Minutes-PC 1997/11/10SUMMARY ACTION AGE DA
A AHEIM CITY
PLAN ING COMMISSION MEETI G
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1997
10:00 A.M. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION
C.D.B.G. UPDATE
1 1:00 A.M. STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS
CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES
® PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: MAYER
STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann
Greg Hastings
Cheryl Flores
Kevin Bass
Karen Freeman
Bruce Freeman
Andy Agle
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
Assistant City Attprney
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Community Development Project Manager
Principal Transportation Planner
Associate Engineer
Senior Secretary
Secretary
P:\DDCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES\AC 7 1 1097. W P
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
NONE
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAN INCLUDING THE BOUNDARIES OF Approved
Preliminary Plan
THE PROPOSED WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AMENDMENT AREA: City of Anaheim, (Vote: 6-0,
(Community Development Department), 201 South Anaheim Commissioner
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92803, requests for review and Mayer absent)
approval of a preliminary plan including the boundaries of the
proposed West Anaheim Redevelopment Project Amendment
Area.
RESOLUTION NO. PC97-157
Andy Agle, Project Manager, Community Development Department: Stated the proposed
Redevelopment Amendment Areas are over 700 acres. Without the assistance of the
community groups in the area, they would not have been able to make the progress that has
been made to this point.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated that the findings of blight for this area are quite impressive.
Approximately 2.3% of the city's acreage is contained within this proposed Redevelopment
Study Area and yet 15% of the crimes that occur in the city take place in this part. 17.7% of
the commercial units in this area are vacant 30% of the city code violations occur within this.
So for a very small portion of the city it has a great number of problems. Therefore, a great
candidate for addition to the Redevelopment Area
11-10-97
Page 2
(Revised: 12-10-97)
B. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY..-APPROVED
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3841 -REQUEST FOR
A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Tarek Berri,
16102 Jennet St., Westminster, CA 92683, requests a
retroactive extension of time for apreviously-approved
gasoline service station and convenience market with sales
of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with
waivers of (a) minimum .number of parking spaces, (b)
minimum landscaping adjacent to interior property lines
and (c) maximum number of signs. This petition was
originally approved on August 20, 1996. Property is
located at 2180 West Ball Road.
Continued from Commission meeting of October 27, 1997.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
determine that the previously approved negative declaration is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
subject request.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion., seconded by Commissioner
Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve aone-
year retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use .Permit No. 3841
(to expire on August 21, 1998) based on consistency with the original
approval, the General Plan land use designation, current development
standards, and that there are no outstanding Code violations.
Approved
Approved
(To expire 8/21/98)
SR6836MA.WP
Applicant's Statement:
Tarek Berri, 2180 W. Ball Rd., Anaheim, CA: Stated everything is almost completed except for an item
the architect missed related to a Fire Department request. The revised plans should be resubmitted
possibly this week.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated in the morning session the concern was that all of the original building
would be demolished. Asked if that will be happening soon?
Terek Berri: Responded yes. They are set to receive an asbestos report in order to proceed with a
demolition. He should have the .report this week so he can apply for the permit for demolition. He
thought possibly in the next two weeks.
11-10-97
Page 3
(Revised: 12-10-97)
C. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Approved
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3931 -REQUEST Approved sign plans
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SIGN PLANS:
John Vucich, Mike's Automotive, 2411 E. Winston Rd.,
Anaheim, CA 92806, requests for review and approval of
final sign plans for apreviously-approved automotive .and
marine repair facility within an existing 9,908 square foot
industrial building with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces. Property is located at 2411 East Winston
Road (Mike's Automotive).
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
determine that the previously approved negative declaration is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the sign
plans as proposed.
SR1008JK.DOC
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this is a request to retain signs on the east, west and south
elevations. The sign on the south elevation was actually approved as part of the original approval.
The petitioner has installed one 5 square foot sign on the west elevation. Also three signs on the east
elevation, for a total of 48 square feet of signage that they are requesting approval.
11-10-97
Page 4
(Revised: 12-10-97)
D. a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION- CLASS 71 Concurred with staff
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3484 -REQUEST Clarified that the
FOR CLARIFICATION OF A CONDITION OF signage was
APPROVAL: Fernando Baluyot -Sign Development, Inc. approved as follows:
1366 West Ninth Street, Upland, CA 91786-5721, ' 20% of canopy
requests clarification of a condition of approval pertaining elevation for east
to permitted canopy signage for an existing service elevation and
station. Property is located at 1431 North Raymond ! 10% of the canopy
Avenue (Ultramar). ' elevation was
approved for the
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by north and south
Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners elevation (in
Bostwick and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning compliance with
Commission does hereby concur with .staff that the proposed project Code requirements)
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as
defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Bostwick and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby clarify that a greater percentage of signage
(20% of canopy elevation) was .approved for the east elevation
because it is visible from the freeway off-ramp, and that signage in
compliance with Code requirements (10% of the canopy elevation)
was approved for the north and south elevation.
SR1009JK.DOC
[CHAIRMAN BOSTWICK RELINQUISHED THE CHAIR TO COMMISSIONER BRISTOL SINCE HE
WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.]
Fernando Baluyot, 7598 Plumeria Drive, Fontana, CA: Stated he was present to request clarification
of the conditions of approval, page 2, Item No. 15-A & 8 (Resolution No. PC97-140). When they were
before Commission on September 29, 1997 the Commission approved 20% canopy bands gn the east
elevations and only 10% on the south and north elevations. But what they actually asked for were the
same size canopies for all three elevations. - _.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated in the morning session Commission reviewed the taped from the
meeting (of September 29, 1997) of which Commissioner Boydstun will speak regarding the motion.
11-10-97
Page 5
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she was the one that made the motion on this at the time it was
approved. Commission listened to the tape this morning to ensure their recollection was correct. Her
motion was for approval for of 20% of the canopy .band of the east canopy elevation and there was
nothing made in the motion about the other two. At the time of the hearing the petitioner was
concerned about the east because of the freeway off ramp. That is why she made that motion that on
the east they would be able to put 20% instead of the standard 10%.
Fernando Baluyot: Stated they did not need 20% of the on the east elevation. What they, in fact,
requested was 20% on the north and south elevation.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated the tapes indicated that Commission went along with staff regarding the
10% on the north and south elevations. Commissioner Boydstun's motion stated not to exceed 20% on
the east. So she gave the applicant a lot of latitude on that signage. That the east elevation is not is
not to exceed 20% and the north and south, per staffs recommendation, was 10%.
Deland Holbrook, 5750 Via Del Coyote, Yorba Linda, CA: Stated at that time he was addressing the
Commission and he was discussing the fact that both the south and the east facia were exposed to the
off ramp and to the freeway. The east was never an issue. They left with a definite understanding
that the north and south exposures were going to be 20% because, in fact, by increasing them to 20%
that did not increase the overall signage very much. It would match up with the 4% that they are
proposing on the east exposure.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if it would be helpful for them to listen to the tape to hear how
Commission voted?
Deland Holbrook: Responded prior to the vote, the discussion had been that there was reason to feel
that there was justification for increasing the percentages on the north and south. He thought he
heard that in the recommendation. Several people have listened to the tape and have said that is not
what is there now. He does not dispute that. It is his understanding during the discussion that they
had discussed the north and south exposure.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated he knows that it was discussed but in the morning session everyone felt
that the east was most important to them. It seems to come off that way because of the east elevation
coming toward the freeway, coming westbound on the freeway.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if they would like Commission to clarify what they meant with the
voting? _
Selma Mann: Stated what is before Commission is to clarify the action taken. If Commission wishes
to reconsider thereby modifying a condition that would need to be done through a notice of public
hearing. If the applicant wishes to pursue that it could come back to the Commission at another time.
The only thing before Commission today is clarification of what was intended at that time.
Commissioner Bristol: Apologized for the confusion but the clarification is the fact that they did allow
the east elevation to go up to 20% and stayed with staffs recommendation for both the north and
south which per Code is 10%.
11-10-97
Page 6
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Commissioner Henninger: His understanding is this is not what they asked for but unfortunately that is
what they did.
Deland Holbrook: Stated so they need to take it back and reconsider whether they want to come back
or not.
Commissioner Henninger: Responded that was right.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if they are making these size changes on their other stations?
