Loading...
Minutes-PC 2010/09/13City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,September 13, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Stephen Faessel Peter Agarwal, Joseph Karaki, HarryPersaud, Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour Commissioners Absent :Todd Ament Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerJamie Lai, Transit Manager Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Natalie Meeks, Director of Public WorksKeith Linker, Principal Civil Engineer Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerJohn Abraham, Traffic/Transportation Manager Susan Kim, Senior PlannerEd Fernandez, Development Services Manager Michele Irwin, Sr.Police Services RepresentativeEleanor Morris, Secretary Robert Motschall, Kleinfelder(City Consultant)Arlette Kim, Office Specialist II Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,September 8, 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,September2,2010 Call to Order–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 30 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Ramirez Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Seymour/Persaud) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 2, 2010. VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Faesseland Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirezand Seymour voted yes.Commissioner Ament was absent. 09/13/10 Page 2of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 Resolution No. 2010-077 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04813* (DEV2010-00084) (Karaki) Owner/ Applicant:Approved Paul andSandra Frattone 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 VOTE: 5-1 Location:611 East Adele Street Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, The applicant proposes to construct a metal industrial Persaud and Seymour voted yes. building with aside yard setback area that is smaller than Commissioner Ramirez voted no. required by Code. Commissioner Ament was absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 3 vnorwood@anaheim.net (Small Structures). *Advertised as Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-04813 Continued from the August 30, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Vanessa Norwood, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 13, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Seymour asked were any comments received by staff during the public notification period. Ms. Norwood responded no, but there was testimony presented at the previous meeting. Chairman Faessel stated that there were tworesidents who spoke at the previous meeting. Ms. Norwood responded that is correct. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. PaulFrattone,owner, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. 09/13/10 Page 3of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez asked the owner what they will be fabricating on site. Mr. Frattone responded it will be light sheet metal work. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the space will be leased out. Mr. Frattone responded no, it will be for his company’s use. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item. Lynda Redkey, 350 N. Pauline Street, Anaheim, stated she was present at the last meeting and her neighbor was not able to make it today; they are both in opposition to the project and relayed concerns pertaining to parking, safety of children at the school bus pick-up site, noise and pollution. She stated she doesn’t think it is practical to expand industrial property in a primarily residential zone. She stated their homes received special permits in 1997-98 when the 44 homes/condos were built in the vicinity of Pauline Street and Cypress Street.She stated there are a few industrial businesses there and they don’t present any problems with the exception of the parkingissue. Chairman Faesselclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to address the parking issues, and if five parking spaces are sufficient. Ms. Norwood responded code requires three parking spaces and the developer is providing five. Commissioner Ramirez asked how many employees would there be. Mr. Frattone responded they currently have four employees.He explained that the subject site is in the middle of an industrial area and they are zoned for it. Chairman Faessel clarified with staff and asked if the subject property is industrial zoned. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, referred to the PowerPoint presentation and pointed out that everything to the east of the subject location to the railroad tracks is zoned industrial. He referred to the dividing line and stated the properties to the west are zoned RM-2 which is a residential zone, it is right on the edge. He also stated thatthe use the applicant is proposing is in conformance with the zone. Commissioner Agarwal asked staff if there is a buffer between the industrial and residential or are they sharing common lot lines. Mr. Borrego responded the property to the west is developed with a duplex and zoned residential but it is currently vacant. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the property inthe middle which is zoned for multi-family and asked if there is a buffer between the industrial and residential properties. 09/13/10 Page 4of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Borrego responded there is the code required setback, but other than that the properties are literally right next to each other in terms of the uses. Commissioner Persaud asked if the facility is fabricating uses that would probably have customers how would it be accommodated without creating any additional parking issues. Ms. Norwood responded that the industrial zone fabrication use is not allowed to have a retail component, it’s just manufacturing or warehousing, and not for customer use; and the parking should be adequate. Commissioner Persaud referred to the delivery and pick-up of products and asked how that is taken into consideration. Mr. Borrego responded,if there is a need for additional parking,that the21feet of clear setback area between both the street to the south and the alley way to the north would provide that area in an overflow situation. But, given theamount of parking spaces which are being provided,they don’t anticipate an overflow situation. Commissioner Persaud asked what type of vehicles will be used for delivery