Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/03/17~J cll! ~C4 ~. ~ ~NEIM P c,~ l~~ 0 D City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday, March 17, 2008 ~~~ o Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: • Staff Present: Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Dave See, Senior Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner Darrell Gentry, Contracted Planner Sandip Budhia, Associate Civil Engineer Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 27, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MARCH 17, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 12 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Karaki • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates: Commissioner Eastman • Adjournment Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas - Minutes\2008 Minutes\2008 M i n u tes\AC 031708. d oc MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar item 1A and 1B as recommended by staff. Item 1C was pulled for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ITEM NO. 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning • Commission Meeting of March 3, 2008. (Motion) ITEM NO. 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2008. (Motion) • Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Eastman and Faessel abstained as they were not present for the entire meeting 03/17/08 Page 2 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~fEM NO. 1C CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved, with final (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND architectural elevations TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17175 to be returned for staff (TRACKING NO. SUB2008-00055) review Owner: The Vineyards Apartments, LLC 4901 Birch Street Motion: Eastman/Faessel Newport Beach, CA 92660 Applicant: Ron Cole VOTE: 7-0 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 5fi01 East Oranpethorpe Avenue: Property is approximately 13.3-acres, having a frontage of 555 feet along the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and located 460 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Request for review of final elevation plans and colors and materials Project Planner: for an attached residential condominium conversion subdivision. skoehm@ananeim.net • (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairman Buffa opened this item with a Commission discussion. Commissioner Eastman stated that the Commission had discussed during the preliminary hearing the architectural changes that were being made to the exterior of this project. The Commission was pleased with some of the changes but had suggestions with regards to the straight roofline. Commissioner Karaki suggested a way to improve the roofline that would tie in with the actual southwest architecture of the original roofline with the tile. Commissioner Karaki suggested that the foam cornice be deleted from the plans and replaced with a finish treatment which compliments the existing fascia and rafter tail at the pitched roof. Chairman Buffa asked if he would extend that line everywhere there was a flat roof. Commissioner Karaki stated that it would be everywhere they proposed the foam trim. Chairman Buffa stated that she wasn't present for the preliminary discussion but as she reviewed the plans her observation was the light fixtures have a distinct 1980's look. She wondered if the applicant could change the globes. commissioner Eastman stated that the light fixture issue was discussed when they approved this project. 03/17/08 Page 3 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES airman Buffa asked the applicant if he had any comments. Ron Cole, 4901 Birch Street, Newport Beach, stated that he directed his architect to do the best he could with the pallet that was provided. He was fond of the cornice but understands that it does not tie into the existing architecture. He could work on this issue with the architect. He was under the impression that the Commission did not want to extend the roof line of the the roof. He was not sure if it was the foam trim they were talking about. He asked if this could be clarified. Commissioner Karaki stated that the change would be everywhere they proposed foam trim on top of the building. It would look the same but with a finish treatment which compliments the existing fascia and open rafter tail. I\/Ir. Cole stated that he could work with his architect to make that change. With regards to the light fixture's top, he recalls the discussion but the condition, as it was written, did not make a reference to that so it was not something they focused on. There are a number of light poles, and with the age of the light poles, he is not sure they would be able to switch out the globes because it might require them to switch out the entire units. Chairman Buffa stated that she did not have strong feelings about the light fixtures and would not ask him to go to great expense. She stated that they were his apartments. He was the one leasing the apartments and if he could lease them with less than beautiful light fixtures that would be his smess. If it works that would be great but she wouldn't want him to invest a huge amount of money st because the globes are round. Commissioner Eastman asked if they approved this project for a condo conversion. Mr. Cole replied they did. Commissioner Eastman stated that the change of the light fixtures may be something to consider because it would appeal to a very discriminating future buyer. The light fixtures would make it look like a new development. It was his decision and they wouldn't impose that on him. Mr. Cole agreed and would work with his architect on the roofline recommendation. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Eastman stated that she was comfortable with the revisions suggested and that the applicant was willing to work with the staff. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve Item No. 1 C. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. hairman Buffa clarified to the applicant that the final architecture elevations would come ~ack for staff review. 03/17/08 Page 4 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~blic Hearing Items: ITEM N0.2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.2007-00004 Owner: P A Poon & Son Inc. 16841 Marina Bay Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Applicant: Renaissance Pacific Properties LLC Robert Kim 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (the vacant Toys R Us site : Property is approximately 4.8 acres, having a frontage of 382 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and located 252 feet south of the centerline of Wilken Way. • Request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and RP Harbor Properties A21, LLC and P.A. Poon and Son, Inc. for a mixed use project consisting of a 102- room hotel, with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on the western 1.5-acre portion of the project site adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, and a 191-unit, 3 to 5 story condominium complex, including nine live/work units, on the eastern 3.3-acre portion of the project site. Continued from the February 20, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. Request withdrawn by applicant Motion: Romero/Velasquez VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: dsee@anaheim.net Chairman Buffa stated that the applicant has submitted in advance of this hearing a request that this item be withdrawn. She asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to withdrawal this item according to the request from the applicant. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None • (This item was not discussed) 03/17/08 Page 5 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EM NO.3 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND Eastman DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 200$-00039 Owner: GardenWalk LLC Applicant: Bruce Sanborn 13 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 321 West Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 19.3 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Clementine Street, having approximate frontages of 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713-1717 South Clementine Street) and 800 feet on the south side of Disney Way. Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit on-premises sales and consumption of beer and wine within a multi-plex movie theater (Cinemapolis at Anaheim Gardenwalk). Environmental Determination and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2008-36 Approved, modified Condition No. 16 VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• dherrick@ anaheim. net Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated a modification to Condition No.16, pertaining to the moveable devices. A device pre-approved by the Police Department and Building Department must be installed to prevent under aged theatre goers from entering the 21 and over section of the theatre. An adult employee shall be stationed at the same location as the device; such device shall not obstruct any required existing of the theatres. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Bruce Sanborn, Garden Walk Cinemas, LLC, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, stated that he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa commented that she has been in theatres that sell beer and wine and they usually have an expanded food menu. She wanted to know if they would have an expanded food menu or if 't would be typical movie theatre snack items. r. Sanborn replied it would be typical movie theatre snack items. 03/17/08 Page 6 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES hairman Buffa re-iterated that they would not have pre-packaged sandwiches or other pre-packaged ood items. Mr. Sanborn replied that the Gardenwalk has many different food outlets available for that type of food. Commissioner Velasquez indicated that the Commission has received a letter of opposition and a petition from people that do not live in the City of Anaheim. The people are concerned about alcohol being served in theatres. The main concern is preventing minors from drinking in a movie theatre. She asked the applicant if they operate other theatres that serve alcohol. Mr. Sanborn replied no. Commissioner Velasquez asked if this would be the first time this type of theatre has been done. Mr. Sanborn stated they are the original owners of Cinemapolis. They have operated that theatre for 10 or 11 years and now planning to open a new complex in the Resort. If anyone was familiar with their business they would know they are family friendly. They have a great reputation in the community for family business and don't anticipate changing. Commissioner Velasquez stated that, by definition, the City would not allow the