Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/06/177 ~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2002 Councii Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPFF~~~.l~T~?[~~-(~RNOLD COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUL~~IS~V~ILG~, PI-IYLL~~BU:~YDSTUN, STEPHEN BRISTOL, ,~C}~~L E~~T~A~I, ~Q~~?~1 KC)OS, J~N,~S VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT~lf~ N N~ ~ ~~ .°~ ~~-~ ~ .~~ ~ ~~.~~ ~ ~'~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~„~ ~~` "~ ~ `` ~ ~~. STAFF PRESENT: ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~ ~~ Selma Mann, Assistant C~t~r,~,Qt~orn~y~' ~°' Alfred l~lda, P~ n~wpal~`ran~spt~rtation Planner Mary McCloskey, Deput~ry~~annTn~~ir~G~+~r Melanie Ada rn~~~ ~i~~ ~~ ~~il~f~r~gineer g rty p" n~ ~~ ~~ty ~~mmunit Develo ment Gre McCaffe , Princi ~I~'~~ ~j~r ~~ Brad Hobson, ~~ ~~ctc~r~ ~ y p ~ aa , ~ ,:: ~ Linda Johnson, Princi~S~,Pfan~t~er~~~ ~F Thomas Smith Pc~~cc~.Serg nt ~ Della Herrick, Associa 3~ann~r ~~~ ^ENy,~Fe~rnandes, S~enio~ S~c ~i~r~r~ ~, ~. r Ted White, Associate~ I~nn~r~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , Pat C~and~ler, $~r~~or ~~cr~~ary`~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~,,~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ x s~ Scott Koehm, Assist~r~t t~"~ann~r ~ ~ ~ m .~, ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ;, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~,~ ~' . R ~ ~~. ~ ~~w ~ ~rs ~ e ~.;, ~" ,,,, ~ "=~. ~. ~' ,~ ,~.g '~a ~ F~ ; s , AGENDA POSTtNG~ ~~~~n et~;~o~~~f~tkt~~t~~a~a~g~~ot~rri;~ss~~Ag~ndauua~pos~ed~a~t 10:00 a.m. on Friday, ~ June 14, 2002, insid~~he tli~ ~a~'jr°~as~~~ted in the fo~~r~ofi~he„~unc~l~~t~a~b~~'s, and~lso in the outside x ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ : display kiosk. ~ § ~ ¢<~ ~~~`°' ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, a ~-~~~~-~° ~ ~"` ~' ~ ; ~~`,~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ x' ~ ~°u- F~ ~ r~ ss PUBLISHED: Anahe4i~a Bcilletif~N w'spaper~o~`Th~rsd v~~Aa~23. ~002~:~~~~~e~ ~~~ ~ ~.~ °~ ~ , ` ~ ~ ~~ ~ . t /i ~ ~3'' ~~ CALL TO ORDL~ _,~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~~ ~~ w~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`,~:°~``~ '~ "' ~` ~~ ~ ~~~ ~`~ ~ PLANNING COMMiS~1QN.<~VIt~~M~S;FSS~(?N~I~~ I~~~~ • STAFF UPDAI~ FQ C~{~AN~~ I"~~NvdF~`V~RIO~S ~~'~ ~' DEVEL~PMENTS ~~l~T~ ISSI~~$~iS~EC~~IESTED~( PLANNING COMMISSf~3~~;~ ~ °~`f,~-~`"J PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ~ '"~' ~ ~~ W RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION 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, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bostwick PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC061702.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT: Appointment of a Commission Representative and Alternate for the Historic Preservation ADHOC Committee. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Gail Eastman to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Historic Preservation ADHOC Committee. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Stephen Bristol to serve as the Planning Commission alternate representative on the Historic Preservation ADHOC Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-I 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 Bostwick abstained on Item 1-D), fo 1-I) as recommended by staff (with modifications to Planning Commission Minutes). UNANIMOUSLY A 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED r approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through Item 1-I on pages 28, 34 and 44 of the May 20, 2002, PPROVED A. A) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 31~PREV.-CERTIFIED) ~ Approved b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2002-00002: Maingate Hotel Approved Final Site Plan Company, Attn: Savoy Bellavia, 3505 Cadillac Avenue, 0-110, Costa Review Mesa, CA 92626-1435, requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a new 4-story, 225-room hotel complex (La Quinta (Vote: 7-0) Inn and Suites) with integrated accessory uses consisting of a full- service restaurant, retail uses and meeting rooms. Property is located at 444 West Katella Avenue-vacant land, Zaby's Motel and Ivanhoe Motel. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRtED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does • hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 29 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. SR8286DH.DOC 06-17-02 Page 2 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00016 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE: Orange County Health conformance Care Agency, Attn: John Beck, 405 West 5th Street, Room 610, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests that the City determine whether its proposal (Vote: 7-O} to enter into a Donated Space Agreement for approximafely 360 square feet of office space in an existing building at Centralia Elementary School is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Property is located at 195 North Western Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to enter into a donated space agreement at Centralia Elementary School at 195 North Western Avenue for a nutritional services program for families is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by July 3, 2002, as the application was submitted on May 24, 2002 for the subject request.) SR1135TW.DOC • ~ 06-17-02 Page 3 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00017 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE: Orange County Health conformance Care Agency, Attn: John Beck, 405 West 5th Street, Room 610, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests the City determine whether its request to (Vote: 7-0) enter into a Donated Space Agreement for approximately 104 square feet of office space in an existing building at Danbrook Elementary School is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Property is located at 320 Danbrook Street. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to enter into a donated space agreement at Danbrook Elementary School at 320 South Danbrook Street for a nutritional services program for families is in conformance with fhe Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by July 3, 2002, as the application was submi4ted on May 24, 2002 for the subject request.) SR1136TW.DOC • • 06-17-02 Page 4 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00018 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE: Orange County Water conformance District, Attn: Adam Hutchinson, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, GA 92708, requests to determine conformance with the Anaheim (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner General Plan to acquire easements for the construction and operation Bostwick abstained) of a groundwater remediation system. Property is located at 901 East Orangethorpe - The Rock Church. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Comm+ssioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Orange County Water DistricYs proposal to acquire an easement at 101 East Orangethorpe - The Rock Church for the construction and operation of a groundwater remediation system is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an eariy time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by July 3, 2002, as the application was submitted on May 24, 2002 for the subject request.) SR1134TW.DOC • • 06-17-02 Page 5 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. a) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04453 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04511) - Terminated REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Anaheim Mazda/Hyunda, Attn: Rick Heinz, 1271 Auto Center Drive, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests (Vote: 7-0) termination of Variance No. 2001-04453. Property is located at 1231- 1251 Auto Center Drive. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-87 SR8324NA.DOC ~ ~ 06-17-02 Page 6 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ F, a) VARIANCE NO. 4387 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04513) - REQUEST Terminated FOR 7ERMINATION: Moussa Raiszadeh, 7649 East Hollow Oak Road, Anaheim, CA 92808, requests termination of Variance No. (Vote: 7-0) 4387. Property is located at 349 South Ramsgate Drive. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-88 SR8323NA.DOC u • 06-17-02 Page 7 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • G, a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2332, 2283 AND 2266 Terminated {7RACKING NO. CUP 2002-04567) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Gelb Enterprises, Attn: David Friedrich, 17547 Ventura Boulevard, (Vote: 7-0) Suite 201, Encino, CA 91316, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2332, 2283 and 2266. Property is located at 2424 West BaN Road, Units L, K, and Z. TERMtNATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-89 SR8325NA.DOC • ~ 06-17-02 Page 8 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • H a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1066, 2834, 3189, 3496, 3704 Terminated AND 3870 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04314) AND VARIANCE NOS. 508 AND 2788 (TRACKING NO. vAR 2002-04515) - REQUEST FOR (Vote: 7-0} TERMINATION: Everett H. Miller, Jr, 1500 East Ocean Boulevard ,# 718, Long Beach, CA 92802-6933, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1066, 2834, 3189, 3496, 3704 and 3879 and Variance Nos. 508 and 2788. Property is located at 940-956 South Brookhurst Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-90 SR8316JR.DOC ~ ~ 06-17-02 Page 9 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • I. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with Meeting of May 20, 2002. (MOTION} modifications to pages 28, 34 and 44 Continued from June 3, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner {Vote: 7-0) Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of May 20, 2002, with the following modifications: Corrected page 28, the 3'd sentence of the 15t paragraph as follows: "He feels 1) that is exactly City's legal obligation to pursue flexibility where they have not yet developed zoning standards that would accommodate those particular needs so it would seem that waivers could be justified merely on that basis alone" Corrected page 34, 12th paragraph as follows: "Chairperson Arnold concurred and states not only that but it is not at tk~ our discretion unless there is something to justify a variance and if there is nothing to justify the waiver, the code prohibits it." Corrected page 44, 3`d paragraph as follows: "Chairperson Amold indicates that he understands from staff that the applicant might wish to continue the item." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ~ Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 2002. (MOTION) Continued to July 1, 2002. (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 7-0) • 06-17-02 Page 10 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Approved 2b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. Denied 2002-00006 OWNER: California State Teacher's Retirement, 7667 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95826 AGEN7: R. H. Properties, LLC., 34197 Pacific Highway, Suite 102, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 650 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 8.82 acres located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue (Gigante Market). Request for determination of public convenience or necessify to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed grocery store. Continued from the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. DETERMINATtON OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-91 SR8337AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced ~tem No. 2 as Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. • 2002-00006, 650 North Euclid Street - Gigante Market, a request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed grocery store. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff`s recommendation continues to be denial. StafF feels the evidence provided in the way of the staff report, the memorandums regarding crime, and the over- concentration in the area, would not serve the Public Convenience or Necessity by allowing another alcoholic establishment within the census tract, especially with the over-concentration and crime rate currently in the area. Applicant's Testimony: Ron Holley, 34197 PCH #102, Dana Point, CA, representing Gigante Supermarkets, states the question of over-concentration continues to be puzzling to him mainly because of the approval that was obtained by Smart & Final in October, 2001. Paragraph 16, in the staff report indicated when Smart & Final was approved there were three licenses allowed based on population, seven were existing at the time and when Smart & Final was approved that made eight. Therefore, it was a differential of five; three allowed and eight with Smart & Final. He feels Gigante is exactly the same situation although the numbers have changed a little bit because of increased population. The current allowance is four licenses; the existing is eight and with Gigante being approved that would make nine, still a differential of five. The staff report indicates the Police Department examined their crime statistics extensively and has determined there has not being an increase in crime from the date that Smart & Final was approved to today's date. However, staff still recommends denial based on over-concentration and that is puzzling. Gigante, as one of the conditions indicates, would not be selling singles or items that could be immediately consumed. The market would sell cold beer but it would be in cases, etc. as he feels there are a lot of people in the world that drink warm beer and does not feel it is a criteria for determining ~ whether a company should be able to sell beer out of their store. To ask a grocery chain not to sell beer and wine and/or spirit liquors is like asking them to do without their produce or grocery department. Alcoho(ic beverages are items that one would expect when going into a grocery store. It is not really 06-17-02 Page 11 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • something that a grocery store, in order to provide the level of service and convenience to its customers, cannot have. The store cannot be operated properly without it. He used to run Alpha Beta's real estate programs and it was the only company that he knew of, grocery chain-wise, that did not sell alcoholic beverages. They even recognized its importance and had a liquor store right next door. He feels it is not really a good choice for Gigante to consider operating their store without some type of liquor, and, beer and wine is really a minimum representation. He states spirits liquors are an important component, but they have accepted the challenge that they are not going to be able to import a license into the community. They have a license in escrow that is in census tract 867.01 and their census tract is 867.02. The census tract 867.01 has six licenses allowed with seven existing, so, if they were allowed to transfer one of the licenses they would have 66. He feels the Public Convenience or Necessity being served to the community by Gigante being able to operate a store and to sell liquor, beer and wine, etc. can be made by determining that: 1) Not too much has changed when the same determination was made for Smart & Final in October 2001, 2} One of the largest population segments within the community is Hispanic and it is a Hispanic Grocery Store. For the first mile 67% is considered white population, 42% of which is Hispanic. The largest segment of population within the trade area around the site is almost 2:1 Hispanic over the next closest ethnic group, 3) There are not significant grocery operators in the immediate trade area around the location. That is one of the reasons Gigante is interested in coming into the site and 4) The 99 Ranch Market across the street from the site serves the Asian population but not the Hispanic population. Therefore, Gigante is trying to provide a service for a very significant population within the community. Chairperson Arnold feels Mr. Holley has given some thought to the Public Convenience or Necessity Determination, but Commission is also concerned with the crime statistics. The comparison to another applicant was mentioned, but he wonders if the applicant has any information about the relationship of grocery stores and alcohol avaiiable at grocery stores to crime in the vicinity. It is common knowledge that • liquor stores and service stations, which sell alcohol, contribute to crime and the deterioration of the surrounding community and that is the basis for the entire state statue on Public Convenience or Necessity, Chairperson Arnold asked both Mr. Holfey and the police to respond to that fact revealing any good information or data on the role grocery stores play in that contribution. Mr. Holley responded he did not have any information but asked Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) about a correlation. They indicated that out of all the communities in Orange County there are oniy seven that keep track of crime statistics and the City of Anaheim is one of them. The Police Department was not able to give him a linkage and there are a bunch of assumptions but he is not sure how concrete it is or how in-depth it has been investigated. He states he would be happy to be educated from the Police Department along with everyone else. Sergeant Thomas Smith, Anaheim Police Department, states he did not have any information that distinguishes between grocery stores and liquor stores. As far as being outlets of alcohol and the statistics however, there are studies on the increase in off-sale outlets. While there is not a distinction between liquor stores and supermarkets they are still selling alcohol in off-sale capacity. Supermarkets genera(ly do not bring more responses to the location than a liquor store does. Liquor stores may be more susceptible to have someone go in and purchase alcohol and then drink around back in the alley or out in front. He states he would be happy to look into possible studies to show that a supermarket is less likely to increase the problems within the community than a liquor store or a small market would, but at the time he did not have anything to distinguish between the two. Chairperson Arnold states from what Commission has heard over time in various land use conferences he senses no one has done the studies, which is unfortunate. However, he understands that there are a number of statistics to keep track of, He asked if it were possible that 1522 and 1622 could have an over concentration of crime due to shoplifting. A large amount of larceny is shown in 1622, while 1522, which would be the location for the proposed license, shows significant serious crimes like homicide, assault ~ and auto theft. 