Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/01/31'~~,H~~M~~`' CITY OF ANAHEIM t '~' o * > _ ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A~4NCE0 tbyl DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review • Adjourn to closed session - conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) - anticipated litigation (one potential case) - No action was taken. u PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Boydstun called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bostwick. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Linda Johnson Niki Cutler Don Yourstone Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Associate Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 27, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. - PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, January 6, 2000. P: DOCS\CLERICALWIIN UTESWC013100. DOC www.planninpcommissionCc~anaheim.net Page 1 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 99-14: David Wendy Chen, 915 South West Street, Anaheim, CA 92802, request for review and approval of a Final Site Plan to install one new wall-mounted hotel identification sign and one new freestanding directional sign. Property is located at 915 South West Street (Super 8 Motel). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4 on file in the Planning Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Concurred w/staff Approved (Vote: 7-0) SR7668KD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for a • review and approval of Final Site Plan. Niki Cutler, Associate Planner, stated this item is a request for a review and approval of a Final Site Plan to install one new wall-mounted hotel identification sign and one new freestanding directional sign at the existing Super 8 Motel located at 915 South West Street. Staff reviewed the plans and information submitted by the petitioner, and finds that the final site plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan requirements and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Final Site Plan. Staff further finds that the project falls within the definition of the Categorical Exemption under Class 11 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts construction of minor accessory structures associated with existing commercial facilities including on-premise sign from CEQA requirements. • Page 2 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MtNUTES • B. CEQA NEGATIVE DECi.ARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4142 - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: O'Neal Communications, Attn: John Tandy, 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 105, Laguna Hilis, CA 92653, requests review and approval of final plans to construct a 60-foot high telecommunications "monopalm". Property is located at 3150-3164 East La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final design, materials and landscaping plans for the previously-approved 60-foot high telecommunications "monopalm" on the basis that fhe final plans demonstrate compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in the staff report dated January 31, 2000. Approved Approved (Vote: 7-0) SR1033TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this item is a request for review of final plans for a proposed "monopalm" located at 3150-3164 East La Palma • Avenue. Commissioner Bristol asked whether the plans were the same as what was approved by Commission. Greg McCafferty confirmed they were. • Commissioner Bostwick thanked the applicant, who was in the audience, for taking Commission's advice in placing the trash and tower where they had requested. Page 3 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 370 (READVERTISED) Continued to 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-10 February 14, 2000 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4971 2f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2a. 2c, 2d, and 2e OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. General Plan Amendment No. 370 - An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the General Industrial designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-10 - To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 - To construct a 294,632 square foot commercial retail center including a home improvement store, health club, three (3) drive-through fast food restaurants, two (2) full-service restaurants, a multi-tenant pad building, and a freeway-oriented sign with ~ waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c) required dedication and improvement of right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 20, 1999 and January 19, 2000. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6995DS.DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for a continuance to February 14, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to respond to comments received on the draft environmental impact report. VOTE: 7-0 ~ DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Page 4 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. VARIANCE NO. 4384 Granted OWNER: Seaward Properties, 923 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: Stuart Architecture, Attn: Ernest Stuart, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1500, 1550, 1551,1600,1601, 1650, 1700 and 1701 East Babbitt Avenue and 1531 and 1551 South State College Boulevard. Property is 11.59 acres located at the northwest and southwest corners of Babbitt Avenue and State College Boulevard. Waiver of (a) minimum structural setback abutting a local street, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces to permit a previously-approved 10- parcel industrial subdivision. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 20, 1999 and January 19, 2000. VARlANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-10 SR1021TW.DOC • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this item is for property generally located at East Babbitt Avenue and South State College Boulevard. This is a continued item from previous meetings. The parking study has been revised to the satisfaction of the Traffic and Transportation Manager and staff is recommending approval of the Variance. ApplicanYs Statement: Ernest Stuart, Stuart Architecture, stated he is representing the owner and was available to respond to any questions regarding this project. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Stuart whether Waiver A involved only one property address that would be within the five feet. Ernest Stuart verified Waiver A was for only one property. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there were any elevations for the canopy that the applicant is to install. Ernest Stuart indicated that the elevation plans were in the submittal documents. Greg McCafferty verified staff received conceptual elevations that were part of the package, as the previous variance had, but that is not part of this request since the uses that are there are already permitted by right. They are available if Commission would like to see them. Commissioners then walked over to the exhibit wall. ~ Page 5 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ernest Stuart advised, as Commission was reviewing the elevation plans, that their intention in developing the elevation was to create a dramatic shift from its exterior appearance today to what it will be when they complete those enhancements, particularly along State College Boulevard. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked Mr. Stuart if they are going to create a shopping mall type of look. Ernest Stuart confirmed that was their intent, to be more pedestrian friendly and a place where the neighbors can become a part of that tile and stone neighborhood. • • ~ •- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITiON: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4384, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 31, 2000. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:38-1:42) • ~~ ~J Page 6 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 371 Continued to 4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-12 February 14, 2000 4d. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 4a and 4b INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 848-930 South Knott Street and 3411-3441 West Ball Road. Property is 7.0 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Knott Street* and Ball Road. General Plan Amendment No. 371 - Request for amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject properties from the Low Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation; and the General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential designation to the Low- Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-12 - To reclassify subject properties from the CO (Commercial, Office and Professional) Zone to the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone (Portion A); and from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone (Portion B**). " Originally advertised as Knott Avenue. ~ ** Portion B has been deleted from this request. Continued from the Commission meeting of January 19, 2000. GENERAL PLAN RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SR6997DS.DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for a continuance to February 14, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for staff to meet with the neighbors adjacent to the subject properties and discuss the details of this request. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. C~ Page 7 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4175 OWNER: Helmut and Ruth E. Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: FZichard Damron, 127 West Borromeo Avenue., Placentia, CA 92870 LOCATION: 825 North Euclid Street (Unit D). Property is 0.94 acre located on the west side of Euclid Street, 130 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue (Kim's Acupressure.) To permit an acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center. L~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-11 Approved Granted for 1 year (To expire 1-31-2001) SR6994DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: Helmut Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, stated this is in regard to a space on Euclid Street that they proposed a retail carpet sales warehouse last year which it was denied. He is now proposing another type of use, an acupressure facility. He was very concerned when he read the description of the proposed use as "massage". He spoke with Mr. Damron who assured him that this use was to be strictly an acupressure facility and would propose a questionable type business. Richard Damron, 127 West Bromillo Avenue, Placentia, stated he intends in having a family- oriented business at the location with himself, his wife and his cousin, directly employed and there will be absolutely nothing illegal or elicit there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 for 1 year (to expire January 31, 2001), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 31, 2000. r-1 ~~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (1:43-1:46) Page 8 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r ~ ~J 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Harvey Owen, 11061 Huntington Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 AGENT: Law Office of Briggs and Alexander, Attn: Sue Ann Ibrahim, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is 0.9 acre located on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street (The Shack). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on August 2, 1999 to expire February 2, 2000) to retain an existing public dance hall and sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-12 ApplicanYs Statement: Approved Approved reinstatement (To expire 2-2-2001) SR7661 KP.DOC ~ Sue Ibrahim, agent for the property owner, at 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard and was available to answer any questions regarding this reinstatement. Public Testimony: Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, stated he is representing Bryan Industrial Properties on this project. They own approximately 100,000 square feet of industrial space in the immediate area and they want to ensure that the results are the same as staff's recommendations including a one-year approval. They visited the site last Friday and found it to be very compatible with what is in the neighborhood but were concerned that this be approved for only one year to see how this use goes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated this property seems to be improving and asked Code Enforcement to comment on this site. