Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/03/16SUM ARY ACTION AGE ®A CITY OF ANAHEI PLANNING CO MISSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1998 9:00 A.M. DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO PRESERVATION OF EUCALYPTUS TREE STANDS IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE BY THE PARK MAINTENANCE DIVISION • PRESENTATION OF A LOCATION MAP SHOWING CITY-WIDE CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 10:30 A.M. • STADIUM TOUR 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA - ONE VACANT SEAT "' STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Kevin Bass Don Yourstone Dennis Tucker Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Tom Engle Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Vice Detail Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 03-16-98 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECI-ARATION /PREY.-APPROVEDI Approved (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3909 -REQUEST FOR Approved final REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN: landscape plans Philip Sniderman, 10806 Cactus Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345, requests review and approval of a final landscape plan for a previously-approved service station with accessory convenience market. Property is located at 1201 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza 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. Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final .landscape plans stipulating that the Code-required number of trees shall be planted outside of the ultimate right-of-way within the 5-foot planter areas adjacent to State College Boulevard and Ball Road, that the proposed berm in these planters shall be a minimum of 3 feet in height, that the proposed King Palm trees shall be a minimum 12 feet in height at the time of planting and that vines shall be planted along the masonry and the trash enclosure walls. SR1043MA.WP ApplicanNs Statement: Phillip Sniderman, 10806 Cactus Avenue, Hesperia, CA: Stated he is the landscape architect for the project. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Mr. Sniderman had read the recommendations in the staff report. .Phillip Sniderman: Responded yes, he had. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Stated in paragraph 8 of the staff report, it indicates that the berms with boulders would not be in the 5 foot setback area on the property on- site but instead it will be in the ultimate right-of-way portion of the property. When the right-of- way is developed, the berms with the boulders would be removed. She also added, in paragraph 14, that the recommendation for King Palm Trees be a minimum of 12 feet in height at the time of planting. The applicant is aware that vines are required by Code to be planted along the masonry walls as well as the trash enclosure walls. Phillip Sniderman: Responded that was fine. 03-16-98 Page 2 B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Continued to (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3662 -REQUEST FOR 3-30-98 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT: Doug Browne, P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817-8021, requests review and approval of the proposed location of playground equipment for a previously-approved private educational facility. Properly is located at 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Applicant's Statement: Doug Browne, 151 South Quintana, Anaheim, CA: Stated last summer during the course of obtaining building permits for the property they did a minor revision of the floor plans for two buildings which are not necessarily a part of the matter that is being reviewed today. During the course of that it was noted that playground equipment had already been installed on the property. The playground equipment was never specified on the original site plan which he presented. A playground was shown but no equipment was shown. During previous discussions with the Planning staff and after the appearance of the equipment on the site, this equipment was considered a structure by the staff. At first he opposed the fact that it was a structure but then after reviewing the only reference he had, the Building Code, he then agreed it was a structure. He was in concurrence that it was constructed within the setback and he also agreed that it was intrusive into the privacy of the neighbors and agreed that it should be relocated. The relocation was established based on (a) where it would fit on the site and (b) where the professional which he consulted indicated that it would best fit. One of the consultants was the case worker for the State of California who set forth the requirements of setback for safe playground equipment spacing to hard surfaces. The other professional was the sound consultant who produced the original report on the property and who has, since that time, provided Mr. Snyderman with information when he has requested it. In order to try to alleviate the situation with the visual intrusion as well as the potential noise that it would cause it was decided that they move the tallest portion of the playground equipment, looking over the backyard of the neighbors, 80 feet away from the property line to a point further than the building setback and left a portion of the playground equipment. The highest point is below the top of the wall. The highest platform on the equipment, when a projection is placed on that on the height of a child's eye, also results in the line of sight being :below the top of that wall. The information was presented to the sound consultant and he came to the site to look at it and now the playground equipment is in compliance with the setback requirement of being 15 feet or over. Based on the information which was provided to him from the sound consultant, it should comply with the noise ordinance. Public Testimony: Fred Lowary, 6273 East Calle Jaime, CA: Stated he did not receive a notice and found out from a neighbor. He took photographs of the playground equipment which is where it has been for months. The building was supposed to be a 2 story building but it is actually a 3 story building (submitted photographs). The advertisement off of Santa Ana Canyon Road states if you would like to lease as a restaurant you may do so (submitted photographs of fhe sign). There is a Montessori sign that starts on the third story of the school and runs vertically up and down and it shines a red light on their street and the neighbors. He did not believe there is any reference to a sign for this property. He does not feel the builder is in substantial compliance with the plans approved by the Ciry of Anaheim. Chairman Bostwick: Stated what is before Commission today is for the proposed location of the playground equipment. He would find it hard to believe the building was not built in conformance with the plans and specifications approved. Mr. Lowary: Stated it was clearly never to be for a restaurant, it was a school, office building and then a church. All the documents he has indicate that it is a 2 story building. 03-16-98 Page 3 Chairman Bostwick: Asked staff to respond his concern. Cheryl Flores: Stated she was sure that the height of the building will match the plans that were approved. There are inspections being conducted by the Building Division that will verify that. Paragraph 5 of the staff report states what was approved for a private educational facility, a,preschool and a church with the listed waivers. There was no restaurant approval under this conditional use permit. There were no signs shown on the previously approved plans. The signs that are permitted will be in accordance with the zoning code for the CL (SC) Zone. They have approved one Montessori sign which is lit, red in color, and it can not be lit between 12:00 midnight and 6:30 a.m. Mr. Lowary: Stated there was nothing about a restaurant. When Ms. Flores stated the height of the building was within limits, is she indicating that it was a 2 story or 3 story height building? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated perhaps he could clarify that. The height of the building was in the number of feet, however looking from the outside it does look like 3 story building. The top level is a mechanical room which has windows, however there is no stairway that goes up to that level. Commissioner Bristol: Stated in reviewing the picture that Mr. Lowary submitted the sign (advertising for a restaurant] appears to have been there for a long time indicating a sale or lease trying to get some interest in this site which indicates retail restaurant, office, 4,000 to 6,000 square feet, occupancy early 1994. Mr. Lowary: Stated that was a simple explanation, but the fact is that it is still sitting out there. Asked if that will be approved after the fact or remain unpermitted. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the applicant would need to submit an application for a different conditional use permit if it is anything other than what was permitted, and notice would have to be given. Greg Hastings: Stated there is not sufficient parking at this location, This was approved for the uses mentioned by Cheryl Flores. It would at least need to return for a parking waiver. Mr, Lowary: Asked if there was notice given to the residents regarding the approved signage since it was not on the original plans? Cheryl Flores: Since the signs are approved by Code and they were verified that they meet the Code requirement, one sign for that school was approved. Mr. Lowary: Asked if they are to find out about the hearing, then they can come to the meeting to ask questions? Chairman Bostwick: Responded it all starts with the original plan. If the applicant does not go outside of the boundaries of what was approved then there will not be a hearing. Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff how large is the mechanical room? Greg Hastings: Responded the plans indicate that this is an attic area which has mechanical equipment and because the building code required flooring it appears from the outside to be a separate floor but there is no stairway up there. There is a ladder that goes to the mechanical area. Commissioner Henninger: He questioned why it would be built to look like a 3rd story and just use it as a mechanical room. Is it is going to be made certain that it does not get used for anything but a mechanical room? Greg Hastings: Responded it would not be allowed to be used for anything other an equipment room without returning, as Chairman Bostwick stated, as a public hearing item. On the building plans it states not to be a useable area. 03-16-98 Page 4 Bart Allen, 6278 East Calle Jaime, CA: Stated his main concern is the playground equipment and play area. He is the neighbor on the other side of the brick wall, the one most impacted by the current business at this site. He asked if his testimony today will be used against him in a court of law. The attorney representing the owner of subject project sent him a threatening letter which stated, "Despite Dr. Jayaratna's [owner] rights he has engaged in a campaign of attempting to block his right to open the school. You have apparently used the location of the playground equipment to mount your attack. You are advised that the playground equipment has been moved so that it falls within all code requirements including the Code setback requirements and the Code sound attenuation requirements:' The attorney also stated that he has inflicted "tortuous" interference with the doctor's property and economic'rights. Chairman Bostwick: Answered this is a public hearing. Whatever is said is on public record and the minutes of this meeting can be copied and used by either party. Bart Allen: Stated he is the neighbor who has lived there for 1 ~~ years and the one who has protested the decibel level that this school is going to entail. When he spoke before City Council on July 8, 1997. The Mayor stated they would not allow anything to take place in that proposed site that interfered with the tranquillity and serenity of the neighborhood. Therefore, the playground equipment was already installed without anyone's permission. He felt that the Planning Commission and the City Council were deceived. He spoke with Doug Browne when he was installing the equipment and stated he did not see this in the plans and Mr. Browne's response was "see you in the Council meeting". He brought it up and the City Council's response was to 'remove and/or replace'. This playground which is a 40 foot long gymnasium (similar to the equipment at a McDonald's or Cad's Jr.] was modified by Doug Browne to comply with the 15 foot easement requirement. Now there are two playground equipments. In Mr. Allen's documentation he located a report of the decibel level from an acoustical expert that Mr. Browne hired. The report referenced the playground area, not just the equipment, be 80 feet from the property line. This was in summary of some documentation that the City received. It referenced 68 dBA-measured, 7 dBA reduction for distance, 7 dBA reduction block wall and a total of 54 dBA resultant nearest neighbor. The report stated this was well below the allowable 60 dBA. Mr. Allen was concerned that the playground area is only 5 feet away from his wall. From the corner of his property to his master bedroom is 20 feet. Doug Browne informed him that the City has allowed them up to 90 children for the school. He does not feel Doug Browne or Dr. Jayaratna have any regard for the tranquillity and peace of the neighborhood. Despite written notification mailed to the doctor three times by Bill Small, Code .Enforcement Officer, the doctor had an open house . The City Council said that the business would not be occupied until that notification of the playground and other code violations were rectified. Therefore, Mr. Allen requested a continuation for two months of the public hearing because he does not feel they are receiving the facts and would like to pay to have his own sound study report. The 15-gallon Juniper trees (sound sight barriers] that were planted 28 inches apart were actually planted at least 36 inches apart. He did not feel the Juniper trees are effective in blocking the sight and sound since they are currently not large enough. He thought it would take about 10 years before the trees are effective.' - -~ There are 3 security lights on the 3rd floor of the building. One light shines in the comer window of his bedroom, another shines to his garage and the third light shines from the west wall into his living room. There is a 7 foot easement between the wall and easement of the parking. At places the easement is over 8 feet and other places is under 7 feet to the outside of the curb. He attended the open house and tried to speak with Dr. Jayaratna but he (the doctor] did not try to address his concerns. He mention to Dr. Jayaratna about his concern of the mud and water that gets washed :into the front of his driveway when it rains because the property was improperly graded. Once the grading plan was approved Doug Browne then built a separation wall between the playground equipment and the parking lot. The playground equipment area is 6 inches to 2 feet lower than the natural grade. Do to the shape of the property, the bend in his property wall and because of this retaining wall installed, when it rains all the water collects and washes through his wall, eroding his landscaping and depositing large amounts of soil and sand in his driveway. He mentioned this to the doctor but there was no response. 