Deland Holbrook: Stated this particular station is a private dealership under Ultramar. Ultramar has
corporate stores around the Valley. This is the only one they have with Ultramar name on it.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if they typically have more than 10%?
Deland Holbrook: He thought so. He needs to verify that with Mr. Baluyot.
Fernando Baluyot: Stated they base their canopies on the size of the facia. Not all canopies are the
same length and size. It is normally done at 20%.
11-10-97
Page 7
(Revised: 12-10-97)
E. REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE Continued to
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR USE OF DONATED SPACE: 11-24-97
Thurman Hodges, Senior Real Property Agent, County of
Orange, .Health Care Agency, 515 North Sycamore Street,
Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests determination of conformance
with the Anaheim General Plan for County use of donated
space for a public health care clinic for the aged. Property is
located at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue (Rancho La Paz
Mobile Home Park).
SR6840KF.DOC
F. a. CEQA MITIGATED NEG. DEC. fPREV.-APPROVED) Continued to
b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14130 -REQUEST FOR 11-24-97
EXTENSION OF TIME
c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3301 -REQUEST
FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Maryam
Momeny, 22351 Amber Rose, Mission Viejo, CA 92692,
request: (Tentative Tract Map No. 14130) aone-year
extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (to
establish an 18-lot single-family subdivision) and
(Conditional Use Permit No. 3301) aone-year
retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval (to construct 2 dwelling units within the Flood
Plain O/L Zone to establish a 19-lot/18-unit RS-5000
single family residential subdivision with waivers of
required lot frontage and minimum distance between
units). These petitions were originally approved on
August 21, 1990. Property is located at the northwest
terminus of Garland Circle.
Continued from Commission meeting of October 27, 1997.
S R6839MA. W P
11-10-97
.Page 8
(Revised: 12-10-97)
G.
REQUIREMENTS FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS: Staff-
initiated (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd„
Anaheim, CA 92805, request to amend Chapter 18.05
(Outdoor Advertising) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code pertaining to marquee and electronic
readerboard signage and minimum sight distance requirements
for freestanding signs.
ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemption, Section 15061, as defined in the State EIR and
is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an
EIR.
Concurred with staff
Recommended
amendment to
City Council
Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner .Mayer absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission dyes hereby recommend to
the City Council an amendment to Sections 18.05.046, 18.05.093 and
18.05.094 of Chapter 18:05 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
marquee and electronic readerboard sign provisions and minimum site
distance requirements for freestanding signs.
SR6837JB:DOC
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this request is to add community service organizations to the list
of uses available to have marquee or readerboard electronic signage and also a request to change the
distance from the line of site triangle for freestanding signs from 40 feet to 25 feet as mentioned on
Paragraph No. 5 of the staff report.
11-10-97
Page 9
(Revised: 12-10-97)
CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 75061 (b)(3)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Shakour Cyrus/Lawrence Cyrus,
Yahya Cyrus, 2600 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801
LOCATION: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco
Property is 0.29 acre located at the southwest corner
of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue.
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to a time
limitation to retain an automobile sales/repair business.
Continued from the Commission meetings of August 4, and
September 15, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-158
Approved
Approved
amendment to
conditions of
approval
(To expire 6-10-98)
SR6835MA. W P
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Shakour Cyrus, 2600 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated the last time he was before
Commission there was discussion regarding concerns that the conditions of approval were not being
complied with. He now has complied with all the concerns.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated he meet with Mr. Cyrus at the property and
there had been a number of items that had not been complied with. These items were discussed and
he indicated those items would be completed. Per his inspection, as of this morning those items have
been completed. The trash enclosure has been constructed. It is not completely signed off at this
point but he does have a permit for it. The sign pole was removed. The fencing was removed-and
there is no outdoor storage. He stressed to the applicant that the area which they did authorize a
wrought iron fence across the back portion of the property for the security of the vehicles that are on-
site was approved to allow parked vehicles. That does not allow for storage of any other type, no
parts. Vehicles should only be on the property for a maximum of 10 days and the entire parking area
should not be included for inoperable vehicles and that is what his understanding was with the
applicant.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
11-10-97
Page 10
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated the applicant has submitted landscaping plans in compliance
with Condition No. 7 which will be before Commission in a couple weeks as a Reports and
Recommendation Item for Commission's review and approval.
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved request. Amended Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC96-55 adopted in
conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 to read as follows:
"2 That this permit shall expire one year from the date of this resolution on
June 10, 1998."
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:Op-2:07)
11-10-97
Page 11
(Revised: 12-10-97)
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 11-24-97
OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim,
CA 92804
AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 105 South State College Boulevard - Insta-Tune
and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the
southwest corner of State College Boulevard and
Center Street.
To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,006 square
foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair
facility.
Continued from the Commission meetings of September 29, and
October 27, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR6835KP. W P
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting as
requested by the applicant in a letter dated November 3, 1997.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
11-10-97
Page 12
(Revised: 12-10-97)
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 351 ' Recommended adoption
4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-06 to City Council, Exhibit A
4d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Granted
4e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3974 Approved
4f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW ITEMS 4a 4c 4d Granted
AND 4e Approved
OWNER: Choco Realty Corp., P.O. 13ox 5700, Orange, CA
92863
AGENT: Craig Clausen, 2795 W. Lincoln Ave., #F, Anaheim,
CA 92801
LOCATION: 7777 East Santa Ana Cannon Road. Property is
3.06 acres located at the terminus of Camino
Tampico, 390 feet northeast of the centerline of
Eucalyptus Drive.
General Plan Amendment No. 351: To amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, to redesignate this subject property
from the Commercial Professional land use designation to the
General Commercial land use designation.
Reclassification Np. 97-98-06: To reclassify this property from
the existing CO (SC) (Commercial Office and Professional
(Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to the CL (SC) {Commercial,
Limited (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 3974: To permit a self-storage
facility with waivers of permitted freestanding sign, minimum
number of parking spaces, maximum structural height and
minimum structural setback requirements adjacent to a freeway
and a scenic expressway.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 27, 1997.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-159
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-160
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-161
S R6798KB. W P
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: Correspondence was received in favor of subject proposal.
OPPOSITION: None/1 person spoke with concerns
11-10-97
Page 13
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Applicant's Statement:
Jeff Farano, 2300 E. Katella, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is present on behalf of the applicant. Their
presentation will consist of three parts. First will be the applicants, Craig and Suzie Clausen. They will
be discussing the project and also other projects they have done. They are long time business and
property owners in Anaheim. Next will be Ariel Valli, the architect of the property who has
considerable experience designing these type projects. He (Mr. Farano) will conclude the presentation
with a discussion as to the General Plan Amendment and rezoning that they have asked for today.
Craig Clausen, 2795 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA: Explained the self storage business. It is a very
simple business, there is nothing pernicious about it. It is the extra garage that we all need, it is that
extra closet; it is simply extra space. They operate very professionally. They do not have any care
taker units, no mom and pop managers, nor absentee ownership. He and his wife live less than 5
miles from the property. They will be available every day of the year. This is a business that they
intend to continue operating for a very long time. They completed a facility a year ago on west Lincoln
Avenue. It is a quality property to be proud of.
Suzie Clausen, 2795 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA: Stated her objective is to explain the security
controls that they have in monitoring of who comes on the property, where they are and how long they
stay. She and her husband have traveled extensively, investigating storage security systems by
attending trade shows, conventions, seminars and have visited many other facilities. By far the
security system that they currently have at their West Anaheim location and the system they are going
to place in their new location is, without a doubt, the most sophisticated and reputable security system
available in the self storage industry today. This system provides the office a visual as well as a
audible status of each tenant that enters and exists the property. It also gives them the activity on
their individual unit door. Each tenant has their own personal .access code which allows their individual
unit door alarm to be deactivated or reactivated. Therefore, they at all times know the activity that is
going on the property. In addition the staff, including herself and :her husband, enforce a routine
property walk through which consists of walking and observing every foot of the property, noting
anything that needs attention. Every door is checked to see it is closed and locked properly. This
procedure is done a minimum of four times a day. The old concept of live in management has proven
to be Ineffective and with today's sophisticated of the security systems. The trend is towards
professionalism and customer service. They know that to effective run a business you need
employees with a fresh, friendly and professional manner.
