Minutes-PC 2002/11/04•
CITY OF ANAHEIM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
•
CHAIRPERSON: PAUL BOSTWICK
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PHYLLiS BOYDSTUN, STEPHEN BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN,
JOHN KOOS, DAVID ROMERO, JAMES VANDERBILT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT:
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner -_ Pat..Chandler, Senior Secretary
Steve Rodig, Police Lieutenant' Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted'at 9:00 a.m. on
Friday, November 1, 2002, inside; he display case located-in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in
the outside display kiosk.
PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper. on Thursday,. October-10, 2002.
CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION--MORNING SESSION 11:00 A'.M.
• STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISStJ~S (AS REQUESTED`BY
PLANNING COMMISSION)
• PRELIMINARY PLAN"REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE NOVEMBER 4, 2002 AGENDA
C
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION
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 if to the secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
j_H \DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESAC110402_DOC _______________
__________Plannin~c~commission~a„~„anaheim=net
NOVEMBER 4, 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 on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the
Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION
CARRIED, to continue Consent Calendar Item 1-A as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
•
A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to
Meetings of October 21, 2002. (Motion) November 18, 2002
(This item was not discussed)
Vote: 7-0
•
11-04-02
Page 2
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• PU BLIC HEARING ITEMS•
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.2002-00080 Granted
2c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
2d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04589 Granted, in part
2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16412 Approved, in part
OWNER: Theodore C. Dinkier, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Olson Urban Housing, LLC, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway,
Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740
LOCATION: 226 North Rio Vista Street. Property is approximately
2.9 acres having a frontage of 290 feet on the east side
of Rio Vista Street located 130 feet north of the
centerline of Dutch Avenue.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00080 -Reclassification of this property
from the RS-A-43,000 (O) (Residential/Agricultural; Oil Production
Overlay) zone to the RM-3000(0) (Residential, Multiple-Family; Oil
Production Overlay) zone or a less intense zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2002-04589: To construct a 28-unit
detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of
a) minimum private street standards, b) maximum fence height, c)
minimum number and type of parking spaces, d) maximum structural
• height within 150 feet of asingle-family residential zone, e) minimum
structural setback abutting an arterial highway, f) minimum distance
between buildings, g) minimum landscaped setback abutting asingle-
family zone and h) minimum recreational leisure area.
"Waivers (a), (c) and (h) have been deleted
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16412: To establish a 1-lot, 28-unit
airspace detached residential condominium subdivision.
Continued from the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-163
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-164 SR1091CW.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04589, 226 North
Rio Vista Street, to construct a 28-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with
waivers of a) minimum private street standards, b) maximum fence height, c) minimum number and
type of parking spaces, d) maximum structural height within 150 feet of asingle-family residential
zone, e) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, f) minimum distance between
buildings, g) minimum landscaped setback abutting asingle-family zone and h) minimum recreational
leisure area. Note: Waivers (a), (c) and (h) have been deleted.
Commissioner Koos announced his absence from the previous meeting but stated he read the
minutes and therefore wished to participate and vote on the item.
11-04-02
Page 3
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Applicant's Testimony:
Alex Hernandez, Vice President of the Olson Company, states Item No. 2 continued from the
September 9, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting to work out the technical difficulties of the site plan
with regards to sidewalk and trash and also to give an opportunity for the Olson Company and
neighbors to get together once again to see if questions regarding the site plan could be answered
and hopefully come to a resolution.
He states with regards to the technical issues of the site plan, resolutions are reflected in the staff
report. Sidewalks are provided on both sides and the trash issue has been resolved to the City's
satisfaction.
A slide presentation of each view was presented to illustrate the site:
^ An aerial view of the site shows the existing single family to both the east and west of Rio
Vista Street, as well as the elementary school and surrounding uses.
^ A colored rendering of the revised site plan show the proposed development of 28 single-
family homes.
^ A technical site plan shown as the tentative map was included in the Commission packet.
^ Architectural - The Olson Company has worked with staff to orient the houses forward onto
Rio Vista Street so that a passerby would not see a walled community, but would see front
porches, fences and landscaping. Only one building would have a side elevation and would
be enhanced as looks onto Rio Vista Street.
^ The Olson Company offers 3 product lines with various architectural styles.
^ Floor Plans consist of four-bedroom units ranging in sizes from 1,150 to 2,200 square feet.
There were two community meetings and one Planning Commission meeting which was continued:
- The project is not aloes-income project, it is pure market rate selling for
approximately $400,000.
- As shown in the staff report, the proposed development not only meets but also
exceeds the City's requirements for adequate parking.
- Density was discussed at length at the community meeting. The City's general plan
designation allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre, which would equate to
approximately 52 units. The Olson Company's proposed development is for 28
single-family homes.
- Every homeowner will have curbside trash service.
- The Olson Company heard the concern of the perceived impact of their development
and how if would deteriorate the current traffic situation in front of Rio Vista School
and initiated a meeting with the City Traffic Engineer and Planners. His analysis
resolved that the subject project, as it was designed, would not have any negative
impact to the adjacent uses or further impact to the streets. However, the Olson
Company asked the City Engineer if there was anything they could do to mitigate
what is perceived as an issue in front of the school. The Traffic Engineer made three
recommendations: 1)Eliminate parking on the west side of Rio Vista Street.
Currently, people drop children off on the west side of the street which is causing
problems for the neighbors, 2) Stripe bike lanes on both sides of the street, and 3)
Establish a permanent metered speed signal that would deter speeders in the area.
The Olson Company, in order to build consensus with the neighbors, would
coordinate with the City and pay to implement the changes in order to be a good
neighbor and have their project move forward.
11-04-02
Page 4
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Chairperson Bostwick states there is some misconception with the product. It is listed as residential
condominium subdivision but is single-family detached residences, which is a similar product to the
neighborhood that surrounds the project. There is a lot of concern about the school district and the
impacts on the school district and he asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain where the
Commission is limited in its judgment to the school, fees and the impacts on the school.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states the legislature has preempted the City's jurisdiction over
anything having to do with school fees and school construction. The City is limited to the developer
fees that have been statutorily established by the legislature. There is an additional statute that
indicates the City may not deny the project based upon the impact on the schools. Therefore, the
Planning Commission may consider all other issues relating to the project.
Public Testimony:
Stella Heimbigner, 321 N. Plantation Place, Anaheim, CA, states there are seven houses on Dutch
Avenue therefore, she can see putting seven houses against them but not 26 houses. The west side
of the street in front of Carnival Avenue has been striped to state, "Keep Clear" but the left turn lane is
not. Therefore, someone could not turn left because people coming the other way are blocking them.
.She feels that needs to be addressed. She asked if the curb on the project in front of the turn-in
would be in line with the school's curb and if Commission feels the contractor could get 26 houses on
the site without it appearing congested. She understands the City cannot legislate the land for the
school but feels the Planning Commission could plan the land for the school, which it needs
desperately. The Rio Vista School currently has temporary buildings as well as Katella High School
and any other school in the area. The area is jammed-pack, but continues to put in new temporary
buildings every year. The sixth graders are being sent over to Kramer, but Kramer is having the
same problem and asks that the 6 graders be sent back because there is no place to put them. She
asks if they cannot come to a compromise where part of the land is given to the school and put in
• seven homes to back up against the 7 existing homes on Dutch Avenue. She feels traffic-wise and
school-wise it is practical living for being so cramped together.
Jean Houghton, 327 Plantation Place, states she lives approximately one block from the school and
her major concern is trying to get a crossing guard to stop the children from running across the street.
Coming down Rio Vista Street from Ventura Street, there are cars coming in and school buses trying
to get in. She only lives one block away but has to come up from Carnival Avenue to Rio Vista
Street. She understands that the City is going to furnish a light, but states parking is still lacking.
During the meetings at the school, people park one block down Carnival Avenue and Plantation
Place. The neighborhood does not object to that but she feels a traffic light is needed. She proposes
cut down the speed limit and install a traffic light, so the children can get across the street to meet
their parents because the parents cannot get into the parking lot.
Ray Abney, 2733 E. Carnival Avenue, Anaheim, CA, a retired and substitute teacher of the Anaheim
Union High School District states he lives directly across from the school and is quite interested in
what happens to the students. He feels it is a death trap and the location of the light is very
important. He asks if the Olson Company says they are putting in a light, would that be to improve
the sale of their homes or for the protection of the children at the school, because the location would
change.
