Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/02/18SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA CITY OF ANA EIM PLANNING CO MISSION FETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 11:00 A.M. STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Della Herrick Karen Dudley Kevin Bass John Poole John tower Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director _ __ Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Traffic and Transportation Manager Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 02-18-98 Page 1 >- n - i~,f ~-.~->~ ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: .None REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CARBON CREEK CHANNEL: County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department, Orange County Flood Control District, Attn: Hwie - Ing, Project Engineer, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702., requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for improvements to the Carbon Creek Channel. Property is a portion of the Carbon Creek Channel (Facility No. B01) located south of Orange Avenue, north of Ball Road, east of Holder Street and west of Knott Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to construct improvements to the Carbon Creek Channel (Facility B01) is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan SR5122KT.DOC No discussion. 02-18-98 Page 2 B. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.311 (Prev.-Certified) ~ Approved (b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-03 -REQUEST FOR Approved final site REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE plan DISNEYLAND HOTEL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: The Walt Disney Company, Attn: Doug M. Moreland, 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521, requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan for the construction of athree-story Disneyland Hotel Administrative Office. Property is located at 1150 West Cerritos Avenue. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibits Nos. 1 through 14 on file in the Planning Department), based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7042DH.DOC Della Herrick, Associate Planner, Planning Department: Stated this is a final site plan review as required by the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan for any new development within the hotel district. Planning staff has reviewed the plans and is recommending approval. Applicant's Statement: John Graves, Development Manager for the Walt Disney Imaginaring: Stated he was pleased to present the final site plan for the Disneyland Hotel Administrative Office Building, located off of West Street, south of the existing Disneyland Hotel Bonita Tower. The proposed administration building replaces existing hotel facilities which will be removed to make room for the retail entertainment center which fronts West Street. Also joining him was Jeanie Norris, Project Manager from WDI and the Anna Marie Howell Project Architect from Genslor. Anna Marie Howell., Project Architect, Genslor: Stated the proposed project consists of constructing a three story administrative office building which will house offices for the Disneyland Hotel Sales Department, Employee Development Offices, a cafeteria and a receiving area. They propose to make minor interim changes to the existing parking lot in front of the proposed location of the new building. Eight existing parking spaces would be demolished to make way for the building. Those parking spaces will be replaced with eight new spaces directly in front of the building. The proposed building is a steel braced frames slab on grade structure with painted stucco exterior walls. The color palette of the new building will be in keeping with the existing Bonita Tower color scheme. They are proposing an approximately 45,000 square foot building. The floor plate is approximately 150 X 100 feet. Mechanical air handling equipment is located on the ground behind a full height screen wall, therefore none of it will be visible. The roof will have a three foot high parapet which will conceal the minor equipment that will need to be located there which consists of an access hatch, some plumbing vent pipes and exhaust fans for dishwashing and kitchen. The roof top equipment will be painted to match the roof. Landscape issues include the fact that they will have an exterior electrical transformer, approximately 10 feet by 8 feet by 5 feet high at the southwest comer of the building and will be screened with landscaping. Also shown on the landscape plans (that Commission have) is an opaque sliding gate about fifty feet in from Walnut Street which will screen any activity in the loading area. The proposed project is in compliance with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan in that they are having vehicular access from Walnut Street through the existing driveway and meet the height and setback requirements of the Specific Plan. Existing mature landscaping will remain north of the proposed new building and they are adding a landscape buffer between the new building and SP-2 parking lot. 02-18-98 Page 3 C. (a) (b) HOTEL: Sunstone Hotel, 3110 NE 106th Street, Vancouver, WA 98686, requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan to add approximately 160 square feet to the lobby area and install new wall signage at an existing hotel.. Property is located at 1752 South Clementine Street (Crystal Suites). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved mitigated negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Approved final site plan Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1. S Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, Planning Department: Stated this item is to add a 160 square foot addition to the lobby area of the existing hotel. The addition consists of a glass wall that will match the existing glass wall of the lobby area and enclose an existing elevator that is currently on the exterior of the lobby area. The request is also for two wall signs; one to be on the north face and one on the south face of the existing tower. Staff has reviewed the final site plan and found it be to compliance with the Hotel Gircle Specific Plan. They also reviewed the applicant's Environmental Compliance form and found it to be within the assumptions and time frames of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was approved in conjunction with the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. Staff is recommending approval of the final site plan. After the voting: Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Stated there was a correction on Item No. 1-C. The staff report incorrectly states that approval would be by resolution for the final site plan approval but it should have been by motion. - -~ Selma Mann: Recommended Commission go back and withdraw the resolution and then proceed with a new motion, otherwise the record will not reflect the proper motion. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion for a withdrawal of the resolution, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Commissioner Henninger then offered a motion approving the Final Site Plan seconded by Commissioner Peraza and motion was carried. 02-18-98 Page 4 D. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3920 -REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NOISE STUDY AND FINAL PLAN REVIEW OF ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED HEALTH CLUB: OTR Ohio General Partnership, c/o Donahue Schriber, 3501 Jamboree Road, #300, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and approval of a noise study and final plan review of roof-mounted equipment for apreviously-approved health club. Property located at the southwest comer of Roosevelt Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. (The Anaheim Hills Festival). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), 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 Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the submitted sound study is complete and that no excessive noise generated by the Target store and the Edwards Theater warrant implementation of any of the proposed sound reduction measures as listed in said sound study for the health club facility; and, further that the final roof plans for the previously-approved 58,446 square foot health club are in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the Anaheim Festival Specific Plan. Approved Approved noise study and roof-mounted equipment for a previously approved health club SR6878KB.WP No discussion. 02-18-98 Page 5 E. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Approved (b) SPECIFIC PLAN N0.90-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREA 2) • Approved final plans REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS FOR THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED 14SCREEN MOVIE THEATER: OTR Ohio General Partnership, clo Donahue Schriber, 3501 Jamboree Road, #300, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and approval of final plans for the previously-approved 14-screen movie theater. Property located at the southwest corner of Roosevelt Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. (The Anaheim Hills Festival). ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), 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 Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final plans for the previously-approved expansion of the theater based on the submitted plans and detailed notes showing conformance with the Design Guidelines for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan for exterior building design, materials, color (which complements the existing theater structure), and the screening of roof-mounted equipment. SR6879KB.WP Ernie Weber with Donahue Schriber: Stated they were present to answer any questions. 02-18-98 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680 (READVERTISED) Modified conditions of approval OWNER: The Eli Home, Inc., Attn: Lorri Galloway, Executive Director, 4530 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92869 LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive -The Eli Home. Property is 0.22 acre located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive. To consider the modification or deletion of conditions of approval relating to the number of vehicle trips, on-site and off-site parking and guest visitations, and modification of the approved site plan to retain an existing wood fence along Santa Ana Canyon Road in conjunction with a previously-approved group home for abused children and their mothers. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997 and January 21, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-22 FOLLOWINGJS,A;SUMMARY OF THE,PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION:", "' "' The following is a detailed summary of Item No. 2 (Conditional Use Permit No. 3680). ~ Chairman Bostwick: We begin this afternoon's agenda with Item No. 2, this is a property located at 100 South Canyon Crest Drive, The Eli Home. Is the applicant here? Richard McFarland: Good afternoon. My name is Richard McFarland.. I am the Vice President of the Board of Directors of The Eli Home, Inc. at 4530 East Chapman Avenue in Orange, California. Eli family members/Eli families seek shelter from physical, emotion and even sometimes life threatening abuse and we are here today because we want to preserve these families rights to privacy as we provide~shelter while also living up to our past commitments to you. After operating under CUP (Conditional Use Permit) 3680 since April, 1997, we found that clarifications were necessary on our letter of operation to describe how we control traffic and parking. We also found that a very small number of conditions of our CUP lead to considerable confusion both in understanding requirements and in enforcement of the conditions. Further, several conditions have been misused by opponents of The Eli Home to justify evasive surveillance which has violated the privacy of mothers, children., staff and volunteers to a point of harassment. We have been informed that numerous surveillance photographs and video tapes of Eli Home clients have been submitted to the City. You have also received a listing of complaints, the majority of which are concerned with the issues of traffic and parking, and it's these parking and traffic issued that we want to address first. We want to emphasize to you that we have not asked for additional parking. The current CUP allows 6 vehicles on the property and that will not change. Specifically, wording of conditions 5, 16, 19 and 21 require personal driver identification. As noted in the City Attorney's letter, a clear limitation on the number of automobiles rather than on the ownership of the automobiles more clearly addresses the concern regarding anticipated impacts of Eli Home's operation and is more reasonably amenable to enforcement by the City of Anaheim. There is certainly no need to ID who is coming in and going and parking in order to establish limitation of automobiles. The only way in which the existing conditions could be enforced would be for an outside person to interrogate everyone who enters 02-18-98 Page 7 and leaves the home and such identification and interrogation of individuals not only fails to limit traffic to and from the facility but it would be humiliating, intimidating and invasive. As evidence of the confusion these conditions have caused, you have received a listing of 40 complaints since our shelter opened in April last year. Almost all have been based on the assumption of the identify of the drivers of the vehicles and/or their relationship to the Eli shelter and its program. Neither of which the complainants are in the position to know. Some complaints have to do with off-site parking referred to in condition 6. It was our original understanding that condition 6 was necessary because of the lack of street parking in area. We understood that off-site parking meant no parking on surrounding streets. Throughout our operation we usually have had from 0 to 3 cars and no more than six cars on our own property. When our residents had cars we abided by the CUP and had them park elsewhere even though we had adequate space in our driveway. Early on we had been given permission by Mr. Deterding to park on his private property next door but we have not parked there since the City has advised us in late December of'97 that the area needs to be paved in order to be used. We have submitted a revised letter of operation which better reflects operation and internal controls and we ask for your approval of the :modified conditions as given on page 6 of the staff report. The conditions do not result in any more vehicles on the property than originally allowed. Condition 6 now specifically addresses the concerns of our neighbors that we not use Mr. Deterding's property even as his guests. These parking and traffic changes are really minor and just meant to clarify and not change the intent of the original conditions. We still intend to have no more than 6 cars parked on-site at any one time and we will have no cars parking off-site in the immediate neighborhood. We also ask that you amend condition 15 to allow The Eli Home to retain its current wood fencing along the northern properly line until some future time. We are in the process of resolving a property line decision which affects the location of the new wall. The material of the fence has nothing to do with CUP issues. It is and will be well maintained. We will add planting as specified in the conditions. So we ask that you not link the requirement to change the fence to our receiving a certificate of occupancy and I thank you for your consideration. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Sir? Public Testimony Mr. Deterding: 1 am Mr. Deterding. I live at 7655 Silver Dollar Lane and I own four acres at 104 Canyon Crest since 1953 before Anaheim acquired the property by annexation. The thing that I wish to address in my mind is a constitutional issue. We live in an area which does not have curbs and sidewalks and it has narrow two-way private roads. When anyone has company or a party, cars must either park in the two way street making it a one-way dead end street or park on the lawn or grass of the house being visited, and Anaheim in their wisdom has a "no parking on grass" ordinance. So far as I know there aren't any exceptions -its just no. "Parking on grass" ordinance needs to be changed to allow the short time, 24 hours anyway, parking with permission of the owner. When anyone out there has a party or more than a couple of people visiting the house there is no place for them to park unless they park on the two-way private road making it a one-way street which is dangerous to traffic. Just a week ago, on February 8th, Mr. Secrest and Mr. Conway had a party on Sunday in which there must have been 50 cars attending and those cars parked in the two-way private road. Made one-way streets out of the whole area out there. Cars had a very difficult time parking, turning around and getting out. They even parked on an area of a vacant house without any permission of the property owner. I have a picture I would like to submit of that. They parked on the grass, and evidently it is all right for them to park on the grass and restrict the traffic in the area., but it is not all right for anyone else. These people... Commissioner Henninger: Could I ask you to stick to the subject of The Eli Home? Mr. Deterding: I am sticking to the subject. This is a ...... Commissioner Henninger: Hang on for a second. Mr. Deterding: Yeah. Commissioner Henninger: I would like you to stick to the subject of The Eli Home. If you want to make a request that we consider to change the ordinance you could do that by sending us a letter. The ordinance 02-18-98 Page 8 is what it is and not bring in the behavior of other neighbors, I think that would be helpful to the hearing and helpful to the cause of The Eli Home. Mc Deterding: I will skip to my close then. I want to protest the unreasonable and probably il{egal and unconstitutional parking restrictions being imposed on the Eli group. They own a legal easement on all private roads and easements described in subdivision tract 117 and to deny them the use of these roads and easements is what the US Supreme Court has defined as a taking of property without compensation. I don't believe you can do that. Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you Mr. Deterding. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Pardon me? Okay. Jean Averill: We thought you meant address it from the other side. Chairman Bostwick: Either side, for or against. Jean Averill: My name is Jean Averill. I live in Canyon Crest Drive, I'm an immediate neighbor. Commissioner Boydstun: Spell your last name please. Jean Averill: A V E R I L L. Chairman Bostwick: Go right ahead. Jean Averill: Several weeks ago I was gratified to read that the City Council had rejected neighborhood board and care homes expansion plans because 22.neighbors opposed the plan citing conditions about parking, traffic, congestion and other issues. I was also very envious because four years ago three of our neighbors also came down here and cited the same concerns, paid for traffic studies, submitted concrete evidences as to why The Eli Home should not be located at Canyon Crest Drive, but here we are once again having our lives intruded upon, having to spend time we don't have, coming down the Planning Commission meeting to address Eli Home issue because they don't want to abide by the promises they made to the community in order to obtain their CUP. Time spent on The Eli Home issues has been a continuous strain on our community and I know on City employees. Your report listed over 60 citizen complaints about The Eli Home, there would have been more except the homeowners have become discouraged because nothing ever happens. There are no Code violations given, etc. But The Eli Home sits empty about half the time so we are perfectly happy about that and complaints obviously aren't called in when its empty. I would like to address the issue of Lorri Galloway's letter dated September 24, 1997. She's requested deletion of condition 5 which states that residents shall not use or park their cars on subject property. She wants that deleted because residents who own vehicles have to park in a parking lot almost a mile from the facility. They have had to walk to the facility with their children on a dimly lit main highway with no sidewalk. Well, I would like to state that if The Eli Home were in compliance with the CUP this would problem would not exist. The Eli Home letter of operation that was submitted and used as evidence of findings prior to awarded CUP stated, 'the family will be transported by office staff to and from the house". And then the findings from the City Council were 'require the transportation of the occupants through the use of staff, operated vehicles or public transportation so as to restrict vehicle trips to and from the facility'. On occasions traffic generated by The Eli Home has been detrimental to what used to be our quiet cul-de-sac street. Though illegally held, Eli Home special events have caused traffic congestion, temporarily blocking us from ingress and egress to a private road endangering the safety of our own children who live and play in the area. The conditions listed on the CUP were suppose to evaluate this type of a problem. Again no code violations have been issued. Also, Galloway requested deletion of condition 19 which states there shall be no visitors permitted to the residents. She states The Eli Home has since removed that guideline because of extenuating circumstances that have made it necessary for residents to have visitors. Well, The Eli Home letter of operation that was submitted and used as evidence of findings prior to awarded CUP states, 'no visitors are permitted at the house'. The location of the home is kept confidential. All visitation must be done at the off-site business office. If the mother reveals location of the home she will be requested to leave the home: And then the City Council found, 'prohibits visitors to the facility so as to restrict vehicle trips to and from the facility' and 5-B 'that the location of occupants of the home remain confidential in order to maintain secrecy of the occupants location.' There has been no attempt by the operators of The Eli Home to comply with any flexible 02-18-98 Page 9 condition of the CUP since occupancy commenced :last April 2, 1997. Conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, 19, 21 and 26 are all violated on a continued basis. I submitted earlier copy of pictures taken last April 6th, only four days after opening which the CUP conditions 2, 5, 6, 19, 21 and 26 were being violated -again no code violations were issued. Now in the January 21st letter to City staff Sonja Grewal stated, 'for instance, when we saw a need to allow a visitor to one of our families our conditions prohibited such a decision even though it would not have exceeded the number of vehicles parked on-site'. The fact is visitors come and go constantly. Male visitors presumed to be fathers have been observed driving at The Eli Home leaving with children prior to a weekend and then the same children seen there after the weekend was over. The community was told Eli Home was a place to protect and hide abused children. Residents have also been seeing leaving and returning with male visitors. Also in her January 21st letter Ms. Grewal states, 'the wording of conditions 5, 18 and 19 have been used to justify our opponents surveillance of her families and others going in and out of the shelter'. This is of grave concern to us. Our surveillance of the shelter is only as violations occur and are reported to the City. If operators of Eli Home would comply with the CUP there would be no reason for them to be concerned of surveillance; however, I think they should thank us for the extra security we have provided when calling the Police as we have observed transient male visitors lurking outside the shelter after dark. We think there is a lot of deceitful tactics and hypocrisy involved in this CUP and the way that they received it. The Eli Home as currently in operation does not come close to resembling the organization that was sold to the City in order to be awarded their CUP. I urge you please do not modify and delete any of the conditions as listed. They should abide by the commitments that they made to the community in order to receive this permit that they have. Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would Like to address the Commission? Yes, sir. Joe Conway: I'll make it short and sweet. My name is Joe Conway. 141 South Canyon Crest, Anaheim Hills and 1 also own a business in Anaheim Hills. My first question, or what I was wondering is why this is so close to the one year time period. I .believe there's 42 days left. I would like to suggest that the changes be submitted, ali the changes that they want, .and just reviewed at the renewal date which is 42 days away. A year ago we spent all these hours and hours and everyone's time and effort getting a fair deal for The Eli Home and a fair deal for the City, for the citizens of Anaheim and over this time we have seen all these changes for The Eli Home and no changes for the citizens. The reason it was agreed upon was that the City Council felt it was fair for both sides and so it went forward. And I just personally don't think it is fair to have changes throughout. I think the changes should be documented and maybe submitted for the new CUP in 42 days or the approval of new changed CUP. Just a couple of things, we were promised a file roof, exterior siding, block wall (no wood fences -only temporary) all these changes. I mean if it was a football score it would be 14 The Eli Home, 0 citizens of Anaheim. And I know you guys or the City Council approved it based on a quality of ... what you felt was fair to the citizens of Anaheim and there has been nothing but change on one side and no give over here - itjust doesn't seem right. So I would just like to suggest that everything be ... to wait for 42 days until a new CUP instead of wasting everyone's time and effort, making drastic changes fora 42 day period. Approval is coming up in one year and they will be approved again, but I am not sure with all these changes that it would have been approvedlast time. A lot of these changes were new and the reason it was agreed up was that because of all the existing rules and regulations that they were going to live by. Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you, sir Joe Conway: By the way, just for the record that little party, I did have permission. I'm sitting right next to the homeowner of that gray house that allowed me to park on her driveway and my friends. And the two cars that weren't parked did get citations and tickets. So please have you facts straight before you start speaking, okay? Gene Secrest: Good afternoon. My name is Gene Secrest, 121 South Canyon Crest. 1 agree with Mr. Conway. Unfortunately 1 wasn't giving the party, I live next to them so I got some of their overFlow but that was not a problem. I wanted to clean up a few things. Mr. Deterding said that The Eli Home has their easement rights under tract 117, that's not true. 117 does not include The Eli Home. They access their 02-18-9t3 Page 10 property via public street. I did the subdivision at Canyon Crest its now sitting on. 117 turns and continues south, it doesn't affect The Eli Home. Gene Secrest: In preparation for today I thought I would look back historically at the conditional use permit. A lot of the faces here today are some of the faces I saw four or five years ago when we exhaustively went over these things. This conditional use permit, as all of you know, is a series of facts and findings supplied by the applicant and based upon those findings a decision and rules are issued. These rules didn't just drop out of the sky, they were handed to you. They were handed to you by The Eli Home and now years later when its a little tougher to live up to their own rules -they change them. All along we have been faced with an emotional business. Its reportedly a business to take care of kids that have been abused. Everyone backs the prevention of child abused, but by in large it is still a business. To make it less emotional lets assume it was a gun shop. The rules for the gun shop are don't have more than six cars there, don't shoot the gun up in the air. We have two rules that we've got to monitor. Every time they put more than six cars in the gun shop we call Code Enforcement. Every time they shoot the gun up in the air we call Code Enforcement or the Police. Those are the only two things we have to use as the yard stick as to how this business is behaving in the neighborhood. Well now, several years later after numerous gun shots into the air at all hours of the day and night they come back and say, hey, look lets not continue to worry about gun shots. Lets eliminate that rule. You guys gave them 30 rules to live by. Those were rules based upon their information. They immediately turned around and using their own rules filed an action with HUD. HUD then comes in and helps them change some of their own rules. What I've got here is a copy of the new conditional use permit for The Eli Home; and if Selma (Selma Mann, Assistant CityAttorney] would hand these to you .... it may be easier to go over what is left. Systematically this organization has gutted this conditional use permit. They are stuck with the fact that it is going to expire in 42 days. They haven't effectively figured a way to get around that yet. Two and three are basically gone.. Four, well they can't plant trees out in Santa Ana Canyon Road. I don't think anybody in Anaheim can go out and plant trees in Santa Ana Canyon Road right away without the City's permission. Five and six, they are gone. Seven, well they haven't put a sign up yet that says The Eli Home permanently. Eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen -they're all gone. Seventeen, well the security of the Anaheim PD (Police Department] belongs to everyone in Anaheim so that is really not a moniker hung just on The Eli Home's neck and it sure isn't a restriction. Twenty-three through twenty- nine -they're all gone too. That leaves us with thirty. What do we have left guys? We've got no rules. We've got no yard stick to measure how these people are doing. We have eliminated them all. We've eliminated, we've modified them or just plain ignored them and the ones we've chosen to ignore -its just like the kid who runs a N too loud or the stereo to loud. You eventually walk in and take the stereo out of the room and put it in the garage or do you just get tired of yelling at the kid? What we're faced with is an organization through their actions, their deeds and their string of broken promises to you, tc us -the real residents that actually live there - go on from the first day. Oh, we talk about now lets start planting the seeds for changing the City Ordinance for allowing to allow us to pave over grass areas, to take overflow parking so we don't break rules. Lets not mind the rules, lets just go pave adjacent areas. The rule was established simply -these ladiesare there for intensive counseling. They're supposed to take visitors, they're not suppose to wander around, they're suppose to be under the guidance and supervision of The Eli Home~taff constantly. But they are not. They're there as tenants. They come and go whenever they want to and it has been inconvenient for them to have to park their car on the other side of the block wall. And now I understand we're even going to eliminate the rest of the conditions for the block wall along Santa Ana Canyon Road. I think we imposed a similar block wall on a recently built house at Eucalyptus. Maybe he should have come in and let the volunteers from the Fire Department build his wall and he wouldn't have gone through the expense of the block wall. What these guys didn't tell you is they were given $10,000 from a local corporation to build that security fence -that security black wall. They got a designated gift. It was issued to them, they spent it and then the fireman came in and built the wall for them. It goes way beyond a wood fence. It goes deeper into - its a promise made by you and by them to be good neighbors and live by the rules that you established for them and now, hopefully, you won`t allow them to eliminate all the rules. Thank you. Maria Ritter: My name is Maria Ritter. For the past 17 years my husband and I have resided at 191 Possum Hollow in Anaheim, 92808. I'm representing my husband. (She read the following:] "Good afternoon, my is Larry Ritter and I live at 191 Possum Hollow with my wife Maria and my son. I could not be present today because I have this habit - I like to eat. 1 have asked by wife to read to you my comments. This undesirable neighbor as a majority of the affected home owners know, The Eli Home, initially approached your Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council with elaborate plans to 02-18-98 Page 11 convert aone-story dump of a house built over an open carriage area with numerous building code violations into a structure similar to those in the area. We all saw the drawings of the proposed building.. As you may remember it had wood siding, an upscale roof and a block wall fence. It does resemble the homes in the immediate area. A thorn between two thorns. Additionally, the director of The Eli Home submitted the home's operating rules in order to convince the skeptical neighbors that the home's operation would not interfere nor detract from the rural peaceful environment which had drawn :many of us there in the first place. Over the neighbors objections and warnings the City approved the variance adopting the home's rules as the only conditions for it's operation. That was a big mistake. Remember the camel with it's head in the tenant? On several occasions since that time The Eli Home has approached and petitioned the City to remove some of these restrictions. When they were turned down they contact HUD and the City was threatened with a lawsuit if age, relationship and supervision requirements were not removed. The City gave in again and now any 22 persons of any age without direct supervision can legally occupy this home for abused children and their mothers. The camel is in the tent. It should go without saying, but I will, that I oppose anymore reductions in the requirements for The Eli Home's operationand building plan completion. These were imposed to ensure that this operation would not interfere with our environment. Vehicle parking, travel to and from, and the number of the visitors allowed does affect the environment. The camel'is now fuming around in the tent. Do not change the variance restrictions. Respectfully submitted, :Larry Ritter". Maria Ritter (continued): I also have a letter from the immediate neighbor who could not be here due to the illness of a child, April Hughes of 161 Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. (She read the following:] "To the City of Anaheim staff and Planning Commission regarding CUP 3680. The Eli Home has requested the Planning Commissioner's consideration to retain the existing wood fence located on the Santa Ana Canyon Road side of the project. I strongly urge you to deny this request. The Eli Home originally submitted elaborate drawings which included a decorative block wall surrounding the property. The property currently bears no resemblance to what was sold to the City in order to gain approved to the CUP. The wood fence in particular presents an unsightly entrance into our neighborhood. Sonja Grewal's letter to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 1998 stated "on the north side of the Santa Ana Canyon Road the prevalent fencing backing to Santa Ana Canyon Road is wood .panels combined with block pilasters". In some areas this is true but in all areas the wood panels are very unsightly to ingress to Anaheim and should be replaced. There can be no reason to allow more ugly wood fencing along the Scenic Corridor. Sonja Grewal's letter also stated'Y~hen finances are available we may replace this fence with a block wall, however, to use the requirement to prevent our certificate of occupancy seems unduly harsh". Attached is a copy of the December 9, 1993, Register Charities Award Winners obtained through court documents. The Eli Home was granted a $10,000 award by the Register. On the application, page 2, The Eli Home stated that the Register Charities money would be used to help renovate The Eli Home property by adding surrounding block wall for security. The Eli Home has already raised finances to build the wall and certificate of occupancy should be denied until the wall, as previously present in drawings, is built. Sincerely, April Hughes". Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the Commission? (No response from the audience.] Alright, Mr. McFarland, would you like to_return? Applicant's Rebuttal: Richard McFarland: Well, just on a few statements that have been made. For one thing for sure, The Eli Home has not been half empty. if we had been since our start, we would be in trouble but we have had constant residency there. Half empty? I don't know exactly what that means is the trouble, but we have always had residents except for a short period of time at the end of last year and this year about two weeks when we did some renovations and we didn't take any new residents in. Residents parking on property -that's certainly not our policy. Has a resident ever driven onto our property and parked there? I can't say for sure, but its our policy that residents don't park their cars on our property, that is, on The Eli Home parking lot area. And we intend to keep that policy in place. Traffic at special events, blocking of entrance and egress -visitors to the home, residents entering and leaving, six cars on the parking lot or more. These are things that have been investigated by the Code control people and you have the reports of the Code control people in front of you. Do these things ever happen that a car parks on Canyon Crest somewhere? We don't have knowledge that cars have been parking on Canyon Crest. There's no posting of parking there on Canyon Crest that says that Eli Home people can't park there, so it is possible 02-18-98 Page 12 that some body has parked on Canyon Crest. It is not our policy and we fully intend to see that there is no parking of cars anywhere on the immediate surrounding streets and that will remain our policy. With respect to this $10,000 donation, part of what the money was to be used for was to build block walling and indeed after that money was received a block wall was constructed. It hasn't been constructed all the way around the home but the grant was not given to use on the basis that it would be used solely to construct a block wall. The idea that any age person can occupy the home is patently false. It must be a child, the child and their parents are referred to us by a bonafide agency such as Orange County Child .... the name escapes me right now but we then screen the person to see if they fit our home and then we allow them to come in if they do. But certainly there must be a child and the mother must accompany the child. That is a strict rule, we do not take in only children and the mothers are responsible for the behavior of their children and that their children and themselves follow all the rules once they're in the home. Without that being in place we would have no home for abused children, obviously. So, these complaints - a large part of them seem to be based on knowing who is coming in and out of the home. Is it family? Is it members of The Eli Home staff? Is it counselors? Is it residents of the home? We've seen .pictures purporting to show residents of the home entering and leaving the property. What I can tell you without question is that The Eli Home staff firmly controls who enters and leaves the home and it is not our policy to have visitors come in to the home to visit the residents. I think there has been one exception to that to my knowledge and that was where arelative - it was deemed very advisable that this relative have an opportunity to visit and actually was counseled? So in a sense you can consider the person a counselor, to counsel the resident while they were still in the home. Other than that I know of no instances where visitors have been permitted into the home; and, its these very ambiguities in enforcing the CUP that we are trying to clarify and get around, if you will, with the changes in these few CUP conditions. We haven't gutted the CUP. The conditions are very specific that we are asking you for. Changes in and our main basis for requesting these changes is that we want to maintain controls on traffic and parking as they are currently in the CUP but we don't want to have that confused with the issue of who's doing the parking and who is doing the trafficking in and out of the shelter. The latter is almost unenforceable. The former all you have to do is count the number of cars and the number of people that go in and out, that's our goal. So, I thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you Mr. McFarland. Let me ask you one question before you sit down. You've read the staff report and the recommendations? Richard McFarland: Yes. Chairman Bostwick: Are you in agreement with those? Richard McFarland: As far as the traffic and the parking conditions are concerned, yes. Chairman Bostwick: Alright. Commissioner Bristol: Mr. McFarland? Sir, I have two questions. You mentioned earlier regarding the fence and the land just north of you, you're in negotiations, or you'd like to postpone if possible, is what I thought I heard, the building or doing something with the wood fence because of potential negotiations with maybe the City regarding the property? Richard McFarland: Yes, it is a matter of whether it is possible ever to extend the property furtherout. We don't know that at this time and as far as I know that still hasn't been decided by the City. We have not, as yet, actually applied for any such change. Commissioner Bristol: Understanding sir that's an issue today, the fence, and you don't want to do a block wall and a lot of conditions say a block wall, do you have any idea when you would start these proceedings? Richard McFarland: Perhaps I could get somebody that knows more about the construction from our group to answer that question. Michael Galloway: Good afternoon, Michael Galloway with The Eli Home. The specific questions regarding the fence - at one time we were before, I believe, Planning Commission or City Council and it was granted that we receive half of that property that we requested atone time and we decided not to at 02-18-98 Page 13 that present time. So, we know that we are allowed for half that property which we are going to immediately go back after and request that property. At that time we will start the block wall. We have never intended to not live up to the block wall surrounding the area. I know at least two or three of you have been on the property. Have been inside the home and I can actually say that you know we are not going to leave the condition as is. As far as part of the fence that's not finished, it was in the process of being built before the end of the year, last year, and due to the influx of work with our volunteer plasterer it was postponed and then we hit the rainy season. So it will be completed in due time. Chairman Bostwick:: You really need an encroachment permit? Is that correct Melanie (Melanie AdamsJ7 And so you need to apply to the City for an encroachment permit before you can come out any farther and then build the block wall. Michael Galloway: Right. We did this a one time. Chairman Bostwick: I don't think the staff has it on record, so ... Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: No, 1 don't believe that encroachment permit has been approved. Michael Galloway: It wasn't approved.. We didn't ... Mary McCloskey, Deputy Senior Planner, Planning Department: They were both withdrawn. I think the homeowner's association submitted an encroachment permit as did The Eli Home and at the time there was a series of hearings and my recollection was that both of the requested permits were withdrawn. Chairman Bostwick: You need to go through the whole process again. I think our concern is, when would you start this? In other words we would like to have a time certain that you are going to apply for the permit, get the permit, and then build the fence and have it completed. Can you do that within a reasonable time? Michael Galloway: Sure. I would say by the end of the year. By the end of the year you will have a block wall whether or not we get the encroachment permit or not, there will be a block wall there. Whether it be on our property line or the property that we are going to apply for. Commissioner Bristol: So that's your time sir? Commissioner Henninger: Maybe it would be better for you to commit to seeking, filing for the encroachment permit before you come up for you next public hearing. What's that 45 days away or so? Michael Galloway: Okay. Commissioner Henninger: And then building the wall, lets say 6 months after the determination is made of whether you get an encroachment permit or not. I don't know how long that process taken but that's really the steps that you need to follow. A decision has to be made and then once you have the decision you need a little time to get your building permit and get the wall built. Michael Galloway: Right. That's fine. Commissioner Bristol: Mr. Galloway, one of the conditions you wanted deleted and it appears from just listening to the last testimony now and everything I've seen about this issue for all these months, possibly years, is the parking situation at the site -people coming and going. Michael Galloway: Right. Commissioner Bristol: Now we see this a lot here especially when churches ask for a variance in parking, where they are going to go off-site, they are not going to go on street necessary but they are going to go somewhere else and come in. It appears from what The Eli Home is suggesting in saying that they are going to do is that they are not going to have anything immediate off-site to park. 02-18-98 Page 14 Michael Galloway: Correct Commissioner Bristol: My question, sir, to help me out and perhaps for folks out here -what are you going to do with people that are going to come in? Do you have a location now where you are going to generally park? Michael Galloway: We have a couple of locations. Commissioner Bristol: Okay. Are they private or ... but they are not in the immediate vicinity? Michael Galloway: They're not in the immediate vicinity, no. Commissioner Bristol: You understand why I am saying that? I am trying to think how you are going to do that because we hear this once in a while and it is real tough to do and then they end up on streets or some other place. Michael Galloway: Yes, I understand. Commissioner Bristol: Okay. Commissioner Henninger: I would like to ask some questions about -going back to my:memory of the original hearing. 1 really had a sense there were three major issues that I remember out of the original hearing. Well, there were a lot more than three but three stand in my mind and I have to say starting that the neighbors have a certain point about the architecture of the building. The building has always been a little bit of troublesome piece of architecture in its neighborhood. And I think that they are rightfully concerned with the changes that were made to the to the plans that sort of take some of the quality out of the architecture. So I understand their point there. But the issue I would like to ask about is first of all, at the public hearing you said that the residents were basically involved pretty much full-time during the day in counseling ...... Michael Galloway: Yes. Commissioner Henninger (continued): And they didn't really come and go much. Is that still true? Michael Galloway: I would have to get the staff to answer that for you. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, well whoever is best qualified to ask. Kimberly White: Hello. My name is Kimberly White. I'm the Program Director at The Eli Home I also live at Anaheim .Hills at 744 Fairway Lane.. Yes, they are involved in classes and ongoing activities but they are victims of domestic violence and child abuse. There are courts that they need to see. There are outside counseling they have to go to. There are doctors appointments -they're children - th@re are doctors appointments. There are activities that children are involved in they sometimes need to go to. It is not on an everyday basis but on occasion there is a need for them to leave. And just for the simple fact that to get out and get some fresh air and walk around. They are not in a concentration camp. They are here to heal themselves and to .... Commissioner Henninger: On an average day lets say you had, what is it really, 10 mothers with their child each, or that sort of a maximum? Kimberly White: Actually it is seven moms with children. It is generally what the consistency would be because we have seven bedrooms. So seven moms with their children. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, 7 moms with their children. On an average day how many of those would have a trip to make outside? I don't mean to go out in the yard, I am talking about a doctors trip or court trip. Kimberly White: Maybe one or two, maybe. Some days they don't go anywhere. 02-18-98 Page 15 Commissioner Henninger: Okay. So the basic schedule is the that they are being counseled during the day, most of the day. Kimberly White: They have schedules that are an on-going. We ... It functions as a home so we have breakfast, lunch and dinner at the same time but in between that time there are different activities going on for the kids and for the moms. So they have classes and they have specific times where there's parent/child interaction where they do things with the kids. So it is not always 24-hour counseling, per say, but there is structure, there is a format that they follow. Commissioner Henninger: Okay. How many visitors do they normally have during the day? I'm talking about personal visitors. Kimberly White: That rarely, rarely eve happens. Commissioner Henninger: Rarely ever happens. Kimberly White: I have not been there when one has happened. Personal just coming to visit, hi, how are you doing -nothing. If somebody is there to see the client, they are there for a specific reason. It is for schooling. It is for taking care of legal things, maybe papers need to be signed, there needs to be site visits by social workers. But just to come, hi how are you -that never happens. Commissioner Henninger: I would like to ask Code Enforcement a question or maybe this would be more appropriate for the PD (Police Department). So, we have'been operating there for almost a year now. Have we had any crime problems like assault and battery, that sort of thing? John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager: I don't have those statistics with me and I don't know if Tom Engle ... Oh, Mary has them. Commissioner Henninger: Mary? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: I'll let John, because they're coded for the Police Department Code. So I will let John take a look at the list that the PD gave us and he probably would know what the nature of the Police Department trip would be but... We've got that. If we could just maybe hold that for about a minute until we find it. Commissioner Henninger; Okay I'll wait for any answer on that. Commissioner Bristol: Mrs. White, while you are up there, madam is there a reason why it would not be appropriate for people to walk to the park with these people, is it dangerous? Kimberly White: Is there any reason why it would not be appropriate? To walk to the park? During the daylight hours? No, there is no sidewalks that are on Santa Ana Canyon Road. _ __ Commissioner Bristol: That's not what I was talking about. Kimberly White: Oh, personal danger to them? Commissioner Bristol: Yes. Kimberly White: No, and if that was the case they would not be going outside of the home if there was a circumstance that extreme. Chairman Bostwick: Have there been any calls of domestic violence or where their partner have come to the home? Kimberly White: None. Not in the 14 years that we have been in existence has one spouse or one perpetrator ever come to the home. 02-18-98 Page 16 Commissioner Bristol: Can anybody visit? Do you encourage, when you have resident managers, which I'm assuming you are, do you have visitors? Kimberly White: Do I have visitors? That come by and say hello? No, usually when someone is coming by they are dropping something off. I may know them, it may be a family member that's dropping something I've stored in their garage for The Eli Home but just to come and visit, no. They're there for a specific reason. Either they are dropping something off, picking something up -they're doing something when they come. Commissioner Henninger: I had the sense in the public hearing we first had, that there were three major issues and they were all related to access to the property and who would come to the property. One was this issue of bringing potentially violent individuals into the community. Another was the amount of parking that the site had and what would happen if there was an over abundance of cars for the parking spaces. And the third was the issue of whether there would be so much traffic that it wouldn't really be like a home anymore, it would be more like a business. I wondered, maybe I'll ask our traffic engineer, how many trips a day do you think this place generates and how does that compare to a regular single family home in this area? John Lower, TrafficlTransportation Manager, Public Works Department: I can give you information on the typical single family home and average number of trips a day is 10. The range is between 4 and 22 trips per day. I have no information on how many trips are being generated by The Eli Home, although it sounds as if that varies. Commissioner Henninger: Maybe we should ask them. How many trips do you think you generate a day? Kimberly White: No more than 22, not even that many. On an average day maybe 4, but sometimes there's more and sometimes, again, we have none. We have clients who have no vehicles, we have house managers who have no vehicles - so everyone walks. So it depends. Commissioner Henninger: Or someone drops them off, maybe. House Managers who have no vehicles themselves? Kimberly White: Or they take the bus so they walk. Chairman Bostwick: John [Poole], do you have an answer? John Poole: Okay, I'll go over these real quickly for you. Starting the first call we have recorded is on 6- 22-96 and that was a malicious mischief and there are a serious of these -burglar alarms; 6-1-97; suspicious circumstances on 6-1-97; 6-8-97 a burglar alarm; 7-10-97 burglar alarm; and then another burglar alarm on 7-10-97 (there were two of them); and then on 7-30-97 there was suspicious circumstances ... Commissioner Henninger: When did they open for business? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Their temporary C of O was issued in April of last year, so sometime after that. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, so all of these are after that. Your talking about 7-10-97. John Poole: On 8-31-97 a burglar alarm; 9-11-97 a burglar alarm, so they have had quite ... there's another burglar alarm. Then on 12-15-97 there was a disturbance of the peace, it doesn't say what type. On 12-16-97 there was a report of a kidnapping, so I don't know what that involves; and then on 1-18-98 there was a disturbance of the peace. So its primarily burglar alarm calls and then someone reported that someone had been kidnapped on that one date. Commissioner Bristol: John, that call, would that come from the site or could it be off-site? John Poole: 1 don't know where the kidnapping might have occurred but someone there reported that 02-18-98 Page 17 Commissioner Bristol: At the home? John Poole: Because the report we get is to that premises. There were 13 calls in all from 6-22-96 through 1-18-98 and primarily those were burglar alarm calls which we do get a lot of those in the City. Commissioner Peraza: The burglar alarm calls are those in the home, the burglar alarm goes off? John Poole: The alarm goes off and apparently it was a false alarm. There was no report taken for burglary or any theft. Chairman Bostwick: Is that a car alarm or is that actually at the home? Kimberly White: It was our home alarm. We were getting used to it and training new staff so sometimes ... sorry, we worked out the bugs! Commissioner Boydstun: I've set mine off at my office several times. Commissioner Henninger: Lets see we had a disturbance of the peace, malicious mischief and ... John Poole: We had malicious mischief, suspicious circumstances and that could be almost anything suspicious that occurs which is usually something minor because it is not even a crime report that is taken. It is just something suspicious that somebody called about. One disturbance of the peace. That could be anything from somebody talking loudly, playing music too loudly, those types of things. So that's pretty much it and then the report of the kidnapping. But no real calls that stand out, that are associated with this property. Again, I will repeat it, but we get many many false alarms in the City. Kimberly White: Do you need me anymore? Commissioner Bristol: Yes. Chairman Bostwick: Any other questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Henninger: Personally, I would like to make sure that in the end what we get is what we were promised in the beginning, which was a use that was no more intrusive on the neighborhood than a normal single family house, and it sounds to me from the trips we're talking about and with the parking conditions that we're talking about that those probably are right on point in terms of controlling those issues. I wonder, do you think we should take condition 20, which is another one of these conditions that relates to the characteristics of individuals coming to the site and perhaps substitute that with just a pure condition on the number of trips generated by the site which is really more to the point. Mary McCloskey: Condition No. 20 as it reads right now relates to the counseling or education sessions that occur per day or that are attended by individuals that are not on staff of the facility. So that restricted it to four sessions. Commissioner Henninger: Yes, but what issue are we trying to get out there? That's a trip ends issue, maybe I'm mistaken. Mary McCloskey: Well, I think that didn't by virtue of that condition no. 20 it probably did restrict the number of trips coming to and from the property, but they did not request that condition be deleted nor did we ... Commissioner Henninger: But it's similar in form to other conditions that we have had real difficulty with because it really doesn't go to a land use issue. The land use issue is trip ends and I wondered if we should ... You know ... We had a 10 average and a range of 4 to 22. Maybe we should talk about having no more than 15 trips per day and just have a condition that says that. I'm trying to hit the 75th percentile rather than the average. Chairman Bostwick: I think you've got something a little different than an average home with 7 bedrooms 02-18-98 Page 18 John Lower: I'm sorry to bring up this complication but there is a difference between "trips" and "trip ends". Trips is a round trip, okay so if we're comfortable with that. Commissioner Henninger: Yes, trips. Commissioner Henninger: Would that seem an appropriate way to controlling the trips? John Lower: It really is an enforcement concern. I'm not going to be out there counting the trips each day. Commissioner Henninger: Well, it has got be less of an enforcement concern. Not only controlling the trips but asking people if they're a counselor or ... coming to this site. Chairman Bostwick: I would hope that we could find some conditions that would be useful in making the property work as it should and that we're not .... How do I want to say this? That the residents in the neighborhood have become like "spys" making all these calls to the Code Enforcement every time there are excess cars parked around or there are more trips per day. And, I mean, there has got to be a way in which this property can work to the benefit of all the neighborhood and to the community as a whole in providing a service that is needed for the mothers and the children that are abused. I have to agree - some way in which we can put a number or something in there that just gets rid of all these people sitting and counting cars and worrying about who is coming and going - I don't know how you do that. Mary McCloskey: One thing that I would offer is that in the ... one piece of the information that we did request and it is included in their revised letter of operation, is how .... they have indicated in there that they would rearrange and can reschedule of the visitors and the guests and the mothers who have vehicles to ensure that there would be no more than the 6 cars parked off-site and if we asked the question what if someone comes and there is not a parking spot there, and that is where in the letter of operation they indicated that they would prearrange that at an off-site location and then they would send a van or a shuttle over to get that person and bring them back to The Eli Home. So I think in condition no. 20 the scheduling of the educational and counseling session, that is very predictable I .mean they do have to, I would imagine ... Chairman Bostwick: They call and make arrangements for who's coming to the home for scheduling. Mary McCloskey: They do make arrangements for those counselors or educators to come. So restricting that to the 4 per day, help me out Lorri, you would prearrange that in advance. So we believe that the letter of operation did have the information needed to show how and when there are additional trips that would be coming, .how those would be accommodated on-site or prearranged so they wouldn't occur at all. Commissioner Henninger: The other issue to address is the special events at the site. Of course they are addressed in the letter of operation and so we're controlling them just through this condition that they are going to conform to the letter of operation. Mary McCloskey: That's correct. Commissioner Henninger: So could you explain the commitment that is made there? Mary McCloskey: In their revised letter of operation they indicated that they would have a need for no more than 3 events call them special events or events that attract a larger number than what could park on-site, if you will, a year and that they would provide parking on an off-site fully Improved paved parking iot that was prearranged and then that they would provide a shuttle service to bring the people to and from to The Eli :Home. For instance, if it were an open .house or something like that it would be a shuttle service. Then they did also.indicate that there would be times when there may be a birthday party for a child or something where there might be an additional trip or something of that nature and that would be handled under the arrangement that was indicated for the normal daily activities where they would prearrange these things, and if there was a need for a person to park off-site then they would make that 02-18-98 Page 19 pre-arrangement and they would pick them up and bring them there and at no time would there more than 6 vehicles parking at the site. Commissioner Henninger: Okay. Commissioner Bristol: I think it's opinion time. Am I correct we're going to see this in a couple of months? Mary McCloskey: That is correct. They need to seek a re-instatement of the CUP. The CUP will expire on April 2nd of this year. In response to one of the comments that was made earlier, the reason we had been encouraging the fence issue to come before the Planning Commission is originally we did condition the temporary C of O, that was the basis for the temporary C of O, that they come in and seek some sort of decision about that wood fence with the Planning Commission. We were sending them letters saying we need you to come in here to address that issue along with a few minor site construction type corrections that need to be made at that time. The request for amendments, when those come in, we will schedule those for hearing. We started, I think, around November when this started and as you recall it has been continued twice for about a total of a couple of months there. So that is why it is so close to the re-instatement date. That wasn't our intention, it just happen to work out that way. But you will be seeing this again for a re-instatement of the CUP sometime before April 2nd when it expires. We have already notified, in writing, The Eli Home that they need to submit their paperwork and documentation in that regard. Commissioner Bristol: So Mary, if we go ahead with the staff recommendation here, knowing that Code does not have to go out there, I think we have enough enforcement folks out there that if they don't comply with this we're going to know about it in two months. Is that a pretty good safe assumption., regarding on-site and off-site parking? Mary McCloskey: Well, we believe that with the modifications that we are recommending that it really is more amenable to enforcement in that our concern is the number of vehicles that are parked on the site, not the occupancy of that. So we believe that the modified conditions lend themselves more to enforcement. Obviously if its occurring right now, if they park off-site they're being ... anyone who parks on the adjacent single-family lot is being cited. Part of the problem is .many times when we receive complaints by the time we get out there the situation may be gone but we do respond to all complaints as quickly as we can as they are received. I think there are a number of people ... I know the supervisors go out there as soon as they can get out there. We think that the conditions with the modifications will be a lot easier to enforce and will actually serve to address the complaints that are being received with the off- site parking. That is primarily the vast majority of the complaints that are received are for off-site parking. I think the more major of those complaints are when the special events or these occurrences have occurred, where there are a larger number of parcel sic] coming in and we believe that that is now addressed in the letter of operation as it has been revised. Commissioner Henninger: I'd really love to see The Eli Home and the neighbors figure out how to "bury the hatchet" out there. We have spent a lot of time on this effort and it seems to me that we've probably got to the point where people are to some extent being spiteful and I wish everyone could sort of bury the hatchet and make peace out there. What HUD told us was that this sort of use has a right to be in a residential area. It's a residential use and has a right to be in a residential area and so it is going to be there. But I think everyone needs to start trying to work a little together to accommodate each other. I wish that could happen. Chairman Bostwick: I agree with that totally. Commissioner Bristol: One more comment regarding the fence. Is it my belief that we ail concur that maybe that fence issue can wait until we see that in a couple of months? Commissioner Henninger: My sense of it is that the fence needs to happen but I don't want to see it put up until we know where it needs to go. (The following discussion is related to the voting process.] 02-18-98 Page 20 Commissioner Henninger: I'm ready to go. I'd move that this is covered by the previously-approved CEQA Negative Dec. Commissioner Bristol: Second.. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and a second for a previously-approved CEQA Negative Dec. all those in favor say aye? Response from all the Commissioners: Aye. Chairman Bostwick: Opposed? (No responses.) Commissioner Henninger: I'd offer a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3680 as readvertised. I'd like to make a couple of changes. I agree with the staff recommendations and in addition to that I'd like to .... I think I should change this condition no. 20 and I think that it should say that they have no more than 15 trips a day. I think that is really more on point in terms of preserving the residential character. Selma? