Minutes-PC 1999/11/08SUMMAF~Y ACTION AGENDA~
CITY OF ANAHElM
PLANiVING COMMIS~ION iVIEETiNG
~:30 A.M.
1:30 P.M
(~ONDAY, ~IOVEMBER 8, 1999
• DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO ANAHEIM SELF-
STORAGE FACILITIES STUDY PREPARED BY KEYSER
MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION PERTAINING TO SOUTH ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD LAND USE STUDY
• STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY
PLANNING COMMiSS{ON)
• PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
• PUBLIC HEARING i'ESTIMONY
CHAIRPERSON PRO-TEMPOR[: KOGS
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VAIVDERBILT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: BQYDSTUN
STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann
Greg Hastings
~reg McCafferty
Don Yourstone
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Ramona Castar~2da
grent Schultr
Russ Sutter
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
P:IDOCS\CLERICALIMINUTESWC110899.OOC
Assistant City Attorney
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Principal Transportation Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Redevelopment Project Manager
Redevelopment Manager
Police Sergeant
Planning Commission Secretary
Senior Secretary
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 1
Receivino and approving the Summary Rction Agerda for the Pianning Apprr. ~d
Commission Meetin~ af September 13,1999. (Motion)
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the
Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of September 13,
1999.
--•----•----------------------------•-•-•----•--------------------•---------------•--------•------ •-------•------•---
Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Approved
Commission Meeting of September 27,1999. (Motion)
ACTION: Commissioner E3ristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the
Anahei;n City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve Summary
Action Agenda fior the Planning Commission Meeting of September 27, 1999.
Receiving and approvi~g the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Approved
Commission Meeting of October 11,1999. (Motior~)
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun a;~sent), ti~at the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve Summary I
Action Agenda for the Planning Commissio~i Meet~ng of October 11,1999.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked when the Summary Action Agenda (minutesj is forwarded to the
City Council are their copies stamped "draft prior to Planning Commissio~~~ s approving them?
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, vtrified they were stamped "draft".
At the beginning of the meeting the foilowing items were continued:
Item No. 2 Conditionai Use Permit No. 4160 to November 22, 1999.
Item No. 4 Conditional Use Permit No. 4069 to November 22,1999.
Item No. 7 Conditional Use Permit No. 3954 to November 22,1999
Item No. 9 Conditienal Use Permit No. 4162 to November 22,1999
Item No. 10 Conditional Use Permit No. 4163 to November 22,1999
Item No. 12 Conditional Use Permit No. 3812 to December 20, 1999
Anaheim City Panning Cammission
Summary Action Agenda
11-0~•99
Page 2
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION~
A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV: CERTIFIED) Approved
b) FINAL SITE PLAN I2EVIEW N0. 99-04: Starwood O.C. Portfolio VII, Approved as
L.L.C., Attn: Randal Bessolo,150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 800, recommended by
Chicago, IL 60606, requests review and approval of final site plan and staff
increase in Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) to construct a 4-story office
building and parking structure within the Sports Entertainment Overlay
Zone. Property is Inr.ated at 2045 and 2099 South State College
Boulevard - Stadium ~.enter.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristoi offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby detern~~^e
that the previously-certified EIR No. 321 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve the increase in F.A.R. from
0.50 to 0.91 for this specific development proposal on this building site
located within the Gateway District of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master
Land Use Plan based on the evidence provided in the tra~c study and the
recommendation of the Traffic and Transportation Manager that the increase
in F.A.R. and corresponding increase in peak hour trips will not have
siynificant impact on the circulation system beyond that analyzed in EIR No.
321.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles
and MG rION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Site Plan Review No.
99-04 for the proposed 4-story office building and parking structure as
indicated in Exhibit Nos. 1 through 20 of Final Plans on the basis that the
submitted site, elevation, landscaping and sign plans are consistent with the
Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan the Sports Entertainment
Overlay Zone, as well as the design guidelines for that Zone.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, clarified that this action (with regard to
initiation of the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zoniny} applies to the northerly
parcel under this request. SR1132JD.DOC
~UMMARY OF DISCUSSIO~
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated staff is proposing Commission to take 3 actions, as listed on
page 6 of the staff report. If there is a~~other level added to the parking structure then the applicant would
need to return for a final site plan review for that additional parking level.
Informed Commission that the developer requested that the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone only
apply to the northerly parcel under this request.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 3
B. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98-99-15 - REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO Approved
TUNC RESOLUTION: C~~;= of Anaheim, Planning Commission
Secretary, 200 South Anahelm Blvd., Anaheim; CA 92805,.requests a (Vote: 5-0,
nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Resolution No. PC99-151 adopted Commissioner
in connection with the approval of Reclassificatian No. 98-99-15. Arnold abstafned
Property is located at 926 South Beach Boulevard - Lyndy's Motet and and Commissioner
Restaurant. Boydstun absent)
RESOLUTION N0. PC99-190
SR7620MS.DOC
There was no discussion of this matter.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIC!J
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REGUIREMENT Continued to
?c. CONDITIONAL'JSE PERMIT N0. 4160 (READVERTISED) 11-22-99
OWNER: Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Attn: Mike Johsz,1452
Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780
AGENT: Edmund Olson,11560 Tennessee, Los Angeles, CA 90Q54
LOCATION: 130 South Knott Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres located
on the east side of Knott Avenue, 440 feet south of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
To permit a salf-storage facility with waiver of (a) required structural
setback adjacent to a residential zone, (b) minimum number of parking
spaces and (c) required site screening abutting a residential zone
boundary.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
SR7618KB.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIO~!
ApplicanYs Statement:
Donna Chessen, Chessen and Associates, 458 Pinehurst Court, Fullerton, stated they are requesting
approval of the self-storage facility located at 130 South Knott Avenue. The owners and developers of the
property propose to provide a unique opportunity by providing the only professional storage facility in
Orange County. This upscale facility wiil be advertised and marketed to the business professional and
will be providing climate controlled, completely carpeted and fully lit storage units. They reviewed the 18
conditions placed on them and would comply with them; however, as previously statPd, th~y would like to
request that they be allowed to replace the six mature trees stated on Condition No.14 with healthy new
trees. They have met on several occasions with the Planning staff aiid have subsequently revised their
plans regarding the setback requirement.
Craig Olson (owner/operator), 11560 Tennessee Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, stated they are offering a
professional storage facility. They will be offering a different type of storage than the standard drive-up
type, carpeted and air-conditioned and no rental trucks.
Craig Mann, Beck Moffet and Associates, 1224 Village Way, Suite D, Santa Ana, stated he is the architect
for the project. The continuance was based on certain conditions related to adjacent multi-family
residences on the south and parking issues that were raised in their original submittal.
i hey have now addressed ~nost of those issues in terms of providing the 10-foot wide landscape area
along the south property line, adjacent to the a_rartments. Due to the limitations of this site, there is an
area adjacent on the south side of the existing building where the exit drive is right up to the adjacent
property line which makes it very difficult for them to mitigate that existing situation, other than along the
adjacent south side of the building is an approximately 4-foot wide built-in planter that has always been a
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 5
part of that existing structure. The pianter will be retained. Between the planter and the prope~ty line will
be the existing drive which they wili need to maintain.
Further into the project, they have started a 10-foot landscaped area that goes from that point to the back
end of the property. They have relocated one building and redesigned it where the building backs up to
the 10-foot landscaped area adjacent to the multi-family. It is now a solid masonry wall with no doors or
penetrations. Since the building comes within 10 feet of the property line they are not installing the
requested masonry wail because the building itself is acting as the wall.
From the middle building further to the back building they will be installing a masonry wall. As proposed
they are locating that masonry wall on the fheir side of the 10-foot landscape so the landscaping is more
visible to the multi-family residential than it is to the tenants coming into their project.
They have incorporated vine pockets along the north wall of the property, as requested. They addressed
the parking issue and now meet the parking requirements.
Public Testimony:
Judith Ann Gollette, WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development, Land Use and Bu ~iness
Development Committee) stated the WAND Land Use and Development Committee is made up of 14
neighborhood councils or neighborhood watch areas from West Anaheim. Several months ago they had
many storage units requesting to be developed in West Anaheim. At that time they spoke before
Commission and indicated that their property was much more valuable to them than to put more storage
units in. There are 9 to 11 storage facilities within the perimeter of the subject property. They still do not
feel that West Anaheim needs any more storage units. They considered a satellite college, library,
community center and day care facility as possibilities uses that could be built there.
This property has ar, entrance, exits, and major street viewing. It is not an irregular-shaped lot where
nothing else can be built, which was the opinion of the City Council several months ago regarding putting
more storage units in Anaheim. They concluded storage units were to be built on irregular-shaped lots
where nothing else could be built. West Anaheim needs tax generated dollars and storage units do not
lend to that.
They met with the developer and the planner approximately 3 months ago. WAND wondered what need
does West Anaheim have for this type of use and asked the developer to return to WAND to further
discuss 4he matter but never heard from them since that time. WAND does not see a need for a
professional business storage facility. There are storage facilities in the area that are not full. They would
like to see something developed in that area that would benefit the residents. She asked Commission to
deny this request.
ApplicanPs Rebuttal:
Donna Chessen stated many of the alternative suggestions that Ms. Gollette proposed are impossible at
that property. There is already a library nearby and wondered where they would obtain money for a
community center. It is not feasible to place another retail center there when most of them are failing in
that area. They have studied the area extensively and have found that this is an irregular-shaped parcel
200 feet in front and 600 feet deep. She emphasized that she wrote a lengthy letter answering all of
WAND's issues because she was out of town on an emergency on the night of their meeting.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CL~SED.
Anaheim C~ty Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 6
Commissioner ~-rnold stated, for the record, he was not present for the portion o'the previous public
hearing where this item was discussed but had reviewed all the written materials including the minutes
and intended to participate.
Commissioner b'anderbilt stated, for the record, he had previously met with the developer as well as
representatives from WAND to discuss the pros and cons of this project and the comments made at the
public testimony portion summarized what was explained to him at those meetings.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated, for the record, he also met with the developer and neighborhood
representatives regarding this project.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff to explain their conclusion that this property was not irregularly-
shaped and address the applicanYs statement regarding alternative uses.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, responded regarding the recommendation of the land use, staff
analyzed this type of use on this property is against the Council Policy. Regarding the findings for an
irregularly-shaped lot, they looked at the surrounding parcels and concluded that although it was a deep
lot it was still retangularly-shaped and did not feel it met the hardship findings for granting that waiver.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated the memorandum from ihe Communi;y Development staff
mentions alternative uses and asked that staff discuss any proactive efforts made to encourage
development of this site with the alternative types of uses discussed in the memorandum.
Ramona Castenada, Project Manager with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, stated the~ have met
with the developer of the proposed storage facility but have not met with the owner of the property.
