The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/02/25• CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002 • • Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRP~k~;~N ~~TONY. ARNOLD COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STEP COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: _r;P{~~t ~ ~~ STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant City`qttorne~ ~ '~~ Greg McCafferty, Principal~Plar~ner~`. ~ Thomas Smith, Police Se;~g~:~nt ~ , ~~ Kevin Bass, Associate~Pfann~r~~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~.~ ,; AGENDA POSTING ~ A compl~~e' copy o Friday, February 22 ~20~2%:.ir~~ide fhe ~clis~ the outside display k~~sl~~,~~, ~~„ :~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLISHED: CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~~k ~:, PLANNIN'G''-:..CC • STAFF~J~I DEVEL~I PLANNINC • PRELIMINi RECESS TO AFTERNOON v'~``~'A~EQUE~TED B1~ ~ f` ., ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , , ~, ~ ,~ « ~ .;;,, ~~ . ~ , ~,~._~ ~__b ~ f~ sr:,~; ~. ~EE~, ~~ E~ , ~: S~SSI~N~ E~' :'~ ~ - . RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES\MN022502.DOC planningcommission@anaheim.net FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Public Testimony: Nathan Zug, 721 S. Velare Street, Anaheim, CA, thanked Commission for being public servants and stated he sits on the local school board and understands the struggles as servants Commission has with the wishes of the people and what is best for the community. In his position he does not get thanked very often so he empathizes with Commissioners and thanked them for sitting on the Planning Commission. As a West Anaheim citizen he realizes there are a couple issues on the agenda that relate to the wishes of the community that have been expressed over the years in which Commission has the power position to veto. He encourages Commission to remember and value the wishes that the community has expressed in the past and feels it relates to the value of the land in some of the cases and if Commission approves what is asked against the wishes of the community it affords the land to be sold for more than if Commission denied requests against the wishes of the community. He apologized on behalf of his generation for not being involved in public hearings and expressed a personal goal of encouraging his generation to come out and participate. • CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-C 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-C) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED (Vote: 4-0) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2710 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002- 04514) AND VARIANCE NO. 3449 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002- 04486) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Newmark Merrill Companies, Attn: Sanford D. Sigal, 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Suite # 300, Tarzana, CA 91366, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2710 and Variance No. 3449. Property is located at 214 South State College Boulevard and 2250 East Lincoln Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-25 Terminated (Vote: 4-0, Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) SR8228NA.DOC 02-25-02 Page 2 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2469 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002- 04511) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Paul Kim, 711 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92803, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (approved on November 8, 1999 to expire November 8, 2001) for an 119-unit motel and restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages. Property is located at 711-733 South Brookhurst Street - Brookhurst Plaza Inn. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent ), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (to expire on November 8, 2002) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2469 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04511) based on the following: (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current • zoning code (as a non-conforming use) and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That since the approval on November 8, 1999, the petitioner has been working with staff through the plan check process. In addition, the property has been maintained and is free of Code violations. (iii) That this is the second and last request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. ~ Approved Approved a one (1) year retroactive extension of time (to expire on November 8, 2002) (Vote: 4-0, Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) SR8231 KB.DOC 02-25-02 Page 3 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ • • C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 11, 2002. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2002. Approved (Vote: 4-0, Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent ) 02-25-02 Page 4 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u • 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00061 March 11, 2002 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas Homeowners Association, TSG Independent Property Management, 27129 Calle Arroyo, # 1801, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless/Whalen, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 16.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the iVovember 5, December 3 and December 17, 2001, January 14 and February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8235VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people were present to speak but stated they would be present to speak at the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Correspondence was received in opposition representing the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition. • ACTION: Continued the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting by operation of law due to lack of a quorum as Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent, and Commissioner Koos abstained due to his association with the wireless telecommunications industry. VOTE: N/A DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-25-02 Page 5 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04464 OWNER: Jillbridge Corp., 2141 Glendale Galleria #107, Glendale, CA 91210 AGENT: Lee, Lee & Pao. LLC, Attn: Gei-Jon Pao, 1407 North Batavia #201, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 851 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.6 acres with a frontage of 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 340 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Request to permit a self-serve laundromat. Continued from the November 19, December 3 and December 17, 2001 January 14 and February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-26 Concurred with staff Granted SR1058CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04464, 851 South Harbor Boulevard, a self-serve laundromat. • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed there were no changes or deletions to the staff report and staff recommended approval as conditioned. Chairperson Arnold believed there was one change. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated the change concerns sanitary sewer. The City of Anaheim Public Works Department is currently preparing a sewer upgrade project on South Street and that project will go out to bid next month (March 2002) and construction is expected to start in April. So that has some effect on the capacity of the sanitary sewer line and needs to be addressed as a condition of approval. Applicant's Testimony: Peter Lee, of Lee & Pao. LLC, 18062 Pamela Place, Villa Park, CA, stated his family has operated coin laundromats in Anaheim, CA since 1988 (approximately 14 years' experience). Currently they have two stores on Anaheim Boulevard. One is located at 558 S. Anaheim Boulevard (since 1990) and the other is located at 406 N. Anaheim Boulevard (since 1999). He feels the one thing unique about the laundromat on Anaheim Boulevard is that it does not require the use of coins it uses the debit card system where a purchased card is read by the machine reader. Mr. Lee states in the past 14 years they have been in full compliance with the City of Anaheim's codes and regulations without any problems. This is their first Conditional Use Permit (CUP) hearing and their fourth commercial laundromat project in Anaheim, CA. The proposed laundromat is purposed to serve people who work in and around the Disney Resort Area. It will have new water efficient washing machines and will also be a debit card system operation. During the CUP application process they were asked to hire outside consulting firm, Anacal Engineering • Co., to do a sewer study on the project because there was a sewage capacity problem on Harbor Boulevard and also on South Street. 02-25-02 Page 6 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINtlTES ~ During this period fhey found out what Ms. Adams just mentioned, the City of Anaheim has already approved a sewage plan to upgrade the sewage in infrastructure back in 1999 on Harbor Boulevard and South Street and that could eliminate the problem except it is being currently on hold due to funding delay of such improvement. Therefore in talking to Peter Gambino, Public Works, and Dave Corral, Anacal and numerous phone conversations and a meeting they discovered one of Public Works main concerns was a sewer discharge during the peak period. From our understanding the peak period is Monday through Thursday between 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Therefore Public Works recommended two proposals: 1) restricted hours of operation and 2) installing retention tanks on the properties. After having Dave Corral, of Anacal do the sewer study he believes to install a holding tank at this point and time is not really financially feasible not to mention the dimensions of the big size holding tank proposed. Additionally they were not aware of the current construction situation on South Street. They believe that would be eliminating the sewer capacity problem that is from our understanding. Maybe we could clarify that later on. The restricted hours of operation is an option they are leaning towards if it becomes necessary and proposes to shut down their operation between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. and instead of Monday through Thursday, shut down Monday through Friday. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if that is, only, if they need to adapt or adjust to the sewer capacity problem. Mr. Lee responded that is correct, if at any one point the upgrade on the sewage on South Street is done which should eliminate the problem. • Chairperson Arnold asked Ms. Adams to repeat an alternate suggestion spoken of earlier. Ms. Adams stated the City's proposal is that Lee & Pao. LLC not commence activity until the South Street sewer is completed and until the City has a chance to confirm that the machines Lee & Pao. LLC are actually using the ones they quoted in the study. She feels with those two measures it would not be necessary to restrict their hours of operation, which would be somewhat problematic. Chairperson Arnold asked when would the sewer upgrade be completed. Ms. Adams responded the sewer should be completed by June 2002 but she is not sure of the schedule the applicant is proposing. Chairperson Arnold clarified Ms. Adams suggested two proposals: 1) That Lee & Pao. LLC not commence until June 2002 or until the sewer upgrade is completed and 2) that Lee & Pao. LLC verify they are indeed using the machines that were part of the study. Mr. Lee responded they have no problem complying with starting in June and could give any information needed regarding the machines. Chairperson Arnold asked Ms. Adams if she felt pretty confident that it would be June. Ms. Adams responded there are no guarantees. The project has not yet bid so there are some variations. If the City does not receive acceptable bids, etc., and even so it all has to be approved by the City Council. Therefore there is an element of uncertainty. Chairperson Arnold stated concern that the applicant would be caught in a potential delay by the City. • Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the laundry carts would remain inside the laundromat as suggested in the conditions. 02-25-02 Page 7 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Lee responded yes. Commissioner Bristol stated the conditions also suggest that after dark the back door would not be opened. Mr. Lee responded that is correct. All of our laundry carts have extensions on it so they are not able to be removed from the premises. . Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that after dark everybody is going to go to the front door and carry his or her laundry around the back? Mr. Lee stated that is one of the issues he did not address. In looking at page 5, Item No. 3, it mentions that the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, and the rear doorway shall remain closed after dark. Their plan shows there are two entrances on the east side and on the west side The shopping center is situated with the parking on the back of the shopping center so the main entrance would actually be the west side of the space and the east side could be closed after dark. He feels there should not be any problem with that. Commissioner Bristol agreed his suggestion was a better idea. Mr. Lee wished to have confirmation on the issue of having the main entrance on the west side of the space so that when people park they could move their personal belongings directly into the facility rather than having to walk all the way around to the front. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty if that is acceptable to have the door open that is a primary traffic to customers. ~ Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify until 10:00 in the evening. Commissioner Bristol responded it is going to be very tough for people to go in the front of the building and go all the way around to the back and even if they were able to get the carts out and go to the back the door could not be opened according to the suggested conditions. Mr. McCafferty responded staff would not have a problem with the change as long as the hours are maintained until 10:00 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Commission is suggesting a time period. Chairperson Arnold feels Commission does not need to burden the applicant with a potential delay by the City and the City could possibly create some incentive for things to move a little faster to do the upgrade. Ms. Adams stated the alternative would be if the City has not completed the work before the applicant goes forward then the time limitations could be implemented to handle the capacity issue. But in no case do we want the applicant to go forward and end up surcharging the sewers because in that situation the City would be in a penalty and a~ne predicament. Chairperson Arnold stated what we have is a competition between the City's penalty situation and the applicanYs ability to actually make a go of the project. It would be unfortunate if he somehow were unduly constrained by some kind of slowness of the upgrade. DURING THE ACTION: • Chairperson Arnold suggested that it be so conditioned that the applicant will not commence full operations until the City sewer upgrade is completed. However, as of June 1, 2002 the applicant may commence operations until the hours except from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 02-25-02 Page 8 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNtNG COMMISStON MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol wished to clarif if he had 20 washin machines that im acted "x-amount" and he Y 9 p had 10 washing machines that impacted "x-amount" is that a better way of approaching it or let the applicant have the hours of operations that he applied for? Ms. Adams responded yes that would be a good suggestion except the exact number of washing machines has not been determined, yet. Chairperson Arnold suggested giving the applicant a choice; they can commence full operations without any restraints on discharges after the sewer upgrade is complete but prior to that time they have to work out an operation plan with the City engineers office that will ensure there is not excess capacity. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated it would be necessary in order to maintain the categorical exemption because otherwise by having the set date without having the contingency it would need to be clear so that there will not be an impact upon the sewer system in order to maintain the categorical exemption. She pointed out a previous proposal with regard to the limited hours had already determined to be satisfactory; not operating between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. so as not to burden the system prior to compfetion. Ms. Adams responded yes that is satisfactory, in addition the suggestion made by Commissioner Bristol as an alternative of limiting the number of machines in operation. Ms. Mann stated that way there is a definite mitigation in effect and one that provides some flexibility as an alternative and then pending the time that the sewer is completed. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Lee if that is acceptable to him. ~ Mr. Lee responded yes that is something they could work with. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bosfinrick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04464 (to permit a self-service laundromat) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 25, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., daily. Deleted Condition No. 1 , Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: 02-25-02 Page 9 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • That the applicant shall not commence full operations until the sewer upgrade on South Street is completed. Further, prior to completion of the sewer improvements that the applicant may alternatively, (i) not operate between the hours of 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, or (ii) reduce the number of machines in operation to the satisfactory of the Public Works Department. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (1:48-2:11) • • 02-25-02 Page 10 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04277 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04457) OWNER: Gock Woey Jung, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: De Hua Tr, 12201 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, CA 92640 LOCATION: 420-504 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.5 acres with a frontage of 205 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street located 492 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Seafood Place Restaurant). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 6, 2000 to expire on November 6, 2001) to retain a banquet hall with service but no sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to construction of a block wall. Continued from the November 19, 2001 and January 28, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to April 22, 2002 SR8230VN. DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), to continue the subject request to the April 22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner as he is in the process of complying with conditions of approval. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) DISCUSSION TtME: This item was not discussed. ~ 02-25-02 Page 11 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04499 Denied OWNER: Tosco Corp., 2585 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 ~ AGENT: Olfati Design Group, Attn: Ali R. Dogmetchi, 5199 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 320N, Long Beach, CA 90804 LOCATION: 2585 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.52-acre located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue (Union Oil (76) Service Station). Requests to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing automobile service station and to permit the conversion of the existing service station building into an accessory food mart with sales of beer and wine for off premises consumption. Continued from the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-31 SR8233AN.