Minutes-PC 2003/10/06•
C1TY OF ANAHEIM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2003
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
•
CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VANDERBILT
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, GAIL EASTMAN, CECILIA FLORES,
JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO, (ONE VACANT SEAT)
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT:
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager Ed Murdock, Senior Electrical Engineer
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner John Ramirez, Assistant Planner
Sergeant Michael Lozeau, Vice Detail Elly Morris, Senior Secretary
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 1:30 p.m. on
Thursday, October 2, 2003, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in
the outside display kiosk.
PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, August 14, 2003.
CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION 11:00 A.M.
• STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION)
• PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE OCTOBER 6, 2003 AGENDA
•
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please
complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
H:\DOCS\CLERI CAL\MI NUTES1AC100603.DOC
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the
Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public
hearing items.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Item 1-A through 1-D on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no
separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the
Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED
(with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar item Nos. (1-A, 1-B, 1-D and 1-E) as
recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item No. (1-C) was removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
PLANNlNG COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS:
Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated he would like to table the appointments to the end of the meeting.
• REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWING
• ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick)
• PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
(Current Representative: Chairperson Vanderbilt)
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM
(Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman)
(Current Alternate: Vacant)
• UTILITIES UNDERGROUND CONVERSION SUBCOMMITTEE
(Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick)
(Current Alternate: Commissioner Romero)
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPACj
(Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick)
(Current Alternate: Commissioner Romero)
• • HISTORIC PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE
(Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman)
(Current Alternate: Commissioner Flores)
10-06-03
Page 2
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• (This section was trailed and discussed following Item No. 11)
Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated Commissioner Romero left earlier in the meeting, and another
Commissioner is currently late for an appointment, therefore, he requested that the appointments be
continued to the October 20, 2003, agenda.
ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION
CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the consideration of appointments to various
boards and committees to the October 20, 2003 meeting.
•
~
10-06-03
Page 3
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04554 Approved a one (1) year
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04760) extension of time (to
Eric Chen, Nevis Homes, 255 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 210, expire on September 24,
Arcadia, CA 91006, requests a time extension to comply with 2004)
conditions of approval for a previously-approved 32-unit attached
residential condominium subdivision. Property is located at 1126 (Vote: 6-0, with one
North Euclid Street. Commission vacancy)
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one
Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative
Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a
one (1) year extension of time to expire on September 24, 2004, based on the
following:
(i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current
zoning and General Plan land use designation for this property.
•
Further, there have been no code amendments that would cause
the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code,
nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project
inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code.
(ii) That this is the first request for a time extension, and Code permits
a maximum of two requests for extension of time to comply with
conditions of approval.
(iii) That there is no information or changed circumstances which
contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the
required findings for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-
04554.
(iv) That the property has been maintained in a safe and clean
condition and there are no unremediated Code violations for this
property. sr8645av.doc
~ ~
10-06-03
Page 4
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ B. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 Concurred with staff
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3369 Approved
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04774)
Equity Office Management, 2 North Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL (Vote: 6-0, with one
60606, requests construction of 8 artistic rendering/informational signs Commission vacancy)
for an existing office complex. Property is located at 2400 East Katella
Avenue (Stadium Towers Office Building).
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission
vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the
proposed pro}ect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section
15301, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the CEQA Guidelines
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional
environmental documentation.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the
Anaheim City Planning does hereby approve the request for determination of
substantial conformance to construct eight (8) artistic rendering/guide signs,
based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the proposed construction
is substantially in compliance with previously-approved exhibits for signs within
the existing office complex because of their very limited visibility off-site. sr1128cw.doc
r~
~ J
•
10-06-03
Page 5
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
r~
~J
C. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION NOS. 15061 (b)(3) &
15262
(b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00112
City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning
Commission initiation of reclassification proceedings for properties
within the "5 Points Neighborhood" from the CG (Commercial,
General), RM-1200 and RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zones
to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Famify) Zone or (less intense
zone). Properties are located within the "5 Points Neighborhood" as
identified in the staff report.
(This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
discussion.)
OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in favor of the subject request.
Concurred with staff
Approved initiation of
Reclassification
proceedings
(Vote: 6-0, with one
Commission vacancy)
(Vote: 6-0, with one
Commission vacancy)
sr8648cf.doc
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item.
C ~
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a City-initiated staff request to have the
Planning Commission initiate reclassification proceedings for the area known as the "5 Points
Neighborhood" and this is the initial step in the process. The public hearing for the reconsideration of the
rezoning will come back at a later date.
Public Testimony:
Barbara Gonzalez, 330 S. Ohio, Anaheim. Stated her family owns a duplex located at 1124 and 1126 W.
Center Street, the property was built in 1921. From a historic perspective, the "5 Points" area from the
early 1900s up until about 1950s was a small neighborhood of approximately 80 historic structures. The
initial building of the 5 Freeway, the underlying multi-family zoning in the neighborhood and then the
expansion of the 5 Freeway in the 1990's have a{{ kind of combined to impact the quality of life and the
attractiveness of the subject area. The period from 1955 to 1965 there were nine apartment structures
that were built in the neighborhood, when they were built nine single-family residences were torn down
and apartments were built that varied in size from four to nine structures. in speaking with people from
the Police Department she has discovered that 80% of the crime, overcrowding, parking and code
enforcement calls have come from these nine apartment buildings. Their interest in rezoning the area in
"5 Points" to single-family residential and designating it later on as a historic district is to improve the
quality of life for all the people in the neighborhood not just the single-family residential owners but also
the apartment dwellers and to retain the quality of life and the quaint character of the area. The area is
currently on the edge and they are hoping that the action of the Planning Commission will send it off in
the right direction.
•
Phyllis Mueller stated she works for the City as the Neighborhood Development Coordinator, in the
Neighborhood Preservation Office. They are the historic preservation arm of the City and as such they
are working with the Historic Preservation Committee and Commissioner Eastman who is the Planning
Commission appointee to that committee and the residents of the "5 Points" area to explore the possibility
of establishing the City's 2"d Historic District. There are about forty-two houses in the neighborhood that
are considered potentially and historically significant since they were constructed before 1949. They are
going to meet with the residents to educate them about historic preservation and to assist them in doing
surveys of their homes. Forming the district is an effective way to preserve the historic structures and
enhances the pride of ownership. In the future, homeowners may be eligible to participate in the Milis Act
Program wherein the property owner benefits from a local property tax deduction in exchange for
10-06-03
Page 6
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• agreeing to maintain the historic and architectural character of their structures. She indicated she sees
the propose downzoning of the neighborhood as a historic preservation activity and encourages the
Planning Commission to approve the initiation of the classification proceedings as a means of preserving
the character of the neighborhood and to eliminate the threat of homes being demolished and displaced
by commercial, apartment or multi-family development.
Stuart Pompel, 1124 W. Chestnut, Anaheim. Stated they bought the home in April 2002, primari~y
because of the historic nature of the neighborhood. A tremendous amount of historic properties have
gone by the wayside, not only in Anaheim but around Orange County and Los Angeles and we think this
is a superb opportunity to maintain what we currently have. He stated he feels the neighborhood is also
special because it has a diversity, not only an ethnic diversity but a social economic diversity which he
finds sadly missing from most of the neighborhoods in Orange County. He explained they are at a
crossroads where they could either continue down the road of destroying the homes and creating
apartment complexes on iots that are fairly large or they could maintain the uniqueness of what they have
currently which makes the neighborhood really great. They have started a petition process and currently
have about 26 signatures, which represents close to half of the lots in the neighborhood. They have had
a meeting at his house and there is a lot of support not only from the owners of single-family homes, but
also from the owners of some of the apartments as weil. Therefore, they request the proposed initiation.
Meghan Shigo, 510 N. Ciementine Street, Anaheim. Stated she is a realtor in Anaheim specifically in the
downtown area. She recently sold two houses in the "5 Points" neighborhood and both of the perspective
buyers were very interested in the zoning in the neighborhood because they love the houses and they
wouldn't be interested in living in that neighborhood if their neighbor knocked down their historical home
and build a 4-plex or 8-plex. Therefore, it seems they have a lot more homeowner interest and people
willing to really invest in the "5 Points" neighborhood and this is definitely a step in the right directions.
Chairperson Vanderbilt verified that staff has sent letters to all property owners that would be affected by
• today's decision.
Mr. McCafferty was in agreement.
ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and
MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby concur
with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Sections 15061 (b)(3)
and 15262 since the environmental analysis of this action will occur in conjunction with the future public
hearing on the proposed downzoning.
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED
(with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby initiate Reclassification No.
2003-00112 to allow for a public hearing to reclassify seventy-four (74) properties from the CG
(Commercial, General), PD-C (Parking District - Commercial), RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family)
and RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zones to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone or a
less intense zone.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION: 9 minutes (1:37-1:46)
•
10-06-03
Page 7
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
•
~
D. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3)
(b) REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
SEX-ORtENTED BUSINESSES.
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission
vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur
with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA
Exemption Section 15061 (b)(3), which provides that CEQA only applies to
projects that have the potential for causing significant effects on this
environment.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that City Council
approve the draft ordinance amending various sections of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to sex-oriented businesses.
Concurred with staff
Recommended City
Council approval of the
draft ordinance.
(Vote: 6-0, with one
Commission vacancy)
10-06-03
Page 8
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ E.
•
~
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meetings of September 8, 2003. (Motion)
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, (with one
Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning
Commission meeting of September 8, 2003.
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meetings of September 22, 2003. (Motion)
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, (with one
Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning
Commission meeting of September 22, 2003.
Approved
(Vote: 6-0, with one
Commission vacancy)
Approved
(Vote: 6-0, with one
Commission vacancy)
10-06-03
Page 9
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
•
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04746 Granted
OWNER: Steven Dunbar, 20429 East Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba
Linda, CA 92886
AGENT: Gregory Roseen, 23 Dawnwood, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
LOCATION: 5055 East Short Street. Property is approximately 0.46-
acre, located at the northwest corner of Kellogg Drive and
Short Street.
Request to construct a veterinary hospital and animal boarding facility
with waivers of: (a) maximum fence height, (b) signs permitted in
residential zones, (c) maximum structural height, and (d) minimum front
yard setback and (e) minimum side yard setback.
* Waiver (c) has been deleted.
Continued from the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-133
sr5047jr.doc
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to establish a veterinary
hospital and animal boarding facility at 5055 E. Short Street. The item was continued from the
September 8, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to meet with the applicant in an
attempt to address some of the concerns that were brought up by the public during the last public
hearing. Essentially, those issues dealt with light, noise, traffic and odor. Today's staff report hopefully,
in a factual nature, addresses all those points that were raised at the prior public hearing.
With regard to traffic, the intersection of Short Street and Kellogg Drive does not meet a signal warrant for
establishment of a traffic signal, either from a traffic or accident standpoint. Commission should have
received in their packet a noise study that was prepared by an acoustical consultant that indicates what
design measures are going to be implemented into the project. He stated he would also have additional
conditions at the end of the testimony. With the incorporation of those design measures the decibel rating
at the property line wouid meet the City's noise ordinance as well as the general plan.
Regarding lighting, a photometric plan was prepared for the parking lot. Based on the design of the
parking lot and the conditions that we are going to recommend to you with regard to the type of lighting
standards including bollards and the condition that the lighting be foot-candle power, at the property line it
shall be .5-foot candle. Their opinion was that it would not cause any light glare impacts to the
surrounding properties.
•
Regarding odor, the items there are represented in the letter of operation to deal with the odor including
their handling systems are such that they should weed out any odor that would come from any of the
catteries or the kennels inside of the building.
There was some correspondence Commission received with regard to environmental impacts and the
assertion that an environment impact report should be prepared for the project. Our opinion on that is
10-06-03
Page 10
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ based on the project design and the facts before us regarding traffic, noise, and lighting. Staff daesn't
believe there is substantial evidence in the public record, as the project is designed before you, to require
an environmental impact report. They still stand behind their recommendation; the negative declaration is
the appropriate environmental documentation for the subject request.
He stated he could state the additional conditions of approval now or wait in order to first hear testimony
by the applicant and public.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he understands there are a number of people in the audience for the
subject item and asked if anyone needs a staff report; it was indicated from the audience that there were
no more staff reports available in the back area.
Mr. McCafferty informed the Planning Department compiled correspondence received from the public
pertaining to the subject item. This past Friday, clerical staff sent staff reports either by e-mail or fax to
those people who they were able to contact being a phone number, e-mail or fax number was provided.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the reason he asked is in order for everyone to be able to follow along as
staff states modifications to the staff report.
Mr. McCafferty stated there are additionai copies of the staff report at the Planning DepartmenYs front
counter, and asked Planner John Ramirez to get the staff reports for the people in the audience who
didn't get a copy.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he would like to start the public hearing process and interrupt it when
copies of the staff report are available, then staff could make the suggested modifications, if acceptable
by the City Attorney's Office.
