Minutes-PC 2002/08/26r
CITY OF ANAHEIM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2002
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
•
CHAIRPE
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PHYLL[;
COMMISSIONERS
STAFF PRESENT: ~~ ~` _
Selma Mann, Assistant~~~ :;E
Mary McCloskey, Depu, P~ar
~ ..
Greg Hastings, Zonin ~~yisic
Greg McCafferty, Prir~cipa~Pl~
Jonathan Borrego, P~~ici I F
Judy Dadant, Senior~lan~ners
~ ~ E~-~<E:€ ~
AGENDA POSTING E Rcom~
Friday, August 23, 2Q02, insi~i
outside display kiosk ~ g ~
~
PUBLISHED: Anahe~~~ull
The Ret~fster
K
J BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN,
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION
11:00 a.m. on
~s. and also in the
•
~n Planner
ineer
ust 15, 2002.
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please
complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTES~AC082602.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 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-C 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.
Each of the Consent Calendar items were acted upon separately.
•
•
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. a) CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to
b) VARIANCE NO. 2853 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04527) - REQUEST September 9, 2002
FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE:
Alexander Hsu, 945 Summitridge Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner
Nicole Nguyen, P. O. Box 12499, Westminster, CA 92685, request a Romero absent)
determination of substantial conformance to modify previously-
approved exhibits to construct two, two-story family dwellings.
Property is located at 805 and 807 South Western Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to
continue the subject request to the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission
meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to finalize modifications to
submitted plans. SR8408JR.DOC
08-26-02
Page 2
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• B. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00019- REQUEST TO
DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Thurman Hodges, 405 West 4
Street, Room 610, Santa Ana, CA 92701, request to determine
conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of
office space to the County of Orange Health Care Agency. Property is
located at 2035 East Ball Road.
Determined to be in
conformance with the
Anaheim General Pian.
(Vote: 6-0, Commissioner
Romero absent)
SR1119TW.DOC
Ted White, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 1-B as General Plan Conformity No. 2002-
00019, 2035 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, a request to determine conformance with the
Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of office space to the County of Orange
Healthcare Agency to provide behavior health counseling services, including adult community
mental health, adult alcohol and drug use, and administrative offices for children and youth
senrices.
ApplicanYs Testimony:
Doug Barton, Santa Ana, CA, Behavior Health Director of the Orange County Healthcare
Agency, states he is present to answer questions.
Commissioner Bristol asked what were the peak hours.
Mr. Barton responded the peak hours are 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. The clients are encouraged to
~ work and many work and go to school. The proposal requests to provide services in the
evening through 7:30 p.m., but the goal is to actually get clients out of the facility closer to 7:00
p.m., giving the staff time to wrap up. Any given day would average approximately 20 clients
for that peak period.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he planned to consolidate Fullerton and Westminster offices.
Mr. Barton responded yes, to a certain degree. They have had a large adult mental health
program in the facility for approximately nine years and that program will stay in tact without
any changes. The alcohol and drug use programs initially relocated out of Anaheim but have
been provided out of the Westminster offices for a period of fime and many Anaheim clients
traveled to Westminster to receive services. The children's' program is administrative only and
has been in another facility in Anaheim, which was sold. They are requesting to relocate the
program within the proposed facility.
Commissioner Bristol asked if the county intends to increase or intensify the location past
10:30 p.m.
Mr. Barton responded no.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find that the County of Orange Health Care Agencys (HCA's) proposal to enter into a lease to provide
behavioral health counseling services (i.e., adult community mental health counseling, adult alcohol
and drug abuse counseling, and administrative offices for a children and youth services program) in an
• approximately 28,500 square foot office building located at 2035 East Ball Road, is in conformance
with the Anaheim General Plan.
08-26-02
Page 3
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to
act on this item by September 18, 2002, as the application was submitted on August 9, 2002 for the
subject request.)
DISCUSSION: 5 minutes (1-42-1:47)
•
•
08-26-02
Page 4
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
•
•
C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of August 12, 2002. (Motion)
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and
Vanderbilt abstained and Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for
the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 2002.
Approved
(Vote: 4-0, Commissioners
Boydstun and Vanderbilt
abstained since they were
absent for the meeting and
Commissioner Romero
absent)
08-26-02
Page 5
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00404 Recommended adoption of
2c.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00077 Exhibit "A" to City Council
,4pproved
2d. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04512 Approved, in part
2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16359 Approved
2f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 2a..2C., 2d., Recommended City Council
Review
AND 2e.
OWNER: North Orange County ROP, 2360 West La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803
AGENT: Western Pacific Housing, Attn: Pablo Leon, 16940 Von
Karman Avenue, # 200 Irvine, CA 92606
LOCATION: 950 North Gilbert Street and 2360 West La Palma
Avenue. Property is approximately 8.7 acres located
at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and La Palma
Avenue (ROP Site).*
*Advertised to include 1021 North Moraga Street for a total of 9.2
acre site.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00404 - Request to amend
the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the Low Density
Residential land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential
• land use designation.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00077 - Request reclassification of the
subject properties from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural)'` zone
to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone or less intense zone.
* Advertised request included the CL zone.
VARIANCE NO. 2002-04512 - Requests waivers of: a) required
improvement of private streets, b) minimum lot depth adjacent to an
arterial highway*, c) minimum lot width, d) minimum lot area, e) maximum
lot coverage and f) minimum open space, to construct 63-unit single-
family residential subdivision.
' Waiver b) has been deleted.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16359 - To establish a 66-lot, 63-unit
detached single-family residential subdivision.*
' Advertised as 77-lot, 76-unit.
Continued from the July 15, July 29, and August 12, 2002, Planning
Commission meetings.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-122
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-123
• VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-124 SR2117DS.DOC
08-26-02
Page 6
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00404, 950 North
Gilbert Street and 2360 West La Palma Avenue - ROP Site, Anaheim, CA, a request to amend the land
use element of the General Plan from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the Low-
Medium Density Residential land use designation. Request reclassification of the subject property from
the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a
less intense zone. Requests waivers of: a) required improvement of private streets, b) minimum lot width,
c) minimum lot area, d) maximum lot coverage and e) minimum open space to construct a 63-unit
(previously 76-unit) detached single-family residential subdivision.
Applicant's Testimony:
John Myhre, representing Western Pacific Housing, 16940 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200, Irvine, CA, states
they are present to give a brief presentation illustrating their proposed community, architecture, and
concerns they have heard from the community.
Western Pacific Housing is a division of D. R. Horton, one of the largest homebuilders in the country, with
a commitment to innovation, quality and value, surpassing the expectations of the community and being
very accessible on a local level.
An illustration of the project:
^ They propose 63 homes at the corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street.
^ Houses will range in sizes from 2,400 to 2,700 square feet.
^ Two-story homes with a maximum of four bedrooms, two to three baths, two and three car
garages and full landscaping around the perimeter as well as a tot lot - pocket park area.
• ^ Fully landscaped entrance with the houses facing Gilbert Street, which was done at the
suggestion of staff and WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development).
^ Non-gated Community.
^ Private streets.
^ Sidewalks on both sides.
