Minutes-PC 2010/11/22City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday,November 22, 2010
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
Commissioners Present
:Chairman: Stephen Faessel
Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki,Harry Persaud,
Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour
Commissioners Absent
:Peter Agarwal
Staff Present
:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerScott Koehm, Associate Planner
Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyKeith Linker, Principal Civil Engineer
David See, SeniorPlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner
Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerEleanor Morris, Secretary
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m.
onWednesday,November 17, 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 Ramirez
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Adjournment
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M.
Public Comments: None
Minutes
ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes
(Seymour/Persaud)
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning
Approved,with modification to
Commission Meeting of September 13, 2010.
page 11
VOTE: 5-0
Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Karaki, Persaud,
Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Ament abstained
andCommissioner Agarwal was
absent.
11/22/10
Page 2of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing Items:
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2010-05527Resolution No. 2010-117
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04833
(Persaud)
(DEV2010-00154)
Owner:Approved
Anaheim Corporate Office Plaza, L.P.
One Towne Square, Suite1913
Southfield, CA 98076
VOTE: 6-0
Applicant:
H. Hendy AssociatesChairman Faessel and
Terri LeeCommissioners Ament, Karaki,
4770 Campus Drive, Suite100Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Newport Beach, CA 92660voted yes.Commissioner
Agarwal was absent.
Location:2170 South Towne Centre
The applicant proposes to establish an adult real estate
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
training facility within an existing office building with fewer
vnorwood@anaheim.net
parking spaces than allowed by code.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
Vanessa Norwood, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report datedNovember 22,
2010,along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if there are 15 staff members at the facility during the day.
Ms. Norwood responded their office hours are 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. with 15 office staff members, and
on Mondays and Wednesdays from 6:00p.m.-10:00p.m. they have classroom training and the office
staff are no longer there but have two instructors on site.
CommissionerRamirez asked for further clarification regarding parking in the day time.
Ms. Norwood responded the parking is currently under-utilized.
ndrd
CommissionerRamirez asked what proposed use will be on the 2and 3floors.
Ms. Norwood responded it will be office use.
11/22/10
Page 3of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Persaud referred to the number of studentsand asked how the total is determined.
Ms. Norwood responded that the applicant proposes a maximum of 63 students but that number does
not pertain to the occupancy limits. She further stated that a condition of approval to limit the number
of studentscould be addedif the Commission wished to do so.
Commissioner Persaud suggested adding a condition of approval limiting the number of students
based upon the parking issue.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Lance McHarg,21372 Brookhurst Street #327, Huntington Beach, CA, applicant, spoke regarding
limiting the students and stated classes are after hours and during that time the parking area has 200-
300 parking spaces available; the classes were designed to be after hours in order for them not to
impede on the neighbors in the complex.
Chairman Faessel referred to the property owners in the area that at times during the season offer
their parking lots for parking, and asked if that will potentially create a hindrance for their business.
Mr. McHargresponded that it would create no hindrance for the businessasthey purposely found the
building to be the furthest away from Orangewood Avenue so that the parking towards Orangewood
Avenue is impacted by the Stadium, and their parking area wouldnot be impacted.
Commissioner Persaud expressed his support of limiting the number of students,andindicated he is
open to any other solutionsto ensure the parking demand is consistent with the student population.
Mr. McCargrespondedthey have been in business for 38 years, and most have been at their current
location in the city of Santa Ana. He expressed that they work with their neighbors to ensure they
have a cohesive friendly environment.
Commissioner Ament asked if they have a maximum number of students that they would be
comfortable with.
Mr. McCargresponded they would prefer to have the maximum per the occupancy limits.
Further discussion took place amongst the Commission and Mr. McCargregarding setting a
maximum number of students.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the required parking spaces and asked what is that based on.
Ms. Norwood responded it is based on the classroom square footage.
Commissioner Ramirez expressed her support of not limiting the number of students.