~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. She agreed and stated the benefit of having the changes read
ahead of time is that it may address some of the concerns for the people who are testifying.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak; the applicant stated
they have a PowerPoint presentation and were prepared to present it during the rebuttal period, and then
cover necessary points of interest and concerns raised at today's public hearing.
Public Testimony:
Wendy Miller, 1935 Brandon Circle, Anaheim. Stated she did receive the staff report by fax and reviewed
it on Friday and over the weekend. She lives on Brandon Circle, which is basically across the street and
over the fence from the proposed development. They believe that introducing a big commercial facility
into a residential neighborhood where there are no commercial uses of any kind within a mile in every
direction is an incompatible use. The staff report has some inaccuracies in it and some misleading
information and pointed out as far as the CEQA Negative Declaratior-, she believes it margina{ly fits into
the requirement for an EIR and there will be some negative adverse impacts associated with the project
that could be addressed and mitigated in an EIR. Especially the impact to traffic; not so much to the
traffic flow but to hazards and accident rates that would increase due to the project. The proposed project
would result in traffic hazards. The project site is one block away from Esperanza High School and traffic
along Kellogg at the site is extremely heavy. The staff report states there have been no traffic accidents
at the site within the past year, which is not true. Traffic accidents within a block or two of that site occur
nearly every month, particularly during the school year. She stated they have a photograph of an
accident that happened within the last month. The accidents are often unreported to the police, therefore,
you might not have records of them. High school kids get in many accidents because they are
inexperienced drivers and with nearly 4,000 students attending the high school there are hundreds of
inexperienced drivers on the street along Kellogg Drive and Short Street.
• She referred to the proposed waivers and stated the signs will result in visual obstruction and a hazard to
traffic. They are concerned about the noise and have heard about the sound proofing inside the building
but without having the facility in place it would be hard to understand how a conclusion could be made
10-06-03
Page 11
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. that it would comply with the noise ordinance. There will be dozen of dogs barking in and out of the
facility, the facility is proposed for not only a vet hospital but boarding, grooming, shots and commercial
sales of supplies. As far as the waiver of the code requirements, the proposal to waive the maximum
fence height, the signs, the minimum front and side yard setbacks it is inappropriate in a residential
neighborhood. She explained the staff report makes irrelevant and misleading comparisons to
commercial zones in order to justify the waivers. The staff report states the proposed signs are only 15%
of the size of the signs for commercial buildings in commercial zones and by right the petitioner should be
able to have those signs. Therefore, she states the proposed signs are not in a commercial zone, they
are not 15% of the allowable size but they are more than double the size that is allowed in a residential
zone where the project is being proposed. The setbacks and waivers will result in structures being built
closer to the street that is currently allowed, which wiH resuft in visual obstructions and hazards to traffic
and pedestrians.
She indicated Short Street is used by the high school for track training as they do cross country, and
there are hundreds of teenage kids who fill the streets when they are training. She believes they would
be put in a danger because of the blockage by the proposed structure.
She referred to the petitioner's statement of justification for each waiver and stated a statement is
repeated that there is a special circumstance that justifies the subject property being treated differently
than every other property in the area. She stated it's a residential zone and the proposal is not residential
and believes residential restrictions exist for a good reason to protect residents and to protect the public
from non-consistent uses. Existing restrictions should not be waived in order to accommodate an
inappropriate use, therefore, recommends denial of the waivers.
She stated the conditional use permit would allow a commercial business to be built in a residential
neighborhood. While the area is zoned for agricultural, it is a very old zoning classification and there is no
agriculture in the area and it is completely residential. There is no commercial businesses of any kind
• until you go up Kellogg Drive all the way to Yorba Linda Boulevard or down Kellogg Drive all the way to
Orangethorpe Avenue, therefore, this would set a bad precedent for the neighborhood and is
incompatible with existing uses and we urge that an alternative site be found for the subject development.
Lesa Bradiey, 5840 8lueberry Street, Yorba Linda. Stated she provided a question to staff, Mr. Ramirez,
regarding shot clinics and the maximum number of cars per hour. She stated she didn't get a response to
the question.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated Mr. Romero did raise the question in the morning session, and they will
bring it up after the public comment section.
Ms. Bradley stated for Mr. Dunbar to invest in the property, iYs likely he developed a business plan to
ensure that he would get a return on the investment. Therefore, she would expect that he plans for his
veterinary practice to grow. At the last hearing, it was stated there would be six to a maximum of eight
cars per hour. She reiterated that anyone investing in such a project that he would do so in anticipating
that his business would grow. Therefore, over a 5-year period at a 2%-5% yearly growth, it could be a
significant growth. The intersection is already very busy and any additional traffic would make it
hazardous. She gave her estimation of the number of visits per hour to the facility, and stated in 5 years
with a 5% yearly growth it would be well over 20 cars per hour. She asked Commission where they would
draw the line for safety at the subject intersection, is it 10, 15, or 20 cars per hour. It is a residential area
and they want to keep it residential for all the reasons they spoke about at the last meeting and especially
because of the hazards coming in and out of their neighborhood. It is the gateway to their neighborhood
and feels iYs not appropriate to have a business at the gateway of their residential neighborhood.
Wayne Manska, 1921 Kellogg Drive. Stated he is about a hundred yards south of the proposed project.
He indicated he has a couple of photos he would like to present (presented on the projection screen)
showing maps of the area. He indicated later he would present a video showing the traffic situation in the
• morning. He pointed out on the map to Kellogg Drive going south to Orangethorpe Avenue and stated
that is the nearest commercial business to the site, and going north is Yorba Linda Boulevard which
shows how isolated the subject site is with respect to commercial sites. He pointed to the area of
10-06-03
Page 12
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Esperanza High School and stated on both sides of Kellogg Drive it's a single-family residential area.
Another area he pointed to is high-density condos and townhouses, it's an older established residential
neighborhood. He stated Short Street is an older established single-family residences. He stated the
subject area was established as agricultural residential about 80 years ago, in the 1920s, which he is
aware since he once did an investigation on one of his property lines. He stated what was there 80 years
ago, was probabiy mostly orange groves, but over the years it developed into a residentiai area. On the
other side of Imperial Highway there was a gas station, but it has been abandon for years and that is the
only commercial site that he is aware of in the area. He stated they feel the proposed hospital is ill
conceived, out of place, inappropriate, huge and obtrusive, as it is 30 feet tall and 10,000 square feet with
a big sign. He explained that he believes no one would want this facility in their neighborhood, a few
doors from their house.
He stated it was mentioned earlier that they object because of the traffic, noise, dogs, lights and the odor
and he stated he objects because it is out of place, it doesn't belong there. it wi11 impact the property
values. The closer to the hospital the more devalue your property becomes. He feels you wouldn't buy a
house that is near an animal hospital, unless you expect a big discount. They bought the homes in blind
faith by not anticipating that someone would build a big commercial business in their residential
neighborhood.
He referred to the traffic issue and stated the facility would contribute to an already dangerous traffic
situation. He pointed out on the map to Short Street and the off ramp from Imperia{ Highway and stated
the distance is about 150 feet; from one off ramp to the other is about 190 feet. He explained the video
will iliustrate why there should be a traffic signal on Short Street, but you can't because traffic coming
south in the morning to the high school would quickly backup and block the intersection and the off ramp.
It is infeasible even though it should have one because it is so dangerous, and he believes this is one of
the most dangerous intersections in the county.
~ He referred to the traffic study and stated traffic studies don't always accurately relate traffic conditions,
they count cars over a period of time. It doesn't really tell you what the traffic is, if you get a car every 5
seconds it could be bumper to bumper traffic jam or very light traffic.
The presentation of the video showed the traffic situation at the subject site, and he stated the video was
taken about 7:40 a.m. He stated the video taken is about 5%2 minutes long and during that time there
were seven cars that turned right onto Kellogg Drive from Short Street. There was one car that came
down Short Street and turned left and two cars came north on Kellogg Drive and turned left onto Short
Street and one car makes a U-turn going south on Kellogg Drive.
He concluded by stating the situation is continuous and he is glad the Commission has had a chance to
see the traffic situation.
He stated it has been suggested that the condition only exists for 15-30 minutes in the morning and
therefore it's not anything to worry about. He stated he feels at 20 minutes a day, morning only, 170
school days a year is 3,400 minutes a year of the condition which is 57 hours. Therefore, in 5 years it
would be 280 hours of the condition, which would worsen significantly by the subject facility.
Mark Kovaletz, 1935 Brandon Circle, Anaheim. Stated his sole concern has to do with safety, and he
believes the transition from a road junction from Short Street to Kellogg Drive and the proximity of the
other lights and the off ramp make it impossible to add a traffic signal which makes the situation
fundamentally unsafe. The staff report indicates they don't have a lot of accidents there and clarified they
don't have a lot of reported accidents. They hear accidents there constantly and it is verified by the
amount of glass and plastic lying in the street. He illustrated a photo on the projection screen, and stated
within the last two weeks this is one of the accidents that the staff report states doesn't occur. These
happen all the time. They hear the crashes and see the debris but it doesn't get recorded so obviously it
doesn't exist. It is their contention that the staff report, while factual, doesn't agree with the truthfulness of
• how it was generated, but it doesn't adequately describe the situation. The situation is grave relative to
safety. He stated he believes Anaheim Police Department has one of the most effective accident
investigation teams in Orange County, and suggested that they observe the subject area. There are kids
10-06-03
Page 13
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• that would like to use the street so that they could walk to the schools, but no one here allows them to
walk along Kellogg Drive in the morning because of the risk of cars going up on the curb due to accidents.
He informed he lost a child in a traffic accident in Anaheim at a junction as such and it didn't help at all to
see the person convicted, they still lost a child. These traffic situations are in deed serious to the people
who live in the area. He asked the audience to raise their hands if they feel it is a serious safety issue
(approximately 20 people raised their hand).
Ed Young, 5821 Blueberry Street. Stated he wrote a letter on September 5th to the Planning Commission
with reasons why the animal clinic should not be built. He stated it is a residential neighborhood with no
commercial uses untii you get down to Orangethorpe Avenue or north to Yorba Linda Boulevard. He is
concerned with putting a commercial building in a residential neighborhood because of property values;
the increase of the fence height would make a dangerous situation into a deadly situation; he has
personally seen accidents and cars being towed away within the past year. Why they are not reported or
included in the staff report he is unaware. l"he signs are an obstruction no matter how small and visually
it is not in good taste or compatible with the neighborhood. The increased height of the building has been
reduced to 30 feet, but it still is a large commercial building in a residential neighborhood; the front and
side yard setbacks would leave no room for people to go down the street and it increases the obstruction
of the view coming from Short Street out onto Kellogg Drive.
He informed if something occurs in the subject area, and Yorba Linda Police Department is called by the
time they get there they discovered it's not in Yorba Linda but in Anaheim, then you have to call the
Anaheim Police Department and wait for their response. There is a list showing 21 neighbors who are
objecting to the subject facility, which is a good reason for the Planning Commission to reject the CUP
and maintain the property as residential.
Sharon Edwards, 1995 N. Brandon Circle. Stated her property is probably the one to be most impacted
by the proposed commercial property. She stated her concern is regarding the traffic and the safety of
the children from Esperanza High School. She asked why it is classified as commercial and not
. residential, there are a number of residential properties that back onto Imperial Highway and a couple of
them that are worth over a million dollars. She doesn't understand why iYs not considered a residential
property. The original owner of the property was going to put two houses there but it was sold and now
iYs commercial. She feels the Commission should reconsider because of all the negative influences that
the commercial property is going to bring to their residential area and that it be zoned residential and that
some homes be built.
She stated she is the "mad woman" who this past Sunday morning was diafing anyone's telephone
number that she could get a hold of because she was frustrated that this past Sunday at 6:30 a.m.,
equipment was being unloaded on the subject lot and at 7:30 a.m. the jack hammer was hammering
concrete in the ditch, which made her house vibrate until 5:00 p.m. Therefore, she is concerned about
the impact of the construction. The new owner is being noted as a"concerned neighbor", but she stated
she wasn't thinking of them as a concerned neighbor on Sunday at 6:30 a.m.
Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified that the said construction that took place on the property is separate
from today's request, and he believes the construction and permits associated with it are from the original
owner's improvements to the property and not by the applicant of the subject request.
Randy Frager, 1990 Brandon Circle, Anaheim. Stated he lives next to Sharon Edwards who just spoke
and he is also the property which is closest to the subject site. He referred to the traffic situation and
stated there are three schools in the area that pertain and he explained the traffic situation in trying to
drop kids off at any one of the schools because of the three schools in the area which creates traffic. He
informed it is not just during school hours but because there are sport events after school, and kids are
coming and going to ali three schools and the fields are used all the time. He indicated widening the
street as proposed is not answering the question because there is just too much traffic, it is a residential
area and not commercial.
