Loading...
Minutes-PC 2011/01/31City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,January 31, 2011 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Stephen Faessel Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki, Harry Persaud, Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour Commissioners Absent :None Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerScott Koehm, Associate Planner Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerKevin Clausen, Planning Aide Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David See, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Tracy Sato, Senior PlannerMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,January 26, 2011, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Call toOrder–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 27 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Ament Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05537 Continued to February 28, 2011 VARIANCE NO. 2011-04843 (Ament/Karaki) PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00074 (DEV2010-00177) Approved Owner: Paul Roper D & P, LLC 987 Enterprise Street VOTE: 7-0 Orange, CA 92867 Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Applicant: Juan Reynoso Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Reymart, Inc. Seymour voted yes. 2107 NorthBroadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Agent: Mike Ayaz Rick Blake, Attorney at Law 2107 NorthBroadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Location:1168 South State College Boulevard Project Planner: The applicant proposes to establish a nightclub in an David See existing commercial building, to include a Type 48 (Public dsee@anaheim.net Premise) ABC license, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, public dancing, cover charge, and live entertainment with less parking than required byCode. 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). Continued from the January 19, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 01/31/11 Page 2of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3720AResolution No. 2011-005 (DEV2010-00183) (Persaud) Owner: Hai Su Lee Approved 12522 Yosemite Street Cerritos, CA90703 Applicant:VOTE: 6-0 Shewaye Zeleke Tana EthiopianRestaurantChairman Faessel and 2622 West La Palma AvenueCommissioners Agarwal, Ament, Anaheim, CA 92801Karaki, Persaud and Seymour voted yes.Commissioner Location:2622 West La Palma Avenue Ramirez abstained. The applicant proposes to upgrade an existing Type 41 beer and wine alcohol beverage control license to a Type 47 full service alcohol beverage control license for on-site consumption within an existing restaurant. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare vnorwood@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 31, 2011,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Agarwal asked why the police report wasnot provided to them is it because it’s a request to upgrade theirlicense. Ms. Norwood responded yes, typically they are providedwith public convenience or necessity requests. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Shewaye Zeleke,applicant, stated shehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Commissioner Karaki asked how many seats are in the establishment. Ms. Zeleke responded there are 9 tables with 4 chairs toeach table. Commissioner Karaki asked Ms. Zeleke why they are requesting an upgradeto their license. 01/31/11 Page 3of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Zeleke responded the upgrade is for the convenience of their customers as they often ask if they sell liquor. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing noother persons indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 31, 2011staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 3720A(DEV2010-00183). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith sixyes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaudand Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez abstained. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :8minutes (5:03to 5:11) 01/31/11 Page 4of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05535Resolution No.2011-006 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04840 (Seymour) (DEV2010-00175) Owner:Approved Chuang Yang KOK Investment 4521 Campus Drive, Suite 168 VOTE: 5-1 Irvine, CA92612 Chairman Faessel and Applicant: Jovan RangelCommissionersAment, Karaki, L & H Banquet Enterprise, LLCPersaud and Seymour voted yes. 19330 High Water WayCommissioner Agarwal voted no. Corona, CA 92881Commissioner Ramirez abstained. Location:2660 West La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to establish a banquet facility to Project Planner: David See include the on-premises consumption of alcoholic dsee@anaheim.net beverages with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. 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). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 31, 2011,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Persaud asked for clarification regarding the subject facilitybeing categorized as a community and religious assemblyin determining the number of parking spaces. Mr. See responded based on the zoning code an assembly use would be acomparable land useto a banquet facility, however,the parking study in this case determinedthat there would be a lower parking demand than required by code and enough parking spaces on siteto accommodate the demand. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the 36 parking spaces per 100 guestsas described in the parking study and had concerns regarding the assumption that 3 people would be arriving in eachcarfor banquet events. 01/31/11 Page 5of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. See responded the parking study contained surveys that were conducted for two comparable banquet facilities,includingthe number of cars that visited the site,the number of people in attendance, and the overall the square footageof the facility. Commissioner Agarwal expressed concerns with the parking demand assumptions and conclusions contained in the parking study. Commissioner Persaud asked if staff verifies that the data being generated by the applicant’s parking consultantsis correct. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded typicallystaff does notrandomly verify data unless there is an instance where the informationin the parking study seems to be incorrect.He also indicated staff did not verify data for the subject case. Commissioner Persaud asked if staff looked at the parking requirements forthe two sample sites that were reviewed; and asked if the parking ratios for those sites were consistent with the parking ratios that are being appliedto the proposed use. Mr. See responded yes, the other two sites have parking variances, one banquet hall is across the street at the opposite cornerjust north of La Palma Avenue, and the other location is at Western and Lincoln Avenue. They have conditional use permits and parking variances and the same parking standard was applied to those businesses. Chairman Faessel referred to Condition No. 16 pertaining to the assembly area being limited to 240 guests, and asked if it’s based on the square footage of the facility. Mr. See responded the 240 person limitation was based on the parking study in order to ensure that the parking demand does not exceed the number of spaces being provided on the site. Chairman Faesselclarified that the limitation of 240 guests is not based on the square footage of the facility but is based on the conclusions of the parking study. Mr. See responded that is accurate. Chairman Faessel referred to Condition No. 15 pertaining to lighting, and asked why the conditions are different than an earlier item heard today. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative, responded the difference is that the other item related to the off-site consumptionof alcoholic beverages and includes different verbiage for lighting as it allows for more visibility. Commissioner Agarwal asked how many people would be allowed in the facility per code. Mr. See responded he doesn’t have the maximum occupancy number per the fire code,but it would be higherthan 240, and typically the Fire Department requires calculations from the architect when they go through a plan check process and it is based on different categories of usage within the building. 01/31/11 Page 6of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Jovan Rangel, applicant, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas 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 Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 31, 2011staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request andapproving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2010-05535and Variance No. 2010-04840(DEV2010-00175). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal voted no and Commissioner Ramirez abstained. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :14minutes (5:11to 5:25) 01/31/11 Page 7of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04842Resolution No. 2011-007 (DEV2010-00191) (Agarwal) Owner/Approved Shirley Marshall and Judy Wade Applicant: 991 South Rutgers Circle VOTE: 7-0 Anaheim, CA 92807 Chairman Faessel and Location:991 South Rutgers Circle Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and The applicant proposes to retain an existing fence Seymour voted yes. extension that exceeds the permitted height of fences within side and rear yard setback areas. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Kevin Clausen Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare kclausen@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines –Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Kevin Clausen, Planning Aide, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 31, 2011,along with a visual presentation, and stated the applicants have submitted letters of support from all adjacent property owners. Commissioner Agarwal stated he doesn’t believe he received the letters of support along with his packet material. Healso asked if the complaining party is a neighbor of this residence. Mr. Clausen responded it was a surrounding property owner but not an abutting neighbor. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, stated whether or not the abutting neighbor supports it or not it doesn’t determine staff’s recommendation of the item with respect to the required findings. Also, when a code enforcement violation is received and processed the complainant remains anonymous. st Commissioner Ramirez referred to the draft resolution, page 2, 1paragraph, which states that “strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other businesses which have had this standard waived under similar circumstances”;and she asked if the word “businesses” is an error. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager,responded it should state “residences” instead of “businesses” and will be correctedin the final resolution. st Chairman Faessel referred to the letter submitted by the applicant, attachment no. 3, 1page, last paragraph; and he stated it appears that someone in the Planning Departmentmay have provided erroneous information to the applicant, and he expressed that sometimes the interpretation of our city codes may be problematic. 01/31/11 Page 8of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Shirley Marshall and Judy Wade,applicants,informed that theyhad reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner Agarwal expressed empathy tothe applicants and their unfortunate situation and stated he is in support of the subject request. Ms. Wade statedthey want thePlanning Commission to know they didn’t enter into the situation lightly it was because of the tragic situation that occurredon their property, and they live in the area with all sorts of wild life and coyotes, but theylove the area. She reiterated they didn’t enter into it without any thought at all; they did it in good faithin order to protect their animals. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item Jim Deiss, 990 S. Rutgers Circle, Anaheim, stated he doesn’t have anyobjection to the fence. They all have had animals either killed or takenand he supports the request. Laura Boulluchi,981 S. Rutgers Circle, Anaheim, stated they have had coyote attacks also and two of their pets have been attacked and they’ve spent about $3,000 in veterinary bills to help them survive, but later in the year they lost one. She expressed her support of the subject request. Donna & Chuck Cuckanadle,980 S. Rutgers Circle, Anaheim, stated they have had bobcats, raccoons and coyotes in their backyard on a regular basis eating the dog food, but they’ve had a number of cats taken and killed. She stated the subject fence is attractive and is not an eye soreand it does protect from animals coming onto the property. Jana Gonzalez, 6991 E. Rutgers Drive, Anaheim, stated there are coyotes roam the streets everyday but unfortunately for them is that they had a mountain lion in their back yard which was a few years ago, and it resulted in their dog being attacked. Shestated she is aware that abuse of codes happen frequently, but they need to take intoconsideration what the applicants have presented, and she expressed her support of the subject request. Chairman Faessel closedthe public hearing. Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 31, 2011staff report, determining that a Class 3Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010-04842 (DEV2010-00191). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith seven yes votes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. 01/31/11 Page 9of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: Fivepersonsspoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :20minutes (5:25to 5:45) 01/31/11 Page 10of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCENO. 2010-04835Resolution No. 2011-008 (DEV2010-00169) (Seymour) Owner: Anaheim Vineyard, LLC Approved 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA92660 Applicant:VOTE: 7-0 Ron Cole 4901 Birch StreetChairman Faessel and Newport Beach, CA92660Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Location:5601 East Orangethorpe Avenue Seymour voted yes. The applicant proposes to construct an entry monument sign for an existing apartment community that is larger than permitted by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Scott Koehm Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare skoehm@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 31, 2011, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Ron Cole, applicant, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Commissioner Persaud referred to the line-of-sight and asked the applicant if they took that into consideration. Mr. Cole responded yes, and their civil engineer who helped with the design is present to address the question if necessary. Mr. Koehm responded yes, it was reviewed with the city traffic engineering staff and code requires that monument signs be located 7 feet behind the ultimate right-of-way;and he referred to an image which illustrates that the monument sign is behind the ultimate right-of-way. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, heclosed the public hearing. 01/31/11 Page 11of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 31, 2011staff report, determining that a Class 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010-04835(DEV2010-00169). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith seven yes votes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :6minutes (5:45to 5:51) 01/31/11 Page 12of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05538Continued to February 28, 2011 (DEV2010-00178) (Ament/Seymour) Owner: RIF II Orangethorpe, LLC Approved 11620 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA90025 Applicant:VOTE: 7-0 Howard Schwimmer 11620 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 300Chairman Faessel and Los Angeles, CA90025Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Location:2350-2384 East Orangethorpe Avenue and Seymour voted yes. 1631 North Placentia Avenue The applicant proposes to permit automobile repair uses Project Planner: Scott Koehm within two existing industrial buildings. skoehm@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). DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 01/31/11 Page 13of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 8 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04839Resolution No. 2011-009 (DEV2010-00184) (Agarwal) Owner: Sares-Regis Approved 18802 Bardeen Avenue Irvine, CA 92612 Applicant:VOTE: 6-0 Sam Stahnke 1750 SouthBrentwood Blvd, Suite 602Chairman Faessel and St. Louis, MO 63144Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour Location:4633-4641 East La Palma Avenue and voted yes.Commissioner Karaki 1281 North Hancock Street abstained. The applicant proposes to permit a distribution center with fewer parking spaces than are required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Scott Koehm Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare skoehm@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 31, 2011, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked if there is a limitation for the number of employees. Mr. Koehm responded they will need to comply with their letter of operation, and if they need more employees they would need to ensure to provide more parking, therefore have the item revisited with a parking study. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Sam Stahnke, applicant, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner Agarwal asked if they are relocating from another location. Mr. Stahnke responded yes, they are consolidating three facilities around Orange County area into Anaheim. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the current employees are being relocated to the subject facility. 01/31/11 Page 14of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Stahnke responded yes. Commissioner Ramirez asked for more information regarding the hospitality events held and the accuracy with the assumption that 50% of the attendees will carpool. Mr. Stahnke responded that the hospitality events are mainly for employees and spouses, but they do invite outside people. And, the large events which involve between 150-375 people typically happen once or twice a month and he believes people do carpool to those types of events. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the applicant’s statement regarding that “the events are mainly for employees” and she asked for clarification. Mr. Stahnke responded yes, it’s mainly for employees but they do open it up when they have large training events and it would be open to some of their other clients. Commissioner Ramirez asked Mr. Stahnke if he has any concerns regarding the amount of parking that’s available. Mr. Stahnke responded no. Commissioner Ament pointed out that across the street from the subject property is a manufacturing site that will be shutting down and will be vacant. 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 the January 31, 2011staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010-04839 (DEV2010-00184). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Karaki abstained. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :8minutes (5:53to 6:01) 01/31/11 Page 15of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 9 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2011-00095Motion (DEV2011-00006) (Ament/Karaki) Applicant:Approved, recommended City City of Anaheim Council approval Location:Citywide VOTE: 7-0 A City-initiated amendment to Chapter 18.62 (AdministrativeReviews) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Chairman Faessel and Municipal Code, adding Reasonable Accommodation Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, procedures and making other minor clarifications to the Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Chapter.Seymour voted yes. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Actunder Project Planner: Tracy Sato Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. tsato@anaheim.net Tracy Sato, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 31, 2011 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked if there is a discretionary approval being considered at the same time as the request for the reasonable accommodation, both items must go to public hearing. Ms. Sato responded that if the request is coming in with other discretionary actions, such as a conditional use permit or a variance that is not related to the reasonable accommodation; it is easier if the entire item is considered as a project. Commissioner Ramirez asked if there were fair housing issues with having to go through the public hearing process. Ms. Sato responded yes. Federal and State fair housing laws have found that going through a variance or other permitting process would limit the ability for a disabled person to possibly live in their home; either through costs or staff could not make the findingsof a variance for example. The request of the waiver is a special site condition because it is an issue with the individual. Commissioner Ramirez asked if we are asking them to go through the process because they might have another part of the development that may require a discretionary approval. Why would both be included? CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that within the administrative process for the accessibility requirements, there are still findings that are required to be made. Rather than creating a separate process where staff makes findings for one portion of an application and the Commission makes the findings for the other part, they will be combined. It does not create more stringent requirements or findings, it bundles everything into one, rather than multiple, decisions. 01/31/11 Page 16of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal asked if these procedures would apply to owner occupied or rental units as well. Ms. Sato said they can apply to rental units also if it is the property owner making the request for reasonable accommodations. Developers of housing for disabled individuals can also make the request. Commissioner Agarwal asked if more codes are being created. Ms. Sato responded no. Commissioner Persaud asked if these accommodations were part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Ms. Sato stated they are separate from the ADA requirements for accessibility. This is to provide a means for an individual to waive a zoning or land use regulation, for example a frontyard setback, which would possibly prohibit them from installing a wheelchair ramp. Commissioner Persaud asked if the provision goes with the land or the use. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney responded that it accommodates the individual in the restriction. It is not attached to the property or transfer from owner to owner. Often, these kinds of accommodations can be temporary. Commissioner Persaud asked if we are inviting difficulties by applying these rules to rental units/properties. Mr. Gordon replied that it may be more transitory in terms of the use of the property; however, it is no less or great of a need. Commissioner Persaud stated these accommodations could invite potential code enforcement issues. Mr. Amstrup responded that staff is less concerned because of the infrequency of these requests, which is approximately one a year. State and Federal laws have already required the City to process these requests. Mr. Gordon added the tenancy in a single family dwelling may bejust as transitory as a multi-family dwelling. People rent houses and the same conditions could exist that lead to the request for reasonable accommodations whether it is for sale or rental. Chairman Faessel said the draft ordinance requests the length of time that the reasonable accommodation will be needed. The accommodation is necessary so there certainly seems to be a time component in this. Commissioner Persaud stated he was still a little confused as to how the zoning is applied to use. 01/31/11 Page 17of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Gordon said it is an application of the law. Under this particular provision, the provisions of the Fair Housing Act and California’s companion provisions as well as interpretive cases, these types of requests are individual in nature, that are to accommodate individuals because of their need. They attach to the individual, not to the property. Commissioner Agarwal asked if it was a one-time accommodation or if it could be used again if the tenant moved to another location. Mr. Gordon replied thatit depends on the characteristics of the property. Accommodations may be needed at one and not the other. These are fact driven and reviewed case by case. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the situation is the same, the accommodations will apply to the new location. Mr. Gordon responded that it is possible. Chairman Faessel opened the public hearing. Seeing no other persons indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ament offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki 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 approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2011-00095 (DEV2011-00006). MOTION CARRIED. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with seven yes votes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, AssistantCity Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :17minutes (6:01to 6:18) 01/31/11 Page 18of 19 JANUARY 31, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:19P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011AT 5:00P.M. (The scheduled meeting of February 14, 2011 has been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items.) Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2011. 01/31/11 Page 19of 19