The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/05/19~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 19, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California . • COMMISSIONERS -OL, GAIL EASTMAN, ~ VANDERBILT ~~ F ; ~ ~ ~~~` ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~z~ ~ , ,~ ",~ ~ ~ q. COMMISSIONERS ABS~NT ~ C'}.NE ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ s- h t ~ x:~` ~""`", ~ ~ - '` ,~, ~~y ~ ~ ~ ~ L~& ~ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ~~ ~~~ ,.~ ~ ~~ y~~ ~"' ~ Selma Mann, Assi~a~it ~it~i ~t orr~~y ~~ Alfred Yalda, P ir na~~~r rans~po~k~tion Planner Greg Hastings Zo~~ng D~v~s~~iia~ar~~ger Melanie Adams P~r~~cip~I~C~~~r~gineer Greg McCafferty,~Pnr~cipa~ ~'~I~r~ner~' ~ Elly Morris, SernoryS~~re~~~ry Mark Asturias R~~e~+el~p~ent IV~ar~~ger,~- ~MeaT°~~„ Pat Ch~a~adler, Senio~r Se~~e~ar~r, '; ~~ AI Brady, Senior~~~~~r~ft~rc~me~t Offi`~cer ""~~ " ~°`" ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ; ~ M: ,~ ~ ,. "~~` ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,.. .~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~, ~' ,g ~. ~ ~ ,~ ~ x ~ ..,„ ~.. AGENDA POSTI~IG ~p Comp~e~e~o~y ~'f the R~anning~c~m ~sion"Agend~a~wa pos~ed at 10:00 a.m. on May 16, 2003, msi~le the "~I~spla,~cas~~l~ atecl"in t~ie fioyer of~e~Couc~cil C~ar~b~'S, and ~~SO in the outside ~ ~ ~, ~ display kiosk ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ °° ~° ~ ~ ~ ~~ '; ~ , ~F ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~,~~ ° a ~ ~ "~ ~ ' ~ ¢a ~ ~., ~~ ~' "~. > ~~~ ~~ ~~~''°, r c , ,, 5 ~~~~~ # PUBLISHED. Anaheim Bu1~eti~ii4N ~paper`on.~'~ars~ ~~ ~~I 2~.~ 20~3. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~E ~~ CALL TO ORDER~~~`~~ ~~ ,~s `~~ ~~ w~~~ ~ ~ ~" ~~~ ~° ~ ~~ ~ ~,~ v, ~~ ~~ '~ ~ ,.~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ 6 ~~ ' ~ ~,.~~ ~ ~ ..,<:, ~ x PLANNIf~Ia"COII~~VI~~S~U~V MORN~;, I~G SESSION ~1~~:t~0;`/k:M~~ F~ • PRESE'I~iTA~"10~ ~°«H~,~GfTT LI~R~Ft~1' C~I~'S~TRU~~TION~A~ROGRAM • STAFF UPDATE~TO~C(~MM1~~1~hF~tV V'ARtO~U~~~TI~(~[3 ~J"ELOPMENTS AND ISSUES~(A~ R~@UEST~~SI~f~LANNWG~Ci~l~ll~7'~~ION) ~ -,: • PRELIMINARY PL~J~ °R~VI~W O~T~/!v~ ON~,~ MAY 19, 2003 AGENDA m.. , <_ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARINGsSESSION~~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please comp/ete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bristol PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICALMINUTES~AC051903.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 05-19-03 Page 1 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Presentation of a plaque to Stephen Bristol in acknowledgement of his 9 years of service on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bristol was presented with a piaque and resolution in appreciation of his service to the City of Anaheim. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the pubiic to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-B, 1-D and 1-E) as recommended by staff (Commissioner Eastman abstained on Item 1-E and Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained on portions of Item 1-E). Consent Calendar Item (1-C) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. • UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 Concurred with staff (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4157 Approved Final Sign (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-046921 Plans Phu Ho, Vietnam Ministries, P.O. Box 4568, Anaheim, CA 92803, requests review of final sign plans to permit a freestanding monument sign for an existing church. Property is located at 1100 North Paradise (Vote: 7-0) Street. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the freestanding monument sign as identified on Final Plan Exhibit No. 4 because the signage conforms to Zoning Code standards, there is no other signage on the property to identify the church, and the design of the sign • is consistent with the overall project, sr3022ey.doc 05-19-03 Page 2 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. (a) CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 316 (PREVIOUSLY- Approved CERTIFIED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3566 Determined to be in (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04697) substantial conformance Paulette Alexander, 27255 Villanueva, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, requests determination of substantial conformance for modifications to original exhibits for a previously-approved regional shopping center. Property is (Vote: 7-0) located at 400-600 North Euclid Street (Anaheim Plaza). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 316 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request to modify original exhibits for a previously-approved regional shopping center to permit the construction of a new 5,650 square foot financial institution is in substantial conformance with plans and exhibits approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3566, with the stipulation that final sign and landscape plans, demonstrating adequate screening of the drive-through lane, be approved by the Community Development and Planning Departments. sr1116cw.doc • ~ 05-19-03 Page 3 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u • C~ C. (a) CEQA 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE (b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00102 (TRACKING NO. RCL2003-00103) City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests initiation of Reclassification proceedings for the Colony Historic District for six (6) additional properties to be included with properties previously initiated for reclassification as requested by the Planning Commission. The additional properties are located within Study Areas 1, 3 and 6 as identified in the staff report. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Concurred with staff Approved initiation of Reclassification proceedings sr8602cf.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 1-C as Reclassification No. 2003-00102, initiation of reclassification proceedings for the Anaheim Colony Historic District for six (6) additional properties to be included with properties previously initiated for reclassification. The additional properties are locatecl within Study Areas 1, 3 and 6. Dave See, Senior Planner, states that at the Planning Commission meeting on May 5, 2003, Commission considered the initiation of reclassification proceedings for 194 parcels in nine study areas contained within the Anaheim Colony Historic District. As directed by the Commission, staff identified six additional parcels that lie in close proximity to the nine study areas. This would include 315 S. Citron Street, 513-527 W. Broadway and 402 N. Lemon Street. Photos of the properties were presented in the morning plan review. Upon Commission's approval of the initiation request, staff will advertise and mail notices for an upcoming public hearing in late June. Commissioner Eastman abstained on Study Area 3. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the initiation of Reclassification No. 2003- 00102 to allow for a public hearing to reclassify the one (1) additional property in Area 3 to the RS-7200 zone as indicated in paragraph (5) of the staff report dated May 19, 2003. (AREA 3), VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman abstained) Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the initiation of Reclassification No. 2003-00102 to allow for a public hearing to reclassify five (5) additional properties in Study Areas 1 and 6 to the RS-7200 zone as indicated in paragraph (5) of the staff report dated May 19, 2003. (AREAS 1 and 6), VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: 4 minutes (1:51-1:55) 05-19-03 Page 4 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTIONS 15060(c)(2); 15061 (b)(3) Concurred with staff (b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00022 Recommended City City of Anaheim, City Attorney's Office, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Council approval of the Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval of the attached draft ordinance. draft ordinance pertaining to appointment of hearing officers. (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the attached draft ordinance pertaining to appointment of hearing officers. sr1177jd.doc • • 05-19-03 Page 5 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with modification Meetings of May 5, 2003. (Motion) to page 16. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman abstained and Eastman abstained since she Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained on portions of the minutes for the items in was absent and Commissioner which he was not in attendance), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission Vanderbilt abstained on does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission portions of the minutes, since meeting of May 5, 2003, with the following modifications: he was not present for the entire duration of the May 5, Corrected page 16, the 3`d and 7~h sentence of the last paragraph as follows: 2003 meeting.) "In the morning session he asked, using Study Area 6 as an example, if it would be worth it between the time of the hearing and the actual hearing on the downzoning if they could include some properties in the study areas that are ap~e~cir~ata proximate to the properties being suggested to down zone:' "He encourages staff to get together with Ms. Gonzalez and some of the other leaders in the Colony to look at the study areas closer and identify a~s~~e proximate properties that may not be neatly bundled in a block, but are close enough to include in the study areas so that they can make efforts to protect those as well from future demolition and multi-family development." • • 05-19-03 Page 6 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2681 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04682) OWNER: Robshan fnc., 3210 Belt Line Road #140, Dallas, TX 75234 AGENT: Bryan Kahng, Press Box Sports Bar and Grill, 480 North Glassell Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 480 North Glassell Street. Property is approximately 0.59-acre, located at the southeast corner of Glassell Street and Frontera Street (Press Box Sports Bar and Grill). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 8, 2002, to expire March 26, 2003) to retain three billiard tables and public entertainment with a cover charge in conjunction with a previously- approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Continued from the May 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-70 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation sr8601 av.doc • Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2681, 480 North Glassell Street - Press Box Sports Bar and Grill, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 8, 2002 to expire March 26, 2003) to retain a previously-approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption with three billiard tables and public entertainment with a cover charge. ApplicanYs Testimony: Bryan Kahng, Press Box Sports Bar and Grill, 3400 Avenue of the Arts, Costa Mesa, CA, states he agrees with all of the conditions as stated in the staff report. Chairperson Bostwick states the accountant of Press Box Sports Bar and Grill submitted a statement of income and expenses to Commission to comply with Condition No. 11 where they were not to exceed 40°/a of gross sales in alcoholic beverages. A condition would be added onto Condition No. 11 that the applicant's income and expense statement would be submitted to the City within 30 days on an annual basis. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states if the CUP is reinstated as recommended by staff, the applicant would have met the findings that are required under reinstatement, which means he would not be before Commission again. The only time it would come up again would be if Commission determines the applicant was not operating in compliance and the application was brought back as a modification to the permit. Therefore, once it is approved, it is final. Chairperson Bostwick states the applicanYs requirement is on a quarterly basis, during any 3-month period. Therefore, Commission would request that he submit his statement to the City within 30 days close of the quarter. • Mr. McCafferty states if the Police Department or Code Enforcement inspect to ensure compliance with the condition is maintained, that would satisfy the intent of the condition. 05-19-03 Page 7 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ ~- • • • ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2681 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04682) to retain three bi!liard tables and public entertainment with a cover charge in conjunction with a previously-approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, without a time limitation. Amended Resolution No. PC2002-52 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 16, 24 and 25 are new conditions; and Condition No. 11 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Monday - Thursday 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 a.m. Friday - Saturday 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. Sunday 1:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. 2. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location 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 minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. That in the event a parcel map to subdivide subject property is recorded, an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking, approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and Zoning Division and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the covenant to guarantee that the entire complex shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcel for purposes of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, maintenance, land usage and architectural control, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. 4. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view. 5. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1; Development Area 5(Northeast Area Specific Plan; Commercial Area) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. 6. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and ~ Professions Code. 05-19-03 Page 8 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 8. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. 9. That there shali be no more than three (3) pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 10. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 11. That the sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be certified as being true and accurate and shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. A certified copy of the statement relating to the sales of atcoholic beverages shall be provided within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution. 12. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as ~ required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. That the sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 14. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages, with the exception of one (1) sign indicating "cocktails". 15. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 16. That at all times when entertainment or dancing is permitted, security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 17. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained with decorative 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. 18. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the ~ Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the 05-19-03 Page 9 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit- sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 19. That ai( doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and un(ocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. 20. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 21. That the business owner shall notify the Anaheim Police Department, Vice Detail, thirty (30) days in advance of any entertainment event at this location furnished by an outside promoter. This notice shall include the name, address and phone number of the promoter and detailed information on the type of event including dates, hours, anticipated attendance and nature of event. No unauthorized offsite signage shall be permitted in conjunction with any event. 22. That the public entertainment shall be limited to Tuesday through Saturday nights from 8 p.m. to closing. Any change to this schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 23. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department • marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 24. That the use of all pyrotechnical material, special effects, and fireworks shall be permitted only if, and to the extent, approved by the Anaheim Fire Department prior to their use. 25. That any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code). 26. 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. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:56-2:00) ~J 05-19-03 Page 10 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04558 Granted, in part 3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16492 Approved 3d. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 (READVERTISEDI Approved OWNER: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Community Development Department, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Joe Richter, John Laing Homes, 895 Dove Street, Suite 110, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 501-541 South Anaheim Boulevard and 100-142 West Santa Ana Street. Property is approximately 5.6 acres, located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street (Trucking Site). VARIANCE NO. 2003-04558 - Request waivers of: a) minimum private street standards, b) maximum wall height, c) minimum structural setback adjacent to a collector street, d) minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway, e) required recreational leisure area, and f) additional incentives in lieu of a density bonus, to construct 20 detached and 36 attached "affordable" single-family dwelling units with incentives in lieu of a density bonus. • TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16492 - To establish a 21-lot, 56-unit detached and attached "affordable" single-family residential subdivision. COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 - Waiver of Council Policy pertaining to sound attenuation for single-family residences adjacent to railroad right- of-way. Continued from the May 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-71 sr1114cw.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Variance No. 2003-04558, 501-541 South Anaheim Boulevard and 100-142 West Santa Ana Street - Trucking Site, a request to construct 20 detached, 36 attached "affordable" single-family residential dwelling units with incentives in lieu of a density bonus. Applicant's Testimony: Mark Asturias, Community Development, requests approval of an affordable housing project. The property is zoned by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency in cooperation with their developer, John Laing Homes. It is a 56-unit development on Anaheim Boulevard at Santa Ana Street. They are looking to develop 56 homes; 36 affordable and 20 market-rate homes. The affordable homes would be facing Anaheim Boulevard and they would be an attached product. The detached product would be facing off of Lemon Street and an interior street. The project has gone through quite a bit of community input and review to date. They have held focused group meetings and continue to have significant community input throughout the entire process. At another time they will bring back final elevations, colors, materials, fencing materials, and landscaping of the project for Commission's further review and ~ consideration. Today, they submit the application under the Redevelopment Law and State Law as it relates to affordability. Therefore, they request incentives in lieu of a density bonus for this project. Attached to the staff report is a report done by the economic consultant that was hired to review the 05-19-03 Page 11 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • value of the incentives that are being requested versus the value of the density bonus. As noted, the incentives are significantly less in value than the value of the density bonus. Therefore, they feel confident and would support the requested waivers placed before Commission. Chairperson Bostwick referred to the staff report, page 11, paragraph no. 30, "The Commission may wish to note that the proposed project is geared toward providing urban living within an established downtown" and wished to understand what the statement means. Mr. Asturias states urban living is considered living in a situation where it is not the traditional suburban area or that you are not basically going down residential tracts. It is a combination of retail, commercial- office hardscape and yet has the amenities one might find typically in a residential neighborhood that would have single-family homes in a tract, and the associated services to that would not be within a particular subdivision of substantial size. There would be cultural and park amenities, office environment and retail in close proximity to the urban core. It would be a denser environment in terms of living and in terms of interaction between the residential units and the other non-residential uses within the area. There would be walking proximity, mass transit, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman states her question came up almost as an idea since looking at the overall use of Santa Ana Street into the tract that is going to create a significant amount of vehicular traffic coming in. She understands the idea of getting the railroad to abandon the railroad crossings is pretty much not going to happen, so her concern is that the strip is so badly maintained. She lives a half-a-block away, farther west and is aware how difficult it is to cross the tracks without losing a wheel or getting ones car seriously injured. She asked if Redevelopment has pursued the railroad with their responsibility to public safety and constructing the tracks similar to the curb down at Olive and Santa Ana Streets where one can safely cross the tracks without having a problem. • Mr. Asturias responded they have undertaken two avenues with the railroad. First, they have had discussions with the railroad to abandon the right-of-way, which as of today, they are not inclined to do. Secondly, they have asked them to look at the issue of maintenance of the tracks. In any event, the City is reviewing an improvement plan for Santa Ana Street that would go from Harbor Boulevard to East Street. The first base of improvement is yet to be determined, but they are lobbying for the improvement basically in Anaheim and Santa Ana and west towards Harbor Boulevard. With those improvements, the City would be improving the right-of-way up to the perimeter of the right-of-way of the railroad tracks. The City would be working in cooperation with the railroad to have them maintain the tracks and actually fix the bed of the railroad. Commissioner Eastman states if that should come about through Public Works, there would be only one section left and that would be the section where the railroad tracks curb onto Santa Ana Street over near the 5-Freeway and Harbor Boulevard, the section where it runs down the middle of the street in Santa Ana Street. If that could be pursued it would be a benefit for the entire length of the street because it is a street that gets a lot of thru traffic. Mr. Asturias responded they would definitely look into doing that, and feels they have some direction to do it. Commissioner Koos asked a question in the morning session in regards to the garage units, and putting more thought into it in talking to Commissioner Eastman, he wonders if there are some historical architectural styles that are more conducive to garage doors that is part of the main structure than others. In Iooking at the Tutor versus the Craftsman style, he feels the Tutor style looks better and has never seen a Craftsman style with the garage in the front element of the house. He wonders if there is a reason another architectural style was not chosen. • Abel Avalos, John Laing Homes, the representative that is developing the project for the City, states the architectural styles demonstrated to Commission today really emanated from various community meetings, residents of the Colony area as well as other groups that are actively involved and interested 05-19-03 Page 12 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ in the development of the downtown area. The way the site plan was developed and envisioned, they addressed a lot of concerns as it pertained to the garage front versus the garage back. Overwhelmingly, they heard from the community that there was a strong desire to introduce a plan that called for a garage back concept, which Redevelopment attempted to do. The architectural styles came out of the various interactions with the community. They tried to be very respectful of the existing architectural styles in the Colony area. Therefore the six styles demonstrated try to reflect that as much as possible. But, getting to the root of the question as to why there are some styles that lend themselves more to a garage front or garage back, he would have to check with his architect and get more feedback from the groups they have been meeting with, but would look into it and see if they might not decide that one of the garage front plans works best with a certain type of architecture. Commissioner Koos states he understands there are farther plans to meet with the community as the project continues to develop, and he does not wish to put breaks on the project. He asked Commissioner Eastman, given her relationship with the community, whether she feels it is worth pursuing and if the residents who are passionate about the historic preservation would think the issue of front garage with certain styles is worth discussing. Commissioner Eastman responded at one of the meetings they talked about a different style of garage door and possibly using the two garage front styles on Lemon Street and maybe the Craftsman work in the interior where it is definitely new development and not trying to blend it with the old on Lemon Street. Redevelopment has been very open to working with the community suggestions and came back with another design. Mr. Avalos states as Commissioner Eastman pointed out in the last meeting last week one of the questions that was brought forth was the style of the garage doors and there was a question whether it would be possible to make the garage door look more historic; rather than have it look like a two-car garage door they wondered if there was some decorative feature to be placed on the doors to break ~ them up and make them look like they were single doors, and that is currently being looked into. Chairperson Bostwick states that was the reason for his question about what is urban living within an established downtown area. He asked if they could look at making the bedrooms larger and rather than three bedrooms have two bedrooms in order to make them livable instead of having small rooms that are difficult. He feels larger living space would be more appropriate rather than having many small chopped up rooms. He referred to Condition No. 9, which discusses gates and asked if there are plans to put gates on the community. Mr. Asturias responded they do not have plans to install gates. It is an option of the developer if they were so inclined, but given the way the site is configured and the fact that there are homes that front on the streets on all sides it would not be a big benefit to have gates on the property. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the Redevelopment Department assisted in the payment of sewer deficiency, and storm drain, etc. Mr. Asturias responded the agency does not help pay for the fees directly, but what they have done is an economic analysis on what the developer can afford to pay for the land given the development constraints that they have imposed on the developer for the project. Then they back into what the land value should be and that is what developer pays for the land. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby • determine that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. 05-19-03 Page 13 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted, in part, Variance No. 2003-04558 (to construct 20 detached and 36 attached "affordable" single-family residential dwelling units with incentives in lieu of a density bonus), denying waiver (c) pertaining to minimum structural setback adjacent to a collector street [Santa Ana Street] since it has been deleted, and approving waivers pertaining to (a) minimum private street standards, (b) maximum wall height, (d) minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway (Anaheim Boulevard), (e) minimum recreational leisure area, and (fj percentages related to incentives in lieu of a density bonus, and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 31 to read as follows: 31. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, ~, 23, 25, 26, 28 and 29, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Condition Nos. 4, 5, 15 and 16 were removed and added to the Tentative Tract Map conditions of approval. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16492 to establish a 21-lot (20 single-family residential lots and 1 airspace lot for single-family residential condominiums), for a 56- unit detached and attached "affordable" single-family residential condominium subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated ~ May 19, 2003, with the following modifications: Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows (four of which were removed from the Variance conditions of approval): That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for compliance with all of the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 120 created specifically for this project, and for complying with the monitoring and reporting requirements established by the City in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure implementation of those mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.120, which is made a part of these conditions of approval by reference. That as requested by Orange County Transportation Authority, installation of a bus pad shall be constructed along Anaheim Boulevard. Said construction shall be reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Department for compliance with OCTA standards and shall be shown on street improvement plans. That the property owner/developer shall install street lights (Anaheim No. 742 - Historic Street Lights) on Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street as required by the Electrical Engineering Division. Also, design of interior street lighting for the project shall be designed to complement historic street lighting required along the public streets. The streetlights shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first unit. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by the City Attorney. ~ That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water Engineering Division) and easement twenty (20) feet in width for water services mains and or an Easement for large meters and other public water facilities. 05-19-03 Page 14 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for review and approval in determining the condition necessary for providing water service to the project and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney, and shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Approved Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to sound attenuation for single-family residences adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance. DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (2:01-2:26) S ~ 05-19-03 Page 15 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV.-CERTIFIEDI Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04686 Granted 4d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2003-00003 Approved OWNER: Michael Moore, Tejas Partners, 1748 West Katella Avenue, Suite 206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Michael McCormick, McCormick Construction, Co., 2507 Empire Avenue, Burbank, CA 91504 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douqlass Road. Property is approximately 7.25 acres, having a frontage of 1,560 feet on the west side of Douglass Road, located 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04686 - Request to permit a vocational school within a new office building and accessory commercial event parking with waivers of: a) minimum number of parking spaces, and b) minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2003-00003 - Requests review and approval of a final site plan to construct two-story office building within the SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone. Continued from the May 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-72 sr8594av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04686, 1501-1551 South Douglass Road, a request to permit a vocational school within a new office building and accessory commercial event parking with waivers of: (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway. Applicant's Testimony: Irv Pickler, 1818 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA, representing Tejas Partners, states they are present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 321 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04686 (to permit a vocational school within a new office building and accessory commercial event parking), subject to the conditions 05-19-03 Page 16 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modifications: Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That any trees removed to construct new driveways for the property shall be replaced in an alternate location to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. That approval of this permit is subject to adoption and finalization of an ordinance rezoning the property to the SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone. That final sign plans for the new office building shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. That as stipulated by the petitioner in the letter of operation dated March 20, 2003, the maximum enrollment shall be limited to 600 students and the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Thursday; 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Friday; and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Site Plan No. 2003-00003 to construct a two-story office building within the ML (SE) Overlay Zone. VOTE: 7-0 ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Final Site Plan and the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:27-2:34) • 05-19-03 Page 17 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04685 OWNER: Carl J. Lugaro, 1145 Glenview Drive, Fulierton, CA 92835 AGENT: George Hoeing, Western States Engineering and Construction, Inc., 733 North Main Street, Orange CA 92868 LOCATION: 590 and 510-542 North Maqnolia Avenue. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.49-acre, located at the southeast corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 4.05 acres, located south and east of the southeast corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues. Request to construct an automobile car wash facility with an accessory fast food restaurant and accessory retail sales. Continued from the May 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-73 Approved Granted, with stipulation at today's meeting pertaining to landscaping. sr5008jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item no. 5 as Conditional Use permit No. 2003-04685, Parcel 1: 590 North Magnolia Avenue and parcel 2: 510-542 North Magnolia Avenue, a request to construct an automobile car wash facility with an accessory fast food restaurant and accessory retail sales. Applicant's Testimony: • Joseph Karake, representing the owner, Carl J. Lugaro, of Western States Engineering and Construction, Inc., 733 North Main Street, CA, states they do not have any objections of the conditions of approval and are present to answer any questions relating to the matter. Public Testimony: Rich Childers, 2694 W. Cameron Court, Anaheim, CA, states Cameron Court is located on the southwest corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues, directly across the street from the project. He is the president of the Homeowners Association at Cameron Court and has concerns with the exit lanes being on the outside. Crescent Avenue is predominantly residential. They have large businesses at Brookhurst Street and also KnotYs Berry Farm and large businesses at the west end. Between those two areas is the only complex they have, which is a lot of small neighborhood based businesses with the exits all going out onto Crescent Avenue. If they were to turn westbound it would tie up traffic because they have the Dr. Peter Marshall Elementary School in the upper left hand corner. When school lets out there is only one westbound lane going in that direction. At best it is very difficult to try to make a left turn going out of the driveway. The main reason for his discussion is that an automobile business is going to be in close proximity to the school. The hours of business are going to be the same hours that school children would be going across the street and vehicles would be trying to get into businesses. Also located down the street are Savanah High School and Brookhurst Junior High on Crescent Avenue The increased traffic concerns him and his neighbors, especially with the school in cession. The businesses currently there serve the neighborhood. He would like to see improvements, but is not sure if a car wash or other automobile based business would be the right direction to go. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: S Mr. Karake states he understands Mr. Childers' concern about the traffic but there is in and out traffic in the entire shopping center all day long and he does not feel it would be limited with his business. He 05-19-03 Page 18 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • does not feel that people are going to come from out of bounds to wash their cars in that neighborhood. To bring a car wash and Subway store into the neighborhood would give people who live around the neighborhood a place to come and wash their cars instead of washing their cars in front of their driveways; it would eliminate another environmental problem, and would be a convenience for neighbors around the area. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the driveway of the present lot into the alleyway that now serves the shopping center going to be rebuilt since he is expanding to the west. Mr. Karake responded yes, there are currently three driveways and they are going to eliminate two and keep one away from the intersection. Chairperson Bostwick states another comment that was brought up in the morning session was the fact that there would be an exit and entrance off of Magnolia Avenue onto the end of the center, and with the cars exiting the car wash in the drying finish area there tends to be a conflict. He has concerns as to the traffic and flow in and out of the area. Mr. Karake states the drying area has a setback away from the driveway. People want to drive from Magnolia Avenue back to the vacuum area. At no time would there be cars in the driveway in terms of blocking the driveway of people going in. Also, it is only an entrance not an exit so it means people will go back to the Crescent Avenue area to exit the site. The flow of traffic coming from Magnolia Avenue could be limited to just entrance as the conditions of approval indicated. Chairperson Bostwick states the plans kind of leave that open. The divider does not have a plan to where it channels the traffic back towards the Crescent Avenue exit rather than around it. It needs to be redesigned to where it only allows traffic in and prevents direct driving out onto Magnolia Avenue. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states Condition No. 4 in the staff report states air compressor hoses shall not be used to dry cars and asked if it is feasible. Mr. Karake responded it is a hand car wash and there are blowers inside the tunnel facing the Magnolia Avenue side. Commissioner Koos referred to staff regarding the landscape plan and states the plan is very intense on flowers and vegetation and wondered how they would stand up over time when they are so heavily flower ladened. He asked if it is a concern to staff. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states there was some concerns with regard to the landscape plan, but with regard to the number of palm trees because they had quite a few of them and not very much variety. He asked if he was referring to annual color. Commissioner Koos states it is on a corner; there is a school across the street and children trample, etc. Mr. McCafferty states staff would take a look at the plan and make sure that if they do perennials or annuals they would have color and that they focus them in areas that would not be trampled. Commissioner Koos states the planting plan is very detailed in terms of the types of plants, he would just recommend to lean towards durability. Commissioner Bristol wished to know where in the conditions of approval they are talking about the ingress and egress. Mr. McCafferty states there is not a condition for ingress and egress and he asked Mr. Yalda if he was receptive to such a condition. • Alfred Yalda responded no, Traffic and Transportation is very happy they eliminated the number of drivers they have on site and are happy with the design. It really does not make any difference as far as 05-19-03 Page 19 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ingress and egress is concerned, because the majority of the trips in these kinds of businesses are passerby. In other words, they are people who live in the area and decide to have a car wash before they go home and would know how to get through the area. Chairperson Bostwick concurs it is not regional but a neighborhood use. There would be foot traffic from someone walking to the Subway and there would be vehicle traffic for visiting the car wash, but because it is so close to the outlet of the car wash, there would be cars coming in and cars trying to go out and would be conflicting being that they are right next to each other. Mr. Yalda responded once the business opens up and the applicants figure out their operation they generally adjust it and Traffic and Transportation will work with them. ~l ~ R~]4-I h[H E•'1_!.`IU 1~1I PI/e1:~ L~] i ~:1 ~~~_1-1- I h[tIK~] IG 1141 E.'~.9 [~l- I_~~ ~[~7- OPPOSITION: One person spoke with opposition to the subject request pertaining to city traffic concerns. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04685 (to construct an automobile car wash facility with an accessory fast food restaurant and accessory retail sales), with the stipulation at today's meeting pertaining to the final landscape plan using durable plant species in high pedestrian traffic areas; and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 10 and 39 to read as follows: ~ 10. That sound pressure level field measurements of the car wash shall be taken on site prior to operation of the car wash to ensure compliance with Chapter 6.70 (Sound Pressure Levels) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. That the car wash shall thereafter operate in compliance with Chapter 6.70 pertaining to sound pressure levels. 39. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 42, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: 42. That prior to issuance of a building permit or grading plan approval, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan specifically identifying post construction best management practices that shall be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (2:35-2:55) 05-19-03 Page 20 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04683 OWNER: Chinh K. Ngo, 1300 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1300 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.65-acre having a frontage of 126 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, located 425 feet north of the centerline of Winston Road. Request to permit and retain an existing outdoor building and materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile warehouse with accessory retail sales with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the May 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-74 Approved Approved Granted sr8589vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04683, 1300 South State College Boulevard, a request to permit and retain an existing outdoor building and materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile warehouse with accessory retail sales with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Chinh K. Ngo, 1300 South State College Boulevard, states he visited with his planner and now understands all of the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if the forklift activity, especially in the front parking area, was legal. Mr. McCafferty states the front area where the customer parking is located should be exclusively for customer parking. The outdoor activity that occurs in association in a business of this type shou(d be occurring behind the enclosed area. The applicant has a truck dock that they could be using to unloading behind the gate if it were not being used for storage. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Ngo if he understood his question. Mr. Ngo responded yes. Commissioner Bristol states he has a concern because he does not live very far from the property and he sees him using the forklift in the front. He asked Mr. Ngo if he understands it is not proper, and that all forklift activity should take place in the enclosed area. Mr. Ngo responded okay. Commissioner Bristol states there is a safety issue on the property and suggested an additional condition be added indicating afl forklift activity relating to the business taking place inside the building or within the enclosed outdoor storage area. ~ 05-19-03 Page 21 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04683 (to permit and retain an existing outdoor building and materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile warehouse with accessory retail sales), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modification: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That all forklift activities associated with the business shall occur in the building or within the enclosed outdoor storage area. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:56-3:00) ~ u 05-19-03 Page 22 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04694 OWNER: B.V. Enterprises, Inc., 2424 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Briggs and Alexander, Attn: Leon C Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2424 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 2.5 acres having a frontage of 441 feet on the south side of Ball Road, located 218 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street (King Market). 7o expand an existing nonconforming convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-75 Concurred with staff Approved expansion sr3024ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04694, 2424 West Ball Road - King Market, a request to expand an existing nonconforming convenience market. Applicant's Testimony: Leon C. Alexander of Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA, representing B. V. Enterprises, Inc., dba Anaheim King Market, and their wholesale operation also Time • Square Produce, states: "Essentially there is a history in the matter here, but the existing building has no rear access whatsoever. There is no truck delivery access in the rear of the market and so this is the crux of the matter. To give you a little history: The store came into this address in the early 90's. It was a dead center, about 50% occupied. It was a Middle Eastern Armenian specialty market. After which the owners of this store developed and built it up and made it a very successful operation. They rely upon their 22-foot truck that goes to downtown Los Angeles to pick up the produce and meats for the store. They essentially have to park the truck there (on subject property) during the day in order to take and deliver the produce to some of the catering events that they handle; the Armenian school and restaurants throughout the community. They have always had a pre-existing right to have their truck deliveries and to park their truck every since the year 2000. In the interim while King Market grew, other Middle Eastern businesses came in; Zankou Chicken, Sarkis Pastry, Phoenician Jewelry, and many other Middle Eastern type businesses came into the center. It became a flourishing center, extreme vitality and a benefit to the community. Unbeknownst to the owners of the market in the year 2000, in November, the City of Anaheim apparently approved a seafood deli and one of the conditions for the seafood deli, which is located on the other side of the center, is that there would be no truck parking allowed whatsoever during the day and no truck deliveries. Unbeknownst to the owners of the market, everything was going okay until the City of Anaheim Code Enforcement started citing the King Market for truck deliveries and truck parking. This is when I became aware of the matter. It was at this time that 1 contacted the City of Anaheim and worked with David See and from there on we went in for a modification to the variance allowing for King Market to have their truck delivery and to park their truck there. In essence, the City had taken away their right and now we had to get it back. It took me three hearings and several City meetings to get this resolved. I thought the matter was resolved. Anyway, there is a neighborhood group called WAND and Judithanne Gollette is here. She will mention that apparently she has been making numerous complaints to the City of Anaheim Code Enforcement and to Anaheim Planning and she has been on the quest for several years and apparently that is the reason why the City of Anaheim started issuing these citations. Then in ~ December 2001, I got approval from the Zoning Administrator to allow for the truck. In August 2002, Anaheim King Market gets another Code violation for truck parking. I called Code Enforcement and City Planning and explained I had an approval and variance. Low and behold they stopped and there were 05-19-03 Page 23 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • no more complaints then. So again, things are going good until November 8, 2002. The City of Anaheim Code Enforcement again issued a violation whereby now they headed onto Unit Z, which is their wholesale operation of their business, which also has their corporate administrative offices. Now the City wants to make them come in on a CUP for the entire market. This was in November 2002. I, from there on, immediately contacted the City of Anaheim and told them they had approval of Unit Z from the Building Department that was constructed several months prior to that variance prohibiting truck deliveries or even putting restrictions on the property. Nevertheless, they would not listen to me. On December 19`h I wrote a pretty good fetter explaining our position that we do not need a CUP and that it is only for the wholesale produce. It is not expansion of the market. Our opinion is we did not need a CUP for the entire store nor for Unit Z. Essentially, I was providing what we thought was a response. I wrote that on December 19, 2002. I sent a copy of the letter to Code Enforcement also. There was no response. Everything was going good. It wasn't until I am on vacation in February when I came back and the owners of King Market, which are also friends of my family, came and contacted me in the middle of the night after I came back from vacation saying they got a letter from the City of Anaheim City Attorney threatening criminal prosecution unless they file their CUP. I immediately contacted the Code Enforcement Office and the City Attorney Office and I said, "Listen I wrote a letter back in December 19, informing that I don't feel it is a CUP required for Unit Z. Nevertheless, the City Attorney insisted that you have to file the CUP or 1 will file a criminal complaint against you if you fail to do so. So, under protest, I wrote and filed the CUP on the basis that Unit Z does not require a CUP, although I did provide a plan also providing some landscaping, maybe to beautify the area, but again I felt that they had always had an existing rights because they were there. Unfortunately, the attorney also sent a letter to the landowner and the landowner started eviction processes against King Market. So now, not only do we have to worry about the Code Enforcement 1 feel intimidating the small little ethnic market, but now they now they have the eviction process that just started by the City of Anaheim. Calling my office or contacting my office and responding to my December 19, 2002 letter could have resolved this. Unfortunately, that never occurred and I should tell the Anaheim Planning Commission there has not been a truly response to my December 19th letter until actually last week when Greg McCafferty and ~ Selma Mann from Planning came in and took `the bull by the horn' and finally were responding and handling some of the matters. But, it wasn't until then that no one would even answer my protest. So now I am here before you. And, then I come to find out after meeting with Ms. Mann and Mr. McCafferty that now Unit Z is a skeptical area, but there is another unit that they added on several years ago and that is subject to CUP. Nevertheless, I think that there was and I think you as members of the Commission should realize, what is going on to a little small business that I feel has been unnecessarily brought in here several times on out. Merely a telephone call or some letters could have resolved it. We have always worked with the City. We have displayed that in the past by working with David See and trying to provide adequate truck parking. I should go back a little bit. When the City of Anaheim Zoning Administrator approved the truck parking they did put in a nice fenced storage enclosure facility area with trees around it. Anyway, I am here before you in that I feel that the City should not intimidate but accommodate and try to listen to small businesses and rather than use this kind of intimidating tactics, and literally I feel that WAND was the arm of this Code Enforcement used to intimidate this business. This business is vital to this center. All the other Middle Eastern stores depend upon it. They all work with each other, and I think it is a benefit to the community. I am here actually to try to work with the Planning Commission to explain to you my protest, but I guess we have come this far I might as well work with the City, considering it took this long to try and work on favorable conditions which are not abusive or destructive or try to have Code Enforcement come in there every day and try and site them for something. I have had a chance to review the conditions with the owners of the market and Condition No. 1; they would like to operate until 9 p.m. rather than 8 p.m. Condition No. 6, one of the conditions is to remove the shopping carts or place them in the storage area in front of Unit Z. Unfortunately, that is going to be very difficult because we do not allow the public to come in front of the fenced area of Unit Z. There is no other place to put the shopping carts other than in front of the market. Due to safety reasons we feel it is not good to allow the public in front of that area to remove the shopping carts. Unfortunately, it is a small area but that is all they have to work with. Condition Nos. 8 and 9 is the pay telephone and pay ~ sign and that is not their responsibility. I guess it is the landlord, I can check for the Commission and see what the status on it is, but I do hear there is a long-term fease on the telephone. There is the small little sign and I will check on that one too. Condition No. 10, the interior fixtures, displays merchandise. They 05-19-03 Page 24 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ need all the space they can get in there and so I would want No. 10 deleted. Also, because it is just going to make it more crowded in there than it is. Condition No. 11, I just need that modified to say `except within the fenced area'. They have a nice fenced area hidden from the public view where they can put shopping carts and other things in there. Condition No. 12, from the Zoning Administrator, I think is a little bit confusing. I think it should be just made clear. I would just say take out the first line, `There should be no commercial truck deliveries between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m.', because I think that is what is making it confusing and that they are allowed their truck to be parked there and in the meantime they are allowed temporary loading and unloading for the commercial vehicles. There are 15 other businesses in there too and they also have their truck deliveries. Condition No. 13, maybe you can help me and No. (a) is confusing because there is already a designated area there. Condition No. 15, once again we would like to have storage in that fenced area only. So that they be allowed to have storage only within that fenced area. Condition No. 17, I did provide for some landscaping although it is going to be extremely expensive to put the irrigation around there but they are going to do whatever landscaping they can, wherever there is existing irrigation and put in whatever anti-graffiti plants around the fence enclosure and around the trash area. We would need more time than the 30 days. Probably about 90 days. Condition No. 24, I did not like at all, `That Code Enforcement shall inspect the property on a quarterly basis for a period of one (1) year to ensure compliance with conditions of approval. The business owner shall pay for said inspections'. I think they already do it anyway enough. It is just overburdensome what Code Enforcement does there. I am a little disappointed in Code Enforcement for what they have done to this family and this business. Condition No. 26 be extended from 60 days to 120 days. In closing, I feel that this is a small business; they are doing their best. There are 35 jobs, 35-40 people employed in this market. These families depend upon this market, these employees and these threats of forcing the market out of there and using Code Enforcement as an intimidation tactic I felt was uncalled for. I have been voicing for the last two years on this matter for this market and I think it has been just overburdensome". ~ Public Testimony: Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., representing West Gilbert Neighborhood Watch, WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development) and her family, states: "A little history: In the late 90's I was a very active realtor and somehow my client kept saying I do not want to go passed Euclid; I don't want to go West of Euclid, and I would say why not and they would say that is a drug and gang area over there and we don't want to go over there. We don't want to look for a home. So, I started thinking about it and I brought it back to my famify and we started looking at the neighborhood thinking well maybe it is different than what we see because that is where I live. I live west of Euclid. We talked about it and we decided that we were not ready to move. We thought our neighborhoods were great. We had light on our major streets, our neighborhood was good, our neighbors were good, and we were not ready to move. So, it was then time to put up or shut up and we did. We started a very active neighborhood watch and instead of calling it a neighborhood watch we called it a neighborhood pride group. At that time, we had a corner at Gilbert Street and Ball Road where the new senior housing went in behind 7-Eleven and Gilbert Street and Ball Road that used to be a very drug inhabited old medical center that had been vacated. They tore it down and it became a very blighted piece of land. We had the Del Taco, which is at the end of South Rowan Street and Ball Road which went out of business and it became Dos Amigos and then they left and it became boarded up and blighted. And this is all at the same time; this is how we leave our neighborhood. Then we had King Tut Auto at the corner of South Rowan and Ball Road who left and it became a bargain center. Then we had King Market across the street. We ended up getting the senior housing in the vacant fot. We got Peppy's to come in to the old Del Taco building. 