over 21 section to be family friendly. Her concern is that kids will try to hop from one theatre to the other once they are side the movie theatre. The movie theatre barriers have attendants asking for ticket stubs but omehow people pay for one movie and hop to other movies. She asked the applicant how his operation would prevent minors from going into the over 21 section to drink. Mr. Sanborn stated that he was not familiar with theatres that try to keep kids from sneaking into PG movies or R rated movies because the theatres do not have enough staff to stand at every door. This theatre is different in that it functions as two theatres. He pointed to the power point presentation to show how the theatres were separate from each other, with a distinct lobby for the 21 and over theatres. He stated that the back exit, where an adult employee would be permanently stationed would prevent minors from going in that area. The people that would want this experience and buy tickets could go through and people without tickets would not be able to get past the employee guarding the area. Commissioner Velasquez stated that her concern was related to the moveable devices. She wanted to know if it was just a rope. She asked the applicant to describe what the moveable devices would be. Mr. Sanborn replied that they were proposing to have a unit mounted in the wall and stretched across the other side of the corridor. He stated that it would almost be like a fence. The police were concerned that while someone is talking and giving information someone might be able to sneak in. It would be harder for this to happen with this fence. •omeone who would sneak in is one thing but they would still have to buy alcoholic beverages and could not do that because they would not be old enough. He asked if that answered her question with regards to the barrier. 03/17/08 Page 7 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •ommissioner Velasquez wanted to make sure that children were not able to be in the over 21 section. She understands that they are not allowed, however, she is concerned that children would try to be in that area. Mr. Sanborn replied that if children sneak into the over 21 section they would be asked to go back to a regular movie theatre. He again stated that it was very important that this does not happen. He described that the ribbons acting as a fence is one way to make sure it is a barrier while still maintaining a required exit. He stated that they could not build a wall with a door because then the exiting would not meet Building Code. Commissioner Velasquez stated that if the Police Department felt comfortable with the device that it was acceptable to her. Commissioner Faessel stated that he was supportive of this project. He was concerned regarding the patrons under 21 years of age. He stated that the applicant delineated that everyone would come in one main entrance and the patrons that were interested would go down a long hallway to the other theater section. His concern was not with the over 21 section, his concern was the restroom area. Commissioner Faessel pointed out the middle restroom. He stated that he understands that the area is open to both the over 21 section as well as the general section. Mr. Sanborn stated that the restroom area would be used by both sections only if they were not using six theatres. ommissioner Faessel stated that if at some point they were to use five theatres with over 21 adults they would still have the ability to have interchange in the restroom area with patrons who may have a glass a wine in their hand and children from one of the other theatres. He asked the applicant if that was correct because this is the only restroom. It would be that way unless the patrons are directed to the very far restroom south of the main entrance. He was troubled by the restroom area where they would have across-over of both types of patrons. He sees this as an opportunity to create a problem. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative, stated that only the two theatres were being used for alcohol and the stanchion device is moved back and patrons were to use the restroom, as the City has indicated on the conditions, there must be a sign on the stanchion that there is no alcohol past that point. For example, if someone had to go to the restroom, and not all six theatres were running, they would not be allowed to bring the alcohol into the hallway to go use the restroom. The alcohol would have to stay within the designated area. This is the way the City has conditioned it. If all six theaters were being used and it is open then that restroom would be designated just for those six theatres. People would be free to walk around with their alcohol. If he moves it back making it a mixed use, there would be no alcohol past that stanchion. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this item. ~risa Rodriguez, resident, 1261 N. Placentia, Anaheim, stated that she works for anon-profit agency. She has had the opportunity to work with a lot of youth and young adults in regards to alcohol and alcohol prevention projects. When this project was brought to her attention she did not think it was a 03/17/08 Page 8 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~od idea that alcohol was going to be sold in a movie theatre. It was not a good idea because she works with young adults who tell her if they want to have access to alcohol or tobacco products they will find a way. In the movie theatres minors would find a way to move from theatre to theatre. She is concerned because no one knows the level of an individual alcohol tolerance and if people are trying to enjoy a movie and there are disruptions by individuals who have had too much to drink, it would be disturbing. She thinks this idea is unique and it would be just as unique if alcohol was not being served at this venue. As an Anaheim resident she urged the Commission to think independently and stop alcohol services in the cinemas. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa asked how they would monitor inappropriate behavior or disturbing behavior in the theatre from patrons who are drinking. Mr. Sanborn stated that they would remove them from the premises. In the Gardenwalk there are a few restaurants with bars. The project would be no different than the Anaheim Stadium. When people go to a ball game they can get an alcoholic beverage and sit with their kids watching the game. The only difference would be that they are at the movie theatre and parents would not be able to sit with their kids while having an alcoholic beverage. ~he idea is that adults who do not want to sit with patrons under 21 can enjoy a dedicated space. If adults become more disruptive than the teenagers with their cell phones the idea would not work. They have a vested interest in trying to make things work. The market place would drive this new idea. They will not sell to minors and they will not be allowing them to sip a drink from their parents, which could happen at a restaurant, but they will not let this situation happen because they could lose their license. Commissioner Agarwal asked if they would be showing the same movie as the over 21 theatre in another theatre at the same time. Mr. Sanborn anticipated they would be doing that at times. Commissioner Agarwal wanted to know if the people who did not want to sit with the people who are drinking could sit in another theatre and watch the same movie, the same day, at approximately the same time. Mr. Sanborn replied that is the idea. He stated that it was a function of the popularity of the picture. It would be the studios willingness to have multiple screens. It would not be all of their decision. Commissioner Agarwal asked if they would have exclusive showing in those two or six theatres. r. Sanborn stated that at times there may be fourteen different films playing on fourteen separate ~ms. It would all depend on the time of year and the availability of the films. In the summer there might be films on three screens and in the winter there might not be many, that is the way the business is. 03/17/08 Page 9 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~mmissioner Agarwal wanted to know if there would be any other attraction to these theatres besides having to be over 21 and the availability of alcohol. He thought exclusive showing would be one other attraction. Mr. Sanborn stated if they did that, they would be moving the picture around so that it can be available to everyone. If it is a PG film they would not play in a 21 and over movie theatre, they would have to move it around. Commissioner Velasquez stated that reference was made with regards to the Angel Stadium or restaurants where drinking is allowed. Parents know that there may be people drinking at a game or restaurant and it is their choice to go with their kids to the bathroom. However, at movie theatres it is common practice for parents to drop off their kids. When they drop off their kids those kids will be exposed to people drinking and parents may not realize that. She asked how parents would know there is alcohol being served at this theatre. She thinks the parents should be aware of this situation so that they could have the option to drop off their kids or not. She is not opposed to this project but wanted to make sure that the City could do all they could to protect kids. Mr. Sanborn agreed that the parents should have this option to drop their kids off there. He stated that the kids were not going to be exposed to anybody drinking. ommissioner Velasquez stated that she was talking about people going to the bathroom were eople had been drinking one too many. It is the parent's decision to drop them off but how will they know people are allowed to drink at this theatre. If people go to a restaurant they know people are allowed to drink in the restaurant but then they can go with their kids to the bathroom if they wanted to. Mr. Sanborn was not sure he understood her question. He stated that the parents can go to the bathroom with their children at this theatre. Chairman Buffa clarified the question. The question is what will be done to make it evident to parents that there is the potential for people to consume acholic beverages in the theatre. She asked, what if anything will be done in the advertising or signage outside to let people know that is happening. Mr. Sanborn asked if what they meant was to let people know that there is a special section. Chairman Buffa replied that is correct. Commissioner Velasquez commented that this is not common practice and it is not a bad idea but people would not know what to expect when they drop off their kids at this theatre. Mr. Sanborn stated that they thought of this as two theatres. When the parent's drop their children off at the movie theatre it would not be the theatre with the acholic beverages