Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/08/20P~P~-1E1Nj C~~ o`~ J o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • \\ C\ Y /_ ~T /~\7/ / I// • '~p' r~'~ V c~~ \NDED ~~ Commissioners Present: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday, Auqust 20, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman Pro-Tempore: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Commissioners Absent: Kelly Buffa Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner Ted White, Senior Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer Kimberly Wong, Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary • Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 16, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, July 26, 2007 • Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE AUGUST 20, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 45 • Pledge Of Allegiance: • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • • Adjournment Commissioner Faessel H:\TOOLS\PCADM I N\PCACTI ONAG E NDA~2007M I N UTESWC082007. DOC AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Buffa absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-B and 1-C as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Renorts and Recommendations 1A.(a) CEQA SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN (b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00009 • (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Agent: Chris Samuelian Morris Architects 2046 Armacost Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 500 West Disnev Way Request review and approval of a final site plan to construct a 400-unit time share within the Anaheim Garden walk project. Continued to September 17, 2007 Motion: Eastman/Velasquez VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: (dherrick@anaheim, net) (This item was removed from the Con~ent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Wayne Fjare, Westgate Resorts, 8221 Green Clover, Las Vegas, NV, representing the • owner, stated they appreciate the assistance and consideration given by staff thus far however, the owner is confused as to why they are not able to move forward with the project. They have appropriately responded to the color palette which has been pre- 08-20-07 Page 2 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES approved for the Garden Walk Project; made architectural changes to the design; • consulted with a third party architect and obtained his approval; and conferred with staff who has approved the color scheme. Therefore, they feel they have done their due diligence and are seeking approval from the Planning Commission and an opportunity to be a part of the Anaheim community. Christopher Samuelian, Morris Architects, 5270 Village Green, Los Angeles, CA, stated they made some amendments to the exhibits which were proposed, introducing colors from the timeshare building down to the parking garage. He stated they matched the upper creme color with the color of the garage to reinforce the cohesiveness of one building. They also added greener wall elements to the right portion of the parking garage to help soften the appearance; and also retained the red banding to distinguish between the garage and building components. Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Samuelian to explain what he means by green wall element. Mr. Samuelian responded that it is essentially a medal-like cage in green, designed so that vines would grow up to the top. Additionally, he noted that the planning staff mentioned a commitment by the owner to add more of the green elements to the parking garage to assist in softening the appearance. Commissioner Eastman concurred that it is better having the colors more similar • however, she feels it still does not achieve the intentions of the Commission to not be able to discern that it is obviously a big parking structure with a building plopped on the top of it. She further stated that the setback on Katella looks like the building is right on Katella, with a looming effect. She feels the parking structure would become the most prominent to pedestrians at street level. She expressed disappointment that it would not be the kind of building that the City of Anaheim could be proud of. Commissioner Romero stated removing the red band would make it look less conspicuous and stated that otherwise, it looked like finro buildings sandwiched together. He asked the distance between the building and Katella Avenue. Ted White, Senior Planner, responded at least 100 feet, probably over 100 feet. Commissioner Romero asked if the building would be visible directly from Katella Avenue. Mr. White responded no, and illustrated that along Katella and the public right-of-way, in the area where a double row of palm trees are located, there is an 11 foot building setback to what would be the Bubble Gump Restaurant, which is going to be located in front of approximately one-half to finro-thirds of the frontage of the parking structure. Further west, in the vehicular drive area, there would be dense rows of palm trees planted that would lead up to the parking structure; which would further obscure the • view of the parking structure. On the very western property line there would be denser landscaping; including giant birds of paradise, which are also used to screen the surface level Disney parking lots along Katella, opposite the Convention Center. He feels the 08-20-07 Page 3 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES applicant has provided a very effective job screening up to approximately 15-20 feet in • height; and stated that the pedestrian experience, when in front of Bubba Gump Restaurant, would not be able to see the parking structure at all. Also, farther west pedestrians would be looking at drive entrances in a set back approximately 100 feet to the parking structure. Commissioner Romero wished to clarify that the line of site pedestrians would be looking at from the very front of Katella would only be the timeshare building. Mr. White responded concrete has been poured up to the fifth level and the parking structure is not visible from the sidewalk in front of the Bubba Gump Restaurant. The timeshare building on top would b visible . Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Eastman that the two structures do not go together and feels since the project was approved before the current Commission he would rather not comment farther. Mr. White wished to clarify the parking structure was approved as a part of the final site plan application with the retail concourse level, which is basically what they were looking at as the main retail area. The parking structure was required to go through the final site plan process, and the Planning Commission considered that as a part of the retail concourse. He clarified that the applicant before the Commission today is for the timeshare portion of the project, which also required a final site plan. The applicant and • planning staff are supportive of modifications to the parking structure. He stated however, that there is a limit as to what can be imposed on the timeshare applica because they are not actually responsible for the elevations of the parking struct The timeshare applicant has talked with the applicant from Garden Walk and determined that they are amenable to looking at certain design elements to help up to a level that the Planning Commission would be comfortable with. Commissioner Faessel stated he would like to see more alternatives rather than minimum cosmetic changes, to soften the affect of the two different buildings. nt ure. bring it Commissioner Eastman stated she prefers the original approved colors because looking at the project as presented thus far, the articulation along the Katella frontage makes it appear as though it is a series of buildings and therefore, she would not be comfortable with approving this project. Commissioner Faessel stated he believes everyone is supportive of the Garden Walk project and would like to get the subject project under way, but it appeared to be substantially different than what they recalled seeing originally. In the original concept the lines from the roof down all the way to the parking structure were consistent, and appeared as though the parking structure and the timeshare were designed and coordinated together. He feels what is being presented before the Planning Commission today appears as though the timeshare developer is laying his facility on ~ top of an already constructed building in a"sandwich effecY', without any regard to the design of the original parking structure. 08-20-07 Page 4 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez concurred with her fellow Commissioners and feels since the • parking structure has already been built, landscaping is the only option. She stated if she had a chance between alternative one or two she would choose alternative two and the band would have to go. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki, concurred with his colleagues and stated originally when they approved this project it was approved based on certain preview renderings, such as a 3-D rendering which caused it to be accepted as a beautiful project. However, they are not pleased with what is being presented before them today; finro elements separated by a vertical horizontal band. Therefore, he suggested the applicant return to the first rendering and try to integrate what the Commissioners first approved. He expressed the concern with Katella Avenue being the main entrance to the entire project and stated that no matter how much landscaping was applied it would not improve the project as presented thus far. He would not accept less than what the Commission originally approved. Mr. White wished to clarify that the timeshare shown today was shown for massing purposes only, to demonstrate the height, the mass and the scale, etc. It was not previously approved. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki responded the Commissioners understand that but feel at this point the subject building has to be integrated with a smooth transition between the parking structure and the building to make it look like one. He indicated that the • Commissioners like the upper portion but not the bottom portion. They are not asking that they change the entire design but that they bring the elements down and then work with the colors. Applicant's Rebuttal Daniel Ortega, Morris Architects, 16932, Tulsa Street, Granada Hills, CA, stated he would like to speak to the aspect of bringing some of the elements of the timeshare down to the parking structure and stresses that no problem is insurmountable. He stated one of the challenges they have had to deal with in taking the timeshare project to the current level of development, is that they have had to provide a structure for the timeshare in contrast to the structure necessary for the parking structure. Therefore, it added some structural difficulties. He explained that they have had to put a podium truss level, which transfers the load from the timeshare down to the parking structure. Additionally, one of the difficulties in literally taking the pilaster lines for the timeshare down to the parking structure is that the parking structure, because of its current design, requires a certain amount of air coming into the parking structure in order to enable its mechanical system to operate properly. That is one reason why there is an inherent difference in the overall structure for the parking structure and the timeshare. He feels perhaps there are some things that they can bring down to the parking structure level and assures they will look at everything they reasonably can do to expedite an approval for the project. • Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated the Commission is against the transition between the two elements and want to soften the transition by bringing it down. He feels bringing 08-20-07 Page 5 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES it down will not block the air ventilation for the parking structure. He states Commission ~ agrees with him that it is imperative they not block the ventilation and also they do not want to change either the parking structure or the structure above it and believes it is merely cosmetics from the outside to integrate the two elements together. Additionally, he disagrees that the vertical elements should be moved down through the parking structure and instead feels the vertical elements of the parking structure should extend up through their portion of the building. He believes the vertical elements of the parking structure do not coincide with the vertical elements of the structure, so even if some of them could line up he suggests the applicant might soften the distinction between the two structures which may go a long way to diminish the podium that he is having to construct to place the building on top. Mr. Fjare stated when looking at the drawing they are looking at a face rather than at an angle so they would not see some of the setbacks; some of the things that actually give some distinction between the two. He submitted another drawing of Katella Avenue which actually showed some of the angles and setbacks and illustrated that there is some character on the way the building sits. He indicated the color, and the lower portion with the green coming off the edge, the trees along the side; and the band which he believes gives a very nice architectural look. He assured that when looking at it from a flat side they would not see some of the undulations. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki assured Commission understood exactly what he was saying but that they were having a problem with the transition between the finro • elements. He explained they do not have a problem with the upper portion and feel they have articulated the upper portion very well but they have a problem with the lower portion facing the street and feel it is merely a parking structure five stories high. Commissioner Eastman concurs with Commissioner Faessel that it is more of a problem from ground up and feels the vertical lines on the parking structure do not line up with any vertical line on the timeshare structure, and then adding the sandwich effect in the middle with a different color really jumbles it up. She stated what Commission liked about the conceptual, besides the variety of setback and articulation along the whole line of the timeshare product, was the fact that they saw a variety of color. She expressed that they like the idea of using color continuous from the bottom up to help give the feeling of individuality and break up the massiveness of it all. Mr. Ortega stated that he wondered how much weight was being placed on something that they were not going to see; that from a pedestrian standpoint would not be perceivable from Katella. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki responded that they were looking at the project as a whole; not just part of the project. He stated that they could not hide the fact that it is a huge massive parking structure and that is why Commission is stating that the massive parking structure has to be softened down from the timeshare portion. • Mr. Ortega asked if they could see the blending that they were trying to achieve between the first level parking structure and the timeshare structure. 