Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/07/08City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday,July 8, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Joseph Karaki Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa,Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero Commissioners Absent :Peter Agarwal Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerElaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Bryn Morley,DeputyCity AttorneyIIIKasey Geary, Police Sergeant Ted White, Senior PlannerRoger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor Susan Kim, Senior PlannerAbel Avalos, Project Manager II Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:30 p.m. onWednesday,July 1, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Orange County Register on Sunday, June 7, 2009 Anaheim Bulletin onThursday, June 25,2009 Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 14 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissionerRamirez Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance: Swearing in of New Planning Commissioner Todd Ament Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1A –June 22, 2009 Meeting MinutesApproved continuance to July 20, 2009 Receivingand approving the Minutes from the Planning (Romero/Faessel) Commission Meeting of June 22, 2009. Approved VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ament abstained. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. 07/08/09 Page 2of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05424Resolution No. PC2009-066 (Buffa) Owner: Tom Stull Aspen La Loma Circle Properties Approved 2951 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Applicant:VOTE: 6-0 Jon Wilson Mirror Image StudiosChairman Karaki and 1254 North La Loma CircleCommissioners Ament, Buffa, Anaheim, CA 92806Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Location:1254-1256 North La Loma Circle Commissioner Agarwal was absent. The applicant proposes to operate a recording studio with an area for a live audience. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 ethien@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 8, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Jon Wilson, 1254 North La Loma Circle, Mirror Image Studios, applicant, stated the purpose of the business was to provide a location for artists to make live audio and video recordings of their work in front of an audience. He stated that clients include school groups and that the business was not a nightclub and no alcoholic beverages or food would be sold. He explained that when thebusiness opened, it was approved as a rehearsal and recording facility. Since then, they had been informed that they needed a conditional use permit for the portion of the business that had live performances with an audience. Commissioner Faessel statedhe understood this request was a result of a Code Enforcement case because of a complaint that the business was charging a cover charge. He asked staff if the applicant could impose a cover charge. He did not see a condition prohibiting the imposition of a cover charge, but did see a condition prohibiting the applicant from sharing in the profits of any cover charge. 07/08/09 Page 3of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that the applicant could charge a cover charge. She said the business would only be permitted to have an audience in conjunction with a recording session. Commissioner Buffa asked if the applicant normally charged a cover charge in conjunction with a recording. Mr. Wilson stated their contracts with the recording artists listed the services that would be provided, including audio, video and a live web broadcast. The artist sometimes solicited money from fans, friends, and family to cover these costs. The applicant was not trying to operate a nightclub, but sometimes tickets were sold to attend the recordingsto cover the costs of the band. They provided a studio setting, with an area for the audience to assemble and observe the recording of the performance. Commissioner Buffa asked whether the business always imposed a cover charge. Mr. Wilson responded the ability to charge a cover would be in the contract with the artist. If the artist had people who wanted to pay to offset the cost of recording, the business would accommodate that. Commissioner Buffa commented the staff report stated audience members were typically friends and family of the performers. She stated that typically friends and family would not be asked to pay a cover charge, because typically they would see these types of performances for free. Mr. Wilson stated the artists receive a professional recording. The artist may ask friends and family for a cover charge to help defray the costs of purchasing this type of recording. Ronald Sachs, 1254 West La Loma Circle, Anaheim, operator and sound engineer for the business, stated he was available for questions about the operation of the business. He stated the business provides a service to the community by providing musicians with CD’s and DVD’s of their performances. Commissioner Faessel asked if this firm provided professional quality recordings that could be used as a stepping stone for rising talent. Mr. Sachs responded yes. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to comment on Condition No. 18 which stated that minors under the age of 16 were not allowed unless accompanied by a parent. Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated this age limitation was in the business code requirements. Mr. Amstrup stated that the age limitation was intended to allow minors into public dance hall venues where no alcohol was served.It was likely felt that adult supervision for younger ages was needed. 07/08/09 Page 4of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the July 8, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05424. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Buffa,Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. OPPOSITION: None Bryn Morley, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,July 30, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :13 minutes (2:37to 2:50) 07/08/09 Page 5of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 3 ADJUSTMENT NO. 11TO THE NORTHEAST AREA Motion recommending to City SPECIFIC PLAN (SPN2009-00056) ANDCouncil adoption of an Ordinance CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05361approving SPN2009-00056 (Karaki) Owners: Paul Nikolau Resolution No. PC2009-067 Nikolau Living Trust approving CUP2008-05361, with the 10387 Los Alamitos deletion of Condition No. 25 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (Karaki) Applicant: Juan M. Reynoso Motion recommending to City 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard Council review of Conditional Use Anaheim, CA 92806 Permit No. 2008-05361 with the Location:1160 North KraemerBoulevardSpecific Plan Adjustment (Karaki) The applicant proposes an adjustment to the Northeast Approved Area Specific Plan (SP94-1), La Palma Core Area (DA3) to include conversion of a freestanding full- VOTE: 4-2 service restaurant into a nightclub as aconditionally permitted use. The applicant proposes a nightclub Chairman Karaki and Commissioners concurrent with the request to amend the specific plan.Ament, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Environmental Determination: The proposed action Commissioners Buffa and Romero is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to voted no. prepare additional environmental documentation per Commissioner Agarwal was absent. