Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/05/08~,,Hf~Mpq`,~ CITY OF ANAHEIM t' O ~ ~' Z ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES pO4NDED tby'1 DATE: MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos called the Morning Session to order 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 10:30 A.M. • Assigned Regional Housing needs assessment (RHNA) number and status of Housing element update* 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review * Originally listed as "Staff presentation of Downtown Anaheim Concert Theater" (this item was deleted from the agenda) PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. • 1:30 P.M PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT; STAFF PRESENT: Public Hearing Testimony The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Vanderbilt. Arnold, Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt Boydstun Malcom Slaughter Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Joseph Wright Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Rob Zur Schmiede Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Deputy City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Community Development Manager Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 9:00 a.m. on May 5, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, April 13, 2000. DOC planninc~commission(a~anaheim.net 05-08-00 Page 1 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u u ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNfNG l+ Approved COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2000. (Motion) ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 2000. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a. CEQA EXEMPTION-SECTION 15061(b)(3) b. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND Concurred w/staff Initiated proceedings for General Plan Amendment ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City- and Reclassification Initiated (Anaheim Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Bouievard, 10'h Floor, Anaheim, CA 92805, request for Planning Commission to consider initiation of General Plan Amendment and Zoning Reclassification (Vote: 5-O, Commissioner proceedings for the proposed South Anaheim Boulevard Bostwick declared a conflict Corridor Overlay Zone. Property is approximately 430 of interest and Chairperson acres located along and adjacent to South Anaheim Boydstun was absent) Boulevard between Broadway and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Chairperson Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. • Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Chairperson Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate General Plan Amendment and Zoning Reclassification proceedings for properties located within the South Anaheim Boulevard study area. SR1037JB.DOC 05-08-00 Page 2 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick, for the record, declared a conflict of interest since he owns property within the zone. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request to initiate general plan and zoning reclassification proceedings for a property within the South Anaheim Boulevard Project Area. He indicated the Community Development staff is available to answer any questions. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated a few months ago Commission was presented a conceptual plan for the area. He asked if there could be another shorter presentation at Commission's morning session to go over the particulars of the zone changes and the overlay in general. Robert ZurSchmiede, Redevelopment Agency, stated they will be coming before Commission on May 22nd both at the morning session and the public hearing session with a more complete explanation of the general plan amendment, the proposed overlay ordinance and its application to properties in the corridor. ~ • 05-08-00 Page 3 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 370 (READVERTISED) Continued to 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-10 6-5-2000 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDfTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 2f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2a, 2c, 2d, and 2e OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. General Plan Amendment No. 370 - An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the General Industrial designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-10 - To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 - To construct a 281,133 square foot commercial retail center including a home improvement store, health club, three (3) drive-through fast food restaurants, two (2) full-service restaurants, and a freeway-oriented freestanding sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c) required dedication and improvement of right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 20, 1999, January 19, January 31, February 14, and April 10, 2000. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ SR6986DS. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 323, approval of General Plan Amendment No. 370, approval of Reclassification No. 99-00-10, a waiver of code requirement, a conditional use permit and request for review of items 2c, 2d and 2e with regard to the construction of a commercial retail center at the corner of the 91 Fwy. and Lemon Street. Staff is recommending that Commission continue this item to redefine some of the issues that they identified in evaluation of the staff report. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos announced that normally when a continuance is suggested Commission goes ahead to continue the item, but given the size and scope of this project he felt they should have the public hearing today and go forward with the presentations. Applicant's Statement: John Manavian, Pacific Theatres Realty Corporation, stated they are they development arm for the ownership entity who has owned this property for 30 or 40 years. He appreciated the fact that this item 05-08-00 Page 4 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • was not continued because they feel that they have been working on this proposed project for some time and have been in an entitlement EIR process for over 18 months. They have been delayed 4 to 6 months because of the second public review as they have been negotiating with the City of Fullerton. The property is located on the northwest corner of Anaheim adjoining Fullerton. Their EIR consultant, traffic engineer, and the architect (MCG) were present in the audience. He addressed their concerns as follows: • The first concern is the waiver of the parking lot landscaping. There is a specific area behind the major buildings where they are proposing "diamonds" instead of planters. This would be more for truck traffic not hitting the curbing, but if Commission feels strongly about this being "finger" planting then they would not belabor the issue. They added this is for circulation and discovered that they were in not meeting a specific development standard. Staff then suggested they submit a waiver, but this is not a crucial issue for them and they can return to "finger" planting at that location. • The second concern is Durst Street and the waiver of parkway and sidewalk. He felt there was a misunderstanding of what they are proposing there. Their first project, a theater, has a curb cut and their intent was to widen Durst Street to the full width to that first curb cut and leave the balance of Durst Street in place adding a half cul-de-sac on their property for truck access and rear loading and deliveries. Their tenant, Lowes, who took over the project from Eagles, whom they had an executive lease with, has a contractor/customer loading area on the north side of their building. They felt very strongly that they needed a curb cut there for circulation purposes. The EIR is very specific, if the curb cut went in they had to widen Durst Street all the way across the entire frontage of their property. That is their intention and they are giving up an additional 19 feet of right-of-way. They have already done the change and the master plan shows that corrective right-of-way 32 feet from the centerline. They are asking form a practical standpoint whether a sidewalk makes sense beyond the first • driveway. In lieu of a sidewalk they would like to take that sidewalk area and the parkway and make it all landscaping. This would extend their sprinkler systems into the location, add landscaping and create a softer edge for the balance of Durst Street. If Public Works and Planning Commission feels strongly that they want see a sidewalk there then they would be happy to install a sidewalk and the parkway. They are not eliminating the parkway but asking in lieu of the sidewalk that they expand the parkway and integrate the landscape plan with their project. The third concern is the pylon sign. They understand there is a current Code. It is 60 feet tall and they like the height in order to be able to attract the visibility from traffic going east from either the freeway or Orangethorpe. The sign is under 250 square feet in area which meets today's Code, but understand the direction that City Council, staff and perhaps Commission is taking. If they would like to approve it consistent with a future ordinance then they are willing to look at that as well, They would rather not continue the project due to the pylon sign because time is important to them. Lowes expected to break ground in early spring and now they are looking at a possible breaking ground of later in the summer if this project if delayed further. • The fourth concern is a design concern. There have been many things that they have done to improve the development. He is familiar with the various developments that staff has pointed out to them. Size is an element, for example, Long Beach Town Center and Cerritos Town Center are approximately'/z to 1 million square feet. Both of the projects have theaters, lifestyle and specialty tenants and are designed to attract people to come and spend time. From the beginning they indicated the type of project that they are anticipating at the proposed site is not an Irvine Spectrum, where people spend an average of 4 to 8 hours. They are taking a project that was zoned industrial and asked for a general plan amendment to convert it to commercial. Their major retailer is a home improvement center. It is a hardware, home improvement and garden center. The types of tenants attracted are those who are interested in this location along a major freeway intersection and • therefore tend to be destination oriented tenants. Other projects are the Brea Projects which are a consolidated area of major regional mall, such as the Brea Gateway, Brea Downtown which lead to a certain tenant mix. They feel they are a very different center, a community shopping center with a home improvement anchor store of superior quality. 05-08-00 Page 5 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He can discuss the fast food area, the buffering and landscaping along Lemon Street. !n the pedestrian areas they have taken not only the ADA requirements but expanded that to have hardscape and focal elements, but what they do not have is a clock tower or fountain. He questioned the importance of those elements. At the entrance of their project they have made a major attempt to create an icon or sculpture type elements with both landscaping as well as identity for the project. The project as a whole is coordinated, even though they have fast food and corporate tenants, they are demanding a consistent design theme as they did in another of their projects at Los Altos Gateway in Long Beach. Their commitment for this project is to do the same thing. They are not closing the door on the restaurant areas, but until you have been EIR certified and a project approved most tenants are not interested in talking. So they do not currently have fixed tenants for that front area. They are trying to get through the entitlement process. The corner parcels on the south side referred to as Lots 8 and 7 are currently under Caltrans control. They own the property closest to the freeway and they own the ring around it and have a construction easement on their property. Until that property is available to them they are not able to develop it but included it in the EIR so everyone could take consideration of the traffic impacts of a master plan. If that is the area that staff has an issue with then they have time to work on it in terms of being able to proceed with what he does not feel is a problem, the Lowes portion of the project. They feel they have done a good job of integrating the design theme. Public Testimony: John Maresca, Director of Marketing for Bryan Industrial Properties, 146 East Orangethorpe, Anaheim, stated he is one of the representatives today on behalf of Mr. Hoyt and Bryan Industrial Properties. The • proposed Anaheim Gateway Project is immediately south of the Hoyt/Bryan Industrial Properties located at Orangethorpe Way and Missle Way. The HoyUBryan Properties total 14 acres and include 240,000 square feet of industrial properties with over 30 businesses on location. Bryan Industrial Properties is one of the first brokerage and development entities to start in Orange County. They have been in Anaheim for 45 years. As a developer they are aware of the riggers of securing entitlements but also know the need of developers to be sensitive to the impact on surrounding properties. They are in favor of the project, however, he submitted, for the record, a letter from Jerry Knudson, legal counsel for the Hoyt/Bryan properties, that raises issues regarding the EIR process. He indicated he would address the general concept of the impact of the project as it relates to the private properties to the north of the proposed project. They are concerned about the use of the three private streets that the tenants of this new project would likely use. It is believed that the drive access adjacent to Lowes, the middle curb cut location, will be a strong invitation for the use of the private streets of the Hoyt/Bryan properties at both Orangethorpe Way and Missle Way. This drive cut as planned for the project is to a large degree specially planned, and as previously noted, for contractor pickups. They feel that they will be inclined to use the private streets for eastbound access on Orangethorpe. In an effort to provide property support to this project and not hold it up we have urged the applicant to reconsider the placement of the middle drive on Durst and re-circulate some of its traffic on-site without this drive access. They have been told by the tenanYs representative's that they are in need of this drive access and have requested such. They would like to think that the tenant, as well as the applicant, would not urge this drive cut at the expense of the neighboring property owners. Both the City Traffic Department and the neighboring property owners, Bryan/Hoyt, have previously come up with a solution that they thought would help mitigate this prospective impact on traffic on these private streets. Even though the solution would mitigate but not entirely eliminate the impact on the private streets, Bryan/Hoyt Properties is in support of it. • They propose that the applicant accomplish the following: • Offer to dedicate, but not fully improve Durst Street, as it accommodates their project, and eliminate the middle drive curb cut or the single curb access as presently located adjacent to Lowes. 05-08-00 Page 6 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • Make the traffic re-circulate out at the first curb cut (300 feet from Lemon). Provide for a full cul-de-sac at the end of Durst Street and allow Durst Street to maintain truck traffic and general service traffic only and not general clientele traffic. Until this most recent project it had been previously agreed between Hoyt/Bryan properties with Pacific Theatres that beyond the 3000- foot widened portion from Lemon on Durst that all other access would be for emergency or service access only back in 1996. The simple solution is for Pacific Theatres to consider the impact that this would place on the private properties as noted. They feel that the solutions that they have offered will also provide less cost for the applicant as we!! as reduce the traffic impact on the neighboring properties. The traffic study in many ways seems to gloss over this prospective activity and traffic that is likely to occur on private streets. They have worked closely with the City of Anaheim and thank them for their efforts to date and look forward to the Commission to take special note of this curb cut and the removal of this curb cut as it relates to the project as a whole. Subject to removing this proposed middle driveway, they are in support of this project. Applicant's Rebuttai: John Manavian stated that they have always appreciated the support of the adjacent property owner. It was actually with their support in the past that both Pacific Theaters and Bryan Industrial Properties created this 24-foot portion called Durst Street. One of the issues that they have always had is that they refer to their areas as private streets. On the northern part of their boundary there is really no definition of a parking lot. It is as if Durst Street is an extension of Bryan Industrial's private property and they have certainly enjoyed the benefit because their swap meet operations has never used that particular access ~ point. He finds it of concern that Bryan/Hoyt Industrial is willing for the applicant to spend the money to widen the street and do a full co!lector street and now also put the full cul-de-sac on the applicant's private property and still only make it available to the trucks that come and leave Bryan/HoyYs development. They are only asking for the same consideration and asking it because they are spending the dollars to widen the street. If there is a desire not to have that curb cut at the midpoint then the EIR allows that Durst Street stay as is. They have already gone beyond that point and decided that they are willing to take away 19 more feet of their property, put in a new curb, gutter and system along Durst Street to widen it so it becomes a full collector street. He explained how they compiled their traffic data by indicating that they took all the traffic that would have made a right turn on Orangethorpe and Lemon and just applied it to that street, not even taking into consideration what other moments that could be done. This is only for contractor ioading and for the benefit of Lowes tenants, for most of their tenants the traffic will go out on Lemon. It is difficult for them to improve a street and also pick up a full cul-de-sac and then tell their customers that they cannot use that street since it would now be a private road for the benefit of the northern industrial properties. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold raised the concern that he never received the draft EIR on this proposed project. It was only Friday evening that he received the final EIR with the re-circulated traffic impact analysis. That is a vast amount of material to absorb in a short period of time. He is not comfortable enough certifying the EIR at this point and felt he needs more time to review the information. Commissioner Bostwick stated the plans that were presented to Commission do not show the widening to Durst all the way back. The presentation at the exhibit wall does but the plans do not show that. Therefore, the exhibits do not match what Commission is evaluating today, so there needs to be some • changes on the exhibits. He was concerned about sidewalks because this is an area that has a Iot of people who walk and take the bus as well as the truck traffic. He found it interesting that the sidewalk stops after the first approximately 300 feet and did not continue to the end of the street. He feels there needs to be some type of sidewalk that would facilitate the pedestrian tra~c. 05-08-00 Page 7 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Regarding the side cut going into Durst, if they are going to widen the street it is going to help somewhat but there needs to be some type of directional signage to indicate that the traffic needs to exit towards Lemon Street. The applicant has given a better rendering of the entryway to the project which is not shown on the plans. He suggested that the applicant look at that and take that entryway all the way to Lowes remove their parking to where it is straight in and out with no parking along the edges of it rather than going in only 300 feet and then beginning the parking and widen it in order to give definition to turn lanes and landscaping and landscape all the way through to make that a real defined entrance and exit way. He would like to see in the mitigation of the traffic that there be "SCOOT" applied to this project at least at the corners of Lemon and Orangefair, in coordination with the freeway at Lemon/Harbor off-ramps and on-ramps to the 91 Fwy. He felt that this project is going to impact that traffic and the short distance befinreen the freeway and this project needs to be controlled somehow. Regarding the issue of signage, the project in Brea sits right along the side of Imperial Hwy., it has no bridges and downs and is visible from both directions from traffic in both ways. He favors the sign in this case because it does need advertisement and visibility. He would rather see them install more trees along the back edge between this and the other industrial building to the east and intensify the landscaping along that back edge to create more of a buffer. Commissioner Bristol stated that it appears trips now are approximately 500 per day and the traffic cotant was taken on a Thursday. They could potentially exceed 3,000 trips on Durst Street and asked the applicant to confirm. ~ John Manavian responded that was correct. That is the calculation that the traffic engineer used taking all the tra~c going north. Commissioner Bristol stated they commented that they literally took all the traffic that they anticipated going northbound from that street that was the first curb cut. John Manavian explained there is a first curb cut behind the green area which would be the corner pad. That was originally where all that traffic was going to come out. Now there is a disburse among two driveways going onto Durst Street assuming that they are going to go out to Durst, out to Lemon and make a right turn. That is the traffic movement. Commissioner Bristol asked to confirm whether the traffic will be limited to contractor traffic only. John Manavian stated that there is nothing that restricts any of the traffic from going through there. It is more of a convenience for the contractor traffic loading of larger bulk material. It is a convenience for them to be able to get back onto Durst Street. He thought most of the customers would go back out to Lemon because it is a much easier right turn or left turn movement, there is a signalize intersection there. Commissioner Bristol asked if he thought that the likelihood of anyone making a U-turn and going back out there and crossing over Bryan/Hoyt properties is unlikely in his opinion. John Manavian could not say, but felt that the situation is similar to the app(icant's situation because anyone currently exiting from the Bryan Industrial Property, they cannot make a left turn on Durst Street onto Lemon. He wondered whether they going to need to patrol out there to keep people from that particular project from going through to come to their Lemon intersection to make a left turn back onto the freeway. There is the possibility that their traffic will also come through and it is one of those things of how do people drive their cars. Their traffic engineer felt it was a burdensome trip to go through their • parking lot. It is called private street but they are actually wide driveways within a parking lot with speed bumps. It is a matter of how the parking lot is controlled. They are going to make it difficult for trucks to 05-08-00 Page 8 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUi'ES • come back the other way and make that maneuver but there is no way to stop traffic north from them from coming through their project to get to that signalized intersection. Commissioner Bristol stated it appears that they could move the buildings further west to give more room in the back area on their site map and add a turning radius there. He asked if they are encouraging traffic to come in, unloading of vendors, etc. and go back out to Durst to the cul-de-sac to Orangethorpe. The more likely truck traffic is going to be coming around their buildings to the south and getting back into Lemon to head back onto the freeway. If there is truck traffic coming to make deliveries to their property then they are going to want to get back to Lemon and go south to the 91 Fwy., which are the majority of the truck trips. Most of the traffic will want to go back into the intersection where they can have free movemenf of fhe right or left turn. Commissioner Bristol asked that he understand staff's concern about redesigning this to give a more aesthetically pleasing features. If they had to place something aesthetically into the project is there a possible area for that. John Manavian responded they have expanded the sidewalk areas in front of the major tenants. They believe the plans before Commission show the widening of Durst Street. Regarding the concept of a food court, if that is the direction that they are headed, they can not say definitely today that they are going to create a food court because they do not have tenants who would necessarily lease in that kind of situation. They have created landscape as well as pedestrian ties along the front of the restaurant uses. The likelihood is that those restaurant pads may become a retail pad. It is difficult for them to create a food court, sitting areas, and fountains simply for the sake of doing that. Commissioner Bristol asked what would happen to Lowes if Bryan/Hoyt Industrial accomplishes what they would like in closing up the driveway. • John Manavian responded Lowes would be concerned about that but what Bryan/Hoyt Industrial may be wanting to get is a widened street and a cul-de-sac. If that curb cut goes away, according to the EIR standards, there is no need for them to widen Durst Street, because there will be no truck traffic going into that middle portion and the existing driveway is sufficient for just trucks. They would be taking all the customer traffic to that first curb cut. Commissioner Bristol stated that is not a new concern because he recalls that discussion in the past when he was on the Commission. John Manavian explained the only thing that a collector street was going to be put there and a curb cut was going to be in the middle of their property then they could not leave the street the way it is. They had to give the full width and give up more right-of-way in terms of giving 32 feet from that centeriine, but they gave another 20 feet of property in order for that to happen. That is the trade-off that they made. They are giving a fully wide street on their end. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Mr. Manavian why he thought these new centers developed in the last five years are incorporating elements such fountains, etc. John Manavian responded that the types of centers that they are warrant that. They are projects that have those kinds of public spaces but they also are life style specialty centers where the intention is to bring the customer there and for them to stay and linger. By life style he refers to specialty tenants such as Cost Plus, Pier 1,. Barnes and Noble. Tenants such as Nordstrom's Rack and the Gap demand a nice pedestrian environment because they want people to come and shop and cross shop. They are not taking away that pedestrian aspect. The issue is that for a project that is anchored by a home improvement center, does it make sense to install a fountain and a clock tower for the sake of saying that ~ they need a focal point, or to create a food court area where people are going to linger. They have identified this project as being freeway oriented and destination tenants. The person going to Lowes is going for a specific reason. Most of the tenants they are dealing with are quick trip, destination oriented type tenants. 05-08-00 Page 9 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked what other tenants are they dealing with. John Manavian responded they have a fitness club that they are negotiating a lease with. They currently only have an executed lease with Lowes and the fast food tenants. At the corner they had originally proposed a retail pad (which included major seating area and a fountain) on the corner which could have had that type of space with a fountain but between staff and the Redevelopment Agency they discouraged them from proceeding with a multi-tenant pad because there was a concern that there were too many shop spaces in the City of Anaheim. They since pulled that out of their plans because they are going to return with another approach, which is covered by the EIR, which is a gas station site. It re- enforces a destination oriented site. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated he would not consider a health club as an in/out type of business. John Manavian responded to some degree he is correct. This is a type business that could go into their proposed center as well as in a mixed use center, but it is still a destination-oriented tenant. Commissioner Arnold's impression from hearing the discussion is that Mr. Manavian is creating an "either/or" scenario either a quick in and out, or a place where people linger for quite some time. Actually many places are in between those. He wondered whether there is not some middle ground. John Manavian explained he is referring to the urban spaces themselves. The dilemma that they have had with staff is the way the site plan is laid out. There is no question that in front of the fitness club or the other potential retailers that are south of that that those kinds of things can occur. They have never had an issue with those elements within those kind of areas. The key concern is how to take all the restaurants and make it an Irvine Spectrum by putting them around a plaza or a fountain. The fast food • restaurants can not operate that way. Commissioner Arnold asked if there needs to be an Irvine Spectrum to have design elements such as Starbucks. John Manavian stated actually one of the tenants they are talking to is Starbucks and they are working on a drive-through concept but it does not preclude them from doing their typica! nice design with an outdoor seating area. Commissioner Arnold has observed that some of those coffee houses try to do a plaza type arrangement. But when it is placed into an facility that really was not designed for that it tends to minimize the potential for that. He wondered whether there were not some inherent design components that made that more likely that they could actually have both the drive-through and the plaza. John Manavian thought they can and have made an attempt to do that, He is not indicating that the elements themselves are not appropriate but when you look at some of the projects referenced they have much larger plaza areas because they have queuing, theater,. etc. They are not opposed to the elements of seating or special pedestrian lighting. There are projects such as the Brea Gateway where the fountain was not working today. A good example of a project is Brea Marketplace, where they have all promotional tenants. They have signage, wide sidewalks, exceptional landscaping theme and it is still pedestrian friendly. They are all oriented to the street. With the proposed project they have tried to screen and buffer the retailer by putting architecture on Lemon Street and installing landscaping and a consistent design theme. It does not preclude the things they are asking for which are some of the pedestrian elements within the walkway areas. Greg McCafferty commented on some of the comparisons made with some of the centers. Brea Union Plaza, located on Imperial Hwy. east of the 57 Fwy., does have a home improvement store. It has a ~ grocery market and it does have a food court and a plaza as well. So they do not necessarily need to have theaters to have that sort of space. Staff has not seen features that the applicant is trying to create an identity, architecture or design that welcomes those type of features. 05-08-00 Page 10 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he was going to also mention Brea Union Piaza. They have a Wal-Mart and a Toy R Us. They have an interesting public space. The City of Brea may actuaily demand it of all developments of a certain size. There are not many of these in Anaheim. It does not appear that there has been much attention to the amenities that are seen at other centers. He used the example of Charter Center in Huntington Beach, which is 15 years old, to show that it is more intimate in terms of its orientation to the restaurants and is not completely detached from the restaurants. John Manavian explained that the problem with that is that there is a shop space that is very deep and away from the street. An Islands restaurant or a Juice Bar is approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, a Juice Bar is 2,000 square feet and those tenants would be adjacent to the health club which is in the larger retail building. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos wondered why the health club has to be there. John Manavian responded because that is the kind of center that they are developing. He understands the desire for making it a specialty center but that is not the kind of project they are proposing. It is not that type of center layout and does not have that type of tenant mix. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos feels that this center could be that because it is highly visible off the 91 Fwy. Anaheim is unique in the sense that much of it is freeway accessible. There is housing off of the freeways and the retail is generally more inland off the freeways. John Manavian stated that may be what Commission is suggesting but it is not what they presented as part of the EIR and makes it a difficult situation for them. • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he sees there are opportunities to have a Lowes, health facility, fast food and restaurants and integrate them all in a better way. He has a concern with Lots 4, 8 and 9. He would like to see projects presented as a whole. Lot 4 in the corner is very visible and Mr. Manavian indicated that may be a gas station. John Manavian explained that they have two site plans that were reviewed by the EIR, a retail building and a gas station. They were both reviewed for traffic by the EIR. They started with the multi-tenant pad but were rejected by the Redevelopment Agency and Planning staff as a use for that corner. Commissioner Bosfinrick suggested that they might want to place the athletic club to Lot 4 with gas station around the front of it. John Manavian stated the constraints that they have is an executed lease with Lowes who controls the major parcel on the north half of their property. The athletic health club, based on the parking requirements of 6 per 1,000 requires approximately 200 parking spaces. They are looking at an approximately 35,000 square foot building. They do not have the room to fit those two uses on the comer and they are dealing with the requirements of those tenants for parking and circulation. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if Mr. Manavian was stating that a major chain is dictating to them where they will place the pad. John Manavian explained the corner pad is only about an acre and a half. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he felt they actually have a number of options there. Commissioner Bristol asked if that was a parking constraint. • 05-08-00 Page 11 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • John Manavian explained it is a parking and a building footprint constraint. They have a 62,000 square foot lot and have a 25,000 square foot footprint. They need 200 parking spaces for that building. They will be parcelized as part of a tract map. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he was supporting Commissioner Arnold in continuing the item. Asked what the status is of the Caltrans property. John Manavian explained he did not think anyone else can purchase the property because it is landlocked. Their hope is to acquire the missing piece. They condemned the land for the new off-ramp and still own the land that is closest to the freeway. Until Caltrans is completed with their freeway improvements, they are using the area as a staging area and they have had discussions with the Redevelopment Agency to help move the Caltrans project along and they would like to integrate it as part of their shopping center. That is why they included it in their master plan so the EIR could evaluate those additional footages. It could possibly stay that way for years and they have no control over the outside portion. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated Anaheim does not have many opportunities like this location and is supportive of staff's recommendation of the orientation of the uses. They might possibly get better tenants if they incorporate such amenities as fountains, etc. That is the direction cities are going and that is a quality of life issue. These are public spaces and they need to pay attention to the way they are developed. Much has changed in terms of shopping center development and he does not see any evidence of it in the site plans. John Manavian stated they have done over 2 million square feet under development and would be happy to let Commission tour some of their completed projects. Shopping Center development may not have changed, the word is strip commercial centers with open parking. Tenants want parking in the front, not • behind it, it is the layout of those kinds of uses. They are working with the requirements of the major tenants. They can tell fast food tenants not to put drive-throughs in, but it is unlikely that they will get fast food tenant interested. They have tried to do something different here to make this a superior project. They have never been against trying to upgrade the pedestrian field, they just want to make it fit with the tenants and their uses. Commissioner Arnold stated he does not feel it is necessary to change the entire nature of the project. There is nothing wrong with these particular types of tenants, especially the whole feel and some of those design amenities especially at the outer edges, the entrances areas, etc. !t is often underestimated how much pedestrian traffic is in these centers. The term `gateway" suggests that they are making a statement about the entrance to the City; some amenities might useful. Commissioner Bristol referenced letters in the EIR such as the neighbor to the east wondered what Lowes and the other tenants are going to look like. Commission did not have access to some of the elevations, so Commission is not privy to information that they typically have been for a project of this size. The neighbor to the east is justified in having concerns because the chain link fence remains, emergency access only, no elevations for Lowe's etc. The cul-de-sac on the site plan has been labeled emergency service access. He asked if he is encouraging trucks that unload to continue southbound then out toward the Caltrans piece. John Manavian advised they would have to go out to Lemon, north of Caltrans, right turn only lane. Tenants would have control of how trucks come and leave the center. Trucks coming in to load would come in to Lemon first, continue on to Durst Street, and make an awkward turn to get underneath the canopy and be prepared to make that feft turn back out onto Durst Street. Commissioner Bristol asked if it was safe to say that a lot of people would be coming in and going left on Durst? Asked if he disagreed with Mr. Maresca's argument that there was going to be a lot of traffic ~ cutting across Orangethorpe. 05-08-00 Page 12 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • John Manavian stated their traffic engineer looked at how easy it was to cut through the parking lot to get to Orangethorpe. The question now is if Bryan Industrial asks him to widen the street and put curbing and walls, that parking lot is completely wide open with no controls. Commissioner Bristol asked if it was not widened to discourage any traffic as it was originally proposed, would the City go for it and would he close that driveway? He is getting back to the original argument that Bryan Industries made to see how he feels about that. John Manavian responded they do not have a choice by the EIR. If the curb cut is put in, it necessitates the widening, you can not have all that traffic. His tenant feels very strongly that they need that. Their East coast operations were adamant about it, that is why they had to make the proposal and they had to accept the condition of widening Durst Street in order to accommodate that request. Commissioner Bostwick asked him to comment about making the entryway wider and taking it all the way to Lowe's landscaping. John Manavian stated he can not speak for Lowe's, that parking area is their parking field. In some ways they are entering their parking field if the driveway is taken all the way through. It splits up the parking field that might cause some problems because it causes a"throat" that goes all the way to their front door rather than that "throaY' ending at what is a customer parking area. Current design has a"throat" ending as the entrance to the parking area that is required for Lowes. Commissioner Bostwick thought they would like the intent to take traffic to their front door, it would be better for them than to have traffic stop somewhere else, where they could make a right turn to somebody else's store. This way they are focused on Lowe's business. It needs to be widened out and needs some kind of statement, it would also drag the exiting traffic back out to Lemon at that point rather than going • towa rd D u rst. John Manavian stated the majority of traffic will do that, but there will always be someone looking for a shortcut. Most trucks will want to go back to the 91 freeway. Commissioner Bristol agreed that it will be difficult for a large truck to go over those bumps. Greg McCafferty stated there was a comment made regarding the freeway-oriented sign and whether or not it met Code. The height is established by a conditional use permit up to a maximum of 70 feet in height. The sign area is 250 square feet per face. What you can put on a sign face, which is the parameter dimensions of that sign copy area, substantially exceeds 250 square feet per face, it is about 800 square feet per face. With regard to waiver of the landscaping, staff recommend that it be denied. There was a comment about the applicant that related to the area in back of the buildings. It may relate there, but it also relates to their areas in front of the buildings that do not have a landscape break for every 10 parking spaces. Because they have a surplus of parking spaces, staff believes that they can comply with the intent of that code requirement. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the significance of the sign size issue is that there is no advertised waiver for a sign that exceeds Code maximums, and, because it is not advertised it is not something the Commission is in a position to grant today. It can approve sign height, but the applicant would have to come back later, if he wants a sign larger than the 250 square foot dimension. John Manavian asked if Code dimensions the entire face of the sign rather than the signage it self. They worked with staff on the sign area and believed that it was correct as drawn. Greg McCafferty stated the Code reads it is the perimeter dimension of what can be a sign copy area. If you take the lowest tenant up to the highest tenant, including Anaheim Gateway which is name of center, • enclose that and did an area calculation, that is approximately 800 square feet per face. Code only allows 250 square feet. The height is fine but the area is not. 05-08-00 Page 13 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Malcom Slaughter stated the sign area is constituted by drawing a border around the exterior of the all of the advertising. Chairman Koos asked if a waiver should be advertised? Max Slaughter advised staff could re-advertise the waiver if it is going to be continued. The alternative is, if the applicant cannot live with the sign that the Code permits, he can later come in for a variance to seek a larger sign. Chairman Koos asked how long they need to advertise a waiver and is there a cost to the applicant. John Manavian stated their interest is to not ask for a waiver, they want to comply with the sign requirements. They calculated the signage area itself, not the wall that the sign is on. There is a different interpretation that they have to look at with their sign consultant. Greg McCafferty advised the sign advertisement is two weeks, if they are proposing something that does not meet the Code, it is their cost. John Manavian stated if there is a way to approve what is aAowed by Code, they will live with what is allowed by Code. Commissioner Bristol advised Commission needs to explain why they want to continue this. Commissioner Arnold explained one issue is that there has not been adequate time to sufficiently review the EIR to determine its sufficiency. It seems that there are a variety of concerns with traffic patterns and design. • Commissioner Bristol stated it will be a wonderful project, but they need more time for the EIR and traffic issue. Traffic will impact the neighbors to the north and that needs to be looked at. The project needs more landscaping on east side. Chairman Koos concurred with Commissioner Bristol, he is not opposed to the use in the least, but feels the design can be worked on to make it more modern and in line with the surrounding cities. The orientation could go a long way with respect to the design and this would give the applicant time to consider that. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would like the applicant and staff to work on SCOOT on Orangefair and Lemon and the freeway exits and entrances. It will be critical to make this project function for the public. They also needs to look at landscaping. Alfred Yalda advised the two traffic signals at 91 freeway are controlled by Caltrans, so any changes there has to be approved by them. Commissioner Arnold offered motion for a continuance to June 5, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for: • (1) Planning Commission to have more time to review the final Environmental Impact Report. 05-08-00 Page 14 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (2) The applicant to meet with staff to discuss the traffic patterns and the design of the project. (3) The applicant to consider redesigning the project to provide more public amenities and gathering places. (4) The applicant to submit revised sign plans that comply with Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 11 minutes (1:36-2:47) • ~ 05-08-00 Page 15 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-18 3c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4184 Continued to 6-19-2000 OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Portion A: 828 West Vermont Avenue * Portion B: 800 West Vermont Avenue ** Property is 0.9*** acre located on the south side of Vermont Avenue, 110**"* feet west of the centerline of Citron Street (Portion A); and a 1.1 acre parcel south of and contiguous to Portion A with no frontage on a public street (Portion B). Reclassification No. 99-00-18 - To reclassify Portion B of subject property from RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to CL (Commercial Limited) Zone. • Conditional Use Permit No. 4184 - To permit and retain an existing unpermitted truck rental facility in connection with an existing permitted auto sales dealer with waiver of (a) required number of trees, (b) required parking lot landscaping, (c) required landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway and (d) required landscaped setback adjacent to any residential zone. ~ Coast Corvette. ** Formerly A-1 Body and Paint. *** Originally advertised as 1.29 acre. **** Originally advertised as 150 feet. Continuance from the Commission meeting of March 27, 2000. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SR7731 KB.DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to June 19, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to submit new plans for development of this property. • VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-08-00 Page 16 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4187 Approved Approved Granted OWNER: Isiamic Institute of Orange County, 1220 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Dr. Gamal E. Nour, 1221 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1220-1230 North State College Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard (Islamic Institute of Orange County). To permit and construct a church with an accessory private elementary school with waiver of (a) institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of April 10, and April 24, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-51 SR7738KP.DOC • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by sfiating this is a continued public hearing for CUP 4187 for property located at 1220 to 1230 North State College Boulevard, for Islamic Institute of Orange County for construction of a church with accessory private school. The applicant returned wi additional information pertaining to site plan, school and playground operations. Staff now recommen approval. Applicant's Statement: th ds Tim Caballero with FTR International, 5 Park Plaza in Irvine, stated all issues have been addressed. Plans now show a living quarters and they submitted plans and elevation for fencing for playground area. They are proposing to add metal grill on top of current block wall so as not to redo the whole wall. The Orange County Social Services agreed to stage the break befinreen the two groups of children so that they can both use the playground and meet the requirement of 75 square feet per child. There will be 8,700 square feet of asphalt play area for elementary school. Commissioner Arnold asked how they will close off area to traffic during school hours. Tim Caballero responded late comers can drop off on the side of playground area on driveway on Placentia. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked how high the fence to north is. Tim Caballero responded it is approximately 5 feet with a 2-foot wooden extension. They will install a wrought iron fence on top with vine planting to cover it. • Commissioner Bostwick asked about the 5 a.m. hour of operation, are there any outside bells. 05-08-00 Page 17 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Tim Caballero explained it is for staff purposes, there are no outside bells. Main service is in the afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was landscaping on east of wall to the back and where there are vine pockets ending. Greg McCafferty advised a request for waiver is due to the fact that there is an access easement through there where they had to maintain a certain amount of distance between that property line in order to provide access to the apartment project to the north. There will be vine pockets on the east and north wall. Z~l ~ R~]hU I-~[rl F.