Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/12/07City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,December 7, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,Joseph Karaki Commissioners Absent :Victoria Ramirez Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerKevin Clausen, Planning Aide Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative Jonathan Borrego, Principal PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner David See, Senior PlannerRoger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor Della Herrick, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:00 p.m. onWednesday,December 2, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, November 19,2009 Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 23 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Buffa Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Alcoholic Beverage ControlWorkshop -Continued to January 4, 2010 Meeting Adjournment DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Buffa/Faessel) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of November 9, 2009. VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. Reports and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1B REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE Resolution No. PC2009-120 PERMIT NO. 2004-04858 (CUP2004-04858A AND (Buffa/Faessel) DEV2009-00082) Approved Owner: Jack Markovitz VOTE: 6-0 P.O. Box 827 Sunset Beach, CA 90742Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Location:520 South Brookhurst Street Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was The property owner requests the termination of Conditional absent. Use Permit No. 2004-04858 to permit a church in an existing office building with fewer parking spaces than Project Planner: Kevin Clausen required by code. kclausen@anaheim.net 12/07/09 Page 2of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITResolution No. PC2009-121 NO. 2006-05121(CUP2006-05121A AND DEV2009-00068) (Ament) Owner: Living Stream Ministry Approved 2431 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 Applicant: VOTE: 6-0 John Pester 2431 West La Palma AvenueChairman Romero and Anaheim, CA 92804Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Location:2411 –2461 West La Palma Avenue Karaki voted yes. and 1212 North Hubbell Way Commissioner Ramirez was absent. The applicant proposes to amend a conditional use permit for an adult/career training center in conjunction with a teleconferencing center to convert an existing warehouse building to a two-story office building. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been vnorwood@anaheim.net determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 7, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. John Pester, applicant, stated he had reviewed the staffreport and conditions of approval and was in agreement. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to theDecember 7, 2009 staff report, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05121. 12/07/09 Page 3of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirezwas absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :3minutes (2:33to 2:36) 12/07/09 Page 4of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2009-05459 (DEV2009-00033)Resolution No.PC2009-123 (Agarwal) Owner: George Adams President SA Recycling, LLC Approved 3200 East Frontera Street Anaheim, CA 92806 VOTE: 6-0 David B. Williams, President David B. Williams CompanyChairman Romero and 3200 East Frontera StreetCommissioners Agarwal, Anaheim, CA 92806Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Agent: Phillip AnthonyCommissioner Ramirez was P.L. Anthony, Inc.absent. 14101 La PatPlace, Unit 10 Westminster, CA92683 Location:3200 and 3250 East Frontera Street The applicant proposes to retain existing scrap metal salvage and shredding and non-ferrous collection and processing facilities, automobile dismantling, and used auto parts businesses. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional Project Planner: Della Herrick environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality dherrick@anaheim.net Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 7, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Karakiasked staff to confirm that the business had been allowed to operate until 2013. Ms. Herrick responded that the court allowed this business to operate as a temporary useuntil 2013. She said the applicant submitted an application for a new conditional use permit in order to operate as a permanent use. Commissioner Karaki asked if the applicant had completed all required mitigation measures. Ms. Herrick responded that the applicant has been operating the business in conformance with all required conditions and regulations. Commissioner Agarwalasked if all remediation requirements had been completed and who inspected the property to verify this. 12/07/09 Page 5of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Ms. Herrick responded that the remediation requirements had been completed and that Code Enforcement staff was responsible for inspecting the property, including conducting water quality inspections. Commissioner Agarwal asked if there were any outstanding issues regarding water mitigation measures. Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded that there were no outstanding issues and that Code Enforcement staff took over water quality inspections this yearfrom Public Works staff. He also said that the applicant had installed an awning over the shredding area. Commissioner Agarwal asked if staff was confident that there were no outstanding problems. Mr. Bennion replied yes. Commissioner Karaki asked which agencies wereresponsible for inspecting this site and whether all required mitigation measures had been completed. Mr. Bennion replied that State agencies conducted inspections for compliance with State laws and regulations. Anaheim Code Enforcement also conducted annual inspections. He also said all required mitigation measures had been completed. Commissioner Karaki asked if the City asked for a cover to be placed over the shredding area. Mr. Bennion replied City staff did not require the installation of the cover.He said the owner proactively installed the awning. Commissioner Agarwalasked if the City approved this conditional use permit, would the City be taking over inspections from the State. Mr. Bennion replied no, the State would still conduct inspections. Code Enforcement staff would also conduct annual inspections. Commissioner Agarwal asked if there was a time limit for the State to conduct inspections. Mr. Bennion replied no. He said City staff prepared annual reports for the State covering all commercial and industrial properties in the City. Commissioner Agarwal asked how many state agencies inspect the site. Mr. Bennion replied that to the best of his knowledge, AQMD and Water Agencies conducted inspections. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Chairman Romero stated he had visited the property and met with the applicant. Commissioner Buffa stated she had visited the property and met with the applicant. 12/07/09 Page 6of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA PhillipAnthony,representing the two applicant/owners,described the history of the siteand the previous problems. He stated that it had been over ten years since the court actionshad occurred and that all required mitigation measures were met. He stated that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board conducted inspections on the site and this oversight would continue for the duration of the business. He stated the Air Quality Management District was responsible for overseeing air quality regulations. He stated that Code Enforcement staff conducted inspections to monitor compliance with City regulationsand the site hadimproved over time. He stated the awning was installed to make the site more attractive and less subject to rainfall effects. He stated this business had become a world leader in the recycling business and that this site served as the headquarters for a world-wide company.He said thebusiness wasa permanent member of the community and would like to stay that way. Commissioner Agarwal asked when the awning was installed and if the awning was permanent. Mr. Anthony replied that the awning was recently installed and that itwaspermanent. Itwas intended to protect and improve the appearance of the site. Chairman Romero asked how often the State Agencies conducted inspections. Mr. Anthony replied the State conducted as many inspectionsas they wanted toensure compliance with State requirements. He said the State Agencieslooked out for water discharges. Chairman Romero asked Mr. Anthony to describe the stormwater runoff system for the site. Mr. Anthony said the stormwater runoff control system for this site included treatingwater runoff before it left the site. Commissioner Karaki asked if the applicant haddeveloped a water management quality system for dischargesto the stormwater system. Mr. Anthony stated the stormwater was collected on the site, and then it went through a filtration and treatment cycle.He said it normally came out fine, but ifthere was something wrong, it was held until it could be tested further. Commissioner Karaki asked if this conditional use permit resulted in the need for a Water Quality Management Plan to be presented to the Planning Commission. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, stated the applicant currently had a storm water prevention plan in place which was monitored by State Agencies.The City does not monitor this plan. Mr. Anthony stated the State Regional Water Control Board monitors this plan. Commissioner Karaki stated the facility was well maintained; however, he was concerned that the property was located closeto the river and wanted to make sure that this business would not negatively impact the river. 12/07/09 Page 7of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Mr. Anthony respondedthat even when the contaminated pile was on the site, the Orange County Water District monitored the site and did not find any effect onthe river.He said the river would continue to be tested. Commissioner Faessel commented on the history of the site as described in the staff report and asked the applicant to assure the Commission that there would never be contaminated water runoff from this site that would contaminate the ground water aquifer. Mr. Anthony commented on the importance of the ground water basin. He saidthat he could not guarantee what will happen in the future; however, the site had been monitored for decades and no impacts on the river from this site had been identified. Commissioner Faessel commented that the awning was a benefit to the community, especially the guests of the hotel. He said that he supported the project provided there would be regular future inspections. Mr. Anthony said that the City and other key agencies would continue to inspect the site. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the City would still be conducting inspections if the applicant waited until 2013to request a conditional use permit. Ms. Herrick responded that staff and the agencies would continue to conduct inspections whether this was a temporary or permanent use. Commissioner Amentstated he had met with the applicant on the property. He said the site had improved over the years. He saidthis company was a leader in the industrythat was setting new standards in getting more and more recycled goods out of the waste that was coming to the site.He said this was the company’s headquarters and they had long term plans for the site. He stated his support of this project since the applicant was in compliance with all requirements and they had a lot of capital invested in this site. He said it was fortunate for the City of Anaheim for this company to be located here. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to confirm that any future problems on the site could be addressed through the inspection process. Ms. Herrick responded yes. Commissioner Karaki stated that even though he had questioned the applicant about the water quality management plan; he had not seen a WQMP documentfor this site. He said they only had the applicant’s testimony that all measures had been implemented to prevent impacts to groundwater. He said he would have preferred to see a water quality management plandemonstrating how measures have been implemented. He said he supported the project based upon the testimony presented at the hearing. Chairman Romero said he had met with the applicant and toured the facility. He stated he was concerned with the potential for contamination of the water tableand on the site. Based upon the 12/07/09 Page 8of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA tour, the company seemedto have a good process for water quality control.The applicant assured him that the process was working. It appeared that they have a clean, well-run facility. Commissioner Buffa said she believed as a Commission, they should have confidence in other public agencies like the Regional Water Quality Board. She saidthe plan was in place and the site was inspected by the Regional Water Quality Board, which from her experience was avery diligent agency. Shesaid she was comfortable with the information submitted. Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 7, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05459. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirezwas absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :26minutes (2:37to 3:03) 12/07/09 Page 9of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITResolution No. PC2009-124 NO. 2003-04823 (CUP2003-04823A ANDDEV2009-00050) (Faessel) Owner/ Naresh Patel Applicant:Approved NP Gas Inc. 1907 Los Alamitos Drive Placentia, CA 92870 VOTE: 6-0 Location:2530 East La Palma Avenue Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, The applicant proposes an amendment to a conditional use Ament, Buffa, Faessel and permit for an existing convenience market with a service Karaki voted yes. station and car wash to delete a condition of approval Commissioner Ramirez was pertaining to the sales of single-serving alcoholic beverages.absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed 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 December 7, 2009, along with a visualpresentation.She also stated one piece of correspondence in opposition to the project had been received and provided to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Faessel asked if it was the general intent of the Planning Department to create a conditional use permit that was fully consistent with the Alcohol Beverage Control Board’s requirements. Ms. Herrick responded yes. She stated that staff recommended the deletion of Condition No. 5 because ABC had already included this requirement in the license. Commissioner Faessel asked if the City of Anaheim could have a higher level of restrictions than the ABC license. Michele Irwin responded that when the City approved a conditional use permit or a public convenience or necessity permit, the City forwarded the conditions to ABC. However, ABC had the final say on the license conditions.She said there was an error on this license. Commissioner Faessel asked if there were other possible conflicts between the City’s approved conditions and the licenses issuedby ABC. If so, he asked if City staff was addressing these inconsistencies. Ms. Irwin responded that this was the first ABC license she had seen where there was inconsistent wording between the license and the City’s conditions of approval. 12/07/09 Page 10of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Agarwal asked if allowing the sales of single alcohol beverage containers was a reversal of policy. Ms. Irwin responded that the Police Department looked at sales of single alcohol beverage containers on a case by case basis. She said they considered how close the location was to other locations selling alcoholic beverages and the type of crime statistics in the vicinity of the business. Commissioner Agarwal said that previously the City was not open to considering sales of single containers and asked if this meant that future petitions for the sales of single containers could be considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner Karaki asked if proximity to a school site would be taken into consideration. Ms. Irwin responded yes. She described the existing uses in this area including three existing businessesthat have been selling single containers of alcoholic beverages. She said the Police Department considered the existing operation of this business and the surrounding businesses and did not identify anything that was a concern.The school hadthe right to opposethe license. The City and ABC both notifysurrounding propertiesof pending applications. Commissioner Faessel asked if the applicant had requested the deletion of this conditionthat restrictedthe sale of single alcoholic beverages. He said that the ABC license includeda restriction on the sales of singles.He said it appearedwere wasconsistency. Ms. Irwin responded that the ABC license statedthat bottlesin containers 16 ouncesor less could not be sold assingle containers. She said bottlesin a six-packweretypically sold in12 ounce containers. The next level of bottle size was larger, at 16 ounces.The ABC license for this business allowedsales of single containers greater than 16 ounces. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to confirm whether both theABC license andthe city requirements restrictedthe sales of single containers less than 16 ounces. Ms. Irwin responded yes, however, the ABC license allowed the business to sell 32 and 42 ounce single beverage containers which was in conflict with the previously approved conditional use permit which did not allow the sales of any single containers. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Naresh Patel, applicant, statedherequested this amendment because he did not want to have a conflict between the conditional use permit and the ABC license. Chairman Romero, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ament asked staff to confirm that the ABC license did not allow the sale of single containers smaller than 16 ounces, but the sale of single containers larger than 16 ounces was allowed. 12/07/09 Page 11of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Ms. Irwin responded that was correct. She said they had not seen this type of condition on ABC licenses before. She said they didnot usually see the sales of single 12 ounce beverage containers. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated if a container came in a multi-pack, it could not be broken up for sale. If the container came as a single unit package, it could be sold to the customer. Chairman Romero asked staff to confirm that the owner could not break up a pre-packaged six-pack to sell the bottles individually. Mr. Gordon responded that a pre-packaged six-pack could not be broken up for sale. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 7, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04823. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel andKaraki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirezwas absent. OPPOSITION: One piece of correspondence in opposition to the subject requestwas received. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :15minutes (3:03to 3:18) 12/07/09 Page 12of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05433Resolution No. PC2009-125 AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04799 (DEV2009-00055) (Karaki) Owner: David Diamond Approved DK Euclid LLC 4207 SouthHudson Parkway Englewood, CO 80113 VOTE: 6-0 Applicant: Richard LeeChairman Romero and R & L PropertiesCerritos Inc.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, 13325 Artesia BoulevardBuffa, Faessel and Karaki voted Cerritos, CA90703yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. Location:601-697 North Euclid Street The applicant proposes to convert an existing restaurant into two tenant spaces including one fast food take-out restaurant and one drive-through fast food restaurant, in an existing commercial shopping center with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Della Herrick Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dherrick@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 7, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa asked whether the owner of the shopping center had expressed any concerns about the parking demand generated by these uses. Ms. Herrick said a parking study was required because the number of required spaces exceededthe code requirementbecause of the change in use from a full service restaurant to a fast food restaurant. She stated the study indicatedthere wouldbe sufficient parking for the proposed uses. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Richard Lee, applicant, stated hewas the property manager for this center. He said large centers needed to have a co-anchor. He said they were attempting to provide restaurants with demographics that wouldsupport the Ranch 99 Market and other uses in the center. He said he tried to encourage Chris &Pitts restaurant to move into another tenant space in the center, but was not able to do that. 12/07/09 Page 13of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Faessel said,based upon the applicant’s testimony, it was his understanding that the existing tenant was not consistent with the type of demographic that the owner was looking forin this center. Mr. Lee confirmed this was correct. Commissioner Faessel asked if the applicant was not able to arrange an agreement with the existing tenantsince there was only the potential for one new business tenant at this point. Mr. Lee responded that this was an economic as well as demographic issue. He said theproposed uses were in keeping withthe demographics they were hoping to attract for thiscenter to support Ranch 99 Market. He said he would have liked to relocate the Chris & Pitts restaurant on the property. Commissioner Karaki asked if the proposed uses would affect the parking ratio for the Ranch 99 Market. Mr. Lee responded that the more tenants that were attractive to customers of the Ranch 99 Market, the more competitive the center would be and they would be in a better position to keep the market. Donald Yvaska, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated he was a former chairman of the Redevelopment Commission and was aware of this center. He said he was not able to find a staff member to tell him about this project. He said he called Redevelopment staff whocontacted the Chris & Pitts management and the branch management was not aware of this proposal. He said a friend of his had posted this hearing on Facebook and had received a number of comments wanting the existing business to remain.He said he did not think that more fast food restaurant uses were needed in this center.He said he was concerned that the Crescent/Euclid intersection was the most dangerousin the City and believed the fast food uses would bring more traffic and hazards to this intersection. He said he knew of a previous tenant that was forced out of the center by the management. He stated hebelieved that the Chris & Pitts restaurant should remain. Mr. Lee stated he did not force the Career Academy out of the center. He said the decision was made by the owner of that business who paid a termination fee to buy their way out of the lease because the owner would not let them out of the lease. He said they were currently negotiating with another beauty school and were trying to replace the tenant. Commissioner Karakiasked if the Chris & Pitts management was informed of this proposal. Mr. Lee stated that the current lease with the restaurant had expired and the restaurant management said they could not afford the type of rent required for a new lease. He described his efforts to keep the restaurant in the center and said his offer for the restaurant to open in a new location had been turned down. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa said that the property owner hadthe right to negotiate leases with his tenants. 12/07/09 Page 14of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Faessel said that according to the testimony during this hearing, there seemed to be no meeting of the minds between Chris & Pitts restaurant and the owner of the center. Commissioner Ament said that it was not the Planning Commission’s role to decide what type of tenants a property owner should have. Chairman Romero concurred. Commissioner Karaki stated he agreed. He said he thought the project would complement the Ranch 99 Market. Based upon past observations of the parking lot, he was concerned about the proposed parking. He said he hoped this use would not create any parking problems. Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 7, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05433 and Variance No. 2009-04799. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirezwas absent. OPPOSITION: One personspoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :21minutes (3:18to 3:39) 12/07/09 Page 15of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05465 ANDResolution No. PC2009-126 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04804(DEV2009-00048) (Karaki) Owner: Ronald J. Chester Approved,added two JP Morgan Chase Bank conditions pertaining to 1111 Polaris Parkway, Suite 1E Planning Commission review of Columbus, OH43240 landscapingand architectural Applicant:plans. Tasia Kallies Burnham Nationwide 111 West Washington Street, Suite 450 VOTE: 6-0 Chicago,IL60602 Chairman Romero and Location:555 North State College Boulevard Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story yes. Commissioner Ramirez was office building and construct a new bank building with four absent. drive-through lanes with a smaller landscaped setback area adjacent to La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: David See Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dsee@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December7, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if this building wasoriginally built asa bank. Chairman Romero said it was the Landmark Bank, constructed in the 1970’s. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to describe the proposed landscaping along the frontage of the property when the road is built to its ultimate configuration. Mr. See responded that after dedication, there would be a five-foot wide planter area adjacent to La Palma Avenue and a 12-foot wide planter area adjacent toState College Boulevard, which will be fully landscaped. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that the property owner had already dedicated the additional right-of-way. 12/07/09 Page 16of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Buffa asked if the 12-foot wide area would become part of the road, leaving only a five foot wide planter area. If that were the case, then she said it would be appropriate for staff to look at requiring the applicant to install trees in the five-foot wide space, instead of just turf. Mr. See said a 17-foot wide planter was proposed, including 12 feet in the right-of-way and five feet on the property. Commissioner Karaki asked if this was the standard Chase Bank design or just proposed for this location. Mr. See responded that this wasthe standardized look for Chase Bank buildings. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. John Praisler, Design Forum Architects, 4 Studebaker, Irvine,statedthat Chase Bank hadselected a prototype building design for use in all of its bank locations throughout the country. He said the design includedinstallation ofbrick on the bottom of the building. He said he believed the proposed design would result in an attractive building.He said the landscape plan was still being revised. He said when the street is widened, therewould be a five-foot wide planter area on the property. He said they would provide the trees required by the City. Commissioner Karaki stated he hadnot commented on the design of buildings during the past year, but wanted to comment on the proposed design. He said this property was located at a busy intersection and he expected to see a more interesting building design that complemented the surrounding area and was appropriate for this site. He asked the applicant to provide more features to match thedesign of surrounding buildings. Mr. Praislersaid he understood that the brick on the bottom of the building was not a typical look for a Californian building. He said that the applicant was interested in bringing the standard look of Chase Bank buildings to California. Commissioner Buffa stated she was unhappy with the design of the canopy and was surprised to see an absence of architecture detailing on a canopy at a major intersection. She said the canopy, which would be as large as a canopy for a gas station, needed a better design.She said that a full roof profile was typically provided for gas station canopies. Commissioner Faessel said the design had a mid-western design that was out of character for California. Commissioner Agarwal stated that as a banker, he did not believe it was appropriate for him to comment on the bank’s architecture. He said he was concerned with the proposed canopy and the lighting after the bank closed. He asked for a description of the type of security measures thatwould be implemented since this was a busy intersection. He said the canopy could prove to be more of a nuisanceafter the bank closed. Commissioner Ament stated that Chase Bank had a designated brand. He did not think the City had adopted architectural design standards. He agreed the building could be improvedand designed 12/07/09 Page 17of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA more consistent with the area and the canopy design could be improved. He asked for confirmation that the City did not have set standards or designs. Mr. See responded that therewere no code requirements regarding architectural styles or materials. He said staff could continue to work with the applicant on the design of the building. Mr. Praislersaid that Chase Bank would be willing to work with staff on the building architecture if desired by the Commission.He said he was most concerned with the site plan. Steve Bash, with Morgan Chase, said that they would work with staff on the building designand were open to suggestions by the Commission. Commissioner Faessel stated whatwas before the Commission was the site plan and asked the architect to come back with plans to upgrade the building architecture. Commissioner Karaki stated he supported the site plan if the architecture were to come back to the Planning Commission as aconsent calendar item. He said he did not think the building fit in with the surrounding buildings. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated concerns about the setback variance and the canopy design. She stated that typically the Commission hadencouraged drive-through lanes to be at the rear of the building and less visible to public streets. She stated she was concerned about the location of thefour drive- through lanes and the visibility of the lanes from La Palma Avenue since there was no ability to screen the lanes because of the proposed five-foot wide planter. She stated the canopy looked like it was added on to the building instead of incorporated into the building architecture. She suggested the plan be reviewedby an architectural consultant. Commissioner Karaki said he did not want to require review by an architectural consultant because he did not want to increase the costs for the applicant. He asked if staff could take a look at the building architecture. Chairman Romero stated he agreed with Commissioner Buffa that the drive-through lanes would be very visible from the adjacent streets. Commissioner Karaki said he did not have a concern about the location of the canopy, if the design of the canopy were architecturally enhanced and integrated better into the building design. Raul Garcia,Principal Civil Engineer, said the ultimate public right-of-way would include an 8-foot wide parkway and a 5-foot wide sidewalk.This would leave a five-foot wide planter area on the property. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to confirm that there would be an 8-foot wide parkway next to the street, a 5-foot wide sidewalk and a 5-foot wide planter area on the property. Raul Garcia responded that there would be a 4-foot wide sidewalk. 12/07/09 Page 18of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Buffa asked staff to confirm that it would be possible to provide landscaping in the parkwayin the right-of-way and in the planter area. Mr. Garcia responded yes. Chairman Romero suggested thatthe applicant work with staff on the building architectureand then have the plans returned to the Commission for review. Mr. See stated he recommended additional conditionsof approval requiring the applicant to submit final elevation and landscape plans for review by the Planning Commission as a report and recommendation item.The elevation plans would be revised to show how the building would be modified to compliment the area and be consistent with other architecture in the area. The landscape plans would be revised to show how the 12-foot wide planter in the right-of-way and the five-foot wide planter area on the property would be landscaped. Commissioner Karaki said he agreed with Commissioner Buffa’s concerns about the landscaping and wanted to see trees and shrubs in the planter areas. Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 7, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 2 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05465 and Variance No. 2009-04804. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Ramirezwas absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :32minutes (3:39to 4:11) (Commissioner Karaki left the meeting after this item was heard) 12/07/09 Page 19of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITResolution No. PC2009-127 NO. 4149(CUP4149A AND DEV2009-00057) (Agarwal) Owner: Janice Jensen Approved Hertz Equipment Rental 225 Brae Boulevard Park Ridge, NJ 07656 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Michael SantillanChairman Romero and MS ArchitectsCommissioners Agarwal, Ament, 19891 Beach Boulevard, Suite 239Buffa andFaessel voted yes. Huntington Beach, CA92648Commissioners Karaki and Ramirez wereabsent. Location:3040 East Miraloma Avenue The applicant proposes to reinstate a previously-approved conditional usepermit and delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation and add vehicle sales to an existing equipment rental and storage facility. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: David See Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dsee@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 7, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if the Planning Commission or City Council had taken any action within the last year to control or limit the amount of small offices for sales ofautomobiles. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that in the past year, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of a code amendment that would have limited the amount of small office sales for automobile sales. City Council denied the amendment and directed staff to work with the Department of Motor Vehicles to restrictthe vehicles from being parked on public streets and to make sure that vehicles were being sold by registered licensed dealers. That type of use is different from the vehicle sales proposed by this applicant. Commissioner Faessel asked how this proposal was different from small office sales for automobile sales. Mr. See explained that the difference wasthat small office automobile sales were typically conducted in office buildings where there was one space in front of the building for display of a vehicle for sale. Thiswasa larger facility and the vehicles sales would be an accessory use. The applicant proposed 12/07/09 Page 20of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA to provide 10 parking spaces in the front of the property to display vehicles for sale and these spaces were in addition to the 22 parking spaces required by code for the proposed uses on the property. Commissioner Ament asked if the automobile sales would include sales of cars or equipment. Mr. See responded that the Planning Commission had previously approved a conditional use permit for this property to allow wholesale sales of equipment for a period of ten years. The applicant has requested the removal of this time limit and has also requested to sell vehicles. Commissioner Ament asked if this included cars and trucks and if the sales of vehicles would be limited to the front of the property. Mr. See responded the equipment sales would continue to be conducted in the back of the site, in an area not visible from the street. The cars for sale would be displayed in the front of the property in ten parking spaces. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the business owner would bring cars that belongedto Hertz to this location. Mr. See responded that was his understanding. He said that vehicle rentals are not permitted in this zone.The applicant is only requesting vehicle sales. Commissioner Agarwal asked for confirmation that the City did not make a distinction on where the business obtained the cars for sale. Mr. See confirmed that was correct. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Michael Santillan,with MS Architects, stated he had reviewed the staff reportand he was in agreement. Commissioner Buffa asked if the applicant intended to sell cars that Hertz hadleased in the past. Commissioner Faessel asked if this should be a stipulation. Commissioner Agarwal said he did not think this should be a stipulation. Chairman Romero, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ament asked staff to describe the types of signs that would be allowed in an industrial zone for vehicle sales as opposed to the allowed signs in a commercial zone. Mr. See responded that signs for vehicle sales would be subject to the city sign regulations, which allowed wall signsand banners subject to special event permits. The Department of Motor Vehicles also requiredcertain signage on the cars for sale.He said there would not be an excessive number of signs on the cars. 12/07/09 Page 21of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Ament asked if there was a difference in the requirements between the industrial and commercial areas. Mr. See responded that the signs allowed for vehicles sales in industrial areas were the same as allowed in commercial areas. Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 7, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4149. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa and Faesselvoted yes. Commissioners Karaki andRamirezwereabsent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :12minutes (4:11to 4:23) 12/07/09 Page 22of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00086 Motion (DEV2009-00073) (Buffa/Romero) Applicant: City of Anaheim Planning Department Approved Location:Citywide VOTE: 5-0 A City-initiated request to amend various Chapters of Title 18 (Zoning Code) to incorporate a variety of anti-graffiti Chairman Romero and measures. This request includes, but is not limited to, Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, proposed amendments toexisting landscaping, lighting, Buffa and Faessel voted yes. wall and fencing requirements. Commissioners Karaki and Ramirez were absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per Section 21080 Project Planner: Kevin Clausen of the California Public Resources Code (Statutory kclausen@anaheim.net Exemption). Kevin Clausen, Planning Aide, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 7, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if staff had researched whether othercities had successful anti-graffiti regulations. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded staff conducted a survey of other cities regulations and found that manycities required walls to have landscaping, but did not have specific planting standardsor guidance. The only exception was the County of Orange which required holes drilled in the bottom of block walls for the planting of vines. Anaheim’scurrent code requiredwalls to be screened with landscaping. He said the proposed ordinance was intended to reduce or eliminate graffiti opportunities by providingmore specific planting standards, ensuring that landscaping would be planted adjacent to walls in a consistent manner. The proposed ordinance also offers some opportunities for relief. Commissioner Buffa stated she was concerned about the code requiring a 24-month timeframe for effective landscaping coverage to be achieved. She suggested this time frame be removed from the ordinance since the rate of growth for landscaping could not be controlled. She also suggested this timeframe be stated as a guide in the ordinance, but not a requirement. Mr. Borrego responded that staff had discussed this timeframe. Staff will be preparing a handout to describe thelandscaping requirements and could addthis timeframeas a goal instead of a requirement. 12/07/09 Page 23of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Faessel stated he concurred with the intent of this requirement and was concerned that the code would be difficult to enforce without a specific time constraint. He asked if the time constraint was removed, how this requirement would be enforced. Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded that if someone didnot comply with the intentof the ordinance, then Code Enforcement would defer to the City Attorney’s Office whether to pursue this in court. Commissioner Faessel said he generally did not like codes that required items to be completed in specific timeframes, but felt it might be appropriate in his case. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated staff wanted to have an enforceable threshold. The concern was that property owners would install the required landscaping and irrigation and meet the minimum standards, but not achieve the level of landscaping coverage that would eliminate graffiti opportunities. If the applicant demonstrated that they were making a good faith effort towards achieving the coverage requirement, City staff could extend the 24 month timeframe.In the absence of a coverage threshold, even a less than good faith effort would be difficult to enforce through the Code Enforcement process. Commissioner Faessel said he supported graffiti prevention because the City has spentover a half million dollars in graffiti abatement. He said he shared some of Commissioner Buffa’s concern about the timing issue. He said he understood staff’s concerns about vines that may not grow and hoped that people would be given a second chance to implement the code if the vines did not grow as indicated by staff. Commissioner Ament said that graffiti has become such a large issue for the community, that having a regulation that does not have any teeth in it wouldbe worse than no regulation.He said that if the vines did not grow as planned, staff should work with the property owner to achieve compliance.He also asked if this requirement would apply to new construction. Mr. Amstrup responded this requirement would apply to new construction. Mr.Bennion said staff would work with everyone to achieve compliance with the code since that is the ultimate goal. Commissioner Ament said that the current enforcement process focused on working with property owners. He suggested that language be added to the code togive time for property ownersto submit arevised plan to comply with the Code. Mr. Bennion said they worked with property owners, gave them courtesy notices and gave them time to comply with the code. Commissioner Faessel stated he was concerned about creatingvine police. Chairman Romeroasked if there was a fine if a property owner did not comply with the code. 12/07/09 Page 24of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Mr. Bennion described thecivil citation process.First a courtesy notice is given to the property owner. If the property owner did not comply with the code, then a notice of violation civil was issued. If the property owner did not comply, then a civil citation was issued which included a $100 fine. Chairman Romero asked if there was an appeal process for code enforcement actions. Mr. Bennion responded yes and described the process.He said the civil citation ranged from $100 to $500. Chairman Romero asked how this code section would be implemented when an applicant applied for a building permit. Mr. Borrego replied that staff would walk the applicant through the standards, including the required level of coverage. Commissioner Ament asked if a Code Enforcement officer would issue a warning if aproperty owner did not comply with the Code. Mr. Bennion responded that a warning would be issued first with normally a 30-day period to comply with the code, but staff would work with the applicant to achieve compliance with the code. Mr. Borrego said the proposed standard required effective coverage within a 24 month period, not full coverage, so that givessome flexibilityin terms of enforcement. Commissioner Agarwal said he believed there was flexibility in the proposed ordinance and did not believe the word “shall” was the same as “must”. He said he supported the current language. Commissioner Buffa stated that the word “shall” was mandatory. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,said that was correct. He said the proposed code amendment would require effective, not full,coverage to be achieved. From a prosecutor’s standpoint, it would be difficult to attempt to prosecute this type of case. The proposed code amendment was staff’s best effort to develop a requirement for effective coverage.He said as a practical matter, staff would work with the property owners to achieve compliance.He suggested that the Commission might want to define effective coverage so the expectation is consistent. Commissioner Buffa said she would be less comfortable with that. She wanted to keep the time less defined and did not believe it was a good use of resources to enforce a more specific code requirement for this issue. She also stated she believed the code should be more flexible. Commissioner Faessel said he believed the word “effective” was not specific and was flexible. Mr. Gordon stated if the goal was to prevent tagging of walls and if tagging was reduced, then one could argue that the code was effective. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Chairman Romero, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 12/07/09 Page 25of 26 DECEMBER 7, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Romero, that the Planning Commission determinethat this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code and recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009-00086. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith five yesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa and Faesselvoted yes. Commissioners Karaki andRamirez wereabsent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 17, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :28minutes (4:23to 4:48) WORKSHOP ITEM NO. 9 –ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL WORKSHOP–Continued to January 4, 2010 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:49P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010AT 3:30P.M. Respectfullysubmitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary 12/07/09 Page 26of 26