Craig Clausen: He read a letter in support from his neighbor, Bruce Peterson from the Bel Air
Apartments, which is 40 feet west of their Lincdln Avenue location addressed to Commission dated
November 7, 1997. The approval of this project will reward the City of Anaheim with a quality project
that everyone can be proud of. - -
Ariel Valli, Owen Group, 19700 Fairchild, Irvine, CA: Stated his experience as an architect includes
the design of several hundred storage facilities (approximately 150 which have been built). When Mr,
Clausen came to him for this project. He was impressed with the quality of the site and .it's location in
terms of what it takes to make a project successful (i.e. freeway proximity, good access from major off-
ramps and being close to the people who will be using the facility). This is a well suited location for a
storage project in terms of its shape and the configurations that allows truck circulation, access from a
major street, etc. to make a project successful. Anytime a project is designed near a .residence you
have to take care to be a good neighbor to make sure that the design blends into the community, that
it is nicely landscaped, and that the colors are harmonious to the surrounding community. He feels
they have done that with this project. It has a tremendous amount of landscaping toward Santa Ana
Canyon Road. There is approximately 18,000 square feet of very nice landscaping. The project itself
11-10-97
Page 14
(Revised: 12-10-97)
will provide to the residences some measurable amount of reduction of freeway noise by placing the
larger mass of the project against the freeway and :leaving them far away from Santa Ana Canyon
Road. They believe they will be able to achieve some sound attenuation for surrounding properties.
Mr. Clausen contacted surrounding neighbors in meetings to notify them of the project to make sure
their needs were being addressed and that the project was being adequately designed. They
addressed the neighbors' concerns as to how the project will look. They ever agreed to dress-up their
cul-de-sac presentation. They have also taken the opportunity to improve the security for them by
adding an additional height to the fences that surround the cul-de-sac. Overall, the design blends into
the community. They do have some land use issues which Mr. Farano will be addressing. There were
some areas in the staff report where they could not reach agreement with the Planning staff. After Mr.
.Farano is done they will address those issues.
Jeff Farano: Stated the owners have gone to great lengths to landscape it and blend it in with the
residential community. This is a very low volume business. The traffic generated by this business is
substantially less than the previously approved commercial office building. A concern of the neighbors
was how would they know the type of activity that will go on in there. The security system to be in
place can control the activity. They are ahands-on type management. The commercial office building
originally approved in 1987 was a much more intensive use than the present proposal. The current
proposal would be a more appropriate use for this property, low traffic, low intensity, not very
noticeable while driving through Santa Ana Canyon Road. Assuming this current use is appropriate,
how do they deal with the zoning issue.
The Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition pointed out the problem in a letter it submitted which stated it is a
good use but how do we deal with the zoning issue? If it gets rezoned to Commercial Limited, what
about the other uses? He stated a letter from Debora Autry also addresses that same issue. They
received a letter from Tony Robertson, a neighbor immediately adjacent to this property, last night and
so he read the letter before submitting to Commission which stated: "My first choice would be to have
a continuation of the residential zone and have housing on the other side of my property. Failing that,
I believe that your proposal of a storage facility would be the least bothersome and invasive
commercial use of the land. This statement is based on your promise that no other use would be
made of the land even if the property is rezoned. I am leaving the setbacks and other matters for
others that are more knowledgeable than myself to negotiate with you, but I would insist on a
requirement that some way be found to defensively prevent any other use of this parcel " The property
is zoned Commercial, Office and unfortunately the self storage unit is only conditioned in the
Commercial, Limited Zone. He thought one of the reasons for that is the evolution, where self storage
came from. At one point it used to be that ypu would only want to see it in an industrial area simply
because of the way it was made. Now they have evolved to the point where they are more
sophisticated and blend with the area.
11-10-97
Page 15
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Unfortunately the ordinances were drafted then and are not now and do we redraft the ordinances to
include it's use? It was not certain they are at the point that they would like to redraft the ordinances
to include the self storage units. This is a difficult planning issue and we have a use which is not
zoned for it but if it was properly zoned, the use itself would fit. Therefore, their proposed resolution is
a "conditional" rezoning with other :restrictions that would go along with that. Conditional rezoning has
been done in many cities and it use to be done in Anaheim many years ago. The proposed
conditional rezoning concept they are proposing is that this project be rezoned Commercial,'iimited
with a condition that it be developed with this project and that this project would be the only used
allowed. The other uses that are Commercial Limited include commercial retail stores which is up to
Commission whether they would like to see that there. If they do not then this is the possibility.
Another addition to their suggestion would be a restrictive covenant to be recorded on this property.
Mr. Clausen is in the process of purchasing this :property from CHOC and they would agree to record a
restrictive covenant on this property. If rezoned to this use, it would be limited to building only this
project under this zone and that they would name the City of Anaheim as the main beneficiary on their
restrictive convenent. He believed this would fully protect this property to ensure this would be the use
that would be built.
Jeff Farano: Stated the following concerns in the staff report:
• .Page 11, Paragraph No. 37-D, 1 and 2 -- Referring to traffic generated by this project. He
does not believe there are going to be any tractor trailer rigs going in and out of this project. It
is fairly low use, primarily residential and light pickup trucks. So this should not be a concern.
• Page 12,E -They are in agreement. The traffic study addressed that the parking is
sufficient for this project.
• Page 12, E-3 -- Sign issue. They are allowed one sign and that sign is facing the 91 freeway
and they have asked for a second sign on Santa Ana Canyon. Currently it is approved as a
monument sign. They are willing to make some changes to that since they just need to let the
public know that they are at the site.
• Page 12, E-4 -- Staff is recommending that waiver C be denied and that is the setback
adjacent to the single family residences. They feel that due to the size and shape of the
property this waiver would be justified.
• Page 13, Condition No. 3 -- Requiring utility poles be moved and relocated. They found that
these utility poles are in the landscaped .area in the front of the project, and there is no reason
for relocating these poles or to go through the expenses to underground the power lines.
• Page 15, Condition No. 17 -- Requiring a 5 to 10 foot wide planter across the northern property
line abutting the Riverside freeway. That creates several problems. It severely limits what is
going to happen on one end of the property and it limits the useable portion of the property.
Requiring the landscaped setback on the 91 freeway will be quite difficult to get to and they do
not believe there are any other properties along that freeway that have any type of landscape
setback.
Page 15, Condition No. 25 -Requires complete roof structure on all of the buildings, complete
with mission style tiles. A majority of the buildings in this property, no one can see. The office
does .have mission style roofing but the rest of the property is behind a landscaped wall. The
only building that is visitile is the front building along Santa Ana Canyon Road. There could be
some architectural design made to that building to create a roof in order for it tc appear more
of a residential nature and less commercial. Beyond that would be very expensive and there is
no need to do that for interior buildings that can not be seen.
11-10-97
Page 16
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Jennifer Westrom: Stated she and her husband own the property which backs up to the proposed
storage facility. They are Just on the other side of Tony Robertson at the end of the cul-de-sac. They
purchased a cul-de-sac home because it is quiet and peaceful and their home has a rural feel to it.
The property next to their home has an existing zone designation of Commercial Professional which is
intended for business and professional offices which would have the major of traffic Monday through
Fridays 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Changing the designation to Commercial Limited means that the
storage retail stores or restaurants could be on this land and will be open 7 days a week with longer
hours. Changing the designation will also mean more traffic next to a residential neighborhood. They
feel that the 12 foot setback from their backyard is not adequate. With the storage the building being
so close they are going to hear noise from moving vans, trucks and possibly metal roll up doors when
people enter their storage units. The Code currently states that they must be a 2 foot setback for
every 1 foot of the building height, Building C & D are 12 feet, so they should have a minimum of a 24
foot setback from their backyard. Another concern is the boundary. There is a 6 foot block wall that
runs through along their property through the end of the cul-de-sac and along Mr. Robertson's
property. They keep many expensive items in their backyard and she is concerned that a 6 foot wall
will allow people to see in and possibly jump the wall. So they feel the safety and privacy of their
property will be invaded. They have seen the various versions for the wall such as adding a 2 foot
wrought iron piece to the top of the fence but this would still allow people to see into their backyard.
They would like to see a 10 foot :block wall going along the back of their property, through the cul-de-
sac and by Mr. Robertson's yard. Currently at the end of the cul-de-sac there is a wrought iron gate
that allows access into that property next door so they request that be filled in with block wall as well.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if the wrought iron gate is by her house?