`1dlciU 14hV/e1:~ L~l ~ 1:1~ ~ Ae1-1- I h[KK~71~1 ll~tl E.'f.'i [~l- Id~~ 1[~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4187 subject to the conditions of approval as listed on the staff report. VOTE: 6-Q (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:47-2:57) ~ ~ 05-08-00 Page 18 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approv 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04198 Denied OWNER: Ming International Group, 9202 Ellsworth Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 AGENT: Children's Fairyland Preschool Inc., Attn: Charles E. & Linda L. Malone, 5752 Vinevale Circle, La Palma, CA 90623 LOCATION: 5247 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is 1.47- acre property located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane. To permit a day care facility with a maximum enrollment of 84 children with waiver of (a) minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-52 II SR7727KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating the request to permit a daycare with maximum enrollment of 84 children. Staff recommends denial. It is a similar request to other CUP's on • this property where staff feels that the site, for a number of reasons, including some of the adjacent tenant uses as can well be an impact on the residential use to the east and north. Applicant's Statement: Charles Malone, 5752 Vineville Circle, La Palma, stated he is the president and owner of Children's Fairyland Inc. He gave a history of the school. The state inspected the site and approved it. Staff is concerned about the nearby convenience store that sells liquor. He has asked the Police Department to provide him with the number of arrests that have been made on the property, but has not received it. There are also concerns about the playground area being too close to the residents. They are going to build a new, age appropriate, playground area with landscaping and sprinklers. The children will be between the ages of two and five years old. They can comply with the conditions on the last page of the staff report. They are asking to be allowed to prove themselves for 2 years. They were previously in Fuflerton for 30 years and 20 years in Anaheim with residential on 3 sides of them and were considered good neighbors and never had any complaints from neighbors, City or State. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated the previous CUP allowed maximum of 40 children. Chairman Koos asked the applicant if he had reviewed the case that Commission denied in the last fall. In less than a year, he is applying for the same exact project that Commission denied last fall. Charles Malone stated Mr. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner, tried to talk him out of it, but he feels this is a facility that is ready to go with a few minor changes. It had been a pre-school before and they think they can make it work. Staff asked them at the IDC meeting if they were aware of all of the previous ones. • They want to give it a try because they think that they can make it go and be an asset to the City. Chairman Koos stated it puts Commission in a strange position, they see a project that is identical to something that they denied less than a year ago. It was a unanimous vote and the applicant is saying 05-08-00 Page 19 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ that they are better than the previous applicants. He does not know whether their proposal is any different from what was denied. Asked the applicant to explain why this project is different than something they denied and the City Council upheld. Charies Malone explained this project is not any different than the previous one. Chairman Koos asked Mr. Malone how Commission can justify changing their minds. Charles Malone responded they are basing it on personality and a reputation of 30 years. Chairman Koos stated Commission has consultants come before them that are very good presenters and Commission has to look at the land use issues. He is looking for something that is different from Mr. Malone but unfortunately he is not proposing anything different. Charles Malone stated they are asking for the 2 years and at the end of the 2 years if Commission disapproves then they will go away. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he could make it work on 40 students. It was first a daycare for 40 children, then became a pre-school; then a school with 80 plus and was denied. Asked if he could still operate with a maximum of 40 children. Charles Malone stated when they say 84 children, they don't actually mean that there are 84 children there at all times. There are morning and afternoon children; some are full time and some are part time. The chances of there being 84 kids there at one time is very remote. It won't work like that. They can bring it down to 60 children, but 40 is not feasible to make it work financially. The landlord advised that they only used 3,000 square feet of the building when they had 40 children there. • Commissioner Bristol stated he has voted against this and is not against the use but the fact that it is a land use issue. That use with children does not belong on that site. It is too tight, too small for children there. The same argument was made by someone else on this site and Commission said that the use goes with the property. This use needs to be in an area with more room. They keep trying to put more children in it and that is why they had to put gates around the front. Charles Malone stated the gates in front are in Title 22. There are many schools in Anaheim with residential right behind it. Fencing is required by State to protect children. Commissioner Bristol stated that is exactly why they put in fencing, and they are on one of the busiest thoroughfares in Anaheim. The fencing is there to protect children and when there is stacking there with their parents dropping them off it gets to be a land use issue. Charles Malone responded there will not be 80 people coming in there at one time, it is throughout the day. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirements Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04198 based on the following: • (1) That the size and shape of the property does not adequately allow for the full establishment of the day care center and outdoor playground area without detriment to the peace, health and safety of the neighboring residents and the 05-08-00 Page 20 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • children that would utilize this facility. (2) That the use would impose an undue burden on the adjacent residents due to the close proximity of the playground area and the elimination of the landscaped buffer area. (3) That the granting of the conditional use permit, even with the conditions imposed, would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION 71ME: 17 minutes (2:58-3:15) ~~ L_J L~ 05-08-00 Page 21 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04197 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 830) 5-22-2000 OWNER: Yie Sang Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Amy Lee, 3600 Wilshire Boulevard #1905, Los Angeles, CA 90010 LOCATION: 1845 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.30 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 225 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Happy Day Preschool). To increase enrollment at an existing preschool with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2014DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request to increase enrollment with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Staff recommends denial of CUP due to parking and access concerns. The site is too small to accommodate the number of children. ApplicanYs Statement: Patrick Brown, Independent Processing Services, 110 East Wilshire Ave., Suite 304, Fullerton, stated it has been previously allowed to have up fo 71 students. They are asking to permit 69 full day students with 12 siblings for the after school program. The Public Safety Department did not have any conditions. Planning asked for a gate. Traffic Engineering asked for Condition No. 9 to open up the back alley which they can do. On-site parking and circulation is an issue, so he did a survey on Friday and over the weekend to get a better indication of weekday flow. It appeared that during the weekday it is the vans and employees that park in front. On weekends there was overflow from the adjacent residential areas. School staff has an organized way of getting children from cars into the school. There would be minimal noise, but they could do sound proofing if there were any complaints. He did notice that people use Servite High School to loop around and get back to the right direction. He suggested using a pam phlet in the monthly billings to help people navigate the proper way. He questioned Condition No. 11 stating a one year limitation on CUP. He is unclear if it will be reviewed in one year or have to reapply in one year. Public Testimony: Ellen Ahn, 1912 Chantilly Lane, Fullerton 92833, stated she has never experienced any traffic or parking problems in the 2'/2 years that her son has attended the school. She is the executive director of the Korean Community Services which is a community based organization in North Orange County. She feels this school really is an asset to the Korean community and offers support for approval. ~ Sun Kim, 2237 Open Sky Drive, Fullerton 92833, stated she has two children attending the preschool and has been with school since 1994. The school supports Korean heritage and requests Commission's approval. 05-08-00 Page 22 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Moses Hiu, 2130 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, stated he has been an employee for over 4 years. He has never experienced traffic problems. Many teachers carpool and are transported by vanpool. Chairman Koos asked where he parked his car. Moses Hiu stated he either parks on the street or on the rental property, located at Brookhurst and La Palma, that they use. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if it is a reciprocal agreement with a landlord down the street for employee parking. Patrick Brown responded that they have a lease contract to rent 7 parking spaces. In addition at the school there are 6 parking spaces. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos explained that generally they do not support parking lease agreement arrangements and suggested that this item be continued so they can speak to staff because they were not aware that they had a parking arrangement. Patrick Brown suggested Commission to condition the lease spaces that will be required. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated that they need to confirm whether that center can give up any parking spaces to them and it would have to be determined whether that property is within Code. Jonathan Pai, 369 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1905, Los Angeles, 90010, stated he is the architect for the project. The leased parking spaces was the second option. They have arrangements for a van commuter for the staff and he felt this would help resolve the parking situation. He explained that the 84 ~ children are not all at the school at the same time because of varied schedules which he did not think it was going to affect the traffic situation. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if he felt that the 6 spaces was adequate and if so why would they lease spaces from someone else. Jonathan Pai responded that he felt the 6 spaces would be adequate, but Anaheim requires more than 6 space by Code. The reason they are leasing the spaces is because the 6 spaces are not currently available because they do not have access to the rear of the property. Their proposal is to make a door to the alley so they can circulate. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Yalda if he has visited the site, particularly the alley. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated he has visited the site. They are concerned with the parking because there is not enough parking available with the 6 spaces. He estimated there are approximately 35 cars in the morning and afternoon. That does not include others such as a gardener, plumber, etc. They are probably relying on off-site parking from other sites. This is not adequate parking. Commissioner Bristol stated he drove the alley and found that it is very narrow. They just found out about a potential reciprocal agreement which is of concern. This is a potentially dangerous situation. If they were to have 6 parking spaces on site he wondered where the children would be playing. Patrick Brown asked whether Commission would like them to look for parking within 400 or 600 feet of the site during the next two weeks, so the parking on-site works properly. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Arnold stated that most of the evidence presented is that 71 children seems to be working which intrigues him because it seems that they talk about the assumptions about what works and what does not. If this is currently working, then he is not certain he would have a strong tendency for denying 05-08-00 Page 23 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ an increase to 71. He tends to agree with Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos and Commissioner Bristol that there needs to be more time for the study and some evaluation of what is going on over the next couple of weeks in terms of ingress and egress and parking. Where is the parking happening? What is happening with parents dropping children off and picking them up? Thus far the only evidence he is hearing, as far as what is actually happening is that it works. Commissioner Bristol stated they heard two things that they did not know about previously: (1) additional parking which they do not know where it is located, (2) there are carpooling vans. He wondered how many vans, where do they pick up from, who do they pick up and why is it not working when it should be working. They need to answer these questions because if the use is approved then it stays with the property. The concern would be if someone else was to acquire this property and how would they handle the parking situation. Commissioner Arnold asked Commissioner Bristol if he is suggesting that they condition the approval on whatever makes it works. Alfred Yalda recommended not to rely on other parcels to provide parking because they do not have the capability to monitor those conditions. If the site has to provide zoned parking then there are two things that they cannot rely on: (1) on-street parking because the conditions could be changed on the street and (2) ifi they have a reciprocal agreement with another parcel then that person may terminate anytime following the public hearing and there is no way to find out what occurred. Commissioner Bristol stated he would like to know more about the van situation and how it is working. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos reopened the public hearing for public testimony. ~ Public Testimony: Judith Ann Gollette, WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated their major concern is the parking variances which is a major issue that has been coming before Commission much of the time. She remembers this house quite well because she had music classes in this house when she was in grade school. It is a one-family home with a garage in the back and 12 people parking there had trouble parking at one time. If there are 71 children then they need to look at the quality of life for them. The children need to have a play area and safe environment. La Palma is a busy street. Parking on the street should not be acceptable. Even if you taken 5% or 10% off of 15 they are still not down to the 6 parking spaces. She asked what the parking standard is, what would be the adult versus the student ratio requirement and at what age. Those issues all need to be taken into consideration. If they are not currently abiding by their CUP on the number of children then what other issues are not being abided with. Therefore, she felt there are many issues that need to be addressed in the a 2-week continuance. She asked Commission to carefully reconsider every time they review parking variances. Joseph Romo, 1520 Moreen Place, Fullerton, stated he is the previous owner of this facility. He never encountered any problem with the neighbors regarding parking. Since he sold it to the present owner he noticed that they improved the property and have expanded. He feels that they are worthy of upholding whatever rules would be required. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RECLOSED. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos offered a motion for continuance to May 22, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and motion carried. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos explained that the reason they are continuing this project is to address ~ the parking concerns and other concerns regarding the nature of the operation. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated for the benefit of the applicant, they should be aware that there are only certain types of parking spaces located off of the site which the Code would recognize for 05-08-00 Page 24 MAY 8, 20U0 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • purposes of counting Code required parking. He wanted to caution the applicant of that and suggested that they discuss that with staff to ensure that what they are proposing to do would qualify as countable parking spaces. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the request. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff to discuss the parking arrangement, the number of vanpools being used, the ingress and egress, the pick-up and drop-off areas and the nature of the operation. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (3:16-3:49) ~~,~,~~~,~,~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,.~~~~~~~,~,~~~~~-,.~,~,~~~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~~~,~~.~~~,~-,~~,~,~,~,~,~~~~.~,A~,~,~,~~~~,~,~,~,~ A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER THIS ITEM (3:50-4:00) • • 05-08-00 Page 25 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA710N (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04200 Approved Granted OWNER: Imperial Properties, Attn: Harold B. Hembree, P.O. Box 7250, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 5701-5791 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is 15 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway (Canyon Plaza Shopping Center). To permit outdoor seating in conjunction with a permitted coffee shop within an existing commercial retail center and to further subdivide the center into additional tenant spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-53 SR2015DS. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for a conditional use permit for the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center. They are requesting to establish outdoor seating for a coffee shop within an existing commercial center and further to subdivide some of the tenant spaces into additional tenant spaces. Staff is recommending approval as conditioned. • Applicant's Statement: Harold Hembree, 50 Crooked Stick Drive, Newport Beach, stated he is the managing partner for the owner which is Imperial Properties of Canyon Plaza Shopping Center. This involves a vacant building in their center which was formerly Home Saving and Loan. Home Savings and Loan was purchased sometime back by Washington Mutual Bank. Washington Mutual Bank already has a facility in their center, so they essentially had two banks in their center and elected to close this one. They have been trying to sublease it to another bank for the past year. They do not like the idea of the building being empty and feel it is blight on their center. They purchased the building and bought the lease back from Washington Mutual Bank. They want to re-tenant it with some new tenants. They are offering Diedrich Coffee to come in and occupy 1,759 square feet. They have almost completed with a facility for the other end (which is well know) and they are negotiating for another retail space in the center. They will ultimately have 3 spaces within the building. They are in agreement with the conditions recommended by staff. Parking is not an issue but on page 5 of the staff report the parking chart it indicates Diedrich Coffee to be 3,118 square feet but it is actually 1,759 square feet. Rather than requiring 25 parking spaces it actually only requires 14 less. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated in reading the staff report he wondered why there was no parking variance then as he continued on he realized why. They are actually decreasing the use and intensity of the site. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmenta4 documentation for subject request. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04200 subject to the conditions as listed in 05-08-00 Page 26 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the staff report. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:00-4:03) • u 05-08-00 Page 27 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: Eytan Libesman, 8290 East Crystal Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 (Denied the tower logo) AGENT: KHR and Associates, Attn: Barry Jacob, 2355 Main Street, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 8290 East Crystal Drive. Property is 1.04 acre located at the northwest corner of Savi Ranch Parkway and Weir Canyon Road (Checkered Flag Car Wash). To expand an existing car wash facility by adding an auto service (lube and oil service) facility and shade canopy with waiver of (a) permitted freestanding sign, (b) maximum number of wall signs and (c) required structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-54 SR7728KB.DOC 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04201 Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for a conditional use permit to construct a lube and oil service as well as a shade canopy from the existing car wash with ~ waivers for signage and setbacks. Staff is recommending approval of this in part. They are recommending approval of the lube and oil as well as the shade canopy but recommending denial of some of the waivers regarding the signage. Specifically, the additional sign on the tower staff is recommending denial as well as the wall signs on the car wash, the west wall of the car wash building. ApplicanYs Statement: Jim Kalamura, KHR and Associates, stated he is present representing the applicant. He is available to answer any question and is basicalfy in concurrence with staffs recommends. The only issue of concern is the issue of the signage. Their request is due to fact that at their particular location the building is physically in a situation due to the dealership being built next to them, and the owners have a difficult time distinguishing that site as being a separate business altogether. The owner is present today and would like to speak about the physical problems that they have had at the site in terms of people not being able to recognize that he has a business at that location. Of the existing signage that is being counted against them, the finro signs, the Checkered Flag logo on tower are something that they do not consider signage, as not being signage in terms of advertising the business. It is a logo and associated with the business but there is nothing in the signage that would indicate from the passing motorist point of view that this business is providing a hand car wash as well as the express lube service. They would like to discuss this issue further with Commission. Eytan Libesman, stated he is the owner of Checkered Flag Car Wash. Regarding the signage, since the dealership was built, especially the GMC dealer, which is next door to his lot it appears that they are actually one business. He feels that the extra signage will help to distinguish between the two businesses. ~ 05-08-00 Page 28 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Public Testimony: Jack Stewart, Pontiac GMC Dealership, 8200 Crystal Drive, stated they are against this request and it is in direct conflict with the dealerships involved. Much has changed since a permit that was given in 1992 for a canopy. They would not like to see this service against any of the dealerships that have provided a lot of tax money for the City. There is also a safety issue putting in the ground pits for the canopy, there is no security. They need to also look at the containment and fire hazard. There are many issues that need to be addressed. Jim Kalamura stated the gentleman that just spoke is against the project because he feels it is competition, which he feels is totally an irrelevant issue before the Commission. Fair trade and equal competition is something that this country was built on. He does not feel that this is in competition with the dealership. [THERE WAS DIFFICULTY WITH THE RECORDING EQUIPMENT AND A BRIEF PORTION OF THIS ITEM IS NOT AUDIBLE ON THE TAPE.] Jim Kalamura continued by stating that automobiles have become more complicated for the average person to be able to work on them on their own. As a result people are more and more bringing their cars in for this type of service. Many business still offer those types of other additional services such fan belts, etc., but all the businesses that are in that category such as the common lubes, easy lubes like to advertise themselves as fluids only which would include transmission fluids, windshield wiper fluids, etc. Occasionally, a fan belt might be involved in the process but in this case that is not what is being proposed. There is no repair work at all. No cars are left overnight. It is simply wait while your car is being serviced. , THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold stated he has spent a fair amount of time around this area and has driven by recently. He was not too sympathetic for the request for a sign waiver because it seemed adequately advertised until the anti-competitive comments from the neighboring dealership which makes him wonder what is going on there and is there going to be a battle for attention for the respective businesses. He felt this is a very good project and there is good existing signage there. He asked staff to comment on his concern for the possibility of competition for signage. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised the dealership located adjacent to this car wash facility already have sign waivers that Commission granted. Staff still stands by their recommendation approving the waiver in part and not recommending the approval of the signs on the west wall of the car wash building. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, added that one of the reasons staff did not feel that the sign on the west side was appropriate was because the only place people are going to see that is from the Savi Ranch parkway. Going that way there is no place to turn into the property. Staff felt that was not necessary and advised they would feel that way about signage on any of the buildings out there regardless of what type of use it is. Commissioner Bostwick stated he uses the facility frequently and feels the dealership should not resist because it may bring customers to him of people possibly wanting to look at the dealers cars while waiting for their work to be completed. During the action: Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for clarification whether it was clear that when they approved Waiver (b) • in part and they were denying the proposed tower logo and two wall signs. 05-08-00 Page 29 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty explained the way the motion carried was that the only sign that was not approved was the tower logo. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AC710N. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to permitted freestanding sign; Approved, in part, waiver (b) pertaining to maximum number of wall signs denying the proposed tower logo; and, Approved waiver (c) pertaining to required structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04201 subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:03-4:14) • 05-08-00 Page 30 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04203 Approved reinstatement (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921) of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3921 OWNER: F.J. Hanshaw, 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 (To expire 11-28-2002) AGENT: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 North Brookhurst Street #1, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1. Property is 0.91 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue (Cheers Market). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on April 28, 1997 to expire on April 28, 1999 and from January 26, 1999 to expire on November 28, 1999), to retain the sales of alcoholic beverages within an existing convenience market. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-55 SR7733VK. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for a conditional use permit to reinstate alcohol sales for off-premises consumption at 1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1, Cheers Market. Applicant's Statement: Chris Lans, 206 West Grove Street, Pomona, on behalf of the owner, stated they have two concerns on the staff report. Item 7 pertaining to beer packages not sold in less than 6 packs or 4 packs on wine coolers. A high percentage of the sales are single items, (32 ounce bottles, 24-ounce cans, etc.) They just received the report in the mail today and were not aware that this condition was being added to their CUP. They are also concerned with item 11 stating alcohol beverage sales shall not exceed 35% of the gross sales during any 3 month period. It may or may not be an issue once the construction of Caltrans is completed. They would need to sell a lot more chips and candy to equal a bottle wine. They want to know how they limit that. Commissioner Bristol asked if he is a store or a liquor store. Chris Lans responded they are a convenience market and they are not sure if 35% is an issue. They have a lot more square footage of convenience items than they do liquor. Commissioner Bristol stated it should not be if store is a convenience store. r~ ~J George Casto, 11471 Gill Street, Garden Grove, Executive Vice President and General Manager for F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises. Staff recommends a 2-year extension. This location has had a convenience store for the last 25 to 30 years and there have been no problems and they have their own security in evening. A two-year extension will be a problem with getting a lease. The other item is pay phones, he has been fighting with the City on this for the last 10 years. He has changed a(I the pay phones on a!! of his properties and pulled them away from the buildings so that police and his security could monitor them. They have a company that monitors the phones, they are turned off at a certain time at night, there are no incoming calls, only outgoing calls. He would like to know if they could come to a happy medium on these items. 05-08-00 Page 31 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Brenda Gamez, Community organizer with YMCA Communities and Prevention North. She feels it is important to keep the alcohol sales in packs and not singles. It is harder for a teen to buy a 12-pack rather than a single. Desapriya Jinadasa owns Cheers Food Stores, 1343 North Maynard Street, Anaheim. Clerks scan items and do not look at sizes and some people do not want a whole pack of an item. They need freedom to sell individuals. Food items are very cheap compared to alcohol so it is difficult to keep the 35% margin. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt suggested with regard to selling of beer; if they are concerned about keeping the 35% margin then they could perhaps lower the price of alcohol. The applicant is indicating that because they make such large profit on beer and wine, it is necessary for Commission to relax the requirements of selling other items. It does not make sense because the bottom line is an intent not to make alcohol so easily available, especially when it comes to a single can. That suggests immediate consumption and feels that the problems of pollution and crime are correlated to that. He understands the intent of the Police Department and other City departments. It does not encourage consumption in the car or on the street. There is also the matter of economics, which if purchased in larger quantities, is generally less expensive. That is the kind of consideration that is put in place and why rules make sense. It is the same requirement that is placed on just about every other type of business that is considered a convenience store or restaurant. He felt this type of business should not be relying exclusively on alcohol sales for their profit margin or existence. Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Commissioner Vanderbilt. Regarding telephones, he is concerned with drug dealers using the phone for incoming and outgoing calls to make their deals. The reasoning for • telephones being inside tends to discourage this type of abuse and that is the reason for telephones being inside. This center is still in flux and is losing business and that is an unfortunate situation but we need to wait unti! it is finished to see where it all goes. Sgt. Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police DepartmenWice Detail, stated the crime rate is 23% below. It is a quiet residential area. There was a problem with the telephones before, they could not decide who could turn them off. One of the last things that happened there before it closed was that ABC was at the location when a drug transaction went down at their telephones. Police is in support of the 35%. Greg McCafferty stated the telephones were a condition of a prior resolution as well. Commissioner Bristol stated he recalls the telephone issue and is in favor of all the conditions and agrees that the applicant has put up with a lot due to Caltrans. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he is willing to go somewhat more lenient on Condition No. 1 given the crime rate. He was not certain if staff can justify two years versus 5 years. Normally, Commission imposes that when it is a higher crime area and is wondering why two years. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that the two years came from the previous conditional use permit. There was opposition from a school to the north at the previous hearing. There was concern about the hours of operation because the business has not been fully operating. Staff wants see if it would have an impact or not. Conditioning a short time period will allow them to see if there will be a concern once the area is completed by Caltrans. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked when it will be completed. Greg Hastings stated it may be a year but was not certain. • Commissioner Arnold stated the applicant had doubts about the percentages, so it is better to keep a closer eye on this for the time being. 