Minutes-PC 1993/09/08
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1993, AT 11:00 A.M.
PRELIMItJARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
17:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
10:00 A.M. -11:00 A.!N. DISCUSSION REGARDING SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER,
PERAZA, MESSE
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: TAIT
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present
their evidence. Addtional time will be granted upon request H, in the opinion of the
Commission, such additional time will produce evkfence important to the Commission's
consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to
`~ , present their case unless addftfonai time is requested and the complexity of the matter
warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a
participant speaks, but rather by what Is sa!d.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each
hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will wkhhold questions until the public hearing Is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends
of fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any
hearing, Including photographs or other acceptabla visual representations or
non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and
shall be available for public Inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on
items of Interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or
agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
AC090893.WP
t„/
1a. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 316
(Previousiy CertHfed)
1b. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.93-01
OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PUBLIC
ENTITY, 7667 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95826
AGENT: O'CONNOR REALTY ADVISORS, INC., Attn: Mike Strle, Vice
President, 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025
DONAHUE SCHRIBER, 3501 Jamboree Road, Ste. 300, Attn: Brad
Deck, Vice President, Development, South Tower, Newport Beach,
CA 92660
LOCATION: 444-800 North Euclid Street. Property consists of two frregulady-
shaped parcels of land: Parcel 1 consists of approximately 38.25
acres bounded on the north by Crescent Avenue, on the east by
Loara Street, on the south by the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5),
and on the west by Euclid Street (Anaheim Plaza). Parcel 2 consists
of approximately 8.82 acres located at the northeast comer of
Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of
820 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue and 640 feet on the
east side of Euclkl Street.
w°',
~. ,
To consider Development Agreement No. 53.01 between the City of Anaheim and
the California State Teachers Retirement System, a public entity, relating to the
development of the subject property.
Development Agreement No. 93-01 continued from the June 28, and August 9,
1993 Planning Commission meetings.
Withdrawn
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Withdrawn
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
9.8-93
Page 2
2a. CE(U1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Dented
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3623 Granted, in part
OWNER: FRANK AND SARAH MINISSALE, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim,
CA 92808.
LOCATION: 111 South Mohler Drive. Property is approximately 1.2 acres
located at the southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Mohler DrNe.
To permR a 94•bed convalescent facility with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
Continued from the Juiy 26, and August 9, 1993 Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-99
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NO7 TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 2 people present/2 letters submitted
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Frank Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA. 92808. He stated the last time he
was at the Planning Commission meeting, he misunderstood what was required of him.
He thought all of the aesthetics and appearances had to be from Mohler Drive only. He
did not realize they wanted more detailed drawings for the Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Since he received the staff report, he has made some extensive changes. He went to the
exhibit board and noted the changes.
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS:
Rod AgaJanian, 120 S. Mohler DrNe, Anaheim, CA. He read a letter from one of the
neighbors who could not make it today. He submitted the letter to the Planning
Commission.
Matt Greene, 130 S. Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA. He lives directly across the street from
Mr. Minissale's property.
The opposition had the following concerns: Traffic; number of ambulances per day;
convalescent home in a residential area not desirable; concern about rezoning and doing
something that is inconsistent wfth residential; value of property has dropped significantly;
the location is not advantageous because of the traffic and no one wants to INe across
from a convalescent home; this plan would adversely affect the value of their properties.
9.8.03
Page 3
I
i
'~~ REBUTTAI:
Mr. Mlnissale stated the problem was not the convalescent home, it was the school. Hls
property wfth 6 cars per hour would not cause a traffic Jam whatsoever. The peak traffic
hour is 7:15am to 8:15a.m. and the traffic is generated from the school.
He stated he spent 16 to 20 hours at 3 different facilities taking traffic counts to see ff it
was a viable project. He did not see one ambulance coming Into the facility during the
times he was there. He elaborated.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe asked staff ff they had a chance to review the new plans that were
submrited?
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated they have not other than just glancing at them
right now. There are some towers that are proposed on the roof which may or may not
comply wfth the 25-toot height limitation In the Scenic Corridor. There is still a 300' foot
wall setback 10 feet from Santa Ana Canyon Road which remains to be their greatest
concem wfth the design of the project. Further discussion took place.
It was noted that Chairman Peraza received a letter from the Anaheim Citizen's Coalkion
asking for a continuance and subject letter was made a part of the record.
Commissioner Messe stated it was obvious that the Commission has not had a chance to
review the plans and perhaps that is something they couid do in the future, i.e., get mare
detailed plans and look at them. He suggested they go ahead and give entklement today.
Jonathan Borcego, Senior Planner, stated their greatest concern is do the towers meet the
height limitations in the Scenic Corcidor Overlay? There is still the question of the parking
lot landscaping which does not meet their standards.
Commissioner Henninger stated the testirnony they heard did not Involve the design of this
facility, K involved the use. He asked Mr. Borrego ff they were comfortable with the use?
Mr. Borcego explained they would be comfortable with the use if it were scaled down
signfflcantly by a redesign In order to meet some of the design considerations that they
are looking for with increased setbacks and increased landscaping and reduction in the
bed count by at least 10 beds. He added ft was very hard to speculate without actually
seeing h on paper.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff they are looking for more articulation along
Santa Ana Canyon Road?
Mr. Borrego explained their concern is that the wall is still setback only 10 feet off of the
right-of-way. Before staff could come up with a favorable recommendation, that setback
off of Santa Ana Canyon Road should be Increased and that will not happen with the
current design of the project.
9-f3-93
Page 4
1,.~
Commissioner Caldwell stated he did not think the use was compatible wRh the
neighborhood. He added he is prepared to vote today and give Mr. Minissale a direction
~ as to perhaps another road he should take to find a use for that property.
Commissioner Messe pointed out ti gat there is no request for a rezone in this metier. The
use Is one that Is properly designated for this area wfth a conditional use permit.
Further discussion took place regarding an appropriate use for this she.
Commissioner Messe stated he tends to agree wfth Mr. Minlssaie on the traffic. He lives
not to far from a convalescent home himself. The testimony abou! constant ambulances
does not happen. The use Is one that could be compatible with this neighborhood
propedy downsized and taking another look at the plans.
Commissioner Henninger stated Condition No. 11 states 94 beds. Originally he stated
perhaps they should go down to 75 beds, but it was later determined that eighty (80) beds
would be an appropriate number. He further suggested that they strike Condtion No. 12
and add a condition that they would bdng back detailed plans show(ng conformance with
the parking lot landscaping and articulated building walls along both Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Mohler Drive. He added this should be approved at a public hearing.
Commissioner Messe stated he did not think that the applicant had the architectural talent
to get the product that they wanted to get here. He stated he would like to get this into a
place where they would get the architectural talent they need.
Jonathan Borcego suggested that the Waiver of Code Requirement be denied.
