Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/11/18~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 GORDON HOYT CONFERENCE CENTER CITY HALL WEST, 209 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD .~""~ `~"„,-„:b ~' '"~ ~ ~ ~n~"` ~ ~~~D~E~`~:'~ ~ ~ "~ ~~ tOCATION CHANGE DU~'~'6EMEi'~~'NC1~~~PAIRS~F~Tlfi~~OUNCIL CHAMBERS TH/S MEE°Tl1VC~~!1/IC~ B~"~Lf ,~~4~'~`'~~~{,BO~lE~O~lTION PLEASE PAR~~~~~~L~P~3aCi~1V'G~TR~`~T~R~~NC,LEI%FLS~2~~4~ND ABOVE . ~~n ~~ ~ ~ ~q, .~~" ~~~ ~~ C~IAIRPERSON: PAUL BOS COMMISSIONERS p~2ESENT ~~~~~EPHEN BRISTOL, GAIL -~ ~ ~~~~` DaViD,F2C3MER0, ~AMES„ NC ~ ~ xtiw= STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~ ,p ,~ Seima Mann, Assist2~nt ~~it~r Greg McCafferty, Priii~ipal F Don Yourstone, Senio~~~Cod~ Thomas Smith, Police~erg~ AGENDA POSTING A ca~nplete~~~Q~~'th~,,~ia~nnir~g Cat~~ ,:: Friday, November 15, 200~ ~~nside~h`~e~~d~splay_~as~ loc~fed in the outside display kiosk. ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~~, ~ ~ ; ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~-~>,~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~:~-~~.~~ PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletirr~Ne~nrsaape~o~a~Th~arsday; O ~ ,: ~~ L.:4 ~ ~~ s~-~ ~ ~, - ~ ..,. ~~: '~ ~ ~ s S ~<: ''. ~ : ~:. Planner ed at 10:50 a.m. on Chambers, and also in ~~„ ~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rv ~ CALL TO ORDER ~`~~ ~ _ ~,~~„~~. ~ " PLANNING COMMISSION MORNIN~'~`~SSION 11:U0 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE NOVEMBER 18, 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 comp/ete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bostwick • PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:~DOCS~CLERICAL\MtNU7ESWC111802.DOC lanninqcommission(cr~.anaheim.net NOVEMBER 18, 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 jurisdic#ion of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), for approvai of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-C) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1. BEPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved bj VARtANCE NO. 2002-04500 (TRACKING NO. VAR2002-04537)- Approved Final Plans • REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Craig Kozma, Manning Homes, 20151 South West Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660, (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners requests review of final site, floor and elevation plans for a previously Boydstun and Koos absent) approved 3-unit single-family subdivision. Property is located at 2216- 2200 East South Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol.offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby determine that the previousiy-approved IVegative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final plans for the proposed construction of three single-family residences approved under Variance No. 2002-04500 based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantialiy in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in the staff report dated November 18, 2002, and that the quality design and architecture of the homes is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding single-family homes. SR1099CW.DOC C ~ 11-18-02 Page 2 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMiSS10N MlNUTES ~ ~ ~ B. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 32D3,(TRACKING NO. CUP2002- 04632)-REQUEST FOR TERMINATlON: Ciaus Dieckell, Milan Properties LLC, 617 North Euciid Street, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3203. Property is lacated at 601-697 ;North Euclid Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-172 Terminated (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) SR8465EY.DOC 11-18-02 Page 3 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • ~ C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of October 21 and November 4, 2002. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Pianning Commission meeting of October 21, 2002; and continued the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 2002. Approved minutes of October 21, 2002; and continued minutes of November 4, 2002. (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) 11-18-02 Page 4 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS• ~ 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 7 Concurred with staff 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1098 (READVERTISED) Amended to permit and (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04613) retain 3 existing mobilehome units and to a11ow 10 OWNER: Huarte Family.Partnership, 320 North Park Vista Street, additional units Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Burt Mazelow, M-K Development Services, Inc., 2221 East Winston Road, Suite K, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 320 North Park Vista Street. Property is approximately 29.5 acres located at the southeast corner of Park Vista Street and Jackson Avenue (Rio Vista Mobilehome Park). To permit and retain 3 existing mobilehome units and to allow 10 additional units in an existing mobilehome park. Continued from the October 21, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-168 SR8455VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1098, 320 North Park Vista ~ Street - Rio Vista Mobile home Park, Anaheim, CA, a request to modify previously-approved exhibits for an existing mobile home park to allow 10 additional units. Applicant's Testimony: Dan Fischer, 320 N. Park Vista, Anaheim, CA, states they propose to build 10 mobile home sites on a previously vacant lot that was used as an oil weli site. It has been vacant for approximately 14 years. They plan to create affordable housing elements for the City of Anaheim and are willing to comply with staff's proposed conditions. The second issue is to add three existing mobile home spaces to the Conditional Use Permit that were added by the previous owner in approximately 1992. Mobile homes have been on the sites for the last 10 years and were in place when they purchased the property approximately two years ago. The mobile homes were approved by the Department of Housing Community Development, but for some reason, were not added to the Conditional Use Permit currently in place. John Conlon, 320 N. Park Vista St., Space No. 52A, Anaheim, CA, President of the Local Golden State Mobile home Owners League Local Chapter No. 756, states he opposes the addition of 10 new mobile homes for the following two reasons: 1) There are currently 20 homes that are either for sale or abandoned and he does not see a need for new houses on the site until they can resolve the problems with the vacant homes. 2) The Parks' Management Letter submitted to Commission discusses parental responsibilities in the mobile home park, and one of them states their children choose to play in the streets. There are 29.5 acres in the entire community and they have no space for the children. Many times the children play on a lot that has been vacant since he has been there because it is a spot where they can stay out of the street. A memo mailed out to the tenants on May 28, 2002 advised they ~ keep their children off the streets. However, he feels if the park owners place such a value on the children's safety, they should provide a play area that is safe and close to their homes. 11-18-02 Page 5 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNfNG COMMISSION MINUTES Carl Krauss, 320 N. Park Vista St., Space No. 24, Anaheim, CA, opposes the 10 new mobife home • additions because the owners are planning on removing eight existing parking spaces. Four of the spaces are rented parking spaces, which homeowners are renting from the park. The addition of the new homes would cause other problems such as parking in available spaces designated for parking. He states the park owners have consumed more than 60% of the ciubhouse for corporate office space. The doors are closed at 5 p.m. and rarely open over the weekend. Rio Vista Park, located across the street, is not a suitable place for children to play. The Anaheim Police Department has regularly visited the park for sexuai predators. Park Vista Street, which paralleis Rio Vista Park and Rio Vista Street, has traffic that exceeds speeds of 60 mph. He would much rather see the space proposed for 10 new mobile homes used as recreational facilities for their children. AppiicanYs Rebuttal: Abe Arrigotti, Senior Assett Manager, representing CR Management, the owner of the property, 320 N. Park Vista Street, Anaheim, CA, states regarding Mr. Conlon's comments of the 20 homes for sale, it represents 10% of the property that is currently being turned over, which is about average. They usually have that many throughout the state as they own 9 5 parks throughout the state. Regarding the children playing in the streets, he concurs there are rules and regulations in place that do not aliow children to play in the street. The letter was sent out at the request of several concerned parents, even though there are adequate stop signs, speed dips, etc. Unfortunately, with 190 homes and an excess of 300 people living in the community, they cannot enforce as much as the residents would like. The children are encouraged to play in the Rio Vista Park located directly across the street. Regarding the eight existing parking spaces, he concurs they will ~e removed. However, there are over 80 existing additional parking spaces in addition to the mobile home spaces, which have garage or carport parking for two and possibty three cars per home. Therefore, he feels it is not that much of a - detriment but in fact, exceeds the City requirement. Regarding the Club House hours, he states it is not true that 60% of the Club House has been taken but rather 12% and the current hours have always been the open and close hours for as long as he can recall. The residents can reserve the Club House for their use at any time after hours at no charge. Regarding the issue with speeding, he concurs it is throughout the area and not just Park Vista Street, although the speed limit posted is 25 mph. He wishes there was something they could do about it because the park is literally out the front entrance, and the children cross it every morning to go to school. Commissioner Bristol wished to verify if the 10 new homes would be under the affordable housing for Anaheim. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, verifisd the applicants have not requested a permit for affordable housing and, therefore, it would be market rate. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if the average rent is approximately $875 per month. Mr. Arrigotti responded the average rent is approximately $750 per month. Commissioner Bristol states the rent appears to be over $750 per month and that is not "affordable". Mr. McCafferty states it is not affordable in the lower ranges. They are strictly tentative mobile homes at whatever rate chosen whether for rent or sale. Commissioner Eastman asked if they were small units, because there would be seven units along the • street stretch backing up to six units. Mr. Fischer states the spaces designed are larger than most of the current spaces. 11-18-02 Page 6 NOVEMBER 78, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman states there are six existing units and the pians show seven bigger units backing up to them and she cannot see how that could physically work. Mr. Arrigotti states the actual space size dimensions might be smaller but they designed them to fit the new homes as large as the consumers would want them. Commissioner Eastman asked if the dweilings wouid be cioser together. Mr. Arrigotti responded yes, the lots would be somewhat smatler but the guidelines on the setback would be within condition. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the lot line setbacks were set by the Housing Development standards. Mr. Fischer responded yes. Chairperson Bosfinrick clarified they have put 7 feet on one side and brought it to the lot line on the other side rather than having 3 feet on each side. The house size is the same size. ~ ~ • •- ~ • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request, and a letter in opposition was received prior to the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), that the Anaheim City ~ Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project fails within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmentai Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1098 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04613) to permit and retain 3 existing mobilehome units and to allow 10 additional mobilehome units in an existing mobilehome park. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 69R-322 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are new conditions; and Condition No. 7 was modified at today's meeting): That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. 2. That abandonment of the oil well pump site shall be in conformance with abandonment procedures contained in Anaheim Municipal Code 17.1.080. 3. That a copy of approval from the Division of Oil and Gas be provided to the Zoning Division confirming compliance with all oil well abandonment proceedings required under State law. 4. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be ~ designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size 11-18-02 Page 7 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ciinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Fubiic Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 5. That subject properry 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 Ptanning Department marked Revision No. 3, Exhibit No. 1, (dated August 27, 2002) Exhibit Nos. 2(Recreation building elevations) and 3(Recreation building floor plans) and as conditioned herein. 6. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resotution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3 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. Prior to final building and zoning inspections by any agency, Condition No. S 5 above-mentioned shall be complied with. 8. 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: 3-2 (Commissioners Vanderbilt and Eastman voted no, and Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (1:35-1:53) ~ 11-18-02 Page 8 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04451 December 2, 2002 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04621) OWNER: Jill Richter, Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Interpacific Asset Management, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150, Westminster, CA 92683 Jose Castallanos, J.C. Fandangos, 1086 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1084 and 1086 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.9 acres located north and east of the northeast comer of State College Boulevard and La Paima Avenue (.l.C. Fandango). Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 5, 2001 to expire November 5, 2002) to retain pubiic entertainment and on- premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant. Continued from the November 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8478VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04451, 1084 and 1086 North State College Boulevard - J.C. Fandango, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 5, 2001 to expire November 5, 2002) to retain public entertainment and on-premises sale and consumption of aicoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant. Applicant's Testimony: Hector Jose Castallanos and his brother Jose Marco Casteilanos, 1086 N. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, representing J. C. Fandango, state they are present regarding a continuance from November 4, 2002 and have brought along the agent, Jerry O'Donnell, from inter-specific Asset Management to address issues with the shopping center. Chairperson Bostwick states there are issues with the listing of food sales and information required in the Conditional Use Permit, which indicates they are out of conformance. The total shows $517,000 in food and $580,000 in beverages for 2001. He asked when they could present current figures. Mr. Castallanos states they are close. Their mother, who is the CEO and President, fired the entire kitchen staff last year and has been in the kitchen herseif since approximately February of 2001. It is a full functioning kitchen and the food is dynamite. There have been 4-5 inspections. They take pride in their large quantity of food sales. They also own a Mexican Restaurant in Orange, CA cailed the Taco Company and are presently opening finro more in Henderson and Summerland, Nevada. Food is a very important part of their operation and the "proof in the pudding" is their mom being in the kitchen. ~ Chairperson Bosfinrick referred to Mr. O'Donnell and stated his center really needs help and the landscape needs to be redone. 11-18-02 Page 9 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Jerry O'Donnell, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminster, CA, states it was recently done approximately 4-6 months ago. Commissioner Bristol states when he visited finro weeks ago there was graffiti and the trash bins were out. Someone is storing something in one storage area, which makes it impossible to put trash in it if anyone wanted to. Mr. O'Donnell responded it is no longer there. Commissioner Eastman concurs she visited the site prior to the meeting and it is no longer there. Mr. O'Donneii states every shopping center owner, not only in Anaheim but also throughout California, have trouble with graffiti and people dumping. A crew is hired and the cost is charged to the tenants and that makes the cost of living higher because peopie are too lary to go to the dumpster. Most of the trash is not from the centers. Commissioner Bristol states there is a door that has 2 X 4's, approximately 6 feet in length that appears to keep the doors from opening. Mr. O'Donnell states it is currently a vacant unit and he intends to keep the door from opening to keep vandals out. Commissioner Bristol asked if he intended to put landscaping in the rear. Mr. O'Donnell responded landscaping was put in. Currently there is construction going on with different contractors with the City and adjacent to the entrance is a pile of dirt, etc., but they want to be good neighbors and they want to keep the spirit of Anaheim up. ! Commissioner Eastman states she visited the site prior to the meeting and was impressed that it is cleaner and neater and she can tell that he is trying. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to Sergeant Smith and states Condition No. 6 refers to licensed uniformed security guards and that the Police should determine the number. He is curious if the Police have a recommended number, or if it is yet to be determined. Sergeant Thomas J. Smith, Police Department, states they do not have a recommended number, but the center's security for the past year has been adequate. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he has talked to residents about the location and it is his understanding the type of music is a combination of heavy metal Latin music with more of a concert sound to it than what one would think of other dance establishments. He wished to make certain security is adequate for that type of entertainment. Mr. Castallanos states since September of 1986, the main stay of the restaurant nightclub has been Salsa Madagascan, which is more Latin. Occasionally there are concerts but the main feel of the restaurant nightclub is Tropical Latin. Chairperson Bosfinrick asked Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, how he would describe the business operating next to the subject business. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the business was holding banquets without the appropriate permit. There were a lot of people coming and leaving the banquet all at once, which could have ~ potentially created problems in the neighborhood. 11-18-02 Page 10 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement, states for several weeks a public banquet hall opened up in the • comer of the strip center. He was working one night and happened across it and it was quite rowdy. Code Enforcement put a stop to it and there have been no other complaints received in Code Enforcement regarding any type of noise anywhere in the area. Commissioner Eastman ~eferred to staff and stated in regards to the figures required on a quarterly basis, at this point they are in the fourth quarter of the year and three-quarters behind. Mr. McCafferty states under the condition of approvai it is not that they have #o provide figures quarterly, but that the gross sales of alcohol cannot exceed the sales of the generai retail sales of food, etc., in any quarterly period. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, states the condition requires figures be provided upon demand of the Police Department. The findings for reinstatement of the Conditional Use Permit requires that it be in conformance with all the conditions and stipulations originaliy approved. So, there would have to be some kind of reconciliation made either with getting more current figures that indicate there has been compliance or the Planning Commission could modify the condition of approval. Sergeant Smith states he contacted Hector Castallanos moments prior to today's meeting to reference the records for the first three quarters and they will not be available until next week. Commissioner Eastman states she does not feel Commission can make a decision based on the fact that they are out of compliance. Commissioner Romero states they have already stated if Commission does get reports, it is likely they will show figures identicat to what Commission has previously viewed. ~ Commissioner Eastman feels they said they would be closer to compliance. She called for a clarification. Mr. Castallanos states they will be closer to the numbers. Chairperson Bostwick states it is out of conformance so they need to bring in up to date data. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion for a two-week continuance, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried. • • • •. ~ • • • • • OPPOSITION: A letter in opposition was received prior to the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide statements of gross sales of food and alcoholic beverages for the first 3-quarters of 2002. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (1:54-2:08) • 11-18-02 Page 11 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEN?S Approved, in part 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04622 (READVERTiSED Granted OWNER: Suites O Weekly, 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hilis Estates, CA 90274 AGENT: Gary Frazier, Acacia Housing Advisors, 6445 Joshua Tree Avenue, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.7 acres having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 670 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (Lincoln Inn). To permit the conversion of an existing 117-unit motel (Lincoin Inn) to an 84-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of a) minimum age restriction for senior citizen's residential complex, b) minimum numberof parking spaces, c) minimum landscape setback abutting an arteriai highway, d) minimum building site area per unit, e) minimum floor area per unit, fl minimum width of pedestrian accessways and g) maximum density bonus.* 'Waivers (a) and (fl have been deleted. Continued from the November 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-169 SR1101CW.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04622, 2748 West Lincoln Avenue - Lincoln Inn, a request to permit the conversion of an existing 117-unit motel (Lincoln Inn) to an 84-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of: a) minimum number of parking spaces, b) minimum landscape setback abutting an arterial highway, c) minimum building site area per unit, d) minimum floor area per unit and e) maximum density bonus. Applicant's Testimony: Jimmy Gaston, 2110 E. Virginia Avenue, Anaheim, CA, President of Anaheim Supportive Housing for Senior Adults, Inc. (ASHSA), an Anaheim low-cost service enriched housing. The named applicant for the project is Acacia Housing. ASHSA has a contract with Acacia Housing and A Community of Friends to be partners during the development of the project. A Community of Friends is an experienced non- profit developer of service-enriched housing that is based in Los Angeles. When the housing is completed, the contract provides that ASHSA will be the sole owner of the housing. ASHSA's Board of Directors' guided the design for Cherry Orchard Senior Apartments. In July 2001, ASHSA was awarded a grant. The grant provides 4.2 million dollars paid over 10 years and will allow ASHSA to dramatically reduce housing cost for about 50 very needy senior clients. One requirement of the rental assistanYs grant is that the housing has to be rehabilitated property and ASHSA cannot use the money to help pay rent to new construction. Another constraint of the grant is that the housing for the 50 residents must be studio apartments. ASHSA's proposal is to create 84 apartment homes for low-income senior citizens out of a 117-room kitchenette motel that was constructed in 1969. It needs renovation but appears to be structurally sound with minimal structural reinforcement. Newer requirements for earthquake safety are taken care of. Part of the reason the property works so well for them is that its location is good for senior citi2ens. It is located directly on Orange County Transit Authorities route that runs along Lincoln Avenue. • Anaheim's new On-call Senior Mobility Program will give residents access to all the amenities in West Anaheim and Anaheim's downtown. 