Jennifer Westrom: Responded yes.
Commissioner !Bristol: Stated then she would be on the south side.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Craig Clausen: Stated Mrs. Weskrom's concerns .are valid and they have no problem with providing
the cul-de-sac with any kind of improvement to that wall that they request. A 10 foot wall is fine with
him. Certainly it needs to meet with the approval of staff and the Building Division. He made
numerous efforts to include these people and their schedule is very busy. Mr. Robertson has his
desires. They spoke at great lengths about vermin control because the homes are adjacent to the
vacant field. He guaranteed him that he would do what he could to try to alleviate this problem.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated about the east side of the property, a setback has been proposed and that
is going to be landscaped between building and the wall. Mrs. Westrom is concerned with people
looking through the fence. Asked if there is actually any way of access?
Craig Clausen: Responded he is going to provide a 10 foot landscape with very mature trees. He
prefers to provide 36 and 40 inch boxed trees. He will secure the portion between Buildings C & D.
Mrs. Westrom's comment regarding the 10 foot setback vs. a 24 would be valid if these were high use
commercial buildings that faced the cul-de-sac. They are, however, one story, low use, commercial
buildings that face away from the cul-de-sac. He personally feels it will not be a problem.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what is the Code requirement regarding the height of the fence?
11-10-97
Page 17
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Responded currently Code requires a 6 foot high wall between
commercial and residential zone boundaries. To go for a higher wall currently would require an
Administrative Adjustment which could be added as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Boydstun: She could see an 8 foot but not a 10 foot high wall since that is too high.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it is not generally possible to add to 2 feet to a 6 foot wall. A 6 foot
wall has a foundation to hold that size of wall.
Craig Clausen: Stated it is more realistic to remove the 6 foot wall and replace it. He had 3 elevation
drawings. One version is the existing wall with decorative elements. They have proposed providing
light at night. They have offered to provide bands in different colors. He thought the mature
landscaping would be most responsive to the concerns of the neighbors..
Jeff Farano: For the entire project it is being projected 75 trips a day into this unit with a peak of 13
per hour for the entire project. So if you take the end of the unit where these homes are located you
would actually see not that much traffic. The back of the building faces Mrs. Westrom's property, so
the doors are going to be facing away. The security problem that was addressed is going to be a
problem whether it is an office building or this type of business. He feels there is going to be more
control with this project than with an office building.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated when he read the staff report he felt that this use had a possibility of
being a good use at this site but he is troubled by some of the requested changes of the conditions of
approval for the conditional use permit. Generally they ask for undergrounding of utilities. In the
Canyon area Commission asks for full roof structures in the area and those that do not have full roof
structures have been a problem in the Canyon. He disagreed with the statement made regarding the
setback for landscaping. He feels all the commercial areas in the Canyon have setbacks against the
freeway for landscaping. He is not certain it needs to be as wide as staff is .proposing or the Code
dictates but they certainly need some sort of planting there to screen that from the freeway and not
have a wall for graffiti. Asked staff their thoughts on regarding undergrounding and all three issues in
general.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager; Stated Code does require undergrounding of utilities, however, this
condition goes a step further regarding existing overhead lines being underground in and outside of the
property. They would probably need to talk with Electrical Engineering about that.
Commission Henninger: Asked for a clarification. Are there some lines that cross the property and the
condition is over and above the normal undergrounding.
Greg :Hastings: Responded apparently that is the case. The condition states that the owner would be
responsible for the cost of moving any utility poles that would be relocated due to the driveways, curbs,
etc. If more than 600 feet of over head 12 Kv circuit along Santa Ana Canyon Road needs to be
relocated, due to the power pole relocation, then underground for the entire street frontage shall be
required. This condition fits this location. Condition No. 2 is standard requiring that the property be
served by underground utilities, any new utility put in the property.
Melanie Adams: Stated there is almost 800 feet of frontage at this property.
Craig Clausen: Stated there are two electrical issues. One is to service the property with
underground. Yes, they intend to service the property from the property line back with underground.
The other issue is with 800 feet of frontage. There are about 6 poles along the front of the property
11-10-97
Page 18
(Revised:: 12-10-97)
that at some point in time may need to be underground if this project were to require removal of any of
those poles for driveways, curbs, etc. then they would be responsible. But that does not happen to be
the case, the driveways are not in the way.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked why did his counsel bring up this condition if that is not a concern?
Craig Clausen: Responded that is a cross coordination between himself and his counsel. He is not
worried about this condition.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked Melanie Adams if she was in agreement that the location of the poles and
driveways would not require any undergrounding?
Melanie Adams: Stated she is not certain where the poles are located, that would be directly handled
by the Electrical Engineering Division. However, street widening would be required as part of this
project. It is a Code requirement. She is not certain where the poles actually sit in relation to the new
curbs and sidewalks.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff how they felt about the roof structure issue?
Greg Hastings: Responded in the Canyon area they are very concerned the way the roofs look there
because there are many properties that look down onto the properties that .are lower, further in the
distance. One of the letters received this morning discusses that issue. There is an area southeast of
this which is on the General Plan for more residential development. They are not certain how those
homes are going to be faced. They may end up looking out at that direction and so staff if concerned
about that.
The question did come up about the setback adjacent to the freeway. The residential, to the west,
which extends all the down to Solomon prive, the fence along that residential property line does not
always sit at the property line. There is additional property outside of that on the other side of their
berm which extends to the Cal Trans right-of-way. Staff would be concerned if the block wall is up
against the right-of-way, they would like to have enough room there to go through and maintain that
area, also enough .room for trees to be planted. They were thinking about 5 to 10 feet, meaning that
perhaps the building could alternate a little to provide some tree area.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he thought more along the lines of 3 to 4 foot square pockets.
Greg Hastings: .Responded that might work. They are just concerned that whatever trees are planted
are not left to die later.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked for a clarification on the roof structure. - -
Greg Hastings: Except from the freeway, you would not be seeing sloped roofs from Santa Ana-
Canyon Road, but they are concerned about the properties to the south on the other side of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, looking down on this project and seeing flat roofs in the rear.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked whether it would be possible to approve this use permit subject to
the zoning being finalized before occupancy and require finalized zoning before a building permit is
pulled for this conditional use permit?
Greg Hastings: In practice, it is generally required that the zoning be correct when the building permit
is issued.
11-10-97
Page 19
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Commissioner Henninger: Asked for any other suggestions in resolving this issue.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated the zoning is not finalized. Code provides that the City
Council is not required to finalize it. What results is that a property owner expends moneys in
constructing a project and the City Council could decline the approval of the final zoning. Perhaps
through the covenant .process. It is not something that they recommend and that is something
Commission has found problems with in the past. Even though someone that acquired the property
would be required to look through title, the :people at the Zoning counter do not check through title at
the time the building permits are approved. However, if it is Commission's desire to let this project go
through but in effect having it be it's very own zoning where the only thing that would be permitted
would be this, then they could probably draft a stern covenant to be recorded against the property that
would limit it specifically to this use that would place obligations and give notice to the property owner
that they would need to request or that the Planning Commission request a rezoning of the property
prior to any issuance of any building permits in the event this project does not go forward.. Again there
are no guarantees.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated if this were approval, they could see if the building permit was pulled
in six months and if it was not then they could simply rezone the property.
Selma Mann: Stated yes, that could be a condition.
Craig Clausen: Stated for the record, he is not trying to trick anyone and assured Commission of his
sincere intentions.
There was discussion regarding the utility easement.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated they to do not question his intentions at all. Commission was
looking at the possibility if for some reason he was unable to build this facility, they would not have
someone else come in and build a convenience store.
There was some discussion about the Edison easement constraints,
Commissioner Henninger: Recommended a 3 foot setback along the freeway and 5X5 planter inserts
and asked Mr. Clausen's opinion.
Craig Clausen: Responded they could like with a 3 foot setback but he is not certain about the 5X5
planter inserts, he would need to speak with his architect. He has other property that fronts Caltrans
property and it is a very easy procedure to get an encroachment permit from Maintenance, they are
easy to work with.
Commissioner Henninger: Suggested adding a condition stating that if the use that is proposed is part
of Conditional Use Permit No. 3974 is not under construction by April 10, 1998 then the City staff shall
initiate a zone change of this property.