Chairperson Bostwick clarified the Olson Company is not proposing a traffic light, but a speed
indicator because the Traffic Engineer does not want a traffic light there.
Mr. Abney states for the past week there has been construction on the site and all of the vegetation,
etc. has been removed. He asks where do they stand and what is the construction about and, is the
Olson Company the previous owner or is this something that the City demands a transfer of property.
He feels it is right for construction to start before the decisions are supposedly made. He lives on the
north side of Carnival Avenue, the corner lot, and is the closest resident to the school. He has
problems with people parking in his driveway. His driveway is right next to the corner and people
block his driveway where he cannot pull into it. His neighbor, who could not be present, has the
11-04-02
Page 5
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• same problem on the opposite corner across the street. He realizes there are not enough parking
spaces for teachers at the school because there is more faculty than parking spaces therefore, they
park all along the street. He feels the west side of Rio Vista Street is going to be automobiles for
approximately the entire length because of the high density across the street on garbage day. He
asks what is going to happen to their neighborhood because they would still like to get in and out of
their driveways and he would like to see the children have some type of safe. The Traffic Engineers
past over the crosswalk and did not cover the critical area where it states, "keep traffic clear". If there
were a crosswalk, it would protect the children. He feels something has to be done or more
importantly 28 houses on a very small tract of land.
Michael Dresser, 108 S. Beth Circle, states he was present at the September 9, 2002 Planning
Commission Meeting and objected to the proposed project. However, because of some of the
changes already made and the proposed changes, he is now in favor of the project due to the
following:
1) That the traffic issues are resolved, going farther than painting a couple of stripes on the
road.
2) The speed limits have to be reduced to 30 mph.
3) The no parking areas need to be expanded, and not just in front of the school.
4) There needs to be "no loading/unloading" during certain times of the day to try to keep the
children from running across the street, etc.
He states if those issues are mitigated and if the City was able to provide the traffic services to allow
a landowner to build on his property then he would say the Olson Company should be allowed to go
forward.
He concurs with the recommendation by the Planning Department and that is to reduce the number of
• units on the property from 28 to 26. That would mitigate two issues: 1) Traffic trash pick-up and 2)
reduce the density of the project.
Ronald Knowles, 2727 E. Carnival Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he has been in the area for
approximately 40 years and not too long after the tract was built across the street the City tore out
half of it and put in the 57-Freeway. Therefore, one of the main objections he has is the project does
not fit in with the neighborhood. The proposed project is basically row houses and he feels what
would fit in the area would be 5,000 square foot single-family dwellings rather than to compact 28 row
houses on the site.
In view of the traffic, Commission should seriously consider cutting down the number of units.
The school is designed for 500 students, but it has 1,500 students and regardless of what occurs, it
becomes a traffic bottleneck every single day. He states he lives across the street from the school
and if parking were prohibited on the west side of Rio Vista Street it would be impossible for him and
his neighbors to do anything. Currently, five days during the week no one can visit him and he cannot
have a repairperson come to his house because there is no parking. He cannot get into his driveway,
his neighbors cannot get into their driveway, and they cannot put their trashcans out because people
put them back on their lawns and park in front of them. The proposed project would potentially, with
their cars and visitors, add another 100-120 cars in the area. He feels if they cut down to 12 to 14
single-family dwellings that would not be a problem but 28 would create traffic congestion because
there is only one ingress and egress. Potentially, there would be numerous cars funneling to go to
work in the morning at the same time that 1,500 students are being dropped off. Therefore, he
disagrees with the Traffic Engineers' conclusion that it would not be a problem.
Paul Paretti, 2709 E. Mardi Gras Avenue, Anaheim, CA. states he will be living directly across from
the traffic coming out of the units and is concerned with parking. He has lived in the area for 14 years
and has seen a lot of vandalism to cars parked along Rio Vista Street. He is afraid the lack of parking
• in the unit is going to cause people to park down the street where he lives, causing a lot of extra
crime and damage to their property.
11-04-02
Page 6
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regarding the traffic situation, he would like to see a 4-way stop sign at the end of Mardi Gras
Avenue and Rio Vista Street with 4-foot wide speed bumps. He feels that would make the people
slow down, stop, and pay a little more attention to the stop signs. Currently, there are 75 teachers at
the school that need parking and if the City were to prohibit parking on the street, the teachers would
have to park on the street where he lives, as well as on Carnival Avenue. The plans state there are
15 parking stalls inside the community besides the driveways, but he cannot see where there is
enough room for fire trucks, etc., to get down the narrow streets when cars are parked along the
street.
Randi Trontz, 20490 Via Linares, Yorba Linda, CA, states while she does not live in the area, she is
the principal of Rio Vista Elementary School. They have 1,550 students and that makes for
approximately 3,000 parents and other assorted family members who are coming in and out of the
school. She wishes to clarify they not only have 75 teachers, but a staff of about 125. It is a very
busy place. The school does not start at 8 a.m. and if the Traffic Engineer went by at 8 a.m. looking
for traffic, he would not have found any. Their school starts at 9 a.m., so, if they would like to see
traffic, she suggests they come by at 8:45 a.m. The other interesting fact is they do not only impact
Rio Vista Street, but the area around Dutch Avenue and the entire park. The entire park area is
severely impacted by the school's traffic and that will also be affected when the proposed
development goes in. The school is not opposed to the development. Safety is the school's prime
concern and she does not have any idea what kinds of construction fences are going to be provided
for the school, but they would like to have some sort of a solid construction fence that their children
cannot access anything dangerous. She does not want them looking into the area when the
construction is being built since there are a lot of dangerous situations that arise during construction.
The other issue is the parking and the traffic and to have acrossing-guard and a crosswalk
somewhere on Rio Vista Street. She feels it would be safer closer to Jackson Avenue so that it is not
impacting the cars coming into the driveway. That would be important. About half of their school
comes from the area north of La Palma Avenue and many of them walk in so they also need a
• crossing-guard on La Palma Avenue and Chantilly Street. Approximately 800 to 900 children could
walk or drive. Many of them are walking on the streets with no crossing-guards and no supervision at
all and she feels this is a good opportunity to provide extra safety for students in the City of Anaheim.
There is also an upcoming opportunity for the City of Anaheim to enter a joint venture with the school
district to provide an extra parking lot in the park behind the school. That would help with the entire
project to have a joint use parking lot in the back where many of the teachers could park. That would
get them off of the neighborhood streets and perhaps provide extra access for the people in the new
homes.
Chairperson Bostwick states Commission also received three communications regarding the item
from Jennifer Beetler, Holly Hillman and Terry McDonnell.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Hernandez states in general the majority of the issues and concerns raised are about the
adjacent use, existing conditions of the school and the traffic associated with the school, not their
project. To address the questions that were raised:
^ With regards to the south property line where there are eight existing single-family homes,
they are only proposing four single-family homes. The side yards, not the front yards or the
rear yards, face the neighbors to the back. That was done for privacy purposes. Also,
landscaping was replaced along that property line.
^ With regards to the demolition, the Olson Company does not own the property but is in
escrow on the property. The Dinkler's Trust still owns the property and has expressed
concern that now that they have vacated the property that vandals, etc., would get into the
building. They are taking a proactive measure on their part to secure their property. They
® have hired a demolition contractor and they have fenced off the property. They are
responsible for the removal of the trees and also preparation for the historic house on the site
to be relocated by the City.
11-04-02
Page 7
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• With regards to the comments heard from the neighbors, it is very important to point out that
none of the neighbors from Dutch Avenue spoke. Dutch Avenue is the street immediately
behind the project.
^ With regards to the community meetings, the first one was during the day and the second at
night. There were City representatives there who could verify that there were approximately
20 people at the meeting, and at that time, they had people in support of the project. In fact,
they were complaining about the vegetation and how it was buckling and breaking their
perimeter walls.
^ Regarding the perimeter walls, there will be new walls constructed adjacent to the school;
brand new masonry walls all the way around the perimeter. The Olson Company will be
working with the property owners on the south side to repair and rebuild the new walls.
Chairperson Bostwick asked if he has a problem with constructing the perimeter walls prior to the rest
of the construction so that it creates a safety barrier for the children.
Mr. Hernandez responded they would need to build those soon because there would be retaining
going on in certain locations of the property. First, would be the demolition, rough grading and then
the walls.
Chairperson Bostwick asked if he puts the walls up before he starts the actual house construction.
Mr. Hernandez responded yes, before starting the houses.