^ Parking available on one side of the street.
^ Houses 20 to 30 feet apart because the lots are larger than the other lots inside the community,
averaging just under 4,500 square feet.
^ 50-feet wide lots while houses are only 35-feet wide, creating a very nice open street scene.
^ Front yards installed by Western Pacific Housing to create a more instant mature Iook.
^ Privacy.
^ Landscaping along the adjacent property to the south and east.
^ Full landscaping along La Palma Avenue, starting in the parkway, with a row of trees between
the sidewalk and the curb and another row of trees between the sidewalk and the wall, with
groundcover bougainvillea shrubs filling in the area.
• ^ Serving as a focal point and social area for the community, a tot lot - pocket park with a swing
set, Jungle Gym-type equipment, picnic tables and possibly a barbecue area for the adults.
08-26-02
Page 7
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ ^ Enhanced architecture along La Palma Avenue.
^ The rooflines break up nicely, with the second story having enhanced elevations, pop outs and
separate rooflines. Every second window is enhanced with either a shutter, a ledge or some
type of window treatment.
The project is a win-win for everyone:
^ For the community, City and builder, it is an attractive project that will help beautify the
neighborhood.
^ It is going to provide much needed housing to the City of Anaheim.
^ $400,000 plus homes, which will help bring property values up.
^ It ensures the quality of the neighborhood by using single-family detached homes.
^ The small pocket park is also a great amenity.
There are financial benefits for every group involved:
^ The school district will receive close to half a million dollars in school fees.
^ The City will receive over $300,000 in park fees.
^ The Redevelopment Agency will receive over $12,000,000 over a 35-year period, which nets to
a $450,000,000 present day value.
• What a move-up buyer would like to have:
^ Extra space
^ Offices
^ Dens
^ Workout rooms
^ Nooks
Plan One:
^ California Mission Style - first, in plan one.
^ Traditional - a porch, stone veneer around the porch.
^ Craftsman Style - timbers along the rooflines as well as the large bay window with brick veneer
around the bay window.
Plan Two:
^ Spanish Monterey Style House - white stucco, red roof-tile. Very popular.
^ Traditional - shutters and bay window.
, ^ Craftsman Style.
08-26-02
Page 8
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Plan Three:
^ Monterey Style House - very popular.
^ English Tutor-style - Unique, steeper roof-pitch on the elevation.
^ Cottage-style - Very nice looking.
Concerns:
^ Privacy adjacent to the existing homeowners. Western Pacific Housing has developed several
privacy protections: 1) opaque windows will be installed at the second windows of all the
houses facing the existing homes, 2) add a 36-inch box tree in the line of sight, and 3) increase
the wall height to 7 feet along the perimeter.
^ Concerns for the schools. Western Pacific Housing met with the Anaheim City Elementary
School District of Union High School District, and by their calculations it would only generate 39
students, compared to almost a half-million dollars in school fees.
^ Concerns about traffic. The City Traffic Engineer has studied the intersection of Gilbert Street
and La Palma Avenue and rates it a Level Service A and maintains it will be a Level Service A
at the completion of the project. Western Pacific Housing hired its own traffic engineer to study
the Gilbert Street and Valdina Avenue intersection and determined it does not require a traffic
signal.
^ Concerns about interior yard tract; sight distance around corners and if they are too close.
Western Pacific Housing is willing to adjust the houses, but upon calculation with the City
• Engineers they are plotted to provide the correct sight distance.
^ Concerns about having maximum four bedroom houses and extra space besides the four
bedrooms. Western Pacific is willing to add CC& R restrictions that would restrict any
additional bedrooms and further add deed restrictions so that it would actually be a recorded
deed. Also, Western Pacific Housing would record a tract declaration that at the sale of any
one of the homes, the homeowner would have to certify that there are no additional bedrooms
installed in the homes, and is opened to other suggestions to try and make sure that the homes
do not grow in the bedroom count.
In summary:
Western Pacific Housing has heard the staff's desire to create a livable community and has responded.
They have reduced their density to approximately 7 units per acre, added sidewalks to both sides of the
street, turned houses to face Gilbert Street to create an open community (it is not a gated community),
added a tot lot - pocket park, added full fandscaping and enhanced architectural around the perimeter.
Western Pacific Housing presented a time log with dates and times to assure Planning Commission of
their time spent and effort to get the concerns of the neighborhood, community, WAND (West Anaheim
Neighborhood Development) and City staff.
Public Testimony:
Esther Wallace, Chairperson of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), states they met with
the builder and also with the community and one of the community concerns is that they want two exits
because there is considerable amount of traffic on Gilbert Street. It is very hard to get out onto Gilbert
Street and some of the homes will have back out driveways. There are three schools on Gilbert Street
• and she asked when the traffic study was last made, at what time and if another study could be made
after school starts.
08-26-02
Page 9
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Thomas Lockwood who lives adjacent to the property on the south side of the plot states concerns with
privacy and thanked the developers for not including the corner market. He states Western Pacific
Housing agreed to 25-feet setbacks on the east side of the property and 10 to 18 feet on the south side.
Near the corner of Crescent Avenue a lot of cars were crushed and they finally painted the curbs red on
the eastern side of the street to prevent parking. He feels the same problem wi11 occur at the proposed
project. He suggests having an entrance exit on La Palma Avenue with a curbed median down the center
of La Palma Avenue to prevent western bound traffic from crossing over so that traffic coming in and out
of the project would go east to eliminate some of the traffic going in and out of the single entrance exit on
Gilbert Street. He also suggests if the houses facing Gilbert Street were to face inward, the houses in the
south corners could be turned on a 45 degree angle, giving the development a more fluid looking shape
as you drive through, and get the project closer to the 5,000 square foot minimum per lot. He would like
to make sure that the perimeter block wall is 7 feet on the existing community side of the fence as well as
the proposed community side of the fence. He asks if it they could save as many of the pretty tall pine
trees as possible.
Deboron Goetzinger, represented by Danielle Jacobs, 2816 Puritan Place, Anaheim, CA, states recently
her husband passed away and she seeks to relocate but wants to stay in the Anaheim area. She has
lived in the Anaheim area for approximately 24 years and does not wish to relocate to a different area. In
her search for a new home to leave behind her memories and try to start a new life, she has not found
one that she likes. They are all older style homes that require a lot of maintenance and a lot of items are
required to move in. When she heard about this project she was very excited because this is the type
home that she wants to buy. Ms. Goetzinger supports the project in hopes of being able to live there
someday.
Jeralyn Palmer, 1011 N. Moraga Street, Anaheim, CA, states the housing tract will be right behind her
house and she is in favor of it because it will enhance their area. There are some concerns with traffic,
but she understands living in Southern California there is going to be traffic no matter where they are.
• She feels Western Pacific Housing has addressed the problems as well as possible.
Enna Barkley, 1405 E. Willow Street, Anaheim, CA, states she approves of the project and feels
everything could be worked out if everybody cooperates.
