Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/03/02ity n~ ei lann~n o i~si~n A n ute~ Mondav, March 2, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principai Planner Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey David See, Senior Planner Susan Kim, Associate Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Kimberly Wong, Planner Tracy Sato, Senior Planner Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Jamie Lai, Transit Manager Micheie Irwi~, Senior Police Services Representative Eleanor Morris, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 19, 2009 • Call to Order • Workshop on Implementation of SB 375 (iPresented by Planning Staff) 1:00 P.M. (Continued to the March 16, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting) • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMIS510N) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MARCH 2, 2009 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 35 o Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Romero • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates s Discussion • Adjournment Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero Stephen Faessel MARCH 2, 2009 PLAPINING COMMISSIOIV MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.IVi. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Minutes ITEM NO. 1 A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 21, 2009. Note: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. ITEM NO. 1 C Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 2009, flAotion to approve a continuance to flflarch 16, 2009 (Eastman/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Niotion to approve Minutes (Agarwal/Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner-Faesse4-absent Motion to approve a continuance to March 16, 2009 (Eastman/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent 03/02/09 Page 2 of 3~ MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOfV MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 D DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEMT NO. 2007-00003 - FIN~L E'LEVATION PLANS (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00001) Owner/ Joe Stasney Applicant: Kaiser Foundation Hospital 3400 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 3400 East La Palma Avenue: This property is approximately 27 acres, with a frontage of 984 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and is located 225 feet east of the centerline of Miller Street. The applicant requests review of final elevation plans for a previously-approved Kaiser Hospital cornplex. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-00337, which was previously certified, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Motion to approve plans (Eastman/Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner. David See dsee @ anaheim. net David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Mr. See stated the applicant had submitted a revised elevation plan for the side of the building visible from the Riverside Freeway and that the correct colors are shown on the perspective rendering. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Eastman and Ramirez each stated they.had met with the applicant. Commissioner Buffa stated she supported the project and the applicant had done a great job enhancing the architecture of the building. Chairman Karaki concurred and stated the project would make a great difference to the City. Commissioner Eastman stated she supported the project, but would have liked to have reviewed a color board because computer generated drawings do not always show the true colors. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa, determining that the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-00337 is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving final elevation plans for Development Agreement No. 2007-00003, 03/02/09 Page 3 of 30 NiARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the motion passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:35-2:41) 03/02/09 Page 4 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMNIISSIOM MINUTES Public Hearina Items: ITEM MO. 2 COIVDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05357 AND This item was withdrawn as VARIANCE NO. 2009-04770 requested by the applicant; therefore, no action was taken. Owner: Orange County Conservation Corps The Rock Church 1853 North Raymond Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: Rick Fox 275 South Glassell Street Orange, CA 92866 Location: 1853 North Ravmond Avenue: This property is approximately 0.68 acres, located at the northwest corner of North Raymond Avenue and Kimberly Avenue. Off-site parking would be provided on one property located at 101 East Orangethorpe Avenue which is approximately 2.65 acres, having a frontage of 400 feet along the north side of East Orangethorpe Avenue approximately 515 feet east the centerline of Lemon Avenue. Request to permit a job training and educational facility for Project Planner. at-risk youth in conjunction with a recycling and collection Scon Koehm facility with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. skoehm~anaheim.net Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This item was continued from the February 2, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIfVIE: This item was not discussed. 03/02/09 Page 5 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNIfVG COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2009-00228 Owner: Orange County Transportation Authority (Parcel A) P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863 Owner: City of Anaheim (Parcel B) 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Parcel A-1750 Douqiass Road: This property is approximately 13.56 acres, having frontages of approximately 775 feet on the east side of Douglass Road and 390 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue. Parcel B-1790 Douqlass Road: This property is approximately 2.39 acres, having a frontage of 80 feet on the east side of Douglass Road, approximately 1,350 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. The Planning Department requests approval to reclassify the OCTA-owned property from the Transitional (T) zone and the City- owned property frorn the Industrial (I) zone to the Semi-Public (SP) zone. _ Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 330, which was previously certified, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolutipn No. PC2009-029 (Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner. Susan Kim skim Co?anaheim.net Susan Kim, Senior Rlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 03/02/09 Page 6 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNIfVG COMMISSIOfV MIMUTES Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report determining that the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report No. 330 is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Reclassification No. 2009-00228. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:42-2:46) 03/02/09 Page 7 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMNIISSION MINUTES ITENi iVO. 4 CONDITIOMAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05378 Owner: Tomas Rodriguez 511 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: Leon Alexander 558 South Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 511 East La Palma Avenue: This property is located at the northeast corner of Sabina Street and La Palma Avenue, with frontages of 224 feet on the east side of Sabina Street and 190 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue. The applicant proposes automobile repair, auto body and painting, a towing and impound yard, outdoor vehicular storage and indoor vehicular storage in an existing warehouse building. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. PC2009-030 (Romero) Approved, modified Condition No. 9 pertaining to gate requirements VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner. David 5ee dsee Qanaheim.net David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Mr. See recommended that Condition of Approval No. 9 be changed to state as follows: "Gates shall be open during normal business hours. The gate adjacent to_L~Palma Avenue shall not be used during non-business hours. Knox boxes shall be installed on all gates. Said information shall be indicated on plans submitted for building perrnits." Commissioner Buffa requested staff to clarify the change to Condition No. 9. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, clarified Condition No. 9 would be replaced entirely with the new wording. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to confirm that the new Condition No. 9 would require the gates to be open during business hours and after business hours, they would not be able to use the La Palma gate, but they could use the Sabina gate. Mr. Garcia confirmed that was correct, 03/02/09 Page 8 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLAPIMING COMMISSION MIfVUTES Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing Leon Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, representing the applicant, described the request and indicated that the business had relocated from 542 South Atchison Street to this new location. He referred to a letter attached to the staff report and dated October 1, 2008~ that he submitted to justify the proposed Conditional Use Permit. He indicated that the applicant is requesting the same types of business operations that were conducted at the previous business location on Atchison Street and that he agrees with the staff recommendations, including the removal of the barb wire and fixing the signage. Cornmissioner Romero asked if the operator would be limited to the number of cars that can be stored on the site. Mr. Alexander responded yes and asked staff to confirm where the stored cars could be parked Mr. See responded the stored cars cannot be parked in code-required parking spaces. He said the impounded cars can be parked inside the building. Mr. Alexander responded that would be acceptable. He introduced the property owner, Tomas Rodriquez. Commissioner Ramirez said that the proposal included removing the barb wire from the existing fence and asked if the owner had considered replacing the existing chainlink fence with a new fence. Mr. Alexander said the fence has been on the property a number of years. The owner is not proposing to replace the fence due to the expense associated with removing and installing a new fence. Commissioner Ramirez said the existing fence does not screen the property. Commissioner Ramirez also asked who is responsible for maintaining the landscaping between the fence and the public sidewalk. Mr. See responded that the property owner is responsible for maintaining this landscaping. Mr. Alexander stated the property owner would remove the weeds. Mr. Rodriquez, 511 East La Palma Avenue, property owner, described his business operations and the need for a Conditional Use Permit. He said the proposal is for the same business operation conducted at the previous location. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environme~tal documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05378. 03/02J09 Page 9 of 30 NIARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Comrnissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. DISCUSSION TIflflE: 10 minutes (2:47-2:57) 03/02/09 Page 10 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLAfViVIPlG COMMISSIQM MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 AMEMDMEidT TO VARIANCE MO. 447 (TRACKING fVO. 2008-04766) Owner: Gabriel Morales 300 South East Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Steve Lazerson 13854 East Whittier Boulevard Whittier, CA 90605 Location: 300 South East Street: This property is approximately 0.28-acre, and is located at the southeast corner of East Street and Broadway, with frontages of 101 feet on the east side of East Street and 127 feet on the south side of Broadway. The applicant requests to reinstate a previously-approved variance for an existing gasoline service station with accessory automobile repair and amend the permit to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation. Environmental Deterrnination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution f~o. PC2009-031 (Ramirez) Approved, modified Condition No. 14 pertaining to landscape requirements and added a condition of approval requiring semi-annual code enforcement inspections for a period of two years. VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner. David See dsee ~anaheim.net David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentaiion. Commissioner Eastman said she was concerned abaut the dead plant material in the containers on the property. She stated the landscaping was intended to improve the aesthetics of the property. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Steve Lazerson, 13854 East Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, representing the property owner, stated he was availab9e for questions. Commissioner Buffa stated City staff is proposing to limit the type of work on the property in Condition Nos. 5 and 6. Commissioner Buffa asked the applicant if he had reviewed the list of allowable uses and whether the conditions accurately reflect the applicanYs business operation. Commissioner Buffa also asked if the business included work on transmissions or tires. Mr. Lazerson replied that the business does not include work on transmissions or tires. 