Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/05/11S AY ACTION AGENA CITY O ANAHEIM PLANNING CO MISSION TING MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998 11:00 A.M. ~ STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION). PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA ABSENT:BOYDSTUN ONE VACANT SEAT _ _. STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Simonne Fannin Assistant City Attorney _ Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary Senior Office Specialist 05-11-98 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC fNTEREST: None REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA MITIGATED NEG. DECLARATION (PREY-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3506 -REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR PARKING LOTIPLAYGROUND USE Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests determination of substantial conformance pertaining to the use of a portion of an existing parking lot for playground use on weekdays only. Property is located at 5340 East La Palma Avenue. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 27, 1998. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), 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 Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed use of the parking lot for a temporary playground is in substantial conformance with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 and approve the location of the ball wall at the northern edge of the proposed parking lot play area, as requested by the applt'cant. Approved Determined that plans are in substantial conformance SR1042JK.DOC Applicant's Statement: Richard Bannister, associate pastor and principal of Vineyard Christian School, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated they submitted revised plans for the "ball wall" to consider an alternate location. They are proposing that the ball wall be located at the northern edge of the parking lot for playground use on weekdays only. 05-11-98 Page 2 B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION fPREV.-APPROVED Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3926 -REQUEST FOR Approved REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM. LANDSCAPE PLANS. AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS: George and Barbara Kubo, 23351 Villena, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, requests review and approval of a comprehensive sign program, landscape plans, and building elevations for apreviously-approved trailer sales lot and repair facility. Property is located at 721-725 South Beach Boulevard. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), 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. Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building elevations, the sign plans with the addition of column features (to be further reviewed and approved by staff) and the landscape plans with the stipulation that the tables and umbrellas in front of the building shall not be allowed and that revised elevations shall comply with the following criteria and shall be indicated on plans submitted for building permits: Window shutters for all windows. 2. Four (4), minimum 24-inch box size canopy trees interspersed among the Queen Palm trees in the front setback area. 3. Ornamental security lights on the building. SR7055TW.DOC Applicant's Statement: Gus Rosco, architect representing the owner: They were in agreement with the staff report and available to answer any questions. Chairman Bostwick: Staff was recommending window shutters for all the windows and that the umbrellas shall not have any advertisement on them. Gus Rosco: Staff was also recommending that four (4) 24-inch box size canopy trees be interspersed among the palm trees in the front setback area which was acceptable to them. Commissioner Henninger: The sign elevation they have appears a little plain. Asked the applicant whether they could frame that in with something similar tp the beams that they have supporting the canopy on their building? Gus Rosco: Yes they could. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested that be added. Cheryl Flores: Regarding the table and umbrellas, staff was recommending that Commission would stipulate that they not be permitted at all. 05-11-98 Page 3 Chairman Bostwick: Agreed. The problem is that area needs to be used for driveway rather than sitting area. Therefore, the stipulation is that there would not be any tables or umbrellas on the driveway in front of the building. Gus Rosco: They are trying to soften the front appearance and felt some chairs and umbrellaswould make it appear more casual and attractive then agreed that was fine. During the action Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion for the approval of the sign plan with the additional column features to be reviewed and approved by staff, and the landscape plans with the provision that tables and umbrellas in front of the building shall not be allowed. The revised elevations shall comply with the criteria (see page 3, 1 through 3 listed under the Action). Cheryl Flores: Asked if Commission wanted to see the sign plan before the Commission or was that to be a staff approval? Chairman Bostwick: Responded staff approval. 05-11-98 Page 4 C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY: APPROVED) tJo action b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3623 -REQUEST FORA Denied extension of RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Frank Minissale, 111 time South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 80-bed (94 beds were requested) convalescent facility. This petition was originally approved on September 8, 1993. Property is located at 111 South Mohler Drive. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED(Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby denv the request for a retroactive time extension based on the following: (i) The property has not been maintained in a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing condition as evidenced by the pending Code Enforcement violations. (ii) Five years has lapsed since the original approval, during which nearby property owners may have changed and residents who may be impacted may not be aware of the proposal. (iii) The neighborhood climate has changed since the original approval. (iv) Traffic patterns have changed since the original approval. (v) The original approval did not provide an opportunity for staff to review the proposed architecture with today's standards. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. 041JK.DOC Applicant's Statement: Frank Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA: Stated they went through considerable problems and expenditures when they obtained the original conditional use permit. Back then the real estate market was inactive and they were not doing very well. Recently he had three people interesfed in purchasing the property. One was in the audience, who is interested in purchasing the property and would like to develop it. Staffs recommendation is for denial of their request for a retroactive extension of time. He felt that if Commission denies his request then he will have nothing left. He did not understand what the reasoning was for denying the CUP. Chairman Bostwick: The reasons stated in the staff report is that the neighborhood as we[I as the whole area has changed over a number of years. If the project was viable then something would have happened within those five years. Frank Minissale: Stated it is happening now. He lives there and he can not see any trafFlc pattern changes nor other new residents. Albert Otero, 311 Old Ridge Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated their company, American Housing, specializes in senior housing. He also lives very close to this site. He has been in negotiations with Mr. Minissale for the last 6 months regarding this site. They have obtained a construction commitment, permanent loan commitment and have moved forward with this plan. They are awaiting financing from the federal 05-11-98 Page 5 government which is expected on May 29th. Their company has put a lot of effort on this site and they are asking Commission to give Mr. Minissale some time so that they can finalize all their financing commitments, move forward and break ground on the development. American Housing currently is doing between 20 to 25 million dollars of senior affordable housing across the State. They have several developments in Los Angeles County. This will be their first development in Orange County. They reviewed the site and spoke to several of the neighbors. His first concern being as a landowner was whether the neighborhood was receptive to this project and they have not had any opposition whatsoever. Commissioner Henninger: Stated this project was fairly controversial when it was approved a few years ago. He felt there has been considerable changes in the traffic patterns since then. In previous hearings there was substantial evidence that the attitude of the community has changed regarding what they would like to see built on the remaining parcels in Anaheim Hills. He felt a denial would be appropriate. Commissioner Bristol: Concurred with Commissioner Henninger. Following the action: Albert Otero: Stated the federal funding requires the zoning to be in place and the application is due May 29th. A denial of this request would mean that they can not move forward with the federal application which would then create a financial burden onto Mr. Minissale. He thought perhaps Commission was not aware of that when they took their vote. Chairman Bostwick: Asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain the appeal period. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated the Planning Commission's action is final unless it is appealed to the City Council within 22 days. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they appeal it, would the zoning still be in place until that appeal is heard? Selma Mann: She thought the existing entitlement has already expired. The Planning Commission's action remains in place. Commission has made their final decision. If it is appealed and the Planning Commission's action is vacated then the City Council's decision will be the one that is final. What is currently in place is an expired permit. Chairman Bostwick: It, in fact, expired prior to this meeting. Selma Mann: Correct. Albert Otera: Their understanding is that it was not expired. Asked if they can have the datewhen it did expire? Selma Mann: Responded on March 22, 1998, according to the staff report, Albert Otera: Explained that was when he filed for an extension. Frank Minissale: Stated he filed for an extension prior to that. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that is when it expired. Albert Otera: They could not get a meeting before Commission until today. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the point is that Commission did not feel this is an appropriate use on this site.. 05-11-98 Page 6 D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3987 -REQUEST FORA Approved a 90-day RETROACTIVE TIME: Steve J. Rendes, 521 Laguna Road, extension of time Fullerton, CA 92635, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for apreviously-approved (To expire 8-11-98) convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waiver pf minimum number of parking spaces. This petition was originally approved on January 21, 1998. Property is located at 2631-2637 West Lincoln Avenue - 98 Cent Store. Applicant was not present at the meeting, the Commission took the following action: ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), 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. Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a ninety (90) day time extension (to expire August 11, 1998) to comply with conditions of approval based on the consistency of the original approval with the existing General Plan land use designation and current development standards, and that no Code amendments render the previous approval inconsistent with the original findings of fact. SR6562DS.DOC There was no discussion. 