Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/10/23/. DATE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2000 ~. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Vanderbi(t. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick Bristol, Boydstun, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:30 p.m. on October 19, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. ~'~PHE'MC4`~Z CITY OF ANAHEIM ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~VNDED ~8y1 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Consideration of resolution to establish procedures and rules of order for Planning Commission subject to approval of City Council • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Elisa Stipkovich Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Executive Community Development Director Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, September 28, 2000. (. H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MIN UTESWC 1023900. DOC planninycommissionC~anaheim.net 10-23-00 Page 1 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /, ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None DISCUSSION ITEM: I. Neighborhood Council Executive Committee Representatives opportunity to discuss CDBG Priority Projects for FY2001/02. Contact: Andrea Paredes, Neighborhood Services Supervisor, Community Services Department. This item was not discussed because the representatives were not present at the meeting. RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2000. Approved (. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick abstained) 10-23-00 Page 2 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Concurred w/staff (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2715 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- Determined to be in 04276) - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATON OF SUBSTANTIAL substantial CONFORMANCE: John Chan, JTC Architects, Inc., 109 North Ivy conformance Avenue, Suite C, Monrovia, CA 91016, request for a determination of substantial conformance to permit the modifications to (Vote: 7-0) previously-approved plans for an existing Pacific Bell Telephone Switching Station. Property is located at 7295 East Columbus Drive (Pacific Bell Switching Station). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempf from fhe requirements to prepare an EIR. '~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for substantial conformance for a previously-approved Pacific Bell Switching Station, for property located at 7295 East Columbus Drive. (• Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed floor plan design modifications are in substantial conformance with previously-approved plans; with the stipulation that a row of minimum 15-gallon size shrubs be planted and maintained on maximum five (5) foot centers, at the base of the 6-foot high screen fence. SR1069TW.DOC 10-23-00 Page 3 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. B. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2000- 00008: Lettie Boggs - Anaheim City School District, 1001 South East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of real property for the expansion of Paul Revere Elementary School. Property is located at 126, 132, 138, 144 and 150 West Guinida Lane. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and M0710N CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the Anaheim City School District's proposal to acquire real property located at 126, 132, 138, 144 and 150 W. Guinida Lane for the proposed expansion of Revere Elementary School is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in substantial conformance (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun declared a conflict of interest) SR002KT.DOC '. (. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to determine substantial conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of real property for the expansion of Paul Revere Elementary School. Commissioner Bostwick stated for the record that he would be abstaining from this item since he owns property within 1,000 feet of subject property. Commissioner Boydstun also stated for the record that she would be abstaining as she is in escrow on one of the applicant's projects. Applicant's Statement: Lettie Boggs, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and Operations at the Anaheim City School District. Informed Commission of a recent presentation they gave to the City Council regarding their master plan initiative and Council suggested that they also present the plan to Commission. 7herefore, the following was a presentation, which included slides of the Anaheim City School Districts master expansion plan: Their plan is to try to return to the concept of neighbor schools in Anaheim where every student attends the school nearest their home. Their main objective is to get off of their current staggered session calendar. The two major areas of concentration where there are not enough schools for the students at the Haster/Orangewood Area and North Central Area. Their efforts towards adding new school capacity takes three forms: 1.Buying new properties and building new schools in addition to what they already have. 2. Buying properties adjacent to existing schools and expanding the properties. 3. Expansion projects completely within their own property boundaries as they exist now. Ross Expansion. Ross Elementary School will be dedicated on October 24th. This is the first completely new construction in the Anaheim City School District in 30 years. Westmont Site Plan. The school is currently operating in temporary buildings at the Price Elementary School site while they are under construction at the Westmont site. This will be a two- story school building, 43 classrooms on four acres. 10-23-00 Page 4 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Harbor Campus Site Plan. This will be all relocatabie buildings to be run as two schools at that ', site. They are currently in discussions with the City's Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department on a coordinated plan that would work with the City's guidelines for streetscapes. The modernization money from the State has been completely depleted and so the modernization projects throughout the community are on hold. They will be planning a local bond, which will hopefully fund those at a later date. Paul Revere School Expansion. The Anaheim City School District is looking at the acquisition of five (5) properties and the City is looking at the acquisition of five (5) other properties which would allow for a combined park and school project. This is a site they feel needs a complete overhaul and expansion. They have also met with Mr. John Lower, the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager, regarding the Anaheim Street Plan that was recently proposed and are looking at working together to provide a signal so the buses can come in and loop in and out at the Revere School site. They recently entered into a lease-purchase arrangement for the Midway Mobile property, which is currently being converted to house their Operations Center. Next door to that is a building that they are leasing. In July that building began operating as their "Anaheim Opportunity School". This is a specialized place for children that have either been expelled or have severe discipline problems where they can be pulled out of the regular classroom and receive more individualized instruction. A future project fhat they are starting on is the Ponderosa Area School. Another property that they are considering is near Pearson Park to be called Heritage School. The current Mann Expansion (North Central No.2) has been a difficult site to work with. The property came on the market this (, year and they have entered into an escrow to buy the church property and expand the school site. The project will require State funding. They are waiting for a bill working iYs way through the state legislature which was recently signed by the governor, AB801, which would allow them to demolish the current buildings and build a two-story school in that location. The Lincoln Expansion has been targeted as a possible AB801 project also. The Edison Expansion is one that offers them the possibility of doing a project without