Selma Mann: Suggested having it come back to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation
Item to consider whether they wish to initiate it and they could decide at that time.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that is fine and suggested to handle it that way.
Commissioner Henninger: Recommended an unsubordinated covenant that will limit the use of the
property to this use,
11-10-97
Page 20
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was going to be a pocket cut to turn left into this property?
Alfred Yalda: Responded no, there will be no changes on Santa Ana Canyon Road at this time.
Craig Clausen: Stated in 1986 when the office building was approved the access point map included
access from the west as well as a left hand tum pocket and that is why they have it shown on their
drawings (access point 12-A or B).
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that was an Engineering issue which he would need to work out with
the Engineering staff.
Alfred Yalda: Stated he does not feel they will be making changes. The purpose of Santa Ana
Canyon Road is to carry traffic not to have additional cuts and turning movements.
Commissioner Henninger: Recommended changing the following:
• Condition No. 17 -- Stated 3 to 5 foot wide planters.
• Condition No. 26 - Change to say all of the buildings within the view shed of the property to
the southeast.
• Added a condition regarding the planting along the southwest property line adjacent to the
existing residential, recommended adding a condition that those will be 36-inch boxed trees.
• Added a condition that there be an 8-foot split faced masonry wall and applicant will seek an
Administrative Adjustment.
• Recommended a Reports and Recommendation approval on the signage referenced on
Condition No. 18 and also that there be lighting from 10:00 p.m. through 6:30 a.m.
ACTION: APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 351, EXHIBIT A.
GRANTED RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-06 WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDED
CONDITIONS:
That if the use that is proposed as part of Conditional Use Permit No. 3974 is not
under construction by April 10, 1998, then City staff shall prepare a Report and
Recommendation to the Planning Commission for the initiation of a zone change-from
the CL(SC) Zone to a more appropriate zone.
That the legal owner of subject property shall execute and record an unsubordinated
covenant limiting the use of this property to aself-storage facility. The form of said
covenant shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for approval and shall then be
recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to the introduction of an
ordinance rezoning subject property. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division.
APPROVED WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT.
11-10-97
Page 21
(Revised: 12-10-97)
GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3974 WITH THE FOLLOWING
CHANGES TO CONDITIONS:
Modified Condition Nos. 17, 18 and 26 to read as follows:
17. That there shall be a minimum 3-foot wide accessible landscape area with 5-foot
square wells for the planting of trees across the northern property tine abutting
the Riverside freeway. Said area shall be fully irrigated and planted with
minimum 15-gallon trees on 20-foot centers, shrubs, groundcover and clinging
vines on the building walls facing the freeway to eliminate graffiti opportunities.
Plans for said landscaped area shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Division of the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.
18. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning
Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports
and Recommendations item. All signage lighting shall be equipped with timers to
assure lighting will not occur between 10:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
26. That the property owner/developer shall submit revised elevation drawings,
specifically showing aroof-structure, complete with mission-style tiles, for all of
the buildings within the view shed of the property to the southeast to the Zoning
Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations item.
Added the following conditions:
That the proposed trees along the southwest property line (adjacent to residential
zoning) shall be minimum thirty-six inch (36") box trees.
That the property owner shall seek approval of an Administrative Adjustment by the
Zoning Administrator for an eight foot (8') high wall along the southwest property line.
That if subject self-storage facility is not under construction by April 10, 1998, then City
staff shall prepare a Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission for the
initiation of a zone change from the CL(SC) Zone to a more appropriate zone.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby request the Council to consider the reclassification,
conditional use permit, and waiver request with their mandatory review of the General
Plan Amendment.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for a public hearing before the
City Council.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 13 minutes (2:07-3:20)
11-10-97
Page 22
(Revised: 12-10-97)
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3978 11-24-97
OWNER: Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking, 1301 E. Orangewood
Ave., #130, Anaheim, CA 928p5
AGENT: Cindy Galfin, 1301 E. Orangewood Ave., #130,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1235 South Beach Boulevard -Pick Your Part.
Property is 4.5 acres located on the west side of
Beach Boulevard, 330 feet south of the centerline of
Ball Road.
To construct a 2-story 3,700 square foot building for automobile
glass and stereo/alarm sales and installation and awalk-up
restaurant with outdoor dining.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 27, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR5836KP,WP
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting in order for the City of Stanton staff to review the project .and the
conditions of approval.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. _
11-10-97
Page 23
(Revised: 12-10-97)
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3926 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: George M. Kudo, 23361 Villena St., Mission Viejo,
CA 92692
AGENT: Dennis R. Von Lossberg, 11870 Beach Blvd.,
Stanton, CA 90680
LOCATION: 721-725 South Beach Boulevard. Property is
1.13 acres on the west side of Beach Boulevard,
1,000 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue.
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to recordation
of a lot line adjustment.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-162
Approved
Approved
amendment to
conditions of
approval
SR6830TW.DOC
FOLLOWING tS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Gus Orosco, agent for the applicant: Stated they are requesting modification of Condition No. 18
requiring them to record a pending lot line adjustment prior to pulling a building permit. In order to be
able to move ahead with their project it is taking them longer to process a lot line adjustment and the
condition has been rewritten. The condition as rewritten by staff helps them achieve this goal and
therefore they are in agreement.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED..
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated on Paragraph No. 13, Condition No. 18-A as suggested by staff,
they would like to modify it further to say that prior to final building and zoning inspections, the rear
.portion of the property, the western most sixty (60) feet shall be developed in accordance with. Code
requirements for parking and landscaping or alternatively, to landscape the entire 60 feet. The reason
for the change is that the exhibit that was submitted by the petitioner indicates two feet of landscaping
adjacent the condominiums to the west when in fact Code does require 10 feet of landscaping in that
area.
11-10-97
Page 24
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Gus Orosco; Stated the reason for putting two feet is that there is an existing two story stucco wall
which separates this property from the adjacent property. They felt they could achieve more of the
intent by :putting in more trees. In fact, they offered to plant more palm trees and felt that perhaps the
intent was to screen the large stucco walls as opposed to creating a real separation. Putting 10 feet of
groundcover would not achieve anything other than impacting how much parking would fit in there.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked if changing Paragraph No. 13, 18-A would make it consistent with their
original decision?
Cheryl Flores: Responded that was correct. It would allow it to be landscaped and meet the Code
requirement for parking by changing it as suggested.
The applicant asked for a clarification which Cheryl Flores explained the Code requires 10 feet of
landscaping and although they understand the applicant's intention to provide just two feet, the waiver
was not granted with the original approval. Therefore, they are bound to supply that 10 feet or
landscaping required by Code.
Gus Orosco: Stated there is actually a 60 foot buffer, it is parking. Instead of putting 1p foot of
groundcover, if more trees were added then they would actually achieve more of what the intent was
because they actually have 60 foot of parking that separates the two uses. The additional parking is to
be used by the adjacent business.
Chairman Bostwick: At the last hearing they did not make any waivers to the Code so it still has to be
a 10 foot setback with the trees on a 20 foot center. That is not part of today's hearing because that
was done at the prior hearing. By changing the wording it will remain consistent with what was
previously approved and the request for the lot line adjustment is what is being changed.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he understood the applicant to say that the applicant was going to
adjust the lot line away from the building wall across to the other side of the parking lot. Therefore, he
believes that there is not a requirement fora 10 foot landscape between the parking and the building,
not a Code requirement.
Gus Orosco: Responded no. Actually, his point was that the original conditional use permit approved
was for the major body of it and boundary of that property was 60 feet away from the residential
behind them and so that 60 feet was not addressed other than requiring them to put in the 10 trees
which he agrees with. Currently, he is asking for relief from having to record the lot line adjustment
prior to pulling building permits so they could move forvuard with the conditional use permit that was
approved. It was not his intent to ask for the waiver but in negotiating with staff it was the direction
staff wanted him to go. He is actually only asking to be able to pull building permits on the CUP
approved-without having to record the lot line adjustment now because it is taking much longer than
anticipated..
Cheryl Flores: Stated staff has concerns that if the lot line adjustment was not recorded that this rear
60 feet would not be developed and that was the reason for staffs recommendation..
Commissioner Henninger: Suggested approving staffs recommendation and then if there is some
other issue applicant wants to address regarding the landscaping he can return and ask for that.
Gus Orosco; Responded he was in agreement.