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided asummary of the staff report dated July 8, 2009, along with a visual presentation. She also provided a correction to the staff report pertaining to the description of the business activities. She stated the applicant indicated that due to the closing of nearby businesses, they had not been able to successfully operate a restaurant and were no longer serving any food items. She further stated that one letter of opposition was submitted from an attorney representing the owner of 1140 North Kraemer Boulevard and one letter of support was submitted from the owner of 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard. She also stated that the applicant requested the deletion of Condition No. 25 so that alcohol service could be allowed on the patio and the Police Department staff was supportive of this request. Commissioner Buffa commented the staff report stated the Building Division increased the building capacity from 299 to 687 in 2006. She asked staff to describe the City’s process for the Building Division to take this kind of action and asked if they had an obligation to check the conditional use permit. She asked if an error was made. 07/08/09 Page 6of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded yes, an error was made and the capacity should have been reviewed in light of the approvedconditional use permit on the property. Commissioner Buffa commented that Page 3 of the staff report stated that 128 parking spaces were provided; however, staff recommended a maximum occupancy of 550 people. She said she could not reconcile that occupancy with the number of parking spaces proposed. If four people arrived per car, she did not understand how 120 parking spaces would accommodate this need. She asked how this occupancy could be accommodated with 120 parking spaces and wanted to know how overflow parking was accommodated. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the Code required 111 parking spaces for this nightclub based upon 17 spaces per thousand square feet. She stated building occupancy was based upon the building code and egress and fire requirements and did not take into consideration parking requirements or demand. Chairman Karaki asked staff to confirm that the parking requirement required by code and the maximum building occupancy were not connected. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that was correct. Commissioner Romero commented that the business to the rear of the applicant’s site shared a common driveway with the nightclub property. He observed a lot of trucks in the applicant’s parking lot during the day. He asked if this reduced the number of parking spaces available for the nightclub. Ted White, Senior Planner, said he had observed trucks parking on the applicant’s property during the day; however, the trucks were not there at night when he visited the site. He suggested the applicant provide more details on this issue. Commissioner Faessel commented on a letter submitted by an attorney representing the owner of 1140 North Kraemer. He asked how many parking spaces on 1140 North Kraemer were impacted by the nightclub use. He said heunderstood that the owner of 1140 North Kraemer did not want any nightclub parking on his site. Mr. White responded that when he visited the site at night approximately four months ago, he parked at 1140 North Kramer Boulevard. The applicant’s security guard told him he could not park in this lot. Mr. White did not observe any other cars parked on that property at the time. He said there were several parking spaces on 1140 North Kraemer Boulevard adjacent to Kraemer Boulevard that would be visible to Kraemer Boulevard and would be the most logical place to park. Commissioner Faessel stated the Fire Station was located south of the project site. He asked if the Fire Station occupied the entire space that adjoins the City substation. Mr. White responded yes. Commissioner Faessel stated he understood the parking demand for this nightclub was so high that customers park at 1140 North Kramer Boulevard and walk about a half block or more to this business. 07/08/09 Page 7of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. White responded that the previous business hada valet parking agreement with a property to the west of the site. This was not deemed to be a safe location because patrons had to cross the street to get to the business. He stated that staff encouraged the applicant to enter into a parking agreement with the property to the north because of the proximity of parking and it would be safer for patrons to park on the same side of the street as the nightclub. He stated that patrons have also parked on a public street north of 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Mike Ayaz, attorney representing the applicant, described the project and provided the following information: the nightclub owner had contracted with a security firm to patrol parking in the area to make sure that patrons parked only in permitted areas; he believed the number of proposed parking spaces was sufficient for the nightclub; regarding the letter submitted by the owner of 1140 North Kraemer, this was the first time they had heard concerns from this neighbor and the private security guards would patrol the area to make sure the nightclub patrons did not park on that property; he had worked with staff to resolve parking issues including removing the valet parking operation, providing additional parking areas and contracting with an outside security firm; forms identifying the building capacity would be available on site for inspection; 12 security guards would be provided in the nightclub; and, the owner had entered into a contract with a nightclub securityexpert to provide a security plan for the business. He stated the purpose of this application was to bring the nightclub into compliance with the Code. He believed the location was suitable for a nightclub because there were no residents near this site. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant to describe the relationship between this property and the business to the rear of this property. Mr. Ayaz responded with the following information: the property to the rear of the nightclub was a construction yard; trucks from that business parked on the nightclub property during the day when the nightclub was closed; those trucks were removed before the nightclub opened in the evening; and, the nightclub owner did not have a business relationship with the owner of the construction yard. Commissioner Romero asked if the two properties shared a driveway. Mr. Ayaz responded yes, there was a shared access easement over the driveway. He stated he would provide a copy of the easement to staff. He also stated in theevening, the gates to the construction yard were closed and no nightclub patrons parked on the construction yard property. Commissioner Buffa asked where 500 people would park. Mr. Ayaz responded with the following information: 500 people would be the maximum capacity; the nightclub did not always operate at the maximum capacity; typically there were five people per car; they had not experienced overflow parking problems since they added 44 parking spaces; and, they were taking actions such as contracting with a private security guard to monitor the patrons to make sure patrons were only parking in permitted areas. He also stated they had not heard any complaints from other properties, except for the letter submitted for today’s meeting. 07/08/09 Page 8of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Buffa commented that anyone could park on a public street. She stated when the economy gets better, the nightclub could achieve the maximum capacity and need additional parking. She also commented on the number of police calls during the last year and stated this did not demonstrate that this nightclub was a good neighbor. Mr. Ayaz responded with the following information about calls for police service: he did not believe there had been a significant increase in the number of calls for service during the past year; many of the calls for service did not generate police reports; the calls for service did not necessarily result from the operation of the nightclub; and, the calls for service for this nightclub tended to be lower than for other nightclubs in the City. He also reiterated they had taken the following actions to address security: retained an expert on nightclub security, implemented a series of police recommendations to mitigate the concerns; and brought on their own security staff. He said the Police Department was supportive of this request with the recommended conditions of approval. He further stated they had a vested interest in making sure they demonstrated compliance with these conditions. Commissioner Ramirez stated she was concerned about the difference between the code requirements for parking and the maximum building occupancy for the nightclub. She believed that because this was an industrial area, the business would be able to accommodate the parking. She asked the applicant if he was in the process of talking with the property owner of 1190 North Kraemer about securing some off-site parking for the nightclub. Mr. Ayaz stated parking would be provided on the site and at 1190 North Kramer Boulevard. He stated they were trying toadd additional parking areas. Based upon the traffic studies, he believed there would also be public parking available on the street during the evening. He could not represent with any degree of certainty that they would be able to obtain additional spaces, but they were taking a proactive step to secure additional spaces. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the applicant would be amenable to a condition requiring the applicant to make best efforts at securing more parking areas. Mr. Ayaz responded this typeof condition would be subjective and problematic. He said they were trying to secure additional parking spaces for the nightclub. Commissioner Ramirez stated that in addition to the calls of service, there have been other code violations. She asked if the business owner understood the zoning requirements. Mr. Ayaz responded that prior to his office becoming involved with this business, there had been some violations; however, now, his client understood the rules. Commissioner Ramirez stated these violations occurred in 2007 and 2008. Mr. Ayaz responded the violations occurred prior to his involvement with the business and he had explained the rules to his client. Chairman Karaki asked why the Police Department changed the recommended occupancy from 400 to 550. 07/08/09 Page 9of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Kasey Geary, Police Sergeant, responded that over the last two years, the Police Department had conducted a number of inspections and observed between 600 to 800 people on the property. The Police Department would support a capacity of 550 subject to the recommended conditions. Chairman Karaki asked if Police staff would monitor this site and inspect the property over the next six months. Sergeant Geary responded yes. Commissioner Faessel commented on the Police Department’s recommendation that valet service be removed. He asked for an explanation of this issue. Sergeant Geary responded that valet service for a nightclub typically results in large groups of patrons congregating in one area at the close of business. This could result in calls for service related to fights breaking out and rival gang activity. Mr. Amstrup stated that with many nightclubs, disruptive activities tended to occur once people congregated outside at 2 a.m. waiting for their cars. Commissioner Romero commented that based upon this information, he understood why staff recommended Condition No. 7. He stated that even if four patrons arrived in each car, there would be a lot of cars. He wanted to know where the cars would park. Sergeant Geary responded that peopleparked their cars on the street on Coronado, across the street on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard and on Armando. If the patrons parked in the Fire Department parking lot, the cars would be towed. Commissioner Romero commented that if the patrons left at closing time and they had to walk a block away, that would give them time to sober up. Sergeant Geary responded the business conducted a hard closing time, which included making patrons exit the building by a defined time and this was a problem with valet service. The Police Department preferred the patrons to walk to their cars and not congregate in the parking lot. Commissioner Buffa stated that Page 3 of the Police Department memo refers to bottle service. She asked staff to explain this use. Mr. Amstrup responded that bottle service refers to a practice frequently seen in VIP areas of nightclubs where, instead of ordering cocktails, a full bottle of alcohol would be ordered to be consumed during the evening with mixers brought to the table. Commissioner Faessel referenced Condition No. 5 of the draft resolution. He asked Sergeant Geary to confirm whether the Police Department supported this use provided there was a review of this business in six months and that additional inspections occurred. Sergeant Geary responded this was correct. 07/08/09 Page 10of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Chairman Karaki asked for confirmation whether the applicant was the property owner. Mr. Ayaz responded that the applicant leased the property and the property owner gave consent for this application. Chairman Karaki asked staff if the conditional use permit would stay with the property if the lease expired. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the conditional use permit would stay with the property; however, since the permit would expire in six months, the permit would need to be reinstated. If the permit is reinstated in perpetuity, it would stay with the land regardless of who is operating the business. Chairman Karaki asked if the conditional use permit expired, could the owner of the property request the permit be renewed. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded yes. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated there had been three code inspections over the last year. She asked about the second violation from July 25, 2008, regarding food beingsold, but with no seating area provided. She asked if seating was supposed to be available for patrons ordering food. She wanted to know what the code violation involved. Mr. Amstrup stated the issue was the character of the business. The restaurant was permitted with a conditional use permit. Restaurants typically had fixed and plentiful seating. Once seating was not provided, the food tended to become finger foods and the use started to become more like a bar and less like a restaurant. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to confirm that the condition would require the permit to come back before the Planning Commission after a six month period. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the Planning Commission would need to consider a reinstatement of the permit in six months. Commissioner Ramirez stated there had recently been a lot of changes in the Northeast Area Specific Plan. She asked if staff was going to conduct a comprehensive review of the Specific Plan. Mr. Amstrup responded that a comprehensive change was not in the current workplan; but anticipates in the future, there may be a need for a comprehensive review. Commissioner Romero stated the landscape in the parking lot seemed to be neglected. He asked if the landscape would be improved. Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded that Code Enforcement would review the landscape issues. 07/08/09 Page 11of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. Amstrup stated that Condition No. 2 of the draft resolution required an approved landscape plan and improvements. Mr. White stated that Condition No. 3 required the parking lot to be re-surfaced and re-striped. Chairman Karaki asked about the lighting on the property. Mr. White responded there were no conditions of approval regarding lighting, but the applicant had stated they recently upgraded thelighting on the property. Commissioner Faessel stated that while there were no residential units in this industrial area, a fire station was located in this area. He referenced the memo from Code Enforcement which stated in 2008, the Fire Department hadconcerns about nighttime noise associated with this use; however, a sound study was conducted and no code violations were found. He asked if the Fire Department had concerns about this use. Mr. Bennion responded the Fire Department initially had some concerns regarding parking; however, they had not stated any recent concerns about sound issues. Commissioner Faessel commented on the issue of inconsistency between the maximum proposed occupancy and the required number of parking spaces for this use. During his three years on the Planning Commission, he did not recall any other application where this issue had come up and the occupancy had been compared with the parking requirement. He commented that this issue may need to be reviewed in the future in light of the discussion on this project. He said that based upon the discussion on this project, it did not seem like 17 spaces per thousand were enough for an occupancy of 550. However, since the applicant complied with the number of parking spaces required by code, the applicant had met the letter of the law. Chairman Karaki stated he had the same concern about the inconsistency between the parking requirement and the capacity of the building. He stated the City should revisit the parking requirements for a nightclub. Even though the applicant complied with the code, it did not appear that there were enough parking spaces for this use. He also referenced the letter submitted by the neighbor objecting to the nightclub. The letter indicated that the crime rate in this area was above average. Per the Police Department memo, the crime rate in this area was below average, not above average. He supported the six month review period for this use with periodic inspections as recommended by the Police Department to determine whether this business was complying with the code. Commissioner Buffa stated that her strongest objection to the six month period for the Conditional Use Permit was that the Conditional Use Permit was being processed concurrently with theSpecific Plan Amendment. She stated the Specific Plan Amendment, if adopted, would go on forever even if the conditional use permit expired and was not renewed. She realized the code wording was very narrow and would only allow an existing restaurant approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance to convert to a nightclub. She stated she was not comfortable with a nightclub in an industrial area. She was not convinced it was a compatible use. Based upon the submitted evidence, the business had not been operating successfully. It seemed like the business had been impacting the neighbors and the Police and Fire Departments. She might be willing to give them a 07/08/09 Page 12of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES permit for six months to prove the business would work, but she was not comfortable with amending the Specific Plan because it would not go away. She asked if there was a way to have a conditional use permit without amending the Specific Plan. As proposed, she did not support the application. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Buffa’s comments about the Specific Plan amendment. Once the Specific Plan was amended, this code provision could go on forever. He would be more comfortable if this could be considered in a different way. There are other similar businesses in this general vicinity like an existing business that is located adjacent to the 91 Freeway. He asked if that business would have a similar situation. Chairman Karaki clarified that this amendment would allow this existing restaurant to become a nightclub. He stated he preferred to have a nightclub in an industrial area instead of a commercial or residential area. The Police Department said that the crime rate for this area was below average. He did not have a concern with other restaurants converting to a nightclub. Commissioner Buffa stated that the memo indicated that this property was located in Reporting District No. 1432, which had a crime rate of 91% above average. Commissioner Ramirez stated she thought the crime rate was being driven by the nightclub because there were only 600 persons in this Reporting District. Chairman Karaki stated the memo said the reporting district to the north was below the average crime rate. Commissioner Buffa stated that the surrounding area was below the average crime rate; however, this district was a problem. If the crime rate was being driven by this business, then that was a problem. Mr. Amstrup stated if