The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/03/26~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001 Counci( Chambers, City Hali 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California C~ ~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: ~ + ~~.,:..:~ ~~:.,N,.. ~° ~"~`~_ '- ~ " . ~ ~~ ,~_~,~ ~~`-~~. Malcolm Slaughter, Deput~ity Attorney~ ~~~ ~Brent Sc~u1~z; Joel Fick, P~anning Direc~'~r ~~~,~~ ~~~~ ,~~,~~~~'~"~ Elly Fernan~~ Greg McCafferty, SernQ ~~'I~n~~r~~ ~~ ~ Janice O'Coni Bertha Chavo a, Hous~ Nfa~ a~er~~~ ~ y g r~ ~ Cheryl Flores, Jonathan Borrego, Se~iio~,~lan~e~~ ~~ y.,~~sie Edmun~ ~ k x<. ~ ~, ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~~, ~~..~ AGENDA POSTING~ A~`~~~ete~o~%y o~he Pl~nrrimg G~ ssic~n ~ Wednesday, March ~~, 200~ ~ir~~id~`t~~d ~ptay, case.~oca~~~th~~f in the outside displai~ ~kiosl~. g ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~-c~ k,,, ~'~~ '` .,~,. ~ ~~"`~ '~,~ PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, ~F~~~,.ES, JAMES VANDERBILT ~ ~~f«.~ ~~~_ °~. ,~ a=~ ~~ ~ Manager : 4:00 P.M. on ambers, and also PUBUSHED: Anah~~m Buf~~in Ne~vs~ap~r~r~ ~'taut~sday, M~r~~~~; ~~0~~, ~~~ .~ ~ ~ ~', r~ ~~ ~~ ~' E ~ ~ ~.~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ E~ ~ ~~h3 ~ ~,~ x ~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ s ,~~ ~'~ E ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ E °~ ~~ `^ ~„4- ,, : , ~~ ~, ~~, ~~=~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ r'~ ~s,,,.~ ;, r ~~~r PLANNING~COMMIS~I~N N~~NIN~~ESSION-r'1i~,3C?~,A M ~~, • STAFF UPDATE T~ ~QM 1; ~~OF VARI(7U~~e~l"~( ` s~ ~~``~ ` DEVELOPMENTS~AI~ID,~I~~~~S ~~;~QI,,,R~ST~p ~Y : ~ .~° PLANNING CC3"MI~I~SSSIQN) ~ ~ ~ g ~~~" ~ ~'-~~" ,~ ~d ~r~~ < • PRELIMINARY PL~N ;REVIE~tI ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ <~,~~ ~ ~µ; ~ ~~,;~ ,:~~,_ „~„~~~ -. RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING $~fC~~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish fo make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please comp/efe a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Arnold PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTES\MARCH 26WC032601.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 03-26-01 Page 1 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-H on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken, and motion carried for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F, and 1-H (with correction to page 29, Condition of Approval No. 4 of March 12, 2001 Minutes). Item 1-G was continued to April 9, 2001 and Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) Concurred with staff b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. ZCA2001-00007 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND Recommended • PORTIONS OF TITLE 4 AND TITLE 18 RELATING TO adoption to Ciry Council REQUIREMENTS FOR FREEWAY-ORIENTED SIGNS c) SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. SPN2001-00003-TO AMEND Recommended THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 RELATING TO adoption to City Council REQUIREMENTS FOR FREEWAY-ORIENTED SIGNS: City initiated request for the Planning Commission to review the attached draft (Vote: 5-2, ordinance to amend various Chapters of Title 4 and Title 18 of the Commissioners Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the requirements for freeway- Bostwick and Boydstun oriented signs. voted no) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does This item was removed hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of a from the Consent Calendar for separate CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California action. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun voted no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance (as amended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission) amending Title 4 and Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the requirements for freeway-oriented signs. • 03-26-01 Page 2 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun voted no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the draft ordinance (as amended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission) amending the Northeast Area Specific Plan (Adjustment No. 7) to protect and enhance the visual aesthetics of Anaheim's freeway corridors. Introduction by Staff: SR7937CF.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, stated that the staff report contains a copy of the draft Ordinance pursuant to the Commissions' recommendation at the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. During the morning session, Zoning staff provided Commission some additional information on the heights of existing signs and staff continues to recommend a maximum height of 30 feet citywide, and all of the other recommendations shown on page 6 and 7 of the staff report. Commissioner Arnold stated for the record that he was not present on January 3, 2001, but thoroughly reviewed the minutes on this matter. Chairperson Koos indicated that Commission has before them two ordinances and either one can be modified for their action to recommend to the City Council. Cheryl Flores agreed with Chairperson Koos that either Ordinance can be changed, and were prepared for convenience of the Commission. • Commissioner Arnold posed questions to Ms. Flores as she had presented the sign study in the morning session, he assumes that is part of the record. Ms. Flores agreed. Commissioner Arnold stated Ms. Flores discussed that there might be the possibility of potential sites for signs, but he thought there was also an indication that over time other sites would need freeway-oriented or new signs. Commissioner Arnold asked for clarification of this. Ms. Flores stated this was correct and she presented the Commission with the zoning along the three freeways (5 Freeway, 57 Freeway and 91 Freeway) in Anaheim. Any use could change at any given time, most of the uses that are eligible for a freeway-oriented sign would have to return before Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Arnold asked Ms. Flores, regarding discussion on January 3, 2001, having to do with the uncertainty to the business community having to come in for a variance that in the morning session Ms. Flores indicated situations in which this specific physical layout of the lot etc. might be a basis for a variance and that staff would be open to making that kind of recommendation. He wonders updating the Zoning Code if there would be a process for identifying with greater specificity some of the criteria for variances on freeway-oriented signs as a way of making it clear to any potential applicant what is going to be required and perhaps more of a careful study in the long term. Joel Fick, Planning Director stated that the General Plan and Zoning Code update has just begun and the land use and Zoning Code portions are going to be some of the first portions that are reviewed. Whatever the components are of this Ordinance and the balance of the City Zoning Code, will be comprehensively • looked at by the Consultant, that is one item that will be specifically "flagged" for review. !t is certainly grounds for an applicant to request a variance and grounds for the Planning Commission to consider, and if appropriate approve, a variance based upon physical hardships in any interim period. 03-26-01 Page 3 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos stated that Anaheim has more freeway miles than any other City in the County and probably most cities in Southern California. He indicated it is startling to see in the analysis of other cities that the current height restriction in Anaheim at 70 feet is 20 feet higher than other cities in Orange County. The 60-foot recommendation would still exceed by 10 feet the highest comparable city of Fullerton and most cities are around the 30-foot level, if someone needs more than 30 feet, they would file for a variance. He supports the staff recommendation for that reason. He believes Commission needs to keep the height limits down. Although he understands Commissioner Bostwick's concerns, he feels that 30 feet will cover most of the applicable praperties in our City. Joel Fick stated that the Planning Commission did a helpful thing in this regard at the last meeting, and what Ms. Flores in the interim had the opportunity to do was to physically go out and look at these locations. He believes this confirmed their thoughts and hopefully this was conveyed to Commission that these heights really were in keeping with what was really practical and what would be usable for the businesses. Also, the Chamber's involvement with this needs to be acknowledged. Ms. Flores worked very ctosely with the Chamber of Commerce and they have not objected to this particular provision. He believes that they understand that based upon the visibility and the possibility that variances could be requested in unusual circumstances, this is something that has not been raised thus far. Commissioner Bostwick addressed something Ms. Flores mentioned at the morning session. He was the one that brought up the 60-foot different elevations throughout the City. Ms. Flores made it very clear that she did pay attention to that. Regarding the variance, if it is a hardship, an example would be the Toyota dealership on Euclid where they will be installing the wall-mounting in lieu of the sign. If it becomes a hardship there is always that possibility of the variance so he is okay with this. Commissioner Bostwick stated he spent time Saturday driving the freeways to look at the signs • specifically. He stated that a lot of the signs have become out-moded by way of the freeway walls that have been built. The signs to the south on I-5 have been basically covered (the Ponderosa, the mortuary and Royal Pools) because of the new configuration of the freeway. There is much less area in which businesses are visible from the freeway and can utilize signage. He still would prefer to have 60 feet as an option, rather than having them return to Commission. He felt the Chamber made that point clear at the last