-~°, Commissioner Henninger stated his proposal was that these come back as detailed plans
" at a public headng and that would allow the opportunity to cover that Issue in a public
hearing format if they needed to at a later date.
Commissioner Boydstun asked how many parking spaces would they need for 80 beds In
place of the original 94?
Mr. Borcego stated h would be fi4 spaces or .8 per bed.
Commissioner Messe stated R would probably be best to deny the waiver until precise
plans and the applicant will have to resubmit a request for Waiver of Code Requirement.
He moved to deny the Waiver of Code Requirement.
Discussion took place regarding the setback and h was determined that there should be a
25-foot setback from Santa Ana Canyon Ruad.
Commissioner Caldwell indicated he would not be able to vote for this project.
9~-93
Page 5 ~
~./
l
j
r
`-;
ACTIOk: CEAQ Negative Declaration -Approved
Waiver of Cade Requirement -Denied
~~ Conditional Use Permit No. 3623 -Granted, In part, as follows:
Modified Condftion Nos. 11 and 12 to read:
11. That subject facility shall be Iimfted to a maximum of eighty (80) beds.
12. That precise plans shall be resubmitted to the Planning Commission far
review aril approval at a duly noticed public hearing.
Added the following Condition:
That a minimum twenty-five foot setback (measured from the property Ilne)
shall be provkled from Santa Ana Canyon Road,
VOTE: CEQA Negative Declaration 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
Waiver of Code Requirement 6.0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
CUP 3623 4.2 (Commissioners Caldwell and Mayer voted No, Taft -absent)
r^,
t
~~.
~,
9-8.93
Page 6
~.a/
3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.312 Continued to
3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.92-93-09 -REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL 9-20-93
3c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
3d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3808
OWNER: PICK YOUR PART AUTO WRECKING, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, 1301 E. Orangewood Avenue, #130, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: PHILIP R. SCHWARTZE, 27132 Paseo Espada, #1222, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 1235 South Beach Boulevard. Property is approximately 4.5 acres
located on the wost side of Beach Bouievard and approximately 330
feet south of the centerline of Ball Road.
To permit an automobile fluid drainage area and used automobiie sales area in
conjunction with an automobile dismantling and recycling facility on the adjacent
parcel to tl~a south (in the City of Stanton) wfth waiver of maximum fence height.
Continued from the July 12, and July 26, 1993 Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
IN FAVOR: 10 people present/letters submitted in favor of subject proposal
OPPOSITION: 29 people present/143 post cards were received
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Phiiip Schwartze, representing Pick Your Park Auto Wracking, 1235 South Beach
Boulevard. During the past 6 weeks, severai things occurred. They have received
approval for the retail sales facility which is on the Stanton s(de of the property after
several public hearings. The Commission requested that they make a number of changes.
He worked wfth the landscape architect and others to mace changes to the plans. As
noted in the staff report, they have also withdrawn the reclassification to Ilght
manufacturing or light industrial. They modified the conditional use permk. The only
request waiver is for maximum fence height and that is to mitigate some Issues of possible
visual or noise Issues. He went to the exhibit board and pointed out the changes that
they made.
Thsy moved the holding area (the used car area) away from the existing residential areas
and put fn employee parking to further screen the uses. He elaborated.
9-8-93
Page 7
1a„/
He explained that tho area designated for fluid dra,nage be located In a building, therefore,
~ this has been placed inside of a building.
He discussed modification of landscaping; the existing block wall with a chain link piece
on top of the wall in order to keep parts from being thrown over th9 wail; it was proposed
that bougainvillea be planted in order to solve a variety of problems.
An addftional graphic was prepared which shows what the line-of-site would be iF you are
outside the perimeter regarding your ability to see inside of the site due to the change in
elevation and the fence height.
The remaining front of the property remains essentially the same as when they discussed
it at the last hearing.
He explained a number of the conditions have been changed and/or modified to respond
to their latest plan. They have responded to each and every issue that has come up in
both of the cfties and have attempted to address each one of those issues.
Cindy Galfln, Pick Your Park Auto Wrecking. As Mr. Schwartze indicated, they have,
based en the Commission's recommendation and some of the discussions with the public
that live near the property, made changes to the plans which further enhance the project.
Some of those changes are reducing the height of the block wall, then extending it
somewhat so they have visibility, but keeps parts from being thrown over the top. The
eMension is a chain link lean to which would be 2 feet over and above the 8-foot wall.
The landscaping setback is on the exterior of the property and they now have a green belt
effect for the community surrounding this project. In discussions when she went door to
door and when she went to the meetings, a lot of the conversation that had come up by
some of the residents in both Stanton and Anaheim. was that the ~~~all was 10 feat and it
was very close to their coaches. (Some were as close as 3 feet from the property line).
Therefore, thoy have mftigated a lot of those concerns, i.e., by moving the wall in by 5
feet; by reducing the height and by putting landscaping on the exterior so they have
something pretty to look at outside of their project.
She does have letters of support and she has signatures from individuals that abut the
property. She submitted !otters of support to the c:ommiss(on.
She stated any Issues regarding the hours of operation nas been conditioned and
straightened out within the staff report. This Includes hours of operation for fork lift
operation, tow trucks, flat beds and having some quiet times on Saturday morning and all
day Sunday. All of chose hems {lave been agresd to and conditioned in the staff report.
9.8-93
Page 8
t,„/
OPPOSITION:
Edward Alien, 8171 Bever Place, Stanton; Betty Am>~ung, 11250 Beach Bivd., #57,
,-. Stanton; Linda Wagner, 3050 West Ball Road, Anaheim Mobiie Estates, Anaheim; George
Nahra, Anaheim Mobile Estates, Anaheim; Kathy Abel (phonetically spelled), 3050 W. Ball
Road, Anaheim Mobile Estates (read into the record a letter from Richard Liebert
(phonetically spelled and Philip Loades Floral shop owner); Jewell Whfttal, Anaheim Mobile
Estates; Mary Patterson, 3050 W. Ball Road, Space 50, Anaheim (on the Stanton side);
Glenn Greener, representative for owners and residents of Anaheim Mobiie Estates; and
Helen Jones, 3050 W. Bail Road, Space 72.
Major concems:
Already have 2 Junk yards and a dump; have referendum in process to get this on the
ballot so the people can decide; let them take their junk yard elsewhere; do not need a
junk yard on Beach Blvd.; another eyesore; it was suggested Pick Your Part install a gate
in their communty to keep trespassers and thieves off of their property at Pick Your Part's
expense; family park wfth children; people throw parts over the fence; constant noise and
smell; no one has dug Into the Environmental Impact Report: 39 years of Junk yard;
intrusion on the community; mostly retired people in the park; want this area to remain
Commercial; repaired cars in their parking lots; littering the area; ruined the water table
for years to come; property values are decreasing; junk yards are rat infested; cannot
grow anything in their yards; prefer to see land utilized in a manner the General Plan
anticipated rather than sitting vacant.
