The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1998/12/07SUMMARY ACTI0~1 AGEND~~ CITY OF' ~NA~lEIM PLANNING COMMISSit~~! MEETING ~IONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSIOiV OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. ~ PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CCMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAPOLES, WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Judy Kwok Linda Johnson Kim Taylor Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Tom Engle Msrgarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Associate Planner Senior Planner Assistant Planner Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transpo~tation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Vice Detail Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 12-07-98 Page 1 I r ~ _ , ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION lNITIATION OF Initiated Applications APPLICATION~ FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 359, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC (Vote: 7-0) PLAN NO. 92-1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 (PROPOSED POINTE* ANAHEIM PROJECTI: Robert H. Shelton, Anaheim Center for Eniertainment, LLC, 30 Via Lucca #F-102, irvine CA 92612, requests Planning Commission initiation of applications for General Plan Amendment No. 359, Amendment to No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 for 22.19-acres of the approximate 29-acre Pointe• Anaheim project area. Property is generally located east of Harbor Boulevard, s~uth of Freedman Way (future Disney Way), west of Clementine Street (future Freedman Way) and north of Katella Avenue. INITIAT10~1 RESOLUTION t~0. PC98-192 D0106LJ.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: This is a request for the Planning Commission to initiate the applications for General Plan Amendment No. 359, P~mendment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 for 22.19 acres of the proposed 29 acre Pointe'Anaheim Project Area. The petitioner submitted a letter, which was pruvided as part of the staff report. In that letter tF~e applicant indicates that he believes that wri;ten confirmation from the properry owners to proceed with the applications will be forthcoming. However, he is requesting that the Planning Commission initiate the applications at this time in order that the project may be advertised for a Planning Commission consideration for an upcoming meeting. 7he January 20,1999 meeting is the meeting that has b~en targeted. Staff supports this request. 12-07-98 Page 2 B. REQUEST FOR DETERMINAi'ION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN: John D. Pavlik, Chief of Right-of-Way Processing, County of Orange, Pubiic Facilities 8~ Resources Department, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ma, CA 92702, requests for determination of conformance with the Maheim General Plan far a proposed quitclaim and relocation of an existing storm drain easement. Property is located at a portion of the West Anaheim Storm Drain located south of Uncoln Avenue, north of Broadway, east of Loa~a Street and west of Manchester Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Gity Planning Commission does hereby d~termine that the County's proposal to quitclaim and relocate a portion of the West Anaheim S~orm Drain Easement (Facility No. B01 P01) is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Detem~sined to be in substantial conformance SR1 Kim Taylor, Assistant Planner: This is a request from the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for proposed quitciaim and relocation of an existing starm drain easement. This is a portion of Yhe West Anaheim storm drain easement located south of Lincoln Avenue, north of Broadway, east of Loara Street and west of Manchester Avenue. The County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department recently discovered that Storm Drain Easement was not within its proper right-of-way. The Orange County Flood Control District proposes to quitclaim a portion of the existing aasement to the prope~ty owner in exchange for a new easement in the proper location. The property is currently developed as a construction supply yard and is ML (Limited Industrial) Zone. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by motion, make a finding that the County's proposal to quitclaim or relocete a portior; of the West Anaheim Storm Drain Easement is in c~nformance with the Anaheim General Plan. 12-07-98 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) I Continued to 2b. CONDlTIONAL USE PERNiIT N0. 3269 (READVERTISED) 12-2i-98 OWNER: Kyu-Ho Yun and Young S., 9982 Bixby Circle, Villa Park, CA 92861-4107 LOCATION: 501-509 South Brookhurst Street -The Ritr. Property is 1.92 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaini~g to hours of operation at an existing publ~c dance hall with sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption located within an existing commercial center. Continued from the Commission meetings of October 26, and November 23, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. • • ~ • • • Chairman Bristol: Stated for the record, there were two more letters this morning in opposi'tion (Mr. & Mrs. Snelling, Dimple Smick, and Mr. Paul Kiigore). Applicant's Statem~nt: Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804: Stated he is present representing the applicant. They have supplied the City staff with a report on the noise impact by Gordon Bricken and Associates, acoustical engineer certified for this type of work. Mr. Bricken is present to answer any questions. Staff mentioned that they would like to have an acoustical study done on a Saturday. The AppiicanYs have been good neiphbors and have been in operation since 1983. They have been forced to ask far more days due to the economics, competition and requests by some organizations that would like to use their facility occasionally during the week. They employ 30 people including 6 securit,~ guards. They wiil now have one security guard in the back where their parking takes place. For the past 15 years they have worked with the City and have maintain the facility with no Code Enforcement or Police prob~ems. They cater to a high clientele of people. They are able to control their own problems with their security, which will help keep the loiiering out of the area. They have already repaired the trash bins. The key element is that the acoustical engineer, Gordon Bricken, mentioned that they are below the decibel level according the City's code. Chairman Bristol: Asked how many peopie in the audience, by a show of hands, were present to speak on this item7 (There were approximately 15 people who raised their hands.] In Favor: J. Teliman Williams, he owns the property south of subject property at 517 S. Brookhurst. He was present to speak in favor of this project. For about a year an~ a half he thought subject property was vacant until it came before the Planning Commi~sion. He did not realize they were limited to three days a week. He has 12-07-98 Page 4 had no problems. His office is open full time at least 5 days a week, Monday through Friday and on weekends they are in and out of their office. He would like to see this business open 7~ays a week. It would help the neighbors in the surrounding commercial district. Dr. Paul KilgorE, he lives immediately west of subject property. He took the time on Friday and Saturday night to do his own investigation during their operating hours. He drove around the building several times those e~~enings. When he had his car windows open it was very difficult to hear any noise coming from inside the buiiding. He has lived there 35 years, directly connected to the commercia~ property. He felt that this particular business is probably the least objectionable type of b~siness there can be there. They do not generate much noise. He would like to see more businesses like this. Judy Kwok, Associate Planner: Stated ~or the record, there has been an additional letter and a telephone message in opposition. Opposition: Marvin Mash, 9862 Teresa Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804: His property is located at the cul-de-sac immediatel/ behind The Ritz. Originally when The Ritz was approved tnere was a largs objection to it and they were told it would only be on Friday and Saturday nights. Now they are requesting 7 nights a week. He is opposed to having them open more nights a week than they already are approved for. They do have good sound insulation in there when the doors are closed, but when people are walking in and out of the doors there is a noise problem. When it closes at 2:30 a.m. there are a lot oF people that go out the back and front door to the parking lot, slam doors a~d talk. On behalf of himself and several of his neighbors they strongly oppose tnis request. Ken Bell, 517 Archer, Anaheim, CA 92804: He has lived in this area for over 40 years and he has seen the City now starting to control the problems at that strip. He goes to the coffee shop across the street every morning at 5:00 a.m. and there is spill over at 5:00 a.m. He felt that being open only three days a week would be sufficient especially due to the traffic and congestion that they already have. F;e is opposed to this request. Tamara Martin, 421 Archer Street, Anaheim, CA: This is basically an adults only area in this shopping strip. What begins at Lincoln and ends b~•low Ball Road is a one-mile strip and there are over 30 establishments that sell or serve alcohol. Between Broadway and Orange on weekends only there is a constant movement of cars, people, horns, syuealing, sirens, yelling, lau~lting, music from cars, and many neon lights. On the weekends the parking lots are fu!I in front, there are approximately 141 required spaces for all of the business, they are usually fully and noise triples on ;he weekends. She went over there three times and on Friday night she sat out there from 10:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. and could hear the music from across the street. The doors were c~osed, which is a rare occurrence, and she heard the music from outside of her car. There are from 1 to 3 security guards that stand outside of the door and check the customers before they go in. On the weekend there were 10"6 cars in front. There were over 60 cars in back. During the week there were 32 cars in front and none in back. It is quieter during the week than it is during the weekends. . In 1994 Mayor Daly went to a Mayor's Conference. The purpose was to discuss oroblems in the cities. He used the Brookhurs: strip as an example of blight and what could be done. One of the solutions is to get the neighborhoods involved in cleaning this up. There are less alcoholic related businesses currently than there were three years ago. There is a video fantasy store that is open all the time. The Ritz is a very large dance hall. It holds between 400 to 500 people. The cars come with groups of four to six people, same in singles. There is a constant motion of moveme~~t through the parking lot and through the street. They are asking far no more expansion of The Ritr. It started as a coffee shop, sandwich shop, went to beer and wine, and it expanded. They really do not trust The Ritz because they have not lived up to their word in terms of what they promised. It is running down their area. Even though this is one of the belter-looking estahlishments, they do not want it 12-07-98 Page 5 expanded. She referenced newspaper articies she had collected thaf reported on the blight in this area and The Ritz is featured in those articles. Chairman Bristol: Asked