11-18-02 Page 12 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The final aspect of ASHSA's design process was direct outreach to the community. On October 9, 2002 they distributed flyers to 54 homes announcing meetings on October 14 and 19, 2002 at Haskett Library, which is an easy walk from the neighborhood. One household attended each meeting. The reason for the light tum out is probably the fact that Carbon Creek flood control channel separates the motel from its nearest singie-family neighbors. After discovering misinformation in the community they presented the project to approximately 50 people at WAND's general meeting. ASHSA proposes to convert the Lincoln Inn Motel into Cherry Orchard Senior Apartments. They would like to reduce the number of keys from 118 down to 84. From motel guest registration records it shows there are about 200 adutts and 50 children on the property on a typical night. ASHSA would reduce that to 102 persons; 40% of the current population. They wiil buiid two elevators, four laundry rooms, five in- door common rooms, expand the one existing common room, and redesign the ~ve existing outdoor courtyards on the property improving them with waikways and amenities in order to encourage exercise and social interaction. The only new construction AHSA is proposing is to add a new face to the largest recreation and leisure space. It will add about 175 square feet to the room making it a total of 1,400 square feet. They will demolish the existing kitchenettes; the wall separating the bathroom from the living area and all plumbing fixtures. All apartment homes will be fully accessible to handicap persons. To make most efficient use of the space, they are using unitized kitchens. Cherry Orchard will also have larger apartment homes, which are needed not only for married couples but also for shared housing arrangements; for example, between elderly siblings, a senior and his or her elderly mother or two retired friends. The motel rooms vary somewhat in size. In general they created tf~e larger apartments by combining smalter mote! rooms. Ten, two-bedroom apartments are located on the second and third floors of Building No. 1, which is the front building. In Building No. 2, they created ten more finro-bedroom apartments; two on the ground floor with three more on each of the second and third floors. A peculiar arrangement of motel rooms caused them to create a one-bedroom apartment on floors 2 and 3 of the building. After the October 16, 2002 meeting with the City's consulting architect they • changed the layout of the two-bedroom apartment homes to accommodate the request for larger kitchens. The larger unit kitchen includes a freestanding refrigerator. Despite all of the improvements, there are a few situations, which are not practical to make the project comply with the senior citizen's apartment code. In front of the buildings along Lincoln Avenue, there is a setback of 30 feet. It contains a circte driveway. ASHSA converted the driveway to one-way, narrowed it from 19 feet to 15 feet, and added an architectural treatment to it. So there is now 20 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the front door. They also sacrificed a parking space to widen the landscape and added two handicap spaces. Another code deficiency is parking. With a space lost, the landscaping in the front of the property and carports lost to size and upgrading, ASHSA can provide 92 spaces, approximately 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit. ASHSA's design of Cherry Orchard Senior Apartments was developed around the knowledge of community needs, residenYs services program, and the rentai assistance grant. Public Testimony: Esther Wallace, WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), states they have not been privy to this information at all. She met with ASHSA approximately 10 days prior to the current meeting and suggested they come to their WAND meeting. She feels what she was told 10 days ago is a little different than what she is currently hearing. Although she applauds ASHSA for the amenities they are putting in, WAND has the following concerns: ^ Sixty percent of the senior apartments or less than 403 sq. feet, which is the code requirement. ^ Regarding the two-bedrooms, 16 out of 20 of them are under the code requirements. The ~ density is 49 units per acre, which is a lot higher than anything they have built before. ^ Mold exists in the walls and on the ceilings. 11-18-02 Page 13 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ^ WAND knows that Lincoln Inn was under court order to fix up the rooms and in talking to different peopie who lived in the complex, all that was done was the mold was painted over. ^ She knows wails have been taken down to construct the two-bedroom apartments, but is not sure about the studios and one-bedroom apartments. ^ Two residents of the Lincoin Inn have gone to an emergency hospitai with respiratory ailments; one a senior resident, and one a 30-year old. ^ Seniors do not have the immune system of a young person and are going to be more susceptible to the mold. ^ That the health department checks on different aspects being restructured to make sure that what is going in or taken out is adequate. ^ That the minimum age is 62 not 55. WAND realizes there are many hotels in the area that could be converted into similar housing and is very concerned of what happens to the first one, because they could possibly end up with a swing of similar type motels, which is something that the City of Anaheim does not need. !t was mentioned that ASHSA was going to have 250 people, but the plans show 102. W hat has been suggested is there is one person in each and bedroom and two peopie in a two bedroom. However, there could be two peopie in each studio, two people in one bedroom possibly three, and up to four people in the two-bedrooms. She suggests getting a report from the hospitat to find out how many caUs were received from the complex for people with respiratory probiems. Pat Pina, 1817 Glenview, Anaheim, CA, submitted a speaker-card in favor of ASHSA. Mary L. Hibbard, 208 S. Wayside Place, Anaheim, CA, submitted a speaker-card in favor of ASHSA. • Don Baidwin, 628 N. West St., Anaheim, CA, a resident for 17 years and a member of the Anaheim Senior Citizen's Commission since 1994, states he speaks in favor of the project not only because he is a senior but because a number of the problems that presented to Commission revolve around two specific issues. The first one is transportation and the second one is, "where can I live when I get older", and the subject proposal satisfy part of that need. Regarding the mold issue, it seems that were the project approved, the permits would require that the property would be inspected under the Building Inspection Code. Harold K. Ramey, 1400 S. Sunkist St., No. 156, Anaheim, CA, submitted a speaker-card in favor of ASHSA. William P. Bernard, 6222 Monterey Lane, No. 90, Huntington Beach, CA, a Commissioner of the Orange County Housing Authority, states he is not present to speak for the Commission or the agency but has some background in the subject matter and wished to offer some information. It appears the majority of the housing is going to be Section Eight Housing Assistance and everyone is concerned about what controt there would be in the community. It is pretty close living, but somebody might get the idea there might be some nimbyism. If governed by Section Eight requirements, the Housing Authority would inspect the units once a year. That takes the responsibility away from the City, the owners and managers and puts it on the back of the Housing Authority, which gives the City a lot of protection. Secondly, the inspections would not cost anything, and they would also do an in-depth investigation of the financial responsibility of the people that come in, and of caurse, they would not be alfowed if they could not afford to pay the rent and have additional money over for their other needs. They have to have at least 1/3 of their income to pay the rent. So that gives them 2/3 of their income for other needs. Therefore, they would not become dependent upon the City. Third, the income is a very important thing for everyone to consider because you would want to keep people coming in to this type of housing that would appreciate ~ what they have and also be a benefit to the community. 11-18-02 Page 14 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Robert Ring, 5530-B Via La Mesa, Laguna Woods, CA, Chairman of the Senior Citizen's Advisory ~ Councils Housing Committee, states the committee endorses such projects. The applicants are innovative and the presentation speaks more than any words than he couid express. The committee hopes Commission would be abie to work out what other problems they have and let the project go through. The committee also hopes Commission would give preference to people who are long time residence of Anaheim. George McLaren, 323 S. Indiana St., Anaheim, CA, submitted a speaker-card in favor of ASHSA. Brenda Ross, 24055 Paseo Del Dago #1163, Laguna Woods, CA, submitted a speaker-card in favor of ASHSA. Judithanne Goilette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development (WAND), states WAND does have some definite concerns and it is nice to see the seniors of Anaheim come out and speak in favor of programs that are supportive of senior developments, but none of them attend a WAND meeting and none of them are West Anaheim residents. it has been a business in West Anaheim with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that is supposed to be coilecting T.O.T. and be a business for West Anaheim but West Anaheim does not have that. What it has is a run down apartment that has included crime, health problems, neglect, lawsuits, and a multitude of other sins that have been encroached on West Anaheim people. West Anaheim and WAND have put together and helped develop and support 250 new senior units that are currently being developed. It is not that WAND is against senior housing, but is looking for a balanced of housing for their community. The code for seniors in studios indicates 400 sq. feet. They were told, that the average unit for the subject project was going to be approximately 390 sq. feet. However, there are 60 units under the 400 sq. foot. If you have a total of 64 studios that would mean that there are only 4 units, which meet the code. There is a problem with mold. In real estate right now, • homes are not meeting escrow requirements because of the mold factor in units. It has been tlocumented over and over again that the subject property is filled with mold and problems. This is a tear down situation, not a remodel. If Cherry Orchard goes through, it removes it from City tax roles. It provides City funds and it sets a precedent for other motels and other non-pro~ts to come in. The City needs properties to stay on the tax roles to create a tax base for West Anaheim. It is not that the City is losing an apartment but it is losing a business. It is not a remodel of an apartment it is a remodel of a business. At the WAND meeting they were told that 11 other properties before the subject property has been put into escrow and she asks, `~vhy West Anaheim again". West Anaheim has done its job. It is time for other portions of the City to come up to the plate and help out. There is a need to build quality across the city, not just in West Anaheim. Public Rebuttal: Don Baldwin, 628 N. West St., Anaheim, CA, states although he is in favor of senior housing, he would like to have two restrictions placed upon the development and they are: 1) that an applicant or resident be a U.S. citizen and 2) that the applicant be a resident of Anaheim for at least 10 years and absent that 9 through 8 years in descending order until they are filled up. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Gaston states regarding mold as well as inspection by the Housing Authority, the project would also be inspected by the Health Department. Mold and mildew abatement is part of the project in bringing it up to standards that are livable and decent for the community. When ASHSA enters into the project, they go in with the idea that it is structurally sound. 'fhere are some things on the inside that have to be addressed; mold and mildew are some of them. It is part of the remodeling or rehabilitating of the project. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11-18-02 Page 15 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there was a possibility of the density actualiy being larger than what is ~ being proposed in terms of two per studio, etc. Mr. Gaston responded ASHSA has to deal wi#h Fair Housing and if a resident moves into a studio apartment and asks Fair Housing to appeal for them stating their need for a care-taker to live with them then, quite frankly, ASHSA would have to allow it the same as any other place would. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if maintaining the age limit at 62 was an issue. Mr. Gaston responded he did not feel it is an issue. Commissioner Romero asked for a response to staff's recommendation of 77 versus 84 beds. Mr. Gaston responded as mentioned earlier, ASHSA could keep the same numbe~ of beds, issue fewer keys and meet the requirement but do not feel it is the best use. ASHSA believes it is far better to have fewer finro bedrooms; more for the one person and issue more keys and serve more individuals. Chairperson Bostwick states it is possible there could be 184 people currently living at the motel; a studio could have two people, one bedroom could have two people, and finro bedrooms could have 54 people. Mr. Gaston states the way codes are written, a room could have two people or a bedroom could have two people and then the two bedrooms could be three people. Chairperson Bostwick clarified instead of 102 people it is possible there could be 184 versus the 250 currently reported. Mr. Gaston states if pushed to its top limits it is possible, but that is not what it was designed for and or • what management is going to be aiming for. Mr. McCafferty states the threshold for rental lease units would be 55 or older. Mr. Gaston states ASHSA thought it was 62 and that is what they agreed to. One of the reasons they talked about dealing with 55 year olds is because they are looking at a number of lower income elderly people with various handicaps and that would allow them to dip down into the younger generation that have such difficulties. ASHSA is looking for people to be there for the long term. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the kitchens and bathrooms would be remodeled and taken down to the studs. Mr. Gaston responded yes, the kitchens and bathrooms would be completely remodeled and taken down to the studs and everything new. Chairperson Bostwick asked if there would be showers as opposed to tubs. Gary Frazier, Architect for ASHSA, responded they have not made that decision. Mr. McCafferty states when the project was ~rst proposed it was at the younger threshold, 55 year olds but that has since changed to 62 and the condition of approval would need to be changed to reflect 62 years of age or older. Mr. McCafferty states what has been evaluated in the staff report is what the Planning Department received to dafe and staff would need to take a look at any new information presented. Mr. Frazier states the only items not submitted were the cut sheets on the kitchen units. ~ Commissioner Eastman states there was some discrepancy whether the front landscape setback is, 10 or 20. 11-18-02 Page 16 NOVEMBER 18, 20D2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty states the code requires a 20-foot landscape setback adjacent to Lincoin Avenue from the alternate right-of-way. Mr. Gaston states the circie driveway was changed to one-way. It is a matter of interpretation. The code says that you need 20 feet of landscaped area, which can include vehicular access-way. ASHSA's presumption is that the circle drive wouid be vefiicuiar access-way and staff's presumpfion is that it is not vehicular access-way but rather the driveway is vehicular access-way and the circle drive is an encroachment. Commissioner Eastman asked for the width of the landscaped area. Mr. Gaston responded they have 12 plus 8, which is greenspace and then the circle drive in between the two pieces. There is actuaJiy 35 feet between the street and the building. Passed the driveway are three parking spaces where there is 10 feet of space. Mr. McCafferty states there is a driveway that comes into the site to access the parking spaces and the other driveway is where they are disagreeing. Staff s position, is that it provides a drop-off area for the project. It is not an access-way and is not accessing the parking at all. Staff does not feel because it is an adaptive reuse of an existing burlding that Commission should compromise iandscape standards and further does not feel it is a good land use decision. Mr. Gaston states it is not a good piace for pick-up, drop-off, and because of the ciientele they need something like that If they close the entire area off to have grass instead of a driveway or vehicular access-way and have only one area in, they end up having to manufacturer someway for people to drive to the end and turn around in the trash pick-up area in order to go back out, They need the access-way and as the code currently sits, it fits the use. The only other aspect is there is not 20 feet of green space ~ of entrance into the property. Since they need to get into the property ASHSA suggests there only be one way into the property and that includes the circie drive, which is not a parking area, but drop-off pick-up. ASHSA feels they really need the additional parking spaces up front for people visiting the o~ce or who are going to be there for longer than 3 minutes for pick-up and drop-off. Mr. McCafferty s~ggested a two-minute break in regards to concems to the revised plans, and staff's recommendations to Commission. THERE WAS A 10-MINUTE BREAK. Mr. McCafferty responded the petitioner and staff were not as far a part as originally believed. The plans are essentiaily the same. Chairperson Bostwick referred to the question in regards to the age limitation and wished to clarify if it is a condition Commission can place under the CUP or if it is permitted under the code. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded Condition No. 5 states, "that the Anaheim Housing Authority shali be afforded a first right of refusal on referring eligibte tenants to affordable units". Therefore, there currentiy is a measure of control that the City has with regards to who the tenants wiil be at the facility. Commission cannot requi~e citizenship be a requirement with regard to having it be a matter of Anaheim residency. If the Housing Authority's policy is to give preference to the Anaheim residence that would certainly be consistent, but the condition just leaves it to the policies of the City and the Housing Authority. Mr. Frazier states ASHSA and Mr. Yalda, the Principal Transportation Planner, would be happy to eliminate the lower left angied parking space, convert it to a landscape area, and move the space that they lost back to the paved area befinreen the two buildings. ~ Chairperson Bostwick states the project has been a sore spot in the City of Anaheim for sometime. Commission has seen it go through a lot of problems and has heard it at Commission three or four times. 11-18-02 Page 17 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commission has revoked the Conditional Use Permit and it has gone to City Council and they have • upheld their decision time and again. To have a chance to change the use of the property, whether it takes it off the:tax roles or not, would reduce the amount of City services, particularly the Police Department in having crime in the neighborhood as well as the project itself. He feels it wouid greatly enhance the community of the City of Anaheim. FOLLOWiNG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns/opposition to the subject request (representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council, WAND). A letter in opposition was received prior to the meeting. IN SUPPORT: 3 people spoke in favor and a letter was received in favor of the subject request; 7 people were present who filled out speaker cards in favor of the subject request and indicated they were in support, but did not wish to speak. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirements, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (b) minimum number of parking spaces based on the recommendation by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager that the proposal for 92 spaces is adequate to serve the project, and (c) pertaining to minimum landscape setback abutting an arterial highway, (d) pertaining to minimum site area per dwelling unit, (e) pertaining to minimum floor area per dwelling unit based on the constraints of • adaptively reusing the existing structures and that waiver (d) is a function of the 25 ercent density bonus, and (g) maximum density bonus. Denied waivers pertaining to (a) minimum age restriction for senior citizen's apartment complex and (~ minimum width of pedestrian accessways since they have been deleted. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04622 (to construct an 84-unit °affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 18, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 12 to read as follows: 12. That not more than two (2) persons, at least one (1) of whom must be a senior citizen aged #i#~y~+~re-E5~ sixty-two (62) or older shall reside in, or be permitted to reside in any bachelor or one (1) bedroom unit; and that not more than three (3) persons, at least one (1) of whom must be a senior citizen, shall reside in, or be permitted to reside in any two (2) bedroom unit; and that aIl occupants and residents of any dwelling unit who are not senior citizens other than the spouse or cohabitant of, or a person who resides with and provides primary physical or economic support to the resident senior citizen to the extent permitted by law, shall be at least forty five (45) years of age except that temporary residency by a person less than forty five (45) years of age for a cumulative period of sixty (60) days in any calendar year shall be permitted; and that an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney so-limiting such occupancy shall be recorded with the O~ce of the Orange County Recorder by the legal owner of the ~ property. A copy~of said recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. 11-18-02 Page 18 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Deleted Condition No. 30 VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 33 minufes (2:09-3:25 and 3:37-3:54) During this item a 10-minute break was taken from 3:26-3:36 • ~ 11-18-02 Page 19 NOVEMBER 18, 20Q2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04590 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Efren Gutierrez, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Micaela Munez, 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 Euciid 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 with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the September 9, October 7 and October 21, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-170 Concurred with staff Approved (restaurant, only) Granted, in part, approving restaurant expansion and denying the request for a pubiic dance hall. SR8477AV.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04590, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue - EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant, a request to permit a public dancehall with a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously-approved restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Applicant's Testimony: Vincent F. Sarmiento, 224 E. Third St., 2`~ Floor, Santa Ana, CA, representing EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant states his client is basically asking for a cover charge to be approved as an accessory use toward an existing approved restaurant. They were last before Commission on October 21, 2002, and asked for a continuance so they could have an opportunity to meet and confirm with Pianning, Vice Officers and surrounding residents and business owners. They discussed efforts to mitigate some concerns, which were basicaily the proximity of the location to Residences, Code Enforcement issues, and a waiver of a parking aliowance. With respect to the Code Enforcement issues, the applicants are willing to have any rehabilitation done and proper permits pulled for the additions. If that is not possibie, they are willing to hire the proper architects and engineers. With respect to parking, the City Traffic and Transportation Manager has recommended approval of the waiver subject to restriping and additional spaces for handicap individuals, and the applicants are willing to take care of that. With respect to heighten security, he feels so long as there is a well-protected and safe parking lot it will help, not only the site itself, but the neighbors as well. Although there has not been any mention of ~ noise emitting from the music inside, his clients are willing to go ahead and mitigate any possibility by retrofitting the structure and double painting the windows. 