Chairperson Bostwick states in the staff report Condition No. 32 discussed a possible alternative that
• would remove two houses, create a loop, circle through the projects and through the streets, and that
would allow for individual trash pick up rather than having a trash service, etc.
Mr. Hernandez responded they are providing individual trash service to all of their homeowners. He
does not feel removing two houses along the south property line addresses any of the issues.
Approximately 80-90% of the comments were traffic issues, not density of the project or privacy to the
adjacent uses where there would be 4single-family homes adjacent to 8. He states if Commission
were to propose the removal of those two it would present a financial hardship as they are already
below the density permitted for the site.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Koos referred to staff and asked if they have an idea of the square footage of the
homes on Dutch Avenue.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states from his visual drive-thru of the neighborhood, they are
one and two-story homes, independent of the garage, approximately 15-1,800 square feet and
appear to be approximately 5,000 square foot lots.
Commissioner Koos referred to the developer and states he is familiar with some of his product in
Brea, CA, and the Brea product is located in an area that had a lot of redevelopment activity going on.
Therefore, he asked if he had any examples on projects that are similar to the proposed project
where there is an existing community.
Mr. Hernandez responded the Olson Company has done an array of product, specializing in infield
development or adjacent to single-family developments in the full spectrum of price range. They
range from the affordable end in Long Beach, Walnut Park and Santa Fe Springs to the higher end in
Torrance at $750,000 surrounded bysingle-family homes. In Anaheim, they consist of the
Peppertree on Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street, affordable Jamboree Housing, etc. and an array of
different products where units face the streets.
11-04-02
Page 8
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Koos asked if he provided visual examples of the products to the neighborhood when
he met with them.
Mr. Hernandez responded no, they passed out company brochures that had an array of their projects,
including award-winning projects from CRA, APA and architectural awards.
Chairperson Bostwick referred to the Traffic Engineer regarding Rio Vista Street and asked if putting
in a crosswalk and a flashing yellow light would not be a better choice than the speed indicator.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states there is a crosswalk available to the students at
Frontera Street. It is atwo-painted white line crosswalk that will be there 24 hours, 7 days a week
known as an uncontrolled crosswalk. However, people tend to pay less attention and accidents
happen in uncontrolled crosswalks more than patrolled crosswalks. Traffic & Transportation is
proposing to make some changes on Rio Vista and Frontera Streets to provide an area for the
parents to drop off their children closer to Frontera Street so that they can cross at the existing stop
sign instead of going down the middle of the street and crossing unsafely. Traffic & Transportation
has heard some residents state they would like to keep the parking on the west side therefore, they
are considering making it "no stopping anytime" between 7 to 10 a.m. or 8 to 10 a.m. and possibly in
the afternoons between 2 to 4 p.m. Regarding schools, he feels Placentia/Yorba Linda School should
consider providing adequate parking for their staff and teachers and not rely on the public street to
park. The Olson Company has agreed to pay up to $50,000 for the improvements.
Commissioner Koos states one of the residents brought up the concept of a 4-way stop sign at Mardi
Gras Avenue and Rio Vista Street and he asked what his thoughts were on that issue.
Mr. Yalda responded they have done a stop sign study for that intersection and resolved that Mardi
• Gras Avenue does not warrant the installation of a stop sign as it has very little traffic. Therefore,
they are studying Rio Vista Street as a secondary highway, which is on the City Master Plan of
Arterial Highways.
Commissioner Koos states he and Commissioner Vanderbilt visited the site during the a.m. and when
they were exiting the school the speed at which a big truck was traveling northbound was pretty
incredible. He had to really accelerate to get out of the school grounds. So, he is not thinking about
traffic issues as much as safety issues when it comes to a stop sign in the sense that it is a school,
and there is no commercial; it is all residential. A stop sign may be a good way of slowing the traffic
down.
Mr. Yalda responded they would be more than happy to look into speeding in that area. The posted
speed limit shows 25 mph and electronic equipment is installed next to the speed limit sign that
digitally remind drivers what their speed is. However, they would also talk to the Anaheim Police
Department regarding the enforcement of speed during the school hours, specifically when school
starts which is already posted at 25 mph.
Commissioner Koos states it is his experience as an Anaheim resident, that Rio Vista Street is a part
of town where he sometimes feel it is off a beat and path and the Police do not necessarily cruise
regularly through the area. He does not feel relying on the Police Department to enforce speeding on
the street is going to be that effective and people will continue to speed regardless of whatever high-
tech warning devices are put there. Therefore, with the school in the area, he wonders if it is better to
slow it down in a traditional fashion, which is stop signs.
Chairperson Bostwick states there is a stop sign at South and Rio Vista Streets and a traffic light at
Lincoln Avenue. However, from Frontera Street to Wagner Avenue there is nothing other than
Lincoln Avenue and a stop sign at South Street. Therefore, he asks if it is the same road and the
• same traffic, why couldn't they put a stop sign at Dutch Avenue.
11-04-02
Page 9
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Mr. Yalda responded a resolution by the City Council requires Traffic Engineering to follow guidelines
of the state of California for the installation of stop signs. One of the issues a lot of people do not pay
attention to is that the installation of stop signs, if not warranted, gets violated and increases
accidents. In fact, there is an area in the City that they are in the process of removing the stop sign
because 92% of the people do not stop at the stop sign. Traffic & Transportation has many years of
experience on the installation of stop signs and traffic signals and will look at all of the issues.
Commissioner Koos concurs Traffic & Transportation does have many years of experience, but states
the problem with a "we will look at it answer", is that there are many people from the community
present on days that they could be at work or have leisure time, that are concerned about the issue
as well as the Commission. He states, "You have stated in the past that you do not like the signalized
crosswalks, people do not recognize that there are passengers, and people have the false sense of
safety when they walk across them". If a crosswalk coupled with a legitimate stop sign were placed
right next to a school he would adhere to it and therefore feels most people would. He suggests
rolling that proposal in with the subject approval in order to meet a lot of concerns of today before
getting into any issues of density, etc.
Commissioner Eastman concurs with Commissioner Koos and states it is too long of a street and
people have a lot of space to get their speed up but once they get used to the stop sign it will slow
them down.
Commissioner Boydstun concurs it is definitely needed there for the school.
Commissioner Bristol states he met Principal Randi Trontz at the school at 7 a.m. because he
thought the school started at 8 a.m. He was informed that school started at 9 a.m. and he should
really take a look at the traffic so he returned and parked on Rio Vista Street where he saw cars
southbound coming off of Frontera Street; drivers that endanger their children by stopping on the right
• side of Rio Vista Street; when there is only one lane southbound drivers' speed really increased and
people try to get into the median to turn left and no one likes it so, they speed up; people doing u-
turns, etc. Then he drove to the other side to see where the buses and other people were dropping
off the children in the park, as Ms. Trontz indicated, and then down Dutch Avenue to watch the other
parents that were parking illegally and making u-turns at the corner where they dropped their children
off. He concurs it is very difficult for people to get out of their driveway at the corner. He feels the
traffic is too fast and something has to be done whether it is traffic light, stop sign, etc. He disagrees
the cars should have to go down to the second entrance to get to the school. They should be
stopped earlier and also they should make sure the parents drive in to the first drive so they can keep
clear of Mardi Gras Avenue.
No growth or no development would mean that the project would not get built, which means that the
expansion or at least the setback would not occur. Therefore, the problems occurring with the traffic
leaving the site in the school area would still be there, because, as he watched people trying to turn
left or southbound on Rio Vista Street, they were having a problem with it. The traffic congestion was
horrible.
He concurs with the neighbors and Ms. Trontz regarding parking. Ms. Trontz stated she was
concerned about parking on the projected site because she suspected there might not be enough
parking on the site and it might flow over to the school. He now feels it might flow from the school
over to the site. Therefore, he feels the project is going to be very effective to the point of making
their lives a lot easier because issues are getting addressed and without a project it would not get
addressed. Commission is asked to select a good project that fits and benefits the area.
Chairperson Bostwick states his business is right across from Paul Revere School and the discussed
issues are not abnormal situations. Schools all over Anaheim have the same problem because they
were never designed for families to drop their children off. It was designed for the school bus or for
the children to walk to school. Parents do the same thing at the Paul Revere School; it is not an
isolated situation.