03-16-98 Page 5 Ninety children translates into ninety parents and ninety cars. There is only one entrance into the parking which is off Santa Ana Canyon Road. Once in the parking lot there does not appear to be enough parking area. He wanted it noted, for the record, that this is a dangerous situation. He feels his rights have been violated due to commercial interests. He feels the site is not appropriate for a school. At the very least the City could require the applicant to remove the playground equipment or at least move it back to the farthest point east where there is plenty of room for it. Richard Palm: Stated the main street in Anaheim was named after his grandfather. His mother gave the land to Saint Boniface Church and after living in Anaheim for 85 years she became involved in a situation where she could :not sleep or eat due to a noise concerns. Code Enforcement was not helpful in trying to resolve the problem. Therefore he went to the Orange County Health Department and found out if decibel levels are being exceeding then this is considered a health and safety violation. Carol Allen, (wife of Bart Allen), 6278 East Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated since the July 8, 1997 City Council meeting there was suppose to be a "no occupancy" until the playground equipment was removed or reviewed. According to Bill Small, Code Enforcement Officer, three subsequent violation notices were sent to the owner stating, "in violation, playground equipment must'be relocated within 30 days". There was an open house held on a Saturday next to her house, approximately 1'/e weeks ago. The neighbors approached Dr. Jayaratna away from the open house and informed him of the three code violations sent to him by Bill Small. Dr. Jayaratna stated that he had been aware that there had been problems with the neighbors, but Doug Browne assured him not to worry about this because it had been resolved. The doctor contacted them and asked to meet with them on March 6th about their concerns. At the meeting the doctor stated he did recall receiving the violation notices but had given them to Doug Browne to take care of. The neighbors were told by Code :Enforcement [Matt Letteriello] that the City issued a special events permit to Doug Browne so the owner could have an open house to a building that had a "no occupancy" restriction. She could not understand why Doug Browne is allowed to work the system in this way. They would not have known that there was a public hearing until Majid Ahmadi (Associate Planner] contacted Ray (Pontius] to let him know of the meeting and asked that he notify the Allen's. The owner, through his attorney is suing them for interterence and maliciousness for "engaging in a campaign to block the school from opening and using the playground equipment to mount their attack". His letter states that it now falls within all code requirements "any further interference will be without merit and deemed malicious". That is why her husband asked if his testimony could be used against him in a court of law. Apparently Dr. Jayaratna thinks they are trying to block the school when they are actually going through the normal process of a public hearing to voice their concerns. She is very upset at the threatening letter from the attorney. They did not know the applicant was going to have a report from a certified acoustical consultant presented, so they were not prepared with their own response. This is why they are asking for a continuance. The staff report faxed to heron Friday from Majid Ahmadi said see copy attached which there was none. Mrs. Allen'reiterated, as her husband did, that they are requesting a continuance so they can hire an independent acoustical expert to have their own study done. There are now two playground equipment areas and she requests that at the very least that the playground next to their property be removed. The trees should have been planted closer together so they could merge and grow together. She is concerned about the security lights shining into her property. It appears parking lot lamp posts are going to be installed and according to Code Enforcement they should not be more than 12 feet high, must be hooded and lighting not directed to residential neighbors. 03-16-98 Page 6 Ray Pontius, 6276 Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is approximately 20 feet from subject property. At the City Council meeting Councilman Lopez stated that the playground equipment be removed. He did not say relocated, he said remove it. Outside of the Council Chambers he spoke with Greg Hastings which indicated that was not what Councilman Lopez meant. He feels that sooner or later someone will build a staircase to the 3rd floor. He suggested that the numbering be retained for conditional use permit and whenever the CUP is renewed/revised to add a letter after the number (i.e. 101 A, 1016, etc.). The purpose of the spacing between trees and the wall are for safety reasons. They informed the doctor that they objected tp the sound. Other issues addressed were: o The traffic going past the medium on Santa Ana Canyon .Road from going directly into the :property is now safer. The trees were planted for safety reasons so people would not jump over the 6 foot fence, from business to resident. At least the trees were planted and perhaps in the future they will be of some value. Who do they contact when the security alarm goes off in the evening? m How do they know what the decibel level of compliance is7 He felt Commissioner Henninger is the only person that has given them an answer to their questions for the last 5 years. He suggested the next time Greg Hastings goes before City Council that he notify them that there has been more than two public hearings held on this property. ® Again he reiterated the last words from City Council was to remove the playground equipment, not replace it. Jack Lano, 6274 East Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA: Stated he agreed with everything that has been said by his neighbors. He is unhappy with the way Planning Commission, City Council and the staff have handled this request. He read portions of the July 8, 1997 City Council minutes which stated, "Mayor Daly: It is clear that the play equipment must be removed". Councilmember Lopez agreed and his main concern was the playground equipment. Councilmember McCracken wanted to make sure the playground equipment was removed. He referenced the staff report which stated the neighbors have been notified in writing regarding the meeting. He stated that was incorrect. Chairman Bostwick: Requested the applicant to give his rebuttal on the testimony from the neighbors. Jack Lano: Asked if he could speak after the applicant gives his rebuttal. Chairman Bostwick: Stated normally this is the opponents turn for rebuttal. Jack Lano: Stated something may be said which gives them the right for rebuttal. Applicant's Rebuttal: Doug Browne: Stated he was trying to limit this to the subject at hand but would be happy to address any questions Commission may have. He addressed the following concerns: Water transition - Mr. Allen mentioned there was a problem about water transition from subject property to Mr. Allen's property. The grading plan for Tract No. 8873 will reveal on the easterly border of Mr. Allen's property a swale approximately 12 to 16 inches in width was constructed in accordance with that plan. 03-16-98 Page 7 The grade differential has always been there between those two properties, Mr. Allen's property being Tower. Per the City's requirements of a retaining wall'bveep holes" were left at the bottom of the wall. Weep holes are hydrostatic pressure relief ports so when water builds up against a wall it has the ability to seep out from below that. That Swale which has now'been covered up and made into an unlandscaped planter at this time on the easterly board of the property does not function because it has been covered up with mud. That was prior to the time the Allen's acquired the property. The previous neighbor put in a polyethylene perforated pipe which was not satisfactory to transmit the water to the front of the street. The water now assimilates through the weep holes onto the dirt which is unlandscaped and therefore does not control erosion and carries soil from his property, also the easterly property, soil from Mr. Allen's property onto his own driveway. If this Swale is still operational, which the believes it does exist, under the earth then that would relieve that problem. Tree spacing - He submitted a landscape plan which was approved by the City which unfortunately showed the trees at 4 feet on center. Prior to planting the trees he consulted with the landscape architect regarding the spacing because it would have taken the trees a long time to accomplish the purpose of the trees. At that time the landscape architect indicated 3 feet was the absolute minimum spacing for that variety of Cypress trees, If Planning staff reviews the spacing of the trees and thinks it is unreasonable then he would review that again. He referenced a memorandum from the landscape architect which recommended not to reduce the spacing of those trees more than one foot to result in three feet. The landscape architect said it was acceptable to plant them at three feet in order to obtain maximum coverage. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mr. Browne if he had an occupancy permit? Doug Browne: Responded they have applied for it, but it will not be granted until a decision has been made on the proposed relocation of the playground equipment. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there are security alarms? Doug Browne: Responded every alarm on the site for each :independent building, with the exception of the fire sprinkler water motion alarm, is a silent alarm. It is required by law that a 100 plus head fire sprinkler system not only be monitored at a central station, but that an auditile bell be there. An audible bell must be there on any fire sprinkler system because it is required by the National Fire Protection Association. Commissioner Bristol: Asked what the decibel level is for the playground equipment? Doug Browne: Responded according to the sound report it is 57 decibels. Doug Browne: Stated when this project was originally conceived George Layton visited a school in Long Beach, at his request, with similar population of students (a 100 child school) and made tests with the decibel meter instrument which measures sound pressure. Sound pressure is displayed in a form of an LCD number which indicates what the level is. He then measures the distance to the source and records the data from the source to the receiver. Usually not ali the children will be on the playground atone time. After consulting with the school, they informed him that one class will have recess at a time. The maximum students in one class shall be 24. Ninety-two is the number of children approved by the State. Once the sound consultant determines the decibel level he then interposed that information onto the existing playground, comparing distances and adding the factor of sound attenuation. The school examined in Long Beach had a chain link fence. They could not find a school with the same number of children that had a block wall. He feels there is data which can be interposed onto the report to arrive at a .level on attenuation which the block wall provides. They have consulted with the sound consultant and he indicated in the event that the noise level exceeds that by measurement, then there are additional attenuation measures which can be implemented such as placing the insulating material on the wall or placing a 45 degree sound buffer on the wall. It was his proposition at the last Planning Commission meeting that the wall be elevated slightly more than it is in order to assist in that. The Allen's request that 03-16-98 Rage 8 the wall not be elevated any higher and Commissioner Henninger supported such a request because it produces a kind of channeling effect on their driveway entrance. Amore permanent solution would be to elevate the wall but, instead, the playground equipment was moved away from the wall and only lower playground equipment was left. He stated he is knowledgeable in acoustics. There are sound factors that can attenuate noise. One is distance. Between absorptive material, attenuation wall and distance then there is not much that can be implemented here. Commissioner Bristol: Is he saying it is 57 decibels. If the equipment is moved back 15 feet then this would .mean 2 to 4 decibel reductions. Doug Browne: Responded yes, based on the revision of the playground equipment was moved. At this time they are in compliance. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Browne if he could briefly explain how the building became this tall. Doug Browne: Stated in July/August 1992 he went to the residents of Calle Jaime Street. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he recalled at that time the residents were in support of the project and asked what happened. Doug Browne: Responded something or someone has turned them against him. The property was originally designed to be on the west of the site and based on his meeting with the neighbors he proposed the building be constructed 5 feet off the property line, tear down the existing wall and build a super retaining wall to hold the 5 foot column of dirt, so that they could plant Cypress trees and mask the upper stem of that building wall. This was designed in accordance with the neighbors and it was put all in the corner of the property so that it would be a permanent block wall against noise, or any other activity at the site. The neighbors were in considerable support of the project. When he originally came before Planning Commission, Chairman Glenn Hellyer did not agree with the 7 variances requested but five of the Commissioners supported the 7 variances. The reason they supported it is because all of the neighbors supported the project. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he asked for the height of the building. It is supposed to be a 2 story building but it looks like a 3 story building and wondered why. Doug Browne: Responded one of the variances he referred to was that there be no roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he understood that but there was no reason to build it to look like another story. It can be put in a regular attic with a pitched roof. Doug Browne: Responded the way the building was designed was that it be left with enough clearance so they could get in and service it. It is open for inspection. It probably could have been made a little shorter but because he needed no variance for it, that was the height that he built it. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Asked Mr. Browne if he has received the final grading certification. She could not recall receiving a submittal. Doug Browne: Responded no. Melanie Adams: Stated, for the record., the final grading certification is one item required before occupancy. 03-16-98 Page 9 Chairman Bostwick: Stated in reading the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 8, 1997 in which Mayor Daly said, 'that it is clear that the playground equipment must be removed assuming or if the Council approves the Planning Department recommendation that the plans are in substantial conformance with what was originally submitted and approved under the CUP, if so the play equipment must be removed before the building can be occupied'. Councilmember McCracken moved to determine the substantial conformance of plans submitted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3662. The motion was carried. He asked if he is right that the play equipment would need to be removed to be in substantial conformance with the plans? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Responded what he read from is the substantial conformance for the whole project and what the City Council said at the time was that they found the plans in substantial conformance with the exception of the play equipment, that the playground equipment either be removed or would have to return to Planning Commission under the process they are currently at today for further review. Staff indicated at that time that the final occupancy would not occur until either the removal or Planning Commission approval of it. That is why they are before Commission today. As mentioned earlier, there has been no final inspection or occupancy. The special event permit that was issued was actually for a banner but there was no mention that the building was going to be used for anything. Commissioner Peraza: Asked if they were cited for having the open house? Greg Hastings: Responded he was not aware. Someone had mentioned it had occurred on a weekend. He would need to check with Code Enforcement whether anything occurred. Commission Peraza: Stated to Mr. Browne that the residents seem to be concerned with the security lighting shining in their backyards and in the neighborhood and also concerned with the posts that are going to be installed. Doug Browne: Responded the posts are exactly 12 feet, consistent with his plans. They have never been any higher and they have not been installed yet. Security lighting is shown on his site plans but until last week when he spoke with staff he was not aware that there was a restriction. They have no problem in putting a directional shutter or removing it, He thought this was a matter that is going to be handled on staff level and if it is staffs decision not to permit it then they will remove it. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he was concerned about the lighting shining towards the neighbors. Greg Hastings: Stated Code does require that it be restricted adjacent to single family and again he emphasized that there has not been a final inspection or any type of occupancy granted. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he is tempted to continue this item for two weeks and have staff speak with Building Division to provide more definitive answers to some of the questions raised today. He feels he would never have voted for this originally if the neighbors had not been in support. It troubled him that something has happened with that relationship. He suggested Doug Browne meet with hisnelghbors to see if they can come to an agreement with some of these issues. He wondered how long the grading inspection would take. Doug Browne: Stated the grading certificate is available for pickup today. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked why all the play equipment was not moved to the other side? It appears that would have eliminated a number of problems. In reading the Council minutes this is what they were looking for. Dcug Browne: Stated if it is the Commission's wish that the playground equipment which is still near the westerly wall be removed then he would prefer this rather than a continuance. Commissioner Henninger: Stated actually he had the notion that some of these issues need to be addressed. Another way to do this is to set the CUP for rehearing. 03-16-98 Page 10 Doug Browne: Stated from a legal standard point the CUP has already been approved. The only matter which is up for review today from the Reports and Recommendations is the location of the playground equipment. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he could move to set it for a rehearing. He requested that Mr. Browne answer some of these questions and make peace with his neighbors. It is unfortunate what has happened out there. At the first meeting he recalled saying that his neighbors had supported him very well during the public hearing process and that Mr. Browne should be more considerate of them and still feels that way. Commissioner Boydstun: The letter sent from Mr. Browne's client, through his attorney, to the Allen's was uncalled for and threatening. She feels they made a big mistake there. That changed her attitude completely. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that type of heavy-handed techniques is not the way of making peace. Doug Browne: Stated the owner has the right to operate the business. There is need for precise location of the playground equipment. Is the equipment which is there going to be intrusive on the neighbors privacy? If it is, Commission's decision that certain or all of the playground equipment is going to be intrusive on the neighbors privacy then they will comply with that. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she thought they made it very clear the last time that they wanted it moved away from that wall. Doug Browne: Asked Commission what they consider to be reasonable? Commissioner Boydstun: Asked why did they move half of the equipment and not all of it1 Doug Browne: Based on information received regarding equipment which was close to the wall, it did not cause a problem. But if it is Commission's desire that the equipment next to the wall be removed then they will remove it. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion fora 2 week continuance to March 30, 1998 and asked staff to meet with the Building Division regarding some of the questions raised today. Seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. Melanie Adams: Asked Commission if they would like the grading certification finalized before the applicant returns again before Commission. Commissioner Henninger: Responded he would like them to look into the grading and draining issue that has been brought up. Melanie Adams: Stated they will review that and asked does the certification need to be approved before he reappears before Commission. Commissioner Henninger: Responded no, he would tike them to ensure the grading and drainage is correct. Greg Hastings: Stated staff wants to make sure they are clear with what issues Commission would like them to discuss with the Building Division. Many issues raised earlier were allegations which may not involve the Building Division. Commissioner Henninger: Responded as follows: • Lighting - He thought lighting was an issue; both the light on the standards and the lighting fixed to the walls of the building. • 3rd story - He asked for a review of the 3rd story to ensure it is not a 3rd floor 03-16-98 Page 11 o Sign -That the illumination on the sign conforms to code. He questioned the timing of the sign and wondered why it needs to be lit intp the evening. On-site circulation - He requested a review of the turnaround and drop-off of the plan, and ensure the on-site circulation works. a Trees - He requested the trees be checked to make sure they are planted. He would actually like to know what was said in the Planning Commission minutes. He would like a recommendation from the landscape architect sources of what an appropriate planting on center is for those trees. Doug Browne: Stated there was someone who has not yet spoken and would like to do so and requested Commission to put their motion on hold until this person speaks. Chairman Bostwick: Responded all right. Dr. Jayaratna: Stated he is a psychiatrist by profession and his wife is a Montessori teacher. They are the owners of this property. Regarding the letter - he invited Mr. Allen and his wife and Ray Pontius to meet with him at the school to see if they could find common ground. The result of the discussion both Mr. Pontius and Mr. Allen stated their interest in this matter is to close down the school. They said the neighbors are going to get together and take legal action against him. At that point he decided to consult an attorney to find out what he can do and the attorney recommended that he should write the letter. He wants to work with the neighbors. He was not fully aware of all the events that happened but when he came to know the events he made an honest and faithful effort to resolve these conflicts in the best interest of the neighbors and also his business interest. He left from the meeting feeling he had no option other than to protect his rights and interest. That is how the fetter came to be from the attorney. It is a Montessori School, a very academic program where children are not going to be playing in the yard throughout the day. The children will be outside for a short period of time and not at the playground at the same time. They had parents make inquiries about enrolling their children in the school. They mentioned to the parents the problems they are having with the equipment and the neighbors. They were quite shocked. The school is going to be closed after 6:00 p.m. It is closed in the evening and also closed on weekends. To him it seems like an ideal type of business for the location. He appealed to the Commission that his letter from the attorney is not heavy-handed, it is to protect his rights and interest. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Dr. Jayaratna what time does his sign go off? Dr. Jayaratna: Responded it is timed from whenever it turns dark until 10:30 p:m. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there was any reason the sign needed to say on more than 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. so it does not bother the neighbors? Dr. Jayardtna: Responded if that is Commission's intention then he can comply. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated by 8:00 p.m. their commuters have left, Dr. Jayaratna: Responded if that is her recommendation then he can set the timer to go off at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated if he did not have an occupancy permit why did he have the open house? Dr. Jayaratna: Responded he pleaded ignorance because he informed Mr. Browne that he wanted to have an open house. He was not aware that he had to have occupancy to have that. 03-16-98 Page 12 Commissioner Henninger: Stated it was good that he tried to have a meeting with the neighbors. Dr. Jayaratna should take the next to week and try to meet again with the neighbors. He made the following comment towards the neighbors: he heard a few times during the testimony that a school was not an appropriate use in a residential area but schools are generally in residential areas. Considering all the possible uses that could have happened in this property a school is not a bad use. He urged the residents to meet with Dr. Jayaratna and Doug Browne to try to work out any difficulties. Dr. Jayaratna: Requested to have a temporary occupancy and he will comply with any recommendations Chairman Bostwick: Responded no, they can not do that. Their motion is for a two week continuance. Motion was approved by the Planning Commission for a continuance to March 30, 1998. 03-16-98 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-14 3-30-98 OWNER: County of Orange, PF&RD, Real Property, Attn: Donna Garza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2630-2650 East Katella Avenue (County of Orange Katella Yard1. .Property consists of two parcels totaling approximately 16.6 acres located on the south side of Katella Avenue, 340 feet east of the centerline of Douglass Road. Request for reclassification of Portion A, from the County of Orange M1 (FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, .Flood Plain Overlay) Zone to the City of Anaheim RS-A-43,000 (Residential Agricultural) Zone; and, Portions A and B, a Resolution of Intent from the County of Orange M1 (FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, Flood Plain Overlay) Zone (Portion A) and City of Anaheim ML (Limited Industrial) Zone (Portion B) to the City of Anaheim PR (Public Recreational) Zone. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 2, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SR7078GM.DOC FOL~OWING,IS A SUMMARYOF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION."", "": OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission .meeting in order for staff to resolve procedural issues related to finalizing the rezoning. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.. 