Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/07/16CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 16, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPER~~t~:~ ,1C`~EiN~~4~OS • • COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Lawrence Newberry, Sr. Ay Greg Hastings, Zoning D«i: Greg McCafferty, Principa°I F;,~ ,E, AGENDA POSTING AE cc~r ~. Friday, July 13, 2001; insid`i outside display kiosk,5,, ~ .~. -~ <~ ~ ~~~ PUBLISHED: Anaheim ~ ,~ ~ :<,. ,.. CALL TO ORDEI~~ ~ ~r ~ Ossie Edmuf~ds '~°~~ Elly Fernandes, of the Plannina Commission • STAFFUPDATE`T~~Ct~MMISSI~f~!°<OE"VARI~USCI ~°~ ~'~ .,~ DEVELOPMENT~'~~ - ISS~JES {q,S' REQUE~ED ~~ ~ ~ PLANNING C~~MMT~„~''•~10~ ~~ ~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ €E ~ ~ ~. , • PRELIMINARY`F~LAN F~E~I~V~ ~` ~ ~ ~`~ ~~ "E ~ ~ ; ~~~ ~,~~ ~~ y~ ~ ,, _~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARIING S~SSI~~N~ ~~, ~ n,~~-: ~n~~ ~ _ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Boydstun PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - ----- H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTES~AC071601 lannin commission anaheim.net PLANNINGy~'COMM'~;: • WORKSHOP O~ 07-16-01 Page 1 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Morning Session Sober Living/Group Home Workshop Chairman Koos opened workshop by acknowledging presence of Frank Feldhaus and legislators then introduced staff. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner introduced representatives from police and state. Gave presentation on group homes. Overview of presentation explained non-traditional family as a group of unrelated people who have chosen to live together because of a common bond such as a physical impairment, disability or social need. Location of group care can sometimes result in impacts to the neighborhoods such as traffic, noise and parking. Focus of workshop is to find a reasonable balance between the interest of and benefits to special needs groups and the interests of and burdens on the City's neighborhoods, while working within the limitations on local control. Zoning refers to group homes as housing occupied by groups of unrelated individuals with disabilities. Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 provides protection from discrimination for facilities serving persons recovering from problems related to the use of alcohol or drugs. Community Care Licensing licenses non-medical residential care for physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons and neglected or abused children and it does not include sober living homes. If there is only one person that you are caring for that is not related, you need a community care license. There are about 248 licensed homes throughout the City. A licensed home for 6 or fewer persons is exempt from local permit requirements, so they don't have to obtain a conditional use permit, but they still have to abide by all other zoning regulations. The ADP (California Department of Alcohol and Drug Program) license and certify residential treatment facilities offering non-medical, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery treatment or detoxification services. Sober living homes not offering "treatmenY' are not licensed by the ADP. Sober living facilities offer alcohol and drug free residences for unrelated adults who are recovering and are known as transitional environments and no treatment is provided. There are • 12 licensed facilities in Anaheim and only 5 are residential. ADP also certifies non-residential facilities that voluntarily apply for certification. Orange County Probation Department maintains a list of probation approved homes for courf referrals for residential facilities. These homes need to be ADP licensed and certified, meet county requirements and comply with County guidelines to be on the court lists. In Anaheim, licensed homes for 7 or more persons are subject to CUP requirements. Non-traditional families living together as a single housekeeping unit and licensed facilities with 6 or fewer persons are exempt from CUP's. Staff has a pending ordinance which will come before Commission that will make the municipal code conform with state and federa! laws. They will also be asking Commission to look at definitions that should be updated and to have a code amendment say what each actually require as far as permits they are subject to. Lt. Fred Lisanti has 23 years of experience with Orange County Sheriff s Coroner's o~ce - explained efFects of Proposition 36 and new certification program. Works in San Clemente where there are 22 unlicensed sober living homes and they are trying to find a way to regulate them because of the number of problems associated with them. Problems include murder, bank robbery, a home that was producing meth amphetamine. They are averaging between 350 - 400 calls for service per year at the 22 facilities. He is trying to find a way to certify the facilities and found that these facilities are protected under the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and it makes it impossible to regulate them. They cannot be regulated with a CUP. Santa Clara County has a certification program that requires a set of standards be met to be certified. Facilities do not have to be certified, but if they want business from the county (business from probation or parole in lieu of going to jail), they have to be certified. Standards stipulate people who operate facilities have to be fingerprinted, background checked, (no rapists, gang members, child molesters) and requires that people who live in the facility meet the standard as well. Other standards include locks on bedroom . doors, beds have to be off the floor, has to have hot water, no vermin etc. He does not want these facilities in a residential neighborhood and they don't belong there, but there is no way a city has the 07-16-01 Page 2 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ability to keep them out of the residential neighborhood, so, they have come up with the program that certifies them to make them as safe as possible. They had a first reading of the certi~cation guidelines at the Board of Supervisors and it was passed, the second reading will be July 24 and if it passes the regulation will kick in within 9 months and the only way the facilities will be able to get any business from anyone under the jurisdiction of the court in County of Orange, will be to be certified. It also has a provision that any individual City may pass an enabling ordinance which allows the ordinance to appfy in the individual city. The League of Cities and City Manager's Association have endorsed the certification program. Commissioner Arnold stated the Good Neighbor Policy of Chapter 8 of the guidelines indicates it is an optional policy and feels being a good neighbor is not an optional matter in any circumstance, so why is it optional here. Lt. Lisanti said that originally it was not an optional program, but County Council said that by making it a mandatory program, they were putfing a regulation on it that they would not put on a regular home, so it had to be voluntary. Commissioner Arnold stated that the idea in these homes is towards rehabilitation and turnover and these residents may not have fhe same sort of stake in the neighborhood that other kinds of residents might have. Long-term relationships with neighbors is missing from these facilities. Lt. Lisanti said in Santa Clara they found that most of the facilities that did not go for certification were soon out of business. Residents may have been in a licensed primary care treatment facility then moved into one of 8 or 9 sober living homes which is branched from the primary care facility. These facilities are efficiently operated and because they want to get the county business they are forced to run a better • business. Santa Clara had 180 facilities and are now down to 50 primary care facilities licensed by the state with sober living homes reporting back to them. They are still in residential neighborhoods and the only way it can be corrected is to go to state and federal, but the bills that go there never get out of committee. It has to become a federal law. Commissioner Bristol asked how the policy makers justify not notifying neighbors when this type of use comes in, because normally when there is a change in use in property they are notified. Lt. Lisanti stated the Board of Supervisors have concerns with that too, but it boils down to what the ADA has to say. If it is sold to a company that is going to open a sober living home and there is