11-04-02
Page 10
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Koos states the size of lots in the subject project is just shy of the size of the lots on
Dutch Avenue and will not be out of scale with the existing environment. As mentioned by the
developers and others, it is a tough quality product however, they have a good design, their attention
to detail is good and they will actually increase property values in the vicinity. He states sometimes
when something has been the same way for a number of years a change is potentially alarming but
feels the subject developer has had success in Southern California and other cities and the property
values have actually gone up. When you are selling houses in excess of the houses pre-existing that
brings up all values. He feels it will be a benefit to the area, it is a good project overall and traffic
issues need to be mitigated. He is content with the way the trash pick-up has been resolved.
Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify how has the trash issue been resolved since the plans
show it just as it was originally.
Chairperson Bostwick clarified the applicant stated they are going to contract with a private trash firm
to remove the trash from each individual household to the trash bins. However, he also has a
problem with that because once the project is complete and the homeowners association takes over,
he wonders if that would go away. He would rather see the two lots removed so that they could have
a loop road and a regular City pickup at each individual site and no need for a private trash hauler.
Commissioner Boydstun states she is disappointed because the applicant was supposed to make
changes but the plans were not changed at all.
Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states regarding lot size in comparison to the subject
development with the development to the south, the square footage for the proposed project appears
to include the streets whereas the project to the south along Dutch Avenue and Connie Circle, Beth
Circle, and Janeen Way, are exclusive of any street right-of-way.
Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the information on page 3, stating the average land area per
unit is 4,500 square feet per unit is somewhat misleading.
Mr. McCafferty clarifies it includes the entire site, so that would be a gross figure.
Chairperson Bostwick states by removing the two structures that would bring them closer. A RS-
5000 Development would work out to be 25, which would be out of the 26, and only one house
different than the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Koos states he could support that.
Mr. Yalda suggested Commission condition that the applicant offered to pay $50,000 so that Traffic &
Transportation could use the money to do what Commission has asked of them.
Commissioner Koos wishes to clarify that Commission wants a 4-way stop sign.
Mr. Yalda states Traffic & Transportation has to look at their requirements as far as how the City
Council commissioned them to conduct the studies. There are specific guidelines they have to follow.
They have to do a traffic study and cannot arbitrarily install traffic signals or stop signs.
Commissioner Koos states in cities that have a Transportation Commission sometimes the issues are
referred to a City Council. He asks in Anaheim, what is Commission's mechanism for associating the
traffic impacts that are offsite to the project.
Mr. Yalda responded the City Council has a resolution that requires the Traffic Engineering to follow
the standards by the state of California Traffic Manual for installation of stop signs and traffic signals.
Commissioner Koos states it is a "one-size fits all" kind of a thing but they have a unique situation
with a school that was not designed for that level of volume and staff.
11-04-02
Page 11
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Yalda states they have revised their stop signs accordingly to meet the needs of the City of
Anaheim.
Commissioner Koos referred to the City Attorney for an answer to the issues.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded Mr. Yalda expressed his hands are tied by the City
Council resolution that directs him to do things in a particular way. The City Council adopted the
resolution and it is up to the City Council to determine if they wish to deviate in someway and how
they wish to do it. She states Mr. McCafferty recommended the possibility of putting a condition that,
as a Reports & Recommendations Item, a plan should come back to the Planning Commission with
regards to the ways to work on some of the traffic impacts, including the school district to try to
address some of the issues, many of which are existing issues, but in terms of something that the
developer is apparently willing to contribute towards in terms of the solution. She referred to Mr.
Hernandez giving him an opportunity to speak on the issue.
Mr. Hernandez states at the initial presentation, the Olson Company felt obligated and took the
initiative and proposed it would pay for the cost and improvements discussed with Traffic. At the time
Traffic gave an approximate budget of $50,000 and the Olson Company accepted in order to move
forward, but enlight of the previous discussion, without a motion, the two additional units would be
removed and that in addition to them having to contribute to something that is offsite and not
generated by the project, becomes more of a hardship.
Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to Traffic Engineer and asked in the case of the housing
development that was put into place on the intersection of the 91 and 55-Freeway off of Riverdale,
there was some discussion going on at the Planning Commission level that included a traffic light
and/or stop sign and he asked how were they able to define the traffic mitigation at that time but not in
the present case.
Mr. Yalda responded the area on Finch Street and Riverdale Avenue had a previous traffic signal
study and met the warrants. A list of 25 signals that are already warranted goes on the list and they
calculated the amount of traffic the project generated. Based on what their project was generating,
they paid their fair share of the installation of traffic signals, which totaled approximately $38,000.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked how they arrived at $50,000 for the subject project.
Mr. Yalda states at the initial discussion, the developer offered to make some modification on Rio
Vista and Frontera Streets to provide restriping of bike lanes. There is a four-way stop sign there and
the area can be configured to provide an additional area for the parents to drop off the children
instead of coming all the way down on Rio Vista Street. It could help reduce and mitigate some of the
traffic, but they cannot mitigate 100%. He concurs with Commissioner Bostwick, there are 51 schools
and between the hours of 7:30 to 8 a.m., the exact problem occurs. It only last for half an hour in the
morning and afternoon, and the rest of the day there is no traffic and no problems. So, working
towards that process, the estimated cost of $50,000 was arrived at and the applicant actually offered
$50,000 as a mitigation measure.
Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if it is essentially a concession on the part of the developer
to try to help win approval of the project and not a calculation based on their fair share.
Mr. Yalda responded that is what the applicant offered.
Commissioner Boydstun asked what is the cost of putting a stop sign in.
Mr. Yalda responded the stop sign would cost approximately $1,500.
Commissioner Koos states it is all too confusing. He has stated in the past that he does not believe
crosswalks provide safety, because people have a false sense of safety while others continue to
11-04-02
Page 12
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
speed. Yet, there is a policy that ties Commission's hands to slow the speed and make the
crosswalks effective.
Mr. Yalda responded he was referring to uncontrolled crosswalks, but there is a pedestrian traffic
signal on Sunkist Street that is an actual signal for pedestrians.
Commissioner Koos asked if the Reports & Recommendations Item concept could be conditioned to
be resolved before the applicant pulls a building permit.
Mr. McCafferty states that would be a condition of approval to be done prior to issuing a building
permit and everything discussed with the neighborhood, developer, and adjoining school to come up
with a plan that everybody agrees on. If a plan is brought back that does not meet Commissions'
requirements, then the project could not go forward until the requirements are met.
Commissioner Koos asked how would City Council go about waiving the standard in order to put in
the stop sign.
Mr. Yalda responded he could not answer because a study has to be done. A solution other than a
stop sign could possibly be found, as stop signs are not the solution to stopping speeders. That has
been in the books for 20 years because people have a false sense of security.
Commissioner Koos asked what stops them.
Mr. Yalda responded there could be a solution of a pedestrian traffic signal that costs much less than
$100,000.
Mr. McCafferty states Sunkist Street has the exact situation and there are flashing pedestrian signals
that resolve the issues in that area, but he suggests working with the community, school district, and
Traffic to see if they could come up with a solution for the Rio Vista Street area.
Commissioner Koos referred to the developer and asked if the City is paying for the house relocation.
Mr. Hernandez responded yes, the Olson Company was responsible for excavating everything
around it to make it accessible and the City Council was to process a permit so they could relocate
the house.
He states the Olson Company is in proceedings with the escrow and his only concern is that there is
a consensus that needs to be built between many parties and their development would be stuck in
the leave way. He states they offered $50,000 as a gesture to try to be good citizens to the neighbors
and the City, but do not want their project put in suspense for a long period of time while a potential
consensus is being developed. That could be extremely detrimental and they would rather give the
fee to the City and let the City proceed with studies, analysis and improvements.
Commissioner Koos states the problem is it does not give anyone the assurances that the project will
be built and maybe nothing will happen on Rio Vista Street. He feels the project is not totally
separate; there is a nexus between the proposed project and Rio Vista Street. It would create
additional traffic, and a "T" intersection (total intersection).
Mr. McCafferty states there is a complex situation. The developer is stating, "here is $50,000 go
spend it the way you want", but in terms they are stating it is not really something that is caused by
their project, it is an existing condition. So, it might be questionable whether there is a nexus
associated with the project. He suggests accepting the $50,000 and spending it on a flashing traffic
signal if that is going to make everybody happy and if it meets the intent of the Council resolution
regarding controlled stops. In that way, they get away from the nexus issue and can move forward.
11-04-02
Page 13
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chairperson Bostwick states he would rather see them spend $15,000 for a stop sign and spend the
other $40,000 for part of the parking lot on the park so that it solves a couple of problems; it gets the
parking and people off the street, and still slows the traffic down.
