Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/07/23~~PHE'M ~9~ City of Anaheim • r 04 ~ Planning Commission ~ ~` Minutes : U ~ ~ '`~D°Q Mondav, Julv 23; 2007 . . o e, '~p ~~ Council ~hamber, City Hall : ~N D ED ~$ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California : Chairman: Kelly Buffa Commissioners Present: Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Pat Velasquez (~e~t at s:so) Commissioners Absent: Cecilia Flores, Panky Romero . Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Bill SeII, Community Preservation Manager Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Repres. Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary • Marie Newland, Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 19, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulfetin Newspaper on Thursday, June 28, 2007 • Call To Order • Brief Presentation on Housing Element Update • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIM{NARY PLAN REVIEW FOR lTEMS ON THE JULY 23, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 50 • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Karaki • • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing ltems • Adjournment H:\TOOLS\PCADMI N\PCACTI ONAGEN DA~2007M I N UTES~P,C072307.DOC JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Plannin Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. ' 9 Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Flores and Romero absent), for approval of Consent Calendar ltems 1-A and 1-C as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar - Item 1-B was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reaorts and Recommendations • 1A.(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY ~ APPROVED) ~ - ~ ~ (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05064 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05219) (c) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-'156 (Tracking No. SUB2007-00048) Agent: Otis Architecture 16871 Seawitch Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Location: 321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dal_e Requests retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for the following applications: Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05064 - to permit an expansion of an existing Church consisting of a new administration building, multi-purpose hall, and religious schooL Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156 - to combine six lots into one lot. • Approved Approved retroactive extension of time for two years (to expire on May 16, 2009) Approved retroactive extension of time for one year (to expire on May 16, 2009) Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Flores and Romero absent Project Planner.• (mnewland@anaheim. net) 07-23-07 Page 2 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES _ • 1B.(a) PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION SECTION Coricurred with staff 21080 AND CEQA EXEMPTION SECTIONS 15282(i) AND 15305 ` _ (b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00021 Approved (Tracking No. ZCA2007-00062) Agent: City Of Anaheim Motion: FaesseWelasquez 200 South Anaheim Boulevard #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 5-0 . Commissioners Flores and Request review and, approval of revised second unit Romero absent deficiencies area map. Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-76 • • Project Planner.~ (mnewland@anaheim. net) (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Commissioner Faessel stated he would like to ask a few simple questions regarding 1 B that deals with the second unit sewer and parking deficiencies in the City. He asked what mitigation measures were being planned for the sewer deficiencies. He asked if there were sewer improvement plans in place and the long range plan. Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer - Public Works, responded there is a sewer plan ongoing and it is in phase 2. The City is working towards improvements on that and they are scheduled for completion next year. Commissioner Faessel asked if the City would sell bonds for improvements; and if the improvements would be included in property taxes or how it would be funded. Mr. Budhia responded that it was funded based on the taxes collected and the cost would go towards future assessments. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to accept the CEQA exemption public resources code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guideline Section 15282 and 15305. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). DISCUSSION: 2 minutes (2:34-2:36) 07-23-07 Page 3 . ~ U • JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Min e ~ 1 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved, with . Commission Meeting of July 9, 2007 (Motion) modifications to pages 7,19 and 25 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Flores and Romero absent Eastman offered a motion on Consent Calendars 1A and 1C, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez. Motion passed. 07-23-07 Page 4 J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Pub lic Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 2007-00455 August 6, 2007 ` 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00198 ' : 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05200 Motion: Eastman/Karaki 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP'NO. 17116 Owner: La Vue LLC : VoTE: 5-0 30622 La Vue Street Commissioners Flores and Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Romero absent Agent: Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh 30622 La Vue Street Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Location: 1556 West Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and is located 170 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street. • General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00455 - Request to amend the land use element map of the General Plan redesignating the property from the General Commercial designation to the Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 2007-00198 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the T(Transition) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05200 - Request to construct a 14-unit attached residential planned unit development with modification to development standards and waiver of setback between buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 17116 - To establish a 1-lot, 14- unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Continued from the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. • General Plan Amendment No Reclassification Resolution No. Conditiona! Use Permit Resolution No. Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) 07-23-07 P 5 age JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Motion offered by Commissioner Eastman, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to continue to August 6, 2007. Motion passed with 5yes votes (Comrnissioners Romero and Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None D{SCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • • 07-23-07 Page 6 J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL Velas uez/Eastman 9 IMPACT REPORT N0. 332 (PREVIOUSLY- CERTIFIED) AND ADDENDUM (READVERTISED) ~ 3b.' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00445 Velasquez 3c. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0. 2007-00060 Velasquez/Eastman 3d. ' AMENDMENT TO PLATINUM TRIANGLE Velasquez MASTER LAND USE PLAN (MIS2007-00202) 3e. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00207 ' Velasquez 3f. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05222 Velasquez 3g. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0. 2007-00001 Velasquez Owner: 2130 Dupont Company 2130 East Dupont Drive Anaheim, CA 92806 Japos INC., ~ Wind-Dor INC. 2220 East Orangewood Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806-3110 Agent: Sheldon Group 901 Dove Street, Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2210-2220 East Oranqewood Avenue, 2130 & 2231 Dupont Drive~`• Area A: Property encompasses approximately 820 acres located at the confluence of the Interstate 5 Freeway and the SR-57 Freeway, in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. • Area B: This rectangularly-shaped, 3.8 acre property is located at the southeast and southwest corner of Dupont Drive and Orangewood Avenue with a frontage of 362 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and frontages of 452** feet on the east side of East Dupont Drive and 445** feet on the west side of West Dupont Drive. *Advertised as Dupont Circle. **Advertised as 296. Recommended City ' Council Approval Recommended City Council Approval Recommended City ' - Council Approval Recommended City Council Approval Granted, Unconditionally Granted Recommended City Council Approval, with modifications to Condition No. 28 of Exhibit C-1, page 43. VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Flores and Romero absent I 07-23-07 Page 7 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • General Plan Amendment Na 2006-00445 - Re uest to amend ; q the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the maximum office and/or retail square footage permitted in The Platinum Triangle and to remove the maximum floor area ratio ,(FAR) in The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, Orangewood District. Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00060 - Request to amend The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code), to :establish the Orangewood District. ; 'Miscellaneous Permif No. 2007-00202 - Request to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to establish the Orangewood District. Reclassification No. 2007-00207 - Request to rescind the Resolution of Intent to reclassify the property to the 0-H'zone and request to reclassify properties#rom the I(Industrial) zone to I (PTMU Overlay-0rangewood District) (Industrial, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay - Orangewood District) zone for Area B. • Conditional Use Permit Na 2007-05222 - Request to permit a building height over 100 feet up to 311 feet for a proposed 20-story office building and to permit the sales alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant for Area B. Development Agreement No. 2007-00001 - Request to adopt a Development Agreement befinreen the City of Anaheim and Steadfast Investment Properties and 2130 Dupont Co. for a 591,500 square foot office building with 8,500 square feet of commercial uses for Area B. Continued from the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-77 MisceNaneous Resolution No. PC2007-78 Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-79 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-80 ProjectPlannec Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2007-81 (~'ony2@ananeim.net) Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. • Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. 07-23-07 Page 8 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMiSS10N MINUTES • Steve Sheldon, representing Steadfast Investment Properties, 901 Ame Street, Suite #140, Anaheim, CA, stated that they have an issue with Condition No. 8 in regards to leasing parking:spaces. He indicated thaf they'may need to sublease spaces to their neighbor as a part of the discussions for the acquisition of property for right-of-way. He- indicated concern over the other condition in the development agreement that requires that they acquire six (6) inches for the widening of West Dupont. He stated that they are working on various solutions that they have suggested to staff but for financing purposes, they need certainty in the development agreement. The requirement to ~ acquire land that they do not own is a condition that they cannot live with and he asked that the Commission agree to strike that condition. He submitted alternate language to the Commission stating that they will have good faith negotiations with the adjacent land owner, Tom Tait. If they could not come to an accord with Mr. Tait, they would essentially be relieved of the condition. He stated that there is an opportunity for the City to'enter, into eminent domain on the property. ' He also stated :that they would enter into good faith negotiations with City staff and Mr. Tait to come up with some type of a mutual agreement for the alternative six (6) inches. Commissioner Buffa asked if the language in No. 29, which was struck out, regarding posting a bond, was the applicant's proposed language. Mr. Sheldon responded yes, because they did not know what they would be bonding ~ for. If there was an issue they could add language to bond for what is needed if they were to acquire the land. Commissioner Karaki stated in regards to the applicant's previous statement where it was mentioned that the City had a concern regarding using parking at the stadium he wished to know if it was something that he had addressed with the City or if it was not even for consideration. Mr. Sheldon responded that the adjacent property owner, Mr. Tait, has a iease with another pariy to use that property and as a part of the negotiations they believe perhaps they could provide some space within their structure because they have extra spaces. Their development agreement has a condition that they cannot sublease any of the spaces and states that only tenants may use the spaces so they would need to have that opened up but also to acknowledge that they are not allowed to have it opened to the general public during game days. So that is the intent of that condition and they just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Sheldon proceeded to state that they are pleased that they are going to be able to have this building to be LEED certified to a silver level and they believe it is going to be the largest LEED certified building in the County. It involves part of their energy standards and involves part of their parking, and water usage, etc. They are very pleased about that and excited to be working with City staff. • Chairman Buffa referred to renderings on the Power Point presentation and asked if they were solar panels on the roof. 07-23-07 Page 9 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Sheldon res onded ' es. p Y Chairman Buffa stated that everyone shared excitement about having a LEED certified building of~such size and scale and believes that the use of solar energy is great. Jim Adams, Council Representativefor Los Angeles-Orange Counties Buildingi& - Construction l'rades Council, 436 South Camellia Street, Anaheim; CA, stated their council`represents 130,000 craftsmen and women in the construction industry and he is also a 32 yearresident of Anaheim. He stated he is not in favor or opposition, only to _ ask the developer to contact and partner with #he building trade. He believes since it is a 20 plus story building there would be a vast quantity of skill and manpower needed: . They would like to talk