Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/09/09~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPE C~N P~~JL~;B~STWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PH~Lf~ BOY~STU Si'~C~'~IE~I BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN, f.:: ~J~HN~~KOt~S ~rriv~d ~ 48~pRm.)~ QPr1/ID ROMERO, COMMISSIONERS STAFF PRESENT: ~ EE~ Selma Mann, Assistan~Gity~~ Greg Hastings, Zoninc~Davisi Greg McCafferty, Prir~~~~~.P Elisa Stipkovich, Exe~~t~ve_ C David Gottlieb, Rede~vel~Sp~~&~~ Lauren Allee, Housin~ I~~if`gr ~ ~ ~ : ~ a ,r~' ~ AGENDA POSTING~~ Y~ com Friday, September 6 ~002, i the outside display ki~~i~ JT: ~ Plan PUBUSHED: Anaheir~,~ulletir°~+~„ewspap~r.°~n Thua~sdav,~Auqus~`15,~~~~17~~`and Planner ~ k ,'.: ; z ~ a ~i: ~ ~ostec~~t 11:00 a.m. on ~cil Cki~mbers, and also in ~: :E~E ~ F:-;' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ' The Regi~E~r New~~°"aper on Frid~y, Au~~`st 30,~20Q~~g ;~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~~ ~~` ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSCIII~IAQ~I~1NlG S~SS~+L~N 11:00 ~A M' • STAFF UPDATE TO~QMMlSSI~N ~ ~`}~~tl~l~S~C~`~'Y DEVELOPMENTS AND IS5~1ES~(f0.~R~~L1~5"~ED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMER 9, 2002 AGENDA RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Boydstun PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICALMINUTES~AC090902.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net ~..a:.t~.r~,~ a p~~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~; ~ ~ ~~°~ ,..; ~ ~ ~~~~ s ~~ w. _-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~` ~' Alfred Yalda, Prrrrcipal ~'~an~s~ Melanie Adams, P~incrpal~~~~ --~-Elly>.,Fernandes, Serii~~ S~crE ~..~ ~ p Pa~ Char~dler, Sen~~r S~°~cret~ r. ~~. _.. W" ~;` ~ ~ ~ SEPTEMBER 9, 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 and 1-B on tF~e Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-B) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~~ • A. A) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) VARIANCE NO. 2853 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04527) - REQUEST Determined to be in FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: substantial conformance Alexander Hsu, 945 Summitridge Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and regarding modifications to Nicole Nguyen, P. O. Box 12499, Westminster, CA 92685, request a previously-approved exhibits. determination of substantial conformance to modify previously- approved exhibits to construct two, two-story family dwellings. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Property is located at 805 and 807 South Western Avenue. Koos absent) Continued from the August 26, 2002, Planning commission meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the modifications to previously-approved exhibits are substantially in conformance with previously-approved exhibits for the proposed construction of finro single-family residences with a previously- approved waiver of the requirement that all single-family structures rear on an arterial highway (Variance No. 2853), with the following stipulation which shall be noted on plans submitted for final building permits: 1. That plans submitted for building permits shall indicate storage and collection areas for three automated trash barrels for each dwelling (total of 6 barrels). SR8392JR.DOC 09-09-02 Page 2 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • \ J B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2002. (Motion) Continued to September 23, 2002 (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Koos absent) 09-09-02 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04447 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04566) OWNER: William Taorimina, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Dick Boranian, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 201 East Center Street. Property is approximately 0.09-acre located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Claudina Street (Kraemer Suitding). Request to modify previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval for a mixed-use historical building with residential units and accessory office and retail uses. Continued from the July 15 and August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-128 Approved Approved modifications to previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval, with stipulation made by the applicant. SR2120DS.DOC • Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447, 201 East Center Street - Kraemer Building, Anaheim, CA, a request to modify previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval for a mixed-use historical building with residential units and accessory office and retail uses. Applicant's Testimony: Bill Taormina, 128 W. Sycamore St., Anaheim, CA, states they concur with the staff report and appreciate the work that has been done on behalf of the Redevelopment Department and everyone working as a team to make a better project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if there were two bathrooms in the units as shown on plans. Mr. Taormina clarified there are two bathrooms and two bedrooms. DURING THE ACTION: Commissioner Romero asked if the units would all be wired for satellite. Mr. Taormina responded yes, there would be a non-visible small dish on the roof behind the porte cochere and all the units would have an internet access satellite dish, regular television, cable television, and Ethernet, etc., Commissioner Romero asked if one dish would supply all the units. • Mr. Taormina responded yes and a switcher would come with the rent. 09-09-02 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~' • ~ • s ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request for modifications to Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04447 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04566) to modify previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approvaf for a mixed-use historical building with residential units and accessory office and retail uses, (with a stipulation made by the applicant at today's meeting "that only one satellite dish sha// be on the roof which wou/d be 24 inches or less and comp/efe/y screened from public view"). Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001-140 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: That the following listed commercial uses shall be qrohibited on the subject property; that an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's O~ce so-prohibiting said uses, shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder; and that a copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division: • (1) Bars, nightclubs, and public dance halls (2) Arcades (3) Liquor stores (4) Pawnshops (5) Laundromats available to the general public (6) 7attoo parlors (7) Dry cleaning establishments with on-site dry cleaning (8) Churches (9) Sex oriented businesses (10) Banquet halls (11) Take-out or fast food restaurants 2. That the permitted office and retail uses shall be limited to the following listed uses or such other uses as may be approved by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item; that an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office so-limiting said uses, shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder; and that a copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division: (1) ~2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ~7) • ~9~ (10) Accountir-g, bookkeeping, CPA firms, and temporary CPA firms Advertising Antique shops Appraisers Art, music and photography studios Bakeries Banks and financial firms Barbers, beauty shops, and nail salons Book Stores Brokers: real estate, business opportunities, etc. 09-09-02 Page 5 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • u (11) Business systems companies (12) Business/trade school and training center (13) Clothing and shoe stores (14) Communication consultants (15) Computer analysis firms (16) Confectionery and candy stores (17) Credit reporting agencies (18) Designers: industrial, interior, graphic (19) Development companies (20) Drugstores and pharmacies (21) Dry cleaning (drop-off and pick-up convenience center without on-site dry cleaning) (22) Facility maintenance and planning (23) General professional business offices (24) Hobby shops (25) Insurance companies and agencies (26) Inventory services (27) Jewelry stores (28) Leasing companies (29) Management consultants and management companies (30) Marketing research (31) Medical and dental offices (32) Personnel agencies (33) Quality control analysis (34) Restaurants: full-service, coffee shops, sandwich shops, and delicatessens (35) Sales offices (36) Secretarial and business services 3. That a maximum of twenty one (21) residential units (consisting of four (4) one- bedroom units and seventeen (17) two bedroom units) shall be permitted. 4. That the owner/developer of the property shall negotiate an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") with the City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. An unsubordinated covenant shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Departments, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office, stating that any future building modifications and/or rehabilitation shall be consistent with the National Park Services Standards for Historic Preservation, Anaheim Colony Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Downtown Guide for Development in order to preserve all significant, historic features of the interior and exterior of the Kraemer building. Moreover, the owner/developer shall install materials and finishes of high quality with expert craftsmanship and design, and state-of-the-art amenities. Said covenant shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That no unscreened roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on the building. 6. That detailed plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval specifying how the pedestrian bridge and contiguous parking spaces in the parking structure will function. The architectural design of the bridge shall be reviewed and approved by both the Planning and Community Development Department staff. L ~ 7. That freestanding signs shall not be permitted on the subject property. All future wall signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Division and Community Development Department. 09-09-02 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. 9. (a) That all public telephones shall be installed inside the building only. (b) That no exterior vending machines, display or storage shall be permitted. 10. 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 graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 11. That the existing mature trees in the planters along the Center Street frontage and within the court yard east of the building shall be retained where possible. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 12. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plants. 13. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Said plans shall also identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e., landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments. • 14. That prior to commencing operation of any office, retail or home occupation businesses, valid business licenses shall be obtained from the Business License Division of the City of Anaheim Finance Department. 15. That trash storage area(s) shall be refurbished and maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers, or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 16. That window signs shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission as a"Report and Recommendation" item, to allow for professionally applied historically accurate identification signage. 17. That final detailed landscaping and fencing plans showing landscaping enhancements and recreational amenities on the roof deck and within the ground level enclosed courtyard (including the provision of clinging vines on the courtyard fencing) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 18. That the availability of parking for this building shall be in conformance with Code requirements. Should additional Code-required parking be needed based upon • the tenant mix of the office/retail area, additional parking shall be made available and secured through an agreement with the Community Development Department. 