The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/06/03CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2002 • Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERSON: TONY ARNOL,D COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, STEPHEN BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN, JOHN KOOS, JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Jerry Austin, Fire Marshal Ted White, Associate Planner Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer Jalai Taher, Principal Traffic Engineer Elly Fernandes, Senior Secretary Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 11:00 am on Friday, May 31, 2002, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, May 9, 2002. CALL TO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW • RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC060302.DOC planningcommission@anaheim.net JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-D 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. Each of the Consent Calendar items was acted upon separately due to Commission discussion and input on each item. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 b) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04440 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04507) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Mark Kettler, 6 East Yale Loop, Irvine, CA 92604, requests a retroactive extension of time for a previously approved conversion of carports in • an apartment complex. Property is approximately 1125 and 1127 West Diamond Street. Concurred with staff Denied retroactive extension of time (Vote: 7-0) SR8318NA.DOC Chairperson Arnold, introduced Item No. 1-A as Variance No. 2001-04440, 1125 and 1127 West Diamond Street, a request for a retroactive extension of time for a previously approved conversion of carports in an apartment complex. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial of the extension of time, as indicated in paragraph 14 that the garages in question have been completely modified and on that basis and the basis of not complying to conditions of approval, staff recommends denial. However, should Commission choose to approve the request, staff recommends an amendment to the staff report in paragraph 14b, that the expiration date on the extension of time would be October 2, 2002. Applicant's Testimony: Mark Kettler, 6 East Yale Loop, Irvine, CA, the property owner since 1980 (22 years) states he bought the property in very poor condition and has continued improvements for 22 years. He has 10-year tenants and tries to keep his rent reasonable because the tenants are low-income people. There are carports between duplexes that are all under the same roofline which have never had garage doors and for that reason he believes it is just an attraction for crime because they cannot be closed. He hired a contractor who informed him that he did not need a permit and performed the work erroneously, and for that he takes total blame. He states since then they received the variance and upon reading the variance he was aware that he had to do more work because the variance states that they could not have a laundry however, the laundry has been part of the building since it was built. He feels since four of the tenants have always had washers and dryers it is difficult to go to them now and inform them that they are no longer permitted. Mr. Kettler states when he puts himself in the City shoes the biggest issue is parking • and space however, the units were built such that it is close to impossible to swing and get into the carports. For the 22 years he has owned the property no one has ever parked in the carports. He feels it is not going to happen and he cannot make them do it. The variance states, "no storage" but there is no 06-03-02 Page 2 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • other place to store items. Therefore, people store items in their carports and he feels they wi!! do so whether there are garage doors or not. Mr. Kettler states the reason he did not deal with it faster is because his daughter became ill in January 2002, and she has not walked since. It has been a really traumatic time for him and he has not been able to deal with it the way he should have and that is why he is asking for an extension. His new contractor, Gene Secrest Construction, agrees to take over and try to find someway to make things happen, either by converting them into living spaces or whatever is possible. He assures he has made it very clear to his tenants that the carport/garage area is not a living space and they are not permitted to use it as such and he feels they are complying because he has warned them that it would be grounds for eviction. However, he feels he must keep the laundry because he finds it disturbing to go to his tenants after 10 years and tell them that they can no longer have the laundry. Therefore he requests an extension to resolve the issues. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the garage is indicated on the plans as 16 feet in length plus the laundry. Mr. Kettler responded it is 24 feet and without the laundry it is 20 feet. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he is stating he wants the garage and the laundry. Mr. Kettler responded yes. Commissioner Bristol states it is possible that he cannot have either because he cannot put a car in a 16- foot area. • Mr. Kettler concurred and states the tenants do not park in the garage anyway because it is impossible to make the swing in order to pull into the garage. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he is stating that people have not been using the space as a living area, because the staff report and Code Enforcement indicate people are using it as a habitable area. Mr. Kettler responded they are not living there and he does not allow it but they do have personal items stored there. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked how many people are living in each one. Commissioner Bostwick states the Code Enforcement report states there are carpeting, tables, file cabinets and bookshelves. He affirms a carpeted garage does not sound as though it is just storage but as though people are using it as part of their living space. Mr. Kettler responded he is certain fhey are going in there but he is unaware whether they are sleeping, sitting and spending time in there but there are things stored in there. He explains the units are very small, there are not any other storage spaces and he feels sorry for the tenants because although it may be easy for everyone to say that they could go and rent a storage facility, they are very poor people. Commissioner Bristol suggests based on what Commission has seen, the action taken place by the Zoning Administrator and the City Council, the Conditional Use Permit not being granted for the purpose being used and the fact that the applicant wants a laundry however, the schematic presented would not permit a garage enclosure and the remaining length of the garage, he recommends denial of the CUP. • Commissioner Boydstun recalls the staff report indicates tenants are parking in front of the garage doors and she asked if they could park there how is it impossible to get into the garage. 06-03-02 Page 3 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Mr. Kettler responded the units are directly across from each other and there is not room enough in order to swing-out and turn into the garage and even without the garage doors there is not enough room. Commissioner Boydstun asked how much distance is there between the building. Mr. Kettler responded approximately 20 feet, if even that much. He states he had a City inspector that rented from him years ago and even he did not park in the garage. Mr. Kettler states he agrees that they need to start over on this and that is why he hired a new contractor who brings with him several innovative ideas. Commissioner Bristol states with all due respect he agrees with him, they must start all over again because the action that has been done before is the incorrect action and what is currently being presented is not going to work. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the plans indicate each unit is one bedroom and in his most recent visit he found four vehicles in between the buildings and six in the back of the buildings, including one which was damaged in a car accident for a total of ten vehicles per space. He realizes it is possible if there are 12 adults living there but that would suggest high occupancy. He is not sure what the count is on the number of individuals, but feels the number of vehicles is enormous to try to squeeze into such a small space. He asked if it is the intent to use the garage for space and to provide laundry space and if the doors between the garages and bedrooms are a matter of convenience. Mr. Kettler responded that is the purpose and also to stay out of the weather to get to the laundry. • Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify what the two back unit tenants did in regards to laundry and if they had laundry inside their units. Mr. Kettler responded they do not have laundry inside their units and upon renting they were informed they would not have access to a laundry on the property. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the laundries could be moved to the back outside the garages so that they would have a full 20 feet. Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify if she is referring to the outdoor area behind the garages or inside the garages. He states outside the requirements are 20 by 20 interior dimension. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there is room for the laundry to be installed outside of the interior dimension in the back with an enclosure. Mr. McCafferty feels there is not any room inside the converted carports. Commissioner Boydstun clarified outside the back of the building. Mr. McCafferty states the plan would have to be reviewed to determine if they are at a zero setback. Commissioner Boydstun reiterates if there is truly a 20-foot driveway she could not understand why they could not get into the garages if they were deep enough. Commissioner Vanderbilt responded that from what he saw it looks very difficult. Commissioner Boydstun feels they should not be allowed to park where they are currently parking. • Commissioner Vanderbilt concurs due to it being directly in the driveway. He states they have the entire width of the street to back out and make a 90-degree turn, but once they are in the corridor befinreen the two buildings he would have to concur with the owner that there is not room to swing-out and turn into the 06-03-02 Page 4 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • garage. He feels there was probably never a time the carports were used other than storage unless a tenant drove a compact vehicle. Commissioner Bristol concluded what the applicant said is true that they never used the carports and probably will not use the garages and wished to clarify why garages were being required. He asserts it is being done to have habitable space, which is something that the applicant said never happens. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City ~lanning Commission does hereby deny the request for one, six (6) month retroactive extension of time based on the following: (i) That the property has not been properly maintained and the petitioner has failed to provide evidence that an effort has been made to comply with conditions of approval. Moreover, the evidence presented in this staff report indicates that additions have been identified since the original public hearing that deviate from current code requirements and are also prohibited by the conditions of approval. (ii) That changed circumstances are present which contradict the facts used to support the findings for the variance. The stipulations made during the original public hearings indicated that demising walls would not be added within the garages, and that the garages would not be • used as living space. Under those stipulations the City could make the finding that the same number of parking spaces would be provided on-site as existed before the conversion, and that the variance would not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets. Under the current circumstances and the new information provided by Code Enforcement, it is possible that the City would not have made those findings. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION: 13 minutes (1:37-1:50) • 06-03-02 Page 5 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) b) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NEW APPLICATION AND POLICY PERTAINING TO PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY REQUESTS: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Continued from the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Concurred with staff Approved new application and policy (with modifications made by staff at the meeting) (Vote: 7-0) SR8322GM.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 1-B as a request for approval of a new application and policy pertaining to requests for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed it is a request by staff to approve both a new application for a new Public Convenience or Necessity request as well as a policy to guide Planning Commission decision making for future alcohol requests. Based on the input received by staff from the Commission, staff recommends additional changes to the application: • In the first paragraph, the second to the last line should read, "Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) is a discretionary action decided by the Planning Commission or City Council only after reviewing the location, need and surrounding land uses." The remainder of the paragraph should be eliminated. • In the second paragraph, relocate the last sentence which states, "Your signature on this document will verify that you have read and understand the filing requirements explained below." beneath the • sentence which states, "the burden of proof to determine Public Convenience or Necessity is upon the Petitioner." Staff believes in that way the applicants will realize that by signing the petition they fully understand what the application process is and what is required. He affirms the statement would be in bold writing. • In the sixth paragraph, the third sentence which states, "Typical conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to the limitation in the hours of operation, percentage of alcohol sales, and signage." Following the verbiage insert signage "relating to alcoholic beverages". Chairperson Arnold opened the floor for public testimony and noted there was no one available to speak on Item 1-B. He states the application and the set of policy guidelines are very helpful and respond to a number of concerns Commission has seen going through the process. He thanked staff for their attentiveness and diligence in finalizing the policy. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the new application and policy pertaining to requests for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (with modifications made by staff at the meeting). DISCUSSION: 2 minutes (1:51-1:53) r ~ ~_J 06-03-02 Page 6 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00015 - REQUEST TO Determined to be in DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL conformance with the PLAN: Orange County Department of Education, Attn: Nina Young, Anaheim General Plan along 200 Kalmus Drive, P. O. Box 9050, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-9050, with staff's recommendations. requests to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of real property for the expansion of Horace Mann Elementary School. The property is located at 560, 580 and 600 West La Palma Avenue. (Vote: 7-0) SR1117TW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 1-C as General Plan Conformity No. 2002-00015, located at 560, 580 and 600 West La Palma Avenue, a request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of real property for the expansion of Horace Mann Elementary School. Ted White, Associate Planner, informed the request conforms to the Anaheim General Plan and that the Orange County Department of Education submitted plans for Commission's observation. He states Ms. Young, a member of the Orange County Department of Education, is available to answer questions. Chairperson Arnold states the City Attorney's Office advised that one of the aspects of Section 21151.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code is that the Planning Commission, within its jurisdiction, provide its input and guidance on the basis of land use circulation, etc. Therefore the purpose of hearing the request beyond staff s recommendation is to identify the particular concerns with respect to circulation. • Applicant's Testimony: Nina Young, Director of Business Services of Orange County Department of Education, 560, 580 and 600 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated she was present to answer questions with regards to circulation. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if traffic would come off La Palma Avenue. Ms. Young responded traffic comes off !.a Palma Avenue and Citron Street and the Anaheim City School District came before the Planning Commission last May 2001, with regards to the church property for the early childhood with respect to the one red building currently existing on the property. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify when traffic exits on La Palma Avenue would a"right turn only" sign be available so as not to conflict with the traffic from the shopping center. Ms. Young responded currently it is not determined as "right turn only" but it is under consideration and the architect is scheduled to meet with Traffic Control. Commissioner Boydstun admonished that the letter approving the request include Commission's recommendation of a right hand turn due to conflicting traffic coming from the market and the stores west of Horace Mann Elementary School. She feels it is a fabulous idea and will get traffic out of the tract from behind the school. Commissioner Bostwick states the City Engineering Department wishes to merge the three parcels into one parcel and admonishes that the school should be aware that Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue is the City of Anaheim's critical intersection and with respect to the setbacks would possibly be • widened. Ms. Young responded the school is aware of that. 06-03-02 Page 7 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun clarified that it would mean merging the three lots with the Horace Mann property. Ms. Young responded, correct. Chairperson Arnold clarified that Commissioner Boydstun suggests that the school work with the Traffic Department trusting them to be the experts on the precise needs. Commissioner Boydstun responded, correct. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the Orange County Department of Education's and Anaheim City Schooi District's proposal to acquire real property located at 560, 580 and 600 West La Palma Avenue for the proposed expansion of Horace Mann Elementary School is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Further, subject to the Commission's action determining this request to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan, that this report serve to acknowledge receipt of notice and investigation of OCDOE's and ACSD's request to acquire real property for the expansion of Horace Mann Elementary school, pursuant to Section 21151.2 of the Public Resources Code. Planning Commission and staff recommendations include the applicant meeting with the City's Traffic Engineer regarding traffic circulation, including a possibfe "right-tum only" exit onto La Palma Avenue, and legally merging the three parcels into the existing Mann Elementary School site. Staff also requested that the applicant consider setback and dedication issues involved with critical intersection widening at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights, and indicated that General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by June 19, 2002, as the application was submitted on May 7, 2002 for the subject request.) DISCUSSION: 5 minutes (1:54-1:59) • 06-03-02 Page 8 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of May 20, 2002. (Motion) June 17, 2002 (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 7-0) ~ • 06-03-02 Page 9 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 7 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2716 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04542) OWNER: 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). Request to expand the existing office and showroom floor areas and permit roof-mounted equipment for an existing automotive dealership facility. Continued from the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-78 Concurred with staff Approved amendment SR8312KB.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2716, 8375 East La Palma Avenue - Weir Canyon Acura, a request to expand the existing office and showroom floor areas and permit roof-mounted equipment for an existing automotive dealership facility. It was readvertised to deal with the roof-mounted equipment issue. Commissioner Bristol stated he was absent from the May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meeting but listened to the tape for Item No. 2. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval as conditioned in the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jon L. Veregge, Director of Architecture - Alexander Development, 2766 Pomona Boulevard, Pomona, CA, representing Weir Canyon Acura, states concerns with an item on the conditions which he had the understanding was going to be recrafted differently than what appeared in the staff recommendations; Item No. 18, page 8, the verbiage states, "including the washing of vehicles" and related to page 7, Condition No. 9, he was under the impression the statement was actually added to state, "any items such as washing of the vehicles" and as long as they had the ability to justify it through the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) the statement "including of washing of vehicles" on Item No. 18, could be eliminated. Chairperson Arnold concurred recalling the condition stated, "including the washing of vehicles to fhe extent not approved under the WQMP". Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 06-03-02 Page 10 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • DURING THE ACTION. Commissioner Bostwick states concerns with Condition No. 22, "that no display or inventory of vehicles shall be permitted within the required landscape setback areas", and feels due to the fact that it is such a deep property with the Edison easement running in front of it and Commission has watched Caliber Motors stick their cars out on the grass and permitted the Range Rover dealer to build rocks to park Range Rovers and although the Honda Store does not really work that way Acura has such a long setback he asserts Commission could not justify not permitting the activity and asks if there is anyway Commission could craft a means to allow Acura, during a sale or under a sale permit, etc., to display their vehicles in the landscape setback areas as well. Mr. McCafferty responded with regard to other dealerships mentioned, Caliber actually had a condition that prohibited them from encroaching with their display spaces and he is not certain what inhibitions were placed on Land Rover but if Commission chooses to permit such activity, the encroachment is not a permitted encroachment, according to Code, and could not be acted on in the present meeting. Mr. Veregge states the area, which is common with the landscape setback, is a Southern California Edison (SCE) easement common with the City and they would not allow anything underneath it because of the high voltage. ~ FULLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMIS510N ACTION. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2716 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04542) to expand the existing office and showroom floor areas and permit roof-mounted equipment for the existing Acura automotive dealership. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC85-222 and PC86-68 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 18 was modified at today's meeting): That no public address system or any other communication system that is audible off- site shall be permitted. 2. That customer parking spaces shall be striped and clearly marked for "customer parking only". Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. 3. That all driveways shall be maintained to accommodate ten (10} foot radius curb returns as required by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 4. That all deliveries shall take place on-site and not in the public right-of-way. • 5. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 06-03-02 Page 11 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6. That existing and any proposed parking area li htin fixtures shall be down-li hted 9 9 9 with a maximum height of 20 feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from and shielded from adjacent property lines. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 7. That any roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.062.032 pertaining to the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Said equipment shall be painted and maintained to match the roof and/or building parapet, to reduce visibility from a distance. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 8. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 9. That the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from stormwater runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 10. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance ~rrith approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be • designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas, where visible to the public, sha11 be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 11. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 12. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 13. That the trash enclosure shall be roofed to prevent the entry of storm water. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 14. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 15. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits on file for Variance No. 2001-04469. Any additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a public hearing item. • 16. That no sign shall be lighted between the hours of midnight and 6:30 a.m. 06-03-02 Page 12 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 17. That on-site maintenance of automobiles or trucks shall only be permitted within the enclosed service yard area. No vehicle service shall be performed within the display area adjacent and visible to La Palma Avenue. 18. That the storage or overnight parking of vehicles (other than display vehicles), vehicle parts, or business-related materials and all work on vehicles (including the washing of vehicles to the extent not approved by the WQMP) shall be confined entirely to the interior of the service buildings and the service yard area. Absolutely no vehicular body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicles, vehicle parts or materials shall be allowed outside the service area. 19. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval and on plans submitted for building permits. 20. That there shall be no special advertising, banners, flags, pennants, attached to vehicles, tents, sales events or other promotional activities unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained to authorize said displays; and, that there shall be no tethered balloons, inflatables, rooftop advertising devices or any other displays permitted above the height of the building or oriented towards the freeway. 21. That any proposed vending machines shall be located so as not to be visible to the public rights-of-way. • 22. That no display or inventory of vehicles shall be permitted within the required landscape setback areas. 23. That trees shall not be unreasonably trimmed for the purpose of increased visibility of this auto dealership. 24. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5(Canyon Honda) and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Canyon Acura), and as conditioned herein. 25. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall show one (1) tree for every twenty (20) feet of street frontage along La Palma Avenue. All trees shall be minimum 24-inch box in size. Said trees shall be installed within 60 days of plan approval. 26. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19 and 25, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 28. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only • to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 06-03-02 Page 13 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (Commissioner Bristol indicated he listened to the tape for the May 20, 2002 meeting since he was absent.) VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:00-2:05) • • 06-03-02 Page 14 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04537 3c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00003 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Russell D. Miller, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Anaheim Hilis Racquet Club, Attn: Russell Miller and William Wilkens, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 415 South Anaheim Hills Road. Property is approximatefy 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 finrelve (12). SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00003 - Request for retroactive approval for the illegal removal of seven (7) specimen (Eucalyptus) trees. • Continued from the April 22, and May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-79 Approved Granted, in part Approved, in part SR8306KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04537 (Readvertised), 415 South Anaheim Hills Road - Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, a request to expand an existing tennis club by modifying previously-approved exhibits (which included accessory food/beverage and alcohol sales) to construct three (3) additional tennis courts for a total of twelve (12) and for retroactive approval for the illegal removal of seven (7) specimen (Eucalyptus) trees. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informs staff recommends approval of the expanded tennis courts and the specimen tree removal, in part, and as conditioned in the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: ~ Russell Miller, 415 S. Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills, CA, owner of the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, states since the meeting of May 20, 2002, they had a meeting with the neighbors and had approximately 15 to 20 attendees, including Kevin Bass, Associate Planner. They reviewed several of the issues and came to an agreement on how they could proceed to finish the cfub to make it more amenable for both the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club and the neighbors to coincide. He presented plans to the Commission and states the plans include an extensive detailed map from the landscape architect who has put in all the trees that were requested from the City and also an extensive design of the tennis courts to result in an extremely accurate map. He asserts he could not believe it himself when he measured it; it was exactly the same distance. He feels certain the courts fit exactly as shown on the map. He states they met with Bill Small, the Code Enforcement Officer, and made him aware of what they were doing and he seemed amenable to the prospects of the project. 06-03-02 Page 15 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Miller states the reason they need additional courts is because Anaheim Hills has grown 10 times since the original facility was built 30 years ago and Anaheim Hills Racquet Club has less courts than when they originally started which results in the need to finish the project at the northern end. He feels it also conforms to the 25-foot distance from the road. Wil Wilkins, 1090 S. Rimwood Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated he was present to answer any questions. Public Testimony: Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17578, Anaheim, CA, representing the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition (AHCC), acknowledged submitting a summary of the meeting with the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club and a letter from the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition and noted there had not been any changes. She states there was one thing that Mr. Miller stated that "the original size of the tennis club was 12 courts". She feels he is not responding to a growth in the area, he is responding to a problem that happened prior to his ownership because the courts were built in a configuration that was least impacting on the neighborhood. Subsequent to their building and their Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the land which had the very best location of courts was sold and four courts were lost. Ms Grewal concurs it is a worthy pursuit to try and make the club into a viable club, but feels it should not be done at the expense of the neighborhood. Ms. Grewai suggests if Commission considers allowing two courts, placement of the construction should be tailor made to give the minimum impact on the neighbors that are most affected. She asserts every consideration should be given to the neighbors and they are available to speak on their behalf. Lyle Zeran, 236 La Paz Street, Anaheim Hills, CA, states he attended the first Planning Commission and Anaheim Hills Racquet Club meeting being discussed. He feels the meeting went well and both sides had an opportunity to give input and arrived at some agreements. His concerns are that the existing • landscape and irrigation survey plan is not complete as submitted because it does not reflect some of the concerns voiced by those in attendance of the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club meeting. He states for example, the new driveway being proposed faces his property and they had talked about planting vines which would include irrigation, there was mention of shrubs and trees and the scrim along the chain linked fence on the west side of the property which are all absent from the survey. Another concern he has is the speed of the traffic on the service road is still fast, there has been one death and he feels there are going to be other injuries or deaths. He suggests that needs to be addressed by the Commission. Richard S. Rockwell, 248 La Paz Street, Anaheim, CA, states Mr. Zeran touched the points he wished to make, however his concern is a deceleration lane off of Anaheim Hills Road. He confesses he did not do anything scientific about it but has been watching the traffic since he last attended the Planning Commission meeting and determined drivers speed up the hill at least 50 to 55 mph. Mr. Rockwell states he understands the Department of Transportation has blessed it as is but he feels it is going to be a dangerous condition. He reverberated Mr. Zeran's concerns regarding the landscape plan and states the area to the west of the courts is dying out whereas before it was shrubbery and ground cover, so he concurs there has to be sprinklers installed there. He states that was one of the main portions.of the conversation they had when they met with the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club and it appeared they were willing to cooperate and he just cannot visualize another plan. He agrees there should not be anymore than two courts allowed and suggests if Commission allows the courts, once the landscape plan is approved, to wait to allow the use of the new courts until they are in and operable; build the courts, put the landscaping in, get it all done and buy it off before anyone can use the courts. He feels that is the best way to get it done and probably the fastest way. Joan Haws, 6022 Prado Circle, Anaheim, CA, states Mr. Miller was granted the CUP on the condition that the two new courts would not affect the existing Eucalyptus trees and then he cut down seven. Therefore • she wonders if the Eucalyptus trees would be the only trees that would be protected on the property in the future since they were the only trees mentioned in the staff report. She states concern about the California Walnut (No. 64, on the landscape map) which has already been pruned substantially and still overhangs the new court being installed and the fencing would be 11 foot high. She asks if just two 06-03-02 Page 16 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • additional courts are approved would they be repositioned farther from the tree and would the second condition listed on page 11 of the Planning Commission staff report apply to the California Walnut tree. She requests a tree protection zone be established during construction as a temporary fencing around the tree. She states 28 finrigs in 36-inch boxes do not seem like much compared to 100-foot Eucalyptus trees that have 6-foot trunks and asserts the subject property has a long tradition of disregarding City Codes. Pat Goodman, 6020 E. La Paz Way, Anaheim, CA, asked if Commission received the letter of her input, which was submitted on May 28, 2002 with photographs. She states she specifically walked the property with her "Stanley Power Tool" and Mrs. Haws took photos. Ms. Goodman states although she reported they were approximate measurements because she could be off a little bit, she would be willing to submit her measurements. She directed Commission's attention to Photo No. 3 where the plans show the lots that go up and then down with the western edge right on the edge of the road and states the applicanYs maps are misleading. The yellow lines on the photos are the ones that were drawn by the applicant and she and Mrs. Haws took photographs demonstrating most of the yellow lines and how they would impact some of the trees; some trees would be 1 foot 4 inches approximately from its trunk. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Miller states they measured the footage as accurately as they could. He states ten years ago the previous owner had a similar plan made up for the tennis courts that fit exactly the same measurements. They made sure that they are not impacting surrounding properties and the walnut tree stays. Even though it is not a protected tree they want it to stay because they want it to look good in that area. So the walnut tree remaining is not an issue. Commissioner Koos called Mrs. Grewal to the stand and states he really did not wish to finger her as ~ somewhat of a spokesperson and asked if she had read the new staff report. Ms. Grewal responded yes. Commissioner Koos asked if she saw anything glaring in staff's recommendation for approval that stands out that she wanted to take issue with or even any of her neighbors, perhaps. He states he did not hear specifics to the staff conditions of approval coming from the neighborhood this time aside from the three courts because the ratio is okay. Ms. Grewal responded the input that was given expresses the neighborhood concerns and although it was not spelled out on the landscape report at the neighborhood meeting, people brought up suggestions of ground cover, planting small shrubs and a lot more than is shown on the landscape plan. She states the only thing she did not hear spelled out from the neighbors who spoke was the fact that the measurements were not only misleading some of them were downright wrong and they were wrong not by a few inches but by several feet. However, if there is only two courts then the entire issue would be revisited because the courts would have to be measured off again. Commissioner Bostwick states Condition No. 7 indicates the applicants are going to put up a scrim along the chain linked fence and they are going to put in the irrigation system in order to take care of the vines that they are going to plant on the wall. However, he finds it rather interesting that the neighbors have not taken care of their backyards if they are so worried about the neighborhood look and view. He states there are chain linked fences falling down, wood fences in disrepair and the neighbors have not put up blocked walls or put up any kind of shrubbery to block anything. Therefore the neighborhood and the required improvements do not match. He feels it has fallen on the applicants to make improvements rather than the neighbors taking care of their own backyards. Ms. Grewal responded they found at the meeting that the neighbors have tried to install things at their • fence but the County comes by and kills it. Commissioner Bostwick states they could plant it on the inside of their fence, which the county cannot kill and vines could be planted. He illustrates that he has them on his walls in his backyard to grow up and 06-03-02 Page 17 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • cover the wall and make it look green and pretty. He understands that everyone wants the trees and would like to preserve them but sometimes it amazes him that the demands for improvements do not match up with the area they would go in. He feels the applicants are adding a lot of extra things to the property and they have made tremendous improvements on the courts and he believes they are going to try to bring the project up to an up-quality development. He clarifies Condition No. 15 states, "prior to commencement of activity authorized by this resolution, or within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with". So that means Condition No. 7 has to be done and they cannot start using the courts until they have all of the landscaping. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if the initial permit is issued but the specimen tree removal permit is not what it would mean for the applicant. Mr. McCafferty responded the odd situation is that obviously the trees are already gone so if Commission did not approve the specimen tree removal permit the Municipal Code has other remedies containing that particular section of the Code that could be pursued by the City with regard to fines, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick feels there are plenty conditions to get the property up and looking good however, he is not sure if there is anyway to deal with the traffic unless the applicant would put in speed bumps on the driveway, but is not certain whether that could be a condition or not. Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify if he is referring to the drive access that is off of La Paz Street going towards the clubhouse. ~ Commissioner Bostwick responded, right. Mr. McCafferty referred to the Traffic & Transportation Engineer to explain if it would be appropriate to put speed bumps in a driveway that accesses the clubhouse off of La Paz Way, which is a private drive but also an easement for access to the flood control channel. Damien Delany, Community Development Senior Project Manager, states they could consider it.... Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, interjected that it needs to be phrased as a condition that the applicant would consult with Traffic & Transportation Engineering in order to determine the feasibility of such actions because those are matters that are really within the City Engineers jurisdiction. Therefore, it is necessary to be certain that the Planning Commission does not direct matters outside of its jurisdiction. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the jurisdiction law goes for private roads as well. Ms. Mann responded the jurisdiction law goes for private roads if the reference is to access and anything that may have impact on other roadways and/or access to a flood control channel that it may involve, but if it is completely a private matter then that would not be applicable. Commissioner Bristol states it is common knowledge that he loves speed bumps a~d states it might be a perfect opportunity for the applicant not to install additional landscaping and the traffic could continue approximately three areas down the road. As drivers travel farther down the road there would not be any speed bumps but rather a circular area landscaped with trees, etc., and they would have to slow down and go around in order to enter and depart. That would inhibit a driver from going very fast for any length of time in either direction. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it would be a median type landscaping. ~ Commissioner Bristol clarified yes, right in the middle of the street as in Sacramento and other cities. He feels that might be an alternative versus speed bumps and it would be pretty. 