11-18-02 Page 20 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The next issue was an opportunity to speak with Mr. Rod Connor who resides in Boston, Massachusetts, the partner of Mr. Kakar, of the Villa Garden Apartments. They have had several telephone conversations and his biggest issue was that he was under the misapprehension that it was an application for an adult business entertainment. He was assured that the appiicants are basically trying to continue the same use that has been operating at the venue for years, which is a family business. it is for dinner and dining for couples and for folk who want to have a good meai and dine at the same time. Harish Kakar, part owner of the property located at 1742 W. Lincotn Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states his partner hardly ever comes to California but depends on him for all the decisions that have to be made. He has had the property for six years and during that time he has had two managers. There are 43 units with 12 units facing the backside of the EI Canejo restaurant where most of the noise comes in, and those are the apartments where his rents are lower. In looking at the letter submitted to Commission, Unit G-2 is far on the backside and the person who signed cannot hear the noise in the back. Therefore, the signature should not be considered. He is not familiar with the name Edith Sanchez. The only name he recognizes is Ms. G. Rodriguez, who lives in B- 3, who moved in a month ago. Prior to that, there was a tenant who lived there for three years and moved out. The tenant's signature for B-2 also moved out a month ago. Unit D-3, Zorla Batisda, does not face the restaurant. Unit B-1 has four bachelor guys who work during the nighttime and sleep during the day. Therefore, he does not see any affect from the 20 signatures of the noise complained of by the other tenants. Following are complaints of the tenants and management: ^ Their children cannot sleep at night because there is so much noise, and in the morning a lot of times the kids are late for school because they do not want to get up. ^ Condoms have been found on the property. • ^ People urinate on the wall in the back of the restaurant. ^ When restaurant clients leave the restaurant at 1 or 2 o'clock, they are rowdy and noisy, and if they are asked to quiet down they yell aggressively. ^ Two times cars hit the complex waA and apartment management had to get it repaired. The third time the restaurant was requested to repair it, but he still has nof goften a response from them. ^ Whenever there is an overFlow from the restaurant, people park inside the complex. • Management now secures the gate and tells the tenants to use their transmitter to go in and out. ^ Daily there are beer and wine bottles all over the planters and parking lot. ^ They try to keep their property clean but customers from the restaurant keep throwing alcoholic containers on the property. ^ There is a gate that opens with a transmitter and a small gate that people can walk in and out and it was broken six times. He fears the public dancehall would bring a variety of persons and there could be some illegal hard stuff created. Judithanne Gollette, a resident of west Anaheim, states approximately 20 years ago she hired a young man to tutor high school students by the name of Carlos Gutierrez from Huntington Beach. Through small talk he asked her if she knew of his dad's restaurant in Anaheim, the EI Conejo Restaurant. Her family has been eating at EI Conejo for approximately 20 years and it is probably one of the main restaurants they go to. The food is excellent and the restaurant is clean all the time. The restaurant has the reputation of bringing in upscale entertainers from Spain and Mexico. It has been a very nice place to go to. Public Rebuttal: Mr. Kakar concurs EI Conejo Restaurant concurs it is a very nice restaurant. In fact, when his tenants ask • for a great location he refers them to the restaurant. He is not against EI Conejo but against the proposed expansion because it is a lot of noise. 11-18-02 Page 21 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Kakar what agreement he has to egress and ingress his site from Lincoln • Avenue across the restaurant parking lot. Mr. Kakar states they have an easement. Judithanne Goliette states the restaurant has been there for approximately 34 years and she is not sure whether the apartments were built afterwards and the parking was used up or if the restaurant was built first. ApplicanYs Rebutta(: Mr. Sarmiento states some of the issues mentioned by Mr. Kakar are important to them as weN. The restaurant has a very well known and highly respected reputation and they would like to keep it that way. With respect to some of the incidents the tenants, themselves, have committed a lot of the crime. Valet service is a much higher cost to business owner but his client is wiiling to go ahead provide it to make sure if there were ever any emergency the emergency assistants would be able to get in and out quickly. Legalizing the use would enable them to be more vigilante of the venue and make sure that the ciientele continues to be of an upscale nature and that their business is a good neighbor to everybody around them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Sergeant Smith, Police Department, states they referenced the calls for service that Mr. Sarmiento requested from February through October 16, 2002 and there were 26 calls for service for that address. Of the 26 caiis for service, there were 5 reports taken. Ail five of the reports were directiy related to the business. . On their originat memo it said 45 calis for service and 13 reports related to the business. He wished to clarify that when they do a calculation of calis for service for an address, they are all different types of calis for service in a 24-hour period. Out of the five, since February through October 16, 2002 there were finro lost or stolen reports taken, one petty theft, one assault and battery and one disturbance resulting in a warrant arrest. He has been a Police Officer for over 25 years and has seen problems related to nightclubs that are closely adjacent to residentiai areas. Often times it is disturbances from the nightclub itself because of the doors or the acoustics but one thing that is consistent with most aii of them is at closing time, patrons leaving the business create disturbances with vehicles, talking loud, urinating in public, and fights. Things that are consistent with Mr. KaKar statement. As far as the people from the apartment complex being disturbed, most of them do not call the Potice Department, fhey notify the apartment management and complain to them. So, it is hard to tell directly how many people have called the Potice Department on different types of disturbances. Chairperson Bostwick asked if there is a definite way to determine what the seating capacity is for the EI Conejo Restaurant. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the only way to potentially tell would be to check with the Fire Department to see if they have the location on record. Chairperson Bostwick states the parking study would not tell them much since Commission goes by square footage rather than by the number of parking spaces. If they have 40 spaces and 200 customers, they would have to come 5 to a car to fill it up. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states generally the Fire Department occupancy is much higher than the actuat number of attendants in the restaurant. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states Mr. Sarmiento's presentation stated the rationale for why they were seeking a cover charge for their business and the quality of the restaurant was also mentioned. He feels how much the food cost is usually a pretty good deterrent as to whether he would go to a restaurant or 19 -18-02 Page 22 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ not, even though the quality is really good. Therefore, what they might have is a nice restaurant where patrons may not want to buy the food but are interested in entertainment and alcohoi beverages, exclusivety, and there would be a lot more of them. Mr. Sarmiento responded it is a rationale that does not iogically come to ones mind; it is counter intuitive but the rationale that the appiicant and other folks who are in the restaurant industry use is that when you have a restaurant that has a duai use with entertainment such as dancing, if you have peopfe come in and they just want to see the entertainment there is no way to go ahead and monitor who comes in and out. Patrons could order a soda and hang out and just dance. The subject venue has always been one where their most important asset is food. Currently, there is no way to use the weeding out process of folks who are going to come in and loiter and just hang out. Commissioner Bristol states the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) states dance floo~. He asked if dancing was from the inception of the restaurant. Mr. McCaffer[y states the reso(ution approved a restaurant and the CUP was for on-sale liquor in an existing restaurant. The old exhibit might show a dance area. Commissioner Bristol states if the restaurant were a new use, he would question it because of the configuration of the apartment and use of the driveway. However, it is a change in use staying with the land and that gives him concern for three reasons. (1) It is ar~other use, where to mitigate an action, there has to be security. (2) The parking study indicates the restaurant is not short on parking, however, Mr. Sarmiento states he is in negotiation and talking to other land use owners in and around the area to valet park. ~ (3) The restaurant is directly adjacent to residential housing. Anyone living in the apartments has a right not to be happy to hear news of a public dancehall being approved from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. Somehow the two uses have to be compatible and he does not feel approving a granny use, especially after hearing they have to increase security and request valet parking that a public dancehaii belongs in the area. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the Planning staff is in favor of approval but a memo from the Police Department shows they oppose. He asked if it changed. Mr. McCafferty states the Police Department and Planning staff are consistent. They recommend approval in part, which means to deny the public dancehall but allow the unpermitted addition that has been constructed. s~] ~ ~~]U~II. [rllc~el.`~U-~tl DUe\:~ L~l~ ~ C I ~ ~Ae\ ~1 ~I I ~[elK~l~~~IV-1 ~~.'l [~7 ~Ie[~ 1[~l ~ OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. 4 tetters (1 letter included 11 signatures) in favor was submitted by the applicant's attorney, and 4 additional letters in favor was received prior to the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and 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, categorica!!y exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 11-18-02 Page 23 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces for the restaurant expansion only. Granted, in part, Conditiona! Use Permit No. 2002-04590 (to permit a public dance hall uvith a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously approved restaurant with on- premises sales and consumption of aicoholic beverages) denying the public dance hall and approving the restaurant expansion. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC75-1 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 27 and 31 were modi~ed and Condition Nos. 1 and 29 were deleted at today's meeting): 1. 2. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 3. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 4. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 5. That all doors serving the restaurant shall conform to Uniform Fire Code • requirements and shall be kept closed at all times during operation of the premises except for ingress/egress, deliveries and emergencies. 6. That all existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view in ali directions by properly designed and maintained design elements of the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division approval. 7. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 8. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. 9. That there shall be no pool tables, vending machines or arcade devices maintained upon the premises at any time. 10. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Ca(ifornia Business and Professions Code. 11. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcohol and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. u 11-18-02 Page 24 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMiSS10N MINUTES • 12. That there shaii be no live entertainment, ampiified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipai Code. 13. That the sales of alcohol for off-premises consumption shall be prohibited. 14. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 15. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 16. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby ~esidences. Said information shall be speci~cally shown on ptans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 17. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 18. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. • 19. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. That temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted except when in connection with an approved Special Event Permit. 20. That no advertising or identification of any type shall be permitted on any outdoor furniture or equipment including umbrellas, by illustration, text or any other means of visual communication. 21. That the property shall be permane~tly maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular iandscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 22. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 23. That trash storage a~eas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction af the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. 24. That the legal owner of the subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 650 (to permit the on-premises sales and consumption of beer and wine) and Variance No. 819 (to erect and operate a motel) to the Zoning Division. ~ 25. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 8:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday. 11-18-02 Page 25 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 26. That the existing structure shall comply with ali applicabie standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Buiiding, Piumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 27. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, a complete set of building plans prepared by a licensed architect or engineer for all the unpermitted structural alterations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Buiiding Division. Once said plans have been approved, building permits shall be obtained for ali unpermitted structures. Modifications to comply with appiicable requirements shail be properly performed and thereafter inspected to assure compliance with approved ptans. 