Therefore, they do not know what other proposals have beer, considered for this property. Their
Redevelopment plan does designate this parcel for residential use.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if they would approve an apartment building on this site.
Ramona Castenada responded it would depend whether it was a high quality apartment building with the
entire tlevelopment standard met, but would definitely consider that use.
Greg McCafferty further elaborated on Commissioner Vanderbilt's question regarding the hardship by
adding ttiat the site does not have a problem because of the 200 feet of frontage. The fact that it is a deep
lot does not necessary equate to having a hardship on the parcel.
Chairperscn Pro-Tempore Koos stated the Council Policy does not mention hardship per se, but rather an
irregularly-shaped lot, which is fairly open to interpretation which is perhaps what Commissioner
Vanderbilt is referring to.
Grey McCafferty explained he was referring to the waiver.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated regarding the waivers; which is why it was continued, was that
Commission could not act before because of what the developer was proposing at the south property line.
It is technically a waiver for that landscape portior near ihe driveway.
Greg McCaffeRy verified that was correct, on the south portion near the street frontage.
Cemmissioner Bostwick stated he felt this property does have special needs given that it is deep. It is not
on a high visibility street but rather on a side street so, for example, a restaurant would probably not be
interested in this location. Day care could probably not afford to buy the property. Therefore, the properry
does have constraints on it and qualifies under the criteria. Reviewin~ the list of self-storage facilities in
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Rction Agenda
11-08-99
Page 7
Anaheim he concluded that there is ~iot an excess of self-storage facilities in this area. He was pleased
that the developer has agreed to install vine pockets on the north property line.
Commissioner Bristol stated Commission is very aware of WAND's desires and of the Council Policy. He
has been at the site several times and has seen the razor wire at the Stater Bros. and tried to envision
some of the other suggested uses that were mentioned and determined that this site is an irregularly-
shaped parcei. This use would be less of an impact to the residents to the south. He felt this project
would make sense as a land use issue. Ultimately this will end up with the policy makers that will
evaluate Commission's decision.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked staff for a clarification in the staff report, specifically the
memorandum from Community Development Department, which mentions that the West Anaheim
Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Plan identifies this property as a Commercial Land Use and staff
indicated that it was identified as residential.
Ramona Castenada responded that was correct, the Redevelopment Plan designates it as residential
except there is an alternative land use designation that could facilitate aommercial. Perhaps she should
have clarified in her memorandum.
Commissioner Arnold stated he has a fair amount of sympathy with the applicant in terms of v~anting to
make a profitable use ^'~ this property. However, it seems that this is not an irregularly-shaped parcel and
is concerned about establishing precedent that a deep lot, per se, qualifies as an ~rregularly-shaped
parcel. He realizes that there are a variety of other hardships associated with the lot unrelated to shape,
but it seems like a fairly normal shaped parcel.
During the Action:
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and motion carried.
Commi~sioner Bostwick offered a motion to approve Waivers A and C, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and motion failed to carry with a tie vote. There were 3 in favor (Commissioners Bostwick, Bristol, Koos)
and 3 opposed (Commissioners Arnold, Napoles, Vanderbilt).
Commissioner Bostwick then offered a motion Approving Waiver A, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and motion failed to carry with a tie vote. There were 3 in favor (Commissioners Bostwick, Bristol, Koos)
and 3 opposed (Commissioners Arnold, Napoles, Vanderbilt).
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if there was further discussion from Commission.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to deny Waiver B as it has been deleted, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and motion carried.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to approve Waiver C as the applicant has provided the 10-foot
setback and landscaping, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion ca~ried.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos announced that Waivers D and C have been voted on anci are returr.ing
to Waiver A.
Commissioner Bostwick stated Waiver A pertains to the required structural setback adjacent to the
residential zone. The applicant has provided the 10-foot landscape other than at th? front where there is a
driveway and asked Commission if there was an issue with that.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 8
Commissioner Bristol stated if the building was to stay withfn a use then there would probably be ti~e
same waiver.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated the only alternative would be to demolish that building.
Commissioner Bristol stated there is still the restraint with the property iine.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos indicated that the applicant stated at the last hearing that it is not feasible
to cut back a buiiding of that nature and the whole building would need to be reconstructed.
Commissioner Bristol asked if Commission could try the vote again.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to approved Waiver A, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
motion failed to carry with a tie vote. There were 3 in favor (Bostwick, Bristoi, Koos) and 3 opposed
(Arnold, Napoles, Vanderbilt).
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the other issue mentioned before was the value of the land. It was stated
earlier the difficulty with developing anything else on this site due to the price but it was also stated that
there were hardships with the property that would seem to reduce the price. He asked the applicant what
the price of the property was.
Donna Chessen responded she did not know whether the price of the property was actually an issue with
the Commission.
Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated at that Ms. Chessen did not have to answer and ,:ould appreciate why.
Donna Chessen explained she had supplied the Commission with a letter from a lender who reviewed this
property and concluded that he regretted his inability to locate sources for the possible development of
alternative uses that the City suggested. They utilized every resource they had and found no interest of
any kind for this property. She felt they studied other options extensively before returning to Commission
and more than the price of the property, would be the locafion of where it is situated, in between
apartments, !he motel behind it and the Stater Bros. property. This is a hard property to develop because
of its cor!straints of what is around it. Therefore, the issue is not the price of the property but rather as the
lender indicated, this properly has limitations of use due to its narrow frontage on Knott Avenue and depth
on the easteriy direction. Other issues were the over supply of commercial space and the tremendous
vacancy of professional buildings. The property went to bid with no responses.
Commissioner Vanderbilt apologized for bringing up the price issue but explained that Commission is
trying to find the highest use with the maximum benefit to the residents.
Donna Chessen stated there is a need for professional storage in Orange County and specially in
Anahei~n. The business proposing this project has been in business for 54 years and if they did not feel
there was a need then they would not be purchasing the property.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he was not fauiting the need for public storage but at the morning session
there was discussion about the density of self-storage in this part of Anaheim. Probably some of the
reason that drives that is that there are some neighboring communities whose standard does not allow far
the same density.
Donna Chessen res!ated there is not an over abundance in West Anaheim. If there is an over abundance
then it is in east Anaheim.
Anaheim Ciry Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-OS-99
Page 9
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated given the fact that there is an even number of Commissioners
present then he concluded that they were ~eadlocked. Therefore, he suggested continuing this item for
two weeks until they have the 7'" Commissioner present as a way of resolving this deadlock.
Commissioner Arnold asked staff to provide a report on a definition of irregular-shaped versus regulariy-
shaped lots and the implications for future applications of this policy and other circumstances.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated if Commission is interested in continuing this item then there
wouid need to be a motion to reconsider the action that Commission has already taken regarding Waivers
B and C, otherwise there will be items going to City Councii with different appeal periods, unless it is
appealed with 22 days. She did not have a concern with the action an the CEQA R!egative Declaration
portion but was concerned about the two Waivers. That would give Commission an opportunity to have
all 7 Commissioners present in order to break the tie.
Donna Chessen pointed out that the waiver is oniy for 6 feet.
Commissioner Bristol stated both sides have good arguments and they are going to try to resolve the
deadlock.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos added he tho~ght according to the discussion that this might not be a
vote just on the Waiver but more of a vote on the use.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to rescind the motion of approval for Waivers B and C,
seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos interjected and asked Ms. Mann whether she thought ;hey should also
rescind the CE4~A portion as well.
Selma Mann explained Commission could vote to reconsider the items that they have already
reconsidered and then go back and take an action of each of them to continuing it to whatever date they
choose.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to reconsider the CEQA Negative Deciaration and Waivers B
and C, sece 'ed by Commission Bristof and motion carried.
Commissioner Bostwick then offered a motion for a continuance to November 22, 1999, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and motion carried.
Following the action:
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager requested that the applicant provide details concerning the
trucks that will be used to pick up and deliver since there does not appear to be on-site parking location
indicated on the plan.
f:: ro~~owiN~;iS A 5ummaRY OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION ACT10Nc ~
OPPOSITION: 1 person representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council
(WAND) spoke in opposition to subject request.
1 leiter from WAND was received in opposition to the subject proposal.
ACTIONS: Approved Negative Declaration
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-OS-99
Page 10
Approved Waiver (c) pertaining to required site screening abutting a residential zone
baundary. ,
Commissioner Arnold requested a report from staff defining regularly-shaped and
irregularly-shaped lots and the implications for the future application of the policy
pertaining to self-storage facilities and other circumstances.
FINAL ACTION: Commissioner Bosiwick offered a mo;ion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission will hereby reconsider the CEQA Negative
Declaration, Waivers (a), (b) and (c) and Conditional Use Permit No. 4160 at the
November 22,1999 Planning Commission meefing. .
Continued subject request to the Novernber 22,1999 Planning Commission meeting
in order to have a full corrmission present to break the tie vcte.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, requested that the applicant submit a
detailed plan showing the location where the trucks used for pick up and deiiver will
be parked.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (1:45-2:20)
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Aganda
11-08-99
Page 11
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. USE PERMIT N0. 41:a Granted, in part
OWNER: Jon M. Dowell, Nancy E. Dowell, Gabriel Patin, Virginia
Patin, Shirley Aimand, William U. Almand, Willa Jean
Cornett, Wilton B. Abpianalp, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W.
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshali,1041 W.
18th Street #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
LOCATIOR~: 3335 - 3345 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 2.98 acres
located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,1,070 feet east
of the centerline of Knott Street (Lazy Living DAobile Home
Park).
To construct a 104-unit afi~rdable senio~ citizens apartment complex with
waiver of (a) permitted encroachments in setback areas, (b) minimum
number of parking spaces, (c) minimum side and rear landscape setback
adjacent to one-family residential developments, (d) maximum structural
height, (e) required elevaturs, (fl minimum floor area, (g) location of
required private storage areas, and (h) minimum required affordable units.
Continued from Commission meetings of June 21, July 7, August 16,
August 30, September 27, and October 25,1999.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLU710N N0. PC99-191
SR6968DS.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner siated khis item is a request for a 104-unit affordable senior citizens
project at 3335 and 3345 West Lincoln Avenue.
ApplicanYs Statement:
AI Marshall, 1041 West 18'h Street, Suite A-104, Costa Mesa, stated he spoke with most Commissioners
on Wednesday and received the staff report late on Thursday and did not realize that there were any
concerns from staff which, therefore, he will be addressing those concerns in his testimony. He referred
to a brief summary of a supplement provided to Commission and also referred to a Community
Development memorandum, which he received on Friday.
He clarified on item no. 10 (page 3) of the staff report under, "One common laundry facility is shown at the
center of the complex", which there will be one on each floor. This is significant because of the distance
of travel is less per floor.