Jim Palmer, states he is 100% for the project. He and his family have lived there since 1965 and have
had everything from lions in the backyard to a variety of noises because the Regional Occupational
Program (ROP) used to have a full size zoo there at one time. He feels Western Pacific Housing has
gone over and above to work with everyone and he takes his hat off to them. Because West Anaheim's
property has not been kept up very well it would be a shot in the arm for that area and any traffic
problems could be worked out.
Danielle Jacobs, 1351 No. Mariner Way, states she and her husband have a house in Anaheim and they
recently had a baby. Their house is 1100 square feet with two bedrooms and having recently had a baby
they are at their full capacity. They have searched for a new home and have not found one to their
likings. The proposed project was brought to them and they know the style of house they want. They are
very excited about the project and ask that it be approved.
Ken Jones, Superintendent of North Orange County ROP, states he recentlyjoined the ROP in March
2002, during the potential sell of the property to Western Pacific Housing and ROP urges Commission's
vote of approval for the project. In working with Western Pacific Housing they have found them to be very
sensitive to the City staff, community and the residents. They have made numerous changes as outlined
and ROP believes the project will be an improvement to the area and certainly would put a major piece of
property back into the tax rows.
Samuel Powers, 938 N. Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA, states he lives at the corner of the proposed project
and cannot understand why Western Pacific Housing never invites the Police Department, Fire
• Department, etc., to any of the meetings as it is going to throw stress on both the Fire and Police
Departments and they will have a small private road to ingress and egress off of Gilbert Street. He asks
whaYs to stop the new resident from changing the window in the back of his home. He would be
08-26-02
Page 10
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• approximately 10 feet across the fence and feels the neighbors would be breathing down the back of his
neck for the rest of his life. He states there is no low density in the area. Gilbert Street is only a two-lane
racetrack and La Palma Avenue has four lanes. A Walmart is being built three blocks west of the new
project and there is another housing project three blocks down the street on the north side from Sears.
He feels there is a need for a library, a park, etc., rather than additional housing.
Michelle Cardenas, 1015 N. Moraga Street, states her property is the corner lot next to the market on the
east side of the project. In meeting with Western Pacific Housing the possibility of non-opening obscure
windows in the back has been discussed, leaving the side windows for fire exits to be accessible and that
would definitely make residents facing the rear happy. She concurs with WAND that another traffic study
should be done because three of the schools are not in session at this time and Fairmont has doubled in
size. She feels the new homes are going to beautify the neighborhood as well as bring surrounding
property values up. She would like to make sure that the perimeter wall would be 7 feet on the side of the
existing residents as well. She takes her kids to school and it is very difficult to get out onto Gilbert Street
going towards Gauer Elementary, so she is very concerned about additional parking in front of the homes
facing Gilbert Street during any time because it is a very small street with a lot of traffic.
Dr. Howard Garber, resident of Anaheim for 42 years, representing Garber Properties, Inc., states they
own property immediately to the east of the proposed project and is in favor of it. He feels there have
been improvements in the area since the La Palma overpass was completed and the proposed project
compliments what has already transpired. He was at the last meeting and the schematic in black and
white is not the same as the schematic shown in color where an old market would have been wiped out at
the corner. The market is an old dilapidated market and tf~e owner of the market was really upset that he
had made an agreement with Western Pacific Housing to sell his market and now the plans have
changed. Dr. Garber states he is in favor of the original plan and would like to think it is not too late to go
back to the original plan. He feels Western Pacific Housing was all in favor of going ahead with the
original plan except for one homeowner. He states objection to the change and hopes the Planning
~ Commission has the authority to consider objections to that change.
Judithanne Gollette, Chairperson of the WAND Land Use and Business Development, states they have
met several times with Western Pacific Housing and with the neighbors. They have tried to work with
Western Pacific Housing and Western Pacific Housing has definitely worked with them, but there are
certain areas of concern that stand out. Regarding the one landowner referred to, it is important to make
sure that it is on the record that there were 93 signatures on a petition that stood blocking what her
premise was and not just her.
There are several major concerns and the biggest one is traffic; the ingress and egress of the
development. The City of Anaheim has done a traffic study, but numbers can work for any situation at
any given time and the residents are going to be the people that live in the neighborhood and have to
drive the block. She lives at the other end of Gilbert Street and Ball Road and understands that the traffic
is just as horrendous on one end as the other and definitely support the neighborhood's request to put in
another ingress and egress so that it wou(d not heightened the safety issue they have with the traffic on
Gilbert Street. WAND highly suggests a traffic study or the possibility of the ingress and egress off of La
Palma Avenue be looked at before the project goes any farther.
The other issue is on the exterior windows that face the existing houses. In addition to the opaque
bedroom window they would like to have an opaque bathroom window. Also, making sure that the trees
are the 36-inch box trees that would be placed at the backyard.
She states WAND thanks Western Pacific Housing for all the work they have done. To take out 13
houses is an awesome feat for anyone to do in the interest of making the neighborhood better and WAND
applauds them.
ApplicanYs Response:
~ Mr. Myhre states all of the concerns they have heard today are really all there is. There is not anything
new that City Traffic of Engineering has not heard and has not reviewed, as well as all the other issues in
08-26-02
Page 11
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• terms of the rear windows being operable, which is really a building and safety issue that is handled at the
Building Department, but they are not against it. The traffic studies should be directed to the City
Engineer, but Gauer Elementary is a year around school so when the analysis was done, at least Gauer
Elementary was in session. He states he is available to answer any questions but wish to remind
Commission that they have continued the proposal for a couple sessions and are anxious to move
forward.
Chairperson Bostwick asked Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, his feelings about a second
entrance onto La Palma Avenue and a divider in the middle of La Palma Avenue.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded they have looked at the possibility but La
Palma Avenue is a major arterial highway and Gilbert Street is a commuter street. The average daily
traffic on Gilbert Street is 9,400, which is a previous 24-hour count taken when all the schools were in
session. It is called Level Service A Operation on Gilbert Street. So, the amount of traffic during the a.m.
and p.m. peak generated by the proposed project would be somewhere between 37 to 55 cars and would
easily be handled by Gilbert Street compared to La Palma Avenue which has a 45 mph speed limit and it
is a major arterial highway. So, the Traffic and Transportation Manager recommended the access be
taken from Gilbert Street.
Chairperson Bostwick states Condition No. 31 limits the wall height as 6 feet, yet the applicant is
proposing 7 feet and the residents are requesting 7 feet.
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, states the reason staff added Condition No. 31 is because a single-family
zone abutting another single-family zone only allows a wall at the property line up to a maximum height of
6 feet. A wall in excess of 6 feet would require an administrative adjustment to be approved. The
Commission may add a condition of approval requiring that an administrative adjustment be requested
and approved in order to build the block wall.
• Chairperson Bosfinrick asked what the grade separation is between the existing property and the
proposed site.
Mr. Myhre responded they are in the process of preparing final engineering but essentially the site is very
flat and any differentiation between the pads would be very minimal, 6 inches to 12 inches.
Chairperson Bostwick asked when the last traffic count was taken.
Mr. Yalda responded they generally take traffic counts during the busiest time of the year and the busiest
day of the week.
Commissioner Koos asked if it was essential to have the tot lot next to the easement or if it could be
moved over.
