The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/01/14~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSIORI MINUTES COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUl.~6C?STW~K, PMY1~1~~~~YDSTUN, STEPHEN BRISTOL, CA~L"`EASTMAi~f, JOHI~I~~O~~, .f~lk~€~S VANDERBILT , COMMISSIONERS ABSENT. ' Np~;E~ " ~~~ : ~` '~~ ~~~` ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~~ ~ -~`~" ~` ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~E , Selma Mann, Assistant Cr~y Qttorne ~~ Melanie Ada~rts, As~ociat~~i~ineer Greg Hastings, Zornng drvis~(~~I~~age~ Sgt. Thomas Smith;` P'alrce~~e~~rtment Greg McCafferty, Principal P~a~~er,~ ~~ Elly Fernandes, Senior S~;c~ef~ary~ Alfred Yalda, Principa( Transpo~tatt`dn~f?lanner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary ~, , ~, ~ ,,,, ~,~, _ "~ ` , r~ ~ ~:. AGENDA POSTING A~om ,tete co 3~-of the F?~arinir~ ~~ammission... ~ p py g Ag~nda ~a~ posted~ at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 11, ~(~02~n~tcle Xh~ dis tay case locate`~ in fhe foyer, c~f tt~e Councjl Chambers, and also in r the outside display k~das~• ~ ~ . ' ,. ~,..~~ ~~:..~ ~`~ ~w ~~ ~~~~~.~,..,~ ~ ~~~.~`~~ ~ ~ , ... MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERSU~1~ ;T~NY.:~~NOLD PUBLISHED: Anah~eim Bull~tin Newsp~~~~~on~7't~`i`r~`da~C, Decer~bs~ ~p, 20~1 :' ~{~ ~ ~... i/ 4 ~ ~ `5 _% ~ ~a^ -~ 1 1 ~- ~S'~-~ ~.'f ^~W~ L~` ~ ~°~ tn z~ '" „F" .R ~ A~ ~,:, CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~` ~~ ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~= s E ~ ~ - - e ~, F ~ ,.; :,,,, ~ . , y ~~, . ,~' PLANNING`~~OMM15Sl~~N~~M0~2NING~SESSl0~.11 0~~~ l1l~~ r' "~~`~ STAFF lJPL1ATE~~C~MMIS~COIV~OF VARIb~JS Gi"~"~ ~~ e~~ • DEVELOPI~I~EI~S AND~~S$I~ES (A~ F~EQUESTEC~E BY ~..;~~' ~ PLANNING CZ;~MM1~v~~N)~ " ~ ~ ~ ~~ K ~~. PRELIMINARY~P R~VI~ ~ ~ ~ ~`"~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ .w..°~. ~~.. ~ ~ .~... ~::, .. RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARI~G SES`~~_~°~ • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Eastman PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAURESOLUTNWC011402. DOC lannin commission anaheim.net JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Appointment of a Commission Representative to the Anaheim Union High School District Facilities Task Force (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner John Koos to serve as the Planning Commission representative to the Anaheim Union High School District Facilities Task Force Advisory Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. ~ CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-F on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-C throeagh 1-F) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Consent Calendar Item 1-B was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest on Item 1-E and Commissioner Arnold abstained from Item 1-F). ~. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) Withdrawn b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00012 - REQUEST FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO MOTEL (Vote: 7-0) CONVERSIONS: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated (Motel Task Force), request for a code amendment pertaining to motel conversions. City-wide. Continued from the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. OPPOSITION: A letter in opposition, a petition with 26 signatures in opposition, and a telephone message in opposition were received today prior to the Planning Commission meeting. SR1029GH.DOC • 01-14-02 Page 2 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANN(NG COMMISSION MINUTES • B, a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04394 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04480) - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Spirit of America Tours, Attn: Ken Lycett, 3040 East Coronado Street, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (originally approved on July 30, 2001 and expired on October 30, 2001) for a previously-approved bus storage and dispatch facility. Property is located af 3040 East Coronado Street. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick 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. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny the request for a sixty (60) day retroactive extension of time based on the following: (i) That the property has not been properly maintained and the • petitioner has failed to provide evidence that an effort has been made to comply with conditions of approval, including operational conditions. (ii) That although this is the first request for an extension of time, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301, the time requested to comply with conditions of approval has past without any improvements to the subject property. DISCUSSION: 4 minutes (1:42-1:46) Approved Denied retroactive extension of time (Vote: 7-0) SR8195AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-B as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04394, a request for retroactive extension of time for bus storage and dispatch facility at 3040 Coronado Street. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial of the request for the retroactive extension of time. He states as noted in paragraph 9 of the staff report there has been site inspections by Code Enforcement and since Commission's approval of the CUP, the applicant has not complied with conditions of approval. The site is unpaved, buses are being washed on the unpaved portions of the lot, batteries are being stored on the outside and landscape improvements have not been made as required. Staff feels the findings Commission has to make when granting an extension of time cannot be made. Applicant's Statement: Ken Lycett, 3040 East Coronado Street, Anaheim, CA, informed they intend to leave the property by January 30, 2002 due to conflicts with the owner. He feels the reason they have not progressed any • further than the installation of electrical hookups is due to a waiting period for the City to sign the required notice of power turnoff and irreconcilable differences with the landlord. Mr. Lycett requested permission to stay on the premises until January 30, 2002 to resolve personal matters. 01-14-02 Page 3 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ C. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2685 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- Terminated 04483) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Endie Widjaja, 1330 Olympic Boufevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404-3726, requests (Vote: 7-0) termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2685 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04483). Property is located at 1074 North Tustin Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-1 SR8179AN.DOC • u 01-14-02 Page 4 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ D. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3862 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 04500) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Mesa Partners, Attn: Richard A. Marion, 2550 East Miraloma Way, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3862 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04450). Property is located at 2550 East Miraloma Way. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-2 C J u Terminated (Vote: 7-0) SR8186NA.DOC 01-14-02 Page 5 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ -~ ~ E. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00012 - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE: County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702, requests to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed quitclaim of slope easements. Property is located at 8200 East La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest as he owns property within 1000 feet of the subject property), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to quitclaim two slope easements on property located at 8200 East La Palma Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights, and indicated that General Plan Conformity items have a statutory time limitation of 40-days from the time the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. ~ i (The 40-day time limitation is February 2, 2002 as the application was submitted on December 24, 2001 for the subject request.) Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest) SR0002TW.DOC 01-14-02 Page 6 JANUARY 74, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 17, 2001. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of December 17, 2001. ~ • Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Arnold abstained as he was not present for the meeting, but indicated he read the minutes for the continued items.) 01-14-02 Page 7 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1424 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04446) (READVERTISED) OWNER: Corky Robert Smith Trust, P. O. Box 5440, Los Angeles, CA 90054 AGENT: Excel Auto Body, Attn: Jon Thompson, 554 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2223 East Katella Avenue, Unit C. Property is approximately 5.48 acres located north and west of the northwesterly corner of Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue. Request to permit an automotive center with three independent automotive businesses, including an automotive sales dealership with accessory auto finance services, and an automotive repair facility with a modular office building. ~ Continued from the October 8, November 19, December 3 and December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. Approved Approved for 1 year CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-3 ~ SR8194KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1424, an automotive center located at 2223 East Katella Avenue, Unit C. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 2 continued from the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting allowing the applicant an opportunity to revise his plans showing relocation of the modular building to the rear of the property as well as a landscape setback along Howell Avenue. He stated the applicant chose to retain the modular building in its current location but agreed to provide landscaping on Howell Avenue and staff conditioned it accordingly. ApplicanYs Statement: David Swerdlin, 31125 Via Cristal, San Juan Capistrano, representing the applicant, stated when present at the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting they asked for three items: 1) to extend the length of the term to 5 years, 2) to screen the trash area so that it would not be visible from Howell Avenue and, 3) in agreement with Commission, no outdoor work would be allowed but covered storage would be permissible. He stated to move the modular to the back of the property would be in excess of $30,000 for utilities and sewage and therefore, they propose a screening plan with either ligustrum hedge, which is very fast growing or cypress at 10 feet in height. Mr. Swerdlin feels this would be an acceptable solution because it would not only enhance landscaping but would resolve Commission's request to screen the modular. Commissioner Bostwick stated during the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting the applicant was asked the possibilities of moving the modular farther back from the street. tt does not seem logical that it would cost $30,000 to move the modular to the end of the wall because it is a flat parking 01-14-02 Page 8 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ lot, the skirting will fit and electrical wiring runs overhead from the light pole and could be strung down to the other end of the trailer. Mr. Swerdlin agreed with Commissioner Bostwick but believed the intent of Commission's request was to have the modular moved to the rear of the parcel. Commissioner Bostwick clarified the request was to have the modular moved to the end of the wall so that it was not visible from the street. Wiffred Roof, 2223 East Katella Avenue, the owner, stated he too assumed Commission wanted the modular moved to the back of the property and to do that posed two major problems; the cost of the sewer hookup and the lack of business exposure. He feels moving the modular approximately 50 feet would still be an enormous cost due to the sewer, electrical, telephone and water hookups and also the tenant is not anxious ta move to the rear rather than be up front where he can meet and greet his customers. He states next door to his property is a storage facility for motor homes, trailers, boats, etc., and there are approximately 25 units facing the street compared to his 1 unit. Therefore he proposes to screen the area with nice landscaping which will not only screen the mobile office from view of the public but also enhance the appearance of the entire property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun believed the property would not be properly screened by plans as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is not enough room on the property to screen the property as proposed by the applicant and agrees with staff's recommendation to move the trailer to the end of the ~ wall. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Roof's statement is self-imposed because the auto portion of the property was previously described as accessory to sales whereas now it is being presented as the sole market indicating a need to be positioned on the front for identification purposes. Commissioner Koos reiterated his statement from the December 17, 2001 meeting that one business doing three different functions is one thing but the dynamics changes when there are three separate businesses needing staff, identification, etc. He concurs with Commissioner Bostwick and is supportive of the modular move. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurred with Commissioners. He noted for the records that he attended a portion of the hearing on Item No. 2 on December 17, 2001, and was provided auto-recordings and a hardcopy of the minutes to review the item in its entirety and therefore feels he is eligible to vote on the issue. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1424 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04446) for one year and amended Resolution No. PC73-208 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: • 1. That subject use permit for the automotive center with three independent automotive businesses, including an automotive sales dealership with accessory auto finance services and an automotive repair facility with a temporary modular office building, shall expire one (1) year from the date of this resolution. Upon expiration, the 01-14-02 Page 9 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ property shall revert back to its original approved use (one full service automotive dealership facility) for the northern 1.9-acre portion of the property. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Depa~tment. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. Said infiormation shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 3. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 4. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shal{ be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 5. That petitioner shall obtain the necessary permits from the Building Division for the temporary modular o~ce building. That the temporary modular office building shall be relocated to the rear (west) portion of the property, and that all air conditioning facilities and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for • Building Division approval. 6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 7. That signage shall be limited to the existing permitted freestanding pole sign and two wall signs. Any changes to the existing signage or additional signage for this automotive shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 8. That vehicle parts, or other business-related materials, and all work on vehicles (including the washing of vehicles) shall be confined entirely to the interior of the buildings. Absolutely no vehicular body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicles, vehicle parts or materials shall be allowed in the front yard areas, or on the roof of the buildings. Only the vehicles for sale may be displayed in the area adjacent to Howell Avenue. 9. That no outdoor work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted and that all existing storage shall be removed and any existing outdoor work terminated. 10. That a plan showing 4-foot high address numbers displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material shall be submitted to the Police Department, Community Services Division for review and approval. The numbers shall be installed/applied and shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. • 11. That the customer and employee parking spaces shall be marked and/or posted, and that there shall be no storage or display of vehicles or other business related materials within these designated parking spaces. 01-14-02 Page 10 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12. That subject facility shall be subject to monthly inspections by the City's Code Enforcement Division during the entire duration of the business. The cost of such inspections shall be borne by the businesses within the subject auto center facility. 13. That no special events (including flags and banners) shall be permitted. 14. That the petitioner shall submit landscape plans to the Zoning Division, showing the retention of the two (2) mature trees adjacent to Howell Avenue and the planting of an additional eleven (11) 24-inch box trees for a total of thirteen (13) trees adjacent to Howell Avenue. The petitioner shall use trees currently listed in the plant palette contained in the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. Said trees shall be planted within thirty (30) days from the date of plan approval and properly maintained to ensure healthy growth. 