He felt item no. 28 of the staff report was the major issue, which he wanted to discuss in length, however
he started by discussing the following items first:
Anaheim Ciry Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 12
_.t _. .
• The color renderings indicate massing whereas the color boards indicate subtle earth tones in both
situations, but would be glad to stipulate whatever Commission recommends. Their architect did a
good job in massing this proposal. The massing is adjusted by the building structure itself.
• There are fwo trash enclosures. At the end of each wing the bottom and top wing of building E, there
is a trash enclosure on each floor. There is a trash shoot that goes down to the trash enclosure
below. The enclosures are built into the building and vented up through those stacks, which appear
as fireplace stacks.
• Fencing height. Their block wall is 6 feet from the highest ground elevation, which would be their
neighbor's side, approximately 1 to 1%z feet higher than their land. The wali will be about 7 to 7% feet
high, which is within Code. Code requires S feet from the highest ground elevation.
• Tubular steel fencing in front is 6 feet. The materials and location are shown on the plans (stucco,
wood and steel). All the walls in this facility are stucco, multi-color in different massing. The steei will
be on the planters, which are the steel bracket~, adjoining the roof as part of the design style and in
the tubular fencing around, The hendrails will also be steel.
• The roof is composition.
a Pedestrian gates. There will be iwo pedestrian gates, not counting the auto gate. The first is
immediately to the right walking into the complex. The second pedestrian gate is to the north of that
near the auto gate. The only other fenced area is the pool.
• Exterior light. They did not develop exterior lighting, but can do so at Commission's request.
• Detailed mechanical equipment. All of the units will have central air and heating. There will not be
any window units and will provide those plans and specifications with the production drawings.
• Decorative hardscape features. The standard walkways are a"broom-finished" concrete. There will
be color on the accent areas around the fountain leading up to the pool and on a couple of the patios
and some of the interior patios. There will b,r a stamp pattern concrete but the stamp pattern will be a
very low stamp.
• 8enches wiil be wrought iron with wood seats. Tables around the pool will be light~~eight aluminum,
typical pool tables and picnic tables will be redwood.
• Pianter boxes in front of the pool area will be concrete with drains built in and irrigation provided to
support the landscaping.
• Community fireplace will bE gas with ceramic logs per on demand service.
• Other amenities include the picnic area, the lawn bowling, horseshoes, gas barbecue, and courtyard
fountain.
• It was recommended that the distance to the trash shoots be minimized. He felt the distance is
nominal, given that there are two shoots on every floor, on either ends of the building. He would
prefer not to add another trash shoot on the center of Building "E" which would come down on the
recreation area which there is no adequate way to take it out of there. The ather two trash areas are
easily accessible by trash trucks.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 13
The second part of the recommendation he addressed with item no. 28. In addressing the
suppiemental to the Community Development memorandum (which they received on Friday) but
through their architect had spoken with Steve Wraight the County architect. They also meeting with
Redevelopment and their opinion of the meeting was that it was satisfactory to them. In reviewing
Steve WraighYs comments, he was in agreement that the project should be approved and moved
forward. The item the Mr. Wraight indicated was missing was the surrounding properties and how
compatible it was. The surrounding properties Housing has had a copy of the photographs for awhile.
He brought additional photos of the surrounding area for Commission's review.
• In addressing Mr. WraighYs letter, the partnership is no longe~ with Kaufman and Broad. Item 1.2, he
indicated that they are non-use spaces although the distance to parking is a concern. Item 2.2, there
is no benefit to have an elevator in the lobby, there is no utilitarian traffic and this is not a lobby like a
hotel. Item 3.1 can be revised accordingly. Sizes have been verified in item 3.2 and 3.3 and wili be
submitted for approval. item 5.1, he suggested removing the fence along the front. It is a
consideration and would give a little more depth to the property, but he is uncomfortable having senior
citizens patios exposed directly to West Lincoln. They will look at it, but prefer to have a 6-foot tubular
steel fencE that is decorative for securiry. It gives a completely secure complex with no units being
directly accessible to an autside element.
• Item 28 is the main concern for approval of the project. There are no waivers here. The property is a
deep L-shaped property and the back of the property becomes unusable. The nature of the concern
is the distance to walk to the car. Units are for lower income people and people who live in these
units, most likely will not own cars due to the lack of income.
• The parking study done by AA & E Inc, reveais that maximum usage of parking was 62% of occupied
units. That means there is a need for 65 spaces at this project, and they are providing 127 spaces for
104 units. (He presented a parking element presentation.) When someone moves in, management
can request that they occupy one of the front units in the building and management can assign
spaces accordingly. Also, all necessary retail establishments are within walking distance and most
people will probably walk to these locations instead of using their car.
Public Testimony (opposition):
Judith Ann Gollette, on behalf of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) stated they
are concerned with the 3-story, and is it setting a precedent in Anaheim. WAND is not against this
particular project, but wants to go on the record as being concerned and are no in favor of 3-story units
across the board. Statistics show that 8 out of every 10 seniors have some form of disability and WAND
feels that the walk from the car to the u~it will be too much. They ask that 3 elevators be installed, one in
the front, one in the middle and one at the northerly end.
Chairperson Pro- i empore Koos asked her to clarify her concern about not having the third elevator.
Judith Ann Gollette explairied that if they park at the north wall, they have to go to the central portion of
the courtyard to go on the elevator then walk back to the northerly unit area. WAND asked to reduce the
number of units to 96, but they were only reduced to 104. There are only four visitor and handicapped
spaces out front and that is not enough. In summary, WAND is not against the senior complex being built;
they just want the entire amenities and privileges for the seniors.
ApplicanPs Rebuttal:
Mr. Marshall stated they added a fountain per the request of WAND. The project will be built with all the
elements for a senior complex and because it is 3-story, it does not make it a"senior" complex.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 14
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Brett Schuliz, Redevelopment Housing Manager, stated there are still some design issues that need to be
worked out, if approved. There is a concem that parking is too far away, but it may be mitigated because
106 spaces are c~ose to the units. He pointed out that Mr. Marshall is providing a very affordable project.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated it seems they are putting parking there because they have land.
Code required parking is acceptable in terms qf its distance to the project according to the consultant.
Brett Schultz stated the consultant did not indicate it was acceptable, he said the parking relationship to
the units continues to be a problem. The justification may be that a number of spaces providecJ,
compared to the likely number of spaces utilized, allow~ for nan-used spaces to be located in the remote
northwest corner of the site. Parking being so far away from the units continues to be an issue.
Commissioner Bostwick stated there is an oversupply of parking.
Brett Schultz stated the proximity of parking is in the affordable housing guidelines so the consultant had
to comment on the parking spaces.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated Mr. Schultz seemed agreeable with project in terms of the site
plan and orientation of the building and proximity, but more work needs to be done in terms of the details
fine tuning of elevations and landscaping.
Brett Schultz stated he concurred with Planning staff comments that there needs to be more detail in
landscaping and elevations.
Commissioner Bostwick stated Condition No. 2 states the final plans need to be submitted back for final
review. It lists all of the items in terms of building detail elevations and landscaping, lighting, signage,
mechanical equipment, trash enclosures and asked if that was sufficient.
Brett Schultz felt comfortable as long as there is a commitment from the developer that he was going to
do everything and provide detail drawings showing it.
Greg McCafferty stated staff felt comfortable with the condition that Commissioner Bostwick suggested. If
the applicant comes back with the material boards, elevations and details on the hardscape it will be
acceptable.
Commissioner Bostwick asked applicant if they received a copy of Cendition No. 8 as it was changed.
Mr. Marshall advised yes they received it and stated that even if this is approved, their journey with
Housing is far from over. They have a long way to go and every portion requires that it be satisfied.
Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Marshall to address Ms. Gollette's comment regarding the elevator and
the inconvenience to the central part of the project versus the northern part.
Mr. Marshall responded the elevators are laid out so that nobody walks more than 150 feet to an elevator
and that is the reasoning for the positioning of the elevators. It is balanced throughout the complex so that
everyone walks an equal distance to it. Ms. Gollette is correct that it is an annoyance living on upper
foremost left hand corner, because you have to go down to the elevator then down and back out to the
parking, but it would cost another $75,000 to $100,000 to install another elevator. When they work with
Flousing there may be another opportunity to improve it.
Commissioner Bristol stated his concern is that the elevations are very stark especially with all the stucco
Anaheim Ciry Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 15
Mr. Marshall stated they can work on those aspects.
Commissioner Bristol stated there seem to be metal awnings and overhangs instead of wood.
Mr. Marshall explained they are supports and can be painted an accent color. it is desic~ned to look like
wood but is actually metal and lasts longer.
Chairperson Pro-T~mpore Koos concurred with Commissioner Bristol's concern regarding the lack of
texture to the facade and advised to work on something that would be more acceptable to Commission for
the R& R, should this be approved.
Commissioner Boslwick commented that two elevators could work but need to look at the location and
see if there is a place they are more easily accessible. Elevators seem to be located closer to the front of
the complex. As far as parking, there is not usually a need for a lot of parking in the front, it is usually
inside. Seniars will probably try parking as close as possible.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager advised that they may want to impose a condition requiring that
this CUP only be applicable upon the adoption of the ordinance, which would delete the Mobilehome Park
Overlay Zone, which is going through the process. Council needs to adopt the ordinance removing it at
some point in time.
OPPOSITION: 1 person representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND)
spoke with concerns relative to the request.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that Waivers (a) through (h) were
deleted following public notification.
Granted, in part, Condition~l Use Permit No. 4130 with the following changes to the
conditions of approval:
Modified Condition No. 8 to read as follows:
That prior to the issuance of building permits, tPie legal property owner shall
enter into an unsubordinated recordable Affordablo Agreement (the
"AgreemenY') acceptable to and approved by the Executive Directo~ of lhe
Community Development Department and the City Attorney's office. Such
Agreement with the City of Anaheim shall comply with California Government
Code Section 65915, and Chapter 18.94 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The
Agreement shall require that a minimum of 49% of the units within the
development must be constructed for lower income households as follows: 1.)
25 percent (25%) of the units (26 units) shall be restricted to rents at 35 percent
(35%) of the area median income as adjusted for family size; and 2.) 24 percent
(24°/a) of the units (25 units) shall be restricted to rents at 50 percent (50%) of
the area median as adjusted for family size. Such Agreement shali include
appropriate rental controls as specified by the City, and the duration of the
Agreement shall be for a minimum period of 30 years. After the Agreement has
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary AcCson Agenda
11-08-99
Page 16
Added the foliowing condition of approval:
This conditional use permit is contingent upon the adoption of the City Council
Ordinance removing the mobile home park overlay zone from the properry.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma A~ar~n, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION 71ME: 43 minutes (2:21-3:04)
..,..-.,...,..........,.,,.~.,.,,...,.~..,..~.....,...,.....~.,,~..~.~..~ ~.,.,.,.....~.,.~..~,...,ti.,...,•.-.,.~.,...,
BREAK: 3:05 P.M. TO 3:12 P.M.
