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