06-17-02 Page 12 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Sergeant Smith concurs and states some of the statistics are higher however, statistics on homicide could be deceiving. There could be an incident that is an isolated incident in the community and not reflective of the community around it; there could be a famity disturbance or something and it turns into a homicide where it has nothing to do with the community around it; on the other hand, there could be homicides that are consistent from year to year in a community that shows that there is a problem and that there are homicides on a regular basis. Sometimes two homicides in the statistics can be deceiving as far as a reflection of the community itself. He states 1522 does have more robberies and auto thefts than other areas but he would have to research every single report taken in the City to find out the circumstances on them. He defined the difference between burglary and larceny as follows: Burglary is basically when a person enters a location, building, structure, a locked vehicle, etc., with the intent to commit a theft or a felony and the larceny category is all other thefts, petty thefts, grand thefts, etc. Sergeant Smith states in Reporting District 1622 there is a significant amount of "in custodies" for shop lifting. Some may have been arrested and charged with burglary, and some may have been arrested and charged with grand theft or simple petty theft. Commissioner Koos recalled a question being raised in the morning session regarding Community DevelopmenYs participation and their role pertaining to the site. Mr. McCafferty offered to call a representative from Community Development and stated that the answer staff provided in the morning session was that initially when the Anaheim Pfaza project came into the City of Anaheim for approval, the Redevelopment Agency was involved in reviewing the project but after its construction the property owner and leasing agent have the flexibility to attract a tenant that is consistent with the zoning. A grocery store of an excess of 15,000 square feet is a permitted land use within the subject zoning and Community Development could clarify underlining OPA's, DDA's, development . disposition agreements or owner participation agreements that the agency may have with the underlining property owner. Commissioner Boydstun feels Commission should know if it is their contract and asked the applicant if he was dealing with Redevelopment on the project. Mr. Holley responded no, they are not, and informed a member of Donahue Schriber leasing team was present in the audience if Commission would like to ask her some questions. Jackie Check, Donahue Schriber Inc., states they manage and lease the property for California State Teachers. Commissioner Boydstun asked if she has any connection with Redevelopment enlisting or bringing in prospects for the property. Ms. Check responds there is an ongoing relationship with the Redevelopment Agency, but as far as approval for prospects, they continue a dialogue and keep them abreast of who they are speaking with and tenants they are trying to target. They are very interested in the tenant mix of the shopping center. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if there is a feeling that the center would be filled by the same type of business. Ms. Check responds no, in fact, a grocery store was already on the list of acceptable tenants for the project. She feels Redevelopment was aware they were looking to target a grocery store. Commissioner 8oydstun wished to clarify if Ms. Gheck or the Redevelopment Agency brought in the current grocery store. • Ms. Check responded her agency brought them in. 06-17-02 Page 13 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun states there is a difference between the two businesses; the one that you brought in and the one that you are attempting to bring in now. Ms. Check concurs there is a difference and feels they will play off of each other nicely. She demonstrates they have seen them in other shopping centers where they go against other grocery stores such as a Trader Joe's and compliment each other nicely. The difference is they sell in bulk to the industry, as well as to individual customers. Commissioner Boydstun recalls when discussing Smart & Final their beer and wine was sold in bulk and it was mainly for resale or for institution situations and not kept cold. Ms. Check disagrees that it is mainly for institutional. Beer and wine may not be kept cold, but one does not have to be an institutionai buyer to buy from Smart & Final, it is open to the public, Commissioner Boydstun understands it is mostly supply places, it is not like picking up a four or six pack and not cold when removing it from the store. Ms. Check concurs but feels statistics indicate the individual customer is a higher base target at that location than their institutional customer is. Mr. McCafferty states he spoke with Brad Hobson, Community Development Department, and learned they do have an OPA (Owner Participation Agreement) with the underlining property owner which is Calsters, and feels that in itself, would restrict that particular type of grocery store from locating in that shopping center. Commissioner Koos states the staff report indicates there is a distinction between the nature of business at Smart & Final and the proposed project, and asked Ms. Check if she would characterize Smart & ~ Final's operation as more of a regional business than a neighborhood business. Ms. Check responded no, she would classify it as a neighborhood and that there were enough of them around causing it not to have the regional draw. Commissioner Koos asked if she would not agree that there is only one in Anaheim. Ms. Check responded that is the only one there, but they are expanding. She recalls there are actually a couple in Irvine and states that it may be more regional than a neighborhood center, but does not feel they are going to draw from as great of an area. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if she means as a Costco, etc. Ms. Check clarified as a true regional tenant. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if she was referring in terms of a Macy's or something. Ms. Check responded yes. Commissioner Koos states he was not referring to that. Ms. Check states "or a Comp USA or some of the other tenants". Commissioner Koos wished to be certain that she woufd clarify it as a Comp USA. Ms. Check states she would not cfassify Smart & Final as being as regional as a Comp USA but definitely more of a neighborhood component. • Commissioner Koos states Anaheim is 50 square miles and there is one Smart & Final. The nearest one is probably 8 miles away, maybe more which seems regional to him. He asked Ms. Check what her definition of regional is because neighborhood to him means approximately a mile. 06-17-02 Page 14 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES • Ms. Check responded "and that serves the neighborhood" maybe 3 to 4 miles. Commissioner Koos states within 3 to 4 miles there would probably be nearly a dozen markets Ms. Check responded because they are specialty in nature, and states that she understands where he is going with the analogy. Commissioner Koos clarifies it is because the staff report made the distinction and he wished to get a feel of what she believes as somebody who is in the business for a living. Ms. Check concurs it is much more than a grocery store and asked Commission to keep in mind, that particular part of the shopping center was always defined as their neighborhood component, as depicted on their site plan. She states it was intended and designed to serve the neighborhood and that is why they were targeting a grocery store. Commissioner Koos understands and states he is trying to deal with the issue of the difference between because the applicant argues that there really is not any difference between Smart & Final and a neighborhood store, and feels Commission should make its Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity similar. Ms. Check states the difference he was showing was in the transferring of licenses. Commissioner Koos states that it was also in terms of concentration as well. He explains he wished to get an idea from her because Donahue Schriber are big time property managers maintaining property all over the region, therefore he figured she could give Commission an idea of what she considers regional businesses. • Chairperson Arnold posed a question for both staff and Ms. Check regarding the area being designated as a grocery store and wished to know on what plans or who is designating it as a grocery store. Ms. Check responded in previous planning documents Redevelopment specified that was one of the approved uses for that particular parcel. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferry to verify if that has been planned by Redevelopment as a grocery store. Mr. McCafferty responded the entire project or property that includes the Anaheim Plaza section and the piece across the street from it is designated in the General Plan as a regional retail area. The Owner Participation Agreement further defines types of uses that would occur on the site. However, he is not clear whether it is characterized in the definitions of the agreement that it is a neighborhood portion of the center. Chairperson Arnold asked staff to call Redevelopment for clarification because he was concerned the message was ambiguous. On one hand, the City states a grocery store is needed in that location and all grocery stores sell beer and wine, and, Commission is stating, "no we do not do that here". He feels it may suggest a need to do more planning ahead of time. Commissioner Bostwick recalls the hearings in the original plans. The thinking of the Redevelopment staff was that the property to the south of the subject site was the regional shopping area and the subject property was the local component and there was a market at one time, on the list of approvals. However, when it was finally built, Orchard Supply & Hardware was located there, but the original plan had a market and a drug store. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states he is supportive of a grocery store but struggles with the need to have a beer and wine license. The applicant states, the beer and wine Iicense is pivotal; they cannot move in unless it is acquired; all other stores have it and the justification is that it is an incremental increase 06-17-02 Page 15 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ however, eventually an incremental increase gets to the point where there is one on every corner. He feels that was the problem that led Commission to the attempt to try to reduce the number. Liquor stores were so prevalent, Commission concluded that kind of concentration tends to have an overall effect on the community and therefore reducing the numbers is important. in this case, Commission is dealing with a large grocery store with a large volume. Two weeks ago Commission was told that it would be a small percentage of the total sales of the store, but given the size of the store, and even the name suggests that the volume of the store is going to be large. Therefore, alcohol is going to be large in sales and probably a lot more than the liquor licenses it is going to replace. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the applicant mentioned the 99 Cents Store across the street that caters to the Asian market, but he does not believe they sell liquor and yet they exist. Mr. Holley responded they sell liquor. Commissioner Vanderbil# asked if they have the same kind of license. Mr. Holley responded he is asking for a beer and wine license and the 99 Cents Store has a Type 21, which includes spirits liquors. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he would say the volume of liquor that is going to be sold would be larger than the liquor licenses it is going to replace. Also, if he has some sense in terms of the Smart & ~inal, how much space in their store is beer and wine because they sell everything from coffee makers, industrial products for cleaning to alcohol, but he feels it is a small component of their overall sales. He asks the applicant if he could inform him in the case of his store, since they are so few. Mr. Holley responded as indicated previously, the beer and wine sales typically for the grocery industry are around 3 to 5% of the total sales and that would be true for Gigante. He feels sales for Smart & Final would be in that same range, but he is not certain. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he had a sense as to whether 3 to 5% of what he is anticipating will result in more liquor sales than the establishment whose license he is taking over. Mr. Holley responded it would result in more sales than the little liquor store they would be transferring from and states he is not sure that is relevant. Chairperson Arnold responded it is relevant if Commission is looking at the impact of the sales on the community. That is the idea of the Public Convenience or Necessity and the statutory provision that they look at where the concentration of liquor licenses is higher than what is allocated or where the crime rate is above average or in the case of the subject matter, both. The idea is that where alcohol is sold the more impact (especially the off-sale) on the surrounding community, the crime rate and the overall neighborhood character, etc., and that is the theory behind it. That is what the study shows in general and that is what Commission looks at. Mr. Holley states one point differentiating a grocery store and a liquor store is that liquor stores sell singles. A single can of beer can be purchased and consumed on the premise and a grocery store does not do that. Gigante would sell a case of wine coolers or alcohol in four or six-pack minimums. He states Gigante does not sell very many wine coolers and would sell the large cases of beer just like Smart & Final does. Mr. McCafferty states unless the application has changed, the request is for alcoholic beverages and not beer and wine. Mr. Holley responded they have not changed it, but certainly can or will. He feels if they have approval for spirits liquors, as well as beer and wine, they would at ieast sell beer and wine if that is the only license they could obtain. ~ Chairperson Arnold clarifies what the applicant original(y applied for is Public Convenience or Necessity to sell all alcohol beverages. 06-17-02 Page 16 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Holley responded yes, for Type 21. Mr. McCafferty states the alternative proposal that the applicant appears to be offering would not have any affect on the census tract that currently has an over-concentration and there would still be a net increase in the number of licensing. So, taking the license from outside the tract and putting it in the proposed site would not mitigate the impacts of the over concentrations. Chairperson Arnold asked him to clarify his statement. Mr. McCafferty restated taking a license from outside the census tract and bringing it inside the census tract would not have the effect of net increase and licenses within the subject census tract. Chairperson Arnold understands and feels it would increase the number of licenses within the tract. He noted the arrival of Mr. Hobson from Redevelopment and clarified the question Commission is wrestling with has to do with the proposal for the Gigante Market in that it has been stated that the subject site has been designated by Redevelopment as a site for a supermarket and that raises some questions. He states Commission observes very few grocery markets that do not sell at least beer and wine and asks RedevelopmenYs plans on the site, and if it has been proven that the subject proposal is the grocery market that they have been looking at. Brad Hobson, Deputy Director of Community Development, states when Redevelopment entered into an OP A with Calsters, who is the property owner, after a great deal of public input and a lot of work getting there, the portion of the site north of Crescent actually was designated as a neighborhood serving commercial center, which at the time could have included a drug store and a grocery store. He feels, on the proposed site, a grocery store is entirely appropriate. Mr. Hobson states they have had discussions with the property owner, both the tenants and the representatives, Gigante and Smart & Final determined • there is no conflict and no competitive problem. Both indicated they could adequately be served at the subject location. Redevelopment did not discuss whom, if anyone, would have a liquor license. Mr. Hobson confirms Smart & Final came over and they brought their fiquor license with them. Commissioner Boydstun understands the side of the applicant but states it is hard to disagree with the Police Department when Commission's main concern is safety. She feels it is the type of market that would draw big clientele, and, there is no market on that side of town to service the clients that the applicant is targeting. Commissioner Bristol states it is the first time he has ever heard convenience being raised as an issue that the clientele the applicant wants to serve can only be served at the subject location because there is no other large supermarket they could go to. Nonetheless, he is concerned with how to get through the crime situation. He states one of the tougher issues he has to deal with is what is Convenience or Necessity when it comes to alcohol. He feels when it is tied into what the police and history is with alcohol use and the over-concentration and/or crime rate, it is a significant area as far as crime and he cannot support it for that reason. Chairperson Amold feels the entire Commission body is wrestling with