_1.,...-...,.,.,.,.,.1~.1~,.,...,,...~...v.~ fr., -.......~.,.~.~..~.......~ ~.-.,f.•......, ..............,.,,,,..,.,~..,..
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
1 i -08-99
Page 17
.
,_ .
4a. CE4A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11-22-99
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4069 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Khoda B. Ostowari, Parvin Soroushian and Irandokht
Djahanian, 6263 E. Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South
Street. Property is 0.8 acre located at the southwest corner
of South Street and Harbor Boulevard.
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the license for the
retail sale of beer and wine for off-p~ emises consumption and to amend
plans pertaining to the proposed freestanding sign and required screening
adjacent to a residential zone with waiver of (a) permitted location of
freestanding signs, (b) required site screening abutting a residential zone
and (c) required improvement of right-of-way.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 25,1999.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
SR1148JD.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIAN
Following the action for a continuance of this item, Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos noticed that the
applicant had came in late, and asked whether he wanted to give testimony.
Khoda Ostowari, the applicant, chose not to give testimony at this public hearing.
~` FOLL0IWING IS A St1MMARX•OF THE PL'ANNINGCOMMIS510N_ACTIOPf:"
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
in order to readvertise the waiver pertaining to the timing of required public
improvements.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 18
..~wn ~ocvr+i ~vc vcv~n~w~ ~v~v ~YKtV1UU~LY-APPROVED) Approved
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2469 (READVERTISED) Approved revised
plans
OWNER: Myung Skik Yun, 711 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim,
CA 92804
LOCATION: 711 and 733 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.73
acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 120
feet north of the centerline of Stonybrook Drive (Brookhurst
Plaza Inn).
Request approval of revised exhibits to remodel an existing 91-unit motel
(approved for 107 units) with an accessory restaurant with sales of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, including the addition
of four (three,1-bedroom and one 2-bedroom) suites, a manager's unit
and the renovation of the existing restaurant with waiver of (a) minimum
number of parking spaces, and (b) required landscape areas adjacent to
an interior sita boundary lines abutting a residentiai zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-192
SR7619KB.DOC
SUMIVIARY OF DISCUSSION
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this item is a readvertisement of a Conditicnal Use Permit No.
2469 located at 711. He made a correction to paragraph 1, 713 South Brookhurst Street, Brookhurst
Plaza Inn requesting to remodel existing 91-unit motel that was previously-approved for 107 units, with
accessory resta~rant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption.
ApplicanPs Statemer~t:
Paw Kim, Architect for the project, 6280 Manchester Bou~evard, Buena Park stated they would comply
with all conditions but needed clarification regarding restaurant business hours. Owner requested hours
from 6 a.m. until 2 a.m, but it was mistyped as 6 a.m. 40 2 p.m. Also, there will be no air conditioning unit
on the south side because it faces to the residential area. Instead, a few units will have individual air
conditioning units that will be recessed into the room.
Judith Ann Gollette: WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) representative.
Property is in the Brookhurst Corrid:. • Project. History of this restaurant is the old Brookside Winery that
was never meant to be a restaurant. rhere is not enough parking for this restaurant and a notel. The
location is not being kept up and is too close to residents. There are a lot of irregular shaped lots in West
Anaheim and they have asked City Council to conduct a study on how many of these lots are in West
Anaheim. WAND is against any more development in this area and asks Code Enforcement go out there.
Commissioner Bostwick advised this pro;ect is already approved for 107 units and they are only asking for
91 units. They are not adding any units to it. They are not asking fer a landscape waiver and are putting
in landscaping along the pr~peRy line.
Judith Ann Gollette stated that the applicant stated that the property line would be right up to the boundary
line of the residents at the west wall.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 19
Commissioner Bostwick asked if there was landscaping at the west wall
Greg McCafferty advised both west and south elevations indicate a 12-foot landscaping in compliance
with Code. The conditional use permit was approved for 107 units, they built 91 and request to add a totzi
of 35 units on the site, which is still below what they were previously approved for.
Commissioner Bostwick stated the owner is going improve the property by installing landscaping in the
back and on the side. Stated he would like to get WAND on a positive attitude. They should be looking
on how to help this prcperty owner achieve his obJective of improving the property.
Judith Ann Gollette responded this is the reason she spoke about the proposed senior apartments. They
support the surrounding neighborhood.
She lives right next to that building and has seen the track record of how it has been kept up. In the past
the area has been noted for police activity. When Commission evaluates a parcel of land, giving an
approval for development to go forward, they need to also consider 4he track record.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated the Code Enforcement staff routinely investigates the those issues
that she is addressing. Code Enforcemei~t and the Police Department comment on the track record of the
proposed sites.
Judith Ann Gollette felt she had to address Commissioner Bosiwick's comment that WAND is negative.
They are definitely not a negative organization; they are long-term homeowners, business owners and
residents of West Anaheim.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he appreciated their concern and involvement in the community. It is long
needed. But would like to ses positive suggestions and actions result from it instead of a negative
outlook.
Judith Ann Gollette informed Commission that in approximately 2 weeks there will be a presentation to the
Planning Commission and City Council of all the things that WAND has requested, reviewed and
accomplished. Emphasized she did not want anyone to perceive WAND as being negative.
Mr. Ly , Traffir, consultant stated staff concurs with his tra~c study. The bottom line is that hotel guests
will use the restaurant. It is not an independent restaurant, so parking should not be substantially
increased.
Greg McCafferty pointed out that they only need 114 parking spaces
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer stated there havs been no calls on this property and if
the applicant is remodeling they are allowed to use property accordingly while doing so.
Commissioner Bristol was surprised Mrs. Gol(ette's comment because this motel is probably one of the
cleanest motels, and by far, the best maintained property on k'~e west side, even the pool was clean. The
restaurant is unsightly, but this change will make a major difference and a tremendous improvement to the
area. Clarified with staff fhat the applicant alrPady has the right for restaurant, motel and alcohol.
Greg McCafferty advised he was correct and with renovation of the existing restaurant, it will make it more
compatible with the rest of the motel.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Sum, ~ ~ary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 20
Commissioner Bostwick suggested the ho~rs far the consumption of alcoholic beverages and restaurant
to be from 6 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Explained if it were for room seroice then they wouid only need the
kitchen open.
Myung Skik Yun, owner of the property, 711 South Brookhurst, responded he would like the restaurant
open until ?.:00 a.m. for hotel guests.
Commissioner Bostwick suggested they close bar at 12:00 midnight and keep kitchen open until 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Yun then advised he would be in agreement.
Commissioner Bristol asked if he understood why they were asking him to comply with that and expiained
it is because of Brookhurst itself and what has been going on with redevelopment.
Mr. Yun asked whether the restaurant could be open until 2 a.m.
Commissioner Bostwick stated there was no problem with the restaurant part of it, just the alcoholic
service and asked if there is any entertainment or dancing of any kind.
Mr. Yun responded it was a family style restaurant.
Greg ~1cCafferty stated, for the public record, the following changes to the conditions of ~pproval:
• The condi!ions contained in the staff repoR will replace, in their entirety, the conditions of approval
that were approved with PC Resolution 83-134.
• Modify the wording in Condition No. 40 (see action below).
• Modify the wording in Condition No. 46 (see action below) This is from the previous resolution that
needed to be carried over.
• Condition No. 47, delete all condikions currently listed and insert Condition Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 40,
42, 43.
• Condition No. 48, delete all conditions currently listed and insert Condition Nos.1, 3, 7, 10, 23, 25, 36,
39, 44, 45, and 46.
Greg Hastings, "Loning Division Manager added that Condition No. 22 relative to the alcohol sales needs
to be changed to read from 10 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, daily. Condition No. 41 pertaining to the restaurant
hours needs to be changed to read from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., daily.
{See also related discussion on page 47 under Items of Public Interest.}
• ~ ~ ~~ • • ~ • • ~ e
OPPOSITIC~N: 1 person representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND)
spoke in opposition to the request.
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement, as foilows:
Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces; and
Anaheim City Pan~ing Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 21
Denied waiver (b) pertaining to required landscape areas adjacent to an interior site
boundary lines abutting a residential zone on the basis that it was deleted following
public notification.
Approved revised plans (three 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit pius
manager's unit for a total of 95 motel rooms and manager's unit) for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2469. Modified Resolution No. PC83-134 by deleting all the conditions of
approval and replacing them with the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved
plans on file with said Department.
2. That the property owner shall relocate the trash enclosure out of the setback.
area and paint the existing trash enclosure ga!es. Said relocation shall be
shown on plans submitted for Building permits.
3. That the property sl~all be served with underground utilities per the Electrical
rates, rules and regulations (most current fees apply), and the City of Anaheim
Underground Policy.
4. That the property owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim with a public
utilities easement along/across the property as determined as electrical design
is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to
connection of electrical service.
5. That any required reiocation of City of Anaheim electrical facilities shall be at
the developer's/p~operty owner's expense.
6. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transporta:fon Manager for
his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of
Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pe~taining to parking
standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be
developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.
7. That ail driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius
curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137.
8. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for
outdoor storage uses.
9. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment
shall be properly shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
residential properties. Moreover, no air conditioning units and/or ventilation
grills shall be placed on the east and south building elevations where such
items may be visible to the public on Brookhurst Street. Such information shall
be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
10. That 3-foot high address numbers shali be displayed on the roof in a
contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the
view of the street or adjacent properties.
11. That the, developeNproperty owner shall pay the Sewer Caoacity Mitigation Fee
Anaheim City Panning C~mmission
Summary Action Agenda
11-0E-99
Page 22
for the South Brookhurst Conidor Area
12. That the establishment shali be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place"
as defined by Section 23038 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code.
13. That there shall be no bar oe icunge maintained on the property unless licensed
by Alcaholic Beverage Controi and approved by the City of Anaheim.
14. That food service with a full meai shall be available from opening time until
either 2:00 a.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of
operation.
15 That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time.
16. Thek subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public
premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a pubiic .
premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and
Professions Code.
17. That the sales of alcoholic beverages sha11 not exceed 40% of the gross sales
cr all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall
maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales
of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made
a~~ailable, subject fo audit and, when requested inspection by any City of
Anaheim official during reasonable business hours.
18. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted
on the premises at any time with~ut issuance of proper permits as required by
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
19. That the sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be
prohibited.
20. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting cr indicating the
availability of aicohol bev~rages, with the exception of one (1) sign indicating
"cocktails".
21. That the activities occurring in conjunction with ttie operation of this
establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding residential
properties.
22. That sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted
only between the haurs of 10 a.m. and midnight, daily.
23. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of
sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and
conduct of all persons on or ~bout the parking lot. Safd lighting shall be
directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreason~bfy
illuminate the windows of nearby residences.
24. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business
and Professions Code so as not to employ or perm!t any persons to solicit or
Anaheim City Panning C4mmissi~n
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 23
encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed
premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing
plan, scheme or conspiracy.
25. That ali doors serving subJect restaurant shall conform to the requirements of
ttie Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during
hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases
of emergency.
26. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the
building.
27. That the portion of this permit regarding the sales of alcohol shall expire one
year from the date of approval unless a valid license has been issued by the
Galifornia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
28. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card
system which includes the ful! name, address, and verified driver's license or
legal identification and vehicle registration number of ail registered guests, date
of registration, length of stay, an~ room rate; and that said registry or guest
card system shall be made available upon demand by any police o~cer, code
enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim during
reasonable business hours.
29, That guest rooms shall not be rented or let for periods of less than twelve (12)
consecutive hours, nor shall guest rooms be rented or let for periods of more
than thirty (30) consecutive days, excluding one (1) manager's unit.
30. 'fhat every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service.
31. That the owner and/or management shall not knowingly rent or let any guest
room to a known prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging
in the act of prastitution, or to any person for the purpose of selling, buying, or
otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illega! drug or controlled
substance; or for the purpose of commikting a criminal or smmoral act.
32. That no yuest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18)
years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification.
33. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous
place within the office area, and that the property owner and/or motel
management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates.
34. That the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with ihe
provisions of Section 2,12.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaininy to the
operator's collection duties of transient occuFancy taxes.
35. That this property and these buildings and accessory structures shail be
brought into compiiance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of
the State of Califomia, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Coda, Uniform
Plumbing Code, National Electric Co~e, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 24
permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes,
ordinances, laws or regulations.
36. That on-site landscaping shall be refurbished and permanently irrigated and
maintained, including regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti
within twenty four (24) hours from time af occurrence.
37. That a statement shali be printed on the face of the guest registration card to be
completed by the guest when registering, advising that the register is open to
inspection by the Anaheim Police Department or other City of Anaheim
personnel for law enforcement purposes
38. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliance is
determined by the appropriate div~sion or department, with statutes,
ordinances, laws or regulations of ihe State of California, as adopted by the
Ciry of Anaheim, including the Uniform F3uilding Code, Uniform Housing Code,
Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and
Uniform Mechanical Code.
39. That the property owner shall remove the existing freestanding pole sign and
shall submit pians for a comprehensive sign program to the Zoning Division for
review and approval by the P~anning Commis:ion as a"Reports and
Recommendations" 2genda item.
40. That a landscape plan for the entire site (including street trees listed in the
Brookhurst Corridor Design and Planning Recommendations Study) shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department indicating type,
size and location of exisEing and proposed refurbished landscaping and
irrigation for review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations item. That the final landscape plans shall include the
planting of at least ten (10) 24-inch box trees within the landscaped area
adjacent to Brookhurst Street. Once approved, the landscaping shall be
installed prior to final zoning inspections and maintained in accordance with the
plan.
41. That the hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m.
daily.
42. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not
limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, .
communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for
building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of
each device (i.e, landscape screening, color of walls, mate~ ials, identifiers,
access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the
appropriate City departments.
43. That final plans for the restaurant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of
the Planning Department for review and approval as a"Report and
Recommendation" item indicating all interior improvements, including any
proposed bar/cocktail areas, dance floors or other ente~tainment areas. Once
approved, the restaurant shall be developed in accordance with the approved
floor plans.
Anaheim Cib~ Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 25
44. That the property owner shall be responsibie for installing street trees within the
Brookhurst Street right-of-way pursuant to the Brookhurst Commercial CoRi~or
Overlay Zone requirements. Final street tree selection shall be made in
conjunction with the Community Development and the Parks, Recreatian, and
Community Services Departments.
45. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to compiy with approved
plans on file with said Department.
46. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 2 of
Exhibit Nos. i, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein; provide~, however, that
kitchen effic,ency units may be instalied in no more than twenty-five percent
(25%) of the motel units, with a maximum of 6-cubic foot refrigerators, two-
burner stoves exciuding oven and baking facilities, and single compartment
sinks, except that the manager's unit will be allowed to have full kitchen
facilities; that aluminum louvered privacy screens shall also be placed on all
third-story windows; that aluminum louvered privacy screens shall also be
placed on all second-story windows if ~t is determined that there is visual
intrusion from subject motel to the adjacent residenYs yards and homes from
said second-story windows; that an eight (8) foot high aluminum louvered
privacy screen shall enclose the sundeck area; and that the westerly stairway
shall be enclosed to insure the privacy of the homeowners to the west.
47. That prior to issuance of a 5uilding permit, or within a period of one (1) year
from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7,
9,11, 40, 42 and 43, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for
further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
48. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 7, 10,
23, 25, 36, 39, 44, 45 and 46, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
49. That approvai of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and
any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicabie ordinance, regulation or requirement.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissiorser Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:13-3:42}
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
i'age 26
6b.
Approved
Granted
OINNER: TWA-Anaheim Limited Partnership, 200 Fastlong Lake
Road, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0200
AGENT: Walter Kailaher and Associates, Attn: Jeff Farano, 2300
East Katella Avenue, #235, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 105•125 South Festival Drtve. Property is 85 acres
located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and Roosevelt Road (The Anaheim Hills Festival,
Development 3).
Waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) maximum
building height to construct a 4-story,128-unit hotel.
VARIANCE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-193
SR1019TW.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
ApplicanPs Statement:
Jeff Farano, 2300 East Katella, Suite 235, Anaheim, stated he was speaking on behalf of applicant for
MarriotYs Residence Inn. He explained project and asked for approval of minimum parking spaces. They
had a parking study done and it was determined that this project exceeds the number of parking spaces
required by the parking space ordinance. The Traffic Engineer Division approved the study. He
described buildings, heights, and their uses. Presented phota simulation of before and after including
landscaping.
Danny Bounds, Architect for project, explained architectural details and design of all the buildings. Ne
tried to I<eep the scheme of the Festival Center. 7he hotel was designed for business travelers. He
presented material board of actual materials that will be used, but the actual colors need to be matched to
the Festival Center. There will not be very much ground mounted equipment but it will be screened by a 3
to 4-foot high screen wall made from the same material as the building, or use landscaping, or a
combination of both.
Jeff Farano explained the color renderings that were presented to Commission did not include the accent
tiles. They are not sure where they will be Nlaced on the building at this time and will return as a Reports
and Recommendations ?tem to determine the location. Color board presented is the color that they are
proposing. Color rendering is close, but if there is any inconsistency, the color board can be modified. He
met with Anaheim Hills Coalition several months ago and they received positive feedback from them.
The si~n program will be submitted as a Reports and Recommendations item. They are in agreement
with all of staff's conditions except for Condition No.14 on page 9, which requires a 3-foot high address
number to be displayed on the roof. They have no flak areas on the roof and will have a difficult time
complying with that, but they are only %, mile from the substation and feel the substation will be aware of
their location.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 27
The Traffic Engineering Division ask that he bring up the pedestrlan crossing - they are ciose to Festival
Drive and Santa Ana Canyon, which is a signalized intersection with a crosswalk, therefore customers
may use crosswalk.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked what happened to the crosswalk that the Commission asked for.
Alfred Yalda advised he has not seen the plans yet.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos advised the senior housing is being built and Commission wanted a
crosswalk.
Alfred Yaida stated they are not at the point to bring in plans showing a crosswalk.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked whether they would determine the appropriate location at that
time.
Alfred Yalda advised they would.
Public Testimony:
Dr. Beverly Pennock stated hotel occupancy is only at 20% in Anaheim. Questioned if they are
overloading Anaheim with hotels and residents and underloading schools, boys and girls clubs, and some
of the things that society needs. She councils for alcohol and drugs and wonders why bars have to open
at 6 a.m. Focus should be on places for children notjust businesses. ~he elaborated on what society
should be focusing on.
Commissioner Bristol advised she can ret;.~rn at the end of the hearing to voice her opinions, but they had
to return to the issues at hand.
Dr. Beverly Pennock concluded that she would like to see more establishments like the Marriott, but hope
there is an occupancy th~t calls for another hotel and would also like to see more pedestrian crossings.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos thanked Or. Pennock for her comments
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Mr. Yalda to briefly discuss cases when a crosswalk could be
unsafe.
Alfred Yalda stated pedestrians have a false sense of security using crosswalks in the middle of a block.
Many major cities have concluded that if there is no painted crosswalk, pedestrians pay more attention ta
crossing the street. In the past few years, it has been the Ciry's policy to remove as many uncontrolled
crosswalks as possible. In this case, it appears that it would be safer for the people from this hotel to
cross at Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Commissioner Arnold was concerned that there have been a lot of shopping centers that have been built
on the assumption that peopfe are going to drive to it, that is not always the case. Asked what has been
provided for in terms of sidewalks for this project.
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded this center has a good pedestrian pattern and
provides adequate crossing throughout the center.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 28
Commissioner Amold stated it is true in some parts of the center, but not throughout. It is not entirely
pedestrian friendly.
Aifred Yalda responded they try to work with private street property owners to guide them as to where the
sidewalk would be appropriate. He cannot address The Festival because it was built 7 or 8 years ago, but
they tried to work with them at the time. In thfs case, it appears that the amount of peopie that will be
crossing will be minimal, and crossing will be provided of~ of Santa Ana Canyon.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos concurred with Commissioner Amold that there fs not a good pedestrian
design at the center, but did not feel that was relevant to this approval.
Commissioner Arnold stated his primary concem is that the project designers consider the possibility that
there will be people that will be walking across.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, suggested Condition 11 be deleted since it is not required for
the project.
• • s e •• •
IN FAVQR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject request.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Variance No. 4377 with the following changes to the conditions of approvai:
Deleted Condition Nos.11 and 14.
VOTE: 6-0 {Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented ihe 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (3:43-4:17)
Anaheim City Panning Commisslan
Summary Action Agenda
11-OS-99
Page 29
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEPIT ~
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 N0. 3954 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Sa-Rang Korean Church of Southem Califomia, Attn:
Young-Min Chung,1111 North Brookhurst Street,
Anaheim, CA 9280?
AGENT: Clean Worid Engineering, Inc., 9480 Telstar Avenue, #208,
EI Monte, CA 91731
LOC.4TION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street. Property is 10.2 acres
located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 190 feet
north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Sa-Rang
Presbyterian Church of Southem Califomia).