a notification requirement, that requirements puts them in violation of the ADA because it is something that you are requiring them to do because they are dealing with the handicap. In the unincorporated area of the contract cities that the sheriff serves, there are no city that requires any kind of regulation on any of these facilities, no CtJP, zoning, proximity and no business license. Commissioner Bristol stated there is some good profit to be made and asked if he had any idea of how many homes were privately funded. Lt. Lisanti stated the majority are privately funded and operated by people who are seeking to help those with addictions, but with Prop 36, many will look at it as a way to make money. Most places charge between $1,200 -$1,400 per month, so there is a potential to make money. The certification guidelines are designed to stop those who just want to open a warehouse. With Prop 36, it is estimated that 4,500 people will be arrested for being under the influence of narcotics who will be eligible to live in one of these residential neighborhoods. Before July 1 S` they would have gone to jail for 60 -90 days instead, now, they will be sent to residential treatment facilities. These facilities are growing due to the money making proposition now. • Commissioner Bristol asked what actually goes on in these homes. 07-16-01 Page 3 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Lt. Lisanti stated that 75-80% of the unlicensed homes are warehouses where someone can go and have a place to sleep, they don't provide food, job training, they don't require the person to have a job and in most cases the cost is being paid by the family. Problems associated in homes are crowds with criminal backgrounds, their friends who are criminals come to visit and if they are not making money and not working, the only way they can support themselves is to continue the criminal activity. More and more of this activity is going on in the 1,500 homes throughout the state and that is why the certification guidelines are starting to be used, but it is only some control. Michael Gold, Deputy Director of Orange County Division of the League of Cities. State League of Cities hasn't been able to do much in the past. Legislature has tried but there are significant barriers that have been put up and there are federal limitations with the fair housing laws. There have been a number of bills that have gone to the state legislature and they have all gone down. There are city/county officials discussing the problems and effects on neighborhoods, then the group home advocates say they are turning children and handicapped people away, so the challenge is trying to provide a balance. Four years ago a bill by Diane Watson was turned into a task force that came up with a bill that came up with a statewide database which would give them a sense of who was out there, and they could map to see where there was overconcentration. The legislature decided not to take up the issue though so nothing was done. State is unwilling to step in, so it has to be dealt with on a local level. Some cities have tried to push the limit but are held back. Nine times out of ten, if there are any attempts by city or county governments, HUD gets a federal attorney to call them advising them of federal fair housing laws. Commissioner Arnold asked if anyone ever looked at the state offering funding incentives on basis of facilities who adopt good neighbor policies, this way you're not distinguishing between people with disabilities and those that don't. • Michael Gold didn't know of any such attempt but the bill that the task force worked on included incentives Larry Newberry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, said cities pull back from moving forward because of so many legal issues with the way the statutes are constructed. Most of the law involving group homes deals with definitions of who is included and who is not. You cannot discriminate or impose conditions different from those that are imposed on similar circumstances where there is not a rehabilitative purpose (you can't require more of a setback or screening etc.). The question of discrimination is a very subjective one and where a CUP is requested, if it is denied or the conditions are such that it makes it impossible for the home to open, you're actions are going to be scrutinized. They will look at all comments to determine if there are discriminatory intent manifest in them. Those that are opposed will look at similar zoning resolutions for years previous and will find one with a similar circumstance where the decision was otherwise. It doesn't mean you can't do it, but the standards that apply have to be commonly applied to everybody, which makes for tension. In terms of enforcement we are not allowed to enforce our rules differentially. For example, if we do not send code enforcement o~cers in to determine how many people live in a residential unit, you cannot do it in a group home situation. It becomes difficult to enforce how many people are living there. You also have to look at secondary effects such as people coming and going, number of vehicles parked out front etc. Options are to have license care homes with a 300 foot separation enforced by the state-licensing agency. They can look at secondary effects of calls of police service to a facility, or occurrence of crime within a small area. The trend by state and federal is to expand coverage not contract it, and to make the penalties for discriminating against these uses very difficult to deal with and that is why there is very Ilittle litigation. Just the threat deters any city from proceeding. like that but legislature was unwilling to do it. It is so controversial that the state doesn't want to step into it. Cities and counties are beginning to look inward instead of the state for solutions. When he was in Sacramento, they introduced bills to the legislature every year and they never went anywhere. It will take federal fair housing law changes for any thing to be done. ~ 07-16-01 Page 4 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Audience Comments: Judy Johnston explained her past experience with the death of her brother due to drugs. Feels putting people who have histories of drug and alcohol abuse together, unregulated will not make them well. There are 2 sober living homes out of 100 in her neighborhood and there is yelling, cussing, drunk men, and other problems in these homes. People who live next to these homes are intimidated by the verbal and non-verba! actions of residents and they are afraid to inform authorities about what is going on. Which segment of society should be imprisioned? The law abiding citizens who are afraid to open their windows or those who have not worked and struggled to achieve homeownership. She asked that her neighborhood not be grandfathered. Jana Burr lives on the street with the 2 sober living homes. Her neighbors have spent time in jail and are on probation for drugs. Feels it will cross pollinate. As a realtor, she has to be more leery about violations of HUD. She has had to talk to one of the sober homes about blockbusting because they have contacted neighbors that are adjacent to them and asked if they are thinking of selling their homes. One elderly neighbor was approached every time she left her home and felt harassed and fearful. Because it is a profitable business, the profit is to buy in a neighborhood that is depressed. She wants to try to save her neighborhood but in looking at other cases, nothing can get done, it comes down to federal law. Sober living homes are like a shell game, if the police get called, those tenants just go to another neighborhood and a new resident from another home will come into this one. Commissioner Bristol asked what effect this would have if she wanted to sell her property. Jana Burr said homes are selling but realtors are not held to disclose the problems. She has tried to help her neighbors, has done volunteer with Orangewood Children's Home, helped foster children. She has tried to advise people who are moving in about the problems in the neighborhood. It was difficult growing • up in the neighborhood and it has a drug culture, they are not people who will call police if they see anything. There are many good neighbors there who are happy and want to take a stand, why should they move out since it can happen anywhere, what is to say they won't move into another neighborhood with another sober living home there. They don't want to be grandfathered. Judy Johnston stated they went before City