the same issue and for him it really depends on what piece of information he is Iooking at during the point of discussion as to how he feels about it. He really hoped the crime statistics might bear out that the over-concentration of crime was really a shoplifting problem and that would have solved fheir problem. However, it did not and actually showed some rather serious crimes in the area of a greater degree than those in other reporting districts. While reading the staff report preparing for the morning session, he tended to think that the subject location would not be a good location for the market, given the crime in the surrounding neighborhood but as he listened to current statements, he became concerned that the City really has had in mind that a supermarket would go there, and a supermarket would include beer and wine, that is the reality of the market. i He feels an ideal study would be for cities to figure out a differentiation among types of establishments as to what kinds of crime and deteriorations tied to what kinds of alcohol sales at supermarket versus a 06-17-02 Page 17 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ convenience store, gas station, iiquor store, etc. to determine the impact on surrounding areas. He states he is uncomfortable with the Public Convenience or Necessity for alcohol sales in general and recalled the applicant stating they were willing to limit it to beer and wine only. He feels he could be supportive of that on the basis that the City already identified it as a supermarket location. However, he is really troubled by the crime statistics and is concerned that if Commission approves the proposal it would contribute to crime. He states he sees it both ways. Commissioner Koos states the subject decision is predicated on the existing setting, but more than any of their land uses Commission is always looking at what is allowed in the district versus what is already there and how an addition would add to that although he cannot remember a time when a similar issue came up. He credits Commissioner Vanderbilt as one that tends to look at licenses as a nominal figure, for example there are 5 allowed and 7 existing. He asks what does that exactly mean in terms of what is out there in the community; what is available; and how much is actually going out the door, therefore he was compelled and feels it is something they should explore as a Commission and as a City. If a license sells 3 to 5% of tens of millions of dollars worth of product then it is different than 3% of a"Mom and Pop" operation that sells hundreds of thousands dollars worth of product. It is an interesting concept that causes him to think Commission should look at it as a policy level issue and how relevant it is when they are talking about census tracts and impacts on neighborhoods. Moreover, it is important to bring up an important issue that the applicant refers to (Smart & Final), which is what he was trying to get at with the Donahue Schrieber representative. He feels his vote for Smart & Final, as well as Commission's, was founded on the premises. !t is a regional operation that is distinctivefy different than local stores that serve a one-mile radius. The nearest Smart & Final would be the one in Fullerton at the corner of Chapman Avenue and State College Boulevard, which is 6 to 8 miles away, 5 at the least with quite a few markets in between the subject ~ location and that location. He recalls growing up where there was a Smart & Final that his family frequented approximately 3 miles away and there were a number of markets between that location and their home, but they went there for specific purposes; to buy specific items and not on a reguiar basis and that is the nature of Smart & Final. Therefore, he feels it is important to discuss why Commission made its decision then, and how it truly differs from the decision they are about to make today. Commissioner Koos supports Commissioner Boydstun's concern, regardless of plans, and appreciates Chairperson Arnold's recognition of the issue that they still have to deal with the existing setting. Whether it is a nice location because it is a large property that can accommodate a bonafide supermarket is one thing, but Commission still has to deal with what is already there and what is already available for consumption. He feels Commission cannot make a determination, based on the states definition of Public Convenience or Necessity that the project qualifies. Commissioner Eastman states part of her rationale for being able to support the decision for Smart & Final was based on her belief that they were the same kind of store moving from a relatively short distance away but happened to be in a different census tract. However, on the subject project, she concurs with Commissioner Arnold with regards to concerns of putting another grocery store on the census tract because it would take it over one more, from 8 to 9. She questions how many is needed for Public Convenience because the population dictates that they really only need 4 or 5. Therefore, it does not seem like it is an absolute necessity for Public Convenience. On the other hand she feels it would be a very good market and hopes they would make an exception and relocate their market. She states people certainly could find enough places to buy beer and wine that are convenient in the census tract. Chairperson Arnold wished to cfarify that the application before Commission is for a Type 21; for all types of alcohol. Mr. McCafferty concurred it is off-sale general, full alcohol. ~ 06-17-02 Page 9 8 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTtON: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project fatls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmentai Quafity Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied the requests for determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2002-00006 (to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption within a proposed market), based on the following: (i) That approval of an additional off-sale license at this location would increase the over-concentration of licenses within the census tract. (ii) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that this request wotald serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity since there are existing opportunities to purchase alcoholic beverages, including grocery stores, within the census tract. VOTE: 7-0 ! Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeaf rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 48 minutes (1:47-2:35) L J 06-17-02 Page 19 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00073 (READVERTISEDI Granted 3c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04500 Granted, in part 3d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253 Approved OWNER: East Anaheim Christian Church, 2216 East South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Newport Hills Inc., 2015 Southwest Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2216-2220 East South Street. Property is approximately 2.25 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Priscilla Street. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00073 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 {Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RS- 7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04500 - Request waivers of a) required lot frontage on a public or private street,* b) required dedication and improvements, c) minimum lot area* and d) minimum fot width to construct three single-family homes. " Waivers (a) and (c) have been deleted. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253 -To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. i Continued from the May 20 and June 3, 2002, Pianning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-92 VARIANCE RESOLUTlON NO. PC2002-93 SR1088CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Reclassification No. 2002-00073 (Readvertised), 2216-2220 East South Street, a request for reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone or a less intense zone. Request waivers of: a) required lot frontage on a public or private street, b) required dedication and improvements, c) minimum lot area and d) minimum lot width. To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit detached single- family residential subdivision. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, staff recommends approval based on the revised plans eliminating waiver c) from the proposal. Applicant's Testimony: Jim Manning, 20201 SW Birch Street, N. Beach, CA, states he is present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ OPPOSITION: None 06-17-02 Page 20 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00073 (to reclassify Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the property from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RS-7200 zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002. Granted, in part, Variance No. 2002-04500 approving waivers pertaining to (b) dedication and improvements based on the recommendation of the Public Works Department and (d) minimum lot width based on the location of the project as it is at the end of a cul-de-sac on a property developed with a church, and that the configuration of the existing lot would make frontage of the lots along Priscilla Street difficult, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002; and denying waivers pertaining to (a) required frontage on a public or private street and (c) minimum lot area since they have been deleted. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-253 (to establish a 4-lot, 3-unit single-family residential subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map and the 22-day appea! rights for the Reclassification and Variance. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:36-2:38) ~ 06-17-02 Page 21 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u u 4a. 4b. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00074 (READVERTISED) Approved Granted 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04561 Granted 4d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16333 Approved OWNER: Arthur E. Stahovich, 805 South Ramblewood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Walter Bowman Real Estate, Attn: Walter Bowman, 9922 Walker Street, # A Cypress, CA 90630 LOCATION: 3254 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 0.63-acre having a frontage of 150 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue located 809 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00074 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04561 - Request to construct an 11-unit attached residential condominium subdivision. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16333 - To establish a 1-lot, 11-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Continued from the May 20 and June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-94 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-95 SR1089CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 4 as Reclassification No. 2002-00074 (Readvertised), 3254 West Orange Avenue, a request for reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone or a less intense zone. To establish a 1-lot, 11-unit airspace attached residentia! condominium subdivision. i Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff is in support of the project as modified and recommends approval. He acknowledged it was a pleasure to work with the applicant on design changes. Applicant's Testimony: Walter Bowman, the applicant, states he has the architect with him and would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Boydstun states it looks much better. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos thanked the applicant for working on such a short time frame to address the staff and Commission's concerns and commends them on a great project. 06-17-02 Page 22 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00074 (to reclassify the property from the RS-A- 43,000 zone to the RM-2400 zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04561 (to construct an 11-unit attached residential condominium subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16333 (to establish a 1-lot, 11-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Conditiona! Use Permit. • DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:39-2:42) ~ 06-17-02 Page 23 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00402 5c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00070 5d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04530 OWNER: James H. Kroll, 1970 Aspen Street, Los Osos, CA 93402-2402 AGENT: Tait and Associates, Attn: Leslie Burnside, 9089 Clairemont West Boulevard, # 300, San Diego, CA 92123 LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.2-acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street (Arco AM/PM Service Station). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00402 - Request amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the property from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00070 - Request reclassification of Portion A from the property from County of Orange, County C-1 (Commercial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone or less intense zone. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2Q02-04530 - Request to permit a gasoline service station with an accessory convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and an accessory car wash with waivers of a) maximum structural height abutting a single- family residential zone boundary and b) minimum distance between driveway openings adjacent to an arterial highway. * Waiver (b) has been deleted. Continued from the April 22 and May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • OPPOSITION: None Withdrawn SR8328KB. DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00402, Reclassification No. 2002-00070, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04530. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-17-Q2 Page 24 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MtNt1TES \ J • 6a. C_EQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT July 29, 2002 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1564 (READVERTISEDI (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04521) OWNER: John M. Huish, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Michael Coleman, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1041 North Shepard Street. Property is approximately 7.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Shepard Street and Carpenter Avenue {Festival Fun Park). Requests to modify an existing family entertainment center by constructing a miniature golf course with waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to a freeway right-of-way. Continued from the April 8, April 22 and June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8333AN.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue the subject request to the July 29, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to resolve parking issues and redesign the proposed miniature golf course. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 06-17-02 Page 25 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTlON, CLASS 1 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2670 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. GlJP2002-04517) OWNER: Italian Bruno's Restaurant, 1750 West !.a Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: EI Patio Restaurant, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATtON: 1750 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.12 acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Mohican Avenue (EI Patio Restaurant). Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously approved semi-enclosed restaurant and to permit a public dance hall as an accessory use with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Continued from the March 25 and May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-96 Approved Denied SR8275AN.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2670 (Readvertised), 1750 West La Palma Avenue - EI Patio Restaurant, a request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously-approved semi-enclosed restaurant and to permit a dance hall as an accessory use with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 7 was continued in order to advertise for an additional request for a public dance hall at the subject location and requested modifications to the hours of operation. Due to the high crime rate at the location within the subject reporting district as well as the calls for service pertaining to noise disturbances, staff continues to recommend denial of the request. ApplicanYs Testimony: Beatriz Quintero, 1750 W. La Palma Avenue, representing EI Patio Restaurant, states the Commission asked that they file an appfication for the dance hall permit, which they did and they are stiN asking for the extended hours. Therefore, she was really only present to answer any questions. She feels staff states they want denial of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) based on the ten telephone calls of disturbance. Aside from the person that turned on them in December 2001, for reasons unknown to her, they have been there for 14 years with no history of problems. Public Testimony: Roslyn Biebelberg, 1192 N. Dresden St., Anaheim, CA, states she lives in a townhouse near the subject business and everything appears to be happening right around her neighborhood. She states the restaurant is a stones throw from her property and has been very nice and has done well for the entire neighborhood, however, the part about the late hours and the dance hall is of great concern to her. She recalls in the neighborhood by Albertson's Market, someone was killed in a dancehall which initially was a very innocuous restaurant. But when dancing was permitted people sometimes would drink too much, ~ fights would occur and eventually someone was killed. Ms. Biebelberg states that location is right down the street from where she lives and she is not comfortable with having a dance hall that close. 