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated they have monitored this over the past year and found that the property has been in compliance with their Conditional Use Permit. They have a full kitchen facility and serve food on a regular basis. When they first took over the business they had one minor incident, which was quickly abated, and they are currently in compliance with all their conditions. Sue Ibrahim stated that in the future the business owners are proposing to serve food and cocktails out in the patio. She asked whether Commission had any feelings about possibly approving that sometime in the near future. • Commissioner Koos asked if that is a separate request and did that fall within the current operation. Page 9 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, explained that would be a separate request before Commission at a later public hearing, if they chose to do that. Commissioner Koos stated it would not be fair for Commission to comment on that until it comes forward to Commission. When this proposal originally came before Commission he was very apprehensive with this project but is glad to say that he is pleased with the way they turned the operations around. Greg McCafferty stated, for the record, as listed in the conditions of approval, the trash enclosure located at the rear of the property needs to be refurbished including the gates which the business owner is aware of. Following the Action: Greg McCafferty stated for Commission's information, all the past resolutions on this project would be deleted and there will be a new resolution with all the new conditions listed in the staff report. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environme~ta! documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement for Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 (to expire on • February 2, 2001). Deleted the conditions of approval for Resolution Nos. 98-118, 96-101, 95- 87, 91-134 and 80-92 in their entirety and replaced them with the following conditions of approval: 1. That the public dance hall use shall expire on February 2, 2001. Any request for extension of time must be received and approved, prior to February 2, 2001, or the public dance hall use shall no longer exist at this location. 2. That if the public dance hall use expires, the public dance hall will no longer be permitted because said use is not permitted in Development Area 3"La Palma Core" of Specific Plan 94-1 "the Northeast Area Specific Plan" in which zone the subject property is iocated. 3. That the outdoor patio area may be used by patrons for seating and smoking purposes only. That no other outdoor activities, including but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing etc. shall be permitted on this property. 4. That the number of persons attending any event at this property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be prominently displayed within the premises. 5. That the property owner shall provide any new business • operator/owner with the conditions of approval contained herein in this resolution. Page 10 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 6. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 7. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 8. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties and shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. 9. That all doors serving subject establishment shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. 10. That at all times when entertainment or dancing is permitted, uniformed security guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 11. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of su~cient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. ~ Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby businesses. 12. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or games maintained within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 14. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 15. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 16. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 17. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each ~ day of operation. Page 11 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 18. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a • public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 19. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of any type of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 20. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages. 21. That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement inspections once each month for the first six (6) months from the date of this resolution, and as often as necessary thereafter as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with Sfate and loca! statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 22. That there shall be no direct pedestrian access to the outdoor patio area from outside the building. All access to this area shall be solely through the restaurant. Further, that a sign shall be posted at the . entrance to the patio stating that this area shall be used for seating and smoking purposes only and that no dining, drinking or dancing is permitted in this area. 23. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 24. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA-3 Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the City Council, Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. 25. That a valid business license shall be maintained for this business from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. 26. That this resolution shall be permanently posted in an obvious location within the employee work area to serve as a reminder of the conditions of approval contained herein. 27. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 28. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained • in compliance with City standards. Page 12 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 29. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in ~ the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 30. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 31. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1- gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 32. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 33. That Condition Nos. 4, 9, 11, 22, 26, 27, 31 and 32, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution. • 34. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:47-1:51) ~ Page 13 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4148 (READVERTISED) Approved Denied request to defer the installation of landscaping and the closing of the two driveways OWNER; Robert Zucherman, 1715 Glen Oaks Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 AGENT: Hung Van Le, 601 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 Jackson, DeMarco, & Peckenpaugh, Attn: David Smith, 280 North Westlake Boulevard, Suite 200, Westlake Village, CA 91362 LOCATION: 601 South Magnolia Avenue. Property is 0.46 acre located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Le's Automobile). Requests approval to revise previously-approved plans for an auto repair facility and amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the closing of two driveways and the planting of landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-13 Added two conditions of approval SR1142JD.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: • Dave Smith stated he is an attorney with the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco, & Peckenpaugh, 280 North Westlake Boulevard, Westlake Village and also has an office in Irvine. Their firm represents Vista Media Group who is the authorized agent of the property owner, Robert Zucherman, for purposes of this application. Vista Media is also the owner of the billboard located on the property which Commission is considering today. Commission has already approved the proposed Conditional Use Permit at issue, the automotive facility and no aspect of that proposed use has changed. They are here today to consider two matters unrelated to that already approved use. First, the State law protections of an existing billboard such as Vista Media's and a request for time to comply with the conditions of approval already imposed. Regarding the billboard, the staff report presents the issue as one controlled by the Anaheim Municipal Code. Paragraph No. 14 of the staff report states that current Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for the billboards. Unfortunately, the staff report makes no reference whatsoever to the fact that this requirement directly violates State law. They discussed the relevant provisions of the State law at some length in their cover letter to their readvertisement application dated December 13, 1999 and was assured by staff that Commission received a copy of that letter. Those provisions are known as the "California Outdoor Advertising Act" and are found in the State's Business and Professions Code. Specifically, the Act prohibits government entity agencies from acquiring removal of legal non-conforming signs either directly or indirectly without the payment of just compensation. The Act makes clear that the State is taking over all the regulatory authority as to protected legal non-conforming billboards to the exclusion of inconsistent local regulation. Quoting from Secfion 25277 of the Act, "!t is the intention of the legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation by the provisions of this chapter:' Because regulation of these billboards has been preempted to the State, local agencies are without authority to compel their removat whether directly or indirectly without the payment of just • compensation. Page 14 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES ~ (He referred to an overhead to provide fhe relevant statute language which was submifted into the record.] The primary provision at issue today is Section 5412 which provides, "no advertising display which was lawfully erected anywhere within this State shall be compelled to be removed, nor shall its customary maintenance or use be limited, whether or not the removal of limitation is pursuant to or because of this chapter or any other law, ordinance, or regulation of any governmental entity, without payment of compensation:' The partner statute for purposes of this hearing, Section 5412.6 which applies to effectively doing the same thing to a condition of approval on a separate project and then provides in relevant part, "The requirement by a governmental entity that a lawfully erected display be removed as a condition or prerequisite for the issuance or continued effectiveness of a permit, constitutes compelled removal requiring compensation under Section 5412." It is undisputed that the billboard at issue is included with those billboards protected under the Outdoor Advertising Act, legal non-conforming signs. This billboard was in place and permitted according to law since the late 1970's. The condition proposed by staff is that a CUP be required to be obtained within 6 months. This provision violates the Outdoor Advertising Act. The legislature stated outright that it has taken over the entire field of regulation as to these legal non-conforming billboards. Section 5412 prohibits the forced removal or significantly any limitation whatsoever on the protected boards use or maintenance. The condition proposed violates the act. Also, before Commission is a request by the property owner, Mr. Zucherman, and the current other tenant on the property, Mr. Le (in fhe audience], for additional time to comply with the conditions of approval which were originally put on the project. ~ He pointed out that staff's justification for its recommended denial of this request is that the conditions would be difficult to track and enforce if deferred for two years. Unless there is a reason to expect the City's Code Enforcement Division to change, it appears the issue comes down to one of tracking. With all due respect, convenience. of staff in carrying out their duty seems to be a questionable basis on which to deny an otherwise reasonable request for a tax paying business citizen of the community. Mr. Le has relayed to him that it is an issue of money. He does not have the funds to complete the improvements