Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/03/25• ~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAI RPER.S4N.~ TON:Y~~NOLD - - - --- - - - - ~.~ ,... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Boydstun PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC032502.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARtNG AT 1:30 P.M. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-E 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B through 1-E) as recommended by staff, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C ~ A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00047 (TRACKING NO. RCL 2002- 00069), VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04492) AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-211 (TRACKING NO. SUB 2002-00002) - REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite Q, Orange, CA 92867, requests review of final floor, elevation, site and fencing plans. Property is located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. Continued from the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Approved Approved final plans with stipulations (Vote: 5-1, Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) SR2070DS.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-A as Variance No. 2001-04432, 1628 West Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item 1-A is a review of final floor, elevation, site and fencing plans for a proposed 2-lot single-family residential subdivision. The item was continued from the March 11, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with the adjacent residents as well as to have Public Works research the drainage issues. He states his understanding is conversation with adjacent residents has occurred. With regard to the drainage, as part of the normal procedures that Development Services has, there will be a drainage report that is submitted to Public Works prior to the grading plan approval in order to ensure that the drainage for that site is adequately conveyed to the public right-of-way. • 03-25-02 Page 2 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ApplicanYs Testimony: Donald Skjerven, 1020 N. Batavia, Orange, CA, stated he met wifh the neighbor to the south (Tony), and he agreed to put the block fence on top of his property. However, the neighbor to the west, Mrs. Nokes, is present to discuss his proposal before Commission. Regarding the drainage problem, after speaking with Ms. Adams (Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer) he concludes it works out really well for him. Public Testimony: Charlare Nokes, 1634 W. Orangewood Ave., Anaheim, CA, states she and her husband own the property on the westside of Mr. Skjerven's proposed subdivision and with the help of their son they were able to locate the property line or surveyors marker next to the sidewalk on Orangewood Avenue. The outer edge of the marker is a little more than 8 inches from their retaining wall. The footing for the wall is even with the other edge of the marker. In the pictures submitted for viewing, the irregular cement appears to be an overflow from the surface of the footing. In spot digging along the wall there are areas that have cement extending as far as 19 inches from the wall and/or may also be overflow areas of cement rather than actual footing. She feels more digging along the wall is needed to explain the irregularities in the footing width. Mrs. Nokes states the proposed drainage pattern for parcel no. 2 is to drain water to the south into an existing concrete part near the southwest corner of the property. The drain runs beneath the backyard of their home to an outlet in the condominiums and apartment complex on the corner of Euclid and Orangewood Avenue and has been in place for over 40 years. She states it has, in the past, drained large amounts of water from Mr. Skjerven's property into the alleyway of the apartments and complex. During one storm when rains were heavy, occupants of the apartments closed off the outlet and the water backed up very high in the builder's backyard. Many times in the past water levels have been high • against their retaining wall when heavy storms lasted over a period of time and the ground became saturated. However, for the past 4 years there have been light rains and the drainage pipe is being used mainly as a corridor for animals in the neighborhood; possums and cats, etc. Cats have been found actually living in the drainage pipe. She is concerned at this point it may have a lot of blockage and feels it needs to be tested for watertlow before it is approved as a viable drainage system for back plot no. 2. Another main concern is the drainage pattern on the map shows water on the westside of Mr. Skjerven's property will run south along her retaining wall for plot no. 2 and north along her retaining wall for plot no. 1. She asserts her footing is on her property as is her retaining wall and should not be subjected to water damage or used for water draining. A wood fence or a vinyl fence will not protect her wall or footing from water. Cement or block footing for the fence needs to be built at a proper height to hold the drainage water away from her retaining wall and footing. Mr. &. Mrs. Nokes request that this be done by the builder, Mr. Skjerven. Chairperson Arnold informed Item 1-A is not a public hearing and cannot be closed as such. He moved to discussion and motion. Commissioner Boydstun states the pictures show evidence that the retaining wall is 6 to 8 inches inside the Nokes' property. However, there is nothing in the code that states something is sef as far as what to build for a wall, so it is up to Mr. Skjerven to build what he wants and there is nothing that Commission can require. Commissioner Bristol asked Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, to address Mrs. Nokes concern on drainage. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated the property has an unusual drainage paftern, which was established in 1961. The drain flows to the pipe near the southwest corner of the property, beneath the • Nokes' and Della Street properties and on to another. Two things Public Works will be looking at: 1) that the quantity of drainage going back to the pipe is not increased and 2) Civil Engineer for the project will 03-25-02 Page 3 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • need to demonstrate the structures are protected in a 100 year storm. Both which are normal standards required by the City Engineer on all grading of property reviews. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Ms. Adams is stating that Mrs. Nokes' concerns would be addressed through normal channels. Ms. Adams stated yes, and assures she understands Mrs. Nokes' concern and because the drainage pattern is so unusual, depending on the amount of grading that is done on the property, if the grading that is done on the subject property is less than 500 cubic yards, the current Planning Commission Meeting would be the last public forum concerning the subject issue. In the future it would be an administrative review at the Public Works level but there would not be another public hearing. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: A person spoke expressing concerns pertaining to the drainage system and the proposed fencing along the west property line in relation to her retaining wall and footing, and also submitted photographs. Correspondence was received prior to today's meeting with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED • (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final floor, building elevation, site, and fencing plans (including a 6 foot high block wall on the east property line, a 6 foot high wood or vinyl fence along the west property line, and the retention of an existing chainlink fence on the south property line) for a proposed 2-lot single family residential subdivision as approved under Reclassification No. 2001-00047 (Tracking No. RCL 2002-00069), Variance No. 2001-04432 (Tracking No. VAR 2002-04492), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211 (Tracking No. SUB 2002-00002) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in the staff report dated March 25, 2002 with the following stipulations which should be noted on plans submitted for building permits: (i) That more substantial window trim and/or plant-ons, in a contrasting color, or mullions shall be included on construction plans submitted for building permits. (ii) That the proposed water heaters shall be relocated to the recessed areas of the two-car garages to provide a minimum finrenty (20) foot unobstructed depth on the interior of each garage. (iii) That the proposed 6-foot high masonry block sound wall along the east property line shall be decorative and maintained. Clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities shall be planted on maximum 5-foot centers adjacent to said wall. Said landscaping shall be irrigated and maintained. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. (iv) That prior to approval of the grading plan, the developer shall submit a drainage report, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to demonstrate that the proposed quantity of drainage would not exceed the existing quantity of drainage. All drainage that exceeds the • existing amount of drainage shall be directed towards Orangewood Avenue, as required by the Public Works Department. 03-25-02 Page 4 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • DISCUSSION: 10 minutes (1:40-1:50) • • 03-25-02 Page 5 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00015 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL: City-initiated (Planning Department) 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests for review and approval of a draft ordinance containing Zoning Code [Title 18] modifications related to entitlement and parking requirements for Computer Rental/Internet Access/Internet Amusement Businesses. Continued from the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff in order to allow additional time to incorporate Commission recommendations into a draft ordinance and for staff to provide further information as requested by the Commission. ~ ~ Continued to April 22, 2002 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) SR8258CF.DOC 03-25-02 Page 6 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • -__J C. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3551 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002- 04526) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Festival Hotel Associates, L. P., 125 South Festival Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3551 (to permit a children's recreational and fitness facility). Property is located at 8028 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-43 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) SR8254NA.DOC 03-25-02 Page 7 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 11 Concurred with staff VARIANCE NO. 4135 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04491) - REQUEST Determined to be in FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: National Sign, Attn: Patrick substantial conformance Faranal, 4881 Murrietta Street, Chino, CA 91710, requests determination of substantial conformance to modify a previously- approved freestanding entrance sign. Property is located at 1041 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner North Shepard Street - Festival Fun Park. Vanderbilt absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the revised sign exhibit is in substantial conformance with the original sign plan as previously reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator in connection with Variance No. 4135 (Tracking No. VAR2002-04491), and the other exhibits on file for this outdoor recreational center. SR8255AN.DOC r ~ ~J ~ 03-25-02 Page 8 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 11, 2002. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 2002. Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) 03-25-02 Page 9 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00067 Granted 2c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04480 Granted, in part OWNER: Daniel E. Stauffer, 23861 EI Toro Road, # 700, Lake Forest, CA 92630 David Gabaee, 10701 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024 AGENT: Marko Botich, 16630 Aston, Irvine, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2823 West Ball Road. Property is 0.57-acre with a frontage of 110 feet on the north side of Ball Road, located 328 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Reclassification No. 2002-00067- Requests reclassification of this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone, or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2002-04480 - Requests waivers of a) maximum structural height and, b) *minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway to construct a two and three-stoty, 18-unit apartment complex. *Waiver (b) has been deleted. • Continued from the February 25 and March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-44 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-45 SR8260KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as 2823 West Ball Road an 18-unit apartment complex, continued from the February 25, 2002 and March 11, 2002 meetings. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff's recommendation remains the same; that Commission approve the reclassification consistent with the City's General Plan, and to deny waiver (b) and approve waiver (a). Applicant's Testimony: Robert Mickelson, P.O. Box 932 Orange, CA, stated his development team is present anticipating any questions: Mark Ovotage, the architect; Laurie Horn from the John Stewart Company; Professional Management Company with extensive experience; Lisa Cushman from Hart, King and Cauldron, the Legal Council; and a specialist in real estate and rental properties. He stated he would make an abbreviated overview rather than try to make extensive presentations on a rather expensive booklet, which was previously presented, to Commission. ~ Mr. Mickelson states they have a proposal for an 18-unit apartment project at 2823 West Ball Road and feels it is an extremely high-quality, well design project that will provide a very home-like living 03-25-02 Page 10 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ environment for the occupants. There is one variance, which they think is a technical one. Because the definition states the basement is underground within 150 feet of single-family zoning it is defined as a story. He states it is not really a story for occupancy, it is truly an underground parking garage and staff agrees with them and therefore recommends approval of the variance as well as the rest of the project. He states following are items that were not presented in the March 11, 2002 meeting which they feel plays an important part into the professional management program that is proposed for the property: - Each occupant will have a private storage locker located over the front end of the parking space in the basement. There will be more than adequate space to store seasonal items, etc. It is important when storage is prohibited on balconies that might be visible to the neighbors and the public. - Since meeting with Commission at the March 11, 2002 meeting a 600 plus square storage room has been created in the basement with parking. It is a large room that would be managed by the onsite manager and there could be various ways it could be used. It is large enough that a small boat or motorcycle can be stored there, if necessary. Therefore there will not be a need for any visible outdoor storage which was prohibited in the program previously submitted to Commission. - A washer, dryer hookup will be put in each unit in addition to the laundry room as an option. That makes better quality units, gives a more home-like atmosphere and should attract a longer-term tenant, somebody that feels it is their home rather than transient type occupancy. He states in the staff report there were 3 things identified as issues: 1) Regarding Schools and overcrowding a letter from the school district has been submitted to Commission. ~ 2) The over concentration of apartments is a subjective thing and perhaps depending on where one lives and what ones point of view is if there is or is not over concentration. The real issue is we have a piece of property that is master planned in the land use element for multi-family and we are bringing forward a top quality project to help implement that master plan. 3) "Long-term management, I am not going to dwell on that. It is in the booklet that we presented you. I would like to call your attention, particularly to tab B, which we have prepared a draft agreement to manage and maintain the property and we have submitted a voluntary condition that says we will accept the condition that the owner/developer record this document so that it travels with the property much as the variance would if it is approved. It is not tied to an individual but rather to the property itself. We would draft it and submit it to the City Attorney for approval and make whatever corrections are appropriate to that document". Mr. Mickelson states they agree with staff's recommended approval as stated on page 6, which reads as follows: • That the proposed reclassification of the property to the RM-1200 Zone is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designating this property as Medium Density Residential land uses. • That the Medium Density Residential Land Use designation as shown on the General Plan allows a maximum density of 36 dwelling units per acre, and the proposed 18-unit apartment complex would have a density of 31.6 dwelling units per acre as described in paragraph no. (18) of this report. • That the reclassification to the RM-1200 Zone is complementary to the abutting RM-1200 zoned apartment complexes to the west of this property. ~ He reiterated a statement from his previous presentation; "it seems like the appropriate logical use for the piece of property and does not seem appropriate that it be used to expand the shopping center to the 03-25-02 Page 11 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES • east. The shopping center is fully leased but because of the design and configuration of it, using the subject lot to expand it would not make much sense and the master plan designates it for a multi-family". He states they are taking a vacant lot which is an eye-sore and a nuisance to the neighborhood and turning it into a first quality residential project which will result in a much higher value and higher tax rate for the property and the City. He presented a letter from both property owners of the only two single- family homes that abut the subject property immediately to the north. He has met with both of the owners, showed them the model and gave them a copy of the document to review. The McGongals family on the east abuts the property totally and gave written consent as stated: "We the owners of the house at 2822 Ellawn Drive, Anaheim, CA, backing onto the property of 2823 West Ball Road, do not oppose the plan to build according to the agreemenY'. Copies of the statement were presented to Commission. The Walker family immediately to the west of the McGongals', concern was primarily of privacy and they were not excited about having a tree planted across the fence from their pool which would cause them to have to clean up after the tree. He states he met with the McGongals family this morning. They had just returned from a trip and gave permission to state that as long as their privacy is not compromised they do not object to the project. Mr. Michelson states he committed to them that provided the City approves the CUP (Conditional Use Permit), they would move the tree away from the fence and perhaps even stagger the others to make it a more interesting landscape plan and so that the tree would not hang over their pool. He feels they appreciated the fact they were willing to do that. Public Testimonies: Nathan Zug, 721 S. Velare St., Anaheim, CA, presented a sheet to Commission and stated he did not desire to be redundant, because he did speak in the previous meeting (March 11, 2002) but the community of west Anaheim desires growth which is planned, slow and manageable growth not high- • density growth. Therefore for