Minutes-PC 1995/05/31~~
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CC's"~~MISSION
May 31, 1995
11:0? A.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE EAST ANAHEIM POLICE
SL'13:.;TATION SCHEMATIC PLANS.
11:15 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT
Greg Hastings
Selma Mann
Jonathan Borrego
Melanie Adams
Greg McCafferty
F3ruco Freeman
Alfred Yalda
Zon(ng Division Manager
Deputy City attorney
Senior Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Associate Planner
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Principal Transportation Planner
Senior Secretary
Margarita Solorlo
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDRE PLANNING COMMISSION PU6UC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional
time wi' be granted upon request it, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence
important to the Commission's consideration.
2, .n contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless
additional Ume 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 said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence doomed received by the Commission in each heart!.g. Copies are available to
the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
F. ?he Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing H, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned
will be served.
6. All documents presented N the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, Including photographs
or other acceptable visual representeUons or nontiocumentary evidence, shall be retained by the Comm:salon for the
public record and shall be available for public inspections.
%. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of he public will ba 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.
AC053195.WP
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. VARIANCE NO 3882 ' REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE E N I N Approved
OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPRO AL Dwight (To expire 12-19-95)
Belden, 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 304, Newport Beach, CA 9260-
7640 requests aone-year retroactive time extension to comply with
conditions of approval for Variance No. 3882 (waiver of minimum
structural setback and required site screening t o e n~e Decemberyl9,
70,000 square foot commercial office building) p
1995. Property is located on the northeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Riverview Drive.
Continued to
g, ^^NDITiONAL USE PERMIT NO 2685 - REVUE T F R
atrggTAfiTIAL ^^"'FORMANCE DETERMINATION. Sam .lobar, 1074 June 26, 1995 in order
N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807 requests substantial coMormance to be set for a public
determination (review of revised floor plan) for Conditional Use Permit hearing to consider
No. 2685 (to permit the expansion of a restaurant and cocktail lounge). em natitonn or
Property is located at 1074 N. Tustin Avenue.
Sam Johar, 1074 N. Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, applicant, expressed concerns and dissatisfaction v,~Rh the
amount of time it has taken to meet with the Planning Commission. These delays do cost them a lot of
money. This request is to relocate the bar so clients would have a better view of the lake and, hopefully,
they can add more seating in that area. They are hoping this will help bring up food sales. He felt such a
mino~c a dation~uHe also stated he eels theywould bte ire fed unfairlyiff they a e not allowed to go
reco
forward wfth this small alteration.
Jim Johar, 1074 N. Tustin Avenua, Anaheim, stated the reason for this request is to improves hThair~designer
business. The last three to four months have been very difficult in improving their ,ood sale... roved.
recommended fuming their bar to face the lake and he hoped this minor alteration would be app
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained staff brought this back to the Planning Commission
because appro~cimately one year ago the Planning Commission had seen a revised plan for the operation
and since that ervvise, the Plannees argil being asked topevpew~and approvenminor Chang si at the counterthe
operation. 0th
05-31-95
Page 2
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
~''
Responding to Commissioner Henninger, Greg Hastings explained a conditional use permit was approved in
May 1985 to permit the expansion of a restaurant and a cocktail lounge. The original conditional use permit
granted in 1974 was to permit an enclosed restaurant with a cocktail lounge.
Commissioner Henninger stated there was a restaurant and cocktail lounge there called "Betsy Walls", and
asked if that is still the use that is out there.
coccktaiFl Iounge~isCnot the primary use~They feelt the us has changed withsmorielalcohdt being served than
food.
Bruce Freeman responded to Commissioner Henninger that he has no personal knowledge, but has been
Informed that the operation today is not being conducted in the same manner as before as a restaurant with
a cocktail lounge.
Ifne tthan ao estaurant ands ked the applicant what type offinenhu Is beingioffered along the entertainment
Sam Johar stated when they originally operated the restaurant, the menu consisted of meals which cost
approximately $20 per person. After five to six months of doing business, they realized the area was in need
of a different menu. Currently the menu consists of meals ranging from $5 to $8. They still have the
reception desk ff people are there to dine for lunch or dinner. They have a number of non-smoking and
smoking booths. He stated they are operating a restaurant with some entertainment.
Responding to Chairman Boydstun, Mr. Johar stated the menu contains a number of sandwiches, stea s, a
variety of chicken dishes, pastas, appetizers, and they also have specials such as lobster which is not on the
menu but is available, and they have fish for lunch and dinners.
Commissioner Henninger stated it seems there are two different versions of what is occurring out there, and
he thought it might be appropriate to ask Code Enforcement to go out to the establishment and glue a
recommendation back to the Planning Commission.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated ff that is the direction of the Planning Commission, they may wish
to direct staff to also get information with regard to the type of liquor license that the establishment has to
ensure that there is consistency in what is being done by the Commission. She added she realizes this is
not an area where tf;e City has jurisdiction because they have their liquor license, but just in terms to ensure
that the establishment is operating consistently.
iCt was i oinn to be thelsa eta t etp~ev9ous restaurant/cocktail lounge. vNow,lhe is not certain thatt ought
9 9
case.
use hermit t see how the present ope tlion fits with the existng conditional use permit. lew the conditional
P
Commissioner Henninger stated the applicant has expressed concsrns about delays and suggested setting h
for a public hearing to save time.
05-31-95
Page 3
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~f
Selma Mann stated them is another matter on the agenda that deals with substantial conformance
determination, and if the Planning Commission is saying is that there may be condtions that need to be
attached to the conditional use permft in conjunction with making a substantial conformance determination,
k would be appropriate to go ahead and set it for a public hearing. That would bring up the entire
condftional use permit for the Commission to take a look at the conditions.
Commissioner Henninger agreed and Greg Hastings asked for a four weeks continuance.
ACTION: offer tior the matter go be setfora public hearing,m MOTION CARRIEDune 26, 1995, in
l
051-95
Page 4
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1995
L4
2a, rEOA NEGATNE DECLARATION
2b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. rONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0.3751
OWNER: REDA A. WASEF, 2324 Corydon, Norco, CA 91760
AGENT: FAYEZ SEDRAK, 1100 North Eucid St., Anaheim, GA 92801
LOCATION: 1100 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.51
acres located at the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and
Euclid Street.
To permit an accessory convenience market (with prepared food and off-
premise sale and consumption of beer and wine) and an automated car wash
with waiver of required trees adjacent to street frontages, required setback
adjacent to an arterial highway, and landscape requirements adjacent to Interior
property lines.
Continued from the April 17, and May 15, 1995 Planning Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-55
ti.
Approved
Approved, in part
Granted, in part
-------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Chairman Boydstun stated that no new plans where submitted and asked ff the applicant would like a
continuance.
Reda YJasef stated he met two times with Traffic and Planning staff (Alfred and Kevin) and has tried to find a
location for the propane tank to be moved but it wasn't possible and that is why no new plans have been
submitted.
Commissioner Messe asked if Mr. Wasef needs to have the ability to sell propane.
Mr. Wasef stated he brought the record showing the amount of propane being :old, and that he sold 400
gallons fora 30-day period, which is amend 15-20 gallons a day and he dki not think that quantity would not
cause a traffic problem. He pointed out the record (reading for everyday) Is available for the Planning
Commission to see. Until today he hasn't had one big vehicle, and usually sells propane in the 5-gallon
containers, 2 or 3 customers a day.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission were to restrict the sales to only small propane taroks, then
he could not have mobile homes or motor homes coming there to fnl their propane tanks, and asked ff that
would be acceptable? Mr. Wasef answered yes.
~' .
1 _,.
05-31-95
Page 5
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~~
Mr. Wasef stated in his opinion ff the driveway is dosed at Eudkl, all the trafffc would be switched to one
entrance which is where the propane tank is located. If the two driveways were kept open he doesn't see
any problem with the location of the propane tank. He added he would also be willing to accept any
addition that is needed.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested that a 'no parking' sign could be posted in ftont of the propane tank and
Mr. Wasef agreed.
OPPOSITION: None
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED,
Commissioner Henninger stated h appears there is a difference of opinion with the applicant regarding the
driveway and that he Is firm on the driveway recommendation because he has seen many acckJents ftom
vehicles entering in from alert-hand tum.
Commissioner Messe agreed and stated it also slows intersection traffic.
Commissioner Henninger felt the Commission should discuss the beer and wine sales.
Officer Jim Gandy, Anaheim Police Department, referred to the map displayed showing ~ihe crime rate fn
specffic areas. He noted the crime rate of this particular location is 50% above the average, and this facility
happens to be at a location where four,adjacent reporting districts combine, arxi crime rates of the other
_ three are respectively, 125% above, 213% above and 203% above. The area has a high crime rate and there
are 13 liquor licenses in the area and nc more licenses are needed.
Commissioner Henninger indicated ft seems like most gas stations have to Crave a multitude of uses just to
survive, and wondered what effect a limit on the sales will have on the gas stations.
Commissioner Bostwick agreed and added the margin on gasoline is very low and as a result, gasoline
stations are going to mini-markets.
The Planning Commission discussed alcohol sales at the gas stations and convenience markets, compared
with liquor stores, etc., and also discussed alcohol sales and crime rates. Commissioner Messd thought
ttiere was a study on liquor outlets and crime rates.
Officer Gandy racalled there was a study done by Dr. Scribner, who worked for USC, and the study showed
the effects of additional alcohol outlets in an area. The study showed that the addition of one outlet
increased the violent crime rate.
Commissioner Peraza was concerned with the apartments that are dose to the area ancJ he believed that the
neighborhood is deteriorating and that deterioration will continue.
Chairman Boydstun indicated she thought this type of use adds to the deterioration and that she coul~'n't
agree with the alcohol sales. She stated there are a lot of families with children in those apartments.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for more information on the proposed ordinance regarding the number of
trees required; and Greg Hastings explained the Planning Department is working on a draft proposal.
05-31-95
Page 6
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
V
Because of the limfted amount of the landscape area that Is adjacent to street frontages on a service station
she and because of the tact that most of them have two driveways on each skJe, ft only allows enough room
for a couple of trees. He stated the new requirement would be an irrtensffication of trees along the interior
property line so it would be more of a backdrop and would not hkle the service station.
Commissioner Caldwell asked ff tii~ possibility that the southerly driveway on Euclid would be eliminated
was conskfered; and Greg Hastings stated that was not a part of the discussion.
Commissioner Caldwell asked with the closure of the driveway, would the new ordinance then require
addftional trees. Greg Hastings indicated ft did not but it can be added. His suggestion would be that the
number of trees be doubled on any street ftontage where there is an elimination of a driveway. He darified
ff the drveway was dosed, there would be two trees on La Palma and four trees on EudkJ.
Commissioner Mayer asked the applicant ff there are public restrooms at this establishment; and Mr. Wasef
answered there are two, one for ladles and one for men, and that they are open all day.