06-03-02 Page 18 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick states that he considered permitting 12 courts but if the measurements are not accurate and the courts impact other trees it would create a problem and he is not certain how Commission would work around that. Commissioner Bristol states that it appears from the arborisYs information received over the weekend that they got too close to the other trees and that may have caused a deadly disease to the other trees. He feels the new courts are going to be right in their work canopy. Commissioner Koos concurs with staff's recommendation with respect to the 11 courts and leaving the option open that the applicant could apply for a third court in the future. He suggests they could configure it to add just two but leave room for a third to see how it goes. He asserts there has been a track record from the applicant of a shoddy development to a certain extent with the removal of the trees and he would like to see how it impacts the neighborhood and property with the two courts before granting three. Commissioner Boydstun feels if the applicant could install the two courts and could lay it out where there is room for three and if they find their measurements are off they would not have killed the trees, but if the measurements are accurate they could consider the third court. Commissioner Eastman concurs and states concern with the applicant's disregard for the trees by removing them without a permit to do so. She feels they need to prove that they will abide by the CUP and the conditions placed on it because it does not do a lot of good to place conditions if the applicant negates their existence. Chairperson Arnold asserted he would vote against the project because after reading the last hearing on the matter he was really concerned about the history of the activity on the project. He concurs with Commissioner Eastman on their disregard for the trees, proper processes, health of the trees, etc., and • also the way in which the project has come to them in a piecemeal fashion. He states it appears the applicant has been trying to "push the envelope" and get a little more each time. He is pleased to see that there will be numerous trees planted and extensive landscaping, etc., however, he keeps returning to his initial inclination, which is that he just simply does not trust the applicant. He feels it is too critical and too important of an area in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone and chooses not to vote for it. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurs stating it is not so much an issue of trust but a lot of unknowns; questions that cannot be presently answered. He states his concerns regard traffic and asked if it is possible just to vote with regard to the tree removal permit as an indication of support for the system and not to suggest that Commission would grant the permit after the fact. He expressed appreciation that the applicant met with the residents and worked very closely with them to demonstrate his efforts and feels that cooperation is a good sign. He states his vote is probably more of a protest vote rather than one that will realfy prevent the applicant from moving forward. DURING THE ACTION. Commissioner Koos referred to staff and Commissioner Boydstun and asked if they felt the existing exhibits submitted by the applicant, which indicates three courts should be returned with plans for the landscape. Commissioner Boydstun responded the applicant should come back with as a Reports and Recommendations Item in order for Commission to see how they plan to design the two courts. • 06-03-02 Page 19 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify with Commissioner Koos if his concern is that he wants to review the specific location of the courts. Commissioner Koos responded the courts, landscape plan and anything regarding traffic. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition/concerns (one represented the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition), and 4 letters were received prior to today's meeting in opposition/concerns (one represented the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition) of the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 2 letters were received prior to today's meeting in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04537 to expand an existing tennis club by modifying previously-approved exhibits to construct finro (2) additional tennis courts for a total of eleven (11) and to establish a new driveway approach on Anaheim Hills Road. VOTE ON CUP: 5-2 (Commissioner Arnoid and Vanderbilt voted no) Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC73-168 and PC83-124 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Two additional conditions of approval were added at today's meeting): • That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. 2. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Further, any landscaped areas in the parking area shall be protected with 6-inch high, concrete curbs. 3. That the existing 30-foot high light standards shall be directed downward to protect the residential integrity of the area to the west. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division approval. No additional lighting shall be added for the two most northerly tennis courts. 4. That the property owner shall submit revised maintenance and indemnity agreements pertaining to the existing and proposed specimen trees on the property to the City Attorney's Office for approval and shall record said agreements with the Orange County Recorder's office prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution. That the facility shall not remain open beyond 10:00 p.m., daily. • That there shall be no sale or serving of alcoholic beverages except to customers engaged in the tennis club activities and that the recreational activities and service of alcoholic beverages shall cease at 10:00 p.m. That the developer shall install a green scrim material (matching the scrim material used for the tennis courts) on the existing chain link fence and vines planted on 3- 06-03-02 Page 20 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • foot centers on the east side of the flood control channel for the entire length of the property (south of La Paz Way); and dense bushy-type trees shall be planted on maximum 20-foot centers for a minimum length of two hundred feet, with one hundred feet of screening placed on either side of the driveway's centerline to provide additional screening for the existing residences to the west of the tennis club. Further, an irrigation system shall be installed for the new landscape areas. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division approval. Said fencing and landscaping shall thereupon be properly maintained in conformance with approved plans. 8. That the legal property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1406 (to establish a private tennis club with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages) and 2466 (to expand an existing tennis club with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages) to the Zoning Division. 9. That the expansion is limited to finro (2) additional tennis courts as shown on Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, for a total of eleven (11) tennis courts for this facility. Furthermore, no additional lighting shall be permitted for these two new courts. 10. That no outdoor vending machines visible off-site shall be permitted. 11. That no outdoor pay phones shall be permitted on the premises. 12. That the "scrim" used for the tennis courts and other fencing shall be continuously maintained in "like-new" condition. ~ 13. That the existing driveway on La Paz Way shall be retained to allow left-turn movements to and from the property. 14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and as conditioned herein except that the number of parking spaces shall be limited to the fifty-nine (59) existing spaces. 15. That prior to commencement of activity authorized by this resolution, or within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to commencement of activity authorized by this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 1 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regutations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 18. That the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, and final site plan to show the precise locations and dimensions of the two (2) additional tennis courts in order to ensure that the remaining specimen trees are protected. Said plan • shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 06-03-02 Page 21 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 19. That the applicant shall meet with the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager to work on a"traffic-calming" solution for the existing drive aisle parallel to Walnut Creek Channel and to report back to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Approved, in part, Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00003 (with a revised landscape plan showing twenty-eight (28), 36-inch box replacement specimen trees to be submitted to Zoning Division and Urban Forestry Division) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 3, 2002. VOTE ON STR: 4-3 (Commissioners Arnold, Eastman and Vanderbilt voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (2:06-2:37) ~ ~ 06-03-02 Page 22 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Denied 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 4c. CONDI710NAL USE PERMlT NO. 2002-04543 Denied 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 re#ain an unpermitted automotive repair business and banquet facility with waiver of a minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-80 SR8321AN.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04543, 306 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, 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. Commissioner Bristol announced he was absent from the May 20, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting but listened to the tape for Item No. 4. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends a two-tier recommendation: 1) If the applicant chooses to proceed with the retail uses that they deny the request for the Conditional Use Permit which essentiaAy would mean that the two lawfully existing tenant spaces currently existing would remain. So, essentially Commission would not be approving anything but denying the request or alternatively approving the auto repair business but not any other use on the property provided they could come up with an acceptable amount of parking spaces acceptable to the Traffic & Transportation Manager. ApplicanYs Testimony: Salomon Palacias, 306 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, stepson and Spanish Translator for Mr. Perez, the applicant. Emiliano Perez, 306 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, owner of Unidos Auto Repair, asked if Commission would take into consideration the fact that he and his wife have been residents in the City of Anaheim for 30 years. They bought the property at 306 N. Anaheim Boulevard with dreams of putting in a business to support their family, which currently includes 10 kids. He apologized that his wife, Mrs. Gutierrez, could not be present due to the fact that two days prior she was dismissed from the hospital with the most recent a~ldition to the family. ~ He confesses having several businesses currently in operation at the property, including a cosmetic and beauty salon, auto-repair shop and a flower shop with all three being licensed in the City of Anaheim. 7herefore, he asks if Commission could issue the permit in spite of them not having enough parking and 06-03-02 Page 23 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • prior to them finding a way to make a parking space within the property above or below the building. Mr. Perez states he is trying to follow regulations and feels anything Commission requires that must be done he will be able to do because extended family members would support him monetarily and/or all maintenance required in order to repair the property and the building. Chairperson Arnold announced that he would take things out of order for the subject item due to questions or issues that might be raised that Commission and other speakers would want to address. Commissioner Eastman states the reports show that there is not a valid business license for the auto repair. Mr. Palacias responded the license expired on January 2002, and what they are doing is trying to get the renewal for the license for the auto repair shop. Commissioner Eastman wished to verify that it is currently unlicensed. Mr. Perez responded he paid for the license but the iicense has not been issued to him. Commissioner Bristoi states he was in their facility on Saturday and somebody that he spoke to indicated that the floral shop does not operate all of the time. Mr. Perez responded that is correct it is only opened during Mother's Day and Valentine's Day; special occasions for a specific purpose. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Palacias if his father has flowers selling in front of the stores on the weekend. ~ Mr. Palacias responded no, he does not. Commissioner 8ristol asked if he has anything else selling in front of the stores on the weekends. Mr. Palacias responded no, he does not. Chairperson Arnold states if there were a fire in the building it would be impossible for anybody to get out and asked Mr. Perez if he is aware how dangerous his facifity is with respect to fire hazards. Mr. Palacias responded yes because several months ago the Fire Department informed him and he is trying to get the permit to do an extra exit door for the building. Commissioner Bristol asked where that exit door would be located. Mr. Palacias responded towards the back because there is already one in the front. Commissioner Bristol clarified that the area Mr. Palacias is referring fo is someone else's property. He asked Mr. Palacias if he has spoken to the property owner to be able to access in the rear. Mr. Palacias responded yes he has spoken with the owners and was denied permission for the exit door but he is willing to reduce the flower shop and install the exit door towards the front. Commissioner Bristol asked if that is not the church property. Mr. Palacias responded yes the property belongs to the church. • Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the church opposed the project. Commissioner Eastman responded yes. 06-03-02 Page 24 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt feels with regard to the flower operation Commissioner Bristol' s findings were consistent with what he understands from when he stopped by the business at one time asking if he could buy some flowers and was told that there were not any available. He feels it was probably during an off time and not a holiday. However, when holidays come around it is his understanding, based on the fact that he drives by the location frequently, that the banquet area becomes an assembly floor where numerous novelty items, big bears, etc., things that are normally sold for Valentines Day or Mother's Day, are put on tables in front of the business on the sidewalk. Therefore, he perceives that the flower shop does not really operate the same as traditional flower shops in that customers would enter and then select flowers, but what really happens is that the flower shop operates on occasions and in the process that business takes place on the sidewalk, and the items selected for purchase are taken inside and paid for but the actual display space is on the sidewalk. Mr. Palacias responded that is correct. Commissioner Boydstun wished to know if Mr. Palacias had business licenses for the other two businesses involved. Mr. Palacias responded yes. Commissioner Eastman clarified the Commissioner's packet indicates they have business licenses but feels they do not have the parking space to operate three businesses. Commissioner Boydstun states one of the businesses operates on the sidewalk most of the time. Commissioner Eastman concurred and did not feel anybody addressed the issue of signage and states the applicants have covered more of their business with signs than is permitted. She referred to the ~ applicants and asked if Commission should grant them a Conditional Use Permit which would they prefer, to continue to operate an auto shop business or operate the beauty salon and flower shop. She affirms the rules are clear they could not be permitted to have both. Mr. Palacias wished to clarify if it would be one business out of all three businesses. Chairperson Arnold clarified both the beauty salon and the flower shop or the auto repair shop but not all three. Commissioner Eastman explained the property just would not support all three businesses. Commissioner Boydstun explained there is no parking. Commissioner Koos states he does not know if it is fair to characterize it as their choice entirely either. Mr. Perez asked if there is a possibility to have the cosmetic salon and the auto repair business. Chairperson Arnold responded no. Mr. Palacios states Mr. Perez runs the auto repair shop alone and asked if there is anyway that they could arrange parking because his mother would like to install parking above the building or on the bottom of the building structure. Commissioner Bristol explained there is a parking issue because there is no parking for both uses. For example, if anyone were to come to the beauty salon, they would either park on one of the two spaces in front of the store or they would go inside. He asked Mr. Palacios if that is not correct. • Mr. Palacios responded that is correct. Commissioner Bristol explained that both uses, the auto repair shop and the beauty salon, have to have so many parking spaces onsite and he did not have that. Furthermore, the only onsite parking is inside 06-03-02 Page 25 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • where Mr. Perez would be doing other work. So not only does Commission consider it dangerous but impractical and it would not work, Commission coufd not justify it. Mr. Perez states he has been operating the auto repair for four years and when he received the license parking spaces were not an issue and he is employed alone. Commissioner Bristol explained when he started using the facility for another use, which was not allowed in the building that prompted the entire project to be looked upon. Salomon Palacias, 306 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, Spanish Translator for Ms. Martinez. Nelly Martinez, P.O. Box 11873, Costa Mesa, CA, representing Antonias Beauty Salon, states the cosmetic salon does not have many customers and would not need too many parking spaces. She feels the auto repair and cosmetic salon can both be supported by only the two parking spaces because the auto repair does not have that many customers either. She states she just started working for Mrs. Gutierrez (owner of the beauty salon) a month ago and already she sees there are not many customers going to the cosmetic salon or the auto repair shop. Mr. Palacias states the flower shop is only for special occasions and they would not need much parking for it throughout the entire year. Ms. Martinez states she is in favor of the applicants because she has been employed by them a month and does not feel they need more parking surrounding the building in order to manage the business as an auto repair and beauty salon. Chairperson Arnold states two weeks ago, in the morning session, concerns were raised about the • banquet facility use pertaining to the viability of the location as an automotive repair business, and regarding various chemicals, substances, gasoline, oil, the potential flammability, lack of fire escapes and inadequate ventilation, etc. He then asked if staff from the Fire Department would comment on the issue. Jerry Austin, Fire Marshal, states years ago when the building was built, the repair garage was essentially built to use as storage to house vehicles only. Over the years, the use of that section of the building changed. It was brought to the Fire Department's attention that it was not only being used for repair, but it was also being used for assembly and the Fire Department determined there was a safety issue to be dealt with. He states in order for it to be used for auto repair, there are a number of requirements that need to be met and he is not really sure if the facility can meet those requirements. He feels it would be very difficult and he would put himself in a very uncomfortable position to support the auto repair use when he knows there are no legal exits in that section of the building which poses a problem for the Fire Department. The storage of hazardous chemicals such as cleaning materials and gasoline that is going to be in the vehicfes as well as stored outside when repairs such as removing carburetors and rebuilding engines are going to have hazardous chemicals. It is just the nature of the work. He asks hypothetically, "can they provide an extinguisher system; like fire extinguishers to combat that if they had a problem" and responded they probably could but the building itself is not conducive to that type of use. It is a building that was designed for ordinary use that now is being used as a hazardous use and the inside walls must be designed to accommodate it if there were an incident such as a fire that would flash up and catch the wall on fire. There needs to be a certain amount of rating to prevent the fire from catching the walls on fire and spreading. He feels it would be very difficult to use the building for what the applicant wants to use it for. • Commissioner Koos asked if there is a record of a four-year business license that goes back four years in regards to their automotive repair. 06-03-02 Page 26 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty did not feel there was a record of a four year business license and states the most recent business license activity evolve around an attempt to obtain a business license for auto repair and that was denied by the Planning Department staff. He states years ago there was an auto glass business there and that business license was there for a few years and then it expired. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if currently they do not have a business license and if she understands they have not had for over a year. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman states the staff report indicates they have a current license for the flower shop and the beauty shop and she asked how far back those licenses go. Mr. McCafferty states with regard to the auto glass that was only for a year, and the beauty salon was approved in 1996 until 2003. Commissioner Koos states his concern has been that people received business licenses for conditional uses prior to getting the permits and that made it difficult for Commission because then they would be giving the community the wrong message. However, the subject matter does not sound like that has occurred. It sounds like the business that was probably there learned that they needed a Conditional Use Permit, inquired about getting a business permit and staff stopped them and then they continued to operate, possibly a little over a year without a business permit either. He asked for verification. Mr. McGafferty responded that is correct and also there is a long Code Enforcement history on the site and, the applicant sho~ld be aware since Code Enforcement has been monitoring it for sometime, that a Conditional Use Permit was required and their records indicate that Code Enforcement informed the ~ applicant that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for an automotive repair activity. Commissioner Koos feels the site would be a great location for a boutique or a variety of uses such as the ones currently existing; a flower shop or any business with cosmetics, etc. They are permitted uses and the only requirement is to prove that they could pass different inspections and maintain a current business license. He a~rms he would never support an automobile use within the existing structure and feels that is the standard Commission has to apply on all of the uses whether they have been there or not. He acknowledges Commissioner Arnold is always keen on iooking at things from an environmental standpoint and states it is clearly suspect that the facility could not pass muster with the variety of regulatory agencies that look over the shoulders of the Commission on such matters not to mention the fire issues. There are a host of safety considerations alone that prevent granting a permit for the auto facility. He states he is sympathetic with the tenants. He feels certain they did not intentionally set down that path and they would not have done so given what could possibly happen at the meeting today. It is not a good course of business to make such a decision and probably invest time and money into a hard- earned business however, Commission has a greater commodity to look after in the neighborhood. He states he whole-heartedly encourages the applicant to try to find a use for the building that is compatible with the neighborhood and he hopes they flourish at the location because he feels it is going to be a vibrant location in the upcoming years with respect to all the work that the Planning Commission is putting into the City. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states there is nothing about a business license that suggest that it is a regulatory approval and on its face it indicates that it is the revenue raised thing. In fact, it is not called a business license but a revenue certificate; the old terminology lingers on. And, directly on the business license it states that it is not in anyway to suggest that the land use approvals have been obtained but there is language to the effect that the applicant is responsible for complying with any applicable zoning requirements. The fact that someone has a business license does not mean that somehow the City has granted him or her a regulatory approval on the property. u 06-03-02 Page 27 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • DURING THE ACTtON: Commissioner Vanderbilt states Commission has been conversing extensively with the applicant about things that are prohibited and he feels there are uses that are permitted that do not require the overview. He commends staff on doing a good job by dissecting it and stating the appiicant needs to make a choice between an automotive use or flower shop and beauty salon. If the choice is a flower shop and beauty salon together they would probably have a parking issue and woufd need a waiver. However, that would still be something a CUP is granted for and it could be granted for during the Planning Commission meeting. There are issues regarding the sidewalk and signage that the applicant suggested they would be willing to comply with once they understood the requirements. He states regarding the automotive issue, staff mentioned there was a use for windshield repair and that seems like a more benign use than carburetor repair. Therefore, he suggests Commission would not want to tell the applicant that there is no possibility of automotive repair since the staff report shows that it would be accepting of it and has a clause in its requirements saying if they are granted the CUP they would also be required to meet the other State, Federal and City requirements for automotive repair use. He recalls being on the side of the applicant and being shot down because he attempted to say, "hey, there are the other rules that the applicant as well as Commission and everyone else have to realize that it is the other agency's area to make that determination". He understands Commission is focusing more on zoning and environmental impacts. He supports the staff s recommendations. Ms. Mann states Class 1, Categorical Exemption, is for the operation repair maintenance permitting leasing licensing or minor alterations of existing public or private structures, facilities, etc., and Commission is not required to go along with that. She states there are exceptions to Class 1, and one of them is a significant effect that a Categorical Exemption should not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual ~ circumstances. It appears that is what has been expressed in the discussion and would probably be the rationa(e for the denial. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Denie~l CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 based on evidence presented at the meeting that there is reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances of inadequate on-site parking and lack of required exit doors for fire/life safety. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces limiting the use of the property to the two existing retail units based on the following: (i) That the waiver would cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the use. (ii) That the waiver would increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets and adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (iii) That the waiver would increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for such use. , Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04543 (to permit a commercial retail center, automotive repair business and a banquet hall) based on the following (Therefore, allowing the two existing retail units to remain): 06-03-02 Page 28 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (i) That the proposed automotive re air use would adversel affect the ad'oinin P Y 1 9 residential, land uses and restrict the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located, and the banquet hall and the overconcentration of the site with other retail uses would adversely affect the surrounding residential land uses. (ii) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed automotive repair business is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Further, the size and shape is not adequate for a commercial retail center or banquet hall. (iii) That the traffic generated by the proposed automotive repair use would impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry traffic in the area; and the traffic generated by a banquet hall and a commercial retail center would cause an undue burden on Anaheim Boulevard and surrounding streets due to the lack of on-site parking. (iv) That the granting of the conditional use permit to permit a commercial retail center and to retain an automotive repair facility and banquet hall under the conditions imposed, would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (Commissioner Bristol indicated he listened to the tape for the May 20, 2002 meeting since he was absent.) • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (2:38-3:12) ~ 06-03-02 Page 29 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.15641READVERTISEDI (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04521) OWNER: John M. Huish, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Michaei Coleman, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1041 North Shepard Street. Property is approximately 7.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Shepard Street and Carpenter Avenue (Festival Fun Park). Requests to modify an existing family entertainment center by constructing a miniature goff course with waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to a freeway right-of-way. Continued from the April 8 and April 22. 2002 Planning Commission meetings. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to June 17, 2002 SR8310AN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner due to a scheduling conflict. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 06-03-02 Page 30 JUNE 3, 2002 PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00073 (READVERTISED) June 17, 2002 6c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04500 6d. 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: 2216-2220 East South Street. Property is approximately 2.25 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Priscilla Street. RECLASSIFICATlON 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 lot frontage on a public or private street, b) required dedication and improvements, c) minimum lot area and d) minimum lot width to construct three single-family homes. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253 -To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit ~ detached single-family residential subdivision. Continued from the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR1083CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Reclassification No. 2002-00073 and Variance No. 2002- 04500, 2216-2220 East South Street, a request to reclassify the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone or a less intense zone with waivers of: a) required lot frontage on a public or private street, b) required dedication and improvements, c) minimum lot area, d) minimum lot width to construct three single-family homes and to establish a 4-lot, 3-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval as recommended in the staff report and as conditioned with modifications to the staff report and conditions of approval as follows: - Page 1, waiver (a) has been deleted by virtue of simply complying with the Code requirement and with regard to the recommendation on page 5, paragraph (19), sub-paragraph (b) staff suggests if Commission chooses to approve the reclassification, the reclassification would apply to lofs Z, 3 and 4 which are the new proposed residential parcels. - With regard to conditions of approval, page 6, Gondition No. 7, where the first sentence states, "that the addresses of all three" insert "residential" and the remaining sentence remains the same. • - Page 7, following Condition No. 9, the conditions need to be re-numbered so that it shows Condition Nos. 10-15. That changes the timing of conditions. Therefore, the conditions prior to issuing the Building Permit, would be Condition Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; and prior to final building and zoning inspections staff would revise that to be Condition No. 12. 06-03-02 Page 31 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ - Page 7, regarding parcel map conditions, staff recommends Commission makes approval of the tenant parcel map contingent upon the variance currently pending; and also on page 8 to delete Condition No. 5. Applicant's Testimony: Rob Ring, 8257 E. Blackwillow Circle, Anaheim, CA, pastor for the East Anaheim Christian Church, thanked staff for a wonderful experience in helping to make the project a success. He states East Anaheim Christian Church has tried to be a really good partner with the City of Anaheim for 38 years and have worked very hard to be a source of spiritual growth as well as physical growth for the Anaheim citizens. He states the church has afways had programs fo hefp the more needy in the City as well as standard assistance such as a place for voting, etc., but to support the growth of the congregation the church needs an influx of funds. The facility is 38 years old and beginning to show age and several improvements are necessary as well as other things needed to support a growing congregation. He states to accomplish improvements they decided to develop a back lot that is the property of the church and has been empty for a long time. They have talked to all of the neighbors around them and everyone is very excited about having upscale homes built on the property that will make their property value go up as opposed to having an empty lot. It seems to be a win-win situation for all as it would help the church to support the congregation, benefit the community and increase the property values of the immediate neighbors. They ask Commission's approval of the project. Jim Manning, 20201 S. W. Birch St., Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA, representing Manning Homes, wishes to address the map conditions and have clarifications. He states he is sure he heard every change addressed by staff, but that he had a list prior to the re-numbering and he wished to go through those issues because they would be important to them in processing the project. • 1) Page 7, Condition No. 1, the demolition of the existing home. 'fhey request that demolition not be required prior to the recommendation of the map but prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. He states in their meeting with staff, there was some concern about the Subdivision Map Act because the building would go across one of the new property lines; the first property line between Lot Nos. 2 and 3. However, he feels it is permissible to have a house going across property lines and there is really not a problem with it from the Subdivision Map Act but maybe there could be some legal counsel regarding it. 2) Page 7, Condition No. 13 which states, "That to compensate for the lack of parkway landscaping along Priscilla Street, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing enhanced landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover within the common areas of the development" they would like the statemenf to be clarified to mean the common area that borders the new driveway easement, specifically in the area to the north of the driveway easement. In recent discussions with staff he feels they concurred with the decision. 3) Page 8, Condition No. 5, they believe has been deleted. 4) Regarding the recommendation from staff denying the minimal lot area, which states there is land to the north of the property that the church could possibly acquire. However, when plans +nitiated the exact amount of land needed was not known. Arrangements with the church were made to acquire additional property and no further decision has been made. The church wants to maintain the remaining property to the north for future expansion of their parking. It is critical to them when reviewing the parking layout of 18-foot stalls, 24-foot aisleways, etc., they retain the property that would in essence be necessary to get to a 7,200 square foot lot gross area without the driveway. Currently the property is over 7,200 square feet but if the driveway easement were eliminated the property would be below 7,200 square feet. Manning Homes requests Commission approve that and ~ in that regard state that the homes to the west, across the street are 50x100's, 5,000 square foot lots. The lots would be farger than that even in the net calculation. The lots to the east, which the subject property Lot No. 4 sides up to, are 7,200 square foot lots. Mr. Manning states they have not heard any comments about their lot size from the neighbors to the east. 06-03-02 Page 32 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • He states when Manning Homes initially approached the project they looked at the 5,000 square foot lots and knew it would become an issue. They met with staff and determined basically with 5,000 square foot lots right across the street in order for them to accomplish their goals they would have to go through a General Plan Amendment, which requires an EIR for three properties. Mr. Manning feels it did not make sense, therefore they chose the variance method and hopes Commission finds it acceptable. Chairperson Amold interrupted for purposes of clarifying that the EIR and any decision Commission makes is subject to CEQA. He directed attention to page 5, paragraph no. (19), subparagraph (a) which states, "By motion, a rove a CEQA Negative Declaration" and states it would be highly unlikely that Commission would not be doing exactly the same thing with the General Plan Amendment. He clarified that Manning Homes was not doing anyfhing other than changing what the zoning would be which would allow them to do exactly what they desired without a waiver. He affirms the problem with the request is that they do not offer any justifications legally sufficient to allow for a waiver, but if Commission re-zones the property to RS-5000, which is what surrounds the property on finro sides, that would solve the problem. He asked if they wished to continue the item. Mr. Manning conceded they were not as accomplished as Commission, as far as how to get through the rezoning, what the requirements would be and the time frame for everything. He feels there is probably a greater chance of more CEQA investigation than what they would expect, which is what was in the back of their heads when they were discussing with staff. He asked for a few minutes to ponder the issue, unless Commission felt it extreme for the nature of their request. He feels Commission is approaching it from a legal standpoint, which would explain the difficulties they are having with it. Chairperson Arnold clarified it is not something Commission is choosing to do but rather it is mandated by • State Law. Commission cannot approve a variance unless there is something peculiar about the lots and unfortunately there is not. He feefs the problem could be easily solved with rezoning and a General Plan Amendment. However, the impact on the environment would be exactly the same; the same project would be built. Mr. Manning asked if there were tremendous amounts of fees required going through fhe rezoning process. Mr. McCafferty responded if it is a request for a General Plan Amendment, it would be readvertised for the mandatory 20 days and an application fee would be required. He clarifies because advertising would be in progress at that time a readvertisement for the reclassification could be made at the same time and also redesign the map to accurately reflect the new lot sizes. Chairperson Arnold feels it would make it consistent with adjacent properties and the City of Anaheim would have an opportunity to enhance the parking for a growing church in a residential community. Given the proximity of the lot to other properties zoned for the RS-5000 it would be a good benefit for the City. The church gets to keep property that can provide more parking in the future, it would a!leviate impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and the City of Anaheim would get something that it would essentially see in surrounding lots anyway. He asked if they wouid agree to a four-week continuance. Commissioner Bristol states it was also discussed in the morning session regarding the difference of the 7200 square feet versus the 5000 square feet building, the square footage and the bedrooms. Also, they discussed that the zoning between 5000 square feet and 7200 square feet might have a difference in the bedroom count and/or square footage. He asked staff to instruct the applicant on the issue. Mr. McCafferty clarified that the RS-5000 zone has a limitation of three bedrooms because of the smaller lot sizes. It allows additional bedrooms, but each additional bedroom requires an additional 850 square ~ feet of lot area. For example: If they were 4 bedroom units then they would need 5850 square feet of lot area. Commissioner Bostwick clarified they currently have 6200 to 6600 square feet. 06-03-02 Page 33 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Manning if he plans 5 bedrooms at any time. Mr. Manning responded most likely it would be 4 bedrooms although it is possible that there would be 5 bedrooms and wished to clarify if Commission is stating from 5000 they would have to go to 5850 to get four bedrooms if they were in the 5000 square foot lot zone but if in the 7200 square foot lot zone those issues would be eliminated. Mr. McCafferty responded because of the larger lot sizes required by Code the aforementioned language is in the RS-7200 development standards. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that as long as the lot size remains as currently shown in the plans they would be alright. Mr. Manning wished to cfarify if Commissioner Boydstun means if they were to go to four bedrooms the fifth bedroom would become questionable. Mr. McCafferty states the fifth bedroom would also be problematic because it would require three garages. Mr. Manning responded they plan three garages. Mr. McCafferty clarified then they are fine. Mr. Manning understands Commission to state they could increase up to five bedrooms but in order to increase from four to five bedrooms they would need a three-car garage. He feels with their present • square footage they would be okay. Mr. McCafferty clarified that they would also need an additional 850 square feet of lot area for each additional bedroom. Mr. Manning wished to clarify if that would indicate 9 700 square feet for the additional bedrooms and if so, would it mean 6700 square feet of lot size. He feels they are currently shy of that amount. Mr. McCafferty suggested a two-week continuance to allow staff time to meet with them and discuss whether it meets their needs. He states if so, it would be readvertised, an additional continuance would be necessary and the applicant would be requested to return in approximately four weeks. Mr. Manning concurred and thanked Commission and staff for their assistance. He wished clarification to the following questions: 1) Does the General Plan Amendment occur only two to three times a year? 2) If the church were to give the additional footage to reach 7200 square feet, what would they have to do and how would that be done? 3) Would they just be moving the north property line? Mr. McCafferty responded the exhibits and map would have to reflect that change therefore they would still need a continuance of approximately finro weeks. r 06-03-02 Page 34 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Manning requested a two-week continuance. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the request was for purposes of working with staff or for other purposes. Mr. Manning clarified to work with staff. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff to either revise plans to eliminate the waiver pertaining to lot area, or readver~ise the item to allow consideration of a reclassification to RS-5000. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION 71ME: 18 minutes (3:13-3:31) ~ ~ A 10-minute break was taken (3:31-3:41) 06-03-02 Page 35 JUNE 3, 2002 Pl~0.NNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00074 (READVERTISED) June 17, 2002 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04561 7d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16333 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 Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 0.63-acre having a frontage of 150 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue located 809 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue. 