Loading...
Minutes-PC 2010/11/08City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,November 8, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :ChairmanPro-TemporePeter Agarwal Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki, Harry Persaud, Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour Commissioners Absent :ChairmanStephen Faessel Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerScott Koehm, Associate Planner Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer MarkGordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner David See, Senior PlannerGrace Medina, SeniorSecretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,November 3, 2010, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Call to Order–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 12 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Karaki Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Karaki/Seymour) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of September 27, 2010. VOTE: 5-0 Continued from the October 25, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirezand Seymour voted yes.Commissioner Ament abstained. ChairmanFaessel was absent. 11/08/10 Page 2of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05514Resolution No. 2010-115 (DEV2010-00114) (Seymour) Owner:Approved, added conditions GREAnaheim Tech Center LP pertaining to maximum 4440 Von Karman Ave #350 occupancy and hours of Newport Beach, CA 92626 operation Applicant: Susana Leal VOTE: 6-0 919 SouthSarah Way Anaheim, CA 92805Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and Commissioners Ament, Location:951 East Ball Road Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.Chairman The applicant requestsapproval of an indoor soccer facility Faessel was absent. in an existing industrial building. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has Project Planner: Scott Koehm been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental skoehm@anaheim.net documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated November 8, 2010, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked for staff to provide further information regarding the number of parking spaces and regarding spectators not being taken into consideration. Mr. Koehm responded that the parking consultant determined 73 spaces would be needed by comparing the square footage withthe existing facility in Torrance, and how many parking spaces were being utilized at that location; along with adding in the minimum number of people that would be in the building. They did not take into consideration spectator parking in the original study, but staff worked with themandidentified that typicallyspectatorsarrive with the playersand that carpooling occursfor such type of business;therefore,it wasanticipatedthat it wouldn’t take up any additional spaces. Also, a reduction was made on the floor plans in the number of spaces available for spectatorsseating so there were not as many available. And, given the fact that there were still 70 spaces above the required spaces,staff felt confident that there would not be any concerns. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the hours of operation not being limited and regarding the facility being used during off peak hours, and asked how is that justified. Mr. Koehm referred to Condition No. 9 of the draft resolution, and stated language can be added stating “also according to the parking study and letter of operation that was submitted”. 11/08/10 Page 3of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez indicated she would be in favor of the added language. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal statedhe is in agreementwith Commissioner Ramirez. Commissioner Persaud referred to the parking demand study and asked why more facilities weren’t reviewed besides Torrance’s facility. Mr. Koehm responded the parking consultant only analyzedthat facility and he is unaware of their standard practices, and indicated at this time there are not very many similar type facilities. Commissioner Persaud relayed concerns pertaining to using the practices of the Torrance facility, and the issue regarding spectators not being taken into considerationbecause they arrive with the players; therefore,hequestioned the adequacy of the parking study. Mr. Koehm responded the facility inTorrance is 73,000 square feet, andthe proposed facility is 32,000 square feetwhich he believes the parking consultant took into consideration, and possibly a reason why it was felt to be adequate. Commissioner Seymour stated he attends soccer games 2-3 weekends monthly, and indicated the presumptions being made are very accurate as parents bring their children and it is generally one vehicle for one player; therefore,based on his experience the logic of the parking made sense. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal opened the public hearing. Phillip Schwartze, stated he is representing the land owner and the World Soccer Group,and has reviewed the conditions of approval andisin agreementwith the staff reportand the parking study. He expressed that the Torrance study is very accurate. Commissioner Karaki referred to the inside of the building and asked how it would be transformed into a soccer field. Mr. Schwartze responded the building is setup fairly well, and the fields are reduced in size. There will be nets so the ballswon’t interfere with other fields, and there will besome bleachers. They are changing the occupancy of the building and have been working with the building department to ensure they meet the occupancy. Commissioner Karaki asked what is done with the concrete floor. Mr. Schwartze responded the floor will have artificial turf, and stated they did provide photographs of the interior of the building, and indicated it doesn’t take much to convert it for indoor soccer use. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal asked if they will be charging for parking. Mr. Schwartze responded no. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. 11/08/10 Page 4of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Seymour offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the November 8, 2010 staff report, determining that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No. 2010-05514, with the added conditions pertaining to maximum occupancy and hours of operation. Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Chairman Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 18, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :17minutes (5:04to 5:21) 11/08/10 Page 5of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04832 Resolution No. 2010-116 (DEV2010-00156) (Persaud) Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Approved Applicant/ Richard Lambros Agent: Southern California Education Foundation 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170 VOTE: 6-0 Irvine, CA 92614 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and Commissioners Ament, Cathy Baranger Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Building Industry Association Seymour voted yes.Chairman 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170 Faessel was absent. Irvine, CA 92614 Location:428 South Melrose Street The applicant proposes to construct two detached single Project Planner: family homes with reduced lot coverage, parking, and front, David See dsee@anaheim.net side, and rear yard setback requirements. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion ofSmall Structures). David See,Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated November 8, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked about therequirements for future single-family developers and the overall goalsof the demonstration project. Mr. See responded the project will demonstrateenergy usedifferences between the two units which the Building IndustryAssociation is sponsoring in conjunction with Cal State University Fullerton. The Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with the applicant and one of the DDA provisions is to ensure that thehouseswill be sold as affordable units to moderate income households. Commissioner Ramirez asked based on the outcome of the parking study will the City make any changes to the standards for new single family home developments in the future. Mr. See stated that this project is unique in thatit is for energy demonstration purposes and is not intended to be constructed nor sold to the general public. 11/08/10 Page 6of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez referred to the LSA study that was referenced in the resolution and stated it wasn’t included their packets for today’s meeting; and asked in the future if a study is being referenced that it should be provided to the Commission for review and comment. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the requirement when housing is demolished that there would be a one-for-one replacement, and asked if that would apply for the subject request. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded it would apply if they were identified as housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal opened the public hearing. , Cathy BarangerBaranger Consulting, applicant, stated she is representing the Building Industry Association(BIA), as well as the Southern California Housing Foundation. TheSouthern California Housing Foundation is non-profit organization whose primary mission istoeducate the public. The BIA formed a partnership with the California Housing Foundation to implement this educational program in comparing what is needed to build a zero-net home compared to a conventional home. Their mission is to work with the communityandthe local universities tostudy the most energy efficientway to construct a home in Anaheim. The City will ultimately decide how to regulate energy efficiency, but the primary mission of this project is to educate the public.There is a possibility that theCity will adopt a code that will achievezero-net energy consumption. They will continue to work with City staff and the communitythrough the duration of the project.Everyone working on the project are volunteers, and are donating their own time. Theyare looking for donations on materials. And, hopefully the universities will help in conducting studies. During the two year period, they hope to have educationalprograms where students are involved, as well as educating their own building industry. After the two year period, the two units would be sold to moderate income households. Commissioner Persaud asked if any other similar projects are being considered in Orange County. Ms. Barangerresponded the volunteers have worked on other energy efficient projects, but as the BIA and the California Housing Foundation they have not done any other projects. Commissioner Persaud asked if the energy usage times will be synchronized for different appliances so they are identical in the two buildings. And, he asked if theunits are to be vacant during the two years. Ms. Baranger responded yes they are to be vacant, and the design of the building is setup to accommodategroup meetings. The only way to actually figure out the time of energy usage is to have some type of thermostat on a timer, and they feel they could come up with a monitoring system. Commissioner Persaud referred to the materials being used, and asked if the ceilings are intended to be identical or using different materials for the insulation process. Ms. Baranger responded theyprobably will use a different process;the conventional home would be the typical 2 x 4 wood frame construction with typical fiberglass insulation. The other unit will have a more energy efficient type of insulation; they will work with their energy consultants to figure out how to get to the net-zero energygoals. 11/08/10 Page 7of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Seymour asked how the information from the demonstration project will be shared with the public. Ms. Baranger responded the concept is new for them and they will be starting their fundraising efforts right away. They have a year for the fundraising prior to pulling their permit for construction. If there are any ideas the City would like to offer,that would be appreciated. Chaiman Pro-Tempore Agarwal asked what’s their association with Cal State Fullerton and UCI. Ms. Baranger responded they have an agreement with Cal State Fullerton, and they are still reaching out to the University of Irvine, and do not have an agreement signed with them yet. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal encouraged them to become familiar with the AC Net project with Cal State Fullerton and City of Anaheim. And, he asked if they have plans for the same type of project for a commercial establishment. Ms. Baranger responded no;typically the building industry is focused on residential development. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal expressed his support of the project. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal asked if anyone was present to speak on the item. Brian Muehlbauer,2753 Camino Capistrano, San Clemente, statedheis aPrincipal with Studio 6 Architects,and is aBoard Member of the BIA and Member of the Q-GreenCommittee. He stated in a typical home the majority of the energy use is the air conditioning and when reviewing the project he wanted to see what could bedone to reduce that demand. Hecreated athermal tower component in the net zero home; this tower basicallyreleases rising hot air and cool air comes in and takes the place of the hot air. He placed the only two story element in the center of the housewhich is the stair case, and thiswould allow a 2-story space for any hot air that will build up downstairs and accumulate upstairs to gravitate to that area. Over the stair case there are five operable sky lights and based on the heat inside the house,those can be open either manually, electronically or by the thermostat system in order toallow the hot air upstairs to escape. And, by opening windows downstairs and upstairs it will draw in cool air to passively cool the house, and with the additional insulation that they anticipate installing into the home it will substantially reduce the amount of required cooling for the house. He also included a green roof over the garage of the green house to be able to better analyze heat gain and loss since it’s an unconditioned spaceand has a typical flat roof built-up roofing area, as opposed to a sloped roof with shingles.He concluded by stating those two elements are the basic concept for the homes. Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the November 8, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 3Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this requestand approving Variance No. 2010- 04832(DEV2010-00156). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Chairman Faessel wasabsent. 11/08/10 Page 8of 9 NOVEMBER 8, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 18, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :25minutes (5:21to 5:46) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:49P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2010AT 5:00P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2011. 11/08/10 Page 9of 9