Mr. Wasef then mentioned he brought a letter for the Planning Commission to review showing voluntary
restrictions he is suggesting ff the beer and wine license is approved. A copy was given to each Planning
Commissioner. He stated he is proposing to reduce the hours and not to sell in large containers.
Commissioner Caldwell asked the applicant ff he was going to change the signs in any way; and Mr. Wasef
answered there will be no changes.
'~ _ Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, clarified the Ncoholic Beverage Control Board's (ABC) link wfth the City
in terms of these types of applications. She explained the law changed effective January 1995 giving the
City a veto power wfth regard to certain types of applications for sales of alcoholic beverages. The ABC has
always made a determination of public convenience and necessity when there is a high crime area or over-
Iiquoelicenises and crimle o they have buidlt In a imechanism foC att mptingito co trol the numrbeireo liquor
licenses in the State.
She explained the criteria is the amount of crime in the district that is established by the City, or there is a
greater proportion of licenses issued in a particular census tract, etc. The Police Department provkies the
crime rate data.
The new law requires the City to make a determination of public convenience and necessity and that is
whether in spite of the fact that there is a prolfferation and a high crime rate, whether there are factors
applicable in this instance which indicate that a liquor license should be approved anyway. This does not
mean that the ABC will have to grant the license, although ft would be very persuasive to the ABC ff that was
the City'c determination. The ABC would still listen to neighborhood protests or Information is given, or the
statistical data from the PD, and even ff there is a finding of public convenience and necessity, ABC may still
deny the license.
At this time, the Planning Commission Is dacki~ng the zoning action without making the firscing of public
convenience and necessity. Until such time as the City Council designates who is going to be making that
determination, and to her knowledge that determination has not been made yet, it is the City Council that will
be responsible for makir;g that determination.
05-31-95
Page 7
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
~~1
She added tt may be that at some lima in the future, the City Council may designate the Planning
Commission to be the body who makes that determination of public cornenience and necessity to ensure a
consistent decision. However, at thips time, the Planning Commission's ~h `s~~ to this particulart usah That
City would havo a determination of ublic cornenience and necessity
is going to be an Independent decision.
Ms. Mann continued before the Planning Commission today is the land use decision regarding whother this
is an appropriate use as it is being requested. The Planning Commission can conskJer the crime rate data,
the over-concentration data, and the testimony and the offer of conditions by the applicant in making
whatever land use decision they make in this matter.
Commissioner Caldwell asked 'rf the Planning Commission can still make a decision. He asked ff the
Commission moves to either appro~~e, disapprove or condition the sales of alcohd at the site, is that
recommendation passed on to the City Council?
Ms. Mann responded the Planning Commission decision is actually ~~ or someonexe se. She added tnhat s
it is appeal~r! by the City Council or to the City Council by the apps
doesn't mean that they will receNe an ABC license.
date miinationrthatthere waa p oliferatonaof i censes in the area and a high c ime ratSaon made the
Ms. Mann responded she did not think there is ever a "yes/no" answer and that is a judgement call and one
- that really needs to be made by the Planning Commission ff there is specific data with regard to the type of
crimes that have been taking place in this location. It may be that Police or Code Enforcement can supply
additional data and answer specific questions regarding the impacts they see from a prolfferation of liquor
uses. She added from their experience, they may have information they can provide that is not in the form
of a formal study.
Commissioner Henninger stated he will make a motion to ask Council to consider delegating the
determination of public convenience and necessity to the Planning Commission because it would be nice to
consider that in conjunction with the conditional use permits. He added he sees those as two very different
decisions. He would use dffferent criteria to determine ff the public is being conveniently served, which he
feels they are at this location, and then no more liquor licenses are needed in this location. However, when
consklering the conditional use permits, he has a different point of view and thinks basically it is a land right
and unless there is a good reason to say no, they ought to find a way to say yes.
Commissioner Mayer stated she was concerned about the fact that we are losing gas stations fairly regularly
and not only are they closing the stations, but are removing the tanks from the ground. She asked at what
point we decide where there are enough. She added that is a whole public convenience and necessity
because it serves more than Just selling liquor. She was concemed how to keep these types of businesses
because we definitely need gas stations.
Commissioner Caldwell stated it has not been shown that a gas station will not survive without the sale of
alcoholic beverages.
0531-95
Page 8
l
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
Mr. Wasef asked why the Police Department shows his business is In a high crime area with the ABC
accepting his application and shows ft is not a high crime area. The Poise are saying ft is 50% above the
crime rate, and he thought ff it is 50% above, the ABC would not even consider his application. He also
questioned why a few weeks ago the Commission approved the Chevron Station nn State Cdlege and Ball
where the crime rate is four times higher than this area.
Officer Gandy explained every year the Poise Department provides the ABC with the crime statistics and
that the ABC will take an application for any Location, regardless of whether they know it would be accepted
or would not be accepted. ABC is a licensing body and they have to accept the application, but the
application is then either approved or denied.
Officer Gandy explained that the applicant has tiled an application for an ABC license and the Pdfce
Department has filed a protest based on Section 28954.4 of the Business & Professional Code for high crime
and/or over-concentration of licenses. The Poise Department has receNed a letter back ftom ABC
accepting the protest and ff Mr. Wasef wants a public hearing, he can do so at the ABC reganding the
Issuance of the license over the Pdlce Department's protest.
Officer Gandy stated regarding the Chevron Station at 1195 S. State College, the Planning Commission
approved the conditional use permit. The Police Department filed a protest against the license, so no liquor
license has been Issued and the applicant is pending a hearing before the ABC hearing officer.
Officer Gandy explained ff the City makes the determination of public convenience and necessity, the ABC
issues a liquor license over the protest of the Police Department. He also explained ff it is c!etermined not
~_, to be a public convenience and necessity, the applicant still has the right to have a hearing before an ABC
administrative law Judge.
Commissioner Peraza asked ff the administrative law judge takes into consklsration the fact that Anaheim
has more liquor licenses than any other city in Orange County.
Officer Gandy responded that he always points that out. He stated they do not take that information as a
primary consideration. They look at the specffic location and whether that particular location meets the
public convenience and necessity criteria. He stated their rule ~f thumb is a like use w".hin 1000 feet, and ff
there is one, the public convenience and necessity criteria is not met.
216 reporting districts in theC ity of Anaheim and that 61dof thosei216 are highOcrimeGrat dareas~ there are
Commissioner Peraza stated the area directly across the street is at 125%. Officer Gandy clarffied that
urffortunately this site falls right at the adjoining point of four reporting districts. He added this ske would
have an impact on the other three districts, as well.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the applicant would be able to operata the business without the sale of beer
and wine. Mr. Wasef responded without the sale of beer and wine, he would be completely out of business.
He added ft is not the profft he is making from the beer and wine but the one customer who can buy
cigarettes, candy, gasdine, etc. in addition to the beer and wine because the customer will not make two or
three dffferent stops.
05-31-95
Page 9
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~~
Chaim~an Boydstun stated adding a car wash and food at this she should increase the business, but that
she would not vote for approval to beer and wine sales.
Commissioner Bostwick stated at that comer of Euclid and La Palms, there Is an Arco station on the SW
corner and this station on the northeast comer and clarified that the Arco station isn't a canvenience store
so a customer would have to buy his alcohol at the liquor store if both of these stations do not sell beer and
wine.
Mr. Wasef stated they can get >t at the comer of Euclid and Orangethorpe at the P/obil station.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved WaNer of Code Requirement as follows:
Approved, in part, Waiver A (required the installation of 6 trees, 2 on La Palms,,
Avenue and 4 on Euclid Street)
Denied Waiver B on the basis that it w~.s deleted.
Approved, in part, WaNer B (required the installation of 15 trees)
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3751 wfth the following added conditions:
That there shall be no parking permitted in front of the propane tank. The curb shall be
striped and clearly marked as a no parking area.
That there shall be no alcohol sales.
'~_
That the public restrooms shall be maintained.
That this southerly driveway adjacent to Euclid Street shall be closed and replaced with
standard curb, sidewalk and gutter, as well as a minimum 5-foot wkie planter with
landscaping.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann presented the 22-day appeal rights.
05-31-9:i
Page 10
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1995
3a, rFn4 NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved
3b. WANER OF CODE. REQUIREMENT Approved
3c. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. N0.3758 (READVERTISED) Granted
OWNER: MO0 YEOL RAH and HWA JA RAH, 2207 W. Woodiey Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2211 and 2207 West WoodleYAvenue and 323 North
Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.60 acres located
at the northwest comer of Woodiey Avenue and Brookhurst Street.
To permft an expansion of an existing child day care facUfty wfth up to 70
children (in conJunction with asingle-family home) with waivers of minimum
number of parking spaces and required landscaping of front yard area.
Continued from the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-56
~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Hwa Ja Rah, owner, stated she is requesting use of the empty commercial
building to expand a day care center. She explained she has three parking spaces which is approximately
.6 acres and that she is requesting a maximum of 70 children. She explained they provkfe transportation for
children from their house and back to their house after school, and since the opening wfth 30 children, they
haven't had any traffic or parking problems. The parking lot is almost always empty since parents utilize ft
about 15 minutes a day.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwoman Boydstun questioned where the trash is located?
Mrs. Rah answered that they use the regular single-family trash bins but ff they increase the number of
childre~,they might need the larger trash bins.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated she thought the City did not allow use of resklential bins for a schod and she
thought they would have to use a commercial trash bin.
05.31-95
Page 11
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
l.~
Allred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated he thought that question should b~.~ directed to
Sanitation, but that he believed they should have a commercial trash bin. He responded to Commissioner
Messe that he has a copy of the latest plan and that he had reviewed with Mrs. Rah at the last meeting a
way to park parallel and Provide more landscaping. He added apparently she didn't like that design and
made changes and that is what~the Planning Commission has before them.
Commissioner Messe indicated he would like to see that center building, the reskential house, retain its
residential look and have a lot of landscaping and grass around it, as ft is now. He suggested the two
parking spaces in front of the middle building be eliminated and then add one of those parking spaces back
tparking space. He istated that wouldrallow the Lands ping in fwrontof hehouse to remainosing just one
Mr. Yalda responded he though that could work and agreed to review ft with the applicant.
Greg Hastings indicated spaces 5 and 6 will be eliminated and spaces 3 and 4 will be moved westerly and
there will be a new space number 3, indicating he would make the changes on the plan, and that it results in
orne less parking space than shown on the plan for a total of 10 spaces. He added all of the landscaping in
Rant of 2207 Woolley would be retained.
