Minutes-PC 2010/03/01City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday,March 1, 2010
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,Victoria Ramirez
Commissioners Absent
:None
Staff Present
:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative
Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerChristina Briggs, Project Manager II
Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer
Della Herrick, Associate PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner
Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerRoger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m.
onWednesday,February 24, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council
Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, February 18,2010
Call to Order-3:30 p.m.
Audience Attendance: 65
Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Buffa
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Discussion -Commission consideration of new meeting time
Adjournment
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -3:30 P.M.
Public Comments: None
Minutes
ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes
(Faessel/Karaki)
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning
Approved
Commission Meeting of February 17, 2009.
VOTE: 6-0
Chairman Romero and
Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa,
Faessel, Karakiand Ramirez
voted yes.Commissioner Ament
was absent.
03/01/10
Page 2of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Public Hearing Items:
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1820AResolution No. 2010-004
(DEV2010-00004)
(Agarwal)
Owner:
Frederick J. Hanshaw
Approved
FJ Hanshaw
10921 Westminster Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92843
VOTE: 7-0
Applicant:
Jeanette CarvajalChairman Romero and
SWHCorporation -Mimi’s CaféCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
18872 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 400Buffa, Faessel, Karakiand
Irvine, CA 92612Ramirez voted yes.
Location:1240 North Euclid Street
The applicant proposes to amend an existing conditional
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
use permit in order to upgrade an existing Alcohol
vnorwood@anaheim.net
Beverage Control (ABC) license to include distilled spirits
for an existing restaurant.
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 March 1, 2010,
along with a visual presentation.
Summer Merhoff, 18872 Via San Juan, San Juan Capistrano, applicant, stated she is in agreement
with the staff report.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing,seeing no other personswishing to speak, closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Faessel noted that the Mimi’s chain was founded in Anaheim.
Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1820A (DEV2010-00004).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith sevenyes votes.
03/01/10
Page 3of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:4minutes (3:31to 3:35)
03/01/10
Page 4of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05464Resolution No. 2010-007
(DEV2009-00047)
(Ament)
Owner:
Saeed Z. Rana
Approved
3668 Veteran Avenue,#1
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Applicant:VOTE: 7-0
Roy Valverde
Victory Outreach AnaheimChairman Romero and
1520 South LewisCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Anaheim, CA 92805Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and
Ramirez voted yes.
Location:1520 South Lewis Street
The applicant proposes to establish a community and
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
religious assembly hall in an existing industrial building.
vnorwood@anaheim.net
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 March 1, 2010,
along with a visual presentation.
Roy Valverde, 1931 E. Rosewood, Anaheim, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the staff report.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
Eduardo Ibarra, 1438 N. Wildwood Lane, Anaheim,expressed his support ofthe subject request.
Chairman Romeroclosed the public hearing.
Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption isthe
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No.
2009-05464 (DEV2009-00047).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith sevenyes votes.
03/01/10
Page 5of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
OPPOSITION:
None
IN SUPPORT:
One personspoke in favor of the subject request.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:4minutes (3:35to 3:39)
03/01/10
Page 6of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05473Resolution No. 2010-008
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04808(DELETED)
(Buffa)
(DEV2010-00001)
Owner:Approved
Tim Stull
Aspen Properties
2951 East La Palma Avenue
VOTE: 7-0
Anaheim, CA 92806
Chairman Romero and
Applicant:
Pastor Edward WiafeCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Messiah Pentecostal MinistryBuffa, Faessel, Karaki and
322 West Cerritos AvenueRamirez voted yes.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location:1501 North Raymond Avenue
The applicant proposes to permit a community and religious
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
assembly hall in an existing industrial/commercial building
vnorwood@anaheim.net
with fewer parking spaces than required by code.
Environmental Determination: The proposed actionis
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 March 1, 2010,
along with a visual presentation.
Edward Wiafe, 2529 EastBelmontCourt, Anaheim, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the staff
report.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing,seeing no other personswishingto speak, closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No.