IN FAVOR:
Pete Muth, businessman in Stanton for 40 years; Jake DeRuyter, Signs and Services
Company, and member of Chamber of Commerce with th3 City of Stanton,10980
Boatman Avenue, Stanton; Dale Fullerton, 318 N. Colorado, Anaheim; Joan Thomas, 8381
Katella Avenue, Stanton, representing Pick Your Part; Paul St. Clair, 10102 McDuff,
Stanton; Michael Schrock, landscape archftect for fire project, 271 Walnut for Costa Mesa.
Major Interests:
There is a Pick Your Part in Wilmington that is extremely nice and no one would know it
was a junk yard--everything is in the back; ft is wrong to call it a junk yard; people are
talking about the past; quality of aesthetics is outstanding and will beautHy the communty;
state of the art facility; not everyone in the mobil home park are opposed to this; most of
the opposftion has not taken time to take a look at their existing facility in Wilmington; a
lot of effort has been put forth to making this a clean, aesthetic model facility setting
extremely high standards for this business; the Chamber of Commerce is fully supportNe
of this facility; increased revenue; Job opportunfties; must look for solutions for the whole
community; tried to mftigate all concerns.
REBUTTAL: j
Mr. Schwartze stated a number of people were unaware of the information contained in t
the Environmental Impact Report which deals with the soil remediation issue, water table
and drilling aspects and all of the things that took place.
l
9-8-93
Page 9
The flooding issue which has perplexed everyone forever, would be resolved through the
_ now facllky and because k is fully paved and there is a catch basin, there would not be
any potential for flooding which has always been a problem for the mobile home park in
the past.
They did have conversation wkh the folks in the mobil home park regarding several Issues.
One is would they be interested in having a security gate installed by Pirk Your Part to
absolutely and totally eliminate the possibllky of people coming in. They did ask them to
soe what the resklents thought about that. They have also offered the oppor!unky ff
anyone is located next to Pick Your Part and would like to be relocated somewhere else
wkhin the park, they would relocate them.
Wkh regards to the qu!et hours, the quiet hours are those hours that wkhin the EIR, there
is no time at which Plck Your Part exceeds any of the noise requirements. They dkl
double chock per the Commission's suggestion. The only thing that is really noisy Is the
operation of the forklfft and they suggested they control the hours of the forMfft.
The issue of rats is self explanatory. They have rats in south Orange County where he
Yves also.
Wkh regards to R3 zoning, they have never mentioned R3 zoning. The zoning in Anaheim
is Commercial and shay are suggesting that k remain Commercial.
He referenced the facilty in Wilmington and stated k is immediately adjacent to residential
like the proposed facilty in Stanton.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~~
` Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated they received 1d3 duplicate postcards signed by
different parties in opposkfon to the proposed protect. It was determined that most of
them aro from wkhin the mobile home park.
Commissioner Messe stated he wanted to go and see the other facility and would not vote
for this project until he saw for himself what goes on in fire facility. He commented he
went to Wilmington, but went to the wrong facllky and was not impressed.
Mr. Schwartze stated ff the Commission would be Interested in continuing this hem, the
referendum date terminates tomorrow.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarffication on the referendum.
Ms. Galfln stated k is a Stanton kem. it requires 1096 of the registered voters to bring it to
a public hearing. She explained you have to go through a lot of steps. They also only
have 30 days to ills the referendum from the date that the final approvals came through
from City Council. The final deadline is September 9th which is tomorrow. She further
explained that there are a lot technicalkies and legal aspects to get a referendum to public
vote. She elaborated.
For ciarffication she stated regardless of the referendum, Stanton has condkiored that the
yard will not operate unless both :tries approve the protect. ,
I
9.8.93
Page 10
~1
~~.
~.
Commissioner Boydstun agreed wfth Commissioner Messe that they continue this hem
and go look at the project in Wilmington.
Commissioner Caldwell stated they have done a super job in designing a junk yard in a
residential area, however, he is totally opposed to ft and ft is not compatible wfth the
surrounding residential area nor is ft compatible wfth the future plans that they have for
that area of town. This does not pull West Anaheim forward, it pulls ft backwards. it is in
total opposition to our General Plan. He would not want to live next door to ft and
therefore could not approve ft.
Commissioner Messe stated he would not vote for this project one way or the other today.
He wants to see the other facility In Wilmington first. He moved fora 2 week continuance.
Commissioner !,aldwell voted no.
Item continued to the meeting of 9/20/93.
Mr. Borrego stated this ftem will not be renoticed.
Chairman Peraza suggested that the public hearing be closed.
For clarification, Ms. Galfin stated the Wilmington facility is located at 1232 Blinn Avenue,
and the manager is John Rosser.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated she would like to make a request to reopen the
public hearing for the purpose of their own visftatlon of the property in another jurisdiction
since that is actually going to be evidenco that they are going to be considering and
discussing, but they may Indicate their Intent at that time not to be taking addftlonai public
r testimony, but the public hearing could be closed at the beginning of the next time that
they consider this item.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20, 1993. The decision to
take further public testimony wilt be decided at that time.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
\~OTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Caldwell voted No and Commissioner Taft was absent)
1„j
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3615 Granted for 1 year,
to expire 9-8-94
OWNER: FEDER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Attention: David and
Susi Feder, 1000 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: DONALD KROTEE PARTNERSHIP, 515 N. Main Street, #200, Santa
Ana, CA 92701
LOCATION: 1815 Soulh Lewis Street. Property is approximately 0.58 acre
having a frontage of approximately 235 feet on the west side of
Lewis Street and located approximately 275 feet south of the
centerline of Katelia Avenue.
To retain "industrially related' retail sales of fumkure In conjunction wkh an
existing fumkure warehouse wkh waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the August 23, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-100
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
,., OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Lee Goldberg, 2030 Main Street, Irvine, CA, representing North American Warehouse. Last
time this hem was continued because they were surprised by a recommendation of the
Planning staff. They are encouraged by the added recommendation by Planning staff that
based upon a letter that if the Commission does approve the CUP application that k be
approved for a period of two years wkh an inspection every 6 months. They do have a
few comments wkh respect to the condkions, otherwise, an approval subject to all of
those condkions are acceptable.
He asked for clarkication in the recommendation. It is his understanding that the
recommendation for a two year approval is to allow North American Warehouse to
dissipate their retail sales merchandise. They are planning to do this over a period of time
by not restocking and dissipating that type of merchandise which would be strictly retail
type orientated. The two year time frame would be adequate In order to dissipate that.
They have no objections to the inspections by Code Enforcement every 6 months and that
the petkioner pay for that service as long as the rates are not too high. Wkh respect to
the Interdepartmental Commktee recommendations, they have 2 comments.