meeting. Comments at the morning session were made about the type of car driven affects the visibility, a low car versus a SUV. Those type of questions, and leaving it up to judgment or what kind of balloon test, etc. always make it difficult. He would prefer the taller sign and the bigger square footage, he wants to see businesses make it and stay here in Anaheim. That is one way in which you get them to come here. Obviously, Lowe's located where they had freeway visibility and it is an asset to Anaheim and we need to maximize it. He agrees that in most cases, what is left of visibility, probably 30 to 40 feet would fit, he still prefers the 60-foot and the 250 square foot sign be available. • 03-26-01 Page 4 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSlON MlNUTES • 1-B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04345) Approved final plans REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Anaheim Marketplace, Attn: Pamela Marcum, 1440 S. (Vote: 6-0, Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval Commissioner of final landscape plans for an indoor swapmeet. Property is located at Bostwick abstained) 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approved CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 1(Existing Facilities), is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscape plans (Final Plan No. 1) for Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-Q4345) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final landscape plan indicates the provision for landscaping coverage, including parking lot trees, groundcover in the front planter, and screening along the north property line, in compliance with Condition of Approval No. 21 of Resolution No. 2000R-188. SR2064DS.DOC r ~ L_J ~ 03-26-01 Page 5 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-C. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 320 (PREV. CERTIFIED) Approved b) AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 920 Approved (TRACKING NO. MIS 2001-00011) - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ACTION TAKEN REGARDING FINAL SIGN PLANS FOR THE (Vote: 7-0) STADIUM GATEWAY OFFICE BUILDING: CM&D Construction Management & Development, Inc., Attn: Daniel Bray, 8929 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 306, Los Angeles, CA 90045. Summit Commercial Properties, Inc., Attn: Chris Black, 1970 East Grand Avenue, Suite 300, EI Segundo, CA 90248, requests clarification of action taken regarding Final Sign Plans for the Stadium Gateway office building. Property is located at 1900 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 320 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission modify the action taken on March 12, 2001 regarding Final Sign Plans to the Stadium Gateway Sign Program, amending Item 1 to read as follows: "That the Project Monument Sign "A" shall include a maximum of five (5) major tenant names, and that a"major tenant" shall be defined as a tenant who occupies no less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet." SR7951AS.DOC • r~ ~_J 03-26-01 Page 6 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-D. a) NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4155 CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04341 Approved elevation REVIEW OF ELEVATION PLANS: Devtech, Inc., 1812 Fairfieid Drive, plans Fullerton, CA 92833 and WCDS, Inc., 1820 E. First Street, Suite #550, Santa Ana, CA 92705, requests review of elevation plans for a (Vote: 7-0) commercial retail center including a drug store with drive-through lane. Property is located at 500-528 South Beach Boulevard (Sav-On Drug Store). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved final elevation plans (Final Plan Nos. 1 through 4) for the drugstore and the commercial retail building because they are in compliance with Condition No. 30 of Resolution No. PC99-241 approved under Conditional Use Permit SR7940KB.DOC No. 4155. • • 03-26-01 Page 7 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-E. a) NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) ~ Approved b) VARIANCE NO. 2000-04406 (VAR. TRACKING NO. 2001-04427) Approved final plans REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: D.R. Horton, Attn: Cheryl Thompson, 119 North Maple Street, Suite A, (Vote: 6-0, Corona, CA 92880, requests review of elevation plans for a 92-lot, Commissioner detached single family sub division. Property is located at 8200 East La Bostwick abstained) Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final elevation and landscape plans (Final Plan Nos. 1 through 5) because they are in compliance with Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 2000R-220 approved under Variance No. 2000-04406. Staff recommends that the plans submitted for building permits indicate that Code required vines would be planted adjacent to the new and existing block walls to prevent graffiti opportunities. SR7941 KB.DOC ~ ~ ~J • 03-26-01 Page 8 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-F. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 4(TRACKING NO. SPN 2001- 00006 : Walt Disney Imagineering, Attn: John Graves, 888 S. Disneyland Drive, 4th Floor, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests a Specific Plan Adjustment to consider modifications to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.78 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) pertaining to informational and directional signage visible from the Magic Way public right-of-way. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area, which is located within The Anaheim Resort T"" in the City of Anaheim, encompasses approximately 490 acres and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Ball Road and Katella Avenue (with approximately 24.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue) and east of Walnut Street. Magic Way is located south of Ball Road, befinreen Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed Specific Plan Adjustment falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and • MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of Adjustment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to informational and directional signage visible from the Magic Way public right-of-way, and directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an Ordinance incorporating the proposed Code Adjustments for City Council consideration. ~ Approved Request City Attorney's office to prepare an ordinance for City Council and recommend that City Council adopt Adjustment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (Vote: 7-0) SR7949LJ.DOC 03-26-01 Page 9 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-G. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 4(7RACKING NO. SPN 2001- 00007): Walt Disney Imagineering, Attn: John Graves, 888 S. Disneyland Drive, 4th Floor, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests a Specific Plan Adjustment to consider modifications to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) pertaining to temporary parking requirements. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area, which is located within The Anaheim ResortT"" in the City of Anaheim, encompasses approximately 550 acres and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between the Disneyland Drive offramp and Orangewood Avenue, with a portion located north of the I-5/Harbor Boulevard interchange. • • This item was continued to April 9, 2001 as requested by staff. SR7950LJ.DOC 03-26-01 Page 10 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-H. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2001. (Confinued from February 26, 2001 and March 12, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 26, 2001. (Continued from March 12, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for Planning Commission Meeting of March 12, 2001. • • Approved Approved Approved, with correction to page 29, Condition No. 4. 03-26-01 Page 11 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00386 CITY-INITIATED: Anaheim Housing Authority, Attn: Bertha Chavoya, Housing Manager, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 City-initiated amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to consider an update of Citywide housing needs, goals, policies, and programs. Continued from the Commission meeting of February 26, 2001. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-33 ~ Introduction by Staff: Approved Recommended approval and adoption of the amendment to the Housing Element to City Council (Vote: 7-0) SR2058.1 JB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stafing General Plan Amendment 20Q1-00386; this is a City-wide amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan. He stated that staff from Community Development and Planning were to present a brief presentation. Bertha Chavoya, Housing Manager with the Community Development Department stated they request that the Planning Commission consider approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00386, which is a revision to the last General Plan Amendment for the Housing Element that was completed in 1989-96. This one is an update to the General Plan/Housing Element and it covers the period from 1998 to 2005. The plan has been reviewed by the general public, the update to the plan was also submitted to the State Housing and Community Development Department and they have subsequently reviewed the document. Community Development and Redevelopment Agency responded and submitted a list of questions which staff has addressed and is in dialog currently with Mr. Robert Moss from the State in preparing the responses and making sure that they are being covered and answered to the State's satisfaction. Ms. Chavoya stated that there was a workshop this morning with the Planning Commission and at that time answered any questions with regard to the document before moving forward. The Housing Element has been revised to consider the changes and the update. Once Commission moves forward with their approval, the next step would be to take it as an informational item to the Redevelopment and Housing Commission for their approval. This is scheduled to go forward to receive approval by the City Council on April 17, 2001. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Public Testimony: Janet Potter, 1371 S. Oriole Street, Anaheim, CA 92804, stated she lives in West Anaheim, South of Ball and West of Knott. She asked Commission to put the low-income housing in another area. The Mountain • Park Plan would be an excellent choice as there are nearly $,000 units planned and should include very low and low-income housing. She has lived in West Anaheim for 16 years. The area has taken in more 03-26-01 Page 12 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • than its share of low-income people; stores and restaurants have closed. Although some areas have improved cosmetically, more needs to be done to encourage quality businesses and restaurants to move in. The West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council has been trying to organize the community to improve the area for several years. Lincoln Avenue and the neighborhood surrounding Westchester Avenue have been labeled a"bad" area. Poverty also reflects in the local schools. She indicated that she was on the Cerritos School PTA for 4 years and is currently on the Orangeview Junior High Community Based Planning Committee. This group is part of the Immediate Intervention Under-Performing School Program. Orangeview is underperforming due to the population. This school is currently serving free and low cost lunches to almost 60% of the school. The majority of the students in last year's State test scored below the national average on every subject. As a Committee member, she was told the teacher's feet one of the main reasons it is underpertorming is due to lack of parent participation. Low-income parents that have a low level of education are not able to help their children, school resources to help them get strained. Children drop out of school and so the cycle of poverty continues. Orangeview is doing all it can to improve the conditions of the school, but encouraging more low-income families to move into the area is going to make the job all that harder. If scores do not improve the State takes over and/or shuts the school down. Orangeview also has had a reputation for troublesome kids that have no where to go when school is out. However there are programs in other communities to keep middle school students involved in activities, especially during the spring break. Four million, nine hundred and fifty dollars would be better spent in the area to improve recreational facilities such as a community center to provide activities for middle and high school students. Since strip malls with vacant stores are seen as a nuisance, these spaces should be considered for community classrooms and activity centers. If done right, this could be quite an asset to the community. West Anaheim deserves a quality of life that is attractive to young homeowners that care about the community. Jerry O'Keefe, PO Box 18651, Anaheim, CA, stated he is a real estate investor. He feels it is possible for • anyone to upgrade themselves to the level of single-family homes. The other issue is the fairness doctrine of where to place these apartment buildings. If they are not placed throughout the City on a fair basis, then Anaheim will be a City of apartment dwellers. He sees that as a problem. As a former Anaheim Police Sergeant, he saw a lot of crime and much more crime in the apartment areas than he ever saw in the homes and housing areas. He urged Commission to consider this. So much has happened in the last 50 years in this City. A lot of growth has happened, a lot of good people have gone and come on the City Council and Planning Commission. Please consider this and the fairness doctrine if Commission is going to allow apartments. Approve the type of apartments that are going to attract the right kind of people. There are tremendous problems on Lincoln and some of the major streets like Beach Boulevard, with regard to the motels. He urged Commission to be fair about it and look at the type of building that is being put in there. Will there be three bedroom two bath apartments that will later be converted to condominiums or are we going to come with a plan that says this is condo-quality and later can be home ownership. He asked that Commission be fair to the west end of Anaheim as they feel that there is a saturation point, which has already been reached in West Anaheim. Chairperson Koos asked staff to explain whether or not the plan actually identifies where the various levels of income will be going at this point, or is it left open? Bertha Chavoya stated that the State requires that Anaheim designate housing opportunity sites and that is all they have done. There is no designation as to where any of the single-family, multi-family will be designated, except where referenced as already approved projects. ~ Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Chavoya that it is not out of the question, for example, that the Mountain Park area could be an opportunity for very low income housing just as there is in West Anaheim. 03-26-01 Page 13 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Bertha Chavoya stated there could be. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, Planning Department, clarified that there is actualfy a development agreement in place with the developer for Mountain Park and the City is bound by that development agreement. In that particular case the City may be bound in terms of what they can and cannot do on that property, or what can and cannot be built on that property in the future. Bertha Chavoya agreed, indicating that she does not mean to address specifically any approved project. She was referring to the east side. Jonathan Borrego advised it does not hold true for other properties in the eastern portion of the City. Mountain Park would be the exception because of the development agreement in place with the developer for that property. Chairperson Koos asked if they were to make any suggested changes to that existing agreement, then obviously that would create opportunity as well. Jonathan Borrego indicated that as long as the changes were mutually agreed upon. Commissioner Bostwick stated fhe State came up with these numbers and that they are targets and not firm opportunities. These properties are opportunities and not necessarily what is going to transpire. Bertha Chavoya agreed, the State has a formula that they developed for the region, (our area), and that was fonivarded to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). That number was then broken down by specific COGS. The number was distributed for our area was broken down by the local COG. These numbers are goals that need to be set and are not absolute formulas derived by the SCAG • office. Ms. Chavoya noted that all that has been identified are housing opportunity sites that they can meet the requirement where potential sites could be made available to develop housing. Commissioner Arnold stated to Ms. Chavoya that the goals need to be set, it is correct that this is mandated under State law and are under scrutiny by the State and could actually be forced to comply. Ms. Chavoya agreed. Tom Kirker, 647 South Bruce Street, Anaheim, California 92804. He stated that for 6 years in WAND, they have tried to clean up West Anaheim and are over-burdened with apartments at the present time. He received a letter (which he submitted into the record) that states, "The City of Anaheim 5-year plan" it indicates that if no very low or low-income facilities can be built in Mountain Park, then the burden to piace these would shift to either West Anaheim and to the rest of the City. He is very concerned with what is going on in West Anaheim presently. More apartments, more rental units in Anaheim will increase the crime rate, will lower the standards in the schools, and will cause nothing but chaos. Commissioner Boydstun asked who the letter was from. Mr. Kirker stated there is no signature on the letter. Ms. Chavoya looked at the letter and did not know about the letter. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated he did not believe it represents a City document and thought perhaps it may be more of a editorial by someone. Mike Reetz, 2776 Yale Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Stated he lives near Lincoln and Dale and has for • almost 26 years. Currently he is the Chairman of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area Committee. For the past 3+ years they have been working on ideas with the 03-26-01 Page 14 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • City staff on how to revitalize West Anaheim. They are concerned about various things, some which have already been mentioned, the over flowing at the schools, his wife is a teacher in the Magnolia School District. There were 20 teachers and aides on the staff when she started at that school over 20 years ago, there are over 40 on staff now and they are in portables, all schools are in portables, and her room is half the size of what she needs. Most of them she works with as a resource specialist, special education probiems. These children Iive in the motels and the apartments nearby on Lincoln and Beach Boulevard. Working with the City his group has come up with ideas on what they would like to do to try and revitalize and upgrade West Anaheim. There is over 4 million square feet of commercial space with support for only about 1.5 million, according to staff reports. They would like to remove the extra commercial centers and replace them with medium income housing. Mountain Park lists 1,835 rental units, the report lists 4,191 units that are needed for low to very low-income throughout the City. If Mountain Park builds the 1,835 rental units, that is going to cover about 45% of the needs. He wondered if these are low to very low-income condominiums. That is what they are listed as, condominiums. Are these 500 square feet condominiums or are they 1500 square foot condominiums? He indicated that condominiums usually mean to him that they are going to be sold down the line. As a construction