28. That two additional parking spaces shall be provided for a total of 43 on-site parking spaces. Said information shail be specifically shown on plans submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for approval. 30. That subject property shail be developed substantially in accordance with pians and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as conditioned herein. 31. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, ~8 and 30, above-mentioned, shail be complied with. • 32. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compiiance or approvai of the sequest regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 50 minutes (3:55-4:45) ~ 11-18-02 Page 26 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1731 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04600) OWNER: Cheng Lee, 13571 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: Southwest Strategies, Attn: Larry Lazar, P. O. Box 53311, Irvine, CA 92619 LOCATION: 408 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.3-acre having a frontage of 83 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street located 516 feet south of the centerline of Broadway (La Langosta Mexican Restaurant). Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on September 23, 1997 to expire September 23, 2002) to retain a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption and to further amend the exhibits on ~le to expand the existing restaurant, and amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation. Continued from the September 23 and November 4, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-171 Approved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on November 18, 2007) SR8462AV.DOC Chairperson Bosfinrick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1731, 408 South Brookhurst Street - La Langosta Mexican Restaurant, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on September 23, 1997 to expire September 23, 2002) to retain a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption and to further amend the exhibits on file to expand the existing restaurant and amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation. ApplicanYs Testimony: Larry Lazar, 64 Rainwood Circle, Alisio Viejo, CA, representing the La Langosta Mexican Restaurant, requested reinstatement of an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with modifications. One modification has to do with the hours of operation. The current permit requires the restaurant close at 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m., Friday and Satucday nights. The applicant requests the restaurant be ailowed to stay open until midnight 7 days a week. Staff's recommendation is for 11 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday. The applicant also requests no restriction or longer than 5 years on the CUP. There is a cutout area on the side of the building that is approximately 32 square feet, and the applicant requests to move the wall out in order to put in an additional 32 square feet to accommodate a jukebox. Currently, there is no entertainment inside the restaurant and there is no desire to have entertainment, it would only be a jukebox rather than the CD music. The applicant requests a secondary front door in the juice bar area. The CUP requires a modification to the existing ABC license. u He noted Mr. Lee resurfaced and reinstalled some of the landscaping in the parking lot. 11-18-02 Page 27 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Testimony: ~ Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development (WAND), submitted a speaker card in favor of the proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick thanked Mr. Cheng Lee, the applicant, for redoing the shrubbery and the parking lot, as he met with him a week prior to the current meeting and indicated the property needed some upkeep. Commissioner Eastman states she visited the site and saw a jukebox in back of the property however, the CUP states no live entertainment or amplified music. She wished to clarify the difference between amplified music and jukebox. Mr. McCafferty states amplified music inciudes a jukebox and in order to have a jukebox the CUP would have to be modified and the applicant would have to obtain an entertainment permit from the Business License Division. Chairperson Bostwick states Commission just approved EI Conejo and their hours of operation are identical, 8:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday Through Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Bristol asked why they would like to increase the hours. Mr. Laza~ responded due to a late arriving ciientele, which consists of locai, working people. The characteristic of their lifestyle is that they go to work, go home for a while and then go out to eat. Also, the appiicant is competing with Plaza Garabaidi, which is a very festive and fun place that advertises • mariachis. He feels the increased hours wou{d help pulf in additional customers. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a mation, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and 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. Approving reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1731 (Tracking No. 2002-04600} fior a period of five (5) years to expire November 18, 2007, to retain the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant and the amended hours of operation as stated in the staff report dated November 18, 2002; and approve the request to amend exhibits on file to expand the existing restaurant. Amended Resolution Nos. PC77-157, PC96-72 and 97R-181 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resotution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 10 through 23 are new conditions; and Condition No. 8 was modified at today's meeting): That the on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine and amended hours of operation portion of this permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution on November 18, 2007. ~ 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to no later than 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. 11-18-02 Page 28 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3. That the lighting in the parking area of the premises shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window area of nearby residences. 4. That the estabiishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code. 5. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Aicoholic Beverage Controi and approved by the City of Anahe+m. 6. That there shall be no pooi tables or other games permitted upon the premises at any time. 7. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shali not exceed forty percent (40%) of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The appiicant shail maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of aicoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim o~cials when requested. 8. That , a jukebox shall be permitted on the premises . subject to obtaining the appropriate permits from the Business License Division of the Finance Department. 9. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shali be prohibited. • 10. That any tree planted on-site shali be repiaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 11. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 12. That all doors serving the restaurant shall conform to Uniform Fire Code requirements and shall be kept closed at all times during operation of the premises except for ingressJegress, deliveries and emergencies. 13. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. 14. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code. 15. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 16. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this estabtishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. ~ 17. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises 11-18-02 Page 29 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing pian, scheme or conspiracy. 18. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 19. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. That temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted except when in connection with an approved Special Event Permit. 20. That no advertising or identification of any type shall be permitted on any outdoor fumiture or equipment including umbrellas, by illustration, text or any other means of visual communication. 21. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of gra~ti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 22. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be permanently maintained on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 23. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be spec~cally shown on plans • submitted for building permits. 24. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1(Revision No. 1), 2 and 3 as conditioned herein. 25. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 22 and 23, 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. 26. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 27. 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 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (4:46-5:00) 11-18-02 Page 30 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00006 Approved Approved OWNER: Arthur Kazarian, 390 South Peraita Hiils Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Ken Thompson, Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. 2903 Saturn Street, Suite C, Brea, CA 92821-6259 LOCATION: 390 South Pera{ta Hills Drive. Property is approximately 1.4-acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Drive." *Advertised as 0.98 acres To remove nine (9) eucalyptus specimen trees in order to construct a garage and remodel an existing single-family ~esidence, C ~ ~~ ~ SR8474AV. DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00006, 390 South Peraita Hills Drive, a request to remove nine (9) eucalyptus trees in order to construct a garage and remodel an existing residence. Applicant's Testimony: Kenneth Thomson, 2903 Saturn St., No. C, Brea, CA, representing the owner, Arthur Kazarian, states his client is a proponent of the removal of 9 trees submitted in the application, not just the 4 recommended by staff. The property is located at the entrance of Peralta Hills on the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Drive. The property serves as a first line of defense both visually and a sound point of view from the rest of the community and the 55-Freeway. There are 17 specimen eucalyptus trees on the property and the application requests removal of 9 of those. The trees that are proposed to be removed start 145 feet up from the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Drive. A certified arborist, who was engaged to review the health of the trees, submitted a letter stating all nine trees were diseased and removal was recommended. The Planning Department approved plans for the proposed garage on the corner of the property adjacent to the circular driveway. The layout complies with setback requirements as well as percentage of coverage ratio of the land. In a meeting with Planning Department and Public Works Subdivision to discuss options for locations of retaining walls proposed in the area of the trees, it was suggested they see whether a reiaining wall behind the trees would or would not encroach within the root structure of the existing trees. A test pit was excavated approximately 8 feet deep and 18 inches wide, which is where the bottom of the foundations would have to be for the retaining wall, and they did not encounter any significant roots that would have an affect on the stability of the trees. The arborist stated if a permanent wall were put in, it would ultimately weaken the five trees. The design of the property addresses several issues that have generated the desire to redeve{op the property, including ongoing geotechnical issues, on-site drainage, and drainage being received from adjacent properties. It addresses outside drainage from Peralta Drive where drainage comes down in front of the property. Three elements that need to be considered in the evaluation that were not represented in the report, include a colonnade of palm trees that have a symmetrical balance going up Peralta Hills Drive. Removal of trees would further bring down the colonnade effect in front of the Kazarian property. 