Commissioner Bristol states there are three different entities in the situation, the school, traffic, and
the developer. He wished to clarify how Commission would resolve the issue.
Mr. Yalda responded Traffic could always come back to Commission. If the developer contributes
$50,000, every penny of the money would be spent on traffic safety issues.
Commissioner Bristol asked what Commission thought of removing two lots.
Commissioner Romero states he is okay with 28 units. The developer has worked really hard with
the City and he does not feel they should be penalized.
Commissioner Boydstun states she is not okay with 28 units because she cannot understand how
they could have a bin brought into the City of Anaheim that is not with the City's local trash
businesses.
Chairperson Bostwick states they will pick up the trash at their house and take it and put it in the bin.
Commissioner Boydstun asks how long that would go on; there is no guarantee. Also, she feels a
stop sign is the perfect thing to slow the traffic down with a marked crosswalk. The difference in
money could pay for acrossing-guard.
Commissioner Koos wished to clarify why there is no condition of approval regarding the trash pickup.
• Chairperson Bostwick responded they could condition who is going to enforce it.
Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify who would pay for it later on down the line.
Chairperson Bostwick concurs if later on the Homeowners Association decides not to transfer the
trash to bins, it could get very messy.
Commissioner Koos asked what if it is built into the CC&R's.
Mr. McCafferty states from staffs perspective it is much more efficient to remove the two units, loop
the road and have the trash pickup where the unit, is instead of having it hauled off to the trash
enclosure and then having it picked up from there. If people are buying asingle-family home, they
would want to put their trash out near their residence, not have it hauled off to a trash enclosure.
Ms. Mann states there is a Maintenance Covenant that is part of the recommended conditions of
approval. The Maintenance Covenant requires that CC&R's be recorded with certain conditions.
Therefore, whatever is in the Maintenance Covenant needs to be in the CC&R's as well. There are
also provisions required to be in the CC&R's which states that no provision of the CC&R's that
amends or terminates of the maintenance requirements that are imposed by the City as a condition of
approval for the project may be amended or terminated without the City's prior written consent. And,
in addition there is a provision in there that the City has the right but, not the obligation, because the
City would not be required to enforce the CC&R's. It is a provision that is in the Maintenance
Covenant and it is required to be in the CC&R's and Public Works, Zoning Division and the City
Attorney's Office will approve the Maintenance Covenant.
• OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to the subject request, and 9 letters were received in
opposition to the subject request pertaining to the impacts to Rio Vista Elementary
school, traffic, parking and density.
11-04-02
Page 14
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request, with some concerns that he would
ask be resolved.
IN GENERAL: The principal of Rio Vista Elementary School indicated they are not opposed to the
proposed development, but relayed some concerns and suggestions pertaining to the
subject request.
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Approved Reclassification No. 2002-00080 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A-
43,000(0) zone to the RM-3000(0) zone), subject to the conditions of approval as
stated in the staff report dated November 4, 2002.
Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirements, as follows:
Approved waivers pertaining to (b) maximum fence height since the orientation of the
one unit at the northwest corner of the site would be similar to a traditional single-
family residential lot where a 6-foot high wall would be permitted in the same location.
Approved waivers pertaining to (d) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-
family residential zone, (e) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway,
(f) minimum distance between buildings, and (g) minimum landscaped setback
abutting asingle-family residential zone based on the special circumstances of this
property due to its location being surrounded on three sides bysingle-family
residential zones; and that the RM-3000 zone standards were intended for attached
townhouse-style development and not "small-lot single-family "development; and that
these waivers have been granted for similar small-lot single-family developments.
Denied waivers pertaining to (a) minimum private street standards, (c) minimum
number and type of parking spaces, and (h) minimum recreational leisure area since
they have been deleted.
Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04589 (to construct a 26-unit
detached one-family residential condominium subdivision), subject to the conditions
of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 4, 2002. (Although 28 units
were proposed, 26 units were approved in order to complete an internal loop road
within the project.)
Approved, in part, Tentative Tract Map No. 16412 (to establish a 1-lot, 26-unit
detached residential airspace condominium subdivision), subject to the conditions of
approval as stated in the staff report dated November 4, 2002. (Although 28 units
were proposed, 26 units were approved in order to complete an internal loop road
within the project.) The following modifications were made at the meeting:
Added the following condition of approval to read as follows:
That a plan for traffic calming on Rio Vista Street shall be submitted to the Traffic and
Transportation Manager for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a
Reports and Recommendations item, prior to approval of final map. Said plan may
include a financial contribution by the developer.
• VOTE: 7-0
11-04-02
Page 15
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map
and the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 25 minutes (1:37-3:02)
•
•
11-04-02
Page 16
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1731 (READVERTISED)
(TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04600)
OWNER: Cheng Lee, 13571 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove,
CA 92843
AGENT: Southwest Strategies, Attn: Larry Lazar, P. O. Box
53311, Irvine, CA 92619
LOCATION: 408 South Brookhurst Street. Property is
approximately 0.3-acre having a frontage of 83 feet on
the east side of Brookhurst Street located 516 feet
south of the centerline of Broadway (La Langosta
Mexican Restaurant).
Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition
of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on September 23,
1997 to expire September 23, 2002) to retain apreviously-approved
restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption and
to further amend the exhibits on file to expand the existing restaurant, and
amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation.
Continued from the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
•
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
OPPOSITION: None
Continued to
November 18, 2002
SR8425KB.DOC
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the November 18, 2002,
Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to address the
recommended time restriction.
VOTE: 7-0
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
11-04-02
Page 17
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 Concurred with staff
4b WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS Approved
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04616 Granted
OWNER: James A Stovall, 2815 Stone Pine Road, Orange, CA
92667
AGENT: Irv Pickler, 2377 West Mall Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1178-1198 West Katella Avenue. Property is
approximately 1 acre having a frontage of 200 feet on the
south side of Katella Avenue and located 218 feet west of
the centerline of Casa Vista Street (Taco Mi Pueblo).
To permit the expansion of a restaurant within a legal nonconforming
retail center with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-165 SR8472GK.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04616, 1178-1198
West Katella Avenue -Taco Mi Pueblo, a request to permit the expansion of a restaurant within a
legal non-conforming retail center with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
Applicant Testimony:
i Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he is present with Mr. Bill O'Connell and the
architect, representing Mr. Jim Stovall, and should the Commission have any questions they would be
happy to answer them.
Chairperson Bostwick asked if he has read all of the conditions.
Irv Pickler states the terms of Condition No. 5 are fine.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Bostwick states Condition No. 5 was added dealing with the signs to be refurbished and
relocated.
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, read for the record, the additional condition as stated:
"That, prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final
building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, on the north elevation of the subject
building the "tailor sign" shall be removed and the existing "Taco Mi Pueblo" sign shall be
centered over the restaurant tenant space".
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
11-04-02
Page 18
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 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. 2002-04616 (to permit the expansion of a
restaurant within a legal nonconforming retail center) subject to the conditions of
approval as stated in the staff report dated November 4, 2002, with the following
modifications:
Added the following condition of approval to read as follows:
That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior
to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, on the north elevation
of the subject building, the "Tailor's" sign shall be removed and the existing "Tacos Mi
Pueblo" sign shall be centered over the restaurant tenant space.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:03-3:05)
•
•
11-04-02
Page 19
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
5b WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT November 18, 2002
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2002-04622
OWNER: Suites O Weekly, 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hills
Estates, CA 90274
AGENT: Gary Frazier, Acacia Housing Advisors, 6445 Joshua Tree
Avenue, Orange, CA 92867
LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.7
acres having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue located 670 feet east of the centerline of
Dale Avenue (Lincoln Inn).
To permit the conversion of an existing 117-unit motel (Lincoln Inn) to an
84-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus
with waivers of a) minimum age restriction for senior citizen's residential
complex, b) minimum number of parking spaces, c) minimum building site
area per unit, d) minimum floor area per unit, e) minimum width of
pedestrian accessways and f) maximum density bonus.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1102CW.DOC
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the November 18, 2002,
Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to readvertise
the subject request to include a waiver pertaining to minimum landscaped setback.
VOTE: 7-0
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
11-04-02
Page 20
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3
6b. VARIANCE N0.2002-04535
OWNER: Carolyn Wiljer, 203 North Charlene Terrace, Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 203 North Charlene Terrace. Property is approximately
0.13-acre located at the northwest corner of Underhill
Avenue and Charlene Terrace.