15. That the petitioner shall repair, slurry and restripe the damaged portions of the parking lot and the service yard. 16. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. 17. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution. 18. 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: 13 minutes (1:47-2:00) • 01-14-02 Page 11 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTiON. CLASS 11 Concurred with staff 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04461 Granted OWNER: Heinz-Crowley Company, 303 Poppy Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 AGENT; Plasti-Line West, Attn: Frank Witherington, 1625 Taylor Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 LOCATION: 1231-1251 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 6.91 acres located at the northwest corner of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix Club Drive (Hardin Buick Pontiac GMC). Waiver of (a) maximum number of signs, (b) maximum sign area, (c) minimum distance between freestanding or monument type signs, (d) maximum height of freestanding or monument-type signs and (e) maximum sign width, to construct a seventh sign (five monument signs existing, one under construction and one freestanding sign proposed) for an existing auto dealership. Continued from the November 5 and December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. ~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-4 SR1046CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Variance No. 2001-04461, a request for sign variance by Hardin Buick Pontiac GMC at 1231 to 1251 Auto Center Drive. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed ttem No. 3 is a request to replace an existing nonconforming pole sign with a smaller freestanding sign. He stated staff recommends approval of the variance and feels there are unique circumstances not previously known given the fact that there are a number of dealerships and businesses on the site. Therefore Commission could make uniqueness regarding the property and find justification for the assigned area. ApplicanYs Statement: Dennis Hardin, 1321 Auto Center Drive, stated he was present to answer questions from the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ - e ~iii~: • . '-- - •iiii •- _ •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 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. 01-14-02 Page 12 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Variance No. 2001-04461 approving waivers pertaining to (a) maximum number of signs, (b) maximum sign area, (c) minimum distance between freestanding and monument type signs, (d) maximum height of freestanding or monument type signs, and (e) maximum sign width subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 14, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2:01-2:03 (2 minutes) ~ C ~ 01-14-02 Page 13 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 4a. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00061 February 11, 2002 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas Homeowners Association, TSG Independent Property Management, 27129 Calle Arroyo, # 1801, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless/Whalen, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 16.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay} Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a • telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the November 5, December 3 and December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8188VN.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to finalize plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest as he is employed by the agent.) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 01-14-02 Page 14 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Continued to 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04464 February 11, 2002 OWNER: Jillbridge Corp., 2141 Glendale Galleria #107, Glendale, CA 91210 AGENT: Lee, Lee & Pao. LLC, Attn: Gei-Jon Pao, 1407 North Batavia #201, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 851 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.6 acres with a frontage of 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 340 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Request to permit a self-serve laundromat. Continued from the November 19, December 3 and December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERM{T RESOLUTION NO. SR1050CW.DOC '~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. I ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to submit the sewer study required by the Public Works Department. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 01-14-02 Page 15 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. - APPROVED) Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 Denied amendment to (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04462) conditions of approval OWNER: Yassini Marteza, P. O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 AGENT: Dan Van Rosen, 700 North Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 600 - 626 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 4.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue. Request for an amendment to a condition of approval to permit the sales of propane in conjunction with a previously-approved gasoline service station. Continued from the November 19 and December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-5 SR1047CW.DOC S Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4128, a request for propane sales of a previously-approved gasoline service station at 626 North Brookhurst Street. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends denial of the request because replacement of the propane tank directly on Brookhurst Street would aesthetically impact the intersection, the circulation pattern around the tank would be difficult and it would consume two required parking spaces. Applicant's Statement: Steven Mahan, 1020 S. Greenwood Avenue, Montebello, CA, representing Merit Propane, Inc., stated the tank is approximately 4%2 feet high and 10 feet in width and would be surrounded with a 5 foot high block wall textured coating to match the current facility. It is 18 feet away from the street and there is a landscaped 3'/Z feet embankment in front of the facility, which would be screened with vines and would be completely invisible. He states Merit Propane has installed similar installations in surrounding cities; Irvine, Tustin, Costa Mesa, etc., and they have been responded to very well and have been aesthetically cohesive with the types of buildings around it. He feels this is due to the demand for energy efficient burning fuel and propane meeting its demand as natural gas has. He states it is a dispensing location with 26 feet clearance from the tank to the next fuel island and is basically a drive-through location the same as a gas service station where people drive in, fill up there cars with gas and leave. The new installation will be manned on a 4.8-acre site. He feels it is not like a propane cylinder exchange program where it has an enclosed cage with propane tanks such as on the properties of Home Depot or Albertsons but is a clean operation, which aesthetically matches the texture and structure of all the buildings. It would not be visible from the street (Brookhurst Street to Avenue Street) and the gas pumps would be screened in front to only show a meter and pump with a white-faced cabinet to match the surrounding areas. ~ Commissioner Boydstun stated her concern is large vehicles such as RVs and with the amount of clearance and traffic in the station, if two homes get there at the same time they would practically have the station blocked off. 01-14-02 Page 16 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Arnold concurred and feels screening and landscaping can easily mitigate the aesthetic impacts of this project therefore he is more concerned at this point with circulation given the size of the parcel and its current layout. Mr. Mahan stated there are two entrances, a driveway on either side of the facility and if two 26-foot mobile homes arrived at the same time they could be dictated to the entrance. There is excess of approximately 358 feet to 400 feet between the two driveways and the entrance is on{y access to fuel vehicles. Patrons would come in from the east side where 6 to 7 40-foot mobile homes could line up and the point of exit is the driveway on the other side. There would just be one point of access and one point of egress. Vartan Avedissian, 12000 Hatteres, Studio City, CA, an employee of Merit Propane, stated mobile homes go to gas stations daily and do not create traffic and therefore would not create anymore traffic coming to fill up with propane. Commissioner Bostwick asked how an attendant would know to come out of the convenient store to fill a customer's vehicle. Mr. Mahan responded the front building cashier is directly across the driveway and there are two additional people who could come out to fill the vehicles as needed. Commissioner Bostwick stated similar concerns as Commissioner Boydstun; an 8-foot car and a large motor home parked against the Fuel Island would basically block off the driveway. If patrons come in the second driveway by Carl's Jr. they would have to go around the entire station to get access to the tank. Additionally, there would be cars coming and going to the convenient store as well as to the station and it would create a traffic problem. Also if a patron's propane hatch happens to be on the driver's side they • could stick out and block the driveway in order to get close enough to the fuel tank. Mr. Mahan responded in the driveway by Carl's Jr. there is approximately 250 feet up to the tank and 26- feet clearance in front of the meter to the beginning of the island on the other side. An average vehicle is 7 or 8 feet and the hose and dispensing equipment is 40 feet so even if the tank were on the other side it could easily be reached. He stated as far as one vehicle blocking another vehicle there is no activity at the convenience mart. It is almost a dead corner where hardly any vehicle parks and that is where excess parking is derived. Carl's Jr. is on the side of the road of the point of entrance and the point of exit is on the other side of the tank. If 4 or 5 vehicles should occur at the point of entrance at one time there are 6 parking stalls that face Brookhurst Street. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff believes there are too many decisions being made by patrons of that center; people coming into the station for the convenience market, coming out of the car wash to go over to the vacuums to dry, potentially someone parking parallel to the propane tank, someone parking next to the pump island and someone squeezing in between to get to their parking space. Staff feels there is too much going on in the center and it is not appropriate. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that staff is saying regardless what the intentions of ingress and egress are that is not how people are going to choose to drive and where they would park their vehicles. Commissioner Bristol feels the conversation for the last 5 minutes has been how to increase the use of parking spaces that are the exact number of spaces needed. He stated the site has been under surveillance every since Commission approved it and it has increasingly become more impacted and more intense. He feels a new concern has evolved from the original plans of a 5-gallon tank being fueled for a barbecue to RVs and cars stacking at ingress and egress points. Therefore he feels the proposal is much too intense for the site. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to the vacuum cleaner, water and air-pressure providers and stated when most vehicles access that type facility they tend to drive in diagonally and take up two spaces rather 01-14-02 Page 17 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ than entering the stalls exactly between the lines because they need the room to get around to the equipment. He suggests they try to find another location on the Home Depot lot. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Bristol and does not concur that aesthetics could be fully mitigated. He feels great measures have been made to improve the aesthetics of Brookhurst Street therefore it would not be a great area for the site. Chairperson Arnold clarified a discrepancy where the staff report indicated an ultimate height of 4'/2 feet and a report from Community Development indicated 11 feet. So for the record that has been corrected to 4'/Z feet. JLLUWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSInN ACTI(`. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos 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. Denied request for an amendment or deletion of a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4128 (Tracking No. CUP2001-04462) to permit the sales of propane in conjunction with a previously-approved gasoline service station based on the following findings: (i) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the ~ full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare; (ii) That the traffic generated by the proposed propane tank would impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (iii) That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining {and uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (2:04-2:20) ~ 01-14-02 Page 18 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Continued to 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04469 February 11, 2002 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company C/O Arco Products, P. O. Box 512485, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: Sager Associates, Attn: Jonathan Sagherian, 109 East Harvard, Suite 306, Glendale, CA 91205 LOCATION: 1881 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.43- acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street (Shatilla Bakery). Request to permit the conversion of a vacant service station to a full service bakery with a 793 square foot addition. Continued from the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8185AN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commi ' r B r ssione ostwick offe ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to resubmit revised plans for landscaping, signage and roof-mounted equipment. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 01-14-02 Page 19 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREV. - APPROVED 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3802 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04475) OWNER: Elva M. West, 5201 East Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: George Staehling, 18200 Avenida Bosque, Murietta, CA 92562 LOCATION: 1500 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.79-acre with a frontage of 165 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue Iocated 1,480 feet west of the centerline of Cliffrose Street (Eastside Jewelry and Loan). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on January 5, 1999 to expire January 5, 2002) to retain a pawn shop within an existing commercial center. Continued from the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-6 Arrroved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on January 5, 2007) SR8175VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3802, a continued item from the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting requesting a reinstatement for a CUP for a pawnshop at 1500 East Lincoln Avenue - Eastside Jewelry and Loan. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff met with the applicant regarding two things, 1) if there could be some agreement on reducing the signage to comply with Code and 2) to put in landscaping as conditioned by staff. The applicant wishes to retain the sign in its present state but has agreed to place landscaping within the private landscape setback along Lincoln Avenue. ApplicanYs Statement: Elva West, 5201 E. Crescent Drive, the owner of the property, stated the sign has been measured twice and is 25 feet in height. The top portion of the sign that belongs to Ady's Alterations and Andreli Photography is part of their lease and they have approximately 2 or 3 years remaining on their lease. He feels if he were to take the sign from them he would face a lawsuit. The unused portion goes to the clinic that is on the west side of the property and they have not chosen to use a portion of it although Andreli photography has put a copy in a portion of the sign. He states he cannot afford to remove the signs because the two signs would go with the back portion of the building and the back portion of the building has no exposure to the street. So if he were to remove the signs from them he would lose a great portion of the rent and for that reason he chooses not to touch the sign at all. He states the 4-foot planted area does not belong to him but to the City and when he originaffy buiit the buildings he extended a small 2-foot sign to the sidewalk to separate his property from the rest home to the east. He was notified immediately that he was encroaching upon City property and would either have to pay or else remove it. He chose to pay the requested amount (approximately $300) and left it at that. • He stated he understands that the City is planning sometime in the future to take another 10 feet and he would certainly object to that. 01-14-02 Page 20 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ He feels there was a misunderstanding in the discussion with Miss Norwood, Planning Department Planner, regarding Item No. 14 on page 4 of the staff report, he mentioned he has raised tropical plants as a hobby for several years and if anything were to go in there he would want to put palm trees. However he did not intend to leave the impression that is what he was going to do because the property does not belong to him and he does not feel he should do anything other than what is already done. George Staehling, 18200 Avenada Bosque, Murrieta, CA stated there are concerns with a few conditions in the staff report: 1) the 3-year time period; staff recommends if the sign requirement, conditions and landscaping is not complied with the Conditional Use Permit should be reinstated for only 3-years. He feels they have always complied with City requirements and in all fairness the condition should be deleted; 2) Page 6 of the staff report shows the hours approved the last time were 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday and he requests the hours are changed to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. He states although he rarely stays open until 9:00 p.m. he would like the option to do so, especially during the holidays; 3) Item No. 7, on page 6, states that a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and Street and Sanitation Division for review and approval. He wished to clarify what is meant by solid waste storage. Commissioner Bostwick responded it means trash and asked if he had a trash dumpster or trash bin. Mr. Staehling responded there is a trash dumpster in the back which is used by the mental health clinic which is paved completely, inside and outside. Commissioner Bosfinrick assured he is certain the dumpster has been there for a long time but the condition is just a standard condition that is put into all CUPs. ~ Mr. Staehling stated they use a regular residential trash container that is kept inside and asked if the Commissioner Boydstun asked when his lease expires. Mr. Staehling responded the lease has expired. condition could be deleted. Regarding the 3-foot high address on top of the roof, he installed 4-foot high letters on top of the roof before the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. He requests that Items 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 be deleted and allow them to abide by the original Conditional Use Permit they were granted 6 years ago. He feels in all fairness, with exception of the time limitation, the conditions should be deleted so he would not have to face a similar turmoil every 3 years. Commissioner Boydstun asked for what length of time would he request the next lease. Mr. Staehling responded he planned to have his daughter and two nephews come in and run the pawnshop while he retired and now that they are in the position to start making money they are getting shutdown and he does not feel it is fair but his normal request is for 3 years. Commissioner Boydstun asked if 5 years would be satisfactory and explained that a longer extension was usually not considered in case a previously-approved applicant went out of business and perhaps the next applicant would not be as cooperative as he has been. Mr. Staehling responded Commission has the authority to put an uncooperative applicant out of business. He stated he has to answer not only to the City of Anaheim but the Anaheim Police Department, the Department of Justice of California, the Federal Department of Justice, the Fire Arms and Tobacco and Alcohol (ATF) and he has had no complaints are violations from anyone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Cammissioner Bostwick asked staff if their hours were originally 7 days a week? 01-14-02 Page 21 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty stated staff is supportive of revising Condition No. 2 to state daily, Monday through Sunday; and with regard to Condition Nos. 7 and 8, delete 7 and retain 8 because that is just a carryover from past resolutions and they are currently in compliance. Mr. McCafferty is not certain whether the Police Department has changed its standard for address numbers but feels what the applicant currently has on the roof complies. Chairperson Arnold clarified for the applicant that Mr. McCafferty indicated Condition No. 7 would be deleted because it has already been accomplished. Nos. 8 and 10 states he will continue to throw his trash in his trash enclosure and maintain letters on the roof which complies with the required height so that the police can find the address if there is a disturbance. Commissioner Bostwick stated in the morning's meeting there was discussion on whether or not there was nexus in requiring the changes to the signs on the property and both staff and the City Attorney agreed that there really was not. Chairperson Arnold explained that the City Attorney's office raised some concerns about the nexus and staff explained the history of the original approval including the City Council's actions. Commissioner Bristol informed he brought it up because the City has had issues that they can all remember the last few months on Lincoln Avenue where there have been less attractive centers than the proposed center and Commission did not do anything with the pole signs. Mr. McCafferty stated with the past approvals being short-term approvals, the argument was made that it would not be reasonable for the applicant to make the signs comply with Code. Staff feels if Commission is looking at a long term approval for this permit that would change the assumptions under which it was approved previously and with all of the beautification efforts going on along Lincoln Avenue it may be • appropriate to find that the sign should conform with the current Code. Chairperson Arnold explained part of what Commissioner Bristol was asking about with respect to nexus was consistency with other similar situations. He asked what was the length of the other approvals since suggestion is being made that some of them were shorter term CUPs. Commissioner Bristol responded in the strip center on La Palma Avenue west of Brookhurst Street there were 3 pole signs. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it was an issue of scale and not signs. Commissioner Bristol responded it is an issue in which he cannot recall removal of a pole sign being required on a use similar to this square footage. Commissioner Boydstun concurred that it is not a new use but an extension of a continuing use and there is no change to the property. Commissioner Koos feared the logic being implied is that it is just an extension. He states everything is an extension and if Commission would incrementally approve CUPs year after year and never require the pole signs to be removed then there is no progress. The Code changes with changes to the development standards for a reason; so that when projects such as this come forward there is an opportunity to bring them more in conformance with the current developments and standards that are set forth by the City Council. He assures he would be fine with extending the time period if there is a way to justify the nexus between the reduction and the mass of the sign to the approval granted. Whatever the magic number envisioned by staff or the City Attorney's office would be, if it is 10 years it is 10 years and if it is 7 years it is 7 years. He recalled facing a similar issue 3 months ago with the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace and part of the deal was that they received 10 years because they agreed to take their pole sign down. He ~ feels the same logic applies with the proposed permit and would have no problem giving a longer time period in order to improve the aesthetics of the property. He states it is faulty logic to assume a large pole sign is needed to get the point across on a corridor as heavily traveled as Lincoln Avenue. New 01-14-02 Page 22 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ communities do not have large pole signs and businesses thrive. So he is supportive of a trade-off to extend the time in the sign issue. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in regards to the correspondence received the general tone was that the sign was necessary for the business to survive and that the large percentage of the clients that went to the store was based on the ability to see the sign so he was curious and decided to look at other pawn shops in the area. He went to Katella Jewelry and Loan on the corner of Katella Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and witnessed a sign on the building and a much smaller sign on the street which he feels would be the amount of space that is available on the smaller sign that Commission is seeking. He also saw a sign on Brookhurst Street, which is approximately the same size but a vertical sign, so he feels signage can vary and businesses would still exist. The other thing he noted was the amount of advertising space in the yellow pages; the size of ads varies and the proposed business has one of the larger ads. So he questions if it is fair to assume that signage is such a critical function of advertising when there seems to be a reliance on other forms. He feels it is not an issue of eliminating the signage completely but an issue of perhaps being too large. He concurs with Commissioner Koos it is appropriate to try to extend 5 or 10 years for a CUP in exchange for improving the aesthetics which the City has already made an effort to try to improve with reduction of pole signs, telephone signs on the south side and utility pole signs on the north side. Commissioner Koos stated if it is not being uniformly analyzed in strip centers he would support looking at all projects with the same things in mind. Commissioner Boydstun stated there is not a nexus to changing the signs because they were permitted and if they were not permitted when they were installed it would have been different. They are not making a change they are just extending the CUP and there is not a nexus to justify requiring the signs to be changed right now. • Commissioner Eastman concurs with Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt if there is an ultimate goal in the Ciry within the sign program of reducing the pole signs maybe this is one of the times Commission could negotiate something with the applicant; his lease is up, he wants to stay there longer and Commission would like to see the progress towards little less signage, so perhaps an agreement can be made where everybody wins. Commissioner Koos stated he guess in part that would be up to the owner and the tenant to determine if Commission should go in that direction short of the City participating in the program on a financial level, which he does not see happening in the short term. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Commissioners Koos, Eastman and Vanderbilt are suggesting the pawnshop sign and the two above it should be combined. Commissioner Koos stated Code allows flexibility in terms of shape, it is a function of square footage. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if it is the square footage of the pawnshop sign and the two signs above it reconfiguring to be within the square footage in exchange for a longer Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Koos responded that is what they are proposing. Commissioner Bristol responded he would support that. He wished to remind Commission that they never talked about the Conditional Use Permit which Council extended for 2 years and Condition No. 10, that within a period of 90 days from the date of this resolution the existing pole sign shall be resurFaced to reflect existing tenants. He asked if that had anything to do with the photography sign on top. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, feels at that time they were vacant panels or they were missing • or outdated because the use had no longer been there. He suggested that might be one of the things Commission wishes to consider. Other signs in the City have actually occupied all the signage in the panels but it has been evident over the past 5 years there has been unoccupied space on the subject sign and that is the reason staff is adamant about getting changes to the sign on the property. 01-14-02 Page 23 JANUARY 14, 2Q02 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos asked staff their impression based on the applicant's statements and the clarification the owner provided regarding the conversation with Miss Norwood. Mr. McCafferty asked Public Works to comment on what portion of the property is City property Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, asked clarification from Mr. West on when the conversation of the 2 feet of property acquired by the City occurred. Mr. West responded on the east side of the property he installed a 2 or 3 feet cement block wall on the property to separate his property from the rest home next door which went to the sidewalk and the City approached him and told him that he was encroaching upon City property in the 4-feet planter area and would have to pay them. Ms. Adams stated she needed to go back and look at the records on where the right-of-way or any public utility easements really extended. In regards to paragraph 12 of the staff report which indicated at some future time there would be an additional 10-feet of right-of-way acquired for Lincoln Avenue widening, that is not within the City's current 5 year plan but it is something that is on the current circulation element. Commissioner Koos asked if the issue the owner brought up effects any of the conditions of approval proposed by staff. Ms. Adams responded Mr. West was speaking of the eastern property line and that seems to be a sufficient ways away from where the signs are located so she did not feel there was any barring on Commission's actions today. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there is some discussion in the staff report about the Lincoln Avenue expansion sometime in the future taking up even more property for widening. He asked in the event that occurred would there be any possibility that it might interfere with the sign as it stands? Ms. Adams responded yes it does appear that it would impact the sign, at that time the City would do an appraisal and pay the property fair market value for any land or any improvements that were impacted by widening. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the time line on that. Ms. Adams responded a minimum of 5 years out. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify on page 4, the photograph that depicts the Lincoln Avenue frontage, Ms. Adams' understanding of where the property line is. Ms. Adams asked for an opportunity to look at the site plan. Chairperson Arnold stated the applicant is interested in knowing and it is important for Commission to know. He announced a 10-minute break. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED: Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant if he preferred to have more time on the CUP but modify the sign or a little less time on the CUP and keep the sign. Mr. Staehling responded to Commissioner Vanderbilt's comments regarding the comparison of their sign to other pawnshops and stated there was another pawnshop on Brookhurst Street and Ball Street where • there used to be a huge sign and now has been replaced but the Brookhurst Street pawnshop has foot traffic and they do not have foot traffic otherwise a smaller sign would be okay but their business rely on the sign. When Commission's decision was appealed the last time, within 30 days over 300 signatures were collected from people who came in because of the sign. 01-14-02 Page 24 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify between the finro if he wished to kee the si n as is and have a little P 9 less time on the CUP. Mr. Staehling responded for peace of mind and in all fairness he should get longer time and keep the sign because the sign was not a problem when he went into business. He does not know when the beautification project was put into planning stages for Lincoln Avenue but feels someone had to have known it was in progress when he was granted the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Boydstun stated in regards to taking down signs there are a number of large signs; there is the hotel, hospital, restaurant and pancake house and if the street is going to be widened in 5 years every one of them is going to be affected, not just the subject sign. She feels at that time it is all going to happen at the same time so why mess with it now, why not leave it alone until the entire thing is done. One sign is not going to make a difference in regards to beautification but when all of the signs go down is when it is going to make a difference. Mr. Staehling asked how could Lincoln Avenue be widened on that side of the street because if it were widened 6 feet, people coming out of the pancake house would step off the curb. He stated the convalescent hospital's parking lot next to their business extends out to the sidewalk. Chairperson Arnold asked Melanie Adams to respond. Ms. Adams stated the current road easement is shown correctly on the applicanYs site plan and it is 53 feet from the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. If the Lincoln Avenue widening project went forward in conformance with the circulation element there would be an additional 7 feet of right-of-way taken to make it 60 feet from centerline. A firm date on when that project would occur is not known but it is a • minimum of 5 years out. The City plans a 5-year capital improvement program and this segment of Lincoln Avenue is not within the current 5-year capital improvement program. It is a minimum of 5 years out but it could be much farther than that. Whenever that project occurs the City will appraise the property and pay a fair market value for the land and improvement. Chairperson Arnold asked Ms. Adams to respond to what the 53 feet mentioned earlier means in terms of the planter since there was a contention that the 4-foot landscape planter is really City property. Ms. Adams responded it appears from their site plan and the photos that the 53 feet ends at the back of the sidewalk and the City would not want any walls within that 4-foot area because it would impede sight vision as vehicles exit the driveways. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that even though it is not within the area owned or controlled by the City there is a limitation on walls coming up to the City right-of-way. Ms. Adams concurred. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if in her opinion Condition No. 11 or any conditions regarding landscaping, there should not be a problem with the 4-foot area if Commission conditioned work be done in that area and would it be impacted by future Capital Improvement Programs. Ms. Adams responded yes it would impact the planter area as well as the front parking stalls. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the City would appraise that area and compensate the landowner for it. Ms. Adams responded correct. ~ Mr. Staehling asked in regards to the planter area is it correct that Mr. West owns it? Chairperson Arnold answered yes. 01-14-02 Page 25 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Staehling asked if it would be okay to extend the arking lot out to the sidewalk the same as the P property next to them because people backing up on his property almost have to back into the window to turn around. Mr. Hastings stated there is actually a 10-foot landscape area required and whatever is there is "grandfathered". The property next door is probably "grandfathered" with no {andscaping depending on when it was developed. Chairperson Arnold clarified for the applicant that the Code requires that there be a setback on properties in general and there may be some that are "grandfathered" in. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold stated he appreciates the trade-off arguments made about the possibilities of improving the signage along Lincoln Avenue in exchange for a longer CUP but is concerned that Commission may be asking the applicant to make renovations and changes in the sign in which it appears at some point the City will end up taking and that seems like an exercise in futility. He states he is skeptical on the basis of what has been said as to how quickly progress would be seen on this condition and although he does not want to set a precedent for allowing these sorts of signs to continue he does not see any substantial changes to what is currently going on. He would feel more comfortable if he saw some sort of change in use; significant expansion, something that would seem to justify the property owner stepping up and doing a little bit more. He affirms he is not indicating necessarily how he would come down on the project because he has not totally figured that out but those are some of the concerns. • Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioner Boydstun that a 5-year time limitation is appropriate and the sign should remain. He feels if the City widens Lincoln Avenue the sign is going to be removed and an entirely new sign program will be instituted. Commissioner Koos expressed disappointment that Chairperson Arnold would base his decision on this project partly on what he perceived the owner to do in a decision made by the Planning Commission rather than going by what he believed to be the right thing to do regardless of the outcome. Chairperson Arnold clarified that is not a basis for his decision but is a question that gets raised in terms of Commission overvaluing a trade-off. He states part of the justification he heard was a trade-off that would be achieved and what he assumed was actually achieved not just in paper. He does not believe in making a decision based on the assumption that people are going to ignore the conditions of the CUP. He is suggesting there are some significant concerns with respect to actually requiring the renovation; reduction of the nonconforming signs on the basis of the particular application and in conjunction with a trade-off that may in fact not occur. He affirms Code Enforcement could go out and keep pushing it but sees a lot of uncertainties about the future and would rather keep a shorter lease on the time and not necessarily push for a lot of changes immediately on the project. Commissioner Koos responded they could probably go back and forth and philosophically debate on how to achieve incremental change in the corridors but if not now, when? Commission has consistently heard the, "It has always been that way" logic; or "the point to the next door property" logic and say, "they have this"; or "how come you did not make us do this 8 years ago when we first approved it" logic. He feels this type logic boxes Commission in to never raising the development standards short of the City stepping up and doing it with more aggressive measures. He asserts the trade-off does work, it has been applied before and the current offer is a viable trade-off given the fact that it doesn't force the applicant to return every year; assuming he is a good business owner. ~ Chairperson Arnold responded that sometimes there is a business change or a use change that somehow creates more economic activity than can help facilitate changes to the property. He is cautious about a landowner getting stuck with a lot of cost when they are still doing the same thing they have always done. 01-14-02 Page 26 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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. 3802 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04475) to retain a pawn shop within an existing commercial building for a period of 5 years (to expire on January 5, 2007). Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. 99R-3 and PC95-143 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1 and 2 were modifred and Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 7 were deleted at todays meeting): That this conditional use permit shall expire on January 5, ~AAS 2007. 2. That the hours of operation for the pawnshop shalf be limited to 9 a.m.-9 p.m. Monday through Sa~a~ Sunday, daily. 5. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor uses other than parking. 6. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 8. That trash storage areas shall be provided and 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, tocated 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. 9. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. ~ 10. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or 09 -14-02 Page 27 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES ~ adjacent and nearby properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 11. That within 90 days of the date of this resolution, a landscape plan shal! be submitted to the Zoning Division staff for review and approval showing a total of eight (8) minimum 24-inch box sized trees and a shrub screen in the landscape planter adjacent to Lincoln Avenue and the planter containing the free-standing signage. The Community Services Division of Urban Forestry shall approve specific tree species. Said landscaping shall be planted within thirty (30) days of date of staff s approval and shall thereafter be maintained in healthy condition and not unreasonably pruned. 12. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 13. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 14. That subject property sha!! be 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 and 2 as approved for Conditional Use Permit No. 3802 and as conditioned herein. 15. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14, 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. 16. 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: 4-3 (Commissioners Eastman, Koos and Vanderbilt voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 49 minutes (30 minutes, 2:21-2:51) and (19 minutes, 3:06-3:25) During this item a 13-minute break was taken from 2:52-3:05 C ~ 01-14-02 Page 28 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 9b, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04470 Continued to January 28, 2002 OWNER: Resources I. Enrichment, 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Paul Kott Realtors, Attn: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 6254 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 0.94 acre with a frontage of 200 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road located 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Requests to expand an existing private school and day care facility for up to 78 students. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ u SR8189VN. 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 January 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting since it was determined that the existing entitlement for the private school and day care facility allows up to 100 students. Therefore, staff requested a continuance in order to readvertise the proposal deleting reference to maximum number of permitted students. No increase in permitted student population is proposed. The petitioner, Paul Kott, concurred with the requested continuance. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-14-02 Page 29 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04471 10c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-105 OWNER: Properties L. Seaward, 923 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Stuart Architecture, Attn: Ernest Stuart, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATlON: 1531 - 7601 South State Colleqe Boulevard and 1500 -1701 East Babbitt Avenue. Property is approximately 12.66-acres with a frontage of 460 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard located 325 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Variance No. 2001-04471 - Request waivers of (a) prohibited roof signs,* (b) type of freestanding signs," (c) maximum number of freestanding signs, (d) maximum area of freestanding signs, (e) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (~ maximum sign height, (g) maximum sign width and (h) minimum number of parking spaces to establish a tile marketplace with a coordinated sign program. *Waivers {a) and {b) have been deleted. ~ Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-105 - To establish a 12-lot industrial subdivision for an existing industrial complex with frontage on a proposed private street. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to January 28, 2002. SR8193KB.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTlON CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to submit information pertaining to this project for Zoning Division staff to review. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-14-02 Page 30 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA CATEGORtCAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04487 Denied OWNER: Bernick Alvarez, 1134 North Boden Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Jim Dominguez, 609 North Townsend Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 LOCATION: 1134 North Boden Drive. Property is approximately 0.24-acre with a frontage of 76 feet on the east side of Boden Drive located 176 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive. Requests to permit and retain an existing granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waivers of (a) required side yard setback, (b) required rear yard setback and (c) permitted encroachment into required yards.* *Waiver (c) has been deleted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-7 SR8192VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04487, 1134 North Boden Drive, a request to permit and retain a Granny Unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends denial of the proposal. The unit was constructed without permits and therefore it is an illegal bootlegged unit. Staff feels the findings required to be made by Commission under state law cannot be made in this case and that the property owner can easily comply with the required setbacks. Chairperson Arnold acknowledged correspondence received from concerned citizens for the public record. Applicant's Statement: Jacqueline Alvarez, 1134 N. Boden Drive, Anaheim, CA, requested approval of the proposal due to the additional property being there at the initial purchase of the house. She states they purchased the house because of the property in the back and planned to remodel it so their parents could live there and it was only after one of their neighbors reported them they found there was no permit for the building. Jim Dominguez, 1134 N. Boden Drive, Anaheim, CA, the family agent, stated basically they are asking for the Conditional Use Permit because the Granny Unit is there, it is structurally sound and the only item that is outstanding is the fact that it is within the setbacks. As far as referencing to these notes, the square footage does not exceed 1,200 square feet and it is not intended for public use, rental or anything of that nature. It will be for Granny Unit purposes only. It is a self-contained unit and does have sewer and water connections up to code. He states the reason there were "red tags" on the house is because they were remodeling the damaged lumber. There is a pool and pool deck within that area and if they were to move the building over it would encroach onto the pool deck. There is a safety gate and fence ~ also surrounding the area. He feels the property should be conditionally approved. Public Testimony: 01-14-02 Page 31 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Joanna Mendoza, 1135 N. Boden Drive, stated the subject property is right in front of her house and when other people lived there they never had any problems with the City but the Alvarez family has lived there for 1%2 years and now they are having problems with the City. She does not understand if the building was there when the Alvarez family moved in why a controversy is being raised. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify where Ms. Mendoza lives in comparison to the proposed location. Ms. Mendoza responded 1135 N. Boden Drive, across the street from the property. Michael McMahon, 1127 N. Boden Drive, spoke in opposition of the building stating he lived there for 15 years and he was confused when he received documents regarding the property because he has always known the structure, which is now being called a"Granny UniY' as a tool shack. The previous owners were Roger and Marianne Tate. Mr. Tate was a carpenter by trade and housed his carpentry, power, and yard tools in the building and at that time there was no restroom, water or electricity to the facility. He states utility power has happened since the new owners moved in and decided to turn it into a Granny Unit. Currently there are 4 individuals living in this unit in the back. The neighbor, Marvin Garrison, (of whom Commission has a letter) owns the house on Louise Drive that is on the northwest wall and backs up to fhe tool shack. He states Mr. Garrison is not present today because his wife had a stroke and he is the sole care provider but has problems with the tool shack having people in it because of the noise and other situations going on. Also, Anthony Depalco, which is also on Louise Drive, is against the unit being built. He asks Commission deny the proposal. Maurice Awadallah, 1123 N. Boden Drive, Anaheim, CA, spoke in opposition of the building sfating he lived there for 30 years, has known Mr. Rodgers for a long time and knows that the building was built for his tools and stained glass business. Mr. Awadallah cannot believe the building has been built without a • permit and cannot see any old people living in the Granny Unit. He does not feel it is right to permit such a unit otherwise he would like to build an apartment unit in his back yard. Applicant's Response: Jim Dominguez stated when the homeowner purchased the house there was documentation for the Granny Unit (he presented Commission documentation showing a two-owner lot). He states it might have been a shed at one time but maybe the previous owner decided to add the electrical and plumbing, etc., but from his understanding and from the records he has all the Alvarez family had done to the property was replace bad wood. So maybe the neighboring people thought they were building it from scratch when, in fact, it was already standing. The Granny Unit is for the father of the applicant, who is disabled and currently lives there. The applicant agrees to do a decoration restriction if necessary because they will not rent to anyone else and will definitely keep it as an immediate family Granny Unit. Ms. Alvarez stated they have been there 1'/2 years and have never heard any complaints from anyone until today. She states the only reason they are being protested is because they are Hispanic and that is not right because she and her dad have worked so hard in America, are citizens and do not appreciate the letter that was submitted to Commission. She was given permission to read the letter to Commission expressing: "To whom it may concern, I am obviously against the use of the proposed Granny Unit for any purpose than what it is supposed to be used for. Too many "illegals" in residents already introspectively". She apologized for crying and stated she did not know who wrote it but could not believe that Commission's decision could be based on such a discriminatory letter. She states she rarely knows her neighbor but from what her parents tell her, he gets up at 5:00 a.m. everyday so he can spy on them. Her sister's husband car-pools to work every morning at 5:00 a.m. with friends who park their cars at the house so they can leave together. She states the building was already there and already had electricity, they only remodeled it and have not heard any complaints from the neighbors flanking them. • Mr. Dominguez stated the Granny Unit is set back in the rear of the property and cannot be seen from the street. The homeowner is willing to provide an extra car space for the immediate family and satisfy landscaping requirements. In regards to trash bins, etc., if necessary, they will put it behind a screened wall. He feels the unit is setback far enough not to create a visual impact to the neighborhood but if 01-14-02 Page 32 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ anything would upgrade the neighborhood as far as RS7200 Zoning and there are other Granny Units within the area that have been approved previously with the waivers. Mr. McCafferty stated of the two documents submitted, one is a printout from the MLS service, which is not a City document and the second one is a termite inspection report, which also is not a City document. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated when property changes hands there would be notations on the deeds about the condition of the property. So based on what has been stated in the testimony the property had been improved at some point and it sounds like it happened before the current owner took possession of it so is it fair to assume that the new owner had a deed or some document that described it as being a Granny Unit. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that a deed would only have the address but an appraisal would provide description of the property. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the applicant had a loan on the property. Ms. Alvarez responded with a nod inferring "yes". Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he is familiar with the property and Commissioner Boydstun is familiar with the property. He feels the appraisal would comment on the unit and the lender would question it, especially if they adhere to two units and they would get a permit. If there is no permit, there is no loan. So the appraisal and lender would see it as probably described by the neighbors, as a shed and a shed is permissible so long as they do not have evidence of power to it without a permit. Commissioner Boydstun stated they would look at it and see if there is a permit. She asked if anyone has ~ checked with the City to see if there is a permit on the building. Mr. McCafferty responded there is no permit for that structure. Commissioner Boydstun stated if it was for habitation, 99% of appraisers would ask for the permit. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated no lender would approve it if the appraiser commented it was a separate unit and it complied with the MLS. They would not have approved it because without a permit that is the first condition you ask for and if you cannot prove it, especially if it is FHA, there are only two options; 1} tear it down or 2) get permits. So the idea is it does not exist or it is a shed and has been built on to be a Granny Unit. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated at this point and time to even permit the building there would have to be a certain amount of tear down to, 1) discover the foundation to the electrical wiring and plumbing and 2) that it all conforms to the building code. Mr. McCafFerty concurred that the building inspector would have to go out to the property and there would have to be some tear down to look at the outlets, plumbing, etc., in order to see if it meets Code. Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant if she has the appraisal documents. Mr. Dominguez stated he has a copy of the grant deed describing the property and looking through it they have been approved on the loan. He was not sure if the documents state anything as far as the unit being there as a Granny Unit or a shed. Chairperson Arnold clarified the deed would not say it but the appraisal would, he asked if the applicant had the appraisal. ~ Mr. Dominguez responded he has a photograph and some documentation describing the property. He submitted it to Commission. 01-14-02 Page 33 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant has given him the property profile showing Jacqueline C. Alvarez as the owner and the name of the lender but the documentation does not mention anything about the lot. It does indicate LMS information that offers a 400 square foot studio, as is but that is not a legal document. Commissioner Boydstun stated it is saying that there is a studio apartment on the back of the lot by the broker which should have never been done without checking to see if there was a building permit. Commissioner Bristol clarified under the LMS a studio would be permitted but it would have to be appropriately zoned and it never was. So the text that is being referred to is not correct and as far as the other documentation submitted there is nothing that includes the building as a part of the square footage. Commissioner Bostwick stated the application is for 630 square feet and the document originally said 400 square feet. He wondered what has been done since the sale to get it up to 630 square feet. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if the building has a bathroom because he is curious how it is hooked up to the sewer. Mr. Dominguez responded it is a self-contained unit, it does have a bathroom, electrical, and sewer connections with clean-up. Commissioner Koos asked if it has a kitchen. Mr. Dominguez responded yes, it is a small kitchenette. Commissioner Bristol asked if Ms. Alvarez or anyone built it since she has lived there. ~ Ms. Alvarez responded no, the unit already had electricity but her dad hired plumbing to the bottom. Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Alvarez if her dad added any square footage to the unit. Ms. Alvarez responded, "as I recall, no". Commissioner Bristol asked if he added any wall space or anything. Ms. Alvarez responded no. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he added a bathroom. Ms. Alvarez indicated yes. Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Alvarez if her dad put in an air conditioner unit. Ms. Alvarez responded no; there were windows there before. Commissioner Bristol asked how many people are staying there. Ms. Alvarez responded her sister and her husband and one of his brothers. Commissioner Koos stated the issue before Commission is whether or not the building was existing when the Alvarez family bought it because the waivers and Conditional Use Permit must be judged on their own merit. Page 4 in the staff report indicate provisions that a Granny Unit must have and the subject property does not comply with the setback issues. That along brings up the issue of hardship and ~ whether or not justification can be made to approve a waiver for a setback deviation from the code. So unless the property car~ be found to be irregularly shaped or has some unique characteristic Commission cannot justify the waiver and thereby cannot justify the Conditional Use Permit. He feels Commission must narrow the discussion towards land use and move on from there. 01-14-02 Page 34 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ . Chairperson Arnold stated he did not hear anything in comments from neighbors that were applicable in his analysis of the situation and was disturbed by the nature and content of some of the communication. However Commission is required by law to make decisions on the basis of the rules with respect to granting waivers of setbacks and there simply is nothing unusual about the shape or topography of the proposed parcel to justify approval. He referred to the applicant and apologized that the building was already there when she bought the property and that she bought it with good intentions only to discover it may not be legal, but unfortunately Commission is not authorized by law to approve the property and it appears to be something that has incrementally increased over time and that is unfortunate but he feels on a land use perspective Commission cannot approve the property. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request; and 2 letters in opposition were received at today's meeting. FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waivers pertaining to (a) required rear yard setback and (b) required side yard setback because there is no justification for granting the waivers based on the characteristics of the property nor has there been similar waivers granted in the vicinity; and denied waiver (c) permitted encroachment into required yard since it has been deleted. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04487 (to permit and retain an existing granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence) based on the following: (i) That the existing second unit as sited on the property is not properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code and under California Code Section 65852.1; (ii) That existing second unit, as sited, adversely affects the adjoining land uses by needlessly encroaching into required rear and side yard setback areas; (iii) That the size and shape of the property on which the second unit is built is adequate to allow the full development of a second unit without the need for waivers and in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:26-3:55) 01-14-02 Page 35 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3874 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04476) for 2 years (to expire on October 28, 2003) OWNER: Larry P. Henry, 7672 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Adam Hunzeker, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 Pacific Bell Mobil Services, 1300 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 329 North Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 0.12-acre with a frontage of 198 feet on the south side of Manchester Avenue located 328 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on October 28, 1996 to expire on October 28, 2001) to retain a telecommunication monopole antenna. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-8 SR8190VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 12 as a request for reinstatement of Con ditional Use Permit No. 3874 for an existing telecommunication's tower at 329 N. Manchester Avenue. Commissioner Koos abstained with the following statement: "Mr. Chairman, I shall be abstaining from this item, due to my close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While I have previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that I do not have any financial conflict of interest, I am abstaining to avoid any potential perceived conflict." Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends Conditional Use Permit No. 3874 be reinstated for a period of two years. He presented added conditions of approval as such: 1) operator will ensure that iYs installation and choice of frequencies will not intertere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes and 2) operator shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interterence problems may be reported and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. Applicant's Statement: Adam Hunzeker, 18500 Von Karmen Avenue, Irvine, CA, representing Cingular Wireless, stated he concurs with all conditions of approval and staff's recommendations and is available for any questions of the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine 01-14-02 Page 36 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 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. 3874 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04476) to retain an existing telecommunication monopole antenna and accessory ground mounted equipment for a period of 2 years (to expire on October 28, 2003). Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC96-115 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (fwo additional condifions of approval were added at today's meeting): 1. That subject use permit shall expire October 28, 2003. 2. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3874; provided, however, that only the monopole antenna and accessory equipment specifically illustrated on Exhibits Nos. 1 through 4 shall be permitted and that the minimum setback from Manchester Avenue shall be not less than five (5) feet as required by the Zoning Code. 3. That, if requested, by the City of Anaheim, the applicant shall design an icon marker or entry monument on the monopole, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission. 4. That the monopole illustrated on the submitted and approved exhibits shall be ~ painted a neutral color similar to existing utility poles in the vicinity. 5. That other than the approved City of Anaheim identification sign, no signage, flags, banners or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the monopole "cylinder cell" antenna, accessory equipment or fence enclosure. 6. That the six (6) foot high block wall equipment enclosure shall be maintained with clinging vines in compliance with Zoning Code requirements. 7. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 8. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, an unsubordinated covenant satisfactory to the Zoning Division and the City Attorney's Office shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder and a copy provided to the Zoning Division requiring the telecommunications provider to remove the telecommunications monopole and associated equipment and restore landscaping in the event that this conditional use permit or any other land use approval lawfully authorizing the structure is no longer in effect. 9. 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. • Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: 01-14-02 Page 37 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ That the operator will ensure that its installation and choice of frequencies will not intertere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for Public Safety and related purposes. That the operator shali provide a 24-hour phone number to which interFerence problems may be reported, and will resolve all interterence complaints within 24 hours. VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioner Koos abstained in order to avoid any potential perceived conflict due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry; and Commissioner Boydstun was absent when the vote was taken for this item.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:56-3:59) ~ u 01-14-02 Page 38 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREV.-APPROVED 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04286 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04488) OWNER: Nader Seme Safaie, 13741 Clinton Street, #46, Garden Grove, CA 92683 AGENT: Piua Town, Attn: Nader Seme Safaie, 13741 Clinton Street, #46, Garden Grove, CA 92683 LOCATION: 2235 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.18-acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Kathryn Drive (Piua Town). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on January 17, 2001 to expire January 17, 2002) to retain on-premises sales and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with a sit-down restaurant with outdoor seating. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-9 ApNroved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on January 17, 2007) SR8187AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04286, 2235 West Lincoln Avenue - Pizza Town, a request for reinstatement to retain on-premises sales and consumption • of beer and wine in conjunction with a sit-down restaurant with outdoor seating. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as well as modification to the operating hours with the conditions in the staff report. He presented a correction to Condition No. 1 to read: January 17, 2004. ApplicanYs Statement: Nader Safaie, 2235 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, requested elimination of the 2 year time period. He stated they have been able to comply with all conditions for the first year and last 2 months of business and they would be able to follow the same rules and conditions going forth. Therefore he requests that he not be required to return to Commission every 2 years. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he was asking to remove the time period altogether or requesting a specific amount of time. Mr. Safaie responded elimination of the time or at least 10 or 15 years because they plan to be there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSER. Commissioner Koos stated the applicant has done a great job and demonstrated staying power and feels Commission should extend the term of the Conditional Use Permit. He would be supportive of at least 5 years. Chairperson Arnold concurred. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it has been his personal experience just by driving the property late at • night that it represents a turnaround for the area in terms of potential improvement. Although there are blighted conditions on either side of the subject property the owner has made every attempt to exemplify a positive contribution to the neighborhood. He stated he is supportive of a longer term of 5 years or perhaps longer if there is a sentiment towards that with other commissioners. 01-14-02 Page 39 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman concurred with Commissioner Vanderbilt. Commissioner Boydstun stated he has done a good job. Chairperson Arnold acknowledged the applicant has positively impressed Commission and the local community. Commissioner Koos stated 5 years is appropriate at this time. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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. 