to the' developer in regards to using craft workers and general contractors who are local and contribute to the apprentice program, and have jobs for - the Anaheim and surrounding communities. Jeff Farano, 701 North Park Center,Anaheim, CA, stated that he works for2130 Orangewood, LLC, which is the owner of the adjacent property. He corrected that Mr. Tom Tait is not the owner but a partner of 2130 Orangewood, LLC, and that there are other investors and owners of the building. He stated that they also own the building behind if which they occupy for one of their divisions and the street is very important to them. He believes it is more than six (6) inches that they are talking about and more ~ like 6 feet 6 inches. He believes thatbecause he was told that when the street was created there was some type of easement and dedication of 6 feet to the City of Anaheim for landscape purposes and that would be for when they eventually developed the property to something else. And, if they ever developed the property for something else they would have to dedicate an additional 5 feet for sidewalk and 5 feet for landscape purposes. Therefore he believes the 6 feet that they dedicated, if in fact the dedication still exists would be for landscape purposes and should be for the landscape purposes that are required by the current code. He understands as it is being explained that they would give the 6 feet that was already given for landscape purposes and that would move the curb back and then they would give another 5 feet for the sidewalk, which would move#heir property back a little more and then another 6 feet for the landscape easement. He believes the original 6 feet should be used to provide the landscape easement. If in fact they are only talking about six (6 inches), they have other issues as well. He stated that although six (6) inches did not sound likernuch it would still create some problems and one of the things that has concerned him from the very beginning is the reason the street widening and shifting has to take place. He stated that when the project on the north side was approved the intersection was located slightly to the west, which caused it to be out of alignment with West Dupont and so now the City is trying to play catch up and move West Dupont over a little bit, : which is onto their land. He felt they are the ones making up for other surrounding developments. He stated their property is only 181 feet wide - not very wide for the existing use. Six (6) inches would not make a difference but 6 feet probably would. They believe the subject request is a good project and he stated that a class building • like this is fantastic for the area and that they purchased their property because #hey were hoping the area would develop accordingly and therefore they have no objections 07-23-07 Page 10 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES • and fully support the project. However, their concern is the street and ho,w the City is dealing with the subject project. Their curb actually moves to the west as welL ln affect, they actually would gain some land. He stated that the other thing that concerns him and another reason why the street needs to be widened and why the need to make up `for some of the issues is the bike lane that is going down Orangewood. He understands from speaking with planning staff that the ultimate plan is to run the bike lane all the way down Orangewood to meet up with the riverbed, but it cannot go all the way down Orangewood because Orangewood is not wide enough. The stadium cannot give up any {and because they do not have enough parking already. So the solution is to turn the bike Jane right to Dupont next to their building, turn right and then cut across and connect to Rampart and eventually get it to the Santa Ana riverbed. He feels that could be a good idea but the problem is that it impacts properties down the little side street. Dupont and the narrow little pieces of property are now having to deal with that. He continued to state that several other issues. One of the conditions is closing the driveway near the corner. It is his understanding, when they take the six (6) inches that ` one of the conditions requires them to close their driveway near the corner. This creates a problem because they have'that driveway and the one down south and they also have another driveway off of Orangewood in the left corner which is probably going to end up being closed. He feels that they cannot stand to lose any driveways. The tenant of the building is a major home builder in the area and feased the building for a very high end design center and they would have to provide access to them. So closing • the driveway creates a problem. Also there is a traffic signal on the corner which he feels will be a problem. Taking the six (6) inches will give them enough land to put the signal in so they need a little more on the corner to provide for the traffic signaL So in effect he feels there has to be a better way than widening the street over on to them in order to compensate for the new project coming in as well as for the West Millennium and Lennar up north because their driveway does not align to Dupont. His problem is if the condition is dropped, down the road, somebody would have to come back and align the street over onto their property. He feels that they have to speak up now instead of down the road when the decisions are made. He encouraged the Commission to take another look at how the street is going to be handled. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Sheldon stated that he did not wish to be redundant but they do have altemative designs to present to staff. One includes shifting more to the east which would take six (6) inches off of their property line. The complication there is that it moves the sewer line over another six (6) inches so that raises another complication. The six (6) inches amounts to approximately 147 square feet. He ensured that it would be their pleasure to work with the Building Trades and knows that a lot of the construction in the Platinum Triangle has been done with the Building Trade labor and will put them up for bid and hire the most qualified who will do a great job for them. • Commissioner Velasquez asked staff's opinion on the issues raised. ' 07-23-07 Page 11 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Jaime Lai, Public Works Engineer, responded in regards to the 6 feet 6 inches and stated the land `was dedicated in 1970, at 32 feet from'the centerline, 64 feet total right- away-width. If is for road and public;utility purposes which is consistent with all other development. Those easements are used to the back of sidewalk on arterial or any other streets with parkway and sidewalk. This would be no different. In regards to it being more than six (6) inches, we dohave that condition on relocating utilities, so any type of easement that would haveto go onto Tait's property would need to be acquired for that alsa Chairman Buffa asked Ms. Lai to address the closure of the driveway close to Orangethorpe and what drives the need to close the driveway. Ms. Lai responded that the relocation of #he curb ramp on the southwest corner, for the right turn lane affects #he driveway. That is why the driveway would need to be relocated. It is approximately 130 feet from any traffic signaL She stated currently there ' is another driveway on the south side`that they could use as an entrance. - Chairman Buffa asked if the driveway on Orangewood would be allowed to remain in place. Ms. Lai responded that detailed plans would be required to make that determination but - it would require 10 feet of dedication to provide the right turn lane. • Chairman Buffa stated it would be more than 130 feet if the a licant's ro e is 181 pP p p rtY feet wide and believes it would meet the spacing requirement. Ms. Lai responded that it would meet the spacing requirement but there is the future dedication for the right turn lane that would go pass the property line and would push : the property line along Orangewood back. Commissioner Karaki stated even if there is the dedication along Orangewood they still - have the right to keep the driveway along Orangewood. So the driveway would not be affected even though there would be widening to the street. Therefore the driveway in question is the second one on West Dupont Drive. If the property owner were allowed to have a common driveway in the middle it might be a solution to accommodate taking out the other driveway along the corner. Ms. Lai responded correct, so they would be able to restripe some of the parking spaces and put one driveway. Commissioner Karaki suggested that they would use the new driveway closest to the intersection versus coming all the way down through the property. Chairman Buffa clarified that what is being talked about has not been proposed by the property owner but it would be allowed by Code. She stated if the applicant has • concerns about their inability to acquire six (6} inches of right-of-way, if they could not acquire that right-of-way,' it seemed the City would have some choices to make and one 07-23-07 Page 12 { JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMM(SSION MINUTES • would be to offset the centerline of the road by six (6) inches and she asked how big a problem it would pose. , Ms. Lai responded that staff has taken a look at a lot of alternatives to minimize the impacts to Tait's property. This is the solution they came up with. There is a maximum allowable 2#oot offset to cross Orangewood and it is based on the Orangewood designed speed limif. A formula can be used to determine the offset. Staff has looked at minimizing the width`along the 14 feet, the 15 feet, and this is the maximum allowable offset'(Tait's) that could be done.' She stated thaf staff has looked at the options across the street and the curb along the City's side of the street (the 4 feet off of Steadfast property) and looked at shifting that over to see if it could be pushed over. Staff can not deter from that 2 feet for safety reasons. _ Chairman Buffa stated so that it is not a viable option. Commissioner Karaki asked if the centerline of D Street could be amended on the other side since it is not'built yet. He asked if they could work on that'end versus working on this end. He further explained that if the six (6) inches would be shifted on the ` centerline on D Street, this side of the streef would not need to be affected. - Ms. Lai responded that staff could take a look at it but regardless it is six (6) inches and there are still easements that would need to be required for the utilities. ' ~ Commissioner Karaki reiterated the benefits to ad'ustin the street on the north side of 1 9 Orangewood. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, responded there is currently a development agreement with the property owner that is immediately on the north side of Orangewood. That development agreement is effective and it does include dimensions for the street and the buildings and the City cannot change those designs. It is possible for staff to return to talk with the developer to see if there is anyway to move the alignment but the City is bound by the development agreement. Chairman Buffa stated the development agreement with the property owner north of the proposed office building is dedicating land for road and utility purposes and she asked if they could leave the property line where it is but reduce the public right-of-way between their property line and the curb thereby allowing the City to shift the pavement over a little bit such as 1 foot to 1% foot. The City would just have a narrow landscape setback. She asked if the City has that kind of discretion without amending the development agreement. Ms. Johnson responded that staff could not waive the Code. A minor modification may be required as a Zoning Administrator item. Staff would have to look at what could be done administratively versus a public hearing. • Chairman Buffa stated what she is hearing is that there are some options to explore and some of which require the City to grant a waiver on other property. She asked about 07-23-07 Page 13 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES ,• - looking at`the bike traif plan to see if there is another way to gef to the river without going down Dupont Avenue. She stated it seemed there are some choices that could be explored. _ Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Farano if he had an issue with just #he six (6) inches intruding into his property. Mr. Farano responded that six (6) inches are not a lot buf believes there are other issues: First, he believes it may be 6 feet 6 inches. They dedicated the land for sidewalk or landscape purposes and now they are being impacted and he has to ~nd out from the City if it includes what they already have. He is concerned that now they are talking about 15 feet as opposed to six (6) feet and he is not ready to give that up. He stated `the driveway is an issue. Only having two driveways is of concern for access. He stated that if they were going to replace the driveway in another location a lot of things would have to be moved around. He feels there may be some utility issues and traffic signal issues that may require additional land that may impact their property. It is not a lot of land but the ultimate impact seems to be greater than it would appear: Commissioner Faessel stated what is before Commission at this point is the signalization of this corner. It does not require anyadditional land. He asked for clarification on the modification of the driveways. - • Mr. Farano res onded the left one is not oin to chan e, but had concerns that the P 9 9 9 only access into that area is the one driveway. There is the Archstone alley which is their access into and out of their project. He indicated that a substantial number of their cars would be coming out of that driveway to turn right on Orangewood to go to the freeway. He expressed concerns about having two (2) driveways immediately side by side. He believes the driveway on Dupont is vital for their parking on the front of the project. Commissioner Faessel stated that staff is willing to give him another driveway in the middle of the property and asked if he was in agreement. Chairman Buffa stated that she is not sure it is appropriate to try and solve Mr. Farano's driveway issues because he is not the applicant and the question before Commission is if it is the responsibility of the applicant of the office property to try to work with Mr. Farano; and should they be conditioned to do that with the development agreement. She stated that she is not sure that anybody has enough information to figure out Mr. Farano's driveway. She is sympathetic with his problem and that is why they are having the conversation. Commissioner Faessel stated Commission is trying to approve or not approve and cannot enforce conditions upon the applicant unless they understand from the property what direction he wants them to go. . 