buying additional land. They current(y have bungalows and relocatables on that campus. They will be adding play equipment this year and would like to expand the parking lot and remove the bungalows and relocatable and build a two-story classroom building instead. They are still looking for an additional school site in the North Central Area. It will enable them to ease overcrowding in many of the district schools. In looking for a site they have constraints from the Department of Education such as not allowing to build a school site near a railroad. The reason they have been able to begin their expansion plan is due to Proposition 1-A, which allowed for the initiation of a new school facility program, which had a component called "financial hardship". The District qualified under the financial hardship status because the District had tried to pass a bond and had received more than a majority, but not quite two-thirds. They received $20.5 million in hardship funding which was matched by the State at $24.3 million. They currently have $46 million available that is being used for the projects that they are working on. 7hey will need to find another source of funding in order to continue with their progress and that is why they will probably be running a bond next year. Chairperson Koos felt that it is necessary for Commission to be informed of the DistricYs master plan and suggested that perhaps the Anaheim City School District could conduct a yearly presentation to keep Commission informed of their progress. ~ 10-23-00 Page 5 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~J PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04263 Approved Approved Granted for 3 years OWNER: Living Stream, Attn: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma II (To expire 10-23-2003) Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 2441 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 27.9 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street (Living Stream Ministry). To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 9, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-118 SR1072TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a continued public hearing, requesting to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Since the last public hearing the site plan has been corrected to show bus access off of (. Woodland and Electric Way. The site plan has been amended to show the correct number of parking spaces. Staff is now recommending approval of the project. Applicant's Statement: ~ John Pester, 513 South Valley, Anaheim, expressed his appreciation to staff for their assistance. He met with Mr. Paul Munoz, from the Police Department and they coordinated event management for their events. They met with Ms. Melanie Adams, from the Public Works Department and secured a right-of-way construction permit to construct a sidewalk along Gilbert Street. They revised the site plan and relocated the bus movement to Woodland. Commissioner Bristol commended the applicant for addressing the concerns regarding the traffic circulation with the buses. Commissioner Arnold also commended the applicant as well as thanked the staff for working with the applicant. 10-23-00 Page 6 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263 subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:58-2:03) ~ (• 10-23-00 Page 7 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04404 Continued to 12-4-2000 OWNER: Watt Commercial Companies Inc., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, #3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218 AGENT: San Pedro Electric Sign Company, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington, CA 90744 LOCATION: 5729-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canvon Villaqe Plaza. Property is 9.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue. Waiver of prohibited signs to construct roof-mounted signs on a new parapet building wall. Continued from the Commission meetings of August 28, and September 11, 2000. (. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7830KP.DOC Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to December 4, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~. 10-23-00 Page 8 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04233 Continued to 11-6-2000 OWNER: Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Compass Telecom, Attn: Adan Madrid, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres located on the north side of Riverside (91) Freeway, and is accessed via a 652-foot long, 32-foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the cenferline of Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley). To construct a freestanding "monopaim" telecommunication antenna facility. Continued from the Commission meetings of July 17, and August 14, September 11, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~. SR7833KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a continued public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233. The request is to co-locate on the existing monopole that is currently on the site. ApplicanYs Statement: Adan Madrid, Compass Telecom representing Sprint PCS, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, stated that they were surprised and disappointed by staff's recommendation for denial of this project. Sprint has been more than cooperative in working with staff towards what they felt would be a project that would receive favorable consideration and a recommendation of approval. Staff's recommendation to deny this project places Sprint in a very unreasonable position. The initial request was for a 58-foot tall palm tree monopole. At that time staff recommended denial, despite the fact that Commission had approved a similar project several months before. At that meeting, Commission continued this item to allow Sprint and staff time to address issues regarding non-conforming AT&T monopole and alternative designs. SprinYs former consultant, legal counsel and Mr. Madrid met with staff on July 25th to discuss these issues. At that meeting he felt they were led to believe that if they were to pursue a co-location with AT&T that they would receive staff's support. They feel that they have taken every step and looked at alternatives to come up with a design and to select a property that they felt would meet everyone's expectations. After looking at six (6) alternative properties they feel the co-location with AT&T is the most appropriate design for the industrial area. The staff report indicates that staff would like to see the antennas integrated into some type of architectural feature or disguised in some other manner. Unfortunately, the buildings in the general vicinity are all concrete tilt ups. They do not offer any unique architectural features that they could build ~• upon. They are left with the option of building a freestanding structure. There is an existing AT&T monopole on the property and Sprint's proposed antennas would be ancillary to the AT&T monopole. 10-23-00 Page 9 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES They feel that by placing the antennas below the existing AT&T antennas that Sprint would be able to (~ meet their coverage objectives without having to construct a freestanding structure. Condition No. 6, page 5 of the staff report, requires removal of graffiti within 24 hours from time of occurrence. It seems unreasonable to ask a carrier to be responsible to maintain an entire property. He asked that the condition be modified so that Sprint would only be responsible for their lease area. Condition No. 7, requires a trash storage area that needs to be refurbished. They do not see the relationship between what Sprint is proposing and the existing condition of the trash enclosure on the property. He requested the condition be deleted. Condition No. 8 requires that the legal owner of the subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement, to be determined, as electrical design is completed. He felt that is out of SprinYs control and would be unreasonable to burden them with having to comply with that condition of approval. He asked that this condition also be deleted. He concluded by stating that they have done everything that they can to present alternative properties and