2010-05473 (DEV2010-00001).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith sevenyes votes.
03/01/10
Page 7of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:3minutes (3:39to 3:42)
03/01/10
Page 8of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05477Resolution No. 2010-009
(DEV2010-00011)
(Faessel)
Owner:
Walter Lin
Approved
Lin Estate Inc.
1383 Appalachian
Claremont, CA 91711
VOTE: 7-0
Applicant:
Casey CastonChairman Romero and
Goodwill Industries Orange CountyCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
410 NorthFairview RoadBuffa, Faessel, Karaki and
Santa Ana, CA92703Ramirez voted yes.
Location:464 South Anaheim Hills Road
The applicant proposes to establish an attended donation
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
facility in an existing commercial center.
vnorwood@anaheim.net
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 March 1, 2010,
along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if other donation centers have been approved in other areas of
Anaheim.
Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded he is not aware of any facilities that have been
approved in the past that are similar in operation.
Casey Caston, 258 NorthPaseo Rio Blanco, Anaheim, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the
staff report.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing,seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 3Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No.
2010-05477 (DEV2010-00011).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith sevenyes votes.
03/01/10
Page 9of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:5minutes (3:43to 3:48)
03/01/10
Page 10of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 6
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND Resolution No. 2010-010
RESTATEDDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01
(Agarwal)
(DAG2010-00001) (DEV2010-00015)
Owner:Approved, recommended City
William J. Stone, Senior Vice President
Council Approval
Excel Realty Holdings
17140 Bernardo Center Drive,Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92128
VOTE: 6-1
Applicant:
Ajesh PatelChairman Romero and
Prospera HotelsCommissionersAgarwal, Ament,
333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1900Buffa, Faesseland Karaki voted
Orange, CA 92868yes.Commissioner Ramirez
voted no.
Location:321 West Katella Avenue
The applicant requests an amendment to Development
Agreement No. 99-01 amending the date of proposed
construction commencement for the hotels and timeshare
portion of the Anaheim GardenWalk project.
Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative
Project Planner:
Della Herrick
Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been
dherrick@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).
Della Herrick, Associate Planner,provided a summary of the staff report dated March 1, 2010,along
with a visual presentation. She stated that she had handed out a revised development agreement;
and read the corrections into the record.
Commissioner Faessel asked if the project includes the vacation ownership units that are to be
placed over the existing parking structure.
Ms. Herrick responded,yes, and displayed the elevation drawings previously approved by the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Agarwal referred to the March 23, 2019 completion date for the timeshares and asked
how the date wasdetermined.
Ms. Herrick responded that the 2019 date was requested by the developer,basically due to economic
conditions and their need for flexibility.
03/01/10
Page 11of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Further discussion took place amongst Commissioner Agarwal and Ms. Herrick clarifying the
timelines for construction of the project.
Jonathan Borrego,Principal Planner, stated that the 2019 date was proposed by the developer and
staff concurred with the date,but it wasn’t addressed in the economic development agreement.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the economic assistance program and asked if itis still active and
if there are any future hotel projects planning on using the program.
Christina Briggs, Project Manager II, Community Development, stated the economic assistance
program was adopted by City Council in April 2008, and that program has since expired. It required
any negotiated agreements to be entered into by the end of last year.
Commissioner Ramirez asked how many projects have taken advantage of the assistance program.
Ms. Briggs responded two projectshave received assistance andclarified that the economic incentive
agreement for this development was still valid.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
Bill O’Connell,1110 West. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the
staff report.
Chairman Romero closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that the previously-approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and
recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Second Amended and Restated
Development Agreement No. 99-01 (DAG2010-00001) (DEV2010-00015).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith six yes votes.
Commissioner Ramirez voted no.