inspector with the County, he deals with projects where they build apartments, convert them into condominiums in 5 to10 years and sel( them. If these are sold as condominiums in the immediate future after they are built, then the low and very low-income people will be moved right out of the market. Chart 3-5 of the document, there is listed housing rehabilitation and you have 1136 units, this is +n the Jeffrey Lynn area. Does that count toward part of this 9200 units that are needed? If that counts toward that and Mountain Park builds 1835 very inexpensive units, they will have about 71 % of the required 4,200 units taken care of. The remainder of 1,200 units can be spaced out. If Mountain Park does not build these and the rehabilitation does not count, there will be 4,200 units that are going all over and West Anaheim is ear-marked. • Chairperson Koos stated that the Commission had a learning curve over what was the whole concept of what the 11,000 units is and what it really means to the City. He asked staff to discuss this as it is important. What is realistic versus the actual plan and what is State mandated. Bertha Chavoya stated that this is a good point, the State has set a goal for this region and they have allocated the grand total of 9 9,508 units that need to be added. New construction units that need to be added to their inventory of housing. They then proposed a percentage breakdown of how much is very low, low, moderate and then above moderate. During that time, Anaheim has produced 1,087 units, which were allowed to be deducted between 1998 and 2000, so Anaheim has reduced that number (11,508) to 10,421, which is important. She emphasized that this number is a goal and that people are worried about the very low-income number, Brent Schultz fhe Community Development/Housing Development Manager is working on several projects that would count against the very low and low and other units are being developed which are above market. In the last 20 years, she believes Anaheim has added between 25 and 3000 new construction affordable units. These numbers are goals and sites have to be identified, the probability of building 4000 affordable housing units is very remote. The State needs to see that Anaheim is making a strong effort, and that Anaheim is working to provide housing, not just above market but in the other categories. Unfortunately, Jeffrey Lynn units do not count toward new construction. Anaheim is adding space to those units. They have added actual housing space by converting units in Jeffrey Lynn to larger units to house families that live and work in Anaheim. Those are long term affordable housing units but they are property rehabilitation and they do not count. They are being monitored by the State because they are required by State law to have a Housing Element showing how they will work toward developing housing in our community. What percentage of this will be met needs to be determined, weighed, and evaluated by the State when they do the next update to the • Housing Element. The State measures whether a contentious effort has been made to provide housing for our community at these different levets. It is important to stay focused on that. They do not intend in 03-26-01 Page 15 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the next 5 years to place 4,000 affordable housing units on the west side. She felt that Brent could answer some of the work that is being done on the west side. Brent Schultz, Redevelopment Manager stated that he works on many of the housing development projects in Anaheim. Redevelopment is working on a number of projects in West Anaheim, such as Solara Court, 132 units very low-income, senior housing. The other project is California Villas at Gilbert and Ball, it is a 34-unit senior project, very low-income, all below 50% of inedian income. Mercy Housing has an 82-unit senior project at 2240 Lincoln Avenue that is all very low-income. There are a number of projects being looked at in Central Anaheim that they are trying to get moving. There are many for sale projects. He is working with Mercy Housing on a number of multi-family sites. Their acquisition people are working on these, they are not strictly looking in the West Anaheim area but looking throughout the City for sites. In the strategic planning process that was just done in West Anaheim was a great process with the community. The community agreed with staff and City leaders about the land use concept to changing mid-block retail into residential. There was a workshop last week with City Council to look at it and he is sure in the months ahead it will move forward in some kind of land use concept and into General Plan Amendments. This is a process that will also bring much needed new housing to the west end of the City. All types of housing. Strategic planning, it was clear that the neighborhood wanted projects with densities lower than 10 to 13 units per acre. Chairperson Koos stated he understands that Brent is talking to developers about possible projects throughout the City. Mr. Schultz indicated he is constantly receiving calls from developers trying to find sites for single family, multi-family, senior or assisted living, all types. Anaheim is a dynamic place to do business, people want ~ to do business here. Mr. Reetz indicated that he had been working with Brent and that they are aware of most of what he said, he was not aware of the Mountain Park project and the amount of units that were required. They just wanted to come before Commission to be sure everyone understood that they really do not want more apartments in West Anaheim. Josie Montoya, 118 South Olive Street, #2, Anaheim. Ms. Montoya stated that she is a 59 year resident of Anaheim and supports affordable housing, anywhere in Anaheim. There are some valid reasons for not having affordable housing, yet Anaheim is a City that thrives on tourism, 30 million visitors to Anaheim last year, Disneyland is expanding daily and neighborhoods have been affected by the expansion of Disneyland, they have lost some housing, that area around Disneyland and feels that they cannot have a business like Disneyland and California Adventure with the tourist space and not provide housing for the workers that it attracts. These workers come in and earn little above minimum wage. She worked in Jeffrey Lynn as a volunteer for years and she is quite familiar with the salary range that these families are in. In reviewing the plan, she indicated that it seems a good effort has been made to bring in senior housing, with several developments identified in the plan. She stated they need single-family housing, not apartments, it needs to be addressed and looked at seriously, it will create over-crowding. It affects their schools and our community. Those earning just above minimum wage cannot afford the rents in Anaheim. If you develop the tourism area, create jobs, this is wonderful, but then to balance that equation out affordable housing is needed. Scott Barnes, 2634 W. Rowland, Anaheim, CA. He spoke regarding the problem with service sector jobs needing affordable housing. He appeared as a representative of W.A.N.D. (West Anaheim Neighborhood Council) and he indicated their concern is that they do not want to have sufficient all affordable housing in • West Anaheim. The other concern is that with the construction of apartments in the east side, that they need to also include affordable housing in that area so it is distributed evenly. 03-26-01 Page 16 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Leonard Lahtinen, 2731 W. Savoy Place, Anaheim, CA. He stated he has been a resident of West Anaheim for almost 40 years. The public notice regarding the update of the Housing Element referred to four levels of housing units which the staff member also referred to. Those four categories are very low income units, low-income units, moderate income units, and above moderate income units. He said he was alerted by the W.A.N.D. organization of this Mountain Park plan. Aithough they are late if the City in fact already has an agreement with the developer on this Mountain Park plan, yet the data that Mr. Kirker was referring to is apparently somewhat accurate as it refers to 11508 new units needed by Anaheim by 2005, and a staff member verified this number as being accurate. He indicated that the information that he has, although he is not sure of the source, indicates that the proposed new units for Mountain Park, almost 8000 new units, includes no very low or low-income units. That is his concern. That is why Commission is hearing from the people in West Anaheim that they already feel they have their fair share of low and very-low income developments. If an area like Weir Canyon where Mountain Park plan is designated, if it includes no very low or low-income rental units, then that places a burden on the rest of the City. He hopes he is not too late in raising this concern. He encouraged Commission to take a tour to Lincoln Avenue, Magnolia, Knott Avenue, and Ball Road. He is sure they know of all the high-density apartment units that are old and many in need of updating. He thinks the City has been giving a lot of attention to West Anaheim and the needs for improving that part of the City, but this Mountain Park plan has really concerned them and made them wonder what the future for the rest of the City is based on this plan. Commissioner Bostwick asked Jonathan Borrego if the agreement on Mountain Park was 10 -15 years old. Jonathan Borrego stated he believed it was approved in 1991. • Commissioner Bosfinrick stated it is very mountainous and difficult to develop so they are not going to put in any low cost housing out there. He stated that Commission, as a body, is very aware of the desires of West Anaheim and what they are asking Commission to do. Chairperson Koos stated that regarding that plan, the market has changed somewhat since 1991, the Irvine Company may or may not be talking to the City now or will be in the future about modifying that plan to address different market conditions. Is it feasible that the door is open wide enough that some of this discussion can