alternative designs and ask Commission to approve this project. John Flynn, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott, stated they are the attorneys for Sprint and indicated he was also present at the meeting with City staff and also came away from that meeting with the same understanding that Mr. Madrid had. They were all surprised with staff s recommendation for denial. He felt there are fwo legai issues. One has to do with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a Federal Act. Under that act it is not possible to lawfully discriminate between providers of wireless services unless there is a reasonable basis for that discrimination. In this case, there is not reasonable basis for allowing a competitive advantage to AT&T and yet saying to a provider of the same services that they are not . going to be allowed to fill this coverage need. He felt that is unreasonable discrimination under the ( Telecommunications Act of 1996. If Commission were to deny the application, it would have to base that denial on substantial evidence. The only reference to any kind of evidence in the stafF report is on page 5, item 23(ii), "That other alternative designs that serve to enhance streetscape aesthetics and "blend in" with the area should be explored which are more appropriate for this type of telecommunication facility." That is a belief about alternatives that is erroneous and Sprint has gone to a great deal of trouble to try to demonstrate in very specific terms why there are no feasible alternatives in comparison to the one being proposed. They have done what they believe the staff has asked for, which was to come up with a co- location concept. He felt it would not be possible to deny this applicant on a lawful basis. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos was also under the impression that staff would be supportive of a co-location proposal. He is familiar with the technology and their proposal of four antennas per sector (two to transmit and two to receive per sector). Sprint has been known to use dual polarity antennas from time to time. Adan Madrid confirmed that they do use dual polar antennas in some situations. Chairperson Koos stated that if they were to use a flag pole, for instance, they would vertically stack two antennas that were dual polarity in order to get the coverage that they would need. Adan Madrid indicated it would be a feasible to some degree because there are many other issues that need to be looked at. These would be type of antennas that would be allowed for mechanical down tilting, the panel antennas. Chairperson Koos asked if they can flush mount two antennas per sector vertically stacked and asked if that would satisfy their engineering needs. He felt that flush mounting to the existing pole will satisfy (• staff's concern as well as Sprint's engineering needs. 10-23-00 Page 10 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CI7Y OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adan Madrid indicated that they could look at that and thought it was a very good suggestion. They have (, similar installations on ball field light standards and in those types of installations they always have to make use of two light standards because they can only fit two sectors on one pole because the diameter of the poles cannot accommodate all three sectors. There is a very real possibility that the diameter will be too small to accommodate three sectors. Chairperson Koos stated the diameter of most monopoles tend to be thicker than ball field light standards. It is something that they should consider. Adan Madrid stated when they are asked to stack antennas, they generally ask for additional height because the bottom antenna needs to remain at the same height as the array that is currently being proposed. Stacking would have to occur vertically which may create issues with the existing AT&T antennas; however, Chairperson Koos' suggestion definitely has merit. Commissioner Arnold stated that he felt that on the whole that this is an appropriate project and anything to improve it would be beneficial. He does not have the same opposition that the staff does; however, he disagrees with Mr. Flynn that there is no substantial evidence to deny this. Substantial evidence is defined as such evidence as would be sufficient to support a decision by a reasonable person. The evidence presented in the staff report has to do with the adverse impacts of the physical appearance on the surrounding area which can be provided by the applicant's own drawings. In addition, the courts give a great deal of deference to local agencies as to what qualifies as a reasonable basis. Merely because there is historically an AT&T antenna here does not mean that the next providers that come in are entitle to add to that same antenna simply because denying that would be discrimination. It seems appropriate and reasonable for a Planning Commission to look at the physical impacts of the proposed use. There is not any impediment to deny the permit, although, there are good land use reasons to approve it. The co- location consolidates these types of transmission panels and receptor panels. He asked staff to comment on Condition Nos. 6, 7, and 8, that were discussed by Mr. Madrid as well as ~~ the relationship between Condition No. 5 and the palm trees that are on View 2, on the simulation photos, submitted by the applicant and whether there are palm trees screening from the southwest view. Greg McCafferty responded regarding Condition No. 6, they are in agreement with Sprint that it applied exclusively to the lease area and not the entire property. So they would be responsible for maintenance within their lease area, which would include their portion of the monopole as well as their equipment. Condition No. 7. Staff felt that the property owner is receiving a benefit from having these additional antennas on his property. 7he refurbishment of the gates is something that there is a nexus for. Therefore, staff supported retaining the condition. Condition No. 8. Utilities typically requires this condition should they need to have an easement to get to the monopole to service it for electrical service. He clarified that it is not an easement for the entire property. Condition No. 5. The Code requires that roof-mounted equipment be screened. As part of this proposal they are going to mount their equipment cabinets on the roof, which needs to be screened in accordance with Code. His understanding is that the only proposal regarding the existing monopole is to put the antennas on and not provide any other landscaping or other screening devices. Staff appreciates SprinYs cooperation in trying to screen this facility, but at no point during that meeting did staff commit to support a co-location. They feel that co-location is good in concept, the plans did not show the co-location until 1%2 weeks ago which did not give staff time to review them adequately. ~~ Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. McCafferty whether staff expressed to the applicant during the meeting that they wanted a"stealth" type look to the monopole. 10-23-00 Page 11 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /~ Greg McCafferty replied staff did not specifically indicate to screen the existing monopole, but they ~ indicated their preference was consistent with the last staff report that it be integrated into the architecture. Chairperson Koos asked staff to comment on his suggestion. Greg McCafferty indicated that staff felt his suggestion is a much better idea than what is currently before Commission. Commissioner Bristol stated there is a legal non-conforming use with the existing monopole and now they are proposing another use on that pole. He could not recall Commission ever approving that to a legal non-conforming use in the past. Greg McCafferty confirmed that Commissioner Bristol was correct. This is probably the first time this is occurring. Commissioner Bristol stated that, if this was to be approved, the use would be gone in 5 years, but that pole may still be there. Commissioner Boydstun stated it seemed that they wanted the applicant to cooperate and get them on one pole. The other one has no time limit. They are imposing a 5-year limit on it and she cannot see that there is a problem with it. Chairperson Koos asked what separation is needed between Sprint and AT&T. Adan Madrid replied since AT&T operates on a significantly different frequency there is less likelihood for (, interference. Currently the separation is about 10 feet. Sprints antennas are 6 feet long. If they were to stack them and maintain the same elevation, they would not meet the separation requirement. In order for Sprint's engineers to make this work, they are going to have to lower their antennas. He indicated they will certainly take a look at that. Commissioner Bristol offered a continuance to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote take and motion carried. z•~ ~~•~~~~~ i-~ci tiy_~.