~ Dr. Walt Russell, 5962 Short Street. Stated he lives four doors up Short Street on the same side as the
proposed veterinary hospital and is concerned about it's potential existence in the community. He stated
he teaches at a Christian University and he has to go down Short Street and turn north onto Kellogg Drive
10-06-03
Page 14
OCTOSER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• which is very difficult, therefore, he wou{d not want to see what would happen with additional traffic. It is a
very dangerous and difficult turn/intersection. He stated the subject site is the eastern gate to a
neighborhood of well over a hundred homes and it is the main gateway. He feels if there is a commerciai
building it has a disproportionate impact on their community because it's a statement of all the homes and
there are homes of a million dollars in the area that would be impacted by the proposed site. He feels the
issue is not just the value of a veterinary hospital because it is a wonderful thing, but the issue is the
value of a veterinary hospital in the subject location.
He stated the burden of proof should be on the potential builder who wants to change the residential area.
They have tried to defend what they think is very obvious and straightforward about their neighborhood.
He stated they are concerned homeowners and good citizens who care about the community and hopes
the Commission would do what is best for all of them, therefore they entrust themselves to the
Commission.
Jean Langlois, 6081 S. Ohio Street, Yorba Linda. Referred to the traffic situation and stated iYs a
dangerous situation not just during the rush hour but the rest of the day as well. It's not just the quantity
of traffic; but the nature of it. He feels traffic is so dangerous there because of distractions (newly
licensed kids, radio, stressful discussions) and distractions create accidents. With the veterinary hospital
people will be bringing animals in their car that are sick or stressed which is another distraction.
Therefore, the nature of the traffic becomes more dangerous than what the quantity indicates. He asked
if the subject business was to fail what would take its place.
Rob Rich, 1975 Brandon Circle. Stated the two people who spoke earlier (Randy and Sharon) are the
two properties across from him, therefore, between the three of them he feels they would be the most
affected by the proposal. Although, most of the points were covered today he won't be redundant
regarding the traffic situation. But, stated regarding the boarding that may be taking place in the early
morning, he would believe people going on vacation are going to want to drop their animals off or board
• their animais sometime in the morning or late afternoon when the traffic is at its worst. Even though there
was an estimation of 15 people per hour, he calcufates with 3 doctors at 4 an hour you have 12 cars
coming in and out of the facility.
Per Mr. Dunbar's statement at the last meeting, it was indicated there were about 20 groomings per day
and based on the timeframe the facility is open that would be well over 15-16 visitors per hour. They
have an allocation for 24 parking spaces, and asked with 12 employees and about 15 visitors where are
the additional people going to park their vehicle, hopefufly not on his street.
He informed he doesn't feel it is correct for the Commission to authorize a commercial facility to be built in
the residential neighborhood.
Lamar Anderson, 5952 Ohio Street. Stated he didn't come down to offend any neighbors but feels it is
healthy to exercise their thoughts. He has dealt with some of the noise problems before in other parcels
and he feels provided the noise and odor problems are addressed and taken care of properly, then he
would endorse the structure. The parcel is approved for commercial, opening the door for a 7/11 or liquor
store for people who have enough money to get it through, and if they could make it residential that is
great but it is going to be at least %2 million dollars to get the parcel approved and asked who would want
to live on a parcel with a street on three sides. He can't imagine anyone would want to live there. He is
against multi-family dwelling, which would be much worst.
He understands the wall is going to be pushed back so going down Short Street you would be able to see
the off ramp and that has been a real concern because that is where you might get hit when someone is
coming off the off ramp. There is no question it needs a traffic light. On one occasion he had a dog that
had problems and went to one of Mr. Dunbar's veterinary clinic located by Yorba Linda Boulevard and the
91 Freeway and it was tastefully done, quiet and not smelly, and he was impressed. He understands no
one wants to hear barking dogs but they have to separate an animal hospital from a county pound.
~ He stated the subject property has been a haven for rodents, weeds, etc., and doesn't want to see the
decision linger on. He feels the artist drawing are beautifui and it wouid add to the community because it
10-06-03
Page 15
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ does look more like a house. The structure will add a buffer zone to the houses for noise. Therefore, he
would like to see it developed and the proposed use would be the most feasible thing.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he mentioned earlier that staff would be stating some modifications to the
staff report, and since everyone now has a copy of the staff report he asked staff to relay the
modifications.
Mr. McCafferty referred to Condition No. 6(a) in the staff report, and stated to recognize the City of Yorba
Linda's suggestion regarding trees, staff would replace 6(a) as follows, "that a minimum of four
evergreen trees shall be planted and maintained on Kellogg Drive and eleven evergreen trees on Short
Street. Said trees shall be minimum 24-inch box sized and shall include at least five 36-inch box sized
evergreen trees on Short Street.
To add the following conditions:
"That only the outdoor areas located between the building and the freeway shall be used for exercising
dogs and attendants shall be present at all times when the area is being utilized; that pfans submitted for
building permits shall incorporate the design recommendations contained in the acoustical analysis dated
September 25, 2003, prepared by Colia Acoustical Consultants as well as the letter of operation
submitted by the applicant. Such items shall include but not be limited to the following: ail entry doors
shall be single acting and self-closing; the entire perimeter shall be fully weather-stripped; the gaps
around the doors and frames shall be no more than 1/16-inch; the entry doors shall contain'/4-inch glass
or have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 20; any skylights above the exam room,
grooming and ward areas shall be double dome or have a STC rating of 18 or greater; the rooftop HVAC
units shall have a minimum of 10 feet of interior lined acoustical ducting into each hospital space; the
exterior walls shall be concrete block or 7/8-inch stucco, 2x4 studs with insulation with %2-inch drywall; the
maximum number of dogs at any one time at the facility shall be limited to 30; and glass in the exterior
~ wall shall be minimum'/<-inch plate or have an STC rating of 28 or greater."
"That the business shall operate as indicated in the submitted letter of operation including the following,
that the hours of operation for the facility shall be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to
5 p.m. on Saturda~'. He asked if the facility is closed on Sunday and stated the applicant would need to
give clarification pertaining to the hours of operation. He continued, "that no more than one attendant
shall be on duty throughout the night for the animal boarding portion of the business operation."
"That the outdoor lighting for the facility shall incorporate decorative bollards at the driveway entrance
from Short Street and a maximum height of 12 feet for the decorative light standards within the parking
area. The maximum foot-candles at the south and west property line shall be 0.5. Said information shall
be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits."
He stated iYs his understanding with regard to other conditions in the staff report, that there shall be no
emergency service at the property and no carcass disposal at the facility, any dead animais will be picked
up and disposed of off site.
ApplicanYs Statement:
Richard Rauh, Architect, 22652 Shady Grove Circle, Lake Forest. Stated he has specialized in veterinary
hospitals for the past 20 years. He spoke as he was presenting a presentation and referred to the artist
rendering and stated it is very close to the proposed facility in terms of the exterior elevations. He
explained changes made and stated regarding the concerns of the line of sight; the Eastlake Animal
Hospital sign and logo has been completely removed from the corner in order to enhance the line of sight.
They also pushed the fence wall back additional feet, so it is clear in terms of enhancing the line of sight.
The building is contemporary ranch and residential in context. The signage is very low key; the only area
the sign would be seen is around the corner. There is illuminated signage that addresses the freeway,
• but it is not visible from the residential area. The building has been reduced in vertical height of 30 feet,
which is consistent with the zoning.
10-06-03
Page 16
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Regarding the lighting issue, it was recommended that they take a further study and look at some of the
site section characteristics inherent to the project. They have cut several slices through the project, one
across the back parking area, which is closest to one of the light standards, 12 foot standard, to see what
physical relationship that would have between here and the street area itself.
He continued with the presentation, pointing out and explaining certain areas of the subject facility such
as the line of sight, roof, signage, lighting, height, wall line, property line and elevations.
He referred to the existing masonry wall which has created some concerns pertaining to the line of sight
and illustrated with the presentation that they have pushed the wall back an additional 8 feet, with the
buiiding back approximately 8-10 feet beyond that. They are trying to create an element or characteristic
of the proposed building so rather than have a massive 2-story building, they created a step back in the
building with a very attractive roof line with dormer features and then a ridge line across the top.
He stated the site is about a.46 acre, they have approximately 5,700 square feet on the lower level,
which means their site coverage ratio is about 20-22%. The landscaping coverage is about 34°/o for the
project, which is significant for a commercial project.
He referred to Section C, the radius wall that fronts the off ramp and stated they have also taken that wall
back additional feet.
He stated they are using metal awnings to enhance the character of the building, residential theme
windows, dormers and natural ventilation.
He presented a presentation showing a veterinary project that they recently completed the Desert Animal
Hospital in Palm Springs, CA. I# is across from an airport, contiguous to a school and also a residential
community. There were a lot of the same questions at the Planning Commission hearing there, regarding
~ sound, odor and physical appearance. He stated he would like to entitle his work as new trends in
veterinary architecture because they are trying to rethink the process of how to serve their clients and
how to serve the community. He pointed out and explained certain areas such as the receptionist area,
retail area, and exam rooms, cattery area and grooming area.
He stated the Desert Animal Hospital is approximately 25% larger than the proposed facility, and showed
the retail area and stated that is all they have for such a large facility. The retail is largely intended for
convenience to the clients for medication or a certain diet. There is not a large retail component to the
proposed facility. He stated veterinary medicine has changed in the last 20 years there is now more
technology. He pointed out the general treatment area, office component and isolation area, surgical
preparation area, and surgical suite with an isolation area. He referred to the concept he mentioned at
the previous meeting regarding a room within a room and pointed out in the presentation a photo showing
the luxury suites, which are rooms within a larger room, they are separate rooms for each of the pets. He
showed the inner lobby "sound transition" leading out to another lobby, the idea is sound containment
through transitions of space with self-closing doors.
They offer "cyber boarding" where clients could go out of state or country and be able to see their
animals.
He addressed the odor control issue, and stated they use UVC lighting and as you replenish the air going
into the space it sterilizes the air coming back in. Odor is a bi-product of bacteria, if you sterilize the air
you then eliminate the bacteria, thus you eliminate the odor and it has proven to be very successful.
Steve Dunbar, 20429 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda. He referred to pictures of the existing veterinary
hospital in Yorba Linda and stated there are residents who are a short distance from the facility, and there
have not been any complaints from the neighbors or the City of Yorba Linda. He referred to pictures of
the proposed facility and noted the wall that they would be taking down in order for the view not to be
~ obstructed. He pointed out that the site has been a mess. He referred to the exercise pens and stated
the areas are fenced on both sides preventing animals from getting loose. They are not going to be
10-06-03
Page 17
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ walking the animals up and down the sidewalk because they don't want them getting lose in the
hazardous area. All the animals will be walked in the exercise pens, and will be walked on a leash.
He stated the office would be open at 7 a.m. for "boarding animal" drop offs. The hospital woufd be open
from 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., the extension of the hours are more convenient for people who need to drop off or
pick up before the hospital opens or after the hospital closes. On the weekends, right now they are open
8 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., and on Saturday they may be open longer, as far as the hospital goes, but they
would not be running hospital hours on Sunday. Extended hours are more for drop off or pick up for the
animals that are being boarded and animals that might have been dropped off for hospital stays or some
kind of testing. All their clients, the number of people that live from Imperial Highway down towards La
Palma is a very small segment and very close in compared to Imperial Highway and Esperanza Road
down to Lakeview, about 95-98% of their business clients and employees would be traveling either on
Imperial Highway or south on Kellogg Drive and turning right onto Short Street. He stated they will add to
the traffic on Kellogg Drive, but they would not be crossing traffic. The school starts at 7:55 a.m., the
proposed facility wifl not open for the hospital until 8:00 a.m., he believes most of the traffic should be
gone before 7:45 p.m. In the afternoon, there is traffic too but the majority of the traffic is early in the
morning.
He referred to the sound issue, and stated the staff report there was some explanation. They had a
sound engineer measure the calculated sound for their building as well as the background sound and the
ambient sound was 61 decibels and their site was calculated to produce 48 decibels, which is significantly
lower than the current ambient sound.
He referred to parking and traffic issue, and stated in the hospital portion all the animals are seen by
appointments. They have 2 doctors a day, except for Mondays they have 3 doctors, and Saturday they
have 3 doctors. You can estimate the number of people coming to the hospital at 8-12 per hour.
~ Mr. McCafferty asked if the applicant could give some clarification regarding the shot clinic issue.
Mr. Dunbar stated they have no plans to have vaccine clinic.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he would be agreeable to a condition, stating to prevent shot clinics.