To permit the expansion of a previ~usly-approved church facility to
include a 2-story, 7,600 square foot day care center, to modify a condition
of approval pertaining to hours of operation, and to psrmit and retain an
existing Freestanding sign with waiver of (a) permitted number, (b) location
and (c) distance between freestanding signs.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
11-22-99
~ SR6980QS DOC
e • • • • •
OPPOSITION: None/1 letter was received in opposition to the tequest.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 22,1999 Pl~nning Commission meeting
in order to allow the petitioner to meet with Planning an~ C,ode Enforcement staff and
the neighbors to resolve issues relative to the church operations.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
Anaheim City Panning Commisslon
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 30
8a.
~3b.
$C.
rrr~ivcrt VI' VVUCRCWVIKCMCIVI Denied
CONDITIONAL USE PERM{T N0. 4161 Granted, in part
OWNER: Robert L. Siegman and Hilda L. Siegman,1270 North (To expire 12-31-2004)
Grove Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: Paul T. Kott, Attn: Dennis McCullough,1225 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1260 North Grove Street. Property is 0.96 acres located
on the east side of Grove Street, 575 feet south of the
centerline of Miraloma Avenue.
To establish an off-site automobile storage and employee parking lot for
an existing automobile auction facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIOiV N0. PC99•194
SR7614KP.DOC
SUAIIMARY OF DISCUSSION
ApplicanYs Statement:
Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated he is representing the owners of the property and
the potential tenants of the property (California Autos Exchange). They are requesting subject property to
be a lot for vehicular storage, properly screened, paved, striped, etc, in accordance with what staff has
recommended. They would like to request the expiration date of the permit be consistent with the lease
which expires on December 31, 2004.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked for staff's comments on the applicanYs request.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated this timing was similar to the one approved on Miraloma which
has a 3%:-year time limit and to be consistent with that.
Commissioner Bristol thought this use would do a lot for that property.
• • • • . ~
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Denied the Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the proposed waiver was
deleted following pubiic notification.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 31
Granted, in pa~t, Conditional Use Permit No. 4161 with the following changes to the
conditions of approval: .
Modffied Condition No.1 to read as follows:
1. That the subject use permit shall expire on December 31, 2004.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSI~N TIME: 5 minutes
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 32
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARAT!~N ~ Continue~
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMi f N0. 4162 11-22-99
OWNER: Leonard Joe Chaidez & Cyndie M. Chaidez, P.O. Box 29,
Anaheim, CA 92815
AGENT: Mici~ael Clarke, 8421 Yorktown, Huntington Beach, CA
92686
LOCATION: 507 South Lemon Street. Property is 0.56 acres located
at the southwest corner of Lemon Street and Santa Ana
Street.
To permit a contractor's storage yard.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
SR1018TW.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
ApplicanYs Statement:
Justo Villar stated he is a civil engineer who is representing Michael Clarke, the new buyer for this
property. This was the same property approved by the Commission a few months ago for the same type
of operation. The prospective buyer did not proceed in purchasing the property and that is the reason this
permit was not used. His client has a very similar lype of operation.
He noted discrepancies in the staff s evaluation. It was stated in the staff report that they were going to
have heated asphalt fumes, dust and dirt from the trucks and cement products. They do not have heated
asphalt. The asphaltic concrete that they use goes from the manufacture straight to the consiruction site.
The ready mix concrete goes from the manufacture to the site so they will not keep those items at this
site.
They do not create noise, dust or heated asphalt related to their activities. Loading the trucks with the
materials takes no more than 30 minutes.
The work will start at 6:3G a.m. when the truck will load and go to the site and will return and leave the
truck overnight. There will only be light maintenance.
He emphasized that there was no mention in the staff repoR of a railroad that passes through Santa Ana
Street. It passes 30 feet from this premise. The area is industrial even though the General Plan refers to
the area as residential, he did not think that anyone would like to live in this area because the of the
railroad that passes through durir,~ the day and evenings. They are not going to generate more noise
than a railroad train.
The traffic that will be generated at these premises will be less than the traffic flow generated at this time
with the present use.
The proposed operation i;; lighter and cieaner that the current operations. They will not affect any of the
surrounding residential ar~a because across from this property is a vacant commercial building, on the
east is industrial, on the northeast side is more industrial, the west is industrial, to the south is a vacant lot
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 33
that has storage in the back. Therefore, he feels that thfs area is industrial. Even though the General
Plan designates this area as residential he did not feel that is very likely to happen.
If the CUP is approved he requested that Condition No. 7 be modified to terminate the permit in 5 years
rather than 1 year.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it was his understanding that the Commission did not approve this.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Plenner, explained that the Planninc~ Commission denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 2992 on June 21,1999 and then on appeal the City Council approved the reinstatement of that use
permit to sxpire on August 10, 2000.
Justo Villar stated on Condition No. 22 that a plan for solid waste storage and collection and recycling be
submitted to Public Work Department. They do not have waste storage, everything is taken from the
construction site to the recycling area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant mentioned the train noise and he did not deny that there is
noise from the potential use of the contractor's yard but Mr. Villar is justifying the noise because of the
train.
Justo Villar explained that the noise would not be more than what it is currently
Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant to confirm that he thought that this area would not be residential
for a long time and, therefore, the noise would be acceptable.
Justo Villar explained that the noise is not going to be louder than what it is currently. The noise is only
when they load.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos thought part of the reasoning for staff recommending denial on the CEQA
Negative Declaration is because it is uncertain what that noise impact will be as well as potentially other
impacts.
Commissioner Arnold asked whether the asphalt oil and parking lot paint is going to be stored on the
property.
Justo Villar responded the paint is stored in the trailers.
Commissioner Arnold stated those are substances that can have hazardous materials in them and State
law requires that they study that before moving forward and approving a project.
Justo Villar stated nothiny is used in the storage yard, it is taken to the site.
Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Hastings about Conditional Use Permit No. 4093, which was approved
in February 1999 for 3 years, and was it for a contractor's storage yard with scaffolding and stucco. Why
was this returned to Commission and why could the applicant not utilize this same conditional use permit.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded the conditions associated with that permit were not
relative to this type of business and, therefore, khe applicant is applying for new conditional use permit.
That particular use permit was as a result of reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992, which
should have been terminated and not valid. Actually the current CUP is in violation.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 34
Commissioner Bostwick wondered if the CUP was approved for the contractor's storage yard before and
why would staff return with a recommendation for a denial if this is the same type of use.
Greg Hastings explained that the property has had constant violations and, therefare, it is clear that there
is some concern about any outdoor activity on this properly of this nature.
Greg McCafferty stated, for the record, regarding the prior CUP 4093, staff did recommend denial of the
Negative Deciaration, however, the Planning Commission did approve Yhe Negative Declaration.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated it does not seem very liicely that this is a very viable residential
property today but the first step needs ta be taken and steps consisteni with the long range vision for an
area. The current General Plan does show this as residential and until that time that is the overall
framework that they operate in the City. There are inconsistent land uses in this City and they are trying
to address those. They are taking steps to mitigate these situations.
Justo Villar stated he was told that the City is not happy with the present use due to all the violations.
Why not ty someone new that is willing to accept all the recommendations.
Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Villar to clarity whether the person that is requesting the permit is
purchasing the property or going to be the user of the property, or both.
Justo Villar responded he is purchasing the property for his business.
Linda Eaves, Code Enforcement Officer, stated they continue to receive citizen complaints regarding the
odor that emanates from the stock piling of the debris from the tree trimming business. There are
violations of the CUP regarding the non-deciduous planting that have not bean planted along the wall.
When the foliage falis off the wall it is left as an opportunity for graffiti. The gates continue to be open on
numerous occasions between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m, when they are supposed to be closed. Currently on the
property there are several inoperative vehicles and a large amount of debris and trash.
Commissioner Arnol~ asked the applicant to submit more details of what is going to be occurring on the
property, other than the letter af September 2, 1999.
Greg P,~cCafferty stated to his knowledge this was all that is on file, with the exception cf som•~ items
included in the staff report based on conversations with the case planner, the CEQA Negative Declaration
and Initial Study that were completed. There is some confusion between what staff believes is going to be
there and what the applicant is indicating. He suggested perhaps the applicant needs to provide a more
detailed letter of operation to specify the types of trucks to be used.
Commissioner Arnold asked the applicant if they are willing to provide more detail of what is going to
occur at this site.
Justo Villar responded they did not have a problem providing the information.
Commissioner Bristol stated Condition No. 25 regarding the number of trucks stored on-site be limited to
12. Asked the applicanYs if there would be 12 trucks on this site.
Justo Villar verified that was stated on the applicanYs IetFer. Although not all the vehicles are used, it
depends what they are doing. There are 7 employees out in the field and 2 remain on-site.
Michael Clarke, 8421 Yorktown, Huntington Beach, stated he is the potential buyer.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 35
Commissioner Arnold stated in order for Commission to state that !here are no environmental Impacts that
might have a substantial impact on the environment they need more detailc of what exactly is going to
occur at the site, such as types of materiais store, tra~c and number of trucks, etc.
Michael Clarke responded they are a paving company and do a lot of asphalt maintenance. They use
traffic paint, sealcoat, slurry seal, and use TAC oil for putting down asphalt. None af those are hot
matarials. The TAC oil and seal coat are stored in tanks. The paint comes in buckets, which they store
inside closed containers in the trailer. In his opinion, none of this smells. Part uf the loading and
unioading is actually some equipment as well, which would not happen daily.
Commissioner Bostwick stated in their letter of operation it indicates maintenance/light maintenance,
cleaning of the equipment and asked what that entails.
Michael Clarke stated it would involve cleaning the trucks with soap and water.
Melanie Adams, Rssociate Civil Engineer, stated the applicant would be limited in their washing of the
trucks. They would not be able to use detergents on the trucks on-site and should take them to a
proressional facility. They are trying to prevent pollutants from entering the storm water system. if they
we~e goinc~ to wash on-site it could only include the water. If degreasing then they would need to be hand
rubbed and rubbed off before the vehicle is rinsed. Therefore, they should not anticipate vehicle cleaning
at this site.
Commissioner Arnold felt in favor of a continuance because they need to know exactly what will be
occurring at fhe site since there has been a history violations.
Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Clarke where he is currently operating.
Michael Clarke responded at 2125 South Lyon Street in Santa Ana (off of Grand : ienue and Warner).
Greg McCafferty requested the applicar:t take photos of his current operation in Santa An~.
Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for a continuance to November 22,1999, with a request far a more
detailed statement of operations and pho!os of the applicants current business, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and motion carried.
0 • p • • •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTI01~: Continued subject request to the November 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
in order for applicant to submit more detailed information in reaards to the operation
of the project and for the applicant to submit pictures of the business where he is
currently operating (2125 South Lyon Street in Santa Ana).