Mr. Myhre responded it is not essentiai but they feel it is the best location because it really maximizes the
entire area. There is an emergency access as well as a drainage easement in the area and the two
functions together could enlarge the entire park area, extending the park over the drainage easement and
the drainage easement is where it needs to be in order to connect to La Palma Avenue.
Commissioner Koos states it looks better as it meets up with the street that goes towards the cul-de-sac
in the center of the property from a design standpoint, and if there is a practical reason why they cannot
move it Commission will drop it but if there is no compelling reason he does not see why it would not be
moved.
Mr. Myhre responded it is his understanding from the engineers that is where the drain needs to connect
to and if they want to maximize the park and make the drainage a part of the party, it should be there.
i
08-26-02
Page 12
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states their storm drainage is designed to pick up flow from a
portion of the streets. They have Labor E, D and C Streets, so it is a central collection point. Where it is
currently proposed is a logical location for the storm drain easement,
Mr. Myhre responded if there were any flexibility in the approval today, during the final engineering
process if it could be moved, they would certainly relocate it to a more central location.
Chairperson Bostwick states there are some mature trees on the property and asked if it is possible to
retain them.
Mr. Myhre responded when they looked at a topographic survey it appeared all of the trees are in a
location where they could not be saved.
Chairperson Bostwick asked why the store property was removed from the original plan.
Mr. Myhre responded when they initially looked at the property, staff and the community came to them
and suggested it would be a good addition to their project if they could clean up the area. Western Pacific
Housing responded to those concerns and went to the owner and contracted to buy their land as a part of
the application. Since then, a number of the community came out and opposed it. Significantly, the
petition was passed with 90 signatures, including the homeowner adjacent to it who strongly opposed.
Western Pacific Housing interpreted that to mean the community did not want that part of the project and
eliminated it and moved forward.
Commissioner Boydstun states if they look at it a different way, and if they did have the store property,
they would be able to take that street out to Sequoia Avenue and it would give another access on a street
that is not heavily trafficked and they could possibly put one house on one side and two on the other.
• Mr. Myhre responded they looked at a lot of different configurations and it would really put houses right up
against the existing homeowner (the Cardenas family) and that was the primary source of opposition.
Also an access onto Sequoia Avenue at that point is very close to the intersection of Sequoia Avenue and
La Palma Avenue and it would not be appropriate to have an intersection at that point.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bristol states an attempt was made on the site plan to do elevation to break up the boxy-
type look but Lot Nos. 2, 9, 22, 28 and 52 look out of place. If the entries were flipped it would give more
open space to the whole site plan.
Mr. Myhre asked if they were corner lots he was referring to.
Commissioner Bristol responded Lot Nos. 22, 28 and 52 are corner lots and Lot Nos. 2 and 9 are in the
cul-de-sac where the front entryway was brought into the setback.
Mr. Myhre responded they are willing to look at the plotting.
Commissioner Bristol states he is very pleased to see the progress they have made and it is a big change
from the first time, but he agrees with the community comments regarding the elevations; specifically
when they have side elevations and coming down half court see five or six coming out. He feels that is
going to make a big impact on the street. He states it would be a great idea if they could do something on
the elevation of the rears and sides as well.
Mr. Myhre responded the side was not addressed, but regarding the corner lots they would be willing to
add window treatment articulations on the second story e(evafions.
• Commissioner Bristol states there is no question that the front elevations look great but it is the rear and
the side elevations that do not.
08-26-02
Page 13
au~us-r Zs, zoo2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Mr. Myhre responded they could treat every window; second story window, a shutter, a ledge, a frame,
etc., they could look at doing things on every second story they would see walking through the
community.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he was not adverse to the Reports and Recommendations items (R&R)
indicating to take a look at everything.
Mr. Myhre responded they wanted it moved forward and were hoping they could get their architecture
approved today to move forward. They are under time constraints with ROP and need to close on the
property and move forward. They are looking to get through all of their review processes quickly.
Commissioner Koos asked if Commission grants all of the entitlements today with the Reports and
Recommendations items would that slow up their process and if it would not be considered a closed deal
with the City.
Mr. Myhre responded no, if Commission approves the entitlements they would accept that today. He
asked if Commission would look at their architecture today since they have done a lot of work, including
working with staff and incorporating their comments, adding articulation and really upgrading their plans
considerably. They would like to go ahead and submit for building permit and understand that they need
to go through that review process before submitting work and drawings.
Commissioner Koos states it would get to Council in three weeks and asked if it would be possible to get
to their Planning Commission with an R&R by the next meeting.
Ms. Dadant states it would depend on the applicant's ability to get the level of detailed plans into staff in
time for staff to review and evaluate the plans, and the plans would have to be in the week of August 25,
2002 in order to get to the next meeting.
• Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states Reports and Recommendations items are appealable items to
the City Counci! as well; therefore a 22-day appeal period for the Reports and Recommendations would
be necessary.
Mr. Myhre states everywhere anyone could see on a second story, corner lots, rear lots, etc.; they agree
to add articulation to that element. Anywhere it is viewed from a street, but not when they are inside the
lot and the houses are back to back.
Commissioner Bristol suggested going -ot-by-lot to make sure they had the right lots viewed from the
street on the plans:
Lot No. 63, which is Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue off to the northwest through and across La
Palma Avenue to Lot No. 53, which include side and rear elevations.
Mr. Myhre responds, correct.
Commissioner Bristol suggested rear articulation for Lot Nos. 45-52.
Mr. Myhre states they did not propose to articulate those, but would do 52 on the side.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he did not plan to do anything for the neighbors to the east.
Mr. Myhre responded they did not propose that but if it is important to the Commission they would.
Commissioner Bristol states it rears the residence and suggests 52 through 46 have rear articulations.
~ Mr. Myhre responded they agree to that.
08-26-02
Page 14
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Bristol states side articulation on Lot No. 46 and rear articulation from Lot No. 45 all the
~ way to 36, the same as on the east and side on 45 and side on 35. In the cul-de-sac, Lot Nos. 5 and 6,
side elevation on the north. Lot Nos. 10 and 11 would be the side elevation on the north. Lot Nos. 1 and
28, side elevation on the north part and 29 would be the side elevation facing north. Lot No. 17 would be
internal but it would look good. He asked Mr. Myhre to work with Planning staff regarding Lot Nos. 9 and
2 since he brought the front out so much, that if someone were coming down the cul-de-sac it would look
like it would be sticking out and would look totally out of place.
Mr. Myhre responded if they could they would work with staff but there may be utility constraints.
Commissioner Bristol states on Lot Nos. 28 and 52 the corner of both streets look odd and they might get
more of an open area if they turned it around.
Mr. Myhre responded he was not sure if they could with the driveway, but would look at replotting it.
Mr. McCafferty sfates if Commissioner Bristol were looking at side elevations, Lot Nos. 32 and 33 would
have sides that could be seen from Gilbert Street. So it would be the south elevation of Lot No. 32 and
the north elevation of Lot No. 33.
Ms. Dadant wished to clarify if it is Commission's intention to have side elevation enhancements on Lot
52 as well.