03/02/09 Page 11 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if the business included work on engine replacement. Mr. Lazerson replied that the business does not include work on engine replacement. Commissioner Ramirez requested the applicant to comment on the previous enforcement issues on the site. Mr. Lazerson replied that the main issue involved the storage of disassembled vehicles and vehicle parts in the rear of the property by the previous business owner. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant if the current owner is familiar with the proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Lazerson replied yes. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant how long the business has been owned by the current property owner. Mr. Lazerson replied that the current property owner has owned the business for about five years. He stated that the previous owner had stored parts on the property and these parts were removed following a notice from Code Enforcement staff. Commissioner Agarwal said the memo from Code Enforcement indicated that transmission repair was being conducted on the property. Mr. Lazerson replied that he did not believe transmission work was previously conducted on the property; however, there were parts related to transmission work stored on the property by the previous business owner. Commissioner Agarwal asked the applicant if he was aware that the conditions of approval would not allow the business to conduct transmission repair. Mr. Lazerson replied yes. Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if he was aware of the obligation to maintain live trees on the property. Mr. Lazerson replied yes. Commissioner Eastman said the east planter area was in disrepair with blocks on the pavement and that it was an eyesore. Mr. Lazerson replied this planter area would be repaired. Chairman Karaki said Gode Enforcement would monitor this property and hoped that the applicant would keep the property well maintained. 03/02/09 Page 12 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMfVI1SSION MIidUTES Mr. Lazerson agreed. Ghairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa said Condition No. 14 should be revised to delete the last line about unreasonable tree trimming. Mr. See replied that staff concurs with the change to delete "and that no tree or other landscaping shall be unreasonably trimmed" from the condition. The revised condition reads: "Any tree, shrub, groundcover or flower planted on site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies." Commissioner Ramirez said she was concerned about deleting the time limitation on this permit because the business had not complied with the conditions of approval in the past. Commissioner Eastrnan said when they have had similar concerns on other properties, they have added a condition requiring periodic inspections by Code Enforcement staff with the applicant paying the cost for these inspections. Chairman Karaki concurred and suggested the inspection take place quarterly or on a bi-annual basis. Commissioner!Ramirez concurred with requiring periodic inspections. Commissioner Eastman suggested a semi-annual inspection for two years to ensure that the plant material stays well maintained. Chairman Karaki suggested the first inspection take place six months from approval of the project to ensure the property owner is complying with the conditions of approval. Mr. See suggested the condition require the applicant to pay for Code Enforcement inspections. Commissioner Ramirez offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the reinstatement and arnendment of Variance No. 447 with modification to Condition No. 14 to delete "and that no tree or other landscaping shall be unreasonably trimmed° from the Condition and #o add a Condition requiring the property owner to pay costs associated with Code Enforcement conducting a semi- annual inspection for a period of two years to verify that the property owner is complying with the conditions of approval. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. 03/02/09 Page 13 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:58-3:12) 03/02/09 Page 14 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE fVO. 2008-04768 Owner: Trinh Lecong Picadilly Anaheim Affordable Homes, I:LC 1291 Puerta del Sol, Suite 200 San Clemente, CA 92673 Applicant: Loren Sandberg ~GS Engineering 628 North Eckhoff Orange, CA Location: 9221 - 9241 Picadillv Wav: These two properties have a combined area of 0.29 acres, with a frontage of 164 feet on the north side of Picadilly Way, 461 feet northwest of the centerline of Braeburn Street. The applicant requests a deviation in front yard setback and sound attenuation requirements to construct two new single family homes adjacent to the 91 Freeway. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 3 (New Construction). Resolution No. PC2009-032 (Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 5-1 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman and Romero voted yes; Commissioner Ramirez voted no and Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: David See dseeC~anaheim.net David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentation. _ _._ Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Loren Sandberg, 628 North Eckhoff, prange, CA, with LGS Engineering, representing the applicant, said he was available for questions. Commissioner Buffa commented that the proposed project was a good use of the property. Chairman Karaki, seeing no other speakers, closed the public hearing. Gommissioner Ramirez stated the staff report indicated that other properties had similar deviations and asked where these other properties were located and how they were approved. She also asked what type of decibel level was previously approved. 03/02/09 Page 15 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLAMMING COMMISSION nIIIMUTES Mr. See replied that five single-family homes to the west of this property were approved with similar front yard setback variances. At the time these homes were approved, sound attenuation requirements for exterior decibel levels were established by Council Policy. These homes were granted a waiver of the Council Policy pertaining to sound attenuation requirements. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff what the decibel level was for those other properties. Mr. See clarified that the decibel level was above 65. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that at the time when the projects to the west were approved, it required a waiver of a Council Policy to have exterior noise levels exceeding the levels set forth in the Council Policy. The Council Policy requirements have since been moved to the Zoning Code. Now, a variance must be requested to have higher exterior noise levels than set forth in the Code. Commissioner Aganval offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report determining that a Class 3 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2008-04768. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with five aye votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no and Commissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITIOfV: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p:m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:13-3:18) 03/02/09 Page 16 of 30 NiARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEfVI NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MO. 2008-05398 Owner: Beth Emet Temple 1770 West Cerritos Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 Applicant: Jason Kozora Omnipoint Communications and Trillium Consulting 3 MacArthur Court, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Location: 1770 West Cerritos Avenue: This property is approximately 4.7 acres, having a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue, approximately 522 feet east of Old Fashion W ay. The applicant proposes to install a telecommunications facility disguised as a palm tree with a height of 50 feet where 30 feet is permitted by Code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Motion to approve continuance to March 30, 2009 (Eastman/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Pla~ner. Kimberly Wong kwong2 ~anaheim. net 03/02/09 Page 17 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MIMUTES ITEM iVO. 8 COiVDITIONAL USE PERNiIT MO. 2008-05399 REQUEST FOR DETERMINATIOfV OF PUBLIC CONVEfVIENCE OR MECESSITY NO. 2008-00054 Owner: Abdul Aziz 22365 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Appiicant: Binh Lam 1671 West Katella Avenue, Suite 135 Anaheim, CA 92802 Location: 1671 West Katella Avenue Unit 135: This property is approximately 0.79 acre, having a frontage of 106 fee# on the north side of Katella Avenue, approxirnately 283 feet east of Euclid Street. The applicant proposes to establish a convenience market in an existing commercial building with a Type 21 (off-sale general) ABC license for the sales of beer, wine and distilled spirits for off-premises consumption. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Resolution No. PC2009-033 Resolution fVo. PC2009-034 (Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner. Kim Wong kwonq2 ~anaheim.net Kimberly Wong, Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentafion. - - ---- Commissioner Romero asked staff to show the previous business location on the vicinity map in the presentation. Ms. Wong identified the previous business location immediately to the west of this site. Commissioner Agarwal asked staff to explain Condition No. 1 limiting the hours of operation. Ms. Wong replied that the business did not have a time limitation at the previous location; however, staff is recommending that at this new location, the business be limited to the applicant's stated hours of operation. Commissioner Agarwal asked staff if this tirne fimitation was acceptable to the applicant. 03/02/09 Rage 18 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MIMUTES Ms. Wong replied that this time limitation reflects the applicant's stated hours of operation, closing by 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Binh Lam, 1671 West Katella Avenue, Suite 135, Anaheim, applicant, stated she owned the business at the previous location for 15 years and asked for approval of the business at the new location. Ms. Lam also asked that the conditions of approval be modified to permit the sale of single containers of alcohol since this was permitted at the previous business location and si~ce she has customers who purchase these single containers. Commissioner Buffa referred to the floor plan and asked the applicant to clarify which of the four doors would be open during business hours. Ms. Lam stated the door next to Katella Avenue would be kept Iocked and the door on the side of the building closest to Katella Avenue would be kept open. The door behind the cashier would be locked except for certain deliveries. Bill Estep, 1219 West Laster Avenue, Anaheim, Co-chair for the South District and representative to the Neighborhood Watch Program, referred to the petition he submitted in opposition to the 7-11 market project (Item No. 6) at the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. He stated the people who signed that petition, support the approval of this request since this business is valuable to the neighborhood. Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Estep from his perspective as a neighborhood representative, how he feels about the applicanYs request to sell single containers of alcohol. Mr. Estep replied that he did not see the harm in allowing the business to sell something they could sell at the previous location. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. _ .__ Chairman Karaki asked staff to explain the recommendation to restrict sales of single containers of alcohol. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative, explained that conditions limiting the sale of single containers of alcohol have been recommended for ABC license requests for the past 15 years to deter crime activities. Past studies have shown that a number of people who purchase single containers of alcohol either drink the alcohol on the property or drive and drink the alcohol. The Police Departrnent is updating their study to see if these crime statistics are still the same. Ms. Irwin also stated that at the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting on the proposed 7-11 market with alcohol sales at 1685 West Katella Avenue, there was testimony from residents in the area that transients were coming from the City of Garden Grove, across Katella Avenue, and contributing to the crime in the area. Ms. Irwin, stated she did not understand why this concern would go away for this business. 03/02/09 Page 19 of 30 BflARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOPd MIfVUTES Chairman Karaki said he concurred with Police staff's recommendation to restrict the sales of single containers of alcohol. Commissioners Ramirez, Romero and Agarwal concurred with the Chairman's comments. Commissioner Buffa concurred with the Chairman's comments and did not see why there would be an exception for this business. Commissioner Eastman said this case may be different because this business has a long standing record in the community; however, she is comfortable keeping the restrictions on the sales of single containers of alcohoL Commissioner Eastman also commented that the City Council would be considering the Thomas Liquor proposal and determining what type of policy to set on the sales of single containers of alcohol. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05399 and a Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00054. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None IPl SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. - -- DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (3:19-3:34) A 7-minute recess was taken (3:35-3:42) 03/02/09 Page 20 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLt1NNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 9 GENERAL PLAN ANiEPlDMENT NO. 2008-00470 Resolution No. PC2009-035 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MO. 2008-00055 Resolution No. PC2009-036 MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2009-00297 Resolution No. PC2009-037 CONDITIOMAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05403 Resolution f4o. PC2009-038 VARIANCE NO. 2008-04761 Resolution No. PC2009-039 FINAL S1TE PLAN NO. 2008-00004 Resolution No. PC2009-040 REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC Resolution No. PC2009-041 COMVENIEPICE OR NECESSITY NO. 2009-00056 (Agarwal) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF ALL ACTIONS Motion Approved Recommending City Council Owner. Zaby's LP Review 444 West Katella Avenue (Agarwal/Eastman) Anaheim, CA 92802 Applicant: Lake Development, Anaheim, LLC -------------------------------------------- 20241 Southwest Birch Street, Suite 102 Motion to adopt all resolutions, Newport Beach, CA 92660 adding two conditions of approval to the Final Site Plan Location: Hotel Proiect - 1820 South Harbor Boulevard: pertaining to parking and This property is approximately 2.45 acres, having maintenance requirements and frontages of 202 feet on the east side of Harbor adding a condition of approval Boulevard and 540 feet on the south side of to the CUP requiring final plans Katella Avenue. for the changeable message signs to be submitted for Specific Plan Amendment No. 20Q8-00055 and Commission review and Miscellaneous Case No. 2009-00297 apply to approval as a Report and 1820 South Harbor Boulevard and other Recommendation item. properties in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (Buffa/Eastman) Zone. The applicant proposes to construct a nine-story, 252-room -- -- hotel with 75,593 square feet of supporting retail, spa, Motion Failed nightclub, lounges, restaurants, conference/meeting rooms and hotel offices. VOTE: 2-4 Proposed actions include the following: Commissioners Buffa and Eastman voted yes; General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00470 - Request to Chairman Karaki and amend the text in the General Plan Land Use Element to Commissioners Agarwal, Ramirez reflect a new density category created for the Commercial and Romero voted no; and Recreation District of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Commissioner Faessel absent The new density category will be called "Low Medium Density {Modified)" and would accommodate the additional square footage of accessory uses proposed with the hotel. """"""""""""'""'""""""'"'""""'""""" 03/02/09 Page 21 of 30 fVIARCH 2, 2009 PLANMIMG COMMISSIOM nIIINUTES Specific Plan Amendment No. 2008-00055 - Request to Motion to adopt all resolutions, amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to add the "Low adding two conditions of Mediurn Density (Modified)" density category, modifications approval to the Final Site Plan to the Central Core and Special Intersection Landscape pertaining to parking and Treatment to allow special landscape and hardscape maintenance requirements treatments at the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella (Agarwal/Karaki) Avenue, and modifications to the sign code to allow a greater number and larger signs than currently permitted by Code for hotels and accessory retail, allow a Motion Approved changeable copy sign for a hotel when not visible from street level subject to approval of a conditional use permit, allow murals subject to approval of a conditional use permit VOTE: 5-1 and allow multi-tenant signs integrated with the building Chairman Karaki and architecture in lieu of a freestanding monument sign Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Ramirez and Romero voted yes; Commissioner Eastman voted no; Amendment to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm and Commissioner Faessel absent Landscape Program (Miscellaneous Case No. 2009- 00297) - Request to amend this program to allow special landscape treatment and sculptural urban design elements and require special hardscape treatment within the public Motion to recommend City right-of-way at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Council review of all items Katella Avenue; related to the subject request. (Agarwal/Eastman) Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05403 - Request to permit a nightclub, health spa, murals visible to the public right-of-way, two changeable copy signs not visible from Motio~ Approved street level, multi-tenant signs integrated with the building architecture and projecting signs. ' VOTE: 6-0 Variance No. 2008-04761 - Request to allow smaller Commissioner Faessel absent interior setbacks and fewer parking spaces than permitted by code. _ Final Site Plan fdo. 2008-00004 - Request for approval of a Final Site Plan for the development of 252-room hotel and 75,596 square feet of accessory uses. Project Planner: PCN2009-00056 - Request for determination of public Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien Qanaheim.net convenience or necessity to permit alcohol sales for a nightclub and sales of beer and wine at a retail store for off-premises consumption. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the potentiai environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 03/02/09 Page 22 of 30 AAARCH 2, 2009 PLANNIfVG COMMISSIOM NIffVUTES Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 2, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated the Planning Comrnission had asked during the preliminary plan session the height and width of the LED signs at Anaheim GardenWalk. There are two LED signs at Anaheim GardenWalk. Both signs have a maximum height of 17 feet and a combined width of 58 feet. By comparison, the proposed LED signs for this project would be double the height and the same width. Ms. Thienprasiddhi also read into the record two additional conditions of approval for the Final Site Plan resolution as follows: "No required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses." "Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicanUdeveloper shall enter into a Right-of-Way Encroachment License Agreement with the City for the maintenance of the water features proposed within the public right-of-way." Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Ken Ryan, 17922 Fitch, Irvine, KTGY, representing the appticant, introduced the technical team and said that the applicant supports the staff recommendation including the conditions of approval. He provided an overview of the proposed project along with a visual presentation. Ne described the purpose of the project to transition the site to a vibrant, vertical mixed use project with an enhanced pedestrian environment. He described the types of proposed uses including hotel rooms, spa, conference center, retail, restaurant, nightclub, sky badlounge. He showed slides depicting the floor plan and elevations, and parking areas. He described the proposed changes to the public realm including special paving, water features, and changes to the street trees and plant material along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. He also described the green principals which were factored into the design of the project including principals related to energy efficiency, accessibility to transi# opportunities including the bus and shuttle stops, water conservation and recycling. Sara Bartczak, 201 East Center Street, Anaheim, representing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, read into the record a letter from the Chamber dated March 2, 2009 expressing support for the project. She also submitted a copy of the letter. Carrie Nocella, 1313 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Manager of Government Relations for The Disneyland Resort, spoke in favor of the project with exceptions. She referred to a letter dated February 27, 2009, and reiterated the four rnain areas of concern as follows: the LED screen in the second level of the hotel by the pool, the images proposed to be projected on the waterfall on the ninth level of the hotel, striped paving in the public realm, and the proposed sculptural monuments in the public realm. She stated that Disney representatives met with the developer two times and they are amenable to future discussions with the developer. Joe Haupt, 1313 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Walt Disney Imagineering, stated they have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and met twice with the applicant. The Company supports the project in general and believes it will be a high quality development at the Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue intersection. They have fundamental concerns regarding some of the proposed features. The stated concerns include the following: the special paving area would create 03/02/09 Page 23 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOfiI flAINUTES a distinct look for this intersection at the expense of uniformity in The Anaheim Resort; the timing of improvements at the other corners in the intersection could result in this corner looking different for a long period of time in contrast with the Anaheim Resort goal of improving the area at one time to create a uniform look; at the time the other corners are developed, the materials could be different; the water features could look different on each of the four corners of the intersection; the proposed LED screen and the projection of images on the waterfall could create a visual nuisance for ad}'acent properties and result in a look more in keeping with Las Vegas; the LED screen and the images on the waterfall could be visible from hotels across the street and the theme park, creating the potential for numerous problems related to content and light spillage issues. He urged the Planning Commission to develop a more holistic approach to these intersection improvements at a later time and to consider the impact of the LED screen and projection of images on the waterfall on adjacent properties. Mukul Kumar, 13252 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, representing Unite Here, Local 11, stated that Unite Here represents 5000 hotel and restaurant workers, many of whom live as well as work in the City of Anaheim. He said he believed the project would be a high quality development; however, he was concerned the project included fewer parking spaces than required by Code since there was a shortfall of parking in The Anaheim Resort. He requested additional evidence that the project would have a sufficient number of parking spaces. He also referenced the types of employees that would be needed for this project and stated this project should provide high quality jobs with higher wages. Larry Lake, President of Lake Development Company, provided the following responses to comments on the project: • Special paving and water features at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Kateila Avenue - Mr. Lake commented that the City would pick one type of paver, the only variation would be in the design of the iconic water feature. • LED screen - Mr. Lake described the view point study prepared for this project which demonstrated that the LED and waterfall elements would have limited visibility from other properties and would not be visible from the street. He also referred to a slide in the presentation which shows a view from the hotel conference center to the Anaheim Convention Center. The LED screen would be located below the wall of the conference center and would be setback 250 feet from Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner Eastman asked whether the architectural features of the building would block views of the signs and requested inforrnation on the height of these features. She also asked if a view were taken from another property at the same level as the LED sign, how much of the LED sign would be visible. She said she is looking for a comparison studying showing whether the signs would be visible from different locations. Mr. Lake responded the sign would not be a Las Vegas type of LED sign on the street. It would not be visible from the street or the freeway. He cited examples of other locations that had LED screens inciuding Anaheim GardenWalk. Mr. Ryan stated that the sign would occupy a space at the end of the pool and the setback would diminish the visibility of the sign from the street. 