Council to try to get them to raise the massage parlor ordinance along the Brookhurst Corridor because of the pimp and prostitution rings due to the way Anaheim laws were written requiring so few hours to practice massage. Some of the residents in the homes have made their money from stealing and prostitution and even though you re getting rid of it along the Corridor, you are putting it in the neighborhoods. Esther Wallace, West Anaheim Neighborhood Group asked what citizens can do to protect themselves against the group homes when there are problems. !f there is destruction to the neighborhood by these people who do they call and how do they get resolution. If their own disabled people are harassed by group home tenants, who protect the disabled, will government protect them or people in the group homes. Asked for more information on the 300-foot separation. Asked if they could make it so that the owner has to live in the home and not rent it out. Brian Barnett from Community Care Licensing stated if there is a problem with anyone who is in a ficensed home, the license could be revoked depending on the seriousness. The licensee must develop a neighborhood complaint response system for the residents of the care facility as well as the neighbors. Anyone throughout California can make a complaint to their office and they will investigate. Complaints could be for level of services, program of activities, physical violations, or services being provided and if there is any physical/sexual abuse or personal rights violation. As a state agency, they are mandated to make a visit within 10 calendar days and write a report and respond to the appropriate party. He elaborated on the description and make up of adult residential care facilities, group homes and small • family homes. Their agency makes unannounced inspections or making complaint visits to make sure 07-16-01 Page 5 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . facilities are in compliance with Title 22 regulations and state statutes. Sometimes they take administrative action by revoking license and removing the clients immediately. Tracy Gamboa 1635 South Songas Street asked what they could do about the homes that were not licensed. Brian Barnett said in order to care for any dependent people or children or adults with disabilities you have to have a state license. Sober living facilities are not licensed at this point in time. Programs which offer therapeutic treatment program are monitored and licensed through the Department of Alcoho! and Drug Programs in Sacramento. Lt. Lisanti stated the homes that are licensed by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) have similar guidelines. They are licensed by the state so there is a whole series of guidelines that they are required to have which includes inspections. Commissioner Arnold asked if they included the neighbor complaint process and Lt. Lisanti said not to his knowledge but he can find out. In Santa Clara County, which is where the guidelines came from, the certification guidelines also apply to state licensed facilifies. Commissioner Arnold stated if they have someone with a developmental disability they have to have a neighborhood complaint process but if it has to do with alcohol or drug rehabilitation, they might not. Lt. Lisanti stated the certification guidelines require that they have a system similar to the state and that is a Lt. who is the certification coordinator, a complaint process and the right to inspect without notice. State has ability to do inspections without notice. Commissioner Arnold clarified that they don't require the good neighbor policy, that the other kind of • licensing does and Lt. Lisanti said to his knowledge they do not. Chairman Koos asked if there was a problem, where would they go, and is there a handle on where all of these homes are located. Lt. Lisanti stated that a sober living home by definition is not licensed by the state. A residential care facility is licensed by the state and if it causing a problem, you can go to the state and file a complaint. About the location, the state publishes a list that shows where all the licensed facilities are and they are pretty well spread out throughout the county. The sober living environments seem to be predominately in areas that have been depressed for real estafe reasons. Costa Mesa is inundated with these facilities, it has the most of any city in this county. They estimate that there are over 150 unlicensed facilities throughout the County of Orange. Chairwoman Boydstun clarified that there is no where to go to get help if there are 6 people or under and Lt. Lisanti said they could call local police. These people must still follow the laws, but in many instances people are reluctant to step forward when they see someone who is criminally sophisticated. Local law enforcement doesn't know where these facilities are unless someone makes them aware. They're trying to get every city to start tracking homes for calls for service and what is occurring, because that is the ammunition needed at the federal level to demonstrate that beyond the emotional issue, we don't want them in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Arnold asked if there was an attempt to get someone from ADP here today and Cheryl Flores stated no. Commissioner Arnold said it seems like the state (Community Care Licensing) has certain kinds of requirements, but the ADP doesn't and he is curious that no one is looking at the inconsistencies. • Lt. Lisanti stated the certification guidelines have a whole series of sanctions and inspections by local building and code enforcement as well as by probation, health care and other facilities to make sure they 07-16-01 Page 6 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • meet a set of standards. The ADP must have something and a way to revoke or suspend it, but he doesn't know what it is. Commissioner Arnold said the question is whether there is any basis for revoking/suspending/granting has anything to do with the facility neighbor relationship as opposed to how the facilities operate. That is one of the critical things that we need to be clear about. What seems to be going on is the state process seems to be primarily about the internal operation of the facility and the CUP deals with land use permit and that is where the city is constrained, especially with the 6 or fewer people. Lt. Lisanti said a lot of the guidelines they have for Santa Clara are modeled after what the state has. The only person you can complain to with a sober living home that is not licensed is the local police department. Brian Barnett said in terms of the facilities licensed by ADP, if they have a treatment program, they must have a neighborhood complaint policy. The ones discussed today are about the small, 6 client facilities which is becoming more organized than it was in the past. Judy Johnston said you can call probation, Department of Corrections, Code Enforcement, and police. You can also have real estate agent check into loan agreements because it is illegal to list themselves as owner-occupied on the loan. Anaheim Police told her they are starting to keep a list but is hard to get neighbors to complain because they are afraid of retribution. Chairman Koos stated it seems like their hands are tied. Larry Newberry said an inter-disciplinary group in the city can be set up with police, code enforcement, attorney's office etc. and begin to identify the secondary effects that are associated with a particular property so that there is a record of where they exist. Where there is a license, the city can deal with it, where there is no license, they can determine if a • nuisance exists, but there has to be concrete, hard evidence. Cheryl Flores asked the Commission for recommendation for future actions such as revising code to include definition and requirements pertaining to the types of homes found in neighborhoods today. Commissioner Arnold suggested a contact list with names of people to contact for the citizens. Agrees the development of critical data will be an issue at the state and federal level and in connection with that effort to have a point person on the City staff to be a primary contact for residents in the community that are dealing with these issues and to concentrate some expertise and be a facilitator. Chairman Koos stated yes and the Commission gave the following directions: • Create interdepartmental "committee" with police, code enforcement, city attorney to investigate secondary effects (nuisances) at residential locations