11-18-02 Page 31 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Secondiy, the tree replacement program calis for a 2 to 1 replacement, so if they remove 9 trees, 18 new ones would be replaced. They would come off the list of recommended trees. It is consistent with the owner's requirement to the architect that they develop a diverse and dense landscape that enhances the rurai aspects of their property, but also ensures their privacy. The existing trees have grown so tail that the foliage does not screen frontage allowing easy view into the property. Permitting the replacement of 18 trees, would dense the area and create a buffer strip between the public right-of-way and the Kazarian property. Thirdly, the development compiies with all of the published Planning Department ordinances, including setbacks and lot coverage. The owner is sensitive to the rural view of the property and asks that the project be approved as submitted with the removal of 9 trees and 18 replacement trees. Ashur Elkhoury, A.A., Anno Domin. Architects, 200 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 202, Anaheim, CA, states he is in favor af preserving trees however, the subject eucalyptus trees greatly discourage development because they are diseased. The owner's desire is to bene~t and upgrade the neighborhood. The proposed project would rebuild the property to a 3 to 4 miliion-dollar value and would beautify the entrance to Peralta Hills Drive. The applicant is not proposing a new driveway as the ingress and egress driveway is currently there. They are merely shifting one of the driveways over. The driveway to the south is not usable due to the grade differentiai, which makes it hazardous. They are lowering the grade to make it easier to egress and ingress and will increase safety. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol states when trees are 50 to 60 years old they genera(ty die, and if they were to wait for the inevitable they would lose two to three years of new growth from the new trees. He asked how close the retaining wall is to the trees. . Mr. Thomson responded approximately 4 feet away. • • ~ ~- • - ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: An article was submitted pertaining to the subject request along with correspondence requesting that only the four (4) diseased trees be removed. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00006 (to allow the removal of nine (9) Eucalyptus specimen trees in order to construct a garage and remodel an existing single-family residence), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 18, 2002, with the following modifcations: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 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 No. 1; e*se~#a~ provided, however, that a total of eighteen (18), minimum 36-inch box sized replacement trees shall be planted on the property and permanently maintained in a healthy condition e~t~e~r~j~ in compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 18.84). VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (5:01-5:20) 11-18-02 Page 32 NOUEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04540 OWNER: Samuei Rodriquez, 505 N. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Yenie Rodriquez, 505 N. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 505 North Rose Street. Property is approximately 0.13- acre with a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Rose Street located 81 feet north of the centerline of Sycamore Street. Waiver of maximum fence height to retain and permit an existing 5-foot, 6-inch high fence within the front yard setback. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ Continued to December 2, 2002 SR8476JR.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Variance No. 2002-04540, 505 North Rose Street, a request for a waiver of maximum fence height to retain an existing 5-foot, 6-inch high fence within the front yard setback. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the applicant submitted a letter via fax and requested a continuance. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to December 2, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and motion carried. ~ • • • • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:21-5:22) 11-18-02 Page 33 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04625 OWNER: Gary A. Rudie, 10635 Equestrian Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 AGENT: George Cavanaugh, 1116 Caile Jazmin, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 LOCATION: 2861 East Coronado Street. Property is approximately 0.9-acre with a frontage of 132 feet on the north side of Coronado Street located 795 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street. To permit a vehicle rental agency. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to December 2, 2002 SR8470AV.DOC Chairman Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04625, 2861 East Coronado Street, a request to permit a vehicie rental agency. No one was present to speak on the item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, read additional conditions to the CUP as foilows: Condition No. 19, . "That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occu~s first, Condition No. 18, abovementioned, shall be complied with. Also, renumber Condition No. 20 to 21. Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey, states since the applicant is not present and has no opportunity to object to any of the conditions of approval, the only option the applicant has is an appeal to the City Council if there is a problem with any of the conditions. Commissioner Bristol offered a continuance to December 2, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and motion carried. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) ~ DISCUSSION TlME: 1 minute (5:23-5:24) 11-18-02 Page 34 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT January 13, 2003 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04627 10d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16430 OWNER: Clada M Pletz, 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400 Seal Beach, CA, CA 90740-2751 LOCATION: 3302 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 2.5 acres with a frontage of 393 feet on the south side of Ball Road located 140 feet east of the centeriine of Oakhaven Drive." *Advertised as 2.4 acres. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04627 - To construct a 21-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of: a) minimum private street standard, b) maximum fence height, c) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, d) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, e) minimum distance befinreen building walls and fl minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone. Tentative Tract Map No. 16430 - To establish a 6-Iot, 21-unit airspace detached residential condominium subdivision. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1103CW.DOC Chairperson Bostwiak introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04627, 3302 West Ball Road, a request to construct a 21-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers and a request to establish a 6-lot, 21-unit airspace detached residential condominium subdivision. Applicant's Testimony: Eric Everhart, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach, CA, Director of Development with the Otson Company states The Olson Company proposes 21 condominium-detached homes. There are two plans, three elevations per plan and the square footage is 1,944 (9 units) to 2,188 (12 units). The projected sales price is $410,000 -$430,000. Two community meetings have occurred to address any concerns and they have had a positive response to the project. In regards to the conditions in the staff report, they request the following: (1) That Item 1(b) be modified to an average of one tree per unit along the perimeter, south and west, and (2) Deletion of Item No. 1(c). Public Testimony: Judithanne Golette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development (WAND) states they met with The Olson Company and the following are concerns about the density and quality of life the project proposes: ^ There are a multiple number of waivers which means the project is too dense or is badly ~ designed. 8.4 units per acre, indicates a dense project. ^ Forty-five (45} feet is required from the street, but only 41 feet is available. 11-18-02 Page 35 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ^ There is no sidewaik around the entire property. ^ A 20-foot wide setback from Ball Road is required, but there is only 12 feet available. ^ Eleven (11) feet is required between buildings, but the applicant is proposing 6-10 feet. • The distance between some of the properties is only an 11-foot setback from one of the houses. WAND has asked that all projects with second stories in West Anaheim that faces the existing residentiai neighborhood have opaque windows. It has been done at several locations, and to have someone say they cannot do it is unacceptable. She spoke with a couple of the neighbors and they indicate they were not afforded the time to speak with The Olson Company. The residents have a right to a good quality of tife. The abovementioned indicates the project is poorly designed. WAND asks for a continuance so they can meet with the neighbors and The Olson Company to get a project that is more acceptable to the neighborhood. Ruth Gurnari, 3259 W. Ravenswood Dr., Anaheim, CA, states Mr. Everhart mentioned "exciting developmenY' but she is not that excited. The two meetings held literally were approximately an hour long. When The Olson Company gave their presentation and asked, "Are there any other questions" it was real quick and they were brushed off. She states they are only residents and do not know a lot about residential development on what they can and cannot do. The last meeting held Mr. Everhart stated, "hey the Angels are playing, IeYs go", and everybody wanted to go home. However, the residents were there for a reason. They are concemed with the following: ^ Backyards and privacy. ^ Children being able to play in their yards. ~ ^ Setback on the houses. ^ Walls on the perimeter, not only for the privacy of viewing but also noise. ^ New homes being much higher than the existing homes and if their windows are open, they may possibly hear teenagers making noise. ^ Possible sensor lights. ^ Having to arise early for work and being kept up all night with parties being held. ^ Traffic; When they come out of Oakhaven Drive, and tum left or right, the air approach is immediately present, possibly finro houses away. ^ Being able to do a right-hand turn only and have it designated at Western Avenue so they can do a U-turn rather than coming through on Ravenswood Drive to go left on Ball Street. ^ On the upper exit or entrance they will have the same problem with the existing condos and they will hear traffic. Ball Road has accidents all of the time. ^ There are going to be residents with children that buy homes. There is no greenbelt and no play area. She wonders what the children are going to do. ^ There are approximately 5 homes that have pools, and she wonders about the height of the wall. ^ If they would have to call an exterminator every three months because once demolition starts, the rats and the possums will come over. ^ Big Palm trees and Pecan trees will probably roll over. ^ From Ball Road and Ravenswood Drive, there is a count of 34 children ranging from ages of newborn to 10 years old. She asks they be given time to get together with WAND. She presented cards from two neighbors that had to leave the meeting early but expressed the following concerns: Jeff Hartley, 1204 S. Oakhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA submitted a speaker card with concerns of the back wall being 8 feet, the location of the trash enclosures, and windows that would allow ~ people to look into his backyard and trees. Ron Afterward, 1212 S. Oakhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA submitted a speaker card with concerns of people looking into his backyard, height of the wall being too low, and traffic for the children. 