Request for waivers of a) maximum fence height within required front yard
setback area and (b) maximum fence height within required side yard
setback area to retain and permit a 6-foot high block wall in conjunction
with an existing single-family residence.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-166
Concurred with staff
Granted, in part
SR8466JR.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Variance No. 2002-04535, 203 Charlene
Terrace, to retain a 6-foot high block wall in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with
waivers of: a) maximum fence height within required front yard setback area, and b) maximum fence
height within required side yard setback area.
•
Applicant's Testimony:
Carolyn Wiljer, 203 N. Charlene Terrace, Anaheim, CA, states she built a block wall around her
property to replace an existing wooden fence. She agrees with waiver a) on the side of Charlene
Terrace, moving it back 1 foot which is in the public right-of-way. She states there is a wall on the
side of Underhill Avenue, the front of her house, which she is supposed to move back 25 feet. She
wished to know if she could go back, even with the house 12'/2 feet, so that her daughters' bedrooms
would be in the backyard instead of the front yard, and she would have a little more backyard space.
On the left of her driveway she has a small section of wall with a gate that is even with her neighbor's
fence and she asked if she could keep it where it is, instead of going back 25 feet. Otherwise, the
wood fence between their houses would show and it is an old fence.
Elta Chapman, 202 N. Clark Terrace, states she lives in the house directly to Ms. Wiljer's left if
standing on Underhill Avenue. The houses along Underhill Avenue have addresses on the cuf-de-
sacs to the sides of the houses. Therefore, every house on that street is numbered either 202 or 203.
She states Ms. W iljer's house is positioned closer to the cul-de-sac than hers. Her house was placed
closer to the street therefore she has a bigger side yard because the house directly behind hers is
placed very close to the backdoor. She considers her yard adjacent to the subject's yard her
backyard. Ms. W iljer's house is placed close to her side fence, which is considered her backyard.
That makes Ms. Wiger's backyard next to Charlene Terrace and if she were asked to move her fence
back 25 feet, it would take away from the property value and the privacy of her home.
•
Noel C. Grise', 2200 E. Underhill Avenue, states she lives approximately across the street from Ms.
Chapman and Ms. Wiljer. Moving the fence in Ms. Wiljer's side yard back 25 feet goes past the
middle of her garage and cuts out effectively any side yard she has to the west of the residents.
Moving the fence on the opposite side back 25 feet or past the front house would do the same thing
on that side. Both houses have very little yard to the rear. From the backdoor to the fence is
approximately 12 feet and they really need to utilize both sides to have a decent yard.
Chairperson Bostwick asked Ms. W iljer if she is requesting that the fence be placed back, even with
the edge of the house.
11-04-02
Page 21
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Ms. Wiljer responded yes, on Underhill Avenue it would be approximately 12 %2 feet from the
sidewalk.
Chairperson Bostwick asked how far would it be on the side street, Charlene Terrace.
Ms. Wiljer responded it would be 1 foot back because it is in the public right-of-way. She wished to
keep the left side of the driveway the way it currently is, because it is even with the neighbor's fence.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the lot has a unique situation. It is reverse building
frontage. and because of that, there are certain constraints on the property owners property that
prevents them from enjoying their true backyard. Staff is supportive of the waivers in part. They
would be supportive of moving the wall back from Underhill Avenue to be even with the house as
suggested and then moving the wall off the right-of-way on Charlene Terrace. However, staff has a
little concern about doing the same thing on Underhill Avenue on the other side of the garage,
because the setback is necessary for safety of people backing out of their garages or pedestrians
walking on the sidewalk and having a clear line of sight.
Commissioner Boydstun asked Ms. W iljer how far she wished to place the setback in.
Ms. Wiljer responded she wished to leave the left side of her driveway out because it is even with her
neighbor's and if she were to set her's back, her neighbor's fence would still be there to block the
view backing up.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if she wished to set the other side of the garage back 1 foot.
Ms. Wiljer responded yes, because that's public right-of-way.
. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states according to the applicant's drawings they would
need to move back an additional 1 foot and Public Works would ask that Condition No. 2, listed on
page 5, list an option for an encroachment permit or an encroachment license. The Public Works
Department is not supportive of encroachment licenses for walls within the public right-of--way. She
asked to end the sentence by deleting, "or that an encroachment permit be obtained from the Public
Works Department". And, if the applicant were interested in leaving the wall in the location it is in
they would have to pursue what is called an abandonment process where the street right-of-way is
abandoned. It is an expensive option therefore, Public Works recommend the wall be relocated
outside of the public right-of-way.
Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Wiljer if she was present because of a code enforcement violation
and if she pulled a permit for the fence.
Ms. Wiljer responded yes, it is a code enforcement violation and no, she did not pull a permit but
hired a licensed contractor and he entered in his contract that he would pull a permit if required.
Commissioner Bristol asked if the fence was built recently.
Ms. Wiljer responded yes, May 2002.
Commissioner Koos supports her compromise because the next-door neighbor already had their
fence there.
Commissioner Boydstun concurs if the neighbor's fence is already there, what good would it do to
remove the small strip on the west side of the house.
Chairperson Bostwick states it is the safety factor as far as coming out of the garage.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the neighbor's fence is even with hers.
11-04-02
Page 22
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chairperson Bostwick responded yes it is even.
Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the neighbors would have to remove their fence.
Commissioner Koos responded no, it would stay.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the fence by the garage could be lowered 3 feet.
Ms. Wiljer responded she wanted to leave it as it is because her neighbor's fence is even with hers;
both are 6 feet high.
Commissioner Eastman asked staff when the neighbors' wooden fence needed to be replaced would
they have to face the same procedure.
Mr. McCafferty responded exactly.
Commissioner Koos states it is a unique situation. It is a corner lot and technically their address is
Charlene but they are facing another direction.
DURING THE ACTION:
Commissioner Bristo! asked if 1 foot would be enough.
Ms. Adams states when the tract was originally developed it showed 2'/2 feet behind the sidewalk.
The applicant's measurements on the exhibits show their wall is located 24 feet from the centerline of
Charlene Terrace and the City's right-of-way is 25 feet from centerline and that is where 1 foot comes
from.
Mr. McCafferty states staff is okay with the height but prefer it outside of the public right-of-way. With
regards to the side yard setback for the fence, the resolution would permit the fence to be even with
the building setback lying along Underhill Avenue including the fence on the west side of the garage
and the remaining is setback with the building line.
Commissioner Bristol suggested including comments that it is a unique property and it might be
considered a side yard to the adjacent property.
Commissioner Koos concurs the frontage and the sides are not clear.
Chairperson Bostwick suggests planting some type of vines, etc. or to cover and protect it from
graffiti.
Commissioner Koos asked the applicant to respond with a nod to show acceptance. (The applicant
nodded, yes).
OPPOSITION: None
IN SUPPORT: Two people spoke in support for the request.
ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as
defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (GEQA) Guidelines and is,
11-04-02
Page 23
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional
environmental documentation.
Granted, in part, Variance No. 2002-04535 (to permit and retain an existing 6-foot
high block wall in conjunction with an existing single-family residence), as follows:
Approving waiver (a) pertaining to maximum fence height within the required front
yard setback along Charlene Terrace (but relocating the fence approximately one
foot to the west to be outside of the public right-of-way) based upon the testimony
presented at today's meeting and as stated in the staff report dated November 4,
2002
Approving, in part, waiver (b) pertaining to maximum fence height within the
required side yard setback (along Underhill Avenue) of asingle-family residence
with reversed building frontage on a corner lot based upon the testimony presented
(unique configuration of subject property) and the following stipulation made at
today's meeting, "that the fence setback is to be even with the building line (east
side of subject property), and the existing wood fence (west side of subject property
adjacent to the garage) shall be retained in its existing location"; and subject to the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 4, 2002, with the
following modifications:
Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows:
2. That the portion of the existing block wall along Charlene Terrace located
within the public right-of-way shall be reconstructed such that it is outside the
public right-of-way
•
Added the following condition of approval to read as follows:
That vines shall be planted adjacent to the block wall in order to minimize any
graffiti. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
VOTE: 7-0
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (3:06-3:26)
Following this item, Commissioner Romero left the Council Chambers @ 3:27 p.m.
•
11-04-02
Page 24
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2002-04618
OWNER: Amaral Julia, P.O. Box 1450, Nevada City, CA 95959
AGENT: Maria Lopez, EI Vaquero Restaurant, 823 West living
Place, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1168 South State College Boulevard. Property is
approximately 1.3 acres located at the southeast corner of
Almont Avenue and State College Boulevard (EI Vaquero
Family Restaurant).