11/22/10
Page 4of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, clarified that there are 392 parking spaces on site and it is
estimated that 431 would be required if all uses were operating concurrently; therefore there are
plenty of available parking spaces during theevening hours.
Commissioner Persaud expressed parking concerns if it’s operating during the day.
Mr. Amstrup referred to Condition No. 8 of the draft resolution, which limits classroom usage from
6:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. during the evenings, and 8:00 a.m. –5:00 p.m. on weekends.
Chairman Faessel pointed out that it does include that should the operation change it would require
approval of Planning Services staff.
Commissioner Karaki concurred with Commissioner Ramirez regarding not limiting the number of
students.
Commissioner Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the November 22, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving ConditionalUsePermit
No. 2010-05527andVariance No. 2010-04833 (DEV2010-00154).
Eleanor Morris, Secretary announcedthat the resolution passedwith sixyes votes.Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 2, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:19minutes (5:05to 5:24)
11/22/10
Page 5of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-141Resolution No. 2010-118
(DEV2010-00165)
(Seymour)
Owner/
Applicant:Approved
Greg Hearn
The Hearn Family Trust
1 Post Suite#200
VOTE: 6-0
Irvine, CA 92618
Chairman Faessel and
Location:1000-1010 North Edward Court
Commissioners Ament,Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
The applicant proposes to establish a 1-lot, 4-unit, voted yes.Commissioner
industrial condominium subdivision. Agarwal was absent.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
Project Planner:
Della Herrick
additional environmental documentation per California
dherrick@anaheim.net
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 15
(Minor Land Division).
David See,SeniorPlanner, provided a summary of the staff report datedNovember 22, 2010,along
with a visual presentation. He stated a revised draft resolution wasprovided to the Planning
Commission with additional conditions of approvalthat were provided by the Public Works
Department.
Commissioner Ramirez referred toCondition No. 3 and asked if the shared accessagreement can be
recorded prior to the final map beingrecorded.
Mr. See responded yes, all agreements and covenants should be recorded prior to the recordation of
the map.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Greg Hearn, applicant, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith
the staff report.
Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant if he is closing the current business.
Mr. Hearn responded no, the subject request isjust for future versatility of the building and pointed
out that currently both tenants are doing great and they are satisfied with their tenants.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
11/22/10
Page 6of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution attached to the November 22, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 15Categorical
Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Tentative
Parcel MapNo.2010-141(DEV2010-00165).
Eleanor Morris, Secretaryannounced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 2, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:5minutes (5:25to 5:30)
11/22/10
Page 7of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 4
VARIANCE NO. 2009-04788AResolution No. 2010-119
(DEV2009-00015)
(Ament)
Owner/
Applicant:Approved
Steven Shotwell
Kaiser Permanente
3400 E. La Palma Ave.
VOTE: 6-0
Anaheim, CA 92806
Chairman Faessel and
Location:3460 East La Palma Avenue
Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
The applicant proposesto construct three new freestanding voted yes.Commissioner
directional signs for a Kaiser Hospital campus. The size Agarwal was absent.
and height of the signs exceed Code allowances.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Project Planner:
Dave See
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
dsee@anaheim.net
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 11
(Accessory Structures).
DavidSee, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report datedNovember 22, 2010,along
with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Persaud asked if the subject facility is a regional facility for Kaiser.
Mr. See responded yes.
Commissioner Persaud asked if there will be additional freeway directional signs.
Mr. See responded that freeway directional signs will be provided; however, the applicant can
addressfreeway signs in more detail.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Joe Stasneystated he is the Project Director for Kaiser Permanente’s replacement hospital in
Anaheim, and is present to answer any questions. Hestated hehad reviewed the conditions of
approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report.
Commissioner Persaud asked the applicant to provide information regarding freeway directional
signs.