Mr. Dunbar was in agreement. He referred to the traffic issue and asked if the time of day is the concern
or is it the traffic all day long.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. Stated the traffic is heavy in front of every schoof in the
City of Anaheim, and there are over 51 schools. During the 15-20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes
in the afternoon parents are dropping off and picking up their children, therefore, there is heavier traffic
between the hours of 7:00-7:45 a.m.
He referred to the photo of an accident, which was presented during today's presentation and stated it
appeared to be a rear end accident, which is typical of a traffic signal. Therefore, when you install a traffic
signal the rear end accidents increase. When they look at the accident issues, they look at the accidents
that could be corrected by the installation of a traffic signal and there was known that could be observant
in the area. The amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project would not warrant an
installation of a traffic signal at the subject location.
Commissioner Bostwick asked when was the last time a traffic count was done on Kellogg Drive.
Mr. Yalda responded in November, 2002. Stated the traffic on Short Street is probably the same as last
year or the year before because there hasn't been any construction. He referred to the school district and
• informed because of the measure that was passed for construction, currently there is a lot of construction,
which may be contributing to additional traffic. The school has asked staff to change some of the signal
timing out there to accommodate for the children crossing the street because they have utilized the
10-06-03
Page 18
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• parking area across the street. Therefore, a little more delay and traffic may be noticed on Keilogg Drive
due to the construction. As soon as construction is over staff will go back and change the signal timing to
refiect normal activities of the schools.
Commissioner Eastman stated there is obviously a lot of concern regarding safety, and she has used the
street enough to know it is not an easy one to get in and out of, which occurred even on the weekend.
Therefore, asked if it doesn't meet the City standards is there any kind of remedy that the concerned
residents coufd do.
Mr. Yalda stated currently they have 25 warranted traffic signals in the City of Anaheim, where they don't
have a traffic signal and the City has to fund the projects one by one. They met all the warrants required
for a traffic signal to be installed. He informed the subject location does not meet any of the minimal
warrants and they don't encourage installation of a traffic signal because a traffic signal by itself brings
other types of accidents. A majority of accidents that happen at signal intersections are rear-ended
accidents, which was shown today by one of the photos presented.
He stated if Commission chooses to approve the subject facility, following they would monitor the
intersection, but he doesn't see any increase in traffic. He informed the heaviest traffic on Kellogg Drive
is around 8:00 a.m., which is normal, and it drops from 1,900 to 600 cars at 9:00 a.m. There are
approximately 1,200 cars during that hour. In the afternoon, the peak hour is at 3:00 p.m., 1,300 cars.
The rest of the day the average is about 600-700 cars, and then at 5-6 p.m., 1,100 cars. For a street that
could carry close to 20,000 cars, the street carries about 12,000-13,000 cars. He explained the traffic
situation on Short Street is not going to change because it is already established residence, the highest
peak at 8:00 a.m., is 54 cars. He explained that the traffic is very light and within one hour, 45 cars are
exiting.
Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified and asked Mr. Yalda if he stated traffic on Short Street would not change.
~ He informed the driveway of the proposed project leads into Short Street, therefore, how could it not
change.
Mr. Yalda responded that is correct, and stated thaYs why he offered to do another study to see how
much impact it would have on Short Street, but it wouldn't be where it warrants an installation of a traffic
signal.
Commissioner O'Connell stated if the project is approved what are the plans regarding the construction.
Greg Roseen, 23 Dawnwood, Ladera Ranch, CA. Stated the plan is to do it in phases and the parking lot
would be built prior to the building. While the parking lot is being built they would park on the building
site. Once the building is built, the parking would already be established, unless the adjacent piece of
property allows them to park there which they are currently working on. If that is the case, they wouid
park everything on the adjacent piece of property and there won't be a parking probfem.
Commissioner O'Connell stated you would make sure everyone would keep the cars on your property.
Mr. Roseen was in agreement.
Commissioner Romero asked if they are currently working with the adjacent owner.
Mr. Roseen responded yes.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated a person in the audience has been raising his hand, and he asked what is
the nature of his question. The gentleman asked a question pertaining to Mr. Yalda's previous comment
about traffic on Kellogg Drive.
~ Mr. Yalda clarified he doesn't believe Kellogg Drive is a residential street, it is called an arterial highway
which carries traffic from residential and other streets and carries it throughout the City of Anaheim. It
takes traffic all the way from La Palma, north to Orangethorpe and all the way to the City of Yorba Linda.
10-06-03
Page 19
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• It is a major arterial highway that is designated to carry the traffic. It might have a frontage off the
residential but the designation is to carry traffic from all the local and residential streets. He stated having
approximately 12,000-13,000 cars it is an average, we have some areas with similar streets that carry
19,000 cars and of course we have some areas that carry a lot less.
Mr. McCafferty asked Mr. Yalda to also address the tevel of service.
Mr. Yalda stated he hasn't checked on the level of service but believes it would probably be at Level B or
Level C. He asked Commission if they would like him to research that information and come back in
about 5 minutes.
Chairperson Vanderbilt responded yes.
Commissioner Eastman asked if he could explain the difference between an arterial highway and how
much it is designed to handle per hour versus a residential.
Mr. Yalda stated he would return to answer the questions.
Commissioner Flores referred to the lighting and asked what type of lighting, is it a hazel type so that no
one is hanging out on the premises at night.
Mr. Rauh asked a low-sodium type light.
Commissioner Flores responded yes.
Mr. Rauh stated they probably won't use, but would use a white light for color enhancement, a low light
and not high intensity. In their original photometric study they had a light standard at the threshold of the
~ entry and they have removed that and put in low-key bollard lighting. It is very attractive theme element
coming in but at the same time it mitigates the light issues.
Commissioner Flores referred to the signage facing the freeway and asked if they would consider an
alternate sign.
Mr. Rauh stated the sign is along the freeway only, there is no other area with illuminated signage. It is
very similar to going into a golf course where you would see a clubhouse, and very low-key signage.
Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified the question has to do with the "freewa~' lighting.
Commissioner Flores verified she was talking about the signage on the wall facing the freeway.
Mr. Rauh stated you shouldn't see the signage from the residential area, it would only be viewed from the
freeway.
Commissioner Flores stated the residents indicated they didn't want the image of anything commercial in
the area.
Mr. Rauh responded there are different colors you can use to either amplify or sedate the signage.
Commissioner Flores agreed with sedating it.
Mr. Rauh stated they could sedate it with a low light, such as a biue or green sign versus a red sign.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he received a few calls from some of the neighbors in the area, who he
happens to know, and they were in favor of the project, but they didn't want the streetlight that is required
~ on Short Street and he asked if staff would address that issue.
Ed Murdock, Public Utilities Department. Stated it is required by Municipal Code that any new
development bring with it a component of street lighting, an improvement to the infrastructure. He stated
10-06-03
Page 20
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ he doesn't have authority to skip over that as its part of their procedures to check for street lighting and
give their comments to staff. He stated if you go up Short Street the street lighting stops on Kellogg Drive
and Short Street, therefore, where ever the proposed driveway winds up you would want to place a street
light there. It would tend to impact the two properties that are south on Short Street but they could shield
and use cutoff fixtures so that the impact is reduced, it would be a high-pressure sodium fixture.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he understands that is the code, and is one of the requirements. He
asked if they could eliminate that requirement as one of the conditions.
Selma Mann stated the Planning Commission has the authority to waive provisions by its advertised of
matters that are in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, there are some specific matters that the
Planning Commission is designated to also grant waivers of, primarily items that are in Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code. She stated she is unaware of exactly what the source of the subject
requirement is.
Mr. Murdock stated it is 18.04.080.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Selma Mann asked Commission to allow her a minute to review.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated Mr. Yalda has returned and asked if he would continue and respond to the
earlier question regarding traffic.
Mr. Yalda stated Kellogg Drive is designated as a secondary highway in the City of Anaheim and
currently carries approximately 12,000 cars. The level of service that is currently operating is Level A
which could go up to 15, 000 cars. Level B is 17,500; Level C is 20,000; Level D is 22,500; and Level E
is when it exceeds 25,000. Therefore, the street is offering Level of Service A which is very freeloading,
you do have to understand in the morning for 15-20 minutes there would be some delays because there
~ is a high school with some construction.
For residential streets an average traffic is between 700-1,200 cars. He stated the average daily traffic
for Short Street is approximately 617 cars.
Commissioner Eastman verified it is at the lowest level that you would expect to see on a residential
street.
Mr. Yalda responded yes.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he understands the concerns of the residents, but as one of the neighbors
pointed out this could be an apartment building, or something to be more detrimental to their
neighborhood. The subject site is going to get developed at one point in time and stated the proposed
facility is designed as a residential look, and kept below the height standard. He feels it would improve
the neighborhood rather than the current empty lot. He explained where he lives there was an empty lot
and was approved for commercial development which he thought would be great, but the developer didn't
go forward and ultimately it become 80 homes. He stated he has traveled Short Street when Kellogg
Drive wasn't even there, in the 50s and 60s, and he is very familiar with the neighborhood and properties
in the subject area and feels it would be a benefit to all the neighbors. He suggested taking out Condition
No. 21 or waive it in order to meet the Code and indicated they have specified some extra requirements
for the proposed project and stated he is in support.
Commissioner Eastman stated she feels the applicant has addressed many of the issues. She has
known of Dr. Dunbar's business as her family has utilized his clinic. She has always been impressed with
the level of service he has provided and the integrity and cleanliness of the facility. She informed the
residents that there are a lot of conditions, and if the applicant doesn't live up to the conditions you could
complain. She informed if the applicant happens to go out of business, anybody who wanted to use the
~ property as commercial would also be held to conditions and would have to come before the Commission
to get approval. She stated she is in support of the project.
10-06-03
Page 21
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner O'Connell stated he respects the residents as far as their concerns raised, but feels there
is already a lot of traffic and the project would not add a tremendous amount of traffic. He feels the
development would improve property values and concurs at some point in time it is going to be
developed. It is much better than a 7/11, etc. The proposed development appears as a large home and
feels the veterinary service would be complimentary to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Flores stated in the beginning she was surprise it was an animal hospital because it
appeared to be a house. She feels the owner went beyond and above the City's requirements. She
thanked the residents for coming in as a community and talking to the Commission regarding their needs
and explained the owner knows the community will be watching and if anything goes wrong the owner
knows the neighbors will call the City. She concurs with the Commission in support of the project.
Commissioner Romero stated he applauds everyone for coming out today and for caring, the
Commission does take all their concerns very seriously. He informed he has read all the information,
heard the testimony and has talked to people who live in Yorba Linda and Anaheim about the issue. He
believes the applicant has done everything he could to be a good neighbor and feels if would be a good
project, therefore, is in favor.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated in terms of all the areas of which the applicant has some control over, they
have provided mitigating efforts to take care of the issues, but the one thing that is outside of their control
is the traffic situation. He indicated some people commented about the homes being million dollar homes
in the neighborhood, and feels that is not a consideration, whether they are million dollar homes or
apartments he is not going to base his opinion based on property values in terms of whether more
valuable property is something to take in affect versus less. He referred to the zoning issue, and clarified
it is zoned residential/agricultural and according to the code agricultural use is considered such as a berry
field, trees, orchards which would be allowed without any sort of conditional use requirement. A
conditional use permit as discussed presently is amongst the uses that can be allowed on the property,
~ the animal hospital is listed as well as restaurants, schools, pawn shop, etc. Even though they are on the
list he feels the Planning Commission would not allow certain uses, as a consequence he is struggling
with today's decision and reiterates the applicant has done everything in their control but the traffic
problem persists. Unless they were able to do something "radical" shortened hours outside of the school
operation, etc., therefore he can't support the conditional use permit but would be supportive of the
waivers and the CEQA Negative Declaration.
Selma Mann referred to the question regarding the street lighting, and stated the section indicated earlier
is the correct section. The street lighting facilities are under the jurisdiction of a Public Utilities
Department and is the Public Utilities General Manger who has authority over the street lighting plan.
There are provisions for payment of a waiver and that also would be up to the manager, the Planning
Commission could certainly make a recommendation to the Public Utilities General Manager outside of
the structure of the conditions or the Planning Department could relay the recommendation possibly to
work with the neighbors where the street light would be installed to try to reach some kind of consensus
or to minimize the impact upon the surrounding properties.
Commissioner Bostwick referred to Condition No. 22, and stated the proposed is a peak residential roof
with shingles, therefore, it wouldn't apply.
Mr. McCafferty responded yes, it is not feasible to put on the roof.
Commissioner Bostwick stated they would eliminate Condition No. 22, and asked the applicant if they
understood all of the conditions that were read earlier.
Mr. McCafferty clarified, if feasible, on portions of the roof that is flat, next to the freeway that is not visible
to surrounding properties, he believes the Police Department may want that for emergency purposes.