To permit and retain a public dance hall with a cover charge and on-
premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction
with an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-167
Concurred with staff
Denied
Denied
SR8467AV.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04618, 1168 South
State College Boulevard - EI Vaquero Family Restaurant, a request to permit and retain a public
dance hall and on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an
existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, submitted a petition to the Commission and applicant in addition
to an a-mail provided earlier regarding opposition to the subject application.
Applicant's Testimony:
Phil Robles, $26 N. Towner, Santa Ana, CA, states he is the designer and is present to answer any
questions relating to the building.
Maria Lopez, 1168 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, owner of EI Vaquero Restaurant,
states they are present to acquire a Conditional Use Permit.
Joanna Torres, 2514 S. Manitoba, Santa Ana, CA, representing Maria Lopez, her aunt, states they
have read the staff report and understands the main concern is crime rate. They have armed security
guards on staff and try to maintain everything as safe as possible. They were having trouble with the
previous company and hired a new security company, which has been responding very well. They
are trying to cooperate with the City.
Public Testimony:
Soo K. Lee, 11438 Coriender Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA, states he has a small restaurant on the
same side as the subject restaurant and uses the same parking space. His tenant who has a small
fast food restaurant on the same side complains about the subject restaurant. There are not enough
parking spaces and when they have a party their customers park cars everywhere. After the party is
over his tenants find trash, beer bottles, etc., everywhere. Their agenda is not good for any of the
neighbors excluding the liquor store located across the street, which makes a large amount of money
from the restaurant's customers through the sale of beer and alcoholic beverages. An entry fee is
charged to customers and he feels sometimes they do not have enough money to pay the entry fee
and drink the beer inside, therefore, they purchase alcoholic beverages from the liquor store and
11-04-02
Page 25
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
have fun drinking outside in the parking lot. This sometimes causes trouble and creates crime. He
feels the subject restaurant should follow the rules and code requirements, not request a waiver for
them. He strongly opposes their agenda.
Lieutenant Steve Rodig, Police Department, concurs and states having worked the parking lot over
the last two years there are a number of police issues that have arisen. The business is not being
utilized as a restaurant but is being utilized as a nightclub. Upon numerous inspections in the
restaurant, he has never seen anyone inside the restaurant eating. On nights that the music is taking
place, there is a buffet setup on the second floor and even though food is available he has never
seen anyone sitting and eating. The criminal activity occurring in the parking lot far exceeds any
similar type business in the Central District of the City of Anaheim. There have been hundreds of
arrests made by the Anaheim Police Department in the parking lot all related to the EI Vaquero
Restaurant. They find children as young as 13-15 years old utilizing the facility late at night without
any supervision. Because there is no age restriction, numerous arrests are made in the parking lot
for minors in possession of alcohol; narcotic and municipal code violations, urinating in public, etc.
Lieutenant Rodig states he has worked the parking lot in an undercover capacity on many nights and
feels the security company employed by the restaurant is completely ineffective to problems that are
occurring on a daily basis and therefore, the Anaheim Police Department opposes the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Chairperson Bostwick asked Lieutenant Rodig if there is so much crime in the parking lot that it would
require someone of his rank and status to be present.
Lieutenant Rodig responded as the District Commander, it is his duty to work in the field with the
officers. Approximately 75% of his time is spent in the field and he has many personal observations
relating to the subject business and problems that have occurred there.
• Don Yourstone, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer, states in July of 2000 they received a complaint
regarding noise coming from the EI Vaquero Restaurant. After checking the Planning Department
records he found their Conditional Use Permit had expired. On August 6, 2000 he, along with the
Police Department, conducted a night inspection at the location and found there were a line of people
outside the building paying admittance fees and going inside the west doors and up the stairs where
the male subjects were pat searched. They checked the main dining room and there was no one
eating and no silverware on any of the tables. There was a cook in the kitchen area where some
really minor foods were being prepared. They went upstairs to the second floor where they observed
a buffet setup with approximately 3 Spanish meals along with some other side dishes. Again, there
was no one eating from the buffet setup. Inside the banquet room there were a number of people
dancing to the band and drinking. He made numerous attempts to contact Ms. Lopez, the owner, and
was not very successful in doing so. He and an Anaheim Police Officer went to her home in Santa
Ana where there was apit-bull in the front yard and they were unable to contact her. On December
14, 2001, during a night inspection at the location he made contact with Ms. Lopez where he issued a
criminal citation for not having a Conditional Use Permit. At that time she mentioned seeing them
standing in front of her house earlier that day. On February 22, 2002 she appeared in North Orange
County Municipal Court and plead guilty to the violation. She was placed on 3 years informal
probation, after violating no laws paid a $300 fine and was ordered by the court to submit an
application to the Planning Department for a Conditional Use Permit for her activities and that has
been done. On October 24, 2002 at approximately 12 p.m. he made an inspection of the restaurant
and again there was no one eating in the main dining room. There was a cook in the back and small
amounts of food in walking coolers. He and the Officers went to the sports bar adjacent to the main
dining room and observed there were no patrons sitting at the bar, but the bartender was behind the
counter. Upstairs was closed because they had just finished cleaning the carpet and they were
resetting the tables and chairs for activity. On Friday, October 25, 2002 at approximately 6 p.m. he
conducted and evening inspection at EI Vaquero Restaurant and as he entered the restaurant he was
met by the manager. Again, there was no one eating in the main dining room and there was no
silverware on the table. He checked the sports bar and no patrons were inside the area. One
bartender was sitting on the stool in front of the bar. Again, he checked the kitchen area and
11-04-02
Page 26
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
observed the same conditions as his previous inspections. The upstairs banquet room was not being
used but the tables and chairs were setup for a banquet facility. On Saturday, October 26, 2002 he
conducted an inspection of the restaurant and observed a line outside in front of the building where
patrons were paying an admittance to get into the establishment. He entered the restaurant and
again there was no one eating in the dining room and the new security company was checking ID's,
identification of the patrons, placing a wristband on patrons 21 years of age and older and pat-
searching all the male subjects who were going up the stairs. Again, in the sports bar people were
drinking and no one was eating. The kitchen area was the same as his previous inspection, not being
used. The dishwasher was turned off and food in the coolers was approximately the same amount as
in prior inspections. Again, upstairs there was a buffet in the hallway between the second floor bar
and the banquet hall. The banquet hall was full of patrons dancing and drinking to the live music.
When he was leaving he contacted the security manager and he could not provide a business license
to operate in Anaheim. He was issued a notice of violation to obtain proper permits for his security
company. Since that time he has obtained the application but has not submitted it at this time.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Ms. Torres states although the officers claim there are never people eating in the restaurant and food
is not served, they have banquets, baptisms, quincenneras, Christmas parties, Halloween parties and
weddings and there are a number of plates served at the occasions. They have parties up to 200
people. The buffet upstairs is refilled at least 4-5 times a night. So she does not understand why the
Officers claim they do not see people eating anytime they have visited because food is running out.
Upstairs there is fruit and a salad bar. They not only have bills for Straub Beer Company but for the
suppliers of their vegetables, meats, etc. The silverware is not kept out on the tables but is brought
out with each order because they have had cases where their silverware has been stolen. Also
when people come into the sports bar to watch a game they order food.
• Commissioner Vanderbilt states there is a requirement for businesses of this type to provide receipts
of food and alcohol safes to show the proportion of food sales do not exceed alcoholic sales. He
understands it was difficult for Code Enforcement to obtain that from them and he asked why it was
not being provided.
Ms. Torres states they met with ABC Liquor License and presented receipts showing numerous food
and alcohol receipts.
Commissioner Boydstun states it was a part of the original Conditional Use Permit to submit reports
showing what percentage is food and what percentage is liquor.
Ms. Torres states their accountant submit the reports every month separating food, drinks and alcohol
whether it is sodas or non-alcoholic beverages.
Commissioner Koos referred to Lieutenant Rodig and Officer Yourstone and asked if they have
requested the information in the past.
Lieutenant Rodig states he has not but has inspected the restaurant on approximately 50 occasions
and has never seen anyone eating and cannot explain the number of receipts.
Officer Yourstone states he has asked the managers for receipts on two occasions and was told that
Ms. Lopez would contact him but he never received a phone call from her.
Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Torres why since 1996 they have not come forward to renew their
Conditional Use Permit.