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04499, 2585 West La Palma Avenue, Union Oil (76) Service Station and accessory food mart. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 5 is a Conditional Use Permit only and not a Public Convenience or Necessity because there is not an over concentration of licenses and it is not in an above average crime rate. Staff's recommendations based on those factors is for approval as conditioned. ApplicanYs Testimony: Ali Dogmetchi, 2485 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he is the franchiser of Union Oil (76) Service Station on the corner of Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue and has been in business for 10 years. The station is a small bay station, which he would like to convert into a market. He is applying for a beer and wine license and expansion of the market. He agrees with staff's suggestions excluding Item No. 26 , removal of the propane tanks. He feels the propane tank has been there for approximately 20 to 30 years and many industrial companies surrounding the site use their station for that purpose and the nearest one to the subject site is approximately 3 or 4 miles away. His business sells approximately 2,000-gallon propane per month and that is mostly to the neighboring or adjacent industrial zones. Public Testimony: Nathan Zug, 721 S. Velare Street, Anaheim, CA, stated there are a couple of reasons he is opposing, 1) He is aware that the City already has a high number of liquor licenses but so does West Anaheim, 2) In the staff report there is a note on the crime rate in the census tract and the census tract will allow more liquor licenses because of the crime rate and everyone knows that the crime rate is connected to the number of liquor licenses. He asks, "why are we asking to have a higher crime rate in that part of town?" 3) The other issue is, on paper it is easy to say there is a lower number on that corner but the way it is • broken down he asks Commission to consider the number of liquor licenses that exist in the surrounding census tracts, the 3 other corners. He asks is that information available and how can it be located? Chairperson Arnold stated Sergeant Smith would comment on that. 02-25-02 Page 12 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Zug stated on paper it looks like a low number but it might not be if just the immediate re ion were 9 considered. He suggests there are other things stations could do to gain revenue besides having beer and wine sales. The Jack In The Box/Shell station across the street is a good example since they have had a store as well as a gas station and the property looks very nice. Lindsey Climer, 437 N. Colorado Street, Anaheim, CA, stated he has been a resident in West Anaheim for the past 17 years and plans to stay in the area. He is opposed to another liquor license approved for the proposed area. In walking around his neighborhood he noted 6 different businesses that already serve or sell alcohol: Kit Liquor, Albertson's, Claim Jumper, Magnolia Crescent Liquor, Cheers and Kino. He feels there would be no additional benefits to the community in having another one in close proximity. Mr. Climer also has concerns about its close proximity to Dr. Peter Marshall's School. He informed he speaks for a few of his close neighbors who could not be present due to work and asks that Commission decline this license. Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, CA, representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel (WAND), stated approximately two years ago the Brookhurst Corridor Overlay Project was approved and in place. It was the wishes of staff and the West Anaheim residents that the overlay project be affixed to all the main corridors in West Anaheim stating Lincoln Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Beach Boulevard and Knott Avenue. It was supposed to be a pilot program to get it in place. She feels staff was slow to get it there and therefore it has not yet been seen but if it were in place the present discussion would not be necessary. The building was too small for the overlay project to even consider beer and wine. The subject gas station has had minimum landscaping for many years and there has not been any self improvements except to stay at a compatible standard for the neighborhood. The station has not done • anything to benefit the neighborhood and the West Anaheim residents are the ones that use it, fund it and keep the owner in business. It is right next to the freeway. Regarding reporting districts it is accurate that there is one liquor license in that area but to look at that whole intersection; diagonally you have six liquor licenses and to the west area you have approximately four. Therefore it is not just one there but 10 or 11 at one corner. WAND asked the Shell gas station upon their initial opening to please not add beer and wine. Shell responded if the community does not want it then something different will be tried. WAND stands present today to ask the owners of the `76 gas station please do not add beer and wine. This will not be just a small portion of their business but possibly 25% and if the regulations of code are honored they will do just the 25%. She feels in West Anaheim, most of the businesses do not adhere to the code and they edge up. Therefore there would be a large portion of a small business that would be dedicated to beer and wine sales. Regarding landscaping, it looks like they have put in corners of landscaping where nothing else is going to fit or they could not monopolize it with something. She feels there is not anything that is going to be a great greenbelt to West Anaheim residents and that is what West Anaheim is looking for. The community is looking for businesses that want to beautify themselves, try to be better for the community and beautify and uphold the standards that the community wants out in West Anaheim. She states they have been dragged down for too many years and that is what they would like to see in the future. She states this is a business that has been there for a long time and the community would like them to continue being there but would like them to work with the residents of West Anaheim, look for an alternative item to sell. She asks is this again a beer and wine convenience store that sell gas or is it a gas station that sells beer and wine. It was approved as a gas station. It is in industrial area zoning, is it going to commercial? She feels West Anaheim is losing all of its industrial areas and asks Commission not to continue to take more. Applicant's Response: • Mr. Dogmetchi stated regarding landscaping they are doing as the City requested; go all the way to the end, and from the other side, towards Magnolia Avenue, so there will be ample new trees and landscaping and everything will be filled in the spaces per the request of the City. Because of the way the palms are situated there is no way they can do 10 feet from the base of the pavement going back. Other 02-25-02 Page 13 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ than that they have to basically get rid of four of their palms. He confirms Ms. Gollette is absolutely right because the station has been there for 30 years, and his plans to expand the location is going to look very nice. It will look new and the landscaping will be there. Chairperson Arnold stated it was asked in the morning's session whether the other two corners west of the subject parcel, the northwest and southwest corners of Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue, had licenses to sell any type of alcoholic beverages. He believes Sergeant Smith indicated they did not. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct, they do not sell alcoholic beverages. Chairperson Arnold stated there is one other thing with respect to what is before Commission, the standards for a CUP need to be conside~ed and what is allowed for the Conditional Use Permit. However, with respect to the ability of the subject site to sell beer and wine there is not a certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity required because of the crime rate in the census tract and the fact that not all of the licenses that are allocated to the subject census tract are being used. He understands the complaints raised but admonishes those actually, unfortunately, need to be directed to the state legislature because the state legislature sets the rules for Commission and that is what Commission addresses and is the basis of the determinations. Commission does not have the authority to come up with a different set of standards and needs to focus on the particular standards for a conditional use permit which are on page 4, Item No. 21. Chairperson Arnold asked Sergeant Smith if he had comments on any of the questions that were raised. He stated the staff report indicated the below average crime rate, not only in this reporting district, but in all the surrounding reporting districts. Sergeant Smith responded the Mini Mart at the northwest corner and the gas station on the southwest ~ corner are not alcohol locations. He requested more time to gather information regarding the remaining alcohol license locations within the reporting districts surrounding the subject location. Commissioner Koos stated the testimony of the residents seems to dispute the evidence presented by Sergeant Smith. He noted a nod from Ms. Gollette and acknowledged her previous statement in which she believed the gas station on the southwest corner does have the ability to sell alcohol. He stated sometimes the tracts are somewhat misleading because of the way the lines are drawn. Something on the edge of the tract might have a reporting district where there is virtually no crime rate because of whatever land uses that are there whether it is mixed industrial or commercial but no residential or vice versa right next to the tract that has complete flip-flop. Sometimes it is relevant to compare the tracts that are adjacent to the tract in question so a bigger picture can be seen. He feels it would be useful for Commission to see the bigger picture and asked if the item could be trailed until Sergeant Smith returned with the information. Chairperson Arnold stated the crime rate is in the staff report. Mr. McCafferty stated it is the reporting district information for crime and not the alcohol license information for the tract to the west. Chairperson Arnold clarified the reporting district to the west is 56% below average and what is not presently on hand is the number of licenses in the census tracts to the west. Commissioner Koos stated a member of the public brought it up and perhaps the decision should be formulated with some of that information given it was brought up. Sergeant Smith wished to clarify if Commission wanted the surrounding tracts of the off-sale licenses for ~ the surrounding tracts. Ms. Gollette stated on the northwest corner there is Kinos, Don Jose's, the Imperial Theater, and the Bombay Club. 02-25-02 Page 14 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold clarified but not directly on the corner. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Ms. Gollette was referring to off-sale. Ms. Gollette responded off-sale. The southwest corner has a liquor store and there are a few other liquor licenses in the area. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify within close proximity to the corner but not exactly on the corner. Ms. Gollette responded the Arco Gas Station is right on the corner but the shopping center right behind it is the corner to her. Chairperson Arnold clarified Sergeant Smith was thinking just the gas station. Ms. Gollette stated she understands from Sergeant Smith's information that he was just looking at the four corners. There is not any other regarding the four corners but within the circumference of that corner there is liquor. Chairperson Arnold stated there is an interest in looking at the number of licenses in the census tract to the west of the subject parcel so the item will be trailed giving Sergeant Smith an opportunity to gather information and return as soon as possible. He explained that it would mean Item No. 5 would be pulled back into the cue at some point along the way. THE ITEM WAS TRAILED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FOR THE SUBJECT ITEM. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED FOLLOWING ITEM NO. 9. Sergeant Smith responded the census tract to the west is Census Tract No. 868.01 and the boundary of that census tract are I-5 Freeway to the north and the City of Buena Park to the west, which is approximately half way to Dale Avenue and Magnolia Avenue to the east and Crescent Avenue to the south. In Census Tract No. 868.01 there are 4 on-sale licenses allowed, currently there are 7 existing. There are 2 off-sale allowed and currently there is 6 off-sale existing. He offered to give information on further census tracts surrounding the area if Commission would like. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify the crime rate of the reporting district to the west of 1417 is a crime rate of 56% below average. Sergeant Smith responded yes. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that the district really has more licenses than permitted but the crime rate is down. Sergeant Smith responded the census tracts in the reporting districts are not always exactly the same boundaries but this one is probably very close. lt is a below average crime rate in that reporting district to the west and the census district to the west of the location there are more off-sale than allowed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos stated all the beer and wine licenses or Conditional Use Permits that requested off- sale of beer and wine at gas stations was generally accompanied by a fairly significant facelift to the gas stations. He is not sure if there is a direct relationship that can be drawn towards his decision but it does • tell him that when they do that they are going for a complete upgrade; trying to make it a full-service establishment. 02-25-02 Page 15 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman concurred with Commissioner Koos and stated Commission does not have enough information but it doesn't look like there is a significant effort being made to give the proposed property a facelift and make it look better for the major corridor and intersection. That somewhat influences her and she is also influenced by the fact that they have significant community members who have concerns about another one in the proximity. Chairperson Arnold feels the question Commission will have to grapple with is whether the proposed use as presented, given all that is known about crime, other alcohol sales in the area, the surrounding land uses and what is occurring in surrounding land uses will adversely effect adjoining land uses, the growth and the development of the area. Commissioner Koos stated Commission denied one on the east near south, the Arco, for the reason that they really were not upgrading to a full-service. The Arco really was so small that it really didn't qualify, in Commission's opinion as a market. It was still just a snack bar with gas and this seems very small. When it is a full-service mini-market with other staples that beer and wine goes along with as you see in many markets, it is more palatable than just the small gas station that has beer and wine. Commissioner Bristol stated when he visited the site he saw a guy fixing a car where the service area is, and he looked at the tract map and realized that the applicants wish to take away this service to put in a storage area so they can sell beer and wine. He analyzed what the City would get and determined it would be a pole sign coming down and a reconfiguration of one curb entryway and that is it. He feels it is going into policy, unless we stay with the aesthetics. He feels the City would want something more with the building in exchange for the alcohol because it has been done before where Commission voided to eliminate licenses but from a land use issue, it fits. From an alcohol standpoint, they have the right to apply with the convenience without the Public Convenience or Necessity. It is whether or not Commission feels it is going to upset the crime rate. ~ Chairperson Arnofd concurred and feels Commission has to take a look at the use as a whole, as to its impact on the Community, not just the alcohol sales because that is not within Commission's authority to do. The state has set the perimeters and Commission cannot second guess it and treat it as a certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity. So Commission has to take a look at the land use. Commissioner Koos knows the state governs cities but asked on the issue of Public Convenience or Necessity if the state defines the whole issue of the census reporting district, boundaries, or does Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), set the limits. Sergeant Smith responded the census tract is from ABC and the census tract is set by the Census Bureau. Commissioner Koos wished to set up an hypothesis of perhaps a situation where Commission has two districts right next to each other and the use is on the line, and then there is one district many zones away way that exceeds its allotment by 3, and one that is deficient or has room to grow. He asks, if Commission is supposed to have tunnel vision and say "okay they are good here, they are not good here, if they were just 100 feet away they would be in that territory" or does Commission have to look at things that way because that is the rule? Chairperson Arnold stated if Commission is looking at land use and the fact that impacts can occur across census tract boundaries, that is fine. If Commission is looking at it from an alcohol sales standpoint, the state has made that decision. Ms. Mann responded they have made the division as to when it is that the City is going to make the decision about Public Convenience or Necessity, when it is appropriate and when the state is going to be doing that and then the primary decision, a statement of Public Convenience or Necessity will be required • in the first instance. The City Attorney's Office has pretty much taken the position in the past that we do not prohibit. The City Attorney's Office would be prohibited from prohibiting alcohol sales together with a gasoline station because the City felt that that was a bad combination to have. The City Attorney's Office is prohibited from prohibiting it unless you prohibit alcohol sales in the entire zone for everybody, but she 02-25-02 Page 16 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ does not believe that Planning Commission is prohibited from viewing the sale of alcohol as one of the factors in making its decision with regard to the Conditional Use Permit and is not limited by the census tract lines. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that it is with respect to the standards of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Mann clarified that it is with respect to the standards of the Conditional Use Permit and strictly that. If Commission feels it would be detrimental to the surrounding property areas. If Commission feels that it would adversely effect this particular use when you look at it including the use of alcohol. Commission does not need to exclude the use of alcohol from its consideration, and if it will adversely effect the adjoining land uses, the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located, Commission can look beyond the boundaries. Commission gets to define what the area is in terms of what is going to be relevant to its consideration on a case by case basis. Commissioner Bristol stated there are two driveways and asked if the one closest to the corner on Magnolia Avenue is going to remain there. Mr. McCafferty stated the staff report indicates in paragraph 13 that there will be two driveways on Magnolia Avenue. Commissioner Bristol does not feel that is a very good idea. Commission has always tried to reconfigure a site. He understands why it is there but feels it is awful close to the corner and Commission has been discouraging that. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated in general we have been discouraging the driveway approaches nearest to the intersection. • Mr. McCafferty stated his understanding from the petitioners, the reason they are not proposing to close that one is if they were to close that one you would have difficulty circulating around the pump islands that are there presently and one needs to be open in order for the tanker to access the site. Commissioner Bristol stated that bothers him because it is not safe and Commission has tried desperately to get rid of the driveways so close to a corner and now it is being allowed. Commissioner Eastman stated the traffic would be intensified coming in and out if the Mini-Mart is added because the people will not always come for both the gas station and the Mini-Mart, they are going to sometimes just come to the Mini-Mart. Chairperson Arnold stated corners of major intersections are particularly challenging and have the potential to have tremendous adverse impacts if not done carefully and properly, and at this site there is a combination of cumulative traffic, cumulative sales, with respect to alcohol, cumulative impacts on the overall environment of the area, the aesthetics of this particular corner, the traffic flows. He does not feel any single one would be a basis to deny it, but when it is all put together it is going to adversely effect the surrounding community. Commissioner Koos stated he had competing lines of thought and both were toward not supporting the project but did not want to be seen as linking them together necessarily and appreciates Chairperson Arnold's last statement. With the information provided by the Police Department there clearly is a cumulative impact on the alcohol sales issue and additionally Commission should be raising its development standards to the degree of seeing significant improvements when there is an opportunity to grant new Conditional Use Permits and he does not see that happening with the subject project. Commissioner Bristol stated regarding the alcohol use. Commission had other issues before and pointed ~ back to the surrounding area around Imperial Palace where there were people drinking in the parking lot and that is only approximately 300 feet away. But even so much as looking at the chain link fence, it is 4 inches high and there is no offer to improve it. The idea of just adding on and have alcoho! and not to 02-25-02 Page 17 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ move the driveway, is something that Commission will not agree to. Commission does not allow this and it is unsafe. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: Three people spoke in opposition to the subject request (one person was representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel [WAND]). ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04499 (to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing automobile service station and to permit the conversion of the existing service station building into an accessory food mart with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) based on the testimony presented at today's meeting that the intensification of the site without implementing additional design measure (e.g., closing a driveway on Magnolia Avenue, additional landscaping, etc.) would be detrimental to surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the property. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (18 minutes, 2:12-2:30) trailed (20 minutes, 4:10-4:30) • The subject item was discussed (2:12-2:30); and then trailed in order to obtain additional infom-ation from the Police Department pertaining to Census Tract 868.01. Following Item No. 9, the subject item was further discussed (4:10-4:30). ~ 02-25-02 Page 18 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 6b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2001-00004 OWNER: FJS Inc., 1030 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Ca 92802 AGENT: Cachet 2, Attn: Sue Lee, 1030 West Katella Avenue, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1030 West Katella Avenue. Cachet 2. Property is approximately 6.8-acres with a frontage of 470 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, located 190 feet east of the centerline of West Street (Anabella Hotel). Requests approval to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop at the Anabella Hotel. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 11, 2002 SR8239SK. DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), to continue the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow more time to prepare for the meeting. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 02-25-02 Page 19 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04513 Denied 7c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. Denied 2002-00005 OWNER: Bonnie M. Weberg, 1360 East Maple Street, Glendale, CA 91205 AGENT: Alicia Cornejo, 1301 San Ponte Road, Corona, CA 92882 LOCATION: 1287-A East L'+ncoln Avenue. Property is approximately 4.2-acres with a frontage of approximately 430 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, located approximately 513 feet east of the centerline of East Street (Mama's Mini Mart). Requests approval to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for ofF- premises consumption in conjunction with an existing legal nonconforming convenience market. Continued from the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-27 • DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-28 SR8220AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04513, 1287-A East Lincoln Avenue, Mama's Mini Mart, and a request for a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity given the crime rate in the subject census tract. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommendations are outlined in paragraph 24 of the staff report and based on the high crime rate in the area staff recommends denial. However should Commission approve the CUP (Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04513), staff recommends operational conditions of approval to be required of the applicant. Chairperson Arnold acknowfedged it would be in addition to the items in the staff report including an extensive and very well done report by Sergeant Smith of the Anaheim Police Department and a fairly extensive packet of petitions and letters in favor that are a part of the public record. Applicant's Testimony: Monica Garcia, 2201 Heritage Circle, Corona, CA, daughter of the applicant, Ms. Cornejo of Mama's Mini Mart, spoke on behalf of the family business, Mama's Mini Mart, and requested a CUP approval to establish an upscale liquor store for the convenience of people who already use the shopping center. She stated her mother has owned a travel agency in Anaheim for over 10 years and has conformed to all City regulations. Alicia Cornejo (the mother of the group), 1203 S. Point A, Corona, CA, stated she has a travel agency and services on the corner of 1245 E. Lincoln. She owns two of them in the corner of the four-plex, one • across the street and the subject property on 1205 E. Lincoln. She clarified they have serviced the public there for approximately 12 years and they know almost everyone and everyone knows her and her family. The regular hours of business are 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. She states her apartment is located in the front of the building and she is aware of everything that happens in the area. She knows the City regulations 02-25-02 Page 20 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and would like the chance to continue serving the people in Mama's Mini Mart, which would be 10% alcohol and beer and the remaining 90% is groceries. They accept all the proposals recommended by staff and will continue to work with the Anaheim Police Department to curtail crime in the area. She states she and her daughters are a very good team and they work very hard to make their business a success. Martha Marquez, 1425 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA agreed with her mother they are a good team and a11 are excited about their store. Regarding crime, they have had the travel agency for 11 years and there use to be a bar next door to their business but it is now closed. She states they like to work in a clean environment and there is an alley in the back in which homeless people, etc., try to build a home and every morning their mother makes sure the alley is clean by tearing down the makeshift homes and putting everything in the trash. She feels the past 2 or 3 weeks they have been opened has made a difference because there has not been any homeless people around their property. Concerning the beer and wine license, they will make sure that all candy, lollipops, soda pops and chips are in the entrance of the store and should Commission grant the CUP they are willing to put the liquor in the back of the store and lock it up if it deems necessary. She states children that come into the store buy chips, coke or M&M's and pay at the registers in the entrance of the store, never even bothering to go to the back of the store. They are willing to work with the City, the Anaheim Police Department and anyone who has suggestions on making their store, community and streets better. Art Castillo, 1431 W. Chateau Place, Anaheim, CA, stated it is hard for him to list who he represents in the community because he belongs to many organizations in the City of Anaheim, both on the east side and west side, which is actually the central area. He has watched Commission over the years and compliments them on making wise decisions for the City of Anaheim. A year ago he created a small business association and asked the owners of Mama's Liquor Store to become members. Ms. Cornejo has served the community department of the City, worked at local parks and with children and has been ~ in business for a long time. They have reached out to other businesses and work very hard together. He feels if the CUP is granted the store will not just sit idle but will actually benefit the community through the positive attitude of the family working together with the Anaheim Police Department and the City of Anaheim. Georgina Marquez, 235 W. Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA, daughter of Ms. Cornejo, a team member of Orangewood Garden Apartments, states the family works together with the City of Anaheim and Sergeant Wiggins of the Anaheim Police Department in improving the area. She has a child in the City of Anaheim School District and safety in the City concerns her. On the streets ofi Haster and Orangewood there were a lot of accidents and she submitted a letter requesting a signal light and had close rapport with Traffic and Engineering. As a family, they are willing to work with the City and the Anaheim Police Department to keep the area nice. Commissioner Bristol asked if by chance the CUP is denied are they now selling beer and wine and is it a grandfathered use. Mr. McCafferty responded Mama's Mini Mart is not currently selling beer and wine and it is his understanding the license previously owned at that location by Kelly's Mini Mart was a beer and wine off- sale license but is inactive at this time. Commissioner Bristol asked, if there is an off-sale beer and wine license in the same retail center in the staff report, perhaps J&J Produce. Mr. McCafferty responded J&J Produce is an off-premise beer and wine license and the license that the applicant is requesting is a full alcohol off-premise license. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify from the police report that the reporting district has a crime rate of • 134% above average. There have been 47 police responses to the property during 2001, which is actually 13 months starting January 1, 2001. The census tract allows 5 off-sale licenses and there are presently 3 active licenses and the proposed one is pending. 02-25-02 Page 21 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Sergeant Smith, Anaheim Police Department, stated that is partially correct. The 134% crime rate above average is for the year of 2001. The 47 responses to that address, are not responses to the business that Ms. Cornejo and family are trying to open, those are responses to the parking lot or businesses within that strip mall. Out of the 47 responses, only two were specifically related to what would have been Kelly's Mini Mart at that time. They were victims of burglary on two separate occasions. So the 47 is just the number of times the Police responded to that address and parking lot, not to that business to be fair. Regarding the 5 off-sale licenses, it is currently 3 allowed. One of the three, which is current, is Kelly's. It is in the process of being revoked, so currently there are two active, J&J Produce, which is an off-sale in the same strip mall of beer and wine only and A&B Liquor which is at 1931 East Lincoln Avenue. The third would be Mama's Mini Mart, which is pending. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos stated he appreciates the Cornejo family and if the vote were purely on the proprietor he would have been taken over by them because it is clear they are committed to the community. However, Commission votes on the land use and the applicants may not have the business in two years or even 6 months for that matter. He states it may be hard for the applicants to perceive such an idea because they plan on being there for the long haul but that is the kind of frame work Commission has to work under; what is the use, not who is running it. So while it is obvious the applicants have a good track record, the subject land use is like potentially throwing gasoline on a fire in the given census tract due to the crime rate. Commission has probably denied the off-sale purchase of hard liquor in areas where the crime rate was less but the proposed area is an over intensified existing problem and therefore he cannot support it based on the pure facts of the existing situation. Chairperson Arnold clari~ed Commissioner Koos is very favorably impressed with the applicant and family oriented business and if it were just to make the decision on the basis of the applicant Commission would • clearly approve it. However, the permit runs with the land and it is always possible the applicant will not be at the proposed site in the future. Therefore, Commission has to make the decision on the basis of the land use. It is an overly intensive land use and Commission has to consider the crime rate. Commissioner Eastman echoed the sentiments of Commissioner Koos and stated it is really a hard thing when Commission has a family that comes to request a permit and demonstrates that it is not just a corporation without a face but a family that is very involved. She expressed to the family her appreciation in seeing them continue in business but that the addition of a second beer and wine plus the liquor to such a small strip intensifies the opportunity for more crime in the area. Commissioner Bristol noted all of their addresses and stated he lives in the area, his church afifiliation and the school that his children attended is directly north of the proposed property. He stated while driving the parking lot recently, both the front end and back end, he has noticed it is cleaner than it has been in a long time except for three different people who drove up and threw trash in the back of the center. So there is still work to be done. He knows the area at night and what he can do in the area at night and what he cannot do. To be consistent when there is a Public Convenience or Necessity, it is very rare that Commission ever vote to affirm or to allow another license in an area that has a high crime rate. It is unfortunate that the proposed area has a high crime rate and hopefully it will get better with applicants such as the Cornejo family but he cannot support this one. Chairperson Arnold stated he is in agreement with fellow Commissioners but as Sergeant Smith's report points out, the basis that is in reports and studies, etc., with respect to the impact of liquor sales in cities, as well as the basis for what the state legislature has done with regard to the certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity, there is a correlation between liquor sales and crime. The study shows it is regarded as secondary efFects and that is indeed, the basis for Commission's decision on the proposed item. • • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None 02-25-02 Page 22 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ IN FAVOR: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. The applicant submitted a petition with 110 signatures and 7 letters in favor of the subject request (1 letter included 8 signatures; and another letter included 9 signatures). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04513 (to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a legal non-conforming convenience market) based on the testimony presented at today's meeting and as stated in the staff report dated February 25, 2002 as follows: (i) That the Anaheim Police Department indicates a significant above-average crime rate (134 percent above the City average) for this Reporting District and the property and has received 47 calls for service since January 1, 2001. (ii) That the combination of off-premises sales of alcoholic beverages and the existing high crime rate may be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to this location's proximity to residential neighborhoods and an elementary school. • Denied the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2002-00005 (to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption) based on the following: (i) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that this request would serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity. There are other establishments in the vicinity that already sell alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (2:31-2:57) • 02-25-02 Page 23 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 ~ 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04503 OWNER: Ahmad Douraghi, 7513 Pirot Avenue, Downey, CA 90241 AGENT: Rowena Bangsil, 2520 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2520 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.1-acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gain Street. Requests approval to permit an internet access and computer rental business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-29 Concurred with staff Denied SR1060CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04503, 2516 West Lincoln Avenue, a request to permit an Internet access and computer rental business. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of Item No. 8 for one year as conditioned. There are amended conditions of approval for both Item Nos. 8 and 9 based on some of the • testimony provided at the morning work session regarding surveillance cameras and the hours of operation. Chairperson Arnold stated confusion over the information regarding Item No. 8 because the recommendation in the staff report is to continue the item. Mr. McCafferty clarified there were two of them, Item No. 8 we had some trouble with the floor plan and in this case most of the Internet businesses that Commission has approved have not had partitions. This one the applicant is proposing to keep the tenant space partition and staff has concerns regarding the ability for the Police Department to see into the facility as well as the operator of the business ability to monitor the activities going on inside the business and because of that we are recommending a continuance to redesign and eliminate the partitions. I guess alternatively what you could do is just approve it without partitions and revised plans that are submitted with building permits would reflect an open area. If you were to move today we do have some additional conditions. ApplicanYs Testimony: Mervlin Eleazar, 8206 Dracaena Drive, Anaheim, CA, requested permission to open an Internet Cafe on 2520 Lincoln Avenue and understands Commission's major concerns are with safety and patron visibility. The applicants ask to keep the current layout because they believe it prevents patrons from accessing their file cabinets and servers, which contain personal and business files. Mr. Eleazar states they will have cameras that will monitor the whole area in addition to having an attendant in the gaming area. Also during peak hours they will have a security guard that will conduct spot checks with a metal detector before the patrons come in. Also during school hours and after 10:00 p.m. they will require minors to show identification of proof that they are at least 18 years of age or older unless they are accompanied by an adult supervision. They request the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. from Sunday through Thursday and on Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He points out they are not in it just for the • profit, they are in it for the community. Mr. Gary Leara is their contact in the Boys and Girls Club and they will be developing new educational programs in addition to rewarding students that have a grade point average of at least 4.0. 02-25-02 Page 24 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Daryl Arguero, 8206 Dracaena Drive, Anaheim, CA, explained in addition they run a computer store, have a display center, files and records which they wish to keep away from the public and that is why the partitions are up. Two surveillance cameras are located in the rear and the south side of the building, inside their complex and swivel about 180 degrees. The cameras will constantly monitor the walls that are covered with the partitions and then the opposite side, which is the north side of the building. Condition No. 11 requested there should not be any window tinting. He states if the computers are in contact with direct sunlight it can damage their systems. They are not asking for a limo tent but something that provides some sort of shading. If Commission does not agree with a tent perhaps blinds would be a resolution or something that would prevent their systems being tampered by sunlight. Another security measure is to not reveal to peopfe walking by and looking in the exact locations of the systems in case there might be a robbery that occurs. He asks if the security guard necessarily has to be a licensed security guard or if it could be somebody just to monitor with medal watts. Chairperson Arnold referred to Mr. McCafferty and Sergeant Smith to address a number of concerns and conditions raised in the morning's session that needed to be entered into the record. Mr. McCafferty stated the following are recommended changes to the conditions should Commission wish to approve the CUP today: 1) add an additional sentence at the end of Condition No. 7 to say that the parent or adult guardian must be 21 years of age or older, 2) Condition No. 18, that the video surveillance cameras to satisfactorily monitor and record the activities inside the facilities shall be shown on plans submitted for Police Department and Community Services Division's approval, 3) add with an additional sentence to say that the cameras shall be installed and maintained in good operating condition and the recorded tapes shall be retained for a period of not less than 30 days and shall be made available upon request to a properly identified Police and Code Enforcement Officer, 4) Condition No. 19, that at least one state licensed security guard shall be provided at all times the business is in operation to deter unlawful conduct, truancy, curfew violations and prevent disturbances to the neighborhood caused by • excessive noise and loitering by patrons on or about the premises and 5) The last sentence remains the same. Sergeant Smith stated recently the other cities in Orange County, primarily Garden Grove, has experienced a large increase in the number of crimes occurring at the Internet businesses and gang activities at their locations. In 1999 they had 3 Internet businesses and currently they have 20 Internet businesses. Recently they have experienced a murder, multiple assaults, and narcotic violations at some of the Internet businesses and some of the assaults have been related to gang activity. Sometimes the gangs play games online at the Internet businesses with other people at other Internet businesses and are able to create friction and tension between each other. One group can come back to the other Internet Access Business and a fight or disturbance can occur over what has happened on the Internet. The people that go to these Internet businesses are primarily teenagers and young people and they are primarily playing games. The games are live in nature enabling individuals to play with other individuals at other Internet sites throughout the world. There is no experience of any business type people utilizing Internet businesses who have to be online until 4:00 a.m. Several cities in Orange County are trying to be consistent with the types of conditions placed on the businesses to prevent crimes that have started to occur. The cities are conditioning these businesses to be open only until 12:00 a.m. and some cities are allowing them to be opened until 2:00 a.m. on the weekends. The Police Department is concerned that if conditions in the City of Anaheim are less restricted than other cities and Internet businesses are allowed to stay open later, some of the people who cause problems and frequent the Internet businesses will leave the restricted cities that close at 12:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. and come to the City of Anaheim if they are opened until 4:00 a.m. Also people who desire to open Internet businesses will be deterred from the more restricted cities and the City of Anaheim will get a large • influx of applicants if it is less restricted. So the Police Department requests conditions not to deter business but hopefully to help curtail any future problems and if there are problems or crimes they can be solved with conditions in the CUP. 02-25-02 Page 25 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ The Police Department has concerns that people online who have unlimited access to the Internet are capable of being involved in fraud and child pornography and children are capable of going onto adult websites. Hopefully with security cameras and monitoring by management of the establishments, we can keep these type of problems to a minimum. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if there was also an indication that there is the potential for sending anonymous threats. He believed there was an indication of a situation involving Cypress College. Sergeant Smith was not familiar with the incident at Cypress College but feels once a person signs onto the Internet he could send whatever e-mail or messages throughout the world to any other website or to any other e-mail site which may result in threatening letters or threats that are criminal in nature and there may be no way to come back on the person that sent it to find out who the culprit is. Mr. McCafferty responded according to Anaheim Police Records there has been a message traced back to Cypress College. In the City of Westminster, regarding incidences when rival gang members are gaming in different Internet businesses, they can trace one another by what is referred to as " a ping", so that they can find the location and go to that location to confront the other gang. Commissioner Bristol stated a comment was also made regarding 10:00 p.m. departures and excess minors in the parking lot. Sergeant Smith responded part of the problem has to do with businesses not having waiting areas inside. The businesses would get a large influx of customers exceeding available computers and while waiting would filter into the parking 1ot and onto the sidewalk surrounding the business. Sometimes the wait is hours and that can create more disturbances and drive-by problems, etc., with people loitering in the parking lot for extended periods of time. , Commissioner Koos asked how the age of 21 versus 18 was arrived at regarding requirement of a guardian of the age of 21. Sergeant Smith responded the problem experienced in other cities is that a 17-year-old and a buddy of 18 years of age will come into the business and can stay because 18 years old can be legally considered a guardian. Commissioner Koos stated he fundamentally has a problem with curtailing the rights of someone who is considered an adult by many standards. He feels if they can go to war or if they can vote they should not be denied going to a nearby establishment until they are 20 years old. He asked the applicant if when he says cafe if it means he is serving coffee. Mr. Arguero responded no sir. Commissioner Koos stated there are Internet Cafes that actually serve as a cross between a snack bar and administration. For instance, Starbucks and some libraries have an area to do e-mailing, etc., as well as a snack area to eat croissants, etc. He wished to clarify whether the applicant means cafe as in the new term, non-beverage, and non-food consumption sense. Mr. Arguero responded it is more terminology. People attend the Internet Cafe as a social gathering to sit around and visit with each other and play games. Even little children patronize the cafe to play games and most have formed teams. Commissioner Koos stated he is still unclear to some degree of how the nature of the layout is in terms of having so many terminals for game play and then a retail business in the same building. • Mr. Arguero responded the floor plans, "Display Area", that is the north side of the building, there are shelves, a couch, a fish tank and in the southwest corner of that display room, you will see a camera. The next room is the controf room; the main operating room in case people are found doing illegal activity such as hackers. All pornography will be blocked away. 02-25-02 Page 26 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold asked if the area marked "Mini Store" in the middle is the dis la center. p Y Responded yes, that is the display center. He states they are trying to be different from the rest of the cafes and also sell gaming software, computer parts, PC (Personal Computer) software and PC Systems So if someone expresses adoration for the system and would like to know where to purchase a similar one, it can be purchased in the same place they are playing as well as the games being played. Commissioner Koos recalled one point brought up was a problem with Condition No. 11 that has to do with window tinting or any other view obstructing material. He asked the applicant if he understood why that Condition No. 11 is in the report. Mr. Arguero responded as to be visible for police. Commissioner Koos stated it is a pretty strong condition with all businesses because the City wants Police Officers to be able to readily see into any business without having to necessarily go inside. He wished to know if Condition No. 11 would impede the applicanYs business and if he could not have computers facing a different way. He stated his computer is placed in front of the window all day long at his office and it is not frying or anything, and so he wondered how it would work that the applicant's computers would be ruined. Mr. Arguero responded it would be okay. Commissioner Koos stated Mr. Arguero touched on the security issue and it concerns him because it becomes more an issue as Commission experience applications for Internet Cafes. In addition the applicant was reluctant and felt it might be cost prohibitive to try to provide a state licensed security guard • that is approved by the Police Department. The applicant also mentioned they are going to be doing Mr. Arguero responded it is because they did their research afso and when they saw the news of what happened at the caf~ in Garden Grove they were trying to take extreme measures for that not to happen at their own establishment. He states they are going to strictly enforce anything that has to do with gang paraphernalia and suspicious people. Anyone that disrupts their gaming area will be asked to leave and not allowed to come back into their facility. If a licensed security guard is needed they will be willing to hire one. Commissioner Koos stated it is kind of incompatible because of the fact that the applicants are reluctant to have licensed security but will have a medal detector. He asked who would be conducting the medal detector, just some guy at the counter who is perhaps, the same guy who would be taking the money. He asked if he thought someone making minimum wage would assume the responsibility of inedal detection. Mr. Arguero responded one of their staff would be in the front entrance to check patrons with the medal detector and if anyone is found with any weapons, of course they are going to be asked to leave and will not be permitted back into the facility. Dahlia Arguero, mother of Daryl Arguero, 6520 East Montefino, Anaheim Hills, CA, stated she supports them because it is a way of attracting children to come and have fun and not be a hindrance to the community by loitering around. She feels if a licensed security guard is required, a medal detector would not be necessary. medal detector checks at the door. That alone tells says you recognize something about your own business. Unlike previous applicanYs who sugar coated things a little bit and made it sound like a trip to Disneyland, Mr. Arguero is saying right up front they need to basically check people for weapons at the gate. • Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it is because they would be frisking the patrons. Ms. Arguero responded not really. 02-25-02 Page 27 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos stated it seems incompatible to not think a licensed security is necessary if a medal detector is required and vice versus. Ms. Arguero stated she was also confused with the mention of inedal detector and feels a medal detector is not needed if a licensed security guard who is already uniformed is required at all times. She clarified what her son (Mr. Arguero) meant to say is if they did not have a security guard then another deterrent would be a medal detector, but not both. Chairperson Arnold stated he did not focus earlier on the fact that there is a retail sales operation plus an Internet Cafe and noted in the parking study it only mentions the Internet Cafe use and does not mention anything about the store. He asked Alfred Yalda if it makes a difference. Alfred Yalda, Public Works Principal Transportation Planner, stated the parking was addressed two ways: 1) based on a total square footage and 2) based on the number of computers, whichever is the greater. He clarified that some of the areas visited did not have storage nor an area for sitting but only had computers lined up, others had fewer computers and more rooms. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he felt there would not be a large influx of people arriving to make purchases plus a large influx of people arriving to use computers, etc. Mr. Yalda responded no, based on analysis the majority of people come into the Internet Cafe to play games. He illustrated he did not see anybody come into the shopping center to shop and then say "Oh, okay let me go and check my e-mail". They are going there to play a game. He noticed during the daytime, parents drop off the kids and pick them up later and the majority arrives three or four per car. He feels at nighttime more people would come, not because of the Internet Cafe, but because their friends would be there playing games and they would wait outside in the parking lot. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol has a serious concern with the Internet Cafe issues because the first Internet Cafe the Commission viewed was proposed to be an Internet Access with e-mail capability to people overseas; educational, etc., and very little to do with games. However it has now evolved into a place to socialize and play games, it is having fun. He noted the applicants' sign says "Internet Playground". The hours of operation are as late as 2:00 a.m. to play games. It is a situation where there are going to be minors and minors cannot be out past curfew. The proposed location does not have lights and the Police Department has verified there would be a!ot of activity in the parking lot. The floor plan illustrates casing and shelving, etc., in order to display merchandise to be sold. He believes there will be a lot of activity outside of the building with no lights during the night and there will be children at the establishment playing games during the night. He therefore refuses to support the facility for the proposed use after 10:00 p.m. until he receives more information. Chairperson Arnold concurred with Commissioner Bristol. He understands there is going to be some attempt to draft an ordinance to address Internet Cafe issues and according to the City Attorney are going to be determined on a case by case basis under the Conditional Use Permit and perhaps limit the zones in which they are going to be allowed. However, he feels there needs to be a comprehensive look at Internet Cafe uses. He is concerned that there is not adequate lighting in the proposed parking lot, that the applicant is suggesting attempts to minimize protections that are designed to ensure safety and proper operation of the facility so that there would not be violations of the law and unsafe conditions for minors, etc. He pointed out the concerns the applicants raised was 1) whether or not the security guard had to be licensed and 2) they wanted ta be able to put window tinting and partition the facility. He noted In fact, there were a number of partitions on the site plan which would make it impossible for Police to see activities on the inside of the cafe and would create a very clear potential for crime. He recalls he voted against the last one in part because there was not a requirement for security guard and what he befieved • the evidence was with respect to that particular facility of patrons loitering in the parking lot. He felt that needed to be addressed but nonetheless it was approved however, he feels the cafes will pose numerous serious problems for the City. 02-25-02 Page 28 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman concurred with Commissioners. Commissioner Koos considered the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. but his overriding feeling is that it is a"snowball rolling down the hill" and if not stopped it might be sending the wrong message to the Internet gaming community that the City of Anaheim is fair game. While the City of Anaheim's current system is not as relaxed as Garden Grove's, it certainly is currently encouraging a number of applications. He states there is evidence of crime associated with Internet Cafes and unfortunately when a number of young males get together sometimes things happen and he would hate to be part of an approval that resulted in something going awry in the City of Anaheim. Based on that analysis he is more inclined to vote no on the application and potentially see if an ordinance could be crafted in a way that is really meaningful towards the City, especially regarding the applicant's owned recognition that perhaps a medal detector might need to be used. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bosfinrick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. • Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04503 (to permit an internet access and computer rental business) based on the testimony presented at today's meeting that the operational aspects of the proposal, including noise, late hours of operation and the floor plan, which posed security concerns for Police Department staff and the general public. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 36 minutes (2:58-3:34) ~ J 02-25-02 Page 29 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04508 OWNER: Ming International Group, Attn: Steve Huai-Yue Tsai, 9202 Elisworth Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 AGENT: Kenneth Whetstine, 1417 South Garnsey Street, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 5215 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 1.47 acres, located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane. Requests approval to permit an internet access and computer rental business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-30 Concurred with staff Denied SR1061 CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04508, 5215 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA, to permit an Internet Access and Computer rental business. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed a letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Byrd in opposition and also a petition against the proposal with a number of signatures. Staff recommends approva{ for one year based on the conditions of approval on the staff report as well as modifications similar to the last • item. Chairperson Arnold stated basically the gist of the additional conditions that were mentioned the last time. Applicant's Testimony: Kenneth Whetstine, 1417 S. Garnsey Street, Santa Ana, CA, requested to open their business, Cyber World, in the City of Anaheim, which is basically renting hours on computers. He states they wish to do business in the City of Anaheim mainly because they feel they would be safe. They picked a location that would be least bother to anybody. It is across the street from a railroad track and Orangethorpe Avenue and there is nothing in front of it. Behind it however, is housing. The accesses behind will be fire emergency only. As far as noise, there will be headphones and no speakers, there will be two employees on site and also a security guard approved by the Police Department. They agree with the windows being opened and the lights being on and wide visibility so that Police do not feel any fear of coming into the establishment. He wishes to be friendly with the Police and take their feelings into consideration. The establishment is well lit with lights outside and a big sign in front that glows at night and the parking lot is fairly easy to see. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that the parking was not lit. Kenneth Whetstine responded the parking lot is a straight strip and has lights on the outside of the building, which glare down. There are lights on the front and lights that aim down on the sidewalk. He discourages people believing it is going to be an arcade where there will be a lot of noise and people running around franticly doing whatever they please. They will have tight control over their patrons. Patrons will be required to fill out information strips in order to use the computers and it would have to be verified with a valid California l.D. or an I.D. approved by the Police Department. He states he needs to know who his patrons are and therefore will have servers. He will be able to put the information about his • patrons into the servers and know what they are doing, when they are doing it, and why they did it and be able to expel them if necessary. He can cut communication to their computer at anytime and will not hesitate to ask them to leave. There will be no drinking or smoking on the premises. He states it is his business and what keeps him alive and feels it is a safe one for him to be in. Before he was a truck driver 02-25-02 Page 30 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ and a drunk driver hit him. He feels there are a lot of dangerous professions out there and felt this was a safer one. He learned computer technology by going to different establishments playing on them himself. He states Kinko's has a ditferent kind of thing where you can go and rent and use it for business use. His business will have games where people can play and he will have business programs as well. Patrons will be able to do anything they want with restrictions to pornography. There will be no pornography or gambling and he does not want anybody to even talk about it. It is not acceptable in his business and it is not acceptable in the neighborhood. People loitering, running around outside is completely unacceptable. They will not allow it and will not allow people behind his business. He feels with himself and his wife as security they will actually help to make it a safer area because of their watching to make sure unacceptables do not happen. He states this is what he wants to do and he does not want to hurt other people by doing it. He wants to comply with whatever is necessary to make it happen. Chairperson Arnold asked if the computer stations are provided with rectangular tables. Mr. Whetstine responded yes. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if there would be chairs in front of each. Mr. Whetstine responded yes, two by two. Chairperson Arnold pointed out the indications of things that were not permissible on the computers and asked if someone was at the back tables near the back door with their back to the back wall, how anyone would know what is going on back there. Mr. Whetstine responded his servers would pick it up. It is a system similar to what colleges use. It is very effective in picking up unpermitted instances. The problem is not new. It happens in schools, it • happens at home and there are ways of dealing with it you just have to be willing to do it and take the time to do it. He feels these things can be immediately caught by the computer as well as by his monitoring people. He reiterates this is his business, he needs to keep track of who is doing what and he does not want them writing on his computers because they cost him money. He states he needs to keep track, make sure patrons are not cutting up his tables, make sure they are not writing things on the possessions that are his. They are his things and he needs to take care of them. Mr. Whetstine emphasizes if a person is just sitting in an office in the back and not watching his own goods he might as well watch his own money go out the door. it is his business and if patrons destroy his computers, he is out of business. So if he does not take the time to walk up and down, monitor regularly himself, then he might as well watch his money walk out the door. He stated also, the Police Department recommended security cameras and he agrees that is also an excellent idea because he could have his security system where he could watch it also and if he is in one place of the building and there is a camera in another place of the building he could get two things done at one time and the patrons would know it. He assures he would like it if the Policemen came in and let themselves be visible so that the patrons realize that Police make frequent visits to his establishment. He feels the more patrons know Police are there the fewer problems he will have and that is the way he wants it. He submitted letters from neighbors to Commission. Public Testimonies: Kenneth Carpenter, 3228 Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA, states he is Kenneth John's uncle, and obviously a little bit older than him and kind of an anti-technocrat. Kenneth approached him a few months ago and told him he was going to go into the proposed project and that it was a cybercafe. Mr. Carpenter states he asked the two most important things; what kind of food are you going to have and where is it going to be? Mr. Whetstine explained to him that it was just a new terminology that comes with the goods of the Internet. Mr. Carpenter states we are all learning more and more about it and he is fighting it diligently. He states he went to a couple of different facilities in Costa Mesa to just see exactly what was • going on and there was one on Bristol Street and another one on Mesa Verde. He believed maybe the kids were coming there and utilizing the Internet and studying but found out he was pretty much wrong with that. It is a game type facility. Children do come and play games but he admits at both of the facilities he never witnessed any type of gang looking characters, though he states he may be mistaken. He 02-25-02 Page 31 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . states he can understand the communities and the counties and the cities concern with Internet Cafes over recent unfortunate events in Garden Grove and as Commissioner Koos mentioned earlier "the snowball rolling down hill". He told "Kenneth John" it was very similar with him. He told him that he needed to be about 3 or 4 months ahead of today's meeting, and feels it would have passed much more readily. He reiterates in looking at these facilities, he did not see any gang type activity or anything that looked liked it and feels that possibly we are looking at something here that could be a possibility but is more given to those particular areas. Prior to Internet Cafes they have had these problems, and they still have them. He states he did not take his nephew and associates as "computer nerds" but as he listened to them earlier he guess they do use the Internet. He feels young adults need places to go and en}oy themselves and after witnessing the finro different facilities he went to, it looks as if it is a good place to have some fun, it is inexpensive and feels maybe just maybe they may do some studying on the Internet. Anthony R. Peredo, 10214 Cardinal Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA, stated he is self-employed and has a business in Santa Ana, CA. He is in favor of Kenneth Whetstine opening his CyberWorld business. He states his son plays on it every once in a while although he stays home and does a lot of schoolwork and has been in band for four years. He feels after seeing some of the Internet Cafes they are very established but admits he has never been to the one in Garden Grove where the fatal incident occurred. Glenda Byrd, 5210 Minuet Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated she is directly in back of the strip mall where the arcade is going to be put in. She has had previous experience with this situation. She explains the back of their place has a liquor store in back of them and next to the liquor store an arcade was put in quite a few years ago, probably within the last 10 years. They were told all the wonderful things that everything would be okay, and what happened was that they came in with boom boxes, motorcyclist came in and gunned their motors, there were children in the alley and they jumped their fence. Her husband was • barbecuing and three children jumped the fence and her husband sent them back over. However, one persistently came back over the fence. She explained they have a cedar block wall in back but in the front they have grape stake and the children broke the grape stake. The police have been called quite a few times by herself and by the neighbors for this situation. She states the applicant was talking about the security of the alley, but the previous place where they were not to have the doors opened and they were to stay locked kids managed to get the doors opened or else they came around the back. She states the alley in back of them is a single lane that was supposed to be used strictly for emergency vehicles. At this present time there are people that drive their trucks back there, kids have gone back there, there is trash all over and therefore the community does not want to add to what is already there. The noise referred to would be the foudness of the kids if they were out after hours. The kids were smoking pot, as they could smell it from their yard. The previous place had a security officer and he was run off. They got rid of him, so there was no security there. Also crime rose in that area. Down the street to the side is Post Lane and kids would go along Post Lane and break the car windows and get change and stuff out of it to go play at the arcade. They were caught quite a few times. Police can't be out there all the time and it is the community's concern that it will just be another arcade. She states she is not sure about the parking because there is a church there that comes on Sunday and she does not know what their parking is in comparison with the suggestion of five cars for parking in the new place. She knows there are gangs in Garden Grove, Pomona, and the Inland Empire that have had problems with Internet Cafes. She stated she submitted a petition to the Commission, and she tried to stay within the 300-foot area. She and her husband went out evenings and sometimes she went out during the day and every neighbor but one said they did not want this. They didn't realize that it was going to be an Internet Cafe they thought it was going to be a place to go buy computer parts. Applicant's Response: • Mr. Whetstine reiterated his business would not be an arcade. He states he is going to keep a tighter eye on it than anybody has ever seen, than any people that have been there before which have been a couple of karate studios, a video store and a hair-salon. He states he is not going to allow any of the 02-25-02 Page 32 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . problems to happen while he is there. He feels they can do it with the help of each other. He states it is a community, it is not just a business and he does not want to do anything to damage the community, he wants to be a part of it. He will see to it that they are quiet and that they do not disturb them. He states he has been to arcades and it is not very well lit and they are extremely loud. His establishment will have a lot of lights on. It will be quite easy to see the difference between his business and what people would think would be an arcade. He welcomes the neighbors to his facility and to give him their feedback. He states he would do whatever is necessary to help the neighborhood because it will be his neighborhood too. Chairperson Arnold noted on the letter submitted by the applicant that they were apparently commercial neighbors. One was a liquor store and the other was a comic book store. He asked staff to give Commission a sense of what is in the business complex. Mr. McCafferty responded at the far end of the center is a church and there is a liquor store at the other corner. There is a pet groomer, a comic book store and there might also be a tailor. Chairperson Arnold stated there were a number of vacant pads there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated it seems like today is one of the days when there are really good people coming before Commission with really good intentions, somebody you would like to see in business in the City of Anaheim. She feels Commission is in an unfortunate situation, in an in between stage where the ordinance has not been crafted and they are left with a really tough decision. However, she does not see how she can totally support the proposal for some of the same reasons as discussed in length with the previous applicant. She states this is not to say that Commission would never allow Internet Cafes but • they need to have some guidelines in the ordinance to regulate that kind of business and she would feel more comfortable supporting them. Commissioner Bristol stated Commission has seen a lot of uses come through on that site and there are concerns: 1) Traffic; day schools were there and that was always a concern of ingress and egress and will continue to be a concern. 2) He drove the property and do not think it has lighting in the parking lot and is almost positive it does not have lighting in the parking lot. And for the reasons that we discussed in the last item regarding 10:00 p.m., kids coming and going and then loitering in the parking lot is a real concern. 3) The noise in this particufar commercial center has always been an issue with the neighbors to the north and now Ms. Byrd. It impacts them because they are so close and any noise at all is going to impact them. He referred to the hours of operation and stated anything past 10:00 p.m. can be a nuisance to the neighborhood. 4) The subject center has been in disrepair for a long time. Driving it again this weekend, it looked a little worst than it has been in a long time. It seems like there is activity going over to the east side and the trash enclosure is in disrepair. The permit still goes with the land and it goes with that unit. As nice as Mr. Whetstine appears and wants to do a good job, if he were to vacate the unit the permit would still exist, and that concerns him. He cannot support the proposal. Chairperson Arnold stated he was particularly pleased to hear the applicant's plans for operation but the the design reflected potential problems. He states as he looks at the surrounding land uses and hears the testimony and information provided by the neighbors, it seems this is just one of those tough spots where while it is zoned commercial it has to be watched very carefully because of the impacts on the surrounding residences and it would appear based on past history that it is very difficult to control. Commission is also concerned with the alley in back, etc., that there is a substantial potential of interference with the neighbors of activity that is indeed a nuisance. As Commissioner Bristol indicated despite the operator's best efforts to try to prevent that from happening, it is just a tough site even if all of the conditions were adopted. He agrees the proposed site is not the right place for the proposed Internet Cafe. ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, requested to get some information onto the record with regards to an ordinance that the City Attorney's office is working on. For the benefit of the people present, the ordinance was reaNy not directly relevant to the items discussed at the current meeting. It was primarily 02-25-02 Page 33 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ information about the proposal that was going to be brought forward that the Commission will have an opportunity to comment on and a discussion of what has happened in some of the neighboring cities. Primarily the function of it would be to limit the zones where Internet Caf~s could appear to commercial zones and require a Conditional Use Permit, which is of course, is happening right now under the unlisted use. There will be a parking component to that ordinance so that there will be a parking requirement that will be blessed by Traffic Engineering with regard to the anticipated traffic impacts to Internet type uses. Other cities are just directly treating the uses as arcade uses under their ordinances and defining them in in effect arcade uses and putting all the same conditions on these and requiring them to be in the areas where arcades are permitted and that type of analysis. Commissioner Koos asked until ordinance or definitions are set on Internet Caf~s perhaps it would be possible to process these as arcade uses rather than unlisted uses or is that problematic, because it does seem to be falling into that category. Ms. Mann stated the City Attorney's Office looked at that and there were some downsides to doing that in the City of Anaheim's own case. Arcades require a permit under Title IV and some other things that really just did not have a whole lot to do with land use and to continue on the path that you have right now where they are considered an unlisted use really pretty much gave the maximum flexibility to Planning Commission in terms of approving, denying or imposing conditions. Commissioner Koos stated my only concern on that is the Public Notice. It seems misleading. It clearly caught the residents off guard and had not Ms. Byrd brought it to their attention they would have continued to believe the description as to the effect of computer sales, etc. Ms. Mann agreed and stated it may be that the City Attorney's Office need to revise their definition. It has been listed as a parenthetical in the definition; Cyber Caf~, E-maii Caf~, etc., and possibly that ought to • be added to any notice so it is a little bit more clear that it is not a staple that is going to be renting computers. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify on the basis of Ms. Mann's statement that he did not detect in what people were saying necessarily that Commission was making the decision today on the basis of the fact that there might be some ordinance in the future, but rather that this whole process highlights some of the problems of these types of uses that we are encountering. Further, these particular uses that we are encountering today do have some severe adverse land use effects and we are clearly going to have to, whether on a case by case basis or a comprehensive basis, work through all of the potential adverse effects and mitigate them very carefully. • • • ~- • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition and submitted a petition with 44 signatures along with a fetter in opposition to the subject request. FAVOR: The applicant submitted 2 letters in favor of the subject request. AC710N: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bosfinrick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with stafF that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04508 (to permit an internet access and • computer rental business) based on the testimony presented at today's meeting including opposition from neighboring residents and the operational characteristics (i.e., noise, late hours) that would have a detrimental affect on surrounding land uses. 02-25-02 Page 34 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 4-0 Commissioners Bostwick Bo dstun and Vanderbilt were absent ~ , Y ) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (3:35-4:09) Following the subject item, Item No. 5 was further discussed since it was trailed earlier in the meeting. • • 02-25-02 Page 35 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04505 OWNER: Etchandy Commerce Center LLC, 4420 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Attn: Jim Potter, 1241 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1261 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite M. Property is approximately 6.2-acres, located at the southwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. Requests approval to permit a vehicle rentaf business with ten (10) vehicles on-site within an existing mixed-use industrial complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-32 Concurred with staff Approved Granted SR8226AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04505, 1261 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite M, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a vehicle rental business with ten (10) vehicles on-site within an existing mixed-use industrial complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of both the parking waiver and Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04505 with the recommended conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. Applicant's Statement: Bob Cole, 1261 N. Lakeview Avenue, Suite M, Area Rental Manager for Enterprise Rent-A-Car, gave a history of Enterprise Rent-A-Car as follows: • Owned rental car business for approximately 45 years • Privately held • Based in St. Louis • Approximately 450 locations in Southern California • Approximately 40-42 offices in Orange County • Three existing locations in the City of Anaheim - 231 West Katella Avenue - 1331 South Auto Center Drive - 426 S. Euclid Street. What separates them from other rental car companies: ~ • Their main focus of business is a replacement market (when a car breaks down, is stolen or involved in an accident a call will bring Enterprise Rental to the customer). • Most customers are referred directly by the referral source; a dealership, body shop, insurance company, etc. • Enterprise will actually go in to pick the customer up and deliver a car to the home or office, • Enterprise will take the customer to the office and do the paperwork there. • Upon completion of the rental, the customer returns the car to their location. • Enterprise will check them in and return the customer to the referral source, home or work. 02-25-02 Page 36 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The hours of operation are Monda throu h Frida , 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 .m., Saturda s from 9:00 a.m. to Y 9 Y p Y 12:00 p.m. and closed on Sundays. There will be up to two employees at the current location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04505 (to permit a vehicle rental business with ten [10] vehicles on-site within an existing mixed-use industrial complex) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 25, 2002. • VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Sostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:31-4:35) The subject item was heard following Item No 5. \ J 02-25-02 Page 37 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04502 OWNER: Foodmaker Inc., C/O Graffings Food Services, 9330 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 AGENT: Robert A. Martinez Architects, Attn: Robert A. Martinez, 15487 Seneca Road, Suite 203, Victorville, CA 92392 LOCATION: 100 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.44-acre, located at the southeast corner of Center Street and State College Boulevard (Jack In The Box). Requests approval to expand an existing fast food, drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 11, 2002 SR8236KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04502, 100 South College Boulevard, Jack in the Box, to expand an existing Fast Food, drive-through restaurant with waiver • of minimum number of parking spaces. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of expansion of the restaurant as indicated in paragraph 24 of the staff report and as conditioned on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report. Jose Morales, 2862 Executive Place Escondido, CA, representing Mark and Karen Graffius (applicants), stated this is the first time he has appeared in a public hearing and apologized in being very unfamiliar with the procedures. He stated they are present to request a Conditional Use Permit to bring the restaurant to '88 standards and in order to bring the restaurant up to code it would actually lose some dining room area. Therefore other methods were viewed in order to make it more practical and still maintain the '88 requirements and gain more space for the restrooms. However, some of the items the City requires, the corporation will not allow for example, the pole sign and street trees. The size of the property is not very large so it would be inappropriate to add 6 trees on State College. Mr. McCafferty clarified if that requirement is in the staff report it is a mistake. Staff is not recommending the pole sign be removed and do not feel there is sufficient nexus to do that. Commissioner Bristol clarified, regarding signage on Condition No. 19, that whatever is on the plans is what the applicant would be responsible for; so if the applicant has the sign there it will stay there. Chairperson Arnold directed the applicant to look on page 9, number 19: "signage for the subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibit submitted by the petitioner". In fact, staff indicated they felt they could not require the pole sign be eliminated. Commissioner Eastman pointed out in the exhibit that the pole sign is shown so that would mean the pole sign is allowed to continue. He wished to clarify if the applicant was referring to Condition No. 16, page 9 regarding the trees. Mr. Morales responded yes and the concern is if additional trees are added they will block the visibility of • the restaurant. Also additional planter area will be added which is limited to the drive-through and makes the turn very sharp to the building. 02-25-02 Page 38 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Karen Graffius, 38 Coronado Pointe, Laguna Niguel, CA, stated in regard to the drive-through they have actually had to add post there because cars would otherwise drive off. They request permission to make it larger in order to make it more user friendly to the customers. She feels staff is asking them to pull it back and make it shorter which would make the turn harder and people with RVs or larger cars cannot do it. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if she means in terms of the landscaping the requirements are such. Ms. Graffius responded right, staff wants them to pull it back and make it shorter where the corner of the building is but if that is done customers could not make the turn to come around to the front of the building, it is too narrow. She proposes if they have to give up space they would like to make it larger so that cars could get out easier and she would not have to worry about them because some have actually gone off the side. Commissioner Eastman asked if it is shown that way on the plans. Ms. Graffius stated they had an architect and she fired him. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if she was saying it was not shown as such on her plans. Ms. Graffius responded they gave the City a larger planter and she is not opposed to making landscaping look good, they have done it at their other restaurants. They have made them look great but she has to make it user friendly in order not to get sued. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if they would have to go further north and take away some of the landscaping on center, some of the green area. , Ms. Graffius stated approximately 5 feet, because right now there are poles there. Commissioner Bristol stated there is a lot of land and landscaping on the north side. Ms. Graffius responded right, but she is not talking about that, she is talking about in the front of the building on State College Boulevard. Commissioner Bristol responded he understands and asked if she would not have to cut in a little bit. Ms. Graffius responded not the whole thing, just a little bit where it comes around by the drive-through so that when customers come out with large vehicles they are not hitting the top of the roof and they are not going off the side. It is for their safety too. Commissioner Bristol responded right, so you are going to cut a little bit into your landscaping on the north side. Ms. Graffius responded right. Commissioner Bristol stated the City would like to have a little landscaping in the front. Ms. Graffius stated staff wants her to cut back the other way but she wants to cut back the opposite way so cars could get through. She asked for clarification on Condition No. 14 which pertains to the window signage. Mr. McCafferty clarified it is visibility and is a condition that staff puts on most drive-through. He suggested at Commission's option it could be deleted and they would just comply with code which is 20% • of the window can be covered with signs. Ms. Graffius responded right, which is what they are in code with, 28%. She stated they have to have some signs there; hours of operation, etc. 02-25-02 Page 39 F~BRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Arnold wished to clarify so if there were no condition they would still have to comply with the code, which would be the maximum 20%. Chairperson Koos stated it may have been a misinterpretation of the staff report but Mr. Morales brought up the sign, about the corporation. Ms. Graffius responded corporation being franchisee, she has to do what they want. Commissioner Koos responded yes, but he has seen other Jack In the Box's with monument signs. Ms. Graffius stated yes he has and as long as a franchisee has one the corporation does not want him to lose it and she has been a franchisee since 1982 and does not plan on not being a franchisee. Chairperson Arnold clarified that is not an issue with Commission. Ms. Graffius responded if it is an issue she just would not do it, that is no problem. Commissioner Koos stated staff is recommending not bother with the signage but he is talking about it. Ms. Graffius responded to Commissioner Koos and stated, "John if you have an issue with it, I won't do it. I won't do any of it. I can walk right now. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify there are questions with Condition Nos. 14 and 16, but staff is not recommending removal of the pole sign. • Ms. Graffius responded "that is fine John, no problem John". Chairperson Arnold asked if there is anything else. Ms. Graffius referred to Condition No. 16, the tree in front of the building. She feels if trees are placed in front of the building it would create a hindrance because there is a very short area in order to plant trees. She is concerned with safety and the visibility of the Policemen to see in and feels the City wants to block it. She states it does not make any sense since staff wants to have visibility and to see people who are in the restaurant. Commissioner Bristol concurs with Ms. Graffius, there is a very short area there. He stated they have done a good job and asked how many trees are off of Center Street. Ms. Graffius responded there are 5 or 6. Commissioner Bristol stated Center Street looks very good. Ms. Graffius responded we have done that. Commissioner Bristol stated he understands and it looks good, but on the plans there is an indication of foliage, some growth on State College Boulevard. Ms. Graffius responded right, there would be some kind of small planter there because of the slope, so something has to be there. Commissioner Bristol assured he agrees with what she is saying. • Commissioner Koos wished to also agree with her and stated it is tight circulating the property. Mark Graffius, 38 Coronoda Pointe, Laguna Niguel, CA, stated this is also his first time in front of Planning Commission and basically they are very frustrated and have just fired their architect this 02-25-02 Page 40 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ morning. They have paid the architect a lot of money and they have nothing to show for it. They have never seen the plans and communication with the architect has been terrible. He states they want to comply with everything within their limitations. They have 14 restaurants and have been franchisee's since 1982 and have approximately 5 or 6 restaurants within a 5 to 7 mile radius of 100 State College Boulevard, which was their first restaurant and they are planning on putting a lot of money into it. The cost is approximately $300,000 and it is to try and make it better for employees and customers. They plan to improve the size of the restrooms and do the vines in the back and increase the curbing from the back of the jack to the speaker box. He feels they can do things that staff wants for landscaping in front of the restaurant but the corner is very sharp and they need to expand that a little bit so it is more user friendly to the customers exiting the restaurant. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if they fired their architect are the plans correct. Mr. Graffius responded they are. Mr. Morales responded they are correct and the only thing that is not on the plans is the mistakes on the corner. Commissioner Bristol stated that is what concerns him because it is not shown on the plans and it is obviously a concern with Ms. Graffius. The front of State College Boulevard is okay but because the architect has been fired, the plans are not correct and it is a big issue with Ms. Graffius, he feels maybe the plans should be looked over by them and brought back with the correct information. Commissioner Koos suggested maybe staff could work with them on what the current exhibits are and iron out the gray area. • Chairperson Arnold stated it seems that Commission is satisfied with the 20% window signage and with eliminating Condition No. 14, and are in agreement that the trees on State College Boulevard, on the front, is too intense of a requirement. However, correct drawings are needed to state the precise turn- around. Mr. McCafferty stated at the appropriate time staff would like to make a few comments regarding the drive-through lane and the trees. It was staff's recommendation that the landscaping strip along State College Boulevard be increased two feet, and then if it were increased to the end the trees could be put in. The trees can be in clusters and do not have to be at regular intervals and therefore would not block visibility to the restaurant. But staff is recommending trees in the landscaping plan. Mr. Graffius pointed out the shopping center across the street from Lincoln Avenue, the large one with the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and the Burger King, etc. does not have trees. There are approximately 5 palm trees as you go into the shopping center but in front of all the restaurants there is nothing and the building is fairly new and the restaurants are a lot newer thar- theirs. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the applicants understood that Commissioner Bristol is in agreement with them about the trees, but his concern is that if Commission approves the CUP, without the correct plans showing widening of the drive-through then they would be doing something that was not what Commission approved. Commission is not in disagreement with the trees, the signage or the need for expanding the drive-through but they do need plans to show that before it can be approved. Commissioner Bristol suggested the applicants spend a some time with the exhibits and make sure they are in agreement with everything. Ms. Graffius wished to clarify that what Mr. Graffius was referring to is staff's statement regarding 5 feet for the trees and that is where the confusion is. She clari~ed Commission is saying one thing and Mr. • Graffius is saying something else and he is picking up on it. 02-25-02 Page 41 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold clarified that staff does a very good job but sometimes there are different perspectives and Commission makes those determinations, but unfortunately cannot make a determination where plans are not accurate. After the action: Mr. McCafferty stated the plans need to be in by Friday, March 1, 2002. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbiltwere absent), to continue the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit updated plans for the subject facility. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (4:36-5:00) ~ ~ A 5-minute break was taken (5:01-5:06) 02-25-02 Page 42 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Continued to 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04506 March 11, 2002 OWNER: J. D. Verburg, 1331 East Maple Avenue, Orange, CA 92866 Kathlee Verburg Family Trust, 2302 Dupont Drive, # 200, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1460 North Red Gum Street. Property is approximately 2.88-acres with a frontage of 130 feet on the east side of Red Gum Street, located approximately 810 feet north of the centerline of La Jolla Street. Requests approval to permit the co-location of a telecommunication antenna on an existing telecommunication tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8232VN.DOC • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting by operation of law due to lack of a quorum as Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent, and Commissioner Koos abstained due to his association with the wireless telecommunications industry. VOTE: N/A DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 02-25-02 Page 43 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04507 March 11, 2002 OWNER: Hunters Pointe Homeowners, 14600 Goldenwest Street, Suite A-102, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 6930 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is approximately 3.1 acres with a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, located 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Request approval to permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8234VN. DOC • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: Correspondence was received representing the Anaheim Hifls Citizens' Coalition with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Continued the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting by operation of law due to lack of a quorum as Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent, and Commissioner Koos abstained due to his association with the wireless telecommunications industry. VOTE: N/A DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 02-25-02 Page 44 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 14b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00067 March 11, 2002 14c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04480 OWNER: Daniel E. Stauffer, 23861 EI Toro Road, # 700, Lake Forest, CA 92630 David Gabaee, 10701 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024 AGENT: Marko Botich, 16630 Aston, Irvine, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2823 West Ball Road. Property is 0.57-acre with a frontage of 110 feet on the north side of Ball Road, located 328 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Reclassification No. 2002-00067- Requests reclassification of this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone, or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2002-04480 - Requests waivers of a) maximum structural height and, b) *minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway to construct a two and three-story, 18-unit apartment complex. "Waiver (b) has been deleted. • RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR8238KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 14 as Reclassification No. 2002-00067 and Variance No. 2002- 04480, 2823 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, a request for reclassification and variance to construct a two and three-story, 18-unit apartment complex. The initial requested variance for the minimum structural setback has been deleted. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of both the reclassification and variance. The reclassification would make the zoning consistent with the general plan designation of medium density residential and the density would be under the density cap of 36 dwelling units to the acre and recommends approval of Waiver A. Waiver B has been deleted. Applicant's Testimony: Robert Mickelson, P.O. Box 932, Orange CA, representing the Ball Road Corporation, stated West Anaheim does not welcome new apartment projects with open arms so the Ball Road Corporation decided it was necessary to do a very high quality project. The proposed site which is now vacant, located between an existing apartment and an existing commercial center and backed up to two single-family residences it seems that consistent with the general plan of the City, it is appropriate for apartment development. And, nevertheless, it is also appropriate for a very high-end top quality apartment. That is why the owners hired an architectural firm. • The Ball Road Corporation went to the additional time and expenditure to create a model so that people could really understand the dynamics of the project. Mr. Mickelson states it is important. 02-25-02 Page 45 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Regarding the architectural, having full subterranean parking gives an opportunity to have a more delightful living experience on the surface. The Ball Road Corporation exceeds the open space requirements by a considerable amount. In all other respects, it either meets or exceeds the zoning requirements in terms of open space, recreational area, etc. That opportunity is provided primarily because it is designed in this manner. The underground parking will be secured and there will be a couple of open spaces up front. There will also be some guest spaces in the secured parking garage. People will be able to contact a tenant and ask permission to come in and park and go to visit them. There will be an elevator from the garage up to the first level. There will be a lot of very unique amenities including Spanish tile roof, etc. There will not be any through the wall unit air conditioners. They will be split units with the compressor condenser on the roof or in the patio area; typical residential style. Mr. Mickelson states everything they have tried to do is toward quality. In regards to the one waiver, they agree with staff's evaluation and ask that Commission approve it because it truly is only a two-story and one-story building; that is two-story above natural grade. The parking is fully subterranean and will be mechanically ventilated and secured. Marko Botich, 2134 W. Romneya Dr., Anaheim, CA, Architect for Botich Partnership, states he has been a citizen of West Anaheim, CA since 1956, has a lot of buildings scattered all through Anaheim and is very proud of the proposed project. He states it is obvious by their project presentation model that they wanted to really show what they were trying to do because it is basically not a three-story building it is subterranean parking which starts out at the grade level and comes up two-stories from there. He states they meet all the ordinances and have worked very hard at it to meet the conditions and things that they understand in the code. He feels by . working with staff they were able to solve all the aforementioned problems and he is proud to have the opportunity to work with their client to bring something to West Anaheim. To upgrade, what he calls a blighted area. He feels the proposed project will be the beginning of many projects. Their client is interested in developing West Anaheim and wants to look at larger projects within the area. He asks Commission to look at their project favorably and hopes his client looks at them as decent, good architects. In addition, he hopes the West Anaheim Homeowners Association (WAND) will cooperate with them and hopefully do more upgrading in that area. Marko Botich, Jr. 16630 Astoh, Irvine, CA, Architect for Ball Road Corporation, stated they started the project many months ago and advised their client that because it was located in West Anaheim that he would have to do only top-notch architectural, he would have to spend the money. He would have to do a project that would be acceptable to everyone in the City and especially the West side. He states the project is 18-units, subterranean parking, Tusking Mediterranean Architectural and there are many trees. There are probably more trees on the property than required. They are not shown in the model but on the site plan they are designated as green. There are trees along both sides, trees to the rear and trees on the front, which were required. There is one additional tree not shown which is required in the front; there should be five total. I believe there are supposed to be five. He explains that when they first built the model they were only proposing four but one of the conditions required the fifth tree. Also, there will be security. Upon entry to the project there will be bermed landscaping, trees and concrete services that are colored. They are not sure whether it is stamped or if it is going to be saw-cut typed relief however, there is no asphalt in the driveway, it is all concrete. He demonstrated the model and stated the board represents the texture that they are using on the exterior of the building, which is smooth. The tile roof is used in three colors to have a blend of tile. The colors of the stucco are the colors that are on the drawing. They are not exact because it is computerized until they can pick the actual product, however it is close. There • is guest parking on top and guest parking down below. There will be an intercom system where a visitor will call to the unit and the tenant will be able to buzz them in and they can park in the guest parking that is designated down below. Security around the courtyard will be done with either a code or card key. 02-25-02 Page 46 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Julia Arisiaga, 500 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA, an employee of the John Stewart Co., which is a property management company, states they have been in business for over 25 years. They manage properties anywhere from the size of 10 units up to 1000 units and conventional affording housing to any type of unit that there is. She addresses some of the concerns voiced on the staff report of how they were going to qualify their residents and states they have an extensive qualification process which applicants have to go through. The applicants submit their application, at which time management will get a credit report, a criminal report, and if necessary do home visits for residents. Applicants have to go through quite a stringent process before they are moved in. The procedure applies to everyone in the household who is 18 and over. As far as occupancy standards is also a concern. Management enforces the occupancy standards. They have to be for two bedroom units, which the proposed units will be. The occupancy standards are two to five people. The management company has an on-site manager and because there is going to be 18 units there will be an on-site manager who will live on the property, who controls the property, and makes sure everyone is following the rules. If anyone violates the rules they are given three strikes and put out after further violations. Management does inspections of the units to make sure that they are well maintained and that those who are supposed to live in the units are the ones who are living in the units. As far as landscaping, because there is going to be quite a bit of landscaping on the property, the John Stewart Co. would hire a landscaping company who would come out on a weekly basis or twice a week to maintain the grounds and also hire an exterminator to come out and exterminate whatever pest there might be. Ms. Arisiaga states their units are beautiful, well maintained units that benefits the communities that they are in. • Public Testimony: Nathan Zug, 721 S. Velare Street, Anaheim, CA, states he has heard it said a few times today that what Commission is assessing or deciding on is land use and its impact on the surrounding community and that is a real important thing to the people in West Anaheim. He understands Commission has legal constraints and understands legally they can only decide certain things. Therefore, he asks Commission to deny the rezoning because of the following reasons: 1) High density is high density and no matter how quality it is and how good it looks, it is still high density. He states he is sure Commission is well aware of WAND's requests and other requests in the past of how West Anaheim has its fair share of high density housing. A spade is a spade, whether it is a low quality spade or a high quality spade. Earlier today when Commission denied the permit for the Internet Cafes, he feels certain that if they had said they would go play at their tables and embed diamonds in their counters, he is not too certain that would have made a difference to Commission, the quality of the inside of the building relating to what Commission felt it was going to be used for. So it is still high density, no matter how quality it is. He admits he appreciates the quality of the design, etc., but feels it is still high density. 2) The impact that it will have on schools. Superintendents from the Anaheim City School District, Anaheim Union School District and Magnolia School District presented a study session of the impact of City planning and Commission onto schools. Mr. Zug states he, as a school board member, deals with that regularly and he is under certain constraints from the State and Federal Government that they have to receive students no matter if they are legal or illegal or if they are from apartments or houses. They have to accept students no matter what and that impacts them as deciding where students will go and how they are going to educate them. If students have to go to the local school or if the schools have to bus them from one school to the next, and there are a lot of issues that relate to their decisions and impacting the schools. The district that the proposed site is in already has four • year- round schools and with limited state funding to support year-round school more density in that area is going to further impact the school system. He states he was not aware that the proposed subject was on the docket today and he is new at being involved but feels certain he could have gotten a lot more people to speak on the whole density issue, school PTAs, etc. He states if more 02-25-02 Page 47 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • time could be had he would have more people come to the Planning Commission Meeting to speak on the school issue as it relates to the impacting of schools. 3) The proposed site is really against the will of many West Anaheim people. He knows Commission has heard time and time again of those that are involved and in the process that the proposed project is not what West Anaheim wants. He states they would love for East Anaheim to have some of the subject projects as well as Anaheim Hills. He feels there is a lot of property there that could be developed. He recalls the issues Commission spoke on regarding corners that it encroaches into other areas besides the one location. West Anaheim is impacted with enough apartments already. So it is really against the will of West Anaheim and those who have been involved in the process. No matter how good it looks. Mr. Zug feels the veto pen on the land use is really against the will of the people in this instance. 4) One of the speakers stated there are plans of putting further developments like this in West Anaheim if this one is suitable, but it is not. It is not suitable to a lot of the people and so to allow this one development is a foot in the door for further developments and the community does not want them there. West Anaheim would rather have ownership properties, housing or nice condos or something like that where people can become stakeholders and invest in the quality of life they want in the City. Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, CA, a representative of WAND, referred to Chairperson Arnold and stated "Mr. Arnold you have always said your job is to find out what the best use of the land is and do you have the rights. Does the property owner have the right to build out or to build up a particular piece of property." She concurs with Mr. Zug, when Commission looks at West Anaheim, they have to look at the whole of West Anaheim. West Anaheim is impacted with apartments. When the vision of West Anaheim was started it was actually promised, no more apartments in West • Anaheim. She feels West Anaheim has worked and compromised with the City and now have 300 new senior apartments underway. So it is not that they are being stubborn, they are looking out for the welfare of West Anaheim people and their land. The proposed site is a piece of property that has been blighted for many years. The property owner recently purchased the property within the last year knowing the sentiment of Anaheim and the West Anaheim residents; the community did not want apartments. Only last week did they come to WAND, they do not have to, but knowing how the community felt, it was last week that they bought the project to WAND. What that shows WAND is that their sale is not contingent upon approval by staff but they bought it right out. Ms. Gollette feels it is like saying who cares what West Anaheim wants, we have this piece of property and we are going to build on it. She states the zoning is important and does not think Commission has ever heard WAND say increase the zoning, increase the occupancy, and increase the rate. WAND has asked for medium densities to be taken down to low densities or low medium but never a low or residential 43,000 to be taken up to a higher number of density. So there is conflicting interest here. She asks, "when Commission talks about the best use of the land, the best use for whom?" "Is it for the developer or is it for us, the people that live and work there 24-7(24 hours, 7 day a week)?" She states the main problem is density and overcrowding. There is talk about subterranean parking being a great asset for the project. She states what subterranean parking does, is allow for more density. This project is wall-to-wall apartments from east to west with just the addition of the driveway. There is not a greenbelt in between the units in the front. There is the setback landscaping that is mandated in the front but that is it. There is an area in the back for children but there are no amenities. So considering 18 units, which Commission has heard that up to five people can live there, so take the average units that has three children. That is 48 children, that is two to three classrooms additional that Magnolia School District is • going to need. West Anaheim does not have that room. There are no amenities, no additional playground, no barbecues and no play area, only living quarters. 02-25-02 Page 48 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ WAND's Land Use Committee has asked staff and the City to look at, when applicants' suggest an apartment complex to be built in West Anaheim that it be a one for one exchange out of lesser desired units that are already there. She recalled WAND proposed to architects at the February 11, 2002 meeting to go back to the drawing board and look at the unit, the area and the land around the parcel. She suggests they take out the shopping center, which has been a blighted shopping center for many years. Make a larger complex, more amenities, make it a benefit to the people that live there, a benefit to the City and a benefit to the residents in West Anaheim. There is a small one-story apartment complex to the west, take a look at it. WAND wanted some guarantees about management, about leasing, about occupancy. Today Commission has heard there is going to be a management company, they are going to be living in house, and there is going to be regulations and contracts. On Friday, none of this was in place. The applicants did not have any idea who the management company was going to be. They did not feel that they were going to have an in-house manager living there. The response WAND was given was that for occupancy, "maybe our attorney has to work with your attorney, and the City staff to figure out how many people can actually live there". Ms. Gollette asserts Commission has to be aware that management companies know how to put in their lease who lives there and who does not. She states West Anaheim has a lot of one and two acre lots and City Council asked staff approximately two years ago to come up with a report on how many vacant one and two acre lots West Anaheim has. WAND asked staff a couple of weeks ago to find out where that study went because they feel Commission will say, "well what else could we put there?" West Anaheim has apartments to the north, apartments to the west, apartments to the south and a shopping center and she asks, " what else are you going to put there?" Ball Road has condos, mixed in with apartments. Ms. Gollette states maybe it is not feasible to stack 18 condos in there or six condos, but the community did not buy the land. The community was not the businessman that made the deal before he was approved and knowing the • sentiment of West Anaheim and the City that West Anaheim was over impacted already. She does not feel West Anaheim people need to be held accountable or punished for a businessman making a bad decision. The John Stewart Management Company talked about home visits. She states as a realtor she is fully cognizant of home visits because she used to do them all the time but as you know anybody can stack anything the way they want to when they know someone is coming and even if they do not know if someone is coming. She states she did not allow residents to know and would call 5 minutes from the corner and pop in to see what their house looked like. It doesn't always state what it is going to be all the time and there is no guarantee. Residents have learned in West Anaheim that a balcony can be a junkyard or if you