and pick-up of materials at the site. Commissioner Agarwal interjected and stated one of the parking spaces is marked handicapped which leaves only four parking spaces; and concurred with Commissioner Persaud’s concern regarding parking. Chairman Faessel re-openedthe public hearingin order for the applicant to address the questions raised. Mr. Frattone respondedthat their employees come to the site to pick-up materials and bring materials to the site using theirworktrucks; and the employees take the trucks home at night and park them at their residences.He stated half of the employees work out in the field and do not stay in the office, and sometimes things are fabricated on site and/or off site out in the field. Commissioner Karaki asked if clients go to the site. Mr. Frattone responded no, they do not have retail sales on site. Chairman Faessel closed the public hearing. Chairman Faessel stated that the proposed requestis in compliance with city codes, and the handicap space is consistent with the city’s rules and regulations. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the side yard setback requirement and asked why staff is measuring from the lowest point versus the highest point on the roof. Ms. Norwood responded,per code, it should be measured from the closest elevationto the adjacent residential zone. 09/13/10 Page 5of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 13, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 3Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving VarianceNo. 2010- 04813(DEV2010-00084). Arlette Kim, Office Specialist II,announced that the resolution passedwith five yes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no andCommissioner Ament was absent. OPPOSITION: Oneperson spoke in opposition to the subject requestand relayed concerns pertaining to parking, safety and noise issues. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 23, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :23minutes (5:04to 5:27) 09/13/10 Page 6of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT NO. 2010-00343Resolution No. 2010-078 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00480Resolution No. 2010-079 (DEV2010-00043) (Karaki) Owners: City of Anaheim Approved 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 5-0 Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main StreetChairman Faessel and Orange, CA 92863Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Applicant: Public Works DepartmentCommissioner Agarwal Jamie Lai, Transit Managerabstained. Commissioner Ament City of Anaheimwas absent. 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: The totalproject area for the Environmental Impact Report is approximately 19 acres, with the majority of the project area (16 acres) located south of Katella Avenue, east of Douglass Road, north of the Orange (SR-57) Freeway and west of the Anaheim City Limits. The proposed General Plan Amendment pertains to Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue and north of SR-57. Project Planner: The applicant requests certification of an environmental Susan Kim impact report analyzing the proposed construction and skim@anaheim.net operation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and an amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network to reclassify Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue from a local street to a secondary arterial. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 2010-00343. Continued from the August 30, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Susan Kim, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 13, 2010 along with a visual presentation. 09/13/10 Page 7of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Faessel asked Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney to clarify what action the Planning Commission would be taking. Mr. Gordon responded that there are two mattersrelating to this particular project. The first is the General Plan Amendment (GPA) as well as the review and recommendation on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that is necessary in conjunction with the GPA as well as future actions that will be necessary to implement this project that will be before the City at a later point in time. The approval authority for the GPA is the City Council, not the Planning Commission; however, the Planning Commission reviews all GPAs as required by the City Zoning Code and State law, and makes a recommendation to the City Council concerning the amendment that is proposed. In conjunction with the amendment, the EIR that serves as the environmental documentation for this particular aspect of the project, as well as future actions, is also before the Commission for consideration for recommendation to the City Council. The Commission is not the certifying agency or body for the environmental documentation and is not the approval authority for the GPA. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission will be deciding whether or not to recommend that the City Council, as the certifying body, approve the environmental documentation for the project; the City Council being the certifying body for that particular document. Under State law, public hearings and environmental documents are highly encouraged and when an environmental document is being considered in conjunction with another action, such as a GPA, normally, it would be appropriate to consider the environmental action concurrently with the project that is being approved for purposes of the environmental review. Under the public resources code and the State law that applies to environmental impact reports, the public agency is required to provide a written proposed response to comments ten dayprior to certification of the EIR. As Ms. Kim indicated, the proposed response to th comments are intended to be provided on September 17, ten days prior to consideration by the City Council at a public hearing of both the GPA and certification of the EIR, as required by State law. Chairman Faessel reiterated that it is not necessary that the City have the responses to the various comments at this point. Mr. Gordon said staff would be able to provide the Commission with information this evening about thecomments received and the proposed responses. Chairman Faessel asked the Commission if there were any questions specific to the methodology which Mr. Gordon could answer. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the draft resolution, page 3, first and second paragraphs and requested further clarification. Mr. Gordon responded that environmental documentation has been prepared consistent with State law and is before the Commission for their independent consideration and their recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Faessel asked if they are agreeing to consider the EIR even without having all of the responses to the questions brought up by various comments; they would still be in compliance with the CEQA requirements. Mr. Gordon said that it is appropriate for this matter to be before the Commission this evening for their review. Staff has been assembled to answer questions and documents were provided for their review 09/13/10 Page 8of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES so that they could make an informed decision. He clarified that the comments provided by the public and the proposed responses by staff, will become a part of the final EIR. This is not the final EIR at this time, it is a draft and under consideration. The requirements of CEQA will be fulfilled by staff, prior to certification or consideration by the City Council certification of the EIR. Commissioner Ramirez asked why the responses to the comments received had not been provided for their review and why the City Council meeting could not be scheduled for a later date. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager responded that the seated City Council is the most familiar with this project. We want to make sure that they are able to take action on this because they have the most background and information related to this project. Commissioner Ramirez asked what was changed on the updated Resolution. Mr. Gordon responded that he made clerical edits and removed some information that would be more appropriate at a later time, so that it would accurately reflect findings that are required under CEQA to form the basis of the recommendation. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the comments received regarding JT Schmid’s assertion that the area commercial center is part of the project area, but is not classified as such in the EIR. She asked staff to provide more information. Jamie Lai, Transit Manager said that the commercial center is adjacent to the project site; however, there are areas of the commercial center within the right-of-way that would be affected by roadway widening as one of the project features. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the space was needed to widen Douglass Road. Ms. Lai said there are certain areas within the commercial center that would be affected due to the Douglass Road widening. Commissioner Persaud asked if the classification of Douglass Road is only an amendment to the City’s circulation plan. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner,responded that there would only be a change to the circulation element for the classification of Douglass Road. Commissioner Karaki asked who was not supporting or objecting this project and the reasons why. Ms. Kim stated the agencies and interested parties that are listed in the first slide show everyone that provided letters of support. The next slide showed people who provided letters that were content neutral. The next slide listed eight agencies and persons who provided comments that required clarification or responses. The types of comments were listed on the following slide. She asked the Commission if they had specific issue areas or comment letters that they would like addressed. Commissioner Karaki asked if the objections are to a particular item, or the entire project. Ms. Kim responded that staff did not receive any objection letters; just comments on the EIR. 09/13/10 Page 9of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Faessel stated that the Magnolia power plant is located in Burbank, not Glendale as referred to on page 3.6-3, second paragraph. Chairman Faessel asked if the issue of acquisitions and displacements had the potential of derailing the project or holding it up significantly to where it will not begin. Ms. Lai responded no. Mr. Gordon added that any future acquisition o r property that is necessary for the widening of Douglass Road, is something that is controlled by State law, so there is a process that is necessary to be followed. It is difficult to predict how long the process will take. Any future acquisitions will cause some delay of the project. The City and OCTA control the property where this project is to be built. There is adequate funding for the project that is intended to be built. Chairman Faessel stated there were three alternative locations, Fullerton, Orange and Irvine. Staff used a 19 acre project as the criteria which seemed simplified, stating because we have the ability to have 19 acres of land located in Anaheim, could this be relocated to Fullerton or Orange, which neither has near the type of land that ARTIC would require. He asked if some other type of project, design or smaller, be able to be made to fit in either of the spaces in either Fullerton or Orange. It sounded as if we could not build this unless it was 19 acres. He asked for more background. Robert Motschall, Kleinfelder Environmental Planner (City Consultant)stated that the design dictates the acreage size; primarily the requirement is for a 900 plus parking spaces. The only way to make the site smaller would be to go to the expense of a multi-story parking structure. The baseline was set with the design of ARTIC and it was compared to other properties along the rail. They looked for, and found no vacant properties between the Fullerton and Orange stations. The logical termini for evaluating an alternative site were these two stations which are hampered by the potential to expand. Commissioner Persaud asked Mr. Gordon if for some reason any one of the proposed mitigations cannot be feasibly implemented, would that have an effect on the project not moving forward. Mr. Gordon responded that there was a balancing of interest in that regard, the City is obligated to provide all feasible mitigation measures required by the impacts of the project. If those impacts are incapable of being mitigated, then it is more of a balancing test, weighing the importance, need and the benefit of the project versus the impacts it will be creating. The City would be obligated to make a finding of overriding significance that the benefits would outweigh the impacts if there are impacts that are not capable of being mitigated. Commissioner Persaud asked if the acquisition ofproperty to facilitate a particular use, for example the widening of the road, if that drags on for a while, will that potentially delay the project or can it move forward until that threshold of significance that required the mitigation is attained. Mr.Gordon responded that there is a process that needs to be followed with respect to the acquisition of property for public use. The City is obligated to engage in that process, which could result in some form of delay. If the public agency does not have the desire or the will to acquire the property and to facility the project, then the project will not be built. The City will do what is necessary to build the project. 