09-09-02 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 19. That based on the availability of one hundred finrenty eight (128) parking spaces in the parking structure to the east of the Kraemer Building and a parking requirement of forty six (46) spaces for the twenty one (21) approved residential units, the non-residential uses shall not exceed a parking requirement of eighty two (82) spaces. 20. That final detailed elevation plans indicating building colors and materials, including the screening materials proposed for the telecommunication antennas on the roof, shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Said plans shall be in conformance with the Anaheim Colony Historic District Guidelines and the Downtown Guide for Development, and shall be subject to a Community Development Department design review process. 21. That telecommunication antennas on the roof shall be completely screened from view from any direction. In order to provide a stealth appearance, materials proposed to screen said antennas shall match the color, type and materials of the existing building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 22. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and Revision I of Exhibit No. 10, (Revision No. 1), and as conditioned herein. • 23. That prior to the issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20 and 21, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 24. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5 and 22, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 25. 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: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:38-1:42) ~ 09-09-02 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04577 OWNER: Antoinette B. Leos, Trustee of the Antoinette Leos Trust, 10305 La Grange Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Farmer Boys Food, Inc., Attn: Bob Veriato, 3452 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 LOCATION: 2800 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.85-acre located on the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue (Farmer Boys). Request to permit the construction of a fast food restaurant with drive- through and pick-up windows. Continued from the August 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 23, 2002 SR8410AN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04577, 2800 West Lincoln Avenue-Farmer Boys, a request to construct a fast-food restaurant with drive-through and pick-up • window. Applicant's Testimony: Rodger Watson representing Farmer Boys, Inc., which is a new restaurant concept that has been in the inland empire and 22 units in Orange County for approximately 20 years. They are proposing to place a unit at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue on the southwest corner. The primary role of this restaurant is that it serves 3 meals a day and takes the form of a fast-food restaurant with sit-down type meals. It is franchisee owned by a citizen of the community and will be similar to other hamburger and fast-food restaurants in the area. It is a small southern California chain of restaurants fairly new in the area with growth plans. The proposal is for a Conditional Use Permit for the drive-through. The conditions of approval are acceptable to Farmer Boys with the exception of a couple of clarifications: - Page 2, Paragraph 1, indicates no outdoor seating is proposed but Page 6, Condition No. 3, recommends the outdoor patio area be limited to 10 seats. Farmer Boys proposal is for 10 seats in the outdoor patio area. - Conditions of approval limit the wafl signage to two. Farmer Boys concept of signage is a combination logo and name. Page 3, Condition No. 14 refers to the sign program, which indicates signs in conformance with code, Item B is 3 wall signs and Item C is 1 wall sign, for a total of 4 wall signs. Page 4, Condition No. 18 refers to limiting the number of wall signs to two. The sign program submitted calls for 4 wall signs and Farmer Boys would like to have 4 wall signs. The primary reason being they are fairly small signs. One of them goes over the doorway on the parking lot, which faces the west and does not face the street. They want that for the identification of the entrance. They are bringing their customers in, not directly off the street, but off the parking lot hidden by the building. They would like to have one sign facing Dale Avenue and one sign facing Lincoln Avenue. There is a smaller sign on the side of the tower element that ~ people coming north on Dale Avenue can see. They would like to have the signs proposed and the signs were prepared to be in conformance with code. 09-09-02 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ron Underwood, Architectural Firm Decker Underwood, Newport Beach, CA, points out a minor clarification in that Condition No. 11 indicates that the approximate height of the building is 20 feet and that is correct but the actual height at the peak of the pitched roof is 21 feet. Public Testimony: Ken Katchka, 201 N. Dale Avenue, Apt, Z-4, Anaheim, CA, states he and his wife, Jan, are residents in the area and do not feel they need another restaurant. It is an intersection where there have been many traffic accidents and they were almost run down there two years ago. He feels an additional restaurant would create more traffic, especially in the drive-through from peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He works for Albertson's and feels the new restaurant would create a conflict of interest because distances between Albertson's and the Pavilion are to specifically not create excess traffic flow. Considering the safety of the neighborhood he does not feel it is a good area for the proposed restaurant. Jan Katchka, 201 N. Dale Avenue, Apt., Z-4, Anaheim, CA, states there are approximately four hamburger stands in the surrounding area and to have an additional one serving the same foods is not necessary. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Watson states the only letter that was received by the staff was from other people that owned fast food restaurants in the area. Farmer Boys is not a National chain; a citizen of the community will own the franchise. Farmer Boys property rights and the right to compete would be the same as other restaurants. He understands the concerns about traffic, and states on the site there are shops already there, including four driveways but when Farmer Boys is finished building the site it would be reduced to two driveways and the driveways would be farther from the intersection than the current four driveways. He feels they would be improving the traffic situation. He has represented Albe~tson's on over a hundred projects in the • last 8 years. It is his biggest client and they do not choose things based on traffic flow but would rather be located where the traffic is. The issue of competition is a factor and it is the same factor that Farmer Boys is using. Farmer Boys feel there is a large clientele within a couple of miles of the area and they think it will be a successful restaurant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick states he received an e-mail signed by a number of business owners in the area and spoke to one of the owners via telephone expressing to him that Planning Commission does not deal with the economics of the property or the businesses but deals with the land use and whether it fits the land and the conditions to make the business work on a particular property. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states because there is a provision in the code regarding non- conforming uses the project would have to be continued for two weeks in order to advertise a waiver of the provision that requires land use conformity as it relates to the existing billboards on the property. ~ 09-09-02 Page 10 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. An e-mail was received, prior to the meeting, with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to advertise a waiver of the provision that requires land use conformity for an existing nonconforming billboard located on the property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (1:43-1:56) • u 09-09-02 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMtSSION MINt1TES ~ 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04584 OWNER: Joseph T. Kung, 20866 East Quai! Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 AGENT: Ron Lee, 1105 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOCATION: 5557 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Suite 101. • Property is approximately 5.0 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Request to permit a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade) business. * Advertised as a request to permit and retain. Continued from the August 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-129 Concurred with staff Granted for 1 year, with stipulation made by the applicant SR1092CW.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04584, 5557 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 101, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade) business. Applicant's Testimony: Ron Lee, 1105 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states in their business, during school time, they would not allow any students to come in as agreed with the Vice Principal, and anyone using the workstations would not be unsupervised. Chairperson Bostwick states in the last CUP (Conditional Use Permit) approval there was landscaping that still has not been installed. Joseph Kung, the property owner of 5557 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 101, Anaheim, CA, states they are currently getting estimates to get it installed. It was not previously done because there were internal problems, which are now being resolved. He feels it would be resolved in two weeks. Commissioner Bristol asked if he were to go outside the facility to smoke where would he go. Mr. Lee responded smokers would go to the rear of the store. Commissioner Bristol states the rear is where the residences are. Mr. Lee states the rear of the store has benches for clients to sit down and there is a large street before the residential area. The rear streef is Old Santa Ana Canyon Road, which is approximately 40 feet wide. The rear end of the building to the street is an additional 40 feet, there is a platform where people can walk or sit and there is 30 feet of landscaping before the street is reached. ~J Commissioner Bristol states the hours of operation go to midnight a couple of nights and the back of the building is elevated to the street, and going straight across the street on Santa Ana Canyon Road would lead directly into the residents. Any noise or anyone outside would impact them. He feels there would be 09-09-02 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • a mingling of people in the back and soon it would be a place for people to pick up and leave students that have a curfew and cannot be there after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Lee states smoking can be changed to an alleyway between their shop and the Chinese restaurant. Mr. Kung states parking spaces in the front are for student pickup and there is no parking space in the back. They have advised all tenants not to park or use the back street after dark and that all activities should take place in the front. It is an ongoing practice of all the tenants. Commissioner Bristol states Canyon High School issued a letter emphatically against the proposed use. Mr. Lee states the school would not like the students to use computers other than those of the school. He asks what if the student stays home and goes onto any computer site they wanted to. At his shop a manager and clerk supervise students at all times and the front can monitor all workstations. Commissioner Bristol asked what were the three thefts about that happened at the Fullerton facility. Mr. Lee responded it was for the headphones and a mouse. Commissioner Bristol asked who called the police. Mr. Lee responded one of his employees called the police. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Romero states smoking is a real issue in the front or in the back for both sides. • Commissioner Bristol states he is torn between the fact that they already know the history of this type establishment but it is not enough of a history to really say everybody is not going to work or will work; The applicant has property rights; There are three others in the City, and there has not been any problems. Chairperson Bostwick states his feeling is to give it a year's trial to see if it will work out. Commissioner Boydstun states they are running a clean business in the City of Fullerton and they will probably work just as hard to keep the proposed business clean. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Lee if he would agree that children not allowed out passed 10:00 p.m. would be picked up in the parking lot in front of the establishment. Mr. Lee responded yes. Commissioner Romero states furniture of the businesses next door should not be used for the clients of the proposed facility. Chairperson Bostwick states there should be a stipulation in the conditions that Mr. Kung would have the landscaping installed within 30 days. Mr. Kung agreed. DURING THE ACTION: Commissioner Romero asked how it would be monitored and enforced that students would not be allowed during school hours. ~ Mr. Lee responded he has run the business for a year and he could tell which students are under 18 years old. 09-09-02 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04584 (to permit a computer rental and internet amusement [arcade] business) for a period of one (1) year, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in tMe staff report dated September 9, 2002, (with a stipulation made by the applicant af today's meeting "that landscaping shall be installed within 30 days") and with the following modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That outside, rear of the store shall be designated as a"non-smoking area". VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (1:57-2:15) • 09-09-02 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04590 OWNER: Efren Gutierrez, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Micaela Munoz, 1816 North Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 1750 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.6-acre having a frontage of 140 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 640 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant). Request to permit a public dance hall with a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously-approved restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • ~ Continued to October 7, 2002 SR8416AN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the October 7, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow additional time to conduct a parking study. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09-09-02 Page 15 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04579 OWNER: Thomas Pang, 733 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: John Swint, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 733 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.22-acre located on a private street with access from Euclid Street located 220 feet north of the centerline of Crone Avenue. Request to permit and retain a partially constructed granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence. Continued from the August 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-130 Concurred with staff Denied SR8385VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04579, 733 South Euclid Street, a request to permit and retain a partially constructed granny unit in conjunction with an existing Single-family residence. \J Applicant's Testimony: John Swint, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, CA, states the only comment he has is Item No. 23, which is in reference to a slab floor. The building is built with a wood floor with no interior bearings and rests on concrete blocks that sit directly on the ground without the benefit of a foundation. Public Testimony: David Mchaffie, 1702 Siva Avenue, Anaheim, CA, submitted a letter from his neighbor, Juan Garcia, and states they live immediately north of the applicanYs property and the back wall is adjacent to his sidewall. He and Mr. Garcia have similar views in that they are both opposed to the second-story building because it would loom over the back of their property. The residents of the neighborhood are there to live in their homes and raise their immediate families whereas the owner of the property seems to look at his property as a source of income. Because he is using his present structure as rooms for rent, neighbors are fearful that he will do the same thing if permitted an additional structure in the back. Also, they are concerned about the short wall at the rear of their property because they are on a pie-shaped lot. He states his rear property line is about 130 feet long where in the front it is about 60 feet and Mr. Garcia's rear property is also quite long. The wall was built in 1957 and is very short. On their side it is 4 feet or less because they had to do some grading so that rain would run out to the street. There is a large foot difference in the property of the elevation and they are concerned that if cars were allowed to travel along the back of the wall, they would not have any privacy. They are opposed to having a driveway on the other side of their wall. • Tim Smith, Yorba Linda, CA, representing the Dykes family whose property is south of the applicanYs property states since the time they have known Mr. Pang it has not been necessarily a pleasant experience. He has been asked numerous times not to park on their property. Many times they have had to ask him to move assorted cars of his tenants that he did not even know. He has been renting the property for sometime to more than one person at a time. 09-09-02 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Art Hopkins, the building inspector, was disallowed entry to the buildings. The total disregard for the City ~ and its rights to inspect the property and building a two-story property without a foundation makes him untrustworthy. Every year he has to sign an affidavit but what good is it to neighbors who do not have entry on any of the property, do not know who lives there, what is going on, how many of these units are rented, etc. He feels the applicant is trying to get away with something. His in-laws, the Dykes, have been stewards of their property since 1929, they own the original 10 acres and his father-in-law built the house. The cars at the house are enumerable and it is a fire lane. Mrs. Dykes is in her 80's. They have had to have two ambulances and the paramedics come out before. If anybody were blocking the driveway, emergency vehicles would do not be able to get in; it is extremefy narrow. It is not a normal cul-de-sac but a"T' that requires backing and moving and if anybody were parking where they should not be it would make it a total nightmare. The access shown around the house that goes to the back of the property is impossible to make and fit down a 10-foot wide narrow section. There are way too many negatives for the property and the applicant has no intention of it being a granny unit but intends to rent as much as he can on the property and make as much money from it as possible. Chairperson Bostwick asked if Mr. Pang lives thece. Mr. Smith responded he has seen him there and there is a good possibility he lives there but there has been many times they have not been able to find him. Sandra Henry, 18804 Teton Cir., Fountain Valley, CA, states she and her husband owns 741 South Euclid Street property into the center of the driveway that whoever entering the property would have to use. Mr. Bailey owns the facing house and he owns to the center of the driveway as well, and parking is a problem. There are CCR's in the unit, which were put in by Mr. Dykes such as no parking on the grass • and no one is allowed to park in the driveway because it is a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles. When she lived there with her children, if they had a party she would tell everybody and there would be people there to move cars if necessary. At that time they could park on Euclid Street but now parking is not permitted Euclid Street. So, the parking is a real problem and should be considered. She asks, if the applicant is renting out units and if the tenants have cars parked, to whom should they go for parking issues because it is a private street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick states he visited the site on Sunday, September 8, 2002, and saw 6 cars parked at the address. He feels it is not just a gentleman and his mother by themselves; the property is being used as an apartment facility rather than a single-family dwelling. He concurs to try to go between the house and the walls to the house to the east and to make a turn onto a 10-foot lane would be extremely difficult. DURING THE ACTION: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states the findings that an application for a granny unit needs to be based on are set forth in Condition No. 19, which indicates state code requires that a public agency has to grant a Conditional Use Permit if it complies with all of the items set forth in Condition No. 19. From the evidence presented it appears that the existing structures do not comply with local building code requirements, which apply to detached dwellings as appropriate and that would be the finding for Commission's determination or, if looked at as the plan submitted, it does meet the requirements. Therefore, Paragraph No. 20 should be corrected to indicate, "This proposed granny-unit meets all requirements established by state code, contingent on removal of illegal structures and restoration of required parking". The Planning Commission would have the option to approve the application, based upon the plan ~ submitted, which do comply with code. If that is what the Planning Commission wishes to do, then she recommends Condition No. 1 be modified to require demolishing the illegal structures within a period of 09-09-02 Page 17 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES time that is shorter than one year. Otherwise, there would be no code enforcement action that could ~ proceed against the applicant until the one-year period has expired. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition, and a letter was submitted in opposition to the subject request. A letter was received, prior to the meeting, with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04579 (to permit and retain a partially- constructed granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence) based upon the testimony presented at today's meeting and as stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002, as follows: (i) That the two-story, granny unit together with other unpermitted structures on the property would adversely affect adjoining land uses and the growth and ~ development of the area in which it is proposed by creating a negative aesthetic impact on adjacent properties; (ii) That the granting of this permit together with the cumulative impact of other unpermitted structures and illegal modifications on the property would be detrimental to the peace and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (2:16-2:36) ~ 09-09-02 Page 18 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04469 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04526) OWNER: City of Anaheim, Attn: Clare Fletcher, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Alexander Development, Attn: Jon Veregge, 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 waivers of a) permitted commercial center identification sign and b) maximum number of wall signs to construct a new monument sign and one additional wall sign for an existing automotive deale~ship (Weir Canyon Acura) in addition to the previously-approved seven wall signs for two automotive dealerships. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 7, 2002 SR8412KB.DOC ' FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the October 7, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the representative for Weir Canyon Acura in order to allow additional time to submit revised plans for the proposed monument identification sign for staff's review. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 09-09-02 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MfNUTES ~_J 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00386 (TRACKING NO. GPA2002-00401) Approved Recommended adoption of revised Element to City Council AGENT: City of Anaheim, Community Development Department, Attn: Bertha Chavoya, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 City-initiated request to revise the 2001 Housing Element (approved by the City Council on May 8, 2001) to incorporate additional information requested by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-131 • SR8420JB.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00386, a request to amend the adopted 1998-2005 Housing Element to incorporate revisions requested by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Applicant's Testimony: Elisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development along with Lauren Allee, Housing Programs Administrator, states the most relevant sections would be under the discussion part of the staff report, indicating the clarification regarding the Low Medium Density, RM-1200 sites in the inventory. If any of the sites gets developed at a lower density for other uses the efement would need to be amended and they would have to identify additional alternative sites. Also, the City monitors the Multi-family development and they would look to see whether the current development standards consistently require vacancies for building heights, etc. In addition to that, it indicates that the City would work with the Kennedy Commission and other key community members to study the ethicacy of creating an affordable family housing ordinance. They recommend that Commission approve the revised housing element as submitted. Public Testimony: Scott Darrell, Executive Director of The Kennedy Commission, 23861 EI Toro Rd., Lake Forest, CA, states they are a coalition of employers, community organizations, and interested citizens that advocate for the production of affordable housing throughout Orange County. They a~e present to ask that Commission not approve the amended housing element. Three specific issues why they do not think it is ready for approval are: 1) They ask that additional time be allowed for local advocates, developers of affordable housing, and other interested parties to get their input into the Commission and the Council. 2) They are concerned in terms of the lack of affordable sites that are identified in the element. 3) They were happy to see a commitment from staff to have an affordable family ordinance implemented or at least studied, but would like to see more definition such as what kind of programs or what kind of polices would be included or at least be discussed in the affordable housing ordinance, what is the time frame for the study and how would community be involved in the process. Francisco Ceja, 1303 W. Lynne Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he is present to support the Kennedy ~ Commission and to encourage Commission to support affordable housing. He knows first hand how hard it is for families that can barely make minimum wage to afford to rent an apartment. That is the reason many families have to find roommates or to find another family to put money together and pay rent. 09-09-02 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Delia Vabela, 610 S. Pine Street, Anaheim, CA, translated by Joseph S. Singh, states she works in the community in different neighborhoods such as the Caselle Village, Jeffery Lynne's and Guinita. She is present to support the Kennedy Commission and sees the great need for low-income housing. She encourages Commission that when they talk about affordable housing to consider the workers who are earning minimum wage; $9.00 and $10.00 an hour that work in the restaurants, Disneyland, etc., and how they are going to be impacted by the project, and if it is going to be affordable to them. She asks that there be more dissemination in Spanish, because they are a large part of the community and there is a lot of interest, but many times it is very difficult to communicate when there is such limited amount of information that she can share. Joseph Singh, 7870 E. Viewmount Court, Anaheim, CA, states he supports the Kennedy Commission. The community is really encouraged by the fact that staff is moving forward with working with them, but would like to have a little more detail as to how things are going to come together and how they can measure whether they have reached or have not reached their goals. Their main mission is to help the families that are stated as the greatest need in the housing element, and that is the very low-income large families. He feels they have been very successful in creating a large amount of affordable housing for the seniors and now they need to balance out the equation and specifically at families. He encourages Commission to monitor and see whether a family ordinance can work here in Anaheim, and if it would make it easier for other developers to come in and build affordable housing. Bob Cerince, 223 S. Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA, states he is concerned about the housing element, because it lacks a realistic plan to address the state of needs of low-income families in the City. Most staff and many officials in Anaheim and the City government are accurate and are quick to claim the great job the City has done in the recent past at creating affordable housing opportunities. Working families have a very high ratio of apartments to single-family residences and the City has done a significant job and work at rehabbing units throughout the City like Hermosa Village or the formerly known Jeffrey ~ Lynne, but there is an attitude that underlies the document and that is a reasoning that leads to the conclusion that Anaheim has built its fair share of rental units. "We have done enough" is the attitude. "It is time for other jurisdictions to catch up, and if we do not build anymore units then people will not come to Anaheim." He feels that position is a little like saying, "we have graduated thousands of children from our high schools. We have done a great job and our children are doing well. It is time to stop offering this educational opportunity. We do not need any more children graduating from our high schools in the City." The housing reality is that people will continue to flock to Anaheim, because Anaheim creates jobs, especially jobs in the service sector. If more new units are not built to add to the existing stock, then substandard conditions and overcrowding will continue to increase. That is why a realistic housing element is needed that is informed through public comments. The current document lacks the realistic plan, and if it is approved today it will not change the fact that no new units have been added to the existing current housing stock in nearly a decade. If the document is approved, the unfortunate trend will continue and the quality of life for all Anaheim residents will suffer. Mark A. Gordon, Director of Litigation at the Public Law Center, 601 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA, states the office represents low-income persons throughout the county. They have recently written to the City of Anaheim regarding the housing element and it boils down to two major points: 1) They do not believe that the housing element lists adequate sites. The state law requires that you actually analyze the adequacy of sites that are identified in the housing element. 2) Under state law you are required to actually analyze the governmental constraints to the development of housing and the proposed housing element does not do that. It actually lists some of the governmental constraints such as parking, and states for one bedroom unit you need two parking spaces, etc., but it does not give any analysis of the parking standard itself, such as height restrictions, setback requirements, etc. ~ Commissioner Bristol states they want Commission to analyze things that are in code or already in print and the City has already responded to that. 09-09-02 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Gordon responded with respect to the sites that have already been identified, one of the governmental constraints for example, is parking requirements. Studies have shown in other jurisdictions that low income persons have fewer cars than persons of moderate income. However, the City just merely lists that "these are our parking requirements," and that is it. He feels they need to analyze that and determine what they are going to do as a City to remove those restraints. Commissioner Bristol states thaYs what they did and asked why would they recreate anything. Mr. Gordon responded if it is common knowledge that low-income persons have fewer cars for example, then if parking requirements for an affordable housing development still require one bedroom units to have finro cars as opposed to the one car that they might have, the parking requirements would need to be changed with respect to affordable housing developments. Commissioner Bristol states they specifically indicated density bonuses, etc., for senior housing where there might be 1%z cars or fwo cars per finro bedrooms, for 0 rooms -1 car, 1 bedroom -1 car. Mr. Gordon responds thaYs a perfect example. With respect to senior ordinance, they actually recognize seniors are going to have fewer cars and would drive less and that has been accounted for. However, that has not been accounted for in low-income persons who would actuaily try to rent from the City. He feels they should actually amend their parking requirements for that particular population or for a development that targets that particular population. As opposed to just listing what the requirements are the City of Anaheim should go more into in its housing element. Ms. Stipkovich states Page 19, Condition 29 they have identified the fact that they need to study their parking requirement. Judithanne Gollette representing WAND's (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development) Land Use and • Development Committee, states the community is stating affordable housing and WAND has spoken before Commission many times and have tried to change the term to quality housing for a balanced community, and it still goes forward today. Speaking on behalf of West Anaheim she states when the Kennedy Commission says they need more apartments she would answer back and state that West of Beach Boulevard, three out of every four residence is an apartment. When the Kennedy Commission speak of decreasing the number of parking spaces she would ask that they go up and down their streets and see how many cars are parked in the alley and the streets, etc. WAND believes housing is needed for everyone in their community and that is why they have supported 250 affordable senior units in the last two years that are currently being built and 23 special needs units being built for AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and they continue to falk to other developers for other special needs houses. However, when speaking of a community, they are speaking of all aspects of the community and not just housing. They speak to the right of a child to have an education; to have his own desk; a teacher to have his/her own classroom, and not to be in a room where they have to have two classes in one day or to be in a room where a teacher has to change her class and move everything within a couple of weeks because another class is coming in. They speak of rooms and parks and amenities that everyone in a community needs, not just housing. Housing is a basic need, but unless there is a balance of all the needs then the community is impacted, and it does not go forward. If it is a request to go forward with something that the community has not been notified of, she feels they all need to be appraised of it. WAND is involved with all aspects of the community, and not just what the state demands. The people live in the community 24/7 along with their children, and they all have rights. Amon David, 1585 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA, states they agree with Ms. Gollette. They should be allowed to come together and iron out their differences together in concert with developing the revised plan with citizen participation. They agree with the Kennedy Commission, something has to happen in the largest city in Orange County. It is good to give seniors a place to live, but it is also good to give the blue-collar workers a place to live, which they can afford. ~ Applicant's Rebuttal: Ms. Stipkovich states to clarify a few things: 09-09-02 Page 22 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1) The decision Commission is making today would not be the final decision. The proposal would still have to go forward to the City Council. 