which the approval was conditioned upon. In conclusion he indicated the staff presents the current matter as simply an issue of the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The Code requires a CUP and therefore they need a CUP for the billboard. Outdoor advertising billboards have received specialized protection under State law. When local regulation is inconsistent with that State law, the State law controls. This is a project Commission has already approved. The continued existence of a billboard which has been in place for approximately 20 years changes nothing about the Conditional Use Permit which Commission already approved. As proposed they would be conditioning the already approved project on compelled regulation of the billboard, exactly what Sections 5412 and 5412.6 prohibit. He requested that Commission exclude any condition on this project related to the billboard. On behalf of Mr. Zucherman and Mr. Le, he requested a period of two additional years to comply with the conditions already imposed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. C~ Page 15 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol stated, for the record, he was not present at the original hearing but he • listened to the Planning Commission tapes this morning from the September 13, 1999 public hearing. Commissioner Arnold also, stated for the record, that he was not present at the September 13, 1999 meeting since he was not a member of the Commission at the time but thoroughly reviewed the minutes of that meeting as well. Commissioner Arnold stated he understood that staff has a copy of the permit in question and asked that it be included as part of the record. Commission had a chance to review it earlier today. He asked Mr. Smith if he is stating that the problem is one in which there is some sort of requirement of removal or whether merely seeking the CUP is a problem in and of itself. Mr. Smith stated the Section 5412 spoke not only to removal but any regulation or limitation of use whatsoever. As a legal non-conforming use in the City this billboard absent the underlying application which they are currently considering now would be exempt from regulation. It has a legal non-conforming status, the laws have changed since it was initially put in, and thereby rendering it non-conforming; because it was legal at the time it can stay. Absent this application there would be no reason to discuss this sign. What Section 5412 says is just because an unrelated application comes along that is not an occasion for the owner of the billboard to now be faced with the possible loss of their legal non-conforming status. Therefore, the CUP is in violation of Section 5412 because there is no basis for regulation, absent this application. Commissioner Arnold asked if under Williamson County hadn't the U.S. Supreme Court under its final decision rule stated that in order to seek compensation you first have to exhaust administrative remedies. If, for example, the sign were to be permitted under the CUP then there is no removal, no taking, no compensation needed, correct? . Mr. Smith responded not exactly because by virtue of establishing a CUP over it as opposed to the legal non-conforming legal protections it is subject to further regulation. The CUP would likely have a life span. It would be open to application of additional conditions of approval. All of those are restrictions on use which otherwise do not exist under its existing legal non-conforming status. He feels the facts are so important in this particular instance before Commission that the application, because of some confusion went through once without consideration of the billboard and there is no tie of the billboard to this use. Commissioner Bristol interjected by stating he disagreed with Mr. Smith. According to Planning Commission tapes he heard from the meeting of September 13, 1999, there was consideration of billboard because the billboard was noted in the minutes that it was not there on the plans. So it was taken in consideration, its existence or non-existence was taken in consideration. Mr. Smith agreed with Commissioner Bristol as to the contents of the prior record. His statement indicated that there is no evidence in the record that the billboard bears upon the use which was approved at the prior meeting. Whether it was there or not the use is the same, there is no tie between the two. So there is no nexus between what Commission is considering now and the potential loss of the legal non-conforming status which the billboard enjoys today, which was his point. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated the original permit for this sign was originally issued to Mr. Lu and asked him if he knew who he is and his relationship was to Mr. Zucherman? Mr. Smith responded he did not know. The lease originally was executed around the same time as the permit and the lease was executed by Vista's successor in interest. • Page 16 JANUARY 31, 2000 CtTY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked how he would explain the letter to Commission from Mr. Zucherman, dated July 31, 1999, which stated that he knew nothing of the sign and never gave permission for that sign. Mr. Smith responded they were not involved at that point. His understanding is that there was a miscommunication between Mr. Zucherman and Mr. Le. Mr. Le is the tenant who resides on the property and whose conditional use permit was approved the last time. Mr. Le is the one who executed the lease for the billboard and it has been there since the 70's. He did not know why Mr. Zucherman was not aware that the billboard was there. After Mr. Le and Mr. Zucherman were able to discuss it they resolved whatever confusion there was and Mr. Zucherman, as stated in the letter submitted with the reapplication submission, wished the billboard to remain. Commissioner Bostwick asked for clarification; he said that Mr. Le has the lease with this billboard now and he was the proponent for the permit back when it was issued in 1977? Mr. Smith responded no. He is assuming from what he said, he has not looked at the permit recently, he did not know that Mr. Lu is the name. He is assuming from what he said that Mr. Lu is the name on fhe permit. No relation there, Mr. Le is the one that operates the automotive facility. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he has now entered into a lease arrangement with the sign company now for this sign? Mr. Smith explained his understanding is that he is the signatory on the initial lease for the billboard. Commissioner Bostwick stated he did not understand. If Mr. Lu was the person on that permit • then how did Mr. Le execute the lease? Mr. Smith indicated he did not have an answer. Commissioner Bostwick questioned whether this was obtained falsely by different people? If Mr. Lu who was supposedly the property owner at the time the permit was issued but Mr. Le is supposed to be having the permit. It just does not add up. Chairperson Boydstun asked the date of the permit? Commissioner Bostwick responded it was in August 1977. Asked when Mr. Le leased the property from Mr. Zucherman? Chairperson Boydstun stated according to Mr. Zucherman he has owned this since 1973 and sent a letter that he did not know anything about it. Mr. Smith introduced Maria Gobick, a representative of Visa Media. She informed him that the initial lease was signed with the initial property owner in the 70's when Mr. Le took over the property in 1990, he executed the lease with Vista Media directly. Commissioner Bristol asked if that was without the owner of the property? Mr. Smith responded that was not uncommon. They frequently have the authority when they lease the entire premises. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Zucherman, the property owner, from the 70's did not know about the lease from Mr. Le. ~~ Page 17 JAN UARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Boydstun stated Mr. Le did not show the billboard on his pians when he originally came before Commission. Maria Gobick stated her address for the record as 14400 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, CA 90638. Commissioner Bristol stated it seemed odd to him as he reviewed and listened to the tape this morning. Mr. Le was the person who spoke and he stated that he could not find the billboard owner, the landlord knew nothing about it. This was all referring to the sign and the sign did not do him any good. Those were comments that Mr. Le made. If Mr. Le was receiving compensation from Vista then this would seem misleading. Maria Gobick stated that is the case and confirmed Mr. Le has been receiving compensation since 1990 for this particular billboard. When she spoke to Mr. Zucherman she sent him copies of the lease and he came forth that the sign and that Mr. Le has been accepting the payments for this sign and there was an agreement that everyone would benefit from that particular billboard being there. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated in their original discussions the billboard was not shown on the exhibits which were made part of this record and under that CUP. Condition No. 18 that all the exhibits that were exhibited, 18, 19 20, that those conditions all those things were planned and it was his personal decision to remove the sign and was requested by Commission. He had shown it in the plans as not being there and requested it. Commission's decision today rests upon the extension of time and whether to add the conditions to it to request that the billboard return for a CUP. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed he was correct. The Planning Commission is not • in the role of examining laws and applicability of laws but rather they need to enforce the City of Anaheim Code as it stands, unless they are informed by a court that the provision that the City has is somehow unconstitutional. As the Code stands now they have a provision that is not applicable specifically to billboards but that indicates that where there is a legaf non-conforming use on a property that no additional uses may be approved for that property until the non- conforming use is made conforming. There was no indication that there was to be a legal non- conforming use on this property at the time that the use initially came before Commission. What the staff report does is it gives the applicant an opportunity to apply for a conditional use permit for the billboard, thereby making it conforming to existing Code, just as they have done with all other types of uses, such as shopping centers, and other non-conforming uses that have come before them. Commissioner Arnold stated there was a question earlier about what would happen if an applicant later brought a request for additional conditions and asked if it was not a practice that the content of any particular future CUP is merely speculative at this point. Who knows what conditions may or may not be placed and it is not really appropriate for Commission to decide at this point. For example, in this case what conditions may or may not be imposed on a sign that would have to come before Commission for a CUP is merely speculative at this point. Selma Mann agreed. Commissioner Bristol stated that Mr. Smith indicated that he was having difficulty with the use, with the sign versus use of the property that there was no "nexus". Yet what he just heard about Mr. Le receiving something for that billboard seems to tie that use to that sign. So there is something to be gained that is completely different than what he heard from listening to the tapes this morning and what Commission found out here. . Selma Mann believed that the agent for that applicant has indicated that the use is not being changed and that they are only bringing forth very specific provisions to be reviewed. When they Page 18 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • bring up something for modification they really reopen the conditional use permit and the Planning Commission is free to look at the entire use and its operation in determining what action to take. Commissioner Bristol stated at the morning session there was discussion whether or not the curbs and gutters could be completed within two years. He noticed that the original conditional use permit was for a 5-year period, which is a long time for any conditional use permit. Asked if it is more appropriate to have a 2-year conditional use permit for the curb and gutter if this was to go through or stay the 5 years and with this condition. Greg McCafferty