05-11-98 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARIPIG ITEMS: 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-17 Granted 2c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved' 2d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4022 Granted 2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15660 Approved OWNER: Edward's Family Trust, Robert W. Edwards, Shirley E. Edwards (Trustees), 711 South Velare Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Denar, Inc., Attn: Bahram Ghassemi, 1001 Sandcastle Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 LOCATION: 711 South Velare Street. Property is 0.61 acre located on the west side of Velare Street, 950 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Reclassification No. 97-98-17: To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RM-3000 Zone or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4022: To construct a 1-lot 7-unit detached residential condominium development with waiver of minimum distance between buildings and minimum private street standards. Tentative Tract Map No. 15660: To establish a 1-lot subdivision for the development of a 7-unit airspace detached residential condominium complex. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 27, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98.72 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-73 SR7105TW.DOC e ® ® e e Applicant's Statement: Bahram Ghassemi, Nor Inc., at 1001 Sandcastle Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA. Stated they are requesting a zone change on this property from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000 Zone to construct seven (7)"de"tached condominiums on the site. Currently there is a one single family home on this property and the area is a Low Medium Density based on the Anaheim General Plan. The units are going to be 3 bedroom.; 2"'h baths, about 1,750 square feet, with two car attached garage. There will be three parking spaces per unit as provided per Code. Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is the Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). They discussed this matter at their last meeting and it was determined that the density is too great. Seven homes average out to 11.5 homes per acre. Most of the homes around this area are six homes per acre. She referred to another development at the corner of Velare and Orange Avenue which is 7.5 homes per acre which are newer homes built, in the last 5 years. They feel that these are not condominiums, they are single family homes, and are being built on condos which are about 2,80p square feet for each lot, not counting the driveway. They are finding that there seems to be a tendency for developers to want to get buyers more for their money on their property than what it would sell on the market. They are doing this because Anaheim will allow them to build with many 05-11-98 Page 8 variances on their property. They know that this is a good builder and would Like to see him build on this property, however they feel that this particular project is too dense. Judith Collette: Stated she is also a member of WAND and also resides in the vicinity near Velare. They came before Commission years ago regarding Webster Street. Webster Street became known as the "divorced daddy's street". All the divorced dad's in the neighborhood that did not live at home anymore moved into those apartments. They are looking at the same problem with this proposed project, except they are not calling them apartments or condominiums but rather "single family residences". They are labeling them multi-family orsingle-family condominiums on a size that would have previously been apartments or condominiums. She felt that they need to take a look at the long term growth plan of West Anaheim. They are asking Commission to look at the size of lots that they are allowing in West Anaheim. She felt this development is another negative impact to West Anaheim. Shirley Edwards, 711 Belair, Anaheim, CA: Stated their lot is the last one that is left and feels that seven (7) individual homes would not be too dense for this particular lot. She has lived there for 42 years and it is .now built up all around her. She asked for this proposal to be approved. This developer has put his plans forward, three different times. If this proposal is denied today then the developer will no longer be able to propose another plans, since it will not be financial feasible. Commissioner Henninger: According to prior testimony today most of the homes in the area are on much larger lots. However, when that statement was made they overlooked all the apartments. There are quite a few apartments there and they are much more dense than is being proposed. They do a disservice when they neglect the apartments. That is an important use, provides shelter for an important segment of the population. At the same time the community is rightfully concerned with the number of medium size RS-A-43,000 parcels in that area. He thought perhaps Commission should request staff to review those overall and see what the impact would be if developing at 10 units per acre. Following the action: Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff to return with a study of these large lots in the West Anaheim area and their thoughts on the appropriate General Plan designations. Cheryl Flores: Asked for a clarification that Commission wanted a comparison as to these RS-A-43,000 properties being built out at a low to medium classification rather than a Low Density Residential. Commissioner Henninger: Stated no, depending on where they are in the plan. There might be some still at the Medium Density or Low-Medium Residential designations which are the ones he was particularly interested~n. - Cheryl Flores: Stated staff would review that and return with a report to Commission OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-17 with the conditions stated in the staff report Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4022 with the conditions stated in the staff report Approved Tentative Tract Map NO. 15660 with the conditions stated in the staff report VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) 05-11-98 Page 9 DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (1:50-2:10) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 15660 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items. Commissioner Henninger requested that staff bring back a study of the large lots in the west Anaheim area and their thoughts on the appropriate general plan designations. He stated he is interested in the ones that are designated as Low-Medium to Medium Density Residential designations. 05-11-98 Page 10 3a. _-- CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Denied 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 355 Withdrawn 3c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-15 Denied 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4009 Denied. OWNER: Lincoln-Beach Associates, L.P., 14011 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 404, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 AGENT: Jordan-Valli Architects, Attn: Patrick Crowley, 34700 Pacific Coast Highway, #202, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 LOCATION: 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 3.0 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 300 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. 355 - To redesignate subject property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. (RegaestforWithdrawal) Reclassification No. 97-98-15 - To reclassify subject property from RM-1000 Zone to the CL Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4009 - To construct a 74,593 square foot self-storage facility with a caretaker's unit and an outdoor recreation vehicle storage lot with waiver of minimum structural setback. Continued from the Commission meetings of March 30, and April 27, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-74 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-75 SR6550DS.DOC ': FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY-OF THE P,LANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: ', i Applicant's Statement: Ralph Hansen, 1400 N. Brea Bvld., Fullerton, CA: Stated he is an attorney representing Lincoln Beach Associates on this project. In the audience was Bruce Jordan, the architect of the project and John Icoltz, principle of Lincoln Beach Associates. Indicated he provided a letter to Commission: He made the following comments regarding the staff report: The property owners are put in the unique position of agreeing with the staff report and the statements of the neighborhood concern but not the conclusions. He stated there is the implication in the staff report that this is an incredibly lucky owner of 20 acres of prime commercial property., valuable to the community and profitable for him. On one hand there is a neighborhood group who they respect and admire for their efforts as well as the City Council and Planning Commission. On the other hand, there is a developer who wants to agree with the recommendations proposed for this project but unfortunately is forced to deal with reality. That reality is the infamous site known as "stinking sinking Lincoln". The staff report admits that the 3 acres that are part of this project are the least contaminated. The remaining 17 acres contain extreme amounts of extensive contamination. This was a "piecemeal" and partial development. It has to be dealt with as 3 acres. That puts them in a bind because the larger property is not usable and the 3 acres is piece meal. There is no use on this property and that's unfair and illegal. 05-11-98 Page 11 A second issue was that this is an inappropriate use for this property. In keeping with the neighborhood wishes and market retail study, .retail is a preferred use for this site. Keep in mind, the environmental constraints having to deal with the front portion of the property facing Lincoln Avenue. Finally the use of self storage would be incompatible with the redevelopment project which is going to occur in this part of Anaheim and is probably long overdue. They agree that some day this site will probably be the part of the Redevelopment Project and they would be delighted to participate in it. The graph attached to the back of his letter indicates that the environmental effects on this site are naturally remediating themselves. The amount of gases that have been released from this site are dramatically decreasing, although still significant. Over the next 15 to 20 years gas contamination will be reduced to a level where the entire 20 acres will be available. Therefore, looking at what is a type of use that is appropriate for that eventual redevelopment. This is something that the Redevelopment Agency can work with which is a single large user adjacent to a single large piece of vacant property. What would make it inappropriate for redevelopment would be a piecemeal retail center where you are having to deal with the relocation of a established small retail. Staff is recommending denial of the reclassification and he found that interesting because the General Plan calls it commercial. The applicant has spent money on the application to change it to a commercial designation, thus letting the City obey it's own law in keeping in conformity with the General Plan. If Commission does not agree with that she stated, that portion should at least go forward as a recommendation to the City Council. Bruce Jordan, 24700 Pacific Coast Highway Capistrano Beach, CA: Stated he is the architect for the subject property. Going back over the past history, they started looking at this site with the owner two years ago. One of the first things they did was look at the land use compatibility aspects of what was going on around the property and the difficulty of developing this site with its history in terms of dumping on the site. They met with the city and posed this as an option and discussed this with staff and left their proposal with them for some time to discuss. Staff returned and encouraged them to submit their application for this use. The reason at the