Ms. Torres responded it is because they trusted their lawyers to do it. They have had approximately
3 attorneys who have taken the case but dropped it before it was complete.
Commissioner Bristol asked if they believe they are operating as a restaurant.
11-04-02
Page 27
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Ms. Torres responded yes.
Commissioner Bristol asked how.
Ms. Torres responded they serve food in the restaurants and the sports bar upstairs.
Commissioner Bristol asked why people attending the restaurant upstairs have to be patted down.
Ms. Torres responded they have been told it is a requirement anytime there is only one entrance for
everyone to go through and where alcohol is being served.
Commissioner Bristol states he has never heard of a restaurant where patrons are patted down.
Ms. Torres responded the restaurant is downstairs and the banquet room is upstairs.
Commissioner Bristol states, "but you said there was food upstairs like a restaurant and you have
heard testimony that no one has ever seen anyone eating downstairs, so where do people eat".
Ms. Torres responded they eat in the sports bar, downstairs in the restaurant and upstairs in the
banquet room.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he could bring his 15-year-old son into the restaurant at 9 p.m.
Ms. Torres responded yes.
Commissioner Bristol asked if they could go upstairs.
• Ms. Torres responded yes, it is a restaurant.
Commissioner Bristol asked if they would get patted down.
Ms. Torres responded yes.
Commissioner Bristol asked why there was a need for so many security guards at a restaurant.
Ms. Torres responded because they sell alcohol and wherever alcohol is sold there is more crime and
violence.
Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if she was admitting there is more crime and violence.
Ms. Torres responded she is sure there is more than at Seven-Eleven, for example.
Commissioner Bristol states he agrees with her and do not feel it is a restaurant and they have been
operating incorrectly for 6 years. The activity in the parking lot and having approximately 7 security
guards as well as the reports from the Anaheim Police Officers and Code Enforcement leads him to
believe it is not a safe environment for anyone and it is not a restaurant.
Commissioner Vanderbilt states in all fairness to the applicant in his findings when he visited the
business during the morning at 11 a.m. he was able to enter and the employees allowed him to take a
look around and when he went upstairs there were a number of tables setup suggesting it was for a
banquet. There was very little place to dance even though he saw band equipment setup in one
area. So, while he takes an exception in terms of it being a restaurant it might be fair to say that it
does have a banquet use, which is a different type of CUP that might be pursued, and perhaps that is
where the difference in opinion is. Food for a restaurant use and food for a banquet use have
different rules.
11-04-02
Page 28
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states a correction should be made on the memorandum dated
October 31, 2002. It incorrectly states the public dance hall permit issued to the business would
expire July 22, 2001 and there is no public dancehall permit in existence for the property. What has
been issued is a revenue certificate, which is a business license, and that expires July 22, 2003.
What happens is if someone comes and requests the revenue certificate and it is an existing address
it gets reissued without being reevaluated by the Zoning Division. The revenue certificate is strictly to
raise revenue for the City; it is not a regulatory approval and it indicates so on the face of the
Business License/Revenue Certificate. However, the business must still meet all zoning and other
requirements of the City of Anaheim.
OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman 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.
Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking
spaces based on staff's recommendation for denial of the public dance hall.
• Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04618 (to permit a public dance hall with a
cover charge and on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages as an
accessory use to a previously approved restaurant with on-premises sales and
consumption of alcoholic beverages) based upon the testimony presented at today's
meeting and based on the following:
(i) That the Anaheim Police Department indicates a significant above-average
crime rate (155 percent above the City average) for the Reporting District for
the property and has received 171 calls for service for this property since
January 2001, resulting in 85 incident reports.
(ii) That the combination of on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic
beverages, a public dance hall and the existing high crime rate has been
detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim due to this location's proximity to residential
neighborhoods.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero was absent following Item No. 6)
MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
initiate termination/modification proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 806 pertaining to on-
premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the existing restaurant.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (3:27-3:57)
11-04-02
Page 29
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2001-04451
(TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04621)
OWNER: Jill Richter, Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove
Boulevard, Suite 150, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: Interpacific Asset Management, 5505 Garden Grove
Boulevard, Suite 150, Westminster, CA 92683
Jose Castallanos, J.C. Fandangos, 1086 North State
College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1084 and 1086 North State College Boulevard. Property
is approximately 6.9 acres located north and east of the
northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma
Avenue (J.C. Fandango).
Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition
of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 5, 2001
to expire November 5, 2002) to retain public entertainment and on-
premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with
an existing restaurant.
•
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
November 18, 2002
SR8467VN.DOC
Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04451, 1084 and
1086 North State College Boulevard - J.C. Fandango, a request to reinstate the permit by the
modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on
November 5, 2001 to expire November 5, 2002) to retain public entertainment and on-premises sale
and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff received a petition with signatures in opposition to the
reinstatement of Item No. 8. The applicant received a copy of the petition as well as correspondence,
which was passed out at the morning work session.
Applicant's Testimony:
Hector Jose Castellanos along with his brother, Jose Marco Castellanos, 1086 N. State College
Boulevard, representing J. C. Fandango Restaurant, states they are present to answer any questions
that the Commission might have.
Chairperson Bostwick asked how they would respond to the petition for denial as well as Condition
No. 28 which states they should provide Commission with the same breakdown of gross sales for
food and alcoholic beverages which they have not been submitting to Code Enforcement.
Mr. Castellanos responded they received the petition for denial moments prior to the current meeting
and in the 16 years they have been in business it is the first time a petition in that manner has arisen.
Regarding the gross sales or sales of alcoholic beverages and food it would be approximately 40%
food and 60% alcohol and they could furnish those within a week.
Chairperson Bostwick responded no, but a reverse of 60% food and 40% alcohol.
Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if it is supposed to be 50/50.
11-04-02
Page 30
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Bristol verified that the owner of the property was not present and recalled when the
applicants last attended a Planning Commission meeting there was a discussion regarding the rear
area of their facility and a lot of it was the trash enclosure, graffiti, appearance, etc., and it is just as
poor now as it was before. He states Commission would like the owner or a representative to be
present to be able to state finally they are going resolve the issue in the back.
Mr. Castellanos responded Jerry O'Donnell, Pacific Asset Management, Garden, Grove, CA, is listed
as the authorized agent for the owner, but if need be he personally would take care of all of the
graffiti.
Commissioner Bristol states that is not the only issue, there is also a door that has 2 X 4's on it and
there is noway it could be opened. He wished to ask for a continuance to see if they could get issues
resolved.
Mr. Castellanos states that is the property of another tenant.
Commissioner Bristol states in the back storage area where the bins are supposed to be, there is
storage in one of the trash areas and the storage appears to be shelving of some type.
Mr. Castellanos responded it belongs to the 99 Cents Store.
Commissioner Bristol states it is all tied to the same owner as well as the graffiti.
Mr. Castellanos responded the Asset Management Company installed a chain link fence on an
existing 6-foot wall in between the shopping center and some apartments and that helped a lot.
• Commissioner Bristol states he would like to see the owner present to get the matters resolved.
Chairperson Bostwick states it would be a two-week continuance (November 18, 2002) and during
that time Mr. Castellanos needed to get Code Enforcement the statistics on their safes of food and
alcohol, and contact the owner of the property to make sure he is present for the hearing.
OPPOSITION: A petition was received with 23 signatures in opposition, and a letter was received in
opposition to the subject request.
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to continue the subject
request to the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the
owner to be present at the meeting to address concerns raised; and for the
applicant to submit statistical reports pertaining to the gross sales of food and
alcoholic beverages, and come back with suggestions on ways to decrease crime at
the subject site.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero was absent following Item No. 6)
DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:58-4:05)
11-04-02
Page 31
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2002-04620
OWNER: Katella LLC, 1404 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: Oscar Ramirez, 12052 Jennifer Lane, Garden Grove, CA
92840
LOCATION: 1383 East Gene Autrv Way. Property is approximately 4.8
acres having a frontage of 302 feet on the north side of
Gene Autry Way located 260 feet east of the centerline of
Betmor Lane.
To permit a banquet hall facility with on-premises consumption, but not
sales of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
•
•
Continued to
November 18, 2002
SR8458NA.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the November 18, 2002,
Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to address
Building Code issues.
OPPOSITION: None
VOTE: 7-0
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
11-04-02
Page 32
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
r ~
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:06 P.M.
TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
•
Res ctfully submitted:
.~.~h/
Pat Chandler,
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002.
11-04-02
Page 33