Mr. Hastings stated there is a freestanding sign in front of 2211 W. Woolley which is right in front of a wall
sign and staff would recommend that the freestanding sign be removed and that the wall sign be retained at
the Plan ing Commissionfmay wish to ask for the eltimanat on of one o ~theuotheght next to a wall sign, and
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement (Waiver A was approved for 10 parking
spaces)
Granted Conditional Use Permft No. 3758 with the following added conditions:
That only one sign shall be displayed on Woolley Avenue. 20 sh uage feetli shall be r
a wall or freestanding sign, shall be a maximum of twenty ( ) q
located on RS-A-43,000 Zoned property and shall be reviewed and approvers by the
Zoning DNision.
That the existing wall sign at 323 North Brookhurst shall be removed since tt is
redundant of the pole sign located next to the wall sign.
That a revised site plan shall be ~~omitted to the Zoning Division for review and
approval showing the elimination of the two easterly parking spaces proposed for
2207 Woolley, the addkion of a parkingln pa~ ~ j ~ and tohe~moving of the 2 westerly
spaces shown at the westerly property file All of this is to preserve as
spaces at 2211 Woolley to the west as far as pons
much landscape area as possible for 2207 Woolley.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 2?.•day appeal rights.
05-31-95
Page 12
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1995
qa. ~EQ_~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved)
4b. ,f~QNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3670 (Readvertised)
OWNER: "TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION,10100
Pioneer Bivd., Ste. 106, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90650
AGENT: TAYLOR CAITLIN PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3568, Huntington
Beach, CA 92605-3568
LOCATION: ,,~14 N Beach Boulevard (formerly The Electric Circusl.
Property is approximately 0.67 acres located on the east skis of
Beach Boulevard and approximately 1,050 feet north of the
cerrterline of Lincoln Avenue.
Petftioner requests modification or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining
to the limitation of time, unfformed security, bar or lounge area, and code
enforcement inspections to permit the on-premise sales and consumption of
alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant/billiard center
with musical give entertainment).
Continued from the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-57
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Approved
Approved amendment
to conditions of
approval
(To expire 5-1-96)
Steve Gibbs, agent, stated after reviewing the report, he felt the Planning staff recommendaotio~=oe eHend the
request, while the applicant is trying to find a tenant for the vacant building, would be app p
explained right now they are working with a tenant but would Tike to leave the options open to find a suitable
applicant for the property since it is vacant and owned by an institution.
Chairman Boydstun stated ff there are any changes, they vaill need to come in and get a new conditional use
permft.
Mr. Gibbs responded he understood, but would just like to have the option to have the time to apply ft to
someone who is actually going to use the site, than to it actually being vacant and having the permit expire.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger stated wfth regard to the condition regarding the security, It should read: "as
required by the Anaheim Police Department and the one regarding Code Enforcement should read instead
af, 'after the first Fi0 days', perhaps it should read: 'or thereafter as required by the Code Enforcement staff '
0531-95
Page 13
ANAHEIM CITY PLANhIING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~~
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, indicated to make it dear to the applicant and Mr. Gibbs, that in terms cf
potential tenants, the C'dy does have in place ordinances regulating sex-oriented businesses and regulating
anyt~ g thatasuggests this type of tenant, iocatinon~y wish to obtain copies of the two ordfnanc~s t tmakes
sure that they do understand the limitations.
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved the amendment to the conditions of approval.
Modified Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 18 of Resolution No. PC94-45 to read as fellows:
"1. That this conditional use permft shall expire one (1) year ftom the date of this
resolution, on May 1, 1996."
"5. That a minimum of two (2) uniformed and licensed security officers, performing
security duties exclusively, shall be present to monftor activities both Inside the
restaurant and in the parking lot during all live performances, as required by the
Anaheim Police Department "
'18 That the applicant shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement Division inspections for a
maximum of once a week during the first sixty (60) days of operation and thereafter
as required by Code Enforcement staff."
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann presented the 22~1ay appeal rights.
05-01-95
Page 14
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1995
(U
Approved
5a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.317 Recommended
5b. ^ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.334 ado lion to City
5c. PECIFIC PLAN NO 94-1 (including Zoning and Devetooment Standards) Council
INITIATED BY: RedevelopmNen Agency, Attlen on~ MMchaal Welch~20~1 Shouth
Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 I
(A) Consideration ,~ Emriranmental Impact Report No. 317 as prepared by the Lead Agency
(Redevelopment Agency) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
(B) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 334 to amend the land Use, Parks Recreation and
Community Services and Environmental Resources and Management (Conservation/Open
Space) Elements of the General Plan to establish consistency between the General Plan and the
Development Areas identified within the proposed Specific Plan, to amend the General Plan
designation for the acreage within the boundaries of SP88-3 (not a part of the subject Specific
Plan as follows:
A. Land Use Element
1) To add text to the General Plan Land Use Element recognizing that the Anaheim
' Northeast Area Specific Plan is an implementing zone for the Northeast Industrial Area;
and that the Specific Plan establishes building intensfty for each of the developmen
areas (i.e., InciustriFil, Industrial Recycling, Expanded Industrial, La Palma Core, Transft
Core and Commercial Areas).
To amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map for eighteen (18) areas wfthfn the
Northeast Industrial Area as follows:
Figure 1 - An approximate 113.5-acre area from the General Industrial to Business
Office/Service/Industrial designation. Subject area is generally located south of
Miraloma Avenue, west of Tustin Avenue, north of the SR-91 Freeway and east of Miller
Street.
Figure 2 - An approximate 39.3-acre area from the General Open Space and General
Industrial designations to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is
generally located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the Atchison Topeka and Santa
Fe Railroad right-of-way and north of the Santa Ana River Channel.
Figure 3 - An approximate 11.9-acre area from the General Open Space to the
Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area Is generally located south of the
SR-91 Freeway, west of the SR-91 /Tustin Avenue Interchange, north of the Santa Ana
River Channel and east of the Atchison Topeka and Sarda Fe Railroad right-of-way
05-31-95
Page 15
ANAHEIM CIN PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACi ION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
Figure 4 - An approximate 2.8-acre area ftom the General Open Space to the General
Comm~~^lal designation. Subject area is generally located south and east of the SR-
91 / fustir~ Avenue Interchange.
Figure 5 - An approximate 11.3-acre area ftom the General Industrial to the General
(;ommerciai designation. Subject area is generally located on the east skJe of Tustin
Avenue between La Palma Avenue and the SR-91 Freeway.
Figure 6 - An approximate 8.0-acre area ftom the Conservation/Water Use and General
Industrial designations to the General Commercial and General Industrial designations.
Subject area is generally located at the Tustin Avenue/Miraloma Avenue intersection,
and north and west of said intersection.
Figure 7 - An approximate 2.1-acre area ftom the Conservatlon/Water Use to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located between
Orangethorpe Avenue and the Atwood Channel, and west of the City limits.
Figw•e 8 - An approximate 7.9-acre area from the General Industrial to the General
Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located immediately north (on both
sides of Miller Street) of the Miraloma Avenue/MUler Street intersection
Figure 9 - An approximata 46.8-acre area ftom the General Industrial to the
Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area is generally located south of La
Jolla Street, west of the Carbon Creek Channel, north of Miraloma Avenue and east of
Kraemer Boulevard.
Figure 10 • An approximate 10.7-acre area from the General Industrial to the General
Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the
Kraemer Boulevard/Miraloma Avenue intersection.
Figure 11 - An approximate 10.7-acre area from the General Industrial to the General
Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at the nor!heast, southeast
and southwest comers of the Red Gum Street/Miraloma Avenue intersection.
Figun~ 12 - An approximate 5.0-acre area froth the General Industrial to the General
Comrr,ercial designation. Subject area is generally located at the northeast and
southeast corners of the Blue Gum Street/Miraloma Avenue intersection.
Figure 1,1- An approximate 52.9-acre area from the General Industrial to the General
Commer ;ial designation. Subject area is generally located south of La Palma Avenue,
west of ; hepard Street, north of the SR-91 Freeway and east of White Star Avenue.
Figure 1 l - An approximate 9.1-acre area from the General Industrial to the General
Comma cial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the
Blue Gem Street/La Palma Avenue intersection. (This GPA has been deleted.)
0531-95
Page 16
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~~
Figure 15 - An approximate 13.7-acre area fi~om the General Industrial to the General
Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the La
Palma Avenue/RichNeld Road intersection.
Figure 16 - An approximate 23.8-acre area ftom'the General Industrial to the General
Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the La
Palma Avenue/Lake~~lew Avenue intersection.
Figure '17 - an approximate 58.1-acre area from the General Industrial to the
Conservation/V1later Use designation. Subject area is generally located south of La
Palma Avenue, west of Fee Ana Street, north of the Santa Ana River Channel and
approximately 570 feet east of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and Van Buren Street.
Figure 18 - An approximate 15.7-acre area from the General Industrial to the General
Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located on the south skis of La
Palma Avenue, approximately 468 feet west of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and
Imperial Highway, and north of the Santa Ana River Channel.
B. Parks, Recreation & Comr~iunfty Services Element
1) To delete a proposed Community Park site designation from the Park Facilfties Plan
(Figure 5.1) of the Parks, Recreation & Community Services Element. Saki site is
located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad right-of-way aril north of the Santa Ana River.
C. Environmental Resource and Management Element
1) Open Sna~a • To delete an approximate 38.7-acre open space area depicted on the
Environmental Resources and Management Open Space/Conservation Element Exhibit,
generally located scuth of the SR-91 Freeway, southeast and southwest of the SR-
91 /Tustin Avenue interchangd, and north of the Santa Ana RNer. (The proposed
proposed changes to thenLand UUse Element asekf ei8ed in Figures 2-4 above the
2) C1onservation - To make modifications to Water Use areas as depicted on the
Environmental Resources and Management Open Space/Conservation Element Exhibit
as follows:
a) An approximate 11.9-acre addition to the Water Use area adjacent to the Santa
Ana River and generally located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the SR-
91 /Twst~n Avenue interchange, north of the Santa Ana River Channel and east of
the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way.
b) Recognizing the approximate 184-acre Wamer Basin as a Water Use area in
addition to it's Sand and Gravel designation. Subject basin is generally located
east of Tustin Avenue, south of La Palma Avenue, west of Fee Ana Street and
north of the Santa Ana River Channel.
05-31-95
Page 17
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION,AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
V
(C) Consideration and adoption of a Specffic Plan identifying sbc (6) Development Areas for the
Northeast area which currently encompasses 2,645 acres including the Canyon Industrial Area as
wd.! as properties within and surrounding the boundaries of tho Redevelopment Project Area
Alpha. The Specific Plan anticipates a total buildout ar 0~~ ~ 3.3 mill on square feet of thisr
2010, of which 21.8 million square feet is existing. App Y
existing 21.8 million square feet is anticipated to be reconstructed. Approximately 7.5 million
square feet is anticipated as new developmer.