asked if Commissioner Bristol was referring to the actual term of the conditional use permit of 5 years? Commissioner Bristol responded yes. There have been some modifications of the conditions on page 5 and comments made regarding the concern about the curbs and gutters due to a safety issue. That was the reason for leaving the condition in in the first place. Greg McCafferty advised the more important issue that is mentioned in the staff report is the fact that it eliminates conflict points at the very extreme corner of the intersection and that is what the Traffic and Transportation Manager was looking at when considering recommending a modification of the condition? Commissioner Bostwick stated since Commissioner Bristol heard the tape this morning would he refresh his memory whether there was a request by the applicant to have a longer term and was that why they gave it to him? Commissioner Bristol responded no, he did not recall that. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked if Mr. Le has been at this site for 9 or 10 years operating this use at this site as what he came before in September 1999? Mr. Le responded yes, it was an ARCO gas station. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised the 5 year recommendation that staff had recommended previously had come from the applicant indicating that he had a 5-year lease to operate there. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there was some discussion about the signage on the building as part of the CUP that was granted in September 1999. Condition No. 12 stated that the window signage shall not exceed 10% of the window area and the existing signage in excess of 10% shall be removed. In the staff report under the evaluation (dated January 31), item no. 18 on page 4, the staff pointed out to additional signage had been added and Mr. Le had been informed that he needed approved for that additional signage. He was not certain whether the original signage or the recently added signage was in excess of 10% but it appeared that way to him. Asked Mr. Le if he felt he exceeded the 10% and is there any plan to reduce it if that is the case? Mr. Le responded not really. Actually in the front of his window he does not have any signage at all. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff to comment on their findings regarding additional signage. Greg McCafferty explained there are really two conditions that apply and one he already commented on as Condition No. 12, which deals with the window signage. Condition No. 13 of Resolution PC99-165 also limits the amount of wall signage that the applicant can have on the ~ building and required some removal of signage including the mini mart sign and a duplicate copy on any building elevation and that the signage shall be limited to that which is shown on the Page 19 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ exhibits. As indicated in the morning session, a field check had revealed that in fact they had additional signage beyond what Commission had seen at the previous approval. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Le if he had added signage since September? Mr. Le responded yes, he has a mini mart sign in the front. But now, it has been covered. When ARCO was there they had a side window and they have all now been removed. Chairperson Boydstun asked if Mr. Le painted additional signs into the walls of the building? Mr. Le responded no. Actually, those were original signs from ARCO and sign was removed and put a"smog check" sign there. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Le if it is his opinion that he is complying with the sign requirements of the City in terms of the amount of signage permitted? Mr. Le responded he felt that he had less that 10%. Actually he only has one sign on wall and the others he has removed. Commissioner Bostwick stated the sign plan was supposed to return to Commission as a Reports and Recommendations items and he had not done that. Mr. Le has put up signs and not returned them as an R&R. Therefore, he needs to submit a complete sign plan for the project, identifying what is in the window and also what is on the building. Greg McCafferty stated, for the record, with regard to the site plan and whether the billboard was indicated on that site plan. Originally when the plans were submitted it did not indicate that the billboard was at that location. As a requirement of all their applications they require that • everything on the site be disclosed on the site plan. After looking at their land use maps as well as a field check, they found that there was, in fact, a billboard on the site. Subsequently they had the applicant modify his exhibit to indicate that there was a billboard on the site and that the business owner as well as the property owners did indicate that part of their proposal that the billboard was to be removed. Following the action: Selma Mann clarified that Commission's action was for a denial of the request to defer and an approval of the request to amend. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied the request to defer the installation of landscaping and the closing of the two driveways. Amended Resolution No. PC99-165 adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4148 as follows: • Page 20 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Modified Condition No. 13 to read as follows: 13. That within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, plans showing all the existing signage on the property shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. Added the following conditions of approval: "22. That within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution, a conditional use permit shall be obtained for the existing non-conforming billboard. 23. That the existing broken planters shall be refurbished within sixty (60) days of the date of this resolution." VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (1:52-2:27) . ~ Page 21 JANUARY 31, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES ~ ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: ADJOURNMENT AT 2:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW • ~ Submitted by: ~ .~.~,.c.~ ~..~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on o'~ '~~' ~d Page 22