Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/10/12City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,October 12, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :Peter Agarwal,Joseph Karaki Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerVanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Selma Mann, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Ted White, Senior PlannerSergio Ramirez, Redevelopment Project Manager David See, Senior PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Della Herrick, Associate Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 7, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin NewspaperonThursday, October 1, 2009 Call to Order-3:30 p.m. Attendance: 39 Pledge of Allegiance byCommissioner Ament Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Commission Updates Discussion Adjournment OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -3:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Faessel/Ament) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of September 30, 2009. VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, and Ramirez voted yes.Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. Reports and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1B REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OFResolution No. PC2009-090 CONDITIONALUSE PERMITNO. 3258 (Faessel/Ament) (TRACKING NO. CUP2009-05466) Approved Owner: DKN Hotels VOTE: 5-0 540 Golden Circle, Suite 214 Santa Ana, CA 92782Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Location:1240 South Walnut Street Faessel, and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal The applicant requests the termination of Conditional Use and Karaki were absent Permit No. 3258 to permit a vacation ownership resort with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 10/12/09 Page 2of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05462Resolution No. PC2009-091 (Faessel) Owner: Jake Newman 401 South Brookhurst Street Approved Anaheim, CA 92804 Applicant: Timothy Jones VOTE: 5-0 The Boat House of Anaheim 335-B South Brookhurst StreetChairman Romero and Anaheim, CA 92804Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faesseland Ramirez voted Location:401 South Brookhurst Street yes. CommissionersAgarwal and Karaki wereabsent. The applicant proposes to store boats outdoors in conjunction with an existing boat retail facility located on an adjacent property in the County of Orange. Environmental Determination :Theproposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Della Herrick Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 dherrick@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if there was a wall or fence separating the two adjoining properties and if it would remain. Ms. Herrick responded that the existing chain link fence separating the adjoining properties would remain. Commissioner Faessel asked if boat storage would be moved to the site in the City of Anaheim. Ms. Herrick responded that there wascurrently boat storage on the property in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the business was located in the County of Orange. Ms. Herrick responded that was correct. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the County of Orange allowed outdoor storage in the front of the property. 10/12/09 Page 3of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Herrick responded she did not know the County requirements. She stated she had asked the applicant to not store boats in front of the property in the City of Anaheim. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Tim Jones, applicant, stated he had reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant if the County of Orange allowed boats to be stored in front of the building. She stated she observed some boat storage on the front of the propertyin the County. Mr. Jones responded that the property was not configured to store boats in front of the building; however, he did display boats in front of the building located in the County of Orange on Sunday when other businesses wereclosed. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant if he knew whether the County allowed him to storeboats in front of the building. Mr. Jones responded he did not know. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel,offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12,2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05462. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :9minutes (3:35to 3:44) 10/12/09 Page 4of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITResolution No. PC2009-092 NO. 2008-05327 (TRACKING NO. CUP2009-05447) (Ament) ANDVARIANCE NO. 2009-04796 Owner:Approved Majid Nazari 1200 North East Street Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Milad OueijanChairman Romero and Western States EngineeringCommissionersAment, Buffa, 4887 East La Palma AvenueFaessel and Ramirez voted Anaheim, CA 92807yes. CommissionersAgarwal and Karaki wereabsent. Location:1200 North East Street The applicant proposes an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit to construct a new automotive repair building and pump island in conjunction with an existing service station facility. The applicantproposes to have a front landscaped setback that is less than required by Code. Environmental Determination :The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: David See Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 dsee@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa asked staff todescribe the existing uses on the property. Mr. See stated the existing building included automotive service bays. He also saida previously approved conditional use permit allowedthe expansion of the convenience market. He stated this proposed conditional use permit would allow additional automotive service bay areato the rear of the convenience market. Commissioner Buffa asked if the property had an existing driveway from KenwoodAvenue. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated there was an existing driveway which would be shifted further from East Street. Commissioner Buffa asked if the proposed location of the relocated driveway met City standards. 10/12/09 Page 5of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Kennedy responded that in the case of a small property, the driveway neededtobe placed as far as possible from East Street. This driveway hadbeen relocated as far from East Street as possible. Commissioner Faessel stated that there were already two conditional use permits on the property and asked if they were both in full forceand effect. Mr. See responded that both conditional use permits werein effect. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to confirm that the proposed project actions would not delete or diminish any conditions of approval previously in effect for this property. Mr. See responded that was correct. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Milad Oueijan, 4887 East La Palma Avenue, Western States Engineering, representing the applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Faessel asked when constructionwould start on the project. Mr. Oueijan responded as soon as possible. Commissioner Romero stated he had a conversation with the applicant’s representative. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05327 and Variance No. 2009-04796. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romeroand Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :9minutes (3:44to 3:53) 10/12/09 Page 6of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05441Resolution No.PC2009-093 (Buffa) Owner: Larry Lopez Superior Tree Care Approved 1342 North Miller Street Anaheim, CA92806 Applicant:VOTE: 5-0 Phil Schwartze PRSGroupChairman Romero and 31872 San Juan Creek RoadCommissioners Ament, Buffa, San Juan Capistrano, CA92675Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal Location:1342 North Miller Street and Karaki were absent. The applicant proposes to operate an outdoor greenwaste collection and recycling facility in conjunction with an existing tree care service business. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions vnorwood@anaheim.net of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Vanessa Norwood, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked about the zoning designation for this parcel. Ms. Norwood responded that this parcel and the adjacent parcels to the north and south were located in the Industrial zone. Commissioner Buffa asked whether Fire Department staff typically reviewed proposed site plansas part of the normal site plan review process. Ms. Norwood responded that Fire Department staff typically reviewedproposed site plans. In this case, the diesel tank was not shown on the plan, so the Fire Department was involved later in the process than typical. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Phil Schwartze, PRS Group, 31872 San Juan Creek Road, San Juan Capistrano, representing the applicant, stated that subsequent to the September 14, 2009 public hearing, the applicant had toured the property with staff and modified the site plan to address the concerns raised during the public hearingand by staff. He asked to modify Condition No. 7 to state that the green-waste would also be watered when it was windy. 10/12/09 Page 7of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Erma Acevedo, 215 South Heath Terrace, Anaheim, the owner, stated that Fire Department staff talked with General Petroleum about the appropriatetype of diesel tank for the property. She said they will be going through the permit process to install a new diesel tank approved by the Fire Department. Commissioner Buffa stated that Condition No. 7 of the Draft Resolution included language addressing the applicant’s additional wording regarding watering of the green-waste during windy conditions. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ament asked if other issues would be created byrecommending that water be used to keep the debris down. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that any issues related to water runoff would be covered by standard code requirements. He stated in terms of water conservation, watering of the green-waste area would be sporadic and conducted only when needed so there would not be any issues. Commissioner Buffa stated it was nice to see the process of public participation working. The adjacent property owner spoke at the last meeting and the property owner had addressed the concerns. Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05441. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :9minutes (3:53to 4:02) 10/12/09 Page 8of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05452Resolution No. PC2009-094 (Buffa) Owner: Brian Malliet Approved, modified North Anaheim Association, LLC Condition No. 13, requiring 101 Shipyard Way, Suite M a gravel surface for drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 aisle and parking areas. Applicant: John Croul VOTE: 4-1 Emerald Landscape Services 531 Crowther AvenueChairman Romero and Placentia, CA 92870Commissioners Ament, Buffa, andFaessel voted yes. Location:1041North Kemp Street Commissioner Ramirez voted no.Commissioners Agarwal The applicant proposes an outdoor storage yard for a and Karaki were absent. landscape maintenance and installation company. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 vnorwood@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel stated there was discussion about an issue associated with turning movementsfrom Kemp Street to La Palma Avenue during the Planning Commission public hearing on the subdivision map for this property. He said part of the concern pertained to large trucks making these turns. He asked if staff remembered this discussion and whether trucks from the proposed storage yardmaking turns on La Palma Avenue would be a concern. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, responded he recalled the discussionand geometrically, the condition remained the same.He stated the property at the northeast cornerof Kemp Street and La Palma Avenue had improved visibility by trimming back the landscape. The turning radius issue still remained. Commissioner Faesselstated he did not see any concerns expressed by Public Works staffin the staff report. He asked ifstaff wanted to change the recommendation. Mr. Kennedy stated the driveway location proposed for this site wasideal for trucks becausethey could use the round-about area at the end of the street to maneuver trucks of various sizes. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the 8-foot high fence with barbed wire was going to be movedto add the sidewalk and trees. 10/12/09 Page 9of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Norwood responded that the fence would be moved to install landscape. She stated a side walk was not required at this time. She also stated the barbed wire would be removed. Commissioner’s Ramirez and Faessel stated they thought asidewalk was going to be installed. Commissioner Ramirez asked about the size of the treesfor this project. Ms. Norwood stated the trees would be 24 inch box as identified on the site plan. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, stated the only requirement was the driveway. A new sidewalk for this use was not required. Commissioners Ramirez and Faessel stated the site plan showed a new sidewalkand asked if this was a mistake. Mr. Garcia responded that it might be access for a driveway, but a sidewalk was not required and he would defer to the applicant on why a sidewalk was shown on the plan. Chairman Romero stated that with regard to the traffic issue, when he visited the site, itwasalmost impossible to make a left turn on La Palma Avenue. Commissioner Faessel stated that was why he asked the question. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. John Croul,Emerald Landscape Services, 531 Crowther Avenue, Placentia, applicant, stated he had reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the sidewalk would be installed as part of the project. Mr. Croul responded no.He stated he thought that was shown on an old copy of the plan. Commissioner Ramirez asked if they had the most current site plan in their packet. Commissioner Ament asked what kind of trucks and traffic was expected each day. Mr. Croul responded that there would be Ford F-250’s standard pick-up trucks, trailers between 10 to 12 feet long and a roll-off truck with a 20-foot bed. Commissioner Ament stated concernsabout the impact of truck traffic on the neighborhoodincluding visibility issues associated with trucks entering and exiting the site. Heasked how that would be addressed. Mr. Croul responded that this would be addressed through training.He stated the drivers would get to the freeway by making a right turn on La Palma Avenue. 10/12/09 Page 10of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Steve Valdez, 1014 North Kemp Street, stated if the site wasnot paved, there would be a lot of mud. He asked if a soil test was conducted to determine if there was anything hazardous on the site. He said the site used to be occupied by a chemical company. He stated a concern that the soil, mud and dust would be carried on the streets and be a nuisance and impact the neighbors. He asked that the entrance to the site be paved. He said there was already a trucking company 85 feet away from their homes and his wife had been diagnosed with cancer. He asked what kind of equipment would be on the siteand whether it would impact the neighbors. He asked where vehicles from the corner property would exit. He said it would bring more traffic to the neighborhood. He asked if thedrivers for Item No. 6 would exit on Patt Street.He asked that the impact on Kemp Street of the future development of other properties in the area be evaluated. Commissioner Faessel asked if Mr. Valdez attended the Planning Commission meeting last year when the parcel map was approved. He recalled that Mr. Valdez had brought up thesameissues includingtraffic. Mr. Valdezstated it was hard to make a left turn on La Palma Avenue, especially at 4 p.m..He suggested that businessesuse the rail road spur as a controlled exit. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated she recalled the access,traffic and land use issues had been identified during the public hearingson the subdivision map. She said the Commission made the decision that some of the properties would access Patt Street and this property would access Kemp Street. She believed these issues had been addressed and should not be revisited. She stated that the required landscaping had addressed the speakers concernsabout dust.She stated she thought the application made sense and was a good use of the property. Commissioner Faesselstated he thought the property owner had to mitigate chemical and soil issues associated with the previous use. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that was correct and this issue had been discussed previously. Commissioner Faessel stated he recalled the property owner had provided testimony about the extensive clean up conducted for the site. He believedthis addressed a portion of Mr. Valdez’s concern. Mr. Amstrup also stated that the site plan in the staff report was dated 10/6/2009. This was the most current plan and itshoweda future sidewalk that was not covered under the current permit. Commissioner Ramirez stated the site plan provided to her was dated 9/10/09 and that was what she based her review on for this project.She stated she wantedto get a copy of the most current final site plan for review. Commissioner Buffa stated that she would like staff to assure the Commission before they vote, that there are no other changes to the site plan so they know what they are voting on. 10/12/09 Page 11of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, clarified thesidewalk is required for the ultimate development of this property,but not for this particular development.She also stated that the last exhibit provided by the applicant had an October date and this should have been provided to the Commission. Commissioner Ramirez said she believed there was some confusion here and did not believe the resident’s concerns about traffic had been addressedby the site plan or the recommended use of this property. She said she did not support this use. Commissioner Ament stated anything on the site would be an improvement over a vacantsite. He statedthe proposed use was not a bad use, but they should think about the right mitigation. He believed that when the zoning was done and the parcel subdivided, the intent was not to create these types of impacts. He believed the lot remaining a dirt lot would impact the neighborhood. He had called the Mayor’s office to discuss some things that could help this neighborhood.If the concerns about traffic and dust could be mitigated, this could be a good use of the property.He asked if this lot would remain a dirt lot. Ms. Norwood stated the site would be improved at the driveway entrance, but the remainder of the lot would have dirt. Commissioner Ament asked if it would be appropriate to ask the applicant to address this issue. Ms. Norwood stated the applicant’s representative said the site would have a gravel surface. Commissioner Faessel said he wanted to add a condition of approval requiring a gravel surface. Ms. Johnsonsuggested that Condition No. 13 be modifiedto require a gravel surface. Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05452with a modification toCondition No. 13, requiring a gravel surface over any driving aisle or parking space. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fouryes votesand one no vote.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, and Faessel voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no.Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: Onepersonexpressed concerns regarding the project. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :24minutes (4:02to 4:26) 10/12/09 Page 12of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05453Resolution No. PC2009-095 (Buffa) Owner: Brian Malliet North Anaheim Association, LLC Approved,modified 101 Shipyard Way, Suite M Condition No. 13, requiring Newport Beach, CA 92663 a gravel surface fordrive Applicant:aisles and parkingareas. Mike Niknafs PTE Corporation 3535 East Coast Highway, Suite 25 VOTE: 4-1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Chairman Romero and Location:1109 and1119 Patt Street Commissioners Ament, Buffa, andFaessel voted yes. The applicant proposes an outdoor storage yard for trucks and Commissioner Ramirez voted equipment in association with an engineering firm.no. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 vnorwood@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ament asked if the trucks would exit on Patt Street and go north. Ms. Norwood responded yes. She also stated the site would have a gravel surface. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Jeff Gahagan, representing the applicant, stated he and his client had reviewed the conditions of approval and werein agreement. Commissioner Ramirez asked why there were sandbags on Kemp Street. Mr. Gahaganresponded he did not know. Ms. Norwood responded that the sandbags were currently on the property to prevent runoff. She stated that once the site was improved, there would not be any sandbags. Commissioner Amentstated in light of the testimony provided by Mr. Valdez on the previous project, he asked if the applicant could get to know the leaders in the neighborhood and work with them to resolve any issues and be a good neighbor. 10/12/09 Page 13of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Gahaganresponded theywould. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel stated there was testimony that a gravel surface would be provided; however, the conditions of approval didnot reflect this requirement. Ms. Norwood responded that staff recommended this requirement for a gravel surface be added to Condition No. 13. Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12,2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05453, modifying Condition No. 13, requiring a gravel surface for drive aisles and parking areas. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fouryes votesand one no vote.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, and Faessel voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: One person expressed concerns regarding truck traffic. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :7minutes (4:26to 4:33) 10/12/09 Page 14of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05442 ANDResolution No. PC2009-096 VARIANCE NO.2009-04800 (Ament) Owner: Karcher Partners Approved c/oCKE Restaurants P.O. Box2985 Newport Beach, CA 92659 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Phillip SchwartzeChairman Romero and The PRS GroupCommissioners Ament, Buffa, 31103 Rancho Viejo Road,Suite D2260Faesseland Ramirez voted San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. Location:401 West Carl Karcher Way The applicant proposes a vocational college in an existing two- story office building with fewer parking spaces thanrequiredby code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 vnorwood@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Phillip Schwartze,The PRS Group, 31103 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite D2260, San Juan Capistrano, representing the applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Faessel stated this was a significant property in the history of the City of Anaheim as it was built as the headquarters for a budding hamburger empire. He asked if there was any thought to puttingup a plaque in Carl Karcher’s old office in recognition of his importance to the County. Mr. Schwartze responded that they would take at look at this. Commissioner Faessel stated he had attended many meetings with Carl Karcher over the years on the property. He believed it was a marvelousreuse of the property. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 10/12/09 Page 15of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05442 and Variance No. 2009-04800. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :6minutes (4:33to 4:39) 10/12/09 Page 16of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05450Resolution No. PC2009-097 (Ramirez) Owner/ Mark Hillgren Applicant:Approved Seaward R.E.L.P. 923 North Main Street VOTE: 5-0 Orange, CA 92867 Chairman Romero and Location:1555 South State College Boulevard Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faesseland Ramirez voted The applicant proposes an outdoor storage yard for granite and yes. Commissioners Agarwal related building materials. and Karaki were absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 vnorwood@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Debra Gates, 923 North Main Street, Orange, representing the owner, stated she had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Buffa asked if the applicant was moving their business from the City of Orange to Anaheim. Ms. Gates responded their business was not moving. They were the landlord for this building. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirezoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05450. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. 10/12/09 Page 17of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :4minutes (4:39to 4:43) 10/12/09 Page 18of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 9 VARIANCENO. 2009-04790Resolution No. PC2009-098 (Ament) Owner/ Anaheim Gardens Homeowner Association Applicant:Approved, modified 4175 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 100 Condition No. 1to remove Anaheim, CA 92806 the requirement for bollards Location:944 South State College Boulevardand to require the planting of 15 gallon trees The applicant proposes to modify the landscape setbacks VOTE: 5-0 adjacent to a single-family residential zone and parking and drive aisle standards to permit additional parking spaces.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Faesseland Ramirez voted Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare yes. Commissioners Agarwal additional environmental documentation per California and Karaki were absent. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Project Planner: Linda Johnson ljohnson@anaheim.net LindaJohnson, Principal Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel stated the staff report indicated in 1972 the approved number of parking spaces was 212 and the current codewould require 236 spaces for this use. He asked for confirmation that the 212 spaces were on the property and did not include on-street parking on either State College Boulevard or Wagner Street. Ms. Johnson responded that was correct. Commissioner Faessel asked if the need for additional parking today was because more people had cars and they did not use garages in the same way, not because they had added more units. Ms. Johnson responded that was the information the Homeowner Association provided to staff. David Peterson, President of the Anaheim Gardens Homeowner Association, stated the Board was in agreement with the staff recommendation in the staff report. Diana Byrnes, with the property management company representing the Anaheim Gardens Homeowner Association, stated she was available to respond to questions. Commissioner asked Ms. Byrnes position and asked how a property manager managed parking situations in an environment where everyone could not use the garages they were provided. 10/12/09 Page 19of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Byrnes stated that she was the property manager and worked on behalf of the Board of Directors. She stated that parking was one of the main issues that Homeowner Associations dealt with all of the time. She stated that when State College Boulevard was improved and on-street parking was removed, the Association was in the process of resurfacing the on-site roadways. At that time, there were a number of complaints about the lack of parking. The Association wanted to explore adding more spaces to the complex since people were parking in the greenbelt area. She stated she was directed to proceed with the installation of the new parking spaces in the current location as this was the most cost effective alternative. Kim Williams, said he preferred leaving the spaces as installed or Alternative No. 8 to remove the wheel stops. He said his major concern with staff’srecommendation was who was going to cover the expense of these improvements. He said the City initially approved the installation of the spaces and then rescinded the approval. He said it was his understanding that they paid $30,000 for 18 spaces and that the Association would need to cover the improvements required