2) The amendment to the housing element was available August 13, 2002. There has been adequate notice. 3) She reminds the people that they have been working on the amendment for two years. It is not a new document. 4) The changes are very small considering the size of the housing element. They were the paragraphs she read earlier. The significance is they agree to monitor themselves and make sure they report to the state HCD. One other change is that they are adding additional opportunity sites. 5) Regarding constraints, they have not only indicated a willingness to look at the parking and to do a parking study, but also to work with the Kennedy Commission in creating a task force that will help review the development standards. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick states in reference to the family ordinance he feels it is going in the wrong direction. How anyone gets into college is not selected by the color of skin, where they were born, etc. It is a matter of what their academic skills are. Family ordinances is building a roadblock and having equal opportunities for all economic groups in the city and in the entire country. . The realistic part of the housing element is the fact that it is a buyer-seller situation. There has fo be a • willing seller and a willing buyer for property that they can develop at a price that someone else can afford to buy. The proposed amendment is a plan and is not a guarantee. Community Development has identified a lot of sites, but none are guaranteed for development, but are simply opportunities should they happen. The idea of setting up constraints and looking up those is a great idea although, he has seen parking and projects come to Commission with less than improved parking and then become nightmares because there is extra parking, and to all of a sudden change standards can create real problems in the future. • • ~ ~- • • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (including representatives from the Kennedy Commission and Public Law Center). A letter was received in opposition to the subject request. IN GENERAL: 1 person representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) expressed opinions pertaining to the subject request. u 09-09-02 Page 23 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended to City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00386 (Tracking No. GPA 2002-00401) revising the previously-adopted 1998-2005 Housing Element by incorporating the additional information/clarification requested by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). V07E: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (2:37-3:15) ~ ~ 09-09-02 Page 24 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES . 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00080 9c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEN7 9d. CONDITIONAL USE PERM(T NO. 2002-04589 9e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16412 OWNER: Theodore C. Dinkler, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Olson Urban Housing, LLC, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 226 North Rio Vista Street. Property is approximately 2.9 acres having a frontage of 290 feet on the east side of Rio Vista Street located 130 feet north of the centerline of Dutch Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00080 - Request reclassification of this property from the RS-A-43,000 (O) (Residential/Agricultural; Oil Production Overlay) zone to the RM-3000(O) (Residential, Multiple- Family; Oil Production Overlay) zone or a less intense zone. ~ CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04589: Request to construct a 28-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of a) minimum private street standards, b) maximum fence height, c) minimum number and type of parking spaces, d) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, e) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, f) minimum distance befinreen buildings, g) minimum landscaped setback abutting a single-family zone and h) minimum recreational leisure area. Continued to November 4, 2002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16412: Request to establish a 1-lot, 28- unit airspace detached residential condominium subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. \ J SR1091 CW.DOC To Whom It May Concern: Item No. 9 experienced tape recording failure, therefore verbatim statements are not necessarily documented. Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04589, 226 North Rio Vista Street, a request for reclassification from the RS-A-43,000(O) (Residential/Agricultural; Oil Producfion Overlay} zone to the RM-3000(O) (Residential, Multiple-family; Oil Production Overlay) zone or a less intense zone to construct a 28-unit detached residential condominium subdivision with waivers. Applicant's Testimony: Kevin Akins, representing the Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA, states currently the property is approximately 2.9 acres and they are proposing to develop a small lot Single-family development that would be consistent in character with the surrounding Single-family development. They propose 3 floor plans ranging from 1,925 to 2,165 square feet, priced from the high $400,000 to the low $300,OQ0. They feel they have developed a project that takes into account the architectural character of the neighborhood and actually adds enhancement to the existing neighborhood. A look at the elevations of the floor plans: 09-09-02 Page 25 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ^ Two of the products are referred to as "alley-loaded products", in which case if someone were driving pass the project on Rio Vista Street they would not see a garage because the garage is loaded in the rear of the property. ^ Front elevations would be seen from the street such as Craftsman, Spanish and Italian-8. They are nicely elevated with wood shutters and roofing, which resembles tile roofing. In order to move forward with the project they request a reclass from RS-43,000 to RM-3000. Currently the City does not have an ordinance in place that would accommodate the proposed type of small lot development. RM-3000 is setup more for a Multi-family type development. They request a number of variances in order to relate it to setbacks that would bring the project more in line with the Single-family development. The RM-3000 code allows only a 1-story structure within 50-feet of a Single-family development. They propose a maximum 18-foot setback. There is currentfy a 10-foot strip of land owned by the City and they have received word that they will be able to purchase it in order to move forward with the project. The Olson Company has worked with staff to come up with the plan over a period of 3%2 months and believes the development adequately addresses the concerns of the City. Specific issues with regard to the project: ^ They are aware that there is a requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the main street and they have been able to accommodate a sidewalk on the north side of the street however, the units, which are alley-loaded, do not have a sidewalk but all have pathways to their front doors. The units that face Rio Vista Street have sidewalks. • ^ Because it is an alley-loaded product, there are units, which face each other within a main court, which are very nicely landscaped and sidewalks are provided. ^ They will provide a total of four trash enclosures. Anaheim Disposal only requires three trash enclosures. Alex Hernandez, Senior Vice President of The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA, states the uniqueness of the property is that it is a remnant piece that was adjacent to an existing elementary school and existing Single-family and has been a remnant piece for quite some time. The zoning in place does not allow for this type of development. They have been working with staff on various site plans for approximateiy six months. They have gone out to the community and are proactively trying to work with the community. A community meeting was held approximately August 6, 2002, at one of the local schools where all the adjacent property owners were notified. The Olson Company started with 29 homes and is now down to 28, trying to make it work with regards to al! of the City regulations. W ith regards to the two specific items that were raised: 1) the matter of the sidewalk, it is merely a matter of understanding the product. A close look at the site plan shows that every unit has a sidewalk in front of it, either immediately adjacent or down the middle corridor. To run a sidewalk along the side just for the purpose of having a sidewalk on both sides is not a benefit to the project. 2) The matter of trash enclosures, adequate trash enclosures are being provided that at the capacity that actually exceeds the City requirements. Public Testimony: Ronald Knowles, 2727 E. Carnival Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he has resided in the area for 37 years and remembers when there were cattle down the street from the proposed site. He opposes the apartments being built in the area, because there are two many waivers requested and would not be a good idea to place it right next to a school. He feels it would be nice to rezone the property to RM-7200. i Michael Dresser, 108 S. Beth Circle, Anaheim, CA, states it comes down to looking at the perspective of someone walking down the street and looking at the community and because of the size of the units there 09-09-02 Page 26 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNtNG COMMISStON MINUTES is a major concern not only with the aesthetics, but with the many waivers requested. He would like to ~ see what the City's building expectations are of the applicant. His second issue with the property is two- story apartment buildings. A project relatively close is the NEC Cypress Street and a close look at the photographs presented to Commission reveals a string of houses of the project that would indicate what the community would be looking at for as long as they live there. The photographs show that some of the houses elevate on the street. He feels the proposed project is great but in the wrong place. Ross Johnson, 225 North Royal Place, Anaheim, CA, states he lives a block from the adjoining property and there are two things everyone has to be concerned with and they are the waivers and traffic. He feels it is a nice piece of property and does not oppose the project, but is concerned for the children and would prefer it be used for the school, but understands the school cannot afford to buy it. Joanne Bennett, 313 N. Plantation Place, Anaheim, CA, concurs with everything that has been said, but states from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. it is hard to get out onto Rio Vista Street and it is dangerous and dangerous for the children. She feels there is going to be a bad accident there someday. She called the Rio Vista School and was told they have over 15,000 students. She has concerns in terms of the traffic, parking, and safety of the children in the area. Norna Whitcomb, 2714 E. Carnival Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states most of her concerns have been addressed, but feels the area has numerous apartments and condos and does not need anymore. Dale Vicari, 2807 E. Dutch Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Concurs with Mr. Knowles' opposition to the project. He suggests Commission not give any waivers but have the applicant maintain his existing property in the area. Larry Dallas, 218 North Plantation Place, Anaheim, CA, concurs with previous speakers. He opposes the 8 waivers and states currently the site is an eyesore and improvements are needed, but the subject • project is not the answer. The site is approximately 2.9 acres; one unit size of an acre and if they have 6 structures that would not be appropriate. He would like to see something going in, but the subject project is not a good thing. Kerri Choppin, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 800, Seal Beach, CA, states they have all said things he feels are legit. The Olson Co. representative stated they would make it look great, etc., but he asks what about the waivers and does it really match the homes in the area. Who is going to make out? Ray Atley, 2733 E. Carnival Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states many hours of the day he cannot get in and out of the street. He is concerned because there are school children crossing the street and feels someday there is going to be an accident. The Olson Company proposes to put in 28 units and that would mean at 28 units there would be 28 parking spaces requested. Currently there is not adequate parking and he has to go 6 or 8 blocks down the street from his house on Rio Vista Street just to park. He opposes the project because of the excess traffic it woufd create, and feeis safety is owed to the children. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Carey Clubb, 113 S. Beth Circle, Anaheim, CA, states some of the concerns may be impacted by their new development, but they were not created by the Olson Company. Regarding the comments about traffic and the over-impact in the school he does presentations all over Southern California and every single development and school district have an apartment building. He asked for the list of people who made comments and a continuance so that he could go out to the broader neighborhood and work with them. He feels they may come to the same amount of objections, and may not be able to satisfy everyone, but as far as the comments made regarding it being an eyesore, and they would like to see some development, he feels perhaps they can come to a compromise that would satisfy everyone. He stated a lot of the people that spoke were not at the meeting. ~ 09-09-02 Page 27 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: 8 people spoke with concerns/opposition, and a letter was received in opposition to the ~ subject request. 10 letters (7 e-mails and 3 letters) were received, prior to the meeting, in opposition to the subject request. IN GENERAL: 1 person spoke with concerns and suggestions pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the November 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to address concerns raised by concerned neighbors. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (3:16-3:55) A 10-minute break was taken (3:56-4:06). u ~ 09-09-02 Page 28 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION M(NUTES C~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3880 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04592) OWNER: The Servite Fathers, 9952 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John T. Ahern, 12270 Alta Panorama, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 1952 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 15.4 acres having frontages of 650 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 137 feet on the north side of Dogwood Avenue located 515 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Servite High School). Request to permit the expansion of an existing private high school by demolishing two single-family residences to construct a faculty parking lot. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to September 23, 2002 SR8418KB.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristof offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to allow additional time to redesign the proposed parking lot and to readvertise relating to waivers of site development standards. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 09-09-02 Page 29 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 11 b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04521 OWNER: Omar M. Houry, 517 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 517 South Gilbert Street. Property is approximately 0.26-acre having a frontage of 113 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street located 140 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Request waiver of maximum fence height in front yard setback to retain and permit existing unpermitted 5.5-foot high pilasters and permit the construction of new wrought iron panels in between the pilasters. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-132 Concurred with staff Denied SR8381AN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 11 as Variance No. 2002-04521, 517 S. Gilbert Street, a request for a waiver of maximum fence height in front yard setback to retain and permit existing unpermitted 5.5-foot high pilasters and the construction of new wrought iron panels in between the pilasters. Applicant's Testimony: Omar M. Houry, 517 S. Gilbert St., Anaheim, CA, states he cannot blame anybody except himself, but he ~ did not know about the ordinance and since he spent a lot of money on the fence for the sake of his children's security he submitted a letter to staff with two choices: 1) to allow him to have the existing height and, 2) to use the iron fence that he currently has. He states he cannot go any lower than 4-feet and would be willing to knock down the top part; the glass blocks and the brick on the top. The maximum height will be 4-feet. The one to the south is 5-feet, to the north is approximately 3.6 (38 inches) and the one across to the east is 6-feet. He thought they were the same and does not want to lose and money so he request a variance up to 4-feet in order to maintain the existing iron design on the fence that he has. Public Testimony: Harold Rottenburg, 511 S. Gilbert St., Anaheim, CA, states he is the next-door neighbor and is concerned that the fence is too high. The fence is so high that as he backs out of his driveway he cannot see the grade school children, because they are so short. He got up early one morning to make sure he could see the children walking to school and it was surprising how they just disappeared from sight as the angle became more dense. He is afraid he may strike one of those kids one day and will be responsible or something and does not like that at all. He has also installed a new fence and feels it is quite pretty. He and six neighbors went in together and repaired the wooden fences along the back and sides of their properties, because the fences were falling down. Scale drawings of the 7 feet tall block fences were submitted to the Council and okayed. Chairperson Bostwick asked why he needed a fence in the front yard. Mr. Rottenburg responded when there were no fences they had children all over the yard. He has rose bushes along the front of which he loves, and if there is no fence there is no privacy. Chairperson Bostwick states he lives in a neighborhood and they do not have front yard fences. ~ Mr. Rottenburg asked if he had 3 schools that use it. 09-09-02 Page 30 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Bostwick states yes, children walk right past his house to get to the school bus and they do ~ not play in anyone's front yard and obviously would do not run in and stick their hands in a rose bush. Mr. Rottenburg concurs but states it is for privacy. Judithanne Gollette, Chairperson of the WAND Land tJse and Business Development, states West Anaheim built the rambling ranch house type of homes with wooden fences in the old days and currently there is an influx of big, new, high fences go+ng up all over the City of Anaheim and there needs to be a stop. Some of them are up to 6-foot high fences in the front yards and most do not have permits. The problem is that half of Gilbert Street is county owned and has one regulation and the other half is city owned under another regulation. The City of Anaheim has a code that states that a fence in the front yard near a driveway must not be any higher than the maximum height of 3-feet so that it does not create a blind spot, but all over the City of Anaheim there are fences much more than the 3-foot height. Some people are doing it because of the aesthetic looks, others for privacy and others are doing it so that they could target areas with cement so they could put extra cars in the front or so that they can have their boats in the front, etc. But, there is a code in the City of Anaheim and the code needs to be adhered to. At the senior apartments between Gilbert Street and Ball Street, they have a 6-foot fence blocking apartments from the 7-eleven exit and it is a blind spot. Those are the type things that need to be addressed immediately because there are elementary schools in the area and an accident is going to happen. People in West Anaheim are getting older, the seniors are driving, the sights are not the greatest for everyone; the fences are getting higher, and children continue to walk. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Houry states instead of 5%2 feet he is suggesting to use the existing iron fence that he bought and reducing it down to 4-feet. ~ Commissioner Boydstun asked if he could not cut the fence to 3-feet because 4-feet children would still not be seen when people back out of their driveways. Mr. Houry states it is not going to cover everything and he does not feel he would be able to lower the fence to 3-feet because, except for the pilasters, it is opened. Commissioner Boydstun states 3-feet would mean he could get a permit and people would be able to see when they are backing out. Chairperson Bostwick states the post comes together in a line and becomes a solid wall and he does not understand why people would want fences in their front yard. A certain amount of the old split rail to give a decorative look for the ranch style house is one thing, but heavy-duty plaster, wrought iron, etc., makes fortresses in the front yard. 7he applicant has 54 feet in the back yard from the house to the back lot which is three times what most houses have and is plenty room for his children to play in the back yard. Commissioner Eastman states the code is clear and Commission does not have a solid reason to give a variance. It is unfortunate that the applicant did not check before installing the fence, but citizens do not live on a street all alone, everyone has to consider his neighbors. The pilasters need to come down to the 3-feet code level. Mr. Houry states the property south of his property is 5-feet. Commissioner Eastman states it is legal nonconforming, because it was done before the code changed, and it does not have the large square pilasters, it has the slender, which is easier to see beyond. ~ 09-09-02 Page 31 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ ~ OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (1 represented West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council - WAND). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Variance No. 2002-04521 (for waiver of maximum fence height to retain existing unpermitted pilasters and to permit the construction of wrought iron panels in between the pilasters), based upon the testimony presented at today's meeting and as stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002, as follows: (i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to the properfy pertaining to topography, location, and surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. (ii) That since no other front yard fence height variances have been granted within the vicinity of the subject site, strict application of the Zoning Code would not deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. ~ (iii) 7hat ample recreation/leisure area exists in the secured rear yard on this property. (iv) That the existing front yard fencing on the opposite side of Gilbert Street is located in an unincorporated County area, on property that is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (4:07-4:30) u 09-09-02 Page 32 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3816 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04587) OWNER: The Rock Church, 101 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Phillip Poland, 317 Nieto Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90814 LOCATION: 101 East Oranqethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 2.5 acres having a frontage of 400 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue located 510 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street (The Rock Church). Request to amend exhibits on file for a previously-approved church within an existing industrial building. r~ ~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-133 Approved Approved amendment to exhibits SR8405NA.