take place if that does happen? Jonathan Borrego indicated he has not been involved in any discussions about any forthcoming amendments to the plan. Chairperson Koos stated that he understands the Irvine Company has developed some low-income housing within developments, interspersed, indicating Mr. Schultz may be able to comment on that. If the plan can be reviewed and a certain number can be designated within a master planned community then that might be a way to go. Regarding the State mandate, staff and the City, they did not think they deserved 11,000 units considering all the work being done to address the issues over the last 10 to 20 years. Other cities that you would traditionally think of as lower income such as Carson, Compton, Santa Ana, etc. were given numbers also. Everybody received a fair share based on population projections and a lot of cities currently are dealing with the issue. Commissioner Bristol stated the City has done a good job of being aggressive in bringing industry and business to the City along with the expansion of Disney, and everybody is aware of West Anaheim. Many of them grew up in this area and are very keen and aware of anything West of Euclid. One issue you will find in the plan itself is economic burden on any housing. It is highly unlikely that a developer will go to • Anaheim Hills and propose affordable housing versus the flatter area. That is just economic reality. The City does a lot of work trying to find those opportunities through incentives provided by the State that are mentioned in this plan as well, and they are looking at that. 03-26-01 Page 17 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Robert "Bob" Cernice, 223 South Atchison, Anaheim, CA. Mr. Cernice stated that he lives in the "Anaheim Colony". Anaheim has an expanding population and the City is in a position to respond to that with the Housing Element. When referring to affordable housing, this would be families who are earning $35,000 and less. That is the economic segment of 4300 units that the Regional Needs Assessment indicates is the goal for Anaheim to reach. He indicated those who gave testimony would like to know today, particularly W.A.N.D. as well as others, where is this housing going to go? How is it going to be done? What has been done? He thinks what concerns the people who are looking out for households earning less than $35,000 a year, is what has been done. It is primarily senior housing and not a whole lot in terms of multi-family units. In terms of how do you make this happen? Commission mentioned it is very cost prohibitive to do that in the hillsides, but when he spoke to non-profit developers they tell him that money is not the problem. The problem is densities, that is the real issue. If you have units in the Mountain Park that have densities of 15 or less we are never going to see any kind of development for affordable housing. In response to some projects mentioned where there are 36 units per acre required. He has been told 25 units per acre is the "magic" number for non-profit developers. There is another issue in terms of perception, when it is referenced low-income or affordable housing, there should be a distinction between housing that is developed for people earning less than $35,000 without support. In other words, there is not a management company that has a long-term investment. There are un-supported services in that development itself, which results in higher crime. There needs to be a distinction made between what the best affordable housing can be. His last comment was regarding a meeting he had with some housing staff and others. He submitted letters to the City and to the State and it was just today that they received the Housing Element document that described the response. In the response they addressed needs about parking and densities. He did not have su~cient time today to really examine this. He is uncomfortable commenting on the response since they have not had a lot of public participation. He has • attended meetings of the Anaheim Colony, when they talked about the consolidated plan etc., but he was not aware of any meetings to discuss the Housing Element document. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Cernice who he refers to when he says "we", who he represents? Mr. Cernice stated he does not represent any particular group. He provides staff support for affordable housing advocates such as the Kennedy Commission, but he is not speaking for any group today, only as an Anaheim resident. When he said "we" he meant himself and some other residents from Anaheim, Rudy Escalante, in real estate, Ross Ramirez, and a few others. Commissioner Bostwick indicated that the Kennedy Association is mentioned in the Housing Element. Mr. Cernice stated he was the person who forwarded information to the individual who spoke earlier about the Mountain Park plan. He looked at the numbers and saw that there was some 8000 units proposed for Mountain Park and none of those, according to the densities that are described in the Mountain Park plan, would make affordable housing for low-income families feasible. This was something they should all be concerned about, where will this housing go? Joseph Singh, 7870 East 17`h Street, #207, Santa Ana, CA. He stated he is a resident of East Anaheim and was present because of his interest, which is providing housing for the low-income families of Anaheim. As mentioned before, they have been very prosperous in creating jobs in Anaheim, unfortunately almost half of them are low-income category-type jobs where people are earning $6 to $8 an hour. The City has an obligation to address the housing for those workers. As a member of the Kennedy Commission he submitted letters to the City asking questions regarding the • plan and not until today did he pick up a copy of the revised comments. He requested that pursuant to State Law, Government Section 65583 (c) (5), that Commission postpone their vote until people have time 03-26-01 Page 18 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • to respond. Perhaps this is a good plan, however it is impossible for him to outline the issues for Commission when he has not had a chance to review staff's responses. Eldon Babor, 23861 EI Toro Road, #401, Lake Forest, CA, stated he is the Executive Director of the Kennedy Commission. He has listened to the term "goal" thrown out as "these are just goals". The reality is people need a place to live and Anaheim has done an admirable job at building the local economy within the City and creating job opportunities. The difficulty is those people need a place to live. Not all of them can afford to live in the expensive hillside area (Anaheim Hills). He understands that there are issues with construction costs, the reality is that when a piece of property is put together for affordable development, there has to be something more than 16 units on that lot. An affordable math for producing affordable housing means 25 units or more. They cannot produce affordable housing with all of the containing costs at that level density. The Kennedy Commission is an organization that is comprised of a variety of people, advocates, individuals, other organizations, affordable builders, employers and there is an underlying value that all of those people have. That is the production of safe, quality, affordable housing. There is an attitude that exists in the community at large, people believe that affordable housing is something akin to a"slum" which is not the case. There are a variety of affordable projects that have been built in Orange County, Southern California, and throughout the State, which are not "slums", they are quality housing. If you walked through that neighborhood, in most cases, you would not be able to identify a difference in how those units were produced because they look the same, they have the same feel, and same aesthetics. They are a safe quality place for people to live. One of the issues that is very important to consider is when referring to affordable housing is that it is not housing for a single person. It is housing for someone with four children. When he looked for a house for his wife, himself and four children, he had a hard time finding something in a price range that he could • afford that would not put three children in one bedroom. He is not in a low-income bracket. You cannot deny that every community faces problems of overcrowding. When there is a lack of a coherent plan that provides reasonable space for larger families, they overcrowd. The result is overcrowded schools and communities, parking and transpo~tation problems. One difficulty that he has seen in this plan as it stands is the fact that there appears to be very serious attention paid to affordable housing for seniors. As he looks at quality projects that are identified, Mercy Housing, Solara Court, California Villas, they are all senior housing. It does not make sense to concentrate the bulk of the production of affordable units into senior housing. There has to be a focus and serious attention paid to the large and medium size family, with recognition that those units can be produced in a reasonable way and not impact the community in an adverse manner. The plan identifies the changing demographics of the community and the fact that family size is increasing in Anaheim. The plan identifies, as does most of the other plans across the State, every City has this problem. It shows a need but does not identify the solution. When you talk about affordable housing, within the Kennedy Commission, they like to point out that these are families, individuals that are working in the community and they are doing the things that make the community work. These are people that provide services that make the community work that make it a livable place. The reality is, they cannot live in Riverside. He understands that there is some feeling in Anaheim that the numbers that were put on Anaheim are burdensome. The reality is that formula is reflective of the growth that Anaheim is expected to experience. If the City does not act in a way to address that growth the problems will only get worse. • He encouraged Commission to re-visit the issues mentioned and give some consideration to making solutions that have some common sense to them. For example, there are a variety of studies that deal with affordable housing that indicate that the same type of liberal parking arrangement would make sense. 