Commissioner Bristol clarified yes, because it could be seen.
Commissioner Koos states given the increased separations between the units on the Gilbert frontage, for
example between 30 and 31, it would be much more attractive to have side elevations there as well.
• Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Yalda regarding the traffic on Gilbert Street, if it would work any better
if the houses faced inward and they were not backing onto Gilbert Street.
Mr. Yalda responded it really did not make any difference to Traffic and Transportation it is going to work
anyway because they already have houses facing Gilbe~t Street.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if there would be any chance that it would get red curbed at anytime in the
future.
Mr. Yalda responded they generally do not put red curbs in front of people's houses. They understand
are going to park in front of their houses.
Chairperson Bostwick asked if it would be possible to put up the block wall along La Palma Avenue and
put landscaping there first so that it would begin to grow and be some buffer while they are building the
project.
Mr. Myhre responded they would agree to have it installed prior to the first occupancy, but it is really key
on getting a water system installed.
Chairperson Bostwick asked if they were going to build it in phases.
Mr. Myhre responded probably on a couple of phases and as soon as the water is installed they could get
the landscaping, which is usually the challenge.
Commissioner Koos asked if Western Pacific Housing would install the individual lots and landscaping.
Mr. Myhre responded yes, Western Pacific Housing would install front yard landscaping in all the homes.
, Commissioner Koos asked if it were an approval he would agree to.
08-26-02
Page 15
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. Myhre responded yes, they are going to do it.
Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify whether Condition No. 30 was being eliminated by articulation
stipulations.
Mr. McCafferty states the minutes will document a stipulation by the petitioner to enhance the elevations
that were noted on the lots.
OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request.
IN GENERAL: One person spoke with concerns/suggestions to the subject request.
IN SUPPORT: 6 people spoke in favor of the subject request.
4 additional people spoke in favor of the subject request, but with some
concerns/suggestions (2 people were representing West Anaheim Neighborhood
Development Council).
A letter was received from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce (PresidenUCEO) in
support of the subject request.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
• Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00404
(to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the Low Density Residential
land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by
adopting Exhibit "A".
Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00077 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A-
43,000 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the
staff report dated August 26, 2002.
Granted Variance No. 2002-04512, in part, denying waiver (b) pertaining to minimum
lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway since it has been deleted subsequent to
advertisement; and approving waivers pertaining to (a) required improvements of
private streets, (c) minimum lot width, (d) minimum lot area, (e) maximum lot coverage,
and (~ minimum open space, to construct a 63-unit (originally 76-unit) detached single-
family residential subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff
report dated August 26, 2002, with the following modifications:
Deleted Condition Nos. 27 and 28 (these conditions were removed and added to the
Tentative Tract Map No. 16359 conditions of approval).
Modified Condition Nos. 30, 31 and 33 to read as follows:
08-26-02
Page 16
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• « »• .
30. That as stipulated by the applicant during the public hearing, the front setback of
the homes on Lots 2 and 9 shall be increased, the applicant shall look at reversing
the homes on Lots 28 and 52, if feasible, and the following building elevations
shall include enhanced building articulations similar to those identified on
Exhibit No. 17:
31. That the proposed decorative block walls along the east and south property
line except in required front yards, shall be limited to si*-E6} seven (7) feet in
• height, subject to approval of an Administrative Adjustment in compliance
with Section 18.12.080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall
be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
33. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from
the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, ~~ 29, 30 and 31,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete
said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code.
Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16359 to establish a 66-lot (63 numbered and
3 lettered), 63-unit detached single-family residential subdivision, subject to the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 26, 2002, with the
following modifications:
Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 14 to read as follows:
That as proposed by the petitioner, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) recorded in conjunction with the final map shall require notice to all
owners and occupants that no additional bedrooms shall be permitted for any
dwelling unit without compliance with the minimum number of parking spaces
required by Chapter 18.06 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and that opaque
windows on the 2"d floor, abutting the single-family homes, shall be provided
and maintained in order to preserve privacy.
14. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,12, 13,
• 16 and 17, a~a~e herein-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows:
08-26-02
Page 17
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 16. That the City of Anaheim sewer connection fee shall be paid.
17. That the developer shal{ pay the Sewer Capacity Mitigation Fee for the West
Anaheim Area.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the
City Council.
DtSCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 24 minutes (1:48-3:12)
•
~
08-26-02
Page 18
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4114 September 23, 2002
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04564)
OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street, # 105, La Palma, CA
92801
AGENT: Jose R. Villaflor, 3150 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92801
LOCATION: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue. Suite 128. Property is
approximately 5.8 acres located south and east of the
southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western
Avenue (EZ Dancing Company).
Requests reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved May 22,
2000, to expire May 22, 2002) to retain a dance studio and public dance
hall within a commercial retail center with modification of a condition of
approval pertaining to hours of operation.
Continued from the July 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8400AN.DOC
• - - - - - - - - --... -- - - -
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to continue the subject request to
the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner
in order to resolve parking issues within the commercial retail center.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
~
08-26-02
Page 19
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 Concurred with staff
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04569 (READVERTISED) Granted
4d. INITIATION OF RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00082 Approved Initiation
OWNER: Tawa Anaheim Plaza, 6281 Regio Avenue, Buena
Park, CA 90620
Mi1an Properties, LLC, 617 North Euclid Street,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: HAS, Attn: Randy Gordon, 6409 Independence,
Woodland Hilis, CA 91367
LOCATION: 601-697 North Euclid Street. Property is
approximately 10.6 acres located at the northwest
corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04569-Request to permit the division
of tenant spaces within an existing commercial retail center to create five
(5) additional retail units with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
Reclassification No. 2002-00082-City-initiated request to initiate
reclassification proceedings from the CL and CG zones to the CL zone.
Continued from the July 29 and August 12, 2002, Planning Commission
meetings.
• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-125 SR8401AN.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04569, 601-697 North
Euclid Street, a City-initiated request to initiate reclassification proceedings from the CL and CG zones to
the CL zone and a request to permit the division of tenant spaces within an existing commerciaf retail
center to create two (2) additional retail units with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ApplicanYs Testimony:
Anthony Fiorentino, 6409 Independence Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA, of Hovvard Spun Associates
Architects, states he is present with Ms. Gail Adragner of Milan Properties, LLC on behalf of the owner,
and they are present to accept the project. They propose to issue a new use permit which covers the
conditions of the various older permits that were on the property, including demising the space at the front
of the property, a 6848 square foot space into four new tenant spaces and an additional demising of the
space at the rear of the property to increase the number of demise spaces as shown in the staff report.
They have worked with staff through the process and other actions will be taken on the center in terms of
the design, but they are in concurrence with findings and recommendations with respect to the staff report
and point out a couple of issues as follows:
Page 3, a typographical error, the space that they are going to demise at 6848 square feet
will be demised into four spaces consisting of two 1,500 square feet spaces, one a;3A~ 1,208
square foot space and one 2,540 square foot space.