Mr. Stasneyresponded Kaiser Permanente is a membership driven organization and they serve a
membership base across the State of California. The facility currently being built in Anaheim replaces
11/22/10
Page 8of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
the one that is located atLakeview Avenuein Anaheim. Their membership population in the Orange
County area is approximately 400,000 members.He provided information regarding the “Thrive”
program advertisements on television, newspaper and radio. They provide billboards for some of
their information related to the subject facility, and do have a fee for service arrangement for thearea.
And, they are in the cellular network of regional response in the event of a major event. The signage
program for the campus is being requestedbecausethey have a fairly large signs that face the 91
freeway, La Palma Avenue and Tustin and Kraemerto theeast and west. There is a State mandate
that requires hospitals to direct the public to the nearest facility from an arterial highway exitonmajor
freeways. Beyond that,they aren’t exploring anything else but they do work with the other community
hospitals in major events.
Mr. Stasneystated he extendsthe opportunity to the Planning Commission to tour the subject facility
and indicated to contact him if there is an interest.
Chairman Faessel seeing some interest by the Commission, he suggested that Mr. See work with Mr.
Stasneyto arrangean invitation to tour the facility.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Amentoffered arecommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the November 22, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 11Categorical Exemption is
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving an amendment to
Variance No. 2009-04788A(DEV2009-00015).
Eleanor Morris, Secretary announcedthat the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 2, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:10minutes (5:31to 5:41)
11/22/10
Page 9of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 5
Resolution No. 2010-120
*
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04834
(Karaki)
(DEV2010-00168)
Owner:
MMI/BDI Anaheim Magnolia Ave, Inc.
Approved,with modification to
18201 VonKarman, Suite1170
the size of the proposed
Irvine, CA 92612
monument sign to be 8’ x 10’ as
Applicant:
BillHenigsman
stipulated by the applicant at
TNT ElectricSign, Inc.
hearing.
3080 E. 29thStreet
LongBeach, CA 90806
VOTE: 6-0
Location:1201 North Magnolia Avenue
Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
The applicant proposes to permit a wall sign and monument
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
sign that are larger than permitted by Code.
voted yes.Commissioner
Agarwal was absent.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California
Project Planner:
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 11
Scott Koehm
(Accessory Uses).
skoehm@anaheim.net
*Advertised as Variance No. 2009-04789
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report datedNovember 22, 2010,
along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the proposed monument sign and asked what would be a
comparable sign in the city.
Mr. Koehm responded he is not aware at this time of a monument sign in the city that is comparable,
anddescribed some examples/visuals of what it may be compared to.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated a standard 2-car garage door is approximately 8’ x
16’,and it would be just slightly taller than a 2-car garage door and 3 feet narrower.
Commissioner Ramirez asked for clarification regarding staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Koehm responded staff’s recommendation is a sign that would be 8’ tall x 10’ wide for an 80
square feet total, and the code allows for a 65 square foot monument sign.
Commissioner Karaki asked for clarification on the size of the monument sign that the applicant is
requesting.
11/22/10
Page 10of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Koehm responded there would be 5 foot, 4 inches of height for the sign area and also clarified
that the 18” base portion is code required to be considered as part of the sign area.
Mr. Amstrup explained that unlike a building sign where a wall sign would be affixed to a building
which would exist either way whetherthe sign was present or not. Amonument sign/structure serves
only for the purpose of providing the background area for the sign. Therefore,the standards for
measuring a monument sign are different than they are for a wall sign. The code requires thatthey
measure top to bottom of the structure and side to side when calculating the area. Ifit was a wall
sign they would simple draw an angled box around the logo to the bottom of “distribution center”but
that is not what the code provides for the subject request which is why they measured the entire
structure.
Commissioner Karaki askedif the frontage has any relevancebecause the property occupies 1,000
feet of frontage.
Mr. Amstrup responded yes, in some districts it allows for multiple signs, but it does not allow larger
signs.
Commissioner Persaud stated with regards tothe monument sign,is this standard for the industry
and their business or is it being enlarged because of the location or other necessities.
