Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/04/02P~P~E'M ~~~ City of Anaheim • r 04 ~ Planning Commission _ ,~ ~ ~ Minutes ~ ~ . ~~ ~~~a~ . Mondav, Apri12, 2007 er '~'~~ `~c~~ Council Chamber, City Hall N D E D 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKY ROMERO Staff Presenf: MarK Gordon, Assistant City Attorney _ Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner Judy Dadant, A~ting Principal Planner Laura Alcala, Senior Project Manager Dave See, Senior PVanner Jamie L~ai, Principal Civil Engineer Scott Koehm, AssociatePlanner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 29, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, : • and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, March 8, 2007 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE APRIL 2, 2007 AGENDA ` • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 30 For record keepinp purposes if vou wish to make a statement repardinq anv item on the aqenda,~please complete a speaker card in advance and submif if to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Flores • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment • You may leave a message far#he Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: plann9nqcommission(a~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCACTI ONAG EN DA12007M I NUTESWC040207. DOC APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' •` Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the AnaheimPlanning`Commission or publiccomments on agenda itemswith the exception of public hearing items. , _ Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call yote. There will be no separate disCUSSion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission; staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent), for approval of Consent Calendaritems 1-A and 1-B as recommended by staff.` UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED , Minu • 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of March 5, 2007. (Motion) Continued from the March 19, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. 16. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 2007. (Motion) • Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent Continued to April 30, 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES : • : ' Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b.' - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ' May 14, 2007 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05164 Motion: Velasquez/Faessel Owner: Daniel Rubalcava, 508 North East Street, LLC, Anaheim, CA 92807 vOTE: 5-0 . Commissioners Karaki and Agent: Greg Howe11, 20561 Suburbia Lane, Romero absent- Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Location: 508 North EastStreet: Property is approximately 1.15 ' acres and is located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and Easf Street (La Reina Market). Request to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to , ' establish land use conformity for an existing legally non-conforming commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number ofparking spaces. Continued from the January 8, March 5, and March 19, 2007, Planning • Commission meeting. Project Planner.• , (kwonq2@ananeim.net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. ' CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Flores 3b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2007-00193 Buffa Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim. Boulevard #1003, I Anaheim, CA 92805 ' 'Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim. Boulevard #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 557 South Olive Street: Property is approximately 0.23- acre and is located at the northwest corner of'Olive Street and Water Street with frontages of 70 feet on the west side of Olive Street and 145 feet on the north side of Water Street. City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject property from the I (Industrial) zone to the RS-3 {Single-Family Residential) zone. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-26 Approved Granted, unconditionally VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent Project Planner. (skoehm@anaheim. net) • Chairman Eastman opened the hearing for Item 3. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Eastman closed the Public Hearing as there was no one wishing to address the Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Faessell, Scott Koehm confirmed that the proposed zoning would allow for one, one single-family residence on that property. There is a small vacant parcel just to the west and that is a separate parcel. That would also be available for one single-family home. : Commissioner Buffa made a motion to approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for the project. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed by five affirmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). Commissioner Buffa offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00193. Elly Morris, Secretary, reported that the resolution passed with five (5) yes votes. • OPPOSITION: None APRlL'2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •' Mark Gordon, Assistant"City Attorney, presented ttie 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p:m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:35-2:37) ~ APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Ftores/Buffa 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00451 Flores 4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00194 Flores 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-285 Flores/Buffa Owner: Elisa Stipkovich Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: Clean City, 128 W. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1128 West Lincoln Avenue and 1221 West Center Street: Area 1: This 0:68-acre area consists of multiple properties west of the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, with a frontage of 255`feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of 151 feet ' (1128 West Lincoln Avenue and 1221 West Center Street - Five Points). Area 2: This 0.5-acre area consists of multiple properties at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, with a frontage of 102 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of 151 feet (1221 West Center Street - Five Points). Area 3: This 0.95-acre area consists of multiple properties at the . southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, with a frontage of 565 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of 151 feet. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00451 - City-initiated request to amend the land use element of the General Plan redesignating the property in Area 1 from the Low Density Residential designation to the : Mixed Use designation. Reclassification No. 2007-00194 - City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject property in Area 2 from the RS-2 (Single- Family Residential) zone to the C-G (MU) (General Commercial, Mixed Use Overlay) zone, or a less intense zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-285 - To consolidate seven parcels into one parcel for a future residenfial/commercial mixed use subdivision for Area 3. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-27 Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-28 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearings. David See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Granted Granted, unconditionally Approved VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent Project Planner. (dsee@anaheim. net) APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • in response to a question posed by Commissioner Flores, David See noted which land will be incorporated into the project. He noted the location of the parking lot. He clarified that a house, depicted on an aerial photo had already been moved to accommodate the#uture parking lot. Finally, he noted the location to which the existing building had been moved. Commissioner Faessel pointed out that while the map actually shows Center 5treet going through, it no longer does. Me also inquired about the landscaped area at the end of the street. David See clarified that the display map didn't accurately show the cul-de-saa The parcel map, should have accurately shown that street. Laura Alcala, Senior Project Manager, clarified that the parcel is a landscape parcel owned by the Redevelopment Agency, but it will be the developer's responsibility to maintain it. Chairman Eastman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Flores made a motion to approve a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Buffa seconded the motion. The motion passed by five affirmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.). : Commissioner Flores offered a Resolution to recommend to City Council that GeneralPlan"Amendment No. 2007-00451 be approved. EIIy Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with five (5) yes votes. • Commissioner Flores offered a resolution approving Reclassification No. 2007-00194. EIIy Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with five (5) yes votes. Commissioner Flores moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-285. Commissioner Buffa seconded the motion. The motion passed with five aye votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 12, 2007; presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2007; and stated in regards to the General Plan Amendment it will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City CounciL • DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:38-2:47) : 04-02-07 Page 7 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Velasquez/Buffa Concurred with staff 5b. CONDtTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3156 Velasquez Approved : (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05192) Owner: Realty Associates Fund VI, i.P., VOTE: 5-0 ' 1301 Dove Street, Suite #860, Commissioners Karaki ancl Newport BeaCh, CA 92660 Romero absent 'Agent: Margaret Jensen, Davis Partners; 2114 W. Crescent Avenue, #201, Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 701 EastBali Road: Property is approximately 6.4 acres, having a frontage of 335 feet on the north side ofBall Road and is located 700 feet west of the centerline of Lewis Streef. Request to amend an existing .conditional use permit to allow office uses in an existing industrial complex and to permit a business/educational schooL _ ' Project Planner.• Conditional Use PermitResolution No. PC2007-29 (skoehm@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ~ Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Eastman closed the Public Hearing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Faessel, Scott Koehm indicated the vocational schooL would require a Conditional Use Permit. He noted the school has been in operation for a number of years and should have obtained a Conditional Use Permit to create this school. Commissioner Faessel noted this is an existing business that the City is accommodating at this point. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney clarified that the business has been in operation for eight (8) years at the location. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion to approve a CEQA Categorical Exemption (Class 1 for existing facilities) for this project. Commissioner Buffa seconded the motion. The motion passed with five affirmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman. Commissioner Velasquez offered a Resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3156 with Tracking No. CUP 2007-05192. Elly Morris, Secretary, reported that the Resolution passed with five (5) yes votes. • _ 04-02-07 ' Page 8 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ;. ,,_ OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights entling at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:48-2:53) • APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Buffa/Flores 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT- Buffa/Flores 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05193 Buffa Owner: William E. and Connie M. Hunter, 1621 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Livingston, CA 95334-9617 Agent: Kris Hanna, 1091 Turndale Road, La Habra, CA 90631 Roger Anderson, 310 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870 Location: 1431 North Dalv Street: Property is approximately 0.41- acre, having a frontage of 339 feet on the south side of Daly Street and is located 594 feet southeast of the centerline of Via Burton Street. Request to permit a dog daycare and boarding facility with waivers of (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, and (b) required enclosure of outdoor uses. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007- 30 • Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Elaine Thienprasiddi, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Eastman invited public comments. Concurred with staff Approved Granted Added a condition of approval VOTE: 5-0 _ Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent Project Planner. (ethien@anaheim. net) Heidi Flammang, the applicant, addressed the Commission in support of her project. She explained that she was the CEO and founder of Camp Bow Wow, the country's first and largest dog day care facility franchise. The facility would be typical of other facilities around the country. The company is in the process of opening over 175 locations around the country. She indicated she would be providing a service that is lacking in this area and one that a lot of customers really appreciate. The facility will have live web cams so that customers can check on their dogs. The web cams will also allow the City to assure that the facilities are very clean and being operated correctly. She indicated they serve a very high end clientele. She noted she has completed about sixty (60) zoning processes around the country. Ms. Flammang then introduced Kris and Tim Hanna, the local franchisees who will own and operate the facility. Kris Hanna, 1091 Turndell Road, La Habra, California, address the Commission. She expressed her excitement about bringing this Camp Bow Wow concept of doggie daycare and overnight boarding to Orange County. She felt the location was ideal and asked the Commission to support the Conditional Use Permit. She then introduced her architect, John Silber, and her broker, Shawn Vasquez. Chairman Eastman then called for testimony in opposition to the application. ~ Craig Beauchamp, 2230 West Chapman Avenue, Suite 247, Orange, California, indicated he was representing J& D Paper. She submittetl a written'objection from Mr. Pramcovic. She indicated that , 04-02-07 Page 10 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMIS$ION MINUTES • Mr. Pramcovic would provide testimony about traffic and parking and the chain link fence as well as his concerns regarding barking, the smell and odor from the waste and some other concerns. She then expressed her desire toprovide some concluding remarks following Mr. Pramcovic's testimony. Chairman Eastman concurred with this approach. Dale'Pramcovic, the owner of J& D Paper Company, indicated his business,was directly across the street from the proposed site.' He stated that most of the sites on the bfock are not owner occupied. He had attempted to contact the other owners, but they were not available. He explained that when the dogs will be outside, they will be across the street from his offices. He said the freeway noise already interferes with their phone conversations. He explained that his employees are concerned about the potential noise impacts. He explained that he visited a Camp Bow Wow facility in Temecula. He explained thathe had video footage on his video camera if anyone cared to view it. He said it was completely different from what is proposed on this site. He noted that the dogs would be outside, near the street. He then explained that traffic is already a problem in the area He used photos to illustrate his point. He said it is not unusual to have to wait to enter their driveway: He stated that 40 #0 50 semis use the street each day. Sometimes they have to ask the trucks to move so they can entertheir site. At Camp Bow Wow in Temecula, the dog runs are behind the building. They don't bother anybody. There is plenty of access: There is alow volume of traffic. There is no freeway noise. He indicated it was a calm place: However, the proposed site is nof calm. There is a 24-hour industrial building and aluminum company where they propose to put the dogs. The doors on the southeast side of the building are often open, so those employees will notice any odor problems. He stated that a dog day care facility in an already busy industrial strip will make fhe street too congested ~ and more hazardous. There are already frequent accidents on the street. The dumpster on the proposed site next to Daly Street is directly in front of his building. He was : concerned that disposal of excrement from sixty (60) dogs a day would smell bad, even if trash was put in sealed bags. Mr. Pramcovic explained that a hazardous waste company is directly in front of the proposed dog runs. He noted that sometimes, he