the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted, it would be a final decision. However, a request to amend the Specific Plan could be considered at a future date concurrently with consideration of extending the conditional use permit. If the Commission wanted to approve the extension of the conditional use permit, the Commission could deny the repeal of the Specific Plan Amendment. Chairman Karaki stated he believed that addressed his concerns. Commissioner Romero asked staff to explain why a six month period for the permit was proposed. He stated the economy probably would not change in six months and suggested a one year period for the permit. Mr. Amstrup stated this business had shown itself to be fairly resistant to economic pressures in the past. He did not believe the occupancy would change much during the next year; however, the traffic patterns in the area could possibly change during this time period. Commissioner Ament stated he wanted this business to be successful but was concerned about the parking impact on surrounding properties. He encouraged the applicant to obtain more parking areas within the next six months, potentially enough to equal three patrons per car, and to demonstrate that the nightclub had not created a negative impact on the surrounding properties. 07/08/09 Page 13of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Chairman Karaki offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the July 8, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361, with the deletion of Condition No. 25, and recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance approving Adjustment No. 11 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SPN2009-00056) and review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the resolution passed with four yes votes and two no votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Buffa and Romero voted no. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. OPPOSITION: One piece of correspondence was received in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: One piece of correspondence was received in favor of the subject request. Bryn Morley, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,July 30, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :67 minutes (2:50to 3:57) 07/08/09 Page 14of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 4 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00079Motion recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance Applicant: Planning Department(Ramirez/Romero) City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Approved, including errata Anaheim, CA 92805 submitted at the meeting Location:Citywide VOTE: 6-0 This is a proposal to amendvarious chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Codepertaining to Zoning Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Administrator authority, freestanding sign provisions Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Ramirez and within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone; creation Romero voted yes. of an off-site parking arrangement process; and, Commissioner Agarwal was absent. procedures/timeframes for various zoning actions. The chapters proposed to be amended include: Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Chapter 1.12 (Procedures); Chapter 14.60 vnorwood@anaheim.net (Transportation Demand); Chapter 17.08 (Subdivisions); Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.30 (Downtown Mixed Use Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses); Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading); Chapter 18.44 (Signs); Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); Chapter 18.52 (Density Bonuses); Chapter 18.56 (Nonconformities); Chapter 18.60 (Procedures); Chapter 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); Chapter 18.64 (Area Development Plans); Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits); Chapter 18.74 (Variances);Chapter 18.114(Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No.92-1); Chapter 18.116(Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.92-2); Chapter 18.118(Hotel Circle Specific Plan No.93-1); and Chapter 18.120(Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1). Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental documentation per Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. This item was continued from the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. 07/08/09 Page 15of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 8, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa referenced Page 10 of the proposed code change regarding off-site parking for non-residential uses. She stated the code would allow off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance to the property. She asked who would make the decision about what is a reasonable walking distance. Ms. Norwood responded that staff would make the determination. Commissioner Buffa stated she thought the code should state this would be determined by the Planning Services Manager so the applicant would know who would make this decision. She commented about the change to the code regarding pot belly pigs. Commissioner Romero asked staff to describe the impact of removing the Zoning Administrator position and whether there would be an additional cost to the applicants. Ms. Norwood responded that removal of the Zoning Administrator position would result in a decrease in costs for the applicants. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that in the past, the Zoning Administrator position was held by an employee of the City who did not bill against cases. Case law now prevented City employees from serving as a Zoning Administrator. The City retained the services of a Zoning Administrator who charged time against a case. If applications were compared, the time frames were almost identical. However, the Zoning Administrator charged against the case including mileage to and from the meeting, time for preparation and attendance at the meeting and follow-up with staff. This could result in up to $1000 of additional costs associated with a case. The purpose of having a Zoning Administrator position as an expedient avenue of case processing was not being realized. Commissioner Romero stated this explanation made sense. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to explain the amendment to the code section regarding revocation of conditional use permits. Mr. Amstrup responded this amendment was in response to a recent action where staff initiated an application to revocate or modify a conditional use permit and the process took 18 months. This ended up being a contentious and expensive process because of time involved in working on amendments to conditions. Staff hoped this new process would create a more expedient process and also provide an incentive for applicants to apply for an amendment to their permit. Commissioner Faessel stated the removal of the Zoning Administrator position would result in about 15 different applications being referred to the Planning Director and four to the Planning Commission. He asked if staff had the time and resources to accommodate this change. Mr. Amstrupresponded that staff anticipates this change would result in less time spent on the administrative process for these applications including less paperwork and no Zoning Administrator meetings. Overall, this change should save time for staff and reduce the burden on the applicants. 