~~~ ~~~ i ~o r_~ :a•~•~ ai ~: i a ~~r_~ - i- i i-~c~K•~ -~~ i-~i i ti~.y ~•~. re~.~ ~~•~ - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to explore the possibility of vertically stacking the antennas on the existing legal non-conforming monopole. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (2:04-2:30) I• 10-23-00 Page 12 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1~ 5a. CEQA NEGATlVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04265 Continued to 11-6-2000 OWNER: William and Patsy Keough; Eugene and Marie Pardella; et al., Attn: Allen Wattenberg, 15234 Matisse Circle, La Mirada, CA 90638 AGENT: Mercy Charities Housing California, Attn: Dara Kovel, 500 South Main Street, #110, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. To construct an affordable (including density bonus) 3-story, 82-unit senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) maximum structural height. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2039DS. DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. ~. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to work with Planning and Community Development Department staff on various design issues. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. I• 10-23-00 Page 13 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04271 Continued to 11-6-2000 OWNER: Hee Sook Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1839-1845 West La Palma Qvenue.* Property is 0.44 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 175 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue. (Happy Day Preschool). To permit an expansion and increase in enroilment for an existing preschool facility with waiver of (a) institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone, (b) permitted encroachments into required yards and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. * Originally advertised as 1839-1847 West Lincoln Avenue. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2026DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for an expansion and increase in enrollment for an existing preschool facility with waiver for property located at 1845 West La Palma Avenue (Happy Day Preschool). Jonathan Pai, representing the owner, 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 9205, Los Angeles, CA 90010, stated that prior to this public hearing he had a meeting with Mr. Dave See, the project planner and came up with new traffic circulation, but they will be losing 2 parking spaces. He approached Commission to explain the new traffic circulation. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner advised this item be continued in order to analyze their plans. Commissioner Arnold stated it is consistent with discussions in the workshop sessions about daycare faciiities. Circulation is a higher priority than parking due to children safety. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty stated that the design plan before commission today eliminated the parking waiver, but as a result of the redesign, which improves the circulation, there might be a minor waiver of a few parking spaces. It will not be readvertised since it is already on the agenda. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. ~i 10-23-00 Page 14 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t. • • ~ •- • • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow Traffic Engineering staff time to analyze the revised circulation plan submitted at the meeting. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:31-2:38) ~~ (. 10-23-00 Page 15 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04407 7c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 1999-194 Continued to 11-6-2000 OWNER: Craig Painter, 6905 West Route 242, Ellicotteville, NY 14731 AGENT: Anacal Engineering Company, 1900 East La Palma Avenue #202, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 371 Timken Road. Property is 2.01 acres located at the terminus of Timken Road, 200 feet west of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Variance No. 2000-04407 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width and (c) maximum'` number of panhandle lots to establish a single-family subdivision. Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194 - To establish a 4-lot, RS-HS- 22,000(SC) single-family subdivision. * Originally advertised as "minimum". ~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. SR7836KP. DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to make modifications to the tentative parcel map. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~ 10-23-00 Page 16 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /. 8a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Continued to 8b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14429 11-6-2000 8c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-00005 OWNER: Ed and Linda Stern; Gary and Donna Lee Lyons; et al., Attn: Lori Glastetter, 617 South Birchleaf Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: La Quinta Development, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1124 Main Street, Suite D, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 300 block of Henninq Way. Property is 8.4 acres located on the east side of Henning Way, 350 feet south of the centerline of Quintana Drive. Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 - To establish a 6-lot, RS-HS- 22,000(SC) single-family residential subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00005 - To permit the removal of 28 specimen trees. SR1073TW.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to provide staff with further information regarding the development of this property. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 10-23-00 Page 17 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04272 Continued to 11-6-2000 OWNER: Ellas Properties, Attn: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 Canyon Commercial Center, Attn: Mark Poochigian, 5000 Birch Street, #510 East Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Portion A: 5375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion B: 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1370- 1400 North Brasher Street. Property is 5.02 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion C: 5401, 5403 and 5405 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. '~ To permit an expansion to an existing automotive dealership facility with waiver of (a) maximum number of monument signs, (b) minimum distance between monument signs, (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted encroachments into required yards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7770K6. DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to finalize outstanding leasing issues with the adjacent building property owner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. '. 10-23-00 Page 18 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2973 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04270) Continued to 11-6-2000 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, 13539 Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90650 AGENT: The Regents Group, Attn: David Rose, 420 McKinley Street, Suite 111, Corona, CA 92879 LOCATION: 304 South Maqnolia Avenue. Property is 0.52 acres located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Magnolia Avenue (Arco Gasoline Service Station and Food Store). To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption for a previously-approved service station with a convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7832KP.