has had to speak to the business about adverse smells. He noted that his employees' had complained about their eyes burning. While the business owner addressed their concerns, he wouldn't let his dog breath that stuff. Mr. Pramcovic expressed concern about his property values if this business becomes a viable high volume care facility for the dogs. Mr. Pramcovic expressed concerns about noise and the carbon monoxide pollution from the freeway. He- believed tfie noise and vibration would upset the dogs. He also thought the dogs would bark at passing traffic. He did not think the site was a good location for dogs. Mr. Pramcovic returned to his comparison of this facility to the Temecula facility. IYs a smaller facility than . the facility proposed here. The dog runs are in the rear of the building, so the barking and the noise outside are cut off by the building itself. Nobody would complain. He noted that the waste dumpster was at the back of the building in Temecula. Even though it was enclosed, it was full of white bags and he could smell it. Chairman Eastman noted that the Commission could ask the owner to address these concerns. Mr. Pramcovic stated that in Temecula and the other places he looked at, the parking seemed to be •_ ample. However, he did not understand how they would be able to park eleven (11) cars on the site. 04-02-07 Page 11 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES He referred to page seven of his written objections. He suggested that the Commissioners spend an hour • during one business day on the site before taking action on Camp Bow Wow's request. He noted that the problems do not occur on the weekends He would like the members of the Council and Commission to see how close the dogs will be to the noise and air pollution. He would like the Council members to see where the doggie waste will be disposed of and see what the area would smell like after a week. He questioned if the employees will take care of it correctly. He also asked that the animal control authority determine if the site is suitable for taking care of sixty (60) dogs. He also requested that the Health Department assess the health hazards of disposing of a week's worth of dog feces: Mr. Pramcovic summed up his testimony by saying that he owns and runs a business in a high volume : area that experiences tremendous noise. Having dogs right in his front yard, where he can see them, hear them; smell them, would 6e detrimental to his'business. Chairman Eastman thanked Mr. Pramcovic for his comments and assured him that the Commission would definitely take them into consideration. Craig Beauchamp addressed the Commission. She sfated that Mr. Pramcovic capsulated everything. She reiterated that where staff has identified four (4) spaces, she sees two (2) spaces. Where they see seven (7), she sees four{4), maybe five (5). Ms. Beauchamp also expressed concern with the proposed retail component of the business. This means that customers may stay a little bit longer. There is also some indication that they are talking about three (3) people at a time dropping off dogs. Because most people go to work in the morning, there will likely be sixty (60) cars coming in and out of the site within a two hour period; ThaYs when the highest volume of truck traffic happens. She said that Mr. Pramcovic spenYhalf an hour this morning trying to maneuver his trucks in and out of his parking place because of : the congestion on the street. The dog facility will only make traffic worse. Ms. Beauchamp noted the applicant proposes to offer dog grooming and noted that this service will ~ impact traffic and parking. She noted that whether or not barking becomes a problem, the concern is that pets would be introduced into a high toxic pollution area. She reiterated that her client is concerned about the property values. She explained that the former owner was a wholesale toy company. Mosf of their traffic was on Saturday and Sunday, not Monday through Friday. Ms. Beauchamp urged the Commission to consider the concerns raised by Mr. Pramcovic and to delay a decision until the Commissioners had checked with the Health Department and Animal ControL John Silber, 125 West Amerige Avenue in Fullerton, addressed the Commission. He explained he was the architect for the applicant. He noted that the street frontage on Daly Street is 275 feet, the equivalent of a city block. Because of the triangular shape, the site has a very long street frontage. And while that shape doesn't provide off street parking, it does mitigate a lack of on street parking. He explained that Daly Street was a cul-de-sac that wound through the neighborhood, along the 91 Freeway, with a lot of street frontage with no buildings on it. So there was a great deal of street parking that would mitigate any kind of misjudgment on the number of parking spaces provided on-site. Mr. Silver also pointed out that the applicant would be moving the fence back. Previous actions allowed the fence to be closer to the property line and the parking lot to be smaller. Moving the fence will actually put some of the stalls back. He noted the relocation of the fence may explain some of the confusion of those speaking in opposition. They may not have realized that the fence was being moved back. Mr. Silber addressed the complaints about Freeway noise. Turning down Camp Bow Wow will not reduce the noise on the 91 Freeway. He was certain that the dogs were not going to be able out shout the freeway. He referred to the discussion of environmental problems that might exist in the neighborhood. If it was a jeopardy to the dogs then it was a jeopardy to the employees that are working at these businesses and the property should be vacated. If it was safe for the employees, he thought the environment would be safe for dogs • Mr. Silber said operational issues could be addressed by his client antl the Camp Bow Wow folks`. ~ 04-02-07 Page 12 . 'APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Eastman explained that the Commission has held numerous hearings on veterinary facilities: The Commission has heard how the modern day vet clinic can mitigate some of the' public's concerns about an animal facility becoming a nuisance from the smelis and the disposal of the waste. She asked it the applicant would be utilizing any of that kind of technology. John Silber indicated that all waste would be properly bagged and disposed of, as`described in the staff report. Camp Bow Wowfias a strict protocol regarding this issue. - Chairman Eastman commented that it didn't sound like this particular type of design was Mr. Silber's, area of expertise. John Silber explained that the'dogs that are going into this facility will be interviewed and checked to make sure #hat they are appropriate for the facility. If a dog is having a difficult time with this environment, it doesn't behoove Camp Bow Wow to try to continue fo struggle to keep that animal there. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Pramcovic to point out the location of his business on the aerial phota Mr. Pramcovic did so, highlighting the location of his offices. Chairman Eastman invited the applicant to respond to the concerns raised during the hearing. Heidi Flammang said that she brought some pictures of some of the!currenfifacilities. She acknowledged the concerns as very valid. She stated that her company wished to be good neighbors in #he community they always try and start their business off with a good relationship with their neighbors. She promised to work with him to alleviate any concerns that he had and work through any issues that came up. Ms. Flammang stated the business is franchised so there are very stricf operating guidelines for the 35 camps. The first priority is making sure that the dogs are safe. She said this is a very fypical location for . Camp Bow Wow facilities because of zoning issues and overnight boarding and the requirements to have outdoor play yards. These facilities are typically located in heavy industrial areas. Inside the buildings, she said, one cannot typically hear whaYs going on outside the facility. So the freeway noise would not irritate the dogs. She said they play classical music for the dogs at night. And they have camp fire treats that have peanut butter in them to help alleviate stress and anxiety. So there are lots of ways to address the situation if there is an issue. But she said they haven't found that to be the case in the thirty-five (35) facilities that are already open. Ms. Flammang stated that the Temecula facility is in a pretty upscale business neighborhood, which is not typical. Camp Bow Wow requires a camp counselor outside in the play yards with the dogs. If the dogs are getting riled up, they bring them right back inside. And they have the ability to keep the dogs inside as well. She reiterated that they certainly don't want to be a nuisance in the neighborhood. They want to be a good neighbor. And iYs in everybody's best interest if they are working together. _ Ms. Flammang said everybody involved had been invited to cal! their current landlords. She had packets of information #or the Commissioners that included references from the landlords indicating what great neighbors they were and that they do up hotd their commitments to be good neighbors. Also, the facilities are on live web cams 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The customers, the City and the neighbors can view this web cam. They are outside and inside. So they have to keep an immaculate facility. She said they use very sophisticated cleaners and disinfectants that have a bio-degradable enzymatic component to them, to break down any smell or bacteria. They have not been required in any cases around the country to put in any special kind if drainage or special tools to address that. She explained the waste generated is actually no more than one garbage bag a day. They do have the dumpsters emptied more than once a week. It has not been an issue anywhere around the country. People are paying typically $35 to $40 a day to bring their dogs for day camp and $40 to $50 for overnight so they have to have excellent facilities. .• Next, Ms. Flammang addressed concerns about traffic. Based on many traffic studies of their facilities, they recognize that they do not' need more than seven (7) parking`spaces for a typical Camp Bow Wow facility. The reason is because most of the people are dropping off and picking up eariy in the morning or 04-02-07 Page 13 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ late in the afternoon. That will help alleviate some of the traffic concerns because these folks are typically dropping off between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., before the business folks are even arriving or the semis are getting there. Then customers are picking up between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. She said that two- thirds of the dogs are there for boarding, so they are#here overnight or for a#ew days. The day'camp dogs`are about one-fourth of the business. Two or three parking spaces for this component is fine. They haven't had a parking issue anywhere. Ms. Flammang explained that during the night, the dogs are inside: They have tools to keep them from having separation anxiety. She offered copies of sound studies performed at a couple facilities: She said they are absolutely in alignment with following and everr exceeding the State Department of Agriculture and the Health Department rulesand regulations. 