The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1998/11/09~,r~';~'= :~~~'_ SUMNl~RYACTiON ~GENC~A ClTY OF ANAH~IM PLANNiN~ C~M~IISSI~~! MEETING MONDAY, NO~fEMBER 9, 1998 10:00 A.M. • PLANNIN~ COMMISSION EDUCATlONAL W6RKSHOP, PART III. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS A~JD ISSUES (AS REQUE~TED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.9VI. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTiMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDS"UN, KOOS, ESPING, NAPOLES, WILLIAMS ABSENT: BRISTOL STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Fiores Karen Dudley Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Peter Gambin~ Tom Engle Ma~garita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attomey Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Vice Detail, Police Department Acting PC Suppod Supervisor Senior Secretary 91-09-98 Page 1 None A. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTlON - SECTION 15061 (b113) b) VARIANCE NO 447 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXSENSION Approved Approved OF TIME: Steven and Loraine Lazerson, 541 South Grand Avenue, (To expire 2-9-99) West Covina, CA 91791, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. This permit was originally approved on March 16, 1998 with several conditions of approval required to be completed within 90 days. Property is located at 302 South East Street (also known as 302 South East Street and 1200 East Broadway - Anaheim SeNice Staiion. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a Motion seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15061 (b) (3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bostwick o~fered a Motion seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Ciristol absent) that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby approve the request for a retroactive time extension for 90 days, until February 9, 1999 based on the following: (ii) 7hat this is the tirst request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. That this request does not extend the request beyond two extensions of time, nor alter the request as previously approved by Resolution No. PC98-32. Furf.her, that the petitioner has completed 4 of the 6 conditions with a 90 day time requirement and is in the process of completing the remaining 2 conditions. (ii) That although this approvai for a gasoline service station (with aute repair) use is not consistent with the General Plan nor the RM-2400 Zone in which it is located, this is an existing legal non-conforming use established by Variance No. 447 in 1955 which was recently re-approved (as modified) by the Commission on March i6, 1998. (iii) That this properly has been maintained in a safe, clean and aesthetically pieasing condition with no unremediated code violatians. Tl~e property was formerly an ongoing Code Enforcement case which was set for public hearing for modification/revocation in 1997, however, since the properiy owner was inforrned of the violations the aesthetic condition of this site has improved dramatically and no violations cuRently exist. SR7355KP.DOC 11-09-98 Paye 2 kw ~ ,^'~ , -~ . . _ . _.._ .. . .....~. . . . '. . . . s4p~"x ~ ._ . - . . ~ . ~~~ ~ ~ . .~ ~~~ : .. . , : . . . fr Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner. This is a request fot a 90 day extension of time to comply with ~%= cond~tions of approval that are shown in paragraph 5 of the staff ~eport. Staf~ is recommending ~';-~~ an~;oval of this request. 11-09-98 Page 3 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4067 - RECIUEST FOR A NUNC Approved PRO TUNC RESOLUTION: City of Anaheim, Planning Commission Secretary, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. PC98-164 adopted in connection wiih the approval of Conditional Use PeRnit No. 4067. P~operty is located at 5765 Easi Santa Ana Canyon Road - Canyon Plaza Shopping Center. NUiVC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. PC98-174 SR7354GW.DOC This item was not discussed. C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3625 - REQUEST FOR DeteRnined to be ~ETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Roy Nunn, in substantial 31411 Camino Capistrano, Suite 300, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, conformance requests determination of substantial conformance to establish an auto dealership. Pruper~y is located at 1382 East Auto Center Drive - Satum of Anaheim. ACTiON: Commissioner Bostwick offered a~lotion seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CA~RIED (Commissioner Bristol absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental determination forthis request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a Motion seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed 21,970 square- foot auto dealership (Satum of Anaheirn) is in substantial confomiance with the exhibits for the previousiy-approved auto dealership (Miller Ford) as adoptad in conneciion with Condiiional Use Permit No. 3625, provided that the landscape plans which are submitted to the Buiidinc~ Division for building permits incorporate minimum 24-inch box trees for the site. SR7262KB.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: This is a request to determine substantial conformance to permit a Satum dealership on the wesierly portion of the property as shown on the vicinity map. Staff recommended appraval of this request and believes that it is in substantial conformance with the ariginally approved exhibits. Staff requested that the 4rees on the property be 24-inch boxed trees instead of the 15-gallon as required by code. Sieve Coleman, President of the Satum of Orange County, 350 Auto Mall Drive, Santa Ana, CA: Stated they used to be the owners of the Lincoln Mercury dealership in the Auto Center. They are in agreement with the staff report recommendations and with the sta~fs requesf of 24- inch boxed trees. 11-09-98 Page 4 2a. CEQe4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Hpprovea Yb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in pa~t 2c. CONDITlONAL USE PERMI7 NO. 4057 Granted, in part OWNER: Hinn-8 LLC, Attn: Shan Namvar,11601 Wilshire Blvd., #1400, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AG~NT: Travis Engineering, Attn: Karl Huy, 12453 Lewis Street, #201, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1101 North Maqnulia Avenue. Property is 0.92 acre located at the northwest comer of Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue. Ta construct a 4,807 square foot service station v!ith convenience market and integrated fast food restaurant with drive-through lane with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted number of freestanding signs, (c) permitted types of signs, (d) minimum drive- through lane requirements and (e) minimum landscaping adjace~t tc interior boundary lines. Continued from the Commission meetings of September 28, October 12, and October 26, 1998. .r,ONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-175 SR69R9DS.DOC e a ~ • • • ~ s Applicani's Statement: Karl Huy, representing Food Maker,12453 Lewis, Suite 201, Garclen Grove, CA: Stated they have reviewed the staff report and concurred with all the items in the report except for one, Item no. 31(c) on page 7. They concur with the first part but their concem is with the second half of this item. Their building elevations and the building elevations proposed for the project are a mansard roof wiih a recessed parapet higher up ~n ihe mansard for the "screeni~g" of the electrical equipment, as per the Building and Development Codes. Their r°quest for Commission's c~nsideration is to approve the signs. They consider those wall signs and consider the top of the roof to be the t4p of the mansard, not the top of fascia as has been indicated in the staff repo~t. In the building elevations, the signs proposed are below the top of the roof line which in the instance of their building elevations wouid be the parapet. Oiher than that condition they cancur with al; of staff s recommendation and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commi~sioner Bostwick: The question is whether these are wall signs or roof signs. The recommendation at the moming session was that staff submit a resolution or policy for the signs as to whether they are roof mounted signs or ~vall maunted signs in a situation when there is a parapet or raised po~tion ~f the roof line to accommodate signs to give a higher elevation than the rest of the roof or in line with the rest of the roof. 11-09-96 Page 5 He made a motion to have staff retum to Commission with a resolution of policy when deaiing with these signs. Commissioner Williams: Most fast foods, gas stations, etc. have a higher elevation un a roof line to accommodaie their signs, not only for better visibility but creaies a much better looking buiiding for an area. He felt ti:at they are probably wall signs. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner. Asked Commission if they wanted ihe policy to be directed mainly towards fast foods restaurants, roof signs in general, or as an overall policy? Commissioner Bostwick: Responded all buildings, and not restrict to a particular type. They need to see how it is going to play out ihroughout the whole City. When they have changes in roof lines and extensions, to give some architectural diversity to the roof lines and to the whole structure to make it more appealing but that facilitate signage and making sure that it is wall signage rather than roof mounted signage. Perhaps staff might include information on various types of signs and architectural struciures throughout the County might be brought in. This is a side issue to the applicanYs issue, that Commission needs to address to staff be~ause they have some debate as to whether this is a wall sign or roof sign. Karl Huy: He understands and appreciates iheir consideration, however, they do not want the minor issue of inierpretation of signage to hold up the overall review of the rest of the action, the conditional use permit which is the most critical. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: If they are going to be considering the waiver they might consider that Commission will need to address the justification for variance of code waiver as follows: Does the subject property differ from other properties in the same vicinity and zone classification with regard to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? The response is no. Can reasonable use be made of subject properly without the variance or waiver of the above referenced code section? The response is yes. Whethe; the hardship is beyond control or self created, she is not sure that this could be described as a hardshi~ outside of the appficant's control. It wouid be up to the Commission to indicate justifications for the waiver if ihat is something that that the Commission would like to do. Another consideration is if the Commission later deterrnines and it is upheld by the City Council that this type of sign is not a roof sign tnat no waiver would be required and the applicant would be able to proceed with it at that time without any fu~ther acti~~n by the Commission. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Therefore, (:ommission can vote on this denying ihe applicanYs waiver and aNer the study is completed if Commi:sion decides that it is a wall sign the applicant wouid have it by right. Asked the appiicant if he would like Commission to go on that assumption so that he has everything else approved? J.P. Jenthrow, a Project Manager with ~lack-In-The-Box: As far as the signage issue, there are a coupie of ways to go with that. They could change the mansard element and go with the straight forward parapet building in which case the height of the roof line would not change at all. It would be fairiy straight forward th~t the sign wo~ld be considered a building sign and not a raof sign if they eliminated the mansard element. The second is to provide justification on staying with the existing architecture with the iower element with the sign. Jack-In-The-Box's sign is a trademark sign and they are trying to get away from non-standarcJ signage copy because it is eonfusing to the consumer. They are trying io develop an "icon' that the consumer can easily idantiTy. That is why their sign is very critical to them. It is going to be difficult 1o fit their square sign on the fascia of that building without redesigning the architecture. 11-09-98 Page 8 They could go one of two ways, efther g~ant the waiver based on the fad thgt it is a trademark sign, or they revise the architecture, provide them a condition of approval and ihey revise the archftedure of the building to be a straight forwarcJ parapet building as opposed to a mansard element. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. There is a suggested condition, should Commissior auprove this, that the elevations retum for final rer•iew by Commission. At that point they wouid be able to see what the applicant has chosen. If by the time there is a policy or oNinance in place regarding ;he signage, that will work its way out. J.P. Jenthrow: He thought afler today they would be ihrough the architectural review aspect of it and that this would not be a public hearing item again. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Exp{ained that it would not be a public hearing iteny, however, there is a condition of approval (no. 2) which requires that fnal building elevations, canopy elevations, landscape and lighting plans be submitted to retum to the Flanning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation ite-:~ indicating whaf their final design will be. Redevelopment Commission would also review that as they do with most major projects. J.P. Jenthrow: They are agreeable to work with staff on coming up with something that is amenable to Anaheim as well as Food Makers. If it is an item that needs to retum to Commission, if they can conditionally approve the project and architecture, they can either go with what they have with a waiver to determine that a waiver is not necessary or revise the elevations. Greg Hzstings, Zoning Division Manager. There is a requirement that t~e signage retum as a Repo~ts and Recommendation item. J.P. Jenthrow: Agreed. Cheryi Flores, Senior Planner: On Condition No.11, it states that the applicant must obtain permission io have the driveway openings on Mac~nolia and La Palma. Staff would like to create the condi!;on at the last sentence, "In the event that the City Council denies the rEquest, the approval of this conditional +~se permit shall be null and void." That is if ihe access rights are denied. The reason for that is accrfss would have to be obtained from the property to the west and that would not be possible for ihe de1~°Jery of gasoline trucks to come in from there to seivice the site. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Advised that it is awkward to have conditions ihat make a CUP null and void. If the condition was rephrased that prior to issuar,ce to the building perrnit khai the legai property owner shall obtain an abandonment of the requisite property. If the property owner does not obtain that tnan the properly owners can not receive a building permit. Commissioner Bostwick: He noted that on Condition No.15 that the public telephones proposed on-site need to be located inside the convenience market. They are not shown in the pians but iha~ is a requirement. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Recommended 24-inch boxed trees rather than 15 gallon, on Condition Nn. 27. The applicant agreed with this request. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. That there should be no propane tanks or sale of propane gas on-site. Condition No. 32 which are the items tha4 need to be done prior to final building and zoning inspections. He wanted to ensure no. 30 is added to that which requires them to develop the property in conformance with the plans. 11-09-98 Page 7 ,:~ : . Following the action: J.P. Jenthrow: Changes on Condition No. 32 where Commission added ;n the Condition No. 30. Condition No. 30 identifies specific exhibfts for the entire projed (site plan, building elevations). If they elect to change the building elevations to mitfgate 3he sign issue, that uxhibit which would be a future building elevation would not be part of Condition No. 30. Yet, as part a~f Condition No. 3?, ne is going to be held to that for the certificata of occupancy. Greg Nasfings, Zoning Div+sion Manager: Explained that at the end of ihat condition it states, "and as conditioned herein'. OPPOSITIdN: None ACTION: Approved iVegative Declaration Approved, ir paR, the Waiver of Code Requirement: Approved Waiver (a) on the basis that a parking study ~ecommending 43 parking spaces was approved by the City Traffic and TranspoRation Manager, denied Waiver~ (b), (d) and (e) on the basis that they were deleted foilowing public notification; and, denied Waiver (c) pertaining to permitted types of signs on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings to justify this proposed waiver to allow 6 roof signs, and fu~tt~er, that any waiver granted pertaining to this requirement could be considered as granting a spec3al privilege not enjoyed by other propertiss in the immediate vicinity. Granted, in paR, Conditional Use Permit No. 4057 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition PJos.11, 27 and 32, to read as follows: 11. That vehicular access rights to Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenus have been released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the legal property owner shall ~ubmit an abandonment application to the Department of Public Works, Real Property Sect;on and obtain permission to construct the driveway approaches on Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue as shown on the site plan. The request wili be reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing. 27. That 24-inch box size street trees shall be planted in the right-of-way area along and immediately adjacent to Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue in accordance with City standards. 32. That prior to final buildir~g and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 21, 27, and 30, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following condition: That sales of propane gas shall not be permitted. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 m~rtutes (1:48-2: i0) 11-09-98 Page 8 .,~c;~:, .: } ;2' - t.~.' The Planning Commission requested that staff bring back a policy for Pianning Commission review and approval regarding signs c4nstNCted on a raised parapet or architectural element above the roof line to determine whether these slgns are considered tn be roof- or wall-mounted. 