08-20-07 Page 6 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki responded he would like to see that effect going down at • least three levels from the podium down to soften the harsh corner and then carry it a little bit from top to bottom but not all the way to the bottom to minimize the effect of the high parking structure. Mr. Ortega stated the parking structure was already built. Chairman Pro-Tempore stated that he could carry it to the other side and Commission would not have a problem if they carried a separate structure to it. Commissioner Faessel referred to staff and noted that Commission has been presented an application where a parking structure has been constructed under one development agreement while another developer builds upon that for an additional structure with a disconnect in between. He asked if, in the future, similar arrangements would be presented to them from other developments within either the Platinum Triangle or the Westgate project. Ms. Herrick responded that Garden Walk is a very unique project in that it included an entertainment retail center and the other finro hotels in the subject project did not have parking structures and are completely separate. Therefore, she feels this is the only instance where this would be happening. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki indicated that he understood this design as far as • Garden Walk is concerned, and believes Lennar has a consistent parking structure, but he wished to clarify whether there would be a potential for this to happen in the Platinum Triangle as far as Lennar is concerned. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner, stated she believed he was referring to the projects that have been approved for the master final site plan. Each of the subsequent plans that would come back to the Commission for review would be for an entire development area and encompass the entire parcel. She feels there will not be any situations where one particular property will come forward with entitlements for buildings and then have portions come back later, but rather would all be by development area. Commissioner Faessel stated he only wished to clarify that Commission may not need to deal with something similar to this again in the future. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to continue Item No. 1-A to September 17, 2007 in order to give the applicants an opportunity to redesign their project and present an alternate presentation to the Commission. DISCUSSION: 40 minutes (2:35-3:15) • 08-20-07 Page 7 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~B.(a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 21 (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3277 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05251) Agent: City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 950-970 North Tustin Avenue Request to initiate the revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3277 (to permit office uses in an existing industrial building with waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs). ~ • Concurred with staff Approved request to initiate the revocation or modification proceedings. Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) 08-20-07 Page 8 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~111inutes 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 6, 2007. (Motion) Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent ~ ~ 08-20-07 Page 9 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Pub lic Hearina Items: • 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00460 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00190 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05175 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17139 Owner: Natalie Tran 3100 Lindacita Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Anaheim, CA 92804-1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy Ward 2614 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Location: 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West • Lindacita Lane: Portion A: Property is approximately 0.27-acres, having a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 W. Lindacita Lane). Portion B: Property is approximately 1.68 acres, is a land-locked parcel and is located north across a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 S. Beach Blvd). General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00460 - Request to redesignate Portion A from the Low Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density designation. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 - Request reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone, and Portion B from the T(Transition) zone to • the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone and to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. Continued to September 5, 2007 Motion: Romero/Velasquez VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent 08-20-07 Page 10 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 - Request to construct an 11-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B. Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered and 1 lettered lot, 11-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions A and B. Continued from the June 11, June 25 and the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission Meetings. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution No. ProjectPlanner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (kwong2@anaheim.net) Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki announced Item No. 2 as a request for continuance. He indicated receipt of two speaker cards and asked if they would like to talk or wait until the item came before Commission. Upon hearing their response, he opened the • public hearing. Betty Wilkison, 3104 W. Lindacita, Anaheim, CA, stated this is the fourth continuance; explaining that the applicant was given a continuance to address concerns expressed at a previous public hearing and now is asking for additional waivers that have nothing to do with the concerns that she heard at an earlier public hearing. She stated that twenty- three people spoke at that hearing and finro petitions were submitted with 442 listed on the petition; and 14 letters were submitted with all in opposition. She expressed concerned since no one spoke in favor of the project and asked how many continuances, and how long would this go on. She asked Commission to deny the requested continuance. Ronda Larsen, 206 S. Loma Linda Drive, Anaheim, CA, read the mission statement of the Planning Commission. She stated she is speaking from her heart and emphasized that it was very hard to be clear about how she feels because her emotions are mixed with anger and disappointment that this is lasting so long. She expressed that having the subject waiver and development approved would change their neighborhood immensely; it would increase traffic and parking situations and change the ambiance of their neighborhood. She asked that the continuance not be approved so that they could continue on with their lives as close knit neighbors living happily together. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki closed the public hearing. • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, recommended continuing the public hearing as opposed to closing the public hearing, as the Commission would probably hear from the 08-20-07 Page 11 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES applicant at some point and time and also other speakers may want to address the • Commission. Therefore, he feels it would be more prudent to continue the public hearing as opposed to closing it. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated I would like to continue this public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez that the public hearing be continued until the September 5, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner, stated the application was deemed complete in May and according to the Permit Streamlining Act the City has six months (until November) to decide on the item. After which, if the issue is not resolved and the Commission does not act on it, the request may be approved. She stated the applicant submitted revised plans which reflect the elimination of the partial unit that fronts on Lindacita and staff has readvertised a request to eliminate the general plan amendment. She indicated that staff is currently working with the applicant to make sure the plans are complete and adequate. She feels they will be ready for presentation to the Commission at the September 5, 2007, meeting. Ms. Larsen asked if the City of Anaheim is required to physically notify the overall neighborhood of upcoming meetings. She explained that others in the neighborhood who live within 300 feet of the proposed project received notification and she did not • because she lives on the opposite angle; on the northwest corner of the neighborhood. So she was confused as to how she would be notified. Ms. Dadant responded ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notifications are sent through the United States mail and also Community Preservation Officers provide postings near the subject parcels. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked her if she lived within 300 feet. Ms. Larsen responded no, but friends of hers received their notice in front of their property. She wished to clarify if the City is required to notify the neighborhood. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki responded yes. Ms. Larsen stated they were not notified 10 days ahead of time that the request for continuance was cancelled for today. Ms. Dadant responded the posting is made ten (10) days prior to the public hearing however, since it is being readvertised to reflect the request for September 5th, there will be a new posting on the property ten (10) days prior to that hearing. Ms. Larsen reiterated that there was not a ten (10) day notification for the subject • request. 08-20-07 Page 12 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Dadant responded by law noticing for today's meeting did not need to be posted • because an advertised request was posted for the prior meeting. So because it was continued, State Law does not require that it be reposted but as a courtesy staff sent out notification letters to the 300 foot property owners, which was above and beyond what State Law requires. She stated there will be a new posting ten (10) days prior to the September 5th meeting and notices sent out for that meeting as well. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to continue the item until September 5, 2007, as requested by the applicant. Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: A person spoke in opposition of approving another continuance for the request, and a person spoke in opposition of the request. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (3:16-3:25) • • 08-20-07 Page 13 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA SUBSEQUENT EIR NO. 332 AND Velasquez/Faessel Approved • ADDENDUM (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05227 ve~asquez Granted 3C. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00006 Velasquez Approved Owner: Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC 25 Enterprise VOTE: 6-0 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-2601 Chairman Buffa absent Agent: George Tellez, Lennar Platinum Triangle 25 Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Location: 1404 East Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 3.7-acre and is within an approximate 41.4-acre property, generally located befinreen 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. Continued from the July 23, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-97 ProjectPlanner: Final Site Plan Resolution No. PC2007-98 (~h~te@anane~m.net) Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Ted White, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. George Tellez, 1110 Charleston Street, Costa Mesa, stated he was present to answer questions; along with his architect and landscape architect. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki, asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; • seeing none, he closed the public hearing. 08-20-07 Page 14 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez indicated some concern over one of the elevations and stated • in keeping with the City Code, the Commission preferred to see landscaping, as opposed to a plain wall. She asked if suggestions had been made to the applicant in regards to landscaping. Tim Smallwood, 116 White Flower, Irvine, CA, introduced himself. Commissioner Velasquez asked him the distance from the wall to the outside of the planter. Mr. Smallwood referred the question to the landscape architect who responded that the planter is approximately 6 to 8 feet in depth. Commissioner Velasquez referred to staff and asked to hear their opinion on the matter. Mr. White responded that if the concern is graffiti, potential culprits would have to step over lots of plants and onto a low seating wall in order to get to the planter. If the concern is the articulation of the building, he feels there are various remedies that could be put into place. If the concern is a vertical landscape element he feels something could be done there as well. He feels with the planter being 6 to 8 feet, it would provide plenty of room to plant something there. Mr. Tellez wished to respond to the overall comment of the condition, and feels • Commissioner Velasquez might be responding to the articulation of the remainder of the building. He stated that they actually strived to break down the scale of the building into more town home scaled elements; i.e., smaller entry, smaller two-story portions, and tried to articulate the building as much as possible. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify that she was not suggesting he change the articulation of the building but rather suggesting that he cover the blank wall with landscaping. Mr. Tellez responded that he respected her advice. Commissioner Eastman stated there was ample room in the planter to utilize bamboo to give height and green against the building, and to give visual interest. Additionally she feels it would protect the wall from graffiti. Commissioner Faessel stated for the record that he met with Mr. Tellez earlier during the week. He stated his comment deals with the mitigation plan; the 138A and 5.11-11, 5.11-12, and 5.11-14, which has to do with energy efficiency, and he wished to ensure that Lennar continues to partner with the City Public Utilities Department in order to provide the City with as much green building as possible. Mr. Tellez responded they are in the process of working with the City Public Utilities ~ Department in order to build a sustainable building, and currently have obtained the information aforementioned. 08-20-07 Page 15 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki concurred with Commissioner Faessel. • Commissioner Romero stated for the record, that he met with a representative of the owner of the project. He feels it is a great project. Commissioner Eastman stated for the record, that she met with Lennar and had an opportunity to get a preview of the project before receiving the packets for today's meeting. She concurs with her fellow Commissioners. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki closed the public hearing. He stated for the record he met with the applicant, and had the opportunity to go through a lot of the discussion regarding the project. He thanked Lennar, as well as other developers, for bringing forth quality projects to the city of Anaheim. Commissioner Faessel stated he is very impressed with Lennar's commitment to Anaheim. He stated that they have been working on this project for a number of years and the eventual build out may be well into the next decade. He feels that demonstrates a very strong commitment to the Anaheim community; and also the fact that they can be held to a very high standard. The Platinum Triangle will have some very significant buildings and he believes Lennar's plan is to put their name on several of them. Therefore, he thanked them for their commitment to the high standard of quality they have presented so far, and stated that the Commission is looking forward to seeing the rest of the development as it rolls out. ~ Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve CEQA Subsequent EIR No. 332 and Addendum (Previously-Certified). Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent) Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05227. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). Comrnissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Final Site Plan No. 2007- 00006. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. • DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:26-3:42) 08-20-07 Page 16 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA EIR NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) ve~asquezRtomero Approved 4b. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00007 ve~asyue~tomero Approved 4c. DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA (MIS2007-00204) Velasquez/Romero Approved 4d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17102 Velasquez/Faessel Approved 4e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ve~asquezRtomero Approved NO. 2007-00003 Owner: Irvine Land Company 550 Newport Center Drive VOTE ON Newport Beach, CA 92660 STR: 5-0 Commission abstained and Agent: John Sherwood absent Irvine Community Development Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 90660 voTE ON TTM: 3-1 Location: Property is approximately 291-acre portion of the Commission Mountain Park Specific Plan located east and no, commiss southeast of the southern terminus of G sum and Karaki a yp Chairman Bu • Canyon Road, and bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway. T'r1v1 Added a con Final Site Plan No. 2007-00007 - Review and approval of a pertaining to final site plan for Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park an easement Specific Plan. e o~ia a b a P Y prior to final 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. 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. Project Planne Continued from the July 23, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. (skoenm@ana ~ CEQA AND er Agarwal Chairman Buffa FSP, MIS AND er Eastman voted ioners Agarwal bstained, and ffa absent dition of approval the dedication of to the City for ccess to be the property owner map approval. r: heim.net) ~$-2~-~7 Page 17 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Brian Austin, Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, is project manager for Mountain Park. He explained the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Specific Plan approval. He pointed out that Mountain Park is a gated community with private streets as required by the City for project approval, but it adds complication to Robertson's request. They agree with the staff report and also agree there is no nexus between their tentative tract map proposal and the need to provide access to the Robertson's property. They believe this because Robertson's has never had any access to their parcel through their property, their access has always been through to Coal Canyon, so there is no disadvantage to them. The parcel was created as open space and was in satisfaction over a lawsuit over a trespass issue. Irvine Company has been working with Robertson's for a couple of years to attain a cooperative access agreement. It is a complicated agreement and they wanted to make sure the integrity of Mountain Park was protected. It took a while to work on and it ended up in a situation where there were a number of comments that Robertson's didn't agree with, so discussion was discontinued. During negotiation, some modifications were identified that would make it easier to provide access, water, electrical, and sewer to Robertson's if they can could eventually get to a private agreement. • They don't feel there is a requirement or obligation to provide access over private streets. They would like approval of the tentative tract map and object to the continuance that Robertson asked for. Even if they come to a cooperative agreement, it won't change the tract map. He noted that most builders they work with feel Irvine Company agreements are one- sided and they are because they anticipate all kinds of conditions that might occur because Irvine has a reputation to protect and provide high quality to future residents and the city. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked where Robertson's access through Coal Canyon is located. Mr. Austin stated it is the easement that was provided to them when they purchased the property and it is not on the map, it specifically says 40 feet wide to Coal Canyon. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki verified that Irvine Company has pre-planned access in case they come to an agreement. Mr. Austin stated they did and pointed the potential access out on the map. Streets are not proposed at this time, but can be provided if they reach an agreement. • Ed Perez, EP Development Corporation representing Robertson's Ready Mix, 176 S. Vista Grande, Anaheim Hills, provided a presentation and a book to Commission to deal with the facts and nine specific items that need to be addressed. He began his 08-20-07 Page 18 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES presentation by asking Commission not to approve Tentative Tract Map 17102, that a • condition approval be included to provide finro sub-roads and an easement, asked that the City Attorney explain the nexus concept, and add a condition for circulation. He then went through the exhibits in the presentation. He pointed out that July 24, 2007, Mr. Robertson asked the Planning Commission to include a condition of approval for the tentative map that the subdivided finro sub roads reach to the edge of the Robertson's parcel and grant easement of the ingress/egress in the underground utility proposed for the benefit of the parcel. He stressed they want to work out an agreement and urged Commission to go through the book. If Commission approved the tract map today, it would land lock his client. Commissioner Velasquez asked if there is no access to Coal Canyon at all, or if it is because it is a public road or because access would be through the sensitive open space. Mr. Perez stated it is locked and gated from access. Commissioner Velasquez stated she understood there is a gate, but is there an easement. Mr. Perez advised there is a dirt road, not paved access to the back of the property. • Commissioner Velasquez clarified that it does have access even though it isn't a paved road. Mr. Perez stated it does not have access, but, there are components to this question that need to be completed. John Henning, 125 North Sweetzer Avenue, Los Angeles, attorney for Robertson's. He also brought exhibit books for the Commission. He explained there is access in a legal sense. The easement that is there goes in a ribbon fashion throughout the land. There is a dirt road at the beginning but it turns into nothing. The Coal Canyon was closed because it went into the state park lands and the state didn't want them to have access through these lands. He clarified that the roads that connect into their 15 acre parcel are not on the subdivision map, they come to a"T" and don't continue, but they could be built. The important point is there is no legal easement, the city and Robertson's have no legal right, once the tentative tract map is adopted, to force that connection into the property. Once the tract map is approved and the appeal period is finished, they are cut off from that access unless the Irvine Company, by its good grace, gives them the right. It is important that the city make that connection, if not, they have to go through the state park to get out. There are objectives in the General Plan to preserve views of open space, scenic natural resources, minimize grading and these would be violated if they have to change access. ~ If the city was considering the layout of a project with public streets, the streets would have to be there. It would be a no brainer. 08-20-07 Page 19 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Romero asked if they currently have legal access to the property. • Mr. Henning stated if the tentative map is approved with a condition that requires the Irvine Company to provide the access, they will have legal access. He corrected Mr. Austin's comment about never having a right to go across the property. Mining occurred on this property and they used that property to get to those lands. The issue of whether there still remains any legal easement for residential uses is an open question and they don't want to take any chances, and that is why they are asking the city to make sure that they do have access. Commissioner Romero verified that Robertson's really doesn't believe that the Map Act actually gives them authority to have legal access. Mr. Henning stated he believes that the City has authority under the Map Act, it isn't expressed, but the Act is clear that it doesn't need to be expressed as a specific type. The City has a legal right to make exactions under the Map Act that are not specifically identified. They don't have the right, but the City does have a right to tell the Irvine Company that Robertson's has the right to go across their property. They want to be connected to the City via Gypsum Canyon Road and not have to go over the open space land then onto 91 Freeway. The connection would also allow lot owners to get to the Robertson property, which could potentially have approximately 150 units built on it. It doesn't make sense for Irvine Company residents or delivery • companies to go all the way around to get from one parcel to the next. It is the City's responsibility to make sure traffic flow is appropriate, orderly development is encouraged and that is why the City has the right to dedicate public streets that connec subdivisions. It is specified in the Map Act. They are asking to extend the context from the public street context to private. The condition could provide for a reciprocal private easement across the land that could be like a public street even though it might be a private street. Regarding the concept of nexus. The issue is one of connection; is there a connection befinreen the condition that the City imposes and the development that is being proposed. By putting the subdivision there, it essentially blocks the ability of another subdivision to get to the public. Irvine Company may argue that they don't have a legal right to go across there anyway, maybe, but it increases the likelihood that they will not be able to reach the rest of the public street system. Another impact of that development is that they will have to take their access into the open space land in the state park. t He explained and presented information from 2005 when the City approved a condition for a reciprocal easement connection for the train station in the Platinum Triangle on Katella. He referred to condition no. 17 in the book he gave to Commission which states • information which is also similar to their request. 08-20-07 Page 20 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City needs to adopt an actual connection and a condition that requires connection to be • made. If not, it can create a situation of extortion of money in exchange for a privilege. Mr. Austin agreed that if these were public streets, this would be a no brainer, but they are private streets owned by the homeowners association, maintained, repaired and replaced by HOA. The dues will be around $260 per month and it isn't a fee ride. After nine drafts of an agreement were prepared at their expense, in their last meeting when they were ready to sign, Robertson's came back with over six pages of comments. After that, they decided to stop talking to them. They met with them again on August 1 st to restart the discussion and go forward on a good faith basis, but then Robertson's sent a letter to the City asking them to deny the map. He pointed out that their tentative map does show the easements for utilities on one side, and landscaped area on the other side that would allow streets to be extended should they ever reach an agreement. He assured they did try to work on the agreement, it is complicated and this wasn't the place to talk about it. In regards to the pedestrian access in the rail station, they have a trail in the center of the project that is assigned to the County, but it allows unrestricted pedestrian access behind the gates into the open space. With respect to reciprocal parking, it is pretty common. He asks Commission to move forward and doesn't believe the Map Act requires it on a private street. Chris Garrett, 600 W. Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, is a lawyer for the Irvine ~ Company. Pointed out there were three factual mistakes that Mr. Henning made in his presentation. One mistake is that the Robertson's property will be land locked if a connection isn't made. As Commissioner Velasquez pointed out, it is not land locked now and it won't be after the map is approved. He explained that land locked means there is no way of accessing the property. He stated it doesn't mean entitlement to a highway or connection through other people's land just because of expectation of future development. Robertson's purchased that property subject to the easement that is recorded against that property and they have every right to enforce their legal easement rights against the state parks. The City could not have legally created this parcel without a legal form of access, it doesn't create landlocked parcels. The second mistake is in the timeline that was given. On the second item, the date is actually July or August of 2005. That is when the Specific Plan was approved and showed private not public streets. The facts given on the timeline imply that the Irvine Company negotiated and held out that there would be an easement across the property up until the City approved the Specific Plan, then stopped negotiating. Third mistake involves the Stadium Towers materials which they have never seen before. All the conditions are conditions on Stadium Towers saying they couldn't develop unless there is access to parking and the train station. There were no conditions placed on the third party. • When and if Robertson's comes in, the city could place a condition on Robertson's that they have to negotiate an access easement with the Irvine Company or the HOA who will own those private streets before they can develop. They would have to negotiate an 08-20-07 Page 21 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES easement before they develop. It wouldn't be fair, but Robertson can negotiate some • form of access and a road that is acceptable through #he Coal Canyon land that they have the easements on. He stated that in the Stadium Towers case, there wasn't some third party who was being forced to accept easements across their property, plus they were sharing parking. The Irvine Company is not sharing parking. The legal point that Mr. Henning was adamant about is that the Irvine Company blocks access and under the law where a project blocks access, the government can make them have an easement across the property before they can develop. He agreed it is a correct statement of law, but the mistake is they are not blocking access; there is no right for the Robertson's to access anything through their property. They may have