore St., agent for Bill Teramina, owners and operators of Clean City, states they are the adjacent property owners to the subject property and they are in direct opposition of it because of safety concerns, fire conditions, parking and the wastewater and oil going into the street. He states if the applicant brought the building up to current day standards, they may find it is very expensive and would not pencil out. They request Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit. • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: 6 people spoke in opposition to the sub}ect request and a letter in opposition was received at the meeting; 5 letters and/or e-mails in opposition were received prior to the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to allow additional time to prepare for the meeting and to have an opportunity to review and understand the staff report. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (4:15-4:45) ~ 05-20-02 Page 47 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 11b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00074 June 3, 2002 11c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16333 IREADVERTISEDI OWNER: Arthur E. Stahovich, 805 South Ramblewood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Walter Bowman Real Estate, Attn: Walter Bowman, 9922 Walker Street, # A, Cypress, CA 90630 LOCATION: 3254 West Oranqe Avenue. Property is approximately 0.63 acres* having a frontage of 150 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue located 809 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue. *Originally advertised as 1.21 acres. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00074 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16333 - To establish a 1-lot, 11-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SR1082CW. DOC ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff in order to properly advertise the request. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 05-20-02 Page 48 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00073 (READVERTISEDI 12c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04500 12d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253 OWNER: East Anaheim Christian Church, 2216 East South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Newport Hills Inc., 2015 Southwest Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2216-2200 East South Street. Property is approximately 2.25 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Priscilla Street. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00073 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RS- 7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04500 - Request waivers of a} required dedication and improvements, b) required lot frontage on a public or private street and c) required lot width to construct three single-family homes. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253 -To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit detached single-family residentiaf subdivision. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to June 3, 2002 SR1083BCW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to submit revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 05-20-02 Page 49 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00004 OWNER: Mohammad Minaie, 3455 Condor Ridge Road, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 4840 East Copa De Oro Drive. Property is approximately 1.38 acres having frontages of 287 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road and 359 feet on the south side of Copa De Oro Drive located 1,358 feet west of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. Request to remove five (5) specimen trees (3 Eucalyptus and 2 Pepper) in order to construct one single-family residence. Approved Approved SR8296K6. DOC j FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. _j CONCERN: A letter with concerns pertaining to the subject request was received from Copa De Oro Community Association. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00004 to remove five (5) specimen ~ trees (3 Eucalyptus trees and 2 Pepper trees) in order to construct one single-family residence subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 20, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:46-4:47) ~ 05-20-02 Page 50 MAY 20, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~ ~ ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:48 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Resp tfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 05-20-02 Page 51