by the City and the cost was too high. He said he believed the City should bear the cost of some of the improvements since the City made an error in approving the plan. Commissioner Faessel stated that staff recommended removing the wheel stops, adding additional bollards to protect the adjacent property and adding additional trees. He said he heard that Mr. Williams was not in favor of the bollards. He asked if Mr. Williams was in favor of additional landscaping. Mr. Williams said he was in favor of trees. He said he lived on Sugarwood Lane and described the condition of the curb and gutter near the garages. He said no cars had hit his garage. He believed the gutter was almost a curb stop. He said he did not know if the bollards were necessary. He said he would be in favor of removing the requirement for the bollards and installing landscaping. Tamara, homeowner, stated she wanted the new parking spaces to be restored to a greenbelt area. She said she did not believe the installation of the additional parking spaces had solved the problem. She said after the additional parking spaces were installed, it was harder to find available parking spaces in the evening and there were vandalism issues. She said the garages had been converted to other uses and cars could not fit in these garages. She suggested the solution would be for people to clean out their garages and park their cars in the garages. Linda Eaves, 2009 East Figwood Lane, a resident of 18 years, stated she opposed this project and stated the following concerns: the parking problem had been exacerbated by the installationof the new parking spaces; there was not a parking problem before the spaces were installed; people brought their cars out of storage and parked in the new spaces; the Board told the property owners that they had the permits and completed the parking project even though they had been notified by Code Enforcement and the Planning Department that the spaces were not approved; about 24 parking spaces had been removed from Wagner Street and State College Boulevard; she did not recall when the removal of streetparking had been used as a rational for approval of a Variance to allow additional on-site parking; she described a similar situation in another location in the City where the on-street parking was removed and people were forced to make other adjustments;people storing cars outside instead of in their garage created the problems; permits had not been obtained for the lighting that had been installed with the landscaping; the staff recommendation for additional landscaping did not include the size of trees; and, large trees should be planted because a number of 10/12/09 Page 20of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES trees had been removed in the complex. She stated the parking spaces were originally removed from the street on September 23, 2005 and she had brought this to the Board’s attention in an email. BillPickett, 949 South Firwood, stated he was told that once a variance was granted, it would be hard to get another one. He asked if this was true. He said this was a contentious case. He said he parked his car outside and could always find a parking space at night. He said they did not need more spaces and he had never had to park on the street. He stated a concern that once a variance was granted, he was concerned they would not be able to request a variance in the future if they wanted to restore thelandscaping. Ms. Johnson responded that there was no limit on the number of variance requests for a property and that each request was reviewed on its own merits. Ms. Johnson stated if more parking spaces were desired in the future, staff had included acondition of approval allowing additional spaces subject to certain criteria and a variance for these additional spaces would not be required. Mr. Pickettasked for clarification on what would be the process if they wanted to restore the greenbelt area. Commissioner Ramirez asked if a variance would be required to remove the parking spaces and restore the greenbelt area. Ms. Johnson said a variance would not be required to remove the spaces and restore the greenbelt area. Joy Pickett, stated she would be opposed to any action to keep the spaces. She stated they bought their home because of the beautiful green area on the drive into the complex. She stated that they did not need the parking spaces if people used their garages and did not store their cars on the property. She said if they could have some on-street parking on Wagner Street and potentially add some parking spaces behind garages, they should have a sufficient number of parking spaces. She said the Association needed to work on restoring the greenbelts. Chairman Romero announced a break to change the tape. The new tape did not record the remainder of the meeting. Two additional speakers spoke with concerns about the project. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearingand the Commission discussed the project. Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2009-04790, with a modification to Condition No. 1 to delete the requirement for bollards and to require the planting of 15 gallon trees. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith five yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. 10/12/09 Page 21of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: Threepersonsspoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: Twopersons spoke in favor of the subject request. IN GENERAL: Fourpersons spoke with general concerns regarding parking. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :57minutes (4:43to 5:40) 10/12/09 Page 22of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 10 VARIANCENO. 