don't have security all the time or management watching it all the time. She feels one little slip allows a domino effect and the community would return to Code Enforcement trying to make a place be decent. WAND has asked the applicant for lease restrictions for number of occupants, an in-house management company, to package adjacent lots, and what guarantee do they have for rent levels of $1,200 to $1,300 a month, and none of those answers could be given on Friday, there was nothing concrete. Even though they came up with answers today, it was just like a blanket response. She feels the City of Anaheim is starting a precedent here. West Anaheim has one and two acre lots and it was stated no apartments would be built in West Anaheim but here we are today with 18 units crammed into a piece of land to rezone it to the benefit of the contractor, not for the benefit of the people, and just down the road at the west side of Knott and Ball another apartment complex is being proposed. So there has to be a way to say no; a way to say build what is the benefit for the people, build what is a buy in for the people. West Anaheim needs buy-in, people that take care of West Anaheim, that actually want to live there, not just a year, and not just month to month. West Anaheim wants them to live in the neighborhood, not be a transient neighborhood. And finally, again, he has a year that he bought this piece • of land and there has been no improvement on that land whatsoever. In fact, WAND has had to ask Code Enforcement to go out there and site the property because of weeds. She states, this is an owner that the community is supposed to deal with in the future, she questions it. 02-25-02 Page 49 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Milton Nakano, 909 S. Dale Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing Orange County Buddhist Church, stated he has lived and worked in Anaheim, CA since 1975. He also belongs to the Orange County Buddhist Church, which is next door to the proposed site. He states the church would liked to have had that property for parking since the church has grown quite a bit in the last 25 to 30 years but he is very concerned just as a private citizen, not as a board member. He is also very concerned about overcrowding. He states every time he looks in the City of Anaheim Police Log, all he has to do is look on Ball Road. He feels anybody in the Police Department will say they go to Ball Road Apartments quite a few times for all kinds of crimes of domestic violence and drug deals. Mr. Nakano works as an optometrist in the City of Anaheim for the last 26 years and has patients who live in the apartments on Ball Road. His patients told him drug dealing is done right in the hallway and they cannot stay there with their families so they move out. So there is a high vacancy factor and what does management do, they rent to anyone because the investors of those apartments want rent money. He states he cannot see a development of an 18-unit apartment building with 800 square feet for a family. That is like living in a shoebox and he feels he knows what is going to happen because he has seen it in LA County, where he grew up. They built apartments there like mad. Every time they build an apartment, crime increased and he has seen that in the last 25 years in Anaheim. Overcrowding, over parking, no parking, noise, traffic, crime, vandalism and graffiti, occurs on their church property and skateboarders have no contempt. He states they just look you in the eye and say, "Oh, I thought anybody could skate here". The church reports it to the police but they cannot do anything about it and if they catch the children they cannot do anything to them either. The children are so blatant they will challenge them, "What are you going to do to me, put me in jail?" • The church board also has concerns with conflicts with some of the cultural events that they have there. There are a couple of festivals a year and it is a benefit to the community. A lot of people go there to share in the experience and the food. He feels if this apartment was built the tenants may complain about the smoke or the noise from the music. We've been there since 1965, what right would these people have to say anything? I just don't believe that that's the best use for the land. I can see buildings and condominiums there which people buy, but they own it and they take care of it. ApplicanYs Response: Mr. Mickelson stated he is afraid they cannot solve all of the problems with one project, whether it is built or not built and some of them are certainly very legitimate concerns for any community. However, he feels that this could be a demonstration project in its quality. They believe it is appropriate for that particular site. He states the idea that it is too dense is always an argument that comes up. There has to be an optimum number of units; enough units to develop enough income to have professional management, and they do intend to have professional management. He states the John Stewart Company is just one of three different companies they have interviewed and do not have a contract with them nor anyone yet because obviously there is not a project yet. Terms of impacts on the schools, the units are 825 to 845 square feet, finro bedrooms and two baths. So they are not designed for families. That is not to say there won't be any families living there, there may be. They are designed for the young professionals, the young couples working in the area, two singles living together. With the kind of rent implied, over $1,000 probably $1,200 to $1,400 a month, but that has not been defined precisely yet either and cannot be put in writing. But they are not talking about young families that can afford that kind of rent and live in this area. It is conceivable that a condo project • could have a greater impact on the schools because they would be larger units and they would probably attract families. He states of course you could not get 18 condos on the site, it wouldn't fit and if so, there would be so few that it would be hard to actually form a homeowners association with only a few 02-25-02 Page 50 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • condominiums and one association. He affirms the project will be an Asset to West Anaheim. It is the correct use for the property and designed appropriately and optimally to fit the area. Commissioner Bristol referred to staff regarding the correction on the staff report on page 5. Mr. McCafferty stated that is correct, paragraph 18, the first line should state "wesY' instead of "north". THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant came to the office and presented the proposal. He states he knew one of the concerns was going to be any apartment, even the mention of an apartment in the City of Anaheim, especially West Anaheim was not going to be taken with any kind of acceptance. The deck styling and the concrete was a concern because in comparison to the apartments on Lincoln Avenue or Ball Road which are so dense and so unattractive with no greenery or anything that it makes you feel odd just to walk in the facility. So one of the things that he asked the applicant was if there was going to be a lot of foliage and trees, etc. He states he is not a fan of this type product however, what he is hearing is no growth, slow growth, no apartments and no anything. He feels it is getting real close to setting policy and that is not Commission's job. He asks, "does this as a land use issue fit this particular product and particular size?" It appears that it has because adversely there are no variances. He states if the Council wants to go with the no growth, or slow growth or whatever in apartments, then it is Council's responsibility to take that action but he does not feel it is Commission's responsibility. The proposed project fits the land use whether anyone likes it or not. He states the elevations are pretty good and he likes what he sees in the project. Commissioner Koos thanked everyone for participating and waiting and that he was especially glad to • see a trustee, Mr. Zug, participating and waiting. He concurs with Commissioner Bristol it is getting into policy. The City Council does set policy and Commission does not have a mandate to say no to all apartments and neither does he subscribe to that notion. He feels he had different opinions with WAND when he was going through the West Anaheim process but nevertheless compliments it as being a good process. During this process they came to a consensus that by and large they wanted more ownership housing. In fact, when he met the applicants he told them it would be a hard sale. The management issue in particular was a sticking point for him. He states high density does not bother him in and of itself. He feels anyone could go across the county or region and find marvelous projects that are high densities and with high quality and the proposed project has a high level of development standards, it is a good-looking project. He feels however, quality is not the only factor in this particular case. Commissioner Koos states he was present the day the superintendent came and he is closely involved with the Anaheim City School District and is well aware of the issues they face. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission approves the City of Anaheim housing element and the state of California is mandating so many units to be built. As much as anyone might not think it is fair or someone can go crying to everybody about how awful it is that the City of Anaheim has to build so many units, he feels everyone needs to face reality and take the issue head on and figure out what kind of housing they want to develop, how they are going to meet the requirements and realize they are going to have to build a mix of affordable apartments, affordable ownership, high-end, mid-range, etc., City wide. He admonishes he personally gets put off when people compare parts of Anaheim to other parts of Anaheim as if Commission is looking at West Anaheim as some sort of stepchild. He states it is never the case and Commission actually has a high attention to West Anaheim. He feels the City has heard West Anaheim over the past 5 years and is paying close attention and does not want the City to ever be looked • at as " us versus them" within the City. The housing numbers are coming down at the City level so, if citizens of Anaheim, CA want to pick on Garden Grove, CA or any other city for not doing their fair share that is fine with him. 02-25-02 Page 51 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ He states he is concerned about future owners and is not saying that the existing owner would not keep his promise and hire a wonderful management company but probably when all of the apartments were first built on Ball Road or Lincoln Avenue, no one thought that more than one family would live there or maybe two adults. However, Commission knows that with market rates and with no actual controls, and not self imposed controls, things can slip away in the interest of staying afloat and there are no ensurances that it won't be the case with the subject project. He feels when the City Redevelopment Agency participates in development of housing they can mandate that restriction as they did in Jeffrey- Lynne. People have already violated the rules in Jeffrey-Lynne and they are kicked out. It has happened but Commission cannot place that control on the subject project. He is concerned how it can just be let go when the pattern of behavior is well known. Commissioner Koos states that is the sole reason he is reluctant to approve a project on Ball Road and Dale Avenue. It does not just have a possible potential but a probable potential within the next 10 years to have multiple-families in one unit as it is happening County wide. There is too much uncertainty and he could not in his right conscious vote for the proposed project and support the zoning reclassification at the current location. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he was saying he could not support any property under 18 units in the City of Anaheim because he could not control the management of it or the potential of someone being there other than who he thinks is going to be there. Commissioner Koos responded the City of Anaheim is at a point where it carries a load and whether the unit requirement is fulfil as set forth by the state, the reality is that the City of Anaheim is packing in people which is a drain on City services and a drain on City coffers. Therefore, he would have to answer yes. ~ Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Commissioner Koos was not supporting no growth and slow growth. Commissioner Koos responded no, the only thing that he wanted to differentiate is that there is a location factor and perhaps Anaheim Hills should be the location because of the investment that goes in that area. Commissioner Bristol stated in his field of financing he is aware that people are not going to spend large sums of money for 18 units to encourage high density or poor management. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify he meant in 10 years. Commissioner Bristol stated hopefully the subject situation would be in better control within 10 years. There are very active people on the west side and they have Commission's attention. Commissioner Koos responded it is going to be a regulatory control. Commissioner Bristol stated household could not be regulated. The whole freedom of this country is that no one can regulate what goes on inside homes, other than the fact that extra efforts are made through the mandate of fire extinguishers, etc. Commissioner Koos stated Commission could resign to the fact that overcrowding would occur and Commission can facilitate it. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the City of Anaheim restricts a piece of property not have apartments because it cannot control the management but then it could have less units per sale product, how would it control how many people go in there for sale product? • Commissioner Koos stated evidence shows that there is a higher propensity for apartments to have overcrowding than single-family housing. 02-25-02 Page 52 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated the issue is really going past that but he understands Commissioner Koos' point. Commissioner Eastman stated it is a great looking project, the applicants have done an outstanding job in a lot of areas but the property around it, more specifically, the shopping center right next to it looks blighted. So it leads her to doubts about how attractive it is going to be no matter how good it looks. She asked if it is going to be that attractive to the higher-end and not attractive to the higher-end person being appealed to would it attract people who have to pool their resources to be able to afford it? That is where overcrowding plays its part. Chairperson Arnold stated very important concerns are raised and Commission is faced with difficult questions. He feels WAND is aware that he has done a lot of visiting with them and listening and trying to understand the concerns of West Anaheim and also to articulate those concerns in the general plan update process. He suggests Commission clearly needs to think through some of these things in a broader perspective. Very legitimate concerns have been brought up and Commission has heard some other things along the way and other items during the meeting that seems like it was far in time but has various sorts of impacts in West Anaheim. He understands the concerns about comparisons but feels the development pattern on the west side require attention because the development has been different than in other parts of the City and Commission needs to be attentive to the fact. At the same time he has some real concerns about whether or not it is even possible to regulate against demographic trends. He admonishes he is concerned that occasionally comments are made in the forum that sounds like certain kinds of people are not wanted in Anaheim and he hopes no one feels that way. He assures no one on the Commission and staff feels that way and he feels certain no one present feels that way either. He states there is a certain reality about the demographics of Southern California and some of it has to do with the ability to afford housing. He has heard of a condominium that sold for almost ~ $800,000 and that would be an indication of the kind of real estate market everyone is dealing with and there are a lot of people who simply cannot afford that kind of market. So that cannot just be regulated against. People will go somewhere and not necessarily to a different city. People are going to continue to be born in the City of Anaheim and they will continue to reside in the City of Anaheim and it is like a balloon or bean bag or waterbed; you push on one end and it goes up on the other end. He admonishes basically Commission is going to have to address these issues more fundamentally. He understands they are very tough issues and is not sure there are any real clear-cut answers. Commission clearly needs to protect the neighborhoods in West Anaheim and enhance the quality of the neighborhoods and yet at the same time deal with population needs, housing needs and demographic changes. He concurs with Commissioner Bristol, it is not Commission's role in a decision making process as the subject matter, it requires leadership from the City Council. He feels it is an appropriate role for Commission in terms of making recommendations as far as the general plan, amending the zoning code and updating the zoning code on a more broad scale basis. However, on a project- by- project basis Commission has to ask the questions that are set forth. He feels the citizens in West Anaheim appreciate the ways in which he tries to look at and address the issues they bring up in the context of the particular legal basis on which Commission can make its decision. He feels he cannot base a decision on the proposed project today just on density alone. The general plan allows for this kind of density. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive housing plan for West Anaheim; what exactly is the City looking for, what is the City doing and what sort of standards is it imposing. If this is not appropriate Commission needs to get busy making amendments to the general plan, etc., that reflect what we are going to do but at this point it is not Commission's role. Commissioner Bristol suggested because Commission is going back and forth on the issue it would be a • good idea to wait until a full body is present and continue the item until March 11, 2002. He apologizes that it may not be fair to the applicants and west side citizens but it could result in a straw vote and a decision may not be reached. 02-25-02 Page 53 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- ~ • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (one person was representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel [WAND]). (An additional speaker was present earlier and filled out a speaker card in opposition, but wasn't present at the time the item was heard.) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bosfinrick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent), to continue the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as suggested by the Planning Commission in order to have a full Commission present. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bosfinrick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt were absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 57 minutes (5:07-6:04) ~ • 02-25-02 Page 54 FEBRUARY 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ An update was given to the Planning Commission by Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, pertaining to City Council actions from the February 12, 2002 City Council meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:06 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~--~~~~~~, ~ at Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. ~ 02-25-02 Page 55