He referenced Condkion No. 1, page 5 of the staff report. The sign "OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC' Is their only form of advertising to reduce the retail stock of merchandise.
~ 9.8-93
Page 12
They are willing to take the sign down after the 2 year period of time, but as it stands that
is the only thing that lets the public know they are selling the inventory off.
He referenced Condition No. 9 regarding the sixty (fi0) days. He asked that they
understand that North American Warehouse is a Sublessee at these premises. It has
taken a tremendous amount of time to get where they are today. They are asking for 120
days to get this all done. There are 7 action items, i.e., paving the parking lot; enclosing
the trash; redwood slats; getting together for a reciprocal parking agreement easement
which the owner of the property will have to sign; the drNeways to be reconstructed; and
the plantings that have to be done along the frontage.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Borrego stated for clarfficatlon their recommendation was fora 2 year period and
during that 2 year period they would expect the inventory to be reduced. At the end of 2
years ff they have eliminated all of their merchandize which was geared towards the
general public, there would be no need for a condftional use permft.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering recommends when they resurface the parking lot, they
restripe h so that all circulation takes place on-she. If there is no parking they have to go
back to Lewis Street and use the other driveway. They are recommending that this
circulation take place on•sfte.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarffication ff they have been selling retail In violation of
their CUP?
Mr. Borrego explained there is no CUP out on the property. They do have a business
license and they were licensed as a wholesale and storage operation. It is a violation of
the business description given on the business license.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarfficatiun ff it was going to take the applicant 2 years
to sell off the stock of retail items?
Mr. Goldberg explained ft is a warehouse and ff supplies other warehouses that they have.
It may not take the full 2 years to do that. They do have warehouse items in there and
they would Ilke to be able to dissipate that. Some sales are coming from other stores in
the Calffomia region.
Commissioner Caldwell stated they are asking that they operate their business in
compliance with their business license which means they do not have retail sales and now
they want to have retail sales for 2 years. Unless he hears other testimony, they should
cease the sale of retail items out of that location immediately and the "OPEN TO PUBLIC"
sign should come down and their retail sales should be taken by their other outlets in
areas where h is approved.
Mr. Goldberg stated the original business license was a mistake, i.e., his clients made a
mistake and did not put down retail on their business license. They are now trying to
correct that situation. He explained when they buy the inventory, it Is not what they
bought for this outlet. If they shut this down ff inhibfts the business that they are doing.
Further discussion took place between Mr. Goldberg and Commissioner Caldwell
regarding this issue.
9.8-93
Page 13
In summary, Mr. Goidberg stated they are just looking for a business resolution that can
make business sense for these people for a very limited period of time.
Commissioner Henninger stated he had a hard time believing that in this day and age of
inventory contrd that anybody takes 2 years to walk through their Inventory. The business
people he knows Tikes to turn their cash 5 to 7 times a year. It seems like quite a long
time.
He stated there seems to be a lot of retell space avaliable in Anaheim that you can do a
regular retail business and the Commission would like to see that space filled up for its
approved purposes. He is a little confused with this one.
Commissioner Mayer asked for clarification ff they have retail space in other locations?
Mr. Goldberg explained they do outside of the City of Anaheim and in southern Calffomia.
Commissioner Mayer asked then they could shift this Inventory slowly to that retail space
and sell K from there?
Mr. Goidberg explained they are all warehouse sales type facilities, but this facility has a
lot of merchandise in ft. He further explained that is why they have all of this merchandise
is because it is for all of southern Caiifomia. He further explained that he said 2 years
only after they reviewed the recommendation and his client agreed that 2 years would be
enough time.
Commissioner Caldweil stated from his rationale, he thought they just wanted to continue
retail safes for 2 years and then at that time transftion out of the business.
Mr. Goldberg stated that is why they agreed to the inspections every 6 months to control
inventory levels.
Commissioner Caldwell stated they just want to stop retail sales at that outlet and what
they store there is up to them.
Commissioner Mayer suggested they give them one year.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he thought they should give them 6 months in all fairness
to move h and tsrminate retail sales.
Commissioner Boydstun stated wfth the Improvements they are asking she doubted iF 6
months would do it. She asked how long the lease was on the building?
Mr. Goldberg stated they are holding off signir`g a 5 year lease. Their present lease ends
in December and they want to stay in Anaheim.
Commissioner Messe asked of all of the sales that this company does out of Anaheim,
what percentage is retail sales?
Mr. Goldberg stated he could not answer that.
Commissioner Mayer asked what the purpose was for their 5 year lease?
9.5-93
~ Page 14
Mr. Goldberg stated he has not discussed that wRh them directly, but to him k indicates
they have other business that they want to continue operating there.
Commissioner Messe stated he agreed wkh Commissioner Henninger, i.e., he has never
heard of a business that dkl not want to tum their inventory more than once every 2 years.
He felt 2 years was much too long. He would go along wkh a year.
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
1NaNer of Code Requirement -Approved
/ Condkional Use Pernik No. 3515 -Granted for 1 year, to expire on September 8,
~l' 199, wkh the folla~ring changes to condkions:
~,/~ I~~ ~
~.G p I I'~ ~ Changed the timing on Condkion No. 1; the advertising sign shall be removed
~3 I ~ within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution.
Modified Condkion No. 9 to read as follows:
9. That Condkion Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and e, above-mentioned, shall be completed
wkhln a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this
resolution.
Added the following condkion:
That the parking lot shall be re-striped to allow for traffic circulation to occur
entirely on-ske.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tak absent)
:; ,.,~44
9-8-93
Page 15
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3630 Granted
OWNER: JUIJA R. AMARAL, P. 0. BOX 9415, San Rafael, CA 95912
AGENT: MICHAEL CHO, 160 Centennial Way, Ste. 8, Tustin, CA 92680
LOCATION: 1168 S. STATE COLLEGE BLVD. Property is approximately 1.3
acres located at the southeast comer of Aimont Avenue and State
College Boulevard.
To permit a 15,744-square foot public dance hall with the on•premise sales and
consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction wfth an existing restaurant
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-101
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Barry Curtis, A8C Licensing Service, (not affiliated wfth Alcohol Beverage Control)
representing the applicants, 160 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA. He stated the applicants
recently opened up a family style restaurant at the comer of State College Blvd. and Bali
Road. The applicants have been operating adinner/dance place in conjunction with a
restaurant for the last month or so to which they rece(ved no complaints.
Regarding the proposed condftions of approval from the City staff, the applicants are in
complete agreement with them with the exception of Condftion No. 16 which speciffes that
the applicants will have several capital Improvements In place before beginning the
entertainment on the sfte. In this case the applicants have expended over 90K In the last
several months to get the building ready to be occupied by the restaurant and to get ft
open. It would put a great burden on them to provide some of these capital
improvements in such a short term.