07-23-07 Page 14 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Chairman Buffa stated that Mr. Farano has already given testimony that he is not ready to give up his land. , Commissioner Eastman stated it seemed to her that he would have to deal with his driveway issue regardless, once the intersection is signalized just by the virtue of the : distances required and so that will be his issue with the City. Chairman Buffa stated she is getting the sense that #here is another option and there may be something #hat could be done with the intersection and the streef that is across the'street. She stated the thing that makes her uncomfortable is thinking' about settling on the solution that has come up at the eleventh hour without having fully explored what the options might be and not require the taking of Mr. Farano's property, and if there is another way to get around that. Commissioner Velasquez asked how the different options for the' alignment of West Dupont and D Street could be explored now that they understand there may be other ' options. Chairman Buffa asked Commission if they were ready tomove forward and condition the project to acquire land from the property`owner across the street as currently written in the staff report. • Commissioners responded no. Commissioner Velasquez responded understanding that there may be other options she did not believe they should. Commissioner Faessel stated he did not want to hold up Mr. Sheldon's project for 147 square feet. Commissioner Karaki asked if Commission could amend the clause in the agreement where it could be left open for Commission to approve the project so this way the realignment would be worked out through staff but let the project be approved. Ms. Johnson responded in order to understand whether or not it is feasible to modify the road way on the north side of Orangewood, staff would need to work with the engineers from both the project applicant and the engineers from West Millennium. She feels that would take a little bit of time to coordinate to see if it is feasible. She concurred in terms of the right-of-way the parkway and the sidewalk currently meets the standard connector street design; the 5 foot parkway and 5 foot sidewalk. She stated that there might be a modification to the parkway or combining the tree wells and staff could explore whether there is another alternative there. There would still be the need for a signal at the end of the day in order to meet the traffic needs of the location. She suggested staff could certainly see if the developer is willing to explore that and work with the engineers. Ms. Johnson feels that will take a little time in terms of getting back ~_ to the Commission and anticipates at least a continuance of four (4) weeks in order to review it and come back with the staff report. 07-23-07 Page 15 JULY 23, 2007 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ' Ghairman Buffa referred to Public Works and recalled that they reminded, the Commission that it is not just the width of the travel lane and curb that is needed but there are also utility structures and water meters in the parkway that would need to be relocated. She stated that regardless of whether D'Street can be`realigned there is still going to be some need for the applicant to work with the neighbor across' the street to get an easement as an interim condition, at least until such time as the ultimate widening of Orangewood when the right turn lane is built. At which time somehow the City is going to acquire the additional right-of-way. Commissioner Velasquez asked if the six (6) inches would still be needed in order to relocate the utilities. Ms. Lai responded that it would need'to be greater than six (6) inches; there is the water meter and parkway drain, but to what extent is uncertain and it would need to be relocated behind the curb. Commissioner Vetasquez feels'the property owner of Orangewood is confused as to how far the easement goes, believing the City is askir-g six (6) feet, six (6} inches. Ms. Lai clarified that the six (6) feet of existing parkway is City property just as any other right-of-way such as on Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. lt is technicaAy ~ City property and the right-of-way is measured from the centerline to the back of the Commissioner Eastman asked if it means that the improvements could take place within the land that the City already has control over. sidewalk which woufd include the parkway and the sidewalk. The same goes for the subject property, from centerline to the back of the parkway is a 32 foot total right-of- way; twenty-six feet from centerline to the curb, and six feet from #he curb to the back of parkway, all of which is City properly and as it shows in the dedication deed, it is for road and public utility purposes. Ms. Lai responded not unless it could fit into the six (6) inches and this project required that it be extend beyond that. However she stated that the City could take a small portion for dedication in the interim until the street is fully widened or until development occurs and the full 5 foot parkway and landscape are placed there, but in the intecim there would still be a need for an easement to place the relocated utilities. Commissioner Faessel stated that he understands that there is a 64 foot right-of-way from back of parkway to back of parkway and he asked how wide the planned roadway is. Ms. Lai responded that the planned roadway is 55 feet. ~ Commissioner Faessel stated that leaves 9 feet. JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •, Ms. Lai responded correct, but on the Steadfast property they would need to put in the 5 foot parkway - 5 foot sidewalk and currently they only have a 6 foot parkway and that pushes' it over. They are keeping their right-of-way and are not doing any dedication : along West Dupont. They are dedicating the additional 4 feet to accommodate the 5 foot parkway - 5 foot sidewalk and it pushes over 55 feet and that is where the six (6) inches comes in for the curb. Commissioner Faessel asked if from the inside of the curb there is no additional right-of- _ wayto the`west of the curb. Ms. Lai responded it would be the curb and the curb width. Commissioner Faessel wished further clarification that there would be no City right-of- wayto the West of the inside or the outside property side of the curb, stating that he is unclear on what exactly the west side of Dupont Street would look like and how the six (6) inches is being incorporated into that. He understands that the 55 feet roadway and a 64 foot right-of-way that leaves 9 feet and the City is using some portion of that on the steadfast property and the remainder is on the 2130 property so he asked what remains. Ms. Lai responded nothing remains and that is why the City requires the six (6) inches. • Chairman Buffa stated with the currently proposed alignment of the road, the centerline being where it is proposed, unless the neighbor is willing to cooperate and grant six (6) inches and an easement for relocation of utilities, the road cannot be built or it would have to be modified. If the alignment is moved it would require a variance from the City ,, standard north of Orangewood. So we see what the range of choices are and someday ' when the 2130 property is redeveloped they would be required to dedicate additional right-of-way behind the currently proposed curb to build landscaping and sidewalk. Therefore she asked the Commission if they desired to continue the item and ask staff to return and deliberate whether Street D could be shifted. Staff could work out the issue with the applicant and delete the condition of approval. Otherwise they could leave it the way it is. The Commission could tell the applicant to work with the neighbor ` across the street and find a solution and if they cannot find a solution in four (4) months they must come back to the City. Commissioner Velasquez concurred with Chairman Buffa and stated per staff the continuance would have to be four (4) weeks. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant how he felt about a continuance. Mr. Sheldon responded that their finances are held up by the proposed condition and they are going to spend six million dollars just to do their construction documents. They can not submit those for a building permit and will not get the loan unless the condition . is deleted. Also they have the land under option and feel it could go four (4) weeks or a year; :therefore, they would fike to go forward and feel that they can work with staff. They have made good faith efforts to work with the adjacent property owner and staff 07-23-07 Page 17 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMI$SION MINUTES .• ` and believe they can find a solution but would need to have the technical condition deleted. They would like to go forward either way and not continue this today. ' Chairman Buffa referred to the language of the condition submitted to Commission by the applicant and stated that the applicant has proposed to substitute what City staff _ wrote and read that it stated that they were basically saying that they would try to acquire the non-owned property and ifi they cannot and if the City chooses not to solve . the problem, #hen the completion of 1Nest Dupont Drive improvement shall no longer be required. She stated that she is not comfortable with the language because they certainly need to improve the east side with a lot of improvements: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated that it is not an issue that can be left unresolved. It is this development #hat is driving the improvement and creating the need, along with other projects that are being built in the area as part of the Platinum Triangle vision. The requirement is specifically generated by the 20 story office that is . creating the need for the improvement so given the analysis at this particular time, the acquisition of the additional property is necessary to make that improvement. That is why staff is structuring the condition so that they first place the 'responsibility on the applicant to work with the adjoining property owner. He explained thaf the condition is structured in Section 9 of the agreement so that the City would then have the opportunity to attempt to acquire the needed right-of-way and if not, consider#he condemnation of the property as an option. If all those options fail, that would ' `• necessitate some revision of the proposaL : He stated that the applicant wishes to revise the condition such that if their efforts fail and any efforts on the City fail, that the condition is automatically eliminated. He indicated that it would be problematic because that leaves the City without an answer to the problem. It puts the responsibility on the City to initiate some action on behalf of the applicants or other applicants, that the City has agreements with, to make a modification that would accomplish the needed improvement. The City has heard from the owners of 2130 Orangewood and their concerns and also West Millennium would have their concerns about revising their proposal. He indicated it would be difficult to feave the proposal open ended at this time. The choices are to put the condition on the project as it is and if it cannot be worked out the applicant could return to the Commission and seek a different proposal or alternative to continue the matter until the solution can be reached that is acceptable to everyone. Chairman Buffa stated her concern with the condition as it is written is that it is based upon the solution being the alignment of Dupont and D Street and she is not sure that is the correct answer. She would not agree to the applicant's language for the aforementioned reasons but feels if Commission moves forward with the language as it is written then they are presuming a certain solution. She indicated that there may be other solutions. • Commissioner Velasquez asked what if Commission was to include the current language written by staff, exploring the possibility of making changes to D Street. She concurred with the City Attorney that the improvements were required due to the project 07-23-07 ; Page 18 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMI$SION MINUTES • and not because there were prior plans to expand West Dupont. It would be irresponsible to leave it up in the air the way the applicant proposed and indicated the Commission needs to deal with the issue or continue the request. Chairman Buffa stated she would be comfortable with a continuance and`it gives the City an opportunity to look for the best solution. She stated the applicant has been in this process for a very long time and will be in the process for years and asked what effect would one more month have. Mr. Sheldon responded that they did not feel the condition is being put on because of their project but feel it is being put on because the roads do not line up. He understands they, have impacted some traffic but feels the road is being widened to its ultimate width that is already in the City's deed therefore it is not on their backs to say , that they are contributing to it any more than the otherJarge projects that are included in the area.` He reiterated the need for resolution of the issue for financing and land options and would like to go fiorward and workwith staff. He stated that there is an August 23, City Council meeting and believes they can come to a resolution by #hen and is willing to take the condition the way it is and in the interim work with staff while working towards the City Council meeting. Commissioner Faessel stated he would like to act on this item to aUow a fabulous project move forward with the conditions as they are. • Commissioner Eastman stated that as long as the applicant is comfortable with the condition as staff has written it she would be okay with moving forward. Chairman Buffa stated what she heard is the applicant prefers to take a condition that they cannot live with and hope they can work it out between now and late August when they go to City Council and amend it at the Council. She feels it is a reasonable strategy and if they don't work it out befinreen now and the end of August the Council will work with them to solve the problem. Commissioner Karaki concurred with fellow Commissioners and indicated that the project should not be delayed any more than absolutely necessary. He said he is sensitive to the applicant's financial issues and believes the right-of-way and the various street issues could be negotiated along with staff to come up with some alternatives. He stated during the preliminary hearing he brought up the D Street issue as well and wondered why they were concentrating on the south side rather than the north, and perhaps there is an opportunity to fook at this in the future. Commissioner Velasquez stated if the applicant is comfortable with moving forward with the condition she is okay with that. She stated the applicant raised an additional issue and asked him to clarify. Mr. Sheidon responded that it was Condition No. 8 regarding the soliciting of parking. • 07-23-07 Page 19 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa clarified that it would play into the condition about widening the road and is not sure'that is an issue now. - Mr. Sheldon stated they would like it changed anyway because the intent of the condition was to limit them from. having 2000 parking spaces available on game day to where they might have other buildings that may need parking. Mr. Gordon clarified thaf Condition No. 8 requires that parking areas be restricted but the restriction provides for use by tenants; visitors, patrons, invitees, and other users. So if is structured in a manner that it does recognize that they would be using parking on the property for a variety of purposes which could include an agreement with the adjoining property as long as they could provide for parking for their own use of property and have excess parking. There is an additional restriction that is`built into that condition, but the additional restriction specifically applies to parking for the Stadium, Honda Center and the Grove, and he feels it should be properly restricted and all.