11-10-97
Page 25
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Cheryl Flores: Recommended that portion A of Condition No. 16 that prior to final building and zoning
inspections the rear portion of the property, the western most 60 feet, shall be developed in
accordance with Code for landscape and parking requirements or alternatively that all 60 feet be
landscaped.
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved request. Amended Condition Nos. 18 and 21 of Resolution No. PC97-45 to
read as follows:
16(a) That prior to final building and zoning inspections, the rear portion of the
property (the western most sixty (60) feet) shall be developed in accordance
with Code requirements for parking and landscaping or, alternatively, that the
entire sixty (60) feet be landscaped in accordance with Code requirements.
The parking lot configuration shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to construction of the parking lot.
16(b) That a Lot Line Adjustment Plat (to modify the westem property line of this
property to combine the rear sixty (60) feet of this property with the property to
the north (for parking purposes in connection with the adjacent batting cages
and arcade) shall be submitted to the Development Services Division of the
Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer and
then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder in the event that
ownership of this property is transferred to the adjacent property owner.
21. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year
from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 7,
10,12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.03,090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (3:20-3:37)
11-10-97
Page 26
(Revised: 12-10-97)
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' Approved
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3976 Granted, in part
(for 8 people) and for
OWNER: Alexandru and Mihaela Bauer, 1861 W. Chalet a period of 1 year
Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 (To expire 11-10-98)
LOCATION: 1861 West Chalet Avenue. Property is 0.26 acre
located on the .north side of Chalet Avenue, 360
feet east of the centerline of Nutwood Street.
To permit a board and care facility for up to 10 people in an existing
2,400 square foot single-family dwelling with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-163
SR6829TW.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke in favor.
OPPOSITION: Approximately 15 people indicated their presence in opposition.
DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE RECORDING EQUIPMENT THE FOLLOWING IS :NOT AUDIBLE:
THE BEGINNING OF ITEM NO. 7, WHICH INCLUDED ALL OF MR. BAUER'S OPENING
TESTIMONY AND THE BEGINNING OF MRS. McPHERSON'S TESTIMONY. THEREFORE, THAT
TESTIMONY WAS COMPILED FROM STAFF .NOTES.
Applicant's Statement:
Alex Bauer, owner and former resident at 1861 West Chalet Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is
currently operating a 6 bedroom facility which was approved 2% years ago and is now requesting fo
increase the board and care facility from a 6 bedroom to up to a 10 bedroom facility. The house
currently has 6 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms. He does not feel that traffic will east much as some
neighbors have suggested because none of the elderly residents own vehicles. There have been
major improvements made to this elderly board and care facility. Mr. Bauer feels this is a useful
service needed in the community and urged Commission to approve his roquest. _.
Teri McPherson, 1862 W. Chalet, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is speaking on behalf of her neighbors in
the audience (approximately four people raised their hands). They are opposed to the increase of
people for this board and care facility. If this home now has 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms then there
were never any permits issued by the Building Division to show .that it should have been increased. If
that is the case, then Mr. Bauer has increased his capacity without benefd of fhe proper approvals.
They contacted the Board of Social Service when they found out that there was a board and care
facility in their neighborhood. There was not notification to their neighborhood whatsoever. Neighbors
began to suspect something when the owner started building ramps over the front door stairs and at
11-10-97
Page 27
(Revised: 12-10-97)
that point discovered what happened. They asked Social Services what type of license was granted to
Mr. Bauer and were told they granted him all ambulatory people, meaning people who are able to walk
on their own or with some assistance. They find out now that Social Services also granted 4 non-
ambulatory and 2 ambulatory. It was only 10 weeks ago that they made the telephone call to Social
Services. Regarding Condition No. 15, there were telephone calls placed by the neighbors to Code
Enforcement to find out the following:
The block wall that existed in front of the home was tom down. The people who lived next door to the
west side of the home when the block wall was tom down experienced damage to their block wall and
it was never repaired by Mr. Bauer. They have asked Code Enforcement to come out and look at this
but there was no response. They also received the response from Social Services despite the fact
that they also invited them to attend one of their neighborhood watch meetings. In conclusion, they
feel they have gone along with as much as they can. They realize the law allows Mr. Bauer to have 6
residents in this home. They would appreciate the findings of this Commission not to allow that
number to increase.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Alex Baurer: Stated regarding the change of the license from non-ambulatory to ambulatory, there is
no permit required by the City, there are no laws requiring the City or Licensing to notify neighbors of
their 6 bedroom board and care facility. When he was licensed for 6 beds the house did not meet
Code requirements regarding the non-ambulatory so the licensing did not grant him the license for
non-ambulatory. According to Title 22, when the necessary alterations to the home to meet the
:requirements were made, they change the license at that time from ambulatory to non-ambulatory.
And he received all the permits required from the City. The actual license is now is for 6 non-
ambulatory. The accusations that people are being kept in the board and care facility against their will
is not true. If theses accusations were true, they should be brought to the proper authorities to have
this investigated. The claim that it is noisy at this home is not true. The house is very quite after 7:00
p.m. or 8:00 p.m. They did have a woman about a year ago who they felt was not appropriate for this
home and moved her out. During her stay there may have been some noise but she is no longer
there. When someone is admitted, staff do not always know the person's past history but after an
evaluation it is decided whether he does or does not belong at this home and if not that person is
moved somewhere else to another level of care. The people currently at the home are highly active,
participate in a joint program with UCI Medical Center and they go there 2 or 3 times a week. They go
to the seniors center. They do gardening around the house. Actually they feel very good about living
there. Mr. Bauer stated that some of the residences of the home had voluntarily came to this meeting
because they were disturbed by a couple of neighbors that came to the facility and interrogated them.
Amajean Drake: Stated there is no one at the facility that causes any disturbance. They all help out
and feel they have a home there and treat it as their home.. It is a lovely place.
Lloyd Reacher: Stated he has lived at that board and care facility for over 2 years. Mr. Bauer saved
his life. He was at another board and care facility when his daughter was told he had to be moved
and she had a difficult time to try to find another place for him. Mr. Bauer took him in and figured out
it was the medication that he was taking that was effecting him; he could not walk or do anything until
he came to Mr. Bauer. Everyone at that facility is asleep by 9:00 p.m.
Tilly Rivera: She has been working at the facility and it is true, they go to bed at 7:00 p.m. There is
no noise. The kids around there do come around. For example on Halloween night, they broke the
candles and kicked the pumpkins, and started throwing the trash cans during the day.
Mr. Francis Ball, 1819 West Chanteclair, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has visited many different board
11-10-97
Page 28
(Revised: 12-10-97)
and care facilities and convalescent homes and was so pleased when he visited this home. The
family-Like atmosphere was very encouraging. He was trying to help a man who was in an undesirable
board and care facility to get located and so he recommended this location to him. He has never seen
a more well kept and well ordered arrangement for assisted .living and he has been to several facilities
in Anaheim and other locations. He is a near neighbor. He walks by this facility nearly every day, and
he has never noticed any kind of disturbance. They get a lot more disturbance from the Loara High
School band at 7:00 a.m. He believes they could well handle the number of residents that they are
requesting,
Ray Surehart: Stated he lives 2 doors from this proposed project. Currently Mr. Bauer is running a
great home but this is a business which could change in the next 6 months. What is required is 8
parking spaces for this business and there is no way this business can handle S cars. So he is
concerned about the traffic congestion that could happen and he is concerned that this neighborhood
remain nice and quiet.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Sureheart if the operation is currently quiet?
Ray Surehart: Responded yes, as it stands now the operation is quiet but it could change.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there seems to be enough parking at this time? And there is not
too much traffic now?
Ray Surehart: Responded yes. No, he has not seen traffic.
Teri McPherson: Stated they do have copies of the building permits that have been issued to that
residences and that does substantiate their claim on the bedrooms vs. bathrooms issue. They are not
opposing to 6 people living in this home, they realize that these people need some place to live but
what they are in opposition is to the increase in the number. As it stands currently it can be a
tolerable situation but any increase to this becomes intolerable.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated Code Enforcement came up with the same conclusion that this was a 3
bedroom, 2 bath home in it's original configuration and asked Code Enforcement if all of the additions
been permittedT
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated he took the time during the lunch break to
research the building permit records. He finds that the structure was originally built as a 3 bedroom 2
bathrooms. Plans were finalized in 1983 for 2 additional bathrooms. Room additions were finalized
and 2 additional bedrooms as well. He visited the house. He checked the issue of the fire wall along
the side of the garage as there were living units adjacent to the garage. There is a fire wall as_,
required by Code. The structure is built with plans. He found no problems with what was there. He
meet and spoke with several people living there and they are very quiet individuals. The house was
very clean and well kept. He did not call in advance so they were not aware he was coming. As far
as he is concerned, the structures are built to Code, the permits have all been finalized, and they were
finalized almost 15 years ago.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked whether the garage is being used as a garage?