(D) Adoption of zoning and development standards to set forth standards, procedures and guidelines
for the development of industrial uses, corporate headquarters, research and development,
support services, offices and rommercial retail areas to serve the demand for a wide variety of
goods and services within the Specific Plan area as provided for in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. The proposed Specific Plan zoning designation, SP94-1, would replace the
current zoning designations of ML (Limited Industrial), RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural), and
CL (Commercial Umited).
The proposed 2,645 acre Northeast Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment project area is
generally bounded by the Orange (SR-5'~ and the Riverside (SR-91) freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue
and Imperial Highway, and includes the Canyon Industrial Area and properties wthin and surrounding
the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area Alpha. The 26-acres located at the southwest comer of
Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue which is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 883
(Santa Fe Pacific Plaza Specffic Plan, also known as PacffiCenter) are not included within the
boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan bu< are included within the boundaries of the proposed
General Plan amendment area.
Continued from the May 1, and May 15, 1995 Planning Commission meetings.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-58
SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. PC95-59
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke in favor
Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of Interest.
Mike Welch, Community Development Department, explained this is the Northeast Area Specific Plan which
was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of May 1st and May 15th. Specifically, two items
were directed to Community Development and Planning staff. The two areas were adjacent to the 91
Freeway between Kraemer Boulevard on the west to Tustin Avenue on the east.
05.31-95
Page 18
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
The recommendation was for staff to look at the land use designation on the south side of the fteeway,
generally adjacent tohanneeto~a comme cial~and~useodesignatt on a-xl thatlwas referredi9o asoDevelopment~
proposal showed a 9
Area 5.
industrial and to look at a vacant
He explained they studied that area to retain ft as a Development Area 1,
4-acre parcm industrial to~comme.-cial t Snclude h n Development Area 5 ther thanaDevelopn eint Area 3 n
that site fto
Those two areas were studied and the traffiTust n/Ls Palma, andtLakevfew/La Palma, wou d be impacted
intersections, including Kraemer/La Palma,
anti one intersection, Tustin/La Palma, would be at an unacceptable level of service.
The Redevelopment Agency staff di iflo Flee S i~onhtha wou d allow aesserrtially developmentithat would be
consider as an addition to the Spec
no granter than the floor area ratio (FAR) to the area south of the 91 freeway and if the FAri was greater
than .10, prior to Issuance of any grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, for any
development south of the 92 fteeway, the applicant shall prepare a traffic analysis and any other
environmental documents which include necessary features to mitigate those traffic impacts identified by the
traffic analysis to a level of insignificance.
He added that woatiagower FAR and the traffic analysis would show that therems an adequate evelof~~h
of the 91 freeway
service at those Intersections.
Philip Anthony, representing the George Adams and Davkl B. Williams, who own property and own and
operate businesses In the area south of the fteeway on Frontera Street, stated they are very pleased with the
staff report today and he thought it very accurately reflects the direction the Planning Commission gave at
their last meeting.
He stated the thought of retaining the general industrial as the base zoning for this area is reflected in
Paragraphent Area 1 Sandraccurat y reflects t citrus situat on and they can support thatanguage to
Developm
He stated the thought of the fteeway-oriented commercial overlay in Paragraph 3b rt that Ian ua~e Heng
added to Development Area 1, as described, is very appropriate and they do suppo g g roes do
stated the fteeway location is certainly inviting anti there is a tremendous ~Ma9~~a a very anxious to work
have serious restrictions because of the landfill and access. The property tentials can be realized.
more closely with the Redevelopment staff in the future to see if those fteeway po
He thought it would take a very serious joint effort to bring that to reality.
Mr. Anthony stated the possibility of adding the recycling overlay to this area had been discHssedd~ he e,
exactly as it is to Area 1A across the freeway, slightly to the west (the Taormina property).
thought that situation is virtually identical in the sense that the existing uses are basically all recycling.
05-31-95
Page 19
MAY 3i, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
Mr. Anthony r antic Rttercling business and concur with the decision to have t e property orned industrrial
support the Ad ecY
with a recycling overlay. The Adams business provides an Important service to the cftizens of Anaheim n
that he assists th$Irbft~ i~ u~ al few short~blocks away is argreat corneniencelfor the! buiness and his
having Mr. Adam 1
customers and asked beat everything be done to retain Mr. Adams' business in Anaheim.
Mr. Anthony thann ed' CoarrPimission' d ect on and~th staffs v ork on thee anguage are veryiappropriate and
thought the Plan g
they support R entirety.
George Adams, Adams Recycling Group, asked about the traffic and stated he did not understand how
traffic at Lakeview could possibly affect them. He stated it was mentioned by staff that they thought they
were at .1 and t ~t n soulnds like what was lust proposed~is that the traffic designation w uld make ft dffflcult
mean, but thong
for any type of growth in the recycling business, and he did not see how their business could impact tra c
on Lakeview.
stated he is not a traffic engineer but has been
Allen Rubin, Consultant to tho Redevelopment Agency,
briefed by the traffic engsnfor t e Specffic P anh Henstated they have explained to hgm thamthe differenceg all
the traffic impact analy
between theFAR floor area riat o) lis .25,iand it al ows 25% of these to be develolpedn The industrial FAR is
commercial ( k hour traffic is different with the
.5 which means 50% of the site can ~n in an industrial situationhvers~us commercial, Commercial
`~ addftional development that can happ ~,,, traiflc.
establishments generate peak evening (p.m.) traffic and industrial e„.~blishmerrts generate peak (a.m.)
This change has an Impact throughout the area, basically like water flowing downhill, and it reverberates
throughout the entire northeast area which extends for 5 or 6 miles east and west and for about 2 miles
north and south. Intersections are impacted because trips would be coming from throughout the area, as
well as ftom the fre awa~k vhewnTustin and sPalmatand Kraeme and La PaImaV/aY That is why impacts
are felt as far away
Chairwoman Boyd asked for t~h existing trafficr count this was a new industrial site bringing new industries
Into the area. She
Mr. Rubin responded the existing counts only take into account the hotel which is existing. The other uses
are mostly outdoor uses.
Chairwoman Boydstun me ed if tohe*hei south s e of the frpreeway would affect those Intersections. t~ ~e did
not understand how so 9
Mr. Yalda stated he believed the intersection at Tustin/La Palma is operating at either LOS D or E at this
time. Lakeviewhe ~v~ of Service D o ES He added whenever andintenrsection falls ibel waD' it has toshave
operating at eft
mftigation. He explained there are several ways to mitigate -the road could be widened, optimize tha tsa c
signal timing, etc.
05-31-95
Page 20
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
V
Mr. Yalda stated the City has a citywide model with our existing traffic counts and that model indicates what
will happen in that area.
Chairwoman Boydstun.stated those businesses~are existing and.there is no change.. .
Mr. Yalda stated based on what was done in the traffic study, h was determined that the existing use was
acceptable because it would keep the level of service at those intersections acceptable. By making
changes, the use of the property is intensfffed and would directly impact those Intersections. He added
somehow acceptable levels of service have to be maintained.
Commissioner Henninger stated when this was discussed earlier, he thought the discussion was at a FAR of
I.0 as the limit and not 0.1 and asked ff that is a typographical error.
Mr. Rubin stated there probably was a misunderstanding because they were talking about 10% coverage. It
was clarified that the industrial is .5 and that was used as a benchmark and that they discussed the
particular types of uses in this area and they are much less Intense. He stated typica! industrial would be .5
which means 50% building coverage or less which provides fcr parking and some landscaped setbacks.
However, the types of uses which are there now have very 1'dtle building to storage yard and parking area.
Commissioner Henninger stated he understood the issue was not to keep the industrial uses where they are
today, but to keep under a threshold that caused these problems and he dki not think the Issue is the floor
area ratio of these particular businesses. He suggested changing the language to talk about uses that have
traffic Impacts similar to a typical industrial use with the floor area ratio (FAR) of maybe .25.
~J
Mr. Rubin stated they know that the .25 does not work over the entire area.
Commissioner Henninger stated we know that commercial works over the entiro area and he understood
that is because of the traffic patterns. He added this could be taken back for recisions before it goes to the
City Council and the Commission could request that the right numbers be inserted. He did not think .10 is
the right number.
He continued that what they are really trying to look for is not the floor area ratio but it is the traffic Impacts
associated wRn g typical industrial use.
Mr. Rubin suggested another way to look at it is to set a threshod of trips coming out of the area and
Commissioner Henninger agreed and added that might be a better way to look at ft.
Mr. Rubin thought Redevelopment, Traffic and Planning staff could propose a sdution to the City Council
which would meet the concerns of the Planning Commission. He clarified the Intent is to establish a
threshold for new trips generated by now industrial development from the area south of the freeway.
Commissioner Bostwick stated obviously there are uses existing in that area but there is some open space
which we are now being tdd the county wants to sell. He asked what this ratio will do to that property ff
they have someone who wants to buy it and develop it.
051-95
Page 21
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31,1995
l.~
Mr. Rubin responded it may Ilmit the intensity of development and the type of development, depending upon
the trip generation pattern of the use they propose. He clarified at this point they are proposing to sell the
sire to some unknown parry and when a use is proposed, we will have to evaluate the traffic patterns that
will generate and see if those trips can be mltigated. He explained through the trafflc.model we know all the
thresholds.
Commissioner Bostwick asked the effect N this is designated industrial and they propose a commercial use.
Mr. Rubin explained a commercial use would require a CUP and as part of the process, the traffic would be
evaluated and depending on the number of trips and the traffic capacity at the intersection, there may or
may not be mltigation required.
Mr. Yalda explained a commercial use such as a large furniture store would generate less impact than
another commercial use such as an appliance store, He stated a car dealership has a different traffic pattern
than a regular commercial use.
Mr. Rubin stated since those commercial uses are subject to the conditional use permit process, they would
be evaluated on a case by case basis against the city's transportation model.
Commissioner Henninger stated when the new language is drafted, he would like to have the threshdd
expressed on an average acre basis.
i George Adams stated they feel the recycling overlay would help provkfe them with long term financing.
Jim Cavaneau, Controller, DBW & Associates, sp~3aking on behalf of the company, invited the
Commissioners to come out and tour their facilfrj. He explained they recycle aluminum containers and by
state law, they have to also take in glass and plastics. They sell those to Anaheim Disposal and they work
very well together and have a good relationship and they are in favor of this proposal.
Gary Gramman stated they are Interested in the 91 Corridor and regarding the specific plan and looking at
the long term ramifications, there is discussion of potential commercial retail users with buildings in excess
of 50,000 sq. ft. to be located In this area. He added obviously that would help generate sales tax revenues
and a user of that type is rather significant.
He stated there is concern about signage along the 91 Corridor and as specified in the ordinance, an $-ft.
high monument sign is discussed and some areas of the 91 Corridor are elevated and with an 8-foot high
sign, only about 2 feet would be visible from one side of the freeway. He wanted the Commission to take
that Into consideration and added he did not think an eight-foot high monument sign would be high enough
for a car dealar.