7he bargain center has been running according to Code as much as they can do in that old strip mall, but we have not had luck with King Market across the street. So this is where the quest began; `The journey with King Market'. I have photos and have submitted photos to Code Enforcement over the years of what they have seen at King Market. • Hopefully, you have had an opportunity to see some of these photos. If not, I have a few copies right here and I would like to have you see them because this is what we face and so you can understand what I am talking about. The green sheets are from about 1996 to 1998. You can see the difference 05-19-03 Page 25 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ where the strip mall was painted blue in those days. The other photos that I will give you are photos that have been taken since the fence went in. I want you to understand that these were not taken all at the same time; if you have to get down to the nitty gritty, look at the northern most parking spaces that face Ball Road. You can tell that they are different times by the number and the type of cars and trucks that are being parked there. Also, the strip mall now has been painted red. So you can tell it is at a different time. One of the photos is at a very dark night. It was after last years West Anaheim's Barbeque. I drove by there and the parking structure was open, and you can see that it was not closed at night. There are no trucks parked in it or anything it is just an opened area. Originally, this shopping center was built with no food stores in there at all. The very first food outlet was an ice cream parlor, and it was a couple of doors east of the original King Market; the Alvarez family owned it. They had to wait six months after the opening of the strip mall to actually open their doors because there was not a gas line for any items to be produced. So they had to wait for the Japanese restaurant or the restaurant at the end, the most westerly unit, to open its doors and put in the lines. There were a lot of problems in the 90's. There is not contention that any of our strip malls in any part of Anaheim or any part of Orange County was vacant. We were going through a recession. It is not that this mall was the only one that was empty; there were a lot of malls that were empty. So we were looking for good friendly neighborhood businesses to come in and serve our public. On page No. 6, under the recommendations where it says it would not adversely affect adjoining land uses. Well, 1 want you to take notice on one of those photos where the Japanese restaurant is, there on the corner and how boxes and trash are piled up in front, so that if you want to go to the Japanese restaurant you had to go around the boxes and the biight. The Japanese restaurant finally went out of business because all of their shopping carts and everything was being put in front of the Japanese restaurant and you could not get around to it. My family visited the Japanese restaurant several times and we enjoyed going there, but it became a hassle and it became a problem to look at how they were going to see more community people coming in and taking part of their restaurant if it looked like a junk ~ yard out front. So it has adversely affected our neighborhood. The top of page 7(iii), when you talk about the size and the shape of the site. The size and shape of this site was not built for back deliveries; it was not built for some kind of business that would need an alley delivery system. One day I was up there and they had a 7-foot table out front in the parking lot and were cleaning their lettuce. This is what we see as we drive by our stores in our neighborhood. Condition No. 4,.we talk about the traffic, because of the amount of traffic and I am not saying it is just King Market but any of you have been by it and I know several of you have. You know that there are a lot of cars that are using this area. Not only for the shopping center, but Magnolia High School; for the restaurants and just going in that area. Last year, the County of Orange allocated them money to put in a left turn arrow in that turning corner at Gilbert Street and Ball Road because of the number of accidents and because of the increase in traffic that we as neighbors have seen. If you go there at 3:00 in the afternoon or when children get out of school you are taking your life in your hands trying to get one way or the other. So, traffic is an important issue here. Condition No. 5, the granting of this permit before the fish market was looked up or brought before the Zoning Commissioner, the requirement for the shopping mall was not more than 50°/a of this shopping center could be allocated for food. Well, if you look at the square footage of the shopping center there is 18,536 square feet allocated to food markets and 14, 504 that are not food items. So, you have over 50%. Also, another requirement was that you were not to have a parking structure built in front of the stores. So, what did we end up with? We ended with the shelter that is supposed to cover their trucks which is very rarely used to put their trucks inside. The rest of it is used for a parking lot and back alley deliveries. And thaYs what it looks like. It looks like this is the back end of a store front where you drop off the deliveries, pick ups whatever and keep your extra wood pallets, shopping carts, etc. They also have a red truck, a burgundy truck. It is an old truck that is parked there a lot that continues to be stacked with crushed boxes until the truck is so full that it is unsafe to drive it. It is a couple of feet, 3-4 ~ feet over the top of the bed of the truck high and then they strap it, and then they take it and they come back and they start stacking again. So, it is to the peace, health and safety and we are talking about health also. They have also been cited for health conditions by the Orange County Health Department. 05-19-03 Page 26 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ So, we are not just talking about just a business that is doing a lot of business and is good for a neighborhood, but we are also talking about the aesthetic value of what it does to a neighborhood. Condition No. 6, you talk about safety. Mr. Alexander stated that the shopping carts were a hazard in front of the structure. Well look at the shopping carts in front of the store on the sidewalk. Talk about a safety hazard; people have to walk all around to get into this place. Condition No. 11, talks about the structure, permanent and temporary storage, and products and their containers. If you go there in the morning the trucks are unloaded and during the day you have unloading on the sidewalk, they bring the doilies in and you have bins and boxes and stuff that are constantly there. You have the trash enclosure that has things loaded over night. So they are leaving things outside. It is not hidden from public view. You can tell by the photos. Again, those photos were not taken on just one day. There are many days that those photos were taken. And, it was not that I was hidden. I would walk right up and just sit there and snap photos. Condition No. 12, I had heard many times that they were not doing the deliveries during the day; that there were no deliveries being made, that there were no trucks. One day I was driving down Ball Road and I saw a Code Enforcement Officer, the one that looks for the trash pick up people. Anyway, I said you know what I want you to do is just come down and see what I am talking about at King Market because all the trucks are there right now. He came down and he called his supervisor. It was on a weekend. They said well don't cite him right now. Just observe, write down what is happening and we spoke to the owner and the owner said, `Oh, the trucks are there because it is a late delivery that day, but they are not there any other time'. Well, you can see by the photos they are there all of the time. Several weeks ago, after this hearing had been announced, I decided that I would go talk to the owner myself. Just so we knew what we were talking about, that we were both on the same page when we came to you, that one could say'yeah it was there' and one could say `no it was not there'. I asked to speak to the owner and I was given a young man probably in his 30's and he said he was the owner. It ~ was not the same gentleman that Mr. Alexander brought with him when we met with him last week. But, I said you know I just want us to know that we are all on the same page when we come here to Planning Commission meeting. That these trucks are not supposed to be here. He said, ` well I have to have my deliveries'. I said I understand that, but you have certain times for the pickups and deliveries and he shrugged his shoulders. I said okay. I could not read into what he had to say, but t figured there wasn't any reason to go on any farther with the conversation. I spoke to Mr. Alexander about that afterwards and the reply that I got back was 'don't talk to the owner anymore, talk to me I am his attorney'. So, I tried to get him to understand we are not trying to ask him to leave, we are asking him to create a beautiful business or a code respectful business in West Anaheim. ThaYs all we are asking. Condition No. 13, you can see that through the pictures there are all kinds of trucks all the time. If you see it as much as I see it you can understand that truck deliveries are not just made in front of his store, but they are made throughout the shopping mall and they actually bring part of their goods over. Yeah, there are other deliveries from other companies for other stores, but the majority of the deliveries go to King Market. Condition No. 14, it says no required parking area shall be fenced. Well, that is what the neighborhood has now. We have the parking area for the trucks and when the fish market came in, WAND came here and spoke and asked that the zoning look at the parking allocation there at the strip mall because 3/< of the parking had already been allocated towards one of the malls. There wasn't much parking for the area and we were concerned that there would be an over abundance of cars that would be then reflected across the street to the McDonald's parking or wherever they could find a spot. The Zoning Commissioner said she would call us and have us meet her there and we would look and discuss it together. Well, we never did get the call. She did go out, and the next thing we found out is they gave a permit for the fish market to go in. When the ruling came down that they had to put the structure up, we were never informed of it. I was never informed of it, and the City is supposed to notify 300 feet around any interested parties. Well, City and staff know that I have been as interested as any partner could be. • And it is not that I have targeted anybody because we have worked at Del Taco and other places, it just does not matter. It was the blighted piece of land, it was our neighborhood, and this is what we saw. So, I was not notified until a day after the appeal process had already expired. So, there was nothing that we 05-19-03 Page 27 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • could do about the fence structure up front. So we had to live with that. But, i did ask for the requirements they were expected to live up to. I was given the documentation that said the deliveries had to be within a certain time, and after a certain time no trucks could be parked in the northern most lane. And, they constantly have violated those requirements and no matter what King Market attorney has said, it is up to the owner of that business to be respectful and observe the Codes. Mr. Alexander can stand here and say we are going to do this and we are going to have them do that, but the owner is not even here today. What we would like to do is see a commitment from the owner that he is going to live up to his standards and Codes for Anaheim and that my understanding is that a CUP runs with the land, it is not just this owner. So, whatever we give this owner if they sell out, then the next person down the line has carte blanche to another can of worms. The trash pickup - Originally, there was one trash bin for each side of the shopping center. After repeatedly asking Code to help us out, they got several days a week pickup and then they went to six days a week. Then they went two bins, and now they are at three bins. I see now they are asking for five bins. The other side of the mall only has one bin. So, we are looking at four bins here and one down there. You can tell the amount of trash that this place generates. Two weekends ago, the blue trash bags were filled over the top of the trash enclosures. Not just one enclosure, but all the enclosures. So, there is not enough trash. This is a back alley production. On the Code Enforcement letter the staff received 50 in request. I am not sure that is not accurate. i know that on my part it is not. We talked about as a result of July 15, 1999, he plead guilty and paid a fine of $200. This is someone who repeatedly has no regard for Anaheim City Codes and the requirements. All we are asking for is businesses to live up to the Code and be community friendly, and this place has not. What is good for one person should be good for another. 