03-16-98 Page 14 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 352 3-30-98 3c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-09 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4000 3f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610 3g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 3a. 3c. 3d. 3e and 3f 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. Continued from the Commission meetings of February 18, and March 2, 1998. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. Applicant's Statement Kerry Choppin, The Olson Company: Stated the proposed development is located on the southeast corner of Lincoln and Brookhurst. The entire site, which was known as Dow's Acreage is about 7.2 acres. They are purchasing 6.25 acres. They have looked at the possibility of purchasing the balance of the site from the present ownership. From the onset City staff, the Planning Department, the Redevelopment Agency and the developer felt that the entire corner should be included in this residential development but 03-16-98 Page 15 due to economics which were both studied by the Olson Company as well as the Redevelopment Agency what they are presenting today is what they were able to achieve economically. They are proposing 60 single family homes. There will be 3 to 4 bedrooms. Ranging from 1600 square feet to about 2,000 square feet. They feel that this will be a great benefit to the City. It was highlighted under the Brookhurst Corridor Plan as being one of the sites that the City would like to see changed from commercial to residential. The site has been operating under capacity. It is about 50% leased at this point. They feel this is a good site to change to residential. The development site is bordered on the north by commercial, west by Brookhurst, south is R-1 [Single Family Residential] and to the east is RM-3000 which is under the development guidelines that they are proposing for this site. They have been working on this site for over two years. What is being proposed today is about the 10th review at this site. They considered townhomes, various types of single family units, looked at affordability. They have put a lot of effort into reaching this point. They have also spent time with several of the West Anaheim tJeighborhood Development Oversight Committees. They have had two official meetings with them and several telephone conversations. They felt that they were able to satisfy most of their concerns and we are down to only a couple of variances. Scott Adams, Bassenian Lagoni Architects, Newport Beach, CA: Stated their firm specializes in small detached homes. This is one of their specialties as far as a product presentation. They pride themselves in the innovations that they come up with and some of the concepts that are basically replacing condominium type life style in California -something innovative in the way that it respects peoples desire to live in single family detached type home. Builder Maoazine did a lead article on this product concept. I is a type of project that is built and can be seen in south Orange County in the Aliso Viejo area. It has received major buyer acceptance with sales of approximately 15 sales a month at a project called "Canterbury" in Aliso Viejo. (Scott Adams presented a slide presentation of the site plan which included drawings of the view of the project, elevation plans, typical interior and exterior views of the homes, garage layouts, etc.] Judith Ann Collette: Stated she is a long time resident of Anaheim. About 5 to 7 years ago she came to the Planning Commission with concerns about them building a three story apartment building in her back yard. She was assured by the Planning Commission then that she would not lose her privacy. Other concerns are: • She is concerned because she feels that West Anaheim is a very high density area and will turn out like Los Angeles. She deals in real estate and her clients say they do not want to go past Euclid because they think it is a gang and drug area. • She feels that the City of Anaheim is considered to be transitory housing by the young families. They are buying housing in Anaheim because housing there is the cheapest housing around. Cheaper than Garden Grove, Fullerton and Buena Park by $10 - $20,000. • They are trying to make it a safer community by implementing several programs, but feels that by building up so much, you are not giving an opportunity for children to play and gather in safe places. There are no greenbelts etc. to play on. They will congregate on main streets. There are no sidewalks and children need to ride bikes. • She is also concerned about traffic flow if more homes are added. • Concerned about driveways/garages being too small especially for 2 cars. Because garages are too small, people are now using them for storage instead and parking in the driveway and street which cuts out the additional parking spaces that have been planned for. What about RV's and larger trucks? • She thinks that you need to evaluate what your low and medium density is because it is too crowded. • Would also like to see an exit off Broadway so that it is not all off of Brookhurst. • Also questioning the 5 foot easement between properties, it is not enough. • Pop-out areas in garages are nothing but sheds. • Concerned about waivers: garage, recreational, structural setback abutting the current one family, does not want any of these waived. • Concerned about school overpopulation. • Recreational/leisure areas need to be enforced so kids have a place to play. 03-16-98 Page 16 Mike Perez, Anaheim Unified School District. Referenced a letter submitted by the school district requesting a continuance of this project until some issues can be addressed. If you ask for a condition that mitigation occur, that mitigation could occur through an amendment to the Redevelopment Agency Agreement with the School District, or it can occur in other ways and suggests that this be put off until Mitigation can be found. In the past the City Redevelopment Agency has provided mitigation for projects. They would like a modification to the conditions that would require full mitigation of school facility impacts. He presented information from other cities that showed .how some developers enter into mitigation agreements where they pay above the statutory fee to help offset their impacts or they do not build a property until funding has been secured from the state to build more schools. He feels that Anaheim is in a crisis in the district. They have implemented a schedule for staggered sessions, and are looking at double sessions. Theyjust do not:have the room. They are trying to find space for the children. All but three of 22 schools first and second graders will be going on the new schedule and they will probably go next year. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Applicant's Rebuttal: Kerry Choppin: Responded as follows: City has been heavily impacted by transitory housing (mainly to do with apartments) for several years. o School has been impacted because of apartments. If someone wants to buy a single family home in West Anaheim right now, they are looking at older 1200 sq. ft. homes, built in late 40's early 50's with one bath. People demand larger homes today, from 1600 - 2000 s.f. These new homes have fairly good size yards. m If they are going to produce single family homes, which West Anaheim needs, they have to be able to produce something that is a different type that is within the ordinance and has not been produced for the last forty years. There is very little land left so they have to reuse property. And even though all her points are very accurate, there won't be any new single family homes in the area. .Driveways/garages -They can not change the development site. They need the shorter ones. If they made the larger garages, they would lose 8 units. If we do not approve the shorter garages they will go and develop somewhere else. They will not develop here. There are a number of cities with 18 foot garages and they function well. Driveways are narrower but long so that there is plenty of room for 2 cars. Privacy issue -They have a setback of 25 feet for the existing family to the south. The R-1's [Single Family Residential] are set back 30 feet. Wherever they can they will put in windows that are above ti feet and where they're not they are putting opaque windows. Density - The City doesn't want any more apartments, the City needs single family homes, they are at 9.9 per acre. There are 60 lots not 68 units. Open space -They have pulled the waiver off and are above what the City requires for open space now. Large recreational area with play equipment will be installed and is a condition to the requirements and they will be complying with that. Openirig to street -Because of economics they were unable to purchase property that goes onto Lincoln from this development site. 5 foot easement - It is a City requirement. o Pop-out area -are areas not outside the building they are outside the 18x20 garage with hot water areas. Other areas are built for storage. They are going to be building storage areas over the hood of the cars in the garage so people can store in there and put their car in the garage. Schools -They recognize that there is a crisis, but it was created by the number of apartments that have been developed during the past number of years and also the people who inhabit those apartments. They are willing to pay their fair share of $1.84 as required by law but school district is asking for $500,000 which they cannot pay. If they have to pay it they will not be able to develop. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked why would a family want to buy a home where their first and second and graders have to go to a school half day or staggered session? 03-16-98 Page 17 Kerry Choppin: Responded by saying that they are creating housing for renters and first time home buyers out of the rental market. Renting or owning will not lessen the impact on schools. He feels that Anaheim is way out of balance with rental housing. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked question, she thought that the Code required a sidewalk on at least one side of a private street. Melanie Adams: Responded by saying that paragraph 17 in the staff report states although the proposed private streets do :not fully conform to Putilic Works Standard Detail No. 122, which requires sidewalks on both sides of the street, the proposed design with no sidewalks is acceptable to the Department of Public Works. The Public Works Department does not support this development which proposes no sidewalks at .all. That is an error in the staff report. Recent projects have received exceptions to the private street standards from the Planning Commission to allow sidewalks on one side of the street. It is completely unacceptable by the Public Works Department for this development to propose no sidewalk. Commission Boydstun: Was concerned because this development is supposed to be for families, where would they ride their bikes etc., in the street? Melanie Adams: Said that it appears as though they will be left to do it in the street and that is not acceptable. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that the other problem is that there is noway that she is going to vote for a smaller garage because that would be setting a precedent and it will come back and get us in the end. Kerry Choppin: Responded they are not looking to set a precedent. The garages do function well in other jurisdictions. Is there a possibility to discuss this further? Commissioner Boydstun: Responded she has a 20 foot garage and feels that it can not be any smaller especially if you have a full size car or larger. Chairman Bostwick: Indicated that the Ford Expedition has already outweighed the sales of the Explorer which shows that the general public is looking for something bigger not smaller. He too has a problem with the garage size. He stated that he wishes that they could have taken Lynnhaven and build it on this ground. Kerry Choppin: He said that they were specifically asked not to produce anything like Lynnhaven. He said that motorhomes will not be allowed in this development under the HOA Requirements so that they can conform to the parking and fire department standards for the roadway. You will have to go off-site to park motorhomes. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what people will do if they do have a motorhome stored, then have to bring it in-to pack and unpack it? - Kerry Choppin: Responded by saying that some of the driveways are wide enough to accommodate the motorhomes especially on a temporary basis. Commission Henninger: Asked how wide the space was between the buildings. Are they 5 feet apart? Scott Adams: Responded by saying the space between the structures is 10 feet but is bound through a use easement consideration where they are trying to suggest that a house orients to one other structural wall and takes all of that space instead of requiring a property line to be recorded between it where the fence. There is a property line that can be placed between any point of the structure and you will see that separation in the plans. He can't do a five foot separation between structures because it will not meet the Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if it then came to a fire wall condition? Kerry Choppin: Responded that it was an aggregate of 10 feet, it's anon-rated wall assembly. 