Bruce Freeman: Stated that was correct.
11-10-97
Page 29
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Commissioner Peraza: Stated he is comfortable with the board and care facility with 6 people but can
not support the increase to 10 people at this time.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Freeman about the condition of the front yard, did it appear that
the front yard had been used for parking?
Bruce Freeman: Responded the landscape was in good shape and it did not appear the front yard had
been used for parking. Over the past two years Code Enforcement has been to the property to several
occasions. Some of those resulted in vehicles being cited for parking code violations but that is not
what he observed in his visit today. The last time they were there for vehicle problems was in 1994
and 1995.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Freeman during what months were the calls received?
Bruce Freeman: Responded in September 1995, December 1994, June 1994, April 1994 and March
1994 (2 calls). Most of those complaints were for parking on the lawn.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she would imagine with having two adult daugthers plus Mr. Bauer
and his wife then there were probably .more cars when they lived there than at the facility. Asked Mr.
Bauer if that was correct?
Alex Bauer: Responded that is the first he has heard of the complaint calls. He moved into the house
in the October or November of 1994 so perhaps that :happened with the previous owners. He had four
cars at the time his family was living at the home which are not there anymore. Basically, the parking
spaces are now empty. He is aware the Code requires 8 parking spaces for this type of business.
The problem is that even if he makes 8 parking spaces available they will stay empty because no one
will use them.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what his average number of visitors would be on a weekend day?
Alex Bauer: Responded to his knowledge there are no more than two or three visitors at the same
time.. He purchased the house because being physicians from Romania, and he is trained and
educated to take care of people, even though they do not have an American license they are well-
educated and know how to take care of them. This house with the 6 bedrooms was well suited and
across from Modjeska Park. The park has a large parking lot and if his neighbors are concerned about
the traffic then he could instruct all visitors to park their cars at that parking lot and walk to his home.
The house is located across from the park and every weekend there are large events there and
parking is full on both sides of the street with cars but not from his facility, from people who come to
the park events. He has not complained about that. He firmly believes that the facility will not disturb
the traffic in the area. With 6 people he can not run the home due to the financial expenses.. --
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they can not be concemed about his economic situation. Six is there
by right and to her it seems like a very good operation. This is something that is very much needed
which is very difficult to find a good operation and therefore she is in support of the project.
11-10-97
Page 30
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Chairman .Bostwick: Stated there is a need in the community for this type of care facility but he has a
true concern for the neighborhood. It puts more pressure on the parking lot and the facilities. When
you do have seniors you do have medical staff, hospice visits, deliveries and various things in the
neighborhood. He has a concern with changing the actual make-up of the neighborhood from a
residential neighborhood to a commercial neighborhood. He feels six is probably fine. Maybe he
needs to adjust the prices if that is what it takes to keep it.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated they need to be very careful of what is approved in the
neighborhoods. Elderly people have a right to live in a residential environment. tie would image most
people living there are probably living on Social Security and have very limited means otherwise. So
he is not quick to say that the owner should just raise the rent. It might mean that those people would
have to leave and other, wealthier, people would come in. So he is also torn with this difficult decision.
This is a conditional use permit for one year and if there was a problem then Commission has the right
not to renew it after a year.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated this is a very difficult decision. He agrees with everything that has just
been said. He suggested .perhaps a compromise to go 8 instead of 10. It appears Mr. Bauer runs a
good operation. He grew up on Kings Court so he knows the area very well and he is trying to see
how that would impact him. He would not want to see more concrete in front of that house because it
takes away the integrity of the single family residence, so he is in disagreement with the parking. If he
thought there were going to be a lot of cars in front of the house or on the site, then he would not want
to go anymore than 6. But he still feels a compromise would be the best solution for one year.
Alex Bauer: Stated the compromise of 8 for one year would be acceptable.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Suggested that the timing on Condition No. 1 be deleted that could
happen prior to the commencement of the activity rather than in 30 days from the date of this
resolution and therefore Condition No. 5 could also be deleted.
ACTION: Approved .Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted, in part, Condition Use Permit No. 3976 with the following changes to
conditions:
Deleted Condition No. 5.
Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 4 to read as follows:
That the property owner shall obtain a building permit for occupancy change,
4. That the maximum number of residents shall be limited to eight (8).
VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Peraza voted no and Commissioner Mayer was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (3:37-4:17)
11-10-97
Page 31
(Revised: 12-10-97)
8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. VARIANCE NO. 4323
OWNER: Glenroy Partners, Attn: Morton A. Heller and Joyce
Marilyn Roaman, 111 N. Glenroy Ave., Los Angeles,
CA 90036
AGENT: David Sheegog, ATA, 19782 Mac Arthur, #300,
Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 1098 North Euclid Street. Property is 0.31 acre
located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue
and Euclid Street.
Waivers of minimum landscaped setback and minimum number of
parking spaces to construct a 1,900 square foot drive-through
pharmacy.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-164
Approved
Granted
S R6831 MA. W P
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: Approximately 10 people indicated their presence in opposition.
A petition was submitted with approximately 270 signatures in opposition.
Applicant's Statement:
David Sheegog, with Cox Architects, representing Walgreen Company, 17982 MacArthur Boulevard,
Irvine, CA: Stated they are present today with the property owner, Howard Engleman, and also a
representative from Walgreen's Pharmacy to answer any questions they may have regarding the
operations of the pharmacy.
Mark Lukidis: Stated he is an attorney representing a number of residents and business owners in
that adjacent vicinity of the proposed project. He has reviewed the staff report.
He submitted a petition that was circulated by a number of these residents and business. owners that
are opposed to the project and thought there were approximately 270 signatures. He read the
following statement from the petition: "Dear Anaheim Planning Commission: Please know that we are
against a .proposed drive-through pharmacy on the corner of Euclid and La .Palma. With ali the
construction, freeways and other arterials in the area., and the disruption of automobile traffic on two
high count traffic streets at a congested intersection. Any further commercial construction at that
intersection would drastically impede the flow of traffic on these arteries and the intersection. This
particular shopping center has a very limited amount of landscaping as it is right now. Parking at this
shopping center is very poor. There are too many driveways entering that shopping center area off of
Euclid Street. In addition, there is not a good flow of traffic on and off the shopping center property.
Therefore, they would object to any further traffic producing developments at this intersection:' He
submitted the original petition to Commission that he indicated contained approximately 270
signatures.
11-10-97
Page 32
(Revised: 12-10-97)
This is considered by the City as a critical intersection. According to the staff report there are no plans
to do any street construction at this time. That intersection is already to the bursting point.
Construction may be imminent with the next 5 years. For any construction to be done to widen that
intersection would take $1 to $2 million. Any widening of that would cut into the existing landscape
area dedication and any existing parking space. The problem with the shopping center is that the
landscaping that is there is very minimal but it is there on both sides of the street. They believe there
is a .negative impact. The parking and traffic flow in that shopping center is extremely limited. They
feel it will definitely be a negative impact by adding a high volume business on that corner. There is
already a 20-minute wait to get into the shopping center. They do not feel that there is any
uniqueness to that property nor is there any proof there will be an undue hardship to create a need for
a variance. They feel that there are other options or alternative for use of this property.
Claudia Jones, 1120 West South Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is a resident of that area and goes
through that area a least twice a week. From her experiences it does take a long time, possibly up to
20 minutes, to get into the shopping center, specially during the lunch hours or during the rush hour. It
is a very :busy intersection.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the attorney that spoke is representing her? Did she hire him?
Claudia Jones: Responded yes but she did not hire him but she knows people in the neighborhood
that paid for his services.