• Commissioner Bostwick asked if there is a portion of the roof that is flat.
Mr. McCafferty responded yes.
10-06-03
Page 22
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Commissioner Bostwick clarified then you could put it up there.
Mr. McCafferty stated Planner John Ramirez is showing the applicant the conditions that were read into
the public record.
Mr. Dunbar asked for clarification regarding the comment of the maximum number of dogs shall be 30,
and asked whaYs the reasoning on the "flat" number.
Mr. McCafferty stated it was one of the recommendations in the noise study prepared by the applicanYs
consultant.
Mr. Dunbar stated the study was done on 30 animals, it just happened to be the number they picked
based on the number of rooms.
Commissioner O'Connell asked the applicant how many dogs would you have.
Mr. Dunbar stated there might be a time where there are two animals in one suite, and they have about
29 suites. He has a problem with putting a"tag" number, especially when the engineering stated for each
10 dogs it goes up 1 db and indicated they could only house so many animals based on the design.
Commissioner O'Connell asked whaYs the maximum number of dogs they can house.
Mr. Dunbar reiterated they have 29-30 suites.
Commissioner O'Connell asked 60 dogs.
• Mr. Roseen asked is the requirement based on the boarding.
Mr. McCafferty responded based on the noise, as drawn from the acoustical study. He asked if the sound
engineer wants to verify there is no difference between 30 and 60, then staff is fine but it is based on
factual data that was submitted to the Planning Department.
Rick Colia, Colia Acoustical Consultants. Stated he was told that 30 was the maximum number of dogs, if
they increase the dogs to 10 they would probably increase the noise level 1-2 db. If they increase the
dogs to 60, the noise level would increase approximately to 6 db. He clarified 30 animals were based on
the number of suites.
Commissioner Bostwick stated how is it going to be regulated, to see how many dogs are in what kennel
and then monitor the db's. If you are on the outside next to the freeway how do you figure the freeway
noise from the dog noise and feels it is a very difficult condition to monitor and enforce.
Mr. McCafferty stated staff agrees with that, as long as the standard that the City measures which is 60
db at the property line is maintained, as the acoustical engineer has commented even with 60 dogs.
Therefore, if it were the case then staff would withdraw that condition of approval.
Chairperson Vanderbilt recognized Sharon Edwards who is in the audience raising her hand, and asked if
she has a question or statement.
Sharon Edwards stated she has a concern because her house is going to be the most impacted by the
noise and it's not only the dogs that are there, but also the dogs that are going in and out of the kennel.
She informed Commission that when people are on Short Street she can hear them talking, and is
concerned with 60 dogs in and out of the facility behind her.
~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated City code allows certain amounts of ambient noise to occur from
businesses and they are trying to ensure that based on the sound study that those numbers are not
exceeded.
10-06-03
Page 23
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
u
•
Sharon Edwards asked if there was a study.
Chairperson Vanderbilt responded yes, and Commission is trying to figure out the limit on the number of
animals in order to assure the ambient sound restriction is maintained.
Sharon Edwards reiterated her property is most impacted because she is directly across the street and
the noise just "falls" onto her property.
Commissioner Bostwick stated it might be quieter with the building between you and the freeway.
Sharon Edwards responded then you have the "bouncing off' the freeway as wel{.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he understands he has a property that sits right along the Santa Ana
Freeway and there is a"Chinese" wall there, and feels it is noisier now with the sound wall than it was
before. The best thing is to install plants and trees.
Sharon Edwards asked about the study that was done.
Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated there was a study mentioned in the staff report and
copies could be available from staff if she would like to receive a copy.
OPPOSITION: 10 people spoke in opposition of the subject request.
IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Vote: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy.)
Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows:
~
Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum fence height within the street setback
since the severe change in topography between the right-of-way and the building pad
elevation creates a significant hardship on the property, (b) permitted signs within
residential zones because the walf sign proposed is much smaller than what would be
allowed by right for other commercial businesses, and because the signs face the
freeway and Kellogg Drive and would not impact adjacent and surrounding residential
properties; and that the existing and new right-of-way configuration is irregular and the
topography varies significantly along Kellogg Drive, presenting a significant hardship in
placing the monument signage in conformance with code, (d) minimum front yard
setback because in order to minimize the impact of the facility on adjacent residential
properties, the building would be located at the eastern portion of the property.
Additionally, the existing topography and location of an existing culvert and proposed
storm drain at the center of the property would limit the placement of the building on the
property, and (e) minimum side yard setback because the proposed on-site circulation
and access, combined with the proposed location of the building, limit the placement of
the trash enclosure in a manner that both complies with the minimum required side yard
setback and ensures that the enclosure is screened properly and not identifiable from
nearby residences, adjacent streets and highways. Additionally, the proposed trash
enclosure as viewed from the Kellogg Drive freeway off-ramp would effectively be an
extension of the proposed screen wall and would be indistinguishable from traffic along
this off-ramp. Vote: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)
10-06-03
Page 24
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Denied waiver (c) pertaining to maximum structural height since it has been deleted.
Vote: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04746 (to construct a veterinary hospital and
animal boarding facility) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report
dated October 6, 2003, with the following modifications:
Modified Condition Nos. 2 and 21 to read as follows:
2. That the petitioner shall submit a final sign plan for review and approval by
Zoning Division staff. The color and illumination of the wall sign facing the
freeway shall incorporate muted tones. Any decision made by the Zoning
Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission,
and/or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
21. That the installation of streetlights shall be required along Short Street as
required by the Public Utilities General Manager.
Incorporated new conditions of approval with the exception of the condition limiting the
maximum number of dogs allowed in the facility.
That a minimum of four evergreen trees shall be planted and maintained on
Kellogg Drive and eleven evergreen trees on Short Street. Said trees shall be
minimum 24-inch box sized and shall include at least five 36-inch box sized
evergreen trees on Short Street.
• That only the outdoor areas located between the building and the Freeway shalf
be used for exercising dogs. An attendant shall be present at all times when this
area is being utilized.
That plans submitted for building permits shall incorporate the design
recommendations contained in the acoustical analysis dated September 25,
2003, prepared by Colia Acoustical Consultants, including the following:
a. All entry doors shall be single acting and self-closing. The entire
perimeter shall be fully weather-stripped.
b. The gaps around the doors and frames shall be no more than 1/16-inch.
The entry doors shall contain'/4" glass or have a minimum Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 20. Any skylights above exam room,
grooming ward areas shall be double dome or have a STC rating of 18 or
greater.
c. Rooftop HVAC units shall have a 10 foot of interior lined acoustical
ducting into each hospital space.
d. Exterior walls shall be concrete block or 7/8-inch stucco, 2x4 studs with
insulation with %2 inch drywall.
e. Glass in the exterior wall shall be minimum '/4' plate or have an STC
rating 28 or greater.
That the business shall operate as indicated in the submitted letter of operation,
~ including the following:
10-06-03
Page 25
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ f. The hours of operation for the facility shall be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday. Scheduled
appointments shall occur between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
g. All dog ward and run areas shall be located within the building.
h. No more than one attendant shall be on duty throughout the night for the
animal boarding portion of the business operation.
That outdoor lighting for the facility shall incorporate decorative bollards at the
driveway entrance from Short Street and a maximum height of 12 feet for the
decorative light standards within the parking area. The maximum foot-candles at
the south and west property lines shall be 0.5. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Vote on CUP: 5-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and with one Commission vacancy)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION: 2 hours and 17 minutes (1:50-4:07)
~
•
10-06-03
Page 26
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES
~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04742
OWNER: Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard,
Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: John Tarlos, Tarlos and Associates, 17802 North Mitchell,
Irvine, CA 92867
LOCATION: 1092 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is
approximately 6.9 acres, located north and east of the
northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma
Avenue.
Request to construct a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
Continued from the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Approved
Forwarded to City
Council for
consideration due to a
tie vote.
sr3045ey.doc
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item was continued from the September 8, 2003,
Planning Commission Meeting. The request is to construct a drive-through restaurant generally at the
~ northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-
04742.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant to come forward to speak.
ApplicanYs Statement:
John Tarlos, Project Architect, 17802 North Mitchell, frvine. Stated since the last meeting they have
worked with staff and basicatly went back and redesigned the project to highly enhance the entrance.
They have covered the drive-through area so it is highly protected, visually from the street and enhanced
the design elements in the building itself. The Project Manager George Mendoza and the Director of
Construction for the Western Region, John Ferrara is present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Romero asked if iYs still facing the same way as before.
Mr. Tarlos responded yes.
Commissioner Romero asked what was changed since the lasf Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Tarlos stated relative to the position of the building they are limited by the lease, and is the only thing
they are able to obtain from the lessee. The building's entrance has been enhanced, and have added a
porte-cochere at the drive through area, therefore, the window is covered. He referred to a rendering and
stated there is a berm area so that the cars are buried behind the berm and the porte-cochere.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the property owner is present.
~ Mr. Tarlos stated he was suppose to be present, but doesn't believe he showed up.
10-06-03
Page 27
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated he had a chance to take a look at the property on Friday evening about
10 p.m., in order to get a sense of the parking conditions. It seems with the exception of Black Angus,
Blockbuster video store and the liquor store that everything else was cfosed, therefore, most of the
parking would be attributed to the J.C. Fandango's restaurant. He understands the desire in terms of the
owner to maximize the parking for the other uses, but it puts the applicant in an awkward situation
because the orientation continues to be an issue with staff.
Commissioner Romero asked staff for clarification regarding the orientation of the building.
Mr. McCafferty stated staff is recommending that the building be turned, so that the shorter frontage of
the building faces State College Boulevard. He referred to the McDonald's down the block on Stafe
College Boulevard and stated that is an ideal orientation because you are not exposing any of the back.
However, regarding the proposed project you would be getting an entire "shot" of the drive-through lane,
fhe pick-up windows, and the menu board.
He explained staff understands the frustration the applicant has had with the underlying property owner
because it has been difficult to negotiate. But, the subject use is going to be here for a long time and staff
wanfs to get it right the first time. They have done all they can within the building footprint to make it look
nice, and now it is just a matter of orientation.
George Mendoza, Construction Manager for Wendy's International, 265 Windsong Court, Azusa. Stated
he has talked with Jerry O'Donnell owner's representative for the property. As indicated in the report, his
main concern is the amount of parking stalls that he is going to loose. They understand on the weekends
and after hours there are a lot of closed-down shops, he has a lot of vacancies as well. In their traffic
report and according to the Anaheim standards the site needs over 800 parking stalls and right now there
is 460-480, by repositioning and trying fo work out with the landlord would require them to take more land,
but the biggest deterrent to that is they would be taking up twice as many stalls and not putting any more
~ back, but as proposing now they would be taking out 63 and putting back 34. The primary concern is in
the future, there is already two to three parking variances on the site alone. When you start filiing in those
vacant spots, he will get into a position where he is not going to have enough parking and fill those
vacancies.
Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated there was a lot of parking spaces that were for valet parking, which
means someone is getting some revenue. It seems like the owner is saying I want to protect these
spaces where I could charge somebody to park in order to accommodate my existing tenant. Therefore,
it is causing you to orientate your building in such a way that it is, so that the paid parking spaces are
reserved which is how it appears to him and which is why iYs hard to see a hardship.
Mr. Mendoza stated they have addressed several different layouts as Mr. McCafferty has indicated and
have presented them to staff, and was presented to the landowner and we had his objection because of
the amount of parking spaces we were to take out. The major concern Wendy's had was the visibility as
well, most of the businesses up and down State College north of the freeway are up close to the street.
By repositioning the Wendy's they showed it to the operations and they didn't like it because it was
pushed back so far that he felt the visibility on Wendy's wasn't going to be able to capture the traffic off
the street until it was near passing the intersection where it makes it more difficult for them to turn around
and come back and at that point move on to the next.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated Wendy's has a marketing campaign, and does not feel people who pass it
up will just go to the next because they past the driveway, he feels they will get to their destination even if
there are a few U-turns. He stated we have staff's recommendation and Commission can give their vote
either in favor or against, or consider another continuance. If the decision is not in favor, there is the
appeal process.
Commissioner Romero stated a continuance will not get them anywhere, because staff is suggesting a
• certain orientation and the applicant has indicated it is not possible with the lease.
10-06-03
Page 28
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• John Ferrara, Director of Engineering for Wendy's. Stated to focus on the matters at hand, in review of
the staff report the main concern was the fact that the drive-through windows are orientated towards the
street, which is the reason for recommending denial. He indicated a month ago, they addressed that and
went through the thought process of why they needed to orient the building in such a way, they walked
away with the understanding that they would redesign the building to be aesthetically pleasing to the
community, the cifizens and to portray a good image for the City of Anaheim. From review of the new
staff report, he feels everyone is in agreement that they have done that and they like the look of the new
building. They agreed to enhance the elevation significantly and he could speak factually in saying they
probably increased the cost of the building by 15% with the use of stone, porte-cochere and they didn't do
anything minimal in nature. He explained they spent some money as that was their agreement at the last
Planning Commission meeting. He wants everyone to understand that they have tried to do what is best
for not only Wendy's, but also the City of Anaheim.