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner @oydstun absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (4:25-4:53)
P.naheim City Panning Commission
Surrmary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 36
""^„^,•"'• Continued to
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4963 ~ ~_22~99
OWNER: Marvin Frederick and Vivian Marie Rogers, 321 North State
College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Allen Golden, 2888 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, GA
91107
LOCATION: 321 yorth State Colleae Boulevard. Property is
0.69 acre located on the west side of State
College Boulevard, 310 feet south of the centerline
of Redwood Avenue.
7o permit a substance abuse recovery center for women and
their dependent children.
CONDlTIOtVAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION N0.
SR1020TW.DOC
SUMMAk t OF DISCUSSION
C.hairperson Pro-Tempore Koos announced there was a request for a continuance of fhis item and asked
if there was anyone in the audience who wou/d like to give testimony.
Public Testimony (opposition):
Jan M. .IOrdan, Almond Drive, Anaheim, stated this proposal affects her because it is located in front of
her home ;~n~1 wonders what type of people will be living there. She asked if the entire complex will be
used For rehab and would it bring in drug addicts into their neighborho~ i. She has lived in her ha~ne for
25 years and this is a nice residentiai area wherE owners care about their homes. She felt this proposal
should be moved elsewhere.
Commissioner Var.derbilt. offered a motion for a continuance to November 22, 1999, to allow time to
analyze revised plans, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried.
• • • • • •
OPPCISITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the subject request.
ACTION: Continued su~; ~ct request to the November 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
in order to ailow time for staff to analyze revised plans for the substance abuse
recovery center.
V~TE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DISCUSSION T(ME: 3 minutes (1:35-1:38)
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 37
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARI>.TION Approv
11b. VARIANCE N(). 4375 Denied
OWNER: Richard L. Johnson and Gene H. Johnson, P.O. Box 1759,
Blue Jay, CA 92317
LOCATION: 516 West Chestnut Street. Property is 0.17 acre located
on the south side of Chestnut Street, 220 feet west of the
centerline of Harbor 8oulevard.
Waiver of (a) minimum dimensions of vehicie accessways, (b) minimum
dimensions of parking spaces, (c) minimum number of parking spaces, (d)
minimum building site area per -Iling unit, (e) required front setback, (~
required structural setback, (g) rril~,,,num recreational-leisure area, and (h)
parking precluded fron~ b2~king onto a public stres :o construct a 3-unit
apartment building on tl~e same property with an existing 2-unit aparti;ient
building, for a total of 5 units.
VARIANCE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-1g5
SR6979DS.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1
Applicant's Statement:
Richard Johnson, P.O. Box 1759, Bluejay, California, stated he is the owner of subject property. This is a
one block long cul-de-sac street that can only be entered going off of Harbor Boulevard between Lincoln
and Broadway. This tract was an old tract established in "old time Anaheim" and was approved by what
was then the Board of Trustees in 1906. There has been quite a change in the character over the years.
Thirty-eight years ago ttiere was a 6-plex built iocated three praperties west of his property. There are
other older homes that have added duplexes in the rear, one is next door to his property. The photo in the
staff report shows s historic home at 520 West Chestnut. It also has a duplex in the rear and is notjust a
single-9amily home. There are a tatal of approximately four other neighbors that have had duplexes built
in their rear property. His point is that over the years it has developed into a conglomeration of everything;
that there is no homogenous continuity.
In 1989 this block, along with other neighborhoods, were zoned RM-1200 and it is now RM-2400. Since
that time there has been no building constructed in the biock because almost every lot was already fully
built on, except his. Therefore, to deny his petition would be denying him the privileges enjoyed for years
by a number of his neic~hbors.
He is proposinq 4 garages and 3 additional parking s~aces ir~ the front to off set the nead for street
parking. The setback without the proposed 3 parking spaces is approximately 23 feet, which is much
more than the other neighbors have. He forwarded photos to Commission of 543 West Chestnut Street
showing open parking in the front of that house. 1'he photos also showed how few cars were parked on
the street.
This is within the boundaries of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. The phafos he submitted include
some of lhese homes.
Richard Johnson mentioned there was some errors in figures in the staff report.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08 ~9
Page 38
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised after the public testimony is taken and the hearing is closed
then that is typically when those corrections are made.
Public Testimony (oppos;tion):
Michelle Lieberman, 512 West Chestnut Street, stated she purchased the property approximately 1%z
years ago which is iocated directly east of subject property. They are currently making major up~rades to
their home as well as their neighbors. She compiled a petition, attached to the staff report, of signatures
and has subsequently had more signatures added to the petition, and now has received 75% of the
property owner's signatures that reside on Chestnut Street.
There are many reasons she is against the proposal such as population density and could not see any
benefit adding three more families to the block. The street is technically not a cul-de-sac but rather a one
block iong dead-end street. Her other concern is the parking situation and did not agree with Mr. Johnson
about the parking situation. Except for Thursdays, which is street-sweeping day, there is almost no
parking along that street.
These homes have been designated as historic structures. Some do not look like it, her home included
because it evas stuccoed in the past. Regardless of the fact, they are still historic structures. The
proposed "Meciiterranean" style 3-unit apartment complex does not fit in with a majority of the homes on
the street.
She was also concerned with the decreased privacy. She was informed from her real estate agent that
the proposed construction would adversely affect the resale of their property.
She is concerned with the increased noise levels, not just the construction but what the additional families
living there would represent.
Harry Gossett, 539 West Chestnut Street, clarified that the businesses face Harbor Boulevard and not
Chestnut Street. All the older homes in the area have very small driveway and limited off-street parking
which creates a parking problem and extra traffic. He referred to the petition in the staff report 2nd
indicated there were 3 more signatures added since then.
Kay Marie Kooter, 525 West Chestnut Street, stated she has lived there for 14 years and lives next to the
home that is rundown but they are currently in She process of re-roofing and indicated that they are going
to repaint the outside. She is not in agrQement in having such a high usage building. Their street is
already overcrowded. The computer students use that street and she has had to call the Police
Department on a numerous occasions because her driveway was blocked. The only day there are no
problems with parking are on Thursdays because it is street sweeping day. This building would add to an
already crowded and dead-end street. She would prefer a single-family home built instead.
Michelle Lieberman presented her petition with the additional signatures that she mentioned in her sarlier
testimony.
Bruce Hofstetter, 534 West Chestnut Street, stated his concerned is the safety of the children playing on
this block. There is a skateboard shop that faces east on Harbor Boulevard and many of the kids will
skateboard in that area and with the current traffic flow there has been concern of someone getting hurt.
There is sometimes a problem with double-parking.
Janette (Jan) Yates, 508 West Chestnut Street, stated she is the one w~th the beauty salon that was there
for 40 years. At that time Chestnut Street was open into Fremont School and s~nce then that area has
been built up and the street was closed. Her hair salon at that time was the only one in the area. She
worked at her salon until 1988 and in 1960 moved in and has lived there since. This is a busy street
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 39
except on Thursdays. She does not feel they can afford to have any more added parking because there
is no place to park.
Janette Fisher, 540 West Chestnut Street, stated 543 West Chestnut Street has no alley assess and also
has na room for a side garage. Mr. Johnson mailed out a letter stating what he intended to build was a
line of luxury apartments but the area would not support a ciientele that would be interested in luxury
apartments.
ApplicanYs Rebuttal:
Mr. Johnson thanked his neighbors for attending. If the project is approved, he is willing to redo the
architectural appearance. He did not consider the building to be Mediterranean style. Many comments
were made about the street being crowded. Off-street parking is more desirable that is why he was trying
to put as many parking spaces into the unit as possibie. He has never had a problem parking in front of
his structure. The critical issue is that the nature of the area has changed a great deal over the years.
Most of the duplexes or other complexes have been there a lang time. Whatever has happened that has
improved or nega+ively ~mpacted the values mostly happened a long time ago and is something that is
alread; existing there.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
C~mmissioner Bristol stated he was involved in the 1989 down zoning of this area and the reasoning was
because of the poor planning and the high density. Therefore, the down zoning and planning that was
done to create this type of homeownership, activity and appreciation would be turned around if these
waivers were allowed on this site.
Secondly, being unable to park does create a problem to property values. He indicated he was at the site
on Saturday and had a resident very upset with him because he parked in front of the driveway, he did so
because there was no other place to park, which leads fiim to conclude that there is a parking problem.
Something this intense with these types of waivers would further ruin the integrity of the nsighborhood.
Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Commissioner Bristol. 7he down zoning was a concern. He would
be more in favor of a single-family home on ihis property in front, then it would match with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Chairperson Pro-Temp~re Koos stated there has been a concerted effort with many community groups to
revive what was originally i~are or encourage development with a historic look to it. Many structures built
years ago in this City are not something that he would consider as a precedent setting issue. He
concurred with the other Commissioners. He suggested a new single-family home fronting the street and
a"granny" unit in the back would be more compatibile with the goals of this area. Anything more than that
would not be compatible.
Greg McCafferty advised of the following corrections to the staff report:
+ Paragraph no. 1, the ~ot dimensions should be 47.3 feet by 158.44 feet, which does not affect any of
the waivers listed.
• Paragraph no. 2, Waiver (d) delete 1,015 square feet and replace with 1,498.8 square feet which
comes to the same conclusion, that the maximum number of units that would be permitted at this site
subject to meeting all the Code requirement would be 3 units (which would be 2 plus 1 additional unit).
• Paragraph no. 7 indicated they were 3-bedraom units but are ~ctualiy 2-bedroom units.
~ Paragraph no. 17 should read, "Code requires 8 feet and 5 feet, 6 inches (west property line, and 6
feet, 10 inches (east property line) is proposed.)."
Anaheim City ?anni~g Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 40
,.
•
e , . ,,
,... ~ _~ ~ .
. . .
. ` ,-y.... ..~:.._
_., .. ,.
OPPOSITION: 6 peopls spoke in opposition.
A petition with 16 signatures in oppositlon was submitted at the public hearing.
ACTION: Appr~ved Negative Declaration
Denied Variance No. 4375 based on the fotlowing:
1. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of
size, topography, surroundings and buiiding location, which do not apply to
other identically zoned properties in the vicinity to justify these waivers
2. That the proposed 5-unit apa~tment complex would not be compatible with the
scale, style, and character of the sunounding hfstoric neighbonc~~od.
3. That the proposed density would not be compatible with +.he allowable density
as set forth in the General Plan.
4. That the number of waivers being requested demonstrates that the proposal is
too dense for the site.
5. That the livability of this residential property would be compromised by not
providing the Code required amenities that are being asked to be waived.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 52 minutes (4:54-5:46)
Foilowing the action, Commissioner Arnold left the meeting and did not retum.