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney's Office: Yes, would you be making an exception then for the letter of operation with this, except as set for in the letter of operation? Commissioner Henninger: Yes. Mary McCloskey: Bob, for clarification purposes did you want that just 15 trips in general or 4 for the counseling and education sessipns and then ....? Commissioner Henninger: No, 15 in general. I think one of the problems we've had is we've had these conditions that relate to specific categories of individuals that are really not appropriate to the land use concerns. I think the land use concern is the traffic, period, and that doesn't matter if that is being generated by counselor or residents or whoever else. Commissioner Boydstun: [inaudible]. Commissioner Henninger: I'm limiting it to 15. Let's have a limit, that's well over what's average for houses. Commissioner Boydstun: They said that sometimes it up to 22. My thought is I've got a household that 15 would be broken practically 5 days out of 7. Commissioner Henninger: Well, we also had testimony that they didn't have very many trips. My sense ... when I pulled that number out I took into consideration the testimony which sounded like they had maybe 5. So, I thought that this was maybe three times what they really had. _ _. Chairman Bostwick: And it doesn't include the special event days. Commissioner Henninger: That's right. Mary McCloskey: Would that also be round trips or just trip ends as John (Lower) had ... Commissioner Henninger: It would be round trips.. Commissioner Henninger: And then with regard to condition 13 and I guess 27 which involve the wall. I think I would like to merge those. I would like to say that within 45 days of today's date they will submit an .application for an encroachment permit to place the wall out where it was shown on the original plans; and that after they receive a final determination on the encroachmenkpermit, they will have 6 months to complete the wall and that they will bring plans for the wall to the Planning Commission far our final approval on it. 02-18-98 Page 21 Mary McCloskey: Bob, as a clarification on that, because I don't think the City could force them seek an encroachment permit if they decide to leave it where it is at. if, in fact, they don't seek the encroachment permit within the 45 days ... Commissioner Henninger: Okay. Then they'll start building the wall with that time frame. Mary McCloskey: With the 45 days or the 6 months? Commissioner Henninger: Within the 45 days. Okay, if you want an alternative they will either,seek an encroachment permit or they'll seek a building permit for the wall within the 45 days. Mary McCloskey: Okay. Commissioner Boydstun -not audible. Commissioner Henninger: It prdbatily is. Commissioner Boydstun: It would take them that long to get it on the agenda and after we could probably ... (the rest of this sentence is not audible). Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Commissioner Boydstun. The encroachment permit or the encroachment license is approved by the City Engineer. In that case there is not a need to have a City Council hearing. Commissioner Boydstun: I meant if they don't do an encroachment ... (the rest of this sentence is not audible). Commissioner Henninger: Well, Phyllis I think it is a moot point because they said they wanted to do the encroachment permit. Mary McCloskey: Actually I don't even think fora 6 foot block wall, and I'm not sure there is someone from building here, but I don't think they need to get a building permit. It would be the commencement of construction ... Do they need a building permit? That's why I'm not a building official. Chairman Bostwick: Commence construction within 45 days. Mary McCloskey: I think that would be the intent, if I am hearing right, where you are going is that they would seek the encroachment permit or commence construction of the wall? Commissioner Henninger: That's right. Mary McCloskey: Because the issuance of the permit would not really... Commissioner Henninger: Okay. Well, we already have a plan for the wall don't we?. So it would be according to the previously approved plans. Mary McCloskey: That's correct. Commissioner Henninger: And those plans include the irrigation, the typical irrigation and vine pockets and all? Mary McCloskey: Yes., you have already approved the landscape plans that included all of that. The other fence issue that's out there, to a certain degree with a temporary C of O, however, its the remainder of the construction that needs to occur on the balance of the wall. It still needs to have the plaster coating .applied as well as the brick cap and that is in the state of construction as well. Commissioner Henninger: Well, they're building that. That is what you are sayingl Okay, that's my proposed resolution. 02-18-98 Page 22 Chairman Bostwick: All right, that's a resolution and a button vote. Selma Mann: I do have a slight comment. I'd like tp have it made clear that some of these time limitations that are being imposed in connection with the proposed block wall extend beyond the expiration of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Henninger: Okay, is it 42 days? Is that the real number? Mary McCloskey: We could clarify that to say prior to the expiration of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Henninger: Okay. That's fine because I would like to, I think that should be resolved by the time we have the next hearing certainly. Mary McCloskey: We will structure the condition that way. Chairman Bostwick: Its a resolution and a button vote. Michael Galloway: Excuse me, I need clarification on the time frame to build the block wall. Was that 6 months after the 42 days? Commissioner Henninger: No, basically, you have a choice to make. If you want to build the wall without an encroachment permit, want to build it on your properly now, we would like you to do it. Start construction before your permit runs out. If on the other hand you're still considering filing for an encroachment permit, we would like you to file the encroachment permit and then wait for a decision on that, because there is a process the City goes through to decide whether they want to, and then once you have that decision, complete the wall within 6 months after it. Michael Galloway: Okay. Apply for the building permit within the 45 days or actually start construction. Commissioner Henninger: This is an alternative. If you chose that we would like you to commence construction in the 45 days or the 42 days whichever it is -before your permit runs out here. Michael Galloway: Okay. You still didn't quite answer on the time frame of the block wall itself. Are you imposing a time frame? Start construction, I mean, if I did it myself it could take me one year. Do you see what I'm saying. Commissioner Henninger: I see. Well, do you want to start construction then complete it within 90 days? Michael Galloway: No. These are just things that come and haunt us later if you're not specific. It has been, you can see all the things that were used against us. Commissioner Henninger: I think pulling a building permit before the end of your jconditional use] permit year and completing the wall within 90 days thereafter is pretty specific. Michael Galloway: It depends how long its raining and like I said we rely on volunteer labor a lot and we do have people that will do it but it all depends. I don't think 90 days is ... Commissicner Henninger: One of the problems that you have been having out there is that you made a lot of commitments through these hearing processes and then you come back and say it all depends. We'd like you to live up to your commitments. Michael Galloway: And that is what we fully intend to do. Commissioner Bristol: Can'I make a suggestion, sir? Michael Galloway: Sure. Commissioner Bristol: I think what Commissioner is trying to get at is that you do have a choice, encroachment which you just said you are going to do and then you also said you want to build a wall 02-18-98 Page 23 within a year. We were just trying to get back information earlier about if and when you did want to build a wall, because testimony, stuff we have here indicates you want to keep a wood fence. So that is a change and that's positive on your end, but I can tell you this, that when you come back here and we are going to see you relatively soon and if you haven't pulled an encroachment or asked for a permit or construction permit, then you've got to understand what we have been through all these months and years and how that Commission is going to look at it because you just said you want to finish the wall before the end of the year. Michael Galloway: I understand that part of it. I just wanted clarification on the time frame. Commissioner Henninger: I think I did that. We're going to pull a building permit by the end the permit and then we are going to complete the wall within 90 days thereafter. You wanted clarification, there it is. Selma Mann: Commissioner, I would also like to add something that may actually clarify some things for Eli Home's benefit and rather than slow things down with regard to the encroachment permit, there is a specific contract that needs to be entered into in connection an encroachment permit and that is the contract. It requires indemnification of the City for the encroachment and there is not going to be ... the City does not negotiate those. You're asking for the privilege of encroaching upon public property. So I would recommend that they get a copy of that document immediately, take a look at it and if that is not something that is going be acceptable to The Eli Home go ahead and proceed with the alternative. Chairman Bostwick: All right, we have a resolution and a button vote. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes, Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission's actions on this item will be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. What the Planning Commission has done is it has determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project and it has approved a modification of the conditions of approval to a Conditional Use Permit No. 3680 upon the basis as stated in the staff report with the modifications recommended except as modified by the Commission with regard to the construction of the proposed block wall and the timing as stated therefore and modifying Condition No. 20 in addition to that which is in the recommendation to indicate that there shall be no more than fifteen (15) round trips per days except as set forth in the revised letter of operation that has been submitted in conjunction with this hearing. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you very much. Thank you all for your testimony and time, IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition and correspondence was received in opposition. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the modifications to conditions of approval, as follows: Deleted Condition Nos. 5, 13, 16 and 19 in their entirety; and Amended Condition Nos. 6, 20, 21, 26 and 27 to read as follows: 6, That there shall be no off-site parking of resident, visitor, .staff or volunteer cars permitted on adjacent streets or private properties. 20. That there shall be not more than fifteen (15) round trips a day to and from the facility., except as otherwise set forth in the revised Letter of Operation, date-stamped February 11, 1998, as it relates to special events. 02-18-98 Page 24 21. That all meetings, counseling or education sessions, deliveries, transportation needs of residents and staff, and other site visits shall be scheduled so that at no point in time shall there be more than six (6) vehicles parked at the subject property (two (2) in the garage and four (4) on the concrete driveway). 26. That the subject facility shall operate in conformance with the provisions of the revised Letter of Operation, date-stamped February 11, 1998, which document is on file in the Planning Department. 27. That prior to the expiration of this Conditional Use Permit (April 2, 1998), the applicant shall either: (a) Obtain a building permit and commence construction of the perimeter block wall along the right-of-way line, and complete the construction of said wall (including the installation of clinging vines, enhanced landscaping and irrigation as shown on a plan previously-approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1996) within ninety (90) days from the issuance of said permit; or (b) Submit an application for an encroachment permit to the Public Works Department for review and approval for that portion of the perimeter wall proposed to be extended into the Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way. If the encroachment permit is granted, applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating the location of the proposed block wall (including clinging vines, enhanced landscaping and irrigation) to the Planning Department for review and approval., and obtain a building permit and complete the construction of said block wall, landscaping and irrigation within six (6) months from the decision date on the encroachment permit. if the encroachment permit is denied, applicant shall obtain a building permit and complete the construction of said block wall, landscaping and irrigation at the right-of-way line within six (6) months from the decision date of the encroachment permit. Under either alternative, the wall and landscape treatments shall be consistent with the treatments previously approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1996, and shall be permanently maintained by the property owner VOTE: - 6-0 (one vacant seat) - Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 20 minutes (1:50-3:10) 02-18-98 Page 25 3a. 3b. 3c. OWNER: Inn At the Park Joint Venture, c/o Dallas Hotel Associates/ Anaheim Hotel Associates, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENTS: Mark C. Knutson, 4361 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., Attn: Scott Smith, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1855 South Harbor Boulevard -West Coast Anaheim Hotel formerly Inn At The Park. Property is 11:09 acres located at the northwest corner of Convention Way and Harbor Boulevard. To permit a car rental agency with on-site storage and/or parking of rental cars accessory to and in conjunction with a hotel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-23 Approved Granted SR7044KD.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE,PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.- Applicant's Statement: Gary Mobley, attorney, representing the applicant, Alamo Rent-A-Car. Also present were Scott Smith, Manager of the Anaheim office, his supervisor Gordon Schmier, the architect Cecil Kocock and Karney. Alamo Rent A Car is currently operating out of the West Coast Anaheim Hotel and was not aware that a conditional use permit was required. Planning Department indicated a conditional use permit was required because it involved the storage or display of vehicles. They have applied for this conditional use permit to authorize the existing use. He had the following concerns regarding the conditions: Condition No. 1 -They are trying to work out a compromise with the Planning Department. He sent a letter to Commission. This involves 5 spaces immediately adjacent to Harbor Boulevard just outside of the Alamo office. They are legal non- conforming spaces and they are going to continue to be used for parking. They do not feel a condition preventing Alamo from using those spaces makes any sense. This will involve a substantial inconvenience to Alamo customers and a hardship to their business because these spaces are an integral part of what is needed in order for the customers to conveniently drop off and pick up vehicles. There are a total of 10 nearby spaces. 5 right in front of Alamo and 5 across the drive aisle. All the rest of the 25 spaces are far away on the side of hotel in a controlled restricted parking area. These are the most convenient spaces since this is a legal non-conforming parking area, whether or not the condition is imposed. If Alamo is allowed to have these as reserved spaces, as it has under its current agreement with the hotel, they will then use less unreserved parking. 2. Condition No. 3 -This condition is to prevent any on-site maintenance or servicing of rental vehicles. They do not have a problem with that. There is no servicing, oil changes, or washing of cars. They would like to request some relief from the requirements for car vacuuming as part of the general presentation to the customers. Vacuuming would be on the side of the hotel not at the front. 02-18-98 Page 26 3. Condition No. 4 -Relates to a desire that they coordinate with the Traffic and Transportation Manager a review and approval of a re-circulation of the internal circulation for the on-site bus traffic. On-site bus traffic relates solely to the hotel and is beyond their control. It is an area not used by Alamo. He does not believe there is any nexus that is required under Dolan and Nolan and some of the Supreme Court cases involving restrictions. This is something that the Planning Department needs to take up with the hotel. 4. Condition No. 5 - Hasa 10 day requirement for the removal of some signage. Some of the signs have been removed within the setback area. For the rest of the signs, they propose that date be extended to 30 days because it involves the removal of the signs for the actual spaces and the replacement of stenciling. The hotel will be in the process of resurfacing that whole area. They have been informed that it will be at the end of March. So if they have a 30 day period that would prevent them from having to stencil it now and then having to immediately restencil it 2 to 3 weeks later. He was been informed by the Planning Department staff that there would be an additional condition relating to the Alamo van but he thought he should hold off for the moment until that is brought up by staff. THE PUBIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Peraza: Asked if they are going to use a regular vacuum or set up a vacuum machine similar to the car washes? Scott Smith: Responded it would be rolling out a "Shop Vac". On the rear or side of the hotel, not in the front area. It would be a quick turnaround. There will be no permanent type vacuuming structure. Commissioner Peraza: Asked staff to comment on Condition No. 4. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: People are dropped off the site from a bus to get to the Alamo office to rent cars. He cited a personal instance where he had a relative stay at that hotel and they rented a car through Alamo. It is very common for people to come from the bus and rent the car from Alamo. This creates a problem with the circulation when the bus tries to turn on the street. Due to the intemal circulation problem, they do not do it properly thus creating a conflict point on a public street (Harbor Boulevard). Their office is requesting to meet with the applicant and the hotel owner to discuss this issue in order to mitigate the problem. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Selma Mann to explain the relationship between Commission granting a conditional use permit and their approval of the site plan and how it relates to the Supreme Court cases that the applicant's representative referenced. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Responded the Commission has a general understanding that it not be imposing conditions on a particular use that really go beyond the type of use that is being requested and also that the scope of the degree of the condition that is being imposed is not out of proportion to the impact that that particular use is going to be having to the extent that the site plan relates to this particular operator and how they are going to operate on this particular site. She thought there is definitely a relationship to the extent that there is evidence before Commission, between people being dropped off of a bus to get a rental car. It is up to Commission to determine the degree. Commissioner Henninger: They are talking about a major waiver of the parking requirement and they are talking about storing rental vehicles on-site. All of those factors take up area that could otherwise be used for on-site circulation. The issue of how the site circulates is relative to whether Commission should allow them to store more vehicles on-site. Selma Mann: Stated it certainly appears to be relevant to what is being asked for here. It is an existing hotel with a waiver of parking spaces and there are specific findings that relate to a parking waiver, Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff about the genesis of Condition No. 1 -why does staff care where they park those cars? 02-18-98 Page 27 Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Responded the reason staff is recommending Condition No. 1 is that the parking spaces in the front setback area are what are called "legal non- conforming" spaces. They were developed in connection with the hotel. When the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone was adopted parking spaces within the setback area, as well as any parking spaces between the public right-of-way and building, are prohibited so they don't have that in new development. The reason they are asking that this business not have the designated or reserved parking spaces in that front setback area is that staff wants to preserve the integrity of the Anaheim Resort. What they are trying to achieve in the overall revitalization effort out there is that they would not want to encourage businesses expanding into the setback area. It is not only this property but there are some other major properties have parking spaces in the front setback area that are even closer to the sidewalk. Code does allow some modification to legal non-conforming uses subject to the approval of a conditional use permit but Those modifications need to bring that use more into conformance with the Specific Plan. What they would like to achieve is with landscaping, general uses, the look of the area, the design guidelines, etc. They have spoken with the applicant. The applicant did submit a letter (February 18, 1998) requesting that instead of those five spaces within the setback area to provide three additional spaces adjacent to the building and staff is supportive of that. That would essentially mean that they would retain the five existing spaces and then replace two existing handicapped spaces with three new reserved spaces and then relocate those handicapped spaces to the south side of the lobby area, adjacent to the building. Staff is supportive of that. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if staff had a condition to add regarding the vanl Linda Johnson: Responded yes, she would. She would like to add two conditions. The first one would be relative to the parking spaces and it would be Condition No. 9 that 8 reserved rental car parking spaces shall be permitted adjacent to the hotel building. These spaces include 5 existing reserved spaces. In addition, two existing handicapped spaces will be replaced with 3 new reserved spaces. The two handicapped spaces will be relocated to the southern side of the lobby, adjacent to the building. These spaces should be restripped to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager within 30 days from the date of this resolution. The second condition is relative to the location of the Alamo van. Staff has spoken with the applicant further on this and the nature of their operation and they have indicated that they will be frequently dropping off and picking up customers and so the vans should not be located there for very long periods of time and they do have frequent need of it. So staff would like to add a condition that any vehicle which displays the car rental agency's name shall be parked in one of the 8 reserved car rental facility spaces adjacent to the building or along the north property line in one of the designated car rental spaces. This means that the van would not be parked in the front setback area or in any other of the unreserved hotel parking spaces. Mary McCloskey: Stated they would support their suggested modification of Condition No. 5 to take 30 days instead of the 10 days that is currently in the condition. Linda Johnson: Stated on Condition No. 3 relative to vacuuming, due to noise associated with vacuuming and a concern that the reserved parking spaces are adjacent to the north property line (right adjacent to the Jolly Roger Hotel), Planning staff would like them to submit a plan showing the location where they would do this vacuuming on the property itself in a site which would have the least noise impact and would like to have a better understanding of the type of vacuuming, how often, etc. They would like that plan to be approved by the hotel owner since this is just one of the tenants in the hotel. They would like to know if the hotel owner is satisfied with that location as well. Commissioner Bristol: Indicated his understanding is that staff does not want to see any parking or striping for any parking in the setback area. Linda Johnson: Responded the applicant can retain the legal non-conforming parking spaces for hotel patron use. She was referring to not reserving those spaces for the Alamo Rent-A-Car agency. So those spaces could be continued to be used for any other type of hotel patron. Mary McCoskey: Stated the spaces are currently legal non-conforming spaces that were developed in conjunction with the hotel. Allowing the business to expand into them is where staff has a concern. 02-18-98 Page 28 Commissioner Henninger: Asked the applicant what his thoughts were on the proposed changes in the conditions. Gary Mobley: Responded they have no objections to the submitting a vacuuming plan and would agree with the Condition No. 9 providing 8 spaces instead of the 5 in front. They have no problem with Condition No. 10. However regarding Condition No. 4, the bus is from the hotel and this is not typically the way the customers come to Alamo. Alamo has their own shuttle van. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he did not think that was the nexus staff is referring to. It is that all of these uses have to fit comfortably and circulate well on this sight. The fact is that the cars are being stored on-site and that impacts the parking supply and the circulation. Gary Mobley: Stated the Alamo parking spaces are on the side of the hotel, on the other side from where the buses are exiting the lobby area. Chairman Bostwick: Asked for a clarification on Condition No. 9, there are going to be 8 parking spaces. The 5 spaces will be in immediately in front of the Alamo office. Linda Johnson: Responded yes. The 5 existing spaces will be retained, in addition 2 handicapped spaces that are right next to the building will be converted to 3 reserved car rental facility spaces. On the other side of the Porte-coch8re, on the south side of the lobby, 3 existing parking spaces adjacent to the building will be converted to 2 handicapped spaces. Essentially, the total number of parking spaces will stay the same. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Stated the handicapped parking should be accessible to handicap people using the hotel. If the applicant chooses to put them somewhere else they have to be easily and readily available to the handicap to access the hotel lobby. Henninger: Stated his understanding was they are going to be moved right next to the lobby. Alfred Yalda: Stated it should be in an area accessible to a handicapped person. Linda Johnson: Recommended a condition be added to state that those spaces should be to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3965 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 5 to lead as follows: 3. That there shall be no on-site maintenance or servicing of rental cars, including, but not limited to, fueling, washing, detailing or repairs. 5. That within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, the petitioner shall remove all illegal signs (such as the metal plaques on poles identifying Alamo "reserved" stalls and neon window signage). Added the following three conditions: That prior to any on-site vacuuming of any rental car facility vehicle, the petitioner shall submit the following information to the Planning Department for review and approval by staff: 02-18-98 Page 29 (a) A site plan, approved by the property owner, showing where rental cars shall be vacuumed (the location shall not be adjacent to any noise sensitive land use and vehicles parked in the "reserved" car rental facility parking spaces along the north property line shall not be vacuumed); and (b) A letter specifying the number of vehicles to be vacuumed each day and the hours that vacuuming shall occur. The letter shall also specify the type of vacuum cleaner that will be used and describe the level of noise associated with said vacuum cleaner. That eight (8) reserved rental car parking spaces shall be permitted adjacent to the hotel building. These spaces include five (5) existing reserved spaces. That the two (2) existing handicapped spaces shall be replaced with three (3) new reserved spaces. The two (2) handicapped spaces shall be relocated to the south side of the lobby adjacent to the building. These spaces shall be restriped to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. That one (1) vehicle (van) displaying the car rental agency's name shall be permitted to park on-site in either: (a) One of the eight (8) reserved car rental facility parking spaces adjacent to the building; or (b) One of the designated car rental reserved parking spaces along the north property line. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:14-3:36) 02-18-98 Page 30 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Contin 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3055 (READVERTISED) 3-2-98 4c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY N0.98.02 (Advertised as PCN No. 97-02) OWNER: Wayne Morgenthaler, Trust, 21709 Tahoe Lane, Lake Forest, CA 92630-1932 LOCATION: 511 West Chapman Avenue -Near Market. Property is 1.7 acres located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, 290 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. To permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (currently permitted for retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) in an existing 1,772 square foot convenience market in an existing 10-unit, 19,504 square foot commercial retail center. To determine public convenience or necessity to allow the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. QETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide staff with additional information. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-18-98 Page 31 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 35 5c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97.98-09 5d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4000 5f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610 OWNER: Dow's Acreage, Attn: Linda Kenski, P.O. Box 6295, Garden Grove, CA 92645-0252 AGENT: The Olson Company, Attn: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, #400, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 112 - 218 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 6.25 acres located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, 216 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 352: To redesignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-09: To reclassify this property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4000: To construct a 68-lot (including 8 lettered lots) 60-unit (advertised as 62-unit) detached RM-3000 condominium development with waivers of (a) minimum dimension of parking spaces, (b) minimum recreational-leisure areas and (c) minimum structural setback abutting one-family residential developments. Tentative Tract Map No. 15610: To establish a 68-lot, (including 8 lettered lots and 60 residential lots (advertised as 62-units)) subdivision for a detached RM-3000 condominium development. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 3-2-98 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6547DS.DOC ~` , " FOULOWING IS A SUMMARY-OF THE,P~LANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION. ~- ; ' ' ` ~ ' OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to have additional time to address staff concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-18-98 Page 32 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3-16-98 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3992 OWNER: William Taormina, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Steve Eide, 158 Orange Street, Covina, CA 91723 LOCATION: 411 and 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 1.79 acres located at the southwest corner of Sycamore Street and Anaheim Boulevard. To construct a 51,238 square foot indoor roller hockey facility with two roller rinks, snack shop, pro shop and support offices and lockers with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback and minimum setback adjacent to residential zones. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997 and January 21,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. '~'.,;,, FOLLOWINGISASUMMARY;OFTHEP,L:ANNING~COMMISSION`ACTION.,;,;,, ~ ~ -~- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to consider alternate designs to reduce the number of waivers. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-18-98 Page 33 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. VARIANCE N0.4331 7c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15565 7d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 97-03 OWNER: Mary Yaeko Murata, Robert Kenzo Murata, Paul Seichi Murata, Sachiko Murata, 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663 AGENT: Salkin Engineering Corporation, Attn: George E. Kerns, 1215 E. Chapman Avenue, #2, Orange, CA 92866 LOCATION: 421 South Count Hill Road. Property is 8.0 acres located on the south side of Country Hill Road, 270 feet east of the centerline of Old Ranch Road. Waivers of minimum private street width and maximum structural height to establish a 13-lot 11-unit single-family detached residential subdivision and approval for the removal of 103 specimen trees. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997 and January 21, 1998. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98-24 Approved Granted Approved Continued to 3-16-98 FO1ILOWING,IS A SIIMMARY;OF,THE PLANNING:COMMISSION ACTION. ~-" Applicant's Statement: George Kerns, the owner of Salkin Engineering, 1215 E. Chapman Ave., #2, Orange, CA: Stated one of the major concerns at the last meeting was regarding the drainage. There is a substantial amount of water that crosses this property, comes down the driveway and goes onto Country Hill Road. Their intention is to pickup this water and take it underground along Country Hill Road. He has worked with Public Works staff resulting in a condition that will require them to mitigate the effects of the increases of storm drain water from the project. Another major issue are the trees. He has resubmitted a tree removal plan. Mr. Brian Kerr has met with the neighbors. They are concerned with the following issues pertaining to Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that pertain with the tree removal plan: Condition 1 -Requested to have the tree removal plan approved as submitted. 