8he encouraged the Commission to talk to the Health Department about their rules and reguiations. Finally, she indicated the retail is Very ancillary, and includes things that one would pick up very quickly to leave with a dog like a chew bone or a quick release collar that is required at the facitity. It's not like a Petsmart. She explained that grooming is typically not offered to pets that are not staying there for boarding or day care. Grooming services are offered to'our clients. She then indicated that the Temecula facility is exac4ly the same size as this camp. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Faessel, Tim Hanna pointed out the location of the eleven parking spaces proposed. He confirmed that the existing chain link fence would be removed, and pointed out the location of the dog runs. Commissioner Faessel commented that there did not seem to be enough room for sixty (60) dogs. Tim Hanna replied that there were four (4) outside play areas and there is a comparable inside area. ~ Each area would be limited to approximately fifteen (15) dogs. Most of the time the dogs would be inside the building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Faessel, Kris Hanna indicated that the trash container would be left in its present location. It must be accessible to the trash collector. She noted that the dumpster would be emptied twice a week. Commissioner Faessel said that if the timing is handled properly then the location becomes less of a concern. He noted concerns about odor need to be mitigated. Craig Beauchamp asked to provide some rebuttals. She noted that there were very few dogs at the Temecula facility, yet there was an odor. She also stated that there isn't a lot of street parking. Chairman Eastman pointed out that the Commission does not normally hear rebuttals from people who object. Craig Beauchamp inquired if the facility will be required to have at least one handicapped parking space. Chairman Eastman closed the Public Hearing and invited the Commissioners to ask questions of staff. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to address the availability of on-street parking to serve as potential overffow parking for the site if that should be needed. She also asked staff to address the handicapped parking issue. Commissioner Buffa also asked about the acoustical study that has been introduced into the record. Based on a quick review it appeared noise measurements would be below the City's outdoor noise threshold. She asked staff to address the City's outdoor noise threshold and whether or not this facility wauld comply with the outdoor noise threshold once it's operationaL • Judy Dadant, Acting Principa4 Planner, responded to Commissiner Buffa's questions. She explained that if the Building Division found that the level of improvement proposed with this requestwould trigger the 04-02-07 Page 14 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES requirement to comply with Title 24 Requirements, then a maximum of one of the stalis provided would • need to be handicapped: All of the parking spaces would need to comply with the minimum code : required stall sizes as well as the'appropriate backup space. She explained that Daly is a public street. Therefore, overflow parking is available on the street. Generally, because there is a parking waiVer requested, staff analyzed the facility and believes that there wiU be sufficient parking. But as a backstop, ; _ Daly is a pubfic street and there can be parking on thestreet. She noted she had been out at the site that morning and did notice that there were quite a few vehictes on the street, including trucks from neighboring industrial uses. DalyStreet is a very long"streef. So there are opportunities for parking Lastly, in response to the acoustical studies, Ms. Dadant indicated staff did not receive that study for analysis prior to the Public Hearing. She explained that the Zoning Code does require that the noise generated on any given property not exceed 60 dbs at the property line. So that would be a requirement for any land use in the'City whether or not there is a discretionary action involved. Chairman Eastman pointed out that if the City determines that the chain link is not containing the barking, the applicant might be required to do something other than a chain link fence. They have to meet the City's noise standard one way or another. Judy Dadant confirmed that if the City did receive complaints of excessive noise being generated by the . operation,'staff would approach the operator and let them know, and try to work out at staff level a way to mitigate the noise. But the City does have the option of bringing the conditional use permit back before the Commission if the use becomes a nuisance. Commissioner Buffa noted that during the preliminary meeting, the CityAttorney spoke abouYan ordinance that staff is currently crafting specifically ~elating to barking dogs. She asked the City Attorney to describe whaYs being done about that and when an ordinance might be adopted that would provide neighboring businesses with a procedure that they could use to bring back a complaint to the City. • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, responded. He indicated the City Council wi(I be considering a barking dog ordinance on April 1 T, The currently the City contracts with Orange County Animal Care Services to address barking dog complaints or excessive noise relating to the keeping of animals and typically handles those complaints either informally or through a complaint process that involves prosecution for a misdemeanor under the current Code provisions. The barking dog ordinance that is under consideration would broaden the authority so that both Orange County Animal Care Services and