Minutes-PC 2010/10/25City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday,October 25, 2010
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
Commissioners Present
:Chairman: Stephen Faessel
Peter Agarwal, Joseph Karaki,Harry Persaud
(arrived at 5:07)
John Seymour
Commissioners Absent
:Todd Ament, Victoria Ramirez
Staff Present
:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerVanessa Norwood, Associate Planner
Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer
Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner
David Gottlieb, Redevelopment ManagerSergio Ramirez, Project Manager II
David See, Senior PlannerEleanor Morris,Secretary
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m.
onWednesday,October 20, 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, October 14,2010
Call to Order–5:00 p.m.
Audience Attendance:13
Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Karaki
Public Comments
Discussion–Presentation by Redevelopment Agency staff regarding
the history and status of the Westgate Shopping Center project
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Adjournment
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M.
Public Comments: None
Discussion:
A presentation was provided by David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Manager,regarding
thehistory and status of the Westgate Shopping Center project.
Discussion:23 minutes (5:05-5:28)
Minutes
ITEM NO. 1AMotionto continueminutesto
November 8, 2010
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning (Karaki/Seymour)
Commission Meeting of September 27, 2010.
Approved
VOTE: 5-0
Chairman Faesseland
Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki,
Persaud and Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioners Ament and Ramirez
.
wereabsent
Reports and Recommendations
Motion
ITEM NO. 1B
(Karaki/Seymour)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05308A
(DEV2010-00160)Approved
Applicant/VOTE: 5-0
Owner:
David Gottlieb
Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki,
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
Persaud and Seymour voted yes.
201 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Commissioners Ament and Ramirez
Anaheim, CA 92805
were absent.
Location:200-300 North Beach Boulevard
Project Planner:
The applicant requests review and approval of final site
David See
and elevation plans for Westgate shopping center
dsee@anaheim.net
(Phase 1 -Winco supermarket).
Environmental Determination: A previously-certified Final
Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate
environmental documentation for the proposed action.
10/25/10
Page 2of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing Items:
ITEM NO. 2
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00241Resolution No. 2010-109
(DEV2010-00155)
(Seymour)
Owner/
Applicant:Approved
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
Sergio Ramirez, Project Manager II
201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003
VOTE: 4-0
Anaheim, CA 92805
Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Agarwal, Persaud
Location:Area A:
Six parcels consisting of 8.43 acres
and Seymour voted yes.
1200-1320 South Anaheim
and located at
Commissioner Karaki abstained.
Boulevard, and 1207 South Claudina Street
Commissioners Ament and
Ramirez were absent.
Area B:
These two parcels consist of 3.26
1601 South Anaheim
acres located at
Boulevard.
Project Planner:
ACity-Initiated request to rezone the subject properties
Scott Koehm
from the Industrial (I) zone to General Commercial (C-G)
skoehm@anaheim.net
zone designation.
Environmental Determination: Previously-certified EIR 330
has been determined to serve as the appropriate
environmental documentation for this request.
Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 25, 2010,along with
a visual presentation.
Chairman Faesselasked what type of businesses would beproposed for Area B.
Sergio Ramirez, Project Manager II, stated the Redevelopment Agency is proposing to issue a
Request for Proposal(RFP)in the next few months to solicit development projects on the subject
sites. Area A and Area B are two of several Redevelopment Agency-owned properties that they will
be issuing anRFPfor. The Agency is interested in pursuing quality commercial development projects
for the subject sites; that would include commercial uses such as retailstores, shopping centers,
restaurants, officesand potential hotel uses on Site A because of its close proximity to the resort area
and the I-5 freeway.
Chairman Faessel asked if there could potentially becommunity uses for Area B.
10/25/10
Page 3of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Ramirez responded they could look at community usesas long as theymeet the retail
requirements and the zoning guidelines.He explained that the objective of the Agency and the City
would be to acquire retail and commercial uses that would generate property and sales tax.
Commissioner Persaudasked when a RFP is processed, do they provide any guidance for the
respondents recommending certain type of uses for the area.