2. Condition 2 -Requested the condition state that no trees will be removed until the issuance of a grading permit as opposed to recording the map, because, generally, he can get a grading permit before the map records and are certainly going to be committed to the project by that time. So he did not believe there would be the likelihood that trees would be removed and the project abandoned. 3. Nesting birds - He was not certain if this meant that they can never grade. Brian Kerr, 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA: Stated he is the potential property owner and the developer. Per the Commission's request he took the proposed tree preservation plan, the proposed landscape plan designed by Rodmocker and Associates, and met with the three parties that expressed their views on the trees and the development itself. He received letters from the Chapman's and Mr. Noiri and Yamatsu, which he thought the Planning Department received copies of those letters. The people he met with were in full agreement with the project. He also meet with Mr. Buckhulst. He indicated he had 02-18-98 Page 34 hired a certified arborist referencing a copy of the letter from Arbor West with their recommendations. Everyone, including himself, would prefer to have the wind row of diseased Eucalyptus trees removed in order to present a block wall and new specimen tree entry to the project. The trees are a detriment to the property because of their age and lack of maintenance. He thought three trees had blown over during the recent storms. He felt it is a hardship to require him to wait until the final tract map recordation to remove these trees. Not only are the trees a danger to people who come up the access avenue but also create a hardship in moving equipment around. Tim Buckhulst, 437 S. Country Hill Road: Stated the last time he came before Commission he was against this proposal because he had not seen any plans and was given inaccurate information. Less than a week ago two trees have already fallen. The trees are very old, and he has been complaining about the trees, especially at the entrance between his property and the Chapman's. The trees are old and they're not being taken care of and therefore have become very dangerous. About 4 or 5 months ago, during the last Santa Ana winds, there were approximately 12 to 20 Eucalyptus trees that had blown over, notjust in his area, but all the way up around that loop. In fact, his next door neighbor on the other side of him had two trees that had fallen. These trees are so close to the Chapman's and his property that if they blow over they are going to do damage to their homes. Both himself and his neighbors are in favor of removing those trees. That will allow plenty of room for the wall and the driveway. Also there will be plenty of trees planted back there more suitable to the property. He apologized for his manner at the last meeting but he was misinformed about the proposal at that time. He stressed to Commission that the trees should be taken out because they are dangerous to the homes. He is in favor of the proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she visited the property this past weekend. She was concerned about the spring on the Buckhulsts side and asked if it will be able to be controlled? There has been a lot of water problems out there. It appears to be a potential problem. She noticed on the far side at the end of the cul-de-sac street there is a lot for sale which she felt would give an access. Brian Kerr: Stated he did have a full soils report done to verify that the property is substantially stable and buildable as home sites prior to proceeding any further. As far as mitigating "a spring". etc. he would need to rely on his engineer to address those questions. Relative to the parcel Commissioner Boydstun referred to the lot that is for sale, is a 1-acre parcel of which the Chapman's have purchased half that abuts the entrance to this particular property that is being discussed. The other parcel is a 1/2 acre and it is accessible off of Old Ranch Road. In order for the numbers to make sense to build a project of this type, someone in his position can not afford the luxury of paying retail for land because it offsets it to a point of not being feasible. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it does seem like an easier access and that he would not be having to do all that he has to do to control that water, underground spring. Brian Kerr: Stated he would have to have George Kerns address the underground spring, if it is an underground spring. According to his geologist, it is not an underground spring. It is run off from the hills above collecting in that natural drainage which is being addressed by Public Works and his engineer. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated then it is not coming from the property., it is coming from above. Brian Kerr: Stated that is what he assumes because he does not know. He has been out there and seen the water. The ground has been very saturated due to all the recent rains, to a point where it will not take anymore. The drainage problem has become more evident than when he first looked at the property 6 to 8 months ago. At that time, there was no evidence of any water at ali, it was dry. The soils experts have assured him there aren't. He is aware of the problems that occurred in the past in some areas in Anaheim Hills and other areas that have underground aquifers, etc. He made sure that he was not purchasing a piece of property that had that problem. They did conduct bore testing in some cases. Normally they go down 5 to 10 feet, and he had some bore testing done in excess of 50 feet to make sure he was not going to have a problem. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Melanie Adams (Public Works Department) if there was an answer for Mr. Kerr as far as the removal on the final site plan so Mr. Kerr could get his grading permit? 02-18-98 Page 35 Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Asked if he was referring to Condition No. 2 under Specimen Tree Removal? Chairman Bostwick: Responded yes. Melanie Adams: Stated the condition was recommended by the Zoning Division., and asked Kevin Bass (Planning Department) to make a comment on it, then they can modify it prior to the grading plan approval that any specimen trees covered by this permit should not be removed. Any diseased trees or damaged trees could be removed prior to that by administrative review of the Zoning Division. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager, Planning Department: Responded that was correct. They would be in agreement with that timing as well with the grading permit. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested Condition No. 1 be discussed regarding the number of trees. The request is to be allowed to remove the trees that they have shown on the original plan. Kevin Bass: Stated staff likes to preserve as many specimen trees as possible, especially wind rows. As stated'in the staff report, based on the layout of the tract map, they have reviewed the tree preservation plan and determined that 56 trees would be removed in order to take them out of the proposed driveway areas, pad areas and slope areas. That would leave 95 trees remaining. The applicant wishes to remove a total of 90 some trees. Particularly the balance is going to be the wind row on the eastern property line. The question is that prior to today, staff did not know that any of those trees were diseased. It looks like a healthy, relatively old, stable wind row. He had been out to the sight twice and, he did not see any evidence of trees that had fallen. There were no trees that were littering the property. Their review of the property is that they were in good condition, therefore, they recommend the program to be modified so as many of the specimen trees as possible be retained. If the Planning Commission wishes to remove trees based on the arborist report then they would have to re-evaluate what trees are to be removed. That is an administrative process per the specimen tree section of the Scenic Corridor. Commissioner Henninger: Asked the applicant if there is a position they could settle on somewhere between these two positions. Asked if the applicant had reviewed every single tree to determine whether it is necessary to remove all of them? Mr. Kerns: Stated there are a couple of issues. This last plan is not the original plan. He moved a number of lot lines and preserved some additional trees. He believed both positions hinge on the trees in the entry. One of the things that he has discovered over the years is there is a :little bit :more to trying to preserve a tree than just not grading it out of the ground. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the basic difference are the trees at the entry? Mr. Kerns;, Stated he thought that was correct. - Kevin Bass: Stated that is true. It is the wind row at the entry along the east property line. If they look at the balance between what staff is proposing and what the applicant is proposing the difference is about 60 trees which are right there at the entry, Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant how many trees in that area are diseased according to his aboristl Mr. Kern: Responded when he met the arborist and his two associates, he did not specify each tree individual. His main concern focused on the stand of Sycamores at the turn around because they had evidence of disease. It is very important to him that he preserve those trees as soon as possible. Regarding the wind row, it is only a portion of the wind row coming up to where the Sycamores are that the local property owners and he would like to see removed,. This is not the whole eastern boundary of the property. It is probably approximately 100 yards of trees. Commissioner Boydstun: Commented the last wind did break a lot of them down because she climbed over them on Sunday. 02-18-98 Page 36 Mr. Kerr: Stated he certainly concurred with saving as many trees as possible. But another mitigating circumstance that when 6 or 7 Eucalyptus trees that have grown to 18 to 24 inches in diameter and they are all within a 6 to 7 foot circle and one falls the rest are going to fall also because they have no root system. The wind row that was planted 20 to 40 years ago and subsequently has never been topped, or shaped. He is not opposed to the City requiring the trees in there but felt it does not make sense classifying them as a danger no. 1 and no, 2, All the adjacent property owners want them out of there. is really up to the Commission on how they want to view it. He is not looking to take out any more trees than he has to because it's expensive. He has to replace them which he does not have a problem doing, but it is not his intent to denude the land. Commissioner Henninger: Stated it seems that the neck of the property is too narrow to build the road needed and leave the row of trees in. Mr. Kerr: Agreed. Opposite the stand of Sycamores, which is the focal point right in the center of the turn around, where there is a break in the Eucalyptus. There is about a 10-foot break before they pick up and continue south of the easterly property line. It is the row in there that where the trees are close together and the ones that Mr. Buckhulst indicated are falling over and some of them are diseased. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the ones that are south of the turn around area could be saved? Mr. Kerr: Responded he felt that there is no reason why not. The trees that are in the driveway now and along the property line, by the time he put in a City standard road and undercut it, what roots are there are probably not going to survive it anyway. Therefore, he thought it would be beneficial for the community, not to mention the local property owners, to have them removed. Commissioner Henninger: Asked about the 4 or 5 that are directly opposite the turn around. Mr. Kerr: Responded yes, they are preserving those along the property line. Again he was not sure if it is possible to preserve them. When the road is cut, those are part of the clump that they have a problem with. That would be subject to the approval of Public Works and Kevin and his engineer and whoever else the Commission designated whether or not they can be saved. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested asking the applicant to return with a final tree removal plan after he has the final grading plan done to be able to know which trees need to be removed and which ones stay. Asked Mr. Kerr if he was agreeable with that? Mr. Kerr: Stated one of the problems with preserving trees is it is often in conflict with the requirements of the soils report to build safe slopes. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he is aware of that. That is why he suggested it be done after the applicant has prepared his formal grading plan. Mr. Kerr: Stated his understanding that the tree preservation plan would not be approved but the rest of the project would be and he would then return for an approval at a later time. Commissioner Henninger: Responded that was right. Mr. Kerr: Asked what happens if they are in a terrible conflict? Commissioner Henninger: Responded he did not think they are in a terrible conflict. His sense is that Commission would like to see all the trees that can be reasonabley preserved and they are not going to be unreasonable about that. Chairman Bpstwick: Stated he did not think they are going to be unreasonable. Commission wants to see a good plan for both the property owner, the neighbors and for the City as a whole. He agreed with Commissioner Henninger's recommendation. 02-18-98 Page 37 Mr. Kerr: Asked if it would it be safe to say that the 6 trees they mentioned are the ones in question and that he has tentative approval for the removal of the trees of the north to that point? Commissioner Henninger: Responded he could not seem physically possible that a road could be placed there and at the same time also save those trees. Chairman Bostwick: Agreed. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he heard Mr. Kerr's neighbors desires to get a wall there instead of having those trees fall over. Mr. Kerr: Stated there seems to be a bit of confusion with the neighbors. Commissioner Bristol: Stated when reaching the tum around at Lot A. Look real carefully at the time. Mr. Kerr: Stated he felt that was acceptable. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated the Specimen Tree Removal can not return to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation Item. It would have to return as a public hearing item. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended that the Specimen Tree Removal portion of the request be continued. tie asked the Mr. Kerr how long it would take him to have the grading plan? Mr. Kerr: Responded in approximately two weeks. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Recommended some modifications. On Variance No. 4331, Condition No. 3 the final paragraph should be modified to read, 'Said turn around area shall be specifically shown on the street improvement plans and to move Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to the Tentative Tract Map'. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4331 with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition Nos.. 3, 4 and 5. Added the following conditions: That a masonry block wall shall be constructed from the existing pilaster on the easterly property line extending southward to the private street turn around. The wall shall be stepped down not to exceed three (3) feet in height within twenty five (25) feet of Country Hill Road. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits and further shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation .Manager. That the developer/owner of subject property shall offer to construct a gate allowing direct access to the horse trail on this property from 415 South Country Hill Road, provided the property owner gives appropriate indemnities to the Homeowner's Association. Said indemnities shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Division. 