The applicants are proposing to post a $10,000 bond or more to get the work done and
they are requesting that ft be put off for a period 18 to 24 months, but they will be fully
bonded with the Cfty to get the improvements completed.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
Jonathan Borrego stated the only thing he would like to add is there is one figure that was
not included in the staff report and that is the proposed use requ(res 126 on•sfte parking
spaces and they are providing a total of 111 on-she with a total of 476 spaces including
the entire shopping center.
9-8-93
Page 16
L,n/
He stated they are in the process of reviewing the request in regards to the bonding.
Commissioner Messe stated they also want to correct Condition No. 0 on page 7 to
provkle unfformed security guards in the parking lot.
Commissioner Peraza asked to hear from the Police Dept.
Poiice Dept. Name not entered Into the record. The Police Dept. is requesting that they
add another condhion. That the security guards are authodzed and will act in accordance
whh State and local ordinances.
"That all securhy guards shall conform to all State and local laws regulating their operation
and uses including licensing and bonding" to assure the Police Department that they will
have proper securfty guards to make sure the business is in no way a detriment to the
people who attend these functions or the neighbors.
Commissioner Messe asked ff there are security guards for rent whh that knowledge?
Police Dept. He explained there are security companies that are licensed by the State of
Calffornia. They are also bonded and they have security guards that have the necessary
credentials to efther carry ffrearms, carry mace or batons. They have to have a card
issued by the State Consumer Affairs that allow them to do those things and they must
also be bonded through their company. He added they want to be sure that they do not
just take someone off of the street with no training, experience or bonding.
Michael Cho, ABC Licensing Service. He stated they not only represent the tenants, but
the property owner, Juila Amaral. He stated his clients have no problems wfth that. The
- security company they are presently using are fully bonded and are willing to work wfth
the Police Department.
Commissioner Messe stated generally the outside appearance of the facilfty looks good.
He suggested a few trees on the parkway along State College Bivd. Generally the
landscaping is tins, however, there is a bare parkway with just grass. Trees on 20-foot
centers would make that look a lot better.
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated on their request to post a bond for
Condtions 12 and 13, the Public Works Department would recommend that these be
changed, that the impro:cements be completed within one-year from this date. Item no. 1~
is actually restriping the parking lot and is a private improvement. They would prefer not
to take a bond on that hem. She explained ff they were holding a bond and they failed to
do the work, then the Chy would be obligated to contract out to have all of the striping
work done. If they insist on the bond, they would ask that h be only for the public portion
of the work, i.e., the drNeways.
Commissioner Henninger stated for clarfffcation they are maintaining Condtion No. 16 as h
is regarding the timing in relation to Conditions 10, 11, 14 and 15. They would have a
separate condition for 12 and 13 that said h be complete within one year?
Alfnd 'falda, Traffic Engineering, indicated that was correct.
9-5-93
Page 17
~,~
Commissioner Messe stated he wanted clarification on additional landscaping on State
College Parkway.
Mr. Cho stated he would need to discuss the landscaping with his clients as this was not a
consideration that was brought up before. He does not anticipate any problems wfth
landscaping those areas wfth trees, but 5-gallon trees are much more economical then
trying to buy large box trees.
Commissioner Messe suggested a few 15-gallon trees.
Mr. Cho asked if they could have that condftion imposed the carne as the other capital
Improvements because those are larger expense items. They are trying to give them an
opportunity to get started. He added ft is a family run business. He elaborated.
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved
Condftional Use Permit No. 3630 -Granted as follows:
Modified Condftion No. 8 to read:
8. That at any time the premises are providing entertainment and/or dancing, the
applicant shall provide nif rm security guards Qicensed and bonded) in the
parking lot and shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity which
would interfere wfth the quiet enjoyment of their property of nearby residents.
Modified Condftion No. 16 to read:
16. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or
wthin a period of one (1) year from the date of th(s resolution, whichever
occurs first, Condftion Nos. 10, 11, 14 and 15, above-mentioned, shall be
complied wfth. Extensions for further time to complete said condftions may
be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal
Cade.
Added the following new condftions:
That wthin a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, Condftion Nos.
12 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be compiled wfth. Factensions for further time to
complete said condftions may be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
That addrilorial landscaping consisting of 15-gallon trees on 20-foot centers shall be
installed on the parkways on State College Boulevard within a period of one year
from the date of this resolution as approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
9-8-93
Page 18
6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PRMOUSLY APPROVED Approved
6b. EONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3178 READVERTISED Approved revised
plans
OWNER: ABDUL-HAFIZ ATAM, 2100 N. Broadway, Santa .4na, CA 92706
AGENT: ARCHITECTERRA, INC., 1043 W. Civic Center Drive, ;:ants Ana, OA
92703
LOCATION: 1211-1245 S. KNOTT STREET. Property is approximately 4.9
acres located at the southwest comer of Bail Road and Knott
Street.
Petitioner requests review and approval of revised plans to permit a 24,293-
square foot (previously 25,303 square foot) expansion to an existing commercial
retail center.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-102
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
IN FAVOR: One person
OPPOSITION: None
~'"~ PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ~
Mc Chakmakchi, President of Architecture, Inc. who holds the minority interest in this
protect. Their offices are located at 2140 S. Main, Santa Ana, CA.
Ho stated John DeWitt who is the President of J. DeWitt, Inc. was here earner and had to
leave on an emergency. They hold the majority Interest in this shopping center.
He had some colored reductions of the site plans and elevations. He submitted them to ,
the Commission.
He stated the condftions as outlined in the staff report are acceptable to them. They have
no further comments.
IN FAVOR:
Steven Catalano, bowling alley operator at the shopping center in question. He is the
major tenant. A bowling center is a very community oriented business and it is very
Important to the community that this bowling center remains part of the City of Anaheim.
He would strongly urge them to approve the redevelopment of the shopping center. i
Over the last year, the entire center has ta:~. 'tenants because of fires and other
situations. With the remodel the boviin~ a+'•r r and other businesses would be encouraged !~
to stay in this center.
9-8-93
Page 19
~„/
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner Mayer asked about the renderings and the facade. A brief discussion took
place regarding tha facade. The archftect explained they were trying to get a fresh new
look and something that would attract young people with non expensive materials and
colored accents. He elaborated and further discussion took place.
ACTION: Revised plans were approved for Condftional Use Permit No. 3178.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
~ --~
9-6-93
Page 20
~J
~-.
7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-11 No action
7b. VARIANCE N0.4233 Granted
OWNER: PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, 610 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: JAMES MacMIWAN, INC., 8540 Commonwealth, Buena Park, CA
90621
LOCATION: §10 and 620 E. Ball Road. Property is approximately 4.17 acres
located on the south side of Ball Road and approximately 960 feet
west of the centerline of Lewis Street.