2. A request for minor clarifications and possible lead way on the following:
~ - Condition No. 7, "That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located
outside the buildings". It is an existing center that has been at the location since
08-26-02
Page 20
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ approximately 1960 and there are two existing phones near the Ranch Market. He states
they can live without them but the telephones are a convenience to the patrons who
frequent the center.
- Condition No. 20, they want to clarify that the shopping carts for the center are stored
inside the existing market and they do not anticipate changing that or putting cart corrals
outside the center. However, there are two drop-off areas outside, in the park area, and
they want to make sure those can remain for the convenience of the patrons and for
tra~c safety.
- Condition No. 21, with respect to the lighting plan for the parking area, initially they had
not intended to do any work in the parking area with regard to the lighting. They do not
have a problem with the condition and think it is a good condition for the safety and
policing of the center. They ask for additional time to get the plan together in that they
hope to pull a permit at their earliest convenience. They are going to do some additional
construction work at the center and will be pulling a separate permit for structural work
that they are doing and wondered if it could perhaps be tied to that permit.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the phones could be moved inside the entrance area of the 99 Market.
Mr. Fiorentino responded they have not spoken to the market about it but could certainly look into it.
Commissioner Boydstun responded they are trying to do away with the phones outside because they are
the ones that they have trouble with.
• Mr. Fiorentino states he is not sure the store would want them inside but perhaps they would.
Commissioner Vanderbilt states since Starbucks is one of the tenants proposed and they tend to have
longer operating hours, maybe it could also be considered as a possible location for placing the phones.
Commissioner Bristol asked if on Condition No. 21 he wished to have more than a year's time.
Mr. Fiorentino responded no, they would hope to pull a permit within approximately 3 to 4 weeks as soon
as their appeal period expires.
Commissioner Bristol states Condition No. 26 states one year.
Chairperson Bostwick asked staff if it could be taken out of Condition No. 26 and put into the condition
within 90 days of approval.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states that would work, the condition requires a plan to be
submitted and the lighting is taken care of after that.
Mr. Fiorentino states 30 days should be fine.
OPPOSITION: NONE
IN GENERAL: One person spoke unrelated to the subject request, but pertaining to the signage of the
existing market in the commercial center.
•
08-26-02
Page 21
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the
definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04569 (to permit the division of tenant spaces
within an existing commercial retail center to create five (5) additional retail units).
Amended Resolution No. 84R-434 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution
which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1-25 are new
conditions; and Condition Nos. 21 and 26 were modified at today's meeting):
1. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file
with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
2. That all trash generated from this commercial retail center shall be properly contained
in trash bins contained within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall
be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the
sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code
Enforcement Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for
additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or
• frequency of pick-up shall be paid for by the business owner.
3. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground, outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any other
large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water
Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback
area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross
Connection Inspector before submittal for building permits.
4. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Any
existing water services that are not approved by Water Utility staff for continued use
shall be upgraded to current standards, or abandoned by developer. If the existing
services are no longer needed, they shall be abandoned by the developer.
5. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications,
relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be
coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities
Department.
6. That any necessary relocation of existing electrical facilities or streetlights shall be at
the expense of the developer. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of all pad-
mounted equipment shall be required.
7. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the
buildings.
• 8. That no outdoor storage, display or sales of inerchandise or fixtures shall be
permitted.
08-26-02
Page 22
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 9. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely
manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead.
10. That roof-mounted balloons or other inflated devices shall not be permitted.
11. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted
anywhere on subject property without proper permits issued by the City of Anaheim.
12. That no vending machines shall be permitted on the property, which are visible from
the public right-of-way.
13. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the
screening requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section Nos. 18.41.030.090 and
18.44.030.120 pertaining to the CL Zone and the CG Zone. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for Zoning and Building Division approval.
14. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor
storage use.
15. 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.
16. That the owner shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all
times.
17. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to 44 units as reflected on the site
• plan (Exhibit No. 1).
18. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to all legal existing signage as of the
date of this resolution. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the
Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
19. That aN wall sign cabinets shall be properly maintained with sign copy panels.
20. That shopping carts shall be stored inside the building and there shall be no outdoor
storage or stacking of shopping carts.
21. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained with lighting of sufficient
power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of all
persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and
shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate adjacent properties.
That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, a plan
showing said lighting shall be submitted to the Community Services Division of the
Police Department for review and approval.
22. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color
to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or
adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted
for Police Department, Community Services Division approval.
23. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are
on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) and as
• conditioned herein.
08-26-02
Page 23
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 24. That the legal owner of the subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3203 (to permit the division of commercial
space in an existing commercial retail center from 30 to 39 units with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces) to the Zoning Division.
25. That the property owner shall submit a preliminary title report to the Zoning Division
showing legal vesting title, a legal description and a map of the property.
26. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from the
date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 13, ~; 22, 24, and
25 above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 23,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
28. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to
the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action
or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other
applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Approved initiation of Reclassification No. 2002-00082 (to initiate reclassification
proceedings from the CL and CG zones to the CL zone).
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
• Selma Mann, Assistant Cit Attorne , resented the 22-da a eal ri hts.
Y Y P Y pP 9
DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (3:13-3:23)
r
08-26-02
Page 24
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00078 September 23, 2002
5c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Commercial L. P., 202 North Curry Street, Suite 100,
Carson City, NV 89703-4121
AGENT: Coorg Cooperation, P. O. Box 1266, Anaheim, CA
92815
LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 4.3 acres
having a frontage of 70 feet on the north side of La
Palma Avenue located 255 feet east of the centerline of
Pauline Avenue.
RECLASSIFICATION 2002-00078 - Request reclassification from the
RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the ML (Limited Industrial),
or a less intense zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 - Request to permit
indoor self-storage and an outdoor storage yard including RV, boat,
tractor trailer, automobile/truck and construction vehicles with waiver of
minimum side yard setback adjacent to a residential zone.
Continued from the July 29 and August 12, 2002, Planning Commission
• meetings.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8398VN.DOC
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to continue the subject request to the
September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in
order to resolve issues relative to utility and railroad easements and to revise and submit
plans to reflect existing site conditions.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
~
08-26-02
Page 25
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04576 Granted
OWNER: Spieker Properties, L. P., 19600 Fairchild, # 285, Irvine,
CA 92612
Equity Office Properties, 2400 East Katella Avenue,
Suite 580, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: Cingular Wireless, Attn: Mark Rivera, 2521 Michelle
Drive, Irvine, CA 92780
LOCATION: 180 North Riverview Drive. Property is approximately
3.6 acres having a frontage of 170 feet on the
northwesterly side of Riverview Drive located 319 feet
north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Request to permit a roof-mounted telecommunications antenna and
accessory roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
Continued from the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-126 SR8382VN.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04576, 180 North
~ Riverview Drive, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a roof-mounted telecommunications antenna and
accessory roof-mounted equipment in the scenic corridor overlay zone.
Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless
telecommunications industry. While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined
that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived
conflict.