where abnormal number of police calls exists. (per Larry Newberry) • Keep information sheet with names and phone numbers for neighborhood complaints (per Tony Arnold) • Have point person on the City staff for people to call (per Tony Arnold) • Bring back clean up ordinances that we are already preparing (per Cheryl Flores) • Bring back (to Council?) certification ordinance along with all other cities in County following Board of Supervisors adoption of Voluntary Certification Program. (per Larry Newberry) Commissioner Bristol asked Larry Newberry if the good neighbor policy was that they couldn't talk to anybody whether you have certification or not. This can't be treated differently than any other piece of property. • Larry Newberry stated that is correct as a compulsory measure, it would be like disclosing your race or religion to your neighbors, it has to be given the same fevel of protection. As a voluntary progam, you 07-16-01 Page 7 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ can. After the County has passed their licensing statute the Commission may want to determine whether the City of Anaheim wishes to adopt it as well. Lt. Lisanti said even with the voluntary good neighbor policy, they have the ability to go in and inspect based on complaint that violate. He really expects to see compliance to all the people who are running these for the right reasons. Those that don't will be out of business within 6 months. Commissioner Arnold asked if it was possible to look at any aspect of the good neighbor policy could be mandatory, like the complaint receipt process. Larry Newland said it could be looked at and maybe put into zoning ordinances. Jana Burr stated community policing is a real factor and need to made aware of it and neighbors need a contact person. Judy Johnston asked for some kind of parking restrictions because there are cars on the lawn. Also, there needs to be some central point. Respectfully submitted: Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist r ~ U • 07-16-01 Page 8 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance: New Planning Commissioner - Gail Eastman. The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance for new Planning Commissioner Gail Eastman was continued to July 30, 2001 due to a scheduling conflict. Commissioner Boydstun graciously accepted congratulations from The Commission on her reappointment of office for another 4 years. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE 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. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ELECTION PROCEEDINGS - PLANNING COMMISSION: Selection of Planning Commission Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-Tempore. (Continued from July 2, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning • Commission does hereby elect Commissioner James Vanderbilt as Commission Chairperson for 2001/2002 (to become effective for the July 30, 2001 Planning Commission meeting). ACTION: Chairperson Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Tony Arnold as Chairperson Pro-Tempore for 2001/2002 (to become effective for the July 30, 2001 Planning Commission meeting). REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF TWO REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE ON GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC): ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioners James Vanderbilt and Tony Arnold to serve as the Planning Commission representatives on the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-D 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 Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED • (with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-B through 1-D as 07-16-01 Page 9 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04403)- Approved the final sign plan. REQUEST FOR FINAL SIGN PLAN REVIEW AND EXTENSION OF TIME: Approved extension of time Robertson Properties, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson for one year Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048, requests review of the final sign (to expire on August 8, 2002) program and an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (approved August 8, 2000 to expire on August 8, 2001) for a previously-approved commercial retail center of regional significance, including a home improvement store, health club, three drive-through fast food restaurants, two full-service restaurants, and a freeway- oriented freestanding sign with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum parking lot landscaping. Property is located at 1500 North Lemon Street - Anaheim Gateway. SR2077DS.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 323 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION (i) That a Phase Two (final) Sign Program be submitted indicating the wall sign location, material, colors, wording, and logos for Pad Building Nos. C, D, E, and F, Major Tenants B, C, and D, and fhe specific wording and location of all directional and guide signs. The Phase Two Sign Program shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Planning Commission review and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. CARRIED (Chairperson Koos and Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no; with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the sign program for the first phase to construct five freestanding signs and wall signage for the Lowe's home improvement store for Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04403), with the following stipulations to be noted on sign plans submifted to the Building Division: (ii) That the advertisement for any single tenant will not appear on more than one freestanding sign with the exception of the freeway oriented sign. (iii) That the banners on the eight (8) decorative monument structures not be used for advertising. (iv) That wall signage for the south building elevation of Major D shall be limited to wall signage for that tenant. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year extension of time to expire on August 8, 2002 for Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04403) based on the following: • 07-16-01 Page 10 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current zoning code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments, that directly affect the requested extension, that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That since the original approval in August of 2000, the petitioner has been working closely with various public agencies to comply with conditions of approval and complete the necessary on- and off-site improvements. (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. (iv) That the property is maintained in a clean and safe condition and there are no code violations on the property at this time. Introduction by staff: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated that this item actually includes two requests. One is for final sign program for the Stadium Gateway project, and also a request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. Staff recommends that Commission take the actions that are described in Paragraph 18 of the staff report, with one revision, and that revision would be to the tenant of Major Tenant D. Mr. McCafferty informed that Major Tenant D is located to the right of the freeway. Therefore, Staff feels if is appropriate for that particular tenant to have signage both at their store front on the west elevation of that building, as well as the south elevation facing the freeway, and be limited only to that tenant and not other in-fine tenanfs within the center. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. . Mr. John Manavian, a representative of Robertson Properties, stated that they agree with the staff report and conditions. The only clarification is on the issue of the sign program being a Phase I and a Phase II Sign Program. He stated that he recognizes the criteria for all tenants to comply with whatever has been approved and that some would be more detail, such as Lowes. And, specific tenants would have specific signage plans, but did not see that as being a second program, as it was identical to the first phase. Mr. Manavian stated that they are still working with Caltrans in trying to acquire their property, and realizes that once that is accomplished, the design theme, and architecture would have to comply with the overall theme of the project approved today. Therefore, Mr. Manavian feels that a clarification deems necessary on the intent of the Phase II sign program. He assured Commission that they understood the need for detail drawings, and would be happy to submit them when a tenant occupies any future building pads. Greg McCafferty, stated that the staff s understanding, from Dave See, the project planner for this project, is that the reason for a Phase I and a Phase II Sign Program recommendation is to distinguish that second phase tenants are not required the level of detail as provided for the first phase tenants. He explained that they are just shown as boxes on the walls, and not really having any particular colors, materials or types of letters. Mr. McCafferty stated that he agreed with Mr. Manavian providing a sign program was established that delineated where the signs were going to go for future tenants, and with specific details. Mr. McCafferty stated that Staff s concern is to make sure that Phase I and Phase II tenants look integrated. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Manavian if that would pose a problem. Mr. Manavian replied that assuming they are returning to Planning Commission again with a sign program for Phase II, they could possibly end up with a rush tenant, and consequently end up wifh "piece meai" submittals. Mr. Manavian feels that it is an unusual request, in that they have always had sign programs . approved for a center that were absolute and eternal. He feels that as a result of Staff s requests, they would have to have more detailed sign drawings for Lowes which would get into cabinet size, return 07-16-01 Page 4 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • colors, etc., and, consequently, would have to be submitted for Building Division permits. This would result in another review by Staff to make sure that it complies with the sign program. Mr. Manavian assured Commission that he did not have a particular problem, but felt it redundant to have to return with a Phase II program that is identical to the Phase I program. Senior Planner, Greg McCafferty assured Mr. Manavian that Staff is sensitive to his concerns. Therefore, he stated that as a solution Staff has recommended an administrafive review and approvai. He suggested that any inconsistencies to today's approval would then be presented to Robertson Properties. McCafferty informed Mr. Manavian that the only other thing that was brought up in the morning session was with regard to the monument signs. Staff feels flipping Anaheim Gateway from the bottom of the monuments to the top of the monuments would present an appropriate hierarchy. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Manavian if that would pose any problems. Mr. Manavian explained that they are restricted on the height, and suggested that one of the reasons they put Anaheim Gateway on the bottom is because it is more visible from a motorist viewpoint. Mr. Manavian stated that their sign consultant developed this design; suggesting that pylon signs are really meant to be looked at from a distance, and as the approach is closer, the one on the bottom, in this case, Anaheim Gateway, is more profound to motorist. Commissioner Bristol, and Commissioner Boydstun agreed that it looks less cluttered to have Anaheim Gateway on the top. Chairperson Koos expressed that this will be quite a unique sign. Commissioner Bristol feels that Commission has a tendency to micro-manage these projects. He feels • that since Robertson Properties are the ones that are going to pay the price whether it is more visible at the bottom or top, that they should have the opporfunity to make that decision. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked, in terms of the monument signs, if the orientation is reversed. He wanted to know if the applicant actually intended to put Anaheim Gateway at the top, and then the tenant names follow underneath. Mr. Manavian stated, in comparison, the monument signs are much lower than the freeway pylon signs. The freeway pylon signs are 25 and 30 feet, so the relative location of Anaheim Gateway is approximately the same place. In comparing the monument signs and the pylon signs, the monument signs are 10 or 12 feet off the ground, which makes it more visible for a motorist when they are driving by. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that that might be true up close, but not from a certain distance. He illustrated that it is like reading a newspaper or any kind of text, one would always want to start at the top and work down. It is a convention that everybody who makes a sign follows. Mr. Manavian replied that they were trying to move away from the conventional style. He feels fhey offer a little more detail, particularly, the way Anaheim Gateway has done it, making it flow in a nicer way. Mr. Manavian feels that they will lose a lot of detailing by placing Anaheim Gateway up at the top against a metal background because it becomes more like a typical sign. Therefore, they thought they would do something different and more creative. He informed that often times people would not call it Anaheim Gateway, they would call it the Lowes' Center. He feels people will call it whatever the major tenant is, and they were trying to, from a motorist view, remind people that the center has a name. Chairperson Koos stated that he thinks that Mr. Manavian is probably correct, but regarding people referring to the major tenant as the center's name, by having Lowes' on top, would probably fuel that. He • stated that he concurred with Commissioner Vanderbilt. He advised that he did not want to micro- manage, but it seemed somewhat backwards. He pointed out that the curvature of the Anaheim Gateway 07-16-01 Page 5 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • sign appears to be a top efement. Chairperson Koos asked if the future tenants would be on the monument signs. Mr. Manavian repiied, yes, the future tenants wouid be on the monument sign, and that they were reserving the Northwest corner of the property, which they had brought back to Commission. He feels that is the only other location they can put a sign in keeping with the property distancing. Mr. Manavian stated that they would only have the pylon sign on l.emon Street. That pylon sign will identify the same major tenants as the freeway sign does. So, the monument sign will only be used for the corner. It has not been resolved whether it will be a multi-tenant building or a gas station. He feels that if the sign were moved up above, a lot of the archway detailing would be lost. He stated that the design chosen was just a way to dress up the legs on the pylon signs. Additionally, Mr. Manavian stated that they worked on detailing for several months, and came up with a more cfean and refined design than was presented to Commission at the original hearing, where the sign was approved. Chairperson Koos concurred that although he preferred it on top, they had done a great job on the sign. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • 07-16-01 Page 6 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B, a) CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04317 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04358 - REQUEST FOR DE7ERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: AI-Omar and Associates, 1144 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests determination of substantial conformance for a previously-approved convenience market (with no sales of alcoholic beverages) within an existing build'+ng. Property is located at 2265 West Lincoln Avenue. Approved Determined, in part, to be in substantial conformance with previously-approved convenience market (Vote: 6-0, with one Commission vacancy) SR8022KB.