7-Eleven owners, Marge and Harold, have a ~ handicap daughter who has a Girl Scout troop, and they had a Christmas bazaar in their parking lot one year. Code Enforcement came over and told them that they had two hours to close it down because they did not have a permit. Across the street, this total disregard for the City and their noncompliance continues. So, we should have a standard set across the City, not just because they over expanded their territory or their building that it is okay, because it is not okay. The owner is responsible for his actions, not the attorney. The owner of the mall is responsible for its tenants. Mr. Alexander said that prior to 2000 everything was okay. Everything was not okay. Look at the green sheets; look at the photos; look at that one that has boxes all over it. Everything was not okay. We need your help, we need to make sure that stores and businesses know that there is a standard and a Code that the City of Anaheim has and that no matter if you are a resident or a business owner that there is a Code to live by. We need your help. Please deny this". Charles Bradley, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), 3208 W. Faircrest Dr., Anaheim, CA, states at 1;00 today on his way to the Planning Commission meeting there were two trucks parked in front of King Market. He asked if 36-40 employees who work on two different shifts, all show up in one car where would they park. The parking lot is absolutely overflowing. It is overflowing almost any time of the day that you drive by, and he drives by frequently to go to the post office at Brookhurst Street and Ball Road. Two or three years ago, when Jim Ruth was the City Manager, he held a meeting about what was going on in West Anaheim. One of the things we bought up was the shoddy condition of strip malls and he disagreed with us entirely. He said that we do not need to clean up the strip malls in West Anaheim we need to clean them up in the entire City, and he has done that. He put Code Enforcement fo work and " they have been by every strip mall and most of them have cleaned up, but this strip mall has done nothing. There are signs afl over the windows and it is not a pleasant business area to drive by. If you look on the page 3 of the staff report, it shows 18 businesses plus Jiffy Lube in the one little tiny strip ~ mall. It is really too much in one place. The property on the southeast corner, which is in the County, has three businesses there, and the main one is State Farm Insurance agent that he has done business with for 20-30 years. They have had to put up chains on the entrance and exits to keep people from 05-19-03 Page 28 MAY 9 9, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ parking in their parking lot at night and on weekends. So, he leaves it in the hands of Commission to make a good decision. Amin David, President of Los Amigos of Orange County, 1585 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA, states evidently the lady from WAND forgot to tell you one more thing, the owner got chewed out by his wife for not taking some milk the other night. Every little bit that she finds problems with was reported to you. Any business that would be looked at with such a magnifying glass would be appalled or anything at some particular time. There is a line of demarcation and it is unfortunate that these ladies and gentlemen do not know what it takes to run a business. Hallelujah, for that kind of strip mal! that was unfortunately allowed to be built like that without a rear entrance. But, there is commerce there; there is buu. There is a lot of business that is generated from it. The inconveniences mentioned are way overshadowed by the fact that there is a vibrant community there. Los Amigos interest in that is there is 36 families that work at the King Market, and 99.9% of those families are Latino families. So, they cannot afford not to help this business grow and flourish. He feels if they had a way out of it they would move, and he hopes they would move in his area where the reach of WAND and the directed type of criticism that comes forth would stop. But, they are not going to move, they are going to stay there and they are going to survive because this is the kind of business that Los Amigos appreciate, acknowledge and revere. He feels WAND should be very grateful for the business. They should give them an award for doing all they can to make business, which is the lifeblood of Anaheim, vibrant, brilliant and ongoing. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Alexander states Ms. Gollette mentioned that there are drugs in the area, but he informs the subject market sells no drugs. In fact, there is no alcohol sold at the market. It is a market that has nothing there whatsoever of the sort. It is not blight; it is an improvement of the community. It is a good business; it provides for the increase and expanding economy and has revitalized the West Anaheim area. He feels without the ethnic type Middle Eastern businesses the mall would still be dead. He • concurs with Mr. David, the City of Anaheim Code Enforcement is picking on King Market and he feels there has to be some consideration for a small business. He does not see them picking on Disneyland or Anaheim Stadium, but it is the small businesses. The photos that Ms. Gollette provided are very old photos. There is enclosure there now and it is improved, nicer, and there are more trees there. He would like to make sure that the truck deliveries are allowed where it is designated, but it cannot be do within the enclosed area. It has to be done in front of the Unit Z area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ne Chairperson Bostwick states he visited the property last Wednesday, walked the property with Mr. Alexander and reviewed the store. He referred to Mr. McCafferty and stated in the morning session, it was mentioned that Unit Z is what they call their wholesale. He asked him if he would like to expound on the idea that this is an improved area for a wholesale. Mr. McCafferty responded it is a commercial zone and wholesale businesses are not businesses that are permitted as primary uses within the zone. It is a retail zone first and foremost, and as accessory to that they could have accessory who(esales, but the primary use is retail. The history is Unit Z is such that aN the approvals that were obtained, whether it was a tentative improvement or business license that was obtained from the City, had all indicated that it was going to be a delicatessen or meat market, which on its own, if it was an independent business, is a permitted primary use in the zone that the property is located. Commissioner Bristol states one issue is communication. The comment was made that it is primarily retail with wholesale accessory, but he has been to the property three times, and concurs with Mr. David. From what he has seen on the property from his first visit to what he saw on the last couple of visits, he cannot believe the difference in the amount of business generated. One of the things he read in the comments made by staff was the fact that it is a convenience, deli or produce. But, when he walked in • the store convenience never entered his mind. When he walked in he immediately said, "This is a produce store, I didn't know it existed and it has all this stuff all over the place" and that is exactly what it is. As far as the storage Z, it is an office. It has a cooler in there and it stores produce, and there 05-19-03 Page 29 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ appeared to be an overffow. The prior use probably would have had to have more parking than what is currently there. He feels, as King Market gets better they may have no other choice but to leave the facility. It is wonderful for them and wonderful for Anaheim that they are successful. it was really exciting to go there in the middle of a weekday and see people going in buying large amounts of items. It was really neat. Commissioner Koos states it seems like there are a number of disconnects without placing blame on anybody. But, he wonders about the variance that was approved in 2000; Variance No. 2000-04412, for the seafood delicatessen. From a process standpoint, given it was a parking waiver, 220 spaces required, 182 approved. That is basically 60 off the development standards. How does it determine that would go to the Zoning Administrator and not the Planning Commission? Mr. McCafferty responded the Zoning Administrator under the Municipal Code is allowed to hear parking variances, and because the underlining use that was being requested is a permitted use in the zone, the Administrator was looking at it from a parking issue for the overall center. When you are looking at whether to grant or not grant the parking waiver, you look at the entire center. The Administrator determined that because of the mix of the uses in this center, it was appropriate to assess certain conditions for the benefit of fhe entire center. Commissioner Koos asked what threshold would there be if any, to the Planning Commission, a request for 50%, 60% of the parking? Mr. McCafferty states when it has to do with parking there is no percentage. It is just whether that is the only thing being requested or not. Commissioner Koos states as Planning Commissioners they make great effort in making sure that when there is a tenant requesting an entitlement, the owner is fully aware of the case. That way it does not ~ impact all the other tenants. It would be hard to answer whether it happened in this case, but it almost sounds like it did not. Because, it certainly did impact existing businesses. He asked Mr. McCafferty if he could comment on it. Mr. McCafferty responded no, he could not, that it would be something more appropriate for the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Koos states on page 1, 5(a), regarding the variance for the seafood, the reports indicates a petitioner requested to amend a condition of approval. He wished to clarify if the applicants they came in and asked for an amendment to that variance. Mr. McCafferty feels it was when Mr. Alexander came in and requested an amendment for the market. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if that was when the truck corral was approved. Mr. McCafferty clarified it was when it was authorized. Commissioner Koos states he just wanted to understand how it came about that the Zoning Administrator approved this. He was concerned maybe the Zoning Administrator was not prudent in making sure the owner knew the entitlement would affect the entire property. Commissioner Romero states he met with Mr. Alexander and spoke with Ms. Gollette as well as visited the property a couple of times within the last week. Both times he visited there were three trucks, and he was curious from staff what is currently allowed with the deliveries and what is considered a delivery versus considered a drop-off. Mr. McCafferty responded the way the variance conditioned deliveries is that they not occur between the ~ hours of 10 a.m, and 9 p.m. As Mr. Alexander mentioned, the market has one truck that it uses to go to Los Angeles and bring produce into the market. What the Zoning Administrator and the approval of the variance recognized was that they would be permitted to store the truck on site within the enclosed area. 05-19-03 Page 30 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Alexander to comment on what is currently happening as far as deliveries. Mr. Alexander responded first and foremost the market depends upon deliveries and cannot control the bread delivery, potato chip delivery, etc.; they come intermittently throughout the day. When I went in front of the Zoning Administrator, she allowed for the enclosure to put the truck there, parked all day because the truck goes out and does the catering. It is confusing what she wrote in language, but it does provide except for temporary loading and loading purposes for other commercial delivery vehic(es (Condition No. 12). And, that is where it is allowed right next door to the fence enclosure, and that is where they have one or two trucks that go in there. So, probably when you went and saw the three trucks, they had the existing truck there which was always there, and there was probably two trucks going +n and out from there and it takes about maybe 20-30 minutes for one truck to unload. Commissioner Romero asked if it is a constant event. Mr. Alexander states it is not constant but it happens, it varies. Sometimes they may get three in one hour and nothing for the next 3-4 hours; intermittentfy. There is no rear access so it is a hardship to the business. Commissioner Romero asked if he could comment about the trash because when he visited during the morning he noticed there was a lot of trash, and there were three workers trying to condense the trash and get it to fit as much as possible. Mr. Alexander responded, Ms. Gollette mentioned there was a guy with a truck. He is there to recycle the boxes and he stays all day, takes out all the staples, and packs the boxes into the truck. That is the trash from fhe entire center. There is a big volume from the Zankou Chicken; they have a lot of stuff ~ going in there but primarily from King Market. There are daily pick-ups of the trash; they have tripled the trash pick-ups since Code Enforcement was citing them on those areas, lt may even happen twice in one day. The truck is parked in the enclosure and they also put the trash or cardboards in the back of the truck and haul it away. They also use that little work area to do what should have been in the back, but unfortunately there is no rear area. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he would feel a little better about working with the entire CUP (Conditional Use Permit) if he could see how the definitions work according to the Code. Commission is working with the definition of a mini mart and it has a square footage restriction, which they meet very easily. On page 5, paragraph no. 18, it states "sells a variety of food items and other sundry goods not generally prepared, manufactured or assembled on the premises". And, the applicant refers to the activity as catering, which suggests preparation. But, he feels it really does not look like preparation, but more like food coming in and the applicant having the delivery truck take it to designated locations. Mr. Alexander responded, they do not do any preparation or catering, they deliver to the caterers. They store Greek olives or Armenian spices. When the caterers want it for a wedding or for a church they will deliver it there. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the truck that is in the enclosure is really doing deliveries from the markets to the sites. He asked if it is also picking up and bringing back. Mr. Alexander responded, primarily it is to bring the produce from downtown Los Angeles and from the Glendale area, and when there is an order made they will deliver to the restaurants, etc. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked since the truck is owned by the business, if they have control of the truck in terms of when it picks up or drops off, but do not have control over the other delivery trucks. • Mr. Alexander responded yes there is no control. 05-19-03 Page 31 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Boydstun states she was at the store a week ago last Saturday, and she goes to the bakery next door. She commended the store on doing a fantastic business. They have a lot of traffic. She has concern with the applicants not wanting to remove the signs on the windows, because it is a safety item. Code Enforcement requires it for the sake of the police so they can see inside of the business. They do not want things above a third of the floor. It is done with every mini market and liquor store in town, it is not something that Commission dreamed up. Another issue that concerns her is the congestion. During the week when she has visited the store it has not been so bad, but Saturday it was difficult to get up and down the aisles. She feels it is a great store and they are doing a great service to the community, but she wishes it were in a larger place. It is great to have the bakery and other stores that are of similar type, but they have outgrown the site. Mr. Alexander states he is Armenian and ethnic and it is a destination place. His wife goes there; to the bakery, Zankou Chicken, etc., it is a popular place. He does not understand why the City does not allow for the off street parking. He concurs eventually they are going to have to find a bigger place, but for now cannot shut it down. In the meantime, if they do go, the other businesses will suffer because they all depend upon each other. And, if they all go it is going to be a vacant dead center and there is going to be no vitality there. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there could be an agreement made with the car wash for extra parking and have more trash bins down at the end where there is a lot of lost space. Mr. Alexander states the applicant has a hardship until they can eventually grow and find a bigger place. Commissioner Boydstun states they have grown all they can grow. Mr. Alexander concurs and states fortunately he just answered his next question, it is crowded inside and if they take away all the items from the windows it is going to hinder the market even more. So they ~ need to put some produce against the windows and retain the coffee area there too. So it is going to hinder the situation. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify with Mr. Yalda if the police ask that they not go above 3 feet high. Mr. Yalda responded yes, that is correct, it is a safety issue in case there is a robbery in the building. Commissioner Boydstun states it does not have to be removed, but if they could keep it so the upper parts of the window were open, and if somebody had a heart attack in the store on a Saturday afternoon, the paramedics would never get to him or her. Commissioner Bristol asked on Condition number 12, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. if it is his position that it is impossible. Mr. Alexander responded that is impossible. Commissioner Bristol states there is a condition regarding the storage where they would be telling the applicant not to store anything in the outside or in the area with the truck, but at the same time telling him the carts should be in the area. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Commissioner Bristol states it is confusing. Mr. Alexander responded it is Condition No. 6. • Commissioner Bristol concurs with Commissioner Boydstun all of the conditions are standard in this type of store. He asked would he have an area to try and place the carts in a safer stand of some type somewhere in front of the market somewhere. 05-19-03 Page 32 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Alexander feels he has an idea, maybe they could reduce the number of carts they have and could put some in the fenced enclosure area and if they see there is an overflow they can bring out the other carts on an overflow basis, but not store them there all the time. Chairperson Bostwick states most of the stores have a corral where they put them behind a fence or wall that hides them from the street. Where do you put them at night after the store closes? Mr. Alexander respended they put them inside the store. He suggests maybe they could take half the carts to reduce it because they are half the size of regular carts. Commissioner Bristol states Albertsons has the medal corral out front to keep them from going out. The reason for bringing it up is because of the danger. He concurs with Ms. Gollette; they would fall around and bang into things, especially if they are going to have trucks there at anytime. Chairperson Bostwick states Condition No. 9 states, "within the control of the applicanY'. If the shopping center management has the contract it is not within the applicants' control, but the sign needs to go away. He does not see a problem with Condition No. 1 changing from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. As far as the trash, he suggests they look at getting a compactor rather than the trash bins. Commissioner Boydstun states when she visited on Saturday three people were breaking up boxes as fast as they could and they had piles of them. She feels if the truck was not parked there all of the time they would have parking place. In addition, it looks crummy to have to go around the truck that looks like it is going to collapse because it is stacked so high. Chairperson Bostwick states Sunday when he visited the other trash on the other end was overFlowing. So the rest of the center has other trash as well. He suggests the applicants work with the center to find ~ an answer to cleaning up the entire operation. It is a back alley operation that is on the front street and it needs to look better. Mr. Alexander states they have offered to put in trees and as much anti-graffiti vines to try to beautify it, because the market really is a tract from the street a tract that is a destination area. Commissioner Romero referred to the outside vending machines. Mr. Alexander responded King Market does not own the vending machines they belong to Sarkis Bakery. Commissioner Koos questions that in general because Vons has vending machines on the outside. He asked staff if they had an opinion for a neighborhood shopping center such as Vons versus the subject shopping center where it comes to vending machines on the outside. Mr. McCafferty states staff does not discriminate between large and small markets. When staff has the opportunity to apply the condition regarding vending machines (i.e., when a market is under 15,000 square feet) we make the recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if staff preferred not to have any outdoor vending machines. Mr. McCafferty clarified that are visible to the street. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states in this case one is for the aesthetics, which we do across the board for all CUPs that come before you and secondly, just because of the congestion around the entrance to the facility, staff feels that whatever is out there should be minimized. Commissioner Koos states for that reason Commission should recommend if they are not under the • applicant's control, relocating them to whoever is responsible for them. 05-19-03 Page 33 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Alexander states the sidewalk is a common area so he would check with the landlord or Sarkis Bakery because it is sort of at the border. Chairperson Bostwick states the property owner needs to remove them. Commissioner Koos states there are conditions in the staff report that have to do with the center. He feels Commission is putting the applicant's representative in an awkward position to make judgments he may not be able to currently have answers for. Chairperson Bostwick states the applicant needs to be comfortable, and if he feels he cannot get the center to agree to the conditions he needs to say so. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Condition No. 7, "No window signage shall be permitted" applies to the center or for the subject use. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded it is for the subject use. There would be some nexus constraints that would preclude putting conditions that would be applicable to the entire center. The parking waiver is for the parking for the unitary shopping center and in that instance it would be appropriate to place conditions that impact the parking issues for the entire center. In this instance we are talking about a conditional use permit application for one particular business. The question to ask is whether a requirement can be placed with regard to a particular condition on the entire center as opposed to the area that is under the control of the applicant, the area that has to do with the subject business. Commissioner Koos asked if Condition No. 3, "exterior vending machines shall not be permitted", is that a reach for the entire center. ~ Ms. Mann responded in order to have that condition staff would need to add the language that is in Condition No. 9, "within the control of the applicant". Commissioner Romero asked if Code Enforcement sees outside vending machines on the subject property, which would get cited. Mr. McCafferty states if the applicant does not own the vending machines it would not be a violation. The machines are permitted to stay there because the issue is whether the owner of the market has control over them. If they do not, then staff has no ability to have them removed. Commissioner Eastman states regarding Condition No. 12, it does not seem that Commission can, without imposing hardships on the applicant, require them to not take deliveries for the stated length of time. Mr. Alexander states unfortunately it is uncontrollable. The business would virtually be shut down if that were done. Commissioner Koos asked staff what is the concern about midday deliveries. Mr. McCafferty fee(s the concern was based on the waiver being requested; that they not clutter the sidewalk with additional deliveries during the window time when the center was busiest. He asked is there a window when most trucks come to the site so as to determine how to adjust the schedule. Ms. Mann feels part of the issues going on are that there is the variance and the conditions on the variance and then there is the conditional use permit application, the conditions that relate to the subject business. The parking variance relates to the entire shopping center. The Planning Commission does have the option of calling back the parking waiver for modification, and in consideration of that, • requesting that the shopping center owner be in appearance in addition to the applicant to discuss the operations. Condition No. 12 is exactly the condition that is in the parking variance. So, if there were going to be a modification to it, there would need to be a modification to that one as well in any event. 05-19-03 Page 34 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commission could have a general requirement that would be in conformance with the parking waiver and then whatever requirement it feeis is appropriate for this particular business and then separately addressing the parking waiver issues at a separate public hearing. Commissioner Romero states the intent is not to have trucks parked there all day long, but it seems trucks are parked there all the time. He suggests a limit to state they can only be there for a specific amount of time. Commissioner Boydstun asked if most of the deliveries were in the morning or if they were all day. Mr. Alexander responded they have produce deliveries in the morning and groceries in the afternoon, and if they bring all the trucks in at one time it would be worse. So, it would be better if they came intermittently. They have to have the two trucks come in, and with a fair reasonable time to unload. Commissioner Bristol states he is perplexed because it is a business and they have trucks coming and going and they admit that they cannot control the deliveries. Commission understands some day they will move because they have no choice but to move, but currently they operate and they are going to have trucks all day. So, in short putting a restriction on the applicant that is not going to work, he suggests letting them have more than one truck moving or going. Chairperson Bostwick concurs with Commissioners Vanderbilt and Bristol, because Commission does not qualify how many trucks deliver to a 7-Eleven and whether there are two Pepsi trucks and one Coke, one Pepsi, etc. They have to get in, get out and work around it. He suggested getting rid of Condition No. 12 and then asking for a variance to be modified. Commiss+oner Romero disagreed that getting rid of the rule would make things better. He suggested working on the language, because to get rid of it altogether is the reason they are at this point. ~ Commissioner Bristol concurs with Commissioner Romero eliminating the condition would not make it better, but would make it status quo. Commissioner Eastman states their success is going to mandate that they would have to find another location. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subjecf request and photos were submitted (representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council-WAND and West Gilbert Neighborhood Watch) IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved the expansion for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04694 (to permit and retain the expansion of an existing nonconforming convenience market), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modifications: • Modified Condition Nos. 1, 3, 6, 17, 24 and 26 to read as follows: 05-19-03 Page 35 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to ~ 9 p.m., daily as stipulated by the petitioner. 