Ms. Martin where exactiy was she whan she was outside there? Ms. Martin: Responded that sha was parked across Brookhurst Street in the parking lot. As she mentioned before, one day (possibly a Tuesday) they had their business open during the daytime and the door was open, It sounded like a boom box in a car from behind her. She went over to The Ritz to ga talk to them. The door was open and they could not speak inside so they went outside to speak. The sound travels from the west to the east. She was in the parking lot by the Fantasy Video and then moved into two more locations and could hear it at all three locations. ?ina Brock, 9321 Thistle Road, Anaheim, CA: She is strongly against the approval of allowing The Ritz to operate their business for more days than they have been permitted in the past. She is disturbed by the alcohoi-related businesses that have been allowed on Brookhurst and side street near where they all live. They cari not even feel safe walking around the block at night because of the types of people these businesses attract. If The Ritz is allowed to operate 6 days a week, the families of this community can look forward to more traffic, drunk drivers, more fights, more policemen sent on calls, devaluing of their property, break ins, prostitutes, trensients, etc. Drugs are also a part of the typicai dance club scene. She does not want this type of activity near her family. She sees you~g children out there after dark. They shop at the stores that surround "adult bars". Those places are a threat to their quality of life and their personal safety. As residents of Anaheim they send the wrong message to the youth and families by keeping these businesses in the City. She is embarrassed by the reputation the City has because of the lack of respect they have for their communities. It amazes her that they generally push for more police officers and complain about crime but allow businesses like The Ri:~ in their neighborhood and wonder why they have problems. Even if The Ritz can operate without a sound, she still does not want them operating near her home. She, as well as most of her neighbors, wants to see their neighborhood cleaned ~~p. If The Ritz is allowed to be open more days it will only move them backwards in the plan to improve the overall safety, cleanliness and family life. There has been a lot of time and money spent on improving the City. They need to do what is best for the community and residents of Anaheim. Mike Connery, 9881 Teresa, Anaheim, CA: (He submitted maps to the Commission.] The 6-foot wall is on the back of their property line and ac;jacent to The Ritz property line. The distance from the wall to the back of The Ritz is 135 feet. In the photos he designated the parking area as Lot A and Lot B. Lot A has enough room for 120 cars and Lot B for 60 cars. Last Friday night when it was raining there were not as many cars parked at The Ritz. At one point, on Saturday he counted about 60 cars. The noise coming from the vehicles throughout the night when he is trying to sleep, he can hear that. It rattles the windows in his bedroom wall. People will stand out in the parking 1ot and talk until closing time. It is a combination of the club noise, lhe vehicle traffic, and the talking that occurs at the lot that he is concerned about. Last Friday he did report that to the Police Department to let them know. In the past he was not aware he needed to call in and report it. Chariene Marsh, 9862 Teresa Avenue, Anaheim, CA: She has been a resident there for over 30 days. She has watched the neighborhood change through the years. The strip at Brookhurst has changed from fulfilling the needs of the families who live in the contiguous neighborhood in back and on the other sid2 of Brookhurst. She emphasized how close The Ritz is to the residents in the area. The commercial strip no longer contributes to the needs of the neighborhond. No amount of security can overcome the impact of this type of business on their neighborhood. She is concerned with the children in the neighbor and that type of element 'in their area. She requested that Commission seriousiy consider denying the request for the extension of hours. 12-07-98 Page 6 Colleen Stephenson, 406 S. Archer, Anaheim, CA: She is directly e~st of The Ritz. An additional problem that they have on Archer Street is due to the continua! traffic and backups on Brookh~rst. They are cutting through on Archer Street. Even the traffic that is not going to the establishment will cut through their street. Therefore, they have additional tra~c on their residential street due to this. She felt that if Mr. Williams is conducting business during the week, Monday throuc~h Friday, then he probably likes having the empty parking spaces during the day because it is not impacting his business but it is impacting the neighbors in the communit.y. She felt thPy do not need any objectionable establishments in their neighborhood. Judith Ann Gollette, 649 S. Roanne Street. Anaheim, CA: She was representi~~ WAND. They do not want The 'Ritz to expand their hours of operation. This is a commercial strip in moral and economic decay. The strip needs viable business owners to keep it alive. She suggested that The Ritz stay in Anaheim buz move to another more suitable location. Homes in that area are valued between $200,000 to $400,000 level. They want a stable neighborhood. lan White, 9871 E. Teresa, Anaheim, CA: He ~ives directly behind The Ritz. He is strongly opposed to the proposal of opening Monday through Thursday. This business is not compatible with residential living due to the noisy people in the parking lot, car doors slamming, e~gine noise, car alarms and music from the restaurant. Most of the noise that they are concerned about is in the earlier morning hours between 12:00 midnight and 2:00 a.m. He finds this as disturbing the peace and hopes Commission will recognize their concerns and take it in consideration. Judith Ann Gollette: The last time The Ritz was up for the expansion, they were fold that they were in violation of their ABC conditions because they were to have the doors closed at all times and they have that door open for long periods of time. The Commission asked them to explore the possibilities of building a second door but she has not heard anything today about the expansion or building of that s~cond door. Bernice Danker, 506 S. Archer, Anaheim, CA: They just moved into their home two or three weeks ago which cost them well over $200,000. The reason t~ey moved to Anaheim was not only because they both worked in Anaheim but aiso because they had heard that the City of Anaheim is trying to improve the City. When they heard the proposal that The Ritz wanted to increase their business hours they became very concerned because this is not what they realized was in keeping -vith the City of Anaheim. They are extremely opposed to this and request that Commission not extend their hours of operation. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Irv Pickler: A clarificaiion tf~at the hours of operation are from 9:00 p.m, until 1:30 a.m, and the security guards stay until 2:00 a.m. The owner along with The Ritz is wiiling to work with the residents. He felt it would be a plus for the neighborhood as well as The Ritz to f,ave the business open more hours because there would be security. The Police Department and Code Enforcement have not had repeated problems. This is a family operation that was operating 7 days a week and gave it up for the three nights. The applicant wants to be abie to compete more to stay in business. If restrictions could be imposed then the applicant would be willing to aceept them. Gordon Bricken, Acoustical Engineer, 1621 E.17'h Street, ;.ianta Ana, CA: They were hired by The Ritz to make a measurement of the existing conditions. They hav~~ previously done a study (in 19Q0) at this facility, basically at the same locations, which were behind the building, and across Brookhurst. The criteria that they had been presented with were whether the facility comply with the noise regulation with the City of Anaheim. The properties to the west of the parking lot are in the County of Orange. They also looked at wl ~ether or not the conditions that they measured complied with the regulations of the County of Orange. The County of Orange regulations are framed differently and in sorne ways are less restrictive and some ways more restrictive. On the day of the measurement they found that they were in compliance. They were told that there was a concern about the music and they pointed out in their report that the levels of the music emanating from inside the facility were actually below the ambient level from Brookhurst. So they could not directly 12-07-98 Page 7 measure a number but estimated it to be approximately 37 or 38 decibels, remembering that the City's regulation is 60 decibels. The music is well below what the City sets as a regulation. There was somo testimony today uf people that they could hear something going on. The City regulation does not prohibit a source from being audibls, it simpiy sets a number. The question of audibility is something they will have to siruggle with ~ecause it can be audible in this location down to levels as low as 25 decibels. When they did the measurements there was not a great deal of activity in the parking lot. The other point is that a parking lot is also used by other facilities. A restaurant next door, for example, proved to be the noisiest activity when they emptied their garbage at 11:30 p.m. There are mixed signals here. On the one hand, they measure them in compliance yet on other hand comments were made about audibility and other factors outside of their expertise that have to do with the quality of the life in the area. Commissioner Koos: The main issue he heard was the after hours activity in the parking lot itself for the residents that live directly behind it. If they had measured the sound at 2:00 a.m, it would nave perhaps been a different result than 11:30 p.m. Gordon Bricken: They were there from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. It may be the conditions that the neighbors are referring to are different as other times or on a special day other than the time they were there. Inside the facility the back door from the dance hall itself indicates that it is a fire door. While they were there visiting a couple of times during this period, there was a guard posted at the door preventing people from exiting. The other door to the rear is a kitchen door. They observed some kitchen personne~ come out of that door prior to the start of the music being played. Commissioner Kaos: At the last meeting this was a major concern of the residents that live behind The Ritz. He was hoping to see a study that showed the 2:00 a.m. levels vs. the 11:00 p.m. levels. Gordon Bricken: He can only respond to what their client asked lhem to do. If the appl~cant di;i n~~t request that they be there at 2:00 a.m. then they were not going to be there. The highest level recorded From any activity was the police helicopter. Other than that they recorded the trash being dumped by the restaurant and people parked up against the wal~. They even did a simulation of their own vehicle right next to the w~all to see what type of reading they would receive. The way the ordinance is written which is what they were addressing is that it is simply a single event of 60 decibels. Chairman Bristol: Asked if anyone ope:ned the back door when he was there? Gordon Bricken: Not the fire dnor frorri i~ ~e dance hall. Any door that was ever apened was the kitcnen door and that was before they started the music performances. Chairman Bristol: At 140 feet, which is the back wall before they go to the neighbors to the west, he is stating nothing reached higher than 40 dec~be!s. Gordon Bricken: The music part of it and the cars nearby, there were no alarms activated. There was the alarm activated and none of those exceeded the 60 decibels on The Ritz side of the wall. If you would get on the other side you then would take into account the wall which would be somewhat of a reduction, another 5 decibels or so from the wall itself. Chairman Bristol: But he never had an opportuniry to hear the back door open with the music or all the activity when it closes. Gordon Bricken: It may happen but it is a fire door, it is not a normal exit and entry door. Commissioner Kaos: Asked Mr. Bricken to define noise. Gordon Bricken: Noise is unwanted sound. It is a generic kind of general subjective definition. Noise does not have any inherent perimeters associated with it except in so much as an ordinance may define 12-07-98 Page 8 noise to be a certafn number of certain sets of conditions. They refer to snund usually when they are talking about the emissions from s~urces tecause ~soise is a subjective interpretation of unwanted sound. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Pickier why the sound test was not ta;<en after hours when the major problem seems to be at that time? Inr Pickler: When he contacted Mr. Bricken he informed him that they were open Friday, Saturday and Sunday uut did not select a particular day and indicated they wanted a sound attenuation. He asked for emphasis on the noise inside r~ther than the outside and Mr. Bricken indicated that they do ~:~verything. If Commission would like another sound attenuation report then they would be happy to do that. They did not specifically indicate a day or time but just indicated that there was m~!~;c there and Mr. Bicken said he covered all aspects. Commissioner Boydstun: It is the late hours that are a concern to the residents. Asked if they have a bus that brings people in or picks people up after their perFormances at the end of the evening? Darin Nguyen: No, they do not have buses bring in and pick up people from this site. Carnmissioner Boydstun: Asked if their back lot is posted so that if an unauthorized vehicle is parked then they can have them towed away? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, they have a sign posted. . Irv Fickler: If Commission wouid like another sound attenuation report and the late hour is important then they are willing to request anofher report be conducted. Cemmissionsr Esping: He was concerned about ;umping all the problems such as prostitution, noise, etc. on Brookhurst into one umbrella under The Ritr which is unfair. Marvin Marsh: The sound coming from The ftitz was not measured ~~hen the doors were open. He wanted to know if they measure it when tfie kitchen doors were open and what the level was? He also wanied to know if a sample of car door slamming was taken from a 35-foot distance from the sound meter? What frequency range did they use? Applicant's Rebuttal: Irv Pickler: The Plguyen's have a security guard at the door. No one goes in or out of that door. If they want ta go out to the back they have to go through the front deo~. J.G. Johnson, 500 S. Archer, Anaheim, CA: He has lived there since 1964. It seems to him as he listens that the management of The Ritz is willing to assume a cer~ain responsibility for the noise that emanates fr~m their premises in certain hours. it is understandable that they would want to limit the responsibility for noise on certain hours, however, the community experiences noise in excess of those hours. In excess of the noise levels that were measured as per the request of the acoustical study. In the community they are unhappy with noise and what they see happening along their street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail-Police Department; He ran calls for service at this location from October 1,1998 to the present date and there were only four calis. Two of these were for suspicious vehicles and two were for disturbance of the peace, loud music and noise. If someone lives behind the location in the 9000 biock then they are in the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sheriff's Department since the Anaheim Police Department does not respond to calls in the County area. The Police DepartmenYs concerns are still the high crime in the area. The crime rate is still 219% above average. He mentioned a previous study that he did which covered January 3, 1998 through September 4,19~J8 at The Ritz and there were still oniy 17 entries on their police log regarding this location. At that time there 12-07-98 Page 9 were three disfurbance calls, 2 fight calis, three audibie alarms, a burglary report, suspicious circumstances ard a ma~ with a gun call. Commissioner Boshvick: He visited The Ritz on a Saturday night. He went to the back parking lot and sat for 10 minutes with tre windows down in his car. He drove to the front and parked, he then went inside. They had security guar~fs at the doors. It is not a straight entrance into it. There is an entryway where an admission is paid and then gu through another doorway into the dance hall. So t~~at noise can not ema~iate directly out through the fmnt door. The front door was open that night ~vith a security guard. He went inside, listened, watched and observed the crowd was middie-aged. He then left, went around to Teresa Street, in front of Mr. Connery's home and sat there for another 15 minutes with the windows down and listened. He went back on Orange, across over to the other side of Brookhurst, drove back by the wall and sat behind what was fcrmerly the Pink C-adiilac, sat and listened then got out walked down the wall, to listen to the noise and there was no noise. In all of ihose cases he did not hear noise. In all of those locations he did not hear musical noise emanating from The Ritz. The concerns that were brought up by the residents were more of activity in the Brookhurst area but those are not caused by The Ritz. He suggested perhaps extending a c~uple of extra days, from 9:00 ~.m. to 12:00 Midnight, might be agreeabie but not for 7 days a weeks. He also suggested valet parking in the b~ck of the property. Commissioner Esping: He also agreed. It would certainly limit the noise and traffic and people gathering and talking to have valet parking in tt~e back parking lot. Commissioner Koos: The reason he asked Mr. Bricken his definition of noise is that sound level is a component of noise. Tlie main thing is that it is unwanted. Noise in this case would be at 2:00 a.m. 60 cars slamming their doors even though each individual slamminy of a door would be within the code he would not want that happening if he was living across the wall as well. It is not just a measure of sound level. He would have wanted to have seen those sound levels prior ta the decis?on. Chairman Bristol: He agreed with Ms. Gcllette that this business is no longer appropriate for the site because it has been intensified. He suggested they might want to condition this for a year or so with the understanding that in the future the business may need to move into a more appropriate site. Commissioner Esping: He felt that a noise study at the critical times by the sound expert might be advantageous. Chair,man Bristol: Commission has spend a lot of tir~~ listening to residences concerns from west Anaheim and they d~ know what has happened on =rookhurst and they do not want it to revert back to what it was and want it to continued to get better. Commissioner Williams: Guggested a two-week continuance in order to get a sound study completed. Irv Pickier: If the owner can get two or three nights as suggested and go from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. with valet pzrking in the back then it is something the ap~licart would certainly consider. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: On Sunday, Nevember 15,1998 he did a sound reading at The Ritz from 10:15 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He took a reading against the west wall for 2-minute intervals, which was 54 decibels. He took a seco~id reading in the front parking lot of the establishment and the decibel levels were from 55 to 59 for 2-minutes. He turned around and faced Brookhurst itself and took another reading of the traffic or~ Brookhurst. This was from G5 to 68 decibels for 2-minutes. Chairman Bristol: He felt a continuance would probably be appropriate in order to get a sound study during the critical days and times of concern. Commissioner Esping: He felt the they need to address the concerns of the residents on Teresa and Archer that back up to the parking lot where the noise is at an hour that is late with t`~e slamming of the doors and the car alarms, etc. He did not feel the major r,omplaint is with the music and noise inside. It is more how it impacts the residents that are trying to sleep when the club closes down between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. and that should be an area of study. 12-07-98 Page 10 _ .i _...,.._ .. :...:- ~ ---- .... ._ __ _ _ . _ . .:. . . . _ . _ , , ,, Gordon Bricken: Some of the discussion was regarding some form of mitigation. Asked if Commission would Iike them to suggest mitigation msasures that might address some of the issues. Chairman Bristol: That would be helpful. Commissianer Bostwick: Suggested a mitigation might be that there not be any parking in the back and restrict the parking to the front only. Irv Pickler: Asked for a two-week continuance to allow the owner time to understand what has been suggested by the Commission. If Commissian feefs they want to tiave a sound study done by Mr. ericken then they will be willing to have it completed. Commission Napoles: Offered a motion for a continuance to December 21,1998, seconded by Commissioner Esping and mation was carried. IN FAVOR: 2 people spoke in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: 15 people present/1U people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 21, 1998 Planning Commissfon meeting in order for the applicant to submit addiiional information regarding the sound and for the applicant to consider Commissio.Ys recommsndations regarding the parking. VOTE: 7-0 DISCU5310N TIME: 1 hour and 44 minutes (1:41-3:25) (THERE WAS A BREAK FOLLOWIIVG THIS ITEM.] 12-07-98 Page 11 , ~: , . ;; `,; . . 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAI~lER OF CODE REQl11FtEMENT 12-21-98 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4076 OWNER: ELVEE, Inc., 200 W. Midway Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Jim Marquez (Nextel), P.O. Box 1598, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 LOCATION: 200 West Midway Drive - Anaheim Resort R.V. Park. Property is 6.65 acres located on the south side of Midway Drive, 400 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a 52-foot high telecommunications monopole "palm" tree and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of permitted encroachment into setback area. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 23,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR7362TW.DOC • • • • • • (Commissioner Bostwick abstained.] OPPQSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 21,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for the petitioner to provide staff with further information regarding khe development of the proposed telecommunications faciliry. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick deciarsd a conflict of interest) DISCUSSION TIME: Tnis item was not discussed. 