Mike Welch stated staff dkl recognize the freeway signage is something that needs to be restudied and
would propose that portion of the specific plan be deleted. He stated they have hired a consultant who is
doing a study of that corridor to bring back a presentation and illustrations to the Commission in the future
regarding a freeway oriented signage criteria.
05-31-95
Page 22
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGEtJDA MAY 31. 1995
U,
Concerning the recyding overlay zone, Mr. Welch stated the entire 2600-acre Northeast area is designated
by the State as Orange County's first and only recyding market development zone. That indudes all the
properties within the boundaries of the specffic plan (both the City and Redevelopment Project area and
those areas in the Canyon) and that offers certain benefits to all.businesses, inducting recyders, for low
Interest loans and other benefits by the State.
The Recyding Zone Overlay Development Area 1A is the far western portion of this Specific Plan and it was
not their understanding when they restudied the south skis of the 91 freeway to inducts that within the
designation of 1A. The overlay (1A Recyding) is at the far western portion of the project area adjacent to
the 57 freeway and that is the area of this specific plan and the environmental impact report considered for
expansion over several years from the environmental and traffic perspective and mitigated in this plan.
Commissioner Henninger stated the fact that we do not spread that overlay zone of the specific plan ail
across the Canyon Industrial area does not mean that the benefits that come from the State designation are
in same way limted.
Mr. Welch responded they are limited and explained we have existing businesses manufacturing new
products throughout the northeast area who are presently purchasing their materials from existing
businesses which collect and process that material and are manufacturing h into new products locally.
Commissioner Henninger stated ff there are some low interest loans which the State has in this designated
area, those would be available to those businesses along the south skis of the 91 freeway and Mr. Welch
responded that is correct.
Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a recyding zone which is the whdeese~~here on the south skis of
then there is this recyding overlay which is just strictly over the property p y
this area.
Commissioner Henninger stated the language suggested (n 4d of the staff report talks about the recyding
uses south of the 91 freeway.
Greg Hastings pointed out that use is allowed by conditional use permit.
Mr. Hastings stated staff had a concern regarding the setbacks along the freeway for Development Area 1,
1A, 3, 4 and 5, relatNe to freeway frontage roads. If there is a freeway frontage road, staff would
recommend that there be a 30-foot fully landscaped setback for the building. Currently it reads that there be
a 50 to 100-foot setback from the frontage road. Staff would recommend that requirement when it is
adjacent to the freeway, but when there is a freeway frontage road between the freeway and the property, it
could be reduced to 30 feet fully landscaped.
051-
Page'.'1
ANAHt"1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
ACTION: Approved and recommended that the City CouncU acting as a Responsible
Agency consider EIR Nn. 317 as prepared by the Lead Agency
(Redevelopment Agency) and approve and adopt the Statement of Findings
of Fact (which includes the Rejection of Alternatives), adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Pub iPlan'
Resource Code, adopt Specific Plan No. 94-1 'Northeast Area Spec
as the reporting or monitoring plan for the Project, finding that the Northeast
Area Specific Plan incorporates measures to mitigate or avoid signfficant
impacts on the environment and will itself act as effective mitigation for
potential environmental impacts Identffied in the final EIR.
Recommended that the City Councll adopt General Plan Amendment No.
334.
Recommended that the City Council adopt Specffic Plan No. 94-1 (including
Zoning and Development Standards, Design Plan and Guidelines, a Public
Facilities Plan for the Northeas- Area Specffic Plan, the recommended conditions
and Errata dated May 5, 1995 and the Revisions to the Errata dated May 17, 1995)
Made the following changes:
A. Deleted the freeway oriented sign section of the Specific Plan. Revised
fteeway oriented sign provisions shall be processed through a subsequent
~~- Specific Plan amendment public hearing following further study by
Community Development and Zoning staff.
3. Adjacent to any freeway frontage road, a 30 foot fully landscaped setback
for the building shall be required. Currently ft reads that there be a 50-100
foot setback ftom the frontage road. That should be the case when the
property in any Development Area is adjacent to the freeway, but when
there is a freeway frontage road between the freeway and the property the
setback shall be reduced to a 30-foot fully landscaped.
C. Added the following language to the condftional use permit list for
Development Area 3:
"Retail sales provided such uses are freeway-oriented or abutting a frontage
road adjacent to the Riverside (91) Freeway, provided such retail sales
pertain to f•~mfture, home building products, office supplies or products
determined to be similar by the Planning Commission and further provkfed
the retail sales portion of the business shall be a minimum of 15,000 square
feet'
05-31.35
Page 24
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
D. Added the fdlowing language to the condftfonal use persnft Ilst for
Development Area 1:
'Retail sales provkfed such uses are freeway-oriented ~~ ch~retail sales
and wfthin 600 feet of, the RNerskle (91) Freeway, P ies, or products
pertain to fumfture, home building products, office suppl
determined to be similar by the Planning Commission and further provided
the retail sales portion of *.he business shall be a minimum of 15,000 square
feet.'
A paragraph will be added regarding the circulation mftigation necessary for
Development Area 1 south of the 91 Freeway. Wording will be provkled by
Communfty Development staff at the Council hearing. The language added
shall set a threshold based on the average traffic generation per acre format.
The basis of the threshold will be the maximum amount of traffic that can be
generated from this area wfthout causing the intersection problems
associated wfth the Development Area 1 designation. The restrictions shall
be Iimfted to peak hours.
E. Added wording contained in Paragraph (4) (D) of the staff report, which
would add to the conditional use permft list for Development Area 1, south
of the freeway 'scrap metal salvage and shredding, automobile dismantling,
used auto parts businesses, and large cdlection processing facilfties and
yards' subject to operational and design restrictions.
\ Prior to voting, Commissioner Bostwick asked ff the recycling overlay could be added to the industrial area
south of the freeway.
not smre that he fully understood all theuelements o9thate ecyc ing olverlay andtasked what thatwold adds
Greg Hastings stated he thought the difference between 1A and tof userdin~g use I the impacts havo been
there is no condtional use permit required for the recycling type
klentified in the EIR.
Commissioner Henninger stated the main difference is whether a condftional use permit would be required
and added he knows the current users fear coming in and requesting a CUP, but somehow he really thought
requiring a CUP is appropriate here.
gotteniCUPs onmost oftheir~uses~andlasked ff tha9would ~etchanged so that he would not hav a ton and
continue doing that in the future.
alregadyabeen taken care of through the E R for that prloperry o ethat~area ina he 1 A des gnat onhat have
Commissioner Bostwick stated he feels they are the same uses and those businesses fall within that
recycling overlay.
051-95
Page 25
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARYJACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~1~
Commissioner Henninger asked if they should be allowed as a matter of right without any screening. He
stated he thought we have ample evidence of the behavior of that type business and it might not be a good
idea. The City has had some difficulties with the current uses.
Selma Mann stated there has been an extensive history with Code Enforcement on this and she thought h
has been the most time/material/money intensive correction problem in the history of the City of Anaheim.
th rator is o ratin in conFomiarrce with
Although following the extremely expensive court proceeding, a ope Pe 9
a stipulation that was entered into wfth the City. At the present Ume the authorization to operate on this
property is contingent upon continued compliance with that stipulation and the right to operate will end, she
thought, in 1998. At that Ume the applicant will have a right provided that it has been in complete
compliance with the stipulation, to come in and apply for whatever use is permitted in that area just like
anyone else. She thought the impacts have already been analyzed and accounted for in the ernironmental
impact report but did not think such Impacts have been really accounted for or analyzed for expanding that
particular area.
Commissioner Henninger stated Mr. Adams had talked wfth him at length on this subject and he thought that
he is worried that the City is trying to get his business out of the area. He thought with the changes to the
Specific Plan to specifically Identify this as a conditional use in that area, that should set the record straight.
He added he belioved those uses are going to stay there, but thought ft is incumbent upon the City tohat no
require a conditional use permit so they have reasonable contrds over the use. He stated he hoped
one on staff has the idea that they want to get rid of the use. Recycling is an Important thing for the future
of this country and for the human race and we need to provide places for it.
Commissioner Peraza stated he thought there has been a lot of improvement on the upkeep of that site and
~--~ he thought requiring a CUP would be appropriate.
Commissioner Henninger stated he would leave the wording in the specific plan as proposed regarding
recycling.
Greg Hastings clarified that the Errata dated May 5, 1995, is included and Commissioner Henninger
responded his mo:lons include all the changes and the Errata.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest)
Selma Mann pointed out this matter will be set for a hearing before the City Council.
051-95
Page 26
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~, ~EQ4 NEGATIVE: DECLARATION I Continued to
6b. VARIANCE N0.427 June 12, 1995
OWNER: DISNEY GOALS, INC., 888 S. West St., Ste. 102, Anaheim, CA
92803
AGENT: LIAM THORNTON C/0 DISNEY DEVELOPMENT CO., 500 S.
Buena Vista St., Buri~ank, CA 91521400
LOCATION: 300 W Lincoln Avenue f4naheim Community Ice Rink).
Property is approximately 3:17 acres located at the southwest
comer of Lincoln Avenue and cyementine Street and further
described as 300 West Lincoln Avenue.
Waiver of minimum landscaping of required yard areas in conjunction with a
previously approved Ice rink.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
`~ _- OPPOSITION: None
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
PETITIONER'S COMMENT: Liam Thomton, Development Manager, Disney Development Company, 8.88
Community Sce Rink projec eHel poln~ted out the plandhas receivedrRedevelopme t Commission approvahl im
and Redevelopment Agency approval.
Michael Maltzan, Project Design Architect, Frank GQry Architects, presented an overview of the project and
stated they have always intended that the landscaping would be part of the architecture and stated there are
palm trees along Clementine, West Harbor and palm trees on Lincoln and along the service drive. There is a
tall ornamental grass which wraps all around three skies.
Mr. Thomton stated Disney is planning In s couple of years to put in a kiosk for some sort of coffee and
beenkint nded tctbe seen ftomt360 degrees which ishivhat gave the building its sculptural fourm land that he
landscaping is very important.
Mr. Thornton indicated the landscape approval they are seeking is for the on-site landscaping. The
ght-of way and thate dudes twoi addnior ail t ees onhu cd Avenue.oThat will fill inn this gap thatwasc
shown on the landscape plan.
OPPOSITION: None
05.31-95
Page 27
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger asked the height of the grass; and Mr. Thornton responded it is about 1-1/2 feet
high when it is planted and grows to about 3 to 4~ feet.
Commissioner Henninger pointed out the roofing material comes down to wfthin 121nches of the ground
level and this grass will cover the edge of the slab and hkJe the junction between the roofing material and
the ground.
Commissioner Henninger asked how they (ntnd to deal with the valve farm near the trash enclosure, noting
the landscape plan does not address those.
Mr. Maltzan answered that the trash enclosure itself is the minimum size they could make by code and they
are trying to down play ft as much as possible. The enclosure is surrounded by the tali grass.