They are in a bind from physical limitations of the property, if they could change the site plan they would.
Regarding the drive through facing the street, they have shaded it significantly with the use of a porte-
cochere, columns, landscaping and berms. If the Commission looks at what is proposed for the project
compared to what is in the surrounding center, he believes everyone would agree it is a tremendous
improvement. He apologizes they can't do what is 100% required by the City, but would argue that they
have done 99.9% of it.
Commissioner Romero stated the changes made are good and is in favor of the project.
Commissioner Eastman stated she appreciates the new design, it is definitely a big improvement over the
very plain one that Commission saw originally. But it appears from the elevations that the front of the
building is either the south end or the east side and it seems the best thing for the overall community and
the surrounding aesthetics of the community is to have the front of a building facing the street, not the
~ side or the rear portion of it. The way the proposed building looks appears the side of it is facing the
street and the front of it is at the south end. The same building if "flipped" around the other way, the south
end would be facing State Co!lege Boulevard and that would be a very prominent look and would look like
the front door is there. The other option to consider, is just "flipping" the whole fhing so that the side
facing east now faces the street. It seems like that would be in Wendy's best interest, if you have to build
it long ways on the street that would present the most and best exposure and look the best for the
surrounding community. She doesn't feel she would support it with the back end facing the street.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he concurs with staff, the center as a whole needs help and to put
something else that just doesn't look right there only adds to the "disconnect" to the center. He agrees
with Mr. McCafferty lets get it right the first time.
Commissioner Flores stated she concurs to get it right the first time, and agrees the neighborhood does
need an improvement, but they would be holding themselves "hostage" with the owner and does not think
that is fair. She believes the way Commissioner Eastman presented it would be best for the shopping
center.
Commissioner O'Connell asked if it is a corporate or franchise store.
Mr. Ferrara stated they are members of a corporation.
Commissioner O'Connell asked if it is common to have the orientation as such.
Mr. Ferrara responded yes, every site is different, they have different traffic concerns, parking concerns,
neighbors, etc. It is not typical for the site to be oriented in such a way as they have to do this. He has
numerous sites where the rear of the building has to face the street as it is mandated either by the City or
developer. In those instances, they would dress up the rear of the building.
• Commissioner O'Connell stated according to the plans the drive-through is on State College Boulevard
side.
10-06-03
Page 29
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. Ferrara responded yes.
Commissioner O'Connell asked with the way it is built, Wendys would want to still go proceed with the
project.
Mr. Ferrara agreed, and stated for safety consideration for their customers it is a good instance to have a
dedicated drive-through lane where you do not have the tendency for people to walk through the drive-
through lane. If they orient the building as recommended, 90 degrees from its current position, you would
have a tendency for a parking field to be on the other side of the drive-through lane and therefore people
walking through the drive-through lane.
Commissioner O'Connell stated he has seen numerous fast food built as such and doesn't believe the
public is concerned which way it is oriented, as far as the street looks.
Commissioner Fiores referred to a Wendy's on Euclid Avenue in Anaheim, and it is very nice with the
front almost facing the street and a nice canopy and the drive through was along the front of the street.
Mr. Ferrara was not aware of the Wendy's at that location.
Mr. Ferrara stated depending on the size and orientation of the site, width and depth, there are certain
ways they lay out a building. The subject facility is wider than it is deep, about square. The existing
parking field is oriented east to west, therefore they tried to tie into the existing parking field.
Commissioner O'Connell believes the center needs a lot of help and the proposed may be a huge
improvement and a step in the right direction.
~ ~ •~ ~ e ~iii~. • . e.~ . •~~ii •. ~ •.
OPPOSITION: None
IN GENERAL: A photograph was received during the meeting.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion to approve the waiver of code requirement
pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces, seconded by Commissioner Romero
and THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote:
AYES: VANDERBILT, ROMERO, O'CONNELL
NOES: EASTMAN, FLORES, BOSTWICK
VACANCY: ONE
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion to deny the waiver of code requirement
pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick
and THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote:
AYES: EASTMAN, FLORES, BOSTWICK
NOES: VANDERBILT, ROMERO, O'CONNELL
VACANCY: ONE
~
10-06-03
Page 30
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-
04742 based on the evidence presented in the staff report dated October 6, 2003, and
THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY due to a tie vote.
AYES: EASTMAN, FLORES, BOSTW ICK
NOES: VANDERBILT, ROMERO, O'CONNELL
VACANCY: ONE
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that had there been seven Commissioners
the matter would be continued until the seventh commissioner was available, but since
there are only six Commissioners the matter would be forwarded to the City Council as a
separate public hearing for consideration due to the tie vote.
DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (4:08-4:33)
Following this item, Commissioner Romero left the Council Chambers @ 4:33 p.m.
~
~
10-06-03
Page 31
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
4b. WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREMENT November 3, 2003
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04744
OWNER: First Congregational Church of Anaheim, 515 North State
College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: Adan Madrid, Trillium Telecommunications, 3010 Old
Ranch Parkway, Suite 210, Seal Beach, CA 90740
LOCATION: 515 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is
approximately 5.6 acres, located at the northwest corner of
Sycamore Street and State College Boulevard (First
Congregational Church of Anaheim).
Request to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-
mounted equipment with waivers of: (a) minimum front yard setback and
(b) minimum side yard setback.
Continued from the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
sr8647vn.doc
• ~ • ~ ~- • • ~ • • •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to
the November 3, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in
order to allow additional time to finalize revised plans for a new alternative stealth design.
VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
10-06-03
Page 32
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04720
W ithdrawn
OWNER: Louis P. Smaldino, 13583 East Whittier Boulevard, Whittier,
CA 90605
AGENT: Nabil Houri, 12 Longstreet, Irvine, CA 92620
LOCATION: 804 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
approximately 0.43-acre, located at the southeast corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and South Street.
To permit a W.I.C (Women, infant and Children) store and to establish
land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for
an existing legal nonconforming liquor store.
Continued from the July 14 and August 11, 2003, Planning Commission
Meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
•
•
sr3032(b)_ey.doc
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2003-04720 due to the inability of the property owner and business
owner to reach an agreement over issues pertaining to land use conformity.
VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
10-06-03
Page 33
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
u
•
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921 Denied request for
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04723) reinstatement to retain
the retail sales of
OWNER: F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc., 10921 Westminster alcoholic beverages for
Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 off-premises
consumption within a
AGENT: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 North Brookhurst Street #1, previously-approved
Anaheim, CA 92801 convenience market.
LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1. Property is
approximately 0.91-acre, located north and east of the
northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma
Avenue (Cheers Market).
Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 8,
2000 to expire November 28, 2002) to retain the retail sales of alcoholic
beverages for off-premises consumption within a previously-approved
convenience market.
Continued from the July 28, September 8 and September 22, 2003,
Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-134 sr8650av.doc
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request to reinstate the permit regarding
the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a previously-approved
convenience market at 1112 N. Brookhurst Street (Cheers Market).
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the item was continued twice in order to give the opportunity for the
appficant to be present, he asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak.
Applicant's Statement:
Abula Patel, 1112 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to read the staff report.
Mr. Patel stated yes.
Desapriya Jinadasa, previous owner, 1112 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim. Stated since the applicant is
having difficulty explaining the situation, he will speak.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the applicant had a chance to read the staff report.
Mr. Jinadasa stated everything they have received from the City of Anaheim has been at the last minute,
which is why they have been postponing the meeting. The property owner advised him to inform City of
Anaheim that in order to represent the situation, they would need advance notice.
Chairperson Vanderbilt verified the concern is the timing of the notice, and how much time they had to
prepare for the meeting.
10-06-03
Page 34
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. McCafferty stated the staff report was mailed, in a timely manner, on three separate occasions to the
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated outside of the due process, they have a staff report to deny the conditional
use permit with justification for it, and a representative from the police department is present to address
issues.
applicant. In addition they formally sent a letter, informing them of the public hearing which is not a
normal procedure and is in addition to the normal requirements. Since staff had little success in having
the appiicant attend the previous public hearings; they sent the letter by certified mail to the new business
owner and a"return receipY' was returned which notified him of the October 6'h hearing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bostwick stated staff is recommending denial, and asked the applicant if he has anything
to say on why the Commission should approve the request.
Mr. Jinadasa stated the main reason he is requesting approval of the request is the public convenience
and necessity. Regarding reference to the police department's memorandum, they are requesting
paperwork related to Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Department, the sales and receipts which they
have ordered through companies.
He stated he would talk about the negative elements, only, at this time. They have visited five times at
the location and have been trying to get unnecessary paperwork, which is not required by the City of
Anaheim's Police Department. It says very clearly a violation of the ABC license. He informed the ASC if
they were requiring any paperwork, they would be glad to provide it as iYs in the file cabinet. But, his
workers sometimes don't have the file cabinet keys. He informed City of Anaheim's Police Department,
the supervisor of Kasey Costa that if any receipts are required for beer and alcohol they would be glad to
provide it but let them know a date, but they never asked him.
~ On April 11, 2001, it states clerk had sold alcohol to a minor, which he agrees. But, the issue, originally,
has been dismissed by ABC because the police representative did not show up at court, he received a
call from ABC saying the case was dismissed. Then later, the police department wanted to open the
case again. The authorities of the ABC and Anaheim Police Department are doing what they want, and
he is very disappointed.
He referred to the pornographic issue and stated they don't sell pornographic movies or DVDs. They
have a section for convenience for the public, otherwise they lose sales and due to that reason they have
a small section, which is very well covered that says adults only.
He stated Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, had visited the location and told him that he
has been cooperating with Code Enforcement Department since 1996, and indicates he has done his
best.
He referred to the drug issue, and stated they did not have drug paraphernalia at the location, but agreed
they did sell "zig zags" as he thought it was an item they were allowed to sell. They did sell scissors for
the public, and stated he believes it is not a drug paraphernalia item.
Chairperson Vanderbilt verified the concerns being sales of alcohol to minors; issue of providing the
report on income for alcohol sales to the pofice; and questions about drug paraphernalia and
pornography. He asked the police department representative who is present to address the issues
raised.
Mr. Jinadasa pointed out he has been running the business since 1996, and on April 11, 2001, they did
have sales of alcohol to a minor, but it was dismissed.
~ Sergeant Michael Lozeau, Vice Detail. He stated on September 8, 2003, they pulled a copy of the recent
license information regarding the subject business from ABC. He explained they received information
10-06-03
Page 35
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ regarding suspensions, and there was 20-day suspension in October of 1999 for sales to minor, and
another one in November of 2002, for a 25-day suspension.
Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified the suspensions were actions which were enforced, and the business
complied with the suspensions for those two occasions.
Mr. Jinadasa responded yes, they did get suspended but the second one it should not have been
suspended because it was already dismissed. He has a case filed against ABC, stating the City of
Anaheim's Police Department did not show up at court and after his letter, ABC came and removed the
suspension and stated they were extremely sorry. Then following, without his knowledge, it was
suspended again.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that is helpful in order to understand the suspensions regarding the sales
to minors. He asked about the issue of reporting the percentage of alcohol sales, and stated the
applicant is saying information was available on site for the police to inspect.
Sergeant Michaei Lozeau stated on three different occasions, Investigator Kasey Costa went to the
business and found there were no receipts, which is in violation of the ABC license, which was on July 26,
2002, August 21, 2002 and July 17, 2003.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked when an officer goes to review the records, do they make copies or just a
visual inspection.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau stated it is a visual inspection and sometimes they ask for copies, but usually
just a visual inspection in order to make sure they are buying the alcohol from a distributor and not from a
"Costco" type store.
• Chairperson Vanderbilt asked at the time they are there asking for receipts, if they don't find them, do
they notify the owner, or is it just collected and reported back to Code Enforcement or the Police
Department.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau responded it could be all the above, it depends what route they want to take,
but usually they notify all the appropriate people involved as far as notifying that there were no receipts.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was something received regarding the Planning Department.
Mr. McCafferty stated it is also a condition of the conditional use permit that one of the findings for
reinstating the alcohol is that you are in compliance with conditions, one of the conditions requiring that
there be proof submitted to the Planning Department regarding the gross sales of alcohol within any three
month period. He referred to the Police Department Memorandum attached to the staff report, regarding
a re-inspection on August 21, 2002, it informed the applicant of such requirement. Staff has not received
anything they could use to guarantee to the Commission that they have complied with the condition.