07/08/09 Page 16of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked about the amendment which would move the review of changes to standard lot sizes to staff. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded that the code required the Zoning Administratorto consider this type of request; however, staff could not find any record of the submittal of this type of application. If a request was submitted, it would be a straightforward request that could be determined by staff. Commissioner Faessel asked if there was an opportunity for the Planning Director’s decisions to be appealed to a higher authority like the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Borrego stated the Planning Director’s decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission unless otherwise specified in the Code. Commissioner Faessel stated that his concern was that applicants should have the ability to have a public hearing on an application. He wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was not diminishing the opportunity for public input in a public hearing and that the public had an opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Ament asked about the proposed sign changes. Mr. Borrego responded when the Code was updated in 2004, a standard about shopping center identification signs in the scenic corridor was inadvertently removed. This standard limited the width of monument signs to ten feet. This standard was consistent with shopping center identification signs in the scenic corridor with the exception of the Festival Shopping Center, a regional shopping center with standards developed as part of a Specific Plan. The code currently allowed this type of sign to be 20 feet wide. An applicant had submitted a request for a 20-foot wide sign and staff was encouraging him to reduce the width of the sign. Commissioner Romero asked how staff controls the illumination of readerboard signs. Mr. Borrego responded that the standard for readerboard signs was not proposed to be changed as part of this amendment. He was not aware of any complaints about sign illumination. Compliance would be controlled on a complaint basis. Commissioner Faessel asked about the change to the appeal periods. He asked if the 22-day appeal period had been a hardship. He also asked staff to describe the type of appeal periods other cities in the County had. Mr. Amstrup responded that the Code currently had four appeal periods and it was not unusual for a project with multiple applications to have different appeal periods. This was confusing to the applicant and the public. Thegoal was to standardize the appeal periods which has a typical range in other communities of 10 to 14 days. Staff recommended a 10-day appeal period because this was the appeal period used for Final Site Plans in the Specific Plans. Rather than choose atimeframe that would require multiple changes to the Specific Plans, staff recommended that the appeal period be 10 days. 07/08/09 Page 17of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Ament asked what happened if an appeal was not filed within 10 days. Mr. Amstrup responded that if an appeal was not filed within the appeal period, the action would be final. He stated that generally appeals were filed on the last day. The appeal period was announced at the meeting, on the agendas and in letters transmitting resolutions to the applicant. CommissionerAment asked if it would create a hardship on staff if the appeal period were 14 days instead of 10. Mr. Amstrup responded that the only hardship would be the inconsistency between the Specific Plan process which was already in place. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance approving Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009-00079, including errata submitted at the meeting. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the resolution passed with sixyes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. OPPOSITION: None Bryn Morley, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,July 30, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :27 minutes (3:57to 4:24) 07/08/09 Page 18of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 5 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00081Motion recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance Applicant: City of Anaheim(Faessel/Buffa) 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Approved Location:Citywide VOTE: 6-0 The City of Anaheim proposes to amend Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening) of Title 18 (Zoning Code) Chairman Karaki and Commissioners of the Anaheim Municipal Code to provide standards Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Ramirez and that address California Friendly Landscaping.Romero voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Planner: Susan Kim Guidelines, Class 8 (Regulatory Agencies for the skim@anaheim.net Protection of the Environment). Susan Kim, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 8, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa stated that Section 2 of the Draft Ordinance required three inch high mulch to be installed where Section 3 requires an edge material two inches higher than the soil to be installed to keep the mulch in place. She stated there should be one consistent dimension or the code should say the edge material should be of a sufficient height to serve the purpose. Otherwise, it would be difficult for a field inspector to check for this. Commissioner Faessel stated that he did not feel comfortable adding a specific measure for this requirement. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that staff discussed this requirement and believed that a specific measurement would be easier to enforce and inspect in the field. If no dimension is included, it would be open to discussion and could result in a deeper amount of mulch or edge treatment being required depending upon the location of the property. Commissioner Buffa referenced Section 4 regarding paving. She wanted to make sure she understood what was meant by the required front yard setback area. She asked how the front setback would be defined in the instance of a side entry garage where thereis a lot of paved area in front of the house. She asked if it was the 10 feet between the property line and the side of the garage closest to the street or the entire front yard. She wanted to make sure the new requirements would not limit the ability to have side entry garages. 