time was that this land use category, which is a single user, does not have an intensity of development that could be affected by the ills of the site but could be developed in an attractive way of bringing about an reason for development in the area. They set out to do exactly that .and believed that they have done that. It is only in the past month that staff has taken a position of recommending denial on the property. They have tried to create a facility that screens all the views so that any surrounding land uses could not lodk into the facility. They have used the low perimeter buildings on the outside and taken the hvostories internally and feel that's the most suitable for the property. They believe the low traffic generation and the benefit that this will supply to the community is highly desirable at this location. _ _- They were involved with the other self storage down the street when it was a rundown retail center. They had trouble leasing spaces, there were large vacancies that fell into disrepair. They redesigned it as a self storage and since then it has filled at a record pace. That is indicative of the strength of the market that is in this area. He knew that staff prepared an analysis for the number of facilities in the city and they would agree that there are several facilities. They also agree that there is a substantial unmet demand. They feel that their proposal for the RV storage will benefit residential areas by providing places for boats and RV's to be stored on site and not kept in driveways, etc. They reviewed all of the conditions of approval and are prepared to live with them. Regarding landscaping, since the property to the east is similar, they are volunteering to go in .and put the additional 05-11-98 Page 12 landscaping in along the balance of the Lincoln Street frontage. (The approximately 230 feet of property that will remain vacant that is from their lot line proceeding east to the apartments). They would Like this not to be a condition of this project so it could be sold separately. They disagree with the staff report that this leaves the future development of the larger acreage in difficulty. What they are proposing occupies 260 feet of frontage on Lincoln leaving about 210 feet. There is critical mass there. They aligned their driveway and major access isle to directly offset the driveways on the other side of Lincoln and the curb cut to create a logical sequence for roadways to service the balance of the property. They have looked at that and preserved suitable frontage for future development. Looking at the proposal and options with the its traffic impacts, quiet nature, hours of operation, compatibility with adjacent residential, upgrade to street frontage, and cleaning up of unsightly situation, this is really the one and only use that makes sense for this difficult site. John Icoltz, property owner: They acquired the 20 acre, rectangular piece, including 1'/z acres of Ridgegate Apartments on the southeast corner of parcel. They obtained title 4'h years ago through foreclosure. Of interest was that about 6 acres in front was not part of the original landfill. They worked with County, City and three environmental agencies that have jurisdiction over the site to see if there was some solution to remediating the contamination issues. The 6 acre Rains landfill is not part of the property that they own. It is adjacent to and east of the Sparks landfill. The 31 unit Ridgegate Apartment complex on the corner was to small to be economically feasible and a market study determined that to add units would also not be beneficial because of low rental rates. They have ongoing dialog with the three environmental agencies, which have significant input and control over the concerns that are caused by the creation of methane gas. The Water Quality Control Board conducts ongoing monitoring program. The agencies conclusions on the status of the contaminants are included in the expanded initial study that was a requirement of staff tp be submitted before they could initiate the CUP application. There are no water quality control issues other than concern about ponding on the old Sparks landfill. They are attempting to address those with the three agencies and the County which operated the landfill prior to it's closure in the early 60's. There are technical and legal issues involved with that, particularly as it relates to creator of the problem, theoretically having to deal with remedial action. The Air Quality Agency has indicated that removal and replacement of the contaminated portion of the landfills was not an alternative. He has not been able to determine any feasible alternative for this land. After it appeared that a self storage facility would be an acceptable alternative because of low use by people and the mitigation of potential migration of methane dealt with on this type of development as opposed to retail uses drawing more people. They concluded that self storage is the most if not the only viable alternative to try to do something with this land. They were led to believe that it was in the.best interest of the City and that the City supported them coming up with some kind of a land use for future development. Esther Wallace: Stated they presented this to the WAND group (West Anaheim Neighborhood pevelopment Council) and concluded that they do not want storage units in West Anaheim. They have come to fight the storage units on Beach Boulevard. They became concerned with the building of storage units when they saw the ones that were built on Dale and Lincoln.. Dale/Lincoln is not the same site that Beach/Lincoln is. Beach/Lincoln is prime property with four corners that could be developed into a very nice complex. There are 20 acres. He is developing 3, leaving 2 which could still be developed. There are going to be 15 that are left as dirt. They do not want to see that in their neighborhood. They have requested that the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, the environmental agencies and owners sit down to discuss what can be done. Methane gas can be funneled off. That is being done on a project in Westminster. The owner may have to put some money into the property in order to get it cleaned, or maybe other funds can get it cleaned. There are other uses for this land such as restaurants. She disagrees that he doesn't have the Sparks 05-11-98 Page 13 Rain Landfill. When 11 of them met with the owner, there were 3 landfills on this property and he gave them extensive maps which she gave to the City because the City did not have them. He also mentioned that the storage unit at DalelLincoln was full. They had a member of WAND go in there a month ago and was told that they're 50% full. Her investigation shows that there are 9 other storage units on Beach Boulevard within 2 miles of that site. They are in Buena Park, Stanton and Garden Grove. They are definitely are not interested in storage units. This is not an industrial area, it is a commercial area and storage units should be put in an industrial area. They feel nothing else will be built on this site if storage unit are built there. Nice places are not going to come in and build anything in West Anaheim. The location is an entryway into the City and they would like to see something better developed there. Judith Ann Golette, member of WAND: Stated she is a long time resident of West Anaheim. The City Council put a directive to put storage units in irregular shaped areas/lots, areas that could not be put to other uses. They talk about five acres being developable; there are actually 10 that can be developed„ There are 2 land sites that are fills that have chemicals and 3rd landfill has trash and debris which while not "clean" is buildable. Debris can be removed easily and land filled. They have 10 of 20 that can be developed. It is her understanding that the landfills are the City's and County's responsibility. It is her understanding that there is a bill that states that whoever puts in toxic waste needs to bear some of the expense of removing it. They need to put moneys into the landfill so they can use it for the betterment of West Anaheim.. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he lives in a product just like that in Anaheim Hills. He did not feel like it's a bad product. He thinks it's a great house but worries where children are going to live in the future. He feels their dream for West Anaheim is unrealistic in the way kids are going to have to live and he is concerned about that. Judith Ann Golette: She sells real estate, Young couples that buy into West Anaheim are in transition rather than looking at living in this area for a long period of time. Anaheim was built on family goals and traditions and that's where they should be looking. Chairman Bostwick: Their whole focus is to look at providing a way in which these properties can change over the next few years. Commissioner Henninger's question to the staff is appropriate so they can have a much better view of what is going to come to Commission in the future. The staff is already preparing an ordinance that will have a different standard for this type of property, for these type of developments. There is product change and you will see change. We are not going to see the same little house on a piece of property anymore, itjust isn't going to happen with what's left to be developed in Anaheim. Commission can not solve all the social ills of all the families, work, cost, schools out there. They have to review the land uses and try to do the best they can to make the product fit for iYs environment and for the whole community. They are looking at different products, building standards so that they can come up with something that works for the property owner, the developer and for families. They realize there were too many apartments built years ago in West Anaheim and it suffers today from that and they do not want to go back to that. They are trying to find a middle ground. They are still refining that and will continue to refine that as they see how it fits in the neighborhood and what's required. Judith Ann Golette: Asked why not do that study before that last project was approved? Let's get the study completed, look at the format for the City of Anaheim because they need to have a General Pian. Let's get some of that free market into West Anaheim. Susan Holmes, 2865 Skywood Circle, Anaheim, CA: Stated she would like to see something else besides storage units at that site. Her concern is that in the past the city and county were not responsible in keeping track of this.. She would like to see Commission responsible for having an appropriate use come 05-11-98 Page 14 to this site. The area has too many liquor stores, gun shops, etc, From Western to Brookhurst is not a good .area. She did not feel that another storage unit, no matter how well landscaped, will really add to the area. Applicant's Rebuttal John Icoltz: Stated he wanted to clarify a couple of things. The women that spoke from WAND are correct and staff report does clarify there are 2 landfills located in a part of the property they own, but on this proposed development parcel. The Sparks landfill (about 10 acres) is the contaminated landfill and is on their property, The Rains landfill which is about 6 acres is not on their property, it is east of them. Another owner is dealing with that. In addition there is the Anderson Pit which is a benign construction fill. Their proposed project encroaches on Anderson Pit for purposes of a proposed RV/boat storage area. The soils/structural engineers have indicated that they could not consider putting any structures on that landfill which is why they have confined their structures to the undisturbed portion to the south of that Anderson Pit. The agencies are not going to allow restaurants because of prohibitive mitigation measures that nobody will be able to fulfill. It will sit there vacant for a long time and presumably at some point they will have to initiate some action in try to bring closure of the problem with the county who has acknowledge that they were the operator. In a sincere effort to try to bring development/improvement to that property they have evaluated alternatives. They have spent $150,000 since they started this with the city to go through this process with the environmental people. They have suggested uses that are not going to be allowed on the clean area of the site. They have suggested a driving range which would require the whole site. You can't deal with grading, filling and touching that landfill without the environmental agency's concurrence of a plan and there are some major issues there that are going to take years to resolve. He does have to do weed control 3 or 4 times a year to accommodate Code Enforcement, deal with the Fire Department, transients, etc. He is trying to come up with a concept, that at least on an interim basis, would be economically feasibly and allow them to get better control of the whole site. He is also proposing some kind of shielding which the Police Department constantly makes an issue of, regarding the visibility of the backside of that property from Lincoln Blvd. to try to control it better as far as transient problems. He is trying to come up with a concept that would be reasonably acceptable and hopefully financially feasible to deal with. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Ms. Flores why they had gravel vs. asphalt? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: They have had discussions over the months with the developer and have pointed out that it would take a code waiver in order to have gravel. They have added a condition of approval on page 9 Condition No. 2 that requires all parking lot surfaces to be paved. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if that would that be on the Anderson Pit? Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: That is the reason why they are doing the crushed aggregate as opposed to the asphalt, because of the Anderson Pit. The RV storage area encroaches 150 feet into the southerly limits of the Anderson Pit. Commissioner Bristol: That means it can sink? Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Yes. Chairman Bostwick: They know the feelings of the Council regarding storage units. He understpod the intent of the property owner that he would like to build something on a portion of this site to have some 05-11-98 Page 15 kind of economic benefit from it but he did not think that the self storage is appropriate for this particular parcel. It leaves the larger portion which makes it tougher for remediation should the county and city agree to do that remediation to this property and make it usable and whole. Therefore, he agreed with the staffs recommendation for denial. Commissioner Henninger: He also agreed, they need to see an overall solution for this property. Cutting out the frontage and developing that is a mistake. There needs to be an overall solution. He disagreed with the staffs recommendation on the mitigated negative declaration. The mitigated negative declaration fails to look into the impact that this development would have on the future ability to mitigate the overall site. Greg McCafferty: For the public record, it was indicated in the public testimony of the applicant, as well as the correspondence, that there is no real viable use for the property with the exception of what they have proposed, but in fact there is zoning on the property now, that would allow them to proceed if it was feasible from a financial standpoint. With regard to the reclassification and the general plan, it has typically been the policy of the City and this Commission that before they proceed with rezoning, that they see plans on any proposal. Although they would entertain commercial zoning, they would like to see the plans before going forward. Commissioner Henninger: He thought the other thing to say is when you buy a piece of property out of bankruptcy, you go in with your eyes wide open, understanding that there are difficulties with it. There are a wide variety of uses that they would look at favorably here if the various problems on the site could be solved. The difficulty here is that the proposal is not to solve those problems but to effectively cut off the best area and just leave the problems. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition ACTION: Denied Mitigated Negative Declaration on the basis that it fails to consider the potential impact on the future ability to mitigate the overall site. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the withdrawal of General Plan Amendment No. 355, as requested by the applicant Denied Reclassification No. 97-98-15, Waiver of Code Requirement and Conditional Use Permit No. 4009 on the basis that the development of aself-storage facility on a 3-acre portion of an existing 20-acre vacant parcel will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area since its development would reduce the likelihood that the remainder of the property, which is the most contaminated portion and-wiN require substantial amounts of remediation, would eventually be developed. Furthermore, 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 since Parcels 2, 4, 5, and 6 within Tract No. 11830 will ultimately be left with narrow and undevelopable lot configurations as a consequence of this development. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 46 minutes (2:11 to 2:57) 05-11-98 Page 16 4b. OWNER: Chiboeze J. Dallah, Sharon K. Dallah, Ernest R. Peralta, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Chiboeze J. Dallah, P.O. Box 773, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1429, 1433 and 1437 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.77 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 160 feet east of the centerline of La Plaza. To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/ Agricultural) and the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Continued from the Commission meetings of January 5, January 21, March 16, March 30, and April 13, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-76 Denied • Item 21, the lots will be combined, Parcel No. 1 and 2 will be one single lot. It will not be landlocked. He wanted 190 feet, adjacent to the commercial zone property to tie used for parking. • The construction of the mid-block traffic signal caused all this to come about. Without the_sgnal he would'not have asked for a change of zoning. The signal makes a difference in the property being zoned Single Family Residential. It is no longer Single Family Residential • In the staff report, page 5, 23(a), the area is 70% Commercial Limited and he is requesting what is currently existing. • Staffs comments and recommendations are acceptable except Item 8. He is requesting approval because he is trying to request this with what the Commission already passed regarding the traffic signal. If the traffic signal had been there then he would not be requesting a change of zoning. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Mr. Dallah did testify that paragraph 20, regarding the economic study for midblock commercial, that they did say that they would not use that in staffs recommendation which is in paragraph 23 which staff did not make reference to that study. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 05-11-98 Page 17 Chairman Bostwick: He is not certain how the traffic light affects the properly but the proposed use does not work where it is being proposed. Commissioner Bristol: He was impressed with the staff report on page 3 (under Evaluation) where it states, "The Commercial and Professional land use designation is Tess dependent on walk-in trade than are most commercial developments and are intended to provide for and encourage the development of business and professional office centers,. " which this use if it were CO, the use of a laundromat would take a conditional use permit. That and the fact of the landlock parcel to the north has never been addressed. Staff also indicates that walk-in and or traffic to the alley is going to impact those neighbors. It is going from a single family use to a commercial use where there is a lot of walk-in traffic or vehicles which is going to have a major impact. Also no one wants to purchase the parcels that the applicant is trying to create on the north side. For those reason he could not support this proposal. Mr. Dallah: The landlock parcel has been addressed. It is going to be combined to one lot. It is no longer landlocked. Commissioner Bristol: How is it not going to be landlocked? Mr. Dallah: He is still using it. It is still under one ownership, it is still one parcel. What were the three options? Commissioner Bristol: They are all listed in the staff report. He is going to impact the residents tremendously. Mr. Dallah: He has yet to see an area where there is commercial property that does not have residents behind it. The alley will not actually be used. The reason for an alley is to provide for a buffer zone between the commercial and resident. The area is at least 70% commercial zoned, why is this becoming an issue? Commissioner Bristol: For reasons that were just mentioned. In his opinion Mr. Dallah has not mitigated anything regarding the impact of the single-family residents. At the beginning today this was a landlocked parcel but apparently now it is not and they have been through this three times. Mr. Dallah: Last time he did mention that it was not landlocked that it was going to be one single parcel, so he was surprised it was mentioned as being landlocked in the staff report. Cheryl Flores: Regarding the issue of it being landlocked or not, it was under their impression that the northerly portion of parcel one would be left RS-A-43,000 with a southerly 190 feet being reclassified to commercial. It is unclear to her how it would not be landlocked. ChairmanBostwick: There are many other problems and reason for the denial. Not only the split parcel but to the usage that the applicant is trying to develop.. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Wanted to clarify that item 11 that has the environmental Impact analysis that recommends denial of the negative declaration doesn't really state the basis for that but that basis is stated in the "Recommendation" paragraph. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Denied the Negative Declaration based on the following (1) The reclassification of this property is not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan. (2) Land uses permitted by the requested CL Zoning would increase traffic in the area and cause increased noise intrusion to the adjacent residential properties, particularly 05-11-98 Page 18 the residence at 1498 Birch Street which would have commercially related traffic and parking impacts on the west and south side of the property. Denied Reclassification No. 97-98-10 based on the following: (1) That the proposed reclassification to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone does not comply with the General Plan Land Use Element designation for Commercial Professional and Low Density Residential land uses. (2) That the size and shape of the parcel does not allow for the adequate development of the site for commercial uses. This is indicated by the number of waivers required to develop the property with the proposed use. (3) That no development proposal for Parcel No. 3 has been submitted indicating how the site could be developed for commercial purposes, nor has any indication been given that this property will be used for anything other than residential purposes, thus providing no stated reason for the reclassification of this property. (4) That creating a landlocked parcel, or a split-zoned parcel is not appropriate to achieve full and adequate development of the area. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:58-3:12) 05-11-98 Page 19 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Sb. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-12 Withdrawn 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4001 OWNER: Hunters Pointe Homeowners Association, 14600 Goldenwest Street, 102-A, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: TDI, Inc., Attn: Adan Madrid, 3150 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 6900 East Canyon Rim Road. Property is 3.05 acres located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Circle. To reclassify this property from the RS-HS-10,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to construct telecommunication antennas on an existing lattice tower (Edison) structure and ground-mounted accessory equipment. Continued from the Commission meetings of February 1 B, and March 30, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ' - FOLLOWING CIS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING ;COMMISSION ACTION: OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Reclassification No. 97-98-12 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4001. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:13-3:14) 05-11-98 Page 20 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) veiueu 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1594 (READVERTISED) Denied reinstatement OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst - La Estrella Restaurant. Property is 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a time limitation. To retain an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997, March 16, and March 30, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-77 SR7119TW.DOC o e ® ® o Applicant's Statement: Rick Blake, attorney representing the applicant, 2700 North Main Street, Suite 1000, Santa Ana, CA: Stated this matter is part of matters pending before the City at the present time. The conditional use permit provides for the entertainment and/or dancing has been denied by the City Council and they are waiting for the resolution. It seems that the issues regarding the restaurant would, if in fact, the conditional use permit is denied and they are no longer allowed to have entertainment and/or dancing in connection with the business would pretty much self resolve. It does not leave much for them to do other than to operate as a restaurant. They are, in fact, operating as a restaurant. They do have a portion of the premises, that serves meals on a daily basis. They are open for lunch and on hours and days when there is no entertainment or dancing. They do serve meals. They have a full and complete menu. They are in escrow for the sale of the restaurant. The buyer is present in the audience. The sale is on hold until a decision is made to the various pending matters. The buyer has spoken with the Police Department, Planning and a number of other City Departments and has the intent of running a restaurant in connection with a bar facility. It would have a lounge area but no dancing or entertainment. This place is clearly set up to be operated as a restaurant. It has the facilities. The buyers of this location will certainly be able to run it as a restaurant and has agreed to do so and conditions can be crafted to see that he does comply. It seems unfortunate to deny this conditional use permit and leave them with a building that is not useable for the purpose that it was intended for. He would like to see one of two things happen. Either a vote that basically states that the premises can continue to run as a restaurant because absent the other conditional use permit which has been denied, there is not other activity that really can take place. Alternatively, a resolution that would allow a buyer to take the premises over. The current owner would vacate and discontinue their operation and let another operator under specified conditions continue business. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Asked to hear from Code Enforcement 05-11-98 Page 21 Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Last week he made three inspections at this location during lunch and dinner. He observed no patrons inside the restaurant or inside the lounge area. When he inspected the kitchen there was a limited amount of food in the coolers and freezer. On Saturday night (May 9, 1998) he made a late night inspection, approximately 10 or 10:30 in the evening. Once again there was no one eating in the restaurant area. In the lounge area there was a large crowd dancing and listening to the entertainment. In speaking with the maitred' at the front counter. He asked him why they were charging an admission of $10 to get in and he indicated that is what they do. Once the male subjects entered the premises they were patted down by security officer prior to being allowed to go into the lounge area. He did not feel they are operating as a restaurant, it is more of a nightclub. There was no one eating any food in the lounge area during his Saturday night inspection. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there was anyone in the restaurant portion? Don Yourstone: No, there wasn't. Chairman Bostwick: His inspection was on May 9th and on April 28th the City Council terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 3421 which was the conditional use permit for the entertainment. Don Yourstone: He believe it was for the public dance hall permit. Chairman Bostwick: So, they are still operating outside of the law. Don Yourstone: It may be an appeal period from the City Council's decision. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: The City Council's decision is final. There can be a request for a rehearing based upon, for example, new evidence. That is something that may happen to be applicable on a particular circumstance, but other than that the only way to overturn the City Council's decision would be to get a writ of mandate from Superior Court. Commissioner Henninger: The testimony of the applicant is that they are currently operating a restaurant. When he went in there did he get the sense that it was a restaurant or is it a bar? Don Yourstone: When he observed during the lunch and dinner times there was no one eating in the restaurant area and there was no one in the lounge area. Saturday night there was no one eating in the restaurant and probably a couple of hundred people in the lounge area dancing and listening to the live entertainment. Therefore, in his opinion it is not a restaurant. Commissioner Henninger: That is the basic issue Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Yourstone if he received numbers specifically on the restaurant usage that Commission requested months ago regarding the breakdown of alcohol to food and non-alcoholic beverages? Don Yourstone: On his three inspections he specifically asked for that information and was not given that information and was told that they did not have them on-site. Commissioner Bristol: Stated they have been through this so many times, a conditional use permit for a restaurant. It is very explicit what is required and they do not have it at this site. They had promised to provide receipts and he agreed with Commissioner Henninger that he did not see this establishment being run as a restaurant. To him it is being run as a night club. Commissioner Peraza: At every hearing that they have had Code Enforcement has reported very little to no food as being served and he also see it being operated as a night club rather than a restaurant. 05-11-98 Page 22 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Clarified that this is a resolution declining to reinstate the permit that is the impact. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Denied the previously-approved Negative Declaration upon finding that significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the continuation of the project, specifically, resulting from late night noise generated in the parking lot, related to operation of the business other than that of the approved restaurant use. Denied reinstatement, therefore terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 1594, based on the fdllowing findings of fact: (1) The La Estrella Restaurant does not operate as a bona fide restaurant where food sales predominate over alcoholic beverage sales but is being, and has been, operated as a nightclub where alcoholic beverage sales predominate over food sales. (2) The La Estrella Restaurant is being operated in violation of [Condition No. 19 as set forth in Resolution No. PC97-16] in that quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages exceed the gross sales of food and other commodities during the same period. (3) There have been numerous noise and police problems from the recent and/or current operation of the premises including, but not limited to, public intoxication, burglary, and minors in the bar, all of which problems are detrimental to the public health or safety, or constitute a nuisance. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:15-3:20) 05-11-98 Page 23 --- 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4010 Granted, in part for 10 years OWNER: Southern California Edison Company, 100 North Long Beach Blvd., #1004, Long Beach, CA 90802 (To expire 5-11-08) AGENT: CGA Associates, Attn: Gavin Berry, 1525 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 1505 South State College Boulevard. Property is 10 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and State College Boulevard. To construct a 91,310 square foot self storage facility with waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping (deleted). Continued from the Commission meetings of March 30, and April 27, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO, PC98-78 .DOC FOLLOWINGiIS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION /~tCTION..,- Applicant's Testimony: Carl Beckmann, president of Everest Storage (applicant): Stated they sought a continuance after the last meeting. Since that time they have been reviewing their project as it was originally proposed and redesigning it in response to some of the comments made at the original hearing. They have redesigned the site plan and resubmitted it with some improvements that they feels make it more attract and hope that the conditional use permit will be approved. They eliminated 4 to 4'h acres in the rear of the property which meant they were able to control the site from a visual standpoint. They now have a smaller land area, fewer units, increased the screening of the site. There are 8 foot block walls which run around the front half of the property. The block wall will have vines on them. In front of the block walls will be landscaping of various depths. On the Cerritos Avenue side there will be 12 feet of landscaping including trees. They have staggered the trees and provided pockets :inside the block wall for some trees to sit to allow for the possibility should Cerritos be widened under theJ'critical intersection plans" that a portion of the trees will remain there and at that time they should be fully mature trees. Their understanding is that Cerritos will not be widened for about the next 5 to 10 years. They will be providing additional interior landscaping along with a block wall at the end of each of the buildings which will match the exterior block wall to provide further screening inside of the site. They will be installing landscaping in the future 12 foot widening on State College Boulevard. There are two widenings that are going to take place on State College, the initial one is 7 feet which will take place now and should the critical intersection widening take place it will be an additional 12 feet.. So they are providing landscaping in the future 12 foot widening area which gives them a total landscaping in the front of 62 feet. There will be some relief to that landscaping in terms of either berming or plant height and that is something that they will work with staff on. Basically the revision has allowed them to completely hide the interior of the site from any outside view. The containers they are using for storage are over 8 feet tall. The walls and fencing (with PVC slats) and vines are 8 feet tall. OS-11-98 Page 24 The land is such that it drops from State College to the west. The rear is 5 or 6 feet lower than the State College frontage. At the first container west from State College the line of site is such that it will be 15 above the surface level or about 7 to 8 feet above the top of the containers which means the containers will not be seen from any exterior location. The first interior container will be about 300 feet from State College