They have received a couple of sentences on a piece of paper saying they have complied with the
condition, but with no back-up material.
Mr. Jinadasa stated the first time he has heard about material being required for the 35% sales of alcohol
beverage was when the Planner Amy Vasquez sent a message through Mr. Yourstone, she did not
provide a letter or a phone call. He expiained Mr. Yourstone informed him verbally to provide a letter from
a certified accountant saying the alcohol sales are less than 35% from the gross sales. He informed he
has a certified accountant and he did get a letter and faxed it to Amy Vasquez.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there was a letter sent, but it was not useful because the information was
incomplete or not detailed enough.
• Mr. McCafferty was in agreement, and stated typically they attach the gross receipts for each month and
then the accountant would come to the conclusion if they either have or have not complied with the
condition. Another point, since the Planner Amy Vasquez could not get a hold of the applicant to inform
10-06-03
Page 36
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ him of the condition she then asked Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement Officer. But, subsequent to that
she had a personal conversation with the applicant and informed him of the requirement to provide the
necessary information, therefore there has been contact.
Commissioner O'Connell asked Mr. Jinadasa if he owns the subject business.
Mr. Jinadasa responded no, and stated they are in the process of escrow and transferring the business.
Due to financial issues he is selling the business.
Commissioner O'Connell suggested he get into something with less paperwork
Mr. Jinadasa explained past issues he has had with the CalTrans project and the on-going City
construction.
Chairperson Vanderbilt informed they are still dealing with the necessary receipts, not properly shielding
pornographic material and the drug paraphernalia issues. He asked Sergeant Michael Lozeau to address
the issue of the drug paraphernalia, the most recent inspection.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau stated on February 8, 2001, their investigator discovered the pornographic
section wasn't properly marked "Adults Only". Another occasion on Jufy 26, 2002, the pornography was
not properiy concealed, and again on January 17, 2003, the pornography was not properly concealed.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated when he went, it appeared compliance was being met because the
material was tucked away in a corner and the items had shields over the magazines and no one could
see what was there.
Commissioners Eastman and Flores concurred when they visited the site it was also concealed.
• Sergeant Michael Lozeau stated in February of 2001 and January of 2003, they found there were sales of
drug paraphernalia and explained the items being a"metal type" pipe on key chains which are commonly
used to smoke "marijuana and hash", and sometimes it could be used to smoke other drugs such as
"cocaine and methamphetamine", a"metal mesh" type item that is put inside pipes and used with
narcotics, and razor blades.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked about issue of scissors and "zig zag" papers, and asked if they are
prohibited.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau responded it should be.
Mr. Jinadasa stated February 8, 2001, he just recently opened the store after it was closed for one year,
and there was not any pornographic section.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau clarified the scissors and "zig zag" papers should not be for sale in the subject
store. He stated he believes on February 8, 2000, they also found some smal{ vials and "little baggies"
which are commonly used to package narcotics for sales.
Chairperson Vanderbilt reiterated what is the latest date of any findings of drug paraphernalia.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau responded January 17, 2003.
Commissioner Flores referred to the razor blade issue and stated normally you would go to a
convenience store.
Sergeant Michael Lozeau explained we are referring to the individual razor blades which are sold in
• packages, and they are often used to cut up narcotics, and the scissors are also used for the same.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Jinadasa if any of those items are now being sold.
10-06-03
Page 37
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Mr. Jinadasa responded no, since they have advised him, they discontinued even selling scissors but
everywhere he goes, every convenience market sells scissors but he cannot, therefore he does not. He
stated they are giving the wrong information to the Commission and he would be able to prove it, 100%.
He is not saying the individual is lying, but maybe made a mistake.
He referred to the inspection on February 8, 2001, and asked how he could have provided the necessary
receipts when theyjust opened the place. He informed he was not present during any of the said
occasions, unfortunately, because they could have informed him formally.
Mr. McCafferty stated the underfying convenience market is not at issue, just simply whether the
Commission feels they are going to be reinstating the alcoholic beverages.
Commissioner Eastman asked for clarification if the subject conditional use permit has a condition that
states he must submit documentation of no more than 35% of the gross sales whenever it is required. So
far up until today, they have not received any documentation which would mean he is out of compliance
with his previous conditional use permit.
Mr. McCafferty stated that is Condition No. 10 in the staff report, and since the petition for reinstatement,
as far back as August, the memorandum indicates he is informed of that requirement and the planner
hasn't been provided the information.
Commissioner Eastman stated wasn't that one of the conditions that was imposed when he got the
conditional use permit, that he should have received the documentation as Commission did.
Mr. McCafferty was in agreement, and clarified the resolution that was approved on May 8, 2000, listed
such condition.
• Commissioner Flores asked the applicant if he brought any proof and/or receipts, regarding the sales and
the issue of ABC dismissing a case.
Mr. Jinadasa responded yes, but stated regarding the issue with ABC he did not bring the material, but
you can find out with ABC that it was already a dismissed case.
Commissioner Flores reiterated if he brought anything today.
Mr. Jinadasa responded no, it is not in his hand because they gave him a verbal statement and when he
notified ABC then they removed the signs.
Commissioner Flores asked if he brought any receipts today.
Mr. Jinadasa responded they put a signage on the window and the next day after he informed them, it
was removed.
Commissioner Flores reiterated if he brought any receipts today regarding the percentage for sales of
alcoho{, which is a yes or no answer.
Mr. Jinadasa responded no.
Commissioner Eastman asked why he hasn't submitted the documents to the City.
Mr. Jinadasa stated when Mr. Yourstone visited his location on September 5'h, is when he found out it
was needed. He then informed his accountant, and the accountant put it in writing and faxed it to Amy
Vasquez and other parties who requested.
• Commissioner Eastman stated in the conditions of the conditional use permit back in 2000, says very
clearly that you shall maintain records on a quarterly basis, and the records are subject to audit.
10-06-03
Page 38
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. Jinadasa stated they didn't tell him they needed records, just a letter was needed.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there have been two previous hearings where the item was on the agenda
and staff was ready to hear the applicanYs testimony, but there was not any representation. The reason
why there was no action was because they wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to speak. Now,
there is testimony which is somewhat fragmented because the piece of evidence are not available to look
at and discussion is taking place regarding people that are not present. Therefore, it is a challenge and
the flexibility to postpone it again, is limited because of the other chances that have been given.
Mr. Jinadasa stated his accountant would not have any problems to provide all the requirements
requested, but they only asked for a letter which has been given.
Commissioner Eastman referred to the previous staff report in 2000, conditions of approval, which states
the applicant needs to provide it when asked, and informed the applicant received a copy.
Mr. Jinadasa responded yes, but they did not ask for that, Mr. Yourstone stated verbally a letter was
necessary.
Commissioner Bostwick gave some history pertaining to the subject area and stated Mr. Jinadasa has
been to the Planning Commission at least three times that he has sat on the Commission and feels he
knows the requirements. He knows better than to }ust have a letter signed by his accountant and saying
it is less than 35%, without any backup data. He indicated he is selling the business and a new owner
that is possibly taking over the business; there is no track record of the new owner in order to ensure how
he is going to operate. The subject property has had problems, and Mr. Jinadasa has had problems with
the corner, CalTrans and improving the freeway, etc. But, he has also put up sheds, signage issues, and
done different things that were in conflict with his CUP before and had to come back before the
• Commission, therefore, and has had multiple problems.
He is not willing to issue a new CUP to another owner with no track record or any understanding of the
subject property.
Commissioner O'Conneil concurred with Commissioner Bostwick and stated to do business through a
state, ABC, and the city, you have to comply and do what they say it doesn't work to fight the system. He
agrees and suggested denial of the request, and let the new owner apply for a new ABC license, and
then come before the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he visited the site on a couple of occasions and was looking at the
elements regarding the drug paraphernalia and the pornography and does see there has been attempts
to take care of it, but stated he can't support the subject request.
Mr. McCafferty informed if the request is denied today, it is in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor
Overlay Zone, and the Overlay Zone has restrictions on the type of establishments they could have off
premise. The only way you could have off-premise retail sales of alcoholic beverage of beer or wine is
with a grocery store, now with the conditional use permit having a gross floor area of 30,000 square feet
or more. This is really a legal non-conforming, at this point, and if denied it would "wrap" it up for the
business, they could not have it unless the code is changed.
Commissioner Bostwick stated it could still be a convenience market, but not with alcohol sales.
Mr. McCafferty agreed, and stated the matter could be subject to the appeal to City Council if the
applicant chooses.
~
10-06-03
Page 39
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES
s
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and
MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), 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.
Denied the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3921 (Tracking No.
CUP2003-04723) to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises
consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved convenience market based on the
testimony presented at today's meeting and based on the following:
(i) That with regard to reinstating the retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption, this permit has not been operated substantially in
the same manner as originally approved by the Commission, as
evidenced by the Code Enforcement Division inspection indicating a
failure to provide the required records pertaining to the sales of alcoholic
beverages.
(ii) That the permit is being exercised in a manner detrimental to the
particular area and surrounding land uses, as evidenced by the ABC
license violations reported by the Anaheim Police Department over the
• past two years.
(iii) That the request to retain the sales of alcoholic beverages would be
detrimental based on evidence from the Anaheim Police Department that
this business has been cited for selling alcoholic beverages to minor,
sales of improperly marked and not properly concealed pornographic
matter, sales of drug paraphernalia, unpermitted window signage and no
sales records for alcohol over the past two years.
(iv) That the request to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages at this
location, in conjunction with violations of the ABC license would be
detrimental to the public peace, health and safety and general welfare.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission vacancy)
Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 43 minutes (4:34-5:17)
L J
10-06-03
Page 40
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04693
Continued to
October 20, 2003
OWNER: Hunter's Pointe HOA, 2 Corporate Park, Suite 200, Irvine,
CA 92606
AGENT: Maree Hoeger, Global Telecom Resources, 23332 Mill
Creek Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
LOCATION: 6920 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is approximately
3.05 acres, having a frontage of 5~5 feet on the south side
of Canyon Rim Road, located 180 feet west of the
centerline of Fairmont Boulevard (AT&T Wireless).
To permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an
existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted
equipment with waiver of minimum front yard setback.
Continued from the September 22, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
•
~
sr8651 vn.doc
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and
MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to
the October 20, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in
order to allow additional time to finalize revised plans.
VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)
DISCUSSION T{ME: This item was not discussed.
10-06-03
Page 41
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSfON MINUTES
• 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Continued to
8b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04574 October 20, 2003
OWNER: Neelam Shewa, 5333 University Drive, irvine, CA 92616
AGENT: Blash Momeny, 23120 Alicia Parkway, #100, Mission Viejo,
CA 92692
LOCATION: 301 and 345 Pennv Lane. Parcel 1: Property is
approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on
the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 70 feet southeast
of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Parcel 2: Property is
approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of 220 feet on
the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 160 feet
southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive.
Request waivers of: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum front
yard setback, and (c) minimum side yard setback, to construct two single
family homes.
Continued from the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. sr5044jr.doc
• • ~ • ~ • • •
• OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to
the October 20, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, in
order to allow time to prepare documentation associated with this request.
VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
10-06-03
Page 42
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION M{NUTES
• 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04761
OWNER: Harlan F. Soden, 2525 East Jamison Street, Anaheim,
CA 92806
AGENT: Cathi S. Hofstetter, 2427 East Bethel Drive, Anaheim,
CA 92806
LOCATION: 1147 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
approximately 0.87-acre, having a frontage of 329 feet on
the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 162 feet south
of the centerline of Carl Karcher Drive.
Request to permit an adult care facility
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-135
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item.
Concurred with staff
Granted
sr3044ey.doc
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to permit an adult day care
facility at 1147 N. Anaheim Boulevard, and staff is recommending approval as conditioned in the staff
report.
• Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak.
Applicant's Statement:
Joyce Hern, Orange County Arts, 225 Carl Karcher Drive, Anaheim.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if she read the staff report.
Joyce Hern responded yes.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if she has any concerns.
Joyce Hern responded no.
Cathi Hofstetter, 2427 East Bethel Drive, Anaheim. Stated she is the representative for the property
owner and they have no objections to the subject request.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked for her business address.
Cathi Hofstetter stated her business address is 1155 N. Anaheim Boulevard.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
S
10-06-03
Page 43
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
S • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission
vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the proposed
project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1
(Existing Facilities), as defined in the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from
the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04761 (to permit an adult care facility) subject
to conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 6, 2003.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission vacancy)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 Minute (5:18-5:19)
~
•
10-06-03
Page 44
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04762
10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2144 - DETERMINATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04784)
OWNER: Moving On Entertainment, 201 East Broadway, Anaheim,
CA 92805
AGENT: Ed Perez, 6765 East Leafwood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 201 East Broadwav. Property is approximately 1.3
acres, located at the northeast corner of Broadway and
42"d Street (Heritage Forum).