12-07-98 Page 12 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PItEVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3750 (READVERTISED) OWNER: George O. Abbes, Abel Sanchez, 608 S. Harbor Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Hector Raboili, Abbel Trade, Inc.,18 Cantilenia, San Clemente, CA 92673 LOCATION: 804 North Anaheim Boulevard - W.B. Motors. Property is 0.16 acre located on ihe east side of Anaheim Boulevard. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (until October 14,1997) to retain an automobile sales lot. Continued from Commission meeting of November 9,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NG. Conti~ 2-1-99 • o • • o • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow further time for the petitioner to address staff and commission concerns regarding the maintenance of the facility. VOTE: 7-0 DI~CUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 12-07-98 Page 13 5a. CE~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. VI~AIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12-21-98 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075 OWNER: Raymond Runo Trust, Norma Hillman, Dan Neyenhuis, Lillian Runo,1120 Kenwood Place, Fullerton, CA 92831 AGENT: David Jackson, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., #125, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1575 West Mable Street - Fairmont Private Schools. Properly is 0.89 acre located on the north side of Mable Street, 270 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street. To permit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot industrial building into a private elementary and junior high school addition to the existing Fairmont Private School with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 23, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1079JK.DOC • • • • e • Chairman Bristol: For the record, a letter was received from the applicant requesting a continuance and asked if there was anyone wishing to give testimony today? He also announced that there was a letter received from Bryan Industrial Properties with concerns about the use of this property. Opposition: Jerry Knutson, Bryan Industri~l Properties, 146 East Orangethorpe, Anaheim: Bryan Industrial sent a letter earlier and then they sent letters from other owners. He thought it would be helpful for the school to hear some of their comments. The plan designates the property at 1545 West Mab1e for General Industrial use and it is part of a long established industrial complex including their clienYs property at 220 Loara, the building at 240 Loara, and 9 industrial build~ngs on Embassy Street. They are served by one common driveway. This driveway was established by a 1986 easement agreement of 220 Loara and Raymond Runo on behaif of the Raymond Runo Trust as the owner of 240 Loara and 1575 West Mable. The applicant before the Commission did not take into account this easement agreement. Mike Hoyt, the CEO of Bryan Industrial Properties delivered a copy of the agreement to the Planning Commission last Thursday. It is obvious that the staff report was rewritten because of the easement agreement. The applicant shouid have been told to rewrite the application and study to take the restrictions imposed in the use of the driveway into account. The staff report while mentioning the easement agreement (paragraph 22, page 5) does not take into account the prohibitions. The agreement has three very clear provisions affecting this appiication: 1) No use shall be made of the subject property, which interferes.with the driveway. 2) No fence can be installed between the west side of the building of subject pro~e~ty and the driveway. 3) The driveway is onl;~ for driveway not pedestrian use. The staff report ignores these prohibitions. 4) Paragraph 9 of the development proposal calls for a 10-foot high gate across the driveway, a clear violation of the agreement. Paragraph 22 of the evaluation, requires a new plan to be submitted for fencing and parking. By virtue of this alone the hearing would have to be continued until this is done 12-07-98 Page 14 since lhe fencing was fundamental to the proposed use and the applicant which would not take any account of the driveway agreement. 5) Condition No. 2, page 7, calls for plans to be submitted pertaining to driveway lo~ations. The driveway locations are unchangeable under the driveway agreement. 6) No. 13 imposes a conditi~n that tlie appiicant submit a revised fencing plan ignoring the fact that no fence can be built on the property other than the existing fencing. 7) The traffic is a totally uncovered issue. Condition No. 5 states that the project must provide for acceptable student loading and unloading on the subject property and that plans must be submitted for such loading and unloading. in the report does it address the tra~c impact the loading and unloading. Paragraph 19(d) states that with only three additional employees contributed of traffic, no increase of traffic conditions should be imposed. The cunclusions regarding traffic impacts are based solely on a parking study submitted by the petitioner thaY is referred to in paragraph 19 of the rep.ort. On its face it would appear to be an abusive discretion should the Commission reach a conclusion as to the tra~c impact based on this parking study or letter from the petitioner as described in paragraph 28(c), subparagraph 2. 8) Traffic hazards and congestions must be addressed before a negative declara!ion can be issued. Parking requirements have nothing to do with traffic impacts. It is equally aLsurd to base parking findings solely on three additional teachers totally ignoring the student drop-off and pickup, parents and visitors and other employees coming to the school and other required deliveries. Outside of the staff report, the Commission does have clear evi~7ence of significant impacts. The letter from Sampson Motorcycle Products, the current tenarit of 220 Loara, points o~ it the hazard of parents dropping off and picking up of students and the daily use of the driveway by 18-wheel semi-trailers to dEliver and pickup material for Sampson and the existing noise caused 5y manufacturing. Mike Potter with Bryan Industrial Properties took photos this morning capturing the present congestion and hazards caused by the school and its improper use of the driveway of which the owner did not know about it until this came up. (A copy of the photos were submitted fo Commission and Michael Potter, Property Manager for Bryan Industrial Properties explained what the photos showed.J Jerry Knutson: They believe the new parking proposed is "smoke and mirrors". The applicanPs study prepared by the school and staff report point to 13 new parking spaces at 1575 West Mable. It needs to be noted that this is simply the existing parking at that facility. In addition the study refers to 12 spaces provided by Harbor Pailet Co. for Lot D and 12 spaces provided from Clete Paye. They are going to lose 24 spaces. This report simply does not address the impacts which must be considered because of additional students. The staff report recognizes that in 2 years there will probably be a substantial increase in the number of students and that the remainder of the subject building will be converted to classrooms. (Paragraph 8, page 2). This a clear and 8agrant violation of established law that in arriving at a decision, whether to prepare a Negative Declaration or EIR the governing agency can not piecemeal all of these stage projects. The staff report erroneously recommends a negative declaration when all of the impacts which must be considered by the Commission have not been addressed. Not only is a parking study not a traffic study b~t the report cails for future water usage analysis (in paragraph 8) a finding that there is not an impact on water is a condition to a negative declaration. The water usage impact has to be set forth Gefore a negative declaration can be approved. The Commission can only make a determination that this project will not have a significant affect on the envirunment if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whofe record before the lead agency that such an impact may occur. It is clear in the Public Resources Code 21080 and the CEQA Guidelines 15070. That Commission can not make this determination in the absence of relevant data. There appears to be not an adequate traffic impact study, no discussion of :ioise impacks or air quality impacts despite the fact that the report recognizes that a loading and unloading plan has to be submitted which affects air quality and recommends that there be no outside play area but does not make it a condition. Paragraph 18, page 4 states staff recommends that the play area for this 0.89-acre parcel, because of its approximately to other industrial buildings, be confined wholly within the buiiding, however this is not a condition. This is what should be considered in an environmental impact report. Commiss~on cannot make the required findings specified in 27(b) through 27(e) without ignoring the facts. The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining industrial land uses. The proposed use of the driveway will be 12-07-98 Page 15 detrimental to the students and the rights to the other uses. Th~~re is no evidence in the staff report that the traffic generated by the proposed school use will not impose an undue burden on streets and highways. The prasent school has 695 students and proposes to go to 795 in 1'/: to 2 years. Staff and Commission should consider the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21151, governing public street site acquisition and constr~ction which sets forth requirements for hazardous substance investigations, not one of which is mentioned in the staff report. The only comment on the subject is in paragraph 16 which only states outdoor storage was observed on the property on the north end of the site at the proposed play area. The petitioner indicated that to their !