Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/08/16SUMMA~~(ACTION AGENDA GITY OF ANAHEIM PLANfVING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1999 10:00 A.M. • O.C.T.A. CENTERLINE WORKSHOP 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:3Q P.M. • PUBLIC HEARlNG TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BO5TWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT ABSENT: ESPING STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Annika Santalahti Cheryl Flores Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Russ Sutter Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Assistant City Attomey Zoning Division Manager Zoning Administrator Senior Planner Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Poli~e Sergeant Principal Transpo~tation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Pianning Commission Support Supervisor Planning Commission Secretary ~ P:IDOCSICLERICALIMINUTE5~AC081699.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUE3LIC INTEREST: None DISCUSSION ITEM: None Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Continued ta Commission Meeting of August 2, 1999. (Motion) 8-30-99 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIOI~S A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAI.OF FINAL ARCHlTcCTURAL PLANS: Khoda B. architectural plans Ostowari, 8263 ~ast Twin Peak Circle, /anaheim, CA 92807, requests review and approval of final architecturai plans for a previousiy-approved service stati~n and conve~ience m~rket with retail sales of beer and wine for eff-premises consumption and a drive-through self service car wash. Property is located at 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 2,1999. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dues hereby determine that the previously approved negative deciaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristo; offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sostwick and MOTION CARRIE~J (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby apFrove the final architectural pians for Conditional Use Permit No. 4069. SR1121JD.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 2 I ~ .. _"" ._ . . . .. . . t . , . - - . Greg McCafferty, Senior Ptanner, presented the staff report and explained the request for approval of final architectural plans for a previously-approv,ed service station, convenience market and retail saies of besr and wine. Staff recommended approvai of the final elevation plans and noted that the final site plans would need to retum to Commission for approval. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nd.1829 - REQUEST FOR INITIATION IniUated revocation OF REVOCATION OR MADIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated or modification (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA proceedings 92805, request ta initiate revocation or modification proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No.1529 (to permit a restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption). Properry, is located at 1300 and 1416 North Central Park Avenue - Coffee Break. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 2,1999. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate revocation or modification proceedings far Conditional Use Permit No.1629. SR1122JD.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senlor Planner, presented the staff report. She expiained this request is the result of a request to the Alcohoiic Beverage Control Board (ABC) to extend the hours of operatiun. She refened to the violations listed in Paragraph 8 and requasted that the Planning Commission initiate revocation or modi ication to this conditionai use permit. Commissioner Bristol noted this matter was continued from a previous mee;ing because of the uncertainty as to whether the owner was notified. Cheryl Flores explained that was correct and the owner was since been notified of this public hearing. City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 3 C, a) CEQA CATEGORICAl. EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) Concurred w/staff b) REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.20: City-initiated (Planning Recommended Department), 200 South Anaheim Baulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, adoption to the City sequest consideration to amend Chapter 17.2Q "Excavation and Council Recovery of Nonfuei Minerals and Reclamation of Mined Lands" (amending Chapter 17.20 in its entirety). Continued firom the Commission meeting of August 2,1999. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that ihe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 18061 (b) (3), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissfoner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissfoner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance (attached to the staff report dated August 16,1999) which amends Chapter 1720 "Excavation and Recovery of Nonfue! Minerals and Reclamation of Mined Lands" of the Anaheim Municipal Code, in its entirety. SR1140AS.DOC Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, presented the request and explained that the proposed ordinance updates and amends Chapter 17.20 of the Code to comply with the State Surface Mining and Rectamation Act. Staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend City Councii adoption of the proposed ordinance, as well as finding that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines. D. CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 306 AND 950 - REQUEST FOR 7ERMINATION: Yolanda Zanchi,16601 Hala Circle, Huntington Beach, Terminated CA 926Q9, requests termination of Condition Use Permit Nos. 306 and 950 (CUP 306 - to establish a service station on parcel 3 and CUP 950 - (Vote: 6-0, to permit on-sale beer and wine in conjuriction with proposed restaurant. Commissioner Property is located at 3440-3464 West Orange Avenue. Esp(ng absent) TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC99•147 SR7501 EH.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OB-16-99 Page 4 E. CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT N0.1552 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Roberf W. Bollar, ~CardlocKFueIs,1825 West Collfns,: Orange, CA 92867, requesis termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1552 (to permit an automobile repair facility with waiver of minimum building setback). Property is located at 3375 EasE Miralome Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTfON N0. PC99•148 There was no discussion of this matter. ~. TEnninated (Vote: s-0, Commissioner Esping absent) City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Rpproved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEMT Approved, in part 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4100 Granted, in part 2d. DETERMINATfON OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Approved OR NECESSITY NO. 99-05 • OWNER: R. Mark Shidler, Sheryl A. Shidler, Robin Shidler and Sally Shidler, 2088Q Little Canyon Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: K. W. Lawler and Associates, 2832 Walnut Avenue #A, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 905•985 North Weir Canyon Road. Property is 3.34 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 4100 - to construct a service station and auto care complex consisting of four buildings including auto rental, lube facility, automated car wash, service station/fast food restaurant/convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption, and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of (a) permitted commercial identificati~n signs, (b) permitted number of wall signs, (c) maximum structural height abutting a residential zone, (d) minimum landscape setback abutting a residential zone, (e) required site screening abutting a residential zone and (fl minimum structural and landscape setback abutting a freeway. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-0~ - to Determine Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed convenience market. Continued from the Commission meetings of July 7, and August 2,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-149 DETERMINATION OF PUBUC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC99-150 SR7487VK.DOC ApplicanPs Statement: Ard Keuilian, Station Sales, consultant, indicated there were also other representatives present to answer questions. They have been working for several months the Planning staff and have come up with something of pride for this location at the southwest corner of the 91 freeway and Weir Canyon Raad. They would like to request minor changes which they have discussed with staff regarding signs, and with City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 6 the Police and Fire Department regarding use of 18 year old emptoyees rather than 21 year olds and would rather comply with state regulations than with the Fire Department. Bruce Cook, Senior ~lanner, City of Yorba Linda, stated he was present to address their concems about this property. The parcel is within the SAVI Ranch, which is a business commercial park that is being jointly developed, in Anaheim and Yorba Linda and have shared dependent infrastructures such as streets. As a result of the design of the access to SAVI Ranch, northbound incoming traffic and northbound outgoing traffic would travel through SAVI Ranch to access the project through Mirage Street and Old Canai Road. Both of those intersections are critical access for the project and are located in Yorba Linda. With the understanding as to how the access into and out of SAVI Ranch works, it should be noted that prior tra~c studies indicated a current traffic flow problem at Mirage Streetl0ld Canai Road intersection which happens at the noon hour and is due to the fast food court. Since the proposed project includes additional fast food sales, this has the potential to exacerbate the already impacted condition. They addressed this issue first in their letter to Vanessa Knox, from the Plenning Department, dated April 11,1999. The City of Yorba Linda in that letter requested that the traffic study be revised to address this missing information. They received two letters, (one from Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager and one from Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works and City Engineer) both clearly indicated that the traffic study would not be redone and that their concerns would not be addressed. He continued that they have presented another letter today from Patricia Haley, and that the City oF Yorba Linda felt duty-bound to be present today to reiterate their position. They do not belie/e a negative declaration can be approved at this time because of potentiai adverse ~mpacts. The City of Yorba Linda has presented a fair argument based on credible evidence that there is potential for significant adverse impacts with traffic circulation. Based on information included in the Initial Study for the Negative Declaration, this cannot be substantiated or refuted because it has not been included in the environmentai analysis. Section 15750 states that the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have significart effect on the environment and a negative declaration can only be adopted if there is with certainty no chance for negative adverse impacts. The negative declaration proposed for this project fails to meet this test and credible evidence has been made a part of the record that there is a reasonable claim to the potential for significant impacts. The Initial Study is flawed because it provides no evidence and it would be contrary to requirements of CEQA to adopt the negative declaration. The City of Yorba Linda received a set of the development plans and has completed a review and provided comments to the Planning Department ir, a separate letter dated August 13, 1999. The City of Yorba Linda would voice no object to the approval of this project if it were to be conditioned to read as follows, "That the developer shall contribute funds on a fair share basis to the City of Yorba Linda for the installation of a traffic signal at Mirage Street and Old Canai Road in Yorba Linda. The fair share basis shall be determined by the percentage of the daily traffic volume at the intersection attributable to their project" ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Ard Keuilian responded they ~Nere presented a few minutes ago with today's letter frc,m Yorba Linda and have not had an opportunity to studied the deiails. The Iast communication they responded to was on Friday and he thought that was adequate. They really do not see a problem partici~ating with their fair share if there is a need to that intersection. They are willing to work with Traffic Division at the City of Anaheim and will be following their recommendations. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 7 Alfred Yaida, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that is not a fast food use, the fast food is part of that gas station and is accessory and does not generate additional trips. An insignificant amount of traffic is contributed by this projecf to that intersection. The Citywide transportation fee that this project is required to pay will mitigate any mitigation required as long as the City of Yorba Linda agreed based on the letter sent to them by John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager, indicating that the comprehensive traffic study be completed. That the City of Yorba Linda and the City of Anaheim work together to participate in all the mitigation measures that their projects provided to the City of Anahefm and the City of Anaheim to theirs and come up witY~ a solution to address the whole SAVI Ranch. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos referred to the recent projects built in Yorba Linda such as Home Depot, Best Buy, TGIFridays, and Cari's Jr. and asked if the traffic analysis covered some sort of master plan for those uses. He asked if they are contributing fees involving Anaheim and Yorba Linda regarding those intersections. Mr. Cook responded there is a Chick's Sporting Goods, Bed & Bath, etc. and that there was a master tract development in 1996 and there ~vas a tra~c analysis done for ab~ut 180,000 square feet of commercial retail at that time, but there is no program in place between the two cities. He added those uses have contributed to the traffic and they have contributed to the mitigation measures. Commissioner Koos stated those major "big box" uses and restaurants currently being built now would impact those intersections greater or at least equal to this project. He asked if this developer is being asked to bear the burden for a cumulative impact while others have benefited. Mr. Cook responded they do r~ot think so and their concern is the noon hour traffic and they di~ traffic counts in 1997 and this intersection had over 13,000 cars in that one hour. Because it is a non-signalized intersection, this was creating serious time flow restraints and they felt the major contributor to that problem was the fast food court. Their concern is whether it is an accessory use or not, this facility will have fast food sales which means at the noon hour there is the potential for significant contribution to this intersection since the northbound exit from this site would be through that intersection. They agree that regarding the AM/PM peak hours, there does not appear tc be any significant impacts. This is a unique situation and it is at the noon hour and it is a non-lighted intersection. The Kaiser facility that was just approved wilh 1,000 less trips per day would be increasing traffic at the intersection by 2%. They feei there is potential for that much, if not more, by this proposed project. Commissioner Koos clarified the basis of their argument is this noon hour traffic, and they have two restaurants contributing from the Yorba Linda side (TGIFridays and Carl's Jr.) He asked if those restaurants are contributing to the mitiga!ion. Responding to Commissioner Bostwick, Mr. Cook stated Carl's Jr. is contributing a fair share contribution and added the way they worded the proposed condition, the fair share is based upon the percentage of traffic to that intersection. If a signal costs $100,000, 2% wouid be $2,000 for the fair share contribution. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated for that reason, a comprehensive study is needed and the City of Yorba Linda also has to contribute tr3ffic fees for the new uses that will have impacts on the City of Anaheim. He did not think the City of Yorba Linda has ever submitted a traffic study to the City of Anaheim for review. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 8 Commissioner Koos stated because of the nature of the SAVI Ranch, both citi~s are aiways fmpacted by the other's land use dec;sions. Mr. Cook stated he thought the Kaiser facility took that burden upon themselves and paid for an upgrade to ihe La Palma/Weir Canyon intersecti~n which is entirely in the City of Anaheim. Chafrperson Boydstun added this projecPs traffic count would be very smail compared to Costco. Alfred Yalda added that Kaiser did nothing in th~ City of Anaheim. Commissioner Koos asked if there is any pedestrian access between the sidewalk on Weir Canyon and project site and the applicant responded from the audience that there is not. Commissioner Koos added he has been concerned about that and could see a situation if cars break down on the freeway, with individuals walking to that area to get some assistance and thought a pedestrian walkway might be helpful. Alfred Yalda responded a pedestrian walkway exists, but a person would have to go down under the bridge and go across but there is no direct crossing. Commissioner Bostwick added there arE no sidewaiks on the approach roads on Weir Canyon down to Old Canal Road and SAVI Ranch. Alfred Yalda stated part of that is in Yorba Linda, part is Caltrans right-of-way and part is in Anaheim and felt it has to be a joint project. Commissioner Koos stated it seems they might miss an opp~rtunity to get a pedestrian access by requiring a simp{e cut into the project fram the sidewalk, whether it cuts d~wn, depending on where it meets the project, or flush with the sidewalk at the north end of the project. Commissioner Bristol referred to the City of Yorba Linda letter, paragraph 2, page 2, and stated since the proposed project includes additional fast food sales, it has the opportunity to only exacerbate this already impacted condition. It seems this intersection is receiving a lot of traffic from their fast food court, and asked if they stili have that concern knowing that this facility will have a counter top inside the facility. He explained he is concerned because of the indication that the City of Anaheim would be liable with the State with all the environmental issues, etc. He added it seems that it could be mitigated now by them paying money. Mr. Cook responded at this point he was not certain wi~at pertains to the fast food sales and they are just aware that it will be fast food sales in the convenience store. He added the City of Yorba Linda would not object to the project with the inclusion of their proposed condition. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, referred to all the correspondence the Ciry has received from the City of Yorba Linda and he did not believe there is any evidence that points to the project having a significant impact and they believe that may be the case. He stated •,f there is a disagreement between experts, it does not mean there is going to be a significant impact. Kerry Lawier, 2832 Walnut Ave., Suite A, Tustin, stated regarding the pedestrian access, he would agree it tends io make sense to install it. Zoning Code requires a 3-foot high retaining wall in the 14-foot Iandscape buffer so any connection between existing Weir Canyon Road sidewalk and their sidewalk City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 9 would be almost 3 feet Iower because of the retaining wall and it would almost mandate that it not be handicapped accessiEle. As lang as they could stair step down that wall to an acceptable location inside the site, they would be agreeable to doing it. Alfred Yalda indicated state and federal law requires any sidewalk M be handicapped accessibte. That area is very close to the Caltrans right-of-t~~ay and it may be within their jurisdiction and the developer might have to get encroachment permits. Commissioner Bostwick stated Commission made the service station on Brookhurst by Home Depot instail a pedestrian access and he saw no reaso~ not to require them to have a cut ihrough the berm 3 feet wide for a s!dewaik to go through the berm. Commissioner Koos asked if the north end of the property is flush with the street or is there an elevation difference. He noted the areas on the exhibit and asked if there is an opportuniry to bring it straight over north ~f the sign. Mr. Lawler responded that the proposed property and parking lot efevations are roughly level with the sidewalk. The problem is when one leaves the sidewalk heading westerly from Weir Canyon and goes up a~:1 slope and back down a 3-foot high retaining wall but he believed they could make it handicapped accessible. Commissioner Bostwick stated with the way the EZ Lube facility is located, the doors open right onto Weir Canyon, and a person could looked right through it. Having visited the facility on La Pa{ma and Yorba Linda, it is not very appealing. He asked if there is anyway to turn it with the o~ces toward Weir Canyon and with landscaping blocking the view into the garage bays. Mr. Lawler stated they have looked at enhanced landscaping in the area facing Weir Canyon Road relative to ihat facilitv. Mike Dobson, 3909 Via Dolchey, Marina del Ray, president of EZ l.ube, responded they did look at that configuration and because of the stacking requirements of this 5usiness, it is not possible with their pad site and the amount of property they have to work with. He stated thay do not raise cars on hofsts; they only work on cars within the bays; and when they close the bay doors at 7:00 p.m„ it looks just like a storefront and to the north side of the property. There is a nice outc :~r patio with decorative tile in front of the building; that there will be no impact wrenches, and they will do nu heavy repairs. If they turned the building the other way, those driving down Weir Canyon would see the cars. They will have extensive landscaping on the north to buffer the view to the bays. He added basically they are experts using landscaping to buffer the bays. Commissioner Bristol stated he thought Mr. Cook had just said that the SAVI Master Plan made provisions for the traffic of those big box businesses. Ms. Haley"s letter discussed the fast foods. He referred to Greg Hastings' letter of August 12, which states staff's position that although a portion of this area may have been designated as Research and Development at one time and the potential traffic impacts have been decreased, not increased with the development oF the auto dealerships in Anaheim. That this is a less intense use. Greg Hastings stated since its inception this particuiar property has been designated for commercial retail uses and the properties across the street which currently have auto dealerships were designed for commercial office which wouid contribute toward a peak hour traffic issue, much more so than this project. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Aoenda 08-16-99 Page 10 Commissioner Bristol added it is safe to assume that their argument would be the same as Yorba Linda's argument about Home Depot, that the traffic would be less. Mr. Yalda responded that was correct. Commissioner Bostwick stated they did not put any limit on the number of rental cars and noted there would be no outdoor storage display and asked if ttiere is a need to have limit on the number of automobiles. Greg Hastings stated the exhibit shows a very smail area, he thought there was room for about 10 rental cars. The Commission could add that as a condition. Cheryi Flores asked that a condition be added prohibiting flags, banners, bailoons, etc. . Commissioner Bostwick asked about rentai trucks. Greg Hastings stated it would be a good idea to res+rict it to passenger automobiles. Commissioner Bristol asked about the crime rate being 25% above the average. Sgt. Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police Department, explained the crime rate is 25% above. It fs considered a high crime rate when it is 23% above. That crime rate is attributed to the Super K-Mart with high rates of shoplifting, atc. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he needs clarification on Waiver 2; and that on page 1, it states one wall sign permitted and five wal! signs proposed, then paragraph no. 26 refers to the 8 wall signs and asked wnat they are requesting wifh regard to signs. Greg McCafferty stated the EZ Lube building has 2 wall signs, the service station/convenience market has proposed the Starmart sign, as well as two Starmart logos, the canopy is proposed to have two Texaco logos and two Texaco signs and the car rental agency has one sign. The Code allows one wal! sign per tenant or per use limited to 10% of the wall area. Staff's recommsndation for the convenience markeUservice station would be limited to the Starmart sign and then the logos on the canopy. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it is due to the awkward orientation of the building and even if they were adjacent to a freeway, and there might be some visibility fhat other businessss do not have, it is still staff's recommendation for the number suggested for the total sign package. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the size of the signs and whether both will have gas prices posted on them or Just the one on Weir Canyon. Greg McCafferty responded ihe exhibits indicate that it will be on both street frontages. Commissioner Bostwick stated only one sign posting the price of the gasoline is required by law. Mr. Keuilian asked about the number of rental vehicles and they have submitted plans for 11 spaces. There would be no trucks. Ted Grove, RFA, 2050 Santa Cruz, Anaheim, stated the State requires that the prices and logos need to be visible from each adjacent street frontaye. That is typical for a station at an intersection. Because of the elevations of this site, it requires two separate signs. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 11 Greg Hastings stated there is no access from one street and asked if that law would still apply Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to the rendering, there is une monument sign with the Texaco logo po~trayed and immediately to the west is the canopy with the Texaco name on ft and apparently there is also another logo that will it be o~ the side of the building. He asked if the logo and name on the canopy could be seen would it suffice. PAr. Grove stated lhe sign that indicates the brand of gas has to state the price for each grade of gas. When a driver looks at the sign, they will know the brand (Texaco, Chevron, etc.) and it has to say'gas with car wash' or whatever the circumstance might be. There are minimum sizes for the height of the letters. There is no regulation on the logo size. That is the Cit;'s jurisdiction. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it is difficult to determine from the plans how this is all going to look. He understands staff ~ desire to accommodate the appiicant in terms of this being an unusual situation, but it is difficult to determine from the diagrams. Mr. Grove stated this is typical for most servir,e stations being developed today. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in this case they have asked for a waiver for additional s'~ns and it is ~ quest, m of having the monument signs, in addition to ths wall signs and perhaps the monument sign achieve~s what they are requesting for the wail signs. He understands that this might come back but the number of signs is what the Commission is deciding today and asked if there is any flexibility in the number of signs7 Greg Hastings responded there are two issues involved here, first is the number of signs, one per business, and if there is any change, it would need to be done with a notice of public hearing. Second, any change to the sign approved by the Commission wouid require a Report and Recommendation. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified that if the Planning Commission looks at the signs as they are proposed later on, and after having already approved the number, they decide they may have made a mistake on the number, then it has to be readvertised. He clarified Mr. Nasting's comment that the Planning Commission has the authority to decrease the number. Greg Hastings stated the Planning Commission would probably deny the final sign review of a particular sign because it is not necessary, but today the applicant is asking for more signs than allowed by Code. Commissioner Koos asked if the signs on the east elevation of the gas station are intended for pecple on the freeway or people on Weir Canyon Road, or both. He felt the monument sign is not serving the property with respecl to the gas station, or people going south on Weir Canyon Road. They are probably not going to go to Santa Ana Canyon Road and turn around. It seems they have signs intended for Weir Canyon Road travelers and then they have sigr.s on the east elevation, which require a waiver for those same travelers. Perhaps they do not need the tivaiver because the monument sign is prominently placed on Weir Canyon Road with nothing around it. It goes to the nature of the whole SAVI Ranch development because one can not even enter this site from Weir Canyon Roacl. Mr. Grove stated generally when you are traveiing north or south on Weir Canyon Road, the monument sign is only 8 x 10, and the property to the west is residential. The monument sign is primarily for Weir Can/on Road and the canopy is for the westbound freeway travelers. As a person exits the freeway, they will see the canopy and not see the monument sign, because it is low and too smali and because of the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 12 angle. It is perpendicular to Weir Canyon Road and you can not see it until ,you are there. Therefore, they must have the canopy. Commissioner Koos stated on the north elevation, they have the sign on the canopy. Mr. Grove axplained they have requesked what is shown on the canopy in the rendering, the slug which is the Texaco star on the east elevation looking at it from Weir Canyon Road and also a"slug" on the Super K-Maft side. They have not requested any wording on the backside. They have requested from freeway and Yorba Linda going south, the words "Texaco" on the north and south side for people on the freeway. A customer on the freeway would not see the monument sign, but a canopy wili warn him to get off the freeway. Commissioner Koos stated they wil~ have signs on the north, east, s~uth and west, and the 5~' is on the building. Mr. Grove stated the building only has the franchise cut, obscured by the canopy and it can only be seen by those people heading south. They proposed the little circle on th~ east and west, and the north and south is very important and they would like to work with Planning staff. Commissioner Bristol stated if it is law that they have to ~ost signs on Weir Canycn. There is one located there and another one on Old Canal Road. Mr. Grove suggested leaving ~hat open and they will confirm with the State whether it is one or two Chairperson Boydstun suggested approval, subject to the signs coming back later Commissioner Bostwick felt if Commission approves a certain number of signs, then the applicant will want that many. He stated the resolution would give them the right to something and once that is done, he did not think the Commission could change its mind. Greg Hastings thought the Commission could approve the waiver with a condition that the sign could only be located on Weir Canyon Road. If State law requires posting of prices on that street frontage, then Commission is probably just dealing with the canopy signs if there is no advertising on Weir Canyon Road. Staff suggested having the logo on the canopy rather than wording. Commissioner Koos stated he understands the area is allowed to have a maximum of four ABC off-sale licenses and there are three in the area now. He was concerned about the City's process in determining public convenience and necessity. He referred to paragraph no. 37 of the staff report, which states that except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. He added that the Commission has to determine public convenlence or necessity with this project and asked if there is formal guidance as to what constitutes a demonstration of public convenience or necessity, which the Commission could follow. He asked if it is on a case or case basis and if it is a city ordinance or state statute. He asked if the State has any guidance on the subject, Greg Hastings explained there are no formalized guidelines that have been created for the Commi^sion. It has been on a case by case basis and that it is a State requirement and the City Council has given that responsibility to the Planning Commission. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, explained the State does not have any specific guidelines. A fevr years ago, when state law changed to give the responsibilify of certain types of decisions relating to ABC City of knaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 13 licenses to c(ties so that cities couid more specifically address the impacts in their own cities, particula~ly in matters tvhere there was high concentration of licenses or crime above average. The City of Anahefm set up a process to address these changes and the City Council designated the Planning Commission to be the agency to make the determination of public convenience or necessity. The decision was to be made fn conjunction with any public hearing that was required for the project and it can be appealed to the City Council. The City Attorney's Office looked at that and saw what other jurisdictions were doing and there were concerns that guidelines could become constrai~:fs. If Commfssion desires they can create guidelines. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board does not have anything specific. The decisions are made on a case by case basis, based upon arguments made by the applicant regarding what types of convenience there would be for a particular neighborhood to have this product available. Commissioner Koos stated he is not referring to just this project but the Commission sees these requests come up frequently especialiy for a convenience market that requests beer and wine. He is concersied and felt pubiic convenience or necessiry are strong words, especially necessity and asked whai determines what is a necessiry. He asked if the legislature had anything in mind for the Gommission to follow and suggested that may be a discussion at future Commission meetings, especially in high crime areas. Selma Mann, asked if the Commission would like their office to see if there are guidelines for determining public convenience or necessity. She added that pa~t of previous law said public convenience or necessity and it did not change, but the decision was made entirely by ABC. Then ABC carved out certain decisions where the City could make those decisions. Commissioner Koos stated he did not want the City to be challerged where the Commission has made a determination on public convenience or necessity for a particular project where someone couid say they obtain get beer and wine at several different locations within a 5-mile radius. He asked why this ono is a public convenience or necessity. He felt those are strong words and it is a serious issue, which are considered on a case by case basis. Selma Mann wanted to address some of the environmental issues. She referred to the letters from the City of Yorba Linda and the representative from Yorba Linda correctly stated what a negative declaration definition is. CEQA has a seckion when defining a negative declaration, H~hich states that a written statement by the lead agency briefly d2scribing the reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a signi~icant adverse impact on the environmeni and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR. CEQA was amended recently on determining the significance of the environmental effects caused by a project and it tried to help public bodies make this di~cult determination. Ms. Mann indicated Mr. McCafferty spoke about expeit testimony: She was not certain that they have necessarily had expert testimany from Yorb~ Linda wi4h regard to specific facts regarding the intersections in Yorba Linda. What is being described is actually cumulative impacts and Mr. Cook spoke of projects in that city that imp~cted a particular intersection in that city and the concerns that having this project would have some potentially significant impacts based on everythin~ that has been happening in Yorba Linda. in determining whether cumulative impacts require an EIR, as lead agency, you need to determine whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are 'cumu(atively considerable'. In looking at this particular project and what has been described by the City's Traffic Engineer as being an insignificant impact on the streets that would be most impacted, Commission does need to look toward City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 14 that and Section 15064 describes to Commission how to determine significance. It statos that the mere existence of significant cumulafive impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantlal evidence that the proposed projecPs incrementai are cumulatfvely considerable. Therefore, even if there is cumulative sfgnificance from other proJects, that does nut necessarily mean that this particular project is going to be having a cumulatively considerable impact on that intersection. Commission needs to consider the actual testimony that has come before them and what was presented by the City of Yorba Linda and the Ciry's Traffic Engineer, then make a decision accordingly. Aifred Yalda stated when Traffic Engineering staff looked at the traffic stu~y, several intersections they looked at and the Ciry did not even take into consideration passerby trips which generally this type of project provides and ttiat is between 28 to almost 87%. 7aking that into consideration, there was no significant traffic gener,ated by this project to warrant any mitigation measures for the existing intersection in Anaheim or for the m:nor intersection in Yorba Linda. Therefore, he could conclude that this project does not generate significant trips which has to be mitigated. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: 1 person (Bruce Cook, Senior Planner, representing the City of Yorba Lin~a) spoke in opposition. Correspondence from the City of Yorba Linda was received in opposition. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved, in part, waiver (a) pertaining to permitted commercial identification signs with the stipulation that final identification sign plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item, and further, that if the state does not require price identification on two different street locations, the sign that is not required to have the pricing shall be reduced in size to a standard 3-foot high, 26 square-foot, double-sided sign; Approved, in part, waiver (b) pertaining to permitted number of wali signs, limiting the canopy signs to the "Texaco" logo on the east and south elevatir,~s and approving two (2) "EZ Lube" sfgns on the east and north eievations of the ~ube building; Approved waiver (c) periaining to maximum structural height abutting a residential zone; Approved waiver (d) pertaining to minimum landscape setback abutting a residential zone; Approved ~vaiver (e) pertaining to required site screening abutting a residential zone; and Approved waiver (~ pertaining to minimum structural and landscape setback abutting a freeway. Granted Conditional Use Permlt No. 4100 with the foliowing changes to conditions: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actlon Agenda 08-16-99 Page i5 Modified Condition Nos.1, 29, 35, 36 and 42, to read as follows: 1. That signage for the lube facility shall be limited to two (2) wall signs, one on each of the east and north building elevations, not to exceed 78 square feet each. That signage for the service station canopy shali be limited to one maximum 5 square foot logo on each of the east and south canopy elevations. That plans for a comprehensive sig~~ program shall be submitted to the Zoning Division ~or review and approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 29. That a minimum enclosed retail sales area of twelve-hundred (1200) sguare feet shail be maintained for the convenience market, unless the sale of beer and wine is discontinued. 