Mr. Ramirezresponded the RFP would provide specific conditions and characteristics that the
Agency seeks to achieve in each proposal,this would include a detailed review of the architecture,
types of jobs being generated, and landscape improvements.The Agency can accept the proposal
and move it forward, or they can decide to continue to hold the property and pursue a RFP at another
time.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present to speak on the item,
seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Seymour offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the
,
resolution attached to theOctober 252010 staff report, determining that a previously-certified EIR
330 has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request
andapproving Reclassification No. 2010-00241 (DEV2010-00155).
Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fouryes votes. Chairman
Faesseland Commissioners Agarwal, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Karaki
abstained. Commissioners Ament and Ramirez were absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, November 4, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:8minutes (5:30to 5:38)
10/25/10
Page 4of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1424AResolution No. 2010-110
(DEV2010-00149)
(Agarwal)
Owner:
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church
Approved
1711 Pomona Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Scott Ramser
VOTE: 5-0
2222 Howell Avenue, L.P.
Chairman Faessel and
1711 Pomona Avenue
Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki,
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Persaud and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioners Ament and
Applicant:
Phillip Schwartze
Ramirez were absent.
PRS Group
31872 San Juan Circle
San JuanCapistrano, CA 92675
Location:2221-2225 East Katella Avenue
The applicant proposes to amend or delete a condition of
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
approval pertaining to a time limitation for an automobile
vnorwood@anaheim.net
sales dealership with independent auto finance and
automotive repair uses on-site.
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 October 25,
2010,along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Persaud referred to the deletion of the time limitation and asked ifthey can operate
during all days and hours.
Ms. Norwood clarified they are not restricting the hours of operation, but that the project had a time
limitation that pertained to the length of time it was approved to be in operation. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting deletion of the time limitation.
Chairman Faessel stated within the last year the applicant has come before the Planning Commission
with a change in one of the properties on the site and it was determined that there was no longer a
need for a time limitation; therefore,approval of the subject request would make the rest of the
property consistent.
10/25/10
Page 5of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Ms. Norwood responded that is correct.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Phillip Schwartze, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement
with the staff report.
Chairman Faessel 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 recommendationthat the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the October 25, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving amendment to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1424 (DEV2010-00149).
Eleanor Morris, Secretary announcedthat theresolution passedwith five yes votes. Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners
Ament and Ramirez were absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, November 4, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:4minutes (5:39to 5:43)
10/25/10
Page 6of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04318A Resolution No. 2010-111
(DEV2010-00150)
(Seymour)
Applicant/
Owner:Approved
Bob Kopeny
Calvary Chapel East Anaheim
5605 E. La Palma Ave.
VOTE: 5-0
Anaheim, CA 92807
Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki,
Agent:
Terry Jacobson
Persaud and Seymour voted yes.
J7 Architecture, Inc.
Commissioners Ament and
20361 Irvine Ave., Studio B-2
Ramirez were absent.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location:5605 East La Palma Avenue
Project Planner:
The applicantproposes to amend a previously-approved
David See
conditional use permit to permit the expansion of an
dsee@anaheim.net
existing church.
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).
Dave See,SeniorPlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 25, 2010, along with
a visual presentation.He stated two letters of support were received from adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Persaud asked how much additional traffic is anticipated for the site.
David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, responded he would need to research that
information.
Commissioner Agarwal referred to the parking arrangement and asked if it would be recorded as part
of the conditional use permit.
Mr. See responded Condition No. 6 requires the applicantto apply for an off-site parking permit which
is processed by Planning Department staff and that would ensure that there is a recorded agreement
between the properties and ensures that the peak operating hours don’t conflictwith each other.
Commissioner Agarwal asked what happens if Westcom Credit Union relocates and the new tenant’s
parking needs conflicts with the church’s parking needs.
10/25/10
Page 7of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. See responded the conditional use permit is contingent upon the parking arrangements proposed
and the off-site parking permit is maintained with the Planning Department’sfiles. Also, the parking
agreement is very specific as to the hours that are available for each use.
Commissioner Persaud clarified that the parking arrangement is a public document.
Mr. See responded yes.
Chairman Faessel indicated the parking arrangements runs with the land; therefore,if another firm
acquires the property they would have to accept the stipulation that the parking agreement is still on
fileand must be adheredtoat all times. The new business would have to obtain approval from the
church and the City before modifying the parking agreement.