3. That no exterior vending machines shall be permitted, within the controi of the applicant. 6. . That the applicant shail prepare and submit a shopping cart placement plan to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said shopping carts shall thereafter be stored in compliance with the approved pian. Any decision by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 17. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the area between the business and Ball Road shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall indicate (a) additional trees to further screen the east side of the truck enclosure; (b) additional shrubs and ground cover in the existing planter between the middle rows of parking spaces, and (c) four (4) additional trees in the setback front area, as stipulated by the petitioner. Landscaping shall be installed within 39 ninety (90) days of plan approval and thereafter maintained in a live and healthy condition. 24. That the Code Enforcement Division shall inspect the property within six (6) months from the date of approval to ensure compliance with conditions of approval. Said inspection shall by paid for by • the business owner. 26. That Condition Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 25, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of ~6A3 one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this resolution. Deleted Condition No. 12. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3:01-4:45 (1 hour and 44 minutes) • 05-19-03 Page 36 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00101 Granted 8c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2003-120 Approved OWNER: Steven Krell, 11263 Canton Drive, Sfudio City, CA 91604 AGENT: AV Design & Construction, Attn: Richard Bui, 9251 Garvey Avenue, Suite V, EI Monte, CA 92733 LOCATION: 2167-2173 West Lincoln Avenue and 115 North Bircher Street. Portion A: Property is approximately 0.67-acre, having frontages of 163 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 90 feet on the south side of Lindsay Road, located 160 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Portion B: Property is approximately 0.20-acre having a frontage of 107 feet on the west side of Bircher Street, located 220 feet west of the centerline of Lindsay Street. Reclassification No. 2003-00101 - Request reclassification of Portion B from the CL (BCC) (Commercial, Limited; Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-7200 (BCC) (Residential, Single- Family; Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay) zone, or a less intense zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2003-120 - To establish a 2-lot, 1-unit residential and commercial subdivision. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-76 sr5009jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Reclassification No. 2003-00101, Portion A: 2167-2173 West Lincoln Avenue and Portion B: 115 North Bircher Street, a request for reclassification of Portion B from the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-family) zone, or a less intense zone. ApplicanYs Testimony: Steven Krell, 11263 Canton Drive, Studio City, CA, states his family has owned the property for over 40 years. Parcel B has always been an unimproved lot and has not only remained in an unproductive state, but because of dumping and unlawful camping, has always required the attention to not manage the nearby area. The proposed lot split would result in a residential house being placed on Parcel B, which would be occupied and constructed by the principal tenant at the shopping center on Parcel A. That would assist, not only in location and attention to the business, but also the maintenance of the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: A letter was submitted in opposition to the rezoning request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00101 (to reclassify Portion B of this property from ~ the CL(BCC) Zone to the RS-7200(BCC) Zone, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003. 05-19-03 Page 37 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2003-120 (to establish a 2-lot, 1-unit residential and commercial subdivision), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That the legal property owner shall submit an unsubordinated covenant e-~-~e ~ for the construction of an 8-foot high wall along the newly created property line between Parcels 1 and 2. Provisions shall be made in the covenant to guarantee the construction and maintenance of a 10-foot wide landscaped planter located adjacent to the decorative block wall, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map. That the 8-foot high wall and landscape improvements shall be installed within 120 days of map recordation. Deleted Condition No. 1. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4:46-4:51) ~ • 05-19-03 Page 38 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2003-00001 Approved OWNER: Ralph Taber, 7300 East Stone Creek Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Arlene Taber, 7300 E. Stone Creek Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 7300 East Stone Creek Lane. Property is approximately 0.58-acre having a frontage of 60 feet at the terminus of Stone Creek Lane, located approximately 1010 feet northwest of the centerline of Old Bridge Road. To remove 5 specimen trees (4 eucalyptus and 1 pepper) to construct a pool and to improve rear yard landscaping. sr8598av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2003-00001, 7300 East Stone Creek Lane, a request to remove 5 specimen trees (4 Eucalyptus and 1 Pepper) to construct a pool and to improve rear yard landscaping. Arlene Taber, 7300 E. Stone Creek Lane, Anaheim, CA, states unfortunately it has been a very difficult process. She understands the City really wants to try to work very hard with small businesses and helping them through the process, but there really is no smaller business than an individual family. The • process has been very difficult to her family and herself. They were very thrilled four years ago to find a house in Anaheim Nills in a beautiful neighborhood; they love the City; it is very diverse, and everything is great about it. One of the things they wanted to do was to build a swimming pool in their backyard, but could not do it right away. They saved up to be able to build the swimming pool, and even their two children, ages 7 and 9, put money in their piggy bank to try to build the swimming pool. They have now gotten to a point in their life where they could build the pool and do not want to do it wrong. She came to the City and to find out what is needed to comply to be able to build the swimming pool, and found out she needs a tree preservation permit. The tree preservation permit requires that they replace their trees at a two to one ratio. Since she loves trees she is more than happy to repface the trees at a two to one ratio. When she came to turn in her application she found out that she has to do a negative declaration on her small single-family home, and she had a disagreement with the City about it. She pointed out that it is categorically exempt. To express the impact on her family, to remove the trees it cost $1200; to get the permit not counting replacing the trees it cost approximately $1,100. The Citywill not give any slack as a single-family resident. On Saturday she received her staff report in the mail with conditions of approvaf and was appalled to find out that while the ordinance requires them to put in 15-gallon trees the staff has decided that they want 24-inch box trees. That raises the cost of trees 3 to 4 times. She promises to put in the biggest trees they can but sates she could not stand before Commission and promise to put in 10 24-inch box trees in addition to the other trees they would like to put in to shade their house and reduce their electricity bill. Also, she found out that the City has a requirement on Condition No. 2 that states they cannot remove the trees until after their grading permit has received approval even though the ordinance states she can remove her trees 22 days after the appeal period. She does not understand why the requirement is there, and feels all it does is delay the ability for them to have their pool during the summer, as they are now going to be 3-4 weeks later. And, then they are at risk for working on their hillside during the rainy season if their grading permit gets pushed back. She does not understand and would like to be able to remove her trees when the appeal period is complete. The third condition is that prior to finalizing the building permit and the zoning inspections she has to comply with Condition No. 1. She states she has no intention of not complying with Condition No. 1 that is why she is ~ present; that is why they spent all the money, and that is why they are trying to do it the right way. What this condition basically does is state they cannot fill their pool with water until they have all the trees in. The point of this is that the small businesses they have hired, and that are all Anaheim businesses 05-19-03 Page 39 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ cannot get their money from them until the project is final and it keeps backing up, and seems so punitive on an individual family resident. She would be happy to notify the City after their building permit, and the City would be welcome to come out and look at their property and make sure all the trees are there, but they would not spend all this time and money if they did not intend to comply with the ordinance. She asked that the Commission please just impose the requirements that are in the ordinance. They will do the best they can to put in the largest trees they can, but would like for the Commission to understand that they are just a single-family resident, and not some huge business who can afford to put in huge trees. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if it is necessary to have 24-inch box. Greg McCafferty, states the code states 15-gallon trees at a two to one ratio. What staff looks at and what Commission has done in the past is require a minimum 24-inch box. A 15-gallon is really small and what staff looked at when looking at the proposal is the size of the trees they are removing and the size of the trees that were being removed were fairly large specimens and in order to get not an immediate impact, but at least continuing to have mature specimens, staff recommended 24-inch box. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he appreciates the letter the applicant wrote where she would fike to do everything she can to save and not have to knock out five, but only three trees and she is just asking for the circumstance permit to the saving of the trees. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states she can certainly hear Ms. Taber's frustration with regard to the process, but she knows that one of the things that she is also going to be required is a grading permit and that the grading permit wilf require environmental documentation. Therefore, she wants to make sure that the City has already received all of the information with the negative Declaration so that the • applicant would not need to do an independent environmental review in conjunction with a grading permit. That is not to delay her in anyway or to cause her any problem, but rather to try to see if Commission can take care of all of her requirements at one hearing. DURING THE ACTION: Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states if the applicant knows how much earth work they are anticipating, if in fact the amount of excavation or fill excluding the excavation for the pool is less than 100 cubic yards of cut or fill then that falls within a category of minor grading and that is a ministerial approval that does not require an additional public hearing. Ms. Taber responded it does not involve less than 100 cubic gallons. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISStON ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2003-00001 (to allow the removal of the four (4) southernmost specimen Eucalyptus trees and one (1) specimen Pepper trees in order to construct a new pool and rear yard landscaping improvements), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 19, 2003, with the following modifications (including modification made to the staff report at today's meeting): Modified subparagraph (b) (ii) of Paragraph (14) to read as follows: • "(ii) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to forestation would not be materially affected by the proposed removal of the five (5) specimen trees 05-19-03 Page 40 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ since these trees are located in the rear yard of the subject property; and that these trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with minimum ~4-i~sM-b~ 15-gailon sized trees selected from the approved tree species list identified in Section 18.84.038 (Tree Preservation) of the Zoning Code." Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That the subject property shaU be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 and 2. A total of ten (10) minimum'"-'~^~~,~ 15-gallon sized replacement trees selected from the tree species identified in Section 18.84.038 (The Preservation) of the Zoning Code shall be installed. Said trees shall be properly maintained and any replacement tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Deleted Condition No. 2. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes {4:52-5:13) ~ ~ 05-19-03 Page 41 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATlON 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04688 OWNER: Emmett Roach, 619 Calle Hidalgo, San Clemente, CA 92673 AGENT: Eduardo Cruz, 310 North Alma Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90063 LOCATION: 1751 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.0 acre, having a frontage of 130 feet on the north side of Lincoin Avenue, located 455 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Way. To permit and retain a church in an existing building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ Continued to June 2, 2003. sr8600vn.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to revise plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Chairman Bostwick indicated he would be absent for the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, therefore Chairman Pro-Tempore Vanderbilt would conduct the meeting. 05-19-03 Page 42 MAY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • C~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:14 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Res ctfully submitted: ~ _ ~.~Y~L'~,~c"-~Z-.-. Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 05-19-03 Page 43