2009-04789Resolution No. PC2009-099 (Faessel) Owner: Brandon Birtcher MMI/BDI Anaheim Magnolia Avenue, Inc. Approved 18201 Von Karman, Suite 1170 Irvine, CA92612 Applicant:VOTE: 5-0 Alan Tuntland Birtcher Development and InvestmentsChairman Romero and 18201 Von Karman, Suite 1170Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Irvine, CA92612Faesseland Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal Location:1201 North Magnolia Avenue and Karaki were absent. The applicant proposes to construct a distribution warehouse with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this Project Planner: Ted White project in accordance with the provisions of the California twhite@anaheim.net Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Note: The minutesfor the following three items arebased upon notes taken at the meeting as the tape did not record this portion of the meeting.) Ted White, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to confirm that there would be no change in access to the baseball field. Mr. White responded that was correct and that access to the baseball field would be maintained and improved. He said there would be a dedicated vehicle drive to the parking lot and field. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Alan Tuntland, Birtcher Development and Investments, 18201 Von Karman, Suite 1170, Irvine, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Buffa asked how many employees would be at the facility as it was hard to tell from the parking study. Mr. Tuntland responded they forecasted 450 employees at ultimate build-out. Commissioner Buffa asked where the current business was located. 10/12/09 Page 23of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Tuntland responded that the business was located on Vermont Street. He said this was a local company that was growing. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the Vermont facility would remain. Mr. Tuntland responded they planned to vacate the Vermont facility and consolidate their operations at the new location. Commissioner Faessel stated he was pleased the business chose to stay in the City of Anaheim and fund a project of this size. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2009-04789. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. CommissionersAgarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :7minutes (5:40to 5:47) 10/12/09 Page 24of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05431 ANDResolution No. PC2009-100 VARIANCE NO.2009-04797 (Buffa) Owner: William McFarland Approved 1515 S. Manchester, LLC 18800 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Terri LeeChairman Romero and H. Hendy AssociatesCommissionersAment, Buffa, 4770 Campus DriveFaessel and Ramirez voted Newport Beach, CA92660yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. Location:1515 South Manchester Avenue The applicant proposes a dental laboratory and training facility with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Ted White Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 twhite@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Ted White,Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Cary Wilson, architect, representing theapplicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Faessel asked where the business was located. Mr. Wilson said in the City of Orange. Commissioner Faessel asked if the current location would be vacated. Mr. Wilson said the business would keep the manufacturing business in the City of Orange with office uses in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Buffa asked how many employees wouldwork in the building. Mr. Wilson said the building wouldhold up to 690 employees. They hadapproximately 400 employees and would probably grow to 600. 10/12/09 Page 25of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa commented on the hundreds of new jobs created by the applications considered at this Commission meeting. Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12,2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05431 and Variance No. 2009-04797. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :7minutes (5:47to 5:54) 10/12/09 Page 26of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05449Resolution No. PC2009-101 (Ramirez) Owner/ Robert Stringfield Applicant:Approved, modified Anastasi Development Condition No. 18to allow a 511 Torrance Boulevard five year time limit Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Location:1631 and 1699 West Lincoln AvenueVOTE: 5-0 Chairman Romero and The applicant proposes a recreational vehicle outdoor storage Commissioners Ament, Buffa, facility. Faesseland Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal Environmental Determination: The proposed action is and Karaki were absent. Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Ted White Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 twhite@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Ted White,Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 12, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa asked why staff recommended a three year time limitation. Mr. White said that Redevelopment staff would provide an explanation for staff’srecommended time limitation. Sergio Ramirez, Redevelopment Project Manager, stated this property was designated on the General Plan for General Commercial and the vision for this area was forretail uses. He described the existing commercial uses in thearea, including the Anaheim Plaza shopping center and new Target store. Staff recommended a three year time limit because they did not believe this would be a good permanent use for the property. Staff believed that in three years, the economic conditions would improve. If the economic conditions did not improvein three years, the applicant could ask for a two year extension. Staff believed that the property’s topography made it a highly visible site and visibility of theproposed uses could impact retail uses forthisarea. Commissioner Ament stated he had spoken with the applicant’s representative. He asked staff if they recommended additional conditions if a longer time period were approved for this use. Mr. Ramirez responded yes. Mr. White responded that if the use were to be on the site for a longer period of time, staff would recommend the installation of a block wall along the north property line where the property was visible from the I-5 off ramp and freeway. He said if the block wall wereto be built with a quality material, this wall could be retained in conjunction with the construction of a more permanent use on the property. 