#he other developments have similar restrictions that would prohibit use of the parking for those purposes: He does not feel the way the condition is worded it would limit the property owner or any other transfer or successor's ability to use the property for#he adjoining property as long as they could provide for parking on their parcel. Mr. Sheldon responded if that is the opinion of the City Attorney and the opinion of the Commission they would take that as the intent of this body for some future time and ~ they may worK on some language but will do that on the way to Council. Commissioner Faessel asked general questions regarding community facilities in the CFD district. He asked about the CFD (Community Facilities District) for the Platinum " Triangle and the various infrastructure costs. When the Platinum Triangle was designed years ago the City had a certain infrastructure build outthat it had anticipated and projects such as this are being seen to push the limits of that. He indicated concern over the adequacy of utilities for this area. He said it would probably require at least one new substation that may not have been anticipated before. He had concerns about other citizens bearing the cost of this additional infrastructure. Ms. Johnson responded that staff is currently working on a Community Facilities District proposal which would include all the infrastructure needed to accommodate not only the original approval of the Platinum Triangle but also the proposed expansion. Infrastructure means the backbone infrastructure that is needed to serve the area. Staff is calculating the cost and how much that will result in a property tax if the CFD is approved. The intent is to cover all of the backbone costs; the right-ofi-way for the arterials, a Fire Station, a number of electrical improvements that need to occur in the ' roadways, sewer improvements, storm drain improvements. All properties within the boundaries of the Community Facilities District would pay a certain amount depending upon their status. ff they are an existing property or have an improved development or if they have constructed a mixed use project it will be a different tax rate, depending upon the status. It is being proposed and resolutions are anticipated to go before the • City Council in October with a vote at the beginning of the year; either February or March of next year. In the meantime,,developers who are developing out in the 07-23-0Z Page 20 J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMIIAISSION MiNUTES • Platinum Triangle need to pay fees or construct whatever improvement is needed to serve their development and that would also be the case with the CFD because the GFD has a phasing program and if it does pass,'the City would lead that program and coordinate that. If a developer needed those improvements prior to the time the CFD got there they would need to install those improvements and they could request _ reimbursement from the CFD provided they constructed those improvements in the same manner that the City would have. . This particular project does not trigger a new substation. It can be served by the current : electrical substation serving this area. There is some infrastructure impravements related to electricaf that are conditioned on #his project'and they would need to construct those. However, if the CFD is approved and the City goes forward with that, again depending upon timing, they may not have to construct it. Commissioner Karaki congratulated the developer on the project and thanked him for coming to Anaheim and bringing the first "green building" into the City of Anaheim and stated it will be making history. He commended the developer for the design that'he brought before Commission. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Karaki and stated he is also very appreciative of the developer seeking LEED'silver certification and asked if the applicant had made contact with the Public Utilities Department. • Ms. Won read her recommendation for one of the conditions of approval: Condition g No. 28, bullet point no. 2, page 43, the last sentence of the second bullet that begins . with West Dupont Drive should read easements shall be dedicated to accommodate any relocated facility due to street widening. Bullet point no. 2 that begins with total curb to curb, should be total curb to curb width of 54 feet. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve CEQA Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 332 (previously-certified) and addendum. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a~esolution to approve General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00445. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 ayes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve the proposed amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2007-00202). Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 ayes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00207. Motion passed with 5 yes votes • (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). 07-23-07 Page 21 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05222. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 ayesvotes (CommissionersRomero and Flores absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Development Agreement No. 2007-00001, with changes as read into the record by staff. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 ayes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Ms. Dadant stated that on Item No. 3e, Reclassification No.2007-00207, there is an error in the staff report and the request needs to be acted on by resolution. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Gommissioner Eastman to approve Reclassification Na 2007-00207. EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed'with 5 ayes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Chairman Buffa announced a 2 minute break. • !N GENERAL: A person spoke about issues and a person spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request, and a letter of concern was received. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. The subject item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City CounciL DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 20 minutes (2:40-4:00) A 2-minute break was taken (4:00-4:02) 07-23-07 Page 22 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES `~ n e 4a. /Faessel CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Eastma ~pprov d (READVERTISED) 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Eastman/Faessel Approved, in part 4~. ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05195 Eastman Granted 4d. ' DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2007-00035 Eastman Approved ` '- Owner: BP West Coast Product, LLC : 4 Center Point Drive . wAIVERs La Palma, CA 90623 Approved waiver (c), and denied waivers (a) and (b) , A ent' Fred Cohen since they were withdrawn g CJC Design 1205 North Red Gum Unit A Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 1700 W. La Palma and 1017-1031 N." Euclid Street: • Property is approximately 1.1 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street with frontages of 171 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 270 feet on the west side of Euclid Street Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05195 - Request to construct a service station with a self-serve car wash and convenience market with beer and wine sales with waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007- 00035 - Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed service station convenience market. Property is approximately 1.1 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street with frontages of 171 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 270 feet on the west side of Euclid Street. Continued from the July 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-82 ' Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2007-83 ~ , Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. by the applicant. CUP Incorporated the conditions of approval as stated in ' staff report dated July 23, 2007, to resolution. Added two conditions of approval Vote on Waivers and CUP: 5-0 Commissioners Flores and Romero absent Vote on PCN: 4-0 Commissioner Karaki abstained and Commissioners Flores and Romero absent Project Planner.• (efhien@anaheim. net) J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Fernando Pena, representing Arco/BP, 5317 East The Toledo, Long Beach, CA, asked that Commissioner Karaki be removed from the hearing due to past dealings with Arca Commissioner Karaki stated after consulting with the City Attorney he had not had a relationship with Arco for the past few years and asked to remain on the Commission for this hearing. Chairman Buffa referred to Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney; and asked if there was any conflict of interest. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated from the facts that Commissioner Karaki has ` relayed to him there does not appear that there is any'legal basis for him to abstain from involvement in this action. He indicated that,there are questions of bias that was raised, and Commissioner Karaki feels comfortable that there is enough separation between the time of his prior involvemenf with the applicants related to this proposal and this request that he can` participate without any bias or consent. Chairman Buffa stated that Commissioner Karaki would continue to participate on the item. Michelle lrwin, Police Department, referred to attachment no. 4, which shows the ~ census tract map, and pointed out concern that alcohol is alceady readily available to the public in the general area. She indicated that the location is not a problem location. However, the property is in a reporting district that has a crirrie rate that is 234% above average. In that reporting district, the crimes reported include many aggravated assaults and simple assaults. These assaults are not simple; they are spousal and cohabitant abuse. There were 5 aggravated assaults listed in that reporting district and out of the 5 aggravated assaults four of them wererelated to alcohol. There were 21 simple assaults and 70% of those were alcohol related. She stated that she understands the applicant wanting to have alcohol at this location, but with a crime rate of 234% above average and the amount of off sale locations thaf already exist in the near vicinity, the Police Department recommends deniaL Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Fernando Pena, Project Manager for Arco/BP, 5317 East the Toledo, Long Beach, CA, introduced Mr. Craig Yamasaky to address the beer and wine issues at the location. Craig Yamasaky, Zoning and Development Manager for Arco/BP, 4 Centerpointe, La Palma, CA, stated he graduated from Loara High School and he is intimately familiar with the neighborhood. He stated it is nice to be a part of a revitalization of a tired location. He stated that he listened to Officer Irwin's presentation but as a Zoning and Development Manager he knows that applications and licenses are based on the ' census tract and the facts such as crime. Therefore he was surprised to read a staff r e p o r t r e c o mm endin g denial because there is no overconcentration in the number of licenses: There is zoning which allows for this type of use and there are four (4) 07-23-07 • Page 24 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ allowable licenses under the census tract guidelines and only two existing. Factors to consider include a dealer who has worked atthis facility with a long standing reputation as a good businessman since 1994 and the applicant is willing`#o make a multi-million : dollar investment to improve an existing tired Jocation in order to have a new AM/PM facility. He asked the Commission to take into consideration the location:history with respect to Police reports. There has never been an alcohol related incidenfi at this facility as set forth in the Police Report. He stated that they plan to revitalize this site by . tearing down the existing structure and putting in a new facility at a cost of two million dollars. The facility currently has nine (9) security cameras. Looking at the crime possibility, and potential crime factors there are now thirty security cameras on site ~ which has the digital capability to capture anything that should occur. There are three '(3) beer'and wine licenses in the general area but as staff and the report'notes there are ' ; specialty ethnic markets and there is`not really a convenience food store'in the ` neighborhood that would provide the convenience for the generaf public. ' Arco has many facilities in Anaheim and there is not an AM/PM in'the chain in the City of Anaheim that does not sell beer and wine. He assured the Commission that Arco would maintain a level of quality that they could be comfortable with. He indicated that the dealer was a good one that has been operating since 1994. He indicated that he has worked with WAND. He cited several examples of working with the local schools on anti-DUl programs. He indicated that ARCO is interested in upholding the highest standards and traditions and have kept it in this community for more than ten (10) years. • He offered to have signs posted at the coolers and at the cash registers which would state that all beer and wine sales are video monitored in cooperation with the Anaheim Police Department. He stated that they found that effective in terms of youth purchases. They would not sell beer and wine to someone inebriated. He added that they will not sell them gasoline either. He indicated that he thought no one from WAND is present at the hearing because of ineetings they have had as recently as 14 months ago. He provided key members of WAND his home phone number, which he restated for the public records as being 714-393-2033. He stated that he is willing to put his phone number on the public record because he wanted to be accountable for the stores he oversees. Commissioner Faessel asked what percentage of the overall business would be associated with the sale of alcohol. Mr. Yamasaki responded there is approximately 8 to 12% of their store space allotted for the sale of alcohol beverages. The overall profitability of the store ranges in the neighborhood of 15 to 20% and the actual sales of alcohol amount to somewhere in 8 to 12% of the overall sales. However, the store sales can be impacted up to 20 to 25% and the reason is because a person who comes in to purchase a six (6) pack of beer to enjoy with the football game the next day also has chips and fabric softener he promised to bring home. He indicated that the customer does not stop purchasing alcohol just because it is not available at this location. The loss of 20 to 25% of two million dollars is difficult to justify. He said that this facility would be similar to others in • the community. ' 07-23-07 Page 25 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Faessel asked if all the other AM/PM Markets that the applicant is associated with included the sa{e of alcohol. Mr. Yamasaki responded yes, to his knowledge. He indicated that the sale of alcohol is an integral part of the primary purpose of this business, equal to candy bars. It is just two of the nearly 4,000 items that are sold in an AM/PM but they are integral to the business of AM/PM as a part of a convenience food store. The gas station has no relation to the sale of beer and wine, it is the convenience food store that'is the integral part of their business. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. ' Applicant's RebuttaL Mr. Pena stated that they, do feel that there is a basis for some bias for Commissioner Karaki because some projects take up to 2 to 3 years from start to ~nish. He reiterated concern over Commissioner Karaki voting on'the basis of bias stated that he would be reserving righf to appeal at a later date. Chairman Buffa responded that his concern is noted for the record and informed him that he had appeal rights whether Commissioner Karaki votes or not. • Commissioner Velasquez asked after Commission approved other AM/PM's in Anaheim has there been an increase in crimes. Ms. Irwin responded that she did not have other crime statistics with her today. Chairman Buffa asked if there were problems with other convenience markets more than other types of uses. Ms. lrwin responded that it was difficult to cover a broad spectrum like this. She indicated the types of problems convenience markets are susceptible to are robberies, beer runs of minors stealing alcohol out of the refrigerator, vandalism, loitering, or youths finding an adult who will agree to go in and purchase alcohol for them. Commissioner Velasquez asked the applicant what the situation has been at other AM/PM's in the City. Mr. Yamasaky responded that he appreciates the difficulty that Ms. frwin had answering the question because there are convenience food stores and then there is AM/PM's. Ne stated that beer runs are a fact of life. He offered locks on the cooler doors inside the store. The locked cooler doors will be an effective component. He indicated that clerks that sell beer and wine are at least 21 years old. ARCO has a Police Force that does sting operations within their facilities to make sure they are not selling to minors. They send in decoys to make sure that standards are being upheld and will terminate • employees who do not follow the rules. Everybody in the store goes through training 07-23-07 Page 26 J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and management follows these things very strictly to make sure that the issues that the : police normally have with the genre of retaif use are not resident issues at AM/PM. Commissioner Velasquez asked what type of crimes, if any, were experienced at the other AM/PM's in Anaheim. : Mr. Yamasaky responded that he has a direct relationship with their Law Security : Specialist, which are retired robbery/homicide detectives employed by Arco to address crime. He stated that he is not aware of any crime in association with Anaheim. He indicated that #hey have not had violent crimes for 8 or 9 years. That's a record that is unmatched in the industry. He feels there are crimes that happen in all retail stores. This facility has thirty cameras and these are the kind of crime deterrents that they are willing to employ as state of the art to make sure that as people come into the facilities, the first thing they see is a television monitor with indicated that:they are monitored. Commissioner Eastman asked if the Walgreen's located behind the applicant's store has security cameras. Mr. Yamasaky responded na Commissioner Eastman stated based on the paperwork she agrees with staff;-however, she could remember a number of other requests for Public Convenience or Necessity in • this same census tract over the years and this one gives her a little more assurance than some of the others she has seen. Also the City has lost a market in that area and that would have been another place where people could have gone and purchased alcohol nearby. Based on the information in this testimony she feels this is one of the better operations that the City could have selling beer and wine and the area is below the number allowed. She stated that if WAND were present in opposition, she would be more concerned. ' Commissioner Faessel stated that the Planning Commission, some years ago, established a nine point policy so as to review situations like this. He indicated that he initially did not support this. Since 20 to 25% of the profit contribution of the business is associated with alcohol and the applicant is willing to add additional conditions pertaining to signage and locked cooler doors he indicated support for the request. Commissioner Velasquez concurred with both Commissioners Eastman and Faessel stating that she feels comfortable moving forward and approving the item. Commissioner Karaki stated that he is present to serve the interest of the City and the citizens of Anaheim. He indicated he had a relationship with Arco/BP years ago and if he should vote on a matter he is doing so for the benefit of the City. He stated he has known Mr. Yamasaky for a fong time and worked with him and he feels that the projects are of good quality. He cited an example of a facility at Brookhurst and Ball and that it is a very fine product run by a very fine dealer. They have not had any problems that he • knows of from the dealer that he knows personally. For the record this is where he 07-23-07 Page 27 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION'MINUTES • started his business. He feels it will add to the quality of the neighborhood, knowing the quality of the building and operation. - Chairman Buffa stated that she like so many of the other Commissioners was not supportive when she arrived but the applicant's testimony is compelling however in order to get hersupport she would want to add a condition of approval that requires : , locked coolers for beer and wine. ' She stated she knows enough teenagers to know that sometimes the links between actions and consequences are pretty tenuous and a locked door would prevent a lot of problems that mighf otherwise occur. ' -: Commissioner Eastman stated she feels the addition of the signage was an excellent condition also. Mr. Gordon stated the draft resolution for approvaL of the conditional use permit indicates that it is for approval, in part, so we would need to modify the resolution. He cited changes to page 2 of the resolution; finding number 5 relating to denial of the request. He also recommended that the resolution include the conditions of approval on page 6 and 7 of the staff reportto the Planning Commission dated July 23, 2007, where it indicates in the staff report that the following conditions are submitted by the Police Department and are recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission in the event the Public Convenience and Necessity is approVed. He suggested that those : conditions be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit with the additional conditions ~ that signage be placed at the refrigerator or coolers where alcoholic beverages are stored and at the cash registers that indicate that alcohol sales are monitored by staff and are video taped by store management. An additional condition should be added that the coolers or refrigerator where the alcoholic beverages are stored remain locked during business hours. Mr. Yamasaky stated it would make operational difficulty for them to have the coolers locked during operation hours but he hoped he meant that they would be locked during non-sale hours and that would be from 2 in the morning until 6 a.m. Chairman Buffa stated perhaps his testimony was misunderstood by the Commission because they understood he was talking about locking the coolers where the beer and wine is stored so that teenagers would not steal it. Mr. Yamasaky stated they will Iock the storage area where beer is stored but the retail portion would only be locked during non-sale hours. Chairman Buffa stated she understood what he is saying that there is a distinction befinreen the storage area and the retail sales cooler. Mr. Yamasaky stated the storage area they would be happy to keep locked and that is another entrance that they would keep locked during regular business hours. ~ Chairman Buffa state she is lad he made that distinction because that is not the way 9 Commission understood it. : 07-23-07 Page 28 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ' Commissioner fastman stated she did not understand it that way but would like to make it very clear that the storage area would be locked at al{ times. ' Mr. Yamasaky responded correct. Commissioner Eastman stated so the public would never have access to where the extra beer is stored but the coolers would be locked only during non sale hours and otherwise they would be open. She confirmed that this was the general operational mode for other stores in Anaheim. Mr. Yamasaky responded that is not the normal operational mode for normal situations but in areas of high crime it can be used to incrementally increase the deterrent level against potential for things like beer runs. They agreed to these additional operational conditions and incorporate those components:as a standard operational procedure at this facility. Commissioner Eastman stated based on the fact'that they intend to have the thirty video monitors and are willing to put the signs up stating thaf all of this is being monitored she feels okay with it. Mr. Yamasaky stated the component of the signage which they find has been effiective • to say the sale of beer of wine is video monitored in cooperation with the Anaheim Police Department. It has been found to be the most effective deterrent from a signage standpoint and not simply that it is video monitored but they make the tapes available to the Police Department. Commissioner Eastman stated that the language will be incorporated in the additional condition that is being added on and she is okay with that. Ms. badant stated the hours where alcohol would not be permitted for sale would be befinreen the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. so they could craft a condition to say that any coolers used to store beer and wine shall be locked between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. Chairman Buffa stated she did not feel it appropriately addressed the candition and clarified the storage cooler would be locked all of the times and the retail sales case would be locked between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. Chairman Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to accepf the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Chairman Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to deny ~ waivers (a) and (b) because they have been deleted and approve waiver (c). Motion passed with 5 ayes (Commissioner Romero and Flores absent). 07-23-07 Page 29 JULY' 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES • Chairman Eastman offered :a resolution to, approve Conditional Use Permit Na 2007- 05195 with all of the changes read into the record as stated by the City Attorney and also Ms. Dadant. EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that.the resolution passed with 5 ayes vofes (Commissioner Romero and Flores absent). Chairman Eastman offered a resolution to appro~e Public Convenience or Necessity :' No.2007-00035. Mr. Gordon stated that would also include incorporating the conditions in the staff report. EIIy; Morris, Senior Secretary, announced #hat the resolution passed with 4 ayes votes ;(Commissioner Karaki abstained; Commissioner Romero and Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel thanked the representative from the Anaheim Police Departmentfor pulling their case together as carefully as they did and wanted them to know that even though the Commission went with the applicant their value in this process is very important.and Commission looks forward to always hearing their point of view and the'facts every time such arr item comes forward. • OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (4:03-4:47) ~ JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to ` 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 5, 2007 : 5c. RESOLUTION OF UNCERTAINTIES 5d. CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05209 Motion: Eastman/Faessel Owner: Brandon Rainone : , Outer Spring Volcano LP 3364 East La Palma Avenue voTE: 5-0 Atlaheim, CA 92806-2814 Commissioners Flares and Romero absent • Agent: Brandon Rainone 3364 Easf La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 ; Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 2;7 acres, having a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, and is accessed via a 652 foot long, 32 foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street. Request to remodel of an existing bowling facility including an , expansion for a management office and permit telecommunications towers with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum letter height. (c) maximum floor area ratio, (d) required landscaping adjacent to a freeway, and (e) maximum size and quantity of freeway oriented wall signs. Continued from the May 30, and the June 25, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Project Planner.• (ethien@anaheim. net) Motion offered by Commissioner Eastman, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to continue to September 5, 2007. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None ~ DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 07-23-07 Page 31 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FaesseVEastman Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT FaesseUEastman Approved 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05213 Faessel Granted _ 6d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 17175 . FaesseVEastman Approved Owner: The Vineyards Apartments. LLC ' ' ' 4901 Birch Street C~ CA 92660 NeWpOrt BeaCh Modified Paragraph No. 4 , of draft resolution. Agent: Ron Cofe 'rT1v~ 4901 Birch Street Modified Condition No: 2. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Deleted Condition No. 5 Location: 5604 East Oranpethorpe Avenue: Property is approximately 13.3-acre with a frontage;of 555 feet ' voTE: 5-0 Commissioners Flores and along the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, Romero absent located 460 west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05213 - Request to permit ~ the conversion of an existing 304-unit apartment complex to an attached airspace residential condominium planned unit development complex with modification to standards and waiver of setbacks between buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 17175 - To establish a 1 lot, 304 unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Continued from the July 9, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Project Planner.• (skoehm@anaheim.net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-84 Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He also indicated the following changes to the draft resolution: Amend Condition No. 2 on the tentative map to read that final detailed elevation plans and colors and material shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item for review. Plans shall reflect detailed fa~ade treatments including architectural embellishment on blank walls and a new balcony porch design. ~ Said improvements shall be completed prior to approval of the final map. '07-23-07 : Page 32 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Amend finding No. 4 of the conditional use permit resolution to read that based upon review of the project with requested modifications of standards and waiver the site will comply with the land use and density policies of the general plan and underlying zoning code. Delete Condition No. 5 from the excerpt. Staff has worked with the applicant and Public Works staff to determine that this condition is no longer appropriate. Ron Cole, representing The Vineyards Apts., LLC, 4901 Birch Street, Newport Beach, : CA, stated he was present to answer questions as deemed necessary. Commissioner Eastman stated that Commission received a couple of e-mails from the public on issues that she was also thinking about. She asked if there were planned improvements within the unit as far as replacement of some of the aging things because _ the project was built in the `70's. She also asked if he was utilizing any kind of energy efficiency as he readied the buildings to be sold to make the energy consumption more efficient. She indicated the City offers help in that area. Mr. Cole stated that Lyon has a brand name and they take a lot of pride in how they handle and run their operations. He stated this is a pretty old project, buf they do on a regular basis look at the usage while managing the property and running it. Part of the annual budget is to renovate and replace various items that need replacing. He stated ~ that as part of the Department of Real Estate (DRE) process they go through an extensive period where they review the budget and they have a person qualified to come through the property and do a thorough inspection and determine the remaining life of the product, and that is taken into firm account in determining the budget and what the monthly dues would be. They then determine what is competitive from a dues standpoint and the developer is usually required to set the reserves and infuse it with cash to allow for a steady operating budget moving forward. So from a mechanical, HVAC and other such aspects they are usually addressed because they are first required by the DRE. From an operational standpoint as an apartment they currently deal with that on a monthly and annual basis. In regards to energy efficiency, as they : get closer to the actual sale they will review the budget again. They don't have any intention of going forward with the conversion any time soon because of market conditions. Energy efficiency is something that they will definitely take into consideration, purely because of the cost savings and the environment, etc. Commissioner Eastman suggested that he partner with the City Utilities Department because they might be able to assist with the energy enhancement features of the project. She also suggested they consider incorporating affordability because the City is always looking for more affordable ownership units as well as rental units. She indicated some of the services available at the City to offer to his long term tenants. Commissioner Karaki stated that Commission received finro (2) emails from two (2) of the residents in the complex and they raise very legitimate questions that he would ask ~ the City Attorney,if Commission had the power to make them conditions. He stated that being in the building business for years he can'see that there might,be issues related to 07-23-07 Page 33 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • asbestos; issues related to existing equipment that is not efficiently working, plumbing, and : aluminum wiring for electrical. He stated those are issues that the user will not be seeing or addressing or has no say in it except he would be selling them as they are. He cited an : example of a situation where a current resident would not be able to compel the upgrade in facilities such as plumbing, electrical and asbestos. He asked what the applicant intended to do on those health related technical issues. He stated even if Commission does not have the pov-rer to put provisions on this he wants to raise the, question for the public record. Chairman Buffa stated that in a condominium conversion she does not believe the responsibility is any different than in the resale of any otherhome. She stated that she lives in a home built in the 70's and when she decided to scrape off the "cottage cheese" ceiling she sent a little sample to a lab and asked if it'was asbestos because it was old enough that it _ could have been. She believes it is the responsibility of the buyer to make these determinations and not the responsibility of the seller. However, in the case of a hazardous material maybe based on DRE law, the seller has to disclose it, but as long as it is inert it is not an issue. If someone buys a unit that was built in the 70's they are buying old plumbing and it is just resale of older property. : Commissioner Karaki stated his question comes`from the affordability of those residentswho are going to buy into those units and who are living day-to-day and are forced to buy a unit versus moving out. He reiterated this is for public concern not for the applicant to answer the' question. He asked the City Attorney if the Commission has the right to do this and if nof, he' • just wants to make a public statement. Chairman Buffa reminded the Commission that they are market rate units and #he developer has said: they do not intend to convert them right now, but it is an asset management strategy and someday when they se11 them they are market rate units. The City has no inclusionary housing policy - it does not require affordability. She stated that these are all great social consciousness issues but for her that is the end of it. She asked the City Attorney if he would like to respond. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, asked for a moment prior to responding. Commissioner Faessel reiterated the applicant's thought that his timeline is not immediate and asked him to elaborate on it. Mr. Cole responded that from a market condition standpoint right now it does not make any sense. The owner does not intend to sell it because he has owned it for thirty years and it is one of the hold properties for him. Commissioner Faessel stated he is concerned for the residents. Mr. Cole responded to address that concern there is DRE mandated noticing of 18Q days; a 90 day notice as option to purchase for the residents. Currently it will be a one phase budget which would go to market all at once. He stated that they did that only from an economical ~ standpoint because if one were going to market it would be done in multiple phases. A project ofithis size would probably be a 15 or 16 phase project and from that stand point they really don't have any intent in the near term to get that done because of the money involved. 07-23-07 Page 34 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MfNUTES • Commissioner Velasquez asked what the requirements are for condo conversions, and stated who buys them is not up to the Commission. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the city has not heard any evidence to suggest that any of the buildings or structures do not comply with existing building codes at the time the building was constructed or any later improvements were made. The potential buyer has a right to conduct due diligence and conduct an investigation of the property before making any offer. He stated that he does not believe'this situation is any different than someone selling an older home that may have been constructed durir-g another era at a different time when building codes where obviously different. He does not believe the code allows Commission a mechanism to impose the kind of condition that they desire to achieve consistency or compliance with current building : codes unless there is a building permit that is sought or improvement that is made that would justify or allow the Cityto impose those kinds of conditions and require the kinds ofupgrades or remedies that Commissioner Karaki is concerned about. Mr. Cole stated every resident has signed a lease since December 26, 2005 has been notified that it was the potential intent on' the horizon, prior to any lease being signed. A : notice was sent by certified mail, to make sure thaf everybody was made`aware. He stated they have done probably 9 conversions over the past few years and they have a very tight process making sure that they are taking care of their residents. : • Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to accept the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to accept the waiver of Code requirement. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Conditionaf Use Permit No. 2007-0513 with the amendment to paragraph no. 4 as delineated by City staff. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 ayes votes (Commissioner Flores and Romero absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to accept Tentative Tract Map No. 17175 with the amended Condition No. 2 and the deleted Condition No. 5. ~ OPPOSITION: Two e-mails were received in,opposition #o the subject request. - 07-23-07 Page 35 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p:m. on Thursday, August 2, 2007, and presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (4:48-5:10) : ~ JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CE A SUBSEQUENT EIR NO. 332 AND ADDENDUM Q (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05227 7c. FINAL:SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00006 ' Owner: Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC '25 Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-2601 Agent: George Tellez Lennar Platinum Triangle 25 Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Location: 1404 East Katella: Property is approximately 3:7-acre and is within an approximate 41.4-acre property, generally located between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way,'extending from State College Boulevard to just west of Betmor Lane. . Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05227 - To modify setback requirements to construct a mixed-use project in Development Area C of the A-Town Metro project: Final Site Plan No. 2007-00006 - Requests review and approval of a final site plan for a 5-story, 166-unit, mixed use development, including 15,275 square feet of commercial uses in Development Area C of the A-Town Metro project. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Final Site Plan Resolution No. Continued to August 20, 2007 Motion: Eastman/Karaki VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Flores and Romero absent Project Planner. (twhite@anaheim. net) Motion offered by Commissioner Eastman, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to continue to September 20, 2007. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed 07-23-07 ` Page 37 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA EIR NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) Continued to 8b. DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA 5 August 20, 2007 (MIS2007-00204) 8c. FINAL SITE PLAN N0. 2007-00007 . 8d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17102 Motion: EastmanlVelasquez ' 8e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMITNO. 2007-00003 Owner. Irvine Land Company VOTE: 5-0 ; Commissioners Flores and 550 Newport Center Drive Romero absent Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: John Sherwood _ , Irvine Community Development Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 90660 Location: Property is approximately 291-acre portion of the Mountain Park Specific Plan located east and southeast ofthe southern terminus of Gypsum Canyon Road, and bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway. • • Development Area Plan for Development Area 5 (MIS2007-00204) - Review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Final Site Plan No. 2007-00007 - Review and approval of a final site plan for Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 17102 - To establish 153 single- family detached lots, 8 Large-Lots for a maximum of 617 single-family detached cluster units and 13 Large-Lots for a maximum of 825 single-family attached units, a public water reservoir, three private parks and associated streets and landscaping. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2007-00003 - Review and approval of a specimen tree removal permit to remove 53 trees as part of the Mountain Park Master Specimen Tree Removal Permit. Miscellaneous Resolution Permit No. • Final Site Plan Resolution No. ProiectP~anner.