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04762 - to permit a church use in
conjunction with an existing performing arts theater.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2144 - a determination of substantial
conformance with, previously-approved exhibits to permit the replacement
of an existing changeable copy marquee sign with an electronic
readerboard changeable copy sign in conjunction with a perForming arts
theater.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-136
•
r
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item.
Approved
Granted
Approved
sr2139ds.doc
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to establish a church at 201
E. Broadway, formafly the Freedman Forum, now the Heritage Forum. The second request on the
agenda, Item 10c, is a request for determination of substantial conformance for replacement of the
existing marquee sign with an electronic readerboard sign. Staff is recommending approval as
conditioned in the staff report. One additional point, the Chairman had indicated if the restaurant had any
restrictions with the prior CUP, therefore, staff looked at the resolution and there are no restrictions on the
hours of operation for the restaurant.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak.
Applicant's Statement:
Ed Perez, 201 E. Broadway, Anaheim. He stated they are "Moving On Entertainment", the facility is
known as Heritage Forum. They're a non-profit public benefit corporation for the performing arts and are
now the owners of the new Heritage Forum. It is approximately a 2,500 seat theatre in the round and iYs
golden intent all along has been to provide multi-facet use functions for the community. It is a unique
venue and the Moving On Entertainment Board of Directors and the President have an aggressive vision,
the vision is simple: to provide a tremendous value to the community. Therefore, they were able to
broaden out and request that a deviate grant deed be consistent with the elaboration of the language to
provide multi-facet uses. They have been very successful within the last year to even bring ballet
entertainment, dance, jazz, choir, corporate conference and events. The matter before the Commission
is that they would like to request that a church use be made available and added, it has been added to
the Grant Deed and Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA).
10-06-03
Page 45
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE5
• He asked for clarification regarding an error in the staff report, on the conference days and stated they
are not daytime activities but evening requests, and usually a request of that nature is based on a
contract use, not consistent with "120 days church use".
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant to comment regarding the 115-seat restaurant pertaining to
the alcohol issue.
Mr. Perez stated they personally woufd not be dealing with alcohol, sale of beer, etc., that issue has not
been presented at this time. They simply just provide a catering service in the restaurant when deemed
appropriate.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to address the issue.
Mr. McCafferty stated the conditional use permit from a land use perspective has no restriction on how it
operates. The only restriction would be through the parking lease, and however that is negotiated with
the City in terms of the use of the parking structure.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there is discussion about the lease, and that is something that the City
operates not the Planning Department, but a different department. He asked shouid he be asking the
question, or is it something the City would look out for the possible conflicts.
Mr. McCafferty if they wanted to be able to use the restaurant at times that are in conflict with the existing
lease provisions then they would need to amend the lease in order to do that. He indicated he is unsure,
but it is integrated into the theatre and he doesn't see where it would be a big impact. If it begins to
create problems there is always the ability to pull the CUP and bring it back if it is disturbing the area.
! Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant would you be willing to state for the record that it would be
your intent to not pursue some sort of restaurant operation that won't take into account. His concern is
the daytime use of the parking structure and Tuesday nights because of City Council meetings, therefore
he is hoping that the subject operation will take those into account when using the parking structure, in
terms of scheduling.
Mr. Perez stated since day one of the process of acquiring the facility, they went through the full exercise
of being in compliance and ensured the Planning Department that they would follow with due diligence
the guidelines when they incorporate or deemed appropriate for the restaurant to open, they certainly
would go through the process of working hours and agreements at this time, as indicated the restaurant is
not a full use, but simplyjust for catering an event. On October 26th they have the delegation from Mito,
Japan who will be utilizing the foyer lobby area and the restaurant, it is a one-hour entertainment.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if that is what is projected for the use in the future.
Mr. Perez was in agreement, and submitted photographs of the new interior design of the Moving On
Entertainment Heritage Forum. When the application was submitted they were under the process and
they actually invested about one million in upgrades, there is new digital equipment, new enhancement
feature screens with digital sound, lighting, seats that have been renovated, new carpet, and bathrooms
have been refurbished, and new sculpture water design has been placed in the theatre, it is an
enhancement and their goal is to provide and give back to the community which is why they opened the
Grant Deed and DDA for multi-facet use. Not any one single event at any time. Questions were raised
about 24/7 use as a church. Provided is also an analysis breakdown of the contracts and it is utilized
86°to for the performing art, 14% for community church use. All in all, it has been very successful and they
believe in progressive growth. They are now members of the Anaheim Visitor's Convention Bureau and
Chambers of Commerce and has gone through the due diligence exercise to make sure they are doing
• the right thing to be in compliance.
10-06-03
Page 46
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ He referred to the restriction of hours with the Grant Deed and DDA. He submitted a schedule being that
the Grant Deed and DDA was recently approved for 120 days church use and stated they could limit that
down to hours which is about 8 to 10 hours of use. He explained the office hours are now off site, and the
conferences is mainly in the evening hours. In terms of the conditions they do understand and are wiiling
to comply, they ask that the hours be consistent with the new change of the Grant Deed and DDA which
would allow the church to utilize the facility on Sundays and not limited to 1:00 p.m. There may be a
conflict but also realizes the Grant Deed and DDA since changes of the past, amendments were made
and acknowledged and had a reciprocal affect on the parking agreement, he believes so should this new
change within the language of hours.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff if it remains, would they continue to be supportive.
Mr. McCafferty clarified he believes the amendment City Council approved to the DDA, did two things, it
eliminated the prohibition of having a church on the premises and it limited the calendar days which is
different from hours to 120 days. That is what City Council approved, and if you start getting into hours
that are equivalent to 120 days that is a different program because you could go across more than 120
calendar days. Staff doesn't believe anyone has a problem with the church operating on Sunday
mornings; it is just that they need to comply with the terms of the parking lease as amended to reflect
that.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that is covered under Condition Nos. 1 and 2, and referred to the
conditions and stated they haven't included any "strange" hours.
Mr. Perez stated he agrees with Mr. McCafferty iYs just a matter of terminology, 120 days, but they just
talk in hours. He asked that the church not be limited to access parking at 1:00 p.m., when all along they
are willing to look at the powers or institutions that are responsible for amending if the DDA and grant
deed has been amended.
• Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Perez if he is asking that the conditional use permit be consistent with
the DDA, but asked for clarification regarding the hours.
Mr. Perez stated the church use is Sundays and Wednesday.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the conditional use permit doesn't specify the days.
Commissioner Bostwick stated the staff report lists what was given to staff, but there is no condition
setting that those are your hours.
Mr. Perez referred to page 3 of the staff report, paragraph 10, regarding the services stated and asked for
clarification.
Mr. McCafferty clarified they are pointing out in the staff report that they have hours of operation and in
the mornings on Sundays that are in conflict with the parking lease, to just amend the parking lease.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Stated Condition No. 1 should then be amended to indicate, "that it
would continue to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the parking lease dated December
31, 1986, as it may be amended from time to time:' Therefore, any amendments would be incorporated
into the condition.
~ FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY ~F THE PLANNING GOMMIS510N AG IION. ~
OPPOSITION: None
~ IIV GENERAL: 2 photographs were received during the meeting.
10-06-03
Page 47
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission
vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the
previously-approved negative declaration approved in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 2144 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
this request.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04762 (to permit an accessory church use in
conjunction with an existing performing arts theater), subject to the conditions of
approval as stated in the staff report dated October 6, 2003, with the following
modifications:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
1. That all church activities shall continue to be in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the parking lease between the City and Moving On Entertainment
dated December 31, 1986, as it may be amended from time to time, pertaining to
use of the City-owned parking structure.
Approved the request for determination of substantial conformance to replace an
existing changeable copy marquee sign with an electronic readerboard changeable copy
sign in conjunction with a performing arts theater, based on the Commission's
concurrence with staff that the proposed sign is substantially in compliance with
previously-approved exhibits for Conditional Use Permit No. 2144, and further that a
new electronic readerboard sign would be appropriate for a live performance theater
within the Downtown area subject to the stipu{ation by the petitioner that the sign will be
• in conformance with Code Section No. 18.05.066 which pertains to limitations on sign
iflumination so as not to disturb residential land uses across Broadway to the south.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission vacancy)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 18 Minutes (5:20-5:38)
~
10-06-03
Page 48
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES
.
~
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION fPREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Approved
11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 NO. 3732 Approved
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04758)
OWNER: Vaskin Koshkerian, 10621 Equestrian Drive, Santa Ana, CA
92705
AGENT: Andrew Paszterko, 2055 North Alvarado Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90039
LOCATION: 1198 South State Colleqe Boulevard.
Property is approximateiy 0.52-acre, located at the
northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard.
Request to amend exhibits to raise the canopy height for a previously-
approved service station with a convenience market and retail sales of
beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waiver of minimum
structural setback abutting an arterial highway.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-137
sr5046jr.doc
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated it appears no one is present for the subject item.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated they were present earlier, but may have needed to leave.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated staff is recommending approval of the subject item.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. McCafferty stated the applicant was present earlier and the planner asked the applicant if they agreed
with all the conditions of approval; the planner confirmed that the applicant was in agreement.
After action was taken, Lourdes Pagulayan, 2055 N. Alvarado Street, Los Angeles. Stated she is present
to represent Andrew Paszterko, and indicated he agrees with all the conditions in the staff report.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and
MOTfON CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission
vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the
previously-approved negative declaration approved in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 3732 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
this request.
~
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement.
Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3732 (TRAGKING NO. CUP2003-04758) to
amend exhibits for a previously-approved service station with a convenience market
and retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
10-06-03
Page 49
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC95-2 into a new
resolution which includes the following conditions of approvaf (Condition Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10,
and 13 are new and/or modified conditions):
That the property owner shall record an unsurbordinated covenant agreeing to
remove the pump island canopy and associated improvements abutting State
College Boulevard at no cost to the City at such time as the street is widened to
the width designated on the adopted Circulation Element Map of the General
Plan. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved as to form by the Public
Works Department and City Attorney. Once approved, the covenant shall be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A recorded copy shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department and Zoning Division.
2. That no beer or wine shall be sold, furnished, or delivered via a drive-up window.
3. That the sales of beer and/or wine shall be permitted only between the hours of
9 a.m. and 10 p.m., daily.
4. That the quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shal{ not exceed ten per
cent (10%) of the gross sales of food and/or other commodities sold during the
same period.
5. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from inside the building, promoting or
indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages.
• 6. That no alcohofic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the
licensed premises under the control of the licensee.
7. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of
sufficient power to illuminate and make easify discernible the appearance and
conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed,
positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate
adjacent properties.
8. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and
that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4)
pack.
9. That the property owner shall record an unsubordinated covenant agreeing to
remove the pump island canopy and associated improvements abutting Ball
Road which may be located within the future pub~ic right-of-way at no cost to the
City at such time the street is widened to the width designated on the Circulation
Element of the Anaheim General Plan. Said covenant shall be reviewed and
approved as to form by the Pubiic Works Department and City Attorney. Once
approved, the covenant shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder. A recorded copy shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
and Zoning Division.
10. That the legal property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3150 (to permit a new service station and
convenience market) to the Zoning Division.
• 11. That there shali be no coin-operated telephones maintained upon or adjacent to
the building at any time (other than those which may exist}.
10-06-03
Page 50
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 12. That there shall be no coin-operated games maintained on the premises at any
time.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5,
and as conditioned herein.
14. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within one year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10,
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.
15, That approva! of this appfication constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Gode 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, regu{ation or requirement.
~
Vote 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent, and with one Commission vacancy)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appea{ rights.
DISCUSS{ON 'TIME: 1 Minute (5:39-5:40)
Following Item No. 11, the request for consideration of potential appointment of Planning
Commission representative and alternates were discussed and it was decided to
continue the request to the Octaber 20, 2003, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Bostwick stated there were two letters that was submitted and urged the
Commission to support the Anaheim Affordabie Family Housing Ordinance, and informed
staff indicated it isn't anything the Commission is currently reviewing.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Stated it is an ordinance staff is preparing in
conjunction with the Zoning Code Update and he will have Mark Asturias review the
letter and reply back to Commission, there is no action at this time but indicated you may
want to keep the letters for future reference.
•
10-06-03
Page 51
OCTOBER 6, 2003
PLANNING COMMiSSION MINUTES
~
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
DECEMBER 29, 2003, HAS BEEN CANCELLED DUE TO AN
ANTICIPATED LACK OF QUORUM
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:44 P.M.
TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
Respectfully submitted:
~ '
~i ~~.1~ ~~7~~
Elly Morris
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~G~c~ ~ ~~f~, 2003.
~
10-06-03
Page 52