the following reasons, he asks Commission to deny the reclassifications of the subject property: • West Anaheim has its fair share of high-density dwellings. • The impact on schools increasing the already unbalanced number of apartments in the West Anaheim Community. • The reclassification is against the will of many citizens of West Anaheim. West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) as well as many other citizens has asked time and time again to deny zoning for more apartments. Slow growth is desired. • Developers are seeking small parcels of land in West Anaheim for apartment development. The parcels could be used for lower-density housing. "If you are familiar with this area, it already has Dale Jr. High there. It has a Jack-In-The-Box on that corner as well as a shopping center and it is very congested as it is. To add `X-number' of additional cars that would be generated by this development would add further to the congestion there". • Building additional high-density developments puts an undue weight of responsibility on community leaders. He understands it is not Commission's jurisdiction to consider, necessarily, the weight on community leaders but as a public servant himself he considers it his responsibility to serve citizens and "to take care of the people that are in my part of the town". Considering the imbalance already existing, the subject proposal would put more weight for community leaders in the area. "I remember when my wife told me she was pregnant with our second child, and already having one child • 1 considered in my head the responsibility I would then have to care for one more child and so I thought through those different things and my reaction would have been quite different if she would have said 'Nathan, I am pregnant with quintuplets'. Immediately my mind would have gone berserk, probably, 03-25-02 Page 12 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • considering how I would care for that many children all at once. I feel this is a quintuplet versus a single child, which we have as a community, many of these developments already." Mr. Zug states Anaheim's City Code Enforcement Department is already constrained because of the need for more Code Enforcement Officers and he feels the subject proposal would further strain Code Enforcement. He states he was at a meeting recently where a Code Enforcement Officer spoke, mentioning a study in Brea, that suggested 1.3 Code Enforcement Officers per 10,000 citizens. That would mean approximately 30 for Anaheim and there are 15 now. The officer also suggested it was a tough deal for Code Enforcement to keep up with some of the issues that are created sometimes by high- density issues. Chief Baker spoke at the same meeting and also mentioned there are some issues relating to the way Anaheim plans for its urban growth in the past and he was concerned about the issues. "Thanks for your service to the public and for your willingness to struggle with these kind of issues. I believe this is a simple decision. The General Plan, which now exists, does not allow this development without reclassification; the way it sits now, it doesn't. To change that is to create an undue pressure on some of us that feel it should not exist in this use." Reverend Marvin Harada, 2838 W. Stonybrook, Dr., Anaheim, CA, stated he is the minister of the Orange County Buddhist Church, which has been located at 909 S. Dale Avenue since 1965 and is the property adjacent to the subject property. He states at that time, the area was a lot of farming and fields and they have seen tremendous growth within the years. He has served as a minister at the church since 1986, nearly 16 years, and over the years they have been concerned with a rise of crime in the area, including incidences of vandalism, which has taken place on the church property. They also have concerns about the population density and feel their church contributes greatly to the religious and culture diversity of Anaheim and the greater community. They have good rapport with their ~ ne+ghbors that have lived in the private homes for many years and a good working relationship with Dale Jr. High School. The school uses their facilities when they require extra meeting space, etc. Reverend Harada feels an apartment building would, of course, bring in new tenants that may not understand the value of the church to the religious and culture diversity of the community. The new tenant may not know the long-term church history in the community and what they bring to the religious and culture diversity of Anaheim. He states his concerns of crime are not only within that area but other areas that have been pointed out as well. Dr. Milton Nakano, 2795 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he has been a practicing optometrist in Anaheim since 1975 and has seen great changes occur in West Anaheim, particularly some of the things that have already been mentioned; traffic congestion due to high over crowding, no available parking on Ball Road (Ball Road is his course of travel each day), impacted schools and crime. He states one of his main concerns is crime. It is a proven fact that crime increases proportionately with density. The West Ball Road tract and surrounding area already boast one of the highest crime rates in proportion with the rest of the City of Anaheim. People are afraid, in their area, that they are going to become the "New Jeffrey-Lynne of Anaheim". He states he looks at the Anaheim Police Log every week and the latest statistics showed a 13% increase in crime. Amongst those are domestic abuse, drug abuse, automobile theft and burglary, which he has seen increase every year and statistics provided by the Anaheim Police Department proves that fact. Dr. Nakano states the Anaheim Police Department complains about the amount of times they have to go to that area to address problems. By building the subject apartments he can only see the crime in the area increasing and it impacting the schools and the neighborhood. "The quality of life in Anaheim deteriorates more and more and we, as citizens, feel disenfranchised with our representatives unless they do something to stop this". ~ Louie Yamanishi, 909 S. Dale Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated indifference to the time he would not repeat many of the concerns that have already been expressed however, he would like to reiterate a couple of points; 1) the potential for additional vandalism previously experienced, 2) the fact that the exhibit 03-25-02 Page 13 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ indicates apartments to the west of the subject development (note they are all one-story structures) and 3) there is nothing that goes up high enough that they would have such a great view of the lots to the north and that is something which must be considered very seriously. Charles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest, Dr., Anaheim, CA, a WAND member, has lived in West Anaheim since 1964. He states when he was working in 1970 and 1980, the Planning Commission predecessors, were having a lot of apartment house plans brought before their attention and no one knew anything about it because they were all working and the plans were all approved. He states there were a lot af vacant lots in West Anaheim at that time and now they are all loaded with multi-story apartment houses and at this time they just do not need anymore apartments in the area. The subject proposal is for an 18 apartment house complex. It would be one tenant at the beginning but in another year there will be 4 or 5 tenants living in the apartment houses. He concurs with Dr. Nakano; it would be "Just like Jeffry-Lynne". Mr. Bradley states at the March 8, 2002, WAND meeting, the main speaker, Chief of police Roger Baker, made the statement that there are too many apartment houses in Anaheim period, especially, West Anaheim. The proposed area is in the Magnolia School District, which east or west goes from Brookhurst Street to Beach Boulevard. There would be approximately 3 children in one apartment house that would have to be bused to 3 different schools because the schools are already overloaded. He states the Buddhist Church that is just north and a little bit to the east of the subject property would be a lot better tenant for using this property as a parking lot rather than the proposed apartment houses. Mr. Bradley states, "I plead with you please don't put anymore apartment houses in West Anaheim". Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA, Chairman of WAND stated WAND started about 5 years ago and at that time they wrote their goals. The first goal that people talked about was no more apartments in West Anaheim. WAND has met with City committees and the first thing that comes up when the question is asked what do you want to change in West Anaheim, is no more apartments. WAND is set on that because they have seen what apartments have done to West Anaheim. She • requested to read parts of a letter, which she sent to Commission because she desired to have it as part of the public record. The letter read as follows: r On behalf of West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND), 1 am requesting that you do not allow the reclassification of the property at 2823 West Ball Road (Reclassification No. 2002-00067) from the RS A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family Zone), or a/ess intense zone. It is well known that West Anaheim, particularly this area, is highly saturated with high-density apartments - in many places up to 45 units an acre. Allowing this change will permit this developer to build at a density of 31.5 apartments per acre. West Ball Road from Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Avenue is lined on both sides with high-density apartments. There are other uses for this property in the immediate vicinity that would enhance the neighborhood. West Anaheim is in drastic need of open space or park space. W'~th all the children in the West Ball Road neighborhood apartmenfs there is no park space for them to play. The nearest park is almost a mile away. West Anaheim has only 1.25 acres park space per thousand people (25% of that space is school property). Another possible use may be for a well-established church nearby which may need more parking space and has direct access from its property to this piece of property. Developers are seeking out small parcels of land in West Anaheim to put apartments on. An historic home on a 0.75-acre a block from this site recently was being sought by a developer to build apartments in the midst of single-family homes. Allowing this apartment development to go through signals others to do the same. Because of its size, this apartment development offers no recreational area for the residents even though it will have all two-bedroom apartments, which will surely house children. West Anaheim has more concentrated areas of apartments than any other area in the City. The Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Avenue area of West Anaheim has the second highest number of apartments to all other dwellings. Fifty-eight percent of the dwellings are apartments. It is second only to the Knoft Avenue to Beach Boulevard area with 59% apartments. This does not include the thirty some motels with 1,500 rooms in these areas most of which house a family in each room. We see apartmenfs in Central 03-25-02 Page 14 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Anaheim being removed and more will be removed fo make room for schoo/s and more park space. Yet park space in Central Anaheim is 1.50 acres per thousand residents. Because of the need for more park space, too few areas for children to play in the apartments and motels, schools growing in numbers of students and the need for expansion from other groups in this neighborhood we ask that you do not approve this reclassification from agricultural to high-density zoning. In essence, we are also asking you to turn down this application to put more high-density apartments in this West Anaheim area. Sincerely yours, Esther Wallace, WAND Chairman Ms. Wallace states it was mentioned that the subject property would not impact the schools. However, she has been on the Magnolia School Board for 20 years and has seen schools steadily grow, increasing their population by about 90°/a. So even though there has been no growth in other areas, within the last 10 years the Magnolia School District has gone up quite a bit in their growth. Regarding the apartments that are on the southside of Ball Road, approximately 3/< of the apartments house children which were going to Pyles School (Pyles Robert M. Elementary School). Pyles School, which is in Stanton on Cerritos Avenue, was busing out 100 children a day to other schools. The Magnolia School Board decided to change the boundary lines so children on the southside of Ball Road between Dale Avenue and Beach Boulevard would not have to attend Pyles School. Ms. Wallace states • they put in 5 portables on the school grounds and also 2-3 portables for kindergarten classes because they now have all day kindergarten classes. She asserts "we are impacting this schooP'. Magnolia school used to have approximately 400 children and now it is up to 700. She states, "we are impacting that school (Magnolia School) and as we see more growth in the southern part of West Anaheim, we are going to see the impact on these schools as we go north. So it does impact our schools and I would ask you not to put in this apartment because as I said it is going to signal other apartment ~developers to come in and do the same thing". Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, states she chairs WAND's Land Use and Devefopment Committee and did not desire to restate all of the facts already heard by Commission because they have heard it for weeks now from the citizens of West Anaheim and 3 years from WAND, nothing is new. Ms. Gollette states a letter to the City Council back in 1989 from a West Anaheim resident talked about the quality of life and what was happening out there, about the urban jungle that was being built and the apartments that were developed. She points out they were talking about the last 20 years and if you take 1989 and go 20 years back (to 1960's) and we are now in 2002 and still addressing the same issue. That is 40 years of dealing with the same issue. She states, "we talked about a general plan. The general plan is there, but it is under revision. So when we are looking at it, let's look at the best use of the land, not only for a patch of dirt but for the residents and the well being of the City and the community itself. I don't think you have heard more than two statements that was against this complex itself. We have nothing against the developer and the system that he is trying to put in. The problem is impacfing of the neighborhood that is over-saturated with the population that does not buy into the system. I loved Nathan's (Mr. Zug) statement about manageable growth. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for a balance in West Anaheim. We are looking for a master plan that will keep the residents happy to continue to live there, new families to buy into the • neighborhood and improve schools". 03-25-02 Page 15 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ She states, "'Esther' (Ms. Wallace) gave you a brief rundown of what is happening, but if these dwellings can have up to 5 residents per dwelling and you have 18 units, if there is a mom and 4 children, you could have possibly up to 72 children of school age in one half of an acre. That is almost 3 solid classrooms being bused to all different schools". Ms. Gollette states the Board of Education in the state of California had a commission hearing several months ago that talked about the results they are finding with the traditional school year versus the year- round that is being placed in most of the already highly impacted areas and it shows the impacted year- round school statistics are much lower than the traditional. She states they are trying to build a neighborhood that is improving their schools; the grade schools used to be one of the top 10 in the state, theirjunior high and high schools gave a little bit to be desired. Ms. Gollette states they want to keep families in the community for the long run like they had in the past, not stay for 5 years and become conducive to a transient life style to move on to some other area. "You had reclassification from the RS-43000, which Mr. Mickelson stated was medium-density. Thirty-one point 5 percent (31.5%) may be medium density in some area that has open belts and land that is available to the community but an area that is already over impacted with asphalt to asphalt, concrete to concrete, house to house without amenities for the community and an overabundance of crime and parolees and different environment that is not conducive to a good and safe neighborhood, we need to start looking at changes". She states the issue today is "is it the best land use"? "It may be for a piece of land or a plot of dirt but is it the best use for a community?" She asserts, "no, it is not, we have other uses. There are other options to this piece of land, we have other options to other vacant, 1 acre, 2 acre parcels in West Anaheim. The subject proposal does not have amenities and it does not have areas for children. This is border to border apartment. She asks "please take this into consideration when you look at it. Please do not let the general ~ plan that is being revised a year and half to two years from now be too far down the road to make changes for today because we live in today's society, we live in today's West Anaheim, we live in today's Anaheim and those changes need to be addressed today. So what we are asking you to do is deny this". Applicant's Response: Mr. Mickelson stated we realize, of course that there are a lot of people in West Anaheim who oppose additional apartments. If you go out and visit the area, which we have done, you will find that yes there are some apartments that would appear to be less than desirable. Unfortunately it is not our responsibility. We would love to do something about it. If one of the properties becomes available for redevelopment, we would be interested in participating in that. The subject property is a vacant lot and it is master planned for the zoning they proposed. He points out there are a lot of amenities in the project but it is not designed to attract occupants with a lot of small children. It is not that there cannot or would not be small children but there is no playground and no tot lot however, there are outdoor leisure areas; balconies, patios, etc., for the occupants to enjoy. Mr. Mickelson states in terms of crime, they feel their project is designed in a manner that will deter crime and perhaps be a model project for others, whether they are rehabbing or building new. There is gated parking underground, gates for access to the front, it will be surrounded with a block wall and is designed for surveillance by the tenants. They can look down into the open court in the center, etc., so there are a lot of amenities and others that were previously mentioned such as washers and dryers, etc. He points out someone mentioned that the apartments to the west are 1-story however he feels that is true for the first lot but beyond that they are all 2-story. He states staff has pointed out in their staff report the subject project is designed to meet code and protect the privacy of the residents to the north; there are no 2-story units within the setback that is provided by Code. In fact, staff asked them to consider ~ putting a solid wall in the upstairs balcony of the last 2 units so that as people sit on their balconies, even though they are within the code limitation, they still would not have the opportunity to look over in the properties to the north. He states they have agreed to do that. 03-25-02 Page 16 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed David Gottlieb, Community Development is present to answer questions and also staff received a letter just before the meeting from Patricia Cotter, expressing opposition to the request. Commissioner Koos stated it has been over a year since they met as West Anaheim Revitalization Group, which he represented Commission on. He asks what land use designation, if any, changes were proposed to this corridor or the subject property to the visioning process. Mr. Gottlieb stated the property being evaluated was not included in the West Anaheim visioning process. However the property to the east, which is the mini-mart on the corner was identified for a conversion to residential. The property on the other side of the intersection to the east of the intersection was also identified as residential. And, indeed all 4 parts of that intersection was identified as conversion to residential at some point and time. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify what kinds of residential. Mr. Gottlieb stated the designation for residential was left opened and at that time typically what they have been looking at is a very wide perimeter of somewhere between 10 to 13 dwelling units to the acre. The type of residential of which they referred in the West Anaheim vision plan was ownership, either in the form of a town home or in the form of a small lot attached single-family or in some cases if the lot permitted a detached single-family home product. Commissioner Koos stated that is consistent with acquisitions the agency has been making in West Anaheim and that leads to his question in which he wished to clarify while this particular parcel was not identified per se' the overall direction that was adopted by the City Council was or was not to go toward ownership. ~ Mr. Gottlieb responded that is correct. Commissioner Koos stated that is why he was a little confused by the Community Development Department's recommendation for support of the project because it seems inconsistent with the quite recent effort moving in that direction. He asked why there is inconsistency there. Mr. Gottlieb responded what you view as inconsistency depends upon which document you are looking. One of the things they looked at most importantly is the redevelopment plan, which is the plan for development in the Redevelopment Project Area. 7he Redevelopment Plan calls out for a variety of housing opportunities. When looking at the subject site and the size and location adjacent to existing residential and to existing commercial, the proposed land use seems to fit in with the Redevelopment Plan. He states in terms of the vision plan which was approved by the City Council and approved by the Planning Commission, in a perfect world if the property on the corner, which is the mini-mart, was to be assembled together with the subject property then perhaps an ownership opportunity could have been looked at and they, perhaps, would have not have been supportive of the subject application. However, at this point and time the application has been made to the City and looking at the Redevelopment Plan it does fit in with the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project Area. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the proposal had come in less than medium-density ownership housing types would the agency have supported it as well. Mr. Gottlieb responded yes. Commissioner Koos stated it almost seems that because Redevelopment is not that far down the line and ~ because they have not acquired the corner piece of property that perhaps the timing is not good. 03-25-02 Page 17 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Gottlieb reiterated the subject property was not included in the vision and Community Development Department's guiding document is the Redevelopment Plan, which does call for a variety of housing opportunities in the project area. Commissioner Koos stated the community would possibly say that we did not go by the parcel by parcel analysis in dealing with everything west of Euclid. The overall vision was moving towards ownership residential. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Gottlieb if he could remind Commission of the combination and perhaps analyze it under each Redevelopment Plan and the visioning process, which is going to be incorporated to some degree in the General Plan Update in terms of the division for multi-family housing development in West Anaheim since there is obviously a lot of concerns in which Commission hears from meeting after meeting the desire to clarify what is the overall policy or plan with respect to multi-family housing development. Mr. Goft(ieb responded the Redevelopment Agency within the last two years has been involved in a rather aggressive acquisition program, specifically in West Anaheim, in which the number hovers around 30 acres of land purchased by the agency. Several of the sites have previously been brought before the Planning Commission such as the formal Home-Depot site which is adjacent to the Daniel's Home Furniture site on Lincoln Avenue, the frontage of " the presidential tract" also on West Lincoln Avenue and the tracts adjacent, which are currently occupied by the Americana Silver Moon and Banner Carpets. All indicates they are going for home ownership opportunities. However, the exact perimeters of that, they do not know. It could be a combination of a townhouse type development, a small lot single-family detached or a small lot family attached product. But, they are Iooking at home ownership opportunities on property that the agency owns. That is their goal for the West Anaheim Vision Plan. That is what they envision to be the main catalyst for change in the West Anaheim area. • Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty to follow-up in terms of, not just redevelopment activities but planning approaches and planning activities generally in the General Plan Update, etc. He wished to clarify if there is an overall direction the City of Anaheim is moving with respect to multi-family housing, rental housing, home ownership opportunities, etc. Mr. McCafferty responded Advance Planning is currently working on the General Plan Update and he would be happy to summons them in order to respond to his question. Chairperson Arnold stated it would be useful. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify with Mr. Gottlieb if when a project with similar characteristics comes before the Community Development Department for review, and vacant land is noted adjacent an identified opportunity site on the corner that perhaps they would eventually want to acquire, would not that be a catalyst to look at packaging a parcel and heading in that direction rather than it being a missed opportunity, if that is the direction City Council wants to go in. Mr. Gottlieb responded that certainly is one alternative, yes. Commissioner Koos stated if this project were to go to that level, it would seem City Council would ask "well what are we doing on the corner there and based on the fact that the lot adjacent to it is vacant, why aren't we looking at that?" Mr. Gottlieb responded to a certain extent Community Development has looked at it and have identified it, but at this point and time they are going after properties they can readily acquire and also properties of a size and location that have a greater impact on furthering the goals of the West Anaheim vision. He states if one look at the practical aspects of what Community Development has been acquiring, the size and location of the parcels is what they have done so far. He feels they have gone after the parcels of land, • which they have been able to acquire in a quick and expeditious manner without seeking it through eminent domain. So when asked what is the implementation of the General Plan, etc., Community Development has been working with the Planning Department to enact the General Plan Amendment for 03-25-02 Page 18 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the properties in West Anaheim that are covered by the West Anaheim vision so that they can effect the land use changes rather quickly. Realizing the time table is for the overall General Plan Update for the City, they did not want to have to wait until that point and time to really put into play the changes of land use that were approved in the West Anaheim Vision. So they are actually proceeding with the Planning Department to effect the changes. Chairperson Arnold stated that is helpful to know because sometimes Commission does wonder when they get piecemeal proposals and they are cognizant of the General Plan Update process and this is the first time they have heard what is going on, so it is useful. Mr. Gottlieb stated it has been a rather exhaustive process for both the Planning Department and Community Development. Community Development has an existing EIR for their West Anaheim Commercial Corridors and they wanted to see the changes of land use identified in the alternative land use section. That section covered the parcels of land in the West Anaheim Vision. So considering the size of West Anaheim and going through on a parcel by parcel basis of making sure that they were all there and that the environmental alternatives had all been examined and previously certified has taken sometime. However, he feels they are in a position now where they can bring it before Commission within the next couple of weeks. Although the subject site was not included in the vision, the overall comment is Community Development is putting into play a change in the General Plan in West Anaheim to effect the West Anaheim Vision Plan. Commissioner Koos concurred the Community Development Department staff report stated those facts and that an alternative designation for the subject property is low-density residential. However, he recalled Mr. Gottlieb stating earlier that Community Development has to go by the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Plan. Given that, he wished to clarify if Mr. Gottlieb believes the proposal is the highest and best use for the subject property. ~ Mr. Gottlieb responded their response from their department was in response to the subject application, and it did fit in with the Redevelopment Plan and although there may be a land use such as low-density residential which some may perceive to be a better or a more desirable land use, that was not the application that has been made. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify what Mr. Gottlieb thought personally. Mr. Gottlieb responded his responses are as a department and not as an individual. Commissioner Koos asserted "you are not a politician so what do you believe as a professional, do you believe this is the highest and best use for this property?" Mr. Gottlieb asserted, "I can only answer that by saying that the application that was submitted for the property was for the apartment units, whether or not somebody may submit one next week or it may come in that the owner of the mini-mart desires to sell his property, etc., that is al! speculation. We can only comment upon which we are given". Chairperson Arnold thanked Mr. Gottlieb for being able to answer their questions. He then turned to Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, and stated what Commission is wrestling with is the fact that the subject project has come before the General Plan Update and has been completed but the idea represented with respect to the vision plan for West Anaheim is more towards homeownership opportunities and less rental housing and apartment complexes, etc. So what Commission is trying to nail down is how the subject proposal fits into where they are going in West Anaheim as far as planning generally, is it an appropriate project and does it tend to impede the general plan for West Anaheim. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, stated at this point and time as far as the General Plan and Zoning Code Update is concerned their consultant is currently in-process with taking a look at land use ~ alternatives citywide. Regarding the West Anaheim Vision, their consultants have been given all documentations and are very familiar with what has gone on in the past. He wished to clarify with Mr. 03-25-02 Page 19 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Gottlieb his understanding that the subject property was not identified as a potential site for redesignation in that plan. Mr. Gottlieb responded that is correct. Mr. Borrego stated it is still preliminary to say whether or not the subject site would be identified as a potential housing site for homeownership versus rental. However Advance Planning took a look at the West Anaheim area through the Community Planning Program and at that point they felt it was one of the few parcels in West Anaheim which made sense as a multiple-family site given the surrounding land uses. And, through that effort they proposed quite a bit of down zoning in the West Anaheim area along with other efforts going back to the late 1980's. The subject property in particular is one they have consistently found being an acceptable site for multiple-family. Chairperson Arnold wisf~ed to clarify if he was saying through the Community Planning Process that the general trend has been down zoning towards moving to lower densities to homeownership and less multi- family. He states there are a few parcels that have been determined or thought of as being still appropriate for multi-family and asked Mr. Borrego how many parcels remain that would fall into that category. Mr. Borrego responded going back approximately 4 years in terms of the more prominent sites in West Anaheim, which includes the subject property, there are some fairly good sized vacant lots on Ball Road. He estimated there were approximately 5 sites in West Anaheim which makes sense as potential multiple-family sites; rental versus ownership. THE PUBLfC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick states when he looks at the General Plan, and realizes the options are multiple- ~ family or more commercial and knowing Commission desires to stay away from mid-block more commercial but the center on the corner is possibly a redevelopment site, he feels it makes more sense to be multi-family in relationship to what is surrounding it and the subject property is the appropriate land use for it. He questions statements about higher density creating more crime and the fact that large cities such as Toronto and Vancouver and some of the eastern cities where there are high rise apartment buildings on top of commercial and feels that does not necessarily lend itself to higher crime. He states you may get a higher crime rate in some parts of Brooklyn in areas where there are 2-story or 3-story tenement houses rather than in high-rise or multi-story. He does not feel that is a valid relationship but that the quality of housing is important and the management of it. He feels the subject project is a quality project and the owners are willing to provide management control, which is a step towards what they need to see in a lot more apartment complexes with similar characteristics on the westside. Chairperson Arnold states he understands the concerns about the over concentration of apartment complexes but part of his concern is how much coordinated good planning is going on with respect to parcel by parcel approvafs since the vision is away from multi-family. He wished to clarify how this fits in. He states a couple of things which makes a difference to him are: 1) there has been identification that there are only a few parcels in West Anaheim in which this kind of project is appropriate and the subject property is one of them. He feels this suggests they are not going to see a kind of endlessly, "willy-nilly" type of apartment complex development. 2) Regarding demographics and the last ten years, population has increased by 23.1 % and housing stock has only increased by 6%. He states people go somewhere whether multi-family or single-family is built. Families are crowded in, many families would be found living in one house or living in garages and granny-units but they go somewhere. He concurs with Commissioner Bostwick high-quality multi-family development is needed. 3) If Community Development has not redesignated the subject parcel for something of a different type of use or lower density at this point, he does not feel it is legitimate to try to tie up parcels in the anticipation that they are going to do something 2 or 3 years from now. It violates private property owner's property rights. He is convinced that . the subject project should be approved. 03-25-02 Page 20 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun concurred that this is probably the best use for the property and is pleased with the plans and the fact that developers are going to single-story the back so that they will not be infringing on the neighbors behind them. She states she just came back from Vancouver and their housing is such a problem up there that they are building 10-story apartment buildings every place you look. She feels the City has to house people someplace. Commissioner Koos states comparisons to Toronto and Vancouver, while sounding nice, is totally irrelevant considering different social structures and standards they have regarding gun ownership and a number of other social factors. He states he has been to Vancouver and does not feel there is a definite relationship between crime and density but it is very locational and in West Anaheim there has been evidence of that clearly. While he concurs with Commissioner Bostwick that you could have luxury apartments clearly and into massive densities, there are a number of opposing factors including the way West Anaheim has been developed which are not going well for future apartment development. He states "hanging their hats" on not having a plan to look to now because Redevelopment is in the middle of a planning process and maybe in two years once they have nailed down exactly what they want on the subject parcel there is a possible potential reason for implementing the 20 year old General Plan, really is an unfortunate justification for the project. He affirms "we are the Planning Commission, we know the direction this area wants to go in, we know the City Council has supported that vision and we will be voting on the General Plan. It is not like it is a big secret what we are going to want in this area. So I think we should make a leap, assuming we will not be classifying many properties in this vicinity as multi- family apartments". Commissioner Koos concurs the design for the proposed parcel is nice, in terms of its faCade, etc., but he questions the design in its totality. He states it does not have the amenities Commission is looking for in a quality upscale multi-family residential apartment development and it doesn't even have tot lots. He feels if the project were in the "hills" and he quickly reminds everyone that he hates to make such comparisons ~ because he frowns upon it when people bring it up in public hearings, but if it were in Anaheim Hills it would be automatic almost to include a tot lot and more green space. He feels counting the balconies and the patios as open space is not true open space and challenges everyone to consider when they are standing out on their balconies, which is 4 by 7, if it feels like open space? He asserts, no. Given that, he states he Cannot buy the arguments and feels Commission can bide their time a little bit for the parcel and encourage the developer to work with the Redevelopment Agency to potentially consolidate some parcels. Commission has done it before and City Council does it. It happened on the motel senior housing project. Commission approved it and City Council sent the developer back to acquire the mobile home park next door and it became a better project. He affirms Commission does not have to be impatient about the proposals. He states, "I think we owe it to the community to be very diligent with these proposals because once it is developed we will probably be stuck with whatever it is for decades, like we are stuck with the neighborhood that was developed around it. I don't know how exactly big these vicinity maps are that we get in our packets but I count 101 dwelling units, 19, 21, 12, 12, 80, 34, 106, all within, probably 400 to 500 feet of this parcel. That is an impacted area, in my opinion, in terms of apartment density". He refers his question to staff as well as his statement "clearly indicates `not to support'. I think we need to really tell this community that has been very patient that we are supporting their vision that we endorsed and then the City Council endorsed. This is like one of the first projects that comes through the pipeline right after that has been adopted and then we say, 'oh, well that one doesn't counY, ` that doesn't fit into the perimeters that we were talking about when we adopted the idea of going towards ownership'. ! don't understand how we can justify that". Commissioner Bostwick recalled everything he could remember in the last few months have been homeownership on the westside. He states Commission has not approved any apartment buildings in Anaheim since he has been on the Commission. He challenges Commissioner Koos cannot say that they have all of a sudden thrown the vision out of the window. Commission has approved single-family homeownership. ~ Commissioner Bristol states he got an ear full after the last hearing (March 11, 2002) and he made a comment about "no growth, etc:' and was corrected. He affirms he still feels the same way however he appreciates the interesting dialogue coming from this meeting which he feels Commissioner Koos has 03-25-02 Page 21 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • led. 1) He is happy to hear there are not that many sites with rental possibilities on the westside, per Jonathan Borrego. 