Mr. See responded that is correctand confirmed that the agreement isarecorded document that runs
with the land.
Commissioner Agarwal asked who ownedthe property.
Mr. See responded Westcom is the owner of the property, and Calvary Church is the owner of the
property to the north of Westcom.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Bob Kopeny, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with
the staffreport.
Chairman Faessel expressed his familiarity with the parking concerns for the area, and stated he was
impressed with the two documents received from Westcom and Micrometals supporting the parking
arrangements.
Terry Jacobson, architect and agent,stated he is present to answer any questions.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons
indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Agarwal referred to traffic studies and asked are future projectstaken into account.
Mr. Kennedy described the process in which future build-out is accounted for.
Further discussion took place amongst Planning Commissioners and Mr. Kennedy regarding traffic
studies and trip generations.
Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution attached to the October 25, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical
Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving
amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04318(DEV2010-00150).
10/25/10
Page 8of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Eleanor Morris, Secretary announcedthat the resolution passedwith five yes votes. Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners
Ament and Ramirez were absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
IN SUPPORT:
Two pieces of correspondencewerereceivedin favor of the subject request.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, November 4, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:20minutes (5:44to 6:04)
10/25/10
Page 9of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 5
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00240
Resolution No. 2010-112
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17393
Resolution No. 2010-113
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05523
Resolution No. 2010-114
(DEV2010-00134)
(Karaki)
Owner:
Javier M. Brito
11962 Daniel Avenue
Approved
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Applicant:
Melia Homes
VOTE: 5-0
Chad Brown, Development Manager
Chairman Faessel and
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050
Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Persaud and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioners Ament and
Location:2248 South Loara Street
Ramirez were absent.
The applicant proposes to: rezone this property from the
RM-2 (Multiple Family Residential) zone to (RS-4) Single
Project Planner:
Family Residential zone designation; establish a 1-lot, 5-
Vanessa Norwood
unit residential subdivision and permit the construction of
vnorwood@anaheim.net
five single-family residences with modified rear yard and
side yard setbacks.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 15
(Minor Land Divisions) and Class 32 (In-Fill Development
Projects).
Vanessa Norwood,AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 25,
2010,along with a visual presentation.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Chad Brown, applicant, clarified that the garage setback along the north is a side yard setback and is
6 foot, 3 inches,not 5 feetwhich is the minimum standard. The second story portions ofthe homes
are setback 13 feet, 6 inchesas opposed to what the side setback may normally be. The site is
currently a vacant site, and has been vacant for a number of years. Aprevious application was
approved for this site for a 5-unit multi-family attached project that was approved by the Planning
Commission around 2007-08but never built.
He stated they are requesting a zone change because there is a provision in the RM-3 zoning which
doesn’t allow detached condominiums unless they are built in connection with attached residenceson
the site. He explained that part of the reason they set the garages back was to have them live and
10/25/10
Page 10of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
operate much as a single-family detached house. In concluding, he requested approval of the subject
request.
Commissioner Persaud asked what the access location is for the site.
Mr. Brown responded the access is off Loara Street.
Commissioner Agarwal asked why the requested zone change, why couldn’t the applicant build 5
detached homes when it was approved for multiple residences.
Ms. Norwood responded RM-3 requires that the units be attached and they were proposing a
detached product; therefore the RS-4 works better for them and providedflexible setback standards
as well.
Further discussion amongst Commissioner Agarwal, staff and Mr. Brown took place regarding the
setback standards.
Chairman Faessel clarified with Ms. Norwood that in order for the applicant to build a detached
product would require a zoning change.
Ms. Norwood responded yes.
Chairman Faessel clarified that the appropriate zone would be RS-4 based upon the design that the
applicant is selecting.
Ms Norwood responded yes, it allows the applicant the flexibilityneeded to accommodate the
proposed site plan.
Chairman Faessel stated the unit furthest west in the neighborhood is a reverse of the one
immediately adjacent and asked if that was due to the proposedhammerhead turnaround.
Mr. Brown responded yes.
Chairman Faessel suggested aconsideration to mixingit up on the third or fourth one over so it’s not
so repetitive.He stated he likes the change up on themost western unit and the unit immediately
east of that. He asked if the repetitive nature chosen because you needed to do the flip based upon
the hammerhead turnaround.
