Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/08/17City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,August 17,2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :Joseph Karaki Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerVanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Della Herrick, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,August 12, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 16 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissionerRamirez Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Commission Updates Discussion –The Planning Commission requested an item be placed on the September 14, 2009 Meeting Agenda regarding changing the Planning Commission meeting time from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Adjournment AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Faessel/Ramirez) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 3, 2009. VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Faesseland Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner Ament abstained. Commissioner Karaki was absent. 08/17/09 Page 2of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITResolution No. 2009-073 NO. 2006-05103 (Agarwal) (TRACKING NO. CUP2008-05390) Owner:Approved Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. P.O.Box 4741 Glendale, CA91222 0741 VOTE: 6-0 Applicant: Joe Haupt,Real Estate & Resort DevelopmentChairman Romero and Walt Disney Parks & Resorts-Global Dev.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, 1150 WestMagic WayBuffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted WDI-GCH yes. Commissioner Karaki was Anaheim, CA 92802absent. Location:1946 South Harbor Boulevard The applicant requests to permit the expansion of an Project Planner: dherrick@anaheim.net existing temporary surface parking lot and to amend a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation. Environmental Determination:Environmental Impact Report No. 313, which was previously-certified, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 17, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the traffic study and asked staff to explain the third paragraph on page 17, relating to the 11 percent growth rate. DavidKennedy, Associate Transportation Planner,statedthe traffic study included a growth rate of 11 percent per year since this parking lot could be in place for 11 years until 2019. The 11 percent growth rate was based upon a growth rate of one percent per year multiplied by 11 years. Commissioner Ramirez asked for clarification regardingthe trip count. She asked staff to explain how ahoteluse,which was permitted for the property,could generate more traffic trips than aparking lot. Mr. Kennedy said the parking lot trip generation rates were based on parking counts taken at existing Disneyland parking lots.The trip rate per parking space was based upon the number of vehicles entering alot over one hour interval time periodsdivided by the total number of parking spacesin the 08/17/09 Page 3of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES lot.Theparking lot trip rate varied between 22-27 percent for the morning hours. The late evening peak hours wereindicated in the traffic study. Hotel rates ranged from .22 to .48 trips per hotel room based on the resort hotel land use and the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the manual was specific to Anaheim. Mr. Kennedy responded the ITE Trip Generation Manualwas not specific to Anaheim. He stated the manual was used throughout the country fortrip generation and included information collected from a variety of locations. He stated there wereabout3,608 hotel rooms allocated to the site. With the expansion, the property would be developed with 3,570 parking spaces.While the numbers were similar, the hotel rooms would generate more trips per day than the proposed parking lot.Typically, if all parking lot spaces were occupied,there would be one trip inbound and one trip outbound per space. Trips in and out of the site by employees workingat the toll boothsor on the site, would also be counted. For the hotel, the trip factor would include trips associated with guests, service workers, and other uses within the hotel such as meeting rooms. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the trip generation rate was based on an assumption thatthe hotel would be fully occupied. Mr. Kennedy respondedthatthe trip ratewasbased on the number of hotel rooms. The Trip Generation Manual included“rooms” and “occupied rooms”. If the hotel rooms were not going to be 100 percent occupied at any given time then the “rooms” rate would be used, which was approximately80percent of the occupied rooms rate for a resort hotel. The differences that were calculated in the late peak hours were the highest trip generation that the parking lot would be using when guests were leaving the theme park. The parking lot peaktimeswere analyzed for both the existing and proposed lots. During the peak times,20to 27percent of the vehicles that were entering or leaving the site totaled approximately 966 vehicle trips. The maximum hotel rooms allowed by codewould generate 1,840 trips during apeak hour which was twice as high as the trip generation for the parking lots. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the SP-1 parking lotidentified in Figure 4on page 24. He asked if the Timoneparking lot was currently accessed partially from the Santa Ana Freeway atDisney Way. He also asked for confirmation that the majority of trips to the Timone parking lotwerenot on any of the other streets, namely Harbor Boulevard or KatellaAvenue. Mr. Kennedy said that was correct. The majority of the trips to the parking lot would come from Disney Way and Interstate5, crossing Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner Agarwal said thatin the trafficstudy, theconsultant deducted a certain numberof trips made to the Timone parking lot from the trips made to the SP-9lot. He asked how that was calculated since those trips werenever on the streets, except for Disney Way. Mr. Kennedy said trips associated with the Timone parking lotwere deducted based on arrival at Disney Way. Then the trips were reallocatedonto the network, some on Disney Way, some on Katella Avenue. Those who knewthat Timone was no longer open would try other ways to reach the parking lot. As reflected in Figure 4, a small percentage of trips onKatella Avenue and a larger percent of tripsonDisney Way wereadded back to the network on top of the traffic volumes sincethe Timone lot was no longer in use. 08/17/09 Page 4of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal asked how many parking spaces were located in the Timone parking lot. Commissioner Ramirez statedshe believed there were1,900 spacesin the lot. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the traffic study and asked about the removal of 1,900 spaces from the Timone lot which wasaccessed from Disney Way and Interstate 5 and the deduction of 1,900 trips from SP-9. He stated this did not seem like a fair calculation sincethese trips were not on the street. He asked why these trips werededucted from the number of cars going into the SP-9lot. Mr. Kennedy saidthe Timone lot was open at the time the traffic counts were taken in The Anaheim Resort. Since the Timone lot was subsequently closed, the trips associated with that lot needed to be removed from the network before adding the trips associated with the SP-9 lot. Commissioner Agarwal said the Timone lot did not make a difference as far as traffic was concerned on Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, because cars were not accessing those streets anyway. CJAmstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that the trips being generated by Timone were actually reallocated to the new parking lot. They were removed to establish a baseline, but they were incorporated back into the analysis for additional generation. Commissioner Agarwal said he wanted tomake sure that the 1,900 cars were included in the calculations somewhere and that they were not being deducted from the total number of cars. Mr. Kennedy indicated that Figure 6 includedthe Timone lot. Commissioner Ramirez asked if all 4,200 cars wouldbe exiting only on Convention Way. Ms. Herrick responded that all cars, except those parkedin the Cast Parking Lot, would exit on Convention Way. She stated cars parked in theCast Parking Lot would continue to exit on Katella Avenue. Commissioner Ramirez said that the traffic study mentioned there would be an upgrade to signal controls. She asked what that meant and how would it impact or alleviate the situation. Mr. Kennedy stated that the traffic study made reference to the ITS improvements such as adaptive control. One of the conditions referencedadaptive control where the traffic signals would communicate with each other so the traffic timing on the next signal would adjust according to the number of vehicles present at any time. In order for that to work, there would have tobe a series of signals in sequence tocommunicate with each other. This would allow the signals to be coordinated solarge flows of vehicles during peak times could move through thearea without a significant delay. Commissioner Ramirez asked how many signals would be communicating. Mr. Kennedy said this would affectfive signals. Commissioner Faessel asked if this was a proposal orifit would happen. 08/17/09 Page 5of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. Kennedy responded that the recommended conditions required this improvement to be implemented. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Chris Lowe, representingThe Disneyland Resort, 1313 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim. He stated there were significant investments underwayin The Disneyland Resort including the expansion of the California Adventure Theme Park, the expansion of the Grand Hotelwith 250 rooms, including 50 roomswhich wouldbe dedicated to the new Disney Vacation Club product,and anextensive rehabilitationof the Disneyland Hotel. He stated the proposed parking lotwas important for this growth and would help them manage the transportation needs of their guests as they arrive in Anaheim. Joe Haupt, representing The Disneyland Resort, 1313 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim. He stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and accepted them and that he and additional staff were present to respond to questions. Commissioner Faessel asked if there was apartnership arrangement with the Anaheim Convention Centerfor the SP-8 lotand if the SP-9 lot would change that arrangement. Mr. Haupt said there was a partnership agreement with the Anaheim Convention Center and that the SP-9 lot would not change that arrangement. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez disclosed that they had each met with the applicant. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa commented that it made perfect senseto use the propertyon a temporary basis foroverflow parking. She stated that Disney hadthe right to do what they neededto do with their land to make their operation work more smoothly. She said when she met with Disney representatives, they talked about some potential agreementsto share parking between the Anaheim Convention Center, Angels StadiumandThe Honda Center. She believed that would be a wonderful thing for the Cityas it would result in less land being used to park cars and would get more people out of their cars and get them to their destination efficiently. Commissioner Faessel said he appreciated the level of thoroughness that the applicant put into the submitted materials. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the August 17, 2009, staff report, determining that the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report No. 313 is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05103 as recommended by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. 08/17/09 Page 6of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon,Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :24 minutes (2:34to 2:58) 08/17/09 Page 7of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05429Resolution No. 2009-074 (Buffa) Owner: Anaheim First Christian Church 520 WestSouth Street Approved Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Mary Marshall VOTE: 6-0 Coastal Business Group 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite 100Chairman Romero and Irvine, CA 92618Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted Location:520 West South Street yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. The applicant proposes to install a mono-pine telecommunication facility that exceeds the maximum height allowed by the code on an existing church property. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: dherrick@anaheim.net Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare 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 August 17, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romero asked staff to describe the distance between the proposed mono-pine andthe residential units behind the buildings. Ms. Herrick stated the mono-pine facility would be locatedapproximately 60 feet from the residential buildings to the south. Commissioner Faessel statedthe code required aminimum of three live pine trees in close proximity to the antennae in order to enhance the natural appearanceof the facility.He was not sure if he would define 60 feet away as “close proximity” and asked staff for their definition. He stated the mono-pinefacility would stand out because the closest pine tree would be approximately 60 feet from the facility. Ms. Herrick stated the code did not require the live pine trees to be next to the mono-pine facility. Staff believed that if the property was viewedfrom the public streets, the mono-pine facility would blend in with the live pine trees in the vicinity. If the mono-pine facility wasonly viewed from the parking lot, it would stand out. Commissioner Faessel stated that while the photographs in the presentation showed that the proposed mono-pine facility would blend in with the pine trees in the vicinity, it would still be obvious. 08/17/09 Page 8of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Mary Marshall, Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite 100, Irvine, representing T- Mobile, the applicant. She statedthe photograph on the projector screen was taken from the parking lot from the east side of the property, not from Harbor Boulevard itself. She said there was not much room in the parking lot to plant additional pine trees without removing existing parking spaces. As part of their proposal, they would dismantlethe unused playground section, expand the trash enclosure and add more parking spaces. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa said that while these stealth trees do not look like live trees, they meet the City’s goal of making the facility less visible than a non-stealth facility. The view from the residences behind the church did not havea tremendous view of this property. The garages were at their back property line and the outdoor living spaces were not focused on the proposed mono-pine location. She said although it was not an attractive facility, it would bebetter than an aluminum telecommunication tower. Chairman Romero said other churches have hidden these facilities in bell towers. However, all things considered, this appeared tothe best solutionfor this property. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the August 17, 2009, staff report, determining the Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05429as recommended by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :10 minutes (2:58to 3:08) 08/17/09 Page 9of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3501Resolution No. 2009-075 (TRACKING NO.CUP2009-05436) (Agarwal) Owner: Jose Luis Rangel Approved Casa Rangel Authentic Mexican Food 6300 East Santa Ana Canyon Road Anaheim, CA 92807 VOTE: 6-0 Applicant: Craig C. LangsletChairman Romero and Redondo Investments CompanyCommissioners Agarwal, Ament, 6200 Bayshore WalkBuffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted Long Beach, CA 90803yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. Location:6300 East Santa Ana Canyon Road The applicant proposes to permit the sale of beer and wine Project Planner: vnorwood@anaheim.net for on-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing full service restaurant with outdoor dining. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 17, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa asked why information from the Police Department on crime statistics and number of alcohol licenses in the vicinity had not been part of the materials included in their packets. Ms. Norwood stated staff typically providedthis information to the Planning Commission for project’s requiringa Determination of Public Convenience and Necessity.This project did not require a PCN determination. Commissioner Buffa asked what had happened to the application for the Fresh & Easygrocery store which was going to replace Big Lots in the same shopping center. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, statedshe would research the information on the grocery store and update the Commission. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. 08/17/09 Page 10of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Jorge Salas, 1649 Iowa Street, Costa Mesa, representing Casa Rangel Authentic Mexican Restaurant. He stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was available to respond to questions. Commissioner Agarwal asked whetherthe conditional use permit wouldremain with the business if the restaurant wassold. Ms. Norwood responded that the conditional use permit would remain with the property. Mr. Amstrup clarified that the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) wouldissue a license separate from a City approval. In the event the business changed owners, ABC had license transfer requirements. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached tothe August 17, 2009, staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving anamendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3501. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :7 minutes (3:08 to 3:15) 08/17/09 Page 11of 12 AUGUST 17, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04814AMotion to continueitemto September 14, 2009 Owner: Pastor Jean Wilson(Faessel/Agarwal) Guiding Light Christian Fellowship 631 South Brookhurst Street, Suite 114 Approved Anaheim, CA92805 Applicant: Tatiana Bello VOTE: 6-0 Galaxy Investments, Inc 17612 Beach Boulevard,Suite 2Chairman Romero and Huntington Beach, CA92647Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted Location:631 South Brookhurst Steet yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. The applicant proposes to amend the hours of operation for an existing church. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: kclausen@anaheim.net Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:22P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2009AT 2:30P.M. Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2009. 08/17/09 Page 12of 12