03/01/10
Page 12of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:14minutes (3:48to 4:02)
03/01/10
Page 13of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05455Resolution No. 2010-011
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04807
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00235Resolution No. 2010-012
(DEV2009-00027)
(Karaki)
Owner:CUP& VAR
Bishop Mar Aprim Khamis
Approved, revised
Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
th
Condition No. 26
18221 North59Drive
pertaining to hours of
Glendale, AZ 85308
operation andadded a new
Applicant:condition pertaining to
Ashur Elkhoury
compliance with exhibits.
Corcoran Botich Elkhoury Architecture &Planning
20280 Acacia Street, Suite 230
VOTE: 7-0
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Chairman Romero and
Location:2510 West Orange Avenue
Commissioners Agarwal,
Ament, Buffa, Faessel,
The applicant proposes to convert and expand an existing Karaki and Ramirez voted
building currently being used as a pre-school into a church with yes.
fewer parking spaces, less parking lot landscaping (deleted) and
RCL
a front yard setback that is less than required by code. In
Approved
conjunction with this request, the City has initiated a zoning
reclassification of theproperty from the Transition (T) zone to the
VOTE: 6-0
RM-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone.
Chairman Romero and
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Commissioners Agarwal,
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional Ament, Buffa, Faessel and
environmental documentation per California Environmental Karaki voted yes.
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 32 (In-Fill Development Commissioner Ramirez was
Projects).absent.
Project Planner:
Della Herrick
dherrick@anaheim.net
Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 1, 2010,along
with a visual presentation.She read an additional condition of approvalinto the record pertaining to
compliance with approved exhibits.
Commissioner Buffa asked for clarification regarding the number of daily masses to be held.
Ms. Herrick responded that theapplicant is only proposing one mass per day; she believes the only
time they would have an evening mass is for certain Holidays such as Christmas and Easter services.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the two driveways required and asked why they were needed.
03/01/10
Page 14of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Ms. Herrick respondedthatthe driveways were needed to accommodate circulation for trash trucks
as the trash enclosure iscurrently located at the front of the existing building.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if the estimated parking demand was verified.
Ms. Herrick responded that the counts were based on the current operation of the church which
currently meets at another location and indicated they are a small congregation with about 72
members.
Commissioner Buffa asked if it is 72 members or 72 families.
Ms. Herrick responded 72 families.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if a traffic study was conducted on Orange Avenue.
Ms. Herrick responded,yes.
David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, Public Works, stated he reviewed the existing and
projectedtraffic counts on Orange Avenue as well as the adjacent intersections at Gilbert Street and
Magnolia Avenue. Currently, they don’t expect a large increase in traffic over 15-20 years. The
intersections at Gilbert Street and Magnolia Avenueoperate within the acceptable criteria. They
operate atlevel of service A and B and staff projectsthey’ll operate ata level service C in about 15
years, which is considered acceptable. He stated the church services will not occur during peak
traffic hours, therefore,he’s not expecting any major impacts.
Chairman Romero asked for clarification regarding peak traffic hours.
Mr. Kennedy responded they design the intersections to operate during the peak hours which are
when you would have the most automobiles duringany given time. That would typically be during the
rush hours which are usually during 4:00 pm–6:00 pm., but it depends on what type of land uses are
in the area. If there is a school in the vicinity,then peaks can occur between 7:00a.m. to 9:00a.m.
Commissioner Ament referred to the zone change and asked if it is needed in order for the applicant
to go forward with the project.
Mr. Borrego responded that it is not.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the letter received by West Anaheim NeighborhoodCouncil
(WAND) and asked for clarification regarding their concerns about the zone change.
Ms. Herrick stated she believes they are concerned that the single family zone isbeing changed to a
multi-family zone. Staff initiated the zone change to make the property’s zoning consistent with the
General Plan.
Further discussion amongst the Planning Commission and staff took place regarding the zoning
designationof the property.
03/01/10
Page 15of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
ReverendElkhoury, applicant, stated he has been an architect for 24 years and a priest for 3 years,
and he thanked staff. He provided a brief history of the church and expressed that the attendance is
low because they conduct their service entirely inAssyrian.Hediscussed the mass schedule and
anticipated attendance.