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04561 - Request to construct an 11-unit attached residential condominium subdivision. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16333 - To establish a 1-lot, 11-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. • Continued from the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR1082CW.DOC Chairperson Arnofd introduced item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04561, 3254 West Orange Avenue, a request to reclassify the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone or a less intense zone to construct an 11-unit attached residential condominium subdiv+sion and to establish a 1-lot, 11-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends a continuance to redesign. Staff is supportive of rezoning, the Conditional Use Permit and the map but feels there could be design improvements in the overall architectural design of the units to make them more habitable and presentable from Orange Avenue. Staff wishes to continue working with the applicant in order to obtain a product supportable before Planning Commission. Applicant's Testimony: Walter Bowman, 9922 Walker Street, Cypress, CA, commends Chairperson Arnold for his fortitude and states it seems there are two alternatives with one being Item No. 23, which recommends continuation until July 29, 2002 and to them it seems like a long time. The other would be for the Commission to act on the submission according to the recommended approval of the CEQA Negative Declaration, the • Reclassification, the Conditional Use Permit and the Tentative Map. He states they would like that type of approval and have the opportunity to work with staff. And, also under the recommendation it states they could work with staff and come back with it as a consent calendar item on the Planning Commission agenda and they would prefer to do that if it would work out for the Commission. 06-03-02 Page 36 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Regarding the evaluation, staff has concerns about the design of the project but they are dealing with a unique infield lot. There is multi-family that was built to RM-1200 standards on each side. Most of the lots, all the way from Western Avenue to Knott Avenue on the south side of the street are built to RM-1200 standards. In fact, when they did their submission in October, they submitted on the basis of what the general plan designation was which is RM-1200 and were advised to apply for a RM-2400, which they have done. Sased on the RM-1200 there would have been 11 units with 7, 3 bedrooms and 4, 2 bedrooms. They are now at 11 units, 2 bedroom homes. Regarding Condition No. 16, they feel they can handle everything staff recommends except staggering of the units. By reviewing the configuration of the lot and the design their architect has done, they believe that there is enough landscaping. As far as enhancement of the entries to the homes and looking down at the building at the south end of the lot when entering the homes, there would be landscaping between the units and also at the entries. They agree with everything in paragraph 16, page 4, except for staggering of the units. Regarding Condition No. 17, the floor plan, he states the same floor plan was constructed by another developer and designed by the same architect located at Moody Street and Crescent Avenue in Cypress and the units sold very quickly, appealing to single individuals for whatever reason. In fact, they have a waiting list on another project that they are involved with in the City of Cypress at Moody Street and Lincoln Avenue and the waiting list is made up primarily of single individuals. They feel the design of the unit is sellable the way it is. Regarding access to the rear, going through the bedroom, he states they plan to put a haflway from the garage door through to the back yard without entering into the bedroom. • Regarding the street widening a revised plan was submitted on May 29, 2002, complying with the street standard. Mr. Bowman states he would like clarification on several issues beginning with page 7 of the conditions where it refers to staggering of the units, they would like that exception; page 9, the engineering conditions indicating that the property owner give up the 20-foot wide water service easement and they are not certain exactly where the easement would be. Other than that they agree with all of the recommendations, specifically paragraph 24 of the recommendations rather than paragraph 23 because they would like to proceed with the project and feel they can resolve matters with staff as far as a design review except for staggering of the units. Commissioner Koos asked if time is of the essence regarding the project because it did not seem as though either sfaff or the applicant were very far off. He states staff recommends approval and Commission has good faith that staff is eager to support good housing and feel the applicant is presenting a good product; ownership housing. No one doubts that they are going to sell as early as tomorrow because that is the way the market is. A contractor could probably throw up almost anything these days and they would seil. However, the desire is not to throw up anything and he does not feel the applicant is proposing just anything. He read through the comments that stated the Community DevelopmenYs architects had to review housing projects and he does not think all of the things necessarily are something that they should or have to do. He suggests they sit down with Community Deveiopment and go over it with them. Mr. Bowman states the architect was not able to attend a prior meeting but he met with staff and a representative from Community Development and reviewed each item. However, there are a couple of items they would not want to get involved in as far as flipping of the units. Other than that, they feel they can pretty much comply with everything asked of them. They met with staff immediately after receiving a fax on May 24, 2002. They are okay with the trash enclosures and will have iandscaping at Unit Nos. 6 ~ and 7. He states they will have a well that should show on the site plan as well as the trash enclosures, Item Nos. 1.3, 1.4 and the mailbox. As far as enhancement along Orange Avenue, they agree with the recommendation because they desire to make the homes as sellable as possible because it is their business. 06-03-02 Page 37 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos asked if two weeks would interrupt his schedule. Mr. Bowman responded no if they are referring to item No. 23, which indicates two weeks. Commissioner Koos clarified he used finro weeks as an example and asked if four weeks would hinder his progress. Mr. Bowman responded it would be better if they could come back in two weeks if that is the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Koos asked if he couid work with staff and turn it around because as a practice Commission sometimes look at Reports and Recommendations Items after the fact and sometimes that gives a false sense of approval if they approve something that is half way there. Due to his comfort level he would rather see as much as possible up front in turns of what the project is going to look like before Commission grants Tentative Tract Maps, Conditional Use Permits, etc. He desires to have a comfort level that staff knows exactly what product they are proposing and that staff has a comfort level that it is going to be good for the City of Anaheim. West Anaheim has had a lot of detail attention in the last 5 to 7 years and he feels Commission owes it to the community to make sure the project is as far along as possible before it grants entitlements. Mr. Bowman asked if it would be possible, rather than until July 29, 2002, that they do it at the next meeting. Commissioner Koos suggested two weeks and if there is a problem they could continue it again. ~ Chairperson Arnold states in approving the Reclassification on the project he would feel more comfortable if he knew that they would not have something that has a canyon look to it as though entering a cavern and that they would accomplish good housing product on the site. He recalls architectural features where tiles have been added to the side of buildings as a finishing detail to add color and texture, etc. Mr. 8owman states as far as the driveway, in infield type lots, that look would be accomplished because there is a 36-foot driveway and there are not many options with the driveway. He feels it is going to look like a 36-foot driveway anyway it is installed because it is a 28-foot driveway with 4 feet on each side for walkway. He reaffirms, no matter what, it would look like a wide expanse on an infield lot. Commissioner Boydstun suggests landscaping along the side of the walks. Chairperson Arnold states what the elevations of the building look like would make a huge difference. Mr. Bowman states they were in the process of doing that. Commissioner Bristol reiterates Commissioner Koos' statement that West Anaheim has been getting a lot of attention the last 5 or 6 years and states unfortunately it did not approximately four years prior to that and they got hammered with a conglomerate of objects that looks like the architect put up a slab of concrete and threw up some sticks and did not advance farther in the thought process of it. He clarifies that he is not stating the photos presented today look like that but that they have a lot of concrete except for some setback areas. Therefore he concurs with the continuance. Mr. McCafferty states part of staff s concem is the Los Angeles type of appearance and the applicant indicating that they would like to maintain the setbacks and not jog the units. He asked if that is something Commission would like staff to continue to work on and try to get or if landscaping in the area with pockets between the garage door is something that is acceptable. He states staff continues to ~ recommend they offset the visual interest to break up the monotony of the units, but asks if that is something staff would be wasting a lot of time on. 06-03-02 Page 38 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold states the monotony can be broken up with the features on the fa~ade, the colors and the landscaping. He concurs that the applicant is correct that some of the nature of the lot constrains to some degree and clarifies that when he thinks of canyon, it is not so much the long and narrow it is more what it looks like looking down that path. He concurs with Commissioner Koos that it is not all a matter of driveway and sidewalk, but something can be done with the landscaping to make it work. Commissioner Koos suggests they could break up the hard landscape a little more. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, suggests color concrete since it would be a private street to perhaps give visual relief. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to make certain modifications pertaining to landscaping, elevations, and the architectural features (color, texture, etc.) of the proposed development. VOTE: 7-0 • DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (3:41-3:58) ~ 06-03-02 Page 39 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Continued to 8b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. June 17, 2002 2002-00006 OWNER: California State Teacher's Retirement, 7667 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95826 AGENT: R. H. Properties, LLC., 34197 Pacific Highway, Suite 102, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 650 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 8.82 acres located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue (Gigante Market). Request for determination of public convenience or necessity to permit retail sales of afcohofic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed grocery store. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. SR8305AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold, introduced Item No. 8 as Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity {PCN) No. 2002-00006, 650 N. Euclid Street - Gigante Market, a request for Determination of Public ~ Convenience or Necessity to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed grocery store. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial based on the findings and the recommendations in the staff report. He states there is a change in the staff report on page 5, paragraph (19), the last word should state "denial" and not "approva!". Staff passed out a revised census tract map that reflected the corrected information which staff received from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the applicant has been issued a copy of the corrected map. Chairperson Arnold states in response to a question from an applicant regarding the morning session, staff briefs the Planning Commission on all agenda items. Basically, it is to walk through the staff report and for any clarifications but there is no substantive of discussion at that point. ApplicanYs Testimony: Ron Holley, 34197 PCH #102, Dana Point, CA, representing Gigante Supermarkets, states they are trying to open a store in the old Orchard Supply Hardware in Anaheim Plaza. Not certain how many people know about Gigante Supermarkets he offered to give a quick bio on their background as follows: • They are one of the largest grocery chains in Mexico. • Have a net worth of over a billion dollars. • Sell approximately 3 to 4 billion in groceries a year. • Have approximately 11,000,000 million square feet of retail facilities, including 40 restaurants with about 8,780 seats. • They have a joint venture with Office Depot with approximately 53 stores, and these numbers are approximately 1 to 2 years old and have most likely increased. • They also have a joint venture with Radio Shack for 58 stores and 43 franchises. • • In Continental USA they have three existing stores, Peco Rivera, Covina and Arleta. • They have six new stores on tract, including the one located in Anaheim Plaza. 06-03-02 Page 40 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • They are present today to request the approval for liquor licenses and the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity. He states Mr. McCafferty called on Thursday and informed him that the approval of liquor license in the area has eight licenses with only four licenses allowed, as seen in the staff report and the revised census tract map. Mr. Holley states they feel justified in making the request because liquor departments are normal merchandising departments within grocery stores and the vast majority of grocery stores in the City of Anaheim, which Commission has approved, have liquor departments. He states he is only aware of one grocery company that at one time did not have liquor in their stores and that was Alpha Beta. That ruling was made in 1978 due to having an alcoholic in their family. Many people thought they were a Mormon based company and they are not, but they always insisted on having Ernest Liquors immediately next door. He states the point is, it is an important component to the merchandising mix, elements and products that people expect to receive in a grocery store. As pointed out in paragraph 16, there are large retail corridors like the subject location that may have a lower number of licenses allowed than may be justified, impliedly, because the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) criteria is based on populations densities; if you have retail, you are not going to have residential. He states, "I would submit to you, ask yourselves who would you like to have liquor sales concentrated in residential area or in regional shopping areas with major concentration shopping facilities, I would submit the latter as the answer to that question". Mr. Holley states paragraph 17 points out that Gigante Supermarkets would be adding a new liquor license resulting in a net increase in the number of licenses within the City of Anaheim but that is not fhe case, they have a license in escrow that is within the City limits that would be transferred into the facility were they given approval for the Determination of PCN. He feels the PCN is very similar to the Smart & Final application which staff indicated that part of the justification for Smart & Final's approval was that • they were not adding license within the community they were simply transferring a iicense over. He states their license is census tract 867, which is approx+mately %2 mile away, to the northwest of the subject location. Smart & Finals liquor license was located about %2 mile away in census tract 871.02, shown on the map where the "A" is on Lincoln Avenue. According to the staff report in paragraph 15, Smart & Final was approved with three licenses allowed and seven existing at that time. Therefore, when they were approved there would be a differential of five licenses; three allowed. He states in their current situation there are four licenses allowed and eight existing and if their licenses moved into the census tract there would be four allowed and nine existing, still a differential of five. He feels they are directly in analagous to the situation that existed with the Smart & Final application and staff s recommendation to deny is partly based upon an increase of licenses in the City of Anaheim and he states that is not the case. Their second justification for denial is that they have not demonstrated how a request would serve the public inferest because there are other grocery stores around including the one across the street from the subject property that sell liquor. He states the same set of circumstances existed when Smart & Final was approved and no one seemed to feel a lack of justification to grant them approval. Their situation is directly in analagous. Smart & Final transferred a license into their new store from an outside census tract and Gigante Supermarkets is doing the same. Smart & Final sells a certain product line of groceries that caters to a certain market segment and Gigante Supermarkets are selling to a larger segment of the market with a larger variety of product lines. Liquor sales from Gigante Supermarket are just as convenient and necessary to the public as they are for a Smart & Final. Both companies should compliment the others product lines and serve the community very well. He asks Commission when considering the issue of Public Convenience or Necessiry to please consider the fact that the 2000 census indicates the largest population group in Anaheim is Hispanic with 46.8%. He feels the Hispanic ~ citizens are entitled to a full service supermarket that is user friendly that provides products they need in a language they speak. Evlr. Holley states he respectfully submits and requests that the Planning Commission grant approval of their Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity. 06-03-02 Page 41 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Holley presented exhibits to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify exactly from which census tract would it be transferred from. Mr. Holley responded it would come out of 867.01, which is to the northwest. It is directly contiguous to 866.02, which is the subject. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Holley if he received the most recent map. Mr. Holley responded he received it a few minutes prior to the hearing and he has the one with incorrect numbers on it, which he enfarged. Chairperson Arnold asked if it is no. 37. Mr. Holley responded correct and pleaded for it not to be announced to the public, as it was confidential. Chairperson Arnold states it is a part of the public record. Mr. Holley asserted he understands that. Chairperson Arnold asked for the reporting district on no. 37. Mr. Holley responded it would be in the police report but if referring to the crime statistic reporting district it would be 1421. Mr. McCafferty concurred it would be Reporting District 1421 but is not identified in the Police Department ~ memo. He offered to phone the Police Department to obtain the information. Chairperson Arnold confirmed that would be helpful. Mr. Holley suggested that it might not be a bad idea to also check the one for Smart & Final, just for comparison sake, which he feels would be 1621. Chairperson Arnold directed inquiry on both 1421 and 1621. Mr. Holley states in the subject Reporting District 1522, fhe census tract actually is comprised of two reporting districts; 22 and 23. Twenty-three (23) is down 66% while 22 is up 184%. He is not certain if the numbers are subtracted one from the other or how it is done. Chairperson Arnold responded they actually end up being two different comparisons and from an empirical anafysis standpoint, if he preferred to be rigorous about it, it does not make a lot of sense to compare two different geographic areas, however that is the system that the State Law sets up. The procedure is to start with concentrations in census tracts and then look at crime statistics in reporting districts. Mr. Holley responded unfortunately they are not homogeneous but the point is that the number of licenses allowed is based upon the census tract. Chairperson Arnold responded unfortunateiy, it is an issue with the State Legislature. Mr. McCafferty interjected with information received from Tammy Governeli, Police Department, that Reporting District 1421 has a crime rate of 102% above average and Reporting District 1621 has a crime rate of 44% above the City average. ~ Commissioner Boydstun agrees the crime rate is high but feels it does not give a clear picture because the area high with the crime rate is the shopping center and where most of the calls are coming from, beer is not sold or any liquor. She affirms the problem is shoplifting and that throws it out of proportion. 06-03-02 Page 42 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold states that is a good point and wished to clarify which Reporting District she is referring to. Commissioner Bostwick responded it is Reporting District 1622, which is 2% above. The calls come from Anaheim Plaza and Walmart regarding shoplifting. Mr. Holley asserts if anyone does $100,000, 000 worth of business they would get a lot of activity. Commissioner Boydstun concurred and feels it happens but it does not have anything to do with the subject matter. She states the other one that adjoins it on Loara Street is the Circle K store on the other side of the post office, which is known as a"kid stop" but has a negative effect on the subject property. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the subject proposal is approved would the license move from La Palma Avenue to Euclid Street. Mr. Holley responded that is correct and it is a beer and wine license, not a type 21, but a type 20. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Holley if he was only going to have beer and wine. Mr. Holley responded that is all they could find within the City limits but ultimately they will find one that is Type 21. Commissioner Boydstun responded hopefully they could bring it out of one of the high ratings. Mr. Holley responded they would try. ~ Commissioner Boydstun states that would mean they would have to come back if they requested another license. He feels the beer and wine would not be that much of a problem. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify the square footage of the property. Mr. Holley responded approximately 54,000 square feet. Commissioner Koos asked if the existing iicense was an operating business. Mr. Holley responded yes. Commissioner Koos asked if it is a market. Mr. Holley responded no. Commissioner Koos asked if it is a secret. Mr. Holley responded at a difference to the seller, if they were unable to purchase fhe license, he would have an impact on his employees. Commissioner Koos asserts if he is going to use it as justification for his argument that Commission should consider the net value and that there is no increase in the number of licenses, etc., he could not understand why he could not reveal the identity of the business. Mr. Holley conceded and states it is a liquor store. It is no. 37. ~ Commissioner Koos explained he did not think it was fair for the public record because it is typically not the proper procedure. 06-03-02 Page 43 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick states Commission has gotten into a similar situation before, requiring that the subject approval is based upon the applicant purchasing another license. Commissioner Koos interjected that he did not think that was the major rationale for approving the Smart & Final. Commissioner Bostwick clarified his intention was to state that Commission has had a similar issue with some of the convenience stores and gas stations and has made them purchase more licenses to reduce the number of licenses. Therefore, he asks if a condition could be entered that states, "that this approval is predicated on the purchase of a beer and wine license from another licenses within the City of Anaheim". Mr. McCafferty responded a similar condition was experienced for Arco at Broadway and Magnolia Avenue and the City Council debated it was very difficult to police. He states the problem with that kind of condition is, theoretically you can do a premise to premise transfer and bring it over to the site in question but it does not prevent someone else from coming in and requesting another license in the place of the one that was vacated. He understands from ABC Liquor License that it is an extremely complicated process but no license ever dies, it just gets recreated somewhere else. Commissioner Bristol states more importantly the transfer from the decrease in one area increased in another and immediately after voting he felt bad because they still impacted an area. The thought was that they were getting rid of six licenses but it had nothing to do with the census tract that they were looking at which would be the same difference in the subject matter. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if one of the conditions would require the alcohol sales to be a certain percentage of total sales or if that is only for certain establishments. • Commissioner Bosfinrick referred to page 5, Condition No. 6, which states, "that the areas of alcoholic beverages display shall not exceed finrenty-five (25) percent of the total display area in the building" but a condition regarding sales is not listed other than Condition No. 2 which states, "that beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack". Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. states he feels that may have been applied to the convenience markets however the subject property is considered a supermarket because of the square footage. Commissioner Vanderbilt recalls seeing it with restaurants as well for example, "The Shack". Mr. McCafferty clarified it is Condition No. 3 in the Police Department memo that states, "the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of all retail sales during any twelve (12) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested". He does not feel that carried over to staff conditions of approval and recommends if the request is granted that the condition would be carried over. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the applicant if the condition would present a problem for him. Mr. Holley responded no, the average sales through the industry are 3 to 5% liquor to totals and feels Gigante Market would be similar to that. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he would still go in without the license. Mr. Holley responded no, Alpha Beta is no longer in business and he is not aware of any grocery store ~ that goes into business without liquor in some form; at a minimum beer and wine. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 06-03-02 Page 44 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol states there is a 300% plus crime in the area and feels Commission should research on the specific crimes to give detail. Commissioner Boydstun responded she goes to the shopping center quite often and police cars are always there and they do not sell alcohol. Commissioner Bristol feels they should not think anything about whether a transfer went in or not because that is not what Commission should be doing. He suggests waiting a couple of weeks to see what the crime statistic shows. He understands that a supermarket needs alcohol sales but states it is really tough to vote for when it is 300% or higher. Commissioner Koos states if the split is all petty theft, etc., that would impact his decision. Commissioner Boydstun responded arrests are counted in the crime ratings and she knows someone that works at the store who confirmed they have had a lot of petty theft. Commissioner Bristol asked if Smart & Final sells warm beer. Commissioner Boydstun responded yes, it is not refrigerated. Commissioner Bristol asserted there is a definite difference between warm beer and cold beer. Chairperson Arnold feels there is uncertainty of what kind of crime they are talking about however, what they are really trying to get at is the impact of the subject application. He concurs with Commissioner Bristol that previously Commission asked an applicant to surrender six licenses in exchange for one at Arco, in a highly concentrated area, but while they had second thoughts concerning it the City Council • had an alternate perspective. He feels in the end the City Council would also decide the subject matter. He states it is a large supermarket going in an area, which Commissioner Boydstun identified as an area that needs a large supermarket. Commissioner Boydstun clarified it is what was on the redevelopment plans from the beginning since before Osh located there. They really wanted a supermarket there. Commissioner Arnold affirms what Commission needs to be doing is developing the best record possible because it would ultimately be decided by City Council on a policy basis anyway. Commissioner Bristof wished to clarify if he is saying Commission should vote and pass it over to the City Council. Commissioner Arnold clarified no, he is saying give the applicant two weeks, find out what kind of crime is being spoken of, try to ascertain in a more precise way what kind of land use impacts are being referred to and make a good clear record for the Council to consider. Commissioner Bristol concurred. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff in order to provide information to the Commission pertaining to crime statistics for certain reporting districts. ~ VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (3:59-4:27) 06-03-02 Page 45 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4186 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP 2002-04546); OWNER: Donald Eickoff, 2831 East Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Custom R.V. Inc., 2831 East Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806 l.OCATION: 2831 East Gretta Lane. Property is approximately 0.48-acre having a frontage of 114 feet on the north side of Gretta Lane located 430 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 10, 2000 to expire April 10, 2002) to retain the retail sales, storage, servicing and maintenance of recreational vehicle trailers (travel trailers) in conjunction with an existing contractor's storage yard with the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to sidewalk improvements. i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-81 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation SR8309AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4186, 2831 E. Gretta Lane, a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 10, 2000 to expire Aprif 10, 2002) to retain the retail sales, storage, servicing and maintenance of recreational vehicle trailer (travel trailers) in conjunction with an existing contractor's storage yard with the modification or deletion of a condition of approva! pertaining to sidewalk improvements. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as conditioned in the staff report. Applicant's Testimony: Rodger Scott Eickhoff, 2831 E. Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA, owner of Allied Sprinkler/Custom RN, states they have operated the company for 25 plus years before Scott (his nephew) started the Travel Trailer Sales and Maintenance. He wished to know if there was anyway the conditional approval could be split where the contracting storage yard is not included with the trailer business, in case something should become a problem with the trailer business so it would not affect Allied Sprinkler. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if it is not on the same parcel. Mr. Eickhoff clarified yes, it is one parcel but they have been there for 25 years and do not really want to be forced to leave if, perhaps, there may be a problem with the trailer sales. • Chairperson Arnold states the present circumstances create a degree of mutual responsibility to make sure each other is complying with the conditions with which they should be complying with anyway. 06-03-02 Page 46 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Eickhoff responded Scott is his nephew and there is not a problem but wanted to know if there was anyway it could be arranged so that they were separate conditions. Chairperson Arnold states it is one parcel. Commissioner Bostwick states that it appears the Travel Trailer Sales and Maintenance has consumed the entire yard. Mr. Eickhoff responded exactly and they do not have that much storage space and would not want to lose their place if a circumstance arose with the trailer business. He asked if it makes a difference that they are (isted as Unit 1 and Unit 2. Chairperson Arnold apologized that it was not legally possible to distinguish between the two since it is one parcel. DURING THE ACTION. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, clarified that in paragraphs 9 and 10 which relate to the sidewalks, it is Zoning staff that is supportive of the deletion of the condition of approval. Public Works Department still supports the need for sidewalks in the area. They understand the specifics concerning the design and want the applicant to be aware that what is going on is called a temporary sidewalk waiver and at anytime the City Engineer could review the street and determine that the waivers are no longer applicable and sidewalks would still need to be constructed along the street. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commis5ioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4186 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04546) to permit the retail sales, storage, servicing and maintenance of recreational vehicle trailers {travel trailers) in conjunction with an existing contractor's storage yard with deletion of the time limitation and deletion of Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. PC2000-44 pertaining to sidewa(k improvements. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2000-44 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the gates leading into the outdoor storage areas shall remain closed (to screen the storage area from the public's view) unless in use for business operations. Any damaged slats in the main gate adjacent to Gretta Lane shall be replaced to adequately screen said storage areas. 2. That the travel trailer safes, storage, servicing and maintenance operation at this • property shall conform to the petitioner's letter of operation, and as conditioned herein. 06-03-02 Page 47 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from Gretta Lane. 4. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 5. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffifi within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 6. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 7. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 8. That three (3) foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a contrasting to the color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the view from the adjacent street. 9. That absolutely no building materials or other equipment stored outdoors shall be visible above the fence line. 10. That the developer shall maintain compliance with the approved Water Quality • Management Plan ("WQMP") specifically identifying the best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. 11. That al! vehicle washing shaA take place within a designated wash rack area with waste water draining to the sanitary sewer or such other acceptable means of disposal approved by the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. 12. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. 13. That temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted. 14. That no flags banners or balloons shall be permitted in connection with these uses. 15. That no outdoor work on vehicles or vehicle parts shafl occur. 16. That the existing mature trees shall be properly maintained on the property. 17. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 18. That approva! of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compiiance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable • ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 06-03-02 Page 48 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:28-4:32) ~ ~~ ~ 06-03-02 Page 49 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED) 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2667 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04549) OWNER: Kenneth W. Holt, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Fairmont Schools, Attn: David Jackson, 1575 Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 121 South Citron Street. Property is approximately 0.73-acre located at the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Citron Street (Fairmont Private School). Requests an amendment of this permit to allow a modular classroom for an additional 5 years by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 28, 1997 to expire May 28, 2002) to retain a modular classroom at a private school. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-82 Approved Approved amendment to allow modular classroom for an additional 5 years (to expire on May 28, 2007) SR1086CW.DOC Chairperson Arnofd introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2667, 921 South Citron Street - Fairmont Private School, a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a • condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 28, 1997 to expire May 28, 2002) to retain a modular classroom at a private school. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as conditioned in the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: David Jackson, 145 Mable Street, Anaheim, CA, Executive Director of Fairmont Private School, states they are very much in favor of the recommendation staff made. However, one point that somehow he realizes he missed seeing five years ago is Item No. 6 which states, "that the curb along Citron Street directly in front of the school shall be designated for bus parking only". He states it has not been and they do not really have any bus parking or stopping there and they would like to keep it the way it is. It is designated that there is no parking during parent pick-up and drop-off allowing parents to briefly stop there and it does not cause problems for the street. However, during the remainder of the day, especially with kindergarten, preschool and first graders some parents like to park there. Therefore, he respectfully requests Commission delete the condition and leave the parking and the curb as it currently is since it has been working that way for years. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if their buses unload on Chestnut Street. Mr. Jackson clarified yes, and even though the buses pass Citron Street they do not stop. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify how many students does the modular classroom hold and how many students attend the rest of the school. Mr. Jackson responded there are currently 20 to 21 students in the modular and 235 students in the • school and for the first time in history their enrollment is actually down a little. They are making some changes and movements and actually expect the enrollment to be down just a little more, but feels they still need all of the classrooms it would just mean fewer students per classroom. 06-03-02 Page 50 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt states he was at the site on Sunday but it was difficult, because of the security, to see actually where the modular building sits. He wished to clarify if it is up against Chestnut Street. Mr. Jackson responded it backs up to Chestnut Street and from the outside it looks like it is part of the building; it fits in extremely well. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the interesting thing about Chestnut Street is that it is basically an alley. There is no side street parking and it is impossible to get finro cars past one another. So the distance between the school property and the homes is half of what it might be in any other neighborhood. Mr. Jackson responded he would suppose so, except some schools are adjacent to houses that back right up to the playground areas. He affirms in 40 years of establishment they have had very good rapport with the neighbors and have not had any complaints. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked if there is a problem with the deletion of Condition No. 6. Jalai Taher, Principal Traffic Engineer, suggested instead of having the entire frontage as "bus parking only" 40 feet could be designated as bus parking and the rest could be set aside for drop-offs. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if they are not putting buses there but instead is pulling around the corner on Chestnut Street, unloading and then leaving, why would any of it need to be designated for bus parking because Citron Street gets traffic and Chestnut Street does not. Mr. Taher responded Chestnut Street is not wide enough for buses to park, drop-off and allow for ~ circulation. Commissioner Boydstun retorted it is a little wider where the school is located and they have been doing it for years. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if they were "van-type" buses where the capacity was approximately 40 students. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if they were the smaller buses and not the large high school buses. Mr. Jackson responded most are smaller buses although they do have a couple of larger buses and reiterated they have had buses there for over 40 years and it has worked great. There is plenty of room to pass where the buses stop and there is so little traffic on that street which is why they chose that one instead of Citron Street. Commissioner Bristol states he is not sure 40 years is enough time. Commissioner Boydstun recalled before that there was the "Y" and there was more traffic. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and ~ MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. 06-03-OZ Page 51 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2667 (Tracking No. CUP 2002- 04549) to retain a modular classroom at a private school for an additional five (5) years to expire May 28, 2007. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC97-67, PC94-140, PC94-95, PC85-207 and PC85-73 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 6 was deleted at today's meeting): 1. That the modular classroom shall be permitted until May 28, 2007. 2. That all existing and proposed wall-mounted equipment shall be painted to match the structure to which it is attached. 3. That a minimum of twenty-two (22) parking spaces shall be provided. If all such parking cannot be provided on-site in the adjacent easement to the northeast of subject property, additional off-site parking shall be provided subject to a recorded terminable parking agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and Traffic and Transportation Manager, and shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Should any such agreement be terminated without a satisfactory replacement the maximum student enrollment shall revert to two hundred finrenty-five (225) students and the modular classroom shall be removed. A copy of the recorded agreement shal! be submitted to the Zoning Division. 4. That the maximum enrollment shall be two-hundred-and-fifty-seven (257) students. ~ 5. That the parking on the northeast side of the property shall be designated as "Visitor Parking Only." « » 7. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 8. That the trash storage areas shall be maintained in conformance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 9. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. 10. That the property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit 1, Revision No. 2, and Exhibit No. 2, Revision No. 2. 11. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution. 12. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and • any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 06-03-02 Page 52 JUNE 3, 2002 PL.