03-16-98 Page 18 Commissioner Henninger: Asked what he would do if it was a rated wall. Scott Adams: Responded that they would not do it due to the economics of a rated wall assembly. The reason that they do so much of the use easement design is to get the property line off of the structural wall. It's extremely common throughout the United States and not just Southern California. It is the idea that you do everything with a civil engineer recorded use easement that permits the property line as well an additional 5 foot space beyond the property line to be used in one aggregate fashion. It is the kind of space use that side yards and areas that are not normally understood to be part of a configuration have now tremendous use. A 5 foot side yard is nothing more than a dog run to him. Commissioner Henninger: Is there anything more that they can do with a site plan to get more space into the garages. Scott Adams: Stated one of the things that they look at are a string or chain of dimensions. Every element of this has been worked and a foot represents a loss of an entire tier of homes that have become some of the things Kerry mentioned from an economic standpoint that point to the non viability of SFD (single family development) homes and suggest condo apartments might be the alternative. For sixty families this community will make sense and will have tremendous value over living in a condo. They are trying to offer a single family attached orientated life style. Commissioner Bristol: Asked about the sidewalk issuel Scott Adams: Responded in this case it does become one of the functions of string of dimensions. it is a gated community. There is a zero speed configuration through this community. Commissioner Bristol: Asked where are the children going to play? Scott Adams: Responded when he last walked "Canterbury", the court plan (the plan with the deep garage) he saw the big wheels, the tricycles and basketball back stop - becomes a "sports court". It is functioning a way that is different from traditional notions of single family attached life style living and people are accepting it. Commissioner Bristol: Public Works stated they want a sidewalk and asked if they are open to that suggestion? Scott Adams: Responded while they did put a sidewalk into the entry of the project and one by the recreation area, that in this case they are trying to work with the dimensions that result in a certain unit count and there is nothing more to offer. Melanie Adams: Stated the developer is required according to their subdivision ordinance to make applications for deviations or exceptions from the standards and to her knowledge that application has not been submitted. The application would need to have theirjustificationstyhy they areasking for them. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he has a friend who lives in a development like this one in Torrance and it works for him. Although the problem he had was in setting precedence on this. He could see approving this if there was an agreement regarding affordability with the Redevelopment Agency but just the way it currently is he thought everyone is concerned with the precedence. Commissioner Peraza: Referenced the School Districts handout then asked if the monies received by other schools were voluntary by the developer or mandated by Planning Commission or City Council. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: There are a number of items in this case that they have not discussed. There was a memorandum from the Redevelopment Agency which was given to the school district that indicates that the property is located in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project Area and as such it is subject to an agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and City School District that mitigates development activity in the project area regarding the District. She thought it was actively pursuant to the plan. There is a mitigation process already for the Redevelopment Area which may have not been the case in these other areas that are paying the greater amounts. If you look 03-16-98 Page 19 at the amount paid by Redevelopment, imagine that they would be higher than the amount that is being paid per square foot pursuant to the School Facilities Act, the justification of the higher fee is that there are different communities that have a different requirement in the General Plan than the City of Anaheim. The Mira, Hart and Murrietta case (CaLApp.3d 1612 CaLRpfr. 645: and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Ca1.App.3d 1212, 279 CaLRptr. 421] came from situations in which there were general plans that required mitigation of school impacts by new development. Thatiis not the case in the City of Anaheim.. There is not such a requirement. There are arguments that can be made on both sides. There is no clear answer, but in regards to this particular situation, the agreement that exists between the District and the Redevelopment Agency would be a factor that would need to be looked at. Commissioner Peraza: Asked if this was an agreement for all Redevelopment Areas in Anaheim or just for past areas? Michael Perez: Responded it is for two of the project areas. The Commercial Corridor and the Brookhurst Project. If they change the project the Redevelopment Agency has the opportunity to enter into additional mitigation for the impacts provided by that change. Currently the project is expanding over to Knotts Berry Farm. They have been notified by the Orange County Department of Education that a number are now approaching the Redevelopment Agency to ask for mitigation for that project. There are opportunities and that discussion needs to occur. The statute does allow the statutory fee but it also allows for additional mitigation, which could be through Mellos Roos agreements, developer agreements and other opportunities. It could also be to put the project on hold and when the school classrooms are there then they get their building permit. That is a choice that everyone needs to come together and decide. Chairman :Bostwick: Staff has recommended a continuance to see if they can comply with Code requirements and asked Mr. Choppin if he would care to do that or would he like Commission to vote at this time? Mr. Choppin: Stated his instructions were to get a vote but he would like to continue it for two weeks to discuss some of these matters with staff. Commissioner Bristol: Stated he would not like to see the same mistakes made as happened before and indicated the issue of the garages could be the one item that is crucial. Kerry Choppin: Stated he would not like to see single family development stifled in the City because of one issue. The item regarding the school issue was handed to them just before the meeting so they have not had a change to review it. If they want single family homes they are going to need to look very closely at these types of developments, not only for the concerns, but also for all the positive things it brings to the community. Melanie Adams: Requested the developer to look at additional items during the continuance. The first is on the long driveway which they proposed a grassy area to drive over. The Public Works Department is concerned about that because of the concems of cars possibly leaking oil and other wasteproducts into the soil. They recommend against that and perhaps they could consider decorative pavement or something that looks architecturally nice but did not allow the contaminants into the soil. Secondly, on the south end of the property there is a public street, Gamet Street, that was left and would allow in the future for that street to be extended. In this case the developer asked for it to be blocked off. She suggested having them install a curb on Hiawatha Avenue, removing the pavement and installing some kind of low maintenance ground cover such as Gazanias. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion for a two week continuance, to March 30, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concems ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to discuss unresolved issues with staff. 03-16-98 Page 20 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 24 minutes (3:19-4:43) 03-16-98 Page 21 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1594 (READVERTISED) 3-30-98 OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 50p North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst - La Estrella Restaurant. Property is 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To retain the existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Applicant's Statement: Rick Blake, 2700 North Main Street, Suite 1000, Santa Ana, CA: Stated he is representing the applicant and requests this item to be continued for the following reasons: On December 22, 1997 this matter was heard and continued by Commission until today. At that same time there was an accompanying matter regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 3421 which at that time was terminated. It was subsequently appealed and referred by the City Council to a Hearing Officer, Victor Kaleta. His decision is not back but it is expected in the next few days. The issues in the two matters are very similar and that is whether or not the premises has been operating as a restaurant and whether or not there is some type of law enforcement problem. While his decision is not binding on Commission regarding what they would do on this matter, it would seem that if they decide contrary to the hearing officer's decision then it would be a significant inconsistency. They do have a buyer for the location, Mr. Carlos Valdez, who is proposing to operate the business as a sports bar restaurant and he has met with several staff members and he proposes to operate the business with no entertainment, dancing or other type of activity which they currently offer which Mr. Blake understands is the primary objection to the current business operation. o He does believe it would be in everyones interest if this item would be continued. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Selma Mann to verify Mr. Blake's testimony if the judgment of the hearing officer is going to be made shortly and is it something Commission should consider in their thinking of the current matter. Selma Mann: Responded the Planning Commission is certainly not bound by anything that is determined by the hearing officer in conjunction with a separate approval for a public dance hall so there would be different issues involved; however the balance to the best of her knowledge is correct. The matter was heard before Victor Kaleta and his decision as of this morning had not been received. It may be helpful information to the Commission in considering this matter. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it would be to their advantage to have it. 03-18-98 Page 22 Commissioner Henninger: Stated the staff report notes that the income records that were given were for a group of restaurants and not this restaurant specifically and they have not received it and staff has not had time to review the specific information. Asked staff if information was received yet? Rick Blake: Responded no, it is not. Moses Johnson (City Attorney's Office) asked his office last week to provide that to the City. The only reason it was not provided was that he (Mr. Blake) was not in the office last week to be able to do that. So he has no problem in providing that information. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the Police Department had any input on this request. Investigator Tom Engle, Police Department: Stated the Police Department would not be against a continuance until they find out what will happen with these other areas. They had a similar incident two weeks ago where they went to another hearing and decided to wait until they received a decision from Hearing Officer Kaleta. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a motion for a two week continuance to March 30, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion was carried. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Suggested to Mr. Blake that the ledger provided with the food use be more specific than the one submitted previously, as to who the purchaser was and what was purchased. Rick Blake: Asked for clarification. Chairman Bostwick: Explained that they list a company name with a description of what that purchase was for. Rick Blake: Stated he would get the best records he could from the accountant and will forward them to Ms. Flores. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended an inventory of the products purchased as well as the company name. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide a ledger of sales of food and alcoholic beverages fpr this restaurant and for Commission to obtain a copy of the Hearing Officer's written decision from the February 17, 1998 public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No, 3421 for informational purposes only. VOTE: - 6-0 (one vacant seat) - -' DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:55-4:58) 03-18-98 Page 23 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY. APPROVED) Approved Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2992 (READVERTISED) Approved, as readvertised for 1 year OWNER: Leonard and Cyndie Chaidez, P.O. Box 29, Anaheim, CA 92805 (To expire 1-22-99) LOCATION: 507 South Lemon Street -Leonard Chaidez Tree Service. Property is 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana St. and Lemon Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a tree service contractor's yard. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 2, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-31 SR1040MA.DOC „ EOCLOWING!IS A SUMMARY;OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.-, [Item was trailed because the applicant was not present.] OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992, as follows: Amended Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. PC95-19 to read as follows: "6. That non-deciduous clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers and non- deciduous shrubbery planted on maximum 5-foot centers shall be installed adjacent to the existing masonry block walls facing Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street to prevent graffiti opportunities. Said plants shall be maintained with an automatic watering system. Amended Condition Nos. 14 and 15 of Resolution No. PC96-10 to read as follows: 14. That the subject use permit is hereby granted for a period of one (1) year, to expire on January 22, 1999. 15. That the property owner shall be responsible for the cost of monthly Code Enforcement inspections for a period of one (1) year to ensure continuous compliance with conditions of approval:' Added the following condition: That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement inspections as often as necessary until the subject property is brought into compliance, or as deemed .necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances laws or regulations. 03-16-98 Page 24 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSIOPI TIME: 1 minute 03-16-98 Page 25 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 ConcurrE 6b. VARIANCE N0.447 (READVERTISED) Modified OWNER: Steven and Loraine Lazerson, 541 Scuth 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 Broadwav) -Anaheim Service Station. Property is 0.49 acre located at the southeast comer 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). Continued from the Commission meeting of February 18, 1998. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98-32 e e m • o Steve Lazerson, property owner, Wayne Chung, business operator and Alex Moisa introduced themselves. Applicant's Statement: Alex M. Moisa, 14237 Chestnut Street, Whittier, CA: Stated he is an attorney representing the owners, Steve and Lorraine Lazerson. He has been working with the owners and City staff in resolving some issues and addressing requirements and conditions regarding modification or revocation of Variance No. 447. After working with staff almost all the issues have been met. His clients have concerns regarding the following conditions: Condition No. 2 -City staff has asked the applicant to make changes to his property that will cost approximately $30,000. They feel these changes go above and beyond the original requirements. Due to the cost of implementing the conditions they need a certain amount of time to implement the conditions that are above the original request and they would like assurances that will protect his client's investment in the property. He requested the time period be extended from 6 months to 1 year and that the language read, "remove the service station structure in the event that the station is completely closed for a period of 12 consecutive months and the service station shall be considered completely closed during any month .not open for less than 15 days". • Condition No. 4 -They asked clarification regarding no outdoor storage or display of vehicles shall be permitted and that no outdoor work of any kind shall be conducted with the exception of cars slated for repair service on that business day. They ask that this condition be deleted. • Condition No. 10 -Requests no overnight parking be permitted on the property. This condition does not address any public safety concerns and the cars do not pose any nuisance on the property if they are going to be parked overnight for work to be completed the next day. This condition would pose an extreme financial burden on his client because they either can not accept the work or they would have to spend a lot of time trying to move cars onto a different location. Therefore they request this condition be deleted. 03-16-98 Page 26 ® Condition No. 11 -Regarding gasoline sales and type of work on the property. They requested the first sentence to be changed as follows, "That only gasoline sales, oil change, smog check, brakes and tune-up, air conditioning servicing and diagnostic service shall be permitted". That is work they want to do on the property which does not involve any major transmission repair, engine overhaul or any type of heavy automotive repair. • Condition No. 16 -There are currently three signs on the property ("Se Habla Espanol", "Anaheim Service Station" and "Brake Inspection" sign) His client is willing to remove the three signs but in exchange would like to add a sign that a snack shop exists at the gas station. It is a fair exchange and will let the public know what type of business is available. 6. Condition No. 21 -Regarding the requirement to construct two 8-foot high walls on the property adjacent to the east and south property lines. His client proposed the following, "There already exists a 6-foot high wall adjacent to the east side of the property". His client would then need to construct an additional 4 feet to the existing wall. They propose on East Street property side to be allowed to have the 6-foot high wall, construct an additional 4 feet to the 6 foot high wall and then take into consideration the 3 foot setback. They feel the 6 foot high wall addresses any type of smog and noise and fume considerations that may already exist and diminish those. As for the Broadway side, his client has no problem with the 8 foot high wall that is being requested. Condition No. 25 -States, "That Condition Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17 and 19, shall be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of this approval". They spoke with staff and will propose detailing the cost of the wall construction, trash enclosures instructions, restriping, repainting, monument sign and planter construction and making the gas pumps operable overall along with some other changes at a cost of approximately $30,000. The owner would like to spread that cost over a 1 year period. They can get the gas station operable and in compliance with the initial conditions of the variance but they would like at least 1 year to do all of the other work. Condition No. 22, a monthly inspection of the property would still hold. They have no problem with continuing to comply and make progress but they need more time to do it. 8. Condition No. 23 -That subject use shall expire within three years from the date of the resolution. They initially proposed to have a one year period to bring the property into compliance. If the property is not in compliance, the variance would revert back to its indefinite status. They believe it protects both parties in this manner. With his client's financial investments he is concerned that any future efforts to sell the property would be inhibited by the fact that the variance is only for three years upon which it will be revoked. That language scares away potential buyers. If the status is reverted back to indefinite then the City is protected because should the property become out of compliance at any point then the City could seek modification or seek revocation of the permit. 9. Condition No. 26 - Gives a two month period (60 days) to'be in compliance with Condition Nos. 2, 5; 16, 18, and 21. Most of this is plans coordination and they would request an additiohal month (90 days). There were initial problems with Conditions 2, 16, 18, and 21 to begin with, and he addressed some of those concerns. He referenced a letter he submitted which detailed some of the money already spent on the property and they can provide more details. Wayne Chung, tenant: Stated in addition to Condition No. 23 they would also consider some type of formal review at the end of the three year period of time but not to put a time frame for the use to expire to make sure that in the three year period that they were still within the compliance. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated he can always come in at the end of 3 years and renew as long as he is complying and everything is going as it should. Wayne Chung: Responded at that time there may be different staff members and Commission members involved and their thinking may be different. They have invested a quarter of a million dollars on this site and now additional monies will be spent so they feel that this is not an unrealistic request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 03-16-98 :Page 27 Commissioner Henninger: Asked regarding on Condition No. 2, is one year rather than 6 months a major policy issue with staff in changing that datel Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, :Planning Department: Responded Condition No. 2 comes directly from the Code. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated that is what is required in the Code for a new station. This is before Commission as a modification or termination and if there is justification for modification or termination it has been the City Attorney's position that there may be justification for imposing additional conditions. There might be some flexibility with regard with the amount of time with this instance since it is not a new station.. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Code Enforcement staff, regarding Condition No. 4, if someone came to drop off their car at 5:00 p.m. could they leave it on-site overnight? Dennis Tucker, Code Enforcement Officer: Responded historically with this property the cars have been parked east bound from East Street on the south side of Broadway. There have been up to 40 vehicles at a time off-site. Recently, in light of what is happening, they (the tenants) have made every effort to keep the vehicles on the property. He inspected the property last week and found that there were approximately 14 cars in the rear compound and this has been recently site screened off,and probably four cars in the bay areas ready to be worked on, and another six cars parked along the east side boundary which appeared ready to be worked on. The vehicles are now being parked on-site.. It is a matter of keeping them off of Broadway. Commissioner Henninger: Stated a condition is needed since there is no condition addressing off-site parking. Commissioner Peraza: Stated Condition No. 4 addresses that no work shall be done outside and that nothing will be sold. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they are concerned with the wording "no outdoor storage of vehicles", they are worried that the word "display" means that their customers can not drop their car off. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it means that no sale of autos are permitted. Commissioner Henninger: Stated then that condition combines with Condition No. 10, overnight vehicle parking. According to Code Enforcement, no overnight vehicles should not be parked in front of the station. Chairman Bostwick: Stated they need to be either in the building or in the fenced yard which is what is stated on Condition No. 10. Alex Moisa: Stated they have a concern with it because once they restripe and repave the property they are going to have room for only 7 to 10 cars. If a car is to be dropped off at 5:00 p.m. and can not be worked on that day, then it would be parked in a designated striped area and will be worked on the next morning. If there is no room, according to this condition, then he will have to refuse the work or put an additional burden on his customers to reschedule. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested the early drop-off with the car. There is room in the back and in the building. Whatever can not fit in there, then they need to schedule for the following day for adrop-off. If they are doing what they say they are doing on Condition No. 11, then there should not be any reason why those items can not be completed in a day. Any larger items will be sent somewhere else anyway. There is nothing in the condition about early drop-off, so if the customers bring them in the morning on their way to work and they drop it off then it gets picked up that same day. Alex Moisa: Stated this is a booming business and the clientele is primarily a working class, Latino community area, and he does not know what their time constraints are and this is definitely something to make working on their customer's cars easier. As long as the cars are on the property, on a properly 03-16-98 Page 28 designated stall and inoperable order, then they can not see why they can not be parked there. This would amount to 7 to 10 cars in the front, if necessary. Chairman Bostwick: Asked how many mechanics are presently working at this location? Alex Moisa: Responded four including the tenant. Commissioner Henninger: Wondered whether this will really be made into a gas station. Basically the concept is that they are dealing with an accessory to a service station and the way they are describing it does not sound like an accessory use to a service station. Alex Moisa: Stated with the amount of money and the effort going into this it is going to be a gas station as a primary use. They are going back to the original requirements of the variance. It does have a thriving business that does some of the minor auto repair and they would like to keep it. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the thriving business is to not only use up the site but the site plus more. When'he refers to changing it back into service station., they are implying that they are going to take some of that thriving business and shrink it down because that is what the implication is. To have 4 mechanics on the site sounds like a fairly intensive use which is not compatible with the concept of re- establishing the service station. Commissioner Bristol: Stated if they are working on brakes they then need impact wrenches and if they have wrenches with the bays open then there is an environmental problem with the single family residents. Alex Moisa: Responded he could not address this - he did not know. The work is done inside the building. He is not aware of Code Enforcement concerns being raised before. Commissioner Bristol: Stated it looks like they want it all. They want the gas station but still want all the uses for a garage and also a snack shop. Asked Mr. Moisa if he was aware that a snack shop would impact their parking. Alex Moisa: Responded yes, but not to a large degree as far as he knows. Commissioner Bristol: Stated they are trying to have too many uses there. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he was surprised after investing so much money on digging up the tanks that they did not advertise the prices, etc. He was not sure where they were going to put a place for snacks because that office is very small and they are a very popular business. The property has really improved in the past few weeks. Chairman-Bostwick: Stated they have two bays and four mechanics. How is that done unless they are working outside? Steve Lazerson; Responded the problem with the site is that cars were being worked on outside and there were cars all over the place. He became aware of this in January 1998 when he received a call from Dennis Tucker (Code Enforcement Officer). They went to a lot of steps to alleviate those problems. There were more mechanics on-site, there were 7 mechanics. Three of the mechanics were relocated to another facility. Chairman Bostwick: Asked with the new smog equipment that is required and having to have it on a Dyno wheels moving, how do they do that with the back end hanging out the building? Steve Lazerson: Responded the ones that have to go on the Dyno for the actual test it is inside up on the ramps the way the Dynos are setup inside the shop. There is a ramp system and the car is completely inside. The Dynos are not run all the time. Regarding the impact wrenches, that has never been a complaint or concern of anyone. The problems have been with the parking on the streets, which customers cars have not been parking in the street recently. Noise has never been an issue. p3-16-98 Page 29 Commission Henninger: Stated the procedure of pulling the cars up the ramp is the type of thing they were trying to avoid with the condition of not working outside. It seems that there needs to be a condition of no more than 2 mechanics working at one time since there are only two bays. Steve Lazerson: Stated that gets into a situation of whether the Planning Commission can really tell the tenant how to run their business? Chairman :Bostwick: Stated yes, they can. They can set standards of how many mechanics are on the property. Steve Lazerson: Stated there are four people and they are not all working on cars at the same time. Commissioner Henninger: Stated his sense of this is that there needs to be more discussions between the applicant and the staff to resolve some of the remaining issues. This does not appear to be a accessory use to a gas station but rather an auto shop and that is what they are trying to avoid. Perhaps this item needs to be continued to develop more appropriate conditions. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he has a difficult time with the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The hours need to be designated for the garage. Alex Moisa: Stated they are going to become a gas station which is going to be the primary use. They can split the hours of operation. He came into this public hearing thinking that his client and staff were very close except for the time frames for doing work. Chairman Bristol: Stated his comment regarding Condition No. 16, taking away two signs in exchange for a snack shop. That is an indication to him that he has not spoken with staff because that impacts everything in his operation. He actually would not be present if it was operating as a gas station. Alex Moisa: Stated with the transition is an agreement to remove the signs regarding the types of repair and then being more in line with that, having a sign, if permissible, regarding a snack shop to go with the gasoline sales. If Commission does not want that nor the signs, then they will agree to that, Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated this property is currently zoned RM-2400 which is residential so this is a legal non-conforming use. If the snack shop would be going in, then that is an intensification of that use and they would not allow an intensification of a legal non-conforming use. In addition, the signage on this particular zone only allows 20 square foot total for the whole property :because it is a residential zone. Whatever new signage is proposed would probably need to come in as a sign variance. Alex Moisa: Stated the sign may not be permitted and if that is the rule of law then that is the way it will be. Greg Hastings: Stated if this is going to be a service station then by State law they are required to display the pricing which means something is going to have to come down somewhere. Originally the building probably did not have the amount of signage on there that it has now, but that is hard to determine without the plans. Alex Moisa: Stated part of the plan is to construct a monument sign with some type of landscaping at the base and that will designate the gasoline prices. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked for a clarification of what they mean by a snack shop. Alex Moisa: Responded candy displayed and a refrigerated cooler, but not cigarettes. A snack shop is something they would like but not necessarily need to have. 03-16-98 Page 30 Don Yourstone: Stated he has noticed in the past week that the front windows of the office area are boarded up and also board placed on the entrance door to the office. He recommends that they removed those boards and install glass in there.. Alex Moisa: Stated his client does not now want to pursue the snack shop aspect of this. Melanie Adams: Stated on Condition No. 19, the remediation of the soil should be directed to the Utilities Department, Environmental Services Division. They would still contact the Public Works Department regarding drainage but concerning the soil remediation would be the Utilities Department. Alex Moisa: Stated his last concern was regarding smog checks on front wheel drive cars. To do so requires a portion of the car from pretruding from the bay.. Commissioner Henninger: Stated if they are set up with their rolling road surface in there then they would have to make an exception on that, then asked Code Enforcement for their opinion on this. Don Yourstone: Stated most garages have an extension that goes on the rear of the exhaust pipes and goes out of the bay and lays on the ground a little bit to get rid of any fumes from the inside. That would only be for a few minutes and they would have no problem with that. Commissioner Henninger: Stated they would make an exception for smog testing of front wheel drive cars. During the voting: Commissioner Henninger: Recommended the following changes to the conditions for the variance • Condition No. 2 -Change to 1 (one) year. • Condition No. 4 -Clarify by saying that no outdoor work of any kind includes operations where they have the front end of the car in the building and the rest of it hanging outside. Basically that has been a problem around town and they are talking about all work to be conducted inside the building and the cars to be completely in the building. • Submitted plans -The snack shop is being deleted. • Condition No. 11 - He added brakes, tune-up and air conditioning service. • Condition No. 25 - Change to 1 (one) year. • Condition No. 26 -Change to 90 days. • Hours of operations -Keep the hours for the service station and limit the hours for auto repair from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Add a condition requesting that the boards on the windows be removed within 90 days. • Condition No. 19 -The remediation of the soil that should be directed to the Utilities Department, Environmental Services Division. They would still contact the Public Works Department regarding drainage. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. 03-16-96 Page 31 12. That no canopies, awnings., or similar types of overhead shade coverings for the purpose of providing an area for outdoor work or any other activity associated with this business shall be permitted anywhere on the property. 13. That proof of all necessary National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. 14. That no propane tanks shall be permitted. 15. That all vehicles awaiting service must be parked on-site and that the public streets shall not be utilized for parking related to this business. 16. That the existing wall sign on the north elevation "Anaheim Service Station - Smog Check" shall be permitted. All other wall signs shall be removed and any new signs, including any freestanding sign, must comply with the standards of the RM-2400 Zone unless a separate Variance application is submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. All new signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a .Reports and Recommendations item. 17. That a maximum of six (6), maximum 55-gallon each, drums may be stored immediately adjacent to the rear of the service station building in leak-proof enclosures, not to be located within the view of the public right-of-way. 18. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 19. That any ground surface contaminants shall be remediated to prevent soil contamination and drainage onto adjacent properties. The property owner shall submit proof of the soil remediation to the Public Utilities Department, Environment Services Division and proof of the drainage remediation to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division, to ensure that any ground contaminates have been properly disposed of. 20. That any tree, shrub, or flower planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased, and/or dead. Further, that any trees or other landscape material shall not be unreasonably trimmed. 21. That the property owner shall apply for an Administrative Adjustment to construct an 8-foot high masonry block wall (descending to 3-foot high in the front setback areas) adjacent to the south and east property lines. If the Administrative Adjustment is approved, the wall location and height of the wall shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for line-of-sight considerations. Further, if the Administrative Adjustment is denied, the property owner shall construct a 6-foot high masonry block wall (descending to 3-foot high in the front setback areas) adjacent to the south and east property lines, in accordance with Code requirements and subject to the approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 22. That all boards shall be removed from the windows within ninety (90) days from the date of this approval. 23. That this approval is granted subject to the business operating as a gasoline service station, properly maintained in conformance with all conditions of 03-16-98 Page 33 approval and Code requirements. That for a period of six (6) months, compliance shall be monitored once a month by the Code Enforcement Division, with the cost (as determined by City Council resolution) of these inspections, to be paid in advance by the property owner during this time period. 24. That the subject use shall expire three (3) years from the date of this resolution on March 16, 2001. 25. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily for the gasoline sales portion of this request and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily for the auto repair portion of this request, as stipulated to by the property owner. 26. That Condition Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, and 19, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of one (1) year from the date of this approval. 27. That Condition Nos. 2, 5, 16, 18, 21, and 22, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution. 28. That this properly shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the property owner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein; provided, however, that the proposed snack shop is no longer part of this request, as stipulated by the petitioner at the March 16, 1998 public hearing. 29. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 27, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 30. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (5:00-5:53) 03-16-96 Page 34 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)' Continu 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3830 (READVERTISED) 3-30-98 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 consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain outdoor storage of materials for an existing retail restaurant supply store. Continued from the Commission meeting of February 18, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ` ~- ~~~' '' FOLLOWING'ISA S[JMMARYOF`THE R~LANNING:COMMISSION ACTION: -" "~ ~ ~ '~ ~` OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to determine the new property line based on the CalTrans right-of-way improvements, to determine the location and the duration for a CalTrans construction easement on this property, and to complete the required landscaping along Lincoln Avenue. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-16-98 Page 35 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Withdrawn 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3992 (Request for Withdrawal) 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 (a) parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural setback and (d) minimum setback adjacent to residential zones. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997, January 21, and February 18, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of subject petition. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:54-5:55) 03-16-98 Page 36 9a. 9b. 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 Country 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. To approve the removal of 97 specimen trees (previously 103 specimen trees). Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997., January 21, and February 18, 1998. Approved "` ''" ~,`-;;~;'FOLC'OWINGIIS'7A~SUMMARYOF;THE`B~LANNINGxCOMMISSION ACTION:,,,- ~.;~,~'~' ~"`" ' Applicant's Statement: George Kerns: of Salkin Engineering Corporation at 1215 E. Chapman, Suite 2, Orange CA 92866: Stated he is present with Mr. Brian Kerr, the applicant. This is an item that was continued and since that time he has prepared a grading plan with the trees on it. They are in agreement with Planning Staff as to which trees are to be saved and which ones are to be removed with the exception of the trees at the narrow entrance to the project. They have agreed with the neighbors to build screen walls on either side of the trees. Both of the neighbors who objected the first time said now they prefer to remove the trees and have walls there but one of the problems is that there is not much space and it would be very difficult to build a wall and construct a road and still be able to save those trees. So they would like to be able to remove the trees along the entrance. Brian Kerr: 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA: Stated he is the prospective developer of the property. He wanted to state, for the record, that he is proposing an approximately $7.5 million project, selling houses in-the upper $600,000 price range. It is difficult to entice that type of clientele without a`proper entry. He understands staffs position to try and maintain the specimen trees but given the corridor that he has to work with, it is going to be very difficult. When he first looked at this property the thing that he noticed was the stand of Sycamore trees which he plans to preserve and make them the focal point of the project. [It never occurred to him that the wind row of Eucalyptus trees which are not in good shape and have not been maintained, given that with the neighbors on either side of the entryway having seen his proposal are in full agreement with him,] [He submitted a color rendering to Commission of the proposal.] It is a very expensive proposition, and would be a great attribute to the neighborhood with many trees still remaining. He has a long term problem because the trees have not been maintained, and some have fallen over since the last storm He asked who is liable for the trees if there is a problem because they are still on his property yet is a public right-of-way up until the entry gates of the project. Who is liable in the event a tree(s) fall over and potentially harm someone., is his homeowners association responsible, or will he get a waiver from the City that states his association is held harmless. 