Boulevard. Again, the landscaping at the ends of each of the containers will screen the view. They feel this site meets the standards that the City Council and the Commission have regarding self storage facilities. The property is in an industrial zone (zoned ML). It is an irregular shape which is not suitable for any other industrial uses. The site for over 40 years has been used for the distribution of electricity and he did not see that use changing nor does the Southern California Edison Company see that use changing. Therefore the site for other industrial uses is virtually nil and merits Commission's approval. They agreed with all the conditions except for Condition No. 1 which recommends an expiration of the conditional use permit to 5 years from the date of the resolution. They are putting in 30 million dollars into the project and have a 30 year lease with the Edison Company with a 10 year option and to ask their investors to put up 2 million dollars for a project that could expire after 5 years is unreasonable. If the concern of staff and the Commission is the maintenance of this project then they are very willing to work out some kind of provision for a maintenance reviews. They are requesting that Condition No. 1 be deleted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Stated one of the areas of concern are the tree plantings along Cerritos. He realized the plans were revised from what they were originally but there still is the area from where the actual containers start back to where the fence line for the other property starts. It was suggested at the morning session that if the fence is set on the ultimate setback instead of where it is proposed now, move the row of containers in about 5 feet and then put the planting of some trees along that area would then buffer the whole area from view. Commissioner Henninger: Explained that Commission is asking the applicant to take the whole north facing wall and move back 5 feet so they can plant trees in front of it. If it leaves too narrow a drive aisle perhaps the containers adjacent to the wall could be extended off the west slightly. Carl Beckmann: Stated there are two factors that make that difficult to do. One would be the requirement that they have with the Edison Company that they stay 100 feet away from the front of any of their towers. .Most of that area in front of the containers falls in that 100 feet. There currently is a tower very close to the northerly wall along Cerritos Avenue and he thought it was approximately 50 feet of less. +le could certainly check with the Edison Company on this. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the other option would be to put along the edge 4 to 5 10X10 planter areas, an inset. Garl Beckmann: Asked if he meant to increase the size of the planters? Commissioner Henninger: Also increasing the number of them. Carl Beckmann: He can certainly look into that however the Edison Company is reluctant to :put anything along there, particularly trees. They have a height problem with the trees. 15 feet is as height as the Edison Company will let them go on any tree. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if he meant inside the 100 foot radius? OS-11-98 Page 25 Carl Beckmann: Anywhere under or near their lines because they are fearful of any possible fires. He is willing to discuss any alternatives with the Edison Company that the Commission has. Commissioner Henninger: The Edison Company is the company that decided that they wanted to do something a little more intense with their right-of-ways in the face of deregulation. In the past they would not have considered this type of proposal but perhaps they will come to a similar change of heart regarding the landscaping. If the Edison Company is going to do this then they are going to need to understand that people are going to ask for landscaping. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff meet with Mr. Beckman and his staff last Tuesday and at that time crafted Condition Nos. 4 and 22 which has to do with moving the masonry wall back 10 feet once the critical intersection is constructed. It seems it would be more cost efficient to place the tilock wall that is proposed along Cerritos, 10 feet back from the ultimate right-of-way instead of the location where is shown on the plans with just the little pop outs. It is even more convincing after hearing this discussion that there may be the possibility that it can not be placed 10 feet back. So it is important that it be shown on plans, they review the requirements of the Edison Company to see where the fence can be placed and how much landscaping would there be in front of it. This item could either be done as a continuance or as a Reports and Recommendation item but they do have to review Edison's requirements are. It may be that not all the fence can be setback 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way but they would like to see a major portion of it setback so that they can get the code required of 10 feet of landscaping adjacent to Cerritos. Chairman Bostwick: His experience is that an 8 foot wall does not move easily and very expensive due to the footings required so they would want to do it once and not have it moved again. Carl Beckmann: Stated he would be in agreement to take it as a condition and work it out with the Edison Company. Commissioner Henninger: He was concerned that if they approve it this way then it gives the impression that this is something they are comfortable with and he felt they would like something better than this. Asked how many feet along the block wall including the "no mans" land. Cheryl Flores: Respondeded about 378 feet. Carl Beckmann: Yes, he agreed. The block wall goes about the first 25% percent of the contains. The only part they are talking about where the setback is concerned is probably the first 200 feet, because it "dog legs" in their. Cheryl Flores: Actually, they are talking about two different issues. She thought the Commission was looking at possibly getting 5 feet back from the triangle portion and staff is looking at getting 10 feet back from portion that is adjacent to Cerritos. - - Commissioner Henninger: He would be more comfortable if they applicant had 5 10X10 planting inserts along the wall evenly spaced. That would be one tree approximately every 75 feet, along the 278 feet at a minimum. Carl :Beckmann: He did not have a problem with that. During the action: Commissioner Henninger: Recommended changing Condition No. 1 to 10 years. Added a condition that along the 278 feet (including the frontage of Cerritos and the frontage along the "no mans" land) that there be a minimum of 5 10X10 planting inserts. That the applicant work with Edison in an attempt to get the whole wall 10 feet back but at a minimum that the applicant have those planters. 05-11-g8 Page 26 Cheryl Flores: That would involve modifying Condition No. 4 and a portion of Condition No. 22 to reflect the changes. Commissioner Henninger: Requested that the applicant return the final configuration of the landscape along that area as a Reports and Recommendation item. Cheryl Flores: Recommended that prior to commencement of the activity (before they open up for business) that a staff inspection would be done to ensure the screening of the units by landscaping and fences has been completed as conditioned. On Condition No, 25 staff would like to recommend deletion of number 18, it is already shown in Condition No. 26. Also delete number 23 from Condition No. 25 because that condition timing should be in Condition No. 26, prior to building and zoning inspections. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the requested waiver was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4010 with the following changes to conditions: Condition No. 22 was deleted. Modified Condition Nos. 1, 4, 25 and 26 to read as follows: 1. That this approval shall expire ten (10) years from the date of this resolution, on May 11, 2008. Any extensions of time to reinstate this use shall be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.093. 4. (a) That plans shall indicate the continuation of the masonry block wall facing State College Boulevard along the south property lineup to the first storage unit and along the north property line a distance of approximately two hundred seventy eight (278) feet as shown on Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1; (b) That plans showing a minimum of five (5) 10 x 10 feet landscaped tree wells on the outside of the wall along the north property line shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item; (c) That an Administrative Adjustment shall be processed to allow the wall to be constructed at a height of eight (8) feet. If the Administrative Adjustment is denied, the fence shall be set back according to Code, a distance of fifty (50) feet from the ultimate right-of-way along Cerritos Avenue; and (d) That clinging vines shall be planted a maximum of three (3) feet apart along the exterior of all fences and walls visible to public right-of-way.. 05-11-98 Page 27 25. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, or prior to the commencement of the activity, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22, 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. 26. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 18, 23, and 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following conditions: That prior to occupancy, the owner of this property shall request an inspection of the property to make sure that all storage units are adequately screened from any public street with appropriate landscaping and/or fences. If the inspection determines the said condition has not been complied with, then additional screening shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:21-3:50) 05-11-98 Page 28 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) """"""G" "' 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3818 (READVERTISED) May 27, 1998 OWNER: Solid Rock Four Square Church, Attn: Rev. Glen Merriman, 101 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 101 East Orangethorpe Avenue -Solid Rock Four Square Church of Anaheim. Property is 2.5 acres located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, 310 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street. To permit apre-school for up to 75 children in conjunction with a previously- approved 13,560 square foot church in the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~,~~-i `~„~.,~~~ ;- FOLLOWING IS;A SUMMARY,~OF THE PLANNING`COMMISSION-/ACTION.,.,, ; ,,;'° ,,,,~~„ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 27, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide plans for the parking lot reconfiguration. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-11-98 Page 29 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) '"N~11°G" 9c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 'Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3571 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement for 5 OWNER: PacBell, Attn: John Bitterly, 1111 Town and Country Years Road, Suite 37, Orange, CA 92668 (To expire 3-2-03) INITIATED BY: Ciry of Anaheim, Community Services Department, Attn: Jack Kudron, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., 433, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1527 East Broadway - a landlocked portion of Lincoln Park. Property is 0.08 acre located on the north side of Broadway, 520 feet north of the centerline of Broadway. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a 75-foot high cellular telephone tower and a 360 square foot unmanned equipment building with waiver of required setback abutting a residential zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-79 SR7114TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARYOF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. , Applicant's Statement: John Bitterly, project representative for AirTouch Cellular site: Stated in 1993 the City of Anaheim agreed to a 15 year lease on this facility with two five year possible extensions. Also at that time they were granted a CUP for the facility but were only granted the CUP for 5 years. The reason for that was to review at that time to see if technology had changed in anyway to somehow modify this facility. The technology has not changed at this time but it does look like within the next 5 to 10 years it could happen because it is a rapidly changing industry. The Ciry is the landlord and they have 10 years left on this lease. At this time they are requesting an extension of this CUP to fall in line with what their lease is with the City, at least a minimum of 5 more years. That way at that time they can return and see if any other modifications could be made to this facility. They are not requesting any modifications to the facility at this time. There have been no problems with their facility and a letter from the Parks and Recreation Department stated that they are not opposed to extending their CUP. - - Regarding staffs recommendations on page 4 19(b), they request that it be for a period of 5 years,-not 2 years, to March 2, 2003. Rosanne Clark, 1430 East Lincoln Avenue, Apt. 8, Anaheim, CA: She is in the apartment complex directly behind the tower. She can see her tower from her dining room and her son's bedroom and feels it is ugly. She would like to see the tower removed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. During the action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Requested a modification to the wording on the proposed conditions that on Condition No. 10 where it indicates extensions of time that it be replaced with the word "reinstatement' to be consistent with the Code. 05-11-98 Page 30 Commissioner Henninger: Recommended reinstating Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 for a period of 5 years. :Following the action: Chairman Bostwick: Responded to Ms. Clark's testimony by indicating that they would also like to get rid of it also and they have asked the applicant to look at other sites in the area. Hopefully as the technology changes and the applicant gets completely in PCS they will find it not necessary to have a tower as high and they can use a building somewhere close by that will better serve. Staff is working with them on that. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition ACTION: Determined 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. 3571 for a period of 5 years. Amended Condition No. 10 of City Council Resolution No. 93R-39, as follows, based on the finding that the conditions under which Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 was approved still exist and further, that the conditional use permit is being exercised in compliance with the conditions of approval: 10. That this permit shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years until March 2, 2003; provided; however that reinstatement may be granted by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing and following a written request by the petitioner. In connection with the request, the petitioner shall submit information about improved technology regarding the cellular telephone tower and attached equipment (i.e., appearance, size, etc.). The Planning Commission may, in connection with approving a reinstatement, require that subject cellular telephone tower and/or the attached equipment be modified and/or replaced if the visual and/or other impacts of the tower can be reduced or otherwise improved. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to, or review by, the City Council in the manner set forth in Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Added the following condition to City Council Resolution No. 93R-39: "12. That, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the existing monopole shall be repainted gray in color to better blend with the environment " VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:51-3:57 05-11-98 Page 31 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3830 (READVERTISED) 7-6-98 OWNER: Dennis and Edith Berger, 1120 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1130 West Lincoin Avenue and 1203 West Center Street- Ace Fixtures Comoany, Property is 0.22 acre, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 505 feet east of the centerline of Villa Place. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain outdoor storage of materials for an existing retail restaurant supply store. Continued from the Commission meetings of :February 18, March 16, March 30, and April 13, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR71 DLLOWING iIS ~4 SUMMARYOF THE PLANNING'COMMISSION C.CTt(', Applicant's Statement Phillip Schwartze, representing the owner: Stated he had the following comments and questions on the conditions. Caltrans took the front of the property and they still have it in custody and will hopefully .relinquish some portion of the right-of-way along Lincoln to them sometime in the next year or two. Since the last meeting, after meeting with Alfred Yalda, they both concluded that they were both correct. Caltrans does know the right-of-way line but they are not giving the right-of-way back to them in the near future. Hopefully within the next year or two Caltrans will relinquish the right-of-way so they can go back and re-establish their fence line. It is Caltran's responsibility to re-install the landscaping, vines, etc. Per Commission's requirements the applicant installed landscaping and vines along Center Street, so that portion of their conditioning is approved. They sent a letter to Traffic Engineering regarding the loading and unloading zone, much of which they have no control over. Most of the trucks there are UPS, Bobtails, but he believed that some of the trucks may go beyond the size limitation but they can not control the size of trucks that show up. Regarding the monthly inspections, they have done that for the last several years and had no complaints. Therefore they request a reduction of the number of inspections because it is an expense to the business which they would like to reduce. Richard Palm; He awns the property directly west of Ace Fixtures. He has been dealing with Caltrans for two years and had with him about 7 inches of correspondence. Half of it pertains to blight, traffic conditions and conditions that are almost "third world". He has lived in the neighborhood for most of his life and knows the area very well. His observations living next to Ace Fixtures for 10 years is that he sees a lot of activity. He sees good housekeeping, people that wash and sweep their streets.. It is an old area but he feels they do an exemplary job. He sees new landscaping and recycling of materials. He referred to a report from Linda Eaves, from Code Enforcement. He is an environmentalist and he works with Ace Fixtures who sets boxes next to his property and drop them over the fence so they can save money and save the environment. OS-11-98 Page 32 On the other side he sees less traffic. Caltrans has cut off Center Street which has reduced the traffic by 35 cars per hour. He does not see a traffic problem but he sees an improvement in traffic that has costed him about $25,000 in income. He sees blight, dangerous traffic, toxic materials. (He submitted some photographs.) He felt if there is time to go out to a business for a torn tarp, landscaping not quite to up-to- date. Caltrans took 20 feet of his property on Lincoln Avenue. That portion was meticulously landscaped, watered and he was very proud of the property. He had spent over $10,000 in improvements this year. Yet to try to get anything done he goes to his Traffic Engineering, Code Enforcement, Streets and Sanitation, Caltrans Management, OCTA Management and he gets nothing done. The only way he gets anything done is to send letters to Pete Wilson's office. He believes what is being done to Ace Fixtures is discriminatory and is absolutely uncalled for. His property is currently trashed and a disaster but what can Mr. Berger (owner of Ace Fixtures) and himself do? They have waited for two years for Caltrans. He concluded by saying that the entire proceeding is discriminatory and a waste of time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: One of the findings that needs to be made is that the CUP has been operated in conformance with all the conditions.- One of the conditions is that the loading and unloading will take place on-site, unless there is an approval of a curb loading which has not been approved. He thought they need to work with the applicant to see what can be done about getting some loading and unloading on-site and asked Mr. Schwartze if that is something they can do? Phillip Schwartze: The original purpose of the conditional use permit was regarding the outdoor storage. There was some discussion whether the outdoor storage was "grandfathered". Ultimately it was determined that they would seek for an approval of a conditional use permit for the coverage of the outdoor storage. The loading and unloading going on there has been going on for many years on a continual basis without much difficulty. They do not have control over the circulation of the trucks in that they do not have any right-of-way onto Lincoln. They have control over the access onto Center Street. Most of the items come from UPS and Bobtails which they literally drive up to the door and drop off and depart. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if this is a forklift owned by the applicant? Phillip Schwartze: Yes. Commissioner Henninger: So they have control whether it leaves the property and goes onto Center Street to unload a truck. Phillip Schwartze: Yes. That is the same forklift that they have been operating for years. They do not have any gontrol over the circulation through Lincoln and do not know whether they are going to have control over it at the relinquishment from Caltrans. Commissioner Henninger: The problem is in order to extend the CUP they have to find that the site has been operating in conformance with the conditions which it has clearly not. They are left with two choices. To deny the CUP or to try to work with the applicant to try to get the property in conformance with conditions and then extend it. Phillip Schwartze: The business will need to continue with the loading and unloading along Center Street. Recognizing that the original purpose of the CUP was simply for the screening of the outdoor storage. That is what they had been work at. The other portion of the business, the half of the property where the building is itself is not directly relating to this CUP. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Schwartz if he was stating that the loading and unloading on Center Street is not related to the CUP? 05-11-98 Page 33 Phillip Schwartze: No. When they received the original CUP approved a couple of years ago it was regarding half of the outdoor storage and screening that was the entire segment of the CUP. That was all that they were dealing with. It was dealt with screening that from the neighborhood even though the neighbors are zoned commercial. Chairman Bostwick: The actual CUP is for outdoor storage and they required that it be screened and if they do not reinstate the CUP then the outdoor storage needed to be removed. Phillip Schwartze: If Commission wishes not to approve it then that is what would occur. They did screen it which the Commission approved. At the first meeting it was both his understanding as well as staff that there were no complaints regarding the operation of the facility. There is actually a neighborhood dispute between Ms. Becker and the owner of Ace Fixtures. Chairman Bostwick: There are also a number of other neighbors concerned about the trucks unloading and the traffic. Some of that traffic has been cut due to the freeway closure but neighbors are still concerned with the traffic coming into a residential street and unloading. They would like to resolve the problems at this site and Commission is asking that the applicant come up with some possible solutions. Phillip Schwartze: The unloading has been going on for many years. Commissioner Henninger: That does not make it right. That is not a reasonable answer. Residential streets are not generally used as loading areas. It is not allowed. Commissioner Bristol: Asked whether the loading and unloading is imperative to the site on the westerly side? Phillip Schwartze: It is important for Mr. Berger's operation to have that portion of outdoor area. Commissioner Bristol: Every time he has been at the site he has seen loading and unloading a palette and 90% of the time a forklift. On page 4 under the Findings, how can they approve this when they know those findings are adversely affecting the land uses, etc. Phillip Schwartze: Yes, he understands the issue and he does not have a ready solution to it. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: For reinstatement the property does need to be in compliance with the original conditions of approval. Condition No. 11 has to do with loading and unloading as discussed but also there is no compliance for Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as noted in the memorandum from Code Enforcement dated May 7, 1998. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Alfred Yalda (from Traffic Engineering Division) to see if a location can be worked out for the applicant to have a curb unloading area. The alternative is that they are going to continue for a long time to come. They should comply with Condition Nos. 2 and 3 regarding storage, height, and extending the wall - -- Chairman Bostwick: if the fence is extended higher, then they are going to stack it higher. They need to comply with the CUP so that outdoor storage shall not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing. That is the reasoning for Code Enforcement to inspect the property to ensure they do not stack higher than the fence. Jim Atry, 1133 West Center Street, Anaheim, CA: He lives directly behind Ace Fixtures. He came before Commission with this problem on March 30, 1998. Center Street is 50 feet wide, all the other neighborhood streets are 40 foot wide. The street could be striped in order to park the cars diagonally since there is room to do this. All the applicant has to do is move his will-call door to the west side of the building. He can pull his truck through his yard and he can load and unload into his building. Mr. Berger also owns the liquor store which is another major problem in the neighborhood. By eliminating the driveway at the back of the liquor store the traffic problem is eliminated because people have found that 05-11-98 Page 34 they can cut through the liquor store parking lot, run up Center Street and bypass the light at Lincoln. He would like to see the whole street as a "dead-end" so they have to go all the way back to Walnut to get out, He felt his solution is a low cost solution and solves the problems. There should be a sound wall around Sheri Becker's house. Raising the chain link fence two feet is not the solution. Another suggestion would be to offer Sheri the fair market value for her house and then the applicant can landscape back there with three feet. Phillip Schwartze: Indicated Mr. Berger is present should Commission like to speak to him about these issues. He reference a letter he sent to Commission suggesting that they could add an additional two feet on the area around Mrs. Becker's unit which they can do quickly. Their intent was that when the right-of- way is relinquished along Lincoln then they could get that area back in shape so it would look much better than it currently looks. Hopefully that will occur within the next two years. Mr. Steve Berger, Jr.: They having been running a business at that site far the past 35 years. It has never been their intent to bother any of the neighbors, to cause any undue harm or trouble in the area. They have made an effort to comply with the Commission. They would be willing to raise the fence, if necessary, in order to resolve that problem. They have asked the trucks to please pull in but they do not want to. So they have notified the Police if there is a problem with a truck then they can give the truck driver a ticket. They have applied for a loading zone, as noted in the staff report. They are open to suggestions and are not here to cause trouble. Yes there are some homes up for sale but not because of them. There are many other issue such as abuse, prayer sessions that are illegal in some of the homes but they do not complain about that. There is plenty of parking for their employees in that parking lot along the public street of Lincoln and along Center Street. Caltrans took over the majority of Lincoln so there is a slight parking problem. They did the landscaping in compliance. The City has taken it over but has not watered it. There is a trash around the trees and they haven't gardened it. It makes their property look bad. They are open for suggestions. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Berger how would he resolve the issue of loading and unloading illegally? Commission had the same conversation 2 or 3 years ago. Mr. Berger: Prior to Caltrans taking over there used to be a furniture store next door that had shipments of furniture coming daily for 50 years. There are stores all over Anaheim and other cities all over the country that receive deliveries. When they originally started there were driveways on Lincoln Avenue, it was the City that asked them to have their shipments shifted to Center Street approximately 25 years ago because of the traffic on Lincoln. Therefore incompliance with the Ciry they shifted everything to the other side, now Commission is asking them for a solution. They can ask the delivery trucks to use the westerly lot but they chose not to and when they take things off with a forklift most of the merchandise gets shifted to another warehouse off-site. He thought they can come to a resolution. - Commissioner Bristol: He did not agree because they had this conversation 2'h to 3 years ago. Asked Mr. Berger if he just stated that he could have them move in and unload on the westerly side of their property? Mr. Berger: It is open and the trucks do not choose to back in. Commissioner Bristol: Isn't the lot rather full? Mr. Berger: The trash bin is there and there are four parking spaces available as the City had requested in the past; there is equipment. That is not the reason the truck can not back in; there is room for a truck. Commissioner Bristol: From March 1996 the loading and unloading of delivery shall take place on-site unless the applicant obtains approval from the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. From the 05-11-98 Page 35 continuance to today if when the applicant applied for approval. Is that correct? He is suppose to vote on something that is legal but this is not legal. How do you make this legal so he can vote on it? Phillip Schwartze: They can not guarantee with regards to the recommendations that Alfred Yalda established of vehicles over 10,000 pounds. He is sure from time to time that there will be a vehicle there over 10,000 pounds and what has been indicated to him is if a vehicle like that shows up then they strike the loading zone. If they have a loading zone, they can clearly go ahead and use it. If a car parks there, obviously the truck would come on the outside away from the curb to load and unload. It is clearly just a loading zone. He recommend that Commission try a loading zone in that area. Commissioner Henninger: He asked Alfred Yalda to look into this and come up with a loading zone. Then they asked them on Condition Nos. 3 and 4 regarding storage that they bring that into compliance. If they have refrigerators that are too tall perhaps the solution is to raise the fence height and on the other to lower the height of the stacking. Mr. Berger: They are happy to do that and are willing to implement the loading zone. Commissioner Henninger: If those things were accomplished then they could find reasonably that they were in compliance with these conditions. The item would need to be continued to accomplish these suggestions. Alfred Yalda: He asked the applicant if the forklift is a registered vehicle that has transportation permit and could be driven on a public street? Phillip Schwartze: No. Alfred Yalda: Therefore they can not use a forklift to go on a public street to load and unload. Loading and unloading purposes is meant, for example, a UPS truck that an individual loads and unloads whereas a forklift is not permitted to be on a public street. Caltrans does not recognize it as a vehicle, nor does the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, they can not be operating on a public street, it is not safe. If they are currently doing that, then it is illegal. That is why they are recommending loading and unloading on-site because they are using a forklift. Forklifts should only be used on private property not public streets. Commissioner Henninger: They need a loading zone and therefore we are asking Alfred Yalda to work with them in finding a loading zone for that purpose. Alfred Yalda: They have no problem granting them a loading zone but the use of a forklift is not legal. Commissioner Henninger: Advised the applicant that they need to work with Traffic Engineering (Alfred Yalda) abyut getting a loading zone. - Commissioner Bristol: Asked Alfred Yalda whether UPS trucks are typically under 10,000 pounds? Alfred Yalda: Yes, generally. Commissioner Bristol: Is it safe to say that that size of trucks would typically not need a forklift? Alfred Yalda: That is correct. Commissioner Bristol: Anything above that would typically use a forklift. Alfred Yalda: Depending on the use. Perhaps they could direct that question to the applicant. Generally they would grant a loading and unload zone but if they use a forklift not only is it unsafe but it is unlicensed. 05-11-g6 Page 36 Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Berger if he understood their concern? Mr. Berger: He understood perfectly. He suggested meeting with Mr. Yalda, Mr. Schwartze and himself at the premises to come up with a suitable solution so they can continue running their business. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion fora 60-day continuance to July 6, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Bristol. During that time, he would like the applicant to obtain a loading zone permit from Traffic Engineering and request that the applicant come into compliance with Condition Nos. 2 and 3. That means that parts of the fence needs to be extended upwards. Cheryl Flores: Regarding the May 7, 1998 memo from Linda Eaves from Code Enforcement, it points out that there is non-compliance for Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 11 and 17 which would need to be achieved to consider reinstatement. Commissioner Peraza: If the forklift is operating in the street then can the Police Officers cite the owners of the forklift? Alfred Yalda: He was not certain how the Police Department operates but generally if they are operating it and if it is not a licensed vehicle then they should be cited. Commissioner Peraza: He recommended if the forklift is seen on the street then Code Enforcement should inform the Police Department so they can take property action. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Asked if the applicant would stipulate a waiver of the "permanent streamlining act" as well? Phillip Schwartze: Mr. Berger is not very familiar with the permanent streamlining act, but he is, and yes is their answer. Chairman Bostwick: Motion carried IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposal OPPOSITION: 1 person present and gave his opinion of a passible solution. ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 6, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with the Traffic and Transportation Division of the Public Works Department to obtain approval of a loading zone and for the property owner to _ comply with Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 11, and 17 of Resolution No: PC96-28: VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME; 42 minutes (3:58-4:40) OS-11-98 Page 37 ADJOURNED THE BAEETING AT 4:40 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, BRAY 27, 1998 AT 11:00 A.Bfl. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Submitted by; ~~e Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist 05-11-98 Page 38