Mr. Brown responded the design is not only because of the hammerhead turnaround, but also has to
do with the master bedroom design which is over the top of the garage. The second reason would be
if we have garage-to-garage it would end up with a different scenario with the master bedrooms
facing one another and there is a change to the yard pattern that occurs. Currently, there is a fully-
independent private yard as in a single family house, and there is a fence and the activities wouldn’t
be shielded and/or isolated by the primary portions of the structures.
Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Brown has there been any communication with the immediate
neighbors and/or the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND).
10/25/10
Page 11of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Brown responded they haven’t spoken with WAND, part of the reason is that currently there is an
entitlement of the propertyfor the 5 multi-family attached units. They have spoken to the apartment
owner to the south, very early in the process,and informed them of the plans.He hasn’t had the
opportunity to speak with the surrounding property owners;there are one ortwo potential houses that
are adjacent to them on the east side of the property.
Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Brown if there has been any communication with the school or the City
of Garden Grove.
Mr. Brown responded he hasn’t spoken with anyone from the school district but has spoken with
numerous departments with the City of Garden Grove, particularly with the Public Works Department
because there are some shared facilities that exist within Loara.
Commissioner Persaud asked staff when future zone code amendments are proposed can flexibility
be allowed for discretion of an administrative action review rather than a zone change in order to
expedite the process and for cost savings.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, responded no they could not processit atan administrative
level, any reclassification of the property would require a public hearing.
Commissioner Persaud asked does the City have any process to change the zoning other than a
public hearing process.
Mr. Gordon responded no, and includedit wouldn’t be allowed under State law.
Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item.
Lorraine Smith, 2251 S. Loara Street, stated she lives directly across from the subject parcel and
stated she would like to see the property developed but would like a few concerns addressed. She
stated there is an apartment complex adjacent to them and there are problems with parking because
there is not enough parking for the complex. Therefore, she wants to ensure there is significant
parking for the proposed homes.Thepreviously-approved townhomes were going to have tandem
parking in the garage and wasn’t sure if that is the same plan. She asked if there is parking in front of
the proposed homes, and if visitors would be utilizing street parking. Also, are they planning to sell or
lease the homes?She asked how the common areas will be maintained.
Mr. Brown stated adjacent to the driveway of the existing apartment complex there are red curbs and
those would be eliminated with their proposal and the parking would be regained. Also, the proposed
project provides more parking than the previously approved 5-unit attached multi-family project; they
are providing 4 spaces per unit, two in the enclosed garage and two full length driveways, which is
standard to the code requirements for a single-family detached house.
Chairman Faessel clarified that they are not tandem parking, but full width garages.
Mr. Brown responded that is correct, they are two car side-by-side, standard enclosed garages with
full length/full widthdriveways in front of each.
10/25/10
Page 12of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chairman Faessel clarified with Ms. Norwood that they meet the code requirement for parking which
is 20 spaces.
Ms. Norwood responded that is correct.
Mr. Brown further addressed the questions raised and stated that the homes will be sold. Also, there
will be a homeowners association that will be responsible for maintaining the front yard landscaping
as well as the parkway landscaping that fronts the property, and along the 5-foot landscape area that
is adjacent between the subject property and the school site.
Chairman Faessel asked if the homeowners association would be able to enforce that the garages be
used for parking and not solely for storage.
Mr. Brown responded yes.
Chairman Faessel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Karaki referred to the plans of the proposed project and expressed his approval.
Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the October 25, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 15 and Class 32Categorical
Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving
Reclassification No. 2010-00240, Tentative Tract Map No. 17393, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-
05523 (DEV2010-00134).
Eleanor Morris, Secretary announcedthatthe resolution passedwith five yes votes. Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners
Ament and Ramirez were absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
IN GENERAL:
Onepersonrelayed general concerns/questionspertaining toparking,plans to
sell or lease homes, and maintenance of the common areas.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, November 4, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:25minutes (6:05to 6:30)
10/25/10
Page 13of 14
OCTOBER 25, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:35P.M.
TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2010AT 5:00P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Eleanor Morris
Secretary
Received and approved by the PlanningCommission on January 19, 2011.
10/25/10
Page 14of 14