Loading...
Minutes-PC 2005/08/08~ 4~~ P~ E I M c`~l o`~ f o ~ ~ ~ ~ .,, Mondav, Auqust 8, 2005 ~ ~ *C~~~~~~1 ~ DED~ CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning Cornmission Minutes Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EAS7MAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, CEClLIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, ED PEREZ, PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ {arrived @ 3:00 p.m.) Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner Roger Bennion, Community Preservation Supervisor Larry Garrison, Police Lieutenant James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Marie Newland, Planner Kimberly Wong, Planning Aide Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 4, 2005, 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, July 14, 2005 • Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 12:30 P.M. • WORKSNOP ON TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION} • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE AUGUST 8, 2005 AGENDA ~ Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. For record keepinqpurposes if vou wish to make a statement reqardinq anv item on the aqenda p/ease complefe a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Romero • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommissionCa~anaheim.net H:ITOOLSIPCADMINIPCMINIACT12005MI NUTES1AC080805.DOC ~ AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Pianning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seCOnded by Commissioner Suffa and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Velasquez absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A through 1-C) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Chairman Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTlON CARRIED (Commissioner Velasquez absent), for approval of Consent Calendar ltems 1-D and 1-E) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ~ Re~orts and Recommendations 1 A. (a) CEQA Catectorical Exemption - Class 21 (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 4090 (Tracking No. CUP2005-0501~) Agent: City of Anaheim, Community Preservation Division, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 525, Anaheim CA 92805 Locatio~: 1000 North Edward Court: (Anaheim Hockey Club) Request to initiate consideration of the revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 4090 (to permit two indoor roller hockey rinks with accessory retail and concession sales in conjunction with an industrial park). ~ Concurred with staff Approved initiation of revocation or modification proceedings Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez absent Projecf Planner.• (%dadant@anaheim.net) 08-08-05 Page 2 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING CpMMISSION MINUTES • 1 B. (a) CEQA Neqative Declaration (Previouslv-Approved) Approved (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04622 Approved retroactive (Tracking No. CUP2005-Q5011) eatension of time for one year (to egpire on /~gent: Gary Frazier, Acacia Housing Advisors, 6445 Joshua Tree ,Tanuary 14, 2006) Avenue, Orange, CA 92867 Location: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue: Consent Calendar Approval (Lincoln Inn) VOTE: 6-0 Request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of Commissioner Velasquez approval to convert an existing 117-unit motel to an 84-unit absent "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex. Project P/anner. (dsee@anaheim.net) u ~ 08-08-05 Page 3 AUGUST 8, 2005 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1C.(a) CEQA Neqative Declaration iPreviouslv-Aaprovedl (b) Conditional Use Permit Na 2003-04814 (Tracking No. CUP2005-05005) Agent: Sheldon Group, Attn: Karen Sully, 901 Dove Street, Suite 140, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 631 South Brookhurst Street: (Orange Central Korean Church) Request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved church within an office buiiding. Approved Approved retroactive egtension of time for one year (to ezpire on January 26, 200b) Consent Calendar Approval voTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez absent Projecf Planner. (mnewland@anaheim. nef) • ~ 08-08-05 Page 4 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 'Mmutes 9D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 25, 2005 (Motion) 1E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 2005 (Motion) ~l~, u ~ Continued to August 22, 2005 Motion: Eastman/Romero VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez absent Continued to August 22, 2005 Motion: Eastman/Romero VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez absent 08-08-05 Page 5 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA Cateqorical Exemption - Class 1 Velasquez/Karaki 2b: Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05000 velasquez Owner: American Investments/Chino LLC, 312 Broadway, Suite 204, Long Beach, CA 92651 Agent: Serena Elliot, Southern Cal Real Estate, 15901 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 204, Tustin, CA 92780 Location: 440 South Anaheim HiIIs Road. Property is approximately 10.6 acres, located north and east of the northeast of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road. Request to permit a retail market (fresh vegetables and fruit) within an existing commercia{ shopping center. Continued from the July 25, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-118 • Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Marie Newland, Planner, introduced Item No. 2. Applicant's Statement: Concurred with staff Granted Deleted Condition No.18 VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Buffa and Perez absent Project Planner. (mne wland@anaheim. net) Ben Terry, 5353 E. 2`~ Street, Suite 205, Long Beach, CA, stated he is representing the applicant, and is in agreement with the conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa asked if the property owner or representative was available for questions. Chairman Eastman asked if the property owner or management was present in the Chamber audience. Eric Michel, 5353 E. 2`~ Street, Suite 205, Long Beach, CA, stated they are the brokers representing the property and he was trying to get a hold of the property owner, but was not able to contact them. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated they corresponded with the property manager last week pertaining to today's public hearing time, etc., therefore staff assumed that they would be present today. There were some concems raised during the Planning Commission's work session earlier today regarding the overall maintenance of the property. Mr. Terry stated maintenance is handled by the property manager, he is representing the owner on leasing. Commissioner Buffa asked if he knew about the permits which were pulled to improve the shopping ~ center that is in poor repair. Mr. Terry said the shopping center is for sale and he doesn't know what the arrangements are. 08-08-05 Page 6 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner suggestecJ trailing the item in order to let the planner contact the property manager. Chairman Eastman agreed to trail the item. Commissioner Karaki explained to Mr. Terry that there is a building permit to improve the property and it hasn't been done yet. Mr. Terry didn't understand what the conditional use permit has to do with the condition of the property. Chairman Eastman said the conditional use permit goes with the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. The item was trailed, and following ltem No. 8 the subject item was further discussed. nnr. ~vlcCafferty stated staff recommends approval subject to the conditions. Morning meeting produced , concerns of the existing condition of property and buildings. Alec Glasser, owner of shopping center, 312 Broadway, Laguna Beach, CA. One anchor store has been vacant since 1998. Tenant wants to use it for a produce market. Me supports all conditions except for Condition No. 13 requiring them to do the expanded renovation of the center instead of just the outstanding violations. He has no problem complying with correcting the outstanding violations. Chairman Eastman noted that it did not require them to do anything except address the violations. Commission is concerned though about the general run down condition of the center. • Mr. Glasser stated it is his intention to do the tenant improvements when they bring the new tenant in. At that time they will do the storefront and that wil{ be the appropriate time to make the other corrections to the building and parking fot. They don't feel the outstanding violations are immediate danger violations. Chairman Eastman asked if he was in the process of selling the property. Mr. Glasser responded he is discussing the sale of the property with an interested buyer who is aware of all the documentation that relates to the violations and is aware of the pending conditional use permit application. Commissioner Romero asked what time frame is for the corrections. Mr. Gfasser responded 90 to 120 days and stated that the things that will be corrected as conditions to this application are corrections of the violations only because there are building permits that were taken out that have a much broader scope. Permits are for a face lift of the entire center sometime down the road. Chairman Eastman stated Commission is hesitant to give a new conditional use permit when there is someone out of compliance with Code violations for a long time period. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked for clarification regarding repairs to be made. Mr. Glasser clarified that there are two scopes of work, one relates to the correction of the violations and that scope should be a condition to the CUP approval, and the second one refers to the larger scope of ~ work that relates to renovation of the entire p~operty. He could not commit to the SeC011d SCOp2 Ulltll he knows the cost of it. 08-08-05 Page 7 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Flores asked staff if the code violations would improve the appearance. Roger Bennion, Community Preservation Supervisor, responded the whole center needs repairs. Mr. McCafferty stated the entire center needs to be addressed from a code standpoint, not just this particular tenant space. At the time the staff report was written this issue wasn't addressed. It was brought up at today's preliminary pian review session. Mr. Glasser stated they would like to have the CUP address only the code corrections relating to that unit. He also doesn't understand why City is requiring the lot line adjustment be adjusted from what they currently are just to comply whatever the required setbacks are far development of a shopping center today. He asked why they have to go through that today given that everything is already constructed. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer, explained why they need an adjustment, they want to remove the lines that go through the buildings and merge it all'into one, it is all under one ownership. They want them to merge 4 lots into 1 and reserve a separate one in case he wants to sell it. There are two buildings on the street which are under separate ownership and they would not be merged. Chairman Eastman asked if this is costly for the applicant. Mr. Ling stated it would not be, just the cost of retaining a civil engineer or land surveyor. Commissioner Romero asked why he has to do the adjustment if he is only adding the produce store. Mr. Ling responded that as part of all the projects that come through, it is a condition of the CUP. It is necessary to clean up all the things that have happened over the years and be consistent with the current policy, which is not to permit any buildings over an existing prope~ty line. Lot line adjustment would still ~ be recorded. Commissioner Velasquez asked about the current code violations and what the plan is and how wil{ it be enforced. It has been two years and even though the applicant has intentions of taking care of them, there is still no commitment of time. Mr. McCafferty stated staff agrees and if this were not in front of Commission today that the Community Preservation Division wou{d still be dealing with the applicant. Staff hopes that with this petition, the Commission sends the applicant a message and more aggressively, add a condition that requires that the code violations pertaining to the entire center be remedied within a ce~tain time. A former planner who's been gone from the City for at least 2 or 3 years, worked with this property during his employment. Owner was aware of the violations at that time. Commissioner Velasquez asked where they were at with enforcing the code violations. Mr. Bennion said they were waiting to see what Commission wants to do with the use permit. All the notifications have been given to Mr. Glasser. Last resort is to file it in court. They were given one year when they pulled the permits in 2004. Once permits are expired, the applicant has to do something about it or the City pursues it with further action. Commissioner Velasquez asked should Commission add the existing code violations as part of the CUP so the applicant would have to compfy. Mr. McCafferty stated he and the City Attorney would like to approach by having the Commission get a voluntary commitment from the applicant, for a time table for remediating the code violation, then based on that stipulation, incorporate it into the conditions of approval. ~ Commissioner Velasquez asked if that would be for the entire property. 08-08-05 Page 8 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated although building and zoning code regulations are traceable to the police power, this is two separate things. Building codes are designed to protect public welfare from a whole different standpoint than zoning laws. Building codes deal with safety, structure of buildings, details of construction and use of materials, etc. Zoning laws regulate the use of buildings, size of lot, height of buildings, etc. His concern with conditioning the CUP as suggested by staff is, you have a tenant requesting a use permit for a particular use on this property, he doesn'town the center. To require that individual to improve the center as a condition of the CUP is going beyond the power of the Commission. If the use that is proposed intensifies the use of the property or traffic generated by this use is such that it is going to have a negative impact on this center and the outstantling violations that exist, then you could look at appropriate conditions that would mitigate the issues that would be created bythis tenants use of the property. You cannot require this tenant, as a condition of approval, to make repairs on the center. Code enforcement needs to handle it, and if that means filing a criminal complaint against the property owner or seeking c.ivil action, that's what should be done. Chairman Eastman asked if they are imposing the CUP on the tenant, aren't they doing the same thing by the condition put in by Public Works telling them they have to do a lot line adjustment. She has problems with"that because it will cost more money. _ Mr. Gordon responded that he would defer responding to that because he isn't sure what they can impose in with the connection with the appraval of the CUP. With respect to correcting issues relating to the development of the property and placing buildings over property lines, he'd have to look at it in order to properly respond from a legal standpoint. Chairman Eastman would like to see that condition removed, as she feels they cannot impose on the applicant, and to make him pay to have the shopping center owner's lot line adjustment done to comply with the CUP. ~ M~. Gordon stated that Public Works staff is advocating their position and what they feel needs to be done to correct boundary issues with respect to this particular property. The Commission's concern is whether we can do it in the context of the approval of this permit. He is not prepared to answer this today. If there is an issue with the property, the staff feels strongly it should be corrected so the center is in compliance with the Municipal Code. Chairman Eastman asked if ihey could take it out. Mr. Gordon stated yes and his concern is that this is an opportunity to force that correction and we can legally impose that as a requirement of this permit and if we don't take that opportunity today, then we will loose it. Mr. Ling stated it was Public Work's recommendation to change the lot line, it is up to the Commission's discretion as to the location of the lot line. Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Ling if someone went to Public Works to seek a building permit on that particular property, couldn't a condition be imposed as a condition of the building permit that a lot line adjustment be processed at that time. Commissioner Karaki asked if the use was a grocery store before, why do they have to get a CUP for the same use. Mr. McCafferty stated the requirements for a CUP is for a market under a certain size, if it were above 15,000 sq. ft. it would go in as a matter of right. It is defined as a small market, not a grocery store. Staff will vigorously pursue the code enforcement violations, he was just looking for an opportunity to get 90 to 120 days on the record. ~ Commissioner Karaki stated if the applicant was the property owner, it would be appropriate to impose the conditions on them. Me WOUId lik2 t0 tllake a motion to approve this without the conditions being on 08-08-05 Page 9 AUGUST $, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the applicant. It needs to be pursued through Code Enforcement, the applicant shouid not have to wait 2 or 3 months for approval. Commissioner Velasquez asked what happens to the applicant if the owner doesn't compiy with code violations. Mr. Bennion stated it doesn't affect the applicant, it goes on the property owner. If they don't' comply, a criminal compiaint will be filed and sent to court, it would be up to the court to order them to do the repairs. Mr. Glasser asked for clarification relating to Condition No. 13 Chairman Eastman said it is referring only to the code violations invofved with the tenant property that has made the application for CUP. It is Commissions understanding that the applicant agrees to address outstanding issues with Code. Mr. Gordon clarified that Condition No. 13 requires any development of this portion of the property . connected with this use be done consistent with the plans that are on file with the City. Mr. Glasser stated before the Commission votes on the item, he feels they should understand what that means, and asked if he could further address the issue. Mr. Gordon stated the pubfic hearing has been closed, there is a motion pending, and asked if Commission wishes to reopen the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. ~ Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant what his intentions are to comply with the violation of the entire center. Is he going to do the repairs, forgetting the lot line adjustment, and does he need a time frame. Mr. Glasser stated yes. Their plan is to do the corrective work at the same time as they renovate the storefronts of the common area of the shopping center. That has always been the plan. Chairman Eastman asked if he intends to alter just one store front and then redo the rest in a different manner. Or is what they want done consistent with the fong term vision for the center. Mr. Glasser stated if the CUP is granted they will redo the storefront, not the structural elements, doors and windows then redo the fagade consistently with the rest of the center. He thought the permit had been extended, however if it hasn't they will reinitiate the process. They have been working with Code Enforcement and to his k~owledge, every code violation that can be corrected, that is not connected to the common area, have been corrected. Out of a list of 30 items, 20 have been corrected. Mr. Glasser said these items are things that will naturally be done when they redo the facades. Chairman Eastman asked if there was a timeframe. Mr. Glasser responded that discussions are going on with a potential buyer of the center, if he remains owner of the center he will commence the work within 120 days. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ OPPOSITtON: None 08-08-05 Page 10 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 30, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 8 minutes (2:40-2:48; 4:36-5:36) (This item was introduced by staff fhen trailed by the Pianning Commission in order for fhe property owner to be presenf.) ~ ~ 08-08-05 Page 11 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA Exemption Sections 15061lb)(3) and 15301 3b. Zoninq Code Amendment No. 2005-00043 City Initiated: City of Anaheim Police Department, Attn: Captain Joe Reiss, 425 South Marbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location. Citvwide. Request to amend Title 4(Business Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning} of the Anaheim Municipal Gode to establish a definition, permitted locations and regulations for "smoking lounges". Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. Elaine Thienprassidhi, Planner, introduced Item No. 3. Continued to September 19, 2Q05 Motion: PerezlVelasquez voTE: ~-o Project Planner.• (ethien@anaheim. net) Hagop Fesstekjian, Janna Cafe, 1531 W. Lullaby Lane, Anaheim. Brought and explained what and how a hookah works and what ingredients go in it. It is Just like smoking a cigarette. Other facilities havs alcohol and have patios to go outside to smoke. If Commission takes away entertainment, it will turn into smoke shops. He fikes to at least keep entertainment with restrictions. Commissioner Flores asked if it is only the drinking that is being removed and if the smoking is in or outside. • Mr. Fesstekjian stated people won't go if there is not any fiquor, you won't see a family environment. If there is no liquor, they'll go in the parking lot and drink then go back in. He doesn't care if they smoke in or out. Commissioner Buffa clarified that the intent of the ordinance is to regulate cafe environment, not dance hall permits or night clubs or alcohoL Chairman Eastman stated it is a zoning change which gives Commission a category to put the Hookah bar into. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated they are just trying to craft an exception to allow these things to exist in the City and to address the secondary impacts they create on the community. Commissioner Karaki asked if there is not supposed to be anyone under 18, how does it become a family environment. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated it would be limiting access inside the building, this ordinance restricts persons under 18 from being inside the building. Commissioner Karaki asked why kids are not allowed indoors or outdoors, it is part of their culture. Mr. Gordon responded that there are tobacco products being used and City is concerned with children being exposed to second hand smoke inside of a building, thus the age restriction. The regulation doesn't specifically address how far the limits are going to be imposed for the outside. Mr. Fesstekjian asked if children can go to a cigar or tobacco shop, why they can't go into a hooka establishment, and he indicated he rather spend $50,000 on ventilation than have this restriction. ~ Mohammed Elkhatib, 512 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, represents Fusion Cafe. The Middle East doesn't have bars or clubs, they have hookah bars and they would like to educate the community. 