11-18-02 Page 36 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Also, there were two neighbors that opposed the project that could not make it. Nicholas Wiiliams, 3245 W. Ravenswood Dr., Anaheim, CA, states he and his wife have lived at the present address since 1961 and would not be present at the meeting if one-story homes were going to be built on the property behind them. They feel two-story condominiums will be an invasion of their privacy. There is a bedroom window that would overlook their yard and into their bedroom, kitchen, dining room and the den area, where they spend most of their time. At the last meeting The Oison Company indicated they were not interested in planting trees to give more privacy. He feels they should show more consideration. The Olson Company also mentioned there was a possibility that they were going to add a biock to their block wail to bring it up to the correct height. The wali has been there for over 45 years so he does not feei it is a very good decision on their part. There were condominiums installed on part of his property approximately 15 years ago and at the location, on Bali Road, behind his property, there is no center tum lane. There appears to be more traffic on Ravenswood Drive to Oakhaven D~ive where there is a right turn into their property rather than having to turn feft on Ball Road where there is no center turn lane. They request The Oison Company, State or City pay for the change because of the traffic problems could run into. He is aiso concerned how high they are going to raise the grade. In one of the meetings The Olson Company said it would only be inches but the neighbors would like to know exactiy how many inches. The existing condominiums were raised higher and that gave them more of a view into their backyards. They would like to see large trees planted against the walis approximately 10 or 15 feet high so that in a few years they would grow up and give privacy from the one bedroom window. • The subject property always drains onto Ravenswood where there is a d~ain channel going underneath the sidewalk. He is concemed if it would still be there or would be taken out. Newell L. Miller, 1227 S. Oakhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA, submitted a speaker card in favor of the project Charles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Dr., Anaheim, CA, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), states he has lived in the area for approximately 38 years. WAND has a land use committee and an Olson Company representative never attended any of their meetings. They have never proposed anything to them or informed them of anything. He feels The Olson Company wants the project approved with no sidewalks on their side of the street. Chairperson Bostwick clarified six center units do not have sidewalks but the rest of the project has sidewalks around the entire premise. At Ball Road there is a sidewalk curb cutter and improvements to match the rest of the unit. Mr. Bradley states the street width should be 45-feet which allows center turn lanes and that should be adhered to. He is also concerned with the fence that The Olson Company wants to build on the north side of the property that is 6 feet high, but 3 feet is what the building code permits. He concurs with the speakers that trees are needed around the entire project to protect them from noise and to give privacy. He feels there should be a meeting between WAND, neighbors, and The Olson Company and a delay on any decisions until that time. Applicants Rebuttal: Mr. Everhart responded as follows: ^ Along the south and the west, they are proposing a 6-foot wall. • ^ The current wall is 4 inches wide. If it cannot be engineered to hold the additional courses of the brick they will remove the wall and replace it with a new 6-foot wall in order to accommodate the neighbors. 11-18-02 Page 37 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ^ In regards to drainage, they addressed the question at the community meetings. ~ ^ At the second community meeting, staff was present and it was not a quick meeting but rather a two-hour long meeting, and they stayed and answered every question until everyone left. ^ They have done a significant amount of landscaping and preparation against both the area and the wall. Eventually the wall would look green. ^ In regards to privacy, from the community meetingsthey receivedhomeowner comments along the south side where the homes come up to the property line. They will make a distinction to where the homes come up to the properly line and where other homes begin. ^ There are 24-foot setbacks from the property line to the existing residents. They will try to mitigate the issue by making the second floor windows high enough so that no one can look directly out of them. ^ In regards to Ball Road, The Olson Company has within their budget the funds necessary to expand Ball Road to what it should be. ^ Several homeowners have addressed the issue of a left-hand turn lane. Currently, the only left- hand tum lane is at Anaheim General Hospital. No other development has a left-hand turn lane. Maybe that is something that the City wants to configure and the Tra~c Engineer wants to consider. He feels by the expansion of their development and expanding Ball Road that may allow them the capabilities of doing so. ^ Staff was present at the second meeting and there was a favorable response. Typically if there were not a favorable response there would be more people present at the current meeting. ^ They added sidewalks and took less yard for their homeowners. ^ They sent a special invitation to WAND to appear before their second community meeting. ^ There was a concem on the drainage of the property draining onto Ball Road and The Olson Company added a storm drain to the project, which drains internally, goes underneath the road, and all the way out to Ball Road. There is no additional drainage coming from The Olson Company property ove~ to the existing property. ~ The Olson Company is very proud of its projects and works with the community years after the projects are finished. Public Rebuttal: Ms. Gurnari states eight residents were present but others had to leave early due to personal commitments. The meeting held by The Olson Company was set for 6:30 p.m. but started at 7:00 p.m. and ended shortly after 8:00 p.m. Also, when the project was originally presented The Olson Company said the homes would be 11 feet but currently they are 14 feet. They were never told that there should be zoning at 20 feet but they were willing to go 11 feet and all of a sudden it is 14 feet. The community was never informed of the current meeting and some residents did not actually know they could attend the meetings. Chairperson Bosfinrick clarified the property owners within 300 feet of the project would have received a postcard from the City of Anaheim. Ms. Gurnari states her main concem is that the community gets more time to sit down with WAND and The Olson Company to get more clarity on it. Mr. Williams states when The Olson Company had their first meeting they talked about the homes that would back up to their property and when they returned to the second meeting they did not have elevations that sMowed the backside that would face their property. They showed elevations of the homes that would face the south wall, which were high. Now, they have changed the plans and they have finro different buildings going in the area. The ones that are closer to Ball Road facing the homes have big windows that face the property. ~ Mr. Everhart responds The Olson Company is going with staff s recommendations in regards to trees in the backyard, and in addition to that there are three homes along the Western side that have standard size windows, and it only affects three homes. They are pushed back 20 feet. 11-18-02 Page 38 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISS{ON M{NUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol states the wait issue on the sauth and west side was addressed but the pad elevation appears to be 2 feet higher than the neighbors and he wished to know why. Jim Young, Vice President of construction for The Olson Company, states the e{evation for the pads to the interior is driven by the fact that in a 100-year flood they need to have an overtlow that will not over take or allow water to protrude onto the pads. The driving elevation actuaily enters off Ball Road and if they were to combine the required drainage to obtain minimum grades they woutd have to take it to a certain elevation. If they were reduced it would become a flood issue because it is the lowest point of the traffic and is the point that has to relieve the water should the storm drain system ever clog. If is a sump condition, meaning the track is lower than the interior. That was specificaily done to mitigate how high the perimeter condition would have to be. Melanie Adams, Principal Civii Engineer, states providing a secondary outlet is generaliy a true statement. However, there appears to be one or two units that could be lower, particularly, Unit No. 11 which is in the southeast corner, and proposed at 63.5 feet. It couid possibly be lowered at least 6 inches or more. And, possibiy there might be some changes that can be made on Unit No. 10. Mr. Young states they looked at it with their civil engineer and he looked at it from the standpoint of putting additional yard drains around the lot. It appeared he couid lower it three-tenths of an inch. However, it is something they are willing to address to the minimum capability to make sure the tract does have the secondary outiet. Chairperson Bostwick states he looked at the project not too far away at Knott Avenue and Bali Street. It was 18 units and 8.6 densities per acre. The subject project is at 8.4. He feeis it is comparable or possibly better. He appreciates all the concerns but feels it will clean up and go away once it is done. It is a product for sale. It is homeownership. • Commissioner Vanderbilt states he has been contemplating the comments and the waiver requests. While he agrees the project is great, it is a project where the density is one structure less than what would be aliowed, most of the development is in the portion that abuts the neighbors and there is a situation where there are two-story structures coming in next to one-story structures. So, even though some of the windows are opaque there is the sense of invasion. Commissioner Eastman concurs with Commissioner Vanderbilt it is a lot of waivers to put into a project and combined with the objection of the neighbors, she would like to see if the applicants could meet with the neighbors to try and eliminate some of the issues. Chairperson Bostwick asked how many waivers were in the Rio Vista project. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states atl of the waivers are a function of the project being brought forward. The project before Commission is a detached product at a density that is compatible with the small lot single-family development. The alternative is the RM-3000 attached town home-style development at a potentially higher density. Commissioner Bristol states he has mixed emotions because of the one they approved on Rio Vista where The Olson Company proactively asked for a continuance to meet with the residents on concerns and issues. He feels there are questions that have not been addressed that would be impacted by the plan. He would like a continuance to see if they could sit down with the neighbors as requested, and also see if they cannot bring the pad elevations down. Ms. Adams states several of the neighbors brought up concerns about left-hand tums into or out of the project, and the Traffic Engineer, Alfred Yalda, would like for them to look at the possibility of providing the two-way left turn lane. That could be incorporated into the condition on the tentative tract; Condition • No. 7, regarding street improvements. ~ 11-18-02 Page 39 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Romero states it is a good project and he would be in favor of it if it were immediately voted on. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSiT10N: 4 people spoke with concems/opposition tothe subject request (one representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Councii, [WAND], and one person relayed concems of 2 peopte who fiiled out speaker cards, in opposition, since they left prior to the item being heard). A letter of concern pertaining to the subject request was also received prior to the meeting. IN SUPPORT: A speaker card was filled out, in favor of the subject request but the person left prior to the item being heard. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristoi and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the .fanuary 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant, Olson Company, to meet with concerned residents and address their issues. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (5:25-6:25) ~ U 11-18-02 Page 40 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04626 OWNER: Nevada investment Hoidings, Inc., 5405 Morehouse, Ste. 250, San Diego, CA 92121 AGENT: Keith Francis, 5405 Morehouse, Ste. 250, San Diego, CA 92121 LOCATION: 1891-1899 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 10.46 acres located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street (Target Shopping Center). To permit and retain an existing automotive repair and parts installation facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to January 13, 2003 SR8475JR.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. J OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the January 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to address issues pertaining to remodel and upgrade of the automotive facility. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 11-18-02 Page 41 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI~N - CLASS 1 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04620 Continued to December 2, 2002 OWNER: Kateila LLC, 1404 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Oscar Ramirez, 12052 Jennifer Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1383 East Gene Autrv Wav. Property is approximately 4.8 acres having a frontage of 302 feet on the north side of Gene Autry Way located 260 feet east of the centerline of Betmor Lane. To permit a banquet hall facility with on-premises consumption, but not sales of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the November 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ SR8469NA.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 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent), to continue the subject request to the December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to continue to address Building Code issues. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-18-02 Page 42 NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSfON MfNUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~J ~ Respectfuliy submitted: at Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Pianning Commission on , 2002. 11-18-02 Page 43