07/08/09 Page 19of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. Amstrup responded the required setback area was the minimum amount required by code, which could be less than the actual setback to the house. He said if there were non-conforming conditions created by this amendment, staff would work with those properties. Commissioner Buffa said that in the Mountain Park development, there may be side entry garages with driveways closer to the street than typical. She wanted to make sure the code amendment did not prohibit side entry garages. Mr. Amstrup responded that the code amendment would not change the ratio of the required hardscape to landscape. Commissioner Romero asked about the second code amendment in Section 4 regarding annoying fruits and flowers. He asked who made the decision if the fruits and flowers were annoying and whether a Jacaranda or fruit tree would be allowed. Commissioner Faessel stated that Anaheim’s tree power program offered these types of trees. Ms. Kim responded the section regarding annoying trees andflowers was existing and was not being amended by this action. The ordinance included sections before and after the proposed code amendment. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to confirm that these new requirements would not be a mandate and asked if theCity was going to provide an incentive for property owners to implement this code section. Ms. Kim responded that the new code wording was not a mandate, the Utilities Department had some incentives for landscape and water conservation and the intent of this amendment was to ensure that single family areas were not being precluded from having xeriscape. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, stated there was a State Assembly bill that was recently adopted and it would impact the preparation of future landscape plans, with the exception of those for single family dwelling units. Developers would need to provide extensive calculations for landscape and water usage to make sure the projects were as water efficient as possible. Staff anticipated code amendments will be provided for Planning Commission consideration before the end of this calendar year. Chairman Karaki asked if this would affect the design of the irrigation systems. Mr. Borrego responded that drip irrigation design could be affected as wellas requiring that irrigation systems be designed so water would not spill on sidewalks. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 07/08/09 Page 20of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa, determining thatthe proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 8 (Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment)and recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance approving Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009-00081 (including proposed language regarding parking studies that was included on the errata sheet distributed by staff). Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. OPPOSITION: None Bryn Morley, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,July 30, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :12 minutes (4:24to 4:36) 07/08/09 Page 21of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Public Hearing Item–HEARING COMMENCED AT 6:00 P.M.: ITEM NO. 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-00467Resolution No. PC2009-068 Recommending City Council Applicant:approval City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard(Romero) Anaheim, CA 92805 Approved,including errata Location:Citywidesubmitted at the meeting VOTE: 5-0 The City of Anaheim proposes to amend the General Plan to update the Housing Element for the 2006-2014 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners planning period.Ament, Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated NegativeCommissioners Agarwal and Buffa Declaration has been determined to serve as the were absent. appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Planner: Susan Kim skim@anaheim.net Susan Kim, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 8, 2009, that included a visual presentation from the City’s consultant, David Barquist of RBF Consulting. Ms. Kim also stated that staff had providedsome errata on the Housing Element Update to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ramirez commended staff on the update of the Housing Element. She also stated she had met with staff to discuss the update. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel commended staff on the update of the Housing Element. He stated he believed the City of Anaheim had done more than its fair share to address housing needs of every type of community that called Anaheim home. He asked how the City’s efforts compared to other communities in the County. Ms. Kim requested that Mr. Barquist respond to this question. Mr. Barquist stated he worked on projects throughout the State, including in other cities in Orange County. He stated that the City of Anaheim’s housing production efforts were “above the bar” compared to other cities in Orange County. He also stated the California Department of Housing and Community Development had acknowledged that the City of Anaheim was a shining star in terms of developing and implementing policies in address housing. 07/08/09 Page 22of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Ament stated that when he looked at the population and job growth projections, the population was projected to grow by 24,000 over a ten year period. However, over the last eight years, the population in Anaheim had grown by about 8,000. Over this same period, the job growth had been less than projected. He asked staff whether the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing allocation process would take the current population and job growth into consideration. Mr. Barquist responded the RHNA housing allocation process was based upon a jobs, housing and economic model which took into account a variety of factors. This RHNA allocation number stayed the same for a defined planning period. The current RHNA allocation would stay in effect through the 2014 planning period. With regard to the housing production objectives, as long as sites were designated, there would not be a penalty if the units were not constructed. Chairman Karaki asked how the current economic environment would affect the RHNA allocation. Mr. Barquist responded the last RHNA allocation process occurred at the height of the economic market. The definition of affordable units in the last RHNA was based upon the market conditions at the time. In some communities, what was defined as an affordable unit price was above the current market rate price. Affordability was a dynamic condition that varied from year to year; however, the RHNA numbers stayed the same for the planning period. The static nature of the RHNA process was here to stay. The market dynamics could only be dealt with at the local level, but not necessarily at the RHNA allocationlevel at this time. Chairman Karaki asked how this would affect the rest of the market since individual incomes were decreasing and more people were competing for units that qualified as affordable housing. Mr. Barquist responded that he was seeing a shift of what was once a moderate income moving to a low or very low income. The number of foreclosures was significantly impacting the shift in income categories based on the cost of housing. Commissioner Faessel stated