06-17-02 Page 26 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Chairperson Arnold asked Ms. Biebelberg where she lives in relationship to the subject business Applicant's Rebuttal Ms. Biebelberg responds she lives at the corner of Euclid Street and La Palma. She reminded the Commission of her appearance at the April 8, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting where the St. Verena Coptic Orthodox Church replaced a funeral home, and states it is catercorner to her house and very close to Northwood Village Condominiums where she lives. Beatriz Quintero states they have had dance and entertainment there for 14 years and within that time they have not had any problems with noise, inconvenience with any of the neighbors or any type of complaint with the City, aside from the ten phone calls from the person that called back in December 2001. She feels the person has stopped calling because Police O~cers have not returned to their place of business. Commissioner Boydstun asked what the sign read as you enter their driveway. Beatriz Quintero responded the larger one at the top says dancing and cocktails, and the two smaller ones say EI Patio Nightclub. Commissioner Boydstun states that Ms. Quintero knows that is against code. Beatriz Quintero states, "I did not know". Commissioner Koos asked, "are you a nightclub"? Ms. Quintero responded, "we are a restaurant that has a nightclub". • Commissioner Koos asked, "are you a nightclub"? Ms. Quintero responded the significance of the word nightclub to her means dancing and entertainment and that is what they have, but she did not know what the City considered as a nightclub. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the entertainment part only consists of dancing or if there is other entertainment. Beatriz Quintero responded at the time they only have dancing. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they have had other entertainment. Ms. Quintero responded they have Mariachi which people only sit and listen to. It is an eight piece Mariachi, iive band with no speakers or anything, only the band. Chairman Arnold asked why they could not dance until 11:00 p.m., since those were the hours they were approved for, He feels they are asking for hours that are much greater than what they have been approved. Ms. Quintero responded when they purchased the business 14 years ago the previous owner stayed open until 1:30 a.m., therefore they were under the impression the permit allowed them to stay open until 1:30 a.m. That is what they have done for the last 14 years and the customers have become accustom to staying there until 1:30 a.m. Commissioner Bostwick asked how many years of that 14 have they been charging a cover charge to get in? ! Ms. Quintero stated every since they started. 06-17-02 Page 27 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos refers to the police and states that the applicant states the calls made to the Police Department were from a lone individual. He asked if it is against policy to comment on the statement. Sergeant Thomas Smith, Anaheim Police Department, states it is against policy to reveal who each reporting person is for each call but from his personal knowledge back in October, when he was sitting on the desk in patrol, he remembers there was a man who came to the front counter complaining a lot about the music from the restaurant. However, when officers went out one night there was no problem, it was not audible from across the street. As far as whether that one man made ten complaints or whether one person made ten complaints he is not certain. He confirms there were a total of 16 disturbances over that past year including spousal abuse, noise complaints and fights. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked if they had on-site security. Beatriz Quintero responded yes, they do. They have five contracted security guards and two security guards that work for them permanently. They open 5 nights a week and any one particular night determines how many security guards necessary for the job, with Saturdays being the busiest night. Commissioner Koos asked staff if there were any conditions regarding security. Mr. McCafferty responded he is not aware of any security conditions in the resolutions or staff report. Commissioner Bristol states that is correct, security for a restaurant probably would never have been in the original CUP and the fact that they are discussing security guards for a restaurant tells him that it is not the place. It is in a residential area with crime 245% above norma! and right across the street from residential homes, so to him it does not make sense. He states that is why they did not put security • conditions in the CUP 17 years ago, they did not need them. Commissioner Bosfinrick concurred that it was approved as a restaurant. Commissioner Koos states it would be most appropriate to have a CUP before Commission that states the primary use is a dance hall and not an accessory. Commissioner Bristol states, "they are a nightclub and that is what they wanY'. Chairman Arnold states it was readvertised as an accessory use but feels they are really "pushing fhe envelope", because even if they do have some music and dancing, etc., there are a lot of places not open until 2:00 a.m., especially if it is primarily a restaurant. He states he does not see the point. Commissioner Eastman asked if there are statistics that correlates when crimes are committed. She wonders if it is more likely that crimes are committed after the later hour in the evenings versus earlier in the day when people normally frequent restaurants and are having drinks along with their dinner. Sergeant Smith responds he does not have exact statistics to show percentages of difference, but he knows first hand when there is a nightclub within close proximity to a residential area and there is an overflow from the parking lot, there is a good possibility of crime and it occurs frequently in the neighborhoods where people have to park. When nightclubs are too close or within a residential neighborhood it creates consistent incidents of a parking problem in the neighborhoods late at night; drinking problems; disturbances when they are going back to their vehicles; and problems of urinating in public when they are back at their vehicles. He is concerned because the subject location is right across the street, 30 yards from houses and states over the past year, many of the disturbances have occurred around 9:00 and 11:00 p.m. and later during the ~ night, Commissioner Bostwick concurs the incidents are not likely to occur at 6:00 p.m. 06-17-02 Page 28 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman concurs that the potential is much greater the later a place is open in a residential neighborhood. Sergeant Smith responds if it becomes a full-blown nightclub the potential is much greater for crime at that time of night because there will be more people, the nightclub will grow and the overflow will be parked on residential streets. Commissioner Koos feels it is an appropriate location for a restaurant. • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ ~ OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the subject request pertaining to the public dance hall and the hours of operation. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTtON CARRIED, 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 the request for an amendment to a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2670 (Tracking No. CUP 2002-04517) pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously approved semi-enclosed restaurant and to permit a public dance hall as an accessory use with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic • beverages, based on the following: (i) That the Anaheim Police Department indicates a significant above-average crime rate (245 percent above the City average) for the Reporting District for the property and has received 29 calls for service for this property since February 2001, including 10 party/music disturbances. (ii) That the restriction in the hours of operation was one of the principal reasons that led to the original approva! of Conditional Use Permit No. 2670 due to the location of the restaurant in relation to the surrounding residential neighborhood. (iii) That the combination of on-premises sales of alcoholic beverages, a public dance hall, increased hours of operation 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 to the south, west and southwest. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (2:43-2:59) ~ 06-17-02 Page 29 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (I 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 NO. 20 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04457)* * Advertised as Tracking No. CUP 2002-04512 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, January 28, February 25 and April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-97 Approved Denied request for reinstatement of the CUP to retain a banquet hall and to modify or delete a condition of approval SR8327VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04277 (Readvertised), 420-504 South Brookhurst Street, a request for reinstatement of a 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. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff feels the required findings for the reinstatement of the permit cannot be made and a number of the conditions of approval imposed originally on the permit have not been complied with therefore, staff recommends denial. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: ~ J Patrick Tran, 9782 S. Broadway, Anaheim, CA, representing Seafood Place - Restaurant #2, states they are trying very hard to meet all conditions and asked Commission to consider approval of the restaurant. He states currently they are working on the parking lot but the company responsible for paving held up the process by failing to inform them that additional money was needed and not proceeding with the paperwork, and that is why it has taken so long for them to construct the parking lots. They also request to delete the conditions requiring them to build an 8-foot block wall because the existing wall is approximately 6 feet. He states Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, informed them that they could get a petition from the neighbors against the necessity of building an 8-foot wall. They submitted the petition to Ms. Norwood and is therefore requesting reinstatement of the permit because they are working very hard to get everything done. 06-17-02 Page 30 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold states, ~you say that you are working very hard, how do you define working very hard" . He understands some of the items can take some time but the applicant has had the permit since 2000 and some of the things such as removing crash post and replacing them with plantings, painting crash post on the south elevation and planting trees in the landscape planters is not something that somebody's paperwork would tie them up. Mr. Tran responded they have completed landscaping and removal of the poles and the condition states that they only need to finish the parking spaces. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Tran when did he remove the poles. Mr, Tran responded approximately finro months ago. Chairperson Arnold states the staff report indicates, as of June 11, 2002, the conditions have not been complied with. Mr. McCafferty states he drove the site the morning of June 17, 2002, and there were crash post still remaining on the south and west elevations however, he did not go around to the north elevation and is not certain about it. Regarding the landscaping, it looks as they have begun to put in curbing for landscape pfanters and they have a few trees planted in the planters, which appeared dead. No other vegetation was visible. The parking !ot has not been resurfaced per the CUP. Chairperson Arnold states that it did not sound like hard work. Mr. Tran states the company has been holding them up by not contacting the City. When they called the company they informed them that they stopped construction because when they signed the contract with them a long time ago they were given a price quote (which they complied with) and afterwards the • company wanted more money but did not bother to inform them, instead stopped process on the project and that is why it is taking so long. Commissioner Bristol wished to verify the petition and staff report regarding the neighbors on the east wall as stated by Mr. Tran. Mr. McCafferty responded that a petition pertaining to the wall is in the file, however it is a code requirement and if Commission wished to grant approval of the request, Mr. Tran would also have to request a waiver of that section. Commissioner Koos asked if staff would ever suggest that an owner get a petition signed to that effect. Mr. McCafferty states he has concerns regarding the statement but Vanessa would not be available until the following day at which time he would have the opportunity to speak with her during a staff meeting to clarify if that is the case, however, he did not imagine she would make such a suggestion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Tran if he understood the seriousness of the matter if the CUP were denied due to noncompliance of the conditions that he would no longer be permitted the use of his business. Mr. Tran responded no. Commissioner Bostwick clarified, "it means you would be out of business. The banquet facilities that you are currently making money on which were initially not approved but later were approved is subject to a lot of conditions. One of the conditions was the 8-foot wall and the wall is for the purposes of being • courteous to your neighbors and keeping the noise down". Mr. Tran states there is currently an existing wall, which is approximately 6 feet. 06-17-02 Page 31 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol states he visited the site as recent as June 16, 2002, and is aware of the existing wall however, the condition of approval was to construct a new wall and now Commission is being asked to delete the condition. He states it looked like the applicant made an attempt to put in sprinkler heads, a few are popped in the ground around the curb, but there is no dirt and the trees are dead. Mr. Tran responded they recently signed a contract with a new landscaper and the work will take place soon, but it takes some time. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Tran why he feels he should not have to build the 8-foot wall. Mr. Tran responded because there were no complaints. He asked if they were to build another wall should it be added to the existing wall or if it would take some space into the property lines. Chairperson Arnold states Mr. Tran should understand that the basics of concern is if Commission denies the permit as stafF recommends, because he has not complied with the conditions of the permit which granted him approval to operate his business, he would not be able to continue to use the property in the manner in which he has been doing. Commission tries to minimize the impacts on the surrounding community and neighborhood and he is not treating the conditions and permit with seriousness and therefore, there appeared to be no basis for continuing to grant additional permits when the existing permits have not been complied with. Mr. Tran asked Commission to give them more time and states they would get everything done in approximately finro months because he feels they are very close to finalizing everything. Commissioner Bostwick states Mr. Tran put himself into a very deep hole. The permit expired in November and it is currently June. Commission is up against a time frame of August 1, 2002 on the • Streamlining Act, which is a part of the state law so they do not have two months to give. He feels Mr. Tran should have finalized things before November 2001 and Commission is trying to tell him that but he is not paying attention and not taking them serious. Commissioner Koos feels confident that since the item was continued as far back as November and subsequently January, February and April, staff indicated to Mr. Tran that it was a major issue. He states why should Commission feel any different because he is finally standing before Commission after seven months that he is going to do it now that he is up against a wall on the permit Streamlining Act. It is not reaffy fair to all the other applicants that come before Commission and at least attempt to correct their previous errors before they show up. The applicant has essentially wasted 7 months of staff's time. You cannot show up before the decision making body with no time remaining and then ask for time. THE PUBLIC HEARINIG WAS RE-CLOSED. Mr. McCafferty states staff's recommendation is still for denial, but another option is that staff would be glad to work with the applicant on filing a new application and getting everything in order and coming back before Commission again with everything completed because he does not feel that even the City Council at this point, given the permit Streamlining Act would have the ability to approve it contrary to the conditions that have not been complied with. Chairperson Arnold concurs he needs to start over but feels the other thing is that it is critical that it not be a window for continued noncompliance by operating illegally. He feels Code Enforcement would need to be on top of it and make sure that he comes into compliance as quickly as possible. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states in regard to his potential compliance with Condition No. 16 regarding the vacant parking lot, the applicant would need to submit the grading plan for review and approval. It would be a minimum of 6 weeks process to get approval and they would need to work that ~ into their schedule. She states they have had previous meetings with the applicants and their representatives regarding the grading plan but submittal has not yet come forth. 06-17-02 Page 32 JUNE 97, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ AFTER THE ACTION. Chairperson Arnold states Mr. Tran shoufd meet with staff right away and get his act together because staff would be tough in seeing that the property was together by the time he returns to Commission. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN SUPPORT: A petition was received with 3 signatures, prior to the meeting, in support of the subject request pertaining to detetion of the requirement to construct a block wall. ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04277 (Tracking No. CUP2001-04457) to retain an existing banquet hall with service but not sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to construction of a block wall, based on the following: (i) That this permit is not being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with afl conditions and stipuiations originally approved by the Commission as required by Subsection 18.03.093.040 of the Zoning Code in that the petitioner has not shown compliance with the conditions of approval and has been granted ample time to complete required improvements to the property. ~ (ii) That due to non-compliance with conditions of approval the permit has been exercised in a manner detrimental to the particular area and to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. (iii) That the facts necessary to support every required showing for such entitfement does not exist since conditions of approval have not been complied with. VOTE; 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:00-3:16) ~ 06-17-02 Page 33 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 9b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04506 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Bann-Shiang Liza Yu, 5720 EI Camino Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118 AGENT: Reza Azarpour, P. O. Box 9800, Anaheim, CA 92812 LOCATION: 1733 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.92-acre having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street and approximately 100 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard located approximately 580 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Request waivers of a) required improvement of setback areas, b) fences and walls in interior lot line setback areas, c) minimum hotel parking requirements and d) hotel sign standard matrix to permit a 15Q-room, 6-story hotel. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-98 Approved Granted, in part SR8338GK.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced ltem No. 9 as Variance No. 2002-04506 (Readvertised), 1733 South Anaheim Boulevard, a request to permit a 150-room, 6-story hotel with waivers of: a) required improvement of setback areas, b) fence and wall requirements in interior lot line setback areas, c) ~ minimum hotel parking requirements, d) hotel sign standard matrix. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends Commission approve, in part, Variance No. 2002-04506, specifically waivers a), b) and c) pertaining to the required improvement of setback areas, fence and wall requirements, interior lot line setback areas and minimum number of parking spaces and denial of waiver d) pertaining to the maximum number and location of the hotel wall signs as set forth in the hotel sign standard matrix for the reason set forth in paragraph 24 of the staff report. Staff also recommends Commission determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the project. Applicant's Testimony: William B. Morris, 472 Estero Avenue, Morro Bay, CA, representing ATMI - Design Build, commented on the outstanding job staff and the City of Anaheim has done in helping them with such a complex problem and package. He states staff has put in hours above and beyond the call of duty and they have deeply appreciated it and would like to acknowledge their efforts by stating they are very special and publicly thanking them. He asked special consideration on the signage stating attachment a) represents the view as seen from Anaheim Boulevard and denotes the type of signage that they propose and the location of the signage, which is the upper right corner on the elevation. They understand the concerns staff has on the number of signage they originally asked for and are now asking for a special consideration. They would only put in finro signs as per the ordinance and the special consideration would be to allow them to put the signage on adjacent corners. In viewing the area photo on Anaheim Boulevard, they would have a sign as depicted, which would be in the upper right hand corner on the east elevation and they ask that Commission allow them to place a second sign on the north elevation at the far east corner. They understand that it would violate the ordinance in the sense that it would allow them to have signs on an • adjoining corner. The problems they feel that are particular to the lot is that it is a very narrow lot and given Redwood Inn and Peacock Suites versus their height limitation, they are effectively blocked from allowing a sign to be used that would be effective in another orientation. Allowing the signs on the 06-17-02 Page 34 JUNE 17, 2002 PL,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • adjoining corner would give them a view corner coming down I-5 Freeway heading south that would be a little longer than just a split second. It would give traffic a reaction time to be able to exit and to come on to the surface streets and their property without passing, heading south, not recognizing their location. Mohammad R. Azarpour, P.O. Box 9800, Anaheim, CA, representing Candlewood Suites, states Candlewood Suites operates worldwide and have set operation standards and they are obligated to follow those standards. Staff's denial of the project was based on daily servicing of the rooms, which he feels they cannot do because they are under obligation to follow Candlewood Suites state policy; if a guest stays four days, during those four days they would not have room services except for provisions of towels. The reason they do not service rooms as other hotels do is because they offer rates and amenities at a very good price whereas other hotels would charge higher rates. Candlewood Suites give lower rates in order to be affordable housing incentives for corporate accounts; people that travel and stay for two to three weeks in order to get lower rates. Therefore, they cannot afford to have daily maid service but do change towels. He states if they service rooms on a daify basis they would have a breach of contract with Candtewood Suites because if a guest stays at the Anaheim Candlewood Suites Hotel and is given full service but traveled northern California and did not get the same service they would question why Anaheim pertormed the service but the northern city did not and Candlewood Suites would close them down. Cities In Orange County; Irvine Candlewood Suites, Santa Ana Candlewood Suites and Garden Grove Candlewood Suites ail follow the same procedure, therefore they ask Commission to give them the permit to follow Candlewood Suites policy. Susan Kelley, 174 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing Peacock Suites Resort Ownership, states they definitely want to be a good neighbor but have a number of questions and concerns regarding construction related issues with the Candlewood Suites property: 1) As the property is being built, their concern is that construction would be entering on Anaheim Boulevard and Peacock Suites is a resort operation with a number of families who catch the tram to • go to Disneyland on Anaheim Boulevard therefore, they have concerns for the safety and protection of the guest. 2) Where would the entrance for the construction vehicles be for the project? 3) What would be the exact hours of construction? 4) In addition to noise there are concerns of safety with the number of families getting on and off trams during the early morning hours, afternoon and after 5:00 p.m. as it relates to traffic related to new construction. 5) The definition of fast track construction. Precisely what are the hours construction would be going on next door to their property as it would relate to concerns of weekends and evening hours when there would be a lot of family traffic, guests picking up and getting off trams and returning to Peacock Suites. 6) Relating to utilities, at the current time Peacock Suites electrical power supplies lighting on the parking area of the site as well as their irrigation system and the fire hydrant shutoff are on the construction site therefore, she asks how the developer is addressing those issues? 7) What is the exact distance of the setback from Anaheim Boulevard and Peacock Suites property line? They ask that the setback would be adequate so that the two buildings are not so close to each other that there is barely breathing room. 8) How tail would the fence surrounding the construction site be? 9) Is the description of the safety signage properly advising guest of the boundaries and where would ~ that construction signage be located to notify people that construction is going on? 06-17-02 Page 35 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10) The entire Peacock Suites Hote! is currently being painted therefore, how would they be impacted by dust and debris from the construction of Candlewood Suites property? 11) Peacock Suites flagpole is currently located on the construction site. Would the developer of Candlewood Suites fund the relocation of the flagpole to the Peacock Suites property? Commissioner Vanderbilt states he is curious because it seems a lot of the questions being raised would normally have already been taken care of. The applicant suggests they were interested in being a good neighbor, but he did not know if any communication has gone on between the applicant and the neighbor at this point. He asks if there has been any opening of negotiations with them regarding their construction. Ms. Kelley states there has been minimal communication at this point and while she desired not to be critical, there has not been any specificity as to the response to the particular items. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Morris states as a construction manager he basically does the building side and is therefore very comfortable with answering Ms. Kelley's questions. They are in the beginning stages and have not thought everything completely through, but they build these type projects aN the time. Currently, they are in the middle stages of one in Paseo Robles and they just finished one in Santa Ana, so they are very courteous in issues that keep their neighbors happy and in servicing the community. Therefore, regarding the questions: 1) In regards to access they would use Zeyn Street. He feels that would be best for Peacock Suites and everyone concerned. 2) The hours of operation fall within a City ordinance and he believes the City ordinance states 7:00 a.m. ~ to 5:00 p.m. 3) Fast track would be 6 days a week, including Saturdays. Fast track means they would start the parking structure as soon as the plans were approved for that portion while they are still under plan check for the wood frame three-story hotel structure that sits on top. 4) They are aware that Utilities are the first issues that have to be reworked. The City ordinances and the building permit approval process dictate they address those issues, relocate the utilities and get everything up and running without interference and shut down to neighboring businesses before they are allowed to go in and proceed. 5) They have a huge setback on the front beyond normal ordinance because the City of Anaheim maintained possession of 30 foot of property. Therefore, they are approximately 40 feet back where as they would normally be 20 feet. It would a!! be properly landscaped, maintained and gardened, maybe with a track coming through because it is a stopping point for the trolley and the future development by the City of Anaheim. 6) They would put up an 8-foot fence all around with screening and also appropriate safety signs so that everyone is made aware of what is going on. They would keep their openings onto Zeyn Street and pretty much isolate themselves from anything happening on Anaheim Boulevard, so that it would not be a conflict to Peacock Suites activities. 7) Dust control is always a vety key issue and tanker trucks are maintained onsite to keep the dust down. Their construction requires that they properly maintain adequate moisture in the soils for proper compaction and with the subject project that is a key issue therefore, they would be watching dust more closely than ever watched on other developments. • 8) They do not know why the flagpole is on their property, but will work with Peacock Suites and the City to try to relocate it. 06-17-02 Page 36 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSfON MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states he only raised the question because there appeared to be issues of shared power lines and shared irrigation and it seemed those questions would have been raised before the hearing. Mr. Morris states it is pretty well detailed in the package submitted to Commission. The issues were right up front and addressed very early on. It is their fault for not going across to their neighbors to explain what would take place however, it all depends on the fina! outcome of the Commission hearing what the next step would be. So in someway it may be premature to speak to neighbors about things that may never happen but staff addressed those issues early on. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he understands the applicanYs thinking with regard to having a sign on the north face of the buiiding because it would certainly help commuters drive visitors to the area and be able to locate the building. But since he travels south on Anaheim Boulevard and goes underneath the freeway quite often, generally his line of view is limited to the first couple stories of the building he sees in front of him and would probably be true with the subject building as well, once it is erected. Therefore, he asked if there is any possibility that instead of getting three wall signs, just have two and place one on the north side and not have one on the east side of the building. Mr. Morris states they were actually looking at the effect they would have driving the I-5 Freeway Corridor; the vision or window of opportunity to look at the building while driving down I-5 Freeway because when driving down I-5 Freeway and looking to the right, they could actually see pass Redwood Inn, a view corridor of the side of their building. The signage located there would give an indication of where they are with time to react and pull off without passing by, coming from the north heading south. Without a sign at the no~th wall no one would ever know they were there. Commissioner Vanderbilt understands about the north side but states he is referring to the east side. • Mr. Morris states the east side would handle traffic coming south heading north. Travelers would be abie to see them in time to have a reaction and to exit off onto Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if it would be from Katella Avenue or farther. Mr. Morris suggested he revisit the site to take a look at it. Commissioner Vanderbilt states it seems it is quite a distance. It is a Katella Avenue exit and an off ramp that is maybe one-half mile in length. That would only get you to Katella Avenue and then you would be obstructed by the Freeway structure until you come all the way out of the tunnel which gets you to Disneyway. So having some idea of how pertinent the sign is based on the purposes of location as opposed to advertising is what is interesting to him and he woufd like to fearn more about it. Commissioner Bostwick states they are allowed a sign on the west and the east side and asked about the possibilities of one on the north west corner, on Zeyn Street. Ms. Johnson responded in the past in the Anaheim Resort they have recommended approvaf of a couple of sign waivers where the wall signs have been on adjacent walls, provided that at no point were the two signs visible at the same time. She feels if the signs were placed as recommended by the applicant on the east side of the building and on the northeast corner the two signs would be visible at the same time. If he were to push the wall sign on the north side of the building farther west as possible so that they are not both visible at the same time, that would be consistent with the intent of the code which is to only have one sign visible at a time. Mr. Morris feels the Redroof Inn, because of its height, would block anything they would put at that location on the north side. So people in the motel Redroof Inn would be looking out their window at their sign and that would be about the limit of visual recognition of that sign. ~ Commissioner Bosfinrick asked if his height is the same as Redroof Inn. 06-17-02 Page 37 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Morris responded they are actually a little smaller than Redroof Inn. Commissioner Koos asked if they were an extended stay kind of establishment. Mr. Morris responded yes. Commissioner Koos states that he perceives their type of facility more as advertising. Mr. Morris responded it is on MapQuest and that is about the best one can do sometimes. Commissioner Koos doubts there are going to be very many visitors driving into the resort area trying to fnd a hotel and not think there were any there and suddenly say, "Oh, there are some hotels". So it would seem freeway traffic would not be a paramount source if one were driving off and going to stay in the Cottonwood Suites. He feels once a driver gets off the freeway they would have the south monument sign to provide for the local traffic that is already on the arterial road and thaf is what staff is trying to state. So, he cannot support it unless the applicant could provide him a compelling reason that there is something special about his property that he should be given that privilege because all the hotels probably want the same privilege on every wall, twice. Mr. Morris responded that was their initial plan and they have backed up to just getting two signs. Commissioner Koos states the City has really high standards in the resort area and it appears the applicant would be opening up that entire precedent issue. Unless it is really compelling he could not get passed it. He explained normally Commission goes through some sort of exercise such as line of sight, different vantagepoints, etc., to prove there is a real hardship. He asked Mr. Morris if he could give Commission something such as it is a real burden and no one would know he was there unless he had the sign on the north. ~ Mr. Morris responded when drivers are proceeding down I-5 Freeway they would have only two seconds of recognition for their hotel to be spotted. Commissioner Bristol referred to Ms. Kelly and Mr. Morris and states Mr. Morris is asking for a variance for the parking but over the weekend he spotted between 40 and 50 vehicles on the site and as recenf as this morning he counted between 40 and 50 vehicles on the site. He also stayed and watched people park and go into the Peacock Suites so because the applicant asked for a variance he wished to clarify whose parking is currently on the site. Ms. Kelly responded that their guests were currently parking on it but they realize they would no longer be able to do that. Mr. Morris responded what they have determined is that it is by convenience because if he were to walk into the parking structure he would see that the occupancy load of the parking structure was maybe a third empty. Guests prefer to park in the open lot and walk to the Peacock Suites versus drive to the end of the parking structure and utilizing it to its capacity. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he was stating Peacock Suites has ample parking. Mr. Morris responded it is ample parking if guests were to load the parking structure as it was designed. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that it would not effect the new site. Mr. Morris responded they could take all 50 cars at any given moment and find parking in the existing facility. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked staff to verify Mr. Morris's statement. 06-17-02 Page 38 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Johnson responded they checked the building records for the construction of the Peacock Suites Hotel and it was permitted by right. It went straight to the building and there is no zoning action on it, however, the building plans indicate they met the code required parking at the time of construction. Ms. Kelley responded it depends on the day of the week for that to be an accurate or an inaccurate statement because weekends are awful. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering, states they also checked on the occupancy of the hotel for specific dates and they verified the information. The amount was actually .7 per parking stall to .8. The new project provides similar to that and they conditioned them that if they exceed 90% of their occupancy (because some of them had 96% occupancy) they would have to provide valet parking. 7raffic & Transportation feel comfortable that they will have adequate parking because there is no other parking available anywhere within that area; neither on Anaheim Boulevard or Katella Avenue. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify the maid service in that somebody goes by to drop off towels on a daily basis which would allow monitoring in the rooms to see if there were a problem, etc., Mr. Azarpour responded yes, but having daily service for example, making the beds, changing the sheets, cleaning the bathrooms and the tubs, would contradict Candlewood Suites procedures, but they change towels everyday. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if somebody were to come in and see a large amount of trash that has accumulated or see a problem such as a leak, would that be taken care of. Mr. Azarpour responded sure, Candlewood Suites is not like other types of extended stay, it is a rea! stay. In the resort they are catering to the corporate as well as the leisure and that is why they have different • types of big suites for families. It is being done all the time worldwide in Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Irvine, Northern Ca(ifornia, Santa Clara, San Jose, Wichita Kansas, and New York. It is normal policy and something they have to do. They are totally different than other hotels, maybe one grade below the Residence Inn. He understands the reason for the condition and states a lot of the Candlewood Suites do not have 24- hour front desk service, except Las Vegas. It was in their minds before purchasing the land to have 24- hour service at the front desk because Las Vegas is a resort and they feel Anaheim is also a resort and people would be coming and going as early as 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Bostwick states the appficants have to realize that they may be a franchisee of Candlewood at the present time, but within two years they might be a franchisee for someone else and they may have different operating requirements. The permit goes with the land and the building and that is why the City has the requirement for maid service because they couid be a Hilton Suites tomorrow. The building and the operation are still in the City of Anaheim so Commission has to have that requirement. Ms. Johnson states in the Anaheim Resort when Commission last approved a hotel with kitchenettes, it was an extended stay type of hotel on Manchester and the condition for the daily maid service was added. Staff feels it is important and recommends that it be added to the subject project. She states there is an extended stay hotel which fronts on Zeyn Street and Clementine Street, a newly opened hotel, which also has kitchenettes. Staff has had some documented concerns with repair of the rooms and long-term stays that they are dealing with in Code Enforcement. It is a real concern and staff recommends approval of the condition relative to daily maid service. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify how intense the daily maid service would have to be. Would it have to be the full all out change everything type of service or is just some sort of daily maid service efficient. ~ 06-17-OZ Page 39 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Johnson states staff recommends typical daily maid service as service provided to any typical hotel. The intent of the resort is not to be a residential area and staff has had documented concerns at the extended stay which is literally across the street from the proposed hotel. Commissioner Koos states anyone could put a"do not disturb" sign on the door like anywhere else. Chairperson Arnold states he wants to make sure that they are not in the process of evaluating in great detail every little thing that is done in the room. The idea is they would have the typical kind of service one would expect where there is somebody coming in the room, making sure it is refatively cfean, remain safe and not becoming an ongoing living situation or that there are no problems arising. Ms. Johnson responds staff would not like to set a precedent where they are establishing a different level of daily maid service for an extended stay hotel versus another hotel. Staff's recommendation is that they provide daily maid service typical to any other hotel. Commissioner Koos asked if the Extended Stay America approval was not discretionary at the Planning Commission level. Ms. Johnson responded there was a final site plan for extended stay however the kitchenettes were permitted by right per the Specific Plan. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Commission could not place those kinds of conditions of approval on it. Ms. Johnson responded no, the final site plan was a Reports and Recommendations Item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ` Ms. Johnson states with regard to a couple of the issues pertaining to the dust and air quality, they are already covered in mitigated measures that are required for the project and the construction fencing is also required per mitigation measure. As far as construction access, it is determined at the time the construction plans are processed, primarily due to the traffic in the resort and the need to coordinate, especialfy if any lane closures are considered a part of it. Commissioner Koos asked staff if they felt because of what happened at the Extended Stay America, the Hotel Circle's Specific Plan needed to be tightened up at all. Ms. Johnson responded there is only one site left and certainly if it is the desire for Commission to consider, the Commission could initiate a specific plan adjustment to address any additional conditions. Staff is working with the Extended Stay property relative to the concerns they have had with the room and have been working with Code Enforcement and they have been very cooperative in working to resolve those issues. Commissioner Koos states it might be worth exploring as well as to go so far as to make it an ordinance of some kind to require daily maid service in that vicinity if it is becoming too much of a problem. The City has too much of an investment in that area to leave anything up in the air. Ms. Johnson responded if Commission so desires to initiate such a request then that would be consistent with the other hotels in the Anaheim Resort. Commissioner Bristol states he is surprised it is not currently an ordinance. Ms. Johnson responds the Hotel Circle's Specific Plan was the first of the specific plans in the area and they have refined the standards of the operating practices through the other two. ~ Commissioner Koos states he is prepared to follow staff s recommendation. 06-17-02 Page 40 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~' • - ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 1 person representing Peacock Suites spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted, in part, Variance No. 2002-04506 approving waivers pertaining to (a) required improvement of setback areas and (b) fence and wall requirements in interior lot line setback areas inasmuch as the submitted evidence does identify special circumstances with regard to the size of the property which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the Hotel Circle Specific P(an Zone as described in paragraphs (19) and (20) of the staff report dated June 17, 2002, and (c) minimum number of parking spaces based upon the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager's review and recommendation that the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate to serve the proposed project as discussed in the analysis described in paragraph (22) of the staff report dated June 17, 2002, and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002; and denying waiver (d) pertaining to the maximum number and location of hotel wall signs as set forth in the Hotel Sign Standard Matrix inasmuch as the submitted evidence does not indicate that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within The Hotel Circle Specific Plan Zone as • described in paragraph (21) of the staff report dated June 17, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (3:17-3:58) A 90-minute break was taken (3:59-4:09). ~ 06-17-02 Page 41 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVEDI 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 IREADVERTISED): (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04550) OWNER: Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: C 3, Attn: H. E Sampson, 24722 Avondale Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 23.1 acres having a frontage of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (Fairmont Private School). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 20, 1997 to expire June 20, 2002) to retain a maximum enrollment of 650 students for a previously-approved private school accessory to an existing church. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-99 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation SR8330KB.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 (Readvertised), 5310 East La Palma Avenue - Fairmont Private School, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 20, 1997 to expire June 20, 2002) to retain a maximum enrollment of 650 students for a previously-approved private school accessory to an existing church. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as recommended in the staff report without time limitations. Chairperson Arnold states Item No. 10 is somewhat related to Item No. 11 and he hopes to move through them together relatively quickly. ApplicanYs Testimony: David Jackson, 7975 Werrick Rd., Corona, CA, representing Fairmont Private Schools, states he has reviewed the staff report and they are very pleased with it. Part of the reason they are in Anaheim is because of the way they are treated and are able to work with staff, Planning Commission and the City Council. That is very helpful and why they have been there for the last 50 years. Therefore, he states he agrees and is very pleased with the report and is present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 06-17-02 Page 42 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the request for reinstafement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04550) to retain a maximum enrollment of 650 students for a previously-approved private school accessory to an existing church without a time limitation. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC94-147, PC97-26, 97R-70 and PC99-28 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the subject conditional use permit shall remain in effect only as long as it remains as an accessory use to the primary church user of the property (currently Vineyard Christian Fellowship). 2. That the property shall maintain conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 3. That any proposed freestanding sign on subject property shall be a monument-type not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and consistent with exhibits approved under Variance No. 2002-04372. Said sign shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine adequate lines-of-sight. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with • plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibit No. 3, and as conditioned herein. 5. That the school enrollment shall not exceed six hundred fifty (650) students at 5310 East La Palma Avenue. 6. 7hat a wrought iron fence enclosure of the playground shall be maintained where the fence is visible from La Palma Avenue; and that the remainder of the fence may be constructed of chain link. 7. That all sewer and storm drain improvements shal! be privately maintained. 8. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 9. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 10. That all existing mature landscaping shali be maintained and immediately ~ replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 06-17-02 Page 43 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11. That the parking lot shall be maintained free of debris or loose gravel at all times. 12. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 13. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicabie City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:10-4:12) • ~ 06-17-02 Page 44 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 11a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3506 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04562) OWNER: Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Attn: Craig Pahl, 5300-5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5340 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 23.1 acres having a frontage of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (Vineyard Christian School). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 [retroactive to May 2, 1997] to expire May 18, 2002) to retain a private school (pre-school through 8th grade) in conjunction with a previously-approved church. Continued from the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-100 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation SR8329KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3506, 5340 East La Palma • Avenue - Vineyard Christian School, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 [retroactive to May 2, 1997] to expire May 18, 2002) to retain a private school (pre school through 8th grade) in conjunction with a previously-approved church. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as recommended in the staff report without time limitations. ApplicanYs Testimony: Juergen Milczewsky, 3040 Saturn Street, Suite 201, Brea, CA, Architectural Engineer for Mclean & Schultz, representing Vineyard Christian Fellowship, states they have reviewed the comments and are in full agreement with them with a few minor corrections: 1) Page 4, Condition No. 1 is believed to be a typo. The staff report shows 480 students and the original approval was actually 490 students. He states it is a small difference but in a lot of respects they would like to see it stay the same, at least according to the literature they have. 2) With regard to the traffic study, it is their understanding the tra~c study only pertains to the original requirement from the original CUP for Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim which is not a new requirement. They did not realize it was on the requirements until they arrived however, a member of their team believes he has a copy of the Traffic Engineering report that was completed in 1992-1993. He asked for clarification that it pertains to that requirement, but if a traffic report exist, then thaf would fulfil the requirement. In other words, it would not be something they would have to do today if one was already done in the past. 3) The next issue is more of a grammatical issue, Condition No. 3, the very last sentence which states, ~ "30 days from the date of this approval" he asked that in lieu of the approval it would be from "the date of determination". 06-17-02 Page 45 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold asked staff to clarify paragraph No. 10, page 2, states "staff recommends this condition be deleted". Mr. McCafferty states staff had further discussions with the Traffic Engineering Division upon having the discussions with the applicants and modified those conditions but did not go back and modify the staff report. Staff would have to modify paragraph 10 to indicate they would not be deleting the condition. However, if the traffic study bears out that the traffic signal is warranted, the Traffic and Transportation manager would still want the signal to be installed. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that he is referring to a current study and not one done 10 years ago. Mr. McCafferty clarified that is correct. Chairperson Arnold asked staff to respond to the concern of 480 students versus 490. Mr. McCafferty states he checked the original resolution which is PC-92-65. Condition No. 3 states, the total number of students shall be limited to 480. Mr. Milczewsky presented a follow-up of the Planning Commission actions dated 4-27-98. Chairperson Arnold clarified it was the minutes, but the resolution would be the reference of concern. Mr. McCafferty concurred that the resolution is what governs the operating conditions. However, if the later resolution reinstated in 1998 modified the maximum enrollment, then that would be fine. He reviewed the document and clarified it was the minutes of the meeting and not the resolution. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify the number of students were not raised to 490 but ratherjust a ~ discussion point in the minutes. Mr. McCafferty clarified it was a statement from the applicant, Richard Banister, who indicated they would like to have 490 students. Mr. Milczewsky wished clarification on the statement made regarding the traffic study. Chairperson Arnold clarified paragraph 10, page 2, is inaccurate. Apparently after discussion with the Traffic and Transportation Manager, the Traffic and Transportation Department would like a current study to see if a signal is needed at the intersection of Brasher Street and La Palma Avenue. Mr. Milczewsky asked if Commission is requesting they provide a current updated study regardless of whether or not a study was done in 1993. Alfred Yalda, Transportation Principal Planner, Traffic Engineering Department, states it is going to be only a Tra~c Signal Warrant Study. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify the study would include a pedestrian study. Mr. Yalda clarified when a Traffic Signal Warrant Study is done a pedestrian study is included. Mr. Milczewsky states in the lifetime of the school there has been no one that has walked to school. Mr. Yalda clarified the study would be done at the intersection of Brasher Street and La Palma Avenue and their driveway is west of that intersection. As pact of the traffic study there are conditions they have to meet, but if the applicant would hire a Traffic Engineer they would be able to do it for them. They would do traffic counts and about 11 different warrants for traffic signals and one of them is pedestrian. ~ 06-17-02 Page 46 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Milczewsky states he would still continue with his request that the "approval" be removed and "determination" be placed in instead. Partly because the approval is ambiguous and he would like to clarify that from the date of the determination, would be the date that the traffic study is completed. Commissioner Bosfinrick clarified the applicant is referring to the bond, that it shall be posted within 30 days from the date of determination. Mr. Yalda clarified that is nat needed because once the traffic signal study is done and it meets the warrant within possibly 60 days, they have to have some kind of inechanism to assure that there is a traffic signal warranted for them to install it. He states whatever is agreeable with the applicant, they could work it out with them. Mr. McCafferty states the original staff report on May 18, 1992, as well as the original 1992 resolution states the total number of students shall be limited to 480. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04562) to retain the existing private school (pre-school through 8th grade) in • conjunction with a previously-approved church without a time limitation. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC92-65 and PC98-67 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1 and 3 were modified at today's meeting): 1. That the total number of students shall be limited to four hundred °'~,^~ {4~4~ ninety (490) and that regular school hours shall be limited to 8:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 2. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 52 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified mitigation measures. 3. That within 90 days of approval of this resolution, a traffic/pedestrian warrant study shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Brasher Street and La Palma Avenue, and beacon flashers for "twenty five miles per hour (25 mph) signs. Should the traffic study indicate that State of California warrants are satisfied, the traffic signal and flashing beacons shall be installed with one (1) year from the date of determination. Further, a performance bond in the amount approved by City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim by the property owner to guarantee installation of said improvements. The bond shall be posted within 38 60 days from the date of the determination. ~ 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are 06-17-02 Page 47 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, and as conditioned herein. 5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (4:13-4:27) ~ ~ 06-17-02 Page 48 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 12b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00075 July 29, 2002 12c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04554 12e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16371 OWNER: Island Investment, P. O. Box 8032, Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: Pelican Homes, Attn: Brian Johnson, 33971 Selva Road, Suite 135, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 1126 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 2.38 acres having a frontage of 286 feet on the east side of Euclid Street located 280 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00075 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04554 - Request to construct a 26-unit (previously 28-unit) detached one-family condominium complex with waivers of a) required improvements of private streets, b) maximum fence height, c) required setback from an arterial highway, d) minimum recreational/leisure area* and e) minimum distance between buildings. • * Waiver (d) has been deleted. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16371 - To establish a 13-lot, (4 numbered, 9 lettered), 26-unit (previously 28-unit) airspace detached one- family residential condominium subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8331 KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 12 as Reclassification No. 2002-00075, 1126 North Euclid Street, a request for reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to RM- 3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone or a less intense zone to permit a 28-unit detached one-family condominium complex with waivers of: a) required improvements of private streets, b) maximum fence height, c) required setback from an arterial highway, d) minimum recreational/leisure area and e) minimum distance between buildings to establish a 13-lot, (4 numbered, 9 lettered) 28-unit airspace detached one-family residential condominium subdivision. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends a continuance to redesign, although, staff is supportive of residential land use for the property and feel they can work cooperative with the applicant to make it a better and more livable project for the future residents. Applicant's Testimony: Brian Johnson, 1126 North Euclid Street, representing Pelican Homes, states he does not have a ~ problem with staff's recommendations but would like to try to get some position philosophy from Planning Commission as it relates to the site. One of the main situations is the critical intersection of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue as it relates to the reduction in the "net area" that could be 06-17-02 Page 49 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • developed. The Planning Commission in the past has adopted waivers of the critical intersection throughout the City in various locales. Also, the intersection at Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue is not within a 5 year CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) program that the City of Anaheim currently has. As a result of the extension into the site, the site is currently less on leisure recreational activity therefore, he understands where staff is coming from, but at the same time would like to get an idea where Planning Commission would like to go in relation to it. He states another issue staff believes Planning Commission has really been looking forward to is detached condominiums with relations to driveways and parking situations. Driveways add towards the density, and density in relation to the subject site is what he would like to arrive at a happy compromise on as it relates to what really sits on the site from a density and price standpoint. If he were to go to an attached product, it would not have to have a driveway but would cause other scenarios that are not compatible because most people would prefer to live in a detached house rather than an attached house. Mr. Johnson states he is trying to balance all of those things to find out what the best scenario would be to return to Commission with and not waste staff's, his architects and engineers as well as his own time. He would appreciate direction and feedback from the Planning Commission. Roslyn Biebelberg, 1192 N. Dresden St., Anaheim, CA, states she is in favor of the project. The property where she has lived for 20 years backs right up into the subject property and as far back as she can remember it has been a very ugly vacant lot. She and her husband would be delighted to have that kind of upscale housing backing their property and hopes Commission finds a way to make it happen. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Johnson states he met with WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development) on two occasions. The subject property is on the opposite side of the street of WAND's jurisdiction. WAND's jurisdiction • goes straight down Euclid Street. The first thing he did was to go see WAND figuring that would give him some direction as to which way he would go. WAND thought the project was wonderful. WAND would not show up and say the project is wonderful because they state, "we do not write letters of recommendation. If we like something we do not show up and oppose it". Commissioner Koos states it is rare to have someone come and speak in support of a project and wait for approximately 3 hours and he commended Mrs. Biebelberg. Commissioner Koos states it is a great site and there are some really huge opportunities. He concurs Mr. Johnson is right, they need to find out whether they are going to go one way or the other. Whether they would go single-family detached which is sort of a condominium, which are more like houses with very small lots. If that is the direction they should go in, they should definitely be looking at driveways, sidewalks, streets and no waivers, because of the fact it is a big parcel, square and it really would be hard for Commission to justify hardships on any of the waivers. However, if they go the other direction, it is all commercial corridor near office uses. The City is going through a general planning process in the area and the consultants identified the area for upscale housing and he feels the subject project fits in that definition and they could even afford to go higher density on the corridor, assuming it is of good quality. The area is very commercial and the only adjacent residential is other condos. Therefore, it would not disrupt a true, single-family neighborhood, which sometimes would bring opposition to those types of projects. There is an opportunity to get the project even more urban, in a good way. The City of Anaheim is looking for housing and units and the state of California states they need units. If the applicant could fulfil some of the units that would be great, but they have to be of a high quality. The Commission and the community are open to a lot of housing types as long as they are of high quality. It is a great opportunity and the applicant could set a standard for the City of Anaheim's commercial quarters near offices. Maybe the applicant could be a trendsetter in the corridor to create life for the area. The City needs more bodies that have disposable ~ income to fuel economic development for more restaurants. It has seen some of the areas suffer and deteriorate because there was not the income base to support it and maybe the applicant's product could 06-17-02 Page 50 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ help the City. He states if the applicant goes one direction, it would be totally different than the other direction but really could not be in the middle. Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant if he is planning singfe-story, double-story or three-story. Mr. Johnson responded he proposed two-story units. They would have to be two-story whether it is detached or attached because they would have to be able to get the density in. He states he was trying to keep the density down but now hears possibly there is an understanding for higher density and would take that into consideration. Commissioner Bristol referred to the site plan, Street F, shown as 24 feet, he states on that particular site plan the applicant is basically telling everybody they would have to park in the street. The project is proposed without driveways and envisioning the width of vehicles he feels there may be approximately 14 feet for a fire truck to get through because the street would be packed with parked vehicles. He has seen similar product in Mission Viejo and Aliso Viejo with the same street width but they are precluded from parking at all on the street because it is too narrow. He states it is almost like a small New Orleans type of thing because it is so cramped in. He concurs with Commissioner Koos in favor of driveways or if they would designate a place that could not be parked on and have specific areas where parking is permitted, maybe curb cuts or more parking in particular areas, but keep it off the street because there is no access. Otherwise, he could not see an emergency vehicle getting down the street and maneuvering at all. Mr. Johnson responded to a certain extent he agrees with Commissioner Bristol but he has also been through developments and seen where people do park their vehicles in their garages rather than storing equipment or turning it into a fourth or fifth bedroom and that cannot be controlled. • Commissioner Bostwick states he takes exception to that because it could be controlled. If they are going to do a condominium they could put it in the CC&Rs that the garages must be opened to vehicle parking. There are apartments in Anaheim Hills and even apartment complexes, which demand it. Garages are inspected every 6 months and if it is full of stuff other than a car, residents have to get it out. He feels it can be done. It would not be a condition because obviously if residents were going to have four cars then they would park two outside, but at least finro of them would be in the garage. Commissioner Koos states he did not want to design the applicant's project, but everyone is excited about it and if the applicant needs the density he could go 2%z stories and maybe front load the density closer to the street and then have it taper off to their property. He states there are a lot of options and staff is eager to work with the applicant. They are a great staff and the City is fortunate to have architectural consultants on hand. He would be inclined to support code waivers to get something that is really bold and fits in with the concept of high quality, higher density ownership housing that brings more life into the area. He is not encouraging variances, but is less inclined to do so on the one currently proposed (the detached condominium). Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify how tall they could go along Euclid. Mr. McCafferty responded the zoning they are requesting primarily could be finro-stories and the density of what they are proposing in terms of the zoning would be approximately 14%z dwellings to the acre. However, if Commission were supportive of a greater density, that would be the RM-2400 zone which would be 18 dwelling units to the acre. It would not have to go to 18 dwelling units per acre, but that would be the maximum threshold. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the general plan use designation would support that. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. • Chairperson Arnold asked what the height would be. 06-17-02 Page 51 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded all RM zones are similar in terms of height. The only time there is discretion is when there is senior housing because the CUP establishes that height. Commissioner Bosfinrick states the proposal by Redevelopment for Anaheim Boulevard had two off Mr. McCafferty responded it was the zone specific to Overlay Zone but if there were justification for waivers the applicant could go above two-stories. Commissioner Bristol states it is a big site and the applicant has an opportunity to do a lot of creative things but currently it did not look real creative. Mr. McCafferty states in terms of staff direction, if they are going to the higher density, that is the direction they would want to go and in the time where they continue, they would also have to readvertise the rezoning to the RM-2400 or a less intense zone. That would give the flexibility needed and would not take any additional time because during the continuance period staff would have it advertised. Chairperson Arnold states he is intrigued by Commissioner Koos' idea of the tapered effect; a little taller on the street front and tapered back gives the boulevard housing effect. Commissioner Koos states if the applicant wants to go towards the single-family detached condo that is fine but if it does not really pencil out and he needs to go the other direction that is also fine. However, everyone hopes it is really a top notched, bold and meaningful project that they could point to and state, "this is the kind of product we want that is higher density in this City. That is what we need more of." He states, "we need to be proud of these projects and look at each one as something we could build upon and say that is a good example of good housing". Mr. McCafferty states one example of housing that front on a major street is on Brea Boulevard near • Birch Street. There are townhouses that have a row house effect where they enhance the public right-of- way with street trees and paving and they actually walk out onto the sidewalk. He feels it could be a combination of something similar to that; tapered back to more traditional housing in the back, if that is something they would want to do. Commissioner Bostwick asked how many weeks were needed. Mr. McCafferty responded at least 6 weeks so that staff could readvertise and also get plans in time to look at them and advertise any additional waivers that might come out of that design process. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 29, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as recommended by staff in order to allow additional time for the applicant and staff to discuss potential design changes to ensure a high quality residential neighborhood; and to readvertise the subject item if necessary. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (4:28-4:45) ~ 06-17-02 Page 52 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Continued to 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT July 1, 2002 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04555 13d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2002-00007 OWNER: A{pine Development, 13702 Holt Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 AGENT: Carlos Patti, 4706 West 191 Street, Torrance, CA 90503 LOCATION: 847 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.33-acre having a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard located approximately 170 feet north of the centerline of Morava Avenue (EI Gaucho Market). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04555 - Request to permit a convenience market in conjunction with a delicatessen with the retail sales of beer and wine for both on-premises and off-premises consumption with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2002-00007 - To permit retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed convenience market and delicatessen.* * This request has been deleted. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. SR8334AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04555, 847 South State College Boulevard - EI Gaucho Market, a request to permit a convenience market in conjunction with a delicatessen with the retail sales of beer and wine for both on-premises and off-premises consumption with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed convenience market and delicatessen. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff learned when the meeting began at 1:30 that the site was incorrectly advertised. Staff used the advertising for a project that is coming up and appropriately advertised 300 feet around it. The posting of the site was performed but not the other advertising according to state law, therefore request a two-week continuance to correctly advertise. The applicant has been notified and asked to be present in case there are any other items Commission would want to discuss. Carlos Patti, 847 S. State College, representing EI Gaucho Meat Market, states they are purchasing the property and one of the conditions of purchasing the property is that the City approve the Conditional Use Permit. At this point he does not know what will happen with the sellers. The broker is talking to the sellers and to see if they could extend the escrow an additional two weeks. He asked if there were any other suggestions or whether they could get approval with pending people responding. ~ Chairperson Arnold states it is a very unfortunate situation and one he is sure staff is really disappointed and frustrated about, but Commission is legally required, for the purposes of public notice, to advertise it 06-17-02 Page 53 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the proper way. Also, the applicanYs escrow would be in question if they did it because the approval ~ would be in violation of state law. Public Testimony: Walter Friedman, 9 Goodyear, Irvine, CA, representing Purple Penunbra, LLC, the property immediately south of the proposed project, states his first point on his agenda was the fact that he never received notice in the mail as didn't any of the other neighbors. But fortunately, a day prior to today's meeting, late afternoon, he received a telephone call from a firiend who had noted the sign postings on the telephone poles. He went down and observed the postings and was quite distressed. First of all, as a neighboring property owner he is opposed to beer and wine being served next door because he already, routinely has to clean graffiti off of his building and does not want any adverse elements as related to alcohol. He had the opportunity to speak personally with three other neighbors who were not notified and all of them stated they were opposed to the establishment of a beer and wine facility at the subject property. Chairperson Arnold states the state law is an odd arrangement, an odd mix match of different provisions but the issue with respect to beer and wine, which the citizens are referring to, is not before Commission, it would actually be heard by the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC). There is a process where people could protest and raise concerns but actually is not a determination that Commission could make because this particular one is not within their jurisdiction. Mr. Friedman states he had multiple questions because the population for this district allows for eight on- sale and there already are eight on-sale. It allows for five off-sale and there already are five off-sale. So, there is no showing of convenience or necessity even from the municipal respective, irrespective of the alcohol issue. In looking at the police report on the property, the first page states, "an ABC determination would need to be made" and yet, Commission is saying that it does not need to be made therefore, he is confused. ~ Chairperson Arnold clarified Commission is stating that the ABC determination needs to be made. Certain types of licenses are within the jurisdiction of the local entity, which has been delegated by the City Council, and Planning Commission and other remain within the jurisdiction of ABC. Because of the crime and the number of licenses, etc., in the area, the police have indicated they will file with ABC. However, it is always a good idea if people have concerns to express their concerns. There will be a process with ABC. Alf Commission is looking at is whether a market is an appropriate land use for the subject site. Mr. Friedman states the applicant is purchasing the property based on the ability to get a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for beer and wine but he may want to make sure he gets it through ABC as well because he has not seen the posting on the property for that either. He really is concerned about the City allowing the establishment of an additional market or convenience store right next door to the property that he is involved with simply because his property already has an established convenient store and it has been there for decades. It would be very insensitive of the City to allow a new market to come in right next door with beer and wine. It seems preposterous from the standpoint of a necessity and convenience to the citizens in the neighborhood. He states, why do they need two convenience stores right next to each other, forget about the competition, it just does not make sense. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Friedman if he read what the proposal is for. Mr. Friedman responded yes, but it has everything. Commissioner Bristol states it has ethnic foods, etc., that are probably different than your store. Mr. Friedman responded correct, but why is it that up to 25% of floor space would be dedicated to beer and wine. • Commissioner Bristol states he needs to be fair if he chooses to make that statement. 06-17-02 Page 54 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Friedman states the tone of the application and what he read on the postings was that it is a catchall ~ for a convenience market with ethnic foods, on-sale beer and wine, on-sale food, off-sale beer and wine and any other thing that they could sell. He states there is no limitation or restriction to their activities, they entirely overlap with the activities which take place on his property. He feels the waiver of the parking requirement is inappropriate, that they are going to end up with parking issues and that they are going to park offsite or end up parking on the neighboring property. He spoke with the neighbors and they were in opposition. The tenant had some neighbors sign an opposition letter and there are 13 signatures on the letter. He presented the letter to Commission. Chairperson Arnold states it would be readvertised and the applicant would be present in two weeks and others could come and protest. The ABC Public Convenience or Necessity issue would be a separate issue conducted by the state. Mr. Friedman asked if Commission's approval were subject to ABC's approval. Chairperson Arnold states Commission's approval would be for the market and if the applicant could not get the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity they would not be able to sel{ beer and wine but could stifl have the market. Mr. McCafferty states Chairperson Arnold is absolutely correct in terms of the jurisdiction for determining public convenience or necessity due to the over-concentration of licenses. With regard to the land use permit (the CUP), Commission would basically be making two considerations through the CUP: 1) for the actual convenience market and 2) determining the compatibility for the beer and wine request. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that if they could not get the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity from ABC they could not sell beer and wine. ~ Mr. McCafferty clarified that is true because of state law. He asked Mr. Friedman whether the market he owns has off-sale alcoholic beverages or beer and wine at the current time. Mr. Friedman responded he has no interest in the business, only an interest in the real estate and his tenant does not sell beer and wine off-sale. He states he still would like clarification as to whether or not the Commission body would make any determination as to the necessity and convenience or another market, irrespective of the beer and wine issue. Chairperson Arnold states it would be as stating, "we have a McDonalds's on one corner so we will decide that a Burger King on the opposite corner is inappropriate because there are too many fast food restaurants". If a fast food is a legitimate land use from the impacts of surrounding land uses, Commission does not get into whether the market can bear it or not. Mr. Friedman states he thought when the application of business idea came under the realm of convenience market that there was an issue of Convenience or Necessity. Chairperson Arnold states only with respect to the alcohol sales, which it turns out, is not in Commission's jurisdiction. He asked the applicant to return to the podium and asked him if he understands there is a possibility that the ABC determination would not come through. Mr. Patti responded yes, they have spoken with ABC already. He states, "I think before we go any further maybe we need to explain what EI Gaucho is. We are totally different than any convenience store. The fact that it says convenience store indicates they did not know what to do with our market. We are primarily a meat market with a full deli and we specialize in Central American products; Spain and Italy. We do have your conventional food and cleaning products, but primarily we specialize in products that are truly ethnic. Along with that we bring to the City a fresh new thing. People can try products from Peru, Brazil, etc., we introduce to the City many different things. We do not compete with anybody. ~ There is an Albertson's located less than %2 mile. We are not competing with Albertson's. What we have is tota{ly different. We are a very small store but full service. We bring meats from Argentina and New 06-17-02 Page 55 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Zealand. We are totally specialized. It is not a Mama and Papa operation that deals with little things you • can find just for the day". Commissioner Koos asked if the one he owns in Redondo Beach is off of Inglewood Avenue. Mr. Patti responded yes. Commissioner Koos states he has been there a dozen times, "it is very different than what we would think in America as a convenience market. It is hard to explain". Commissioner Bristol asked if they would have empanadas. Mr. Patti responded yes, they would have empanadas. The 2500 square feet indicated for beer and wine is not necessarily true, actually the area with beer and wine consumption in the place is only approximately 400 square feet. It is a deli with tables where you grab an empanada and a beer, eat and out the door you go. Commissioner Koos asked if he was going to have a big screen television. Mr. Patti responded of course, and they are excited about coming to Anaheim and have been looking at Orange County for a long time. Commissioner Bostwick states the only problem he has with the proposal is the parking and access. He has gone to the location for years when it was Brownies Auto Parts and knows it very well and feels the people are not going to park in the back. What he would like for the applicant to do is work on his floor plan so that they could use the back door as an entry. That way, the people would park in the back and enter into the back into the delicatessen store area. That would help the business and help the . neighborhood with parking. There is no street parking and the first three spots up front would go really fast. It was fine with Brownies Auto Parts because most people have their parts delivered, but with the subject type of operation, to get the people to realize that there is parking in the back and utilize it, he should make the back door the point of entry. Chairperson Arnold states make it a significant entrance. Mr. Patti responded absolutely, but the problem is most of the service is in the back; the electricity, gas, etc., all are pretty close to the trash enclosure. That would put them towards the end of the building but then it would really take into the area they have allocated for the kitchen. He states they thought about it and that would be something they personally would like to see, but he cannot quite figure it out. Commissioner Bostwick states there is a door on the backside and maybe he could move the bathroom and create a hallway through there. Mr. Patti responded they would look into it. Commissioner Bostwick states Mama Cozza's has that type of entry. From the parking lot in the back, there is a hallway by the bathrooms that comes into the restaurant. Commissioner Boydstun states Tony's Deli has entry through the back door because their parking is in the back. THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN. • 06-17-02 Page 56 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition, and a petition was received with 16 signatures in • opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 1, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff in order to correctly advertise the item. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (4:46-5:05) i • 06-17-02 Page 57 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 14a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 Approved 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04553 Granted OWNER: Chung Rho, 20439 Cunningham Place, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: James Hahn, 10042 Lampson, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 825 North Euclid Street. Unit F. Property is approximately 0.94-acre having a frontage of 172 feet on the west side of Euclid Street located 130 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue (K & J Nutrition). Request to permit a WIC (Women, Infant and Children) convenience market within an existing commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-101 SR8326AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 14 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04553, 825 North Euclid Street, Unit F, K& J Nutrition, a request to permit a WIC (Women, Infant and Children) convenience market. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval as conditioned in the staff report. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold states it looks like a great pro~ect. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the parking lot that services the surrounding businesses always seems to be really full. Sometimes he sees limousines parked in the parkway because the restaurant sometimes has parties so he is sure in the evening the place is really impacted. The staff report indicates the hours a~e until 7:00 p.m. and that is helpful, but still he has concern about there being enough parking to work with. Mr. McCafferty states the use requires the standard retai{-parking requirement, 5'/2 spaces per thousand. It is not a higher impacting use such as the existing restaurants in terms of parking. He feels a good portion of the customers to the convenience market are either going to be mass transit or would walk to the site therefore, staff felt comfortable that it would not further contribute to the parking impact on the site. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states Condition No. 16, listed on page 6 of the staff report related to an encroachment license, could be deleted. They found the sign was put up with building permits and at that time it was not within the public right-of-way. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, • Class 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. 06-17-02 Page 58 JUNE 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04553 (to permit a WIC convenience market within an existing commercial retail center) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 17, 2002, with the following modification: Deleted Condition No. 16. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (5:06-5:08) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:09 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 1, 2002 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR AN UPDATE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, LlBRARY BLOCK MASTER PLAN AND THE PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE; AND REVIEW FOR THE APPOINTMENTS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON AND A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: Pat Chan er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 06-17-02 Page 59