09/13/10 Page 10of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Persaud stated the mitigation needed for the Douglass Road widening to acquire the right-of-way to accomplish that, goes through a process. If that process is delayed, can that be a sufficient reason for not beginning construction of the property. Mr. Amstrup said the City can move forward with the construction of the project. We would not have sufficient mitigation to alleviate whatever impacts might result from the actual operating of the project. Mr. Motschall interjected that with respect to the EIR, the displacement and acquisition is not a CEQA topic and the way the project description is written, based on the plan, the 20,000 square feet of right- of-way is relative to the whole project. That is part of the project design based on the requirements to make the project work. As such, the EIR does not have written mitigation measures. This is a normal acquisition process that a public agency would go through in a normal course of developing a project. Chairman Faessel asked if the acquisition is not covered by CEQA regarding the widening of Douglass Road, would it needto be part of this EIR. Mr. Motschall responded that the 20,000 square feet was analyzed as far as the existence of hazardous waste or other biological issues within that right-of-way, so yes, it is part of the EIR from that standpoint. The actual acquisition displacement is not a CEQA topic. Chairman Faessel asked if acquisition and displacement is normally a CEQA topic in any CEQA review. Mr. Motschall stated that there is no threshold of significance developed for that. Commissioner Ramirez asked which mitigation measures are included in the statement of overriding considerations that are being prepared. Ms. Kim said that those are all the mitigation measures that require implementation by Caltrans. Commissioner Ramirez asked if that includes the 57 freeway and how many mitigation measures exist. Mr. Kennedy responded that it covers any mitigation measure on the freeway between Orangewood Avenue and Ball Road. There is a number of segments that somewhat overlap. In 2015 there were five segments identified and 2030, there were four. They all start with the 57 freeway and they all require the addition of an auxiliary lane between Katella Avenue and Ball Road or between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue. Commissioner Ramirez asked if they were mainly related to traffic. Ms. Kim responded that all the impacts that are being overridden are related to traffic and improvements by Caltrans. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 09/13/10 Page 11of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 13, 2010 staff report, recommending City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No.2010-00343and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2010- 00480. Commissioner Agarwal stated for the record, that when the EIR came out he had an out of the country family emergency and when he returned for the ARTIC briefings, he did not have time to review a lot of information which was given to him and felt he could not make an informed decision for or against this project; therefore he is abstaining. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager announced that the resolution passedwith five yes votes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal abstained. Commissioner Ament was absent. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: Sixteenlettersof support werereceived prior to the meeting. NEUTRAL: Four neutral letters were received prior to the meeting. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME :49minutes (6:35to 7:24) This item was trailedin order for other agenda items to be heard first (5:05 p.m.) This itemwas heard following Item No. 8 09/13/10 Page 12of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00092Continued to September 27, 2010 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05518 (Seymour/Karaki) (DEV2010-00128) Owner:Approved John Knaak Knaak Family Trust 4016 Crown Rch. Road VOTE: 6-0 Corona, CA 92881 Chairman Faessel and Applicant: Law Office of Rick BlakeCommissioners Agarwal, Karaki, MikeAyazPersaud, Ramirez and Seymour 2107 North Broadway, Suite106voted yes.Commissioner Ament Santa Ana, CA 92706was absent. Location:2162 West Lincoln Avenue The applicant proposes a zoning code amendment to allow the expansion of a legal non-use within the Brookhurst Project Planner: Della Herrick Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone and approval of dherrick@anaheim.net a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming bar. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). OPPOSITION: One letter in opposition was received prior to the meeting. DISCUSSION TIME :No discussion occurred since this item was continued. 09/13/10 Page 13of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00238Continued to September 27, 2010 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387 (Persaud/Seymour) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05515 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04815 (DEV2010-00087)Approved Owner: Donovan Anaheim, LLC VOTE: 6-0 Chad Brown, Development Manager 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050Chairman Faessel and Newport Beach, CA 92660Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour Applicant: Melia Homesvoted yes.Commissioner Ament Chad Brown, Development Managerwas absent. 