05-08-00 Page 32 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg Hastings advised that typically staff suggests one year but they feit 2 years is more in line because of the Caltrans activity. Commissioner Bostwick stated it is two years, retroactive. Greg Hastings advised it could be made two years from today, it is up to Commission on the exact timing. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3921 (Master Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04203). Amended Resolution Nos. PC97-42, PC98-125, PC98-181, and 99R-23 in their entirety and replaced them with a new resolution that includes the following conditions of approval: That the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is hereby granted for a period of two (2) years, to expire on November 28, 2002. 2. That signage for the subject business shall be limited to that which is shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and as conditioned herein. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission . as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 3. That within a period of three (3) months after Cal Trans completes the freeway improvement project currently underway in this area, the petitioner shall install landscaping in the existing westerly planter adjacent to Brookhurst Street. 4. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside of the building. 5. That no sales of hot food or sales of self-serve soft drinks shall be permitted unless Code-required parking is provided or a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces is obtained. 6. That no food which is cooked, heated, reheated, assembled or altered on the site (as defined in Section 18.01.040 "Convenience Market, Take-out, Food Service") shall be permitted without the provision of Code-required parking or the separate request and approval of a variance for minimum number of parking spaces. 7. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 8. That no window signs shall be permitted at any time in order to maintain unobstructed visibility into the store interior from the outside, as recommended by the Police Department. • 9. That there shall be no coin-operated games maintained upon the premises at any time, without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal code. 05-08-00 Page 33 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10. That the area of alcoholic beverage displays, including beer and/or wine displays, shall not exceed finrenty-five percent (25%) of the total display area in the building. 11. That the sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed thirty five percent (35°/a) of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis showing the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be subject to audit, and made available, when requested by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 12. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 13. That all trash generated from this market shall be properly contained in trash bins contained within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid for by the business owner. 14. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the property. ~ 15. 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 about, the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 16. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 17. That any tree or other landscaping planted in accordance with previous approvals and exhibits shall be maintained as approved and shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 18. That the business hours of the subject business shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 midnight. 19. That any exterior vending machine shall not be visible from the public right-of- way. 20. That the 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 as Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, except as otherwise conditioned herein. 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does • not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 05-08-00 Page 34 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (4:15-4:36) ~ • 05-08-00 Page 35 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04202 Continued to 5-22-2000 OWNER: Hanshaw Enterprises, Attn: F.J. Hanshaw, 10921 by operation of law Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643 (due to a tie vote) AGENT: Lovay Yacoub, 1280 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1280 North Euclid Street. Property is 2.89 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive. To expand an existing tire sales and installation facility to include automotive repair. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7729VK. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request to expand an existing tire sales and installation facility to include automotive repair, staff is recommending approval of the request. • Applicant's Statement: Louiui Yacoub, 2141 Scenic Ridge Drive, Chino Hills, stated they are concerned with Condition Nos. 3, 5 and 8 regarding signage, and erection of 8-foot high concrete block wall on back side of building. All the signs are already in existence and were moved due to request of Code Enforcement and now they asked to be removed. There are only a couple of window signs due to limited outside storefront. A couple of years ago they installed a chain link fence, which has served as a barrier to separate the alley and has been good to cut down on through traffic and illegal activity. There is about 115 feet between back wall and apartments so they feel it is enough room and is not disturbing to neighbors. George Casto, Hanshaw Properties, stated that a chain link fence was put up four years ago to stop apartment dwellers from cutting through. They also put up lights to light up the alley. They feel if they install a block wall it will increase crime because there is no way for security to come down the alley to see who is back there. There have been no break in's or problems in the last four years. He asked that they not be required to build the block wall. Julia Arisa, 1243 North Dresden Place, Anaheim, stated she owns an apartment complex adjacent to Union Auto Repair. They object because of the noise and industrial dirt. The activities are conducted in open bays. In addition to dust there are machines that operate for long periods of time. Their employees her apartment dumpsters without permission. They are powerless to stop them because they can not constantly watch the dumpsters. Garages are not a buffer to the noise or dirt. It is difficult to keep driveways clean from the trash that comes from the business. There is a 20-foot alley and 3 double garages (60 feet), then the buildings, so it is not 100 feet. r~ ~_J Regarding the fence, she has worked with the police on crime issues since 1992. The fence was installed because the gangs and drug dealers could have access in and out of shopping center and the police could not catch them. She wants the applicant to erect the 8-foot block wall as described in the recommendation to mitigate their problems. This activity should probably not be conducted next to the apartments, she is not sure if it is in the Code. She would like to know if they are expanding or are they reapplying for a CUP due to violations. She also asked about the 1280 address because that is the Kragen's facility. 05-08-00 Page 36 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Applicant's Rebuttal: George Casto stated regarding the fence, he met with her when they bought the property. The City never asked him to install the fence, he did it at his own expense to help the area. It is not because of drug dealers coming through their property it is because all of Ms. Arisa's garages are right behind his center and all the tenants cut through. They now have it blocked off where no one can go back there. The only tenants that can go inside the gates are the people that rent space there. 7he first month that the fence was put up he and Code Enforcement went over there. The firelock chains that he installed were cut off because they wanted to get back to their garages. He installed the fence on his own without the City requiring him to install the fence in order to secure her buildings as well as his building. Ms. Arisa wanted to speak again and Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked her if she wanted to comment on a land use issue. Julia Arisa stated that she strongly sees the need for a block wall fence. Asked if there was anything necessary to refute in this quest for a block wall fence. Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Arisa why it was necessary for the block wall. Julia Arisa responded because her tenants suffer from noise and dust, the impact of the commercial activity. Commissioner Bristol asked if she thought the block wall would stop the noise. Julia Arisa indicated her request is that this permit be denied. If they approve it, then the staff • recommendation that there be an 8-foot high block wall be included, which she feels the wall will mitigate the problems for her tenants. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. McCafferty to explain to Ms. Arisa the Code and why this issue came up. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated the issue had come up in their recommendation which originally was for the block wall because of concern of outdoor storage, but the way they have conditioned the permit it allows for no outdoor storage. Similar to what Commission did at Euclid and Lincoln, it is probably better that they not have screening there to be able to see the activity at the back of the lot to ensure that they are in fact storing vehicles in the retail zone. Staff would request that Commission amend that condition to allow the existing chain link fence to be retained. Commissioner Bostwick explained that the process came about because of a Code violation by another tenant on this property. That they were there by right in the beginning but the Code changed and that is the reason they are before Commission today. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated that originally this use was operating as a tire sales and installation facility. It has evolved over time where it has become more involved to actually doing tune- ups, etc., which now require a conditional use permit. That is the reason the applicant is before Commission today. He indicated that he forwarded photographs to Commission that indicated what the wall signage is now, which he thought was in excess of Code. It appears they are covering 50 to 70% of their window with window signage. Regarding the temporary signs that are hanging in the bays, the only way the Code provides for those is • through a limited special event permit. They are not allowed to have them even if they set them back into the bays. 05-08-00 Page 37 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (~ Commissioner Arnold indicated he understood there has been an evolution of the type of activities that are going on on the site and there have not been the necessary land use approvals to accompany those types of activities. Greg McCafferty confirmed that he was correct. Commissioner Bristol indicated that the limit on the window signage is 10%. That the statements made by the owner of the property regarding security is the very reason why that rule is in affect regarding the window, because police can not see in there, if it is cluttered with signs. George Casto indicated he took a couple of picture this morning, which he thought Commission would like to look at. He does not have any frontage to his business other than the door opens up. Code Enforcement advised him if he was to move the signage from the edges of the door to the middle of the bays that it would be acceptable and they approved it. Commissioner Bristol asked when that was said. George Casto stated he spoke with Mr. Mark Logan who came down and looked at them and indicated that it was acceptable as long as they are inside the building. They are midway through the bays. Commissioner Bristol stated he did not think that was correct since it is as long as they can be seen. George Casto responded to the use of the trash containers, etc. They really do not have any kind of activity outside of the bays. When the chain link was not there the trashcan that belonged to the apartments was accessible to them since it was right there in front of them. Since they installed the chain link fence they have not used it. He spoke with Ms. Arisa's manager this morning and indicated that (, everything she is saying is contradictory. They are in compliance with the Code. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the gate door and asked if there is any need to have traffic go between the two. George Casto stated the reason he put the door in is that they keep the gate locked all the time. Bathrooms are outside of the gate in the back of the building. So they installed that gate for them so they can go out and use the bathroom. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that it was his understanding that when they are using a generator to operate the power equipment that it is a very high pitched sound. It is a sound that is very noticeable and carries. It would seem that the block wall would help that sound. George Casto stated there is already a large electrical panel sitting in front of the compressor where the enclosure is located. Commissioner Vanderbilt thought that when they are putting on and taking off tires on a car in an open bay, he did not feel there was anything obstructing that sound. George Casto stated he has never had a complaint from anyone. Four years ago if the neighbors had indicated that they wanted a block wall up then he would have installed one. As far as security, if the noise were too loud there would be more people complaining today. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about their hours of operation, from 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Staff is recommending that the condition be amended to 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. George Casto responded that they are open 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and '. 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. 05-08-00 Page 38 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Casto if he were in agreement with staff's recommended hours of operation. George Casto responded that he would be in agreement. Commissioner Arnold stated he tends to have concerns about the impacts of these types of activities on neighboring residential properties. He feels this is the wrong direction to move towards. He realizes that it is existing because it has evolved without obtaining the proper CUP. He will be voting against this CUP because the concerns raised by the apartments behind is a concern to him and feels this is the wrong land use direction to move. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if the 300-foot radius notification was for tenants or tenants and owners. Greg McCafferty responded the 300-foot radius are the property owners. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos commented that the people who live there might not even know that this hearing is taking place; some cities do both. Greg McCafferty explained that they notify all three ways. Notify with 300 feet, post the site and advertise in the newspaper. Commissioner Bostwick stated this has always been the land use pattern of putting commercial on the main streets followed by higher density residential and then single-family on the inside. With the garages in the back the intent was to provide space and distance from the living quarters to the commercial activity. It started as a tire sales business installation facility, which did not require a CUP under the old Code, only because the applicant added other service now and the Code is changed which requires it. (. Otherwise they would not have been brought in for any type of CUP. They could have continued to exi with the tire change sales type of business. These types of businesses are needed for people to get th car fixed. In this situation perhaps the signage is excessive but the overall cleanliness and operation of this facility is above most businesses of that type. This is a very clean operation. Commissioner Bristol stated when he went out to the site this weekend he looked at the block wall situation very carefully and thought that the block wall would not mitigate the sound. He felt that the security issue is more important than the block wall. They applicant has been there a long time and he feels the chain link fence should remain and he is in favor of the conditional use permit. st eir Commissioner Bostwick asked about Condition No. 17, which recommends a closed-circuit telephone security camera. He asked if there is a true need for that and is there a real nexus in this to ask the applicant to do this. Greg McCafferty stated that in the IDC meeting the Police Department representative strongly recommended this condition because of the proximity to the freeway and the ability to rob the business and get back onto the freeway quickly. Commissioner Bostwick stated he could see about the Del Taco but wondered about the garage. Asked if they do that much in cash business to warrant that concern. George Casto responded they have a very wide-open area to monitor and this is going to be difficult to monitor one spot. Commissioner Bostwick asked what their percentage of cash to checks/credit cards was. '. George Casto responded approximately 20% of their business. 