Commissioner Buffa asked the applicant if they conduct funerals at the site.
ReverendElkhoury responded yes, but when they know it will be a large attendance they will go to an
off-site funeral parlor.
Sophie Vanderwoude, 517 S. Hampton Street, Anaheim,expressed her opposition of the subject
request because of the parking impacts it may have on the residents in the area. She stated it is a
residential area and doesn’t believe the request is in the best interest of the residents.
Commissioner Buffa suggested rewording Condition No. 26 regarding the hours of operation in order
for the hours not to be so strict in the conditions because at times there are special circumstances
such as the holidays, etc. She also suggested an additional condition of approval regarding in the
event there is a large attendance anticipated, that the service would be moved to another location
which can accommodate the event, in order to relieve some of the parking concerns.
Further discussion amongst the Planning Commission took place regarding adding a condition of
approval related to events that may exceed the parking capacity for the subject site.
ReverendElkhoury, stated currently the capacity of the church is 140 people just to anticipate any
future increases, but for the past 22 years their average Sunday attendance is about 50-55 people.
CJ Amstrup read an amended Condition No. 26 into the record regarding events that may exceed the
parking capacity for the site.
Chairman Romero closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No.
2009-05455 and Variance No. 2010-04807 (DEV2009-00027).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith sevenyes votes.
Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingReclassification No. 2010-
00235 (DEV2009-00027).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith six yes votes.
Commissioner Ramirez was absent.
03/01/10
Page 16of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
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, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:39minutes (4:02to 4:41)
03/01/10
Page 17of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202BResolution No. 2010-013
(DEV2009-00097B)
(Karaki)
Owner:
Roger Deitos
Approved, revised Condition
GAAArchitects, Inc.
No. 51pertaining to restaurant
4 Park Plaza, Suite 120
employee parking
Irvine, CA 92614
Applicant:
Andrew Edwards
VOTE: 7-0
Ace Anaheim Building, LLC
c/oExtron ElectronicsChairman Romero and
1230 South Lewis StreetCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Anaheim, CA 92805Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and
Ramirez voted yes.
Location:1025 East Ball Road
(formerly 1055 East Ball Road)
The applicant proposes tomodify the hours of operation for
a restaurant/entertainment venue and to allow charging of
an admission fee for the entertainment venue.
Project Planner:
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
ethien@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination: A previously-approved
Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
determinedto serve as the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 1,
2010,along with a visual presentation.She read into the record a modification to Condition No. 51.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
Andrew Edwards, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the staff report.
Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant if he would speak regarding properties he has purchased in
the vicinity of the subject site.
Mr. Edwards responded there were four properties in the neighborhood offered as foreclosures or
short sales and he purchased them. He indicated bringing them off the market raises the value in the
neighborhood and he will also be renovating those properties. He expressed the advantages of
having company employees living nearby. He also stated that he’s in the market for other properties
in the neighborhood.
03/01/10
Page 18of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
He indicated they hosted an open house the prior week attended by 134 residents and they’ve
delivered a packet of information describing the changes that have been made to the project. He
wanted an opportunity to meet with the neighbors and address any concerns. The residents relayed
major concerns in the neighborhood regarding traffic and cars parking on Bell Avenue, and also
concerns related to crime in the area. He indicated to help alleviate the concerns he had suggestions
such as additional lighting along Bell Avenue,cameras installed on his building, and posting
surveillance signs.
David Lieberman, 1404 EastBell Avenue, Anaheim, stated he believes Mr. Edwards is trying to be a
good neighborhood and is investing in the community which is appreciated. But, his concern is that
the entertainment venue being proposed is not a good idea. He expressed his concerns related to
the hours of operation, noise and negative impacts to the neighborhood. He asked the Planning
Commission to deny the amendment request and to not change the hours of operation.
Larry Tomlinson, 1155 SouthDover Circle, Anaheim, stated his concern is the possible noise impacts
to the residents as the establishment is only a couple hundred feet from the houses on Bell Avenue;
and stated he hopes the hours of operation do not change.