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location:851 & 905 South Western Avenue The applicant proposes to rezone this property from the Project Planner: Transition (T) zone to Single Family Residential (RS-4) Vanessa Norwood zone designation; establish a 32-lot residential subdivision; vnorwood@anaheim.net permit 32 single-family residences with certain lots having rear yard setback areas measuring 13-feet, 6-inches in depth; and, to allow certain lots to maintain driveway lengths smaller than required by code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental impact determination for this request. OPPOSITION: Onee-mail withconcerns was received prior to the meeting. DISCUSSION TIME :No discussion occurred since this item was continued. 09/13/10 Page 14of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-109Resolution No. 2010-080 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05500 (Agarwal) (DEV2010-00063) Owner:Approved HD Development of Maryland, Inc. 3800 West Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92868 VOTE: 6-0 Applicant: Burger KingChairman Faessel and Jay ShinCommissioners Agarwal, Karaki, 1301 Glendale BoulevardPersaud, Ramirez and Seymour Los Angeles, CA 90026voted yes.Commissioner Ament was absent. Location:800-814 North Brookhurst Street The applicant proposes to establish a 2-lot commercial Project Planner: subdivision and permit adrive-through, fast food restaurant. Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions and Class 32 In-Fill Development Projects). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 13, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Jay Shin, applicant, statedhehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith 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 Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to theSeptember 13, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 15 and 32Categorical Exemption arethe appropriate environmental documentationsfor this request and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2010-109 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05500 (DEV2010-00063). Arlette Kim,Office Specialist II,announced that the resolution passedwith sixyes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ament was absent. 09/13/10 Page 15of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 23, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :4minutes (5:30to 5:34) 09/13/10 Page 16of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05511 Resolution No. 2010-081 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00069 Resolution No. 2010-082 (DEV2010-00101) (Seymour) Owner: Zohreh Jadali 3901 EastRiverdaleAvenue Approved Anaheim, CA 92807 Applicant: Western State Engineering, Inc. VOTE: 4-1 Milad Oueijan Chairman Faessel and 4887 EastLaPalmaAvenue, Suite707 Commissioners Agarwal,Persaud Anaheim, CA 92807 and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no. Location:3901 East Riverdale Avenue Commissioner Karaki abstained andCommissioner Ament was The applicant proposes to permit the expansion of an existing absent. service station convenience store and to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption. Project Planner: Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Vanessa Norwood Class 1 (Existing Facilities). vnorwood@anaheim.net Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 13, 2010,along with a visual presentation.She stated the Police Department has indicated that the subject location does not fall within a high crime rate area and calls for service are 30% below city- wide average within a one quarter mile radius of the site; and the police department recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions of approval contained in the draft resolution. She stated staff received two e-mails in opposition of the request; and three phone messages who were in opposition to the request; and a fourth phone message supported the subway restaurant but not the sales of beer and wine because the Circle K already offers liquorsales. Commissioner Persaud asked are licenses within a tract based upon adult population or total population. Michele Irwin, Sr. Police Services Representative, responded it is based upon total population and is pulledfrom the Census information. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the staff report regarding calls for service and asked for clarification because it states the four calls for servicewere non-alcohol related, but the establishment does not sell alcohol. 09/13/10 Page 17of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Irwin responded it was being pointed out that since they don’t have alcohol,they were non- alcohol related.There were four calls for service last year, two being petty thefts, agrand theft and a burglary alarm. Chairman Faessel referred to Attachment No. 7 of the staff report regarding a letter of concern as the adjacent Circle K already sells beer and wine, and asked Ms. Irwin if they take that into consideration. Ms. Irwin responded yes, it can be, if the Circle K had a very high number of calls for service, and stated she ran the statistics for the adjacent Circle K and they were not out of the ordinary. Chairman Faessel asked for clarification as to whetherthe proximity of two businesses adjacent to one another selling beer and wine in this subject case, is not of concern. Ms. Irwin responded that is correct. Commissioner Agarwal referred to Attachment No. 7 of the staff report regarding concern of sex offenders in the area, and he asked if that is taken into consideration when recommending approval or denial ofthe license. Ms. Irwin explained that they look at the overall statistics for the area, and the type of calls for service. But, the sole issue of sex offendersresidingin the area is not a deciding factorfor their recommendations. Commissioner Persaud asked the mechanism to terminate a license if it becomes necessary due to negative activities. Ms. Irwin provided reasons and procedures for revoking a license. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Zohreh Jadali, owner, stated she 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. Wally (no last name stated) of100 N. Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, stated he is a business owner in the area and relayed concerns in the area and stated having threebusinesses selling alcohol in the vicinity is too many. Dell (no last name stated),stated his family owns the Circle K adjacent to the proposed site, and stated there are too many businesses already selling alcohol for the area. Chairman Faessel closed the public hearing Commissioner Persaud referred to the city boundaries for the subject site being very close to the City of Orange, and asked Ms. Irwin if she happened to coordinate with the City of Orange in order to review their police records for the area. 09/13/10 Page 18of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Irwin responded no, as a general rule they do not review the other city’s records when the boundaries are close. Commissioner Persaud stated he is surprised that they limit their findings and recommendations to only the City of Anaheim’s data. Further discussion took place amongst the Planning Commissioners and Ms. Irwin regarding the City of Anaheim andCity of Orange boundariesand the Police Department statistics which wereprovided to the Commission. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded that the Orange city limits are just to the southwest of the subject location, and relayed that the area that falls within a quarter mile radius of subject location is largely within the City of Orange,but developed with a stable single-family neighborhood. Chairman Faessel clarified ifthe portion that is within the city of Orange ismore stable than thearea described by the two speakers today. Mr. Borrego responded yes, and referred to thenorth Kodiak Streetneighborhood which is a high density multiple-family neighborhood that falls within Anaheim’s limits, and typically in a situation as such you would expect to see a higher crime ratethan in a single-family area. The statistics take into consideration the crime that occurs in that neighborhood and he wouldn’t expect by including the city of Orange residences in the area that it would change the statistics in a negative way. Discussion took place amongst the Planning Commission, staff and Ms. Irwin regarding the understanding of public convenience or necessitydecisions. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the decision is based upon the information that is presented before the Commission at the time of the public hearing; and based upon the evidence the Commission is asked to make a decision as whether or not a public convenience or necessity would be served by the activity at thelocation. Further discussion took place amongst the Planning Commission and Mr. Gordon regarding the understanding of the term “over-concentration of licenses” in a census tract. Commissioner Agarwal pointed out that they’ve talked about scheduling a workshop regarding the issueand on how the police department determines their recommendations, and asked about the workshop status.The workshop would be helpful in providing additional information and to understand the process better. Mr. Gordon explained that due to several reasons that the workshop has been delayed but staff is working on a scheduled date. Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 13, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05511 and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00069(DEV2010- 00101). 09/13/10 Page 19of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Arlette Kim, Office Specialist II,announcedthat the resolution passedwith fouryes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no. Commissioner Karaki abstained and Commissioner Ament was absent. OPPOSITION: Two persons 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, September 23, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :44minutes (5:35 to 6:19) 09/13/10 Page 20of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 8 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04810* Resolution No. 2010-083 (DEV2010-00048) (Persaud) Owner: Susan Hawker, Administrator Estate of John Lee Approved 517 South Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 VOTE: 6-0 Applicant: Durant Construction, Inc. Chairman Faessel and James Shecter Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, th 1306 East 29Street Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour Signal Hill, CA 90755 voted yes.Commissioner Ament was absent. Location:942 North Claudina Street The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, single Project Planner: family residence with smaller front and rear yard setbacks, Vanessa Norwood greater lot coverage and less parkingspaces than required vnorwood@anaheim.net by code. *A previously-noticed variance request related to maximum permitted lot coverage has been deleted. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 13, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Agarwal asked for clarification regarding parking spaces. Ms. Norwood responded it is a garage parking space and one space in front of the garage, total of 2 parking spaces. Chairman Faessel clarified if the property has been vacant since 1984. Ms. Norwood responded that is correct. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Susan Hawker, 1231 River Lane, Santa Ana,stated she is the administrator for the estate of John Lee, owner, on behalf of his minor children; and stated she had reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. 09/13/10 Page 21of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal asked if the property is to be an investment property. Ms. Hawker explained they are asking for the variance so the property could be sold since the property is part of an estate and the beneficiaries are both minor children. 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 Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to theSeptember 13, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 3Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010- 04810 (DEV2010-00048). Arlette Kim, Office Specialist II,announced that the resolution passedwith sixyes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ament was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 23, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :5minutes (6:20to 6:25) A 10-minute break was taken (6:25-6:35) Item No. 3 was heard following this item. 09/13/10 Page 22of 23 SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:26P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010AT 5:00P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 2010. 09/13/10 Page 23of 23