because they are physically separated internally and it would be as if it were a separate business. Commissoner Karaki agreed with the applicant. There are two different theatres, with two different entrances, and two different restrooms. He does not know what else they could do to prevent the 03/17/08 Page 10 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~Js going there. There is one entrance for the adults to the theatre and one entrance for the general public. There is security and they have rules. If they have two theatres running they are not allowed to cross with the drinks to the restrooms. The applicant has taken many precautions in this project to protect the kid's safety and well being. Commissioner Velasquez stated her concern was specifically and only the shared bathroom issue. Commissioner Karaki agreed. He stated that this is better controlled than Angel Stadium or a restaurant. He stated that signage and advertisement help but this is functionally two different theatres. Chairman Buffa stated that she thinks the applicant did not perceive this situation as a concern. Parents will figure out if they wanted to drop off their kids at this theatre. They could make a choice and take them somewhere else. People will figure it out. Anybody who would drop their kids off at the Gardenwalk unattended should know that there are many venues that serve alcohol. Parents will know there is alcohol on the premises. Commissioner Romero stated that they were being very critical of this applicant because there are many businesses that serve alcoholic beverages. It is a new business and they have not seen this before. Adults could go to a restaurant or the ballgame where there are teenagers and order a drink if they wanted to. He believes that this applicant has taken extra precautions and he is supportive of this project. It is new idea for the City of Anaheim and the Garden Walk and he believes that it is ~ing to be a great experience. Commissioner Velasquez stated that she like the idea, the City needed something new and she thought it was a perfect fit. It is new and that is why she needed clarifications. The project has the sign off from the Police Department so she is comfortable with the proposal. Chairman Buffa commented that she has been to theatres in other parts of the country where alcoholic beverages are served and has never experienced a problem. She thought it was a great idea. She is thrilled that the Garden Walk added a Cinema. She thinks it will energize the whole shopping center and agrees that it is good to try something new at this location. Commissioner Eastman commented that she also was supportive of this project. It's going to be a wonderful part of the Resort District experience. It is great that there is a theatre for adults only. She is supportive of this project. Commissioner Karaki stated that he was supporting this project as well and the City needs an experience like this is the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve Class 1 Categorical Exemption and determination of public convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00039 with the changes to Condition No. 16 that was read into the record by the staff. race Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. 03/17/08 Page 11 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •PPOSITION: 1 person spoke, 1 letter and 1 petition were received in opposition to the project. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (2:42 to 3:19) ITEM N0.4 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05295 Owner: Michael R. A. Bagguley 701 Concord Glendale CA 91202-2811 Applicant: Bruce Evans • 426 Culver Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90293 Romero Location: 3020 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage of 268 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 255 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard (7-11 Market}. Request to permit the sales of beer and wine in an existing convenience market for off-premises consumption. Environmental Determination and Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-37 Darrell Gentry, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: dgentry@anaheim. net Bruce Evans, 426 Culver Boulevard, Playa Del Rey, 90293, stated that he worked with staff and it is one of the best experiences he has had working with a city. He stated that in 2005, the Commission ~pproved the beer and wine use, finding that the use would not adversely impact the surrounding nd uses. It appears that the Commission was correct. 03/17/08 Page 12 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •is notes reflect that in December 2006 he spoke with Vice Officer, Michele Irwin. She reviewed calls for service for this location and indicated that the calls were not excessive and the operator had a good reputation with the Anaheim Police Department. The conditions that were in the original Conditional Use Permit to assure that the premises did not cause any nuisances are in this new CUP. These include restrictions on the sale of single containers, limits on advertising of alcohol, and limits on the floor space allocated to alcohol. His clients were okay with the continuation of those conditions. He is available to answer any questions. He asked the Commission to renew this CUP. Commissioner Eastman stated that she was one of the Commissioner's who gave the okay last time the applicant was in. They discussed the plantings in the pots on the north side of the building and she indicated that the current pots did not meet the expectations of the Commission. She thought they needed to have better plant material in order to provide greenery against the wall. Mr. Evans stated that he would let the franchisee know. Commissioner Eastman stated that it was part of the previous conditions of approval that they would provide green relief in that area. Commissioner Buffa asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving Class 1, Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05295. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:19 to 3:23) • 03!17/08 Page 13 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EM NO.5 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND Karaki CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05296 Owner: Dong Soon Park 715 South Webster Avenue #17 Anaheim, CA 92804 Applicant: James Barkley 1523 West Katella Avenue #106 Anaheim, CA 92802 Location: 1523 West Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 0.88-acre, located at the northeast corner of Bayless Street and Katella Avenue, having approximate frontages of 125 feet on the east side of Bayless Street and 252 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue. Request to permit a tattoo parlor within an existing retail center Environmental Determination and Conditional Use Permit • Resolution No. PC2008-38 Darrell Gentry, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: dgentry@anaheim.net James Barkley, Fanatic Tattoo, 1523 W. Katella Avenue # 106, stated that when they first opened up Fanatic Tattoo he went to the Planning and Zoning Department at the City of Anaheim and asked if it would be possible to open up a tattoo parlor. The City said it would be no problem and issued a business tax certificate. Fanatic Tattoo has invested over a hundred thousand dollars into this business. He realized, after receiving letters from the City, that the business needed a conditional use permit. He was okay with that. He has an extensive background with the medical industry. He was a Special Forces Medic in the U.S. Army and runs his business with the same approach using proper procedures, cleaning disinfecting, etc. He stated his understanding that in the City of Anaheim permanent cosmetics is not a problem a CUP is not required for that. A conditional use permit is required for tattooing. It is one and the same procedure, same needles, same pigments, and same risks. He asked why it would not be approved if you can do permanent cosmetics in the City of Anaheim. ~hairman Buffa stated that she could not explain that but she wasn't sure they needed to worry about it. She understands his frustration when he gets mixed signals at the front counter at the Planning Department. The City is working to prevent that from happening again. 03/17/08 Page 14 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES airman Buffa asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Faessel commented that his business was currently operating from noon to midnight. He asked if this was correct. Mr. Barkley stated that was correct. Commissioner Faessel wanted to know how much of his business was done after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Barkley stated that 10:00 was the last rush and at midnight people are finishing up their work. His independent contractors leave around 12:30 after the premises have been cleaned. Commissioner Faessel asked if it was common in this type of business to stay open till midnight. Mr. Barkley stated that it was very common. Commissioner Agarwal commented that it was mentioned that Mr. Barkley had a background in Medics. He asked Mr. Barkley if he would be the one doing the body piercing. Mr. Barkley stated that he does the piercing and also Ms. Amy Russell who was taught by him, she also does piercing. commissioner Agarwal asked if Amy had the same background as him in medics. Mr. Barkley stated no. Commissioner Agarwal asked if she needed any special background in medics to do body piercing. Mr. Barkley replied that the State of California has no guide lines, which he is hoping he could bring to the City of Anaheim, on regulations that are useful in this industry. Anyone can pay $25 and call themselves a tattoo artist or body piercer. This is something he feels is wrong. He would like to push for State regulations. For example, to be a beautician to cut hair there is a State board test that has to be given. In the tattoo and body piercing industry there is nothing like that. It bothers him because he has been doing this since he was 17 years old and now he is 26. He served the country and he applies a military structure to something that people don't perceive as the everyday norm, body cosmetics. He wants to show society that there needs to be some structure and procedures on how to properly disinfect. Commissioner Agarwal hoped he would continue supervising his facility under his guidance so that there would not be any mishaps. Sam Haycraft, Hukno Buddhist Temple, 1501 West Katella, stated that this property is adjacent to the tattoo parlor. He objects to the tattoo parlor. ~le stated that the Temple includes a residential building that is adjacent to the tattoo parlor. The Temple's three buildings occupy the major part of that block. The Temple is the most imposing structure in that neighborhood and is a very