Jesus Diaz, 1140 SouthClifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated his concern is related to the type of activities
the establishment may bring to the neighborhood such as prostitution, crime and traffic. He
expressed that the subject area is a working class community and they do not favor a night club
across the street, therefore,he urges the Planning Commission to deny the amendment request and
to not extend the hours of operation.
Erika Diaz, 1140 SouthClifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated she is a college student and expressed
concerns related to the type of activities the establishment may bring to the neighborhood such as
crime, prostitution and vandalism.
Verna Hanson, 1200 EastBell Avenue, Anaheim, stated her concern is the possible noise impacts to
the residents in the area.
Reina Ramirez, 1132 SouthClifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated the neighborhood is a quiet
neighborhood and the proposed establishment would cause negative impacts to the area. She
expressed concern related to the proposed hours of operation.
Ailene Dewar, 1123 SouthClifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated the HOA board has asked her to provide a
presentation to the Planning Commissionregarding why they are opposed to the subject project. She
stated many neighbors are present today because they are very concerned about the project being
across from their homes. They are asking for denial of the request and of the change to the hours of
operation. She related reasons why they are opposed to the request such as noise, crime and
danger to their community and property values. She read into the record the Minutes from the
previous Planning Commission meeting, including statementsby the Commission regarding concerns
over a dance hall.
She referred to the traffic study and stated it doesn’t describe how the traffic can substantially
increase noise inthe neighborhood, and it doesn’t address the noise that thepatrons and employees
are going to make as they leave the facility. She further expressed concerns related to drunk drivers
leaving the facility, potential property damage and emergency vehicle sirens. She also summarized a
03/01/10
Page 19of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
liquor license study which was submitted to the PlanningCommission. She stated if theCommission
approvesa night club at the subject facility that they believe that the numberof alcohol-related
accidents would more than double.
She furthermore relayed concerns related to their property values and indicated she believes Mr.
Edward has the ability to find a better location for the establishment.
The applicant was called back to the podium.
Mr. Edwards referred to the noise issues and stated they had an acoustical study completedand an
engineer is present who can address those issues. He referred to concerns of crime in the area and
stated they are going to have a lot of security present.
Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Edwards to elaborate on the night club entrance/parking versus the
neighborhood.
Mr. Edwards responded the entrance would be on the west side of the building, so that the building
would separate the entrance from the residential area across East Street.
Commissioner Karaki asked if the parking would be restricted on the east side of the property.
Mr. Edwards illustrated on the PowerPoint presentation of the site plan where only Extron employees
can enter or exit with a card key, and stated there is a gate adjacent to East Street where no patrons
of the restaurant can enter or exit after 4:00 p.m. He also clarified that the ingress and egress for
customers would be off of the private driveway at the intersection of Ball Road and Lewis Street.
Commissioner Buffa stated a speaker had indicated that she believed employee parking for the
restaurant would be adjacent to East Street, and she asked the applicant for clarification.
Mr. Edwards responded the parking for the building is closed at 10:00 p.m., and employees that exit
have to leave on the restaurant side; it would be open for access by police and fire.
The Planning Commission and the applicant further discussed when and where employees would exit
the facility and operations of the card key.
Chairman Romero clarified that there will not be any traffic entering East Street from the
establishment after 10:00 p.m.,regardless whether they are employees or patrons.
Steve Rosas, 1154 Clifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated when someone exits they can still make a left-
hand turn going down East Street, and stated therewill be traffic after 2:00 a.m. from employees
leaving the facility. He relayed his opposition to the amendment of the request and asked to not
change the hours of operation.
Chairman Romero informed that the Planning Commission will be taking a short break.
Following the break, Chairman Romero called the meeting back to order.
Chairman Romeroclosed the public hearing.
03/01/10
Page 20of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Buffa asked staff what would be the anticipated increase of traffic volume on East
Street.