03-16-98 Page 37 Chairman Bostwick: Responded no, the City is not going to give you a waiver and your homeowners association is going to have to be held responsible. The Parks and Recreation Department was questioned earlier that morning about the trees and they felt that some restorative pruning is appropriate in that area and that it would help the trees. Also, this is a rural canyon atmosphere and to place some other type of tree there would take away this atmosphere that has tried to be maintained over the years. He asked how far down was he going to take the remove the ground to build the road and the curbs. Mr. Kerr: Responded the property owner on the east side from where the trees are wants a sound wall so he does not have to Jook at the traffic. It is vertically impossible to put that wall in because of the number of trees. They are talking about approximately 15 or 20 trees; half on and half off the actual property line. Would those trees remain? How does he put a wall to address his concerns and still have a road. He only has 30 feet to work with and can not put in a wall and a road and keep trees. All he would like is access and feels he is entitled to access to this property without having undue restraints put on him. He is not certain how to resolve this situation. George Kern: Stated when they worked out the grading they worked out the road coming from the existing road up the entry to around the turnaround with the pavement on grade. They have not designed the pavement section but it will probably be between 12 and 18 inches. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if he had 30 feet minimum dimension then what was the maximum dimension? George Kern: Responded that it widens out where the turnaround is, but the average between the edge of the pavement and property line is between 3 and 5 feet. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the section they were putting in was 2 12-foot travel lanes? George Kern: Responded by saying that was correct, plus the curbs. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was a sidewalk? George Kern: Responded no. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested about 5 feet, 2.5 feet on each side? George Kern: yes. Commissioner Henninger: Stated installing walls on his property, 8 inches minimum leaves very little space. He asked staff what they thought the entry should look like in terms of a section. Cheryl Fores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Stated they are supporting the narrower driveway 24 feet wide at the beginning and wider wherever it could be. They are recommending as stated in paragraph 15 that a maximum of 18 of these windrow trees be removed, preserving 23 trees of the 41 that are there. Jack Kudron from the Parks Division told her that his staff did go out and they did agree with staffs recommendation shown in paragraph 15, but he was not aware of the condition of approval requiring the masonry wall along the driveway. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that if you have 24 feet, plus curbs 25 feet, walls another 2 feet, then there are only a couple of feet on each side. Commissioner Bristol: Stated what they are recommending on paragraph 15 can not really be done to save the trees. Cheryl Flores: Stated that after hearing the testimony about the block wall that it probably could not be done with what they have to work with. Commissioner Bristol: He asked if the alternative is what the applicant is requesting 03-16-98 Page 38 Chairman Bostwick: Stated he did not know how you could plant a tree when you only have a foot on each side, it would look like a tunnel. Brian Kerr: Stated he wants to a create a pleasing lock into the property, planting a contained root ball type tree that would not damage the wall, something with a slender stock, branching out a 5 or 6 foot ball which is maintained, and something with color. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested that he meet with the Parks and Recreation Department to come up with some type of compatible tree for the area and possibly plant vines on the walls to soften their effect and make them green. Brian Kerr: Agreed. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner, Planning Department: Stated they are running out of room for trees where there are block walls. The landscape plan shows trees placed in that area and staff wants to know how they are going to get the trees into that narrow area as well as looking at the preservation of the rural character. If they have existing trees taken out then you are going to run into the same problem when you stick new trees in. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested that they return with a detailed plan for the entry showing the planting and how it will work. Brian Kerr: Stated he had plans drawn up and there is an enlarged view of the narrow portion of the entry, second sheet. (He submitted to Commission for their review.] Brian Kerr: Stated there is basically 2 feet to plant trees on either side, Cheryl Flores: On Condition No. 1 asked if they would want the tree preservation returned as a public hearing item or prefer that they work with staff on this. Chairman Bostwick: Responded that this be worked out with staff. Cheryl Flores: Suggested that Commission by motion request the City Council review this permit in conjunction with the tentative tract and the variance on March 24, 1998 public hearing. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 97-03 to remove 97 specimen trees on the basis that it provides reasonable and practical development of this property, and that the character of the immediate neighborhood will not be materially affected by the conditioned tree removal with the following changes to conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That prior to final grading map approval, the owner/developer shall submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan to the Zoning Division for the review and approval by staff showing the maximum removal of up to ninety seven (97) specimen trees. This plan shall also contain detailed notes regarding the grading methods and protective devices that will be used to preserve the remaining fifty four (54) specimen trees located on the property, and replacement of the trees removed at a minimum ratio of two (2) replacement trees for each tree removed (2:1) as required by Code. That no specimen trees shall be removed until this plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff. 03-16-98 Page 39 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (5:55-6:17) 03-16-98 Page 40 10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-10 3-30-98 OWNER: Chiboeze J. Dallah, Sharon K. Dallah, Ernest R. Peralta, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Chiboeze J. Dallah, P.O. Box 773, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1429. 1433 and 1437 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.77 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 160 feet east of the centerline of La Plaza. To reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single- Family) and the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zones to the CL (Commercial., Limited) Zone. Continued from the Commission meetings of January 5, and January 21, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. to SR7070TW.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to consider alternate designs to reduce the number of waivers. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-16-98 Page 41 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4007 for 1 year OWNER: John Lim, Jr. and Hun Han Lim, 2504 Oshkosh ((To expire 3-16-99) Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2127 East Almont Avenue /Unit A 8 Dl. Property is 0.21 acre located on the north side of Almont Avenue, 842 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. To permit a boardinghouse for up to ten (10) residents. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-33 SR7065TW.DOC e e o ® ® a Applicant's Statement: Helen Gay, 513 Devon, Orange, CA: Stated John Lim, the owner of 2127 East Almont Avenue had to leave because he had to go to work so she is present in his absence. She is present to ask for a conditional use permit for 2127 Aptments A and D. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if that meant she would have all four units in the building? Helen Gay: Responded yes. The units were not ready when she was before Commission previously. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she wants up to 10 people and she has 2 people per bedroom and there are 7 bedrooms. Helen Gay: Responded Apartment A is a 3 bedroom, 2 per bedroom which is 6 people. Apartment D is a 2 bedroom, 2 per bedroom which is 4 people, a total of 10 people. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she already had the other apartments so how many people does she have in them? Helen Gay: Responded in total she is allowed 34 people. She does not have Apartments B and C. Commissioner Peraza: Asked how many people did she have altogether at 2127 including the other apartments? Helen Gay: Responded she has 5 people at 2133, Aparment A. Commissioner Peraza: The staff report indicates she has 6 people. Helen Gay: Responded it was wrong because she has 1 bedroom that is rented out as a private bedroom for 1 person. She is allowed 6 people but she only has 5 people. Commissioner Peraza: Stated according to the information he.received, it states that a boarding house can only have 5 but not more than 15 people. Helen Gay: Responded that refers to eating meals. 03-16-98 Page 42 Commissioner Peraza: Stated if she has 16 than it could not be classified as a boarding home. The married couple that live at 2133-A eat at 1181-A South Belhaven because they clean the kitchen for part of their rent. Previously when she was before Commission she was given approval for the married couple because they clean the kitchen at 1181-A. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Stated that is true under Conditional Use Permit No. 3972, two of the kitchen help were to eat at 1181 Belhaven. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if she was moving these people from somewhere else? Helen Gay: Responded yes, from 2145 East Almont because the building was sold. It is the same amount of people, she is not increasing the amount of people. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was an existing entitlement that Commission needs to withdraw? Cheryl Flores: Responded no, they were unpermitted at 2145 East Almont and they were waiting until they acquired this property to apply for their conditional use permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED., Commissioner Henninger: Stated he wanted to make a strong statement that this is the maximum for this neighborhood. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated these types of homes are necessary but it is not fair to change a residential neighbor by having too many [board homes] in it, so her maximum will remain 34. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4007 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (6:18-6:24) 03-16-98 Page 43 12b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97.98-04 OWNER: Nader Semerome Safaie and Zahra M. Safaie, 13741 Clinton Street #46, Garden Grove, CA 92683 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: 2235 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.19 acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Kathryn Drive. To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the CL Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-34 unconditionally SR7057TW.DOC Applicant's Statement: Nader Semerome, 2234 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is in agreement with stafFs recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION:: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-04, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mahn, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (6:25-6:26) 03-16-98 Page 44 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 13b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 354 4-27-98 13c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-13 13d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 13e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4004 13f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14259 13g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 13a. 13c. 13d. 13e and 13f OWNER: State of California, 2501 Pullman, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Paul T. and Beverly S. Salata, Trustees, 98 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: CGC Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Camille Politte, 3248 Roblar Avenue, Santa Ynez, CA 93460 LOCATION: 4000 East Riverdale Avenue. Property is 10.5 acres located on the south side of Riverdale Avenue, 875 feet west of the centerline of Finch Street. General Plan Amendment No. 354: To redesignate this property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Hillside Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-13: To reclassify this property from the RS- A-43,000(SC)Znne to the RM-3000(SC) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4004: To construct a 118-lot (including 20 lettered lots), 98-unit, detached residential condominium subdivision with waivers of (a) minimum structural and landscape setback adjacent to a freeway, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to asingle-family zone, (c) minimum floor area per dwelling unit, (d) minimum structural setback adjacent to a private street and (e) minimum distance between buildings.. Tentative Tract Mao 1Vo. 14259: To establish a 118-lot (including 20 lettered lots) subdivision for the development of a 98-unit detached residential condominium complex. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. ` RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ;; „ " ` FOLLOWING ISA SUMMARY OF THE,P,LANNING~;COMMISSION`ACT,ION: ~`, , ~ ~ - ~" ~-.~ Chairman Bostwick: Stated there was a request for a continuance. Asked if there was anyone present for this item. Someone (who did not identify himself) from the audience responded and asked the date of the continuance. Chairman Bostwick: Responded April 27, 1998 and asked if he could return at that time or would he like to give testimony today. He then indicated he would wait until April 27, 1998. 03-18-98 Page 45 Commissioner Peraza: Offered a motion to continue this item to April 27, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans.. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: v~s~! Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 03-16-98 Page 46