~~owledge the area has been used for the storage of building materials and that there has been no storage of petroleum products for hazardous chemicals at ihis location. There is no justification for granting the parking waiver. The CUP should be denied and if any further consideration is to be given, that a full environmentai impact report should be required. John Mereska,1933 East Palm Avenue, Orange, CA: He is a commercial/industrial real estate broker. He is empfoyed and affiliated with Bryan Industrial Properties. He is representing a number of tenants and owners in the neighborhood of subject property. He was asked by one of the owners to read a letter that was faxed. Commission was forwarded letters delivered on Friday from S&S Machinery, Maniey Steel Rule Die Corp. and Sampson Motorcycle Products. [Ne read Carol Jackson's letter dated December 6, 1998 regarding CUP 4075 to the mem6ers of fhe Planning Commission into the record.J Jack Tweed, American National Properties: They recently purchased 5 acres froniing on Mable from the railroad where there has been a pallet manufacturing and lumberyard for many years. He indicated that the notice for the pubiic hearing was mailed to the previous owner rather than themselves. He was planning to meet with Mr. Jackson and the Traffic Division about serious traffic problems that he discovered from their tenant. The current tenant (ORCO Rebar) is blocked from getting in and out of the property twice during the business day. In the morning when students are being dropped at the school and in the afternoon when the students are being picked up. Mr. Jackson was leasing parking space on this property when it was owned by the railroad. Their development plan d~es not provide for the leased parking space. They have been speaking with potential users of their properties. Two prospective tenants have said no, they will not locate on the site because of the tra~c problem. He feels lhe tra~c problem has to be seriously addressed because it is a problem now and if the school is expanded then the problem becomes magnitied. Daniel MacLeith, Pacific West Line, 1536 W. Embassy Street: They are strongly opposed to the expansion of a non-industrial entity into a long-standing industrial zone. Pacific West Line is a manufacture of architecture interiors. They fabricate wood, metal, fiberglass, urethane, glass and fabrics at their facility. They occupy 47,000 square feet in 5 of t~ie 9 buildings on west Embassy Street. Two of their buildings are directly adjacent to Fairmont School property. They have a gate between the two properties that is accessible from both of them. They have an undccumented agreement with the school that they may use their property for property for parking avith prior notice for events such as open house. In the 4 years that this access has been there he recalled only two times when it was used. In those 4 years their property tias chanqed and fheir business has grown. Their back property is used differently than intended in the beginning. ~t now hes items on it that make it less accessible for Fairmont School for parking and more of a problem to have unauthorized people moving about on lhe property. They routinely have various items on'the property that inhibits automobile access. 7heir concern and objection lies in the expansion and furlher encroachment into their industrial zone. He feels this area should remain a truly industriai zone as the City intended it to be decades ago. The presence of children in this environment can not be looked on as favorable. Steps must be taken to ensure ;heir safety while traveling to and from school and while at school. This can not be accomplished in this industrial zone. They feel this would be a wrong move to make for all parties concerned. 12-07-98 Page 96 ApplicanYs Rebuttal: David Jackson, Executive Director of Fairtnont Private Schools: He would still like to ask for a continuance but he felt there are several issues that have come across misleading. If they were attempting to expand the school then he would understand the concerns but they are nat attempting at this point to add any students. In the future they would like to, but with the traffic problem cur~ently which has been immensely increased by the additional construction go;ng on at the 5 iwy., the 91 fwy. and all the surFace streets have caused such a problem that they are currently trying to find other ways to fmprove their traffic problem. He contacted the immediata neighbors (fenants) involved but did not contact the owners of the land and apologizc~ fvi that. That is part of his reasoning for a continuance. They have some ideas that they feei may help alleviate some of their fears and show what they are doing to try to improve the situation, but at this time they are not goir~ to increase the current number of students. 'fhey are tryfng to give their students a little rnore playground area both inside and outside. Instead of adding classrooms they would like to have to improve the education there by having more computer rooms and more library and additlonal art rooms for the same number of students that they already have. He requested a two-week continuance and if he sees that he is not able to compete it within that time then he will then request additional time. Commissioner Bosh~~ick: Offered a motion for a continuance to December 21,1998, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated that the public hearing remains open OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 21, 1998 Planning Commissio~ meeting in order for the appiicant to meet with and address his neighbors' concerns and dev lop a better plan. P+JBLIC HEARING REMAINED OPENED. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (3:30-4:05) 12-07-98 Page 97 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION connn~ 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1-4-99 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4068 (READVERTISED) 6d. SPECIMEN TREF REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 98-04 OWNER: Joseph T. Kung and Emma W. Kung, 20866 E. Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 LOCATION: 5555 - 5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Imperial Canyon Center. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 4068 (Readvertised) - to permit the expansion of an existing 55,557 square foot, 45-unit, commercial center by adding 4,607 square foot to an existing building and the construction of a new 1-story 3,854 square foot building with 17 new units, for a total of 62 units (office, retail, financial and restaurant uses) with a total of 64,018 square feet with waivers of permitted number and type of commercial identification signs, minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone, minimum structural setback adjacent to a scenic highway and minimum structural and landscape setback adjacent to a local street. Specimen Tree Removai Permit No. 98-04 - to permit the removal of 1 eucalyptus trees. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, (5555-5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Imperiai Cany~n Shopping Center). Continued from the Commission meetings of October 26, and November 9, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIC~N N0. SR6915DS.DOC • FOCLOWING.IS A SUMMARY OF'THE PLANNING: COMMISSIQN ACTION: Chairman Bristol: Stated for the record, there was testimony given on November 9, 1998 regarding this item which he listened to the tape since he was not present. Applicant's Statement: Joseph Kung, 5581 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA: He sent to staff additional comments on the staff report today which copies were given to Commission and he handed out cnpies to residents present. He lried to respond to all the written concerns on their proposal and just noticed he failed to respo~~d to 3 letters, which were not given to him earlier. One issue is regarding the traffic congestion on Avenida Margarita, west of their property. F~x the past year the traffic was terrible. It was mainly caused by tra~c to and from the post office. He asked that the City speak with the post office on this. The busy times are about 12:00 noon and before 5:00 p.m. Privacy issue - They propose a building near the back wall directly behind Mr. Moo's property which Mr. Moo had a concern that the windows would overiook into his backyard. Mr. Kung went up witFi Mr. 12-07-98 Page 18 Moo onto the roof of his home. It did not appear that the windows on the second floor of the building would be able to see to Mr. Moo's backyard. During the construction if any of the windows can be seen from Mr. Moo's backyard or from the neighbor next door then ihey will cover them up immediately up on the residents request. • Parking concern - The main problem is on the west end where the post office is located. Since their ownership they have added almost 30 parking spaces to alleviate those problems. They conducted a tra~c study based on the original proposal of 2 two-story buildings, which was satisfactory by staff. Since the original study they decided to drop one of the buildings, between Don Jose's and the bank, down to one-story to make it a conforming building and reduce the one-story size slightly, this would release 24 parking spaces which would further satisfy the parking requirement of the City. e Opening of the entrances from imperial Hwy. - That is not a specific issue on this CUP, it is an issue for the City Council to hear in the near future. It is believed that the permit will be granted oecause the Fox Fire center across the street has an identical entrance also their traffic study indicated the opening of that entrance would divert over 100 trips during peak hours both during the lunch hour and in the evening rush hours away from the intersection. He mentioned that two to ihree years ago they had an agreement with the City Council to abandon the street. 7hey were going to pay the City to buy the street and convert it to a one-way driveway entrance to prevent people from rushing out. However the neighbors turned down that proposal. He would be happy to reopen that issue to discuss with the neighbors. He feels to change the street to a driveway would benefit everyone. However, this is a separate issue from this hearing. He mentioned this because it was one of the concerns addressed by the neighbors in the past. Chairman Bristol: For the rer,ord, letters were received by Mr. George Jobe, Mr. & Mrs. Tom Cleveland, Mr. David Howard. Judy Kwok, Associate F~lanner: For the record, staff aiso received one additional letter in opposition from the Anaheim Hills Cit~zens' Coalition and an additional phone message both in opposition. Earl ;ulcManus, 5581 E. Edgemar Avenue, Anaheim, CA: His main concerns are the traffic problem in and out c~f their tract and also the expansion of the two-story building. Judith Ann Golleite: Stated she is speaking on behalf of herself. Fier office sits (Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon) directly diagonal from the proposed addition. Tiie intersection is busy all day long, everyday. She does not see what the expansion wouid do for additional cars for that area, which would only be a negative for the neighborhood. She does not want what happened to West Anaheim to happen to Anaheim Hills. There are many currently existing vacant building facilities that can move into currently. The corner is oversupplied with businesses. She asked that Commission deny this request. Lisa Francese, 5574 Edgemar Avenue, Anaheim, CA: She lives directiy behind Mr. Kung's center and the next door neighbor of Mr. Moo. (She mentioned that her husband faxed a letter to the Commission on Friday morning.J Her main concern is the insufficient parking spaces. The center does not need to be bigger ~ince it is already crowded. Privacy and intrusiveness of her backyard af another building - When they were building the upstairs for Gitano's, she had construction workers wh~stling to her into her master bedroom which she felt was an invasion of her privacy and if there is another building there with more windows, it will be more invasion of her privacy. The center is not always the cleanest. The dumpsters are overflowing and those issues could be easily resolved. [She read a letter from the Edgemar Avenue neighbors residents directly behind Mr. Kung's shopping center at Imperial Hwy, that requested a denial based on the following: a Too few parking spaces. • The center is already congested with traffic and public safety concern. 