03-26-01 Page 19 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The average family in an affordable unit does not need two parking spaces per bedroom. It makes sense to do some of those common sense approaches that can be validated and will make it possible for developers to do things, even in mountainous areas. Robert Fournier, 213 South Ridgeway Street, Anaheim, CA, asked the following questions: (1) Are people of low income less honest and decent than peopie of higher income, or are they sometimes forced into it by where they live? (2) Why should people of low income be restricted from new development areas like Mountain Park and others in the east end of Anaheim and restricted to re-development in highly-dense and aiready crowded facilities of central and western Anaheim? (3) Is land really more expensive per square foot in those areas than it is in the highly-dense central and western Anaheim? (4) Will restriction of affordable housing from the eastern area and in the central and western area be cause for a discrimination lawsuit by these people? THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bosfinrick commented to Mr. Babor from the Kennedy Commission, noting that obviously there has been attention given to affordable housing for seniors not by way of the City, but by way of the developers that have come forward. There is a market for that or it is market driven which is why you are seeing some of that. He stated that often seniors as they vacate a single-family home and move into apartments for seniors. Therefore, senior housing obviously provides a necessary transition in freeing up homes for families. The whole process is based on a free market enterprise. It is driven by the free market, what is available out there and what can be built and what can be sold. We are here to make sure the market place provides the right product per se, hopefully for the neighborhood and the area, but cannot demand what is built. • Commissioner Arnold commented that his observation since he's been on the Planning Commission is that the Commission and City Council are keenly aware of the housing needs in the City of Anaheim. The need to develop more low-income housing of all sorts, including the needs of families not just seniors. Regarding the concerns in West Anaheim, to improve that community to move land uses in a direction that maintains quality of neighborhoods and enhance quality of neighborhoods in that area, are difficult decisions. He does not think that this particular Housing Element set of goals and identification of various options etc., is even intended under State law to be a solution. It is designed to be a system in which they study, set goals, identify some of the problem areas and are going to have to work it out on a case-by- case basis. Commissioner Bosfinrick is correct that a lot depends on what is brought to the Commission. City staff is working very hard, and gave some examples to identify solutions that will accommodate housing needs and neighborhood interests at the same time. To expect that the Housing Element is a final word on anything misunderstands the process. They are committing themselves to policy goals that are inherently going to be complex and difficult and require case-by-case determinations. That is the nature of what they are doing today. He also addressed the question raised about the notice and the Government Code, etc. Commissioner Bostwick answered it was about the timing. They are only recommending to the City Council, this is not final. The City Council is the legal body that is responsible for the adoption. He directed Mr. Singh to take his notice to the City Council as he has plenty of time to have the document before their review. • Chairperson Koos asked when is it scheduled for City Council? 03-26-01 Page 20 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Bertha Chavoya stated they are scheduled to go before City Council on April 17, 2001, contingent on Commission's decision today. Chairperson Koos indicated he is not comfortable with the notion that they were affected parties or groups that made a clear request to be kept informed and they were not. He is not sure that is what happened, he asked Ms. Chavoya to comment on this. Bertha Chavoya replied that she has worked and met with Joseph Singh from the Orange County Community Housing Corporation. She did meet with Robert Cernice and Joseph Singh and other members of the Kennedy Commission and affordable housing advocates. It was her understanding they had a pretty open and successful dialog about some of the issues that they were concerned with in the document. It is her understanding that their letters and comments were also forwarded to the State and Mr. Robert Moss incorporated those comments that he received into his comments and his review. She stated that they are required by law to respond to the State's comments, however they have also been responsive in meeting with any other individuals who sent in personal letters and they did do that. They called a meeting and representatives were there. She does not believe every issue was solved, but they did listen. They plan to follow up with them to make sure that they are being kept informed and that they are working together, their advocates for affordable housing. They are interested in keeping a positive relationship. They did meet with them to inform the public of the process for the adoption of the Housing Element. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a letter from February 9, 2001 in the Commission's packet that mentions this from the State. It is from Cathy Cresswell indicating conversations and comments from the Housing Element and organizations and comments from Rudy Escalante the Kennedy Commission, and Mercy Housing. So that is over a month and a half ago. • Commissioner Arnold stated that City Council will have an opportunity to hear comments on April 17"'. Commissioner Bristol indicated there was a comment made that the State was stringent about parking. He suggested they look at the public transportation and perhaps if they go from 1 to .6 etc. on the parking requirement, whether or not people realistically can get from one spot to another. It does not make sense to reduce parking if someone has to walk four miles to get to their destination. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he wanted to clarify a comment made earlier about the awareness of West Anaheim. As a Planning Commissioner, he has had many opportunities to visit West Anaheim and the neighborhoods there. He thanked the people who came to the meeting and who live in those homes. Inside these major streets there are great neighborhoods which are well maintained. People who have a lot of pride in ownership and he feels those efforts explain why they are so interested in seeing how this goes forward and what will happen to the west side of Anaheim. He assured the people that in the past two years Commission has not approved apartment development in his tenure as a Commissioner and does not believe they will because of the involvement of West Anaheim. Despite where this document goes and how it all is changed, he believes that the public's interests and desires will probably be maintained due to the other efforts made and not so much what happens with the document. Chairperson Koos commented that the West Anaheim Revitalization Task Force just concluded, which Mr. Schultz mentioned. This is the "nuts and bolts" of where they are headed in terms of the near term. All the sites that they talked about for residential use where they would be converting strip commercial, • were single-family homes, high quality homes that are responding to a market that is calling for slightly 03-26-01 Page 21 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • higher densities than were developed in the early 1960's for instance. That is what occurring in West Anaheim from a planning standpoint in his opinion. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 11 people spoke in opposition and/or with concerns; one document was submitted pertaining to information regarding notification of public hearings on the Housing Element. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00386 revising the City's Housing Element. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 9 minutes (1:46-2:55) ~ • 03-26-01 Page 22 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EX~MPTION-CLASS 26 Concurred with staff 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04426 Granted OWNER: City of Anaheim, Housing Authority, Attn: Elisa (Vote: 7-0) Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Anaheim Revitalization Partners, Attn: Frank Cardone, 18201 Von Karman Boulevard #400, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1330 -1338 West Lynne Avenue, 1545 -1633 and 1528 -1634 South Michelle Drive, 1529 -1633 and 1528 -1634 South Jeffrey Drive, and 1603, 1607 and 1633 South Walnut Drive (excluding 1607-1613 South Michelle Drive and 1678 -1630 South Jeffrey Drive . Property is approximately 14.8 acres generally bounded by Lynne Avenue to the north, Walnut Street to the east, Audre Drive to the south, and Hampstead Street to the west. Waiver of (a) maximum fence height, and (b) minimum structural setback to permit the construction of a new community center building in conjunction with a City of Anaheim Housing Authority initiated multiple- family residential rehabilitation project which is currently under construction. • VARtANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-34 SR2061DS.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is Variance No. 2001-04426 and it is the Jeffrey Lynn Revitalization Project. This is a request to construct a community center building with finro waivers, one of maximum fence height and the other of minimum structural setback. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chairperson Koos asked if there was anyone present wanting to give testimony. No one came forward. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold stated he understood Mr. Schultz bringing the landscaping back as a Reports and Recommendations item. Brent Schultz agreed. Indicating he could bring it to a study session and have the landscape architect give a full detailed. Chairperson Koos requested more detailed building elevations. • Brent Schultz stated he spoke with Ms. Kim McKay with the related companies and would be happy to provide the full-scale drawings. 03-26-01 Page 23 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos asked that his request be combined with Commissioner Arnold's request. He stated that this would be recorded as a Reports and Recommendations item, condition of approval. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated to Mr. Schultz that there was mention at the morning session about obtaining the street and perhaps two parcels north of it for some recreational area. He asked Mr. Schultz that when he returns with the landscapes and elevations if he would have more information about obtaining those parcels or closing off that street. Brent Schultz asked if those were the finro parcels to the north of the community center site, two apartments to the north. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that the reason he believes this is relevant is because this plan indicates a shortening of the setback, which he agrees especially if the section of the street will essentially become part of the community center is in fact going to happen. He was not certain if that was going to happen and he just wanted to know if there would soon be any more information. Brent Schultz stated he is moving forward and the Police Department is supportive of all the street abandonments. They feel this is important and the police is supporting him to stop the circulation through that area and he has been given the go-ahead to start talking with the owners across the street about acquiring property on the north side, they have huge front yards. They really do not need all that area and he wants to buy a portion of those front yards. Eventually he would like to abandon all those streets and have them all private streets, and gated all the way out to Cerritos, Walnut and Ninth Street. They are actually going to begin looking at another plan for the perimeter, which they have not yet done. Since the core is going to be completed by next December, they want to look at a whole new plan for the outside. He has budgeted for this in next year's budget hopefully approved in June by City Council for that • perimeter area. He hopes to have some more information on the two parcels to the north as he is trying to contact the owners. They are going ahead with the street closure. Chairperson Koos indicated he had concern over the fence height variance because of the appearance of a six-foot-high fence, it is sort of a fortified look. He understands the concern and as long as it is decorative, somewhat aesthetically pleasing he was wondering if this couid be incorporated with what comes back so Commission has an idea on the elevations and what the fence will look like. He feels they deserve a high quatity fence. Brent Schultz stated he would come back with elevations on that side. Perhaps Ms. Kim McKay can get some detailed pictures or architectural work on those fences to show Commission what it will look like. Following the Action: Mr. Brent Schultz stated he will work with staff to set up a meeting to invite Commission to visit the new apartments. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15326, Class 26 (Acquisifion of Housing for Housing Assistance Programs), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ~ 03-26-01 Page 24 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Granted Variance No. 2001-04426, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 26, 2001, with the following added condition of approval: 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit that final elevation, landscaping and fencing plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations Item. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:56-3:02) \ J • 03-26-01 Page 25 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4006 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04334) with deletion of time limitation OWNER: Erdtsieck Family Limited Partnership, 625 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 (Vote: 7-0) AGENT: Fred Erdtsieck, 625 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 1354 North Red Gum Street. Property is approximately 1.85 acres located on the east side of Red Gum Street, 390 feet south of the centerline of La Jolla Street. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on March 2, 1998, to expire on March 2, 2001) to retain a large equipment rental yard. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 12, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-35 SR7947KP.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item as a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4006 for property located at 1354 North Redgum Street. This is a reinstatement of an existing large equipment rental storage yard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Joel Robinette, branch manager at 1354 North Red Gum indicated he is present to address any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he had read the staff report and agreed is in agreement. Joel Robinette replied yes. Mr. Robinette indicated he is a new branch manager as of June, 2000, and did not have any knowledge of the Conditional Use Permit. He had set up a Conditional Use Permit for Hertz Equipment Rental with his prior company, but he now has knowledge of this. At some point he may bring in the Vice President and determine they might want to get a modification or a variance on this use permit. At this point, their parking is all set as mandated in the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated thaf the landscaping looks great. 03-26-01 Page 26 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i • • • •- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4006 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04334), and deletion of a time limitation. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSStON TIME: 2 minutes (3:03-3:05) • • 03-26-01 Page 27 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2681 Approved Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04336) for 1 year OWNER: Rewcon One Inc. fka Robshan, Inc., Attn: Christine M. (To expire 3-26-2002) Roche, Secretary, 3210 Beltline Road #140, Dallas, TX 75234 (Vote: 7-0) AGENT: Bryan Kahng, 480 North Glassell Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 480 North Glassell Street. Property is approximately 0.59 acre located on the southeast corner at Glassell Street and Frontera Street (Press Box Sports Bar and Grill). Request reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (reinstated on March 12, 1999 to expire on March 29, 2001) to retain a previously approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption with three billiard tables and to add public entertainment (cover charge). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-36 SR7935KB.DOC Introduction by Staff: ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item as a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2681, for property located at 480 North Glassell Street, it is the Press Box Sports Bar and Grill and the petitioner is also requesting permission to add a cover charge to the subject business. THE PUBLIC HEARING WS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Bryan Kahng, owner of Press Box Sports Bar and Grill, he wanted to clarify tf~e number of calls for service stated in a memorandum dated March 14, 2001, as an attachment to the staff report on page 3, number 11. Since he took over the restaurant in November, 2000, they have made 5 calls. The other 19 he believes are alarm-related calls. When a strong wind blows it sets off the alarm in the building. The alarm company automatically calls the Police Department. He wants to correct that, that 19 calls are not related to the operation of the business. There are also about 28 calls related to the alarm with the previous owners. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked if he had any comment on the recommended conditions of approval? Mr. Kahng stated he will perform by the rules and regulations without any problem. He does not mind if there is a trial period granted for the permit or if it is permanent. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Kahng if he leased or owned. Mr. Kahng stated he leases and it is a 12-year lease. • 03-26-01 Page 28 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol stated he wanted to be sure Mr. Kahng understood that the Conditional Use Permit requires that the sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of his total gross receipt (Condition . No. 11). Mr. Kahng stated that he was made aware by Mr. Don Yourstone; before that time the conditions were never presented to him. Commissioner Bristol indicated that Mr. Yourstone explained that to Commission in the morning session as well. He told Mr. Kahng that Mr. Yourstone believes he will do a good job, but asked Mr. Kahng if he thought he would have any problem complying by switching to more food sales than alcohol sales? Mr. Kahng indicated that it is confusing to him because Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) allows 50/50 and the City requires 40%. When he was granted the license from ABC that is what he understood 50/50 and later, Mr. Yourstone informed him that the City regulation was a maximum of 40%. He will try to comply, but feels it will be very difficult. Actual entertainment goes on Friday, Saturday and Wednesday nights, everything else is regular restaurant business. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the cover charge might bring in the gross receipts necessary to bring up the non-alcohol-related sales. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the cover charge goes towards the food sales or the liquor sales? Greg McCafferty stated that the way the condition is worded it says the gross "retail sales", so it does not really specify. The goal staff is trying to achieve with the condition is that the alcohol be clearly accessory to the restaurant and thought that is why it is worded that way. He recommended that Commission not consider the service charge as part of the retail sales. ~ Commissioner Arnold asked if part of the idea with having a cover charge is that finro things happen, one is that you create an incentive for people to come early for dinner and then stay and so you will get more people who are there for food rather than just for drinks and entertainment. Secondly, that you discourage people who are just looking for a bar. Mr. Kahng replied yes and stated that without a cover charge anyone could get in. He noticed there is some trouble with people going in and out without any limitation or restrictions and they sometimes cause trouble, that is why they made service calls. With this they can limit that and upgrade the quality of the business and also he could increase sales of the food at the same time. Commissioner Vanderbilt wondered whether the alarm being caused by the wind could be corrected? Mr. Kahng indicated it has already been done. He does not believe there have been any calls to the Police Department after March 9, 2001 when it was corrected. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that when he went, there were cars using the red striped curb in front of the property for parking, one of his vendors and another car. He asked if Mr. Kahng could discourage that. Mr. Kahng responded yes. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated one more issue is the dilapidated pennants/flags on the roof of the building, which he believes are prohibited unless they are U.S. flags. Mr. Kahng indicated these would be taken down. • 03-26-01 Page 29 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold stated for the record that he feels it is clear from the reports from Code . Enforcement and the Police Department that they believe this is an operation that has improved considerably and shows much promise for being a very good operation. He has been to this establishment twice in the last three or four months and observed that there was no parking prvblems and the crowd there seemed to be low key and responsible, not the sort of crowd that Commission would be concerned about. Based on the evidence that Mr. Yourstone presented, it was indicated that the percentage of alcohol sales is declining and is close to 40% which is a positive trend in the right direction. Mr. Kahng is seeking a new condition regarding a cover charge that will help him comply, all those factors combined would be a basis for deviating from their normal concerns that Commission raises on this type of use. During the Action: Commissioner Bristol offered a resolution, instead of six months he recommended the Conditional Use Permit be extended for one year. He also added as a condition that the banners on the roof be removed within 30 days. He asked if they should we have restriping? Commissioner Vanderbilt advised no, he was just asking in an informal way for the owner to be aware of that. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there seemed to be a question about what would or would not be counted as to the relative percentages. The way the Condition reads, it says the quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the total gross sales. It does not say total gross receipts, his interpretation of that would be that things like the income from the cover charge if he is going to charge that would not fall as a gross receipt. He advised if Commission wanted to make it ~ clearer they could add that to say "gross receipts of tangible personal property" to remove any doubt. Commissioner Bristol indicated he felt it should be food and beverage and the alcohol sales should not exceed 40% of the total receipts for food a~d beverage. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2681 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04336) for 1 year (to expire on March 26, 2002) to retain a previously- approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, three billiard tables and to add public entertainment (cover charge) for events on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday nights. Amended Resolution Nos. PC99-59, PC97-152, PC94-9 and PC85-124 in their entirety and replaced with a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: CJ 03-26-01 Page 30 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. That the three billiard tables and public entertainment including a cover charge shall expire one (1) year from the date of this resolution, on ~ September 26, 2002. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1- gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 3. That in the event a parcel map to subdivide subject property is recorded, an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking, approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and Zoning Division and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the covenant to guarantee that the entire complex shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcel for purposes of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, maintenance, land usage and architectural control, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. • 4. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view. 5. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1; Development Area 1(Northeast Area Specific Plan; Industrial Area) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. 6. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 7. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 8. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. 9. That there shall be no more than three (3) pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 10. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the • California Business and Professions Code. 03-26-01 Page 31 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11. That alcohol sales shall not exceed 40% of the total receipts for food and beverage during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 12. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. That the sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 14. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages, with the exception of one (1) sign indicating "cocktails". 15. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 16. That at all times when entertainment, dancing and/or a cover charge is permitted, a minimum of two (2) uniformed security officers shall be ~ provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 17. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 18. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 19. That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. 20. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. LJ 03-26-01 Page 32 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 21. That the business owner shall notify the Anaheim Police Department, ~ Vice Detail, thirty (30) days in advance of any entertainment event at this location furnished by an outside promoter. This notice shall include the name, address and phone number of the promoter and detailed information on the type of event including dates, hours, anticipated attendance and nature of event. 22. That the public entertainment shall be limited to Wednesday, Friday and Saturday nights from 8:00 p.m. to closing. Any change to this schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 23. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 24. 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. Add the following condition: ~ L J That the pennants/flags located on the roof of the restaurant are to be removed within 30 days of the date of this resolution. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:06-3:18) 03-26-01 Page 33 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04284 OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp, 151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: Property consists of two parcels located on the east and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Way and 1621 South Claudina Way. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Way. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To establish a multipurpose storage yard for building materials, recreational vehicle/boat and vehicle storage with accessory modular ~ office building. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 4, December 18, 2000, January 17 and February 12, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to April 23, 2001. SR7945KP.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to April 23, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken, and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 ~ DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-26-01 Page 34 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04294 OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp, 151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: Property consists of finro parcels located on the east and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Way and 1621 South Claudina Way. Properry has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Way. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To permit a wholesale automobile auction facility with on-site storage of vehicles. ~ Continued from the Commission meetings of December 18, 2000, January 17, and February 12, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to April 23, 2001. SR7946KP.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to April 23, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 03-26-01 Page 35 MARCH 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: c ~~ ~~U~ anice O'Connor Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~~ -(~ % 03-26-01 Page 36