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion to November 6, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick vote taken and motion carried. '. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. '! 10-23-00 Page 19 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11c. RECLASSIFICATfON NO. 2000-00038 Continued to 12-18-2000 Recommended to City OWNER: City-initiated (Community Development), Attn: Elisa Council the adoption of Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor, a moratorium on Anaheim, CA 92805 development of the site. LOCATION: 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 25 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 320 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. To reclassify subject property from the RM-1,000 and RM-1,200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zones to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone. , RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SR1070TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Reclassification No. 2000-00038 for property located at 2951- 2961 West Lincoln Avenue. It is a request for reclassification from RM-1000 and RM-1200 to RS-A- 43,000, (Residential/Agricultural) Zone. ', ApplicanYs Statement: Philip Schwartze, planner on behalf of property owners, Lincoln-Beach Associates, who own approximately 18 acres of the 25 acres of subject property. He explained the history of the property. About 50 years ago the property was a rock quarry. After the rock was taken away the land was left as several big holes in the ground. At that point the County government decided to fill in the holes with trash. Some of the holes were filled with construction debris; others were filled with regular household trash from the City of Anaheim as well as other cities. When the holes were all full the County placed a few feet of soil on the top and left it. A few years later, in the 1960's, the City and County governments allowed a mobile home park to be built on top of the abandoned landfill. Differential settlement within the landfill caused the mobile home park to ultimately close in the 1970's. In 1983 Gfeller Development Company in conjunction with the City of Anaheim developed a new plan for the property that included some remediation of the landfill portions of the site. An EIR was prepared along with extensive soils and geotechnical data. The property was then reclassified to Medium and High Density Residential zoning and a final map was approved for Medium and High Density Residential zoning. Some of the apartments were built and continue to stand today on non-landfill portions of the property. The AQMD and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have monitored the site for over 40 years. In fact, the vacant property that he represents is actually 16 separate parcels of land. The property (in the title report) is referred to as Lots 2 through 17 of Tract No. 11830. '. In the mid 80's during the recession Gfeller Development Company went bankrupt and the land went into receivership. Gfeller Development had already installed a methane vapor extraction system as part of the approved plan and placed monitoring probes underground at key locations to monitor the possible methane gas and monitor possible water contamination that might occur. 10-23-00 Page 20 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The gas and water monitoring systems have been updated and are stili-in place today. The systems are ', carefully monitored and repo~ts are sent to appropriate governmentai agencies. In the early 1990's a group planning to buy the property came to the City and asked to amend the General Plan and zoning to ailow a commercial use on the property. The City denied the request and indicated they wanted to retain the residential designation. The City felt that the property was residential. In the late 1990's the new land owner purchased the property through foreclosure and came to the City requesting approval of a commercial land use. He prepared as part of his request additional updated environmental data at great expense and the City denied the request because they felt the property was residential. The property owner was then asked by the Redevelopment Agency to prepare some additional environmental and geotechnical studies and consider a request to sell some of the property to the City and the Redevelopment Agency for a community center or police substation. He submitted copies of plans prepared by the Redevelopment Agency to Commission. The Redevelopment Agency volunteered to spend some federal or state grant money to study the property again in more detail to determine whether there were any risks associated in the City acquiring the property. Meanwhile, new additional environmental studies were ongoing. The AQMD was monitoring the property for methane gas at the owner's expense and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board was monitoring for any possible water contamination. In the past 20 years there has been little or no detectable levels of pollution from the landfill which is now 50 years old. The large electric motor that operates the on-site vacuum system that draws out the possible methane gas continues to operate daily. The electric bill is $800 monthly, the taxes and carrying cost is $6,000 monthly, which has been going on for years. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board wants the property owner to completely cover the '~ property and seal it with a hard surface so that water will not migrate through the landfill and into the water basin. The AQMD wants the owner to leave the site completely open so that any possible methane gas can dissipate into the atmosphere. The County of Orange blames the City of Anaheim for allowing the mobile home park to be built there in the 60's, which the County said destroyed the covering of the abandoned landfill. The City said that the County did not cover the landfill properly when it left; therefore, it is a County problem. This is government's way of solving a problem. Discuss the issue for 30 years without solving the problem. Last year a builder offered to buy the property to build homes in conformance with the existing zoning and existing General Plan and would mitigate the landfill problem at his expense. A few months ago the possible buyer of the property (residential builder) spent much time and money to prepare a new plan. With a few modifications, a housing plan could be built under the existing City rules. For the last three years the land owner, Mr. Eicholtz, and Mr. Schwartze have met with the Redevelopment Agency staff and all of the other local and regional agencies to try to come up with a plan that would solve all of the problems and put this property to its highest and best use. The land owner continues, at his expense, to have expert engineering consultants monitor and maintain the property. Mr. Gottlieb Redevelopment Manager, called Mr. Schwartze on a Friday in the afternoon to inform him that the Community Development Department, Redevelopment Agency, had decided to downzone the property to a holding zone. It was never previously mentioned in meetings with the Redevelopment Agency. He asked Mr. Gottlieb about the existing General Plan designation and the final map that has been adopted on the property and Mr. Gottlieb indicated that he did not know anything about it. That caused him to come before Planning Commission last month to ask what was going on. Ms. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development, called him last Friday in the afternoon ', and advised that it seems that the builder that has a property under a purchase and sale contract might 10-23-00 Page 21 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES actually be able #o build a project under the existing General Plan designation and the existing zoning and ~, final map and the Redevelopment Agency did not like that. It seems that after 20 years and after several earlier requests that were denied, the Redevelopment Agency believes that commercial is the appropriate zoning. They are not asking for commercial zoning, or a General Plan Amendment to commercial or a vacation of the approved final map. Instead, they are asking Commission to downzone the property which would then be impossible for the property owner to build. The Redevelopment Agency does not have a commercial plan, and there are no final environmental studies. When he asked Ms. Stipkovich about the approved final map that divided the property into 16 parcels, she said the Engineering Department either did not agree or did not know anything about it. The property has been residential for 40 years and suddenly the zoning needs to be changed, or the City might condemn the property for some commercial or public use like a community center. It conveniently gets downzoned to a lesser value without any complete environmental study or alternate plan. 1n conclusion, he felt they need to start with basics, and process the plan that is there legally and fairly. Allow Lincoln Land Partners to proceed with the application to develop the property. They can meet requirements of the AQMD, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Integrated Waste Management Group and all other federal jurisdictions that are around. They have learned that staff cannot plan; they react, and cannot be trusted to deal fairly with the landowner who is acting in good faith. Staff has no plan, and no facts, and is reacting to politics. He felt Commission, is being deceived into thinking they are doing something good. As recommended by the Redevelopment Agency, this will end up resulting in law suits and no immediate landfill remediation. He is surprised that the City Attorney is allowing the hearing, knowing that the final map is in place. He asked that Commission not act on this reclassification, but rather wait until the environmental studies are completed and reviewed by the regional agencies and the land owner. The land '~ owner and people that have the property in escrow just want to be treated fairly. John Erskine, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, stated that a letter was forwarded to Commission from his firm dated October 17, 2000 on behalf of Lincoln-Beach Associates, LLC. They believe the reclassification has been inadequately noticed and that some people at Council level are upset with this proceeding. There was no prior notice to this downzoning and it is totally inadequate, given the history of entitlement efforts on this site. He questioned the fact that in the October 23`d memorandum from Lisa Stipkovich received just prior the start of today's pubfic hearing references a need for environmental review and ElR for any reclassification, yet Commission is being asked to proceed on this reclassification on a negative declaration. This concern was not addressed in the letter, but for the record, asked that the City Attorney address that question. There has been justified reliance upon the existing zoning. The applicant that is in pre-file, who has entered into escrow is relying on that zoning and has spent thousands of dollars with KTGY, a well known architectural firm, and is proceeding with that pre-file application. As pointed out in the letter, at the same time that Commission is downzoning this property to a holding zone by the Redevelopment staff, they have the Planning staff suggesting changes to the potential application for the apartment project indicating how they can change the project to meet the requirements. He suggested that the "left hand find out what the right hand is doing in the City." Sean Boyd, partner in Lincoln Land Partners, explained that they build affordable housing. They acquire and rehab existing multi-family apartment communities throughout California. They take bond and tax credit deals which means they take the worst housing and use private investor equity to rehabilitate land and create affordable housing. They look at this as an opportunity for the City of Anaheim to make an investment in the future. The Planning Department staff has been very helpful, but the Redevelopment Agency has been an obstacle and roadblock every step of the way. Their job is to facilitate redevelopment, whether it is residential or commercial. 1, 10-23-00 Page 22 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES For the City to rezone this property is a condemnation of that property. It is condemning his interest to ', develop that property. Their goai is to build affordable, multi-family housing. This is 26 acres in the heart of the city, which can be properly utilized. They have put a lot of.time and money already into this project and to change the zoning midstream is to deny them their due process. He asked that Commission allow them to propose something, and move forward with it. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director Community Development Department, submitted a revised memorandum to Commission. One of the goals of the Redevelopment Agency in this area and one of the reasons they created a Redevelopment Project Area in West Anaheim is because of this particular landfill site. The goal and objective of the Redevelopment Agency is to help make the project developable. They do not think it is fruitful to continue down the path of residential development. At one time the Agency looked at acquiring this property for a community center and pofice station, but both of those uses are now going to different locations. The community center is now being proposed to go into Maxwell Park and they have currently closed on a property at Beach Boulevard further south from this site for a permanent police station. Therefore, they are no longer looking to develop those civic uses on this site. Whether the agency plays any part in any development in the in the future regarding acquisition is not something that they can predict at this time. Current zoning on this property was established in 1982 and it was to be a creative solution regarding a way to solve some of the many problems on the site regarding toxic issues. An EIR was done in 1982 that talked about excavating trash on that site, hauling it away and having other discretionary approvals in addition to the EIR regarding the County and AQMD to approve any final plan for the hauling away of trash. The EIR is what allows for the RM-1000 and that EIR is no longer the current State standard for remediation on that site. '~ All experts have informed them that any hauling away and upheaval of that landfill would not meet any current standards. It would never get approved today, according to AQMD and other entities that would have to approve it. The Redevelopment Agency has been systematically trying to go through what they think will be necessary to make that site ready for development and they have been informing the property owner about the status of the studies. All testing has been completed and there should be a final report in two weeks. The current law regarding remediation and/or use of landfill is subject to the California Code of Regulations Title 27, which requires at least 5 agencies to review any use for landfill site. All experts have been telling them that residential land use on this site is highly improbable, extremely difficult, not to mention that the previous EIR that was certified, because of the RM-1000 Zone, would have to be amended or a new EIR would have to be prepared. In addition, they have a General Plan and Redevelopment Plan that has commercial zoning on the frontage of the property, so a portion of the current zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. Leaving the current RM-1000 zoning is creating a false understanding of what can really happen on the site and what would be appropriate on the site. To continue down a path of trying to assert that residential development can be accomplished on that site is unrealistic. They are asking for some type of holding use so that all the issues can be addressed. They will spend money to help them get there, but they have to know what can and cannot be done. They have to think about health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim. They want a holding use so that they can make the public aware, including the developer, that there are many other hurdles and other agencies that have to give approval for any development on that site. Rezoning is only an interim solution, they want to work towards a permanent solution to develop this site. They do not feel that the residential zoning is appropriate at this time. /, 