Minutes-PC 2010/03/15City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday,March 15, 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 ManagerDella Herrick, Associate Planner
Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer
Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner
David See, Senior PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m.
onWednesday,March 10, 2010, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council
Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, March 4,2010
Call to Order-3:30 p.m.
Audience Attendance: 9
Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Ramirez
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Adjournment
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
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 March 1, 2009.
VOTE: 7-0
Chairman Romero and
Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Buffa, Faessel, Karakiand
Ramirez voted yes.
03/15/10
Page 2of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing Items:
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05478Resolution No. PC2010-014
(DEV2010-00012)
(Buffa)
Owner:
Richard M. Alvarez
Approved
Alvarez, Richard M. TR
of E.A. Annuity Trust-Armando
27999 Jefferson Avenue
VOTE: 7-0
Temecula, CA 92590
Chairman Romero and
Applicant:
James SandersCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Anaheim Hills Auto CareBuffa, Faessel, Karakiand
3911East La Palma Avenue, #1ARamirez voted yes.
Anaheim, CA 92807
Location:3000 East La Palma Avenue
The applicant proposes to establish an auto repair facility in
Project Planner:
vnorwood@anaheim.net
an existing industrial building.
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).
Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 15, 2010,along
with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Buffa asked if parking is allowed on Armando Street.
David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, responded parking is allowed on Armando Street.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
James Sanders, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the staff report.
Chairman Romero asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Faessel congratulated the applicanton the success of his business and thanked him
for choosing to remain in Anaheim.
03/15/10
Page 3of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 15, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No.
2010-05478 (DEV2010-00012).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with sevenyes votes.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 25, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:5minutes (3:32to 3:37)
03/15/10
Page 4of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04809Resolution No. PC2010-015
(DEV2010-00013)
(Agarwal)
Owner and
Sassan A. Mackay/Talebdoost, Feryal
Applicant:Approved
451 South Mohler Drive
Anaheim, CA 92808
Location:451 South Mohler DriveVOTE: 7-0
Chairman Romero and
The applicant proposes to permit the expansion of an Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
existing single-family residence with a side yard setback Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and
less than required by code.Ramirez voted yes.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Project Planner:
vnorwood@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 March 15, 2010,along
with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Buffa asked if staff has heard from the next door neighbor.
Ms. Herrick responded staff has not received any correspondence.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
Sassan Mackay, applicant/property owner, stated he is in agreement with the staff report.
Commissioner Buffa asked the applicant if he has talked to the neighbor regarding the request.
Mr. Mackay responded yes, and the neighborindicated if needed, he would prepare an affidavit
stating that he has no problems with the request.
Chairman Romero asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
CommissionerAgarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 15, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingVariance No. 2010-04809
(DEV2010-00013).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with sevenyes votes.
03/15/10
Page 5of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 25, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:4minutes (3:37to 3:41)
03/15/10
Page 6of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 4
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00475Resolution No. PC2010-016
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2009-00229Resolution No. PC2010-017
(DEV2009-00069)
(Agarwal)
Owner:
Carl L. Karcher
Approved, including revisions
Karcher Partners
to conditions of approval and
P.O. Box 2985
mitigation monitoring program
Newport Beach, CA 92659
presented by staff.
Applicant:
James Yoder
Steadfast Companies
VOTE: 7-0
4343 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660Chairman Romero and
Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Location:401 West Carl Karcher Way
Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and
Ramirez voted yes.
The applicant proposes to redesignate the property from
the Office Low and Industrial designations to the General
Commercialland use designation and reclassify the
property from the Industrial(I)and Transition (T) zones to
the General Commercial (C-G)zone to permit a future
commercial development.
Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative
Project Planner:
dsee@anaheim.net
Declaration 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).
Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 15, 2010,along with a
visual presentation.He stated staff has provided the Commission with revised language to the
mitigation monitoring program,and modification to the reclassification resolution adding a condition of
approval requiring a final site plan review and approval by the Commission prior to finalizing the
rezoning.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the mitigation measures and asked for clarification regarding the
applicant providing fair share of contributions for traffic improvements adjacent to the property.
David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, responded that a fair share arrangementmeans
that a project will contribute its fair share towards afuture improvement which currently has no source
of funding. In order for the project not to be overly burdened, the developer would only need to
contribute a reasonably proportionate share of funding for traffic improvements as identified in the
traffic study.