Roslyn Biebelberg, 1192 North Dresden, Anaheim, CA: Stated they received a notice in the mail about
the variance. They live one block away, at the corner of Euclid and La Palma, one block east of
Euclid. She can see the Fox Photo from where they live in a condominium. They have to go into their
house off of La Palma. They make alert-hand turn when they are coming from the senior's centers in
Buena Park. There is a yield situation so they can make the left-hand turn. Sometimes it takes 15
minutes waiting for someone to let them go into their condominium because there is so much traffic on
La Palma. There already is a drug store, Pharmacy Plus, next to Ralph's Market which they have
been using for 9%: years. This pharmacy is very sensitive to the needs of the surrounding community,
They have employees who speak Spanish and Korean. They do not feel it is beneficial to have a
second drug store in the same shopping center.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated that is not the issue before them today. There is a pharmacy at Anaheim
Memorial and other pharmacies up and down the street. It is not their purview to decide what
business goes there, it is whether this particular plan works on this particular piece of property -- a
land use issue.
Roslyn Biebelberg: Asked are they concerned .about the traffic flow? _
Chairman Bostwick: Responded yes of course. _ _.
Roslyn Biebelberg: Stated they can hardly turn the corner there. Traffic is bumper to bumper on La
Palma now. It is not only during the rush hours. They live on that corner and experience it on a daily
basis and asked that this proposal be denied on this basis.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
David Sheegog: Urged anyone who has not seen their plan to review it because every concern that
has been brought up in the previous testimony has been addressed on their plan. He responded to
the following concerns:
11-10-97
Page 33
(Revised: 12-10-97)
• Lack of landscaping --They are adding 12 feet of landscaping from what there currently is.
• Traffic congestion -- They are closing a driveway off of La Palma to ease traffic congestion.
• Circulation inside the parking lot -- The way the circulation is around Fox Photo is being
eliminated which will improve the traffic circulation. A woman stated she is disabled and has
difficulty getting around. She should be pleased that there will be adrive-through pharmacy
because now she will not have to get out of her car which will be much more convenient.
• Traffic congestion to and from -- The drive-through nature of this facility will eliminate cars from
having to come in and park.
• The nexus -The attorney brought up a concern that there is no grounds for one. Currently,
the property is 115 X 115 ft., with landscape that is required and a critical intersection. It
reduces the property to 90 X 90 ft. If a land use planner was to look at that it would be
deemed an undevelopable parcel with the current parking requirements. So there is grounds
for nexus that could be found but that is more of a legal type issue. It would be interesting to
find out exactly who .hired the attomey, or what businesses were involved. He thought it might
be very telling.
Eddie Hong, manager at Pharmacy Plus, 1012 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated they are
located in the same shopping center that Walgreen is trying to build adrive-through pharmacy. He is
strongly opposed to the variance simply because the pharmacy would be too close to their business.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Hong if he was one of the clients of the attorney that spoke?
Eddie Hong: Responded yes he is.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated he was in agreement that there is traffic congestion at that intersection.
He was there on Saturday and it took him 15 minutes to turn. Much of it is due to the freeway
construction.
Chairman'Bostwick: Stated the freeway is congesting the traffic in all directions, north and south.
Alfred Yalda, Principle Transportation Planner: Stated curcently Lemon Street is closed due to the
bridge widening. Harbor Boulevard is under construction. Magnolia Avenue on and off-ramp is under
construction and so is Brookhurst. Most of the traffic has been temporarily diverted to Euclid Street..
This is only temporary, as soon as the construction is completed then traffic will then'be diverted to the
other streets until the completion of the 91 freeway and 5 freeway on and off. Unfortunately thi~_
intersection is very close to the 91 freeway and also the 5 freeway.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Euclid over the 5 freeway is going to be closed when the bridge is
rebuilt?
Alfred Yalda: Responded there will be no closure there but there will be a :lane reduction. Some of
the .heaviest traffic that is occurring right now on Euclid is going to be shifted to Brookhurst or
Magnolia.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked when will the traffic shift off Euclid?
11-10-97
Page 34
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Alfred Yalda: Responded within the next 6 to 9 months, weather permitting.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked about the critical intersection funding?
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: Responded yes they plan their traffic improvements on a 5-year
capital improvement plan. So this intersection is not within their current 5-year Capital Improvement
Plan. However, each year they re-evaluate the traffic, flow, directions people are turning and make
decision what to put into the future Capital Improvement Plan. So this intersection could be added at
anytime.
Alfred Yalda: Stated they evaluate all of these critical intersections and calculate the level of service to
see how heavily congested they are. Currently, that intersection is congested but it is not due to
increased traffic at that location. It is due to the closures that he mentioned earlier and the majority of
the traffic has been converted to Euclid. After the constructions are completed they will start
construction on :Euclid. Therefore, the traffic will then drastically decrease on Euclid Streat. At this
time they do not have any plans to include that intersection to the list but they monitor it every year
and if it warrants it then it is going to be included on the list of critical intersections. They have to find
the findings for it and compete with the other cities in order to .make the improvements.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked the applicant if this proposal was approved today when would this
facility be open for business?
David Sheegog: Not knowing how long the City process would take, they have already been through
the Building Division and if those plans are basically approved it is the site plan that is in question right
now, Estimating perhaps 5 to 8 weeks to approve that plan then they would start construction within
two or three weeks after that, Construction takes about three months. So he guessed sometime
about March 1998 the business would open.
Howard Engleman, owner of the property: Stated actually they have to give notice to Fox Photo and
he has assured them that they will give them ample time to find another location. So there will
probably be a delay there, .not certain how long that will be. As information, that site was an old
Texaco station there. He built it in 1963 and it is not a very sitely thing to see. He is sure the corner
is going to look very attractive with the new building and the landscaping. He also volunteered to
contribute towards the cost of widening the street at that location.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the tanks were removed?
Howard Engleman: Responded yes they were removed when Texaco moved out and there has been
a toxic waste report made and he had a copy of the full report. _
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it should .also be noted that their generous offer to deed this. to the
needed right-of-way to the City. That is money that would have to be spent to help improve this
intersection that is going to be saved. That would speed the improvement of this intersection.
Cheryl Flores: Recommended adding to conditions of approval for clarification that on Condition No. 2
that any replacement sign would have to comply with the Code requirements in effect at the time of the
application for sign permits.
11-10-97
Page 35
(Revised: 12-10-97)
David Sheegog: Suggested rewording of Condition No. 1, it asked that planters be placed adjacent to
the building walls to the north and the west elevations. They are indicating landscaping on the north
and west sides of the building but they are not adjacent to the building walls because of they way the
drive-through works. Jt would say to include planters on the north and west elevations, if that would be
agreeable.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Planner: Stated there is adrive-through at Broadway .and Euclid and there
were quite a bit of incidents of graffiti up against the area where the drive-through occurred. So they
would like to have the landscaping as close as possible to the building for that reason as well as they
would like to see some type of landscape relief aesthetically from both streets.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked when he refers to landscaping near the right-of-way, is he referring
to vine pockets?
Greg Hastings: Responded it could be. They have looked at some service stations in the city that
have been approved. One of the improvements, they feel, can be made on any building where there is
heavy vehicular activity is to have the asphalt or the concrete not go all the way up to the building but
to provide for some type of relief, no matter how small, up against the building itself.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there would be room to put a couple of pockets there to keep the
graffiti off of that wall?
David Sheegog: Suggested they would be happy tp work with staff
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Variance No. 4323 with the following changes to conditions:
Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 2 to read as follows:
That a landscape plan for the entire site shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division of the Planning Department indicating type, size and location of all
proposed landscaping, including minimum 1-gallon size vines planted on
maximum 3-foot centers to screen the trash enclosure and equipment
enclosure walls on the south elevation and additional landscaping at the base
of the building. The landscaping plans shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations
item. Once approved, the landscaping shall be planted, irrigated. and
maintained in accordance with the plan.
2. That the property owner shall submit an unsubordinated covenant to remove
the existing pole sign at no cost to the City of Anaheim at such time as the City
of Anaheim accepts dedication of the Critical Intersection Ultimate Right-of-
Way. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's
Office prior to recordation at the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Further, any replacement sign shall comply with Code requirements in effect at
the time of application for sign permits.
VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Peraza voted no and Commissioner Mayer absent)
11-10-97
Page 36
(Revised: 12-10-97)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, .presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (4:17-4:57)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:00 P.M. TO
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
Submitted by:
Ossie Edmundson
Secretary
11-10-97
Page 37
(Revised: 12-10-97)