2) He reiterates Commission does not assemble properties. It is not Commission's purview to do that. He asserts if he really believed the proposed apartment complex would lead to more crime, he would not vote for it. He reiterates as stated in the March 11, 2002 meeting, "I would be proud to have that complex in my neighborhood because what I have does not come close to thaY'. 3) Until the City Council says change the way RM-1200 is looked at and the fact that the amenities Commission gives to RM-1200 compared to any other zoning doubles the recreational leisure area that would be on a typical RM-1200 project, as stated by Commissioner Koos. The reason RM-1200 exists is for this type of housing and there is a reason for it but "until somebody from above comes and sets everyone straight and say this is what we are going to do, and we are not going to ailow this, and Commission I don't want to see it and it is put in black and white, our job is to say, does this fiY'. He recalls sometime back the people from the westside stated "if you ever bring in an apartment to us that had variances how are we going to react to it". He states the fact that the subject parcel has one variance but by its very nature, according to staff, is not a typical variance because it is totally subterranean, how could Commission say no. He feels if the City Council wants to overturn the approval because they do not want rental property then so be it but Commission has no choice but to bring the proposal before them. Commissioner Eastman concurs with arguments on both sides but the overwhelming support from the citizens who have lived in West Anaheim and the fact that they are "practically begging" not to put anymore rental in the area, makes it very difficult for her to support a change in the zone. She states a change would allow the project and the developers have done a wonderful job of putting together a great looking project but she finds it tough to support the zoning change. Chairperson Arnold states everyone has articulated various viewpoints and called for a motion. Mr. McCafferty interjected and reminded Commission that Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun were absent from the February 25, 2002 meeting and needed to confirm they either listened to the tape and/or ~ read the minutes. Commissioner Bostwick confirmed he read the minutes and listened to the tape. Commissioner Boydstun confirmed she read the minutes. Commissioner Bostwick offered a resolution to approve Variance No. 2002-04480. During the action. Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify if the resolution would include any changes to the conditions of approval. He stated it is Commission's option since the applicant indicated their willingness to submit a covenant. Commissioner Bostwick clarified Commission and the applicant had a discussion regarding an option to include a management covenant to the conditions that the owner has stipulated in his willingness to include as one of the conditions. Commissioner Bristol states section B, No. 3, under occupancy, discusses limiting the occupancy but if you go to the actual occupancy agreement on page 1 of section E, it says there will be no discrimination etc., including occupancy. He feels the very material in the staff report was brought up in the morning's session by Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney and he hesitates to add the covenant especially with the extensive stipulations the City has to get involved with. Commissioner Bostwick stated it was brought up in the morning's hearing that the City has no control over enforcing the covenant and it would be the property owner's responsibility to enforce the covenant once it was recorded. ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that is correct and there is not any particular covenant that is being approved or recommended by the Commission at this time. She realizes there was a draft covenant included with the materials but it would need substantial reworking in order to make clear the aspects of 03-25-02 Page 22 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ importance to Commission which are maintenance obligations and could not be amended or terminated without the City's prior written consent. Of course as property owners, the owners are able to put any kind of restrictions they wish on their property and to contractual enter into any sort of agreements with their tenants provided they are not in violation of other laws. She is not aware of anything that would prohibit the owners from limiting the occupancy of their own apartments. It is just that the City will not be a part of making that a requirement. Commissioner Koos asked, if the applicant wanted to enter into a covenant, willingly, with adjacent landowners, could they enforce that down the line. Ms. Mann responded yes, and actually the proposed covenant the applicant submitted does have language that the covenant is for the benefit of the property itself and also for the surrounding property owners and certainly there could be language in terms of who can enforce that. That just expressly indicates the adjacent property owner, for whose benefit this covenant is being entered into, has the right to enforce it if it is not being complied with. Commissioner Bostwick asked would it be best that to put a condition that their CC&R's come back as a report and recommendations items for approval after they have been reworked and scrutinized by the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Mann responded it could be a part of the condition, it is unusual and it has not been done before but there is not anything that would preclude it. She suggests Commission might want to put some kind of a time limitation in terms of allowing a time period, possibly 60 days, etc., for the terms of that to be worked out and for the language to be finalized. Commissioner Bristo! asked Commissioner Boydstun, in her expertise of being a realtor, if when there are 16 or more units, is it not short of the occupancy. He feels statements in the covenant indicate what they ~ are really doing is onsite management. Commissioner Boydstun responded you have to have onsite management with 16-units or more. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if it is not typically what they would be doing anyway and the only thing that the applicant brought to Commission this time was the occupancy statement and Commission cannot get involved in that. Commissioner Boydstun concurs Commission has no control over the occupancy and feels there are very few guidelines anymore. She states she served on the state committee for years and originally there were numbers and guidelines but all have since been thrown out of court. So all Commission can do is have a covenant as far as maintenance upkeep, etc., and make a condition stating they would work it out with the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Bostwick stated Condition No. 21 states, that the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. And, they have submitted landscape plans. Chairperson Arnold clarified the resolution includes conditions as stated in the staff report and does not include anything with respect to a covenant. OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke in opposition to the subject request and 2 letters in opposition were received at the meeting. A letter in opposition to the subject request was received prior to today's meeting from West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND). ~ IN FAVOR: The applicant submitted a letter in favor of the subject request. 03-25-02 Page 23 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00067 (reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RM-1200 Zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 25, 2002. Granted, in part, Variance No. 2002-04480 (to construct an 18-unit 2- to 3-story apartment complex) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 25, 2002; as follows: Approving waiver (a) pertaining to maximum structural height based on special circumstances applicable to the design of this property (a compietely subterranean garage) that differ from other RM-1200 zoned apartment complexes within the vicinity, and that the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property from being developed to a density enjoyed by the adjacent complexes. Further, the proposed apartment complex complies with the remaining provisions of the RM-1200 Zone development standards and the intent of the RM-1200 zone pertaining to structural height; and Denying waiver (b) pertaining to minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway since it has been deleted. The Code requires a minimum 20-foot structural setback from Ball Road, which is designated as an arterial highway. Code permits structures to encroach within 15 feet of the right-of-way line provided that there is an average 20-foot structural setback. 7he plan indicates an enclosed stairwell with a 15-foot setback from Ball Road, with the remainder of the apartment complex maintaining a 50- to 64-foot setback from Ball Road. The landscape plan also shows that the landscape area located at the western portion of the front setback area has been increased to 25 feet to ~ compensate for the loss of landscape area due to the encroaching enclosed stairwell structure. Therefore, this project complies with Code and the waiver has been deleted. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Eastman and Koos voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent; Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun indicated that they read the minutes/listened to the tape from the Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 2002 since they were absent on that date where the item was discussed and continued.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour, 18 minutes (1:51-3:09) LJ 03-25-02 Page 24 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04516 OWNER: Anhm H. West, 13455 Noef Road, #20, Dallas, TX 75240 AGENT: Puchlik Design Associates, Russel Triplett, 474 South Raymond Avenue, Suite 100, Pasadena, CA 91105 LOCATION: 3033 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 11.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard (West Anaheim Medical Center). Requests to expand an existing emergency room, add a new ambulance porte-cochere, and reconfigure the parking lot for an existing hospital. CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-46 Approved Granted SR8248AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04596, 3033 West Orange Avenue. The West Anaheim Medical Center expansion. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 3 is a request to expand an existing emergency room, add a new ambulance and reconfigure the parking lot for an existing hospital. Staff recommends approval of the proposed hospital expansion as conditioned in the staff report. ~ Applicant's Testimony: Russell Triplett, 474 S. Raymond Avenue, Pasadena, CA, of Puchlik Design, stated the project is an expansion of the emergency room and the purpose of the expansion is on a number of different levels: 1) to increase and have more efficient patient flow through the emergency department. The current condition is walk-in patients and ambulance patients arrive almost through the same entrarice. They wish to relocate the entrances so there is better flow through the ER (emergency room), 2) get some enhanced treatment functions, currently it is a pretty basic Emergency Department. They would add trauma bays, cardiac care bays and obstetrics services that currently happen in the ER but in very substandard facilities. The access to the hospital property does not occur through the emergency room, it is actually blocked off but you could get in if you had the key or the code. Generally this entrance from that side of the building is for emergency patients only, in ambulances. The main in-patient and outpatient access to the building is through the main front door, which is on the other side of the building. Just as a point of clarification, in the conditions of approval there are some references to the building permits being issued. The building permits will actually be issued by the state of California for the building itself however, offsite work would be issued by the City of Anaheim. C~ He states there are some conditions noted, which they take no exception to any of the conditions that were recommended, but some of them relate to trash enclosures and electrical service, etc., which are not anticipated for the project at this time and is only brought up as background. The hospital has had about a 23% increase in population within a certain period of time and that has strained its emergency system. As Commission has probably heard within the last couple of years there was an expansion of the Anaheim Medical Center and West Anaheim is no different there is a continuing need for enhanced emergency services in the area. That is one of the main purposes of the condition. The current ER is approximately 4,150 square feet, we have about 11 treatment bays currently and we will add 12 treatment bays to a total of 23, some of those are remodeled. The addition is 7,027 square feet and the total emergency function is approximately 11,000 square feet. 03-25-02 Page 25 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ In regards to parking, they are expanding to the east into the existing parking lot and will be losing some parking near the Emergency Department. He states the use is a little counter-intuitive in that the more treatment bays you have the more you can process patients and the actual less parking needs you have. The building is not like many other uses that are driven by the size of the facility. In other words, the more you have the less parking needs are required because you get people in and out much quicker as opposed to the current situation where there is a greater parking impact. People do not come to ER because it is a bigger one they come because they have a need. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated, "I think this is needed and you are not asking for anything unreasonable at all". During the action. Mr. McCafferty stated because this does not require any building permits by the state, Public Works wants to make sure the fees are established by City Council and they get paid in a timely manner. Therefore staff requests Commission add a condition to the resolution that requires the payment of the Traffic Signal Assessment Fee and the citywide Traffic and Transportation Improvement Fee within 90 days of the date of approval. ~ • 1 - ! 11 11 ! : • . ! - - - • 11 11 • - ! • - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04516 (to expand an existing emergency room, add a new ambulance porte-cochere, and reconfigure the parking !ot for an existing hospital) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 25, 2002, with the following modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the Traffic Signal Assessment Fee and the Citywide Traffic and Transportation Improvement Fee shall be paid within 90 days of the date of this approval. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:10-3:17) ~ 03-25-02 Page 26 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3790 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04510) OWNER: Bobby Levell Gilbert Jr., 17300 17th Street, # J231, Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION: 1514 West Broadway. Property is approximately 1.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Sroadway and Adams Street (B and J's Tree Service). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 17, 2001 to expire October 17, 2001) and to amend a condition of approval pertaining to the use of barbed wire visible to the public right-of-way to retain a tree service contractor's storage yard with modular office building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-47 Approved Denied reinstatement SR8257VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3790, B and J's Tree Service, 1514 West Broadway. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff's recommendation is for denial of the reinstatement based on the facts that are contained on paragraph 9 of page 3 as well as the findings for denial that are found in paragraph 15. ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Bobby Gilbert, 1516 W. Broadway, owner of B and J's Tree Service, stated the last time he was present before Commission he was represented by his attorney, Steven Shelton. He feels the reason the Planning Department is asking Commission not to approve his Conditional Use Permit is because there have been violations. He states some of them have been his fault and some have been misunderstandings. He states the last time they were in front of the Planning Commission his attorney assured him after the hearing and after speaking to the Planning Department that his barbed and razor wire were okay. It had been there for 6 years and his attorney told him that he had made an agreement with the Planning Department and all he had to do was cover it up, which he did immediately with lattice work and then was told that was not adequate. They have since taken it down and have since moved the barbed wire and raised the wire completely out of sight. ~ Mr. Gilbert states the other issue that was a misunderstanding is Code Enforcement came to his property numerous times and told him he was not allowed to have chips there, which is the reason he bought the property to begin with and received City approval from the very beginning of buying the piece of property. He explains a pile of chips is created when you take a branch or tree and shove it through a brush chipper. They have chipper trucks from which chips are dumped on the property and they haul them off in a roll-off container. They load them in the roll-off containers; trash containers and they sit on the property, depending upon the time of the year. During the busiest time, they can sit on the property up to 3 or 4 weeks. Usually they are rotated weekly. The inspector, numerous times have told him he was not allowed to have chips on the property at all but yet his Conditional Use Permit always has said he was allowed to have chips on the property. They never did any mulching, "the stuff is not used for mulch". It is hauled away to another site, which is recycled. After having a meeting with the City Attorney and the inspector, everyone finally came to an agreement that the chips are allowed to be there. 