pooled the finro pieces of property together while they were mining and had a lease and permit from the City. The Irvine Company never gave them an easement, the lease is expired, the City has terminated the use permit for the mining and has approved Irvine Company project. They are not building something and blocking access that people used to use to cross to get to a certain location. The Nolan case in the Supreme Court states someone can't force somebody to give up an easement across their property where it doesn't exist anyway and where the development isn't creating a need for the easement. This project doesn't create a need for access across to the Robertson's property if and when it develops. ' He added Mr. Austin wanted to make it clear that it wasn't Robertson's that created the trespass, it was another company unrelated to the Robertson's and he didn't mean to • accuse the Robertson's of any wrongdoing. Rich Robertson, owner, 200 S. Main Street, Corona, California. When this property was rezoned into a wildlife reserve, they talked to the State and the State basically said they are going to play heck getting through there even though they have a legal access. Shortly after they were rezoned, they started up conversation with the Irvine Company and had a good rapport with them. They started talking about the contract about the time they started their new site. When the whole project started, they didn't argue about the streets being private verses public because they didn't want to cause any problems for Irvine Company. If they would have known that it was going to come down to this, they would have fought from the beginning. They had kind of a hand shake agreement and the contract that went to Robertson's after the Specific Plan was approved and it would have been about $6 million to pay for the roads. The contract was not signed because it stated "we MAY give you access", so they didn't want to sign a contract for $6 million that stated they `may' have access to the property. If they are going to pay $6 million, they want to be able to use the roads. As for the Association, Robertson's has always said that they will be part of the association. They can build both projects to conform to one another, be conditioned to be part of the association which would help dues go down. They've worked in good faith with Irvine Company until it said they `may'. They had a meeting right up until this week but Irvine Company cancelled the meeting. He feels Irvine Company gives a lot to the community and probably gives out more than they give back, but what is happening now is unethical and will land lock the • property. It may make the property unable to build on unless they sell it to the Irvine Company. He feels if the people at the top knew what was happening, they'd be upset because this company isn't like this. 08-20-07 Page 22 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Koehm wanted to clarify that the roads on the tentative map do terminate near the property line and not at the property line. The utility easements are shown on the map to complete and come all the way through the property line. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki clarified they are missing the road but not the utilities. Mr. Koehm stated the easements go to the property line but the roads do not. Mr. Perez stated he lives and works on projects in the City of Anaheim. The expectations were created by the Irvine Company and not by Robertson's. The timeline of 106 events, combined meetings, correspondence, emails, calls, is simply stating communications and attempts in the process. A copy of today's presentation was provided to the Irvine Company. He asked to reference all materials before deciding today. Mr. Henning responded to points Mr. Garrett made. Regarding the parcel being land locked, he agreed it is not technically legally land locked because there is an easement, but it is about as close as it can be to being landlocked. That is important to the City because the City has to look at the consequences of the actions that it takes, if they have to cut through that open space, it is against the objectives of the General Plan. Secondly, the timing of the negotiations has been put to bed, but the point is there is no deal here. There may be no deal if the tract map is approved and goes past the point of • challenge, there is no incentive for the Irvine Company to make any agreement except to buy Robertson's out at a small fraction of the actual developable value of the property. Thirdly, regarding the issue of Stadium Towers, Mr. Garret has it wrong. He is incorrect in his attempt to distinguish the issue. Mr. Garret stated the Stadium Towers is where the developer is asked to give up an easement, but in Irvine Company's case, a third party is being asked to give an easement. That is not the case here, in both cases the developer before the Planning Commission was being asked to give the easement. In this case, they are asking the Irvine Company to give an easement that goes into the land of Robertson's from Gypsum Canyon public road to their private section. Part of it is private and Gypsum Canyon is public. In the Stadium Towers situation, it was only the owner, the developer involved, no one else was at issue. City required them to grant an easement from the public street similar to Gypsum Canyon, in this case it is Katella, through the property being permitted. There were only a couple of options because there was an office building there. There was no public road, it was all private property, the easement goes through and touches the railroad right-of-way so they could cut through to railroad platForm to avoid having everyone go all the way round to get to Metrolink. (he pointed out various areas on the Stadium Towers exhibit). The only reason why that was required to go all the way to Katella is because it benefited the public. This project is the same exact situation. Chairman Pro Tem Karaki asked it was for pedestrians. • Mr. Henning stated there is nothing in the law that says you can require an easement going across the property for pedestrian use, but not cars. He wasn't talking about the parking easement because that is befinreen finro property owners and doesn't implicate 08-20-07 Page 23 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the public. It shows that the City can and does require private parties, as a condition of • a development approval, to enter into private easement agreements. It's done it before and can do it this time. On the legal point, he mentioned the Nolan case and drew the ocean, house and public road on the whiteboard to demonstrate what happened. Nolan owned the house and wanted to make it bigger but it would block the view to the ocean from the road. No one had a legal right to that view, it was a private piece of property. Nolan tried to build a private development which caused the public to suddenly loose something that it had, even though it had no right to it. The State of California, via the Coastal Commission tried to require Nolan to give an easement for people walking along the beach. They tried to require Nolan to allow the public in his back yard. Supreme Court said because the public is having their view harmed. It is a view and walking concern. The house does not block people from walking down the beach, therefore you can't require a condition relating to it. Court said it wasn't a condition where someone was required to grant an easement for view to the public, if it had been, it would not have been decided the way it was. If the court had required Nolan to build his house in such a way so the public could see the ocean from the street, it would have not been a problem to the Supreme Court. It is a development blocking access and they are just asking the City to take the action that is most likely to preserve access. He recognizes that they don't have legal access, nor does the public have legal access to a view of the ocean. It is similar to Erlich vs. Culver City. The developer was required to pay a recreation fee because they were going to remove a private tennis club. The developer argued that • the public didn't have a right to use the private club and a condition charging a fee for recreation could not be imposed based on the fact that he was removing the club. Court said it was a proper connection. The fact of the matter was that the public was used to using the private tennis club, it got a benefit from it, they had no right to it, but they got the benefit and the City is entitled to protect that existing condition. They would be happy to provide Commission with detailed findings supporting a nexus under all the existing legal standards for the condition and findings for the denial of the map. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki closed the public hearing. He asked the City Attorney for clarification on where they stand. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney stated he agreed with staff and the parties haven't identified any nexus that would require the City to impose the condition that Robertson's is asking for. He addressed Mr. Henning's point about the City having the legal right to require exactions as a condition of map approval. The City has the authority under its police powers to require exactions as a condition of approval under the Subdivision Map Act, but that authorization is not without limitation. He wanted to discuss some of the cases that Mr. Henning relies on to support his point to come to the opposite conclusion. ~ He read from Rowan vs. City of Visalia decided in 1989 that Mr. Henning cited. Court started by stating "that a regulatory body, which the Planning Commission is, may constitutionally require a dedication of land as a condition of development and such a 08-20-07 Page 24 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES requirement is not viewed as an act of eminent domain" and that is the point that Mr. • Henning is attempting to argue on behalf of Mr. Robertson. However, the court goes on to say, after citing the same cases that Mr. Henning cites, "that he government is limited; however, in its power to impose conditional dedications" and that has to do with the requirement of a nexus or a reasonable relationship befinreen the condition and the burden that is being created by the development project. In looking at some of the cases that Mr. Henning cites to support his position that the Planning Commission has the authority to impose this condition for the benefit of Robertson; first there is Ayers vs. the City Council in the City of Los Angeles from 1949. It isn't new law, but there have been many factual circumstances since the decision was made by the California Supreme Court. Each case rises or falls on its own facts. In Ayers, the City of Los Angeles was requiring the property owner, as a condition of the approval for the subdivision, to dedicate a ten foot strip abutting Sepulveda Boulevard to be dedicated for the widening of the highway. In addition, the City of Los Angeles was also requiring a ten foot strip along the rear of each lot to restrict access to the property from Sepulveda to the lots that were being developed. In passing upon the reasonableness of that condition and whether a nexus existed for its imposition, the Court said, "as to condition no. 1 that a ten foot widening strip be dedicated, the finding is that the widening of Sepulveda Boulevard had been in contemplation by the authorities, whether or not the petitioner intended to subdivide, but that the creation and the proposed uses of the subdivision would give rise to the traffic and other conditions necessitating the widening of the boulevard. That the widening was not necessary for and benefited the lot owners and that the requirement was reasonably related to the protection of the • public health, safety and general welfare." So in Ayers, the court determined the dedication to the City was caused by the development and that's why the court sustained the condition that was imposed in that case. Another case is the City of Buena Park vs. Boyer decided in 1960 in the appellate court. In that case, the city was requiring, as a condition of the subdivision, for the property owner to pay the city $50,000 that the city would use for the development of a drainage facility. The facility wasn't limited to a portion of the drainage facility that was located on the applicant/property owner of the developer's property, but also property surrounding that property as well. When the court considered the condition, even though it included off site improvements for which the property owner objected, the court stated "the evidence clearly indicates that the $50,000 was to be paid to the city to be expended to the direct benefit of the subdivision for drainage purposes, and such drainage facility was sorely needed for the promotion of the subdivision and for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision. The improvements which a city may so regulate, specifically include drainage needs, the drainage ditch was essential to drain the water accumulated on or falling on the land and carry it from the land to the main drainage channel." The court found there was a direct need created by this subdivision for the development or improvement of the drainage ditch. Water flows from land across other land and ultimately to collection facilities which are developed for the purposes of carrying water to the ocean or treatment plant. In this case, the drainage ditch was not only needed for drainage on site but also to carry water from the joining sites across the • parcel that was being developed to appropriate collection facilities; directly benefiting the property being developed. 08-20-07 Page 25 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The other case, Mr. Henning cited was Rowan vs. City of Visalia in 1989, the court • came to an opposite conclusion that there was not a reasonable connection to support the condition. It involved a building permit to convert a house to an office. The city required the property owner to dedicate 3,400 square feet for the realignment of a street. Court concluded there was not reasonable relationship befinreen the conditional exaction and the proposed use and that realignment was due to poor planning by city staff. The court statement read "our review of the record indicates that the city viewed the landowner's application for rezoning and site plan review as the hook it needed to acquire this property for nothing, even though the reason for the dedication existed long before the conversion of McSwain mansion was proposed. The hook, however, is unavailable. The city may proceed with its general traffic plan, but if it wants 3,400 square feet of the respondent's property for street property lacking any relationship to the proposed conversion, it must pay for it." Mr. Henning also pointed out that the Roberton's are asking the Irvine Company to give an easement, but in fact, the property owner is asking for the Planning Commission to impose an uncompensated easement for the benefit of Robertson. He doesn't believe that there is a nexus to impose that kind of condition for the benefit of Robertson. The case illustrates his point and the point of the Irvine Company that there is no nexus for this condition in this particular case. Commissioner Romero seemed to cut to the chase. Before Mountain Park was proposed for development, Robertson had no access over the property. Now that Mountain Park is proposed for development, they still have no access across the property. Nothing has changed by this development • before the City. If anything, it probably improves Robertson's condition because there will be roads from Santa Ana Canyon to close to his property line that could be used for the benefit of Robertson's access to that property. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked his opinion. Mr. Gordon stated again, he agrees with City staff that there is no nexus to impose the condition that Robertson's is asking for. He also doesn't believe that the Stadium Towers is an analogous situation because the Stadium Tower site already has an office developed on the site. When that particular project came before the Planning Commission that led to the imposition of this condition, there was an intensification of the use of that property. Many other uses were added to that property and the City, consistent with its planning for that particular area, wanted to insure that there was access for individuals that were using this site. Easement was for the benefit of those who worked in the office tower, restaurant, retail and for the public for access from Katella and anyone else south of the property who was accessing the train station. It had a direct benefit link due to the intensification of the development and City knew there was a direct need for a connection between that property and public transportation to serve that property, and also that the link benefited the public. It is consistent with the Ayers and Boyers case, but inconsistent with the Rowan case. Commissioner Romero stated for the record that he met with the Irvine Company and he spoke to Mr. Robertson on the phone. He feels it is an issue that was to be made , between finro private parties and not a land use issue for Commission. He doesn't think 08-20-07 Page 26 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES it is Commission's right to grant the easement and is in favor of continuing with • remainder of the discussion on this item and not grant the easement. Commissioner Faessel asked staff if the potential for the development of the Robertson parcel was included in the computation for sewer, water main and electric sizes when Public Works designed the utility and infrastructure loading. Sandip Budhia, Public Works stated he didn't know if they accounted for electrical and water, but they would have assumed for the ultimate case for traffic, sewer and storm drain. Commissioner Faessel verified that sewer and storm drain was provided for, and water and electric utilities are uncertain. He is concerned that if Mr. Robertson has an opportunity in the future to develop this site, the systems would have to come through the Irvine Company property. He asked ff they are not sized now, how can it be done in the future. Would Mr. Robertson have to pay additional costs for the improvements to the Irvine Company? Mr. Budhia stated they would have to upgrade Irvine Company's infrastructure. It is currently happening in west and central Anaheim. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked if the City had an easement for storm drain, sewer and water and the City owns the power, why can't it accommodate the easement for • future electricity into the parcel, since the easement is already there for utilities. Commissioner Faessel is concerned that should Mr. Robertson have a future opportunity to develop his property, that adequate infrastructure facilities be available to him based upon what they saw there today. He did not think there would be. Mr. Budhia thought it would be ready for it. Commissioner Faessel clarified that they weren't sure at this point. Mr. Budhia stated that was correct. Commissioner Eastman asked staff what the City's obligation would be for fire, medical emergency and schools if Mr. Robertson develops that property. She asked if schools and the fire station in Mountain Park project would be available. She asked if the only access would be up Coal Canyon. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner stated the intensity on the site is the same that it was under the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan. When the zoning was changed and the General Plan update was done, they carried over the same 140 units that was in Cypress Canyon and left it on this site, so, that number of units was factored into all of the City analysis for fire and other types of services to the site. In practical terms, they would have to review a tract map to understand the design and how fire access and fuel • modification would occur. A map would have to be reviewed at that time to determine if any additional environmental documentation would be needed. That property is not 08-20-07 Page 27 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COIIAIVIISSION MINUTES covered by the National Community Conservation Program, so there would have to be • additional permits from the State of California for development of that site. Brian Austin from the Irvine Company can shed more light on the actual utilities that have been planned and how it relates to this property. Mr. Austin stated the tentative map sets the location and width of the easement. Size of sewer water storm drain will be finalized when they do the final improvement plan which is several years away. Since it is on the City's General Plan he expects that those units would have been factored in for the water. With respect to emergency access, even though the streets are private, they will be dedicating emergency vehicle access so they can provide access to the Robertson's over the private street. Their fire station will serve Robertson's even though they may have to go some other way to get there. Commissioner Eastman clarified they will use a path for emergency vehicles to get through. Mr. Austin stated vehicles will go through the gate to provide a response. With respect to the school, it is not part of the agreement they made with the school district, so they would have to participate in the future CFD or negotiate their own deal with Orange Unified. Commissioner Velasquez asked where the emergency access is. • Mr. Austin stated it is on all the streets and they can provide an emergency access as part of the agreement. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Austin what he honestly felt the construction roll out of the quarry village might be. Mr. Austin feels there will be almost three years of cons#ruction from the time they start and given today's market condition, it may be a couple of years before they start. Build- out time will be three to five years. Commissioner Faessel asked if the two private parties could come to an agreement to gain access, at some cost, within that timeframe. Mr. Austin stated it is possible. Commissioner Faessel stated 'possible' is what he was hoping to hear. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated for the record he spoke to Mr. Robertson on the phone. Knowing the facts brought before Commission, even though he wanted to grant access conditions, Mr. Gordon said one word that stuck in his mind and that is `uncompensated easement'. The issue is how much money Robertson's has to pay the Irvine Company for the easement. There will be access to the road, but it will be an ` uncompensated easement. The issue between the two parties is money. He is not in the position to vote on this as proposed. He feels they are stuck in the middle, they 08-20-07 Page 28 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES cannot give them the access because it is a private access between the two and the • City can't force the conditions. He is going to go with the City recommendation. Commissioner Romero agreed that it is not a land use issue and not up to Commission to grant an easement. Commissioner Eastman agreed with other Commissioners and feels it has been poor planning. The property has been zoned for housing and she is uncomfortable giving one developer the right to go forward while the other developer is hanging. She can't support either position at this point in time. She is concerned that a small property owner vs. a large property owner who has larger resources can't come up with an amicable agreement on the access and bargain in good faith. Seeing as how it will be three to five years before they do anything, she'd rather recommend it come back to Commission at a later date, after the two parties can agree on something. She may abstain like Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki. Commissioner Velasquez asked the City Attorney to go back to the case about the poor planr~ing. She stated Commissioner Eastman made a good point about the City approving houses being built there, but having no practical access to it. Mr. Gordon stated it wasn't to illustrate poor planning, it was to illustrate when the court finds that there is a nexus and when no nexus is found. In Rowan, it was a building permit to convert a house to an office and the City wanted the property owner to ~ dedicate 3,400 square feet to realign the street. Court concluded the realignment was not the responsibility of the property owner because it wasn't the conversion that gave rise for the need to realign the street. Court said it was a failure of the city at the time they looked at the issue and not the result of the property owner converting the building. It isn't the property owner's responsibility to remed~ or cure that problem. The city had the authority to put a condition on the permit and require that dedication but, the court concluded that because of the lack of a nexus, the city would have to pay for it. It is the same situation here. The property owner is asking the Planning Commission to provide an uncompensated easement for public roadway purposes. He suggests that if there is no nexus, then the property owner should pay for that, just like the city would have to pay for the property it would be requiring the property owner to provide in the Rowan case. The Nolan case is squarely on point with the situation today. In Nolan the plaintiff was trying to obtain a permit from the Coastal Commission. The plaintiff was required to obtain a development permit and when he decided to demolish the existing house and build a new one, the Coastal Commission required the plaintiff to allow an easement to pass across the portion of his property to the beach. The Coastal Commission thought this was an appropriate condition to require the property owner to give the public an easement across his property in connection with demolishing the existing structure and building a new one so the public could access the coastline. The rationale was that the Commission determined the new house would block the view of the ocean and create a wall of residential houses preventing the public from psychologically realizing the existence of the shoreline. The new house also hindered public access to the beach ~ and the Commission required an offset of that burden by providing additional access to the public beaches through an easement on the property. Almost exactly like the 08-20-07 Page 29 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES situation that Commission is confronted with. The court said "The requirement of an ~ uncompensated easement outright would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In reviewing the Commission's reasons for requiring the easement, the court determined that the required nexus was absent. The purpose then becomes, quite simply, the obtaining of an easement to serve some valid governmental purpose, but with out payment of compensation." This is the same situation that is being asked to go forward. The property owner is asking the Planning Commission to provide an uncompensated easement so they can access their property from Santa Ana Canyon Road or what ever public street serves the Mountain Park development. His position is, like in Nolan, there is not a nexus to do that. Commissioner Eastman stated she agrees and doesn't think it would be right to take any action that would require the Irvine Company to give an uncompensated easement. Robertson should pay their fair share and they should come up with an agreement. Poor planning is approving the land use for the Irvine Company without them having an agreement and blocking the rest of that land from being developed. She can't support approvaL Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked how far they are from an agreement and is it an issue. Mr. Austin stated money has never been the issue it is a matter of having control of what goes on behind the gates and making sure it is consistent with their development • and that they pay their fair share, but he doesn't know what that fair share would be. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated Mr. Robertson indicated he wanted to be part of the association, conditions and whatever they develop. Mr. Austin agreed that Mr. Robertson did indicate that. But the last time he did so, Irvine Company received six pages of comments on an agreement that he said he was ready to sign. It could take a long time to work out the details to be mutually beneficial, they are not trying to be onerous, but are trying to protect their investment and commitment to the City. Without the approval of the tract map in a reasonable time, the dates are substantially delayed because they can't take the next steps. Commissioner Velasquez stated she understands the positions and the ideal situation is to come to an agreement for the fair market value and asked the City Attorney for a clear understanding of the jurisdiction as a Planning Commission. Can Commission get involved and can they continue the item until the parties come to an agreement. Mr. Austin offered the easement dedication to the City for emergency access and to be able to access Mr. Robertson's property. Mr. Austin confirmed they can provide an easement to the City for emergency access. Mr. Gordon stated that does not constitute legal cause to continue the matter. ~ Commission should not be in the position of sending the parties off to try to negotiate this and forestall a decision. The decision here is whether or not to approve the tentative parcel map and final site plan and specimen tree removal permit. It should be 08-20-07 Page 30 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES disapproved if it is not consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan for the property or • an environmental concern is not suitable for the development of residential property. There has been no evidence to that and the issue then becomes should it be approved with this added condition or without. That is the decision before Commission. It isn't a decision to approve or disapprove the map. There has been no evidence before Commission that suggest the map should be disapproved because it is inconsistent with the General Plan or any other legal reason. However, what is before the Commission is whether the additional condition that requires access to the Robertson property be imposed. He doesn't believe that the Planning Commission should. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Gordon if the Planning Commission goes ahead with the applicant's request as presented and he gets map approval, does that in any way prevent a future connection with the Robertson property if they come to an arrangement. By adopting the map, is Commission stopping them from connecting in the future. Mr. Gordon stated if the parties came to an agreement for the use of the property is the first impediment. He can't answer if future roadways could be developed from the Robertson property to Mountain Park property to serve that parcel. From what is on the map, it looks physically possible, but he doesn't know what the environmental concerns are or what physical impediments are in making the connection. Assuming the property owners come to terms and it is physically possible, it doesn't appear that anything that the Planning Commission is doing with respect to approval would create an additional • obstacle. Commissioner Faessel clarified his question, if they adopt the map and it no longer shows the two potential connections, will it require the Irvine Company to come back before Commission to amend the map if the parties come up with an arrangement. There was conversation between the Commissioners that was inaudible. Mr. Budhia stated the Irvine Company would not have to. Mr. Gordon stated he referred the question to Public Works because they review subdivision maps. Commissioner Velasquez asked for definition of land lock. Mr. Gordon said he couldn't give her a definition, just an example. If the Irvine Company owned Mountain Park and Robertson's subdivided that parcel and didn't provide access to a public street, it would in effect be land locking that parcel. Typically, if someone came before the Commission with property that was divided, they would impose a condition of approval to provide access for the parcel. This is not the situation. Commission never had the opportunity to do that given the facts before them • in the past. 08-20-07 Page 31 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Johnson stated when the parcel map was first created as a settlement to a lawsuit, • there was an access easement from the parcel over to Coal Canyon and Riverside Freeway Interchange. Subsequent to that, the State of California bought the majority of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan area and the easement. The city doesn't have any record of what that part is and Robertson's representatives have conveyed that there is an easement and showed staff the easement. They have a graphic of when the parcel was created in 1996. Commissioner Velasquez asked for the purpose of the Commission's decision, if it mattered if Mr. Robertson's land is land locked. Mr. Gordon went back to his earlier statement. Assuming that Mountain Park didn't exist, Robertson has no access over that property. They would have to obtain access in some form. Even if Mountain Park didn't exist and it was Robertson coming forward, he wouldn't recommend that Planning Commission provide Robertson with access over someone else's property that they didn't create the need for. It is an uncompensated easement to the property owner. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated they are going in circles. He asked Mr. Robertson how far away they were from a deal. Mr. Robertson said if the Irvine Company wanted to do it, they could sit down in a room and get it done. They agree money wise. It is just the word "may" give them an • easement instead of `giving' them an easement. Put `will' in there and they could work it out. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked Mr. Austin if that was true. Mr. Austin stated the reference to `may' that is in there because they don't know for sure. What if they never develop? The road will compel them to build a road across their property to serve his property. He thinks they are further apart to an agreement than Mr. Robertson thinks. Commissioner Eastman stated Mr. Robertson couldn't build a road for six million. Mr. Austin didn't want to get into the details of the agreement because it is very complicated. Six million is not a real number, they don't know what the costs are. Robertson has never presented a project to know what the fair share is going to be, they haven't gotten environmental clearance from the City and it is complicated when you have to contemplate all different conditions. He wants Commission to go forward and approve the map. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez stated it has been debated enough and wants to vote. • Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated the proposed project meets all the requirements, has an opposing party asking to grant a condition for an easement that the City will pay 08-20-07 Page 32 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES for, or an uncompensated easement that the applicant is not willing to do. Commission • is in a difficult position to make a decision. He cannot grant an easement because he • doesn't want the City to have to pay for it. If the Commission can't grant the uncompensated easement, Robertson is done. It is a private issue. The applicant met all the requirements for the application and the Commission can't go any further. Commissioner Velasquez stated she doesn't know how Commission can continue this item, they've gotten legal advice from the City Attorney. She wants to add wording to the motion for the emergency vehicle access and asked staff if they want to add anything. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner stated staff doesn't have anything else to add. The appropriate place to add the stipulation for the emergency vehicle is in the tract map excerpt. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve CEQA EIR No. 331 (Previously-Certified). Motion passed with 5 ayes (Commissioner Agarwal abstained and Chairman Buffa absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve Final Site Plan No. 2007-00007. Motion passed with 3 ayes. Commissioner Eastman voted no, Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki (Commissioner Agarwal abstained Chairman Buffa absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve Development Area Plan for Development Area (MIS2007-00204). Motion passed with 3 ayes. Commissioner Eastman voted no, Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki (Commissioner Agarwal abstained Chaarman Buffa absent). Commissioner Velasquez asked staff to read wording for addition to the tentative tract map. Mr. Gordon stated it would be a condition that requires final map approval that the property owner dedicate an easement to the City for emergency access that serves Mountain Park and Robertson's parcel. Commissioner Romero stated he could not approve a tract map with conditions. Commissioner Faessel thought it important to have fire safety access. Mr. Gordon recommended a roll call vote. He stated this condition provides a condition for the City to provide emergency access to the parcels, not for Roberton's parcel, it is for the City and it would have to be shown on the final map. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to • approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17102. Motion passed with 3 ayes. Commissioner Eastman voted no, Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki (Commissioner Agarwal abstained Chairman Buffa absent). 08-20-07 Page 33 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner-Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2007-00003. Motion passed with 5 ayes (Commissioner Agarwal abstained and Chairman Buffa absent). Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated he hopes they can work out and agreement. Mr. Gordon read 10-day appeal period for Tract Map and 22 days for remainder of the items. Commissioner Eastman commented that Commission has been in a difficult position and wishes them good luck. OPPOSITION: Three people representing Robertson's Ready Mix spoke in opposition to the subject request. Correspondence was received prior to the meeting from Robertson's ~ Ready Mix in opposition to the subject request. 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 30, 2007, and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 35 minutes (3:43-4:50) break (4:57-6:25) A 5-minute break was taken (4: 51-4: 56) • 08-20-07 Page 34 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 • 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05201 Owner: Myoung Jin Lee and Jee Eun Lee 1248 Lenahan Street Fullerton, CA 92833 Agent: Myoung Jin Lee 1248 Lenahan Street Fullerton, CA 92833 Eastman/Velasquez Eastman Eastman Location: 1724 West Glenoaks Avenue: Property is approximately 0.4-acre, having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of Glenoaks Avenue and is located 203 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Avenue. Request to permit a church in a commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-99 • ~ Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Concurred with staff Approved Granted VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project P/anner. (skoehm@anaheim. net) Myoungjin Lee, 1724 West Glenoaks Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated like the Planning Commission, his church is also concerned with adequate parking spaces should the church grow in the future therefore, their plan is to rent spaces from neighboring properties as needed. He indicated that there is a hospital in the rear of the church with plenty of parking spaces and he feels he will be able to rent from them should the need arise. Commissioner Eastman asked how many people he anticipated being able to accommodate in the current space if the church were to grow. She asked if it could be 30 or 50 people. Mr. Lee responded approximately 50 members. Commissioner Agarwal asked how long it took him to get 15 members at the church. Mr. Lee responded he started the church approximately 3 years ago. Commissioner Agarwal asked how many more members he anticipated having in the next 3 years. Mr. Lee responded he was not sure. 08-20-07 Page 35 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Agarwal asked if he thought it possible to go to 100 in the next 3 years. Mr. Lee responded it was difficult to guess. Commissioner Agarwal asked if he thought it possible to go to 75 in the next 3 years. Mr. Lee responded it was difficult to guess. Commissioner Agarwal asked if he went to 75 in the next 2 years what would his plans be. Mr. Lee responded they were contemplating renting additional parking spaces from neighboring tenants. Commissioner Agarwal wished to clarify that he could not currently handle 75 members in his building. Mr. Lee responded that's #rue. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the church grew faster what his future plans would be. Mr. Lee responded if the church grew fasfer and they could not hold more than 50 • people they would consider moving their church site to another location. Also, since he is the owner of the current building, perhaps they could speak with the tenants and rent additional parking spaces. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated for the record, he had a letter from a neighbor objecting to the approval of a conditional use permit for a church in that location. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero stated concern that Mr. Lee expressed that he could potentially rent additional parking spaces from the medical center located in the rear of the church, because he feels it would be taking spaces from a site that is already in use and not. really knowing whether the parking spaces would be available. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated the church would be under a condition to operate on Saturdays and Sundays and the medical buildings would be closed for business over the weekend, so that would not be a concern. He stated that the Building and Fire Departments would dictate the occupancy of the building, and if the applicant's number increased beyond maximum, the Fire Department and Building Department would come back to revoke or amend the conditional use permit. Commissioner Velasquez asked how often the Fire Department would show up. • Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki responded they could do an inspection any time. 08-20-07 Page 36 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez stated she may be confused about the growth of the church • however, she is in favor of approving the project, but perhaps to put the other Commissioners at peace she suggested scheduling an inspection. She asked for a time limitation on the project. Judy Dadant, Acting Senior Planner, responded staff was not recommending a time limitation. Commissioner Velasquez stated she feels there should be a time limitation. Commissioner Eastman stated she disagrees and feels because they are limited in the amount of space they have, that it would limit the amount of growth on its own and the traffic issues would be self limiting. Commissioner Velasquez asked hypothetically if they had folding chairs, what would be the maximum occupancy. Ms. Dadant responded staff would have to consult with the Building and Fire Departments on the maximum occupancy. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify if the church was to grow by two (2) or three (3) more members what would trigger the necessity for more parking spaces. • Ms. Dadant responded under the current plan and what the applicant is proposing, actually complies with the City Code for parking requirements for purposes of the proposed floor plan. She further clarified that the City Code requires 29 parking spa per 1000 square feet of assembly area, and the parking waiver is being requested because if the church and the tutoring center were to operate simultaneously there would not be sufficient parking on the site. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 3. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). ces Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05201. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: An e-mail was received prior to the meeting in opposition to the request. • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. 08-20-07 Page 37 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (6:26-6:35) ` 6a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Eastman/Romero Approved 6b. (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04917 Eastman Approved amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05238) Owner: Front Porch VOTE: 6-0 350 North Glenoaks Suite 1000 Chairman Buffa absent Burbank, CA 91502 Agent: Phil Schwartze PRS Group 31872 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Location: 891 South Walnut Street: Property is approximately 7.7-acres and is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street. Request to amend conditions of approval and exhibits to construct an additional 5 units for a previously approved senior • apartment complex. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-100 Project Planner. (skoehm@anaheim.net) Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Phil Schwartze, Walnut Manor, representing The Front Porch, 31872 San Juan Creek Road, San Juan Capistrano, CA, referred to the original aerial photo submitted to the Commission, and stated that the site has been tremendously changed in the last number of months as the construction continues therefore, they are proposing a slight modification to their master plan. He stated their request is based on response to market studies for the potential tenants moving into the units. Mark Coplin, representing The Front Porch, 6720 Southwest Macadam, Portland, Oregon, stated that he is present to further clarify their request for an amendment to the original conditional use permit that was approved in November, 2004. He explained that they made adjustments to the floor plan based on knowledge that the market that • would support smaller units. The overall plan accommodates additional one bedroom units and fewer 2 and 3 bedroom units. The plan also eliminates approximately 5,000 square feet of interior leisure space to provide five (5) additional units; bringing the total 08-20-07 Page 38 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES count from 151 to 156. He stated that he wished to provide clarification on the leisure • space they have provided as an amenity to the facility. They have provided more than twice the amount of Code required recreation and leisure area. He offered a listing of the facilities as follows: (1) Indoor pool; which includes a spa approximately 3,200 square feet; (2) exercise room; roughly 250 square feet, and support facilities for the locker room and dressing room; (3) a lounge; approximately 500 square feet; (4) library; approximately 250 square feet; and (5) multi-purpose room; used for lectures and life long learning center programs for outside speakers. He further clarified that the entire facility is designed arownd outside plazas including approximately 10,000 square feet of outside leisure space. He explained that the north upper space is the Meditation Reflection Gardens; the center space is the major plaza which has outside dining and outside events; the south is called the Park Plaza which has outside dining, koi pond, and putting green; and a wellness center which incorporates the indoor pool, exercise room and locker rooms. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved). Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04917. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution • passed with six (6) ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (6:36-6:45) • 08-20-07 Page 39 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FaesseURomero Approved • ~PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05104 Faessel Approved amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05235) Owner: Servite High School VOTE: 6-0 1922 West La Palma Avenue Chairman Buffa absent Anaheim, CA 92801-3544 Agent: Mark J. Paone Mark J. Paone A/A 58 Plaza Square Orange, CA 92866 Location: 1952 West La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 15.4-acres, having a frontage of 650 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and is located 515 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue. Request to amend the previously-approved conditional use permit to permit an additional modular unit for a private high school. • Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-101 ProjectP/anner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Jim Carter, 415 East Esther Place, Placentia, CA, stated their request is to add finro additional classrooms; also, they increased their day to an extra period; seven (7) periods instead of six (6). Additionally, they added band and choir. Commissioner Faessel asked if the facilities were considered temporary. Mr. Carter responded yes. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Carter to define temporary as it applied to the facilities. Mr. Carter responded three (3) to five (5) years. He stated they have plans to do something; whether remodel the campus or something else, but it has not been discussed yet. • Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki closed the public hearing. 08-20-07 Page 40 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel offered a motion to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration • (Previously-Approved). Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05104 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05235). Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six (6) ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon,,Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (6:46-6:49) • • 08-20-07 Page 41 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05234) Eastman/Faessel Approved Owner: Sidney E. Bickel 5585 Via Dicha #B Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Agent: Phillip Schwartze PRS Group 31872 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Eastman Location: 633 South East Street: Property is approximately 1.9-acre, having a frontage of 240 feet on the west side of East Street and is located 182 feet north of the centerline of South Street. • Requests reinstatement of this permit with the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an automotive wholesale and retail auction facility and to amend the conditions of approval to delete a time limitation. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-102 C~ Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Approved reinstatement for one year (to expire on August 20, 2008) Added two conditions of approval VOTE: 4-2 Commissioners Agarwal and Romero voted no, and Chairman Buffa absent Project P/anner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) Phil Schwartze, representing Quartz Dealer Direct, 31872 San Juan Creek Road, San Juan Capistrano, CA, stated Quartz has been in its current location approximately 17 years and they provide a very valuable service to the local car dealers and brokers. He stated that on auction days, Monday and Friday afternoons they are at a separate location. Presently, it is the Choc location or the Police Services League, and they jitney down the property. He stated that quite frankly he is a little puzzled about some of the comments that came in because they do not have an auction that runs until 8 or 9 o'clock at night. He indicated that car dealers tend to like to see the cars in the daylight therefore, he is sure there has been just a little bit of confusion. He assured they have employees monitoring the time and entrance to the auction, and recalled that a few years ago an armband was distributed at the jitney and patrons were not allowed in without it. This continues to this day. Because it is a wholesale operation only brokers are allowed. He further stated that it was his understanding when he filed the extension of time that the City was no longer doing extensions and eliminating the conditions therefore, he rewrote the letter indicating that he wanted to eliminate the conditions and 08-20-07 Page 42 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES if that is the new plan they would be happy to do that. Additionally, he stated that if the ~ Commission desires to keep a timeframe on them they would be receptive to that as well; as the Commission's concern may be that at some point someone else may take over Quartz. In which case, they would not be unreceptive to a condition that would require the Quartz operation terminate with the departure of Quartz. Leslie Anderson, 1209 East Crestbrook Place, Anaheim, CA, stated that he lives directly across from the subject business and emphatically disagrees with Mr. Schwartze's testimony. He stated on a daily basis there is an auction, and every single day there are cars parked in front of his house. As recently as yesterday when he arrived home there were two cars parked in front of his house which had nothing to do with the neighborhood parking. On a daily basis people get out of their cars and walk over to Quartz Dealership. He stated that he is not sure what the armband reference is to but he can ensure the Commission that it is not once in a while but on a daily basis. He offered to send them license numbers and photographs, he would be happy to acquire them. He emphasized that he has been unhappy for years over the insufficient parking and cannot understand why his neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods should have to endure the poor planning foresight by the Quartz Company. As far as the Choc parking, he has never seen a shuttle go over to Quartz and drop people off and feels it is impossible to do so since the entire Choc area has been fenced off for sometime now. So he asked if that is their official parking area where they are supposed to be parking. Additionally he stated concern that parking was unavailable in front of his house whenever friends and family visit. • In view of these issues, he stated that in the last four (4) hours while sitting and waiting to speak he had the opportunity to read the staff report regarding how the City staff actually went over and looked at the neighborhood to determine what impact the Quartz Company has on it; so, he does not understand how it is possible that no impact was found because on a daily basis there are cars parked in the neighborhood. And not only that but people get out of their cars and leave diapers and bottles, etc., on his front yard and has the audacity to get angry and threaten him when he asks them not to litter his front yard or park in front of his property. He expressed frustration that he has to get into verbal confrontations because there is insufficient parking and cannot understand why he and his neighbors have to endure such so that the Quartz Company can make a profit. Additionally, he stated that his niece's boyfriend was threatened by a client of Quartz's while watering the lawn because water splattered onto his car while parked in front of his home. He stated that he disagrees with Mr. Schwartze that there has been no complaints because he went directly over to the business three (3) times to complain, and the last time he was told by a Quartz representative that there was nothing she could do. So he stopped going to them complaining because he felt it did not make any difference if it was falling onto deaf ears. He expressed confusion as to whether he should call the Police Department or who to turn to and did not realize that the City forum was an option for him. However, having discovered that the Planning Commission is the proper • protocol, he stated that not only does he not want the permit reinstated but he wanted the business moved somewhere where there is sufficient parking for the operation. He 08-20-07 Page 43 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES stated he pays taxes too and it disturbs him to the core that Commission continues to • reinstate the applicant's permit. He indicated that his neighborhood is a neighborhood of middle class working people and feels the audience would have been filled with his neighbors if the meeting had not been scheduled at 2:30 p.m. when everyone has to work. Finally, he stated a couple of years ago Quartz placed an employee directly onto his property; sitting underneath his tree, on his grass, in a lounge chair, drinking cokes and littering his lawn with bottles as he attempted to monitor traffic and he feels it is inappropriate and it is wrong. Shannan Anderson, 1209 East Crestbrook Place, Anaheim, CA, confirmed her uncle's testimony and reiterated that her boyfriend was accosted with a verbal threat while watering their lawn. She attested to the insufficient parking and stated one particular occasion sticks in her mind. It was a birthday gathering for her, and their friends and family could not find parking in front of their house and instead had to park at the end of the cul-de-sac or the ne~ street over in order to get to their house. Commissioner Eastman asked her what street she was referring to. Ms. Anderson referred to the aerial map and pointed out the location of which she was speaking. She stated that it is not a desired part of her exercise regime to clean up • behind customers of the Quartz Dealership who blatantly throw trash onto their property even while she is sitting out watering the lawn. Also she observes the customers as late as 10 o'clock in the evenings. She explained that she was used to seeing certain cars for a few days and then they would disappear, and then she would see the same car later on. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked if they have called Code Enforcement regarding those issues. Ms. Anderson responded no, and that they were perplexed as to where they could go for help and was unaware that they could file a complaint with the City. She explained that this is the first meeting they have been to and now have become more informed on what they can do. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki asked how long they have been living at their address. Ms. Anderson responded since 1995 and does not know how long the business has been there, but recently has seen increasingly more people and trash. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Schwartze responded this is the first he has heard of their complaints and . suggested that their jitney operates daily. He explained that they are leasing the off-site parking lot from the City Redevelopment Agency, which is the reason the parking is there to begin with, and they have a key to get in and out of the gate. It is used every 08-20-07 Page 44 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES auction day; Mondays and Fridays. He apologized to the Anderson's if someone from • the shop was not responsive and reiterated that he has never heard of this before. He states that over the years they have had complaints regarding the property because people assumed since there was a lot of available parking at the location of the building that it was their building when in fact it was their neighbor's building. So they resolved that issue by moving their staff to their Sagamore property. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki, asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero stated that when he passed by the property there seemed to be an over abundance of cars and a lot of people milling around. He stated it did seem overcrowded and suggested maybe they have more business than they can handle. He stated concern that there is no ingress and egress without maneuvering throughout the parking lot so that if there were an emergency, he fears an emergency vehicle could not get through. Commissioner Agarwal asked how many cars are on the site during an auction Mr. Schwartze responded it is usually full; approximately 150 cars. Commissioner Agarwal (inaudible voice - microphone off). ~ Mr. Schwartze responded although the brokers cannot drive the cars they have the opportunity to start them up. The paperwork is already prepared and they are given a catalog including information on the cars. The auction starts in the afternoon. It occurs inside the building. There is an auction block and auctioneer as seen on television. The cars are driven through the doors to the auction block and there are seats for the wholesale brokers. They bid on the car and the car is driven out and parked. The process continues until the last car is gone. During an auction there are approximately 30 wholesale brokers present. They are required to park at the Choc facility. They arrive and depart on their jitneys; in fact, for a number of years one of his sons drove one of the jitneys. Commissioner Agarwal wished to clarify if all 150 cars started from the auction block Mr. Schwartze responded at some point and time, during the auction, they are all driven up through the auction block and then back out. That is the procedure they have been following for years. Commissioner Agarwal asked the total number of employees. Mr. Schwartze responded on a normal day there are approximately five (5) or six (6). On an auction day there may be fifteen. ~ Commissioner Agarwal wished to clarify that they would have thirty brokers and 15 employees for a total of 45 people in the facility. 