08-08-05 Page 12 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Karaki asked if he serves food. Mr. Elkhatib responded he prepares sub sandwiches, cold beverages, and smoothies and they are open from noon until 2 a.m., and they don't serve alcohol. He has families come to his estabiishment during the day. Commissioner Perez asked if there are peak hours when families gather. Mr. Fesstekjian responded there is during the day in the parking lot, they come at 6 a.m. to buy the fresh bread that is made, eat at his place then smoke. Children don't come indoors, they stay in the parking fot and parents smoke outside. Adults are required to accompany children. During the day it is more of a family environment, lights are lit, it isn't too busy and they watch sports or Arabic N: Commissioner Perez isn't questianing the culture, just wants to see the best match and what is right. Staff wants to set certain standards in the conditions of what category this faAs under. Mr. Fesstekjian stated as a business owner they should accept the business, and parents should be able to bring their kids in, if they were in the Middle East, they would be able to bring their kids in, sit down and smoke. Mr. McGafferty explained staff s intent is not to be inconsistent with what the state law mandates. They want to avoid more of a teenage crowd creating secondary impacts in the surrounding community. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, stated the limitations on indoor smoking appear in the labor code it protects employees and not geared to protect children. A couple of exceptions are in the code. One is a smoking lounge (an accessory to a tobacco shop) another one is for owner operated businesses where • there are no employees at all. Hookah cafes have described themselves as owner operated so they have been exempt from the limitations on indoor smoking in the code. This ordinance the City allows to strike a balance and to protect minors and address issue of rowdy, underage persons who are impacting neighbors. Mr. Fesstekjian asked what they can do with the charcoal if they can't burn it outside. Mr. McCafferty stated the zoning code requires that all commercial activity occur indoors, plus residents were complaining about coals being next to property line abutting their neighborhood. Fire Department representative spoke of developing standards for ventilation within the premises. Commissioner Karaki asked how many cafes are within 200 feet to residents. Larry Garrison, Po{ice Lieutenant, stated he didn't have exact numbers but the calls they responded to were very close, maybe width of an alleyway. There may be about 7 establishments, out of 10, that are closer than 200 feet to the residents. Gary Pesner, 927 S. Bruce Street, Anaheim, CA, Magnolia Manor Apartments, Real Estate Investment Broker and property manager next to hookah bar. Property owners complain of noise and parking because hookah bar at Ball and Roann 5treet only has 6 parking spaces so customers park on residential streets. Teens come and drink alcohol outside because they can't drink inside, play their stereos loudly, arrive at midnight and leave at 3 a.m., and disrespect property by throwing their trash everywhere. He has lost 40% of his tenants due to the cafe. Mr. Elkhatib stated he has experienced the same problem where people go in his parking lot and have alcohol, but he has gotten security and it is subsiding. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 08-08-05 Page 13 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES Commissioner Velasquez hasconcerns because what staff proposes affects all locations and how will ~ these restrictions prevent the number of police calls. She has a hard time understanding how restricting ~ alcohol, admission fees and entertainment prevents police calls. Mr. Gordon stated conditions in the ordinance are intended to address security problems outsitle of the business. With respect to other kinds of activities at the business, it is problematic because of regulations under state law that place limitations on the number of employees that canbe inside the building where smoking occurs. If there are other kinds of activities with other types of employees, you may be running afoul'of state law. City is trying to attempt a balance between the kind ofuse and imposed regulations Smoking in a restaurant is prohibited under state law because there are too many employees. Chairman Eastman asked if entertainers who are not employees of business fall under that same category. Selma Mann stated it is very complicated. There are no simple answers and that is why it is stated that the establisMment has to be owner operated, otherwise it falls outside of the prohibition on indoor smoking that is in the labor code. Chairman Eastman stated the same rules apply to establishments that sell liquor. Commissioner Flores asked if they are trying to prevent police calls or enforce state laws, and she feels it is too restrictive. Entertainment with a cover charge seems to become an issue. Selma Mann said they are not seeking to enforce state law, but they don't want to create a situation under the Zoning Code where they are establishing a business that would, by its nature, violate state law. If Planning Commission feefs some categories are too restrictive, they can discuss it with the Police Department who have been in the field to