10/12/09 Page 27of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel stated there was a lot of information about sprinkler installation, but he did not see anything regarding proposed lighting. Mr. White responded that there were no conditions of approval regarding lighting and he deferred to the applicantto provide more information on lighting plans. Chairman Romero referred to Condition No. 10 pertainingtoelectrical requirements. Commissioner Faessel said he did not suggest the use needed lighting, but it would be difficult to find vehicles during the night if there was no lighting. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Donna Chessen,Chessen Associates, representing the applicant, stated Anastasi Development bought the propertyfor development, not for storage. They previously had a proposal, but the economic downturn impacted those plans. They were asking for an interim use of the property. Greg McCafferty, representing the applicant, stated theyhad reviewed the conditions of approval and werein agreementwith all conditions except the three year time limitation.He said five years was needed because of the economic conditions. In the next few years, the applicant would be working on a development plan. A three year time limitation would be too short a time period and they would need to request a time extension. He said they had a conceptual lighting plan which would be finalized if this project were approved. Commissioner Ament asked if there was an elevation of what the site would look like with the interim use. Mr. McCafferty responded that they had an elevation of the temporary building and some landscape plans, but they did not prepare a rendering. He said views of the site would be limitedby the fence and landscape screening. Commission Ramirez asked how many parcels they intended to acquire. Mr. McCafferty responded Anastasi Development would like to acquire at least ten acres including this site and the adjacent properties which made up the triangle between Lincoln Avenue, Euclid Street and the freeway. Commissioner Ramirez asked how many property owners were they negotiating with to purchase land. Mr. McCafferty responded thatthey werein discussions with four property owners and the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Ramirez said that three years was unreasonable to acquire properties from all of those owners. Commissioner Ament asked Mr. McCafferty to define a screened fence. 10/12/09 Page 28of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. McCafferty said there was an existing chain link fence that would either be repaired or replaced. Wood slats would be added to the fence and landscaping would be planted around the perimeter of the site. Commissioner Ament asked if the surface of the lot would be paved or have a gravel surface. Mr. McCafferty responded that the surface would primarily be a crushed aggregate, with a paved surface area at and around the entry gatesand visitor parking area. Commissioner Faessel asked whether there were fire hydrants proposed for the project. Mr. McCafferty responded that there would be fire hydrants and that they had worked with the Fire Department to design their project to meet requirements for fire suppression water and fire access. ChairmanRomero asked Mr. McCafferty to describe who would be using this site. He asked for confirmation that this site would not be used by the general public and if it would be limited to those storing vehicles on the property. Mr. McCafferty stated there would be a locked key entry security system that would be accessible only for those patrons storing vehicles on the site. Chris Zelesky, 511 Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, representing the property owner, stated this request was for a five year time limit. He said this time period was needed because following project approval, it would take upwards of a year to prepare improvement drawings. The remaining two years would not allow much time to improve the property and commence operating the business. He believed this was an advantageous site and worthwhile for future development. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa and Ramirez each stated they had talked with the applicant about the project. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Chairman Romero said he thought there should be a five-year time limit on the conditional use permit. Commissioner Ramirezoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 12, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05449, with a modification to Condition No. 18to allow a 5-year time limit. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki were absent. 10/12/09 Page 29of 30 OCTOBER 12, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :21minutes (5:54to 6:15) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:18P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2009AT 3:30P.M. Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary 10/12/09 Page 30of 30