David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated the typical increase in traffic should not
change significantly during the peak hours. Also, looking at the generation rates for night club/dance
hall versus a restaurant as far as total daily trips don’t change significantly but that is because a
restaurant generates more trips during traditional hours whereas a night club and dance hall generate
more trips during the evening.
Commissioner Buffa asked for the police department’s opinion regarding anticipated crime if the
subject request was approved.
Michele Irwin, Sr. Police Services Representative, stated a night club venues can result in people
drinking in neighboring parking areas in order to save money inside of the venue. She explained that
there can be negative effects to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Further discussion took place amongst Ms. Irwin and Planning Commission related to negative
impacts created by other entertainment venues in the City.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if there will be a charge for parking orvalet service.
Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded,no.
Commissioner Faessel asked for details regarding the proposed fence.
Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated the applicant is proposing a fence along Ball Road and East Street for both
of the industrial properties, and illustrated on the PowerPoint presentation where bollards and gates
are proposed, adjacent to the west side of the building.
Commissioner Faessel referred to a concern raised today regarding patrons possibly parking on East
Street, and stated he believes that would be an inconvenience to someone coming from East Street
to the business entrance; and noted there will be a lot of additional parking on the west side of the
building and included that the area will be fenced.
Commissioner Ramirez stated she believes that the applicant has done alot to address the concerns
of the neighbors and understands the issues raised. She believes it may be best to come to a
compromise regarding the hours of operation and days of operation.
Ms. Irwin stated she spoke with the applicant today regarding security provided on site and previously
spoke to him regarding the noise complaints; she provided suggestions to the Planning Commission
relating to those issues.
Commissioners then relayed their opinions on the matter and expressed support of the project; and
discussed the issue of adding language to Condition No. 51 pertaining to employee parkingwhich
.
may help to alleviate the noise concerns on the east side of the building
03/01/10
Page 21of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 1, 2010staff report, determining that the previously-approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving
an amendment to ConditionalUse Permit No. 2007-05202B (DEV2009-00097B),with modifications
made to Condition No. 51 adding that the parking area to the east of the proposed building shall not
be utilized after 10 p.m.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced thatthe resolutionpassedwith sevenyes votes.
OPPOSITION:
Eightpersons spoke in opposition to the subject request.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:84minutes (4:41to 6:05)
(Commissioner Karaki left after this item was discussed.)
03/01/10
Page 22of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
ITEM NO. 9
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00088Motion
(DEV2010-00002)
(Buffa/Faessel)
Applicant:
City of Anaheim
Approvedin part,
Location:Citywiderecommended removalof
paragraph .0601pertaining to
permitted fence heights outside
This is a City-initiated proposal to amend various Chapters
of the RH-1 zone.
of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to
front yard fencespermitted, noise levels for air conditioning
units and pool equipmentlocatedin side yards, procedures
VOTE: 6-0
for processing the termination of permits,and minor
corrections pertaining to a code section reference and Chairman Romero and
appeal timeframe.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is yes.Commissioner Karaki was
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare absent.
environmental documentation per Section 21080 of the
Public Resources Code.
Project Planner:
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
ethien@anaheim.net
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 1,
2010, along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Faessel asked for staff to describe what is classified as a historic district and what
their locationsare.
Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded the historic districts that are being defined for the
purposes of the subject code amendment, are established by the City Council and currently there are
four historic districts and he provided information on the locations.
Commissioner Faessel stated it seems to be a significant change for the City and wanted clarification
that itwould not apply in any of the present historic districts or any proposed historic districts in the
future.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, affirmed Commissioner Faessel’sstatement.
Commissioner Agarwal asked if the proposed fence amendments applied to new construction only.
Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded yes, they’d only apply to new fence construction.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if any studies have been conducted to see if fencing really helps make
a property more secure.
03/01/10
Page 23of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Mr. Amstrup responded it is largely a perception of security. He stated it does make it more
challenging to enter a property, but a 4-foot high fence certainly would not prevent someone from
entering a private yard if they really wanted to.