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced item No. 12 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3816, 101 East Orangethorpe Avenue - The Rock Church, a request to amend exhibits for a previously-approved church within an existing industrial building and to permit a temporary county-operated groundwater remediation facility. ApplicanYs Testimony: Philip Poland, 317 Nieto Avenue, Long Beach, CA, Architect representing the Rock Church, states it is an existing building utilized as a church for the last 6 years. They intend to reconfigure some of the interior improvements within the building in order to modify the sanctuary to arrange the seating differently, provide some additional offices, and an existing multi-purpose room. The rest of the building consists of classrooms for the different age groups for Sunday school only. They have worked with the Planning staff for the last several months and have complied with all their recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. u Approved request for Conditional Use Permit No. 3816 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04587) to amend exhibits on file for a previously-approved church within an existing industrial building. 09-09-02 Page 33 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC96-3 into a new ~ resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 601/602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 2. That approval of the church facility does not include child day care or pre-school activity. 3. That the classroom areas will not be used for assembly purposes. 4. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the city of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 5. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or 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. 1 and 4, 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. 6. That prior to final building and zoning inspection, Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. ~ 7. 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: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TlME: 4 minutes (4:31-4:35) • 09-09-02 Page 34 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 93b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04591 OWNER: CBSC, 150 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Pacific Design Directions, Attn: Susan Stoneburner, 8171 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 150 West Vermont Avenue. Property is approximately 1.5 acres located at the southeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Lemon Street. Request to permit a church in conjunction with a permitted training facility within an existing office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-134 Concurred with staff Approved Granted for 1 year SR8399VN.DOC Chairperson Bosfinrick introduced Item No. 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04591, 150 West Vermont Avenue, a request to permit a church in conjunction with a permitted training facility within an existing office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Applicant's Testimony: Susan Stoneburger, representing the applicant, states they agree with all of the conditions as set forth. Public Testimony: Ted Pietrok, 605 Perolta Hills Dr., Anaheim, CA, states he is not opposed to a church going in the area but the parking is a disaster. The City built a park next to the building east of the subject property and did not provide parking. Therefore, people visiting currently park in anybody's area, such as businesses across the street. On sweeper day, there is absolutely no room to park in any of the areas. He is not opposed to the church, but feels they should get a property where they could get adequate parking. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to staff and referenced page 2, Condition No. 9, which indicates the Code requiring 150 parking spaces for office parking based on the chart, but when it shows training room/sanctuary it comes up to 127. He asks if there is another number for the church occupants. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states 150 should be changed to 127. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked, regarding the breakdown of 63.7, if it is based on the existing use, which is the sanctuary/training room, or the anticipated use of the church. Mr. McCafferty responded he understands both uses will not operate simultaneously. The church would be there on Sundays, and the same space would be used for training seminars during the week. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states as a result of the park's opening, there is no City provided parking. There is a soon to be new building for the Anaheim Western Medical Center and apartments on Lemon Street. He asked staff if they felt comfortable the waiver would work enlight of the situation and what is being heard with terms of the testimony. 09-09-02 Page 35 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 Pl.ANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES Mr. McCafferty states even if the church were to be denied the subject location, the parking waiver would ~ still be needed to conduct training seminars because of the assembly requirement for training. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the project did not present an issue when it first came in. Mr. McCafferty states when it first came in, it was headquarters for that organization, they were not conducting seminars and it was office use at four parking spaces per thousand. But, when assembly begins on any site to do seminars, the higher parking requirement kicks in. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify since the applicant has been using it as office space for the past year, if there was a continued parking problem when it was the Auto Club. Chairperson Bosfinrick clarified he went to the office many times and there was never a lack of parking. Commissioner Eastman asked if parking is a problem on the surrounding streets. Chairperson Bostwick responded the lot is not opened it is fenced and gated. Commissioner Boydstun states the applicant needs 63 for the offices and they have 115 for the training and sanctuary so, since they will never be there at the same time there are more than enough parking spaces. ~ OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject church, but expressed concerns in regards to parking. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04591 (to permit a church in conjunction with a permitted training facility) for a period of one (1) year, subject to the conditions of approvaf as stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:36-4:47) ~ (Commissioner Koos arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at 4:48 p.m.) 09-09-02 Page 36 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14a. FtNAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WEST Approved, with ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT modifications made to the AND ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONlTORING PLAN NO. 119 Mitigation Monitoring Plan 14b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00405 (READVERTISED) No. 119 14c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00081 Recommended adoption of 14d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Exhibit "A" to City Council 14e. CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04603 14f. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. Granted 2002-00008 Approved 14g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 14a. 14c. 14d, 14e, and Granted 7 4f Approved OWNER: Lincoln Beach Associates, L. P., 14011 Ventura Recommended City Boulevard, # 404, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Council Review Richard Bracamonte, 141 North Richmont Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 9950 Maryland Drive, # 405, Richmond, VA 23233 Boas Family Partnership, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Loan Pham, 420 Colfax Circle, Corona, CA 92879 Huei Yu Chung and Hui Lin, 873 East Cameron Court, ~ Brea, CA 92821 AGENT: Anaheim Redevelopment, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 200-328 North Beach Boulevard and 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue. The site consists of multiple properties with a combined area of approximately 30 acres and is located north and east of the northeast comer of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage of 1150 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and a frontage of 490 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - The foregoing activities are within the scope of the program approved earlier in connection with the EIR, and the EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00405 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00087 - Request reclassification of the properties from the RM-1200 and RM-1000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04603 - Request to construct a commercial retail center of regional significance, including a home 09-09-02 Page 37 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMtSS10N MINUTES improvement store with an outdoor garden center, other retail shops, finro ~ drive-through fast food restaurants, three full-service restaurants with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, an amusement device arcade, a multi-tenant food court with outdoor seating and beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption, a self storage facility using storage containers, and an outdoor storage area for recreational vehicles, and boats, with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum fence height. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2002-00008 - Request to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption within a proposed grocery store. Continued from the August 26, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. FlNAL EIR FOR THE WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-135 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-136 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-137 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-138 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. PC2002-139 ~~ ~ SR2118DS.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 14 as General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00405, 200-320 N. Beach and 2951-2961 W. Lincoln, a General Plan Amendment from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. ApplicanYs Testimony: David Gottlieb, Redevelopment and Property Services Manager, states the matter before Commission is the Anaheim Westgate Project at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. They did a City initiated Reclassification and General Plan Amendment months ago and as promised, are present with more definitive matters: 1) Regarding the General Plan Amendment; A change in the general plan of land that currently is residential, bringing that land into general plan classification as general commercial. 