03-25-02 Page 27 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He states to move the chips out, they would have to shutdown for a week because even in the busiest or the slowest time when chips are supposed to be off the ground a week what is dumped on Monday has to be out by the next week. Chips are dumped for 5 or 6 straight days and they have rotated that and it was demonstrated to Code Enforcement that chips are being rotated regularly so now that is no longer an issue. Mr. Gilbert states they have completely complied with every other issue that has been brought forward and fully intend to comply with anything else as long as they are able to continue business. He states he has done a lot of work in the local area. He did all the demolition in front of City Hall when the new front was put up and did the remodeling. He has done a lot of work for Disneyland, KnotYs Berry Farm and local hotels. He states a tree service is something that everybody wants but nobody wants to see and he feels he has done a good job of not being seen in the 6 years they have been on their property and there has never been a complaint. Mr. Gilbert states there is not one complaint in his folder except for one misunderstanding. The complaint it is not about him but one of his neighbors said he did not feel the business should not be there because of forklift noise and trucks running all night long. He states, "I don't own a forklift, both of my neighbors do and we don't run trucks pass 5:00 o'clock. We lock the gates at 5:00 o'clock and there are no trucks and that is from the fuel station that is there, not my business at all. Within the 6 years I have been there, not one complaint from anyone. There is no noise before 8:00 o'clock, there is no smell, there are no problems and we keep the place clean and we have complied with everything that the Planning Department has asked us to". Commissioner Eastman states "I was out there yesterday afternoon and you said all the razor wire is off the fencing. As of yesterday afternoon anyway there was razor wire on the back portion of your east fence and it was visibfe from Broadway quite clearly, has that changed since then"? . Mr. Gilbert responded "Planning Department told me the razor wire could not be visible. Is way down Adams Street what you are talking about"? Commissioner Eastman stated "I am talking about the rear or the south section of the east wall", which Commission has an exhibit in the handout that shows it all along that area. The west is next to the train track, so it would be the opposite one, which is on the eastside of the subject property. There is razor wire still on top towards the back and just a minute ago you stated there was no razor wire showing. Mr. Gilbert stated "we have taken the razor wire down. When the City people came out and said that if I took it back as far as it is now that would satisfy the ordinance which says visible from the right-of-way. Adams is not a street it is an abandoned alleyway which belongs to me and the next door neighbor". Commissioner Eastman clarified "I am talking about from Broadway. I was on Broadway in a car and I could see it. That is when I observed it. On Broadway, in front of your property, traveling west on Broadway, that is when I could see the razor wire, which is what you just stated, there is not any razor wire anymore so that is why I am asking for clarification". Mr. Gilbert responded "I was told by the City that was far enough. If it needs to be taken down farther, it will be, without a doubY'. Chairperson Arnold stated there are numerous references to automotive repair work being done on the property. Mr. Gilbert responded "no, there is numerous references to trucks being on jacks. You know, I cannot crawl underneath a pickup truck and change the oil without putting the trucks on jacks. There is numerous references in there about the trucks being on jacks, including one time the City inspector came over, he and I met on the property to discuss the chips and that everything was okay and while he was there, he ~ said you are working on a truck you cannot do that. I said no, we are not working on a truck we are changing a tire. You can change tires in your front yard if you want. We were changing tires on a vehicle at that point. In fact, that vehicle came in while he was there with a flat tire so my guys jacked the tire up 03-25-02 Page 28 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES and swapped the tire out. That is all they were doing. Having a truck upon jacks does not necessarily • mean we are doing something and I am trying hard to comply but yes, it does state in the conditions we are allowed to change oil and tires, which we do". Commissioner Bostwick asked "regarding the June 4th Code Enforcement Report of truck on jack stands and front hood off the truck, I don't think you need to take the hood off the truck to change the oil. What were you doing"? Mr. Gilbert responded "I do not recall what was being done to that truck at that time". Commissioner Bostwick stated "obviously something other than just changing oil. There are numerous reports, in fact, all of these have auto parts stored on top of the containers, which we talked about the last time you were here and made specific reference that you were not supposed to store parts on top of the containers, but you continued to do thaY'. Mr. Gilbert responded "well there is nothing visible now". Ken Marsh, Code Enforcement Officer II, stated "I have observed at numerous times on the property the trucks upon jacks but there were no tires at all. There were 2 or 3 of the large trucks right over by his little mobile trailer that were completely upon stands, jack stands, with no tires and no anything on them. I have seen engines rolled around on engine hoists. As far as the chippers go, on January 30, 2002, we had a meeting with Mr. Gilbert along with the City Attorney and ! went back and did an inspection on February 5, 2002, and at that time he was in the process of removing all of the chips. I went back just the other day and those same chips that he said would be moved within 30 days have been there for over 30 days on the westside". Commissioner Boydstun asked if they are not mulching what is the odor coming from because the other ~ day when she was by there the odor was very strong. Mr. Marsh stated "I call it mulching and Mr. Gilbert calls it chips. The smell is from the pile of dead leaves and dead plants". He offered photos of trucks with hoods off, etc. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Mr. Marsh or anyone from Code Enforcement indicated to Mr. Gilbert that removing the razor wire to the back was okay. Mr. McCafferty responded what staff says is that as long as it is not visible from the public right-of-way then you are fine. If it is visible at any portion of the public right-of-way, on Adams Street or Broadway then it does not comply with the code and it is not permitted. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the razor wire was not also a specific condition of approval. Mr. McCafferty responded yes there is a condition of approval containing the prior resolutions regarding the barbed wire. What staff worked out with the applicant is that if he needed it to be there, as long as it was not visible to the public-right-of-way, then he is complying with the spirit of the condition. Chairperson Arnold read the condition: "that all existing barbed and razor wire visible to the public-right- of-way, Broadway, or to the residentially zoned properties to the west shall be removed from the perimeter fencing and that no barbed or razor wire shall be permitted". Commissioner Koos stated it does not seem like a lot of room in the condition for staff to provide him that lead way. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Koos stated this is one of the situations where if you prove it again with the same conditions of approval, how would Commission have any certainty that things are going to change. It is as simple as that. Commission has been through this before. 03-25-02 Page 29 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold stated it is relatively clear that this particular use is having a detrimental impact on surrounding land uses and public welfare and the neighborhood generally. Commissioner Boydstun stated Commission has done this several times, what would make this time different. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (Tracking No. CUP 2002-04510) to amend a condition of approval pertaining to the use of barbed wire visible to the public right-of way to retain a tree service contractor's yard, based on the following: (i) That this permit has not been substantially operated in the same manner as originally approved by the Commission and continues to present enforcement problems and consume staff resources to repeatedly gain and maintain compliance with conditions of approval. (ii) That the use adversely affects the surrounding land uses and the growth and ~ development of the area in which it is proposed to be located due to continued non-compliance with conditions of approval. Surrounding uses include, residential to the west and a newly constructed industrial complex to the north. (iii) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. (iv) That the continued operation of this conditional use permit with limited adherence to the imposed conditions of approval is detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (3:18-3:31) ~ 03-25-02 Page 30 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00068 OWNER: Jong D. Park, 2143 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Kay Lee, 5841 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, CA 90261 LOCATION: 2143 West Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.52- acre" with a frontage of 94 feet on the north side of Broadway located 125 feet east of the centerline of Archer Street. ' Advertised as 0.43-acres. Requests reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single- Family) Zone, or a less intense zone. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-48 Approved Granted, unconditionally SR8256VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 5 as Reclassification No. 2002-00068, 2143 W. Broadway, a reclassification from the RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends approval as conditioned in that the proposed reclassification would be consistent with the General Plan. There was no one available to speak on Item No. 5. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted, unconditionally, Reclassification No. 2002-00068 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RS-7200 Zone) based on conformity with the City of Anaheim General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential for this property and land use compatibility with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~~ ~~ DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:32-3:33) 03-25-02 Page 31 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. . 6c. O. 2002-001 Approved Granted, in part Approved OWNER: Belal Dalati, 791 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Sam Akbarpour, 400 South Ramon Avenue, Suite 202, Corona, CA 92879 LOCATION: 852 North West Street. Property is approximately 0.4- acre wi a ron age o 6 feet on the east side of West Street located 630 feet north of the centerline of North Street. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04490 - Requests waivers of: a) required lot frontage on a public or private street, b) minimum lot area, *c) minimum iot width and frontage and d) minimum side yard setback to establish a 2- lot detached single-family residential subdivision. "` Waiver (c) has been deleted TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2002-001 - To establish a 2-lot detached single-family subdivision in the RS-10,000 zone. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-49 • SR1066CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Variance No. 2002-04490, 852 tVorth West Street, a request to establish a 2-lot, detached single-family residential subdivision in the RS-10,000 Zone. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends approval of both the Variance and the Tentative Parcel Map as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Arnold asked for the applicant's testimony and no one came forward. He stated he has some concerns and suggested continuing it until they could get in touch with the applicant because there were a variety of questions raised in the morning's section. The applicant announced his presence. Chairperson stated the concern is that long lots are fairly standard in the subject neighborhood and he wonders if the City would begin to see a whole set of homes behind the homes at the front; if the City would not start squeezing a bunch of houses in. He asked staff if the lot was divided into two lots and a home was put on each lot, could each of those homes then have a granny unit because the state law provides for granny units. Staff indicated that yes indeed, it would have to come through as a Conditional Use Permit but it would be allowed. He states so then what this would mean is that "on this narrow little lot we could be actually squeezing potentially 4 different residential units there". He recalls they have seen maybe 3 or 4 where that has been done. However the concern is that then they would totally change the character of the subject street. Applicant's Testimony: Belal Dalati, owner of the property, states he lives on West Street and certainly does not want it to be ~ crowded. On his property, he has no plans to put a granny unit, etc. He notes Item No. 17, which indicates at least 3 or 4 homes on the subject street that were approved for the same approval. He states originally he wanted to put a 2-story house there but the City recommended they only build a 1-story 03-25-02 Page 32 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMtSSION MINUTES • house and he went along with that. He explains it is the house he and his family are going to live in and it is not being built for commercial purposes. He reminds Commission that there are two 2-story homes on the street but he agreed to whatever the City wanted. He spoke to his neighbors and they are thinking about building another house but nobody wants to put in a granny unit, etc., to crowd the street. It is important for everyone in the area not to be crowded because it is where they would live and it is for their personal use. Chairperson Arnold stated it seems like one of the 2-story homes was approved 23 years ago and the other was approved approximately 12 years ago so it has been sometime that the additional units on the other parcels have been approved. He asked Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, if it is possible to condition the variance to prohibit granny units from being placed on the parcels; that the variance would be approved based on the understanding that granny units would not be possible. Ms. Mann stated it appears the City would be preempted by state law when it comes to placing conditions that would preclude the applicant from taking advantage of a right that is permitted. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if the applicant lives in the little house that is on the property. Mr. Dalati responded yes. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify the applicant lives in the front house and is planning on building the second house for his family to reside. Mr. Dalati responded yes. Commissioner Eastman stated the thing that comes to her mind is was it necessary to actually divide the parcels into two parcels and not use it as actually a granny type unit all on the same parcel. • Mr. Dalati responded yes because they are really in need of a second house. They have 5 children, his wife just had twins and his brother lives with them so they decided to build another house. They have a huge lot that they cannot take care of and if they do not build another house it is going to be a waste. It is hard to take care of the grass and keep it green and they have had complaints from the City regarding the grass. He states it is 200 square feet short of being a lot of 10,000 square feet. He recalls the regulations say another house can be built if there is a 10,000 square feet lot. He is filing for the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) because he is only 200 square feet short. Commissioner Eastman states "I have another concern about the little house that you already occupy that is basically a historic home and it appears that you have done a lot of changes to it and actually kind of altered somewhat the historic character of the house, is there any plan at some point to be a little more sensitive to the historic nature of the house"? Mr. Dalati responded yes, he is not going to do anymore work to the house. He states when he first moved into the house it was totally demolished and there was no way any family could live in it, so he had to remodel it; all the inside was torn out and the wood was rotten. He could not restore it back to the way it was originally. He tried to keep the historic characteristic as much as possible but wants his family to live in a nice place and they have overgrown that place. He reiterates his brother lives with him and he has 5 children. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the applicant was going to move to the back house and who if anyone would live in fhe front house. Mr. Dalati responded "my brother and my sister-in-lav~'. Commissioner Koos asked, what type of house did he plan to build. , Mr. Dalati responded it is a single-story home. 03-25-02 Page 33 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos stated Commission did not get renderings or anything, and asked if he was far along in the design of the actual appearance. Commissioner Eastman stated Commission did not receive any elevations or anything. Mr. Dalati responded yes, elevations of the house were supplied. Mr. McCafferty presented the plans to Commission. Mr. Dalati stated the area is really mixed. There are some new homes and some historic homes. Off West Street and Lincoln Avenue there are some historic homes that he does not feel should be touched but the house that he bought had to have something done to it. He explained he did not really change the entrance and tried to keep the historic appearance. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if the applicant was the one to put stucco over the wood. Mr. Dalati responded no there was stucco already on it. Chairperson Arnold stated it was something that was done a long time ago. Mr. Dalati responded someone put stucco over the wood siding and if he had the option of a wood siding he would have kept it. Commissioner Eastman recalled when the stucco was being put on and being quite appalled by what was happening to the house. Commissioner Boydstun stated she knows she is the minority but it sounds like the applicant is going to ~ build a typical California ranch-style house. She is familiar with the area and the applicant is putting a 25- foot driveway, which is more than adequate as far as the Fire Department is concerned. She feels it is a good idea. She states she has seen many lots done in that manner and has seen what others have built on it. She would like to see plans for the house, an R&R before he actually starts. Commissioner Eastman states "it doesn't look like it is a big enough house for a family with 5 children, however". Mr. Dalati responded it is 2,300 square feet, it is big enough. Commissioner Boydstun stated the plans say it is 3,000 square feet. Mr. Dalati responded with the garage. He reiterated he originally desired a 2-story home but had to go along with what the City wanted and had planned for that area. Commissioner Bostwick stated maybe he is the minority because he feels it is changing the entire complexion of the neighborhood. He realizes there are others that have been built and the last one was 12 years ago and he is not too sure it was a great idea even then. He appreciates the idea that they can take the house that is there and build a new one of whatever size and have a nice yard for the 5 children rather than destroying the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Dalati stated when he builds the house it would not be visible to the street. It will be on the back. The 2 houses will share the same entrance but the back house will not be seen because it will be far in the back. Chairperson Arnold states he has concern with the change in the pattern of the neighborhood. He realizes there has been 3 or 4 that have been approved, but is not sure that necessarily the subject ~ proposal is a good trend for the lots. He feels if Commission starts approving these type proposals and a few years after that they start putting granny units on them, the City is suddenly going to see for every one lot, which had 1 house, 4 different dwellings. "We see the pressures already". Commission sees the 03-25-02 Page 34 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • population pressures that it was not that long ago that an applicant stood before Commission who basically had there family living in what had been a pool-house or a woodworking shed and all of a sudden it became a granny unit, etc. He states at the very least, he would like to see Commission take some time for staff to pursue what their options are with respects to the over concentration of structures and density on the lots. Commissioner Koos stated given the depth of the lot, it is kind of tough, it is not an easy one. It is not the idea and no one would ever master plan anything like it but feels he could almost go either way. He states it is one of the infield opportunities where there might be an ownership. There is an ownership opportunity because housing units are needed. He feels he would support the proposed application with significant improvements to the existing structure as a means of getting him over the hump. However, he knows it is not something Commission normally does but has a tendency to go along with the historic preservation idea since it is one block out of the colony. The house looks like it is from the 1920's but it has been stuccoed over. He does not feel it would be that much of an investment to create a nice street frontage to remove the stucco and maybe replace it with a door that is consistent with the era it was built in. He concurs with the applicant it would not be seen from West Street, it is such a deep lot, the angle of the parcel and considering it is a 1-story house would prevent it from being seen. On the other hand he understands Chairperson's Arnold point regarding chopping up the properties. However the properties are all so bizarre with 66 to 70-foot frontages and being 300 feet long. He states if it takes a little time to work with staff, that is his concern. He states if fellow Commissioners would want to explore it, good, if not maybe they could go the other way. Commissioner Eastman stated she would be supportive of the idea and would like to see the house brought back to a more historic look, if possible. She states right now it looks like an old house that has been stuccoed over which does not add to the ambience on the street and yet, it was originally a very attractive little house. • Commissioner Bristol feels half of the commissioners are saying it is okay and the other half is trying to change the design of the house. He states if you go to Orange or Anaheim Hills, etc., there are all kinds of properties there, private streets, one certain look here and another certain look elsewhere and they are tucked away and do not have 25 feet width driveways. The proposed area is perceived as upscale whether it is an old house or new house. It reminds him of certain parts of Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda. The applicants are willing to take advantage of the large property and spend a significant amount of money to put a nice home there that will not be visible and that may or may not set a trend. The City of Anaheim has not had a 10,000 square foot lot, flat land, for a long time. "I don't see the problem with iY'. Commissioner Koos asked Commissioner Bristol if he would go so far within his support to enhance the existing structure. Commissioner Bristol asked if it is outside the Colony. Commissioner Koos responded yes a block, but there is a trend, there are neighborhoods and the subject property falls in the north neighborhood council where there are areas outside the Colony that have historic homes and many of the actual structures are more significant than homes that are in the Colony that are in the historic preservation trend as well. He feels the neighborhood want designations, they want not to be called Colony per se' but are looking in investigating and are saying, "well, what track was this back in 1915, what did they call this and let's maybe reinvigorate a sense of place". There is a movement towards that. Commissioner Boydstun stated "it was stuccoed when he bought it. I watched them do it. I agree, I don't like it when they stucco houses over but people do it. He did not do it, he bought it the way it is and I think to mandate he restore the front house is inappropriate. Perhaps after he gets the back house built he will voluntarily want to do something to the front house to make it look sharper but I think you are infringing on his property rights when you say you want to put that as a condition. I think that is ridiculous". ~ Commissioner Koos stated "well, ridiculous I don't know but he is getting a privilege when he applied for a variance. This is a by-right projecY'. 03-25-02 Page 35 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun stated technicaffy he is asking for one thing and her daughter lives in a tract that was built as a 10,000 square foot lot and she does not have 10,000 square feet but her zoning is there and that is what it is because that's the way it was divided up and the applicant is so close to it that he feels justified to ask for the variance. Commissioner Koos stated "I am with you on the structure but I see the Commission here and it might not go that way at all and I am trying to find a compromising support that constitutes granting a variance by getting something that adds to the aesthetic value of West Street and the neighborhood on the front side". Commissioner Boydstun stated "but legally can we tell him what to do with an existing house. Commission has some say on what he is planning to build because he is requesting a CUP for it but I don't think we can go back to something that was that way when he bought it and require him to do something". Commissioner Bostwick stated well actually getting a parcel map he is to buy in two parcels and a variance because he is getting a lot of variances. He is putting two lots that are less than 10,000 square feet in 10,000 square foot zoning and he is getting a sideyard setback and a frontage of the second house. He believes that is where Commissioner Koos is coming from with his idea. He is asking for a privilege, which you would call the nexus to require something to be done with the front house. Chairperson Arnold asked Commissioner Bristol in terms of his thinking. "You indicated that we do have some arrangements where there are homes tucked behind other homes, etc., and you could imagine looking at this street along here that we could have a lot of these happening. I am not sure in the hills we have that many private roads, etc., but in terms of the granny units and how you have thought through that issue, we could end up squeezing in an awful lot of structure and a lot of people in these lots". ~ Commissioner Bristol stated if you look at their site plan, he has 35 feet to the eastside. As far as the granny unit, I don't know. He is prohibited from adding on at least 3 sides and the only way he could add on would be the eastside, the rear and it would be pretty tough to go there, you are getting too close to the lot line. I agree with Commissioner Boydstun's comment about the front property. We just had an issue with 18-units on this same size lot and now we are looking at a piece of property specifically unique, which the applicant has commented, it is unique, it is a little smaller, a little tighter and you cannot see the home. I drove the area and it is very difficult to be able to drive and try and see that unit. It is tough to see that house from West StreeY'. Chairperson Arnold concurs with Commissioner Bostwick, it is a good idea generally but feels Commissioner Bristol's statement helped him in terms of focusing on how the subject property would be laid out. He asked if it is conditioned upon the plans which are submitted, is the applicant stuck with the particular locations of the footprint on the parcel. Mr. McCafferty responded yes for the second home because that is what staff evaluated the request on and that is waiver (d). Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that the applicant would not be able to move the location of the second home around if the CUP were approved. Mr. McCafferty stated it has to be substantially in conformance with the exhibits Commission approves. Chairperson Arnold stated "okay, ! am a little less concerned because it seem impractical that they could actually get a granny unit for either of them". Commissioner Eastman stated the applicant has indicated he would like to speak and she would like to know if he would be willing to consider some of what Commissioner Koos and she were asking with • regard to enhancement to the historical features to his home voluntarily. Chairperson Arnold stated there is a wide range of viewpoints from the Commissioners. 03-25-02 Page 36 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Mr. Dalati stated "this used to be horse property and really there is no use for the land. It is a huge land and we have got to put something on it. I am not in the historical area. I love Anaheim, I myself moved from Irvine to Anaheim because I wanted to live in Anaheim. I would iike to help Anaheim prosper and have better looking homes and I would like to see Anaheim become a better place to live because that is where I want to live. As far as putting back the house to make it historic, etc., if it is not too expensive I would be willing to do it, but not if it is going to cost me a lot of money. I don't want to worry about a large cost of putting back an already existing house to where it was before". Commissioner Eastman stated one of the things the applicant may not be aware of but that she is aware of is that it does enhance the value of the historic property to stay true to the historic appearance. So value-wise if he were to sell his home somewhere down the line it would be more valuable if the historic integrity of the front property were restored. So that might be a consideration to him if he decides at some point to do that. Mr. Dalati stated "if the City wants me to do that and would work with me on that I would love to respond to what the City wants". Commissioner Eastman stated "I think you would find support within one of our City Departments that deals with thaY'. Mr. Dalati stated "I would love to work with them and put the house back the way it was but if it is going to take me way out of my way it would not be fair to me". THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Mr. McCafferty stated Community Development indicated they have certain incentive programs that they can help the property owner with regards to the front unit. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if there are voluntary incentive programs. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. During the action. Commissioner Koos wished to go on record to state that it is not that he does not support the land use and Mr. Dalati's concept of adding a house he just believed Commission could go one step farther and improve the property's appearance by conditioning it to do so. "So when i vote no it doesn't mean that I don't support your projecY'. Chairperson Arnold stated on the subject property the particular location of the 2 houses makes a significant difference to him and he has grave concerns about it as a standard practice throughout the neighborhood but given the historic pattern there he feels it is fine. Commissioner Boydstun offered a resolution to approve, in part, Variance No. 2002-04490. The resolution failed to carry due to a tie vote. Commissioner Koos offered a motion to continue the request until 2 weeks in order to have a full Commission present. Commissioner Bristol stated he would not be present in 2 weeks. • Commissioner Koos suggested a 4-week continuance. 03-25-02 Page 37 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun stated she would not be present in 4 weeks. However, she reminded Commission that Mr. Dalati stated he would be willing to work on the front property if he could get some incentives from the City. Commissioner Koos offered a resolution to approve, in part, Variance No. 2002-04490 with approving waivers (a), (b) and (d) and denying waiver (c) and adding a condition of approval to state that the applicant would work with the office of Neighborhood Preservation to explore options, including but not limited to incentive programs to improve and restore the appearance of the existing structure to be more compatible with its original construction in the era in which it was built. Chairperson Arnold explained that the idea is that where Commission grants variances that change the historic character of the neighborhood they want an offsetting mitigation that restores the historic character. Ms. Mann clarified the condition as it was stated indicated the applicant needed to explore options rather than finalizing anything. She wished to clarify if that was the intent. Commissioner Koos thanked her for clarifying the condition and stated to include, "and that the resulting effort will come back to Commission in the form of an R&R item for final site plan an elevation review. Commissioner Bostwick stated "but you want an actual change to the structure" Commissioner Koos stated "I want to see what kind of options can be worked out and I think it is loosely worded enough where it encourages operations". Commissioner Bristol stated when Commission was on the Colony District and on the discussion of putting the subject property in a district they went out of their way to be careful not to put anything more • than discovery on a home unlike City warrants where there were restrictions. Commission went out of their way and that was the goal and vision of the City. He feels now Commission is telling the applicant outside of the Colony District that they want him to spend money no matter what. He feels Commission is putting an undue restraint on the applicant. Commissioner Koos stated "I am not sure what i said that was mandatory, t encouraged the cooperation with the Community Development in exploring options". Commissioner Bristol stated "if there is going to be a change, there is going to be money expended, you cannot do something to an existing structure without it costing money'. Commissioner Eastman clarified there is a program being put into place that is going to work with the individual homeowner in just exactly this situation where a home has been altered somewhat in its faCade that will give rebate to them for bringing it back to a more original appearance. The PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Phyllis Mueller, Neighborhood Development Coordinator of the Community Development Department, stated they just went to the Historic Preservation with many items and one of them was a new program that they want to put in place called the Historic Preservation Rebate Program. The program is citywide, not just in the Colony, for any structure that was built prior to 1948. In this particular case, this is a historic house that has been stuccoed over. The owner could, if he is within 120% of the median income for the area, apply for the program, which will be in place by approximately July 1, 2002. They offer 50% rebate up to $5,000 for undoing something or for doing it right and that applies to windows, doors, walls, roofs and stuccoing over. "The program was approved by the Historic Preservation Committee enthusiastically and it will be going back to City Council for approval. This will be an eligible candidate for thaY'. • Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the applicant really would be eligible since she just indicated there was a restriction of the median income. 03-25-02 Page 38 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos clarified all he is trying to say is he wants them to talk. " I can tell you right now 1 am not going to deny an R&R based on mandating the property be restored, I just want it to move in that direction. I think it creates dialogue and I think that is where we are going". Commissioner Bristol stated "I am glad you stated that, I am fine with that". Chairperson Arnold stated the applicant indicates he would love to talk with City staff about it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Mann read notes on the condition: "that the applicant will work with Office of the Neighborhood Preservation to restore options to improve and restore the appearance of the existing structure to be more compatible with the era in which it was built and that the resulting efforts will come back to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation Item". The resolution passed with 5 yes votes Commissioner Bostwick voted no. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Commissioner Boydstun offered a resolution to grant, in part, Variance No. 2002-04490 by approving waivers pertaining to (a) required lot frontage on a public or private street, (b) minimum lot area, and (d) minimum side yard setback; and denying waiver (c) ~ pertaining to minimum lot width and frontage since it has been deleted as the deficient lot width of 66 feet was created by the prior subdivision and the applicant is proposing a driveway easement, rather than creating a"flag lot" and therefore, the width of the property (66 feet) is maintained; subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 25, 2002 and the resolution FAILED TO CARRY due to the following tie vote: AYES: ARNOLD, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL NOES: BOSTWICK, KOOS, EASTMAN ABSENT: VANDERBILT Commissioner Koos offered an alternate resolution to grant, in part, said Variance No. 2002-04490 with the following modification to the conditions of approval: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the applicant shall work with Community Development Department, Neighborhood Preservation Office in order to explore options to improve and restore the appearance of the existing structure to be more compatible with the era in which it was built and that the resulting efforts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE ON VARIANCE: 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2002-001 (to establish a two-lot, detached single- • family residential subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 25, 2002. 03-25-02 Page 39 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE ON TPM: 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Varianee. DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (3:34-4:13) Commissioner Boydstun left the Planning Commission meeting following Item No. 6. u u 03-25-02 Page 40 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 5 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04489 OWNER: Barbara Cotler, 4747 Forman Avenue, North Hollywood, CA 91602 AGENT: Imperial West, LLC., Attn: Pablo Villanueva, 12741 Bellflower Boulevard, Downey, CA 90242 LOCATION: 739, 743 and 745 North Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.45-acre with a frontage of 180 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 180 feet south of the centerline of North Street. Requests waivers of: a) minimum front yard setback and b) orientation of residential structures adjacent to arterial highways to construct three single-family residences. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-50 Approved Granted SR1067CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Variance No. 2002-04489, 739, 743 and 745 N. Harbor Boulevard, a request to construct 3 single-family homes. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval with one suggested modification ~ to Condition No. 4 to add that the final plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendations Item (R&R) and that is in addition to review and approval by the Neighborhood Preservation Office. ApplicanYs Testimony: Pablo Villanueva, 2373 Camino Real, Fullerton, CA, stated he was present to answer questions. Public Testimony: Garrison Parkin, 727 N. Harbor Boulevard, stated his house is 2 blocks away from the subject property and he wished to ask questions in regard to the verbiage of the staff report. 1) Concerns with creating a parking lot effect in the back alley. He states the plan indicates there will be double car garages and two additional parking spaces for each unit and he would not like to create a parking lot atmosphere because no one else on that street has additional parking space. He is curious how that would look and be viewed. 2) It appears there are no driveways that hit Harbor Boulevard. All of the parking is in the back. His driveway goes onto Harbor Boulevard but he wished to have it clarified. 