Anaheim City Panning Commissian
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 41
12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATiON (PREVIaUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to
12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3812 (READVERYISED) 12-20-99 '
OWNER: TW Investments and IW investment Corp., Attn: Kape
Properties, P.O. Box 64~74 Beverly Hiils, CA 90212 ~
AGENT: Kape Properties, Attn: Allen Weinstock, 94~40 Santa
Monica Boulevard, #305, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
LOCATION: 1325,1331 and 1341 North Blue G~m Street. Property is
9.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Miraloma
Avenue and Blue Gum Sdeet (Transtar Van Conversion).
To consider reinstakement of this permit which currently contains a time
limitation (originally approved on March 4,1996 to expire on October 13,
1998 and reinstated on December 21, 1398 to expire on October 13,
1999) to retain previously-approved automotive van conversion and
modification facility in an existing industriai business park.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO
SR7616KP.DOC
• • • • • ~
OPPOSITION: ~one
ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 20,1999 Planning Corr;n~ission meeting
in order for the petitioner to fully comply with all conditions of approval.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not disc~ssed,
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 42
13b. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2231 (READVERTISED) ~~ Revoked
OWNER: American SK Trading Company, Attn: Wenyi Zhang, 831
South Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: Tom and Wen Yi Zhang, 831 South Beach Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.65 acre located
on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 830 feet north of the
centerline of Ball Road (Rainbow Innl.
To consider revocation or further modification of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2231 to permit a 41-unit, 2-story motel with waiver of maximum
structural height.
CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-196
SR7613KP.DOC
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSlON
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is a request to consider revocation or further modification ~f
Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 which originally approved a 41-unit 2-story motel at 831 South Beach
Boulevard, The Rainbow Inn.
Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer stated in July 1999 Commission modified the
conditional use permit for this hotel by adding conditions to remedy fhe ongoing code violations.
The applicant appealed to the City Council regarding the security guard service, which Council amended
to 3 days a week, from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings.
On October 22, 1998 he conducted an inspection of the property along with the Orange County Health
Department and they observed 73 Code violations which consisted of substandard housing conditions,
cockroaches, inoperable vehicles, poor landscaping, smol;e detsctors handing from their wires and it
appeared that some of the units had "hot" plates that the tenants were using. This would be in violation of
their conditional use permit already in existence that they are not providing daily maid service. He did not
observe the room rates posted inside of the office area and were in violation of the several local, State
and Uniform Housing and Building Codes. The on-site landscaping was in poor condition. He concluded
they are currently in violation of their conditional use permit.
Sgt. Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police Department, stated for the last two years they have been monitoring
cails for service at this location. This year there were 100 calls for services, of those calls 37 were people
calling for various things such as suspicious circumstance, disturbances, assisted by other departments
for investigations, welfare checks, rape calls, theft calls, spousal abuse. The most recent call in October
involved an incident of a stabbing. Activity continues at the site. There were a total of 54 police initiated
calls in the first 9 months of th~s year, which is a high number of calls.
June or July 1999 when the security guard was at the site 3 nights a week they thought there would be
some decrease in the amount of calls. Unfortunately, they havo r~ot seen a decrease or a security guard
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Hgenda
11-08-99
Page 43
as regularly as they see next door at the Covered Wagon motel. The Covered Wagon has at least one
security guard sitting outside the entire night with barricades up and is very t~isible.
There was some discussion about tne sale of this property. According to Mr. Mike Shah, the person who
was to purchase the property, his intention was to evict everyone and invest into the property and remodel
all the rooms. Last week, Mr. Shah contacted O~cer Tom Engle and informed him that the deal was off
and was no longer purchasing the property. Apparently there was an increase in the amount that was
asked'or by the current owners.
When compared to motels of its approximate size on the boulevard it draws about 4 times the normal
amnunt of calls. He concluded that this property is a problem and they would like to see some
improvement, especially with the security guard.
Public Testimony (opposition):
Judith Ann Gollette, stated she is representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development
Council). They support Code Enforcement and the Police DepartmenYs efforts in the possibility of closing
this property down or the sale of it. A concem is that if this permit is revoked that they could continue to
operate without a permit, such as the Pacific Inn has done for the last year.
Don Lu, stated he is the translator for the owner, Tom Zhang. They were present to find out the results of
the decision because they would Iike to sell the motel. They did not have any furfher comments.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if they had read the staff report, recommendations and conditions.
Don Lu confirmed that they had read the information.
Commissioner Bristol asked how long Mr. Zhang had owned the property.
Don Lu responded he just purchased the property on July 12,1999 and he wants to sell the property to
Mr. Shah.
Greg McCafferty asked clarification whether Mr. Zhang was the current property owner.
Don Lu verified he was.
Commissioner Bristol stated at the morning session there was a discussion of a potential sale of this
property. However, this is a land use issue and has nothing to do with an individual unless the person
who has the land use has not complied with the conditional use permit. There appears to be a lack of
concern of safety at this facility.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Mr. Lu, the translator, i° Mr. Zhang understood what Commissioner
Bristol had just stated.
Don Lu responded he understood some of it and would translate the rest.
Commissioner Bristol continued by asking why the owner was allowing this property to continue with
these violations.
Don Lu responded that the manager had been changed which may have been some of the reasons for
this motel being managed poorly.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Actian Agenda
11-08-99
Pag9 44
Commissioner Bristol stated he has heard that same reasoning in the past biaming the manager. He did
not agree that this permit shouid be modified. Nz understands the logic was that they might get a
modification and make this property better. This is actually a land use issue.
Don Lu stated Mr. Zhang wanted to make Commission aware that this year he invested some money into
the properry to improve the conditions of the motel.
Commissioner Bristol asked if this is the first time Mr. Zhang has seen these photos,
Don Lu responded yes it is the first time.
Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Zhang owns the proper;y but he does not know that it is in this disrepair.
Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer stated Mr. Zhang was with him on his inspection on
October 22, 1999.
Greg McCafferty stated the recommendation for modification of this permit was based on the fact that they
thought, which was consistent with Code Enforcement, that somF ~ne was going to take this over and
clean it up. Clearly, it does not seem that is the case now, which would affect staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Bostwick stated his concern with Ms. Gollette's statement earlier regarding a revoked
permit, and asked if the Pacific Inn was operating wifhout a permit.
Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, explained since City Council revoked the Pacific Inn's
CUP they are now pending in criminal court in violation of operating without a conditional use permit.
Commissione~ ~ris`ol stated he could not see modifying this permit. It is unbelievable that anyone could
own this prape. ~},~ and testify that he was surprised by the conditions at the motel. This motel is run
without regard to health.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he was at the site on Saturday afternoon and Mr. Zhang was walking
across the driveway when he pulled out. Therefore, he is certain he is on-site, in the office and
participating in the business.
Don Lu requested more time to fix some of the problems. They just changed managers to take care of the
motel.
Commissioner F3cstwick stated if Commission revokes their permit then !he applicant has 22 days to fix
their problems and appeal it to the City Council.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Yourstone when he conducted his inspection of the property was
there any discussion about repairs made by the owner.
Don Yourstone responded yes there was. He asked him why the repairs were not being completed and
he was told that they were trying to do it. Apparently they were not trying hard enough.
• • • • • .
OPPOSITION: 1 person representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council
(WAND) spoke with concerns.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 45
Revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 based upon the evidence submittsd at the
publ!c hearing, determining the following:
.040 That the permit granted is being, or recently has been exercised contrary to the
terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance,
law or regulation;
.050 That the use for which the approval was granted has been so exercised as to
be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as ta constitute a nuis~nce;
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights.
DISCUSSIOM TIME: 20 minutes (5:47-6:07)
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agonda
11-08-99
Page 46
ITEMS pF PUBLI~ IMTEREST~
Following the public hearing, Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if there was anyone present to
discuss any matters of public interest.
Public Statement:
Judith Ann Gollette, WAND (Wes~~ Anaheim P;eighborhood Development Council), v:~a~ted to clarify
statements made earlier. When th=y were discussing the Brookhurst Motel (Brookhurst Plaza Inn,
Conditiona/ Use Permit No. 2469) an.~ she slated that it was unclean and unkept, what she was referring
to that until they come to Commission fc;r mare additional property or change they have done nothing on
their own to upkeep the propnrty.
She explained they are volunteers. She went by the posting at the site and the legal notice posted in the
newspaper and did not realize there was a 3-story building pruposed. She has a 3-story building behind
her property, 75-foot setback that took away her privacy. If she had read it then she would have
addressed the item more proficiently, She felt thers was no difference between this restaurant and the
Ritz.
Commissioner Ciristol clarified they already have the right to do what they came before Commission to do.
Everything still needs to return to Commission for their final approval.
Commissioner Bostwick advised this is a family restaurant and not a nightclub.
G~•eg McCafferty, Se~ior Planner, explained it cannot return as an R&R for a cocktail lounge within that
restaurant. They would have to return as a notice of public hearing if they were to do anything other than
what they stipulated, which is a family restaurant with the hours indicated.
Commissioner Bostwick clarified the hours are from 6 a.m, to 12 midnight for the alcohol use and 6 a.m. tc
2 a.m. for the food service. He emphasized they must have food service the entire time they are serving
alcohol.
Judith Ann Gollette stated whenever landscaping is installed as a barrier they should make sure the
appropriate type of Iar.dscaping is being installed that will continue to thrive and not dry out.
In her situation, the City Council toid the developer he did not have the right to take away her privacy; this
was her home. Despite that she lost her swimming, back yard and their park. She warned not to go back
to those days but rather progress forward.
Public Statement:
Dr. Bevarly Pennock stated she has taught in the educational system for many years and is concerned
with the education of children in our society. She also addressed the overcrowded situation in the school
system and in particular Anaheim.
She complimented Commission by stating that they were one of the most illustrious group of people she
has encountered in a long time.
Anaheim Ciry Panning Commission
Summa^ action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 47
;.
~~.
y :~
,--
She was concemed with the approval of allowingbars to be open at 6 a.m. and crea8ng an unsafe
environment for the children having to walk through that area. She further elaborated on other issues that
concemed her and what socie' ~ should be focusing on.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney informed Ms. Pennock that this is not City Council and she is going
into matters that are well outside of the jurisdiction of the Pianning Commission.
Dr. Pennock apologized because she thought they were the City Council.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos further clarified that this is the Plan~ing Cammission and they deal with
land use issues and make recommendations to the City Council. He thanked Mr. Pennock for her interest
I and comments.
Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos then adjourned the meeting to November 22,1999 at 11:00 a.m.
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-OS-99
Page~48
;i
ADJOtlRNMENT AT 6:25 P.M. TO
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22,1999 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY ;PLAN REVIEW.
Submitted by:
~+ ~.r~n..~
O~belia Edmundson
Senior Secretary
.~ ~~nlnC,li>C..
~ ~~
Simonne Fannin
Senior Word Processing Operator
Rece~ved and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ ~-~~2- ~ ~
Anaheim City Panning Commission
Summary Action Agenda
11-08-99
Page 49