Commissioner Messy asked ff a block wail is going to be built around the valve farm.
Doug Robertson, Executive Architect for the protect, stated they expect the valve farm to be covered by the
landscaping; that they cannot cover or enclose that in a CMU enclosure because that has to be accessible
to the Fire Department for connection to the building. The grade today is about 6 to S' below the ftnal
finished grade, but they expect the 3' tall grass to conceal the valve farm and that only the Fire Department
connection will be visible from the driveway.
Commissioner Mayer asked what sort of maintenance plan they are recommending for this type of in and it
`~. _ She noted she has seen it maintained in various ways, none of which she thought was very appeal g
has a lot of die-back. Sha asked ff ft will be shaped or be allowed to Just grow.
Mr. Thornton explained the maintenance will be done by the Koll Anaheim Center Associates and it is a very
drought tolerant grass as far as irrigation is concerned, and ft is not a signfficaM maintenance concern.
Commissioner Mayer stated there have been some unusual types of planting done by public artists In the
Koll project area, all of which have been pruned in some very unusual shapes and to no apparent standard,
and she felt ff there is going to be this type of unusual plant look, maybe there should be a maintenance
guide.
Mr. Thornton stated the variety currently specfffed does develop a slightly dumped appearance. Also, it has
a Iffe span of 5 to 7 years and at that time it would need to be replaced. There won't be any particular effort
to sculpt or shape the grass or to urge it to take a shape other than its natural form.
Commissioner Mayer asked ff the die-back would Just remain a part of the look; and Mr. Thomson answered
that the specffications indicate that dead and dry stems/branches be removed to prevent a fire hazard.
Commissioner Mayer indicated this type of dumps of grass tends to attract trash; and Mr. Thornton
responded that Disney is well known for the energetic nature of their building maintenance. He thought
regardless of the type of grass, there will be a certain amount of urban trash that accumulates and he
expects their client will energetically maintain theft property.
Commissioner Messy asked ff a few trees could be planted on the comers of Lincoln where the mainstream
of traffic goes by the building to hide the trash enclosure and maybe making a dffferent kind of statement on
the easterly skle of Lincoln.
051-95
Page 28
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
and driving down Uncoln, thee is sefairiy g food view into the load ng banyss Thatt areaoistnot really hkld n
ftom Lincoln.
Mr. Thomton answered ft 3s.the back of the building and they tried to hide it as much as they could. The
masonry block wall which is seen right now will be covered with the a false facade made out of the same
material as the rest of the building. In addition to that, the mechanical lowers for the equipment at the back
of the building will be made out of the exact same material as the back of the building. He indicated they
are also creating a false wall that runs westerly, so a person traveling eastbound on Lincon would not be
able to see back there because of the angled wall.
Commissioner Henninger asked how t ntfn~out there a e roll up doors ndrthe rest of thle load g is the
exhibit the continuation of the wall, po 9
screened behind the wail.
ICoading donors forthe 9rafflc that is eastbound ontLincoln. wale pointed out the viewtls not blocked today with
the wall that is there.
Mr. Robertson stated the concrete masonry walls that are on the sfte today is the final extent that will be
built, but those walls will be dad with a metal material identical to that on the building. He explained when
they designed that loading bay, it is important to note that they do not expect to have a truck larger than a
two-axle van at any point. That wall was designed to extend 22', which is the length of the van. A person
driving on Lincoln would see the front of the van behind the fountain grass, but would not see any loading
"~- activity. It was their Intention to fully screen the loading activity and the full length of the van ftom Llncdn
Avenue.
Commissioner Henninger indicated that is what the Commission understood when they approved it, but the
it Is dear thera is a good view into the
point he is trying to make is that as the building sits on the sfte today,
end of the loading dock coming eastbound on Uncdn. He felt that is unfortunate and R would be
appropriate to do something about ft, and some of the Planning Commissioners think it can be
accomplished through providing some addftional landscaping.
Mr. Thomton stated he feels they can accommodate the Planning Commission's concerns by adding a tree
or two on the property line.
Chairman Boydstun suggested putting a canopy tree offset a IitUe between every palm tree across the back,
similar to what is across the street. She added on the northeast comer, they could plant some type of
duster of trees, even using the trees they are taking out on Clementine, and then a couple of trees by the
trash enclosure.
Mr. Thomton indicated they would prefer to plant palm trees. Chairwoman Boydstun responded she did not
think palm trees would provide any screening.
Commissioner Henninger stated his concem is the view ftom Lincoln into the end of the loading dock and is
not an overall concem about the landscape proposal but a particular concem for that one area and would
like to see sornething proposed to the Planning Commission. Also, another concem is the plats material
proposed has a considerable amount of die-back and if not well maintained it can look Pike a field of weeds.
051-95
Page 29
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
4.,~
Mr. Thomton stated regarding the maintenance Issue, as an employee of the Walt Disney Company, he
could assure the Commission that it would be very well maintained in the same manner as their parks. He
added that area is fully Irrigated.
Commissioner Henninger responded that is true as long as they are in contrd of it, but in the future that
could change, and he felt something should be added regarding maintenance.
Commissioner Masse asked ff they had offered to provide some trees to mask the loading dock on efther
side of the drNe.
Mr. Thomton answered yes and that they think ft can be done with palm trees.
Commissioner Masse stated palm trees don't provkle a screen unless they are thinking of shorter palm trees,
unless they have a utility pole appearance.
Mr. Thomton stated they would like to use the trees to hide the view into the back of the loading dock, but
not to use the trees tc hkie the building. He added it is their intent to emphasize the building.
Mr. Maltzan stated in every building they design, they certainly put their reputation on the line, and having
something look like it is the back end of the building and a trash chute is a major problem for them. That is
going to be a big facade and people will see the building ftom that direction and they definftely share the
Commission's concerns. He stated unfortunately, for all intents and purposes that Is, the loading end of the
building. One of the skies of the building has to be a loading end and that was one of the design
constraints and requirements. They worked very hard to try to make sure that even though that was the
;_ case, the aesthetic attributes far outweighed, ftom a design standpoint, the detrimenw.
Commissioner Henninger stated this is a loose end and none of the Commissions y iscovered it ob in e
plans until they saw the building and it doesn't work very well. He did not think the did a good j
disguising this loading area and he would like to see them design something creative to fix it.
Julie Mayer asked is the food service is still proposed for inskie the building, as well as retail uses; and Mr.
Thornton answered "yes".
facility, but tre auxtiliary uses which would be stall and foodeusesilyThey cannot cont d the loos k of t ethis
trucks.
Mr. Thomton stated that is correct b~! the; ran contrd it to some extent, through the timing of the deliveries
and that the facility will operate almost 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Peraza stated there would tie more traiftc on Lincoln than would use Harbor Place.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated when the freeway is finished, Lincoln will be the entrance to the city and this
would mean looking at the back of a building with no trees.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he understands from their perspective, and respect the prerogative of the
designer End he gets the impression that all the Commissioners are trying to hdd their comments and work
with the scope and have a tremendous respect for their firm, but have been able to ideMffy today a specffic
problem. He agreed they are the Inventive ones and should do something to block the view Into that
loading dock area and it doesn't appear that has been done.
051-95
Page 30
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
plainTtrees tha~re herepnowtwouldhworkras well~asnpalm trees as far as obscuring the lui ding.i~on
Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission is not talking about obscuring the while bufldin an~and
wanted to be sure they understand that he does. not have a problem with. the overall landscape pi
thought f: is a nice plan. He does have a problem with this one particular view which no one noticed on the
plans originally, and he would Tike to see ft cured now.
Commissioner Mayer stated the Impact of the buAding is really the monumental scale of ft and not ground
level to 8 or 9 feet up or even 6 feet up which is what they would like to screen. She stated !f they had
unloading activity that wasn't screened, it might draw the eye to that area.
Commissioner Caldwell indicated the Planning Commission is walling to hear them say they will take a look
that isenvisioned ffor his building, but will come back before the Commis on with solut(on~ign function
Mr. Thornton responded they would like to take a look at it and asked for darificatlon on what they
Commission does not want to see referring to the loading dock, whether ft is the entry into the loading dock
that is a concern.
Commissioner Henninger explained he thought as a person (s driving east on Lincoln ftom Harbor, there is
an area where you can see the blunt end of the loading dock and doors behind the dock area, which the
wind wall was really designed to screen, and ft screens it well if you are standing directly across Lincoln. He
would like to see somehow that view softened or blocked, and added he was not sure ft is trees, maybe
` - trees are the wrong height and maybe ft should be a massing of bushes or something in the line of sight
between Lincoln and that loading dock area.
Mr. Robertson stated they take the comments to heart and added his concern is given the nature of this site
and the complexity of trying to get the cars in and screen a view which is really down the street, which is
really down the service drive, and how to accomplish that. He would certainly not mind putting a series of
bushes in an area that is off their site, pointing it out on the exhibit
Commissioner Henninger agreed that would be a good klea and thought he could work it out and dartfied
that location is part of the Koll center.
Chairwoman Baydstun asked that th.~ comer of Clementine and Lincdn be considered as well so ft doesn't
look so stark.
Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Maitzan and Mr. Thornton how long would it take to get back w(th cane
Planning Commission; and Mr. Thornton answered two weeks.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order
for the applicant to find a way to screen the loading dock area.
VOTE: 7-0
05-31-95
Page 31
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1995
C1
7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved
7b. .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3672 (READVERTISED) Approved
amendment to
OWNER: - CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER.. Attn: James f:-Dobrott, conditions of
General Partner, 3146 RedhUl Avenue, Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA approval
92626
(1'o expire 5-2-98)
AGENT: ESSEX REALTY MANAGEMENT, Attn: Phpfp Anthony, 3146
Redhill Ave., Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; KEVIN
PETRIMOULX C/0 FOXFIRE RESTAURANT, 5717 E. Bartle Ana
Canyon Road, Anaheim, Ca 92806
LOCATION: Property is approximately 8.06 acres located 2~. the northeast
comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
Petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of approval
pertaining to the limitation of time of a previouslyapproved public dance hall
in conjunction with an existing restaurant with on-premise sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95~60
---------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
George Adams ftrst thanked everyone for the time they gave him on an earlier matter.
Regarding the Foxfire, he stated he assumes the proposed one year time limit condition came from the
Police Department and he knows the City has a lot of cor ^ems/problems with the proliferation of the SOB
(sex-oriented businesses). They have spent a tremendous amount of money trying to make the Foxfire the
finest restaurant in the City of Anaheim and certainly their intent is to continue to do that. The cover charge
is used to offset the entertainment and he was not sure if there fs something that could help the Pdice
Department to be sere that they would never allow ft to become an SOB business, but that he will leave ft up
to the Commission.
OPPOSITION: None
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated it is her understanding that there have been no problems this past year.