Mr. Koehm responded he is unaware oftheir corporate standards for the size of their monument
signs. There are several Northgate Markets in the City and those monument signs are not the same
size as the proposedrequest as they comply with code. The subject facility is a distribution center
andnot for public use;it’s not a grocery store. Staff felt there is a distinction between attracting a
motorist off the road to go to a market versus truck drivers that know their destination, therefore, not
needing a large monument sign to direct them to the site.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Alan Tuntland,stated he is representing MMI/BDI Anaheim Magnolia Ave, LLC,18201 Von Karman,
Suite 1170,Irvine, and also represents Northgate Markets as their design construction manager for
theproposed project. He clarified that the subject facility is a distribution center for Northgate
Markets, but it also has 25,000 square feet for their corporate offices as their headquarters will be
relocating. He explained that they will have buyers, vendors and outside sales people visiting the
facility, along with the trucking related use which is the major use for the building. He indicated that
the sign was designed specifically for the subject facility; it has not been used at any of their other
locations. The sign was designed to bring out the same character and architecture asthe building.
He indicated they want to agree to try to meet staff’s idea of what would be reasonable, and would
like to propose a compromise by changing the 12footdimensionon the monument sign to 10 feet,
and not be penalized for adding the extra fenestration to the top of the sign.
Mr. Koehm responded staff agreeswith the proposed request.
Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Tuntlandif they agree with the remaining conditions of approval in the
draft resolution.
11/22/10
Page 11of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Tuntlandresponded yes.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the November 22, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 11Categorical Exemption is
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving VarianceNo. 2010-
04834(DEV2010-00168), with modification to the size of the proposed monument sign to be8’ x 10’
as stipulated by the applicant at hearing.
Eleanor Morris, Secretaryannounced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 2, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:18minutes (5:42to 6:00)
11/22/10
Page 12of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05525Resolution No. 2010-121
(DEV2010-00146)
(Persaud)
Owner:
Raymond DeAngelo
Approved
D&O Partnership
1170-1172 N. Armando Street
Anaheim, CA 92807
VOTE: 6-0
Applicant:
Elias OsorioChairman Faessel and
11446 Hart StreetCommissioners Ament, Karaki,
Artesia, CA 90701Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
voted yes.Commissioner
Location:1172 North Armando Street
Agarwal was absent.
The applicant proposes to establish an indoor soccer facility
within an existing industrial building.
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report datedNovember 22, 2010,
along with avisual presentation.
Chairman Faessel asked staff for clarification regarding the maximum of 26 participants being
allowed at any one time which includes players and staff.
Mr. Koehm responded yes, that is correct.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Elias Osorio,applicant, statedhehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith
the staff report.
Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant if this is his first facility, and how they recruit players.
Mr. Osorio responded he has been a long time player, and has been involved in the operations and
leagues. He offers classes to parents that are already involved in co-soccer leagues.
Commissioner Karaki asked aboutthe ages of the players.
Mr. Osorio responded from 8 to 15 years of age.
11/22/10
Page 13of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chairman Faessel referred to ages of the players, and stated that is a good clarification because the
staff report doesn’t indicate youth soccer. He asked the applicant if the maximum of 26 participants is
reasonable.
Mr. Osorio responded yes,the fields only hold 5 players, 5-on-5, which is 10 per field; and he is only
anticipating 3 staff members.
Commissioner Ament asked if the subject facility is for practice only.
Mr. Osorio responded yes, it is going to be clinics/classes; no league games or tournamentsare
proposed.
Commissioner Ament relayed parking concerns if the use increases, and asked if they have joint
parking arrangements with other places in the business park.
Mr. Osorio responded they have 19 parking spaces, and they are all together.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the November 22, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit
No. 2010-05525(DEV2010-00146).
Eleanor Morris, Secretaryannounced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 2, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:9minutes (6:01to 6:10)
11/22/10
Page 14of 15
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15P.M.
TO MONDAY,DECEMBER 6, 2010AT 5:00P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor Morris
Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2011.
11/22/10
Page 15of 15