2) Regarding Reclassification from existing residential zoning classifications, RM-1000 and RM- 1200, to the commercial zoning classification and a number of Conditional Use Permits; Conditional Use Permits - A master CUP is requested for construction of a commercial retail center, including a home improvement store with an outdoor garden center, retail shops, two fast- food pads, three full service restaurants with sell of alcoholic beverages, multi-tenant food court with outdoor seating self-storage facility, an outdoor storage facility for recreational vehicles, boats and storage containers, and also an additional restaurant use that may include an arcade. ~ They seek entitlements on the site because the Redevelopment Agency has an exclusive negotiation in place with the firm of Zelman Development Co., to develop the site. The exhibit includes not only the 09-09-02 Page 38 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . parcels that were doing the entitlement actions, but also those on Long Beach Boulevard which is a 32 acres total site, envisioned to take on about 270,000 square feet of commercial retail space and could primarily buy a large big box user such as Lowes Home Improvement Center, Albertsons, misc. retail uses, etc. The other component of the center would be along Beach Boulevard Frontage. That would include RedevelopmenYs restaurant and food court uses. The existing retail commercial uses on Beach Boulevard, formerly the old Circuit City store, which is now a furniture store, The Tower of Record Store to the north, and a couple of miscellaneous commercials which would be taken down. The Redevelopment Agency has an option to purchase 18 acres of land, owned by Lincoln Beach Associates, and is in the stages of finalizing a development with the Bracamonte parcel. With regard to the Beach Boulevard properties, Redeve(opment has already tendered an offer to Circuit City. The City is in escrow on the Tower of Records Property. Redevelopment owns the property to the north of that called "Wilshire Shelby', and have been in negotiation with the remaining properties; all of N. Long Beach Boulevard, except for the very northern most parcel. Redevelopment currently seeks entitlements because they are in a very precarious situation where they are developing a former landfill, but do not have the site plan firmly tied down and leases have not been executed. They have been working with other agencies to come up with a set of conditions of approval that would govern the development on the site. One of the major concerns, along with the entitlement on the site, is to construct something on the center to be environmentally sensitive and mitigate the problems that are present in the landfill. The problems in the landfill are settlement issues and methane gas production. There is a situation where the landfill has not been maintained, it presents an environmental hazard of pollution to the ground water source by storm water and/or rainwater percolating down through the site and going into the ground water table. On the other hand, there is a brand new 270 square foot commercia! center, which is needed by the West Anaheim Community, which will be a great benefit to the ~ City. They are doing things today that will pave the way for the future and for the development of the site (which are a landfill and a void upon the community) with a brand new 270,000 square foot commercial center. Brett Foy, Vice President of Zelman Development Co., states they have been in business for over 35 years and are a developer of power-shopping centers (large, outside, strip-type shopping centers and industrial parks). Last year they opened the Burbank Empire Center on the 5-Freeway in Burbank, CA, which is about 900,000 square feet of retail and it has been an extreme success. They specialize in building large centers for the tenants who are very powerful and large companies that know what they need to be successful. They have worked with the City for over 1%2 year to put the proposed project together and feel they have made good progress and will be successful at bringing a center that will be very important and successful in the area. Public Testimony: Judithanne Gollette, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), states approximately 4 years ago, there was a community meeting in West Anaheim of residents from Cypress, La Palma, Cerritos, Buena Park, Anaheim and Garden Grove, to look at avenues where they could create input in the cultural arts. At that time they were told that there was no place in West Anaheim that could accommodate the proposed type business. She feels today is the start of that point. Although it may not be the cultural arts center, it is tax-generated dollars going into West Anaheim that is so greatly needed. WAND is in support and wants no roadblocks. West Anaheim is an area that has a!ot of opportunities for people. Jay Saltzberg, 6650 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, CA, states the City of Buena Park supports the project and have appreciated the opportunity to work with the City of Anaheim on what looks to be a very high quality, well designed project. In addition, the residents of the area appreciate the opportunity to • have been invofved in the planning of the project and the quality of the project and look at it as an asset to the area. However, there are a few issues: 09-09-02 Page 39 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ^ Primarily, the project edged to the north is Buena Park. It is a very stable single-family residential • neighborhood that realizes it is time for the project to change and they feel this is their best opportunity to see some positive action in the area, but look forward to creating a good edge. The project includes storage as well as the shopping center adjacent to the residents and the residents have concern about the garden shop. The staging area for the garden shop is just across a wall. It includes a 10-foot wafl, but they are concerned about the staging area being unenclosed and unscreened. They are looking forward to seeing a 10-foot separation; a landscape buffer that has big specimen trees written into the project at a very close interval so that a good edge is created. ^ They are concerned with the truck access from Lincoln Avenue and suggest rerouting the truck tra~c from Beach Boulevard access to strictly along Lincoln Avenue. ^ They are concerned that there be no truck wells adjacent to homes. ^ They are concerned that there be no staging for the garden shop in the opened area and that there be no loading docks are staging areas facing the north adjacent to the residences. ^ They are concerned about the hours of operation for the mini-storage. ^ They are concerned about truck containers. Storage containers can be annoying if you live next door to them and without specific regulatory conditions, regarding the hours of operation, even though it may comply with City noise ordinance it would be extremely annoying to live next door if it is not regulated in terms of the hours of operation that no lights billaws over; putting a limit of the intensity on the activity so that it can remain a good neighbor even though it is storage, and recognizing the limitations based on the previous land use. ~ ^ They look for strict limitations on RV storage and other associated impacts including restrictions on noise and lighting. ^ There is a request by the neighbors to keep the retaining law. They are very mindful of the fact that there is a grade difference on the site and are not sure about the grading implications of the project. Currently there is a retaining wall there and they ask in addition there be a 10-foot wall to create a good buffer. ^ They are concerned abaut continuing methane monitoring. Currently it is an existing obsolete situation and the problem will probably exist for sometime to come. The big question in the residents' mind is whether an impervious barrier can be setup so any underground contamination or methane does not migrate, specifically to the north. They ask that be written into the project as well. The City of Buena Park is in favor of the project, look forward to continuing to work with the City of Anaheim on the specific design aspects of the project and look forward to a project that services both cities. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Gottlieb states representatives from the Redevelopment Agency have met with Buena Park Planning Director and Director of Redevelopment to go over the site plan of what they intended to do. Redevelopment also met with individuals as well as the City Manager and also with residents of the City of Buena Park and residents of the City of Anaheim that borders the site to the north and to the east to explain what the project is. In regards to the mitigation, Redevelopment has been able to achieve, by making a request of Lowes Home Improvement Center, that the placement of the truck bay to service their store, be placed at the far southeast corner as opposed to the northeast corner. That would take it ~ approximately 200 feet away from Buena Park and put it more towards the central part of the Anaheim site. Redevelopment believes it would have a 10-foot wide landscaped area surrounding the entire north 09-09-02 Page 40 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES and east sides of the property, which will mitigate any visual impacts that their site might have to the • existing sing{e-family residences in Buena Park and also the City of Anaheim. The methane monitoring system is taking care of almost jointly by Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board, the Air Quafity Management District, the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Integrated Waste Management Board to come up with a set of conditions of approval that would govern the development on the site. The landfill area is approximately 25 acres; the cap consists of building footprint and asphalt-paved area. There is a spider web of pipes to extract the methane, provide for storm water drainage and irrigation. The concept behind all of that is to properly vent any methane that comes from the site. The methane gas production is very small that comes off the site but still needs to be vented properly. Redevelopment has to adhere to the conditions of approval of other regulatory agencies so, it is assured. Otherwise, they could shutdown the project at any point and time. Not only are there design considerations, but the owner developer of the center has to provide ongoing maintenance of the system. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the subject request (1 represented West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council [WAND], and 1 represented the City of Buena Park who spoke in favor, but relayed some concerns.) ~ ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified Final EIR for the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, along with the Addendum and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 119 (wifh modifications made at today's meeting to the Mitigation Monitoring P/an No. 199) are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions, based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002. Recommended to City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00404, to amend the Land Use Elemsnt of the General Plan for those properties designated for Medium Density Residential land uses to the General Commercial land use designation. Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00081 (to reclassify those properties zoned RM-1200 and RM-1000 to the CL zone), sub}ect to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to waivers (a) for minimum number of parking spaces, and (b) for maximum fence height. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04603 (to construct a commercial retail center of regional significance, including a home improvement store with an outdoor garden center, other retail shops, two drive-through fast food restaurants, three full-service restaurants with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, an amusement device arcade, a multi-tenant food court with outdoor seating and beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption, a self storage facility using storage containers, and an outdoor storage area for recreational vehicles, and boats}, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002. ~ Approved Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2002-00008 (to permit accessory retaif sales of alcohofic beverages for off-premises consumption within a 09-09-02 Page 41 SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES proposed 57,560 square foot grocery store), subject to the conditions of approval as ~ stated in the staff report dated September 9, 2002. Recommended City Council review of the previously-certified Final EIR for the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, along with the Addendum and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Reclassification, Conditional Use Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity, in conjunction with the mandatory review of the Generaf Plan Amendment. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item wilf be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (4:48-5:20) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:23 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 AT 10:00 A.M. ~ FOR PRESENTATIONS BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE FIVE-POINTS AREA OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND POTENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER TRUCKING SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA STREET, AND DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S CHAIN LINK FENCE AMORIZATION PROGRAM AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ at Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. • 09-09-02 Page 42