~ (skoehm@anaheim.net) Specimen Tree Removal Resolution'No. 07-23-07 Page 38 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Motion offered by Commissioner Eastman, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to continue to September 20, 2007. Motion passed with 5 yes votes (Commissioners Romero and Flores absent). ' OPPOSITION: ' None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ n 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION tinued to Co YPREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) September 5, 2007 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05221) Motion: FaesseUKaraki Owner: Price-James Company VOTE: 4-0 110 N. WaCker Drive Commissioners Flores, ChiCago, IL 60606 Romero and Velasquez absent Agent: EMI ATTN: Rod Wilson tn 4737 West 156 Street Lawndale, CA 90260 Location: 1303-1371 North Euclid Street: Property is approximately 6.42 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street. Request to amend conditions of approval to permit a freeway- . • oriented electronic readerboard sign in conjunction with an existing automotive dealership with waivers of (a) minimum lot size for an automotive dealership to permit a freeway- oriented sign (b) maximum area for the face of sign, (c) maximum permitted height of a freeway-oriented sign.* *Advertised as "within 300 feet of single-family residential". Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Project Plannec (kwong2@anaheim.net) Marvin Marcell, representing Miller Toyota of Anaheim, 1313 North Euclid, Anaheim, CA, stated he was present to clarify to the Commission some of the staff report and to inform them more in layman's language what they believe the issues are and they turn to the Commission for some relief and partnership in helping them. He stated that they bought the dealership properly last year and are proud to be new citizens of Anaheim. ; He provided some background on the dealership and indicated it was 6.4 acres with the second largest dealership in the city being 4 acres. He stated that identity in their • business is critical to being successful. He stated that they do not like visual clutter any more than the City of Anaheim but they also know that they are in a situation in this 07-23-07 Page 40 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • instance where they are located 30 feet below a freeway and that creates tremendous problems for visibility to the public. He stated that the staff report indicates that they can be seen in either direction as you travel on Freeway 91. He indicated that practically a driver would have to turn 120 degrees when the traffic flow is 50 or 60 mph to see the building. He stated thaf he can assure Commission thaf there are people who travel the . freeway every single day who tell them they did not know they were there. Going west on the same freeway, there is a two to three second window where one can see the building. They have owned the dealership about one year and he cited examples of customers having difficulty finding the dealership. ' He stated the hardship that they have is that they do not have a sales level that was projected to the Commission when the original owner took over the Best Buy store that was vacant and the City encouraged that purchase to develop the property. The request for the freeway sign was not approved, but there was council discussion to return for entitlements if it were a real problem. He stated they are given a primary geographic market by Toyota. 'They are gauged based on how well they serve their primary market and that is the City of Anaheim, Fullerton, snd other cities adjacent to the' intersection. The reality is that sales#o customers who live within their market area is the lowest in California of any Toyota store and likewise the stores in Toyota Cerritos, Buena Park, Jrvine, Tustin all have'higher than proportional shares of their primary market area customers doing business with them. When they do talk to them their research is clear that they did not come to see them nof because they did not want to give them a try but because they did not know they were there. So that is one of the reasons they come to Commission. In . 2000, they projected the site to be a billion dollars over ten (10) year sales generator. Of course, that was of importance to the City. The experts who testified then talked in terms of the freeway sign could cost as much as 20% of those sales estimates and he can tell them from first hand experience that it is greater than a 20% lost to them and to the City because people are going elsewhere. He reiterated that they are concerned with the visible aspect of the sign and met with the City about 8 months ago. They modified the size of the sign, the height and even the location of the sign. He indicated a desire to work with the City to find a soiution, including modifications to the sign. He provided justification for the waivers relative to topography. He referenced the sizes of the other dealerships at the auto center as justification for being deprived of a privilege' enjoyed by others. He indicated the individual dealerships are approximately 2 to 4 acres in size. This facility is over 6 acres. The land is simply not available to expand the dealership. Commissioner Velasquez stated that it is clear to her that for their type of business that signage is very important. She asked when they moved a year ago what type of signage they anticipated having for the business to be successfuL Mr. Marcell responded that in their due diligence they had numerous conversations with the previous owner, who was the founder of the dealership. They changed the name to include Anaheim to highlight their location. They wanted to see what impacts better management might have on the operation. They had 12 other dealerships in this area, all under the Miller name. They brought in a general manager who had been very ~ successful previously at a Honda dealership in Culver City and also a Toyota dealership before that. He also had the chance to hand pick people who would come in to help run '07-23-07 Page 41 JULY 23,-2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t the business. Within four months, it was clear to them that the problem was not just improved management, although he stated you can do`a lot by just improving the process of the system by`which you do your business, but at the end of the day he remembered that Mr. Hitchcock had said thafthis is a good City. He mentioned the prior discussions during the original approval relating to the freeway sign'and his understanding that if it is a real problem, to revisit the sign issue. He stated the evidence of people within their market areas going to other,cities at a very disproportionate rate lends credibility to their assumption: They. have over 1,000 customers that have told them:the same thing over the course of the year. Commissioner Velasquez stated that she is taken back that the sign issue was not resolved at the time of purchase or at moving into the piece of property. She stated the reason for that location was to capture the business that would come from #he people traveling along the 91 Freeway and she would imagine that is why they applied for the big sign in 2000 and it was denied. Mr. Marcell stated when it was first built they were not the ones who applied for the sign. Commissioner Velasquez indicated concern that the sign has already had a denial from the City. Mr. Marcell stated the reality is that it had been a split vote and they even saw the notes '~ were it was in the minutes of the meeting that if this does create a problem the cCity wanted the dealership to come back to see what they could do. He explained that they have done research before approaching the Commission again. Rod Wilson, owner of EMI, 1313 N. Euclid, Anaheim, CA, stated Miller Toyota of Anaheim hired their company to help them achieve visibility to reach 300,000 people passing by the dealership per day so that people would know that they were there off the Euclid exit. He stated their company was hired by the City to build the Anaheim Auto Center Electronic Reader Board sign. That sign off the 57 Freeway had the same situation as far as circumstances and conditions. It is below the freeway grade and is difficult to see going southbound on the 57 freeway. A 75 foot high, 800 square feet sign was approved there. He showed a sign with 75 feet in height and 480 square feet in size. He stated the problem as mentioned by Mr. Marcell is that no one knows where the dealership is. They supplied staff with a tremendous amount of information requested by them. He gave a detailed description demonstrating the lack of visibility of the dealership. He reiterated some of the visibility concerns raised earlier. Miller Toyota is not like Cerritos Auto Square where everyone knows that the Cerritos Auto Square is at the 605 South Street Exit because they spend about 15 million a year advertising where they are located. He stated Miller Toyota, last year, spent 1.5 million advertising their location here in Anaheim at the Euclid exit. They still have the problem that Mr. Marcell mentioned which is no one knows they are here in Anaheim at the Euclid Avenue exit. The Miller Toyota of Anaheim group is not asking for a special privilege but asking for an equal privilege of an acceptable use here in the City of • Anaheim. This is already an acceptable use here in Anaheim and they are just asking for equal'privilege that has been granted in the past. He said they relocated the sign so 07-23-07 Page 42 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~' that it is 30Q foot away from residences. In summary two other single dealerships along the 91 Freeway exists that have reader boards. They have experienced a 15 to 18 percent increase in sales following the installation of a reader board sign. Those dealerships also had similar topography issues. He stated that since this is about the future success of a car dealership, and he has ' been doing this for close to 30 years; He cited an example of another dealership`where the reader board sign attributes to 40% of the business. He indicated the LED display has the capability of dimming itself from zero to 100%. The LED display dims automatically at dusk. It can be even lowered to the point where it is not causing any concerns to any neighboring residential areas. Staff also'mentioned that if this were to be approved by the Planning Commission that the message stay static at'night time when it turns dark, the LED hasthe capability to have one message overlaid onto - anothermessage so there is not a light intensity change. Thaf type of condition`could be added to the' conditions for approvaL He stated they were'asking for Commissian's help. Chairman Buffa stated that Commission received the email submitted by Mr. Muse and, therefore it was not necessary to repeat any of the information and that she would also ask him to be very brief. John Muse, of John Muse & Associates, Inc., 8159 Dantmoor Drive, Long Beach, CA, stated he is a registered Civil Engineer and has looked at the project from an . illumination standpoint; what would the illumination be on the surrounding houses and determined that they would be much less than they would get from surrounding street lights and things of that nature. They were moved to be 300 feet away from the residences as well as lowered to make them more environmentally friendly. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez stated the signs would need detail of some sort and obviously staff has recommended denial of the sign that the applicant proposed but she asked to hear from the Commission how they could help them; if not the particular sign that they submitted what could they do to help them out with signage or what would be a good compromise. Commissioner Eastman stated the thing that came to her mind is being more creative than another car dealer type sign with a reader board because she feels it is a very high sign. However, she stated that she understands that the applicant does need help. , She recalled that there were finro (2) questions that were never answered and it was also asked in the preliminary. She understands now why they have the tents and balloons that she noted upon her visit yesterday. She asked for a status on the tents/canopies, and if allowed by code. Wilfiam SeN, Community Preservation Manager, stated the canopies are not permitted • by code and the balloons require a special permit if they want to conduct those activities, but in either case neither are existing. 07-23-07 Page 43 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman stated that is something she wanted to bring to the attention of - the owner of the dealership because that is something she placed a complaint on at leasf six (6) months ago when she passed by and noted thaf they seemed to be a fixture in their display area. She asked the applicant if he was aware that they were not allowed by the City Code. - Mr. Marcell responded that he was not but that they wilf properly address the issue. However, he can appreciate how someone would push the envelope when they are not doing the kind ofbusiness they would like but nevertheless they will take'care of it. ' Commissioner Eastman stated it isnice to find out that he was not aware and now that he does know is wi(ling to address the issue because that is one of the things that make it harder for her to feef as though Commission needs to make accommodations when she finds out that the Code has been 'deliberately violated. She suggested looking for ways to stealth tefecommunications facilities within the sign. She asked if that is something they have ever considered as some kind of structure - actual tower feature thaf could become' an architectural compliment to his dealership but could also get their name out there and be an icon rather than something like the reader board because the reader boards seem to be kind of obnoxious and the City has #ried to keep away from them. ~ Mr. Marcell responded that they have not considered that and believes there are other coding issues that would have to be addressed but states that they are open to look at the suggestion and even open to changing the texture and character of the signage. Commissioner Eastman stated that is what she wanted to hear and is not sure if that has been a suggestion to staff and perhaps they decided no because of other conditions. Ms. Dadant stated whether it is an architectural feature looking sign or the electronic reader board they would still bump up against the same code waivers and because they had issues with making those findings they did not have those discussions with the applicant. She suggested the possibility of making modifications to the building to allow signs on the wall that would achieve the identification needs. She feels the benefit is that a wall sign that is visible from the freeway would not require the waiver of the code provisions that the City has for a free standing electronic reader board because the Code does not have specific fimitations on the size of the auto dealership for wall signs compared to a free standing sign. • Commissioner Eastman concurred and suggested putting something along the edge of the building along the top and feels it would be more visible from the freeway than the lettering they have down further on the building. She stated that she took a look at it upon one of her visits and