05-08-00 Page 39 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Bostwick and was surprised because he has never seen this before, perhaps a bank but not this type of business. During the Action: The resolution failed to carry with 3 no votes. (Commissioner Arnold, Koos and Commissioner Vanderbilt) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, advised in the event of a tie vote, such as just happened, technically the Commission has 40 days in which to act on an item and wait for a potential tiebreaker. The Commission can also certify the matter to the City Council without a vote. lf it is also the Commission's pleasure, they can either continue it until the next meeting for another Commissioner to be present or they could certify it to the City Council without a determination. Commissioner Bostwick stated there are three Commissioners with a difference of opinion and perhaps they would like to offer another resolution. Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a resolution for CUP 2000-0402 with all the modifications that were proposed previously (deleting Condition No.17., changing Condition No. 10 - hours 8am to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8a.m. to 5p.m. Saturday.), but with the 8-foot high concrete wall retained as Condition No. 8. Commissioner Bristol asked if that would be with a gate because that is very important for visibility for the restroom access. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that typically if there were a block wall the gate would be (, chain link with slats in it. Commissioner Vanderbilt wondered if that is staff's recommendation because there may still be an option for visibility to satisfy the police visibility issue but if they put slats in it then it would bring them back to their concern. Commissioner Bristol stated they did it because of security reasons to keep the visibility and for traffic purposes, it makes sense. They should be able to see through the fence. Commissioner Bostwick thought that the apartment residents would want to have it so the police can pull in and look through and see who is in the alley rather than having to drive down the whole length of the alley to go after someone. That is why he wanted the chain link to remain because of the visibility problem. When a dead-end alley can not be seen they tend to be used as a dumping ground which becomes a problem. Commissioner Bristol felt that they should have a gate. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Commissioner Vanderbilt if he wanted any more discussion on this. Commissioner Vanderbilt retracted his resolution and made motion for continuance. Commissioner Arnold wondered whether this was a futile effort given the variety of opinions on the Commission and thought perhaps they should send it to City Council. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos felt Commission should do their job and act on this. '. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos and thought they should give Chairperson Boydstun an opportunity vote on this item and allow this item to be continued for two weeks and see if Commission can come to a decision. 05-08-00 Page 40 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I~ Malcolm Slaughter advised lacking a certification of the City Council, which it does not sound like there would be, this matter is automatically deemed continued until the next regular Planning Commission meeting. They need to do nothing if that is what Commission wants to do. Commissioner Bostwick stated that this item is going to be continued for two weeks and hopefully at that time they will have 7 members to be able to vote on this again. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition. Correspondence was received in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request io the May 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting by operation of law in order to have a full-Commission vote. VOTE: 3-3 (Commissioners Arnold, Koos and Vanderbilt voted against the project and Chairperson Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (4:37-5:10) ~. 1. 05-08-00 Page 41 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHE(M PLANNING COMMiSSION MfNUTES ~~ 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04196 Continued to 6-5-2000 OWNER: Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of Anaheim, 700 West South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Greg Ramirez, 6731 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 700 West South Street. Property is 3.32 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Citron Street (Grace Lutheran Church and School). To construct two changeable copy "marquee" freestanding signs with waiver of (a) permitted identification signs and (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7734KP. DOC Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to June 5, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. (. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in that the church is considering changes to the submitted sign program. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~ 05-08-00 Page 42 MAY $, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. ~. 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION {PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04207 Approved amendment to (MASTER CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069) the conditions of approval of Master CUP OWNER: Khoda B. Ostowari, Parvin Soroushian and Irandokht No. 4069 Djahanian, 6263 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807 (Approved extension of time to obtain an ABC LOCATION: 805 South Harbor Boulevard (formerly 801 South license (to expire Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street). 9-30-2000)) Property is 0.8 acre located at the southwest corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard. (The retail sales of beer and wine portion of the To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the license for the request was approved retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption for a previously- for 3 years from the date approved service station with convenience market and car wash. of occupancy of the convenience market) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-56 SR1152JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating the petitioner is requesting that Commission amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, for previously service station/convenience market and car wash. Staff is recommending approval of the request. The Police Department does have input with regard to crime statistics. Applicant's Statement: Rhoda Ostawari, 626 East Street, Anaheim, explained at the November 18, 1999 meeting approved the CUP which was also approved by City Council on January 25, 2000. Beer and wine license has become a high profile issue with protest from Assemblyman Lou Correa causing the reopening of protest period, which has halted final approval of the license. Now, they have to attend a hearing in front of an administrative judge, which can be anywhere from finro to six months from now. They are asking Commission for a six-month extension to allow them enough time to complete the ABC procedures. Parvin Soroushian, 6263 East Twin Peaks Circle, Anaheim, stated there will be a meeting May 25, 2000 at 7:00 and asked Commissioners if they would all attend. Don Garcia 896 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, stated there could be a positive effect on the census tract crime statistics if it would be upheld with the continuation of not allowing additional sale of beer and wine in this tract of the neighborhood. The license for sale of beer and wine will be heard at the Alcohol Beverage Control of the State of California and asked that it allow this public hearing to be the determination which will exempt Commission's actions. Also there were others who oppose the license but could not be here today. Brenda Gamez, 801 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 109, Fu(lerton, 92831, stated she works for YMCA Communities and Prevention North and Alcohol and Drug Prevention Project. Her research shows that this area is over-concentrated, it is supposed to have 6 alcohol licenses, but there are 11. Asked to deny this request due to an elementary school, which is a block away and churches in the area. There has also been a PCN (public convenience necessity} letter issued and would like to know the logic behind it. I, Amin David, 1585 West Broadway, Anaheim, stated they vigorously oppose the beer and wine license in that precinct. It appears that crime has increased in that precinct and that should be enough for Commission to deny this license. It is the entry to the Disneyland Resort, has schools and churches in 05-08-00 Page 43 MAY 8, 2000 CfTY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. the area and this is a terrible land use project. This project should be moved to Anaheim Hills, not here in the Latino Community, they have enough problems as it is. He asked Commission to stop encroachment of their community. Judith Ann Gollette representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated this is the entrance into the historic area and to put this facility here does not benefit the neighborhood. She understood that the original project did not include a liquor license and it was City who suggested that they get one. If that is the case, it needs to be addressed and she would like clarification on it. Rhoda Ostowari stated regarding the license, when he originally submitted the project, it was 2 parcels next to an existing liquor store; there was a gas station and a car wash, which was approved by Commission but denied by Council. (Council was concerned about that particular liquor store.) After denial, he submitted a bigger project including that liquor store. Commission and Council approved the new project because it included the removal of the existing liquor store, which had been there since 1962. Parvin Soroushian stated regarding the number of licenses, all of the issues had been addressed in 1998. Dr. Garcia was not informed because he was not in the radius required by law by the City. Two of the liquor stores have closed since the beginning of 1999 and the crime rate has still gone up, so increased crime should not be contributed to liquor licenses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Sgt. Russ Sutter stated the current crime rate in that district is 148% above the normal rate. Because of the population in that census tract, they are currently allowed 6 off-sale licenses and there are 11 licenses. Two of them have closed and they have until November 2000 or licenses will be surrendered. The Police Department issued a protest in 1998, but did state that if the PCN (Public Convenience or . Necessity) found a necessity for the building, that they would request conditions. It went to PCN and the ' conditions were applied. They are basically at the same point as before; the protest is there, but it was found that there was a public convenience or necessity for the place. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated felt Commission should focus on the action itself and not be influenced by other circumstances. Even though there is an appeal going on with ABC, perhaps that is the best place suited to resolve this and Commission's purpose is to consider that there has been a need to extend the CUP for the purposes of allowing the ABC hearing to take place. Then, at that forum the arguments can be weighed and a decision reached, which is also consistent with what staff feels. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that is exactly what Commission is here for and they are just extending the time of approval. If ABC gives them the license, then they can go forward. In the meantime, the gas station and car wash continues to be used. He took exception to Mr. David's remarks about dumping this on that part of the City. He wondered where Mr. David was coming from with his comments about this particular project versus all the other similar projects that have come before Commission in the past. Mr. David spoke away from the microphone in the audience and therefore his comments were inaudible. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated staff did research on previous approvals. Greg McCafferty stated Commissioner Bristol specifically asked with regard to the public convenience and necessity and how Planning Commission and City Council had voted on that. On October 26, 1998 the vote by Planning Commission was 6- 0 in favor of the public convenience or necessity with Commissioner Williams being absent. On December 15, 1998, City Council on a 3-1-1 vote, determined the public convenience or necessity was served by this establishment with Mayor Daly voting no and Councilman Feldhaus either absent or abstaining. '. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if with that it was conditioned to reduce the total number of licenses in the tract by one. 05-08-00 Page 44 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I. Greg McCafferty explained that was a condition of approval previously, but after that the Commission modified that condition because by purchasing that property, the convenience market adjacent to this site, they effectively eliminated the potential for another license to be obtained in that area because it would require a conditional use permit to come back. Greg Hastings added that is correct and that a final vote was taken to the City Council level and indicated that the way the applicant was proposing the rewording the condition would meet the intent of Commission and Council. They are in compliance with all of the conditions of approval for this entire CUP other than the one condition that requires them to get their license prior to March 31, 2000. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated it is fair to note that the only thing that has changed is that the crime has slightly changed in the area. Greg Hastings agreed and the facility is under construction. Commissioner Bristol stated the facility was closed over a year because the crime was going up. Commissioner Bristol stated this Commission does everything in their power to ensure that the alcohol is not abused. They carefully watch when a PCN comes through. In this particular case, they are reviewing all this and if the crime had been indicative of the alcohol use then they could look at that crime statistic and say there was a situation there. It wasn't there in 99 and had nothing to do with it. The Council took and added conditions to this property, and approved it. Nothing has changed other than the crime rate, but it has nothing to do with that particular use. The argument was that everyone wanted a better owner to watch and monitor any alcohol use that might be there. Commission owes it to them to extend it six months. (. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated for al! intents and purposes, it appears if this appeal was not on file at the State level then it would have been approved. Commission needs to be consistent with the original approval. Commissioner Napoles asked Dr. Garcia about the statement that people were not notified in the area. Dr. Garcia responded Casa Pacifica was left out of the notification. He knows they were notified because he admits patients to that hospital and went to the administrator. They have since become involved because of the information that he brought to them. Khoda Ostowari stated Casa Pacifica signed a petition. Following the Action: Greg McCafferty stated, for the record, Commission amended the prior resofutions in their entirety and replacing with all the new conditions of those resolutions. OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition of the proposed request. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. /, Approved amendment to conditions of approval of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4069 (2000-04207). Amended Resolution No(s). 2000R-14 and-98R-266 in their entirety and replaced them with a new resolution that includes the following conditions of approval: 05-08-00 Page 45 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMtSSION MINUTES ~. 1. That approval for the off-premises sale of beer and wine shall terminate on September 30, 2000, if the applicant has not obtained an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license prior to said date and further that the total number of active licenses in the census tract is reduced to ten (10) licenses. No sale of beer and/or wine for off-premises consumption shall be permitted on the property unless and until the applicant has obtained an ABC license no later than September 30, 2000. 2. That the retail sale of beer and wine portion of this use permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of issuance of an occupancy permit for the convenience market. 3. That the sale of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. 4. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted. 5. That no propane tanks shall be permitted. 6. That trees shall not be unreasonably trimmed to afford increased visibility of the facility. 