Community Preservation could address issues related to barking dog complaints or other complaints relating to animals. It would implement a civil fine process where the owner would be cited if a complaint has been made for excessive noise. There is an administrative hearing process to address those types of complaints and then an aggressive penalty or civil fine procedure which would have an escalating fine ' for subsequent violations before any misdemeanor prosecution would be initiated. He indicated it would be a more aggressive process that would hopefully be more expeditious in addressing problems so that things can't linger in the courts for protracted periods of time. The City would have a more aggressive approach through the civil penalty provisions and the proposed ordinance to address issues and try to gain compliance and then could still turn to misdemeanor prosecution if they can't gain compliance through a civil penalty provision. Judy Dadant added that the number of trash pickups can be as frequent as six (6) times a week at the request of the operator. • Commissioner Velasquez expressed a concern about parking. She noted that the Code requires a minimum of thirty (30) spaces for an animal boarding facility. When we compare it based on the business model to one of a child care facility, that would requirement would be thirteen (13) spaces, and the project is still short two parking spaces. She asked why staff was recommending that the facility be allowed to operate with eleven (11) spaces if the requirement is thirteen (13) based on the model of a child care facility. Judy Dadant explained that when parking waivers are proposed for an existing facility, staff has the opportunity to go out and actually count the demand of the facility, and determine the peak demand to 04-02-07 ` Page 15 APRIL 2, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ determine how many reduced parking spaces, if any, should be permitted. In this particular scenario, existing demand numbers are not available. Based'on what is submitted by the applicant in terms of the number of employees and the number of peak number of customers coming to drop off the dogs, eleven (11) spaces would be appropriate. The Code states that'thirty (30) parking spaces are required. However, there is no'Code provision that specifically speaks to this type of land use. There is a requirement #or child daycare and grooming facilities and using the daycare faciiity on this particular ; request, is just kind of a cross check against the ratio another city is using. Commissioner Velasquez indicated that the approach made sense. She pointed out that the proposal wouid reduce fhe parking required from thirty{30} to thirteen (13} spaces.: She asked how many dogs are housed at the facility in Rancho Santa Margarita. Judy Dadant indicated it was about `130. She confirmed there were fifteen (15) parking stalls for customers: Commissioner Buffa stated that she has been there many times. She had always found a place to park. She'indicated that parking at Wags and Wiggles works just fine. Commissioner Velasquez observed that facility has fifteen spaces for a hundred dogs. Commissioner Buffa noted that the applicant was proposing efeven (11) spaces for sixty (60} dogs and , that was a fairty comparable ratio. And there are a lot of on-street parking spaces. So if one pulled up and the tot was full, one could just park in front and walk the dog in. Commissioner Velasquez explained that whenever the Commission approves something, especially tFirough a Conditional Use Permit, the parking has to be based on the demand and it has to be provided on-site. • In response to questions from Commissiner Velasquez and Chairman Eastman, Judy Dadant clarified that Code requires thirty (30) spaces and eleven (11) are being proposed. She noted the Code provision is more for a grooming facitity and not specifically a daycare facility. Commissioner Velasquez indicated it was appropriate to compare it to a childcare facility which is more like the type of use proposed. Judy Dadant explained that if the City were to use the parking ratios that the City of Rancho Santa Margarita uses for daycare, it would actually yield a lower requirement than thirteen (13). This particular facility in that city would have required about ten (10) spaces. Anaheim's code requirement for child daycare is higher than it is for Rancho Santa Margarita. Commissioner Flores asked if it would be possible to relocate the trash bin to another area without disturbing the parking. She suggested that the trash bin could be wheeled out to the street to be picked up and then wheeled back in. Judy Dadant indicated that staff would explore this if it was the desire of the Commission. She pointed out a couple of issues with relocating the trash enclosure. There is a maximum distance that the trash hauler will move the bins. And because the site is somewhat tight, there may not be room for the trash truck to tum around to get onto the interior of the property, which may limit the opportunities for relocating the enclasure. But staff could certainly work with the applicant to see whether or not the bin could be sited further away from the street. In response to a question from Commissioner Flores, Judy Dadant indicated the trash bin could be placed somewhere else. The location could not be blocking circulation or any parking stalls and the bin must be returned in a timely fashion. • Commissioner Buffa stated she had been to Wags and Wiggles lots of times and never had an odor issue; there. The facility is in a multi-tenant businesspark where they have neighbors right across the parking 04-02=07 Page 16 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • lot, behind them. But the gentleman's concern is the potential for odor. Maybe the City could impose a condition of approval thaf says trash must be picked up twice a week. Judy Dadant suggested the following condition: "That all trash generated from this dog daycare facility . shap be properly contained in trash bins located within approved trash enclosures. 