08-20-07 Page 45 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Schwartze responded correct. • Commissioner Agarwal asked how long the auction last. Mr. Schwartze responded depending on the number of cars; each car is up for auction approximately 90 seconds; so finro and half to three hours. Commissioner Agarwal asked if they had a deadline on the auction time. Mr. Schwartze responded it is a function of how many cars are there but if the auction starts at 1:30 p.m. it is over at 4:00 p.m., depending on what's going on. The one on Friday is a little later in the afternoon. Commissioner Agarwal asked him the starting time. Mr. Schwartze responded on Fridays he believes it starts at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Agarwal wished to clarify if it would end around 6:30 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Eastman asked if the employees are all required to park at the Choc site. Mr. Schwartze responded yes, for the most part plus they have parking at the front of their property and most times their employees' park there. • Commissioner Eastman asked since Monday and Friday are auction days what happens on Tuesday through Thursday, because according to the neighbors people are coming everyday for some reason. Mr. Schwartze responded they may be coming over to pick the cars up; they may bring a driver along with them and take the car; or a car carrier would come to pick up the car. On Thursdays, the cars would be coming in from wherever the dealers are and coming onto the lot. Commissioner Eastman stated there are a lot of cars coming and going on the other days. Mr. Schwartze responded there will be 150 cars coming and 150 cars going. Commissioner Eastman stated there's a lot of activity with the 150 cars. Mr. Schwartze responded yes, and also there would be the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) process. So a couple of days there would be a lot of paperwork moving around as the car title changes, etc., and on Friday morning cars would be brought in for the auction. • Commissioner Eastman recalled that Mr. Schwartze has been before her several times regarding the subject matter and believes she can go back in history from sometime 08-20-07 Page 46 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ago when there were a lot of complaints, and then things were pretty good for awhile, ~ and all during this time they had a new place to move to and then they didn't have one. Mr. Schwartze responded correct. He stated that they paid for two separate places which were grabbed up by the Redevelopment Agency which is why he suspects they were so kind as to allow them the use of one site as a jitney point. Commissioner Eastman stated at this point, after over six (6) years sitting on the Commission she has some real concerns about giving any more long term renewals. She stated obviously there are a lot of citizens complaining again and she can remember giving the extension renewal before when it was for sure they were going to move. At this point she is beginning to feel uncomfortable about another renewal. Mr. Schwartze stated they continue to struggle also trying to find property that is appropriate for them and to get relocated is very difficult. The most recent conversation he had about relocating was when he spoke with the chairman of the Orange County Water District who indicated that they possibly had some property that they could lease to them long term, which is approximately double the size of their current property. He stated they are currently stifled in the size their business can grow. Commissioner Eastman stated she would be supportive of an extension if it were limited and very highly supervised by Code Enforcement. In the mean time she would recommend that they go ahead and locate some other property. She feels strongly with the number of citizens coming forward that there should be a time limitation built into the • conditional use permit so that the neighbors can have an assurance that there would not be another business of this type in the neighborhood again. Commissioner Faessel concurred and stated he would only support the project by putting the applicant on a very short time limitation and a higher level of inspection on the property. He feels Commission may not be fully informed of the affect the dealership has had on the neighborhood due to the fact the neighbors present at today's meeting did not know the process to come to City Hall or call Code Enforcement and by their own actions have tried to mitigate the matter by going to the actual business. He feels since it is not recorded Commission does not realize there is a problem. The fact that they presented themselves at today's meeting and were willing to spend all day to state their case goes a far piece with him and tells him that there is indeed an issue that needs to be mitigated in someway. Commissioner Velasquez also concurs with her colleagues and stated she would definitely not be in favor of an approval with prolonging the time limitation. She feels there is definitely an issue and an issue that has been ongoing for a number of years. She referred to staff and asked what time limitation they recommended. She agrees there needs to be supervision and that Code Enforcement needs to investigate to make sure that the problem does not persist. Ms. Dadant responded that the last increment of time was approved for a period of two • (2) years and stated it is up to the Commission. 08-20-07 Page 47 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez stated based on the premise that they are finding another • place to move to she would prefer a year. She asked how often Code Enforcement would go out. Ms. Dadant suggested one of the things that could be done is monthly inspections for the first six (6) months and then quarterly after that or as needed depending on the comfort level of the Commission. Commission Agarwal stated that he believes in free enterprise as much as the next person but it is the responsibility of the business to conduct themselves in an orderly fashion according to the rules. Clearly there have been many instances that the cars have been parked in the neighborhood. And he has been to the facility a couple of times and witnessed far too many people and cars. Therefore, he is not at all comfortable with this situation. Furthermore, he feels putting the dealership on monthly inspections is going to be a burden on the City. He stated he can probably support a two-year extension but that will be the last extension that he will support. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki concurs with his colleagues and states there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Therefore, he would propose a one-year extension with the monthly inspections for six months, and should it go well then it would go quarterly. From there on if they have a problem the Code Enforcement will report back to the Commission to take any action. He stated the neighbors should not have to clean up the street or manage the parking in the neighborhood, etc., it is the responsibility of the ~ business owner. He proposed to amend the resolution to reflect a one-year extension with a monthly inspection from Code Enforcement. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved). Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve the amendment and reinstatement of the Conditional Use Permit No. 1322 (Tracking No. CUP 2007-05234), with the condition that this is for one year with monthly Code Enforcement inspections for the first six (6) months after which, if everything is in compliance it would go quarterly. Ms. Dadant wished to clarify that it is a retroactive request; meaning the conditional use permit technically expired in March 2007. She asked if it is the intent of the Commission to give them one year from today's date. Commissioner Velasquez asked if the applicant applied in March. Ms. Dadant responded that City Code provides for a six (6) month grace period for the application of reinstatement. She stated the application possibly came in finro (2) months ago. ~~ ~J 08-20-07 Page 48 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez stated that she did not want to make it impossible for them to • find a relocation site so she would be okay for one (1) year from this date with the applicant having the understanding that they have to find another location. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki stated it would be effective as of today's date (one year from now). Ms. Dadant stated the wording will be that it shall expire one (1) year on August 20, 2008. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki announced a button vote. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 4 ayes votes; Commissioners Agarwal and Romero voted no (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: A letter was received in opposition to the subject request, and 2 people spoke in opposition. A phone call was received pertaining to parking concerns, and therefore recommends a 2-year time limitation on the item. • A phone call was received with concerns ertainin to arkin noise P 9 P 9~ and property damage, and therefore recommends a time limitation and monthly or quarterly inspections by Community Preservation Division. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (6:50-7:25) r~ U 08-20-07 Page 49 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05118 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05237) FaesseUEastman Faessel Concurred with staff Approved amendment Owner: David & Frances Shek 3728 East Woodbine Road Orange, CA 92867 Agent: Phil Schwartze PRS Group 31872 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Location: 1401 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately .9-acre, having a frontage of 173 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and is located 347 feet south of Winston Road. Request to amend a condition of approval to allow up to 45 students for a previously-approved preschool. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-103 ~ ~ Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: (ethien@anaheim. ne t) Phil Schwartze, representing Happy Hippo, 31872 San Juan Creek Road, San Juan Capistrano, CA, stated fortunately the owner has run a very successful business and all of their hard work in getting her established has paid off. He stated the original conditional use permit restricted the number of students she could have so they are asking that it be extended to add more students. Commissioner Faessel asked if the unpermitted pole sign had been removed Mr. Schwartze responded yes. Commissioner Faessel asked since he is increasing the number of students would he also be increasing the number of care providers. Mr. Schwartze responded they originally over staffed therefore, they would not be expanding the staff at this time. Commissioner Faessel noted that they would be making a 50% increase; from 30 to 55 students and he asked if they would all be at the facility simultaneously. 08-20-07 Page 50 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Schwartze responded some students would come in the morning, some are there all • day, and some only come in the afternoon. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki, asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve the CEQA Categorical Exemption Class - 1. Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2006-05118 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05237). Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six (6) ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (7:26-7:30) ~ 08-20-07 Page 51 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05239 Romero/Eastman Romero Concurred with staff Granted Owner: Chuck Wu 3460 Winchester Way Rowland Heights, CA 91748 Guthrie Family, LLC & R+D Guthrie 3185 Airway Avenue Suite E Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Agent: David Constant 5645 East La Palma Avenue #160 Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: 725 and 755 North Shepard Street: Property is approximately 0.89-acre, having a frontage of 192 feet on the north side of the Riverside Freeway and is located 907 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and 365 feet west of the centerline of Carpenter Avenue. • Request to permit a personal training and fitness center. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-104 Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki opened the public hearing. Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. VOTE: 6-0 Chauman Buffa absent Project P/anner. (ethien@anaheim.net) Jack H. Bauerle, Speed Training Centers, 3670 San Antonio Road, Yorba Linda, CA, clarified that they are not a fitness center; but rather they are a sports medicine, human performance, type of entity. He further clarified that his partner, David Constance, has an existing business in Anaheim, which they will absorb into the new venture. They will offer one on one, individual, physical therapy services, staffed by an orthopedic physical therapist with a doctorate out of University of Southern California, and a biomechanics physician. He added they do not have any similarities to a 24-Hour Fitness type service. Commissioner Romero wished to clarify if his partner planned on closing his existing business and also where it is currently located. Mr. Bauerle responded currently on La Palma and Imperial; next to the movie theaters. • He explained that they plan to absorb the existing business into the new business, and add the physical therapy services. Additionally, he stated they planned to develop alliances with Allied Health Professionals in the Anaheim area. 08-20-07 Page 52 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki wished to clarify that it would be health facilities catering to athletes. Mr. Bauerle responded yes, and stated that the warehouse space in the back of the subject facility will be an indoor Astroturf where they will hold athletic events for performance training. Additionally, he stated that they developed alliances with other physicians and Dr. Millhouse, who is with the Angels and the Ducks, and they are excited to get started in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify that there would be an improvement in their sign, to comply with the City Code, as opposed to the large block sign as seen on the exhibit. Mr. Bauerle responded yes, their sign company out of Long Beach has already obtained permits. Chairman Pro-Tempore Karaki, asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 1. Motion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). ~ Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05239. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six (6) ayes votes (Chairman Buffa absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (7:31-7:37) • 08-20-07 Page 53 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to • 11 b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00456 September 5, 2007 11 c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00200 11d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05204 Motion: Eastman/Agarwal 11f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17047 VOTE: 6-0 Agent: La Vue LLC Chairman Buffa absent 30622 La Vue Street Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Location: 121 and 131 South Dale Avenue: Property is approximately 0.82-acre, having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located 310 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00456 - Request to amend the land use element map of the General Plan redesignating the property from the Corridor Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. ~ Reclassification No. 2007-00200 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05204 - Request to construct a 14-unit attached single-family condominium planned unit development with modification of development standards and waiver of minimum setback befinreen buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 17047 - Request to establish a 1-lot, 14-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. ProjectPlanner: (ethien@anaheim.net) Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to continue this request to September 5, 2007. Mo#ion passed with six (6) ayes (Chairman Buffa absent). i OPPOSITION: None 08-20-07 Page 54 AUGUST 20, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:38 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Res tfully submitted: at han ~ Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~yJe~ ~ , 2007. ~ 08-20-07 Page 55