2000-04286 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04488) to retain on-premises sales and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with a sit-down restaurant with outdoor dining for a period of 5 years (to expire on January 17, 2007). Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001-5 into a new • resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That the on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine inside this restaurant shall expire on January 17, ~AA4 2007. 2. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 3. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 4. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 5. That all doors serving the restaurant shall conform to Uniform Fire Code requirements and shall be kept closed at all times during operation of the premises except for ingress/egress, deliveries and emergencies. 6. That all existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view in all directions by properly maintained design elements of the building. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. That food senrice with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. 01-14-02 Page 40 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10. hat t T here shall be no pool tables, vending machines or arcade devices maintamed upon the premises at any time. 11. 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. 12. That the gross sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40 percent of 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 beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim o~cial during reasonable business hours. 13. 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. 14. That the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption shall be prohibited. 15. 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 beer and wine. 16. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall ~ not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 17. That the hours of operation for the restaurant and the on-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 11 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. 18. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of su~cient power to illuminate and make easily discernib{e 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. 19. 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 licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 20. That there shalf be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 21. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. That temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted except when in connection with an approved Special Event Permit. 22. That no advertising or identification of any type shall be permitted on any outdoor furniture or equipment including umbrellas by illustration, text or any other means of communication. i 23. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 01-14-02 Page 41 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 24. That three (3) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. 25. That beer and wine shall not be served in the outdoor dining area and that seating shall be limited to 26 seats indoors and 14 seats outdoors. That a sign shall be maintained on the doors leading to the outdoor dining area indicating that beer and wine is prohibited from being consumed in that area. 26. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, and 3, and Revision 1 to Exhibit No. 2, and as conditioned herein. 27. 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: 2 minutes (4:00-4:02) • 01-14-02 Page 42 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PREV.-CERTIFIED) 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2147 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04485) OWNER: Mobil Oil Corporation, P. O. Box 290, Dallas, TX 75221 AGENT: Exxon Mobil Corporation, 3700 West 190th Street, Torrance, CA 90509 LOCATION: 1477 North Jefferson Street. Property is approximately 7.7-acres with a frontage of 313 feet on the west side of Jefferson Street located 360 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue (Mobil Atwood Terminal). Requests to expand a petroleum fuel distribution terminal to add a new ethanol storage tank and truck unloading rack. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-10 Approved Approved expansion and modification SR1049CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced ttem No. 14 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2147, 1477 N. Jefferson Street - Mobil Atwood Terminal, as a request to expand a petroleum fuel distribution terminal to add a new ~ ethenol storage tank and truck unloading rack. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends approval of the terminal expansion as conditioned and feels that the expansion is compatible with surrounding land uses. ApplicanYs Statement: Daryl Witt, 1618 Scott Street, San Diego, CA, Exxon Mobil, stated he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant agreed with landscaping along Jefferson. Mr. Witt responded that is correct, they have no problem with the landscaping. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. During the action: Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, requested an additional statement to Condition No. 2 as such: The grading plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Development Services Division for review and approval. Chairperson Arnold noted the applicant nodded in approval with the language as read. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the 01-14-02 Page 43 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ previously-certified EIR for the Mobil California Air Resources Board Phase 3- Reformulated Gasoline Project is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2147 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04485) to expand a petroleum fuel distribution terminal to add a new ethanol storage tank and truck unloading rack and modify the existing truck unloading rack. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC80-237 and PC95- 101 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approvaf (Condition No. 2 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That landscape plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plans shall indicate a 10 foot wide landscaped planter consisting of 16 trees and 3- foot high shrubs planted 3 feet on center along the east property line (Jefferson Street), and additional landscaping consisting of vines and trees along the north property line (Afinrood Channel). All trees shall be 24-inch box in size. Said landscaping shall be planted within sixty (60) days after Zoning Division approval and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. 2. That all unpaved surfaces shall be paved and maintained on a permanent basis; and that a grading plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval. 3. That the existing chainlink fence along the north property line adjacent to the Atwood Flood Channel shall be entirely interwoven with PVC slats. Said screening shall be ~ maintained and/or repaired on a permanent basis to effectively screen all outdoor storage from public view. 4. That this project has landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code. 5. That the properry shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 6. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in accordance with approved plans on file with the Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division. 7. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures associated with the Atwood Terminal within assigned time frames and any direct costs as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code for the Mobil California Air Resources Board Phase 3- Reformulated Gasoline Project Final EIR (SCH No. 200081105). 8. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 and as conditioned herein. 9. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within 90 days from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 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. ~ 10. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 8 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 11. 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 01-14-02 Page 44 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 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 71ME: 4 minutes (4:03-4:07) ~ • 01-14-02 Page 45 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15a. CEQA CQTEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04489: OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: MPA Architectural Group, Attn: Jennifer Gerner, 1205 J Street, Suite F, San Diego, CA 92101 LOCATION: 1001 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.5-acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests to construct a five-unit commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Concurred with staff Continued to January 28, 2002 SR1048CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 15 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04489, 1001 N. State College Boulevard, a request to construct a five-unit commercial retail center. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends approval of the retail center as conditioned and feels it is compatible with existing commercial uses in the area. ~ ApplicanYs Statement: Michael Palmer, 1205 J. Street, San Diego, Project Architect of MPA Architectural Group, stated the description of the project in the agenda is erroneous because they already have approval and a building permit for the 5, 625 square foot build'+ng and is only asking for permission to redemise. The permit is for two units, which is the maximum allowed by that zone. They originally had two tenants but lost the larger tenant and therefore request permission to demise that space into four additional spaces. He feels because of the way the project is described many of the conditions are based on the assumption that it is a new project and that is not the case. He would like to discuss and modify the following conditions: • Condition No. 3 requests a truck turnaround is provided for the trash trucks. He states it is a half-acre site and is located on the corner with driveways on both frontages and even if there were a turnaround it is very unlikely the truck would pull in there to load the trash and then maneuver around to go back out the same direction. It appears to be an item that is not necessary or useful nor is there room to provide the turnaround. • Item No. 8 is a WQMP request but they just finished providing a WQMP and it has been approved by Public Works Department. • Item No. 11 is an application for a subdivision map certificate and this does not seem to apply considering the request to construct 100 linear feet of nonbearing tenant separation law. • Item No. 12 applies to sewer fees but they just finished paying approximately $20,000 in fees for new construction when the permit was issued 3 months ago. • Item No. 14 is a landscape meter and it indicates that they have over 2,500 square feet of ~ landscaping and therefore need a separate meter. They have already submitted a complete landscape plan through Planning and it has been approved. He feels they would only have 2,500 square feet of landscaping if that was the only area they were being asked to dedicate per Condition No. 9. 01-14-02 Page 46 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! • Item No. 33 regards parking but after discussing with the planner he discovered the parking requirements were miscalcuiated prior to providing this condition and their parking is in compliance with the current requirements for this zone. Their current tenant is a financial use, which has less restrictive parking requirements. This was an issue that was already reviewed and resolved when the original building permit was issued. Item No. 31 requests a 36-inch wide, landscape strip on the west side of the building and unfortunately since the building is permitted it is under construction, the foundation is poured and the building is framed. It is too late for them to provide a 36-inch landscape strip in that area. The purpose of the strip is to deminimize the possibility of graffiti. This particular buifding is situated so that the west wall is facing the front of the retail building to the west of them. As an alternate they could add additional security lights to the wall and would be willing to contact the adjoining property owner and offer to construct, irrigate and maintain a landscape strip along his property but at this stage of construction it is not feasible to remove 36 inches of the building. Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant who the other 4 tenants would be or what type of tenants they would be. Mr. Palmer responded the assumption is they would be retail tenants but do not have any tenants at this time. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked specifically the type of retail tenants perceived. Mr. Palmer responded the typical retail use seen in any small shopping center throughout the City but feels it would not be food because that requires additional parking that they do not have. It would be standard retail uses, possibly clothing and general retail but there are no specific tenants perceived at this . stage. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there would be a problem to condition that there would not be food. Mr. Palmer responded they could not park for food use and the ordinance allows a food use with up to 12 seats utilizing the parking requirements that are applied to retail use and they would like that flexibility but feel they could not obtain approval for a full sit-down restaurant because they have exactly the amount of spaces required for retail and food use requires a much higher density in parking. Commissioner Boydstun stated a small take-out restaurant, which would not increase their parking requirement, could really mess the parking up. Mr. Palmer responded he did not believe a small sit-down or take-out restaurant would adversely impact the circulation and assumes that is the reason the ordinance was written the way it was. Mr. McCafferty clarified what essentially happens if the financial tenant were ever to vacate and a traditional 5%2 per 1,000 retail use comes in, the variance with an administrative adjustment requirement passes on to the new tenant. So if the current tenant vacates, sooner or later they are going to have to come in and seek an administrative adjustment or provide the additional parking. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the applicant for a detailed description of the current tenant, if it were possibly a check cashing or more of a loan financiat tenant. Mr. Palmer responded he did not know but feels it is not check cashing. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that was helpful because check cashing is more of an intense use than other types of financial uses. ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked if the building where the foundation is already poured is right on the west property line. 01-14-02 Page 47 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Palmer responded it is 6 inches off. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify with staff if Condition No. 3, the trash turnaround, is a standard condition. Mr. McCafferty concurred it is a standard condition but believes there was some concern about the location of the actual trash enclosure tucked in next to the building and whether that would be accessible if there were people parked in spaces nearby. The applicant would have to work out the details of the exact location of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Bostwick stated they would leave that one as is. Mr. Palmer responded they have worked that out and provided a site plan to Planning. Commissioner Bostwick clarified between the trash company and the applicant it would have to be worked out. Commissioner Bostwick inquired of Condition No. 8, The Water Quality Management Plan. Ms. Adams responded if it has already been approved and it satisfies the condition it is okay. Commissioner Bosfinrick inquired of Condition No. 11,.the subdivision mapette. Ms. Adam responded since he received his building permit that should have come up with his building plan review. Any time they are building they demonstrate they are building on a legal parcel and if he has not already done so and he has a building permit somehow the issue must have been resolved. She ~ asked him if he obtained a building permit. Mr. Palmer responded yes, we have a building permit for this building. Commissioner Bostwick clarified it has been satisfied and is a standard condition. He inquired of the fees for the sewer deficiency. Ms. Adam responded it is a one time fee based on building square footage so he should have paid that fee before he pulled his building permit. So that can be removed. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if for the most part the applicant has already complied with the conditions. Mr. Palmer responded yes, for the most part. Commissioner Bostwick inquired of the water meter for the 2,500 square feet and stated if he has 2,500 square feet he would have to do that even though that is within the potential take area. Mr. McCafferty stated that is a City ordinance and cannot be waived. Commissioner Bostwick inquired of Condition No. 31, and asked since the applicant has no ground in the back for any kind of landscaping could Commission eliminate that sentence and add a condition that the applicant will install adequate lighting on the west side of the building to discourage graffiti. Mr. McCafferty responded he has a building permit now for something that is permitted by Code. Staff feels if it is something under the purview of the Planning Commission they must try to present the best product possible and therefore recommend landscaping on the west elevation. • Chairperson Arnold stated it is the particular posture; how this arises is the fact that he can by right get two units and is now coming for five units but the foundation is afready there. 