To construct an 8-foot high, 55-square toot, monument sign with waiver of
permitted location of freestanding signs.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC93-103
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Brian Bailey, representing James R. MacMillian, 8540 Commonwealth, Buena Park, CA.
They are acting as agents for Penske Truck Leasing.
r--
He explained they have a parcel with a trucking company wfth a 60-foot wide drhre
approach in the center of the property and the monument sign according to Code would
have to be 4096 Into the property which would put ft Into the middle of the drive approach.
He went to Traiflc Control and they located the sign where ft is on the plan now. They
have to stay out of the center of the drNeway in order to make it work. He explained the
building is setback so tar from Ball Road that without a monument sign no one would
even know they existed at that location.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
None.
ACTION: Variance No. 4233 -Granted
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
9-8-93
Page 21
y
~~
9
:t
8. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3400 -REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE Continued to
PLAN 9/20/93
Les Lederer requests review of landscape plan for Conditional Use
Permft No. 3400 (to permit an Indoor swapmeet). Property fs located
at 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Continued from the August 9, and August 23, 1993 Planning
Commission meetings.
B. VARIANCE N0. 3961 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13991 - Approved
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH extension of time
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: for VAR 3961 to
Michael Gubbins requests eons-year extension of time to comply Expire 8/14/93
wfth condftions of approval for Vadance No. 3961 (waiver of required
lot frontage) and Tentative Trct Map No. 13991 (to establish a 10-lot, TT 13991 /Expired
RS-5000 subdivision). Property is located at 1261-1271 Atwood
Circle.
Commissioner Messe commented that thn Tract Map had already
expired when the request came in. It was determined they would act
on the variance.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1855 -REQUEST PLANNING Inftiated
COMMISSION INITIATION OF TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION procedure for
PROCEEDINGS: Initiated by the Cfty of Anaheim for Planning possible
Commission to consider inftiation of termination or modification revocation or
proceedings (to permft a car leasing facility wfth waiver of required modification of
enclosure of outdoor uses). Property is located at 1701 N. 61ue Gum CUP 1855
Street.
D. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO VARIOUS ZONING Recommended
PROCEDURES CONTAINED WITHIN CHAPTERS 18.03.18.10. AND adoption to City
18.12. Council wfth
further
amendments
9-8-93
Page 22
1,,,~
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated this would allow the Planning Commission
and the Zoning Administrator to consider time extensions, terminations and amendments
to condklons of approval for zoning petkions that Council had final action upon. It also
would allow the Zoning Administrator to consider lot frontage requirements, sign
Iimkations which would be added to the list variance responsibilities which are listed on
the ordinance.
It also would clarify that the Zoning Administrator may conskler her authorized condkional
use permk applications wkh no more than 2 waivers and Administrative Adjustment
applications wkh no more than 2 deviations. This would also allow fence height variances
to be processed as an Administrative Adjustment rather than through a public hearing of
the variance process.
Chairman Peraza stated there was some concem about the sign.
Mr. Hastings explained currently a person would ba going to the Planning Commission for
waiver of any of the Sign Code. The proposal would be for sign wavers pertaining to
maximum no. of maximum area, permitted location, minimum distance between signs and
maximum height to be considered by the Zoning Administrator. There was concem
expressed at the morning session that, that should remain wkh the Planning Commission
of 7 members rather than Just one person dec~.iing.
Commiszioner Caldwell stated he would like to see the Commission maintain control over
the signage. The Zoning Administrator could handle the rest of the Issues. It would be a
more expedkious way of handling things. He asked that s(gn limitat(ons be stricken from
the ordinance.
!" Mc Hastings explained that the Cky Attorney's office would amend the draft ordinance and
that would then be sent onto City Council for their adoption.
l„/
9-t3-93
Page 23
r
i~
~J
I
:~ E. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3606 -REVIEW OF REVISED PLAN__S Found revised
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FINDINGS: Les E. Lederer pland to be in
requests review of revised plans for substantial conformance findings for substantial
Condkional Use Permk No. 3606 (to permk the on-sale and consumption of conformance
beer and wine wkhin a proposed restaurant). Property Is located at 1440 S.
Anaheim Blvd.
Officer Jim Gandy was present at the hearing and reviewed file revised plans. Officer
Gandy explained that their main concern was that the alcohol be only consumed
anpurchased in the eating area and that there will be no provisions for sales of
alcoholthrough any other counter area.
Commissioner Henninger stated the staff report provides and speck(cally notes that those
barriers have to be in place.
Officer Gandy stated that would be sufficient.
Plans were found to be in substantial conformance.
::~w
9-8-93
Page 24
~„r'
F. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO SEX ORIENTED Recommended
BUSINESSES. adoption to the City
Council wfth further
' amendments
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney stated they have the 2 ordinances. TI iey are ss, ante
She explained the reasoning of the ordinance regarding nudity and that they would be
making a recommendation to the City Councii.
She explained wfth regard to sex oriented businesses, there is a moratorium that fs in
effect right now in response to the District Court decision. Because of that the City
Attorney's Office is recommending a revision in the process that the City is using right
now for sex oriented businesses.
The secretary notes that Rem "G" was discussed first, however, for record keeping
purposes, these 2 ftems will remain in the order as placed on the agenda.
Ms. Mann stated the subject court case suggested that the conditional use permR
procedure that they had been using in the CRy of Anaheim did not pass constftutionai
muster and in reviewing the options that remained open, the procedure that is in the
ordinance before the Commission Is a conclusion that the Cfty Attorney's Office has come
to. There was a memorandum that accompanied this for them that summadzes the
provisions of the proposed ordinances.
She explained there are qufte a number of findings and recftals in the ordinance that talk a
great deal about secondary impacts. The reason is that they are prohibited from
impacting first amendment protected actfvftles. They are prohibited from prohibiting
businesses that are going to be incidentally prohibfting first amendment protected activRles
except wfthin certain parameters.
The Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, indicated that cities may use zoning
powers to regulate these types of businesses so long as 2 issues are consklered. (1)
That the zoning regulations deal wfth the secondary impacts of these types of businesses
and not the protected constftutionally protected first amendment activfty whatever R may
be. (2) There needs to be enough locations available for these sexually oriented
businesses so that the zoning is not a pretext to eliminate those buslne~sas altogether. In
other words, you cannot just zone them out of existence by having ifmftations that no one
can meet.
There have been a number of meet(ngs involving various departments of the City including
the Police Department, Planning, Code Enforcement, Treasurer's Department, Licensing
Department and Redevelopment agencies along wfth the Cfty Attorney's Office and the
Prosecution section just to discuss secondary Impacts and all of the ramHications of these
types of businesses. In connection with that they have also looked at a great many
studies that have been done by other jurisdictions. She elaborated.