3) Regarding the roofing material, it was first stated as composition and then also recommended to be tile. He wished to have clarification. Chairperson Arnold responded that will actually have to come back to us but the direction is tile to be consistent with the others. • Mr. Parkin asked if true elevations have been received and if they are available to the public. He is only aware of the plot maps. 03-25-02 Page 41 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded Code requires for each single-family home to have a 2-car garage and 2 open parking spaces. Because the lot fronts on an alley and because of the space constraints, the applicant has proposed instead of putting the spaces in tandem to the garage that they be on one side of the garage. So there will be 2 open spaces and a paved area adjacent to the garage. With regards to elevations, yes staff has received elevations. Staff feels they need additional work and therefore the recommendation is that they come back to Commission for approval. Applicant's Testimony: Mr. Villanueva responded their intention has always been tile roofing. The last time he spoke with Ms. Mueller, she was in favor of the elevations and the design of the property and her only concern was the roofing material. He states "apparently, staff still wants to review the elevations, which we don't see as a problem as long as it is not a complete redesign of the property. This is our second submittal and the first time we submitted it we were not informed that we were in a historical district so we did a complete redesign and our last meeting with Phyllis Mueller was that she was in agreement with the project. We will go ahead and cooperate but we are trying to avoid a complete redrawing of the project. Changing minor elevations would not be too much of a problem". Commissioner Koos wished to clarify with staff if when applicants come forward with constructions in the Colony they are told up front that they reside in a historic area. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, and also Community Development gets a copy of them during pre-file. He clarifies the reason staff is recommending clay tile roofing is because the elevation exhibits submitted by the applicant still indicate the composition shingle roofing. It needs to be changed when he submits the final plans. Commissioner Koos admonishes "the subject property is the heaviest traveled corridor in downtown • Anaheim. It is a high profile property and deserves extra attention to detail. And as much as I appreciate your concerns about having to redo things, it is real important that we get it right the first time because there is not a chance to do it again". So with the conditions and the added language that staff has in place he hopes to see the final plans with the proper changes. He cautions the applicant it could take awhile to make sure they get to the place desired. "It is very important to the community that these properties get developed correctly and I think we have conditions that will achieve that as long as everybody works through the process correctly". Commissioner Eastman concurred with Commissioner Koos and stated "this is a very important parcel and I am very disappointed to see that we are not moving some historic properties onto the 3 lots because l think they will be perfect in the entrance to the Historic District, which is one of the main entrances even though it is not actually designated as a main entrance it is still where a!ot of people come into our Historic District and see historic property. So it is very important that these 3 homes reflect the same character as the rest of the homes in the neighborhood". Commissioner Bristol asked if it were possible to review the elevations soon. Commissioner Bostwick responded that is why there was an addition to Condition No. 4 that the elevations come back as an R&R to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Arnold asked if that is conditioned with respect to any amount of time. Condition No. 6 requires that it would be added to Item No. 4 as one year from the date of the resolution or before the issuance of building permits. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct and this would include that same timing. ~ IN GENERAL: A person spoke with questions pertaining to the parking, roofing material, and proposed elevations of the subject request. 03-25-02 Page 42 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Variance No. 2002-04489 (to construct three single-family residences) approving waivers pertaining to (a) required front yard setback and (b) orientation of structures abutting an arterial highway based on the size and shape the lots, the reduction of the lot size as a result of the required dedication and to maintain the character of the established historical community, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 25, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 4 to read as follows: 4. That plans submitted for building permits shall be in compliance with the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation guidelines, and shall incorporate tile roofing consistent with the mission-style architecture of the residences. Said plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, Neighborhood Preservation Office; and that final plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendations item. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent following Item No. 6, and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (4:14-4:24) ~ 03-25-02 Page 43 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Continued to 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2670 May 20, 2002 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04517) OWNER: Italian Bruno's, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: EI Patio Restaurant, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1750 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.12 acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Mohican Avenue (EI Patio Restaurant). Requests to amend a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously approved semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8250AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2670, 1750 W. La Palma Avenue, EI Patio Restaurant. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 8 is a request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously-approved semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Staff recommends denial on the modification to the hours of operation based on paragraph 15b of the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: Beatriz Quintero, representing Aurora Angel, the owner of Bruno's (talian Restaurant, dab EI Patio Restaurant, stated they received a visit approximatety a month ago from 3 agents: Code Enforcement, a Health Inspector and a Police Officer. At the time the Police Department and Sanitation Health Department said everything was in order but Code Enforcement informed them they did not have permission to stay open until 2:00 a.m. She states they have been in business for 14 years and when they purchased the business 14 years ago the previous owner had been running for 5 years doing the same thing they are currently doing. The Code Enforcement Officer notified them that they only had permission to stay open until 11:00 p.m. However, they have been staying open until 2:00 a.m. for the last 14 years and coupled with the previous owner it is a total of 19 years. They did not know that there was an hour restriction until the day the officer came in. Ms. Quintero states, "On Item No. 7, on the discussions on number 7, like I said before we have been there for 14 years". They have a copy from ABC (liquor license) which they thought they could use and is why they thought they could stay open until 1:30 a.m. They have a written form where ABC does know they are open until 1:30 a.m., conducting sales of alcohol. In the same instructions permission indicates live music; live Latin music or a Mariachi Band. u She states on Condition No. 8, Police Department service calls, towards the end of October, someone continuously called the Po(ice Department and she feels that is how everything started because if the person had not called or complained they may not have found out that they only had permission to stay 03-25-02 Page 44 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MtNUTES • open until 11:00 p.m. The caller complained that the music was too loud. She feels it is someone they asked to leave the restaurant one day and not come back. "Like I said before we have been there for 14 years with no problem". They have live music until 1:30 a.m. and have not had any problems of loud music complaints before. Ms. Quintero states there are also 2 felony spousal abuses, two (2) 9-1-1 hang-ups, 3 false burglar alarms, 4 traffic accidents, 2 unspecified disturbances, 1 disturbance was boyfriend and girlfriend and 1 subject stopped. She feels those are not business-related incidences. She states there are 2 Anaheim Code Violations due to a back alley that people seem to think is a dump place and they are responsible to clean it up. The building next to them was torn out in order to build a Walgreen's. However, before that was done they both shared times in picking up the mattresses, refrigerators, old furniture, etc., and now it is only them. She states they have had 2 violations and probably only have 1 a year. They try to keep the trash picked up. As far as graffiti removal it is painted as soon as they see it. She states from the Police Department there is 1 defrauding an Innkeeper, which all restaurants have. There was a fight, which was a spousal disagreement. She feels they are things that are not alcohol related and not related to the business in anyway. Ms. Quintero states the things she would like to point out that are not on the Police report is that they have done quite a few things to help the area. There was a fire within the past year to the restaurant across the street from them and they were the ones who called the Police. There was also a dumpster in the back alley where someone started a fire and they called the Police. She feels the fire could have extended to the apartments in back and so they called for that. There was a City signal light not flashing, and they called for that. She states they want a nice safe neighborhood also and they try very hard for their neighbors to be comfortable. They had a neighbor complain about their air-conditioning and they took care of that. She states • whenever they receive any complaints from their neighbors they try to comply because they do not want to disturb them, especially during hours of sleep. So even though they have music late at night they try to keep it low enough so that neighbors will not complain. "We have been there for 14 years and I know it is not an excuse but we really did not know." She states Condition No. 10 states that they do not have a Public Dance Hall Permit but it states on the actual City Permit that they do have a Dinner Dance Permit. From 1991 until 1994 and at the beginning of 1995 it was changed and currently states Dinner Dance Permit. She states "aside from that I think if we are granted this permit we will try to be in ordinance with what Code Enforcement requires and we think we can do it before the 60 days they are requesting". Karla DelosReyes De Murillo, 1715 W. Francis Dr., Anaheim, CA, states one of the issues is a disturbance within the area. She lives right behind La Palma Avenue where the EI Patio "Nightclub" is located. She has been there for the last year and a half and has never heard music in her house. During the summer they leave the windows open and they cannot hear the music. She does not feel the restaurant is a disturbance. She states "even if you go right by the street where they are and that is probably where you could start hearing music but it is hardly any so no, I don't believe there is a disturbance within the area". Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, CA, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) states one of the issues that they are dealing with is "are they foflowing the rules of their CUP as a restaurar~t/dinnerhouse or is it actually a nightclub". She states a minute ago she just heard it called a nightclub. She recalls having a similar type of business called the Ritz and another place on Brookhurst that was the former owner of Garibaldi's. They were all restaurants but when you went inside there was nothing in the refrigerator and the neighbors were being disturbed by noise; "dancing music, whatever". She asks, "has a study been done on the noise level? If there is a complaint and they are up here asking for permission to stay open until 2:00 a.m. maybe we need to look • into those issues, maybe we need to look at the CUP". Mr. McCafferty has mentioned there is a difference between a nightclub and dinnerhouse and she is looking forward to hearing the information and what the actual CUP states. Ms. Gollette states "we need to have our businesses run according to their 03-25-02 Page 45 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • CUPs so that future business owners in Anaheim know what they are getting into when they open a business. That Anaheim is not going to be a quick pushover that we can do what we want, when we want and that is what we are seeing. So please look at the adherence to the law and look at their CUP". Applicant's Response: Ms. Quintero states they are an operating restaurant. They open at 11:00 a.m., and the only days they are closed are Tuesdays but they open at 11:00 a.m. everyday. She states Health Inspector checked the refrigerators and anyone can go in now or any day and see their refrigerator full of food. "We have been open for the last 14 years from 11:00 a.m. The only days that we are closed are Tuesdays". She states she, the owner, is not the person who said it was a nightclub they are a restaurant but it was the person who came and spoke on their behalf in concern of the noise who called it a nightclub. She affirms they do have dancing and they have the permit. Commissioner Eastman asked the hours food is served. Ms. Quintero responded they have a complete menu from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., and they have a different menu, which Code Enforcement patronized when they were in, of approximately 9 different appetizers served after 8:00 p.m. until closing. Commissioner Bostwick asked if a cover charge is charged. Ms. Quintero responded yes, and the band takes that money. Commissioner Bostwick asked how many nights a week is the band there. Ms. Quintero responded 5 nights, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. • Commissioner Koos asked, "staff based on paragraph 10, last sentence, the current Conditional Use Permit does not allow public dance hall activities, are they here for the right permit given the land use for the operation they want to run?" Mr. McCafferty responded no. Commissioner Koos asked, "well how do they get here given all facts are true, unless Ms. Quintero has been hiding it from staff during the development process". Mr. McCafferty stated staffs understanding when the applicant responded to the City based on a Code Enforcement complaint strictly pertaining to the hours of operation. Staff discovered they were charging a cover charge from doing further research on their own through the Business License Division as well as the Police Department. Commissioner Koos states before getting much farther he recommends advertising for the use that is being proposed. Ne does not feel the current use has been publicly advertised and is reluctant to have the applicant start over. He asks if there is a way to shift gears. Mr. McCafferty states Commission could continue it and staff could readvertise it. He clarified staff's concern is they did not want to waste the Commission's time or the applicant's time and their understanding was the applicants only wanted to change the hours of operation. And, had staff known initially they were also going to change the operational use from a restaurant to a public dance hall staff would have strongly discouraged them from applying. Commissioner Koos states "given it is their livelihood I would imagine they might have gone forward nonetheless". He states his concern is, unlike the Ritz, which he did not support, they had a number of • adjacent neighbors opposed to the project. However, the proposed business has no opposing adjacent neighbors and one in favor. The Ritz was advertised as a public dance hall and the subject business is not. He is not sure if the public has been properly notified in terms of how the business is being run. He 03-25-02 Page 46 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ suggests after publicly advertising it as a public dance hall and if people come in and say they do not like it then it can be analyzed. He feels the public knows that the operation exists but he is not sure if they are doing the applicant justice or the City justice proceeding under "this guise". Commissioner Bristol concurred with Commissioner Koos and stated it is a good point because if he were a part of the concerned public and received a letter stating they are not going to be open until 2:00 a.m. but only open until 11:00 p.m. he would think what is the big deal, why even show up. However, if he were to get a letter stating current activities occurring incorrectly then he may have a tendency to be present. Commissioner Bostwick asked Commissioners even if the neighbors show up is it going to make a difference. He asks if Commission is willing to support a nightclub or dancehall in the current location irregardless of the public notice. He feels that is where staff is coming from. They can put it off for a month and readvertise it but does that really change anything. If there are 5 votes present and they are all against having a dance hall then why go through the extra publication and the time and the wait for the applicant, tell them now. Commissioner Koos states he tends to remember that they did not have a unanimous decision on the Ritz. Commissioner Bristol concurs that is a good point too. He states Commission is hearing two things 1) Code Enforcement's report regarding the noise, which is one of the things, they were concerned with the Ritz. And, the subject operation is stating at 10:00 p.m. it is not the one making the noise. 2) Is the applicant correct in her disputes against Police reports (the Police were no longer present). He feels in the present state he would not support it in the current area but do not feel Commission has all the facts yet either. . Commissioner Bostwick stated Commission asked the Police not to come back this afternoon because they did not feel it necessary. Commissioner Bristol states if they had to go on the current facts he would agree with staff. He feels there is a straw vote and he would be okay until 12:00 a.m. but not until 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Koos states the restaurant is unusual and whether or not he would support a dance hall as a new proposal would be tough fo swallow. The restaurant has been there a long time and that is where he has a problem. He is not sure if it is an apparent nuisance to the neighborhood given the fact there is no one present in opposition. He suggests maybe giving them a year and limiting the hours of operation on certain days of the week, which are the things Commission normally does to see how things go. Commissioner Bristol states he is not in favor of 2:00 a.m. and the type of acfivity from 8:00 p.m. on because to him that is not a restaurant. He states if his family were to go there at 8:00 p.m., his child would not be able to come in there and go dancing and drinking and having horsd'oeuvres. Commissioner Eastman states a restaurant is typically opened past 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol does not feel it is operating properly under the Conditional Use Permit issued. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. McCafferty to explain the difference between a dance hall and a dinner dance permit. Mr. McCafferty stated a dinner dance permit does not allow the operator to charge a cover charge. Essentially it is a full service restaurant, which the Conditional Use Permit authorized and the restaurant can provide entertainment and dancing at no fee. The public dance hall on the other hand requires a Conditional Use Permit that would need Commission's approval and they would be able to charge a cover ~ charge. 