7. That roof-mounted balloons or other similar devices shall be prohibited. 8. That the numerical address shall be provided on the roof in contrasting colors ~, in a manner not visible to the street, and to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. 9. That prior to commencing operation of these businesses, a valid business license shall be obtained from the Business License Division of the City Finance Department. 10. That any on-site telephones(s) shall be located inside the convenience store building. 11. That final architectural and sign plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Planning Commission review and approval as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 12. That window signs shall be prohibited. 13. That the submitted monument sign plan shall be modified to remove the address from the base of the sign and place the numerical address on the sign in a location identified by the Zoning Division. Said information shall be shown on the plans submitted to the Zoning Division for Commission review as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 14. That an inventory of retail sales items (not including beer, wine, fuel or automotive products) exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) shall be maintained on the premises. ', 15. That receipts from the sale of beer and wine shall not exceed thirty five percent (35%) of all retail sales during any twelve (12) month period. 05-08-00 Page 46 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 16. That no display of beer or wine shall be located outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. 17. That the area(s) of beer or wine display shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total display area in the convenience market building. 18. That cold beer or wine having a temperature below sixty five degrees (65°) Fahrenheit shall only be sold from, or displayed in, permanently affixed coolers for the cooling and storage of all refrigerated products. 19. That no advertising of beer or wine shall be located, placed, audible to, or attached to any location outside the interior of the convenience market building; and that any such advertising shall not be visible to anyone outside the building. 20. That the sale of beer and wine shall be made to customers only when the customer is inside the convenience market building. 21. That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any beer or wine. 22. That at least one (1) sign to discourage driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages shall be prominently displayed inside the convenience market building for every three (3) signs advertising beer or wine; provided, however, that at least finro (2) such signs to discourage driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcoholic ', beverages shall be prominently displayed inside the building. 23. That the operator of the service station shall participate in, aid and support educationaf and other programs intended to reduce driving while under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages. 24. That all trash generated by this convenience market shall be properly contained in trash bins located within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handfing and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code Enforcement Division (Planning Department) shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All cost for increasing the number of bins or additionaf frequency of pick-up shall be paid by the business owner. 25. That any roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the screening requirements specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44.030.120. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 26. That the owner of subject property shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within twenty four (24) hours of its application. 27. That the front landscaped setback (outside of the ultimate right-of-way) shall include a landscaped earthen berm (minimum three (3) feet high) and shall be planted and irrigated with minimum twenty four inch (24") box sized trees ', located on maximum twenty (20) foot centers; provided, however, that the City Tra~c and Transportation Manager may modify this requirement to ensure adequate vehicular and pedestrian visibility. That the landscaped areas within the dedication area (ultimate street rights-of-way) shall be 05-08-00 Page 47 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. properly maintained by the property owner until such time that the street is widened. 28. That clinging vines shall be planted on maximum three (3) foot centers against all screen walls and fences, including the trash enclosure. Said landscaping shall be continually maintained. 29. That the trash storage area(s) shall be maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as clinging vines or tall shrubbery. 30. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 31. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitation Division. 32. That the car wash shalf utiiize a recycled water system. The car wash system shall discharge to the sanitary sewer system between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. only. This limitation shall be noted on the building site plan and ', plumbing plans. 33. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an easement for public utility purposes, with the width and location to be determined by the Public Utilities Department when electrical design is completed. 34. That the cost of any necessary relocation of existing power poles or street lights shall be at the developer's expense. 35. That this property shall be served with underground utilities in accordance with the Electrical Rates, Rules and Regulations and the City of Anaheim Underground Policy. The most current fees shall apply. 36. That this project has landscaping areas exceeding twenty five hundred (2,500) sq. ft. and, therefore, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed to comply with Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349. 37. That the car wash shall comply with all state laws and local ordinances for water conservation measures. Voluntary water conservation strategies shall be encouraged. 38. That only one (1) driveway shall be permitted on South Street and on Harbor Boulevard. 39. That subject property shall be maintained in conformance with plans ', submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager showing conformance with the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 602 and 607 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations (driveways shall be as far as possible from the intersection). 05-08-QO Page 48 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 40. That all driveways shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137. 41. That during business hours of subject facility, the men's and women's restrooms shall be available to the public and shall be properly supplied and maintained. 42. That no outdoor vending machines or water machines shall be located so as to be visible to the public rights-of-way. 43. ~hat the car wash drive-through lane shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 44. That on-site lighting plans shall be maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Community Services Division, Police Department. 45. That the hours of operation for the car wash shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. 46. That no storage, display or sales of any merchandise or fixtures shall be permitted outside the building. 47. That the locations for future utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water back flow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on the plans submitted for building ', permits. Plans shall also identify the specific treatments of each device (i.e., landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to review and approval by the appropriate City departments. 48. That the roll-up car wash doors shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. 49. That satisfactory evidence shall be submitted to the Building Division showing that the proposed car wash is in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 6.7 "Sound Pressure Levels." 50. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 51. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that which is shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 52. That the exhaust vents for the gasoline station tanks shall be located at the rear of the property. 53. That final building elevations approved by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item shall be maintained as approved. '. 54. That the under-side of the canopy shall be reduced to fifteen (15) feet, reducing the overall height to not more than twenty four (24) feet. 05-08-00 Page 49 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 55. That the proposed Cypress trees along South Street shall be planted on maximum three (3) foot centers. 56. That the proposed wrought iron portion of the proposed fence along the west and south property fines outside the front setback area, shall be reduced to a height of four (4) feet so that the maximum height of the fence does not exceed six (6) feet in height. In addition, the three (3) foot high block wall within the landscaped setback sha{I be reduced to two (2) feet to match this fence. 57. That the owner of subject property shall record an unsubordinated covenant agreeing to remove any freestanding signs on subject property which may be located within the future public right-of-way at no cost to the City of Anaheim and at such time as the petitioner/property owner makes the public improvement and widens the public street to the ultimate right-of-way. 58. That street lights shall be installed on Harbor Boulevard as required by the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. 59. That the water backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Division behind the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. In addition, if required by the Anaheim Fire '. Department, the fire line shall be upgraded. Said screening shall be continually maintained. 60. 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 about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of adjacent properties, and that said lighting information shall be specified on plans submitted for building permits. Said lighting shall be continually maintained. 61. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a bond shall be posted and a covenant shall be recorded, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City Attorney's Office, guaranteeing the construction of the public right-of-way improvements as required by the Public Works Department within a period of five (5) years from the date of occupancy. 62. 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 qepartment marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 5, and as conditioned herein. 63. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 22, 27, 28, 36, 40, 55, 56, and 62, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 64. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request ', only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicab{e ordinance, regulation or requirement. 05-08-00 Page 50 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I• VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Napoles voted no and Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun were absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME~ 31 minutes (5:11-5:42) 1. I, 05-08-00 Page 51 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~• Denied amendment to the conditions of approvai OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Sprint PCS, Attn: Adan Madrid, Property Specialist, 18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612-1029 LOCATION: 1200-1400 West Audre Drive, 1650 South Ninth Street and 1651 South Walnut Street (Southern California Edison Easement). rope y is v~6. ~cres located on the south side of Audre Drive between Walnut Street and Ninth Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the fencing and landscaping for a previously-approved telecommunication antenna facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-57 SR7715KP.DOC 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERM{T NO. 2000-04211 13c. (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4165) Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this request was to amend or delete 1, conditions of approval with regard to a condition the Commission had placed on CUP 4065 at 1651 South Walnut Street that pertain to fencing and landscaping for a previously approved telecommunication facility. Staff recommends that they leave Condition No. 4 in place for the reasons stated in the Evaluation. Applicant's Statement: Don Madrid with Sprint PCS 18200 Von Karman, Irvine, stated Condition No. 4 of Resolution 99-220 states that the final plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department specifying existing and proposed fencing and landscaping for areas adjacent to Walnut Street where the accessory ground mounted equipment and GPS type antenna may be visible. There is an existing chain {ink fence along Walnut that is also equipped with mesh screening, so the equipment cabinets can not be seen. Landscaping would make it look much nicer, but they are concerned because there is no relationship between the condition and the impacts that staff identified when the CUP was initially approved. Antennas are up high and equipment on the ground is already screened, so they do not feel the need for landscaping. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated from a legal standpoint, the issue is being brought up by the applicant because of alleged of lack nexus. He does not feel it is true and they can show the adequate nexus in the event of a legal challenge. If the Commission's action, when taken initially was improper because it lacked sufficient nexus, the applicanYs remedy was to appeal to City Council and get it changed at the Council level and if the Council did not agree with the applicant, to challenge the lack of nexus as claimed in litigation. " He did not feel they used their legal remedies, if they had any, have been effectively waived by failing to bring that action in the first place. This seems to be an attempt to reopen where they should have been had they done it lawfully in the first place. There is no incumbency upon Commission to particularly address this nexus argument if it the Commission's decision not to do so. 05-08-00 Page 52 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol stated someone commented about the landscaping on Walnut next to Disneyland. This whole area is going in that direction and of all the places on that street, that site looks very poor. He is not in favor of changing it, feels it is fair, it is an important area. Commissioner Bostwick asked ifi the landscape plan was agreeable with staff. Greg McCafferty responded they wanted to address whether or not the Commission would delete the condition and if it was left in per staff's recommendation, they would be bring the actual landscape plan at another meeting. Mr. Madrid did a good job and brought the landscape plan in and indicated that they would proceed with that if Commission did not grant the request. Commissioner Vanderbilt added there was a compromise between desiring to have the antenna equipment on the building (Disneyland Hotel), but there were problems in dealing with them. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated this is a project before Commission, which they can deny or approve it. It has been very difficult for the applicant to try to find the best location that is ownable. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there is an overall objective here in that area and that is to improve the aesthetics. Having that antenna dish on an existing lattice tower has increased loss of aesthetic quality. OPPOSITION: None 1. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied request to amend or delete Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. PC99-220 adopted in connection Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4165 based on the following: (i) That the requested modification/deletion is not necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Maintaining the condition would serve to improve the aesthetic condition of this property. (ii) That the requested modificationJdeletion is not necessary to permit reasonable operation under the conditional use permit as granted. Installation of landscaping in the front portion of the property would not affect the operation of the ground mounted equipment, nor the tower mounted antennas. (iii) That the condition is "roughly proportional" to the aesthetic impact the telecommunication antennas and their ground-mounted equipment would create. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (5:43-5:53) /, 05-08-00 Page 53 MAY 8, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ADJOURNMENT AT 5:55 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000 AT 10:00 A.M. TO REVIEW PROPOSED SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZONE. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~CJ!/Y~t.dti~X.iruZ.~ ~~CitT C/K-~ % Simonne Fannin ,• Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ,~-~~ ^~ ~O !. 05-08-00 Page 54