Officer Jim Gandy, Anaheim Ponce Department, stated the calls for service for this particular location shows
that there has been rto significant change, and there have been 21 calls for service this year and last year
there was about 38. He stated there is no reason to have concerns regarding the operation of the business
at this time. Although h is their feeling and their pdicy in the past that when a business has intensified its
use such as this, going to a public dance hall, that when the one year ends, they ask for another year. The
~ _ .'
05-31-95
Page 32
MAY 31,1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
~}
uoli the Polri eeDepartment if the buinessrtuhms bad. He stated theaPdice Department recommends one
Po
ear, unless the Commission deckles otherwise.
Chaim~an Boydstun asked if two years would be acceptable since the calls are down.
Officer Gandy indicated he suggests one year but if the Commission deckles two years, that would be
acceptable to the Poll;:e Department. He explained their preference for the one-year time Ilmit is because in
their experience, businesses that cause problems do so in the first three years and he felt ft would be best to
have the applicant come back in one year.
Chairman Boydstun stated she felt Foxfire is a upper-class restaurant; and Officer Gandy agreed.
Commissic^.er stated he understands what Mr. Gandy is saying, that so far the track record is good but just
wants to be cautious. He would recommend a 1~ to 2 year extension.
Further discussion followed between the Commission indicating their opinions in regards to a 2 or 3 year
extension.
ACTION: D et requiredtenvi onmental diocumentat on forsubject equlestis adequate to serve as
Approved amendment to conditions of approval.
l_
Amended Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 94R-127 to read as follows:
"1. That subject petition is hereby granted for a period of three (3) years to expire
on May 2, 1998."
VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Messe and Peraza voted no)
05-31-95
Page 33
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
L_.~'
8a. ,~EQ" NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3767 Granted
OWNER: AnaheimC A 92807PIMPER AL CA ON PARTNERSHIP, A,
5557 Santa Ana Canyon, #201-A, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: ~°~~-5665 East Santa Ana Canvon Road (lmuerial
anvon ShcAUin rn r . Property is approximately
5.03 acres located at the northwest comer of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
To permit a subdNision of space within an existing shopping center to
allow fcr indivklual office suites.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC~-Si
~ '
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
Joseph Kung, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 201-A. He ind!cated he bought the shopping center sbc
months ago and is present because he found out there is an existing condition which needs a conaitional
use permit. The three suites were partitioned and operated by a real estate company several years ago.
The previous owner tried to rent each unit separately and that is what this application is about. He stated he
has read the proposed conditions on Page 5 and does agree to accept them.
Chairman Boydstun asked ff anyone would like to speak on the Issue; there was no response.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe stated parking was a problem years ago at this shopping center and asked what has
changed to allow this intensification of use.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, explained the applicant redesigned the parking lot and he
believed they have a substantial number of parking spaces.
Mr. Kung stated they restriped all the parking lot and added about 20 toblem'at this t meh They also hired a
building and at the Chinese Restaurant. They do not have a parking p
parking consultant to make a study which was submitted for the next item.
changed and that he was there on Sunday afternoon and therenwasanot parking problem Wit has
05-31-95
Page 34
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
~%
Mr. Yalda indicated the peak hour in that area is on Friday around noontime. He added the study did not
look at that area on Sunday, but because of our experience we know that Imperial and that area peaks on
Fridays. He stated they looked at the area and are satisfied with the parking study and feel the parMng is
sufficient He explained they have limited the number to 59, but considering there might be a vehide
occupancy o; approximately 1.5, there would be no objection ff they raise the number from 59 to 8A people
(referring to Item #9).
Greg Hastings stated the Commission might conskler adding a condition Ilmiting the suites to office use
only, since that is the way this has been brought before tho Planning Commission, rather than having retail
uses.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3767 with the following added condition:
That subject indivkJu21 suites shall be limited to office use only.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann presented the 22-day appeal rights.
''t
0531-95
Page 35
ANAHEt~d CITY PLANNING COhiMISSiON, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REtiUIREMENT
9c. CONDITIONAL ;;3E PERMIT N0.3766
OWNER: G & A PARTNERSHIP, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., #201-A,
Anaheim, CA 92807; IMPERIAL CANYON PARTNERSHIP,
5557 Santa Ana Canyon, #201-A, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 555.5665 East Santa Ana Canvon Road timperial
anyon Shoooina Centerl. Property is approximately
5.03 acres located at the northwest comer of Sarrta Ana
,',anyon Road and Imperial Highway.
To permft a private community center with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-62
Approved
Approved
Granted for 1 year
(To expire 5~1-96)
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor/a petftion was submitted wfth signatures in favor of subject proposal
OPPOSITION: None
Joseph Kung, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Sufte 201-A, referred to condftlons #3 and #4 of the staff
report, and stated Item #3 has a Iimftation of 59 people and he thought that was too restrictive, and his
proposal is to change it to 90 people during week days, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and up to 142
people during weekdays after 5:00 p.m. and during weekends Saturday, Sunday and hdkiays.
He referred to the parking study which showed that the parking lot could support 60 cars for the center.
The City staff used the factor of one person per car to arrive at 59 people maximum occupancy limit. He
has discussed with City staff that perhaps 1.5 people would be acceptable which would support about 90
people. He stated most of their tenants dose their businesses on the weekends and on the week days after
6:00 p.m. He stated he has reviewed the proposed center with the Building a3partment regarding
occupancy and the Building Inspector indicated 142 as the maximum occupancy, and he thought perhaps
the IimR of 142 could be used for evenings and weekends.
Mr. Kung indicated regarding the water easement that he actually found the problem and brought it to the
attention of the Water Department within the last few months, but dkin't realize it would became a condition
here. He stated he has no problem dedicating the easement, except for the cost. He pointed out he is
donating this facility for the public's use as a goodwill gesture to the community and he has received
tremendous support from the community.
He stated he is also working with the City to buy the street behind the shopping center (the Old Santa Ana
Canyon Road) and their proposal has been to the City since January. The water line easement mentioned
here is tied to the main water line to the Oid Santa Ana Canyon Road, so during the abandonment and
05-31-95
Page 36
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1945
purchase of the street, alt these things wUl have to be worked out. Hls proposal is to work it out at the same
time to save money for both the City and himself. He added he has no problem In getting K done, just to
the timing. He believed the street should be done within one year because he has accomplished everything
on his side and is waiting for the City to discuss the details.
Chairman Boydstun asked ff the City takes care of the cost for that dedication when the property owner is
making an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City?
Selma Mann answered an irrevocable offer is just exactly that, and that the owner makes the offer and that
has nothing to do wfth getting any sort of payment.
Chairman Boydstun asked ff the dedication would cost?
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, indicated there is a processing fee that has been approved by the
City Council, and it wAl indeed cost him to process the easement. She stated the cost is a minimum of
about $200.00 and to her knowledge, there Is not a provision for a waiver. She added perhaps there is
something the applicant can arrange with the Utility Department to cover the cost.
Commissioner Messe asked ff there is really a nexus between the dedication and this application or should it
come along with the completion of the street.
Melanie Adams indicated that the Commission will not see the abandonment application which goes straight
to the Ci!y Council. She pointed out this is a request from the Public Utilities Department, not a request
~~ from Public Works.
Commissioner Henninger indicated that according to the applicant this is a timing issue and suggested
perhaps the Commission can change the timing of the condition to within a year of the establishment of this
use.
Mr. Kung stated as of now the easement is not a problem, as long as nobody wants to build anything over
the water line.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff his suggestion that the applicant had to comply with the condition within a
year would be acceptable.
Mr. Kung indicated condition #6 already mentions one year.
Commissioner Henninger explained that condition requires compliance at the issuance of a building permit
or the establishment of the use.
Commissioner Messe added that condition (#6) also states'or within a period of one year from the date of
the resolution or whichever occurs flrsY, so K would be with a building permit.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he believes the applicant is asking for deletion of that ci+~dition. If something
was built on top of the water line, he would then have to come bac ~ adaus tment made o the wa er line
build that building. As a result, there wou'id have to be some type j
He felt deleting that condition is a reasonable request.
05,31-95
Page 37
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
~~
Delores Nelius, 375 N. Wayfleld, Orange, stated she is a staff member of the YMCA and is on two
committees presently in support of Mr. Kung's proposal. One is the Anaheim Hpls Task Force Committee
which is a YMCA Committee and the other is a group of citizens who are in support of the community
center. She Indicated they are very pleased with Mr. Kung's generosity, and he has given a lot of
cooperation and time. She added there is a need in the community for places for people to meet and she
sees the community center as a gathering place where people can communicate.
OPPOSITION: None
CHAIRMAN BOYDSTUN CLOSED THE PUBUC HEARING.
Commissioner Henninger indicated that he is a member of the Orange YMCA, and that his son utilizes some
of the programs and asked ff there is a conflict of interest; Selma Mann ascertained that ha is not a member
of the board and the YMCA is not a source of Income, and indicated it appears ft would not be a conflict
unless he felt he could not fairly evaluate the proposal. (Commissioner Henninger responded he dkl not feel
that way.)
Mr. Kung clarified his relationship with the YMCA, and explained he Is the owner of the shopping center and
is donating the place for use by the local community and the YMCA is helping to manage the place.
Dolores Neilus stated Sheila Harold, Chairman of the Canyon Hills Community Council, could not stay for
the meeting and asked that she submit the signatures of people who would like to have the community
center to the Planning Commission.
r Commissioner Bostwick asked about the day and night time uses, and how it fits with the traffic.
'..._
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated he does have some concems about 142 people
after 6:00 p.m. because the study indicates at 7:30 p.m. there would be 139 people, and adding 142 may
exceed the parking demand. He stated he would feel comfortable wfth having 142 on the weekend, but nit
on weekdays after 6:00 p.m. He suggested keeping it to 90 people during the week.
Commissioner Henninger stated he is comfortable with 59, but shares some of Commissioner Messe's
concems about the parking and felt maybe it should be tried for one year. He added from his personal
experience, parking at this center has been tight.
Commissioner Messe stated he (s comfortable with fi0. He though the number could probably be Increased
in the even(ngs.
Julie Mayer asked ff there will be some drop-off and pick-up activities for groups of children and that would
impact the circulation.
Commissioner Henninger stated the Chinese restaurant seems to have parking problems. He suited also he
knows where bingo has been allowed in other places, ft has the potential for being a real parking generator.
Alfred Ya!da stated he thought the applicant had applied for abandonment of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road
and ff that abandonment is approved, the parking could be substantially increased.
Commissioner Henninger stated ff this is approved for one year, with the limits as discussed, there would be
an opportunity in one year to review it.
051-95
Page 38
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
~) r Bostwick su Bested a 75 people maximum during the day and 125 after 6 p.m. and on
Commissione 9
weekends.
Commissioner Masse recommended 60 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and 100 after 6 p.m. and on weekands.