11-09-98 Page 9 3a. 3b. 3c. RECLASSIFICr1TIOM NO. 98-99-0b Granted, unconditionally CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4047 Granted for 5 years OWNER: Hunter's Pointe Homeowners Association,14600 (1'o Expire 11-9-03) Goldenwest Street, 102-A, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: TDI, Inc., Attn: Adan ~Jladrd, 3150 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, CA 9'2626 LOCATION: 6900 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is 3.05 acres located on the south siue of Canyon Rim Road, 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Reclassification No. 98-99-OS - to reclassify subject property from the RS-HS-10,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hiliside) (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural) (Scenic Comdor Overlay)) Zone or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Pennit No. 4047 - to construct telecommunications antennas on an existing lattice tower (Edison) siructure and ground- mounted accessory equipment. Continued from the Commission meetings of August 31, September 14, September 28, and October 12, 1998. RECLASSIFICATIOfd RESOLUTION PlO. PC98-176 CONDITIaNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NU. PC98-177 SR7239TW.DOC : FOtLOWING IS A'SUMMARYOF THE,PLANNING.COM.MISSION:ACTION.' ` . Applicant's Statement: Adan Madrid, from TDI, representing Cox Communications: Stated at the previous Planning Commission hearing he gave a presentation on behalf of Cox Communications which included the following: • The benefits of wireless telecommunications netwoiics. . Discussed what PCS is and the services and benefits vs. other technologies in existence. • How wireless networks operate in general. e How they are a cell site and structured based technology. . Looked at the existing snd future coverage in Anaheim including Anaheim Hills. . Looked at the area that would be benefited by these subject site. . V11hy the exisiing Edison tower is the best location. . Why the findings of approval can be made. Commission requested that they go back and explore altEmatives to make this site more desirable for both the City and the community. Since the last mPeting they met with two of the residents and have made some improvements to the project as foilows: . They relocated the equipment cabinets from the base of the tower to the easte~ly side of the property where there are existir~g cactus, trees, shrubs, etc. 11-09-98 Page 10 • 7hey are going to enclose the equipment cabinets rather than chain link fence with barbed wire, they are going to use split face block wall and nestle it within that existing landscape area. . They a~e going to plant creeping vines around it to help screen it from view of Canyon Rim Road and the golf course. . To further screen the existing Ed(son tower from the adjacent property owner, they have agreed to ptant two mature Pepper trees and one mature Eucalyptus tree. 7hey are hoping with that it wili provide sufficient screening for the adjacent property owner. In addition, they had the site tested to detPrmine whether or not it would be possible to reduce the i~umber of antennas from four per sector to two. They had their radio frequerscy engineers review the data and they have determined that it is possible. They then revised the plans io reflect that. The new plans now show the equipment cabinets and two antennas per sector. He requested the following changes to the staff repart: Condition No. 1- He requested an option for renewal and have language added that would specify the issues that would be under re-review. They hoped that the entire project would not be under re-review. Condition No. 3- He requested additional language added, to read "(1) GPS-type antenna shall be one hundred twenty degree sector or located on the proposed accessory ground mounted equipment. Condition No. 5- He requested that Commission approve the project as presented in the revised project plans or recommend staff approve the final plans and to approve the final landscaping rather than retuming to Commission. In the interest of saving their clienYs time as weli as staff and the Commission's. Public Testimony: Susan Sigman, Boardmember of the Anaheim Hilis Citizens Coalition, P.O. Box 17578, Anaheim, CA 9:?817: Stated neighbors to this proposal are in attendance to present a petition and to speak on their own behalf. They appreciate Cox Communication's efforis to relocate the equipment and to screen it with altematives to barbed wire and chain link. liowever, ihey continued to ask that this proposal be denied for the following reasons: . It is inappropriate to approve a reclassification for the sole purpose of granting a paRicular commercial enterprise the privilege of operating as business as an area designated as "open space" on tha General Rlan. . Approval of this use grants the privilege of commercial use of open space to a specific vendor. . It creates a rational for other requests. The towers are intrusive in and of themselves, however, at the present time the framework is open and the eye perceives the view beyond the towers. . The panel arrays will make po~tions of ihe frame appear solid thus making the towers significantly more intrusive. . The visual impact of the proposed use negatively and cumulatively effects the entire canyon because the anienna panel arrays on the towers are visible to the general public from several miles away as well as to residents within close proximity and to those using the public golf course. There is a significant aestheiic impact. . Provision of communication for public safety is no4 a valid argument. The citizens in this area and citywide have other wireless options for er~ergencies. . The ground equipment regardless of how wel! scraened remains a commercial use in a residential neighbort~ood. 11-09-98 Page 11 • This reclassification aliows a siorage faciliiy. T~e only reason to ailow this reclassirication is to benefit Cox Communica!ions. It is not only'spot zoning", it Is "spnt zoning" to benefit a particular business. This does not justify such a major aMion as reclassifying an island of land in the middle of a residential zone. She concluded by requesting ihat Commis.aion to deny this proposal. Clay Albiston, 611 Wafiler Circle, Anaheim Hilis, CA: Statsd he is also on the Hunters Pointe Homeowners Association. They are the ones that have negotiated the contract with TDI. This will benefit thase people that I~ve up ir this area. They will be receiving a monthly tease payment from TDl to support the endeavors that they are going to install. He p~obably has mors interest than anyone else does because his huuse views the towers quite cleariy. He has reviewed the site plan and finds that it will not intrusive and will not in anyway block his view. 'herefore, he urged Commission to approve this request. Mary Regusa, 6544 Via Corral, Anaheim Hills, CA: Statt~ her concern as well aC mos'. of her neighbors is that should this request be approved they fear that thesa tower~ might be made available ior other communication companies to take advantage of. She is sympathetic to Cox because they did try to do everything they could to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible but they are changing the zoning and it will not be an overail benefit to everyone as may have be~n indicated. Bruce Ickes, 6592 East Via Corral, Anaheim, CA: His home is directiy behind the towers to the we.st. He expressed his concems at the last public hearing which are the same concems. He submitted a petition with 33 residents signatures who live in the immediate area who are opAOSition to this rezonin5. There were atso two additionai lette~s that were forwarded via fax this moming. The basis for their request for denial is that the towers themselves iook awful, adding the additional antennas to them ca~~ only make it worse. They consider the towers to be a potential hazard. Rezoning to accommodate a commercial enterprise sets precedence for other similar requests by other celluiar providers. There are many towers and many high grounds that may appear appealing to other enterprises, not just cellular providers. Based on these concems, ~e and 33 other residents request ihat Commission deny this request. Mike Vel~z, 6540 East Via Corral, Anaheim, GA: Stated his home is within 500 yarcis of the towers. He felt it is going to be almost impossible to make fhose towers more aesthetically pleasing. Adding to those towers is going to make the situation more offensive; it is like high tech "gra~ti". In reviewing the staff report he did not see any raference to studies that have to do with health and safety. There is nothing in the staff report that addressed potential effects from the electromagnetic rays in the area. By bringing in these proposed antennas it is going to set precedence where many radiating antennas can be brought into the arza in the future. Commission musi be aware that there is an intensa and accelerating competition for sites by ali of the parties in the telecommunication industry. There is so much radiating power in Orange County currently and in their little community of Anaheim Hills. He recommended a peer review study to either be cited or performe~+ !~ determine the safety of the radiation levels in the area for tlie citizens. It may tum out that there is nothing to worry about but no one Knows that at this time. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Adan Madrid: The foilowing were the concerns that were brought up: . Rezoning the properly to RS-A-43,000 does allow for a cammercial wireless telecommunicatic!;s facility, however, this use is not the typical commerciai use. It is an unmanned facility. It does not make any noise, generate additional traffic, nor generate solid waste. Once it is instalied it is silentiy operating and providing coverage to the area. 11-09-98 Page 12 • Antennas being intrusive is obnoxious. The towers are going to stay there and there is nothing that Cox or ~ny other carrier can do that would prevent or encourage Edison from removing or maintaining the towers. The fact is that those existing towers are pertect for this type of instailation. These types of installations have been shown to be acceptable solutions even in residential areas. • Provisions for pubiic safety. The Federal Communications Commission has aiready determined that there is a public convenience and necessity for these types of technologies. They were issued a license from the FCC to develop this cell site based technology. . Spot zoning. This does n~t represent spot zoning. In the staff report there is an exhibit that clearly shows RS-A zoning across the street t~ the north. In his supplemental to the application as well as the supplemental to the Planning Commission packets he went in to much detaii explaining the appropriateness of the zone reclassification which is being requested. . Setting precedence. That is probably not going to happen. Cox Communications with Sprint PCS are the only service providers that have a master lease agreement with Edison. Therefore they are ihe only carriers that are located on Edison 4owers. • Antennas being blown off the towor. These types of installations will comply with the uniform building code as well as complying with the strict standards of the Califomia F'ublic Utilities Commission. They will be designed so they do not blow off. . Potential health effects. The FCC strictly regulates these types of installations. The FCC determines the safety stand2rds. . Cumulative impacts. Not only Cox but every subsequent carrier is required to do a cumulative impact study and make to appropriate adjustments so that they stay well below the safety standard. A negative declaration was prepared because the project can only be reviewed in terms of aes#hetics and appropriateness of land use. The Planning Commission can not approve or deny a project based on perceived health effects, it is part of the Telecommunications Act and that is why a negative declaration was prepared raiher ihan a more focused study. He felt they addressed all of the concems. He understands why the residents might have concerns with the potential health effects and offered to provide them with documentation from studies, doctors for their review. He felt there are no health risks with this faciliiy. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if this property was part of the open space, is that why it was zoned this way rather ihan RSA-43,000 (SC) as the properly is t~ the north because it was used as open space for the Hunters Pointe tract7 Cheryl Fl~res, Senior Planner: Yes, it is designated as open space under the tract map that it currently exists in and can not be built on for any other purpose. Commissioner Koos: Asked if Mr. Madcid is aware of the concems, prior to this moming, of the other group of individuals that we~e present? Adan Madrid: He was aware of the concems from the previous Commission public hearing and the concerns were conveyed when he met with the two residents which included the concems of the visibility of the antennas, existing towers, antennas being blown off and #he equipment cabinets. He believes they have done the best that they can to mitigate those concems. As far as EMF and spot zoning, those issues were never discussed outside of the letter that was submitted by the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition. He contacted the representative of the coalition and offered to me~t with her and meet with the board, but unfortunately they denied his request. 11-09-98 Page 13 Commissioner Bostv~rick: He appreciates the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition concems but he does not consider this to be spot zoning due to the fact that the prope~ty directly to the north is RS-A-43,000 (SC). This was used as open space for a tract and it is not going to be used for anything else. He felt there is a need for aliowing these types of facilities. They started the process of examining the issue of radiation about four years ago and many of the cellular companies were coming in with their towers and location sites. The City did a very thorough study and reviewed all of the information and faund there were no radiation problems with cellular towers. They have dealt with most of those by right and they a~e down to a very few locations now and this happens to be one where they are coming before Commission. lNr. Velez: No one knows if there is a problem or not. There are many studies but he is not aware of any peer revlew studies. Studies that are not peer review studies are basically studies that are the writers opinion. He is simply saying that there is a large cumulative situation. If in their deliberation they find that the citizens of Anaheim have nothing to worry about, that they wili never be harmed by this radiation then they are probably going to decide for this approval. Commissioner Bostwick: He is certain that the radiation from this site is not as much as what someone could get from their microwave usage. There are many good and bad scientific studies out there but ihe problem is that this is one tower out in the middle of an open space. Mr. Velez: He understands where Commission Bostwick is coming from but as an individual he can not afford pay for the study that needs to be done and ihat the City of Anaheim does have those resources. OPPOSITIOfV: 5 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-Q5, unconditionally, on the basis that the property directly north of this property is zoned RS-A-43,000 (SC) and this will still be in open space and could not be used ~or any other iype of commercial aclivity. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4047 for 5 years (to expire November 9, 2003) with the foliowing changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That only three (3) antenna aRays with two (2) antennas each may be located on the exisiing tower at a maximum height of 66-feet and one (9) GPS-type antenna shall be mounted to the one hundred twenty degree (120°) sector or located on the proposed accessory ground-mounted equipment. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building pertnits. No additional antennas shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (2:11-2:52) 11-09-98 Page 14 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12-7-98 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 NO. 4068 (READVERTISED) 4d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 98-04 OWNER: Joseph T. Kung and Emma W. Kung, 20866 E. Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 LOCATION: 5555 - 5665 East Santa Ana Canvon Road - Imaerial Canvon Center. Property is 5.03 acres located at the no~thwest comer of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Conditional Use Pertnit No. 4068 (Readvertised) - to permit the expansion of an existing 55,557 square foot, 45-unit, commercial center by adding 4,607 square foot to an existing building and the construction of a new 2-story 9,096 square foot buildi~g with 44 new units, for a total of 92 units (office, retail, financial and restaurant uses) with a total of 69,260 square feet with waivers of permitted number and type of commercial identification signs, minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone, minimum structural setback adjacent to a scenic highway and minimum structural and landscape seiback adjacent to a local street. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-04 - to permit thE removal of 2 eucalyptus trees. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest comer af Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, (5555-5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Imperial Ca~yon Shopping Center). Continued from the Commission meeting of October 26, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT RESOLUTION NO. I SR6906DS.DOC e • ~ • . • • Public Testimony: Andrew Moo, 5576 Edgmar Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated his property is r.ext to subject prope~ty. His concem is when the driveway is open from Imperial Hwy. it will create more of a traffic problem. He is certain people will take a short cut which will cause Santa Ana Canyon Road to become heavy with traffic. The applicant is proposing two buildings very close to his back wall and requested more information about this. When he purchased the property they had only two neighbors, now there are going to be Z, fwo-story buildings right behind his property. Basically his two concems are regarding traffic and the noise. He indicated that he will try tu attend the pubiic hearing on December 7th. Ea~i McManus, 5581 Edgemar Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807: Stated his concem is that this area is heavy with traffic which makes it very dangerous. Going northbound down Avenida Margarita after 4:00 p.m. it becomes a real traffic problem. When he goes out now he does not go out that way but rather goes around to Lakeview Avenue. It is very congested and this proposed project is going make it much 11-09-98 Page 15 i~ . difficult. He does not feel there is enough parlcing there. There is a iremendous amount of noise there now, If this proposed projed is approved there will be a wall when they look out to the east. Commissioner Bosiwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to December 7,1998, seconded by Commissioner Williams and motian was camed. Commissi9ner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Yalda if the right tum only on this project is already approved and is part of the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. It is not approved. The City has the right to that access p~int. It has been appraised and there is a cost involved with that which has been directed to the property owner. Since the City has the access right they are not going to allow them to have it. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Yalda to confirtn that is not an action that the Pianning Commission will take on the lane coming in. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. That is actually under Title 12, under the City Engineers jurisdiction. ~ OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition/co~respondence was received ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 7,1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristo~ absenf) DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (1:39-1:48) 11-09-98 Page 16 Sa. 5b. Denied P)WNECt: Walter Friedman T~ustee, WRBL Trust, 9 Goodyear, Irvine, CA 92618 ~IGENT: Eller Media, Attn: S. I. Castilio, 1550 W. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007 LOCATION: 1107 North Brookhurst Street - Guereero Auto Repair• Property is 0.25 acre located at the northwest comer of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue. To permit the const~uction of two (2) 36-foot high, 300 square-foot billboards. Continued from the Commission meetings of October 12, and October 26, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-178 SR7260KB.DOC ' FO~.LOWING IS A SUMMARY OF. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. Applicant's Statement: Walter Friedman, 624 Bamsdale Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has been a resident of West Anaheim for over 30 years. He is present to urge Commission to embrace the facts and truth regarding their application to reinstall billboard signs and disregard th~: speculations and obfuscations of true. Two weeks ago a statement Mr. Zur Schmiede stated in writing that Caltrans officiafs had confirmed with hin verbally that he had been fully compensated for the permanent loss of a location and the permanent loss of future advertising revenue. This is not the truth and this has not been addressed by Caltrans. He has not been compensated for the future loss in rentai income from the billboards. In a letter dated November 3, 1998 from Mr. Brown of Caltrans, that was to clarify the items he was to be compensaled for and the aartial taking of his land by Caltrans, Mr. Brow;! nlleges that the components of compensation consist of two outdoor advertising signs. A review of his 3'/: year ald file revealed that he does have a copy of an appraisal summary statement dated February 1, 1995 which required confidentiality on the part of the State of Califomia. This appraisal summary statement is not part of his final agreement with Caltrans. Seven months of negotiations ensued from February 1995 until the State and himself had muiually executed and finalized their final agreement. When their agreement was finalized a copy was Frovided to the Commission at the last public hearing. They were able to confirm that their final agreemeni absolutely did not include or make any reference to pa~ment for outdoor advertising sites or the permanent loss of renlal income from such sites. Ms. Mann conPrtned tiiis in a memorandum which stated, "The agreement with Caltrans does not have any specific reference to compensation for billboards." He asked Commission to please take the opportunity to review his agreement with Caitrans. They will then discem the parties have set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of the agreement constitutes the entire considerat;on for said documents. No obligation other than those set forth herein will be recognized. Mr. Brown's letter has no merit in unilaterally attempting to confirm or modify his agreement with Caltrans. Mr. Brown's letter is irrelevant and contrary to their agreement. He asked how in reafity can they confirm something that does not exist. Caitrans has a bias interest in this manner. Caltrans says that they did not pay for the rental income but they paid for tfie advertising sites only. 11-09-98 Page 17 Sites a;e different from rental income. They admitted that they did not pay for the rental income by siating onlY that they had paid for the advertising of signs. Furthermore, Mr. Brown fails to confinn a~d corroborate Mr. Zur 5~~imiede's statement that he was fully compensated for the loss of future rentai income from the signs simply because this is not the truih. He has not been compensated for the future loss of rental income from the billboards. He now desires to point out some distinctions of interpretation set forth in the November 3rd memorandum. As he stated two weeks ago, his letter to the City of Anaheim dated February 7,1995 was as broad and generai as he couid makE it. He does not understand how anyone can in any way infer that his {etter has specific reference to the use of the properly for auto repair, this is not true. His letter Is a broad general inquiry as to how he can use his land in building after the partial taking. He simply wanted to know whether he could use the property after the taking as it was prior to the taking. The City had the opportunity after they received his letter to ascertain via an inspection wnat uses would be permitted after the taking. Mr. Amadi's letter in no way, shape, or form makes any reference to the primary use as s repair facility. He read Mr. Amadi's response as to whether or not he could use his property after the taki~g as it was used prior to the taking, "The City of Anaheim has adopted the policy which grants any property effected negatively by tl~e taking a grandfathered status to the extent that it has become non-conformir.g due to the act of taking, and will be permitted to remain and operate accordingly." He disagrees with Ms. Mann's interpretation of the theory of esioppel and how it relates to 'chis application. Ms. Mann pleads that even when all elements of estoppel are present, there can be no estoppel against a govemmental agency where it would defeat operation of a s'rong public policy. !n his opinion, allowing the re establishment and relocation of pre-exisiing billboard signs ta a property after an eminent do~rain taking is not a violation of public policy. The public's interest is not being compromised as they are simply re-establishing something that had existed for decadas before. Issuing a CUP for billboards on his property is furthermore not a violation of zoning ordinances. The applicability of the Fresno case cited in Ms. Mann's memorandum, in his opinian does not come close to the truth and facts of this matter. Again, they are not talking about the violation of zo~ing laws, they are simply addressing the re-installation of previous existing lawful use to accommodate the inconveniences and hardships he experienced with tha eminent domain process. Thirci, the reinstallation the billboards does not detract from land values in the direct vicinity of the billboard. ~astly, the billboards do not effect or cause traffic concems or any safety issues for the citizens of Anaheim. The balance test in this manner overwhelmingly leans towards the re-establishment of billboards on his property. How would someone feel if they made a written request to the City of Anaheim asking if they could use their properiy after the taking and submilted a written response that affirmed that they could use the property after the taking as it was used before. He requested the Ciiy of Anaheim honor its contract and promise to him to allow the re-establishment of billboards on his property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: She believed that the Planning Com~:^.ssion's focus needs to be on looking upon this as a land use application and considering whether or nat ~i~e requested application for the two billboards is something tha! the Planning Commission feel~ that the findings required for a billboa~d can appropriately be made on this case. Mr. Amadi did not have authority to waive the Citys requirements and her statement of misinformation, however well intentioned, would not be sufficient ta constitute estoppel against the City. In any event the~~e is a disagreement wiih regard to Pianning Commission's charges to look at this as a land use matter and determine what is the appropriate use for this particular property. 11-09-98 Page 18 ~ :.. .. . . _ ~ __ . ~ . FF; . ~. . . . .. , ;t:.~:,...~ ~ . . ='1 Commissioner Koos: He felt ihey shouid just focus on the land use issues alone and if the applicant has a problem wfth their decision then he has the option of taking administrative remedies and take tt beyond the Planning Commission. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Denied ihe Negative Declaration on the basis that the Commission considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and fu~ther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and the comments received that there is substantial evidence that the project wili have a significant effect on the environment. Denied Conditional Use Pertnit No. 4084 to permit the conslruction of two (2) 36-foot high, 3Q0 square foot billboards based on the following: 1. That ihe two proposed lighted, 36-foot high billboards will adversely affect the single-family residential neighborhoad located approximately 400 feet to the north by adding visible glare from the illuminatfon of the advertisod messages on the 36-foot high billboards. 2. That this property has a histary of Code violations related to its use for automotive repair. Due to the continual source of complaints and/or calls for service to the business, the Cornmission recently amended the origina! conditions of approval on February 2,1998 to address the intensity of the existing use. The propose~i billboards will further intensify the uses on 4his property which is already developed to its full potential. 3. That the proposed biliboards, even with conditions imposed, will create a detrimentai affect on the surrounding area by creating additional visual clutter and unnecessary off-site signage in an area already designated as blighted, located within the newly created West Anaheim Commercial Comdors Redevelopment Area. Furthermore, the proposed biliboa~ds are contrary to the Council's expressly stated intent to create a more aesthetically pleasing visual environment along Brookhurst Street. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristof absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (2:53-3:06) 11-09-98 Page 19 6b. VARIANCE NO. 4350 OWNER: Kuo-Chin Yang, Shu-Mei Nsieh, Chin-Suyng Hsu, Mei- Yun Yang Hsu & Mei-Lan Yang Chen, Attn: Stephen Hsu, ~135 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: TFN Architectural Signage, Inc., Attn: Maiic Wiseman, 3411 W. Lake Center Dr., Santa Ana, CA 92704 LOCATION: 515 West Katella Avenue - Four Points Sheraton Hotel. Properly is 1.0 acre located on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately 160 feet east of the centeriine of Harbor BoulevarcJ. To waive the location of permitted wall signs to permit two wall signs to be located on adjacent building walis (inciuding one existing wall sign on the south side of the building and one proposed wall sign on thz west side of the building). Approved Denied VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98-179 SR7351 KD.DOC o • ~ o ~ • • • ApplicanYs Statement: Rick Denman: Stated he is with Signs and Se~vices Company. He is also representing TDN Architectural Signs at 3411 Wesi Lake Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92704, (714-556-0990): They are present to ask for approval for a variance of two signs. The hotel i~dustry is very sign reliant. They are requesting that they put a sign on the west elevation which is in contradiction to the sign code which does not allow for adjacent signs. (He submi(fed exhrbits to Commission and describea the exhibits to further illustrate fheir requesf.] They feel that the east elevation is an ideal locaiion. The use of adjacent walis is a new code for the City of Anaheim. They understand the intent to decrease clutter but they feei in this situation it is necessary for this tenant. A Siqns Requlation and ihe Mechanics of Visual Communication by David Jones shows that once you have seen a sign at slo~.