Commissioner Faessel asked code enforcement staff if they often receive complaints regarding
fences higher than 4 feet.
Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded occasionally yes, but normally there are
not a lot of complaints.
Commissioner Faessel asked if currently there are any other design criteria for a 3-foot high fence.
Mr. Bennion responded no, not that he is aware of.
Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated with the proposed amendment a 3-foot high solid fence would still be
allowed.
Chairman Romero opened the public hearing.
Michelle Lieberman, 319 N. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, stated she is present on behalf of the Anaheim
Neighborhood Association and stated she looked up the municipal codes for all the cities in the
County in order to see what the majority is for fence heights.She stated there are 6 cities that allow
for 3-foot high fences, and 10 that allow for 3½ foot high fences. There are another 6 cities that allow
for 3-foot high solid fences, and anywhere from 4½ feet to 7 feet for open fences. She indicated 71%
of the cities in the County have a maximum allowable fence height of 3½ feet. She further expressed
concerns relating to a 4-foot high fence.
She read into the record a statement provided by Barbara Gonzales.
Robert Fournier, 213S. Ridgeway Street, Anaheim,expressed his support of 4-foot high fences, and
stated he believes aesthetically it is not offensive and provides more protection.
Gail Eastman, 120 W. Water Street, Anaheim, expressed her concerns of the subject request.
Commissioner Faessel askedMs. Eastman for her opinion of the fence issue.
Ms. Eastman responded she is not opposedto changes on properties that are an acre or larger. The
concern is for the other areas of the City which have smaller lots.
Commissioner Ament asked for clarification regarding permits.
Mr. Borrego responded he believes the threshold is 3 feet, anything above 3 feet would require a
permit which in this case would also include the pilasters.
Commissioner Ament expressed his support of a 3½ foot high fence and asked for staff’s opinion.
03/01/10
Page 24of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Mr. Amstrup responded he doesn’t think there is a height that would be accepted generally by all, but
believes 3½ feet would be better for some people than 3 feet.
Commissioner Faessel stated that the City Council initiated a code amendment on May 26, 2009, and
heasked staff to provide information on that.
Mr. Borrego responded that during Council’s consideration of a controversial fence variance in
Peralta Hills, Council expressed a desire to proceed with a code amendment to allow for higher
fences in the Peralta Hills area. Staff took a formal initiation request back to Council to get clear
direction on the Peralta Hills issue, and at that point staff added a recommendation that the Council
also consider revisiting and looking at fence heights for the balance of the City.
Chairman Romero closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Buffa stated she understands Council’s direction in the hills area where there are one
acre lots and larger and understands the desire and appropriateness of high walls there, but she
doesn’t see any benefit in raising the fence height from 3 feet to 4 feet in any other areas, and stated
the perception of security is false. She further expressed her reasons for not supporting the 4-foot
fence height request, therefore supports the subject request in part.
Commissioner Agarwal expressed his disapproval of fences in general, and stated he is not in favor
of a 4-foot high fence.
Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, thatthe Planning
Commission determine that 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, in part, of
Zoning Code Amendment No. 2010-00088 (DEV2010-00002).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman
Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner
Karaki was absent.
OPPOSITION:
Twopersonsspoke in opposition to the subject request.
IN SUPPORT:
Onepersonspoke in favor of the subject request.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:36minutes (6:05to 6:41)
03/01/10
Page 25of 26
MARCH 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
DISCUSSIONS:
Change Planning Commission Meeting Start Time
Motion to maintain3:30 start time (Romero/Agarwal)
VOTE: 4-2
Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Faessel, Buffa voted yes.
Commissioners Amentand Ramirez voted no.
Commissioner Karaki was absent.
Recommendation for Staff to Pursue AdministrativeEntitlement Process for
Donation Facilities
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:05P.M.
TO MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010AT 3:30P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace Medina
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2010.
03/01/10
Page 26of 26