Commissioner Caldwell stated from what he has heard, the peak appears to be during normal business
hours, 8 a.m. to 6 pm, and he would like to have a one year time limft to see how that works. He stated
because of this gentleman's generosity to the community, he could support increasing the number to 125
after 6 p.m., with the one year time IimiG
Commissioner Bostwick stated after one year, maybe the road dedication will be done and there will be a lot
mare parking available.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated Janet Baylor from the Flre Department asked him to
give the Commission the information that she met with the applicant and she felt a maximum of 100 people
or less would resolve some of the Fire Department's concerns which are mainly parking problems at the
center.
Alfred Yalda suggested ff the applicant gets his abandonment through in less than a year and ff he revises
the parking, he would always have an option to come back and ask to Increase the number. The
abandonment might be accompihou d go to tthte City Council soon. ap~lcant has already submitted the
application (5 months ago).
Commissioner Masse stated bingo concerns were taken care of by the parking as to the number of people.
`-' of the bin o regulations will be sent to the
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, indicated a copy 9
applicant.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3766 with the following changes:
Modified Condition No. 3 to read:
3. from 8:00 a mmto 6:00 p.mrandito 90 persons latter 6:00 p.m. w ekdaysWweeaends
and holidays.
Deleted Condition No. 4.
Added the following condftion:
That subject use permit shall expire in one year from the date of this resdution, on May
31, 1996.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann presented the 22 day appeal rights.
0531-95
Page 39
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1995
ANAHEIM
erne NFGATNE DECLAROTION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
10a. EADVERTISED)
10b. GOND~ AL USE PERMIT N0_~~ (R
OWNER: HoldingsY11N755 WUshire B~ivdC Ste 2440, Los A~n9eles CA
90025
AGENT: DONALD SHERMAN, 126 S. Vineyard Ave., Ontario, CA
91761
Approved
Approved, as
readvertised wfth
changes to conditions
LOCATION: "4' S Harbor Blvd. Property is approximately 0.6 acre
located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard approximately
400 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue.
To permit the storage and rental of moving trucks in conjunction wfth a
previously-approved automobile rEmtal agency.
ras-e~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. P
I - ----
------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIGN ACTION.
CA. resented some
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Donald Sherman, 126 South Vineyard Ave., Ontario, p
photos to the Planning C H br efl nexplained ea h photorindicating tey sshow ~hehsurrounding a ea~ oHe
degradation to the area Y
agreed there are certain things that can be done, but disagreed that there is a degradation of the aesthet cs
of the neighborhood.R tier's fleet is ir8fyea s old so they are not talking aibout old trucksRand they are not
use are new trucks. y
diesels, they an anc tr and i~his opinion aee lessnnoisy than the d Ne-ineestaurants that are onhboth skies of
no noisier tha
OPPOSITION: None
his facility.
Mr. Sherman explained their hours are from 7 a.~n. to 9 p.m., but tradftionally, their business is from 10 a.m.
to 4 p.m.
Mr. Sherman explained the need for adding trucks, in addition to a car rental, '.s because R i rof ryHe stated
do asingle-purpose business and pay the taxes and rent, much less trying to bring in any p
he very much needsah ear anld obviously is a blighttoh a corm munityra~nd hated he willbfix fti up~He~n
vacant for well over y
questioned what the trucks do to the aesthetics and stated he feels they don't do anyth ng.
Steve Lyle, 440 S. EI Seallo, Palm Springs, CA. stated he was given the task of locating an adequate site in
Anaheim for th~OC% cap etntai to ~~ trucks Her was also told toekeep south of Katal a siHe met with City
approximately
staff and discussed the proper zoning. He was told by Planning staff that there was a special reso zone
05-31-95
Page 40
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
where they were not allowed and he clearly stayed out of that zone when he dkf his search, and that zone
ended at Orangewood. There was not very much property available where the zoning would allow this use.
He located this site that had obviously been on the market for a whUe, the weeds were growing up through
the asphalt, lt was formerly a Dollar Rent-A-Car facUity and lt looked as ff lt wou:d work perfectly.
Mr. Lyle stated he contacted the owner of the property and talked to the City staff and at that time, they dkl
feel the use would work. There were a couple of c;oncems the City felt could be worked out and the
two months
applicant then proceeded to open discussions wlth the City and the property owney Today, ~ the
later, he is before the Planning Commission and was surprised on Friday when the received a copy
staffs recommendation that the truck portion of the project be denied. The truck rental is very important to
his client and was told the project would not work without the trucks. The site is too expensive just to lease
cars.
Mr. Lyle indicated he had three main Issues regarding the staff report. The first issue that lead to a denial
was that the property was located close to the resort zone and what was mentioned as the gateway to the
resort zone. In his opinion, lt is a problem for him as a commercial broker when he is trying to fit into the
rules of the City and then all of a sudden the line changes because of a gateway and he does have a
nto deciding w ereHhat Rine should be atnd as shown on the map ltgwas clearly drawnn atiOrangew~ooodrt. went
The other two Issues were (1) visibility of the trucks ftom the apartments and (2) noise from the trucks to the
apartments. As far as visibility from the apartments, the trucks drawn on the slte plan virtually cannot be
seen because the building is about 30 feet tail and next to the building (s Baker's Square and on the other
side is Arby's. He indicated when looking at the site plan, the traffic going down Harbor cannot see the
~`~" trucks when parked In the truck storage area. As far as the noise and visibility from the apartments, he
discussed with the architect the possibility of adding some additional landscaping.
Mr. Lyle asked ff ttie Planning Commission has a copy of the latest plan showing the additional landscaping.
(The Planning Commissioners indicated they just receNed the copy.)
Mr. Lyle thought the new plan would also help with the noise although he doesn't see how the noise could
be a concern because he feels the Arby's driveway that goes to the back street in front of the apartments is
more of a noise generator than a rental car/truck storage lot.
Dan Burgner, 11755 Wilshire Bivd., Los Angeles, Century Investments who owns the property, indicated the
property was approved as asingle-purpose facility. The facility was originally built in the 70's and has been
operating as a car rental agency for a long time. The use is co Ian andas also consistent wlt~h the prelous
consistent wfth the general plan, zoning plan and the gateway p
uses.
OPPOSITION: None
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Boydstun asked Mr. Shem~an how many trucks would be on the lot; Mr. Sherman stated that lt
varies throughout the year and suggested maybe 20 trucks.
051-95
Page 41
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
MAY 31, 1035
U
Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Sherman ff he read the conditions on the staff report; Mr. Shemran
answered yes he has. Commissioner Messe then asked ff he had any problems with the conditions in
addition to certain stipulations that was already mentioned; Mr. Sherman indicated he has no problem with
Condftion Nos. 1, 5, 7 or 8, but has problems with some of the other recommendations and indicated item 2
is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Messe indicated t~ the applicant that he stipulated an S-foot shrub line on the rear property;
Mr. Sherman indicated that was correct.
Mr. Sherman also stated item 3 is not consistent with any of his neighbors. He feels the ingress from a
stand point of safety might be good to have. Commissioner Meese asked ff he wasn't going to use that to
put trucks out in the street; Mr. Sherman indicated routinely absolutely not.
Mr. Sherman stated there is no problem with Item 4. He gave his suggestions on Item 5 in putting a time
line and no earner than a certain tune and would hope to work out some hours. He suggested for Item 6
that 20 feet of trees wouldn't cover but he will try to add something that would fit in that is compatible and
acceptable. He has no prol~em wfth Item Nos. 9 or 10 and will certainly comply.
Julie Mayer asked ff the car washing pad is going to have a canopy; Mr. Sherman hasn't thought much of it
and asked ff it is a requirement to have a canopy. Further discussion followed between the Planning
Commissioners and Mr. Sherman in regards to the car wash area.
Commissioner Caldwell asked ff it was staffs attempt to eliminate the drhreway at the rear of the site, east
s,~ property line; Greg Hastings answered yes that it came from Zoning and the idea was that ff the use would
be permitted that they try to minimize the affect on the neighbors, inducting parking trucks on the street nor
parking cars and also the access with people riving the trucks in and out. Further discussion followed
between the Planning Commission giving their opinions in regards to the driveway.
Commissioner Caldwell gave his opinion in regani to a having a P.A. system that dose to a residential area
and feels ft would be Inappropriate. He feels the project can be a proper use provided a wall be built across
the back, put the curb and gutter in and enhance the landscaping across the back and it appears the
applicant intends to enhance the landscaping on Harbor Blvd., with the conditions available he would be in
favor.
Commissioner Meese asked ff he is saying to dose the driveway on Acama Street; Commissioner Caldwell
stated he wouldn't encourage any more traffic from the back of the lot, K should come off of Harbor.
Commissioner Henninger stated he approves of the Landscape screening being the 8' foot high shrubs and
would like to see the shrub on the other skfe and feels once the shrub is in, a chain link fence behind it
would be appropriate.
The Planning Commission and the applicant darffied what is to be proposed In regards to the fence, gate
and planter.
Greg Hastings asked ff there was a time limit for the applicant to comply with the conditions; Mr. Sherman
stated ff they could give him 3.6 months so he could do the requirements made by the Planning
Commission and also be able to take the necessary actions In preparing the building for operation.
051-95
Page 42
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995
(~~
Commissioner Messe asked if he was going to operate; Mr. Sherman staled partial operation, but not to rent
cars just to get things going. He has computers to install, refurbish the building, etc., and would like to do
that concurrently along with the conditions made today.
Greg Hastings stated everything that has been asked can be' done prior to their actual renting of the trucks
and cars.
Chaimnan Boydstun stated you can comply with the conditions while you are getting the building ready
which will be before you put the "open" sign up.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1839, as readvertised, with the following changes:
Modffied Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to read as fellows:
1. That there shall be no on-site maintenance of cars or trucks permitted.
2. That there shall be a 3-foot planter across the rear property line except for the area of
the driveway. Said planter shall be fully irrigated and planted with an 8-foot high shrub
that will grow together in two years. There shall be a 6-foot high block wall behind
saki planter.
~:. 7. That no more than 15 trucks with a maximum size of 22 feet shall be stored on the
premises at any given time. Said storage shall take place in the areas indicated on
the site plan.
Deleted Condition Nos. 3 and 6.
Added the following conditions:
That the chain Zink fence and gate located around the storage area shall be slatted.
That the rear gate shall be kept locked and used only for emergency purposes.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann presented the 22 day appeal rights.
ADJOURNMENT:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO THE JUNE 12, 1995 AM WORK SESSION AT 11:00 A.M.
Res ctfully submitted,
E~ L. Harrls
Planning Commission Support Supervisor
05-31-95
Page 43
GYi ~ "t ~ F - fl,fJ l~E'~ y ~~' ! !S . !i~",. t! JN~
7~`l + c
s
y1
~~ ~~ i^
i
` 1
V