Applicant's Testimony:
Jim Todaro, 5440 Trebuco Road, Inrine, CA of Consulting Group, representing Cingular Wireless, states
they propose a wireless communications facility that will be unmanned on the roof of the building at 180
North Riverview Drive in keeping with the general plan, and they have complied with staff's
recommendations for the design and structure.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04576 (to permit a roof-mounted
telecommunications antenna with accessory roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report
dated August 26, 2002.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Romero absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
• DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes 3:24-3:26
~ )
08-26-02
Page 26
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
7a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PREV.-CERTIFIED)
7b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00405
7c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00081
OWNER: Lincoln Beach, 14011 Ventura Souievard, # 404,
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
Richard Brocamante, 141 North Richmont Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa
Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue. The site consists of
two properties with a combined area of approximately
25 acres having a frontage of 490 feet on the north side
of Lincoln Avenue located 320 feet east of the
centerline of Beach Boulevard.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 20d2-00405 - Request to amend
the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use
designation.
s
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00081 - Request reclassification of the
properties from the RM-1200 and RM-1000 (Residential, Multiple-Family)
zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
OPPOSITION: None
Continued to
September 9, 2002
SR2119DS.DOC
ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to continue the subject request to
the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in
order to concurrently consider the subject GPA and RCL request in conjunction with the
upcoming CUP and PCN request for the commercial retail center as described in the
staff report dated August 26, 2002.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
~
08-26-02
Page 27
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04586 (READVERTISED) Granted
OWNER: Foundry C. Anaheim, 1001 Compton Avenue, Corona,
CA 92879
Car Core Inc., 1314 North Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Philip ~. Anthony, 14101 La Pat Place, Unit 10,
Westminster, CA 92683
LOCATION: 125 East Commercial Street. Property is
approximately 3 acres located north and east of the
northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and
Commercial Street (Car Core, Inc.).
Request to permit a recycling business* with waivers of a) required
parking lot landscaping, b) required structural setback abutting an arterial
highway and c) minimum landscape and structural setback adjacent to a
freeway right-of-way.**
* Advertised request included construct a new industrial building.
** Advertised as landscape setback.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-127 SR8403AN
DOC
~ .
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04586, 125 East
Commercial Street - Car Core, Inc., a request to permit a recycling business with waivers of: a) required
parking lot landscaping, b) required structural setback abutting an arterial highway and c) required
landscape and structural setback adjacent to a freeway right-of-way.
Philip Anthony, 14101 LaPat Place No. 10, Westminster, CA, representing Car Core, Inc., states the
proposal is for a new industrial building on Commercial Street, but it affects the key corner of Anaheim
Soulevard and 91-Freeway. It is the former home of the Anaheim Foundry Company for many years, but
has been vacant for approximately 5 years. The property is unusually shaped with a very long frontage
on the 91-Freeway on the off ramp, and includes Anaheim Boulevard and Commercial Street, which is its
official address. The building is located at the east end where there is parking and landscaping along the
freeway and Commercial Street. They propose a very high quality, modern and industrial building with
many architectural features to it, which will make it a very attractive building.
In the morning session a question came up regarding the 5-foot setback along the east side of the
building from the actual concrete batch plant to the east. The industrial uses in the buildings involve
materials and parts inside the building stacked very high (high-pile storage) and that triggered a
requirement by the Fire Department for access doors on the side, and a 5-foot walkway.
They propose three basic kinds of uses for the building, two of which require a use permit. Of the two
that require a use permit, one is recycling of automotive catalytic converters, and the other is recycling of
electronic parts, computers and any kind of electronic equipment. The third use does not require a
Conditional Use Permit, but is another major use in the building, and involves reconditioning of steel case
industrial batteries. Industrial batteries empower all forklifts, extension equipment, and all working
• equipment that runs the industry in the area. That use involves taking the batteries in, cleaning,
recharging, changing cefls, and sending them back to work again.
08-26-02
Page 28
AUGUST 26, Zooz
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ The project is owner built and occupied by long standing business people. One group has been in
Anaheim for many years and will do the two recycling kind of businesses. The third is a new business
coming to Anaheim called Motive Energy, and they are currently located in Santa Fe Springs, but they are
a fong standing operator of the business of refurbishing and reconditioning the industrial batteries.
They agree with the staff report, except for finro waivers. One waiver is a reduction in the setback along
the freeway ramp, just where the building is, from 25 feet to 20 feet. 7he rest of the frontage has the full
setback, going back to 40 feet and they propose to fully landscape it.
They fee{ the 5-foot reduction in setback along the building itself is a very small change in light of the
tremendous landscaping far beyond the code requirements. The code allows as little as 10 feet of
landscaping on the frontage and Commission allows the parking lot to come in 15 feet of that setback,
leaving only 10 feet for landscaping, which occurs in many places along the freeway in Anaheim, but they
are proposing that the setback be fully landscaped and have been working with the Redevelopment
Department for some time. Redevelopment has been anxious to see the corner developed, because of
its impact on the City's entry. After seeing the landscape plan, including the setback they were happy
with it, except they asked for even more landscaping on some of their favorite trees. Mexican fan palm
and teepoo trees have been added along with some of the standard trees. Those enhancements have
amounted to approximately $23,000 extra cost in addition to the basic landscaping Commission requires.
There is a willingness to do a tremendous amount of landscaping, which would more than satisfy the
needs for the freeway frontage.
The freeway ramp is the first, approximately 20 feet beyond the property land. The ramp comes from the
high point on Anaheim Boulevard and goes down hill. The freeway dives under Anaheim Boulevard and
the people on the freeway itself are going underground and are below site level all the way. The only
people that would really see the landscaping close-up are the people who are going on the on ramp and
they would be looking at an angle and would not stop to look and notice a 5 foot difference in setback.
~ They will look at the two corners of the building, which are the entry points of the building and they wifl be
enhanced architectural work and setback relieves, articulations, which you can see on the elevations, so
the main view from the freeway ramp will have a very attractive corner.
The other waiver involves the landscape fingers in the parking areas. The code requires no more than 10
parking spaces between landscape fingers. It is better to have the fingers facing each other from side to
side where appropriate and not have them in odd places in the lot. It is better for the overall layout and
traffic safety to keep it the way it is. In addition they propose approximately 19 key shade trees instead of
the 14 the code requires.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun states the driveway put in by the state to go into the back top part by the on
ramp is quite a drop down and asked if they planned to level it out and if trucks would come in that way.
Mr. Anthony responded the trucks would always come in that way and in the final design it would be
corrected to be much safer and less of a grade.
Chairperson Bostwick states they have a variance for 5 feet along the freeway and Commission plans a
waiver for Commercial Street and if they were to move the buifding towards Commercial Street by 5 feet
Commission would eliminate one waiver. Since that street is really not a major arterial street anymore,
and being a smaller street, they could come closer to the street.
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, states if Commercial Street were identified as a local street the required
setback would be 5 feet.
Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states Commercial Street should be developed to the industrial
~ street standards, which calls for the right-of-way line to be 32 feet from centerline. The site plan currently
shows 30 feet and the applicant would only have 8 feet to work with in terms of the front setback. The
current circulation element shows Commercial Street as a secondary arterial, so City Works would back
08-26-02
Page 29
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ down to the standard industrial street right-of-way and that calls for the curb being at 26 feet from
centerline and the right-of-way line extending back to 32 feet from centerline.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff confirmed with the Fire Department that 5 feet is needed
at the east property line, because of the stacked storage inside the building as well as exiting doors along
the east elevation of the building.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff if they feel the remedies the applicant proposes is enough to
compensate for the shortcomings, or if there is a consistency question with other applicants.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded staff feels it would be simply a matter of reducing
the size of the building to make everything work. In terms of the waivers, the applicant has made a good
point about the landscape fingers and there is more landscaping adjacent the freeway and the parking
area than what code requires. Staff recommends approval of the waiver adjacent to Commercial Street
as well as the landscape fingers giving the justification the applicant gave, but denial of the waiver of the
landscaping between the building and the freeway.
Mr. Anthony states one key point is that the buildings are being built and occupied by the owners
themselves and they know what they need. To them just reducing the building size is not a good choice.
It means they are giving themselves less building than they are willing to pay for and use and that is why
they have asked for the waiver. It is vital to their operations today and with reasonable growth for the
future. They are proposing to do business entirely within the building. There are no outside activities or
outside storage. The building space is precious.
Commissioner Bristol states it is great, it is going to make an improvement on Commercial Street and the
91-Freeway on-ramp:
~ • • • • ' • • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows:
Approved waiver (a) pertaining to required parking lot landscaping based upon the
Commission's determination that the lot is an irregularly-shaped parcel.
(Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Romero absent)
Approved waivers pertaining to (b) required structural setback adjacent to an arterial
highway because although Commercial Street is identified as an arterial highway,
changes in the immediate surroundings have changed the traffic patterns and circulation
on this street such that it functions more like a local street. Code requires only a five (5)
foot setback along a local street; and (c) landscape and structural setback adjacent to a
freeway right-of-way based upon the Commission's determinat+on that the {ot is an
irregularly-shaped parcel.
(Vote: 5-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Romero absent)
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04586 (to permit a recycling business),
subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 26, 2002.
VOTE ON CUP: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
• DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (3:27-4:00)
08-26-02
Page 30
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04584
OWNER: Joseph T. Kung, 20866 East Quail Run Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91789
AGENT: Ron Lee, 1105 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton,
CA 92833
LOCATION: 5557 East Santa Ana Canvon Road, Suite 101.
Property is approximately 5.0 acres located at the
northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Imperial Highway.
Request to permit a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade)
business.
" Advertised as a request to permit and retain.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
September 9, 2002
SR1090CW.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04584, 5557 East Santa
Ana Canyon Road, Suite 101, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a computer rental and Internet
amusement (arcade) business.
~ ApplicanYs Testimony:
Ron Lee, 1105 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA, speaking on behalf of the owner of Thirteen,
Inc., states they have an existing business in the City of Fullerton and deal with all the problems
Commission has brought up such as noise, close proximity to schools, residential area, and children of all
ages. The business is an office type environment with bright lightings and all workstations being visible
from the front desk. Whatever site a person goes onto they can monitor from the workstation from the
front desk. 7here is no tolerance for pornography, alcohol, drugs, or profanity. Two employees, a
manager and a clerk run each shift. The clerk supervises the time and the computer used by the clients,
and the manager walks around making sure clients are not on unauthorized sites. They have a security
guard so if students were to skip school and come to their place they would turn them away. They have
cameras just in case any problems would arise.
As to concerns of being too close to residential areas they provide a good service to the residents.
Providing high-speed Internet, fast computers, and close proximity to the residents, so parents could
actually drop them off.
Because they have no speakers and everyone uses headphones there will not be any noise caused by
the games played or computers used.
They spoke to the Vice Principal of Canyon High School and were told there was concern about the high
school children going to the Internet cafe during school hours. The Vice Principal was asked to visit the
cafe to make sure it would be good for the children and that the applicants are doing what is expected of
them.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ Commissioner Boydstun asked if they were operating a business at the present time.
Mr. Lee responded yes, they have one in the City of Fufferton.
08-26-02
Page 31
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Boydstun asked if they were maintaining that business or moving.
~ Mr. Lee responded they were maintaining the business and the parents and residents like their business
being there, because they are helping out with the community.
Commissioner Boydstun asked what the hours were.
Mr. Lee responded the hours are from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven days a week.
Commissioner Bristol asked what type of clients did the business have after 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Lee responded after 10:00 p.m. the clients are adults and college students, because most college
students stay up late to study.
Commissioner Bristol asked if they have games after 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Lee responded yes, there are games after 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the college children are the ones playing the games.
Mr. Lee responded usually the games are being played from approximately 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and
after that it is mostly Internet use or children coming in to do homework.
Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify what age children were there after 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Lee responded college children who come to work on the Internet, which includes high speed Tijuan
Internet Access.
~ Commissioner Bristol asked how long they have been in operation.
Mr. Lee responded approximately 8 months.
Commissioner Koos asked if they have had any security issues in Fullerton.
Mr. Lee responded no, because they run a tight shift.
Commissioner Bristol asked if they ever have patrons from other locations.
Mr. Lee responded no, never.
Commissioner Koos asked if they object to Condition Nos. 19 and 20 regarding security cameras as well
as a state licensed security guard.
Mr. Lee responded no, they do not object to it.
Commissioner Koos asked if they have a security guard in Fuflerton.
Mr. Lee responded yes.
Commissioner Eastman asked if it is in addition to the two employees o~ shift.
Mr. Lee responded from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. the business acquires youths from 12 to 15 years old,
who are easy to control. But after that time they have security to control the older and potentially rowdy
crowds.
• Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he had reviewed the letter from the Principal of Canyon High School.
08-26-02
Page 32
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Mr. Lee responded yes, and after reviewing the letter they addressed their concerns and spoke to the
Vice Principal.
Commissioner Vanderbilt states the staff report indicates Mr. Kung, the landlord, still has not complied
with all the previous conditions of approval in reference to landscaping.
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, responded that is correct. The Conditional Use Permit that granted
conformity for the commercial center requires the planting of trees to comply with current code along with
street frontages and that has not been done to date. That condition would have to be complied with prior
to commencement of this activity.
Commissioner Koos asked if they had to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in the City of Fullerton.
Mr. Lee responded no.
Commissioner Koos asked if they put the security guard on the premises at their own motivation.
Mr. Lee responded yes, to make sure they had a safe environment.
Commissioner Koos asked if there were any incidences.
Mr. Lee responded no.
Commissioner Bristol suggested a two week continuance to answer the questions regarding landscaping
and to research the history of the existing business.
• OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to continue the subject request to
the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to discuss with the
owner of subject property reasons for non-compliance with landscaping conditions, for
staff to obtain information on the applicant's existing business in the City of Fullerton,
and allow the applicant time to meet with the Principal of Canyon High School.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (4:01-4:14}
•
08-26-02
Page 33
AUGUST 26, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~~
Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, indicated the Revised Housing Element has
been agendized for Commission's review for the Planning Commission meeting of
September 9, 2002. He distributed the "Draft" Revised Housing Element to the
Commission.
~
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:16 P.M.
TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 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.
•
08-26-02
Page 34