01-14-02 Page 48 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty responded, that is correct and the architecture was notified at the time they were getting the building permit that there is the risk of additional conditioning if the Conditional Use Permit process was chosen and they proceeded at their own risk. Mr. Palmer stated that one of the conditions is that they remove any graffiti within 24 hours, which seems to negate the need for landscaping. Commissioner Bristol stated he disagrees with parking in the front because of the way the property is configured but it appears it is already done so that and landscaping in the corner is the most important thing. Chairperson Arnold stated the issue is clinging vines and that part appears not to be possible the way the foundation has been laid. Commissioner Eastman stated it makes for an ugly project not to have landscaping or anything on such a huge long wall. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated Commission may want to see if there is not any type of architectural enhancement that can be made to the wall because 6 inches is enough for some level of archifectura( enhancement. It will not solve the graffiti problem but having the one long blank wall is also a concern of staff. Commissioner Boydstun stated with the rest of the building sitting back so far the long blank wall is going to be an unpleasant sight to everyone. Mr. Palmer stated they could work with staff to modify the elevation to something they might find more ~ acceptable. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they would have back doors on the units. Mr. Palmer responded no that would be a violation of the building code. Mr. McCafferty stated in response to Condition No. 33, Transportation would park the site based on the land uses or the business that goes in there. It is just deferring the inevitable but if he wants to proceed with having the financial institution at 5 per 1,000 then at some point there would be an extra space that would be required. Commissioner Boydstun asked how many square feet are going to be in each of the 5 units. Mr. Palmer responded it varies between approximately 900 and 1,200 square feet and the issue regarding parking was addressed when the permit was initially issued. The parking as presented meets to the letter of the law the City's ordinance for parking. Commissioner Bostwick clarified that is true as long as the financial institution is there. Mr. Hastings stated this would be an unusual situation because staff would have to continuously monitor the types of uses going into the center. It was not built as a typical retail. There is nothing to keep the developer from developing a piece of property with another use intended but that use intended will always have to be on the property or else there would have to be a waiver eventually. Staff would have to monitor this property when business licenses come in. Mr. McCafferty stated one option on the west elevation would be to ask for a brief continuance in order for the applicant to explore with the adjacent center owner if he could install landscaping on that side of the • property line so it resolves the visual for the west elevation. Chairperson Arnold stated it is not a particularly large lot for what is proposed and he is concerned that parking is tight and on the corner of two busy streets. If a SUV or van is backing up and someone is 01-14-02 Page 49 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ coming into the property just past the intersection off of La Palma Avenue, just past the State College Boulevard intersection it would back up traffic. By having 5 different businesses on the property and not knowing what they are going to be makes it hard to determine what the circulation pattern would be; if there are going to be peak times in which traffic would back up. Commission has seen this before in other small retail centers where there are traffic problems because of the small size of the lot and the difficulty of ingress and egress. Mr. Palmer responded they cannot control the size of the lot but the City has developed standards based on what they consider to be adequate for that particular use and adhering to their obligation and responsibility to the City they have complied with the standards exactly. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked hypothetically what is the use of having a Planning Commission because it could just be a plan check process that you could take to the counter and check off all categories and that would be sufficient. However state law says there is an additional assurance, perhaps a group of citizens would want to take a look at the project who are familiar with the area and the intricacies of traffic flow, etc., and want an opportunity to express their opinion because their knowledge might add some additional information to the process that may be pertinent. Mr. Palmer stated that is possible but the building permit has been issued based on a certain gross square footage and he does not know if two units of 1,000 square feet each develop more or less traffic than 400 or 500 square feet each. The gross footage is identical either way. They are before Commission today to request approval to demise the space into more than two units. Chairperson Arnold asked Assistant City Attorney, Selma Mann, if she could comment on Commission's discretion versus standards and whether it is appropriate to consider the particular intersection and the circulation beyond whatever the standards are in the code. Afso, he asked Mr. McCafferty for feedback ~ on the number of units versus total square footage and whether there are any predictable impacts there. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the zoning code has certain uses that require a Conditional Use Permit. There are circumstances that may be applicable to those uses on a case by case basis that need to be reviewed in order to determine under what conditions that use can be approved. That implies that there is going to be discretion to impose one condition or another depending upon what the particula circumstances are. There is always going to be a cutoff as to where the line is; what is going to be permitted by right and what is going to be permitted by Conditional Use Permit but that is where you app the rule. Commissioner Bostwick is concerned with having five units because if each of them has at least two employees, that is 10 sides and that is a third of the parking and would not allow room for a lot of customers. They would be allowed two employees but by right maybe they would have three or four employees and still there is a lot more customer parking for two businesses than there is for five businesses. So much of the parking has been eaten up for empfoyees that it does not fit the property. r ly Mr. McCafferty stated Commissioner Bostwick is right on track, which is why the Conditional Use Permit processes for three more tenant spaces was created in the first place. The more tenant spaces you have beyond that tends to create intensification on a site that is relatively compact and tight although the architecture has designed it to the maximums where they comply. So if a center of this size is chopped up with five separate businesses it will be a lot more intense for the reasons previously described than having two businesses. Commissioner Bristol stated staff indicated the only reason the applicant is present is that by right they can have two tenants. Mr. McCafferty responded "that is correct". , Commissioner Bristol stated he is concerned with the ingress and egress and would never have supported that configuration had it come before Commission. 01-14-02 Page 50 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he could possibly be supportive of something like this if there were someway to be knowledgeable about the nature of the tenants. If the nature of the tenants were dentist offices or an H& R Block, etc., where customer flow would not be a 10 minute occupation of a parking space but more of an hour occupation of a parking space it would be easy to support, but lacking that knowledge it is difficult to decide what to do. Mr. Palmer stated it would be nice to be able to provide that information before hand but unfortunately it would be difficult for his client to make a legal commitment to lease a space when he does not know for certain that he can deliver. Commissioner Boydstun asked Traffic if they have looked at the situation with five units. She feels by the time the ultimate right-of-way is there cars that are making a right to go into the parking lot are going to have very little back up room. To get into the first parking places customers would have to make a sharp turn and back up and forth to get into the parking places. She asked Traffic to took at what this does to traffic backing up on La Palma Avenue. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated it was looked at when the original stage was submitted and Traffic is very comfortable with the design. The way the intersection is currently designed they are limited to right in and right out only and after the critical intersection is built in the future it will be a similar situation. So the number of conflict points are very minimal in fhis site considering other areas where there is a left turn in and a left turn out. Mr. Palmer stated there is a median on both streets. Commissioner Boydstun is familiar with the street and realizes it will have to be right turn out but cannot see people turning around, making a right to get into the property and then having no place to go if ~ someone is trying to get into one of the first parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated he understands the applicant's points of view but the entire configuration was based on one use and now Commission is being asked to look at five potentiai uses in an area that is going to be cut and also it is Commission's first glimpse at the plans. He feels Commission cannot approve it because the only fact they have to base their decision on is that there is going to be a problem with traffic. Chairperson Arnold concurs and states the particular location creates a hazardous potential as traffic ingresses and egresses. He feels five uses are more intense for the same square footage as two in terms of parking and traffic. During the action: Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if Commission was at a point where it requires a yes or no vote or if there is a possibility for staff and the applicant to meet further to explore other options. He suggested a continuance. Mr. McCafferty stated that is up to the Commission. Chairperson Arnold stated he did not mind a continuance and asked if it would have to be readvertised. Commissioner Koos asked if Commission was talking about a reduction in tenants or something to that effect. . Commissioner Bosfinrick responded a reduction in tenants and some type of architectural design and possibility of landscape on the west side. 01-14-02 Page 51 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol stated they are going to build it anyway and what they are looking for are the T.I.'s and that will come up within 4 or 5 weeks. He feels they will have to know within 2 weeks and suggested a 2-week continuance. Commissioner Koos stated this is the kind of land use in the City that a lot of people have talked to him about. They will point to an area and say, "you know what, I don't like that center on the corner of this and that, it is too congested, there are two many people, there is a weird mix of uses". He realizes Commission does not have control over who those people could possibly be but does not want to be part of a decision that almost immediately people regret. So one or two uses by right are one thing but when Commission has discretion over the final outcome it is an opportunity to create a different type of urban design. He feels if it were configured differently the same number of units could possibiy fit the property. He understands it is a small lot (a former service station) and the applicant is trying to do what he possibly can with it but Commission should not sacrifice its standards because of it. Chairperson Arnold asked if they came in with four tenants would it need to be three? Commissioner Boydstun responded I can see splitting one of the units into two but parking is not available for more than that. Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant if Commission was wasting his time and Commission's time to see if he could come back with a 3-unit project? Robert Ozell, Developer and representative of MPA Architectural Group, stated the reason they are seeking Conditional Use Permit permitting excess of multiple uses which are already approved under the existing building permit is because a major nationai retail tenant, Radio Shack, was prepared to take a 3,000 square foot store at the property. Due to circumstances that have occurred in the last 6 months ~ including the fact that the national economy is in severe recession, Radio Shack has terminated their agreement to lease space at the proposed location. MPA Architectural Group has proceeded throughout the permitting process totally in good faith and with the view towards having a shopping center that would be occupied solely by two tenants. Mr. Ozell states they have proceeded with construction and has done everything possible to try to rehabilitate their transaction with Radio Shack but it has not been possible. Radio Shack has instituted a corporate policy that prohibits relocation of stores within a certain geographic area. They have proceeded arduously to attain another tenant of a similar size to no avail. He states they share Commission's concerns and feel a 3-tenant use is far preferable to two units but since he represents the principles of the project he would have to discuss the idea with them and cannot at this time represent to Commission it would be acceptable to them. He states it is a very uncomfortable situation and ~ealizes it is really not in the developer's best interest or the City's best interest to proceed with building the building and then letting it lie vacant. They would be willing to fully explore and do anything within reason to further articuiate the architectural elements of the wall that Commission has addressed. Chairperson Arnold stated that is helpful to know and Commission appreciates the situation but the unfortunate thing is as the economy goes up and down over the years and if the building is indeed a 5- unit building the City may end up being stuck with a building where the ingress and egress parking does not fit the property. He wished to clarify if the applicant would be willing to present the feasibility of the 3- unit idea to the principles. Mr. Ozell responded he would like to convey to them that he believes the Planning Commission might look favorably upon that number of units. Chairperson Arnold stated obviously he could not commit, there are some commissioners who are concerned about the project as a whole. ~ Commissioner Bostwick suggested the applicant change the architectural on the west side and see what could be done with the planting. 01-14-02 Page 52 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Ozell responded it is the developer's desire to arrive at a resolution that will be acceptable to everyone. Chairperson Arnold withdrew the resolution and substituted a motion for a 2-week continuance until January 28, 2002. Motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Arnold 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 3(New Construction), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Arnold offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2001- 04489. Before a vote was taken, discussion took place amongst the Planning Commission; Commissioner Arnold withdrew the previously-offered resolution. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to January 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to consider a possible reduction in the number of units for the proposed commercial retail center, and also to explore issues ~ pertaining to the architectural design and landscaping. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (4:08-4:47) • 01-14-02 Page 53 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Conc , urred with staff 16b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. Denied 2001-00002: OWNER: Company i. Marang, 523 Sycamore Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831 AGENT: PK Beer and Wine, Attn: Parveen K. Sehdev, 10024 Brenda Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620 LOCATION; 985 South Beach Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.51-acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard (PK Beer and Wine Market). Request to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing convenience market. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-11 SR8180AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 16 as a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00002, 985 S. Beach Boulevard - PK Beer and Wine Market, a request to allow the retail sales of ~ beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing convenience market. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed this is a request for Public Convenience or Necessity because it is in a reporting district that has a crime rate above the citywide average. Due to that fact and because there are plenty of off-sale outlets in the vicinity of this location Community Development, Planning Department and The Anaheim Police Department recommend denial of the request. ApplicanYs Statement: Lorenzo Reyes, 1224 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 105, Orange, CA, representative of PK Beer and Wine Market, stated they were before Commission on a technicality because the location of a 2,000 square foot convenience market has been operating for the last 14 years as a full liquor store. In fact, it has been a 24-hour liquor store. The previous owner was an absentee owner who ran a less than desirable operation leading eventually to eviction and a number of liens on his liquor licenses. Mr. Cumar came to the City to investigate the status of this opportunity and was told that the store had grandfather rights and that no Conditional Use Permit would be required. The technicality omitted was that unless he assumed the existing license, a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity would be required. The existing license has liens of over $200,000 on it. Based on the information received from the zoning affidavit taken from the City Planning Department that said he had the Conditional Use Permit rights Mr. Cumar jumped on the opportunity, entered into a lease and began operafing the store. He is suffering a financial hardship because he is not able to offer the full service of the convenience market that serves sundry items as well as beer and wine. His main reason for not assuming the license in the first place is because he wanted to downgrade it from a full liquor 24-hour operation to a beer and wine only. This census tract allows 3 locations and there are finro existing with the subject application pending. When talking to Planning they were told that whenever the Police Department comes out against an application they are obligated to follow-up with that and support that. Of the 30 calls that were received from December of 2000 to the present date, 15 were 9-1-1 hang-ups; 1 was a 9-1-1 call with no voice; 1 was a control substance • possession; there were 2 attempt suicides; 1was an assistance to another department; 1 was violation of a temporary restraining order; there were 2 flag-downs; 1 was an act of vandalism; 1 was a traffic stop that probably pulled into the parking lot and now that becomes a reporting; there were 2 disturbance calls; 1 stolen vehicle; 2 suspicious circumstances. This shopping center had a tenant mix up until December 01-14-02 Page 54 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ that included a massage parlor. The massage parlor has since vacated and that space has been leased to a dentist. The tenant mix at the center now will be a Radio Shack, probably the one that did not go at the last location, the Convenience Mart, a One Hour Photo, a Check Cashing Store and the dental office. It is Mr. Cumar's intent to: 1) remove the public telephones from the exterior of the building, 2) limit the hours of operation (the current hours go to a convenience mart), 3) upgrade the interior, relight it and 4) reduce the amounts and types of alcohol, which of course would be limited by the liquor license. The license is still in force. It is more expensive because it is a full liquor license and not a beer and wine but it could be bought and the business would be in full operation. They would like clari~cations and take exception to a number of them: • Item No. 1; hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. They request 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight Fridays and Saturdays. • Item No. 13; they will be offering beer and wine for sale and ask that they be allowed to use neon signs at the window. • Item No. 17; that all fixtures, displays, merchandise and other materials be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the front window areas. They feel this is a typical strip center that has glass up front. It is only a 2,000 square feet space and the 3-foot aisle in the front really serves no purpose and further limits the square footage that the applicant has. Of the existing space, 62% of it would be general merchandise area, 34% is storage (cold storage) and office area and only 4% of the store is actually cold-case display. • Item No. 4; they feel the intent of Item No. 17 is addressed by Item No. 4 which says that no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside the building or within 5 feet of any public entrance. The 3-foot aisle is really a waste of space and in a liquor store like this or any store front on a major ~ boulevard one would want as much open glass area as possible. The gondolas have to stay low (approximately 4 feet in height) and the first 3 feet is just valuable space. • Item No. 2; that beer is not sold in packages containing less than a six-pack and wine coolers less than a 4-pack. They feel for anything 12 ounces or less that makes sense but if someone were to buy a bottle of table wine, the way the condition reads it could be construed that they would have to buy 4 of them. They are asking clarification to include beverages, whether it is beer or wine of 16 ounces or less. They are asking for Commission's favorable consideration and feel this was a misunderstanding. It would cause a great financial hardship if Mr. Cumar has to purchase the existing license to get around the issues. He feels it is a win, win for the City. The City is getting a convenience store that sales beer and wine only with limited hours versus the 24-hour a day full liquor store that has grandfather rights. Parveen Sehdev, 10244 Carlotta Avenue, Buena Park, CA, stated the first time he saw the store it was closed. It had been employee run and it was filthy. After speaking to the landlord and checking with ABC he found that the legal license still exists until February 28, 2002. He bought the store and sought a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Department and was informed that the property was "grandfathered". Public Convenience or Necessity considered the new license as one of the original 3 licenses required until he presented proof that he currently held the license number on the proposed location. The document was corrected to show two existing licenses and the third one pending for a total of 3 ticenses allowed. He feels perhaps an employee abused the emergency system to have made fifteen 9-1-1 calls when nothing actually happened. Mr. Sehdev pointed out that at the proposed location from La Palma Avenue to Ball Road on the "best side of Beach Boulevard" there is not another convenient store. On the east side corner on the same lot there is a liquor store and a big market. He stated they have set up a surveillance system, installed an I.D. check system and invested a large sum of money to facilitate the Police and for the last four months they had a running of 50% capacity. They are • family oriented people and the store would be run professionally by family members. The family has successfully maintained a store in Stanton, CA for 12 years and is willing to comply with City Conditions to help society improve the proposed area. 01-14-02 Page 55 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Stephen Gih, 523 N. Sycamore Avenue, Fullerton, CA, the owner of the center, concurred that there were problems with the previous tenant, which resulted in eviction. After an involved process of a number of applicants he decided on the Cumar family. He feels the Cumar family is the most qualified and most committed to running a quality operation. He is impressed that the Cumar family are close-knit, live in the same area, operate successful businesses, are practicing professional engineers and do not operate on credit but make all payments in cash. He has seen nothing to detract him from his original opinion because during the last few months they have kept the premises very clean, the store is well stocked, they treat their customers very well, and they are cooperative with both him and the City. Mr. Gih states that the market has been there since its inception and it is really not configured for any other use so if the Cumar family cannot make it there then he does not know what to do with the space. He fee(s the only problem they have with the conditions is the one regarding public phones; he has tried to remove them since 1994. He had an attorney look into the matter and the only concession the telephone company would make is that they would not allow incoming phone calls; people could call out but no calls would come in but they would not remove the phones. The Telephone Company has an ironclad law lease, which will not expire until August 2003. He would be happy to remove the phones but do not have the wherewithal to fight such a big cooperation in court. He asks Commission give the Cumar family an opportunity to prove they can run a good and clean business. Dwayne Henderson, 845 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, stated his wife who is handicapped likes to shop there because there is no loitering around the business, it is safe to go to, the service is good and the shop is very clean. He feels the market is needed in the area and compliments the Cumar family on being friendly and professional and states, "if running a business were super heroes the only thing missing from this guy would be a cape". Sergeant Smith, Anaheim Police Department, stated out of the 30 radio calls, 30 calls were reserved to that location. There were 10 reports that were taken and out of the 10 reports only 1 report was specific ~ to the actual market and that was a disturbance that occurred inside. The rest of the calls for services that occurred at that address were in the parking lot and unrelated uses. Four other locations were compared to the proposed location: 1217 S. Euclid Street, from December 1, 2000 to November 30, 200 there were 4 responses for assistance; Magnolia Liquor, 930 S. Magnolia Avenue, there were 16 responses and 3 reports; Rainbow Liquor, 3200 W. Ball Road, which is in the same census tract as PK Beer and Wine, there were 14 calls for services with 1 report; A-1 Food Mart, 3174 W. Ball Road, which in the same census tract, there were 21 calls for service and 1 report. Chairperson Arnold stated Sergeant Smith indicated in the morning session that with the sale of alcohol sometimes in the secondary effects the implications for crime and impact on the community and the neighborhood generally occurs off-site. Someone may purchase alcohol at a specific site but the crime and deterioration of the neighborhood would occur off-site. 1 is Sergeant Smith responded that is correct, in that area there is a concentration of 1000 crimes. Many people or basically transients and live in motels and not all of them are urbanized. Their total activity is involved in narcotics and prostitution. In fact some of the reports in that area were related to narcotics and prostitution in the parking lot of the proposed location. A study by the University of Southern California Medicine found a density of alcohol outiets related to violent crime rates in Los Angeles. The results of the study were reported in March 1995 along with the American General of Public Health. Their data indicates that in 1990 the average city in Los Angeles County of a city of approximately 50,000 residents there were 100 alcohol outlets and 570 episodes of violent crimes. Each individual alcohol outlet is associated with 3.4% crime in the City. In the City of Anaheim studies show that the reporting district to the northwest, 1713 block is 200% above the crime rate and the reporting district to the northeast of 1716 has 185% above the average crime rate. Of the two reporting districts below the average crime rate, 1914 block is 47% and 1915 block is 49%. In the reporting district to the southeast corner of Ball Road and East Street, 1916 has a 61 % crime rate above average. • Chairperson Arnold stated the information is very helpful including the study on the secondary effects. Mr. McCafferty stated the existing market is a legal non-conforming market and therefore there was never a Conditional Use Permit obtained. If it were simply a change of license transferring to the current owner 01-14-OZ Page 56 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the applicants would not be before Commission today. They are bringing in a new license from outside the census tract that triggers the Public Convenience or Necessity. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if previously it was liquor, beer and wine and if so she feels it is a downgrade going to wine and beer only. She asked if the restriction were intended to minimize the number of single alcoholic beverages sold to a customer to take out and drink in the parking lot, etc. She feels the applicant believed they were buying the approval when they bought the business and is having trouble seeing how their operation is going to make it worse but if anything would be an improvement. Commissioner Bristol asked if they were currently able to operate with the ABC license - full liquor. Mr. McCafferty responded there are liens on the ABC license and other complications therefore the applicant is asking to bring in a new license, albeit a downgrade to beer and wine, and by law that triggers Commission's decision on a Public Convenience or Necessity. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if another liquor license similar to the existing one were exchanged would it be necessary to come before Commission. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the existing license really is gone from that property. Mr. McCafferty responded, "that is correcY'. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if it could show up down the road. ~ Mr. McCafferty responded theoretically it could show up in another census tract and it may require a Conditional Use Permit and potentially a Public Convenience or Necessity. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the applicant received the license at this point would they be able to operate. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Commissioner Bristol feels the applicant would not pay the ABC license because the liens were in excess of $200,000. Commissioner Boydstun asked hypothetically if the ABC license was clean could the applicant operate with it 24 hours a day and not have to come before Commission. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Mr. Gih stated it is not his desire to run a whole liquor store. Commissioner Boydstun understands and feels that would be an improvement. Mr. Gih stated the sergeant stated his report was based on density and he could not refute that but in fact the census tract will support 3 licenses and there are 2 existing at the moment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated there is no doubt the applicant is exactly what he purports; a great owner of a business. However the City has done a great deal of research and spent a large sum of money to • clean up the west side since before time. He feels Commission cannot justify approving alcohol in an area that is 227% above crime rate. 01-14-02 Page 57 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bosfinrick stated he is torn between the finro points of view. It is downsizing but with the high crime rate it would be impossible to clean up the area. He stated there is another liquor store category across the street on Cerritos Avenue and Beach Boulevard in Stanton, CA, but not too far for area patrons to go to. Chairperson Arnold recalled a situation in which Commission was willing to trade a liquor license for the termination of some others and the City Council expressed that was not something they were interested in. He feels Commission is independent and can make its own decisions but it does seem to be a direction that is at least current City policy. Commissioner Bristol concurred. Following the action: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, reminded Commission that at the beginning of the agenda there was an action to appoint someone to the Anaheim Union High School District Facilities Task Force. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the Task Force typically met on Friday afternoons but have now changed to Friday mornings at 9:00 a.m. Chairperson Arnold so moved and Commission Vanderbilt seconded the appointment of John Koos as the Commission's representative to the Anaheim Union High School District Facilities Task Force. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None i FAVOR: A person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick 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. Denied the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00002 (to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing convenience market) based on the following: (i) That the Anaheim Police Department indicates a significant above-average crime rate (227 percent above the City average) for the Reporting District for the property and has received 30 calls for service for this property since December 19, 2000. The high crime rate in this area was one of the principal reasons that led to the creation of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area. (ii) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that this request would serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity. There are other establishments in the vicinity that already sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption. (iii) That the combination of off-premises sales of beer and wine and the existing high crime rate may be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of • the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to this location's proximity to residential neighborhoods to the west and southwest. 01-14-02 Page 58 JANUARY 14, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (4:48-5:19) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:20 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. ~ 01-14-02 Page 59