12-07-98 Page 19 • proposed driveway on Imperial is an invitation for cut-through traffic and driveway will cause a backup on Imperial. • High school students walk along Imperial Hwy, sidewalk as pedestrians. • An intrusive, noisy, crowded center is unwelcome in ihe Scenic Corridor and residential neighborhood. (She submitted the signatures from 17 residents opposed to thJs proposal. j Susan Sigman, Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition, P.O. Box 17578, Anaheim, CA 92817: She read a letter from the Anaheim Hilis Citizens' Coalition dated December 7,1998 from Patrick Pepper, Chairman ~copy on fileJ. Andrew Moo, 5576 Edgemar Avenue, Anaheim, CA: He is located in between the two new buildings to be constructed. His concern is the privacy for the neighborhood. In the future if he trims the tree in his back yard down then there will be no barrier. So he discussed this with Mr. Kung and requested that the applicant provide his own shield in between their building and the neighborhood and Mr. Kung indicated that he might be able to accomplish his request. Traffic is also a major concern. There is a back street, Old Santa Ana Canyon Road. If they open up an entrance from imperial Hwy. side he can predict there will be fast moving traffic on this street, which results in the quiet street becoming a noisy streQt. If th~ey are going to build any type of building then they must provide trees or something to shield so their windows are not going to look directly look into their windows. If the appiicant can provide that then he would be in a more neutral position. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Joseph Kung; The new buildings prop~sed will generate less than 100 trips of traffic during rush hour. However, the new entrance from Imperial Hwy. itself would divert more than 100 trips away from intersection. He felt iheir buildings would not impact the traffic jam problem at Imperial Hwy. and Santa Ana Canyon Road. . They are going to increase the amount of parking spaces. The bank canopy will be removed by half, which would result in 20 more parking spaces. There are other areas where they are going increase the parking spaces. They will remove the fandscaping area under building X. The new landscaping in front of the bank where the old canopy will be removed will be far more visible to the generai public. It will be more of an ideal type of a landscaping for the center. . 4Vhen Imperial Highway is vridened the bus stop will be removed. There will be no bus stop at the stretch. Based on their traffic data (video type r~cording) there is very little pedestrian traffic on Imperial Hwy. in front of their center. . Regarding high school students walking through there - one morning he counted 1 or 2 students walking through there. . Parking on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road - at this time there is a no parking sign posted between Avenida Margarita or the post office, to the new building (the real estate building). No one parks on that section at all. Therefore, there will not be any increase in the parking along that section of the street. . They will enforce the cleaning problem and will agree to clean up. . Condition No.16, he has no information on this and before he agrees on this he wants to review it with staff because it has nothing to do with this CUF. . Regarding Don Jose's Restaurant parking, he agreed it is very crowded. He has studied the parking pattern. Friday evenings are the busiest time. However 10 or 20 feet away aro:ind the bank building there is parking available and there will be more parking ance they cut down tF~.e bank canopy structure. There will be na parking spaces lost from the new building in the middle. 12•07-98 Page 20 • Regarding aesthetics - Their existing 2-story stairwell which will be removed is 34 feet wide encroaching in the front, they are asking that it oniy be Pxtended another 16 feet with the same frontage, with the same design as the existing building. He did not feel that the windows could be seen from the neighbors backyard. The new building will be no higher than the existing building. He already agreed that he would plant a new row of trees north of the building even though they are in the City planter area to provide an additional shield. Even after the setback waiver they still have 20 feet distance between the building and the existing curb. • Regarding the traffic problems - He personally spent 800 hours up and down imperial Hwy. two years ago studying the traffic problem with his video camera. he is working closely with the City Traffic Engineer on the traffic sign to optimize the traffic flow at the intersection. Lisa Francese: The Bougainvilleas in her backyard flower part of the year and during November through March the flowers fall off and the bushes become more sparse and she has a real concern about her privacy. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: The entrance off of imperial to Mr. Kung's property is not an issue with Commission today. That is going to be a~~ issue with the City Council at a later date. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Generally when they conduct a parking study they look at the whole center. In this case, there would be times when you would not find parking on the west side of the shopping center but if you choose to park and walk 100 to 200 feet then there would be adequate parking. Generally when they look at a parking study they have to Iook at the whole site. Based on their analysis of the parking, there is adequate parking for the whole ceriter. It may not be conveniently located in the front, but there is adequate parking. They could also eliminate the parking on the side by the residentiai if they receive a request by residents asking that they remove the parking then that could be done. They would install "no parking anytime" on the side by the residential. Commissioner Bostwick: Does the post office have sufficient parking for their employees7 Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: They are part of the United States Government and they do not report to them. Generaliy speaking they do not provide adequate parking and seasonally there is difficulty locating parking. Commissioner Koos: Asked the applicant to confirm whether building Y is going to be a restaurant? Joseph Kung: Yes, and the parking has already been considered. Commissioner Koos: With another restaurant and its potential success the convenience level for the customer will be minimal. Should both restaurants continue operating at a successful level, while there may be parking on the other side, people might not want to walk that far. He was concerned with livable community type concepts. This does not lend itself to that type of concept. Joseph Kung: The entire parking surrounding the bank will be empty after 6:00 p.m. The new restaurant will be much closer. Their traffic report with the original second story proposal already satisfies the 15% requirement. Their revised plans reduced the building to only one story and makes it smaller. They did not do an additional parking study because they thought that the removal of the 24-car demand would suffice and therefore they would not need another traffic report. Commissioner Koos: Was concerned with a possible pedestrian/auto interface near the new proposed driveway. 12-07-98 Page 21 Chairman Bristol: Stated that he visited the site and notices about 55 to 60 vehicles that wera parking down at Don Jose's at lunchtime. He studied the site where they want to build 3uilding Y. He noticed that they are advertising meeting space but there is nothing in the application regarding meeting rooms and meeting space. Joseph Kung: That should have been removed from the signs. 1t was before when they had a community center. They do not offer meeting space anymore. They used to have CUP approval for a communiry center. They can provide the walkway striping away from the Imperial Hwy, entrance to control the pedestrian traffic flow away from the entrance. There is some striping at the south side but he did not stripe all the way to Imperials Hwy. Criairman Bristol: While he was at the site he looked between the bank and Don Jose's and looked at the parking and envisioned the building with 12 feet, speed bumps, envisioning 100 cars an hours at that site. If they try to keep the circulation from going to Old Santa Ana Canyon then it has to be diverted to the right {north), to Don Jose's. During banking hours the same traffic goes througl~ the bank. Joseph Kung: When he discussed that issue with John Lower, he required that the entrance (separate from this CUP) would have to be able to turn al~ three ways (straight, left and right) and they did that according to Mr. Lower's requirement. They originally proposed 10 feet and now they are •Nidening to 12 feet for safety reasons and putting a speed bump there to reduce the traffic speed also. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Yalda if there were any problems with queuing? Joseph Kung: That was specifically discussed. That is why they have more landscaping area adjacent to the entrance. If needed they can remove one or two inare parking spaces to make more of a buffer area. Aifred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Enyineering Division: That could happened because someone may make a right turn there, stop and decide which way they want to turn. As a part of Imperial Hwy, improvements it would be an exclusive right turn lane for southbound traffic making a right turn to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Even if there would be a backup it would be on the right turn only. A major part of the traffic that is in a conflict is the southbound left turners and northbound through traffic. They have never had a problem with southbound right turn lane traffic even with the existing conditions now. Chairman Bristol: He is concerned with the circulation on the site Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the applicant if it would work if he just did Building Y and did not do Building X? It would eliminate the neighbors problems with the 2-story, some of the congestion and some of the variances. Joseph Kunc~: His preference would be if they have additional problems to reduce Building Y further in the back to provide 6 more parking spaces. Renting to a restaurant is his last option. His negotiations with Building Y will not begin with considering a restaurant. He used the restaurant as a backup plan in the future in the event that Don Jose's Restaurant wants to expand then he would already have restaurant space approved. The whole idea was not for a restaurant there. However their parking justifies it. He has certain flexibility and could change that to no more than a 10-person type of a coffee shop operaiion or other retail. He is agreeable to work wfth the staff to reduce the additional traffic ~emand if needed. He prefers to have Building X over Building Y. Commissioner Bostwick: He felt Building Y is a better choice. Joseph Kung: What about Buil~ing X as a 1-story7 Commissioner Sostwick: That would eliminate the privacy issue but fhere is still the tree and monument issue. Chairman Bristol: He was still concerned with the traffic circulation on Building Y but the 1-story for Suilding X is a good compromise. 12-07-98 Page 22 4 . i ~ Commissioner Koas: Asked Mr. Yalda if he is agreeable with the pedestr(an issues? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: If it is their determination to approve this then they could work wifh Mr. Kung to make further improvements. However, if they choose to continue to eliminate some of it, then they would really like to see Mr. Kung upgrade his parking study because some of the concerns discussed today regarding Santa Ana Canyon Road should be addressed and also the appiicanYs parking/traffic study should be updated also. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how many parking spaces would it give Mr. Kung if they removed the 2"a story off Building X? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: They are talking about 4 per 1,000. Joseph Kung: They would remove about another 10 parking spaces. If he reduced Building Y to allow parking in the back, it would probably reduce more parking space demands. Between the two they would reduce another 20 parking space demands, It would almust cover the Santa Ana Canyon Road parking. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportatio~ Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: They could also work with Mr. Kung to alleviate all the problems regarding circulation to further improve the situation. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the applicant if he would like a continuance to work with staff. Joseph Kung: He was agreeable but asked that another traffic report not be required. Aifred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: If he is going to reduce the site th~n the study is going to become obsolete. He requested that there be a complete and updated parking study. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to January 4, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition. Corresponde~ce was received in opposition. A petition with 17 signatures in opposition was submitted at the public hearing. ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 4,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans and an updated parking study. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 20 minutes (4:06-5:26) 12-07-98 Page 23 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ~N-+~~YCu 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 4079 Approved Granted OWNER: Sunshine Way L.L.C., 2701 East imperial I lvu~•., Brea, CA 92821 AGENT: George Cuevas,1361 Norlh Kraemer Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1?_51 East Sunshtne Wav Property is 1.19 acres located on the south side of Sunshine Way, 315 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue. To permit an automotive vehicle repair facility within an existing 11,550 square foot industrial building with waiver of minirnum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-193 • • e • • • ApplicanYs Statement: George Cuevas, 1361 North Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim, CA: He has been in business at 1361 North Kraemer Boulevard for 20 years. He expanded his business and needs to move into another building, at 1251 S. Sunshine Way. He felt the conditions imposed are fair. The only question he had was the requirement that he remove the closing gate for the new bu;lding. He does not leave any vehicies outside. He was concerned that if there is no gate then he has n:~ protection for his building, there has already been graffiti put on the side of the building. Judy Kwok telephoned him on Friday because somebody called concerned that he had put in a spray booth, actually the spray booth was already there. They are going to have minimal use of the spray booth since it would be cost effective to tow all the cars ;hat were repaired to his other building, !o do some spotting on the construction area of the vehicles. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff whether the reason for Condition No. 5 was to y~revent the applicant frum parking vehicles outside? Judy Kwok, Associ~te Planner: Yes. They have found that in the past when they have a large area in the rear of a sight thak it is conducive to people to store item outdoors. Chairman Bristol: Can they stipulate that the applicant not store anything outside7 Judy Kwok, Assistant Planner: If the applicant is willing to stipulate that there will not be any outdoor storage, then staff would be agreeable with that. Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended on Condition No. 5 that the wording "shall be removed" be deleted. Also that the existing wrought iron rolling gate at the parking lot area and the ren ~ainder of the fence shall be maintained in good condition and that there wil! be no outside storage of any kind. 12-07-98 Page 24 OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4079 with the following changes to conditions of approvai: Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: 5. That the existing ~vrought iron rolling gate at the parking lot area and the remainder of the fence shall be maintained in good condition. Added the following condition: Tha; no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles ar vehicular parts shall be permitted. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (5:27-5:30) 12-07-98 Page 25 8a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 281 (PREV: CERTIFIED) Approved 8b. TRACT NOS.13266.13516.13517 and 13518 - Approved final site plan REQUEST FOR FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW OWNER: Shea Homes, Attn: Michael 0'Melvany, P.O. Box 1509, Brea, CA 92822-1509 LOCATION: Tract Nos.13266.13516.13517 and 13518 of Develonment Area No.101 of The Summit of Anaheim Hilts Snecific P{an ISP88-2Z Property is 28.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Serrano Avenue and Taylor Court. Request for review and approval of final site plans for Tract Nos. 13266, 13516, 13517 and 13518 as required hy The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SF~88-2). • • • • • o Chairman Bristol: For the record, a letter was received from a Mari Penny. She was concerned with Lot 1, Tract No. 13266. Applicant's Statement: Michael 0'Melvany, Community Development Manager for this project, Shea Homes: He is requesting final site plan approvai for Tract Nos. 13266, 13516, through 13518. He indicated that he forwarded color boards for their proposed architecture and a street scene elevation for the three different plans that they plan to build in this community. They will have three different plans with three dirferent elevations per plan. The plans range from 3,600 square feet to 4,600 souare feet. They are offering 3 and 4 car garages. THE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. ApplicanPs Rebuttal (to written correspondence): A~ichiae; 0'A•telvany: He responded to the letter received from Mari Penny by stating that Shea Homes does r7ct wisn io deed this lot to the Homeowners Association. This is a ~egal subdivided lot and there is no negative marketing impact as far as sellirg the home. He did not see any safety issues as far as the driveway being close to the gate. It is not 10 feet as far as she has stated. They plan on building a home on this Lot. Chairman Bristol: Asked how far is it? Michael ~'Melvany: He checked with their civil engineer and indicated at a minimum from the gate 70 feet from the driveway edge. He did not know at what point she was taken it off of. It could just be the overall area. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how he felt about the photo cell lights on their garages? Michael 0'Melvany: They are planning on putting the photo cell iights on those garages. OPPOSITION: No one present/correspondence was received in onposition. 12-07-98 Page 26 ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 281 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the final site plans for Tract Nos.13266,13516,13517 and 13518 with the foilowing added condition: That photo cell lights shail be installed on all garages. VO'f E: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (5:30-5:39) 12-07-98 Page 27 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4081 Granted OWNER: Welis Fargo Bank, 333 South Grand Ave., Suite 7Q0, Los Angeles, CA 90071 AGENT: Brett Marchi, 2 Strawbe~ry Lane, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATlON: 1025 East Oranaethorpe Avenue. Property is 1.67 acres located on the no~th side of Orangethorpe Avenue,193 feet west oF the centerline of Raymond Avenue. To permit a commercial school supply, showroom and warehouse business in a vacant 23,580 square foot building in the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone. CO~~DITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-194 SR1 • • • • • e ApplicanYs Statement: Brett Marchi, Architect and representative for CM School Supply: They are proposing to put a school supply business with a retail showroom in an existing bank warehouse building in an industrial zone. This business is suitable at this zone without any problems. It wiil be a positive impact on the area. There will be less traffic generated than the bank would have generated. The Planning Dep~rtment has added parking to the site upon their request. They have 90 total and 8 extra for what is required. They are taking down the existing drive-up canopy and adding parking in there. They have an issue wiih two of the conditions and asked for clarification on one. Condition No. 2 is the removal of the pole sign. He submitted photos showing the face of the buildir~g. The pictures are just a series of pictures up and down Orangethorpe that show the existing pole signs that have been approved in the City recently that are similar. They have no signage on that building. There are signs there and the,y are all hidden behind 25-foot trees, Basically, they have no business without that sign, no recognition witfiout that sign. A monument sign is not going to work for them in that area. The:re was a sign permit issued in 1988 to Wells Fargo for refacing that existing sign, and it says on the sign is that an 8 foot by 24 foot face wiil replar,e that sign. They were trying to find approval for a permit for that it and were unable to locate one on file. In 1961 the original building was built and as far as they can tell that sign has been there from day one and was approved. "fhe refacing that was done in 1980 on that sign was approved. They are asking that the sign be "grandfathered" and left alone. If this project ~vere not up for a conditional use permit it would have never ber,ome an issue. Wi:hout the recognition of that sign this business is going to lose a lot of customers. Many people are coming from out of the area and are not familiar with the surrounding area. The other issue is the und~rground electrical, Condition No.15, requiring to bring the utilities underground. The power pole that serves the building is 12 inches away from the building and the transr~rmer is on that pole and the wire drops approximately 4 feet from the pole to the building. 7hey are suggesting that that is unreasonable to ask that they to take 4 feet of wire out, and take all the way down the pole, dig underneath the building and come up underground. It is a cost that they were not counting on incurring. It is at the back portion of'.he building, probabiy the back third of ;he building. it is not something the public is going to see. 12-07-98 Page 28 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The intent of that was that any new construction be underground. Commissioner Williams: This is a remodel therefore that condition would not pertain. Brett Marchi: Asked fnr clarification on the traffic fees. Judy Kwok, Associate Planner: Traffic fees would not be a condition of approval. They are ty,~ically code requirerents and the applicant wouid need to work with Traffic Engin~ering to determine what those fees would be. It is typically base~ on the proposed tenant improvement to the site. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: They could also be imposed to a change in use, whi~h intensifies and has different traffic impacts frorts those, which were previously existing. it is not necessarily a new construction issue; therefore it would need to be addressed with Traffic Engineerin~. Rick Gill, Commercial Real Estate Bro!cer with Collins Commarcial, 18301 Francisco Drive, Villa Park, CA: This particular site for this family run company will be a corpora;e headquarter site for them as well as a central shipping point. Their company is primarily a school supply company. Most of the school district and teacher business is done by the use of a p~rchase order. Those materials are currently shipped from one of their three locations. This location will then become the central locatiun for all their shipme~ ~ts. CM School Supply was previously located in Anaheim back in the old train depot prior to the redevelopment. At that time there were no suitable facilities for them to relocate in the City and they then purchased a facility on Harbor Boulevard and occupied it for 10 or T 2 yea~ s. They are excited about returning to lhe City of Anaheim. The key issue for them is that they want people to know that they are there which is the sign that exists on the property. They did not realize until recently that there might be a permitting question, as mentioned by Brett Marchi. It is their intent to simply change the inserts on the sign to CM School Supply, doing it tastefully and not impact the mature trees. If they have to go to a monument sign or lower the existing sign then it would impact the trees. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chairman Bristol: He spoke with Mr. Marchi last week and had a concern about the pole sign and he agreed with him on the canopy and the tree. He felf his comments were valid. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The only issue they are faced with is that they would like to fin~ a copy of the original permit, the original sign does apparently not have permit on it. In order for them to sign a permit it needs to be in compliance with code or there needs to be a waiver granted. Since there was no waiver advertised on this they would at least like to see if the applicant can produce a copy of the sign permit since the City does not have one on file. Commissioner Boydstun: A~ked how they would receive a permit to reface it if they did not have a permit on the sign7 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He did not know how that happened. It does not show that it was structurally looked at. Rick Giil: If it was a structural issue they would not have a problem in having the sign struct~rally checked to make sure it is safe. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The City does not have evidence of a permit for that. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if Wells Fargo would be able to find the papervvork on that sign? 12-07-98 Page 29 Brett Marchi: It use to be a Barclay's Bank and Wells Fargo purchased it from them. Before the hearing he went through the file at the Pianning Department counter and there is sign permit located on file. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Back in 1961 they did require sign permits as well as building permits. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if it would have been in the approval for the bank when it was built by Barclay's Bank. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: It is possible but it wouid have been indicated since it is physically a structure that would h2ve had to have been inspected. So there would have been records either with the building permit or separate from that. Commissioner Williams: He suggested to condition it to indicate ihat if no permit is found that ihey would pay for an inspection fee and a permit on that sign. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: No. There would need to be a public h~aring for a waiver from the sign code. The way the sign is constructed does not comoly with the zoning code. The CUP could either be readvertised to add a waiver or a separate sign variance. Commissioner Boydstun: The first thing would be to pull the plans from 1961 to see if there is something on those plans showing that the sign was approved. If so, then the problem is resolved. The worst case scenario would b~ after the fact the applicant would need to come in apply for a waiver for the sign. They cannot just do an inspection because it does not meet today's code. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Suggested a substitute condition that indicates that the applicant shall establish a legal non-conforming status of the pole sign or obtain approval of a waiver. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: They can both do that, the City can recheck to see what they can f+nd. If the applicant can do the same to see if there is any record. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4081 with the following changes to conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: That the applicant shail establish the legal non-conforming status of the exisling pole sign or obtain approval of a waiver to retain it. Deleted Condition No. 15. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION 71ME: 28 minutes (5:39-6:07) 12-07-98 Page 30 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3304 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Weir Partners Ltd.,1 Park Plaza, Suite 430, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENY: Joseph D. Carroll, i Park Plaza, Suite 430, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 731 South Weir Canvon Road - First Class Pizza. Property is 11.9 acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. To permit a 356 square foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with an existing 2,600 square foot restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption. CONDITIO(VAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-195 Approved, as readvert'sed _j 5R7364TW.DOC • • • • c s Judy Kwok, Associate Planner: Read into the record the following corrections to the staff report: • Page 3, paragraph 10 - should be changed from 720 to 723. • Page 4, paragraph 16 (line 4) -"previously located" should be cl~angeci to "proposed at the southeast corner'. Remove "converted into" and replace "developed as a child day care facility". Add, "Revised plans to relocate the restaurant with outdoor dining was approved for the east end of shops 1. The restaurant has been removed and striking "and the outdoor dining area is no longer utilized". Adding to the end "and staff recommends that this outdoor dining area be removed and replaced with landscaping." ApplicanYs Statement: Edwin Haarberg, 12281 Prado Woods Drive, Villa Park, CA: He is the tenant at the property at Suite 147 at 731 South Weir Canyon Road. Had the following comments regarding the staff report: • On page 7, paragraph "k" - He would like to request to be open 11:30 a.m. through 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week. • Condition Nos. 38 and 39 - He will work with the property owner to have those completed Commissioner Bostwick: Why is staff requesting that the patio be demolished? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Due to the parking requirements of the center there is only so much square footage allowed and the other one on the other end of the center has two things. First it increased the squarz footage and secondly it is in the setback area. There was a variance granted for a patio. Now that unit will be converted from a restaurant to retail, therefore there is not reason to have that outdoor seating area with a retail facility. Condition No. 39, there is no need to have both clinging vines and the shrubbery. if they could plant one or the other to block the view of the bottom part of the wall. Staff does not have a problem with the business being open 7 days a week. Condition No. 37( c) that indicates that there be enough full meal service during that time. Suggested ~ r,ondition be added that the outdoor seating area not be used after 10:00 p.m. because it is near a residential environment. 12-07-98 Page 31 OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentatiun for subject request. Approved modification to Resolution No. 90R-352 adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3304. ~mended Condition No. 33 of Resolution No. 90R-352 to read as follows: 33. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the Ciry of Anaheim by the petitioner and which pians are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos.1, Revision ^:0.1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 10; provided, however, (a) that a minimum seventy fwo (72) foot structural setback shall be maintained along Weir Canyon Road and (b) that the loading dock area shall be enclosed by a block wall, of an appropriate height to screen it from the adjacent residential condominiums. Added the foilowing new condition to Resolution No. 90R-352: 37. That subject restaurant shall continuously adhere to the following conditions: a. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code, b. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Cor„~c~ and approved by tfie City of Anaheim. c. That food service with a full meal shall be available fram opening time until either 10:00 p.m, or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. d. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. e. That subjecF beer and wine license ,hall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. f. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of ali retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made availabie, subject to audit ar~d, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. g. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. h. That the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. i. That there shall be no exteriar adve~tising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the 12-07-98 Page 32 availability of beer and wine. Specifically, no umbrellas shall be permitted to display alcohol sales of any kind. j. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. k. That sales, service and consumption of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. I. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient pawer to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. m. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to emplQy or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, ptrcentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. o. That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at afl times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permii deliveries and in cases cf emergency. p. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the cuntrol of the applicant. q. That the outdoor dining area shall be completely enclosed by fencing or other such permanent structure as approved by the City, at least forty (40) inches in height, into which entry is only possible from the interior of the business. Emergency exits reauired by the Uniform Fire Code shall be maintained, but not utilized by patrons/employees other than in an ernergency. 38. Th2t the vacant ouYdoor dining area located at the northwest corner of the commercial shopping center shall be removed and replaced with landscaping. A landscape and in~igation plan for subject area shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 39. That the existing stucco wall surrounding the outdoor dining area shall be planted with rapid growing clinging vines on maximum 3-foot centers or minimum 5-gallon shrubs to deter graffiti opportunities and that the two water utility devices located west of the outdoor dining area shall be completely screened from view by shrubbery. 40. That prior to final building and zoning inspections for the outdoor patio, Condition Nos. 37, 30 and 39, above-mentioned, shall be complied with:' VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. OISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (6:07-6:15) 12-07-98 Page 33 << `;„: `; ADJOURNED AT 6:20 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 21,1998 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR A REDEVELOPMENT WORK SHOP TO DISCUSS AN OVERLAY ZOiVE FOR THE BROOKFiURS7 PROJECT AREA Submitted by: 4 ~~v Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 12-07-98 Page 34