03-25-02 Page 47 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman asked if it is clear that the applicant has understood the difference. She states the applicant indicated she was not aware of the hour restrictions. Mr. McCafferty states he would not prefer to speak on the applicanYs behalf. However staff's conversations with the Business License Division indicates the applicant attempted to obtain a Public Dance Hall Permit and once they understood that it required zoning approval they did not pursue the permit. Commissioner Koos states he is intrigued with Commissioner Bostwick's train of thought but is not totally clear on the "almost concern". He wished to clarify if he meant they would be continuing it in futility. Commissioner Bostwick stated exactly. Commissioner Koos disagrees and states he is really interested in exploring ways to make the current establishment work because it does not seem to be a major nuisance but it does need limits. The appiicant needs to understand the limits and they need to actually define what the use is. Commissioner Bostwick states given their past experience, a crime rate of 245%, the calls for service, noise, and disturbances, etc., obviously there was something that brought Code Enforcement to the door. He feels if it were just a restaurant continuous operation as it had been since 1985 when it was first approved, nobody would have said anything, but obviously it was triggered. Their operation has changed from a restaurant to a dancehall or nightclub and it is going in the direction that normally Commission does not want to see happen in the City of Anaheim. He asks does Commission really want to spend the time or keep it as a restaurant. Chairperson Arnold feels some of the issues are not so clear cut. He concurs with the concerns that were raised regarding the extent to which Commission creates incentives for people to subtlety change their • uses over the years. He cautions if they are allowed to do that and Commission just goes ahead and Commissioner Bostwick asked should the applicant be offered an opportunity for continuance and to readvertise it as a dance hall. Commissioner Koos stated if need be, but definitely more dialogue needs to take place between staff. Commissioner Bristol asked if the public hearing could be reopened in order to ask the applicant what she wished to do. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. approves a permit it may send the wrong message. On the other hand there are a number of uses where it is not very clear-cut to people exactly what the lines are. He recalls JC Bandango, The Press Box, The Shack, etc. So whether it is strategic behavior on behalf of property owners who are just trying to push the envelope or whether it is their conception of what they are doing seems to fit within the permit, Commission should give the applicant, at least, an opportunity to make the case for what they are actually trying to do. Chairperson Arnold cautioned it is not clear whether Commission would or would not grant the permit but the permit would have to be readvertised in order for the neighbors to know the intended use. The previous advertisement suggested a restaurant and under the Code the current activities are not allowed at a restaurant. He asked the applicant whether she would like to pursue a different type of Conditional Use Permit that would allow for music and dancing or would she rather scale back her operations, not have the cover charge and not be open as late, etc. Ms. Quintero responded, "not be open as late? Until recently we just found out we did not have permission to stay open until 2:00 a.m. or actually 1:30 because we stop sales at 1:30 but we give the ~ customers 15 minutes to evacuate. We have been doing that for 14 years". 03-25-02 Page 48 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if what she is saying is that she would rather seek a permit that allows them to do what they have been doing for 14 years. Ms. Quintero responded "we would prefer yes". Chairperson Arnold explained the permit would have to be readvertised because the public needs to know what the applicant is seeking to do. "Do you see the point?" Ms. Quintero responded yes. Commissioner Bristol offered a continuance until May 20, 2002. After the action. Ms. Quintero asked if they should just wait for notice. Mr. McCafferty responded the applicant should work with Amy Novak, Planner, who would be briefed that the proposal should be readvertised. • • + ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: One person representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) spoke with concerns pertaining to subject business and other businesses operating in accordance with their conditional use permits. IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOT(ON CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to readvertise the subject request to include a public dance hall as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent following Item No. 6, and Gommissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (4:25-4:52) ~ 03-25-02 Page 49 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, gave updated information on the new General Plan/Zoning Code Update. Discussion took place amongst the Planning Commission and Mr. Borrego pertaining to the subject issue; and further discussion took place regarding the inclusion of the Historic Preservation Element to the new General Plan/Zoning Code Update. Commissioner Arnold suggested arranging a workshop on the subject issue, and Mr. Borrego stated he would follow-up on the arrangements for a workshop. General Plan Update DISCUSSION: Chairperson Arnold states there are some concerns initially raised by Commissioner Koos regarding the inclusion of a Historic Preservation Element and the new General Plan Update and questions about the process. There are some concerns that we are going to be so far along the process before we see the next set of options and that some of these things that we discussed before or care a lot about are not going to be in there. Obviously we are through the visioning process and as I understand land use options comes next. There was a suggestion that maybe we have a briefing by yourself and Ted and the Planning Center staff before we get too much farther. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, states starting with the Historic Preservation Element, right now we do have a scope of work for the General Plan Update and within that scope of work contains the various elements which the consultant of the Planning Center will be preparing during this effort. We don't have a Historic Preservation Element identified as a stand along element in the General Plan. We will be addressing all the mandatory elements of the General Plan. We are going to be adding 3 additional elements which we do not currently have in our General Plan; 1) Public Facilities Element, 2) Economic Development Element and 3) (and I think this is what ties it into the notion of Historic Preservation) ~ Community Design Element and that is something that we don't have currently. The way we envision the Community Design Element to work is as a vehicle to address a lot of the various efforts; beautification efforts the City has been undertaking, primarily as it relates to all of the streetscapes with all the street benefication efforts that are going on. However, in addition to that, and we have had this conversation with our consultant, we think it would also be an appropriate vehicle to address the issue of Historic Preservation. So while we don't intend to have a stand-alone Historic Preservation Element, we do plan to address the issue of Historic Preservation in the Community Design Element. As far as where we are in the process right now, we have just finished the first phase of the program. At the end of last year we finished the first phase of the program which is referred to by our consultant as the information gathering stage, where all the existing baseline conditions of the City are examined with its infrastructure, etc. We had a series of public workshops, 5 total, and also did some community surveying as well. In addition to that we have prepared what we call the Vision Input Report, which summarizes all the input that we received to date, which Commission received a copy of approximately 2 months ago. The first key product that has been completed through this process is what we call the Anaheim Vision, which is what we worked on. Basically it is defining where the City needs to be 20 years from now as identified by the community and also through interviews with public officials. The Anaheim Vision Statement presented to Commission was also presented to the General Plan Advisory Committee and the City Council and that is what we are using as our centerpiece at this point. The information and the desires addressed in that vision is what we are all working towards and the notion of Historic Preservation is included in that vision. The next step in the process is for the City to write our consultant to identify various land use alternatives. Our consultants informed us they are going to be coming up with 3 different land uses for us to consider. We are also in the process of identifying special focus areas; areas in the City, which we think, need ~ particular emphasis in the General Plan. We are just going through that process right now with the Consultants. 03-25-02 Page 50 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ We do have another public workshop, which is going to be a citywide workshop that we tentatively have scheduled in early May. At this point, it looks like we will probably have it at the Anaheim Stadium but that needs to be confirmed still. And we are going to be soliciting additional public in-put at that point as well. Once we have the alternative land uses identified, which will be during the summer, we will go through the process of selecting a preferred alternative, which will probably be a combination of the 3 that is presented. We will be selecting that preferred alternative towards the end of the year and then moving forward and ultimately plan on completing the General Plan and Zoning Code by June 2003. I gave an update on the General Plan Update Program to the Historic Preservation Commission approximately two weeks ago, and one of the things they requested and something we are trying to work on right now is to schedule a meeting with our consultant to get up-to-date as to where we are in the process and how the Colony might be addressed to our efforts. I know Community Development has a number of efforts going on right now in the Colony. They initiated a land use redesignation out in the 100- acre industrial area here to the south. There is some work going on with some mixed-use ordinances, which are currently under preparation and plans going on around the immediate facility with additional developments in the immediate downtown corridor. So what we would like to do, and we are still working on the logistics, is perhaps set up a workshop with the Colony to let them know where we are in the process and open up a dialogue of what their expectations are and how we might be able to help them during this effort. Chairperson Arnold states there are a couple of concerns aside from the specific Historic Preservation Element which Commissioner Koos is going to ask about but his concern is the extent to which we get to the alternative stage. Our experience is it comes to us at one point, goes to GPAC, comes back to us, goes to the City Council, etc., and at some point we are saying wait a second. The point with the vision is that it is a very broad and general statement. We want to be great and we want to be all things to all people but when we actually get down to really hard core choices about alternatives, the concern is that _~ we are going to be far enough along that whatever concerns are coming out here is going to either require going back and doing a lot of things anew or push through with what the Planning Center comes up with. It sounds like there are some steps along the way, involve the public more, etc., but one of the things that might be useful is to touch base here. We initially met with the Planning Consultants and there have been a whole variety of things that have come through here that have raised important concerns, including what is happening in the downtown area and some of the piecemeal approach to that. Also, Internet Cafes, we continue to wrestle with what is going on in the northeast industrial corridor. There are a variety of things that we keep seeing from time to time that may be useful to have more dialogue. We are wrestling a lot with the housing issues; that impacts not just the housing element portion of the plan but also the land use element. The primary gist is to what extent is the dialogue going to happen and be appropriate, etc. My senses from the GPAC is that there is some concern and hesitancy that a lot of dialogue ends up "gumming up" the process. Everyone has their particular point of view and interest that they are pushing and it creates a lot of micro-management of the planning process by a board of "umpteengillion" people. So the concern is how to find the balance along the way. Mr. Borrego responded we have really made it a point to try and monitor the issues that are coming before the Planning Commission and pass all that information on to the consultants literalfy on a weekly or biweekly basis as issues arise, especially as it relates to issues that we may be having with the zoning code. The Internet Cafe being a perfect example. I have a list that is probably 5 pages long of issues that we have and it continues to grow as issues continue to arise and all the information we continually feed our consultants. If the Commission feels that it would be beneficial to have the Planning Center come in and listen to any additional information that you would like to provide at this point in the process, I am sure that they would be agreeable to doing that and so would we. Commissioner Koos states when I was interviewed with Joel, yourself, James, etc., I brought up the issue ~ of the Historic Preservation Element for a number of reasons. I think if it is just simply a chapter in our Community Design Element that will not address a growing interest and direction that the community is providing and sending to the City Officials. The Community Development Advisory Board reallocated 03-25-02 Page 51 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ some money to fund the Historic Preservation Specialist position. It is not just a Colony thing it is a citywide thing. It was a real debate about priorities and it was clear. When you look at who shows up to your General Plan Meetings, obviously it includes more than just the downtown area. Take a look at who showed up, the Colony people obviously. It is not just because you had it at the downtown Community Center it is because those are the people who are most aware and they want a change. There is a lot of interest at the Colony level and they ask for a specific plan, which you have probably heard about, which would be an entirely different process and very specific. I personally think that a Historic Preservation Element encompasses goals, policies, objectives, and setting forth citywide policies to help address some of the concerns that a specific plan might set forth. So I think there are a lot of benefits to looking at a Historic Preservation as a really top issue rather than making it part of an overall community design effort. I really thought I would see it as a potential. I did not know we had already selected 3 additional elements and it was not one of them. I guess the public facilities element goes to the whole management tool concept that you wanted to include with the City. I think it is less planning than it is management, am I wrong? Mr. Borrego responded it does relate to the planning of public infrastructure that needs to tie into whatever land use alternative that we ultimately end up with. One of the things that I mentioned when I spoke to the Colony group is that as with any other element the Community Design Element is going to have a series of goals and policies and some of those goals and policies are absolutely going to relate to the issue of Historic Preservation. One of the most important parts of this program, is the fact that we are going to come up with an implementation strategy and an implementation guide that is going to be a part of the process and it is going to lay out step by step how we achieve the various policies that we develop through this process. Again, we will also have a monitoring program related to that so that we do not just develop a whole series of policies that get into a General Plan that are not seriously pursued. We see this as an opportunity to really do that. My vision is that we are going to have policies that relate specifically to the issue of Historic Preservation and they are going to receive as much importance and perhaps even more importance depending on how they are worded as any other issue in the City. ~ Commissioner Koos states I just know that some communities have put it really high on the list of their priorities and actually have moved in that direction. They actually have that on the shelf of endearments as to say "Oh, you have a Historic Preservation ElemenY'. It is not a subset and I think Anaheim is going in that direction and I think we should be paying close attention to whether or not that is really a high priority to the community. If I remember correctly at the Community Meeting, where you get the butcher paper, it was like the running theme. It was high priority. So it would be great if the plans start coming in and get into this a little more to see how it plays out. We want it to be meaningful overall, regardless to whatever it is called. We went into some issues today which probably would have lent us a hand in how to deal with projects in the Colony and outside the Colony relating to some properties. Mr. Borrego states just the format of the document itself lends a lot towards how much visibility a certain issue has in the City. Maybe they can just do something with the format short of creating a separate stand-alone element, which currently is in the scope of work but maybe just something within the format of that Community Design Element so that it stands out. That is a discussion we can have with the Planning Center. Chairperson Arnold states I think it is worth having a significant discussion. One of the other issues as we see some of the stuff on the demographics, is the growing population of young people. A lot of uses have moved through here which are alcoholic related uses, gas stations, and a variety of things that have been popping up but I don't see a lot of attention to the social fabric. We do not find how fits in very nicely into the General Plan. We are providing plans and policies that provide and ensure that there are uses springing up throughout the City and that are being facilitated that help with the ethical and educational development of young people. We find that we have tough issues with respect to religious uses, I think charitable activities also similarly face tough issues. We deal with parks from a City perspective but even there we acknowledge that we are struggling. We are a little on the low side for park space and we deal with a variety of recreational uses but do we make it a high priority that we see more of those uses that ~ will have long term benefits; civic benefits, ethical benefits, public safety, crime reduction, etc. Are we just dealing with some of the things "piecemeal" trying to squeeze in some extra housing, trying to deal with 03-25-02 Page 52 MARCH 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the gas station on the corner, etc. I do not know how to get a good handle on that in the General Plan process. It is a significant chunk of time to deal with as a workshop. Mr. Borrego stated he would work with Mr. McCafferty to get it scheduled. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:15 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. ~ 03-25-02 Page 53