9-8-93
Page 25
-S
The Planning Commission has had testimony before the Commission wkh regard to what
the perceived impacts of these types of businesses are. In connection wkh applications
that have come before them in the past. These are perceived impacts, however, they do
have an expert's opinion that was used in the Cky of Detrok and in the Cky of Taylor. She
gave some particulars and stated there have been some very specific studies by various
jurisdictions and copies of these studies will be presented to the City Council.
The studies in general suggests there is a signkicanUy Increased amount of crime that is
related to these sex oriented types of businesses. The evidence is less clear wkh regard
to the decline in property values because very frequently the sex oriented businesses tend
to go into the areas that are already declining in value.
She referenced a study in the City of Garden Grove. They sat down and tried to address
the actual Impacts that they were trying to prevent. Since so many of these studies
showed an increase in crime related to prostkution, they attempted to prepare some
restrictions on sex oriented businesses involving live entertainment that would minimize
the opportunkies for prostkutlon activities.
Commissioner Peraza stated one of the concerns expressed at the morning session was
did Anaheim have enough space? There are some industrial areas not in the ordinance
so thay Invked Redevelopment to come by.
Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment, Economic Development Manager for the Cky. He
stated they had met several months ago wkh the team that was putting this together and
at that time k was concluded that the Cky would try to avoid and would not include
Redevelopment areas in this ordinance. It was not until this morning that he was aware
that there was a concern about the size of the areas after that discussion.
' He represents two different concerns wkh the City, both Redevelopment and Economic
Development. In terms of Redevelopment, these areas were formed for very specific
purposes and findings were made at the time they were formed because they were
blighted and needed improvement. He stated as the City Attorney pointed out, these uses
have been proven to be a detriment to an area and a blighting influence. He elaborated.
He stated k appears that they have limited space for these blighting Influences and are
looking to allow them in Redevelopment areas.
Commissioner Henninger stated that the courts have told them that they have to have
adequate room for these uses even k they do not like them. The issue is ff they remove
all of the Redevelopment areas in the cky, do they still have enough room?
Mr. Bruckner stated there is about 3,000 acres (n Redevelopment and approximately 4,000
out of the city that is 40 square miles.
Commissioner Messe stated they have eliminated the residential. They would like to
eliminate the Stadium area. He did not know that they could come up wkh an answer
today. He was not sure k the study was done.
9-8-93
Page 26
~../
Commissioner Henninger stated ft is a legal question.
Commissioner Boydstun stated they spoke this morning about the northeast industrial
area and the available properties excluding all properties on an arterial highway. There
would be some back places where they could go and ft would not affect the appearance
of the area when people drive through.
Ms. Mann stated the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation to the City
Council today with regard to this. It !s really here for their thoughts and comments with
regards to the Planning issues and obviously this Is an integral part of that. How much is
enough is almost impossible to answer. The Renton Court found that there were 520
acres of accessible real estate including land crass crossed by freeways and ft was more
than 596 of the entire area In Renton. There was another case where they saki less than
196 of land area could be valid H actual ample opportunities for relocation exists.
She stated they do want to allow for sites that allow for a minimum amount of problems
with regard to surcounding uses and yet still provide a reasonable amount. Reasonable is
very difficult to define under these circumstances. They do have the maps that are being
prepared right now.
They do have approximately 168 parcels, however, this is only a portion of ft. Ms.
Santaiahti stated she would need to speak to how many more they have throughout the
city. The stadium area has not been done yet, however, there would be qufte a number of
stes around there. Some of these parcels would have qufte a number of sites. The
Planning Commission may want to prforftize the areas for exclusion.
Commissioner Henninger stt;:ed ff they were to make a recommendation today wfthout the
-~ Redevelopment areas, and then they found out that there were not enough, they could
amend it.
Commissioner Boydstun asked about the Stadium area? She suggested they should ~
exclude ft. It is a big CR area.
Commissioner Peraza stated he agrees with Commissioner Boydstun, however, there is a
lot of money being Invested in the Industrial area and they should only use (and the
Redevelopment part) to the eMent that they need ft. Not through throughways and in the
back areas.
Commissioner Messe suggest that they exclude the stadium area and Include Just those
areas that do not face on arterials In the northeast industrial zone.
Mr. Bruckner stated the department feels that these should be excluded as the ordinance ~;
is drafted today to exclude Redevelopment areas. He would also argue on behalf of ~
wearing his other hat as the Economic Development Manager that this is an area that I
employs some 40,000 people and if you look at an average, probably the higher wage
individuals involved in manufacturing and has tremendous spinoffs for the city's economy.
i
This is one of the growth areas in the city for industrial uses and they are trying to
upgrade this area from basic manufacturing to manufacturing R&D and create a transft
center to attract these uses. They are doing all they can to stem the tide of businesses
9.8-93 i
Page 27
A
leaving Anaheim. They are very concerned about the economic health of this area.
Mr. Bruckner asked ff they wished to include portions of the northeast area, he would
suggest to limn these uses to parcels or buildings fronting local streets so ri would not be
along Kraemer or La Palma (the major streets which are the image areas for the northeast
area or the 91 Freeway). Hls bias would be to keep these in the area between the 57
Freeway and Kraemer as that is the heavier Industrlal area and lower profile industrlal
area. The klea would be not to allow them fronting on Kraemer. The other spot that they
may want to look at is there are some older industrial areas that are on the City border
north of Miraloma and west of Van Buren, i.e., so Van Buren over on the northerly portion
of the criy.
He stated there are a couple of areas wrihin the proposed Commercial Industrial area
which they have surveyed and may be coming back and will drop out of the proposed
redevelopment area and they may wish to consider those areas as they are in relatively
good shape.
Commissloner Caldwell asked ff they had to put a ilst of areas on a priority Ilst, that no. 1
would be industrial areas north of the 91 Freeway excluding Redevelopment. If that does
not satisfy ri, then they would include the Redevelopment Industrial areas with the
Iimriations that Mr. Bruckner has outlined.
Commissioner Caldwell stated perhaps they should make a recommendation that they are
agreeing wrih the proposal and recommend that they approve the proposal with a list of
priorriles and express their desire that there are areas that will absolutely not be included.
Commissioner Henninger stated they can always amend ri. He suggested they leave
Redevelopment and the Stadium area out.
Commissloner Boydstun asked what about north of the 91 Freeway? She asked ff they
want them off of the arterial roads? That is the entrance Into the northeast area and main
streets of town that people use. She added ri should be put fn the back.
Ms. Mann stated this is precisely the process where sex oriented businesses get zoned
out. They are going to have to go somewhere and that is why with regard to the Stadium
and Redevelopment, ri would be helpful to the Council to have the Commission's feeling of
what the priority is wrih regard to the ones that are most important to exclude so no. 1 is
to exclude the Stadium area; 2) arterials and the freeway frontages; and 3)
Redevelopment areas.