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (4:33-4:40) . • 06-03-02 Page 53 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA NEGATtVE DECLARATtON (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED) 11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4031 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04548) OWNER: The Boeing Company, 3370 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: The Boeing Company, Anaheim Division, Attn: D. L. Gilliam, 3370 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: 3370 East Miraloma Avenue. Property is approximately 112 acres located at the southwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Miller Street (Boeing North American). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 27, 1998 to expire May 27, 2002) to retain twenty-six temporary office trailers in conjunction with a research and development facility CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-83 Approved Approved reinstatement for 4 years (to expire on May 27, 2006) SR8315KB.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4031, 3370 East Miraloma Avenue - Boeing North America, as a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 27, 9998 to expire May 27, 2002) to retain twenty-six temporary office trailers in conjunction with a research and development facility. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as conditioned in the staff report. Applicant's Testimony: David Gilliam, 3370 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing The Boeing Company, states he is primarily present to answer questions. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if he has read the staff report and agrees with everything. Mr. Gilliam responded yes. THE PUBLIC HEARtNG WAS CLOSED. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and ~ MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. 06-03-02 Page 54 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4031 (Tracking Case No. CUP2002-04548) to retain eleven temporary office trailers (originally approved for 26 temporary office trailers) for a period of four (4) years to expire May 27, 2006, in conjunction with an existing research and development facilify. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC98-84 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire on May 27, 2006. 2. That a maximum of t~aar~}-sE~~C} eleven (11) trailers shall be permitted. 3. That the temporary trailers shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code and Mechanical Code. 4. That plastic slats shall be maintained in the existing eight (8) foot high chain link fence south of the trailer location to screen all the trailers; and that the slatted fence shall be permanently maintained and any damaged slats shall be replaced with new slats. 5. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gal(on size clinging . vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 6. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 7. That the property shall remain in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 8. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 9. That an on-site trash truck turn around area shall be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and shown on plans as required by the Department of Public Works, Street Sweeping and Sanitation Division. 10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. • 06-03-02 Page 55 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement, VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:41-4:42) ~ • 06-03-02 Page 56 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVEDI 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04550): OWNER: Christian F. Vineyard, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: C 3, Attn: H. E. Sampson, 24722 Avondale Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 5340 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 23.1 acres having a frontage of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (Fairmont Private School). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approva! pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 to expire May 18, 2002) to retain a pre-school through 8th grade school in conjunction with a previously-approved church. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to June 17, 2002. SR8313KB.DOC AC710N: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to readvertise the item and to advertise the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 (Vineyard Christian School), which is also located on the same site so that both permits may be considered by the Commission at the same public hearing. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 06-03-02 Page 57 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQQ NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED) 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04355 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04535) OWNER: Ming Internationai Group, 9202 Ellsworth Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 AGENT: Searchlight Ministries, 5247 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5247 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 1.47 acres located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane (Searchlight Ministries). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 21, 2001 to expire May 21, 2002) to retain an existing church within a commercial shopping center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-84 Approved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on May 21, 2007) SR8314KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04355, 5247 East ~ Orangethorpe Avenue - Searchlight Ministries, as a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 21, 2001 to expire May 21, 2002 to retain an existing church within a commercia! shopping center. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner informed staff recommends approval as conditioned in the staff report. Applicant's Testimony: Mark Manning, 5247 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing Searchlight Ministries, states he has read the staff report and his only concern is with Condition No. 9 which states, "that there shall be no outdoor special events conducted in conjunction with the church". He wished to clarify if it means that they cannot have a car wash outside and/or could they request a special event permit through regular channels. Chairperson Arnold clarified there is a special event permit process. Mr. McCafferty clarified the church is located in the CL zone so they are entitled to request a speciaf event permit. However, the condition is really referring to the landscape buffer that abuts the property on the east and north side of the property intended to protect the residential area. There should be no activities there and if a special event permit is desired it is as simple as coming in and obtaining the permit. Commissioner Koos feels that is the case unless Commission specifically prohibited them in the CUP. In that regard they could not just have a permit anytime they wanted it even if the condition is not in the CUP. Mr. McCafferty clarified there are essentially two conditions that govern the outdoor activity and the first • one is on page 4, Condition No. 3 which states, "That there shall be no church activities located in the landscape buffer area along the southern and eastern property lines adjacent to the single-family residential land uses". He feels that covers all matters with regard to the buffer area and states if 06-03-02 Page 58 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commission wishes, Condition No. 9 could be deleted so if the applicant wanted to obtain a special event permit they would simply go through the administrative process. Commissioner Koos wished to understand what staff feels is the best way. Mr. McCafferty states it is a commercial piece of property and churches have car washes for fundraisers throughout the City, therefore it is fine as long as they obtain a special event permit. Commissioner Koos feels they could add the language that states, "unless a special event permit is obtained". Chairperson Arnold clarifies that is what they have typically done with San Antonio Catholic Church and the Buddhist, etc. Mr. Manning states he raised the question because earlier when they called the City as they were looking at a special event the City responded that they could not file a special permit and could not do the activity whatsoever. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION; None • ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTiON CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04355 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04535) to retain an existing church within a commercial shopping center for a period of five (5) years to expire May 21, 2007. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001-66 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 9 was modified at today's meeting): That this conditional use permit shall expire on May 21, 2007. 2. That three-foot high address numbers shall be displayed and maintained on the roof in contrasting colors to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from view of the street or adjacent properties. 3. That there shall be no church activities located in the landscape buffer area along the southern and eastern property lines adjacent to the single-family residential land uses. 4. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Any existing water services that are not approved by Utility for continued use shall be upgraded to current standards, or abandoned by the developer. If the existing services are no longer needed, the developer shall • abandon them. 5. That there shall be no accessory day care facilities or private schools permitted on this property. 06-03-02 Page 59 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6. That no exterior amplified bells shall be installed or utilized in conjunction with this facifity. 7. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 8. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to the three (3) existing tenant identification wall signs (approximately 20 feet by 24 inches each) and identification on the existing double-faced freestanding shopping center identification sign. No window signs shall be permitted. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 9. That there shall be no outdoor special events conducted in conjunction with the church, unless a special event permit is obtained from the Zoning Division. 10. That based on the findings of the parking study prepared by Katz, Okitzu and Associates dated April 2, 2001, the size of the congregation shall be limited to 75 adults with the folfowing hours of operation: Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (two services) Wednesday and Saturday: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Tuesday through Friday: 9:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. (finro employees) ~ 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:43-4:46) • 06-03-02 Page 60 JUNE 3, 2002 PL.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 14b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUlREMENT Approved 14c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04547 Granted OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street, # 105, La Palma, CA 90623 AGENT: Mike Israelsky, 17165 Newhope Street, Suite H, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue, Unit 108. Property is approximately 5.75 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Topanga Avenue (Jossen Vocational Academy). Request to permit a vocationai training school within an existing commercial center with waiver of a minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-85 SR8307VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 14 as a Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04547, 3150 West Lincoln Avenue, Unit 108 - Jossen Vocational Academy, a request to permit a vocational training school within an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the request however there are modifications to the staff report and conditions of approval as follows: page 2, paragraph 9, the last sentence indicates the Code would require 714 spaces and that should actually be 758, consistent with the chart on pages 2 and 3; page 7, paragraph (23) subparagraph (c) (ii), the first word in the second line should not be "industrial" it should be "commercial"; Condition No. 12 should state, " that prior to issuance of a building permit, prior to commencement activity authorized by this resolution, or within the period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 4, 5, and 10, above- mentioned shall be complied with; Condition No. 13 should state, "that prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 9 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with". The prior Conditional Use Permit No. 4114 indicated there were 447 parking spaces to be provided, but the site plan indicates only 396 spaces are on the site. Technically the existing center is out of conformity with the exhibits that were approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 4114. He suggests Commission may wish to ask the applicant where the spaces went. ApplicanYs Testimony: Dr. Deborah Varos, 6991 San Juan Circle, Buena Park, CA, representing Jossen Vocational Academy, states they have read the staff report and have no problems with any of the recommendations but desired a repeat of the statement regarding the available spaces. Mr. McCafferty reiterated the prior Conditional Use Permit No. 4114 states, 447 parking spaces on the site but the information submitted with the application, including the parking study, indicates 396 spaces. The number of spaces on the ground is inconsistent with the prior approval Planning Commission granted for the Conditional Use Permit. • Jose Guevara responded parking was decreased from 447 to 396 because the back parking was eliminated when the 98 Cents Store brought in a delivery truck to be parked on the premises and he did not want to indicate 447 actual parking spaces when in fact there are only 396. 06-03-02 Page 61 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Dr. Varos states the nature of their program is such that the people that will serve the adult mental disability patients will not be providing their own transportation. They will be dropped off and picked up from the site. So with sfaff and visitors included they would not need any more than approximately 20 although it says 24 in the staff report. Noel Siat, 6991 San Juan Circle, Buena Park, CA, representing Jossen Vocational Academy, states they allow at least 24 but based on their actual estimations it would not reach that number because they will be using common transport vehicles for their students and most of the people working in the facility would be on staggered shifts. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for clarification on the vehicles that they would be transporting the students with. Dr. Varos responded it would depend but they would be responsible for providing their own transportation. Some would come in individual vehicles and be dropped off while others would be using services such as Access or other contracted transportation provider but their office would not be transporting them. Jossen Vocational Academy would have its own vehicle for emergency transportation or if for some reason they needed to go on an outing, etc., as other similar programs do. Commissioner Bosfinrick wished to clarify how parking would be reconciled, especially since they did not figure in the parking in the back. Mr. McCafferty clarified that the parking study would stand on its own merits. In terms of the recommendation, Code Enforcement would look into compliance with the previously-approved exhibits for that particular entitlement and if they could not comply as preplanned they would have to return to Commission with a modification of the Conditional Use Permit. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt feels it is a great use for the shopping center since it never seems to be full anyway. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04547 (to permit a vocational school within an existing commercial center) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 3, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 12 and 13 to read as follows: 12. That prior to issuance of a building permit, prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 4, 5, ~ and 10 ar~d-~~, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for fu~ther time to complete said ~ conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 06-03-02 Page 62 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 8, 9 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:47-4:55) ~ • 06-03-02 Page 63 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 15a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 15b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 15c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04544 Concurred with staff Approved Granted for 4 years (to expire on June 3, 2006) OWNER: Katella LLC, 1500 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Transwestern Community Services, 1404 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1424 East Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 17.1 acres having frontages of 1,022 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and 302 feet on the north side of Gene Autry Way located 661 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Request to permit a church within an existing business park with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ SR8320VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 15 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04544, 1424 East Katella Avenue, a request to permit a church within an existing business park with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial of the church within the existing complex for two reasons: 1) Due to a short-term consideration, the area predominantly within the stadium area is currently industrial type land uses and staff feels because the use is inherent with industrial types of activities that introducing a church in the area would be incompatible with the land uses. 2) The long-term objection to having a church in the stadium area is that it is contrary to long-term economic and land use goals that the City is preparing for the General Plan and Zoning Code Update in the area. The area is identified preliminarily from the land use and economic consultants, which is a major area of potential within the City. Staff feels it is an opportunity for Commission to say at the outset that as a matter of policy churches are not appropriate within the stadium area. Applicant's Testimony: Reynaldo Dulaney, 1856 Providence Way, Corona, CA, representing Greater Zion Apostolic Church, read a prepared statement as follows: "To the members of the Planning Commission: ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-86 On May 16, 2002, we attended the IDC Meeting where we were told by the committee that they had recommended an approval for a two-year Conditional Use Permit. Then our planner instructed us to return on May 31, 2002, to receive our staff comments. On May 29, 2002, we received a phone call from our planner who informed us that the Planning Committee had read this prior recommendation of approva! to denial". "A statement of our intent and purpose": 06-03-02 Page 64 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ "The intent of our request is not long-term in nature but temporary. We believe that the facilities at 1424 E. Katella Avenue would adequately serve our purpose in our time of transition. We also believe that our short-term occupancy will not be a deterrent to the strategic plans of the City. In fact, we believe that our congregants are hardworking taxpaying citizens who share the common theme of the City of Anaheim, which are peace, health, safety and general welfare to the citizens of Anaheim. Our cause is simple, to provide a message of hope and reconciliation to those who are in need and will accept it. It is our humble opinion that these principles are a hallmark of any citizen in this great country of ours. The Board of Directors of Greater Zion Apostolic Church entered into a number of financial agreements based on the comments of the committee. We employ you in good conscious to approve our Conditional Use Permit. We feel this short-term agreement will be beneficial to the parishioners of Greater Zion Apostolic Church by providing us with the facilities and conveniences that we need. We the members of Greater Zion Apostolic Church ask for your approval. Thank you". Linda Kight, 1404 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA, the property manager representing the owner of the property the applicants would like to occupy, states she strongly disagrees with the recommendation to deny the Conditional Use Permit. The City Code states, "churches are permitted within the ML zone subject to approval of a CUP". The staff report contradicts this. On page 4 it states, "churches should generally be discouraged from locating in predominately industrial areas". Ms. Kight states that she does not know if any of the Commissioners have ever seen the property but it is a mixed-use business park, there are offices and schools right next to it, a hotel across the street and there are restaurants. It is not a highly industrial area. The particular address is set back from the street. No one would know it was a church. The address, front doors or nothing can be seen from Katella Avenue and the site plans illustrate that. ~ Ms. Kight states, the staff report states that the church is not a compatible use for the property but she disagrees because she knows the property like nobody else does; she has been the property manager onsite since 1991. She knows a!I the tenants and everything about them including when they park and when they are there. She feels the church is a perfect use because it would help her in her parking. They are there on Sundays and weeknights when her other tenants are not there. She states nobody occupies it 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., tenants come, do their work and leave. It is very compatible for the property and there is even private drive parking in addition to that. There is no one there in the evenings or weekends. It helps having a church at the property because it would deter crime, not cause crime to happen. She feels more than anything it would deter any crimes or concerns that the City would have with regards to Greater Zion's use of the property. Ms. Kight states, "to put this to perspective, we are talking about a 2900 square foot unit in 173,000 square foot property that is on 17 acres. It is less than 2% of the buildings' square footage. It is a`blip' on the radar screen". The lease has a redevelopment clause, which gives the owner the absolute right to cancel the lease if they elect to redevelop the property