~ moving tra~c at 35 MPH it would fake 700 feet to make a transition, two lanes over. They feel it wouid be a safety issue for people in ober to change lanes and get over to ihe hotel. They feei the special circumstances applicable to this property relates to the surrounding buildings and their location that blocks the visibility to their site. They are asking for relief from the strict enforcement of the adjacent sign code. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ;,LOSED. Commissioner Bosi~rick: Basically they are looking for more signage to the west. The Castie Inn blocks his visibility from Harbor Boulevard. He suggested they move the front sign to the side and leave the monument sign out front as their frontage sign and then ihey will comply. He suggested they install the sign ai the side of the building and if s~~mebody builds along side of ihem then move it back around to the front. 11-09-98 Page 20 ~} ~ , . . . . : . . . . - .. ~ _, ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . ~ . .. . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ r . ~:,;~ ~ , . ~ ~ . - . . . :s^. "r45, . . . . , . . . . . . Commissioner Koos: Their exEsting sign on the south elevation can probably onty be seen by norihbound traffic on Harbor Boulevarcl stop,ped at the intersedion. Rick Denman: It is angied and difficult to read. Commissioner Koos: He foft when the streets are completed they wilf have less of that type of a traffic probiem. Commissioner Esping: Peopfe visiting this area are going to know where they are going because they are going to make reservatlons in advance. Chairwoman PraTempore Boydstun: He agreed with Commissioner Bostwick's suggestion to make the sign to the west elevation, Once the street is finished there is not going to be the congestion in front of the hotel. Commissioner Bostwick: It is going to be able to be seen from Harbor Boulevard north and southbound as well as eastbound on Katella. The only direction they might be missing is westbound on Katella and that is nat going to be blocked so much by traffic, they are already looking that direction. Chairvvoman PraTempore Boydstun: All of the hotels are going to be having the same type of monument sign so the public is gofng to be looking for that type of sign. OPPOSITION: None ACTiON: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within fhe definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Denied Variance No. 4350 on the basis that there are no special circumstances or hardships applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically-zaned properties in the vicinity; and, that the granting of the requested variance would, in effect, be granting a special privilege io the property not shared by other similar prope~ties. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciiy Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:07-3:19) 11-09•98 Page 21 ~~:. . .~ . . . .. . 7a. CEQA MEGA7IVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. RECLAS5IFICATION NO. 98-99-07 Granted, unconditionally INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCA7(ON: 100 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 1.70 acres Iocated at the southeast comer of Harbor Boulevard and Lincoin Avenue To reclassify this property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESrJLUTION N0. PC98-180 SR001 VK.DOC • • • ~ - e ~ • • ~ «1~~~~ Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner. State~ this Is a city-initiated request through the Redevelopment Agency requesting a recisssificatisn from the Commerclal General Zone to Commercial Limited Zone in preparation for an future development that r. ~sid be submitted for this property. Staff does recommend approval of this request as it would be consistent with the General Plan a: v.-cil ~s the surroundl~g zoning designations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTIOM: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-07, unconditionatly. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:19-3:20) 11-09-98 Page 22 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED; Approved 8b. VIIAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921 (READVcRTISED) Approved, in pa~t OWNER: F. J. Hanshaw Ent., Inc., 10921 Wesiminster Ave., (i'o explre 11-28-99) Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 N. Brookhurst St., Suite 1, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street. Suite 1- Cheers Market. Properly is 0.91 acre located north and east ,~f the northeast come~ of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue. i i"o consider reinstatement of this permit which cunentiy contains a time limitation (until April 28, 1999) to retain thE retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing 2,200 square foot convenience market, to consider amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to hours ofi operation, sales of hot food or self-serve sc;ft drinks, window signs and exterior public telephones, and to waive minimum r~umber of parking spaces to permit and retain self-service soft drink dispensers inside the convenience market. The petitioner aiso requests review and approval of final landscaping and sign plans in conjunction with the previously-approved convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9Y,-181 SR6912DS.DOC • • ~- • • s ~ a Applic: ~~iYs Statement: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1343 N. Minot Straet, Anaheim, CA 92801: Stated he is present today to request the following items: Hours of operation - He is requesting the store to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Sunday through Thursday and open until 1:30 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Consider the crime rate which is 23% below average at their location. Several ea~ly commuters have been requesting that they open the store eariier hours, especialiy Home Depat which has close to 1 miliion customers per year. He has provided eight surveillance cameras with calor rr.onitors running 24 hours for the safety of his employees and customers. He will ensure that ihere will be unobstnu4ed visibility io the store all the times. He was surprised to find out that they are requiring modification to the existing sign in front of the store. The sign has been there for more than 25 years. He is requesting that the condition regarding the sign be deleted. Public Testimony: Brett Banorwick, Managing Agent for State Court Receiver: Stated fhat subject proFerty Is currently in receivership since April 1997. It is not a typical receivership case between a borrower and a lender. It is 11-09-98 Page 23 a dispute between two partners both which ciaim misapRropriation of funds. They are here as the neutral thirci party untii this case is settled. He is present to request that Condition No. 5 be deieted from his tenant's conditional use permit. The telephone aquipment is there under a term lease agreement with RJ Communications. The lease was executed approximately two years ago and has eight years remaining. They have relocated the phone once due to the emin~nt domain action from Caltrans. They asked RJ Communications to cancel this agreement and they stated they will not. The receiver is not In the position at this time to force canceilation of that agreement, therefore, he requested Condition No. 5 be deleted from the CUP. Regarding the large sign on the south end of the building, the sign has been there for nearly 25 years. It has been approved and is larger tnan the other signs on the building but it was buiit into the existing roof line. He requested that the City not require them to remove or modify the sign. Jeff White, RJ Communications: Stated he is present on behalf of the property owner. The pubiic phones have been there for almost 25 years without any incident. They provide a life line for many people in the community. They request that ihis be grandfathered in because their contractual obligations are to the land owner and not to the applicant. Mr. Nichois, Code Enforcement Officer back in 1996 had approved the location of the phcnes. They had remove~ them and reinstailed them at one time. Chris Lands, 1895 West Commonwealth, Fullerton, CA: Mr. Jinadasa acquired his services April 1, 1998. He is trying to assist the applicant in merchandising and marketing his business so he can succeed. He was ur~aware of the Caltrans construclian at the time and has noted that it is substantially difficult to market his products and services without the use of window signage. Most liquor stores/conven?ence markets in Anaheim are covered with cigarette signs and all types of handwritten notices where you can not see into those buildings. At iNr. Jinadasa's location they havo striped the windows of neariy everything, leaving sn unobstructed view per the Police DepartmenPs request. Thpy have a number of small neon signs. The longest one is 32 inches in length to be mounted at the very top section of each of the windows. They have approximately 7 neon signs. They would still leave an unobstNCted view of the market per the Police DepartmenYs request. The bottom section of the windows which are currently below waist level type wind;.w are currently blackened. They would like tA be able to put graphically made signage, siill leaving the visibility throughout the market. The oniy windows they would not put signage are the actual entry doors. Hours of operations. He requested that they approve the hour~ from 6am to 12am. He currenily operates the market from 8am to 11 pm. He also hea~s comments from the local pafrons asking that they be open earlier. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if there was a pennit on the sign? Cheryl Fiores, Senior Planner: It appears there is a sign permit issued in 1988 for a one foot 8 inch high by 14 foot long wall sign for this porti~n of the building. Somehow or other the sign appears to be constructed differently than exhibits. Commissioner Bosiwick: Obviously the sign has been changed frnm ~Nhat was originally approvad and what was probably originally installed. Commissioner Williams: Apparently they applied for a permit and never changed it. Cemmissioner Bostwick: So the sign was originally one foot, eight inches high and iYs now probably 2d or 30 inches, at least? 