02-18-98 Page 38 Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 15565 with the following changes to conditions: Added the following conditions: That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on the street improvement plans. That the developer shall submit a water quality management plan (WOMP) specifically identifying the best management practices that will be used on site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval. That the developer shall regrade the slope adjacent to Fairmont Boulevard to be compatible with future street widening. The developer shall also make a cash payment for the future street widening in conformance with Section 18.04.080.020. That the developer shall pay the applicable City of Anaheim Drainage Assessment fees. That prior to grading plan approval, the developer shall submit a drainage report to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division (in conformance with the City Drainage Design Manual) for review and approval. The developer shall mitigate all increased storm water resulting from development of the tract. Mitigation may include underground storm drain pipes, surtace drainage devices and street reconstruction. Mitigation measures shall be determined by the City Engineer, in conformance with Chapter 17.06 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, prior to grading plan approval. The City Engineer will determine whether current balances in the storm drain assessment accounts will be used to construct downstream storm drain improvements by City contract or reimburse the developer for construction in excess of their fair share impact. Said report shall also address on-site artesian conditions. Continued Specimen Tree Removal No. 97-03 to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map portion of this request and 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items. DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (3:37-4:19) 02-18-98 Page 39 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to Sb. VARIANCE N0.447 (READVERTISED) 3-16-98 OWNER: Steven and Loraine Lazerson, 541 South Grand Avenue, West Covina, CA 91791 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Code Enforcement Division), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 302 South East Street (also known as 300 South East Street and 1200 East Broadway) -Anaheim Service Station. Property is 0.49 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and East Street. Staff-initiated (Code Enforcement Division) request to consider the modification or revocation of Variance No. 447 (to operate a gasoline service station). VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. .DOC °„-,;; ~ "-;, ,~-; FOLLOWINGiIS ~A~SUMMARY,,;OF THE P,LANNING~COMMISSION"ACT;ION: ~_;,; ~,;, ~~,; , ~ ` OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for Mr. Alex M. Moisa, legal counsel for the property owner, to discuss compliance recommendations with his client and City staff. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-18-98 Page 40 -- 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY•APPROVED Continued to 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3830 (READVERTISEp) 3-16-98 OWNER: Dennis and Edith Berger, 1120 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1130 West Lincoln Avenue and 1203 West Center Street- Ace Fixtures Company.. Property is 0.22 acre, located on the south side of'Lincoln Avenue, 505 feet east of the centerline of Villa Place. To reinstate the previously-approved outdoor storage of materials for an existing retail restaurant supply store by the amendment or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ,.~F,OLLOWING~IS%aSUMMARY'OFTHEP,LANNING~COMMISSIONACT.ION. ,~ -, ~„ ,., .,, ~,. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commissipn meeting in order for the applicant to determine the new property line based on the CalTrans right-of-way improvements and to complete the required landscaping along Lincoln Avenue. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-18-98 Page 41 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4002 OWNER: Rollins Properties, Inc., One Rollins Plaza, Wilmington, Delaware 19803 AGENT: Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, 225 Brae Boulevard, Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656 LOCATION: 1801 East Ball Road -Hertz Equipment Rental. Property is 1.52 acres located on the north side of Ball Road, 500 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard. To permit and retain a large equipment storage and rental yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-25 Granted FOLLOWING,IS,A SUMMARy;OF THE P,l_ANNINGCOMMISSION,ACTION. ; ~ ,,,, OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4002 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 23 to read as follows: 6. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 16. That there shall be a minimum eight (8) foot wide planter adjacent to the north property line. Said planter shall be fully irrigated, planted, and maintained including a minimum of twenty-five (25) equally spaced 24-inch-box broad headed trees. 17. That equipment storage areas shall be limited to the areas designated on Exhibit No. 1 (site plan), north of the Equipment Staging and Loading Areas. Only small forklifts, aerial lifts, and earthmoving equipment shall be parked near the north property line. All other rental equipment shall be parked adjacent to the east and west property lines. No display of equipment, including mechanical lifts, shall be visible from Ball Road. 23. That Condition .Nos. 4, 10, 12 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4:20-4:25) p2-18-98 Page 42 11 a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Denied 11 b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ..Denied 11 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4003 Denied OWNER: Carl and Virginia Remelin Trust, Attn: John A. Moore, Trustee, 1491 Baker Street, #3, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 1565 West Katelia Avenue. Property is 0.71 acre located on the north side of Katella Avenue, 285 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street. To permit an automotive sales, rental and repair facility with waivers of maximum structural height and minimum structural and landscape setbacks adjacent to residential zones. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION NO. PC98-26 Applicant's Statement: Raymond Martinez, 10622 Bonner Street, Riverside, CA: Stated he is representing Danny Goya who is intending to purchase the property to open a business. He had the following comments regarding the recommends: 1. Page 6, under Recommendation 23 -Relating the height of the building. The drawing prepared indicated a height of 16 feet. Staff recommends a maximum of 15%, feet which is not a problem. They would rather reduce the height of the building. 2. Page 7, under Recommendation 23 (c), 2. -The project is being compared to other projects that are larger in scale, therefore these other projects generate more noise and more traffic and other undesirable situations that they believe they would not have because the scale of the project itself is quite small. 3. The Sanitation Department is requesting a two bin trash enclose. Based on previous experience- they believe that a one bin trash enclosure would be sufficient to serve at the property: Therefore, they would like to amend that to a one bin trash enclosure. 4. Page 8, Condition No. 11 -The owner would like to have the ability to repair other customer vehicles that come in. He does not necessarily need to advertise a tremendous amount for the auto repair but there is incidental auto repair needs as customers come to rent vehicles, they also need vehicles repaired and so the applicant would like to be able to repair other vehicles besides the ones that he is renting and selling. 5. Page 9, Condition No. 19 -The sole purpose for buying and developing the property is to have this business. If he is limited to a one year time period, the investment on the property would not justify a one year use of the property. The applicant would like to omit that requirement. He has been in business in Garden Grove with a similar business for 10 years. He referenced a letter from the City of Garden Grove stating that during that time period there were no Code Enforcement actions nor other complaints against his business. Danny Goya, the applicant: Stated Mr. Martinez covered .all the issues that he wanted to address. He assured Commission that he would comply with all the laws, as they did in Garden Grove. His intention is 02-18-98 Page 43 to do auto rental approximately 80% and the remainder will be auto sales and auto repairs. In 1994 he received approval to develop a million dollar property as a community church, of which he became the president of the church which is located on Katella and Euclid. The reason they need to move from Garden Grove is that the Redevelopment Agency wants to build low income housing there and so they are forced to move. Robert Harrison, 13291 Lock Circle, Garden Grove, CA: Stated he is a personal friend and CPA of Danny Goya. He has.been doing his tax and personal accounting for the past 10 years. Mr. Goya's specialty is auto repair, sales and car rental and that is how he developed the family business in Garden Grove. A one-year limitation on the proposal would not be fair. Mr. Goya developed a community church located at 1771 Katella Avenue and became the president of the church. He needs to have all three -car rental, car sales and repair. Norm Hahn, 1244 South Loara, Anaheim, CA: Stated if Mr. Goya is given a one year limit for the use of this property it would not be an economically viable because he is going to invest approximately $200,000 in the improvement of it. Due to the fact that Mc Goya has had excellent relationship with the City of Garden Grove for the past 10 years, there should be no feeling on Commission's part of him abusing the neighbors in this area with a violation of a code. The applicant has decided not to use a metal building but rather a block conventional building which absorbs the sound much better than a metal building. Jonel Konstantine: He is in real estate representing Danny Goya. This property was vacant for a long time. The applicant is a very honorable person. If he gives his word he keeps his word. Faye Jollis, 1556 Sumac Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated she lives directly behind the property since 1965. It is very difficult for them to get out on Katella as it is. Sometimes they have to wait 5 minutes to get onto Katella or go down to Euclid and come back to Katella. It is currently very difficult for them to get out and this is going to add more congestion. She is concerned with the noise, pollution and traffic. Currently there is only a 6 foot fence dividing the properties. She feels she does not want to have added congestion in getting out. William Reeme: Stated subject property backs up to his backyard which he has lived at his residence for 34 years. He believes it is only a 5 foot fence (not a 6 foot fence as stated). It backs up to all the houses on Sumac Lane. He does not feel it is the proper type of business they would want to be backed up to their backyard. He also owns the property at 1545 W. Katella Avenue and has been there for 36 years. He has been there for 34 years at a CPA. There has been much information about improving Katella making it a major through street. This does not seem like the type of business that would improve the appearance of Katella Avenue. He is very concerned what this proposed use will do to their neighborhood and the Katella street image of Anaheim. Danny Goya: Stated he can make the fence at the property as high as 8 feet if necessary. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol: Stated it is obvious he has a good reputation by the testimony given but remember to Commission this is a land use issue and the impact of what Mr. Goya's business would do at this location versus another location. He does not feel this is the appropriate site for his business because of the rental activity and noise from a service repair facility. He concurs with the staff recommendation. It is not personal towards the applicant but he feels there is probably better sites that would be more appropriate for this type of business. Mr. Goya: Stated it is very close to Disneyland and his intention is more as a rental agency which would be 80%. Commissioner Bristol: Stated again to the applicant that he did not feel this site was appropriate. It has to do with the site and how it would be impacting the residents to the west and definitely the residents to the north. 02-18-98 Page 44 Commissioner Henninger: Stated he also has to agree with staff recommendation. They have had a lot of history with this automotive use in Anaheim. He has no doubt that Mr. Goya runs an excellent business but as Commissioner Bristol stated Commission deals in land use and the general history is that automotive use like this backing up against single family residential and next to condominiums., it is simply not a compatible use. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she has been going to this property until it closed for about 15 years and it was a chiropractic office. There is a nice neighborhood surrounding it and it should be a use that is CO (Commercial Office) or CP (Commercial Professional) Zone. This is not the location for car repair. There are areas in the City where the applicant would not be surrounded by residential as this location is and that is the type of area he should be in. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated he also agreed. Commission's approval goes with the land. The concern is that the applicant may not be there tomorrow and then there is a problem with what they have allowed next to the neighbors and the surrounding environment. As a result Commission would probably agree with the staff report and hoped that the applicant understands that this is not looking at it as a personal item but rather as a land use item. During the voting Selma Mann: Stated Commission may want to consider if the action that is being proposed is the one that staff is recommending for the negative declaration is consistent with that. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Asked the Chairman if Commission would like to direct staff to set the initiation of this property and the two adjacent properties to the east up to Bayless Street for rezoning to the CL Zone. Chairman Bostwick: Offered the motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried IN FAVOR: 3 people spoke in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns. ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4003 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mahn, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. - ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to agendize an initiation of reclassification for this property and the two adjacent properties to the east up to Bayless Street from the CL to the CO Zone. DISCUSSION TIME; 21 minutes (4:27-4:48) 02-18-98 Page 45 12b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-12 3-30-98 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4001 OWNER: Hunters Pointe Homeowners Association, 14600 Goldenwest Street, 102-A, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: TDI, Inc., Attn: Adan Madrid, 3150 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 6900 East Canyon Rim Road. Property is 3.05 acres located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Circle. To reclassify this property from the RS-HS-10,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to construct telecommunication antennas on an existing lattice tower (Edison) structure and ground-mounted accessory equipment. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A.SUMMARY~F,THE P,LANNING,COMMISSION,ACTI~ON.;:~„ „ ; Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Stated a fax was received this morning from the applicant stating that they did concur with staffs request for continuance of that matter. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there was a request (via fax) this morning for a continuance to March 30, 1998 for Item No. 12, the property located at 6900 East Canyon Rim Road. He asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak on this item. There were people in the audience present on this item and therefore Chairman Bostwick asked if they would like to wait and give testimony on March 30, 1998. Otherwise they are welcome to give testimony today. Someone in the audience, who did not identify herself, asked if that meant nothing would happen on this item until .March 30, 1998? -- Chairman Bostwick: Correct. The hearing will be on March 30, 1998, followed by an appeal period. The unidentified woman asked what are the chances of this item being continued againl Chairman Bostwick: Stated he suspected there would be a hearing that day and suggested she call the morning of the public hearing. There will not be another notification mailed out since this item is a continuance. Chairman Bostwick offered a motion far a continuance to March 30, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and motion was carried. 02-18-98 Page 46 OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to submit the required notarized letter of authorization (from the property owner) to process this request, and fees of $492 and for the submittal of the following information within two (2) weeks of this meeting: (a) Letters from the adjacent homeowners associations describing their assessment of the proposal. (b) Photographic simulations showing the proposed antennas on the existing lattice tower structure from all directions. (A photo simulation submitted to staff pictures a similar tower in a different area.) (c) Information and a map describing the "search ring" for this antenna location and other possible locations far antennas within this area. (d) Information identifying the need for the antennas at the height proposed. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M. TO TUESDAY FEBRUARY 24, 1998 AT 3:00 P.M. FOR A CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORKSHOP Submitted by: Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 02-18-98 Page 47