03/02/09 Page 24 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION NIIN'UTES Michael Heinrich, architect for the project, referred to the presentation slides and described how the proposed hotel elements and buildings on other properties would block views of the LED sign. Commissioner Buffa inquired whether someone driving eastbound on Katella Avenue approaching this corner would be able to view the LED sign. Mr. Heinrich, responded that in his best judgment, the Jolly Roger building would most likely block the visibility of the sign. Mr. Ryan said they had not prepared a view section, but given the existing buildings on the Jolly Roger site and the double row of palm trees, the LED sign would most likely not be visibie. Commissioner Buffa commented that the LED sign and waterfall images were probably visible from the upper levels of adjacent hotels. Commissioner Buffa inquired what would be shown on the signs and waterfall images and whether the images would be like those shown on MTV. Mr. Ryan responded that the hotel would have high end amenities intended to attract high end clientele and that the type of imagery on the waterfalls and LED sign would be respective of the clientele. The images would be vibrant, fun and appealing to upper end hotel guests. Commissioner Agarwal commented that he had met with the applicant and representatives from Disney. He asked for rnore clarification on the content of the signs. Mr. Ryan responded that the images would respond to the atmosphere of the nightclub and pool. They would not show images that would be offensive. The imagery would be music and other attractive art images and the signs have been designed to be set back next to the pool. Commissioner Agarwal inquired whether the images would contain R rated material or other types of offensive material. Mr. Lake responded that nothing pornographic in nature would be shown. The club would not be a strip club and naked people would not be shown on the images. Images of musical performers such as Gwen Stefani and other vibrant beautiful images could be shown. He stated that the cost of the screens is close to a million dollars and the content would be musical artistry. Chairman Karaki inquired whether there would be music and what time the music would start. Mr. Lake responded there would be music. Mr. Lake responded that the mitigation measures require the LED screen to be reviewed, following installation, to determine whether any modifications are needed to the satisfaction of the City. Commissioner Ramirez said she had met with the applicant and Mr. Ryan. She stated she did not think the LED images would be an issue because it would be a high end hotel. She inquired how the number of parking spaces were determined and whether parking for employees was factored into the analysis. 03/02/09 Page 25 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOM MIMUTES Mr. Ryan responded that a shared parking analysis was prepared which showed the need for 463 spaces and 527 spaces are provided. Parking for employees was factored into the analysis. Commissioner Romero said he had met with the applicant and the representatives from Disney. He stated the project would enhance the urban environment and tourist experience and that he supported the project. Commissioner Eastman said she had met with the applicant and had a telephone conversation with the representatives from Disney. She inquired whether there would be the ability to compromise on the size of the LED sign. She said given the visibility of the sign at Anaheim GardenWalk, she was concerned about approving signage that would inhibit further development. She stated she would have liked additional view sections or a video prepared to better understand what is proposed and whether there would be view impacts. She commented that while she is not a fan of the type of paving being proposed and it does not seem that the paving matches the design of the hotel, she understood that the design has not been established. Mr. Lake said that he would be agreeable to modifying the sign to 17 feet high like Anaheim GardenWalk and that the special paver design would be the same for all four corners. Chairman Karaki and Commissioner Buffa commented that each had spoken with the applicant and representatives from Disney. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant to describe the types of jobs khat would be created by this project. Mr. Lake responded that approximately 187 jobs would be created for the hotel, not including the jobs for the retail business. He stated the hotel jobs would be high end jobs and employees would be cross-trained in various service-oriented jobs. Chairman Karaki inquired when development would commence. Mr. Lake stated that he would like to start the preparation of working drawings after tkre entitlement is approved and start construction within a year. Chairman Karaki asked Mr. Haupt if he would like to make any additional comments. Mr. Haupt responded that the sight lines do address visibility from the public right-of-way; however, there is the potential for the signs to be viewed from the upper levels of the nearby hotels. He stated a few of the hotels are represented in the audience and he is aware that the General Manager of the Hilton has expressed interest in talking with the applicant about this project. The focus should not be solely what is visible from the street and there is neighborhood context to this issue. Mr. Haupt agreed that the question of what is objectionable content is hard to define. He said they agree the corner should be improved, their concern is right-of-way improvements on the other corners may not occur for years. He suggested a more holistic approach be taken on how these improvements are installed over time, potentially with little irnprovements installed over time on the other corners. 03/02/09 Page 26 of 30 NIARCH 2, 2p09 PLANMING COMfVIISSION MIfVUTES Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing Commissioner Agarwal stated he believes it is a high qualiry pro}ect and that the applicant has met with his neighbors. He supports the project, but would not recommend any additional conditions on the LED signs and believes the conditions address the signs. Commissioner Eastman stated she supports the project, but not the LED sign because she does not have enough information to be eomfortable. She cited the example of the visibility of the sign at Anaheim GardenWalk. She prefers to approve the project with the changeable sign information coming back at a later time. Commissioner Romero said he concurred with Commissioner Agarwal that this is a high end hotel and will create a vibrant experience. He supports the project. Commissioner Ramirez said she supported the project and thanked the applicant for working through the issues. Commissioner Buffa said the paving design and material has not been established. She stated that the Anaheim Resort property owners pay a fee for right-of-way maintenance and she was concerned that after the paving is installed, future paving materials may not match. She is concerned about picking a special paving material that cannot be matched in the future. She asked staff how they would pick the materials and be confident that the materials could be matched in the future. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, responded that Public Works would require the applicant to provide a certain amount of material for future repairs; however, the applicant would only be required to do this for the one corner. He acknowledged that in the future it would be hard to get an exact match of material, but they would get material to match as close as practical. The Planning Director and City Engineer would have the final approval of the design. Comrnissioner Buffa stated she is concerned that if there is an attempt to match the four corners, they need to match. She said the City needs to pick a material that can be duplicated over time or the design needs t9 be random enough that if the.exact material is not found, it would-not•impact the design of the intersection. She stated she supports the project and believes that the water features will add a special element to the project. She stated the water features will become the public art that will enhance the pedestrians experience. She did not want the public art to match on all corners and it would be better if each corner property interprets that differently. She shared Commissioner Eastman's concerns about the LED screens and stated she did not realize that the Anaheim GardenWalk sign was visible from the freeway. She described her longstanding history of being careful about visual intrusions through signage and cited the Citadel signs as an example of intrusive signs. She shared Commissioner Eastman's view that the project move forward without the LED screens until more information is provided. Before approving the LED screens, she wanted to be sure she understood how the LED signs would affect the experience of visitors staying at other adjacent hotels. That is her only reservation about the project. She also encouraged staff to carefully select the paving material because in the future, the material will be difficult to find. 03/02/09 Page 27 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLAMNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Karaki stated he commended the architect for the beautiful work on the project. He had some hesitation earlier about the proposed project. He believes that the City of Anaheim needs a pleasant active walking experience. There is currently no other place in The Anaheim Resort to walk with the exception of Anaheim GardenWalk and Downtown Disney. He believes this project is an example of a project that can be duplicated in different ways on the different corners and that the applicant can work with staff to select appropriate paving materials. He supports the water features. He also supports the proposed nightclub in the project as it will provide visitars with more entertainment options and keep thern in Anaheim. Commissioner Buffa requested assistance from the City Attorney to make a motion that the project be approved with a condition that requires the changeable messages signs to be returned to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item to show how the LED signs would work and the kinds of imagery that would be projected and stated the applicant has already offered to reduce the size of the sign. Chairman Karaki stated he disagreed with this approach. Commissioner Buffa stated she would like to make the motion and see if the motion gets a second. Mark Gordon, City Attorney, discussed the order of the actions and suggested that the condition would be appropriate to appiy to the conditional use permit which authorizes the changeable message sign instead of the final site plan. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that the Conditional Use Permit would regulate the changeable message signs and suggested the CUP resolution would be the appropriate resolution to add a condition regarding these signs. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to move the staff recommendation, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting all resolutions attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report, adding two conditions of approval to Final Site Plan No. 2008-00004 pertaining to parking and maintenance requirements and adding a condition of approval to Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05403 requiring final plans for the changeable message signs to be submitted for Commission review and approval as a Report and Recommendation item to show how the LED screens would work. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the motion failed with two aye votes and four votes in opposition. Commissioners Buffa and Eastman voted yes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Ramirez and Romero voted no and Commissioner Faessel was absent. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Karaki, to move the staff recommendation, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting all resolutions attached to the March 2, 2009 staff report, adding two conditions of approval to Finai Site Plan No. 2008-00004 pertaining to parking and maintenance requirements. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the motion passed with five aye votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Eastman voted no and Commissioner Faessel was absent. 03/02/O9 Page 28 of 30 NiARCH 2, 2009 PLANNIMG COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to recommend City Gouncil review of all items related to the subject request. Eleanor Morris, Secretary, announced that the motion passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. IN SUPPORT: A person representing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter and spoke in favor of the subjeck request. Two persons representing The Disneyland Resort expressed their support of the project with some exceptions. A person representing Unite Here, Local 11, expressed interest in the project and relayed some concerns. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Final Site Plan ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 12, 2009, and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. The subject item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on March 31, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 27 minutes (3:43-5:10) DISCUSSION: Discussion took place between Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, Planning Commissioners and Planning staff regarding preliminary plan review sessions. Workshops will continue to be scheduled as requested; however, the preliminary plan review session will be eliminated from future agendas. 03/02/09 Page 29 of 30 MARCH 2, 2009 PLAPlfiIING COfilII1~ISSION MIiVUTES MEETIfVG ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.Ni. TO IVIOND,4Y, MARCH 16, 2009 AT 2:00 P.~. FOR CONTIIVUED WORfCSHOP OIV IIVIPLEMEiVT,4TIOIV OF SB 375 Respectfully submitted, ~ Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. 03/02/09 Page 30 of 30