because of the Sports Overlay zone, etc. A notice is all required because they have the sole and absolute discretion over it. She affirms they are talking about a two-year commitment and they are not going to redevelop the property in two years. She reiterates she has been there since 1991 and states they have no plans to redevelop it. It is not going to happen in two years and two years is going to be over very quickly. Ms. Kight states she finds it really disturbing and points out Item No. 18, page 4, which states, "The Commission may recall the workshop held last year pertaining to institutional uses such as churches in industrially-zoned areas. After extensive discussion, the general consensus of the Commission was that churches should generally be discouraged from locating in predominately industrial areas. Although not a land use consideration, the importance of preserving the City's economic industrial base was also of concern. Furthermore, with the exception of a single church located at the eastern edge of the Stadium Area, there are no other churches located in this part of the City. Staff believes that it is important to discourage churches, even on an interim basis, in the Stadium Area by being proactive in denying this • request". She reiterates, "this just does not make any sense to me". "Churches are not the enemy of the City" and she would step out on the limb and state, "Mr. Fritz, which is down the street from the subject location, in the Flamingo is a detriment to the City and certainly cause more issues than a potential detrimental impact on the economic development in the area than any church would". She states it seems like a very big conflict to her and she cannot reconcile why in the ML zone such orient businesses under 06-03-02 Page 65 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Article 18610275 are permitted and a church is not but even more disturbing, it states on page 6, Item No. (21), (c) (ii), "that the granting of the conditional use permit even under the conditions imposed, if any, may set an undesirable precedent by introducing churches into the Stadium Area when such a use would be incompatible with the long term land use goals for the area; and therefore, would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim". Ms. Kight asserts, "I have hard time understanding how a church could be a detriment to the peace, health, safety and general welfare and if it were not so outrageous I could almosf laugh and say I do not know who could even come up with thaY'. Ms. Kight quotes Item No. (21), (c) (ii), as stating, "that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining office and industrial land uses and restrict the growth and economic development of the area in which it is proposed to be located by introducing an incompatible land use". She reiterates, "it is not an incompatible use and I cannot understand how a church could adversely affect anything in any area but specifically, in that area which there are offices, schools, restaurants, hotels, etc. It does not make any sense". Originally they asked f~r a five-year CUP and the City Council agreed to finro years and now they have reduced it to one year. Ms. Kight asked, "what can be accomplished in one year?" She states it is not even feasible to ask them to pay a large sum of money, move and purchase furniture for one year. She requests at the minimum two years. Ms. Kight feels the hours of operation of the church should be limited to the following as stipulated. She illustrates that they are being approved from 9:30 to 2:30 but what if they needed to come in at 8:30 to set up for donuts or someone has an issue at 2:45 and they have to counsel them and/or assist them with a problem. She reiterates, "there is nobody there on Sundays. I know this property like I know my own home and there is nobody there". She feels the applicants should be able to utilize flexible hours on Sundays and flexible hours in evenings. '~`" Ms. Kight quotes Condition No. 6 as stating, "that no outdoor events shall be ermitted". She reiterates P "again, I think that is unreasonable, I have many other tenants who want to have barbecues, and open house, etc, at Christmas time and I let them have it, how could I not let the church have one?" She quotes Condition No. 8 as stating, "that the adult congregation at any one time shall be limited to 50 adults. If the number of congregates exceeds this number of inembers, at any one time, the petitioner shall then submit an updated parking study to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval, prior to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing". She reiterates "again, I think this is unreasonable; they would have to come back and ask for something else". She explains there are 463 parking spaces and it is a 2,900 square foot space of which only part of it is the sanctuary that is going to hold the adults. The sure confines of the building would not allow them to have more people. That in itself should self-limit the quantity of people and it should not be stated that they could only have 50 people. Regarding Condition No. 9, she states, as the owners, they are not going to terminate any of the Conditional Use Permits that are already on the property. The owner has plans at some point in the future to redevelop the property and is currently not certain what he wants to do, but since the condition is on there he does not want to take it off. Regarding Condition No. 10, which states, "that the property should be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence". Ms. Kight could not understand how that could be a condition. It is a business property and the staff report states it is a very well maintained property. She states she has a problem with perceiving how a condition could be made requiring the property owner to maintain the property when it is already being maintained. • Regarding Condition No. 11, she states they have 10 trash enclosures. The City of Anaheim contracts with Anaheim Disposal and over many years they have asked Anaheim Disposal if they could put gates on their trash enclosures and Anaheim Disposal has told them repeatedly "no, you cannot do thaY'. Ms. 06-03-02 Page 66 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Kight states when she called the planner, Vanessa NonNOOd, she stated, "oh no, they are telling you that because it is too difficult for them and they do not want it but you have to have gates on all your trash enclosures". Ms. Kight feels that is ridiculous because it would cost her $20,000 which is an entire years rent and it is not even feasible for her to put a tenanf in and install metal gates for 10 trash enclosures. Ms. Kight read excerpts from the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act enacted in Congress in the year 2000 as follows: "it prohibits state and local governments from enforcing zoning and landmark clauses which in any matter imposes substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by an individual or religious institutions. If a zoning or landmark law imposes such burden the government must prove that the law furthers a compelling governmental interest and that the law is a least restrictive means of doing so. In other words the law must achieve an important mission of government such as protecting the public safety and there must be no other means of achieving the mission which imposes a lesser burden on the exercise of religion. It also prohibits state and local governments from imposing or implementing land use regulations that treat religious assemblies or organizations less favorably than nonreligious ones or that totally exclude or unreasonably limit religious assemblies, structures or institutions with the state or local jurisdiction and these restrictions appear to prevent local governments from carving out religious free zones or commercial only districts or applying landmark laws to churches where such laws are not applicable to government buildings". She feels the recommended denial of the CUP on the grounds that the use is incompatible or will restrict economic growth of the area is unreasonable and does not offer compelling governmental interest to deny the CUP. ReverendDulaney, Sr., 461 Clover Lane, Corona, CA, the pastor of Greater Zion Apostolic Church and also a member of the Santa Ana City Council, states upon the approval for the application they proceeded to give notice to the landlord and if it is denied they have no where to go because new tenants are already being brought in. They have notified Pastor Copeland, of the Convention Center, that they are ~, moving into the City and he has recommended different people join his congregation because a lot of time pastors come into the City, leave and do not have a church recommendation for their members. Greater Zion Apostolic is on the board of the Convention Committee in the City of Anaheim to receive them. He feels with many of their members in Anaheim it would be a benefit to the City and would like to locate either property or a church for sale. The request for the CUP is only temporary. He states they only ask that Commission give them a chance and he realizes there have been other churches who requested a CUP and they had to start somewhere but Commission gave them a chance therefore they are asking for a chance to at least get started. He reiterates they are not planning on staying at the location, it is just a place to occupy until they can find a building or locate a place to purchase or rebuild. He reiterates, "We have many members in the area and that is why we would like to relocate into the City of Anaheim. May God bless you". Chairperson Arnold asked what was his forecast for another location because he senses Anaheim is the City of choice but his concern is that they have seen where a church will come in and state, "oh, it is just temporary" and then stay for a number of years. So he wanted to know what he saw as a forecast for how quickly he would be moving into a more permanent facility. ReverendDulaney, Sr., states they realize that the subject facility is not going to be large enough for the vision that the Lord has given him so as soon as they can find some property for sale and build a church or find a church for sale. They have talked to the leasing manager notifying her that as soon as something comes available. He states they chose to enter a short-term lease, as opposed to a long-term lease where they would have to pay out a lot of money, because they did not know when a church would be available for sale or when property would be located where they could build a church. He states if they are allowed to be there two years and have not found anything, they would have to come back to Commission just like other churches have had to do however, they do not plan to be there forever. In two to four years they plan to be out because they are trying to increase their membership and cannot grow ~ adequately in a small place. Commissioner Boydstun states churches that came in for two years, 12 years ago when she started Commission are still there and the subject area is definitely an area that will be developed. She asks if 06-03-02 Page 67 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commission could not put in a condition that it is not a renewable CUP. She feels there is really no reason that they could not be there since the center has an assortment of businesses and states Commission could make a few minor changes. For example, she cannot understand why Condition No. 6 could not be changed to add, "without permission of the manager" because she feels the manager would not let them have a"circus" there or anything or they could get a special event permit which is what Commission normally does and zoning is open for it. She feels there are many options Commission could work with and put a time limit on that is not renewable. Reverend Dulaney, Sr. states he would hate to see that they are required to vacate the property in two years if they have not found a place but feels if so, they would have to return to Commission and Commission has the authority to approve or deny but he would like to see that they have that option. He asserts, "perhaps Commission does not know about churches, but members come and members go, and Greater Zion Apostolic Church may not even be there in finro years". Chairperson Arnold interjected to authorize a response to Commissioner Boydstun's question. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, does not feel that such a condition would be appropriate. The use would have a right under the zoning code to apply for reinstatement. Commission could clearly state its finding with regard to the temporary use and what the basis for the use is so that it is on the records that the applicant and the Commission are making an agreement with a particular understanding as to the temporary nature and the basis for having that be such a temporary nature so that there is not any question down the line. She asserts she would have a problem stating that the applicant could have a right that is granted to any other use permit. Commissioner Koos states that Ms. Kight spoke eloquently but long. He commended her for speaking so eloquently and affirmed he would hire her if he had a case. ~ Ms. Kight responded they were the last ones and waited a long time. Commissioner Koos wished clarification from staff with Condition No. 9, which he feels has to do with the existing entitlements that are not being exercised. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Commissioner Koos clarified for Ms. Kight that it is a very routine thing Commission does unless she could somehow state that they are active businesses. Ms. Kight responded the CUP to permit a commercial office complex on Conditional Use Permit No. 2946, the building front is on Katella Avenue. Ultimately the owner who currently owns it is planning at some point to redevelop it whether it is residential or something else and they have all of the plans from the previous owner and may at some point decide that they want to do that type of facility. They are not sure but do not want to limit it. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify from staff the normal course of action. Mr. McCafferty responded the entitlement has expired so they could not really activate it and even if they could activate it they would still have to go through an entirely new CEQA review since it is so old. Chairperson Arnold clarified CUPs are not like options to develop. That is not really how they work. Ms. Kight understands and states they have masses of paper on the subject and would have to go back and review, but feels it is a permanent type and states if that is the case then it is immaterial anyway. ~ Commissioner Koos suggests limiting it to fire code or something, which would fall under occupancy. He states based on the staggered operation it is clear that they are not going to be there when anybody else is there. 06-03-02 Page 68 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty feels if Commission limits it to the fire code it would be something that they would have to comply with anyway so they may as well strike the entire thing. Commissioner Koos concurred that they probably should. He asks Melanie Adams to respond to Condition No. 11. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states Condition No. 11 related to the trash storage areas could be deleted as it relates to the specific use but the property owner should be working to get the gates on because it is a code enforcement. She suggested Ms. Kight work with Ms. Marsha Myers, Sanitation Manager, to resolve a time arrangement since they are under cost constraints. She advised it could be stricken from the CUP but they should be following up on the item. Commissioner Koos clarified that Ms. Kight is mistaken about Condition No. 10, it is a condition required ensuring the property is clean and landscaping is properly maintained. Ms. Kight concedes and asks if it is not a business property. Commissioner Koos assures she is following the rules and states it is just a condition for protection if the property is sold to someone else. Ms. Kight understands that it is similar to the Homeowners Association that discourages polka dots being painted on houses. Commissioner Koos suggested Commission add, "unless a special event permit is obtained" to Condition No. 6 because that is what they did for the previous church approved. With respect to the times he suggested Commission be very flexible to allow it anytime of the day when businesses are not there. ~ Commissioner Boydstun concurred. Commissioner Koos states he has no problem with Saturday, Sunday and 6:00 p.m. during the week, just in case the church would care to have bible school on Tuesday night, etc. Regarding the time expiration he would support four years. Commissioner Boydstun concurs and states it would be five years too soon. She recalled starting with Glacier and does not feel that it was successful. Commissioner Koos concurs and states what is more compelling is that they are such a small piece in a major land use. Commissioner Boydstun concurs and reiterates it is in the applicanYs lease that they are going to redevelop the property if something bigger and better comes along. Ms. Kight clarified the clause is in all of the leases. Commissioner Koos asked Reverend Dulaney if the latest hour he preferred to be on the property is 10:00 p.m. any day of the week. Reverend Dulaney responded 10:00 p.m. would be the latest but normally they are out at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Koos asked if 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday would be adequate. Reverend Dulaney responded that would be fine. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states it is the practice of some of the other industrial parks to allow stadium parking and asked Ms. Kight what would be her practice. Ms. Kight asserted she has informed all of her tenants and they know that she does not permit it. 06-03-02 Page 69 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt responded okay. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold states There is a litigation case that is going on in Cottonwood Christian Center in Cypress that is a suit over prohibiting a religious use in a Redevelopment Zone on the basis that religious uses are incompatible with economic activities and whether or not that violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Persons Act and is the Act constitutional, etc. However, he feels that the City of Anaheim does not need to get into the adversarial type of relationships and can avoid it if it is allowed as a temporary use, especially since there is no immediate development plans. Commission clearly envisions the stadium as being a major economic center in which it might be possible that the economics would overshadow the church and create a desire to be in a more residential area, etc. He hopes the church works quickly and diligently but also look very seriously in the City of Anaheim for opportunities to move to an area that is more compatible and that it would be an environment in which the church could help build the fabric of the overall community and vice versus that the community can be a support to the church. Commissioner Vanderbilt states in regards to religious freedoms (Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Persons Act) and what Commission is permitted not to do or to do; he feels Ms. Kight and Commission have the exact same goal. The City of Anaheim spent a lot of money on a master plan and there are a lot of areas in the City that they have {ooked at and seen growth of the churches. The churches came into areas that were ML Zone and grew and that impacted other land uses that were already there. He explains that the church is not being picked on but not only does Commission have to look at churches coming in but the possibilities of their growth has to be considered because they could come back later and have a lot more land and use in the facility and it would be hard to argue. He feels Ms. Kight is aware ~ of the economic base on Katella Avenue by the nature of her argument and having an escape clause that if it benefits the owner's property the applicant would be asked to move. Therefore, that is why Commission is informing the applicant that the CUP would only be for a temporary use. He feels it is a great use but inappropriate for the stadium. He affirms the City of Anaheim would love to have the church in the City but the issue is where. DURING THE ACTION. Commissioner Koos asked if Commissioner Boydstun (who made the motion to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1) would consider giving more Sunday night hours because he understands that sometimes churches have Sunday night services. Commissioner Boydstun asked Reverend Dulaney if he would like to be permitted 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. Reverend Dulaney responded yes, in case they need it. Chairperson Arnold clarified that the resolution should state, 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weeknights, 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday's and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. ~ 06-03-02 Page 70 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the testimony presented at today's meeting and the findings contained in the staff report dated June 3, 2002. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04544 (to permit a church within an existing building) for four (4) years to expire on June 3, 2006, based on the testimony presented at today's meeting being that the subject use is temporary as the applicant stated he is searching for a permanent facility and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 3, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 14 to read as follows: ~ 1. That this use shall expire on June 3, ~OA3 2006. That the hours of operation for the church shall be limited to the following a~d-as ~ Saturday: 7 a.m. - 3 p.m. Sunday: 7 a.m. -10 p.m. Weeknights: 6 p.m. -10 p.m. 6. That no outdoor events shall be permitted, unless a special event permit is obtained from the Zoning Division. 14. That prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 7, 9, ~-and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Deleted Condition Nos. 8 and 11 Staff requested at today's meeting that the property manager contact the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, to initiate the phased refurbishment of the • trash enclosures located on the property including installation of trash enclosure gates. VOTE: 7-0 06-03-02 Page 71 JUNE 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (4:56-5:34) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respe tfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 06-03-02 Page 72