Ms. Mann asked for some parameters as to what they mean by the Stadium area.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated ri is typically regarded as the area that would be
bounded by the 5 Freeway to the west, Santa Ana River to the east and everything south
of the Southern Calffomia Edison easement.
Ms. Mann stated on the second priority (the arterials and the industrial area) she asked ff
that was a1i arterials and all industrial areas?
Commissloner Henninger stated they talked about 2 things together. They talked about ;
the freeway. The freeways would come In front of the arterials. He would not want to
9-8-93
Page 28
have one of these right on the freeway.
Chairman Peraza asked about La Palma Avenue out of the Redevelopment area?
Commissioner Boydstun stated then third, all arterials north of the 91 Freeway.
Mr. Bruckner stated he would like to talk about things that are included because when you
talk about Redevelopment, do not forget the Plaza Redevelopment Area or the SAVI
Ranch. He would rather say 'Redevelopment areas are excluded but for, etc.'
Commissioner Henninger stated they are making the list for the things to save first so the
things to save first of the Redevelopment areas, what would they be after the arterlai
frontages?
Mr. Bruckner stated areas to Include would be the northeast Industrial area between the 57
and Kraemer. He corrected himself and stated he did K backwards.
In terms of areas to be protected from this would be the Plaza Protect, the River Valley
project, areas wfthin the northeast industrial portion of Protect Alfa from Kraemer easterly
as well as the downtown portion of Protect Alfa.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification ff h was going to be in that order?
Mr. Bruckner stated downtown, the plaza and then the northeast area.
Commissioner Henninger stated northeast east of Kraemer?
~~ Mr. Bruckner indicated that was correct.
Commissioner Henninger asked what happened to SAVI?
Mr. Bruckner stated he would put that after the northeast area. He added that was
completely off the top of his head. He would protect the northeast area primar(ly for fiscal
reasons.
Other discussion took place regarding this issuo.
Commissioner Messe stated page 11, .0509, at least one security guard shall be on duty
outside of the premises, etc. He wanted to make sure that does not include (in the case
of sex oriented businesses) any door man that would be out there. That there should be a
uniformed security guard licensed by the State and bonded, etc.
Commissioner Messe referenced page 17, .0521 submitting false information on the
application shall constitute grounds for denial " or revocation." Add 'or revocation'
Commissloner Messe stated page 18 refers to "officers" and what does that mean?
9-8.93
Page 29
fi
Ms. Mann stated ft was probably a broader term to Include Fire Department, Puiice
_ Department, Building Department, etc. There could be all kinds of officers of the City that ~
would be going for one reason or another.
l .,
Recommended adoption to the City Council with amendments as proposed above.
Officer Gandy asked about foot candles. He was under the impression that the Planning
Commission would recommend to the City Council as to what kind of foot candles were
necessary for the lighting Inskle of these buildings.
Ms. Mann explained they put In some foot candle numbers that was based on their
experimenting in their room at their last meeting wkh a meter. The meter was available
for the Planning Commission.
Discussion took place regarding foot candles. Not all dialogue was audible to fhe
Secretary.
• ~~
9-8-93
Page 30
~d
G. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO PUBLIC Recommended
NUDITY. adoption to City
Councii with further
amendments
Ms. Mann stated at the same time ft appeared appropdate to address an issue that is now
relevant in view of the decision in the Bames case that they discussed previously in
regards io the regulation of nudity. There Is no regulation of nudity in the anahelm Codo
at the present time. There is State law that bans nudity under certain circumstances. it
bans nudity where ft is going to be offensive to other people and where ft involves Iude
conduct.
The Bames rase has now made ft clear that States can make a similar ban or a more
general ban on nudity; that in order to protect public decency and public morality, the an
on nudity would be applicable throughout the Cfty wfth certain exceptlons and one of the
exceptlons is theaters.
The City Attorney's analysis of the cases, I.e., the Barnes case, and the statute that
enables cftles to ban nudity and some State and Federal cases, suggests ft is appropriate
for them to exempt theaters or establishments that engage in first amendment protection
actNfty. They have a fairly detailed definition of what theater entails.
The purpose of having this before the Commission is to get their Input as IndNlduals that
are experienced in having had matters come before them and very frequently they can
add useful commei :s to the proposed legislation.
~~
Commissioner Messe stated in the other ordinance they have an amort(zation period,
however, there is none in this ordinance. He asked ft that would take effect wfthin 30 days
after ft was passed by the Cfty Council?
Ms. Mann Indicated that was correct.
Commissioner Messe stated then there could be no nudity in the City of Anaheim
immediately?
Ms. Mann Indicated that was correct.
Ms. Mann asked ff she had any suggestion as to the type of language that she would Ilke
to see such as a mother nursing an infant?
For clarification, Commission Mayer stated exempting a mother nursing an infant.
Ms. Mann asked ff there was any age restriction on the Infant?
Commissioner Mayer suggested 2 years.
9.8.93
Page 31
Commissioner Henninger asked for an explanation as to a place that is open to the public
view. Are they outlawing people's nude sunbathing in their back yards?
Ms. Mann explained she would need to look at that, however, ft appears that h would need
to be obviously seen by the public, i.e., where someone was walking by on the public
right-of-way where someone could see the prohibkive conduct as opposed to someone
who would stand on a box and lean over a fence. She dkl not know into what extent they
would want to get Into requiring that h be absolutely hidden from anybody that could
possibly see it such as from a helicopter or a neighboring yard. She added they could
always address that ff it became an issue. Other possible sffuations were discussed.
Ms. Mann explained that enforcement would be a matter of complaints that are received.
She stated h is very unlikely that this would become an Issue. She elaborated.
Commissioner Henninger stated he liked the word "obviously" open to public view. He
asked ff that would improve the language or make it worse?
Commissioner Messe asked what would happen to the ordinance they Just took out the
phrase "or open to the public view' because K states 'or in any other pubiic place."
Ms. Mann explained 'open to the pubiic" suggests a place that is open for public traffic for
people to come in.
Commissioner Caldwell stated they are not trying to write an ordinance that would control
the nudity in a neighboring home. He asked ff this should be restricted to commercial
establishments?
Ms. Mann explained it is not strictly Commercial because k is Intended to apply to parks
- and other public places that are not necessarily Commercial. She stated she thinks what
the Commission is saying is that they are trying to protect behavior in a private residence
as long as k is not obviously visible from the public right-of-way.
Ms. Mann stated she thought they were trying to protect private conduct in a private home
that is obviously out of the public view. She stated she would see about drafting
something that is pretty specffic to that rather than taking out the whole thing.
The Code Amendment was recommended to the Cfty Council for approval with
amendments as discussed.
OTHER DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Tait was appointed to the Block Grant Committee.
9-8-93
Page 32