35. That no advertising of beer and wine beverages shall be located, placed or attached to any loca.tion outside the building; and that any such advertising shall not be audible (interior or exterior). 36. That sales of beer and wine beverages s~nall be made to customers only when the customer is inside the building. 42. That no outdoor storage, display (with the exception of the display of rental cars in the location shown on the approved site plan exhibit) or sales of any merchandise fixtures, or vehicles shall be permitted. That a maximum of ten (10) passenger vehicies may be displayed and that no banners, flags or balloons shall be permitted. Added the following conditions of approval: That a pedestrian access shall be created along Weir Canyon Road through the berm, approximately 3 foot in width, to allow foot traffic to enter the property. That a split-rail fence on top of the retaining wall adjacent to Old Canai as shown on the renderings shall be installed. That the fast-foot service shall be an accessory use to the convenience market and that a separate sign for the fast-food portion shall not be permitted. Vote on Conditional Use Permit: 6-0 (Commissloner Esping absent) Approved Pubiic Convenience or Necessity Permit No. 99-05. V~te on PCN: 5-1; Commiss'aner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Esping ab~enf). Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 18 minutes (1:42-3:00) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 16 i~t 3a. CEQA NEGATNE DECI.ARA710N 3b. RECLASSIFlCATION NO. 98-99•13 ~ INRIATED BY: Ciry of Anahelm (Community Development), 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: No address assigned. Property is 2.27 acres focated at the southwest comer of Monte Vista Road and Bauer Road. To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) Zone to the RS- 5000(SC) Zone. Continued from the ComrnSssion meetings of May 24, and July 7,1999. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. SR7507VK.DOC • • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol oKared a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commis'sioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the request to withdraw Reclassification No.98-99-13. ' VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minufe (3;00-3:01) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 17 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ' August 30,1999 4c. CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4130 OWNER: Jon ~d. Doweli, Nancy E. Dowell, Gabriel Patin, Virginia Patin; ShirlEy Almand, William U. Almand, Willa Jean Cornett, Wilton B. Abplanaip, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W. , Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Pacific Naiional Development, Attn: AI Marsha11,1041 W. 18'" St. #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATIQN: 3335 - 3345 West Lincoln Avenue - Lazy Living Mobile Home Park. Property is 2.98 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,1,070 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street. To construct a 96-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of (a) permitted encroachments in set5ack areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) minimum side and rear landscape setback adjacent to one-famiiy residential developments, (d) maximum structurai height, (e) required elevators, (fl minimum floor area, (g) location of required private storage areas, and (h) minimum required affordable units. Continued from Commission meetings of June 21, and July 7,1999. CONDITIONAL USE FERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR6960DS.DQC :'.' . FOLLOWING IS A~SUMMARY I~FTHE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ' •. ^ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTIORf: Continued subject request to the August 30,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to meet with the Planning Department, Community Oevelopment Department, and .i1 EWAAID) neighborhood representatives* to discuss various concerns relativo to adequate buffering to adjacent single-family residential properties, more reasonable distances from units to trash and parking faciiities, and design improvements reflecting Community Development Department concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ' CorzecUon per Commissfon on 8-30•99. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 18 r.,-,~ . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ ~ : 5a. CEQA NEG.OTIYE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. WAIVER OF (:ODE REQI~IREMENT - 8-30-99 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 4122 OWNER: Vito and Josephine Bucaro, Fred Kimura, Yoshiko Kimura, Allen Wattenberg, Richard and Enriqueta Wattenberg, Kathy J. Wattenberg, Eugene Pardella, Marie Pardella, William Keough, Patsy Keough and Thakor Desa, 8300 Lexington Road #10, Downey, CA 90241 AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshall, ~1041 VVest 18th Street #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centeriine of Brookhurst Street. To construct a 2-story 56-unit affordable senior citizen's apartmenF complex with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment into setback areas, (b) minimum structural setback, (c) minimum private recreational - lelsure area, (d) minimum floor area, (e) required private storage areas, (~ minimum pedestrian access and (g) minimum required affordable units. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 7,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR6961 DS.DOC • a ~ • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 30,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to meet with the Planning Department, Community Development Department, and (~4~AP10~ neighborhood representatives' to discuss various concerns relative to lack of detail on the submitted plans, lack of recreational amenities, number of driveways and locations, trash enclosure location, parking lot location, and other design improvements.. . VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed, ' Cortectlon per Commission on &30-99. City of Anahefm Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 19 6b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98•99-15 Granted, unconditionally 6c. WAfVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Withdrawn 6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4720 (READVERTISED) Withdrawn OWNER: (CUP 4120) Frank Chu and Linger Chu, 926 S. Beach Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Stephen Lam and Associates, 900 S. San Gabriel Bivd. #208, San Gabriel, CA 91776 INITIATED BY: (Reclassification No. 98•99-15) City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 5outh Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 926 South Beach Boulevard - Lyndy's Motel and Restaurant. Property is 1.1 acres located on the east side of Beach Bouievard and on the north side of Ball Road, 200 feet north af the centerline of Ball Road and 245 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Reclassification No. 98-99•15 - to reclassify ihis property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zor~e (or less intense zone). Conditional Use Permit No. 4120 - to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, to expand the existing motel and to construct a commercial retail center on the same property with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit No. 4120 was continued from the Commission meetings of May 24, June 7, June 21, and July 7,1999. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-151 SR6944DS.DOC (The applicant presented his opening statement following the action of the Commission on the Reclassifrcation and withdrawal of the waiver request.] ApplicanYs Statement: Elmer Nelson, 12550 Brookhurst Street, Suite C, Garden Grove, representing Thomas Enterprises, the former owner and the present owners, Frank and Linger Chu. He has been managing the property for the past 25 years. The owner of Thomas Enterprises developed Lindy's on June 30, 1960. It was sold in Aprii 1996. The former owner is carrying a note and trust deed, which was a consideration of the purchase price. The property is zoned Commercial, Heavy. This hearing is regarding changing the zoning to Commercial, Limited. They object to the zone change. They understand the motel and City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 20 restaurant can still operate; however, it would be a nan-corsforming use to CL Zoning and this change would make it impossible to develop thfs 40-year old property into something that would b~ more conducive to future changes in the economy. They felt it is outrageous to pass ordinan„es to take awa}r rights of the landowner. He referenced to the staff report which refers to the property across Ball Road as being presently zoned CL and they feel that property should also be zoned CH since it was developed at the same time as Lindy's. Commissioner Bristol asked what Mr. Nelson thought could be built on th;s property in the CH Zone. Mr. Nelson responded it is not known what the future holds. Commissioner Koos asked what the key difference was between the CH and CL Zone and why this being requested. Greg Hastings explained the CH zoning in this City dates back over 40 years. The intent was to have corners at intersections where service stations were originally developed. For some reason, this property was incorporated into that, but the idea was that the CH zoning allowed heavier commercial uses. Since fhat time the CL Zone has incorporated some of the uses that were in the CH Zone into the CL Zone. Everything being developed today commercially falls into this CL zoning. About 10 or 12 years ago, the Planning Commission and City Council directed staff wherever CG and CH zoning occurred, to transition that gradually as the issues came up to a CL Zone. Probably one ofi the major advantages to the CL Zone for the Ciry would likeiy be conditioned anyway on a CH property is that the CH Zone does not provide for any landscape requirements adjacent to the front property line and the CL Zone requires a 10-foot setback. He added that is the main requirement. There are many uses in the CH Zone which are very heavy which would normally require a CUP in the CL Zone. Staff has recommended, as opportunities have arisen, that the CH Zone change to CL Zone. Staff could certainly give the applicant a more precise listing of what is allowed in the CL Zone versus the CH Zone. If Commission wishes to continue this portion of the matfer, staff can work with the applicant. They had a recent situation at City Council where one of the properties on Beach Boulevard was up for CH to CL Zone. Staff met with the applicant and the applicant felt completely assured that whatever is eventually built on the property would fall under the CL zoning. Commissioner Bristol noted this has been continued severai times and asked if it is possible that the owners found out what is allowed in this zone and they want to stay right where they are because they have some other use for this property. Greg Hastings thought this has been continued because they had a concern with the expansion of the motel, but now that conditional use permit has been withdrawn so it seems that the issue is revolving simply around the differences between the CH and the CL Zones. Commissioner Bristol stated there was an indication in the report that the applicant wanted to withdrawn this CUP was discussing what the potentiai use of this property could be. Asked if it is possible the applicant is trying to keep within the current zoning and may not want to change because he may have some unknown use there. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 21 Greg Hastings stated he was not aware of any uses brought forward to staff Commissioner Bostwick asked if a motel is an approved use in the CL Zone. Greg Hastings responded is allowed with by a conditional use permit. Commissioner Bostwick stated if they plan to improve this propert,y or enlarge the operation of the motei, It would be approved under the CL Zone. Chairperson Boydstun stated basically the only difference is the landscaping and Mr. Hastings explained even by condition of approval, staff would recommend even if it were developed in the CH Zone that there be at least 10 feet of landscaping. Chairperson Boydstun explained that basically the CL and CH Zones have the same requirements except there would be some landscaping required. She explained the motel and restaurant would be "grandfathered" in the way they are today. If they wanted to redo the motel, they would have to provide the setback. Commissioner Bristol further explained the major difference fs ihe 10-foot landscape setback under the CL Zone, which they do not currently have. Mr. Nelson stated that right now the restaurant would be encroaching on that 10-foot setback area. He stated if the new owners wanted to add onto the motel, would the Ciry then require a setback on the restaurant. Greg Hastings explained the Code would not require it, and the restaurant wiil be there by right since it would be grandfathered in. Chairperson Boydstun explained they would have to meet the ~cde on the new addition. Cheryl Flores explained staff did met with Joanie Lou who wrote the letter and went over the differences in depth between the CH and CL Zones and she translated all the information for Mrs. Chu. _ < ro~~owlrvGJS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COINMISSION ACTION.~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No., 98-99-15, unconditionally. ACTION: Commissionsr Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTlON CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 4120. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (3:01-3:14) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 22 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4139 (READVERTISED) Granted OWIdER: American National Properties, Inc., P.O. Box 10077, Santa I(To exp(re 11-1-2005) Ana, CA 92711-0077 AGENT: Phillip R. Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street. Proper;y is 5.8 acres located at the termin~s of Embassy Street. To establish an Orange County Transportation Authority operated parairansit transportation and maintenance depot to service approximately 175 medium size buses and to construct an office and maintenance building for light vehicle maintenance with enclosed washing bays and two above-ground 500 gallon fueling tanks with waiver of minimum required site screening adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meetings of July 18, and August 2,1999 CONDITIO;•~':aL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-152 ApplicanYs Statement: Phillip Schwartze, agent, stated this matter was continued in order to address the issue concerning the ability to waive a site screening requirement along the border of the property which fronts the spur of the railroad track. He referred to a memo (dated August 13,1999) questioning Condition No.10 and added the way it was worded in the staff report all the traffic was in and out of Embassy. Their request was that the buses go in and out of Embassy and that the personnel would go in and out of Mable which is how the site plan was designed. He referred to Condition No. 22 regarding the tanks and stated they are proposing thE gasoline and diesel fuel tanks to be underground tanks and suggested that the propane tank would be above ground. Concerning Condition No. 30, they were suggesting that the maintenance of the buses would be light maintenance only at all times of the day, although it primarily occurs during the evening hours. Public Testimony: Irv Pickler, 2377 Mull Avenue, representing Bryant Industries Properties and Mr. R.S. Hoyt, Jr.; stated they do not oppose the request, but they oppose Condition Nos.10 and 27. He referred to the staff report, page 3, paragraph 14, the second sentence whi~h reads, that subsequent to advertising a mitigated negative declaratior., relating to potential noise, odor and traffic impacts, the app~icant provided additional traffic and design information as evidence that no significant environmental impacts would occur. On the same page, paragraph 15, it states based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been determined that this project does not fit within fhe scope necessary to require a growth management analysis. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 23 Mr. Pickler continued on page 4, Paragraph 17, which states the project was viewed by staff with sensitivity towards the adjacent Fairmont School. Paragraph 19 regarding the petikoner's letter of operation indicates that the facility will maintain an approximate number of buses, with peak trfp generation periods occurring lwice a day, between 5:00 a.m. and 7 a.m., and between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The hours of operation for ~he school are 8:05 a.m. to 3:10 p.m., with peak arrival and departures between 7:30 a.m. and 8 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. basically to show impacts were not there. Page 5, Paragraph 21, the petitioner is cunently workinc~ with ths City's Traffic and Transportation Manager and Fairmont Schoois, and it seems Fairmont School is often mentioned. Page 7, No. 30(d) indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and approved to carry the traffic in the area because peak traffic timeframes for the bus depot will occur at different intervals and does not conflict with the school. He stated Mr: Hoyt owns about 100 industrial properties thraughout Anaheim and in that area alone he owns T or 8 properties. Every indication seems to point to the probability that traffic is going to be towards Embassy Street which he felt would be a detriment to the industrial users who have been there for quite some time. Mr.. Pickler presented letters from Mr. Knudsen and Mr. Hoyt. Jerry Knudsor, 2540 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA, stated he is the attorney for Brian Industrial Properties and Mike Hoyt, the trustee of the R.S. Hoyt Jr. Fainily Trust who owns 6 industrial building on Embassy Street immediately to the west of the subject prope~ty and the industrial building at 220 Loara Street between Mable Street and Loara and Embassy Street. Although Mike Hoyt supports the proposed Laidlaw property use, they are not opposed to approval ~~ the conditional use permit and the CEQA negative declaration with the exclusion oF Condition hos.10 and 27 recommended by the staff report. Condition No. 10 would require that all ingress and egress of buses and bus drivers and maintenance personnel be limited to Embassy Street. Condition No. 27 requires the developer to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for the possible cul-de-sac improvement to Mable Street in the future. These conditions arbitrarily and adversely impact the industrial properties in this long established industrial area. They place an undue burden on Embassy Street. The Laidlaw property has rights of ingress and egress not only to Embassy Street but also to Mable Street. Logically and normally bath streets would be used for ingress and egress to the subject property. it appears that the City is diverting the traffic to facilitate the Fairmont School, placing an unfair burden on neighboring industrial properties. If as appears, the City Planning Department is now hostile fo industrial users, it shoul~ follow proper procedures to limit industrial use by amending trtie General P/an and doing a fu/l environmental impact study, not fhrough encroaching on the present industrial owners and tenants through the conditional use process and piece mealing negative declarations. The staff report does not identiFy the reasons for these conditions nor does it refer to any traffic study, although a traffic study should have been required. He felt it is obvious that the only reasons for the conditions is to facilitate the expansion of the Fairmont School at the expense of the industrial owners and tenants. The staff report only considers the affect of the traffic on Fairmont School. The report gives no consideration to the impact on industrial users. He referred to the City Zoning map attached to the staff report and the area map prepared by Brian Industrial Properties that shows the various current uses which are enciosed in the material forwarded to Commission. The map shows the 5.8-acre parcel (Laidlaw parcei) has only 60 feet of frontage on Embassy Street as compared to 528 feet of uninhibited frontage on Mable Street. Nine industrial buildings have their frontage on Embassy Street and for 7 of the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-16-99 Page 24 buildings their oniy access is Embassy Street. it is unreasonable to resMct the bus trafflc to one access point when multiple ac~ess points are available. He felt it is obvious that the staff Is only doing this to accommodate the desires of Fairmont School with no concem for the industrial pr4perties in the area. This is confirmed with staff s recommendation for a required cul-de-sac dedication on Mable SUeet. The staff report actually reaffirms :he impropriety of granting the Fairmont School Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 and the CEQA Negative Declaration and the lack of basis for findings that the proposed Fairmont School expanded use would not adversely affect the adjoinfng industrial land uses. It was improper to adopt a negative declaration for the Fairmont School project without cc+nsidering the cumulative impacts of the Fairmont School expansion, the Laidlaw 5.8 acre project, and the above staff report conditions. Condition Nos.10 and 27 are improper and must be eliminated. Mable Street should receive at least equal use for Laidlauv bus traffic. Irv Pickler, introduced Mr. Hoyt (CEO of Brian Industrial Properties) by stated that he has contributed and been in business in the ciry of Maheim for over 40 years. Mr. Hoyt does not usually attend meetings but felt very concemed about what is happening in the area of subject property. Mike Hoyt, Jr., CEO of Brian Irdustrial Properties,146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated they have been at the Orangethorpe Avenue site for approximate~y 43 years. grian Industrial has been active in the development of industrial properties, development leasing and the continual management of their properties. They currentiy have 97 industrial properties within th~ Ciry ofi Anaheim, which have contributed substantially to the economy of Anaheim. He referred to the area map prepared by Brian Industrial Properties which illustrates the two possible areas ofi ingress and egress for Laidlaw. They are very much in favor of the Laidlaw operation but he pointed aut there are 60 feet on Embassy Street for access v~arsus 528 feet on Mable. He felt it is Fairmont School that is driving staff to their recommendations. This is resulting in Brian Industrial Properties reconsideration of their position in Anaheim after a!I these years. He felt it appears the staff, Planning Corrimission, and City Council are all hostile to industrial uses in Anaheim. He was in agrEement with the proposal with the exception of Condition Nos.10 and 27, regarding ingress and egress. The cul-de-sac on Mable is a prelude to Fairmont School trying to abandon Mable Street by instal(ing a cu-de-sac and obtaining a"free street" which wouid prevent their building which facing Loara from the use of Mable Street. It would also preclude them from exiting their property from an easement they have on Mable. They do want to support the Laidlaw deal because it is a perfect use for the 5.8-acre parcel but as long as those two condifions are in place, they are forced to oppose it. Chairperson Boydstun stated there was an error on wording of Condition No.10 and Mr. Schwartze submitted suggested verbiage, wtiich states bus drivers, maintenance and adminis!rative personnel be limited to Mable Street for ingress and egress. Mike Hoyt acknowledc~ed Mr. Schwarfze brought to his attention that Commissfon was informed of that correction earlier today. He wondered why the 175 buses would be required to go through Embassy Street and out the intersection of Li~icoln and Loara since that intersection is very congested. Chairperson Boydstun indicated that in the futur~ the freeway urould be comqleted which will improve the traffic flow at that intersection. Mike Hoyt reaffirmed his position that it does not aiter their opposition unless Condition Nqs.10 and 27 are delated. City of F~naheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 25 Irv Pickler agreed and felt this is putting an undue burden on the indust~ial uses on Embassy and the surrounding industrial area. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Phillip Schwartze stated they have been clear with regards to Condition No.10 concem3ng the gated entrance on Embassy or Mabie. Their proposal was to bring administrative personnel and maintenance people and use the parking lot. Buses were gofng to be in and out of tlie area off of Embassy. He stressed that the buses are gone before anyone gets there and retum after everyone has gone home. His understanding is that Fairmont School and Brian Indusfrial Properties are in support of their project. He understands Brian Industrial Properties' concem about Fairmont School's impact on this industrial area. He felt they could live without the conditions in question and left the decision to the discretion of the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Schwartze whether they were comfortable with the one-year time frame for the CUP. Phillip Schwartze responded that it was his understanding that they have to exercise tfneir activity at this site otherwise the CUP would terminate after ane year, however if they were to start the construction, building permits, etc. then the CUP will remain. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff if there was a reas~n for that condition? ~reg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, informed Commission the intent of the condition is to have the use expire one year from today's date, however, it wouid be ultimately up to Commission to determine if there would be a time limit on this use. Typically, tiie intent of this type of a time limitation is to have an automatic rehearing to enable the Planning Commission to modiFy or add any new conditions that may come about since this is an unusual use, even in an industrial zone. Commissioner Bostwick, suggested Condition No. 9 be granted for a 5-year time limit since that wouid coincide with the applicanYs contract with O.C.T.A. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, informpd Commission that Broadway would be open by November of this year. Currently the major traffic cnnctrafnt is that most of the tra~c is directed onto Lin~oln and Loara Street because of the closure of Broa~way. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the improvements to Lincoln. Alfred Yaida, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated the improvements to Lincolr would be completed some time early summer of next year and the whole project shouid be completed by the end of next year. Phillip Schwartze informed Commission that their contract woul~ be 5 years from November 1, 1999. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actian Agenda 08-16-99 Page 26 Commissioner eristol stated, for the record, that he received a call from Mr. Pickler regarding Condition No. 27, and that he agreed with him. It appears that a conditfon is being proposed regarding installatfon of a cul-de-sac and he was not ce~tain there is a nexus. Alfred Yalda stated it is ultimately up to Commission to decide whether to retain or delete Condition No. 27. The City has the right to abandon their streets at any time, however, there is a public process lnvolved and staff does not simply condition a project to becoma a cul-de-sac. An applicant is required to file a request for abandonment of a street. The process involves notification and agreement of the surrounding owners, a public hearing, and approval from the City Council, (n order for a street to become a cul-de-sac. He gave the example of Qld Santa Ana Can;~on Road where Mr. Kung wanted to abandon that street but one property owner was opposed to the request and as a re^ult the request was not approved. Commissioner Elostwick felt both Condition No.10 and 27 should be deleted and asked if it was necessary to retain Condition No. 30. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised Condition No. 30 be deleted and replaced with the wording that Phillip Schwartze provided to read, "That as stipulated to by the petitioner, fueling, washing and preventative and light maintenance of the buses wili primarily accur duri~g the evening hours. No heavy repairs wili be conducted onsite". Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, suggested that if the waiver is approved then Condition No.15 can be deleted or modified to state that it could be a chain link fence with PVC slats. Commissioner Koos stated, for the record, since the last public hearing he spoke with Mr. Pickler regarding Condition No. 10. He was concerned in the event something occurs on Embassy and Loara such as an accident, etc. where the vehicles would be prevented or delayed from going to their destinations. While he would be supportive of a condition that would specify primary usage on Embassy, he was leaning towards suggesting that Commission eliminate the separation between the administrative lot and the bus lot for emergency exit purposes. He felt there needs to be a backup plan to go onto Mable and asked Mr. Schwartze to comment. Phiilip Schwartze stated they had proposed some landscaping that separated the building from the railroad track. They can leave it open for unusual circumstances or emergencies that arise so they can reroute the buses. He was in agreement with this Commissioner Koos' suggestion. They can come up with a cesign agreeable to staff. It would Frobably be some type of gate that they would have on a normal basis, which would be opened only for emergency purposes. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked when Mr. Schwartze thought construction would be completed and operations begun. Phillip Schwartze responded the contract has been granted as of November 1,1999. Depending on how quickly the building is built, they could start operation on March 1, 2000. The buses will be serving primarily the northern part of Orange County. There was further discussion regarding the e~;iting of buses, the new Lincoln bridge and on/off ramps to the 1-5 freeway. City of Ar~~~im Planning Comm(ssion Summary Action Agenc+a OS-16-99 Page 27 • • ~ ~ • ~ ~ .• '• - .,.. . ~DPPOSlTION: 3 people spoke fn oppositfon to the proposed Condition Nos.10 and 27. They indicated they were In favor of the proposal if said conditions were deleted. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approvec+ Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4139 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 27 Modified Condition No.1,10,15, 22 and 30 to read as follows: 1. That subject use permit shall expire on November 1, 2005. 10. That ingress and egress of buses shall be through the gated entrance on Embassy Street and that the bus drivers, maintenance and o~ce personnel will use the Mable Street (ngress and egress. That there shall be no solid wall between the maintenance faciiity and the fence to the northeast, instead there shall be a rolling gate that can be used for ingress and egress in an emergency. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-i 6-99 Page 28 15. ~ _ That the fencing along the railroad right-of-way shall be a chain-link fence with PVC slats and with minimurr 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers to eliminate graffiti opportunfties shall be planted, irrigated and ma(ntained. Said information shall be specfically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 22. That the gasoline and diesel fuel tanks shail be placed underground and that the propane tank shall be placed above-ground near the fuel docks at the northem portion of the property. 5aid information shall be speciflcaliy indicated on plans submitted for buflding permits. 30. That as stipulated to by the petitioner, fueling, washing, preventative and light maintenance of the buses will primarily occur during evening hours. No heavy repairs shall be conducted on site. VO"fE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal righis. DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (3:15-3:57) BREAK: 3:58-4:05 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 29 1Ft..:::.:. ... . . . f'::'::-'~. . . . . , 8b. 8c. Approved Granted OWNER: Jon M. and Nancy E. Doweil; Gabriel and Virginia Patin; Shirley and William U. Almand; Willa Jean Cornett; and Wilton B. and Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3336 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: William Talley, 500 North State College Boufevard #1020, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 3345 West Uncoin Avenue. Property is ?. ~7 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,1,070 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street. Conversion Impact Report - To permit the closure of an existing 30-space mobile home park. Reclassiflcation Na. 99-00-05 - To reclassify subject property from the CL (MHP) (Commercial, Limited, Mobile home Park Overlay) and RS-A- 43,000 (MHP) (Residential/Agricuitural, Mobile Home Park Overlay) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) and ihe RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zones. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PG99-153 SR6959DS.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Bill Talley, 500 North State C~Ilege Boulevard, Suite 1020, Orange, stated he is representing the applicant. They have read the staff report and except for a minor modification, which was brought to Commission's attention at the morning session, they are in agreement. They are not asking for any exceptions to the ordinance. They are providing that they work with each resfdent individuaily and are in agreement as along as they are not asked to do more than their obligation by ordinance and by state law. They have 15 of the 30 spaces to relocate, the other 15 are their owned by the owner or are vacant or are rentals o~Nned by another mobile home park resident. The managing partnedowner was also present and representatives from 5 of the 15 spaces, which they do not own. THE PUBLIG HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. Gha.ryl Flores, Senior Planner, recommended Condition No.1 be reworded, that the property owner shall provide relocation benefits rather than pay, as stated in the staff report. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 30 ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Appraved the Conversion Impact Report, as follows: Commissioner Bostwick offered 2 motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commission does hereby determine that the content of ihe submitted Conversion Impact Report (dated June,1999) is fn compliance with Section Nos.18.02.051 and 18.92.06C of the Anahefm Munfcipal Code and that proof of notification to tenants has been submitted by the property owner as required by Section 65863.7 of the Government Code and California Civil Code Section 7981.56(gj and (h)). Granted Reclassification No. 99-00-05 with the following change to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No.1 to read as foilows: 1. That the mobi(e home park owner shall provide each mobile home owner the reasonable relocation benefits as identified in the Conversion fmpact Report submitted by the property o~vner dated June,1999. VOTE: . 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:06-4:09) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 31 -.. ~;; 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NQ. 368 8-30-99 INITIATED BY: Ciry of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 3175 West Ball Road. Property is 0.36 acre located at the northeast comer of Westem Avenue and Ball Road. City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this property ftom the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General C~mmercial land use designation. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. SR7513CF.DOC • • • • e • OPPOSITION: Plone ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 30,1999 Planning Commission meeting as recommended by staff. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSI~N TIME: This item was not discussed. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Comm(ssion ~ummary Action Agenda OS-16-99 Page 32 10a. C~QA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3304 (READVERTISED) Approved modiflcation OWNER: Wefr Partners Ltd.,1 Park Plaza, Suite 430, irvine, CA (Deleted Condition No. 92614 38 of Resolution No. PC98-195) AGENT: Joseph D. Caroll,1 Park Plaza, Suite 430, Inrine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 731 South Weir Canyon Road - First Class Piua. Property is 11.9 acres located at the southwest comer of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertalning to the landscaping of a vacant outdoor dining area located at 701 South Weir Canyon Road. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-954 _ SR7504KB.DOC ApplicanPs Statement: Ed Haarberg, 731 South Weir Canyon Road, Suite 147, Anaheim, CA, stated he is the leaseholder on First Class Pizza. He tried to comply with all the conditions of approval except the requirement of removing the patio that serviced a former restaurant, now leased by Blockbuster, locaied at the opposite end of the shopping center. He contacted the landlord and informed them of Condition No. 38. He also informed the current owner that the previous landlord chose not to comply. He has since been in communications with them and his impression is that the new owner does not intent to comply. He does not have much leve~age with the current landlord and did not know where to go from here. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff if that was a cundition on a previous CUP for the removal? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager responded yes, that is being advertised now to review that condition. The condition was placed on the First Class Pizza conditionai use permit. First Class Pizza had created their own outdoor area without a CUP. It was brought to Commission, and they had recommended a condition of approval that the property owner remove the abandoned outdoor dining area on the other end of the property as a condition of approval of this one being approved. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff if the owner will not do it, do they have to delay this project Greg Hastings stated there is nothing being held up because it is existing. It is a housekee~ing matter tha! they are trying to get compliance with this final condition. Chairperson Boydstun wanted to know if part of it down and part of it there, it is a hezard and can't they do it through Code Enforcement. Greg Hastings responded that could be looked at as well. It is a condition of approval on this CUP and if they wanted to modify this or do something to this one that is fine as well. They can not have Code Enforcement go out there since it is no longer being utilized. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 33 Commissioner Bristol asked if he was aware of it when they granted ihe last CUP permit Ed Haarberg indicated he noticed it in the permit but he did not object to it at t~~at time because he thought the landlord would take care of it and subsequently. The landiord has subsequenUy changed. Commissioner Koos asked why the applicant bore the burden of coming before Commission if the CUP goes with the land. Greg Hastings responded that the CUP does go with the land and the condition was included so that the property owner would be responsible. Commissioner Koos informed the applicant that it was not his responsibility but rather the owner's. Greg Hastings stated both conditional use permits go with the land and they both belong to the property owner and the applicr~nt is simply a user of one. Comr^issioner Bos!wick ciarified it was the landlord and the former tenant in that restaurant for which it was approved and they had a variance. Now there fs a new tenant, Biockbuster. They have taken down part of it by knocking the walls down but they left the slab and steel which is a hazard. Commissioner Bristol asked if this were approved, could Code Enforcement cite the property for the nuisance. Greg Hastings responded yes, because of the unsafe condition and in addition that area is supposed to be fuliy landscaped ~ince there is a very large landscaped requirement for Weir Canyon Road. Commissioner Bostwick asked if Commission can remove the waiver, then they would be in violation af their originai CUP which would allow them to bring it before Commission for consideration of revocation or modification. Greg Hastings stated he would need to check but he thought it was conditioned that that conditional use permit be terminated. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, advised i~ paragraph 16 staff has requested that Conditional Use Permit No. 3490 be terminated and that is the one that was at 701 South Weir Canyon Road for the previous restaurant where Blockbuster is currently located. Commissioner Bostwick indicated that the property owner would need to submit the request. Greg Hastings stated there are two options: one would be to apply that condition to this applicanYs CUP; the other would be that staff would have to initiate revocation proceedings. If the property owner is willing to do this voluntarily then that is the easiest way but he may not want to cooperate. Commissioner Bostwick asked if Commission approves this request to delete Condition No. 38 then they could also at the same time ask that ~i letter be sent to the property owner requesting their termination of that Conditional Use Permit No. 3490 and the removal of the patio or Commission would initiate revocation or modification proceedings. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 34 Greg Hastfngs suggested that Commission could fmpose a condition on this CUF' which belongs to the property owner requesting him to submit a letter requesting termination of that conditional use permit. if he refused, staff can agendize for an upcoming meeting the revocation of ihat conditional use permit. Cl~airperson Boydstun asked how they soive the applicanYs problem. Greg Hastings stated by removing the current condition before Commfssion. Commissioner Bostwick stated they wouid approvQ the applicanPs request to delete Condition No. 38 and modify the CUP to inciude the condition under no.16. . Greg Hastings stated this applicant would be right back where he skarted unless they have a coaperative property owner who is willing to comply. However, if he is not a cooperative property owner, then staff would agendize the revocation and have a public hearing to consider revoking that conditional use permit. There are findings in the code that allow Commission to do that when a use is no longer exercised. He asked the City Attorney if it would need to be readvertised since it was not necessary for adding a condition of approval for a termination. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, asked if Commission could identify a nexus belween adding that condition requiring the termination. it actually imposes a minimal burden as phased by Mr. Hastings because it is that the property owner shall request termination of CUP (the one that has been abandoned). Othervvise, staff shall bring forward to Commission a request for its consideration of a request to terminate the conditional use permit, which has been abandoned. Greg Hastings stated there is the possibility if this condition is imposed that the property owner may contact staff to ask if that CUP is terminated what would that do to his outdoor patio area. Staff would have to inform him that it would need to be removed which means they would be back where they started. Commissioner Koos asked if they follow staffs recommendation and deny this what would happen to the applicant. Greg Hastings, Zoning Divis~on Manager responded this particular applicant would be in violation of the CUP conditions. ~., r..U~~UwiN~ 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION... _.~ OPFOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request. Modified Resolution No. PC98-195 by deleting Condition No. 38 pertaining to the landscaping of a vacant outdoor dining area located at 701 South Weir Canyon Road in iPs entirety. VOTE: 6-0 (Cammissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. City of Anahefm Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-16-99 Page 35 r. ~: OI5CUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (4:10-4:25) ACTION: Commissioner Bastwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to agendize revocation or modificatlon proceedings for Conditional Use Permlt No. 3490 at a future Planning Commission meeting. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda ~3-16-99 Page 36 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 11b. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NG. 3991 (READVERTISE9) Approved revised pians OWNER: 7he Salvation Army,1300 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1300 South Lewis Street - Salvation Army Rehabilitation Canter. Property is 14.51 acres locaked on the east side of Lewis Stree3, 820 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. To revise plans to attach a previously-approved women's rehabilitation center to the existing Salvation Army men's rehabilitation center and work therapy unit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIOtd N0. PC99-155 ApplicanYs Statement: SR1138TW.DOC Paul Raughing, 1101 Dove Street, tvewport Seach, CA, stated he is the architect for the ~alvation Army, aiso with him is Major Glenn Doss who is the Commander at the Salvation Army facility. '~hey hzve reviewed the staff rep~rt and are in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick indicated Cond~;ion No. 6 states that this permit was extended to 1999 and asked if that was enough time to construct the building. Cheryl Fiores, Senior Pianner, responde~ the condition has timing an it that certain canditions be complied within one year. Therefore, if they need additional time, they could ret~rn for an extension of time as a Reports and Recommendations Item to comply with conditions of approval. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determinad that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved revised plans for Conditia~at Use permit No. 3991. Madified Resolution No. PC97-180 approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3991 as follows: Modified Condition Nos. 6 and 8 to reau as follows: "6. That the proposed women's residence is approved solely in conjunction with the existing rehabilitation center. The proposed use of the property shall be limited to thaE stated in the lelter of aperation (dated June 25,1999 and City of Maheim Ptanning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 37 attached to the Staff Report tn the Plannfng Commission dated August ~~t, 1999). If the existing rehabflitation center should cease operation, fhe buildings on this properly shall not be used for any other residential uses " "8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in conformance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibits 1 (Revision 1), 2, 3, 4(Revision 1) and 5(Revision 1), and as conditioned herein " Added the following conditio~ of approval: "That security doors are provided between the men's residence and the proposed wom~n's res(dence, and that pians for said door and security procedures are submitted for the review and approval of the Anaheim Police Department prfor to the issuance of a building permit" VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City A!torney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCU°' .,N TIME: 2 minutes (4:26-4:28} City of An~heim Plannfng Commfssion Summary Actian Agenda 08-16-99 Page 38 ,t' ;,: _ . _ . , - -~ , 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ConGnued to 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9-13-99 12c. CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT N0. 4142 OWNER: Karland Edity Sator, 3150 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: John Murphy, 0'Neal Communications, 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 105, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 3150-3164 West La Palma Avenue. Prope-ty is 6.4 acres located south and east oF the southeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. To construct a 60-foot high telecommunications monopalm with waiver of minimum structural setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION N0. SR1001TW.DOC • • • . • ~ • OPPOSITIOPi: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide the petitioner with additional time to provide staff with further information regarding the proposed project. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Plan~ing Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-i 6-99 Page 39 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4144 Granted OWNER: Heimut and Ruth Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCA'fION: 821-825 North Euclid Street. Property is 0.94 acre located on the west side of Euclid Street 130 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue. To establish conformiry with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial center, to construct a new unit for a retail carpet sales warehouse with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-156 SR1120JD.DOC ApplicanPs Statement: Helmut Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, stated he has owned the property since 1986 and would like to sell it to a business that will use the building for storage of flooring materials and use another suite presently used for food. Page 2, no. 7 of the staff reports has an incorrect unit number and should read as 825D. Simon Frank, 120 North Maude Lane, Anaheim, stated they would like to purchase the building and change all tenant parking to the back instead ~f the front. They only receive deliveries twice a week and can request a.m. deliveries. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED In response to Commissioner Bristol about the nature of business and hours of the business, Mr. Frank responded they are a water damage restoration company that restores homes after they are flooded by either replacing old carpet severely damaged or drying the carpet on site. They do not have a sh~wreom; they take carpet samples to homes in a van. The warehouse receives deliveries of new carpet or linoleum for replacement, therefore there is no nee~ for a large warahouse. They are currently operating Monday through Friday but wouid like to also be able to operale from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, should the need arise at a later date. Commissioner Bristoi stated his concern is with the noise created with the roll up gate, forklift and the close proximity to the apartments. Simon Frank advised that when maintained properly, the roll up gates is not heard. Their forklift is battery operated and does not make noise. Commissioner Koos felt this use seems more appropriate in a~ industrial zone and it would probabiy be less expensive to have property in those areas. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-89 Page 40 Simon Frank advised he studied Euclid and the 91 freeway going south and found that there are no carpet stores whizh indicates a great potential for them in the future. Indust~ial areas off of Eucifd and Lincoln are oiat of eyesight should they desire to go retail. Commissioner Koos asked if retail sales and storage are permitted in this zone. Greg Hastings advised it is permitted and storage can be an incidental part to retail business. Cheryl Flores, Senfor Planner stated staffs concern was the warehouse being built to the back and the reuse of it if this business went away, then there would be a warehouse that could be used for anything. Commissioner Koos ssked if he was intending to use other suites in the future. Simon Frank responded his goal in the future is to have a showroom so that he can have a bigger selection than what is on the truck. Commissioner Bostwick stated he could understand staffs review regarding the warehouse but it is at the end of the apartments and not near windows. Carpet sales and restoration business is not a problem but if it is no longer there it could be a problem with future owners. Commissioner Bristoi stated over the fence there is a greenbelt area and even if a fence is installed, there is going to be noise that is not currently there. He wondered how the noise would be kept from getting out of hand. He noted the warehouse goes with the land and once it is built someone else could come in and take advantage of it. Simon Frank stated they are intending to be at this location for the long ferm and if they should move they couid demolish the building. He felt the apartment dwellers would have an enhanced look because of the landscaping that they are required to install if this is approved. • • • • • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement for minimum number of parking spaces (Vote: 4-2, Commissioners Vander6ilt and Napo/es voted no and Commissioner Esping was absent) Grantod Conditional Use Permit No. 4144, as foilows: (1) Established conformity with current Zoning Code land use requirements for the commercial center based on the findings described in the P,ugust 96,1999 staff report. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Esping absent) (2) Approved the request to construct a warehouse addition on the basis that there will be additional landscaping provided along the wall and with the following changes to the conditions of approval: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 41 ..: . . .. , : ,;:. : . .~ . ,~ . ..;, ,, . . ;. ; g - .. , .. ~ . . . . . ~ ~-. ~ ... ~~.: ~ . . .. . ._- t . .. ~=... . .~ • . . _-~ . . .~. ~ , . . ..~i.:~. Modified Conditlon No.1 to read as followsc 1. That a minimum of two (2) minimum 24-inch box broad-headed trees shall be planted in the 10-foot planter adjacent to the wall along the west property line. That vines shall be planted on 3-foot centers with irrigation to cover the wall on the west property Iine fram north to the south to the Jog in the property Ifne. (Vote: 4-2, Commissloners Bristol and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissloner Esping was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TiME: 33 minutes (4:29-5:02) C(ty of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 42 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLAR~iTION Approved 14b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 14c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4145 Denied OWNER: Ming Intemational Group, c/o Partners Realty Group, Attn: Wendy Wild-Myers, 5405 Alton Pkwy., #631, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Jasvinder & Rajinder Singh, 8663 East Silver Ridge Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 5247 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is 1.47 acres located at the northeast corner of Orar.gethorpe Avenue and Post Lane. To permit a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 84 children with waiver of (a) minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT RESOLUTION NC. PC99-157 SR1113KB.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Reginder Singh, a663 East Silver Ridge Lane, Anaheim, stated the applicant would like to open a preschool at 5247 East Orangethorpe Avenue. She v~ill keep the noise level down by limiting children to 24 at one time from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Th~~~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked which of the two fenced areas are the children going to be stayinc~ behind. Jaswinder Singh advised they will always be inside a fenced area but will be in both areas. Commissioner Vanderbiit stated many people now work at home or do not work at all. Therefore, it may not be a fair assumption to say that the residential homes are vacant during their hours of operation. Jaswinder Singh stated that the Planning Department sent notices to the neighbors in the area and they received no objections. Previous zoning approved for this site had much support from the neighbors and t5ere are letters supporting the previous project in the staff files. They will control noise by limiting number of children outside. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, stated staff recommends denial because of the incompatibility belween the residential iand-uses and scho~l use. Code Enforcement files have documentation of complaints from a neighbor when the priar schooi owner installed a fort, which gave children visibiliry into the yards. Privacy of the single-family homes is the staffs concern. Pointed out paragraph 5 of the staff report showed that the Commission denied the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 3984 on November 24,1997, however it was subsequently approved by City Council. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 43 Jaswinder Singh advised they could assure privacy by ~ot having tall structures. Cheryl Flores stated staff recommends that if this is approved that the playground equipment be approved as a Reports and Recommendations Item. Commissioner Bostwick asked Ms. Flores how many students were approved for prior daycare. Cheryl Flores advised she was not certain but would look that information up. Ashwanie Wason stated the number of students has been reduced from 150 to 84. They are aliocating 700 square feet of indoor space for piay area so that they use outdoor space on a limited basis. The State regulation is 35 square foot per child, so it can accommodate 20 children and the play area will be used in shifts. Commissioner Bristol advised he voted against this issue on this property before and was against it when it was a day care becausa the site is too smaii. He felt it is too close to the homes, and there is a liquor store next to it. Jaswinder Singh stated most day cares do have fencing to keep children inside and noted that the Iiquor store is over 100 yards away. Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Commissioner Bristol, he also voted against it last time and felt it is too close to the residential area. Cheryl Fiores responded to a prior question that Conditional Use Permit No. 3984 allowed enrollment of up to 125 children with staff members and with no more than 10 children allowed outside at any time. Conditional Use Permit No. 3904 was for 40 children with no more than 10 allowed outside at any time. FOL~OWING IS A SU~MARY 0~ THEPLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negatlve Declaration Approved, in part, the `Naiver of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residentiel zones and approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. (Vote: 5-1, Commissioner eoydstun voted no and Commrssioner Esping was absent) Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4145 based on the following: 1. That the size and shape of the property can not adequately allow the full establishment of the day care center and outdoor playground area without detriment to the peace, health and safety of the neighboring residents and the children that would utilize this faaility. 2. That the use wi!I impose an undue burdon on the adjacent residents due to the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actlon Agenda 08-16•99 f'age 44 •5 kiT: ~3 ~~.;c. ,. close proximity of the playground 3rea and the eUmination of the landscaped buffer area. 3. That the granting of the conditional use permit, even with the conditions imposed, wiil be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Esping was absent) Selma Msnn, Assistant Cily Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (5:02-5:22) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 45 15b. OWlVER: Endowment Realty Investors, 3501 Jamboree Rd. #100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Quality Project Coordinating, Attn: Joyce Sehi, P.O. Box 2653, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 LOCATION: 5609 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Crossroads Shopping Center. Property is 10.63 acres located at the southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Waiver of permitted wall signs to construct one additional wall sign. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. September 13,1999 SR7509KP.DOC Applicant's Statement: Joyce Seehi, 32391 Outrigger, Laguna Niguel, CA, requested 2dditional wall sign on the Vons building to identify Wells Fargo located inside. Welis Fargo accepts all conditions except for Condition Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Regarding trash enclosure requirements, Welis Fargo is trying to contact Vons regarding the conditions and has not had a response from Vo~s. If Vons fails to cooperate with Wells Fargo, they will be left with no signage. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, spoke to the Sanitation Division and they advised the Condi:ion Nos. 2, 3 and 4 could be deleted. Commissioner Vanderbilt, felt the definition of "bank" should be clarified. Some grocery stores have a full service bank inside but others are simply ATM machines. He suggested Vons taking down one of their signs to accommodate Wells Fargo. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated they are careful with what staff considers a separate business, typically that means it has a separate license but banks are not license~. If it is only an ATM machine it could be considered as taking advantage of the situation. Muitiple signs on a grocery store is a concern to staff. There is some difficulty in interpreting what would be considered a separate business by code. A key ingredient is that it would be manned which would be more of a business and staff couid allow a sign to be installed. Commissioner Koos suggested continuing the item and checking with Vons to see if they would give up a deii or bakery sign for a Wel~s Fargo sign. Joyce Seehi informed Commissian she has worked on over 400 Vons locations and knows Vons would not be willing to give up any of their signage to accommodate. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Hastings about more wall face for Vons. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 46 v_ .. > _. ... ., ~ . .5 ,, ., ~ : :7; Greg Hastings responded in Scenlc ~oMdor they are onlyallowed one sign per busfness. Commissioner Koos offered a motion for a cor~tinuance to 3eptember 13,1999, in order to allow Vons addition time to decide whether lhey are wiliing to give up one of thsir existing signs for the sign being proposed, seconded by Commission Bostwick and motion caMed. Greg Hastings suggesting that staff could bring back information pertaining to other shopping centers. Commfssioner Vanderbilt requested to have this item as one of the first continuances on the September 13,1999 Planning Commission Agenda. Greg Hastinys acknowledged it could be done. ; FOLL0INING:IS'A SUMMARY. OF THE PCANNING COMMISSION'ACTION. . OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 13,1999 Planning Commfssion meeting in order to find out if Vons is willing to give up one of their existing signs for the sign being proposed. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (5:23-5:37) Ciry of Anaheim Piarsning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-1 fi-99 Page 47 . 16a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION 16b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1629 (READVERTISED) iNl'fIA7ED BY: City of Anaheim (Pianning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNERS: Tillie Jones, 512 East Central Park Avenue, Sauth, Anaheim, CA 92802 Guillermo Ibarra,1416 North Central Park Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1300 and 1416 West North Central Park Avenue - Coffee Break. Property is 0.38 acres located at the southwest corner nf North Centrai Park Avenue and East Central Park Avenue. City-Initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approval pert~ining to hours of operation for an existing restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. SR1123JD.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. o s • o • ~ • OPPOSITlON: None ACTION: Gommissioner Bosiwick offered a i~;otion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept staff s recommendation for with~rawa! of the request to amend or delete conditions of approval of Conditioral Use Permit N4. 1629. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DiSCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:38-5:39) City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Act~on Ager.da 08-16-99 Page 48 ~~~,~,.~ ~ ~~~~ The Planning Commission requested that the appointment of a Planning Commission representative to sarve on the Anaheim Transportation Network Board of Directors be agendized at the following Planning Commission meeting. rI.I%%R~ iJWt" ..//~'IC% ~IAM1R'I/I.~ JLO~ Y~~Y,~kf,y,~j~:p ~1'I~W/.yifl(wY'/W/~l/I/N~1%V/r ~'//~yYf HiI'I.~ Cummissioner Koos directed the City Attorney's Gffice ta research how other r,ities are nandling Public Convenienca or Necessiry permits and to bring back a definition, guidelines and/or policies that may have been established by other cities. ~:.i.u~iiw~ii~ .w~i iii .wiwi~ ~iuinaiwns,z~s~~.rv ~i~ .r• ,ii.+wriu.iiiii•r.i~iw.rr.s.~~ ~ ~ .i~ ,~i:eirs,~ii~ ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 4999 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN RFVIEW Submitted by: ~ ~J Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary i~~~Q- y~ Si,nonne Fannin, Senior Office Specialist ~~ /~~t~'°i Edith Harris, Planning Commission Support Supervisor Received and approved by the Planning Commission on $° 30- 9 9 City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-16-99 Page 49