agrees with the applicant that the building is not as visible as it needs to be. 07-23-07 Page 44 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION'MINUTES • Commissioner Karaki stated he has a question on the grade of the existing parking lot for repositioning the sign.; _ Mr. Muse responded while he did not measure the grades he did look at it and understand there is a thirty#oot difference between the freeway grade and the ground grade at the bottom of the sign. ; Commissioner Karaki stated so they are thirty feet below the freeway grade driving east or wesf on the 91 Freeway. He stated so actually the sign is not seventy-five (75) feet high from the freeway but only forty-five (45) feet, therefore what wauld be seen is a portion of it sticking up from the subject property,. : Mr. Muse responded correct and it was shown on the slides of the different heights and with the seventy-five (75) foot sign itbasically covers the bottom as traveling east bound and slightly below that as traveling west bound. Commissioner Karaki asked to review the sign once more. Mr. Muse explained in detail the signage as shown on the presentation. Commissioner Karaki stated he somewhat agrees with Commissioner Velasquez that something needs to be done in that area but Anaheim does not have an auto retail • center. He does not have a problem with the sign as proposed because other "' dealerships on the 57 Freeway have the freeway sign, but he might have' a problem the way it is proposed. Commissioner Eastman suggested something in terms of integrating telecommunication with it and she would be inclined to approve the sign if they could integrate something useful to the general public. She suggested that he should work with staff to come up with a lighting design that will be acceptable. They want them to stay in Anaheim but want to be careful not to prompt other dealers to come and do the same for no reason. Commissioner Faessel concurred that he sees the need for improved signage for the subject business; it has been there a number of years and he was very pleased when it went from North County Toyota to Anaheim Toyota. Also, he concurs with Commissioner Eastman that just about once a month they have an applicant before the Commission who is looking for something befinreen 50 and 60 or even as high as 75 feet to camouflage a cell tower. He would be very interested to see if he could not make contact with one of the cell providers and come up with a project that meets his need to have a sign, and remove some of the visual clutter in the neighborhood for current or future cell towers. He agrees that a sign is needed and suggested incorporating other things that the community needs, such as improved cell coverage. This being immediately adjacent to the freeway right-of-way and of the height proposed, might require a little bit more thought in the construction and design. He drove over 50 miles, both directions, the entire length of Anaheim on the 91 Freeway yesterday to see what ~ the City had along the 91 Freeway right-of-way. He indicated the dealership was easy _ 07-23-07 , Page 45 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t to miss. :He indicated they should incorporate a more iconic structure that might include a cell facility. Chairman Buffa stated it: is Commission's job to look at planning considerations and not financial considerations. She stated that all of the hardships #hat they described to Commission relate to their opportunity as a business and their ability to be a profitable, successful and optimize business. Commission is not insensitive to thatbut it is actually not a planning consideration and perhaps is something better heard by the City CounciL The City has worked very hard to get rid of biliboards and#o minimize signage along the 91 Freeway and' create a scenic corridor. She stated they do operate at a disadvantage because they are so far below the level of the freeway and are not visible from the freeway. She would be inclined to support signage; not a reader board and did not vote for the reader board that the City put out because she feels they are a distraction and a traffic hazard and a huge mistake across the board. She stated signage might make a lot of sense at this site and feels that if the reader board portion of what the applicant is proposing is eliminated, the sign could get a lot lower: ~4side from the tra~c hazard that reader boards create, she is also sensitive to the fact that they do have residential neighbors in close proximity and that regardless of the way they illuminate a reader board it creates more light, glare, and more of a distraction for people in their back yards than a stationary sign, even if it is illuminated at night. ' She feels it would be wonderFul if #hey could incorporate a stealth tower site and a sign. Her first choice would be that they incorporate signage on their building, even if they added a tower to ~ their building. She suggested they do site line studies and what they might realize is that tower has to get really tall to be seen, not only from the grade, but the distance to the freeway. Commissioner Karaki stated the closer he gets to the building the higher it will be so we want to push it back and lower it. Chairman Buffa stated Commission would like for them to work with staff and come up with a design that might meet the parameters that the Commission outlined. She asked the applicant if he would be interested in taking a continuance. Mr. Marcell thanked the Commission stating that their reaction is encouraging and they would be delighted to work with staff. Chairman Buffa referred to staff and asked for a reasonable amount of time that staff would want to work with the applicant to bring it back. Ms. Dadant responded given the direction of the Commission at looking at revising the size of the sign to eliminate the electronic reader board provision and also look into the feasibility of adding telecommunications facilities to the sign staff would recommend a six (6) week continuance, also because the August 20th meeting is fairly large right now: Mr. Marcell stated that is fine and that he would like for them to be in a position with s staff to bring before Commission two (2) or three (3) different perspectives. 07-23-07 Page 46 JULY 23, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa stated that Commission appreciates his willingness to work and spirit of cooperation in trying to achieve everybody's goals. Commissioner Faessel made amotion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to continue the item until the first meeting in' September (September 5, 2007). Motion passed with fouryes votes (Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent). OPPOSITION: None _ DISCUSSION TIME: 46 minutes (5:11-5:57) ' Commissioner Ve/asquez left the Council Chambers @ 5:50 p.m. ~ J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Eastman/Karaki 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Eastman/Faessel 10b.'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05226 Eastman Owner: N+-P Desai-2000 III, LP B & G Singh-2000Ji1, Lp : - 23800 Via Del Rio . Yorba Linda, CA 92887-2726 Anaheim Redevelopmentqgency 201 South Anaheim, Boulevard, Suite 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: John Dodson 1330 Olympic Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90404 Location: 1112 North Brookhurst Street and 2157-2165 West La Pa1ma Avenue: Property is 1.5 acres, having frontages of 266 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 86 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and is located 190 feet east of • the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Request to expand an existing commercial retail center and to construct a drive-through coffee shop with waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum landscape setback abutting a residential zone, (c) minimum structural setback abutting a residential zone and (d) minimum number of ' required parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-85 Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Approved Granted lYIodified Condition No.16 VOTE: 4-0 Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent Project Planner.• (kwong2@anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, being no response she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel stated that this is a fine partnership between Redevelopment and the applicant and he knows the area fairly well having driven by it many times. He • feels it certainly is an improvement and he will support it. 07-23-07 Page 48 J U LY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Karaki concurred with .Commissioner Faessel and stated it is about time for the development of those properties to see the light and he is sure they will do welL He stated the architect did a very good job and hopefully will start construction soon. Gommissioner Eastman stated she is also very supportive of the project and the architecture is beautiful and will enhance the area. It does a lot to help the City achieve its goal of having really good quality commercial centers at the corners of major intersections and if will help them start to reduce some ofthe midblock commercial thaf is Iess appropriate. She is a little concerned about the east end of the building-near the church parking lot because it is a blank wall with no landscaping and a fairly narrow walkway. She was concerned about graffiti on that wall.' At the preliminary session they talked about whether it would be possible to put in vine pockets and grow evergreen vines up on the wall. The applicant stated that staff spoke to them this evening and they are very willing to comply. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner, stated staff could modify Condition No. 16 and added that they distributed a revised resolution to the Commission and the applicant earlier. She stated staff would add language to the end of Condition No. 16 relative to adding the vines against the east elevation of the building. . Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki for a CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 4 ayes (Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent). Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel for waivers (a), (b), and (c). Motion passed with 4 ayes (Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent). Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05226. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 4 ayes votes (Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant Cify Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (5:58-6:07) 07-23-07 Page 49 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION:MINUTES - ~ o CLASS 1 Eastman 11a: CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ncurred with staff C 11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05225 Eastman Granted Owner: Carlos'Hernandez 122 East La Palma Avenue voTE: 4-0 Anaheim, CA 92801 Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez Agent: Yesenia Hernandez absent 122 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 760 North Anaheim Boulevard: Property'is : , approximately 0.34-acre and is located at the southeast corner of North Street and Anaheim _ Boulevard. Request to establish an automotive repair facility. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-86 ,~ Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. ~~ , I Project P/anner.• (dsee@anaheim.net) ' Ytsenia Hernandez, 22 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated they agreed with staff on having the business cleaned and since her father bought it some months ago they have kept it clean even if it is not in use. They understand that there can be banners outside and there wil! be no cars worked on outside and they will be used for overnight parking. They have painted the building, worked on it and they are taking care of it so that it will look good for the City. She stated that Carlos Hernandez has been a mechanic for approximately twenty (20) years and he is experienced in the subject and she believes it will be a good addition to the City and he will be responsible for it. Commissioner Faessel noted that it has been cleaned up and recently painted. It had gotten pretty dirty and he's hopeful that her family continues to keep it and maintain it in such a way that it is an advantage to the community. It is on the City's northern border; on the northern gateway and there are other automotive businesses close by that he is sure she can work in conjunction with. He will support the application. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. ~ Chairman Buffa stated that there is a different format in the staff report in that with one action #hey can approve the CEQA and the Conditional Use Permit. 07-23-07 Page 50 JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05225. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 4 ayes votes (Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent): vrrv~i ~ ivir. ivun~ ~ i Mark Gordon, Assisfant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (6:08-6:14) JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12a: CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Faessel Concurred with staff 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Faessel Approved 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007=05228 Faessel Granted Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment VOTE: 4-0 P.O. Box. 3222 CommissionersFlores, Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 Romero and Velasquez absent Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 S. Anaheim Boulevard Suite 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 : Location: 1234 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located south and east of the southeast corner ofAnaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. Request to establish an automotive dealership with waiver of minimum landscaped setback. Project Planner. ~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na PC2007-87 (asee@anane~m.ner~ Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Faessel stated this is a wonderful relationship between the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant in trying to solve a problem with Anaheim Chevrolet. He offered a resolution to adopt the attached resolution approving the CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 and adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05228. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 4 ayes votes (Commissioners Flores, Romero and Velasquez absent). Commissioner Faessell thanked the two (2) Redevelopment representatives who did a yeomen's job in showing their patience in a long agenda. JULY 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME;.~ 2 minutes (6:15-6:17) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Resp ctfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on s~ ~a , 2007. ~ 07-23-07 Page 53