significant part of the environment. In the Temple there 03/17/08 Page 15 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~re activities that consist of summer camps for children. A lot of these children sleep in the building that is adjacent to the tattoo parlor. They have had issues with noise. He asked if staff had any police reports or complaints related to this address. Chairman Buffa stated that generally they don't have that information but in this case they do have the information. Staff could address this question. Mr. Gentry indicated that there has been no specific police reports filed against the tattoo shop. Mr. Haycraft stated that, in addition to the children's camps, they feel that clientele coming in at 10:00 p.m. for business at the tattoo parlor is detraction for the parent's that visit the Temple. The other activities of the Temple are meditation and they have had noise issues. Other neighbors have had noise issues. These are issues that have interfered with the children's sleep and meditation practices that go on in the Temple. This also affects other parts of the congregation that come in for meditation practice and Dharma lectures, all of which are conducted on the premises. He feels that the Temple represents a significant contribution to the neighborhood. He does not think any other tattoo parlors are adjacent to churches or schools. He wondered if that is taken into consideration at all. He feels this is detrimental to the operation of the Temple. He stated that his attorney is present and he does not have anything else to say. Chairman Buffa asked what kind of noise problems they had. ~r. Haycraft replied they had fireworks and disruptive behavior in the parking lot. He was not sure if it was the tattoo parlor patrons, but they came from the area. Chairman Buffa wanted to know what he meant by fireworks. She wanted to know if he meant firecrackers. Mr. Haycraft stated that in mid-summer around the 4th of July there were issues with fireworks. Chairman Buffa asked if it was people making noise in the parking lot late at night. Mr. Haycraft replied yes. It was not an everyday thing. Commissioner Eastman stated that there was also a market in the center. She wanted to know if Mr. Haycraft knew the hours of operation for the market. She asked if it was open past 10:00 p.m. Mr. Haycraft stated that he thinks it is 10:00 but he is not certain. Commissioner Eastman stated that she was trying to figure out if he could attribute the noise issue specifically to this business or if it could be coming from other businesses. Mr. Haycraft stated that people who shop at the market after 10:00 at night are usually in a hurry to ~et home and not celebrating. Mr. Barkley stated that the market closed at 9:00 p.m. and is open 7 days a week. 03/17/08 Page 16 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~mmissioner Faessel asked if Mr. Barkley knew what time the water store closed. Mr. Barkley stated that the water store close approximately around 8:00 or 8:30 depending on the day. Commissioner Faessel asked staff and the applicant to clarify the relationship between the tattoo parlor and the adjacent Temple, as depicted in the Power Point presentation. Staff clarified that the tattoo parlor is the closest shop to the Temple building. Commissioner Faessel asked, based upon this information, how the public gained access to the Temple residential building. He asked if they had access through the same parking lot as the tattoo parlor. Mr. Barkley believed the access to the Temple was on Ninth Street. He stated that there was no access from the commercial parking lot to the Temple residential. He stated that between the Temple structure and their building is a 12 inch concrete wall, which is next to a six foot grass walkway, and they also have another concrete wall with foliage. When it comes to noise complaints it puzzles him because tattoo machines run on three to four volts. Katella Avenue is one of the busiest streets in Anaheim. With regards to the fireworks for the 4th of July, he indicated that anyone could be playing with fireworks. He runs a business and doesn't run ~ncerts or play with fireworks. Fanatic Tattoo is one of the first franchise opportunities in the tattoo industry and in year one at this location they grossed over a quarter of a million dollars. The business is beneficial to the City of Anaheim when it comes to taxes. He is one hundred percent for law enforcement and does not believe this is detriment to society. Commissioner Eastman assumed the business works primarily on individual clients. She does not believe there would be groups that would loiter in the parking lot late at night and carryon loud conversation. She asked the applicant if that would be a correct assumption on her part. Mr. Barkley stated that it is a correct assumption. They do not allow more than two people to be with the client. Some clients like moral support or they might have a friend who gets tattooed as well. They recommend a designated driver in case someone might feel lightheaded. There is a mandatory twenty minute waiting period in the lobby for people who get lightheaded. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone else was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa commented that if the Commission approves the application the applicant could encourage his patrons after 9:00 p.m. to be respectful of the neighbors as they leave and not make noise in the parking lot. commissioner Faessel was concerned with a letter that was received from a property owner adjoining on the back side of the property. He commented that even though she is an absentee landlord she did take the time to express an opinion as to the operating hours of the facility. He wondered if 03/17/08 Page 17 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES idnight was reasonable for this facility. He reiterated that other tattoo parlors operate during similar ours, according to Mr. Barkley's testimony. As an opportunity to be a good neighbor he suggested that the applicant might consider adjusting the business hours. Chairman Buffa stated that she was not sure she would ask the applicant to do that because the letter they received from Ms. Robinson generally stated that early hours and late hours would present a problem with noise. However, the applicant has been operating until midnight for awhile and there are no specific noise complaints in the letter. She thinks the applicant should encourage anyone who comes in the facility to be quiet as they leave. The City has not heard from the residences on Holgate who back up to this property. They don't seem to have a noise problem on Holgate. She thinks the applicant is willing to try, to an extent, to control noise in his parking lot so that it does not disturb people at the Temple. Commissioner Faessel was impressed that there was no specific police calls to this business. It was obvious that Mr. Barkley is trying to run a good business based upon his testimony. He is concerned for the Temple and there issues. He is hopeful that the applicant will be a good neighbor. Commissioner Eastman addressed the representative from the Temple and let him know it was important that they have testimony from neighbors and from other people. There no indication that there have been issues notable enough to cause anyone to call and file a complaint with the City. She is supportive of this applicant because she is convinced that he is trying to run a good business. ~ e like business in Anaheim and this is a commercial street and corner. Another type of commercial usiness would be permitted by right. If the Commission approves this the applicant would be operating under a Conditional Use Permit. The way the CUP works is that, in the future, issues that cause concerns to neighbors could be noted by calls to the Police Department or calls to Code Enforcement and the City could review complaints in the future because it is a Conditional Use Permit. This CUP would give both the applicant and the neighbor comfort in the fact the applicant needs to control any excess noise that might come from his business. The neighbors would have recourse to have the Commission review this again if it becomes a neighborhood nuisance. She thinks it would be a compromise position. She is in support of this project. Commissioner Faessel stated that in reviewing the Conditions of Approval, he did not see any that regulated noise from the business. He asked if there would be other rules or codes that would apply. Chairman Buffa agreed. She asked staff to discuss the City Noise Ordinance that would regulate the outdoor noise. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated the Noise Ordinance would regulate any noise disturbance in any commercial center regardless of the hours of operation. If there is a noise complaint, people loitering or people in the business making excessive noise, it is regulated by the City of Anaheim Code and would be enforced. commissioner Faessel asked staff whether those noise restrictions needed to be tied to any Condition of Approval. 03/17/08 Page 18 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. Herrick replied no. It is part of existing Code requirements. Commissioner Romero commented that the applicant stated that they don't encourage any loitering or any loud noise. He encouraged the applicant in his efforts into pursuing further regulations of this industry. He thought it was important to their industry in order to make it better. Commissioner Velasquez asked if the hours of operations would be part of this Condition of Approval. Chairman Buffa indicated that the applicant's letter of operation is attached to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Karaki wanted to assure Mr. Haycraft that this would be a business operating with Conditions. The business has been operating for years without any Conditions of Approval from the City. The CUP will give more of an assurance that the City will be watching over the business to ensure that there are no problems. He thinks the applicant has been conducting a good business, as there are no reports from the Police Department or neighbors. Commissioner Karaki offered a recommendation to adopt the attached resolution approving a Class 1, Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05296. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke and 1 letter was received in opposition to the project. IN GENERAL: 1 letter with concerns pertaining to the hours of operation was received. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (3:24 to 3:52) 03/17/08 Page 19 of 20 MARCH 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:09 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: /^ ~ v ~~ Grace Medina, Planning Commission Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on bgg~ ~~, 2008. 03/17/08 Page 20 of 20