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arno(d and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, (Existing Facilities) as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim Cify Planning Commission does hereby determine, in part, that the revised plans are in substantial conformance with the previously-approved convenience market in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04317 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04358) with the following stipulation: ~ (i.) That the submitted plans (Revision No, 2 of Exhibit No. 1, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 2 through 4) be revised so that the proposed 1,000 square foot addition is reduced to 500 square feet for a total building of 10,700 square feet. (n addifion, the landscape plan will be modified to retain the previously approved, 4-foot landscape planter area adjacent to the west building elevation. Public Testimony: Ms. Esther Wallace stated concerns with the landscaping and trash enclosure. Ms. Wallace noted that in the staff report, the applicant asked for an additional thousand square feet. And, the City recommends that they put in only 500 square feet, in order to retain the planter. Ms. Wallace recalled that the intent in Redevelopment was to increase the amount of landscaping in the areas. She suggests that more landscaping is pertinent if the areas are to be improved. Therefore, Ms. Wallace wanted to clarify whether the owner is willing to put in the 500 square feet, and to make sure the p(anter would remain, and that there would be sufficient landscaping. Ms. Wa!lace expressed concern in how the trash was going to be handled since there are single-family homes behind the store, and weekends would culminate a major pile up. Staff's Response: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, replied wifh regards to the trash enclosure, the Commission required that they relocate the trash enclosure farther east, and away from the Single-Family Residential. He said that the Commission shares the concern that the community has with regard to landscaping, and that is why Staff recommends 500 square feet, and keeping the landscaping they previously agreed upon. McCafferty confirmed that the net effect would be, refurbished and more landscaping, very large non- conforming sign being taken down, and the trash enclosure being relocated away from the Single Family Residential. • THE PUBLlC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 07-16-01 Page 7 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u • ~ C. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of June 18, 2001. (Motion) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 2, 2001. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy and Commissioner Bristol abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 2001. D. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of July 2, 2001. (Motion) Approved Vote: (5-0, with one Commission vacancy and Commissioner Bristol abstained) Continued to July 30, 2001. Vote: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) 07-16-01 Page 8 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3724 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04374) OWNER: The Roman Catholic Church of Orange, 2811 East Villa Real Drive, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: Andrade Architects, Attn: Stan Andrade, 24501 Del Prado, Suite #D-1, Dana Point, CA 92699 LOCATION: 412 North Crescent Way. Property is approximately 5.01 acres with a frontage of 676 feet on the east side of Crescent Way located 380 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way (St. Thomas Korean Catholic Center). To construct two modular classroom units in conjunction with an existing church. Continued from June 18, and July 2, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Withdrawn SR7994VN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 3724 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04374). VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 07-16-01 Page 9 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3349 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04381) OWNER: Western Medical Center, Attn: Patrick Rafferty, 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 965-1075 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 9.2 acres with a frontage of 1,020 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 485 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Western Medical Center). To modify previously-approved exhibits for an existing hospital and to construct a new three-story medical office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 18, and July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO, • 7~] ~ ~~]~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to July 30, 2001. SR2080DS.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the July 30, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff in order to further address outstanding parking issues. VOTE: 6-0 {with one Commission vacancy) DISC!)SSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 07-16-01 Page 10 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04383 OWNER: White Star Partners, LLC, Attn: Terry G. Roussel, 4590 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite #610, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2991 East White Star Avenue. Property is approximately 3.73 acres located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and Armando Street. To permit the retail sales and installation of automobile parts and accessories. Continued from the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-94 Introduction by staff: Approved Granted SR8025KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04383, for property located at 2991 East White Star Ave., and as a request to permit retail sales and installation of automobile parts and accessories. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chairperson Koos invited the applicant to come forward, but the applicant respectfully declined. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04383 subject to the conditions of approva! as stated in the staff report dated July 16, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Lawrence Newberry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:55-1:56) • 07-16-01 Page 11 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04387 OWNER: Foundry fnvestments, Attn: Cecil Sills, 2601 Main Street, Suite 510, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: P.R.S. Group, Attn: Phil Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 2300 East Winston Road. Property is approximately 8.7 acres with a frontage of 298 feet on the south side of Winston Road and is located 575 feet west of the centerline of Sunkist Street. To permit a wholesale automobile auction with accessory minor vehic{e repair and detailing. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Withdrawn SR8028VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04387. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 07-16-01 Page 12 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04386 OWNER: Melville Gene Kannard, 811 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Richard Kannard, 746 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 754 and 760 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.34 acres located at the southeast corner of North Street and Anaheim Boulevard. To permit an auto repair facility and an automobile sales lot. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-95 Introduction by staff: Approved Denied SR8027VN2.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04386, for property located at 754 and 716 North Anaheim Blvd. It is a request to permit an automotive repair and automobile sales lot. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mr. Richard Kannard stated that he would like to address a couple of items that was listed on the staff report. In reference to Page 5, No. 11 states Staff wants a minimum of 11 trees. Mr. Kannard pointed out that the plans that were submitted shows 6 trees, therefore, he was not really sure where 11 trees would be placed. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed that the code requires 1 tree for every 20 feet of street frontage, and consequently has to be complied. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that it depicts on the plans that there are 11 trees. Chairperson Koos concurred that the site photo depicted 11 trees. ~ Mr. Kannard acknowledged the site photos showed 11 trees. Ne then noted Item No. 14, regarding a 6- foot high masonry wall across the property line and the alley, towards the East, showing an apartment complex with parking garages facing the alley. He implied that there were no windows, or etc., in the vicinity facing the property that deemed necessary for the construction of a sound barrier. Mr. Kannard stated that he went around two different days, during the day, to see who was home in the apartments behind the building, and that there were the same two people there, and neither one of them thought there would be any problem with the noise. He stated that there was a motorcycle shop that made some noise. However, the residents had no complaints. Mr. Kannard informed that the property has a two-foot high, approximately 8-inch thick, retaining wall between the alley and the property that was put in when the gas station was built. And, trying to get engineering to put a block wa{I on top of the retaining wall is quite expensive and would be a very large cost. So, that is why he did not feel the need for the retaining wall. He referred to the two-year limitation, and feels that if there had been previous problems, notations from Code Enforcement would be evident. Mr. Kannard explained that he did not feel it would be that much 07-16-01 Page 13 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • noise, because it is not the same consistency of a tire-shop where you constantly are running air guns and making a lot of noise. He feels it is just simple auto repair, where there is limited use of air tools on a vehicle, especially the newer ones where they're mainly hand-tool type repairs. Mr. Kannard stated that if there were negative feedback from the neighborhood, they would be happy to eliminate the problem. Additionally, Mr. Kannard referred to Item No. 21, specifying the cars for sale face towards Anaheim Blvd. He feels there is ample parking on the rear of the property, and more than enough access required for the automotive repair. Therefore, he should be able to use the four front parking places facing North Street for car sales. Chairperson Koos informed Mr. Kannard that Condition No. 19 tends to be a problem for some auto repair facilities. They do not seem ta understand the intent of not having any inoperable vehicles stored over night outside. He asked Mr. Kannard if he understood Condition No. 19. Mr. Kannard replied yes. Chairperson Koos advised Mr. Kannard that it is a very sensitive issue. Mr. Kannard stated that he understood, and added that there have been problems in the past, where vehicles have been on that property and they have been broken into. He stated that in examining the staff report, and the recommendations of the Police Department, there is a sign posted on it that there is no overnight parking on the property. Mr. Kannard expressed that he definitely plans to enforce that code, and would keep all cars inside after business hours. Chairperson Koos requested comments from Mr. David Helland. Mr. David Helland replied that he is somewhat confused, and hoped someone could explain the answer to • his questions. He asked if it is absolutely necessary to have another car lot along Anaheim Street. He feels that another car facility is not necessary because there are already approximately 8 to 12 within 4 to 6 blocks of each other. 7herefore, he wondered what attracts this element to Anaheim Street. He illustrated that there are car lots, repair places, motels, bars, etc., and that part of the town has had some recent remodelization. He concluded by stating if things continue along the same route that Anaheim Street has been going, that it is a reverse of what some of the nearby neighborhoods have been doing. Ms. Trisha Bowles stated that she has called Code Enforcement numerous times because cars were left out on the street after hours, and oil continuously seeped out of them. Also, because there is a lot of congestion on Zeyna Street from across the street, and the property next door, which was previously known as Brokewater Sales, and now is Economy Auto Sales. She stated that she was told by Code Enforcement that there is suppose to be enough area on their lot to have all of their cars there. She proclaimed that cars go up and down the community streets 50, 60, 70 miles an hour, with children walking by. Nobody adheres to the speed limits. She suggests that the police cannot be called out fast enough, to give them a ticket, because they go by so fast and endanger everybody going down the street in the process. Therefore, Ms. Bowles asked, "Why do we need another one"? She stated that their neighborhood wants to plan an area that would produce a business environment of antique stores, and a shopping area that people would want to come to and sit and have coffee, and just leisurely walk down the street in peace. She feels that another auto place would bring more cars that cause filth, and people littering the streets. Ms. Bowles explained that the corner has a liquor store, and two other auto places. She feels that this level of business encourages trash in the streets, numerous people parking, and daily problems. Ms. Bowles stated that her husband was almost hit while walking across the street, and the driver showed no concern. She feels that Brokewater Sales went out of business because the people in the neighborhood complained continuously. Code Enforcement came out to review the situation and determined that Brokewater Sales violated every violation. She referred to Mr. Kannard's statement of not wanting to disturb the neighbors, but said that that level of business just produces a bad element. She • strongly feels that another car business is not needed on this street. 07-16-01 Page 14 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Kannard replied that in regards to the type of cars that will be for sale, they are not going to be junk cars. Obviously, putting in the flowerbeds and landscaping is to upgrade the area. He reminded the neighbors that the building was in a very rundown condition previously. He said that the paint was peeling, junk was everywhere and it was very messy. Mr. Kannard stated that it is his intent to make the area better, not worse. Adding that there are a lot of car lots there, but at the same time, the commercial areas there, that apparently had automotive dealers in them, have all been refused new permits and are having to relocate other places. Mr. Kannard suggests that the particular car shop that he had in mind deal in expensive cars. He stated that they are not putting a lot of money into this whole project to have somebody come in make a mess and, have oil spilled afl over the place. And, that they would have to pay environmental impact deposits and other things to ensure that this property and the building is maintained and kept cleaned. He informed that the entire back end is parking, so there will not be any need for street parking. And, since it is not a large auto repair, it would not impact traffic. He explained that it would have a very low traffic flow, and did not foresee it bothering the neighborhood at all. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold stated in response to some of the issues that were raised, that it seems it does not matter whether the City needs another car facility, because the market determines that, and it is not up to the City government to control the market. But, what does seem to matter is the land use impacts of these particular projects, especially on the revitalization of the historic district. Therefore, in reviewing the area and the record, he feels that this project is going to have a tendency to tip the area towards declining conditions. Commissioner Arnold expressed that there is a certain concentration of these kinds of uses in the area, and the more the City approve, the more there are certain kinds of cumulative impacts that are • adverse to this particular area, and for that reason, he stated, he is not supportive of the CUP. Chairperson Koos referred his question to staff in regards to planning efforts, asking where does this section of Anaheim fall in respect to any cumulative development efforts. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated that this area, in terms of project areas, is just north of the Downtown Alpha Project, it is not with'sn the Redevelopment area. Chairperson Koos stated that he has comments that are similar to Commissioner Arnold's. There is a stereo shop up the street that Commission has reviewed, and it looks as though they are not really going anywhere. This opportunity gave the City a chance to improve landscaping, but it really was not the highest and best of use. It was not what the City would ultimately want to see there. Chairperson Koos stated that he could see similar effects in this project, in that the aesthetics would probably not be an improvement, and the combination of the repair facilirylcar lot would probably not produce positive use on such a small parcel. However, he stated that moreover, he agreed with Commissioner Arnold in the cumulative impact of approving these types of facilities on the corridor that is already inundated with them. Chairperson Koos acknowledged that the neighborhood has spent a lot of effort, and hard-earned money in improving their neighborhoods, but the commercial corridors continue to look fairly disgraceful in some way. He cautions that the City has not really put enough energy into the commercial corridors versus very nice neighborhoods. Chairperson Koos added that one would not know when driving through Anaheim, as a casual passerby, that just beyond this street and a couple streets over are quite expensive homes. He stated that this is the image Commission is portraying to the City, and feels that it needs to be taken in to consideration. So, based on these observations he concurs with Commissioner Arnold. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he did not feel that this project would come up to the standards that the City desires. He recalled past experiences with other auto lots on that same street where they really • could not be developed properly because of the size. He added that the small size of this parcel would 07-16-01 Page 15 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • inhibit the number of trees required, and not benefit the City aesthetically, therefore, he could not vote for it. Commissioner Vanderbilt requested to ask one question of Staff. In regards to the cars on display, the applicant had asked the possibility of having other parking stalls used for displaying cars. So, he wanted to pursue the applicanYs question because he felt that some of the concerns the neighborhoods were expressing had to do more with the auto repair aspects of the business as opposed to the auto sales of the business. Therefore, he wanted to ask if there is any reason this applicant could not be strictly car sales or a greater percentage of car sales, and use those other spots? Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he understood the applicanYs rationale, and that it almost forces the applicant not to leave cars out by using those bases for display instead. He wondered whether there is a restriction in terms of using more? Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, replied that it is just a recommendation, based on what they were proposing to do. Staff felt there needed to be enough parking spaces in the rear for the cars that are being worked on that day, inside the base, as well as enough parking spaces for employees of the business. Commissioner Boydstun stated that if it were going to be approved, she would think that the four spots on North Street would go with the front so that it appeared more uniform; having all the cars on the street in the corner. Commissioner Boydstun demonstrated that the cars that are for sale are going to be nice and clean and neat, and not in need of repair. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request; a petition with 2 signatures in • opposition was submitted at the meeting. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04386 based on the land use impacts of these particular projects (auto repair and sales) especially on the revitalization of the historic district. The project would have a tendency to tip the area towards declining conditions, because of the concentration of these types of uses in the area. The more that we approve, the greater the potential for certain kinds of cumulative impacts that are adverse to this particular area. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no; and with one Commission vacancy) Lawrence Newberry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (1:57-2:19) • 07-16-01 Page 16 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. 7b. 7c. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 27, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2521 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04385) OWNER: Braille Institute, Attn: Gene Mathlowetz, Assistant Director, 741 North Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90029 AGENT: Ware and Malcomb Architects, Inc., 18111 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 527 North Dale Avenue. Property is approximately 1.75 acres located at the southwest corner of Crescent and Dale Avenues (Braille Institute). To permit an addition to an existing private school with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7167CW.DOC • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to submit revised site plans and an approved parking study to the Zoning Division for review. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 07-16-01 Page 17 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00053 July 30, 2001. 8c. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04442 8d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-157 (SUBTPM 2001-157) OWNER: Danh Cong Ho, 25726 Demeter Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 LOCATION: 203 North Coffman Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acres with a frontage of 61 feet on the west side of Coffman Street, located 430 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Reclassification No. 2001-00053: Requests reclassification of the subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04442: Waiver of (a) maximum structural height and (b) required landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-157: To establish a one-lot (condominium) subdivision to construct three (3) detached condominium residences. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR8026KB.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Chairperson Koos and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the July 30, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow staff to correct the advertisement of the proposed condominium project. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ ~ 07-16-01 Page 18 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04388 Granted OWNER: Giacomo J. and Yolanda Zanchi Trust, 3440 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Santiago Garcia, 3454 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 3454 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 1.43 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange and Knott Avenues. To permit a convenience market (WIC) within an existing commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-96 SR8023KB.DOC Introduction by staff: Senior Planner, Greg McCafferty introduced Item No. 9 as a Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04388, located at 3454 West Orange Avenue, and as a request to permit a convenience market within an existing commercial retail center. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chairperson Koos invited the applicant to the floor, however the applicant acknowledged from the audience that he agreed with the staff report, and did not desire to contest any issues. Chairperson Koos requested that it be noted for the record that the applicant concurs with staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04388 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 16, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) C ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:20-2:21) 07-16-01 Page 19 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATtVE DECLARATION 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04366 OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Paima Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Giibert Street, and at the northern terminuses of Hubbell Way and Electric Way. To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • ~ Continued to August 27, 2001. SR1104TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to complete a sewer capacity study and to provide further information on the parking and traffic demands of the proposed project. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 07-16-01 Page 20 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04349 OWNER: Pacific Media Property, Attn: Warren Owens, P.O. Box 2248, Orange, CA 92859 AGENT: Dumitru D. Popa, Jr., 11902 Brookhaven Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1319 and 1325 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.66 acres located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue. To permit a twenty-four (24) hour child care center for up to 90 children. Continued from the May 7, May 21, June 18, and July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Withdrawn SR1008GK.DOC ~ OPPOSITION: Material was received before the meeting in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04349. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 07-16-01 Page 21 JULY 16, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:22 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 30, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: Ossie Edmundson Planning Commission Support Supervisor Received and approved by the Planning Commission on $~ ~ 3~ a 1 • ~ 07-16-01 Page 22