03/15/10
Page 7of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Agarwal disclosed for the record that he spoke to the applicant on the telephone
regarding the project.Heasked staffhow the redesignation request would affect thebalance of land
usesin the General Plan, and asked if there is a certain percentage in the general plan that needs to
be maintained between industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded that there are not certain percentages that need to
be maintained in the General Plan, but theCity currently hasa good balance between commercial
and industrial land uses, as there are significant areas in the city that are dedicated toboth. He
stated when the new General Plan was adopted in 2004, staff conducted a fiscal impact analysis, as
well as other analyses.The General Plan is monitored on an ongoing basis andeverything is still in
balance in terms of the mix of land uses.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
James Yoder, applicant, presented apower point presentation and stated that theKarcherfamily’s
relationship with the City and community are very important as the family’s roots are deeply planted in
the subject property. He stated they have been actively marketing the property to retailers,
restaurants, financial users, service businesses, and medical uses, all of which would beprovided
under the requested general commercial zoning. The Karcher family is committed to quality and a
development that both the City and the community would be proud of. Ultimately, they want to create
a development that integrates existing buildings. The goal for the future redevelopment is to procure
uses that complement andsynergizewith those that exist on site today, in order for the overall
development to effectively serve its customers. He stated it is important that the future project help
enhance an important gateway to Anaheim.
He showed conceptual plans for the property, and provided detailed information regarding four
development concepts that include a variety of uses and he stated some of their preliminary goals are
to keep a Harbor Boulevard view corridor through the property to provide visibility and presence for
users that will be in the rear areas of the property.
Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant ifthe CKE facility will remain in light of the company’s
recent aquisition.
Mr. Yoder responded he is not awareof future plans.
Chairman Romero asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the March 15,2010staff report, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declarationis the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving General Plan Amendment
No. 2009-00475 and Reclassification No. 2009-00229 (DEV2009-00069), with the revised language
made to the mitigation monitoring program, and modification made to the Reclassification Resolution
No. PC2010-017.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with sevenyes votes.
03/15/10
Page 8of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 25, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:15minutes (3:41to 3:56)
03/15/10
Page 9of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 5
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00089Motion
(DEV2010-00010)
(Karaki/Ament)
Owner:Approved
Christine Goeyvaerts
RRM Properties, Ltd.
200 South Main Street, Suite 200
VOTE: 7-0
Corona, CA 92882
Chairman Romero and
Applicant:
Ted FrattoneCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Hunsaker &AssociatesBuffa, Faessel, Karaki and
3HughesRamirez voted yes.
Irvine, CA 92618
Location:Tract No. 17289 is located east of the
Mountain Park Specific Plan area
The applicant requests to amend Chapter 18.18 (Scenic
Project Planner:
dsee@anaheim.net
Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code to allow a 30-footstructural height for single family
homes in Tract No. 17289.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per Section 21080
of the California Public Resources Code (Statutory
Exemption).
Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 15, 2010,along with a
visual presentation.
Commissioner Agarwal referred to the Mountain Park projectand asked were there any special
waivers granted for that project.
Mr. See responded that Mountain Park is within a specific plan area which has its own zoning
standards. Within that specific plan is a30 foot height allowance; therefore, a variance would not be
needed for 30 foot high structures.
Commissioner Faessel asked for clarification if the subject request applied to the entire Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zoneor would it be making an allowance specifically for Tract No. 17289.
Mr. See responded that the request would allow 30 foot high structures within Tract No. 17289 only.
Commissioner Faessel asked why we would change Chapter 18.18 and not just simply allow a
variance for the subject tract.
03/15/10
Page 10of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. See responded that the applicant initially applied for a variance, but staff and the applicant both
agreed it would be best to apply for a code amendment because it is consistent with the adjacent
Mountain Park development. He referred to the plans and explained that the Robertson property was
intended to be seamless with the Mountain Park development where you wouldn’t be able to tell the
difference between the two developments.
Commissioner Buffa further asked for clarification on why the subject request is a better process than
a variance.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded the variance process relies on certain unusual
circumstances related to the properties that are contained within the subdivision and,inasmuch as
the applicant is the one who has designed the subdivision,it would be a self imposed burden and a
variance is not the appropriate relief for that.
Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing.
Ted Frattone, applicant, stated they are in agreement with the staff report. He stated that the subject
request is a clean-up from the entitlement from last March for the tentative map, reclassification, and
the conditional use permit, it was a loose end that slipped through the cracks; therefore, they wanted
to come back to ensure they have consistency with the adjacent Mountain Park development.
Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant to speak about the previous agreement they had with
Mountain Park.
Rich Robertson, owner, RRM Properties, stated he cannot go into detail but stated they have come to
an agreement with the Irvine Company.
Chairman Romero asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Karakioffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ament, that the 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 approvalof Zoning
Code Amendment No. 2010-00089 (DEV2010-00010). MOTION CARRIED.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, March 25, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:11minutes (3:56to 4:07)
03/15/10
Page 11of 12
MARCH 15, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:10P.M.
TO MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010AT 3:30P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace Medina
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2010.
03/15/10
Page 12of 12