determine what is appropriate. i Mr. Garrison stated the goal isn't to reduce number of calls for service, but to reduce the secondary impact in surrounding areas. Regulations are in place for other entertainment and alcohol establishments because they attract a clientele that impacts the surrounding areas more than a coffee shop. Commissioner Flores feels that even if this were in more of a commercial environment it would still be restricted under this ordinance. Mr. McCafferty stated there is a process for an applicant to access a cover charge. Staff is trying to make it as simple as possible for the administrative process. They can check with other cities and the Fire Department regarding the outdoor coals. As for the cover charge, the existing ordinances allows them the ability to come in and ask for one as Iong as it is not inconsistent with the labor code. Chairman Eastman clarified that in spite of the regulations, an individual can stil! come to the City and apply for a license for public entertainment and they possibly be allowed to obtain a CUP? Mr. McCafferty responded they could apply for a public dance hall permit under the existing ordinances. The way the current ordinance is crafted, it would have to be revised, if they obtained approval from the Planning Commission for a public dance hall and have entertainment with a cover charge. Commissioner Karaki feels City is moving in the ~ight direction because there is a bit of everything. City needs to regulate this operation, but has to understand their culture and how they operate. He is opposed to being restrictive in certain areas, but understands the neighbors concerns. He'd like to see it continued to the next session to see where they draw the line. Commissioner Perez concurs with Commissioner Karaki, item is premature. Would like to revisit the item and work together with the Fire and Police Deparkments. ~ Commissioner Romero asked if staff looked at other cities to see how they handle this kind of business. OS-08-05 Page 14 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMiSSION MINUTES ~ Elaine Theinprassihdi stated two years ago she cailed Garden Grove, Irvine and Long Beach and none of them had Hookah bars in their cities. Planning didn't have information'on them and nothing in their ordinances at the time. Chairman Eastman stated it may be worth reviewing again. Commissioner Karaki stated he has seen them in Irvine and they operate outdoors, not indoors. Commissioner Buffa asked to hear from the Fire Department on how the charcoal will be regulated. Commissioner Flores said they are going into a fine line by saying it has to be owner operated, that means dances, cooks, etc., must be part of the business. Selma Mann read into the record "it must be owner operated or otherwise exempt from the prohibition under smoking and the labor code". This is indoor smoking and the focus of the regulation is on that. Commissioner Flores asked what if they changed it to outdoor instead of indoor, would regulations change. Chairman Eastman responded it still exists in proximity to residential, which is a major concern. Selma Mann answered if the smoking were entirely outdoors, it would be a different type of situation provided there were no employees that were going to the outdoor area. If employees went out to light the pipes and were around the smoking it would be violative of the labor code. City doesn't want to be enforcers of the labor code. Mr. McCafferty stated two other items brought up are the entertainment and whether it is acceptable to ~ charge for it and the issue of alcohol. Commissioner Perez expressed his support of doing a site visit. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns of the request. IN SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor of the request. A letter was received with 9 signatures in support of the request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour & 10 minutes (2:49-3:59) Commissione~ Velasquez arrived to the Council Chambers at 3:00 p.m. ~ 08-08-05 Page 15 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA Neaative Declaration Continued to - 4b. Zoninq Code Amendment No. 2005-00040 September 7, 2005 City Initiated: City of Anaheim Community Services Department, 200 South Anaheirn Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Motion: Flores/Perez Location: Citvwide. VOTE: 6-0 Request to amend the zoning code pertaining to the estabiishment of Commissioner velasquez absent building and ground-mounted telecommunication facilities on public recreational facilities within the Scenic Corridor Overlay, Open Space and Residential zones, to clarify the definition of certain types of telecommunication facilities, and to add standard conditions of approval to the Telecommunication Antenna Review Permit process. Continued from the .lune 27, and July 25, 2005, Planning Commission meetings. Project P/anner.• Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. (jpramirez@anaheim:net) ~ OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 08-08-05 Page 16 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA Neqative Declaration iPreviousiwApproved~ EastmanlRomero - 5b. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04347 Eastman (Tracking Na CUP2005-05009} Owner: Stephen B. Wong, White Star Business Park, 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite B,-0range, CA 92867-5529 Agent: Richard Johnson, AAA Electra 99, 2821 East White Star Avenue, # D, Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 2827 East White Star Avenue - Unit D. Property is , approximately 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Blue Gum Street and White Star Avenue. Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approvaf pertaining to a time limitation (approved on August 11, 2003 to expire June 19, 2005) to retain a cooperative art museum, gallery and meeting hall. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-116 Approved Approved reinstatement for S years (to egpire on June 19, 201Q) voTE: 6-0 Comxnissioner Buffa absent Project Plannec (dhemck@anaheim. net) Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 5. • Richard Johnson, 2821 E. White Star #B, Anaheim, stated they are in agreement with staff's recommendation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL~SED. Commissioner Perez asked staff for clarification regarding the use of the establishment. Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager, clarified it is a place where artists can meet to discuss projects and the public may be invited. OPPOSITION: fVone Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 3Q 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (4:00-4:07) Commissioner Buffa leff the Councit Chambers @ 4:00 p.m. ~1 ~~ 08-08-05 Page 17 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA Cateqorical Exemqtion - Class 1, Continued to 6b. Conditionai Use Permit No. 2004-04852 August 22, 2005 (TRACKING NO. CUP2Q05-05003) 6c. Determination Of Public Convenience Or Necessity No. 2005-00021 Motion: ~lores/Karaki Owner: Cedar Mountain, LLC, 110 East Walnut Avenue, Fuilerton, CA 92835 Agent: Leon Alexander, Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 2916 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.7-acre, having a frontage of 89 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 315 feet east of the centerline of Laxore Street (EI Calor Restaurant). Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04852 - Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 26, 2004 to expire July 26, 2005) to retain a previously-approved nightclub. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2d05-00021 - To permit sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within a previous{y-approved nightclub. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. ~ Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSStON TIME: This item was not discussed. VOTE. 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez absent Project Planner: (avazquez@anaheim.net) ~ 08-08-05 Page 18 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA Cateqorical Exemption - Class 1 ~ 7b. Variance No 1229 (Tracking No. VAR2005-04659) Owner: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue # V, Fullerton, CA 92833 Agent: Jim Parkin, Covered Wagon Motel, 823 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 ~ Location: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is approximately ', 1.3 acres, having a frontage of 192 feet on the west side of ~ Beach Boulevard and is located 975 feet north of the ~', centerline of Ball Road. ' Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or de{etion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 5, 2003 to expire Ju{y 25, 2005) to retain a 70-unit motel and restaurant. (Covered Wagon Motel). ~ I Variance Resolution No. 'I Continued to September 7, 2005 Motion: VelasquezlPerez voT~: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project P/anner. (dseeQanaheim.net) David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 7. ~ Gregory Parkin, 823 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, applicant and owner of property. He doesn't have a probfem with Commission taking more time to review. Officer Roberson gave him a list of calls and some of the calls should not be included as ca11s for the Covered Wagon Motel. Steven Wozny, 818 S. Hayward St., Anaheim. He lives directly behind Rainbaw Inn Motel. There are several residents who have been there for 29 years because they have good neighbors. They have no complaints against the motel, there is no noise and through the generosity of the motel, they have a 10 foot wall. The neighbors and motel have open relationship and speak to each other, if there are complaints, it is taken care of right away. IN SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor of the request. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (4:08-4:18) ~ 08-08-05 Page 19 AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA Negative Declaration PerezlFtores 8b. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05002 Perez Owner: Randali J. Smith, 1621 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92$02 Agent: Rob Perez, 19752 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Irvine, CA 92612 Location: 1621 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 5 acres, having a frontage ot 170 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and is located 355 feet south of the centerline of Cris Avenue. Request to permit telecommunications antennas on an existing SCE electrical transmission tower with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-117 Kim Wong, Planning Aide, introduced ltem No. 8. Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on August 8, 2010) VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project Planner. (kwong@anaheim.net) Brian Stotelmeyer stated he is the applicant and concurs with conditions in the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • --- OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 30, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:19-4:30) Commissioner Perez left the Council Chambers at 4:30 p.m. A 5-minute break was taken (4:30-4:35) Fol%wing the break, ltem No. 2 was reheard since it was frailed. ~ ~~~ 08-08-05 Page 20 `~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2005 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ` ~ ~ . ~Gi'+GO'*~"'2 A+«~- Simonne Fannin P/T Senior Office Specialist ~~ ~_J ~ AUGUST 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Received and approved by the Planning Commission on b c~a b~.r ~, 2005. 08-08-05 Page 21