the updated Housing Element included a discussion about The Platinum Triangle. He asked staff to explain why the dwelling units in The Platinum Triangle did not need to be taken into consideration in the RHNA. Ms. Kim responded that State Law had a default density where properties zoned at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre were considered the adequate density to support affordable housing. Properties in The Platinum Triangle exceeded this criteria because the zoning allowed for up to 100 units per acre, with many of the approved projects having about 60 units to the acre. However, the zoning only allowed the units to be designated to a property if the property owner entered into a Development Agreement with the City. Staff had discussions with HCD staff about including the housing units in The Platinum Triangle as default density; however, there was some disagreement as to whether the Development Agreement precluded the development of affordable housing. Rather than continuing this discussion, staff decided to include other sites outside of The Platinum Triangle that met State Law. This did not preclude affordable housing from occurring in The Platinum Triangle. The sites that were used to meet the State Law criteria are outside of The Platinum Triangle. 07/08/09 Page 23of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked staff to confirm that the updated Housing Element was not forcing affordable housing units in The Platinum Triangle. Ms. Kim responded that was correct. Chairman Karaki commended staff on the preparation of the Housing Element update. Commissioner Ament asked if it would be possible for staff to prepare a study to project what Anaheim’s RHNA housing numbers should be in 2014 based upon the latest population and job growth information. Ms. Kim responded that City staff actively monitors and provides input into the RHNA process. Commissioner Ament asked if it would be possible to compare the latest job and population growth numbers with the static RHNA numbers. He said there was pressure to keep up with the affordable projections from the models; however, the population was not growing as projected. Ms. Kim responded that staff monitored how the growth projections were modeled. Staff actively worked on the process to make sure Anaheim’s input was taken into consideration. The RHNA numbers that staffwas working with today were allocated two years ago. Commissioner Ament asked if there could be a study to determine what Anaheim’s RHNA number ought to be based upon the current population growth and job loss. There was pressure to meet the local RHNA number; however, it might be a number that should be adjusted. Mr. Barquist responded that staff continues to have discussions with the regional Council of Governments (COG) and with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) about the RHNAnumbers and projection process. The question was if the local Anaheim population and job projections were plugged into the model used by SCAG, could a local number be generated. It would be difficult to do an analysis for the City and factor in the regional dynamics since the RHNA projections were based upon a regional model. He believed the best process would be to provide local input into the RHNA process. Commissioner Romero asked staff the impact if the City Council approved the updated Housing Element and if the housing and job numbers continued to erode. He asked if it would be possible to go back and adjust the numbers within the next year or two. Ms. Kim responded that with regard to the opportunity sites identified in the updated Housing Element, the City would not have an opportunity to go back and amend the plan during the 2006- 2014 planning period. The City was required to add an overlay zone to the properties identified as opportunity sites; however, the City was not required to actually build the housing units on those sites. The existing development on these properties could stay in place. If there was no market to develop that housing, the housing would not be developed. Commissioner Ramirez stated her sense is if the City of Anaheimdid its own analysis, the numbers would probably be higher than the RHNA allocation given the existing conditions in the City including job losses and housing costs. 07/08/09 Page 24of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked staff to elaborate on the Emergency Housing section, which was a new component in the Housing Element. Mr. Barquist responded that Senate Bill 2 required two implementation actions to commence after City Council adoption of the updated Housing Element. The first would require the identification of the anticipated homeless population. The second would include identifying a zone or zones to accommodate sites to meet that need without the ability to have discretionary approval such as a conditional use permit. The code could include objective design criteria such asnumber of beds and required management, but the code could not allow the use to be denied if the criteria was met. The updated Housing Element identified a process to identify the sites which would be implemented following the adoption of the Housing Element. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, stated staff anticipated scheduling a zoning code amendment to address this new requirement for Planning Commission consideration before June 2010. Commissioner Faessel referred to the Housing Needs Assessment Opportunity sites map. He stated there were a number of opportunity sites in the downtown area and it did not seem like there was a balance of opportunity sites throughout the City. He asked staff to comment on the methodology used to identify these sites. Mr. Borrego stated many of the housing opportunity sites were Redevelopment project sites such as Kwikset and properties in the Downtown area. Under Housing Element law, the City needed to select sites which had a high likelihood of being developed to a residential use within the 2006-2014 planning period. The sites identified on this map met this criteria. Staff believed this map reflected a realistic picture of what could be accomplished in this planning period. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the July 8, 2009 staff report, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration isthe appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00467, including errata submitted at the meeting. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the resolution passed with five yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Faessel, Ramirez and Romero voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Buffa were absent. OPPOSITION: None CORRESPONDENCE: Two pieces of correspondence commenting on the EIR were submitted. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,July 30, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :45 minutes (6:00to 6:45) 07/08/09 Page 25of 26 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on August 3, 2009. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:45P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009AT 2:30P.M. 07/08/09 Page 26of 26