11-09-98 Page 24 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner. She did not have the measurements, but I would say that appears like it would be 24-30 inches. Commission Bostwick: It exceeds above the fascia of the building and it doesn't match the rest of the signs within the center. Commissioner Williams: He wondered whether it wa~, there before they applied for the permit for an 18 inch sign? Was there a sign there that was existing that they wanf to modify for some reason? C~mmissioner Bastwick: It showed it back in 1588 and that is the only record on file. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: What percentage is allowable on there window? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: It is 20 percentage af the window coverage. Chainvoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: So they could pat the neon across it ~f they wanted to as long as it does not exceed 20 percent? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: If the condition were amended, they could have window coverage that didn't exceed code or to ~vhatever percentage you would put on the property. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail - Police Department: As far as signs are concemed, their ABC license may ;~ave a restriction upon how many signs th2y have that advertise alcohol or alcoholic beverages, that emanate from the interior af the store. That is a restriction that could be on the license. He did no! indicate what these neon signs are going to advertise. Commissioner Bostwick: From the photos the applicant has Budweiser, Bud Light, an open over the door and a couple other bee~s in the other ~vindows. So there all alcohol related signs. Plus there are signs that are tacked up on the Fost, copies for 5 cents and the Califomia Phone Card hanging off of the other sign. There is also the ATM sign that there Iegaliy. He ha~ a problem with all the signage and is concemed if they approve more signage then they are going to be abused it. Commissioner Williams: What about hours of o~+eration, as far as police? Investigator Tom Engle: They had initially recommended the hours of operation from ~ am to 12midnight every day of the week. We had not recommended anything until 1:30 in the moming. Commissioner Wiliiams: Asked if that changed since then? Investigator T~m Engle: His understanding that cun~ently the Police Depa~tment is recommending ihe same as the Planning Department, that the hours not be changed. Commissioner L?ostwic;c: Asked ±he representative from R.J. Commur,ications if they are a public or priv2te corporation? Jeff White, RJ Communications: Responded they are incorporated in the state of Califomia. It is privately owned. Cammissior.er Bostwick: Asked if the land owner has a interest in RJ Communicationsl Jeff White, RJ Commu~icatiuns: No. They recEived royalties prior to the receivership isrue. Commissioner Bostwick: i hey are only asking that t~e phones be removed from the outside of the building, not that thsy cannot be on the i~side of the building. They do create an st'ractive nuisance being on the outside of the buiiding. 11-09-98 Page 25 Jeff White, RJ Communications: Yes, he undersfood that. Feasibly, that does not make business sense in their industry. They are there to cater to everybody and anybody. They do ft mainfy as a convenience to the community and the neighborhood. They have even gone as far as limit the hou~s of eperation of the payphones within the City of Anaheim. He did not think eliminating the phone all together is the answer that everybodys lookina Tur. Commissioner Bostwick: This has been our policy that ail the payphones be located on the interior of the stores rather than the exteriors. They do not allow it on any the convenience markets or service stations or anywhere else for the same simple reason that they are an attractive nuisance and create a problem for the neighborhood. Jeff White, RJ Combinations: That makes perfect sense but in this case this is not a new construction as is the Jack-In-Box (a previously heard item). Commissioner Bostwick: They have required this of others who have come in for alterations to their CUP's. Jeff White, RJ Communications: Throughout the City of Anaheim they have tried #o comply with the requirements that the Code Enforcement is asking of them. He did not agree that the phones necessarily attract a bad element. There are good people who need payphones. Commissioner Bostwick: Yes, but they can find the payphone inside the store just as well as outside on the sidewalk. Chris Lands: They have sinoe acquired neon signs from companies that are non-alcohol related which ahey would also like to be able to put up. They have acquired a money gram service and were provided with 2 neon signs that they would like to place in those window:~. Phillip Morris has provided a Marlboro sign which they would aiso iike to place in the windows. They do not have to fill the windows with these neons, but a number of neons would be more eye appealing than absolutely nothing. They have aiready had a number of close incidences on that comer with vehicular traffic. For people to be able to see the location in advance is important and neor signs help to do that. They lighten up the area as weli as the front of the stare which keeps any distui~bing element away. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: How many neon signs where you thinking of putting up? Chris Lands: He proposed the open sign, the money gram sign, and they could probabl~ limit one neon sign per other windows. He actually drew up a pian of what he would like to plan for it and just to the left of door, he would like to plan the money gram sign. As he mentioned they have a Marlboro sign and two other beer signs, limited to that and put up to one sign per window. Commissioner Koos: It would be unwise to olace a number of signs in the conditions of approval as oppose to the percentage number because the signs could all of a sudden become enormous ov~r time. Ci~ris Lands: They can draw ~p exactiy what signs will go in the window. Commissioner Koos: What about 10 percent7 Ci;ris Lands: 7wenty percenf woutd probably be more of the w9ndow than they ~re loaking for. The neens, one is about 32 inches in length, approximately 8 inches wide, that is the largest of the signs, not included the open sign. Some of the signs are 6 inch and others are 8 inch signs. They may be a little longer, but they are still shallow signs. The longer signs would tend to obstruct the visibility that the Police nepartment would like to have. If they went 20 percent, he did not think they would cover 20 percent of the window. 11-09-98 Page 26 Commissioner Bostwick: They are considering that 13ke a painted sign in the wlndow, if you were going to paint something across your glass it canY exceed 20 percent of ihe glass area. Twenty percent is code. investigator Tom Engle: Their concems would be, is that the advertising would be nothing but cigarettes and alcohol. Commission Koos: Asked about conditioning it to say no aicohol related signage? Irvestigator Tom Engle: He would need to check the appiicanYs ABC license. Whichever is ihe most rstrictive is what the applicant needs to comply with, whether it is his conditional use permit, or his ABC Iicense. Cheryl Flores, Senio~ Planner. Wanted to clarify what the 20 percent of wirdow coverage is accorcling to code. It woufd be rnaking an outline around the sign and everything within that area would be the 20 percent. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in pa~t, the reinstatement of Conditional Use Parmit No. 3921 (to expire 11-28-99). Approved the amendr~ent to the condition of approval pertaining to the self-service soft drink dispenser~ inside the convenience market, and apprcved the waiver for minirr+um number of parking spaces based on inforrnation provided in the submitted parking st~dy and the recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Denied the request for amendmert or deletion of the conditions or approvai pertaining to window signs and exterior p~blic telephones in conjunction with the existing ce~venience market with accessory retail sales of alcoholic beverages far off-premises consumption. Approved the final landscaping and sign plans, subject to the signs being brought inta conformance with the rest of tha signs in the center. The sign on the south elevation shaii be reconstructed to its original permitted sign size. Modified Resolution No. PC97-42, as follows: Deletcd Condition No. 2. Mod~fied Condition Nos. 7 and 9 to read as foilows: 7. That the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premis~s consumption is hereby granted until N~vember 28,1999. 9. That the business hours of the subject business shail be limited to 6 a.m. to 12:00 a,m., seven days a week. Added the foliowing conditions of approvai: 11-Q9-98 Page 27 ~K~, . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . c.~-" . ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ 20. That signage for the subject business shall be limfted to that shown on the exhibfts submitted by the petitioner and as conditioned herein. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 21. That the petitioner shall install landscaping in the existing westerly planter adjacent to Brookhurst Street within ninety !90) days after the completion of ' the Caltrans improvement project occurring in this area. 22. That the existing wall sign on the south elevation shall be reconstructed to its nriginal permitted sign size. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (3:20-3:59) 11-09-98 Page 28 F ` ~:... ~..: . , i4-. 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE QECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Contina~ 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12-21-98 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 3812 (READVERTISED) 9d. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FIMAL LANDSCAPING AND SIGN PLANS OWNER: TW Investment and I1N Investment Corp., c/o Kape P~operties, P.O. Box 6474, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 AGENT: Kape Property Management, Attn: Allen Weinst~ck, 9440 Santa Monica f31vd. #305, Beverly Hills, CA 902i0 LOCATION: 1315-D.1321.1325.1331 and 1341 North Blue Gum Street - Transtar Van Conversion. Prope~ty is 9.7 acres located at the northwest comer of Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street. To consider reinstatement of this pennit which currentiy has a time limitation (until October 13, 1998) to retain a previously-approved automotive van conversion and modification plant in an existing industrial business park. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. I SR7261 KB.DOC • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None .;CTION: Continued subject request to the December 21,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise Conditional Use Permit No. 3812 to amend conditions of approval pertaining to the van conversion and modification facility. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TI~UlE: This item was not discus,5ed. 11-09-98 Page 29 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATfON Approved 10b CONDITIONF.L USE PERMIT NO. 4071 Granted for 5 years OWNER: Southem Counties Gas Company of Caiifomia,1919 S. (To Expire 11-9-03) State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Allen Didonato, 744 G Street #106, San Diego, CA 92101 LOCATION: 1919 South State Colleae Boulevard - Southem Califomia Gas Comaanv. Property is 17.39 acres located at the northwest comer of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard. To construct a 40-foot high monopole fortwo (2) microwave dish antennas (eighi [8] foot diameter each). CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-182 I SR7259KP.DOC • . • ~- e • s ~ • ApplicanYs Statement: AI Didonato, Architect representing the Gas Company: The Gas Company is proposing to install and maintain a 40-foot monopole with two, 8-foot dishes on their existing facilities at 1919 South State College Blvd. The purpose of the pole and the dishes is to create and maintain a data link for this facility and tie into other facilities in the region. The location of the monopole on the site is tightly constrained by a shadow. The existing facility needs to shoot a direct line of site signal to Signal Hill. Unfortunately, for the facility, ihe Hilton Hotel lies between it and Signal Hill. Therefore, their existing relay tower is simply blocked. Therefore, they need to go into the back comer of the prope~ty and putting up what's callad a reflective anay. They will take to signal and bounce it off of that, bounce it to Signal Hill and back and fourth and tie in. While it provides a constraint, it also in a sense provides a benefit. Were we not constrained by that, we would still probably wish to locate this there. The concem on the part of the Ciiy with this monopole is negative visual impact. At this location, given the size of the property which is some 17 acres in size. This munopole is approximately 6-hundred feet from the center line of either one of those. At that distance, the pole is a background element. On top of this, the Gas Company's existing facilities are out in front and there are industrial buildings on the properties to either side of it which block the view. (He described the locafion of the monopole using a set of phofos - View A fhrough F.j I-Ee knuws that there is a concern about the monopole. They feel that the impact is rninimal, what wiil be seen wili only be for specific periods of time passing by. This pole is part of an independent integrated response system. This pole along with other poles throughout the Orange Coun!y ~nd southem Los Angeles region will tie the various standab operating bases. There are approximately 7 throughout the region and this system links them all together and allows them to have the regional response for day to day problems and occurrences. They can allocate their resources better on a regional basis. 11-09-98 Page 30 ~ ~;'c: The system is very critical in a disaster. It will enable its facilities to get to the s~ene quickly. The system is independent of the telephone company. He feft this is a worthwhile proJect that will serve all of the people of Anaheim. They have done their best to mitigate the impacts and their visual impact is minimal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Sostwick: Since there is some visual impact on the driveway if they move the pole 20 to 50 feet to the east it would work to keep it out of the driveway? AI Didonato: A simple functionality for the gas company standpoint, in that direction are the bins where they tiouse their gravel and tractors and there are certain things that are physically in their way. .The second problem is 4hat while ihe shadow on the diagram appears to be contiguous what happens is that as you move the dish back because you are going to a spot behind the Hilton, they have a marginal signal there. The closer you get the object that produces the shadow you can get better reception. They strongly prefer not to do it that way because it might not wo!1c. , OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Oeclaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4071 for 5 years (!o expire November 9, 2003) with the following added condition: That prior to final building and zoning fnspections, Conditian Nos. 4, 6 and 8, above- mentioned, shaU be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (3:59-4:13) 11-09-98 Page 31 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA?ION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 11b. CU~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3750 (READVERTISED) 12-7-98 OWNER: George O. Abbes, Abel Sanchez, 608 S. Harbar Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Hector Rabolii, Abbel Trade, Inc., 18 Cantilenia, San Clemente, CA 92673 LOCATiON: 804 North Anaheim Boulevard - W.B. Motors. Property is 0.16 acre located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (until October 14,199'~ to retain an automobile sales lat. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7353TW.DOC o • • ~- • • • • • ApplicanYs Statement: Mercedes De Martino: Stated she would be translaiing for the owner, AAiriam Rabolli, who is Spanish- speaking. The problem is that the owner was not aware that the tenant at the site did not have a businsss license and any c.~:Respondence from the City was sent to the prior owner. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: That is tr~e. There was a letter send out that was generated by their tile and was send apparently to the prior business owner, Juan Mendiola, however, this request for reinstatement is still able to be considered by the Planning Commission. Mercedes DeMariino: Mrs. Rabolli would like to request a 30-day continuance to comply with everything that is required on this property. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if she has someone who is going to operate the car sales7 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Suggested Maggie Solorio (Acting PC Support Supervisr~r) might help translate to the applicant, Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Suppo~t Supervisor: Th~ applicant indicated that it was not until September 1998 that they faund out that the tenant was ap^ 'ng without a business license. They were notified in the form of a letter from the tenant asking that the owner inquire what the problem was because a representative from Code Enforcement had visited the property and advised them that they were operating without a business license. That is when they came to the Planning counter to try to find out as much as they could. She has only been notified by letter regarding the landscaping that was not being kept up to code. She is therefore requesting a 30 day extension to bring the properfy up to code and would like to request that ihe one year condition of approval which they currently have on their property be deleted. Last week she asked the tenant to leave the property because they were not maintaining the property. She has a letter from the attomey demanding that they comply with the City's conditions. At th,is time 11-09-98 Page 32 she does not have another tenant to occupy the property. On Monday a 3-day nntice was sent to the tenant io leave the premises. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if she is going to notify whoever she rents to that they have to have an active business license? Maggie Solorio: Yes. Commissioner Williams: She is also required to have a State Ifcense for used cars. Maggie Soi.,;~: Yes. They are aware of this because they were there for the first six months. Chairwornan Fro-Tempore 9oydstun: She would not have an objection with the 30 days but she would not suggest removing the con~iition of approval of a one year limftation because there have been problems with the lot since it opened. Commissioner Williams: Is she aware that the code vioiations need to be completed by then? Maggie Solorio: She is aware of the viv~ations. She received the staff report on Saturday listing ail the code violations. Commissioner Williams: He suggested the applicant ~top by Code Enfnrcement to see what exactly they do require, in addition to what is on the staff report. Maggie Solcrio: She has been speaking with Code Enforcement. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion to continue this until December 7, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Koos, and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: None A:TION: Continued subject request to the December 7,1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to bring the property up to Code requirements. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:14-4:25) 11-09-98 Page 33 ,~::;.., ;;`; MEETING ADJOIiRNED AT 4:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23,1998 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR A PL.~-NNING ~OMMISSION PL/~N READING WORKSHOP Submitted by: 0~~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior SECretary 11-09-98 Page 34