10-23-00 Page 23 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Testimony: '~ Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND, 604 Scott Lane in Anaheim. In the late 1980's she was working with the Orange Avenue Homeowners Group who were fighting proposed apartments in the area between Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst. She elaborated on the history of this area. West Anaheim citizens do not want more apartments: In 1995 she did a study of a number of apartments in the area, west of Beach, there is only one single-family home out of every four dwellings. In 1997 they formed WAND with 11 Neighborhood Watch groups and are now up to 27 Neighborhood Watch groups. They are overloaded with high density apartments and do not want more apartments. There are 40 motels with 2,000 rooms in West Anaheim on Beach and Lincoln. Approximately 1,000 of those rooms are filled with families. West Anaheim attracts the poor people because it has the low cost housing. Mr. Eicholtz had plenty of time to take care of the property if he wanted to. At the time he was looking at building storage units and asked what he would do with the rest of the property and he indicated he would let it sit for years. Mr. Eicholtz could have done a study on the property, but he was not willing to put out the money. WAND asked the City to do a study on that property and the City wrote a grant along with two supporting letters to the federal government. A study is being completed and they are looking at that property as commercial property to bring back some of the businesses that they have lost. There are 100,000 people in West Anaheim who do not want more apartments. They also need more open space in the community, schools are filling up and they will need more acreage for schools. This property would be good for a park. Mr. Sean Boyd had contacted her because he was interested in building housing on this site and she indicated they feel it should be used for the community and residents of the community should be the ones who should have a say of what is going to go there. She later found out that he proposed 80 homes on 8 acres of this site and this summer she found out that he was instead filing for 510 apartments. They feel that Mr. Boyd does not care about this property in their neighborhood and is only interested in making '~ money on the property. Judith Anne Gollette, representing WAND's Land Use and Business Development Committee. Mr. Boyd and the representatives do not speak for WAND and West Anaheim residents. She indicated that Mr. Boyd was told that no apartments were wetcomed in West Anaheim, especially at Beach and Lincoln and there has been no reversal of West Anaheim residenYs thoughts on that fact. They also spoke with Mr. Eicholtz and the outcome of that meeting was for West Anaheim residents to try to figure out what could be built there. He was losing money on the foreclosure and wanted possibly a golf course or a plan to build on the front "clean" land. WAND represents 27 neighborhood groups plus 6 Neighborhood Councils. It is their opinion that housing is not the highest and best use of this corner. This area is the most traveled intersection in Orange County and it is a piece of land that can revitalize West Anaheim. She grew up in the mobile home park. It is an area that had problems but is an area that can be brought into compliance and built to the betterment of West Anaheim. Mr. Boyd's plan is not a valid proposal. His plan also includes neighboring owner and four of his apartment units. If Mr. Boyd was really interested in developing the acreage his pre-file would have been valid and not simply a plot plan that was a mere representation of what he thought he could build when he wanted to build it. They were originally told that Mr. Boyd would build on a clean area and then proceed from there. WAND would like "Sinkin Lincoln" to be built all at one time and not in stages and not years from now. Real estate purchases are not complete until recordation. A buyer that comes in has the option to hear all of the changes on that piece of land and has the option of backing out. The amount of money that Mr. Boyd put in was his choice. The proposed rezoning is appropriate to find the best and highest use in order to give West Anaheim rebirth. t, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 10-23-00 Page 24 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold stated that it is private property yet under California law the landowner has no ', particular legal right to the existing zoning. Although, he felt it is inadv'ssable to downzone the property at this time to RS-A-43,000. One reason is that zoning establishes what arguably is a long-term designation. Staff has indicated that this is merely a"holding zone", but it is possible that it may not be rezoned or it may take some time before the rezoning occurs. He was not convinced that is a good way of evaluating whether the RS-A-43,000 Zone is really the appropriate zone. They are trying to find a way to co~sider environmental conditions of the property before development proceeds, whatever that happens to be. This is a former landfill at this site and historically cities have faced a variety of problems around the Country in allowing developments of former landfills without considering the environmental conditions. He thought that there is a nationwide trend for cities in their zoning and planning processes to consider those environmental conditions in order ta protect the citizen's health and safety. He would prefer that Commission recommend to the City Council an interim moratorium on development, only as long as necessary to develop an environmental overlay zone that could be applied to former landfill properties. This would allow Commission time to review a proposal and take into account environmental conditions, the adequacy of the project to accommodate those conditions given the proposed use so that they can adequately protect public health and safety. An additional item that could be occurring at the same time would be to get the long-term zoning and General Plan together in some sort of coherent and cohesive fashion. He would not like to see Commission downzone a property merely because they want to take time to review and study the proposal and property. He understands there is a process that..the City Council can use that requires a majority, but it would be appropriate, if Commission desires, to make that recommendation to the City Council instead of the reclassification. Commissioner Boydstun felt it is highly impractical to make a determination on the property at this time without knowing more about it and what needs to be done to the property. She emphasized they need to '~ develop the whole property all together. She agreed with Commissioner Arnold that there needs to be a moratorium to allow more time to determine what can be done with this property, but not a portion at a time. Commissioner Bristol felt that due to the long history of this property, it would be difficult for any developer to argue that they were unaware of the situation related to the site and were suddenly surprised that there were specific issues with this site; especially since money is being spent to analyze this site. He endorses a portion of the memorandum written by Ms. Lisa Stipkovich regarding the background of this site. He agrees with Commission statements that this site needs to be looked at and is concerned about what land use issues might be here. Lisa Stipkovich handed out additional information (referred to as an advisory bulletin) mentioned in her memorandum that she was given by their consultants in order to give additional information as to what the State rules are regarding disposal site post closure land use. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, addressed the legal issues presented. Regarding vested right, that it is not the opinion of their office that what has happened here rises to the level of a vested right. There is no vested right in the existing zoning. The portions of the respondenYs letter relating to downzoning for purposes of acquiring the property, Ms. Stipkovich has indicated that the prior plans to use this property for a community center and police station have been abandoned and alternate sites have been located. She confirmed with the City Attorney that a moratorium could be agendized for the City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendation is not required, but would certainly be received by the City Council. In connection with that in order to approve a moratorium as an urgency ordinance, a super majority would be required. However, a moratorium could be adopted as a non-urgency ordinance without the requirement for a super majority. There has also been some discussion of phased development, which she thought was a factor in some of the prior applications " on this property. Commission has been consistent during the time that she has been working with the 10-23-00 Page 25 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commission in its insistence that there not be a phased development that develops the "clean" portions of ~~ the site leaving the contaminated portions of the site with very little chance of any timely cleanup. Chairperson Koos asked if Commissioner Arnold wanted to pursue that motion that Ms. Mann recommend that he specify to the City Council whether it is an urgency item or not. Selma Mann replied yes. They are recommending a particular action and not process by which the City Council reaches that. lf that is what the Commission is interested in doing, she thought that this reclassification was proposed as an interim holding zone. Suggested it may be appropriate to continue this item for six weeks pending whatever the action of the City Council may be and then to reconsider the item at that time. Commissioner Bostwick concurred that a moratorium is appropriate and the City Attorney's recommendation to continue this item for 6 weeks would be appropriate and at the same time offer a motion to recommend to the City Council that they adopt a moratorium on the property. During the Action: Commissioner Arnold moved that they adopt a recommendation to the City Council, that the Counci! consider and adopt an interim moratorium on development of the property located at 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue), for such time as necessary to develop an environmental overlay zone to consider the environmental conditions of the property. That it be considered as a non-urgency item on the basis that are a variety of State procedures that serve as a backstop against fast development of the property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. Chairperson Koos asked if City Council did support Commissions recommendation, would the developer be able to continue processing plans, but not able to go forward with a building permit. ~~ Selma Mann advised that ordinarily the City Council in adopting a moratorium indicates what the position will be regarding applications that are already in the process. They indicate that as part of its adoption of the moratorium. There is certainly nothing that would stop an applicant from bringing plans forward and getting opinions of staff as to how those plans comport to the existing zoning, but that would be up to the applicant. Commissioner Arnold stated that there was a recent case on that either from the Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court that has specifically stated that a moratorium does not preclude processing, but does preclude permitting. Sean Boyd stated that the action that they are considering taking does affect them negatively. They are not proposing a phased project. Prior to any action, they are going to remediate the entire site because they cannot finance the acquisition and the construction without remediating the entire site. They feel they have a personal obligation for this as they issue bonds and tax credits to build the project. They did process a pre-file for 80 single-family homes which they stopped because the staff had indicated that they wanted the entire property to be remediated and planned all at once. He assured Commission that this would be a clean site before they move forward to process a building permit. They have retained a reputable environmental firm to develop a remedial action work plan. They are not proposing a phased project. They are going to remediate the whole site, as they issue bonds and tax credits. He explained about a project that they proposed in the past and clarified what they proposed. They will be cleaning the whole site before building. They are contracting a company who specializes in cleaning properties. Lisa Stipkovich stated that the problem here is that the "cart is before the horse" and perhaps that is what ~, Commission's motion is trying to correct. There is a way to develop these sites and the impression with the RM-1000 Zone is that it is a zoning entitlement that is consistent with the General Plan/Redevelopment 10-23-00 Page 26 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Plan and can just be buiit by right, which is not correct. They are trying to inform everyone that it is not the ', situation. The zoning is inappropriate and that is why some type of holding environmental zone needs to be established so that they do not have the project coming in before the remediation and the environmental work is completed. Commission's recommendation will help take care of that - not that development can not occur, but that the environmental issue needs to be handled up front and everyone has to agree whatever that plan will be. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion continuance of Reclassification No. 2000-00038 to December 18, 2000, in order to allow time for the City Council to-consider the adoption of an interim moratorium on development of the property located at 2951 to 2961 West Lincoln Avenue, seconded Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the request. Correspondence was received in opposition to the request. ACTION: MOTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council consider the adoption of an interim moratorium on development of the property located at 2951 to 2961 West Lincoln Avenue for such time as is necessary to develop an environmental overlay zone to consider the environmental conditions of the property; further, that the moratorium be considered as a non-urgency item on the basis that there are a variety of State procedures that serve as a backstop against fast development of the property. ', Continued Reclassification No. 2000-00038 to the December 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for the City Council to consider the adoption of an interim moratorium on development of the property located at 2951 to 2961 West Lincoln Avenue. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 14 minutes (2:39-3:53) ~, 10-23-00 Page 27 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 830 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04197) Withdrawn request to amend. OWNER: Yie Sang Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Amy Lee, 3600 Wilshire Boulevard #1905, Los Angeles, CA 90010 LOCATION: 1845 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.30 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 225 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Happy Day Preschooi). To increase enrollment at an existing preschool with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 8, May 22, June 5, July 3, and August 28, 2000. ', CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2040DS. DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for withdrawal of CUP Tracking No. 2000-04197, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept staff's request for withdrawal of the request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 830 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04197). VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:37-1:38) " 10-23-00 Page 28 OCTOBER 23, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:55 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2000, AT 9:00 A.M., FOR A DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS IN INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND RELATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Respectfully submitted: Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~ ' ~ ~ic~C~ ~ Simonne Fannin ~ Senior Office Specialist ', Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 10-23-00 Page 29 .