'The number of bins shall be atlequate and the trash pickup shall be as frequent as necessary.to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Community Freservation Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need foradditional bins or additional pickup. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pickup shall be paid by the business owner." She explained that if there is an odor issue, the adjacent property owner can call Community Preservation, lodge a complaint, if staff can work with the business owner to address the issue and increase their pickups. Chairman Eastman noted that the condition seems reasonable. Commissioner Velasquez noted that in Rancho Santa Margarita, they have less than twice as many dogs, and they offer five (5) times the number of parking spaces for their clients. They have a maximum of five employees. Judy Dadant clarified that this facility would have a maximum of six (6) employees and the facility in Rancho Santa Margarita has 130 dogs. , Commissioner Buffa offered a motion to approve a Categorical Exemption Class 3. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed with five a~rmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). ~ Commissioner Buffa offered a motion to approve the waivers (a) and (b) for a reduced number of parking spaces and the required enclosure for outdoor uses. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed with five a~rmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). Commissioner Buffa stated that the addition of the new condition should address the odor issue. She noted that another facility in the County is working fine with about the same parking ratio of parking spaces to dogs, so she thought that the parking woufd be adequately handled. She noted there is some ability for on-street parking on Daly Street. She pointed out that this facility will be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. So if there's a neighborhood noise problem, anybody in the community can lodge a complaint about noise. She further observed that with the adoption of a noise ordinance for barking dogs in the very near future, there will be a procedure to follow with any problem that comes up. She ofiFered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05193 with the inclusion of the condition that staff read into the record. Chairman Eastman clarified that since this is a resolution, iYs a button vote. Elly Morris, Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with five (5) yes votes. • OPPOSITION: Two people spoke in opposition, and a letter was received in opposition to the subject request. 04-02-07 Page 17 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2007. - DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 10 minutes (2`.54-4:04) • ' APR1L 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATtVE DECLARATION FaesseWelasquez Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE'REQUIREMENT. FaesseWelasquez Approved 7c. ; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05191 Faessel Granted 7d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Faesset Approved OR NECESSITY'NO. 2007-00033 Owner: Canyon Plaza LLC, nd CUP Modified Condition No. 21 Street, Suite #200, 503 32 NewpOrt BeaCh, CA 92663-3820 ~- Added a condition of approval Agent: Jack Jakowsky 503 32"d Street, Suite #200, v0'rE: 5-0 ' NeWport BeaCh, CA 92663 ' Commissioners Karaki and Romero absent Location: 5761 East Santa Ana Canvon Road: Property is . approximately 15-acres and is located af the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. , Conditional Use Permit No. 2007•05191 - Request to expand an existing commercial retail center to construct a smaU market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and accessory roof-mounted equipment with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00033 - To permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a ~ proposed grocery store. ~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-31 Project Planner. Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2007-32 (erhien@anaheim.net) : Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Elaine Thienprasiddi, Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that during the preliminary session thirty-two (32) letters in opposition were p~esented to the Planning Commission and since then, two (2) more had been received and distributed to the Commission. Chairman Eastman invited the applicant, Jack Jakowsky, to come forward. Jack Jakowsky, Managing Member of Canyon Plaza LLC that owns the shopping center, addressed the Commission. He stated his pleasure at Mother's Market desiring to come into the Anaheim Hills community and that it will be a wonderful benefit to all the residents. He explained that Mother's Market is an Orange County based, natural foods and organic vegetable and fruit market. They have stores in Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Woods andlrvine. 7his will be - their first venture into northern Orange County. They have been in business in Orange County for over thirty (30) years. They are proposing to take a 4,800 square foot portion of an existing building and replace it with an 11,700 square foot building. So the net effect is that they would add an additional 6,900 square feet of floor space to the shopping center. Of this 6,900 square feet, 2,100 of it is in a second floor mezzanine that will contain only restroom facilities, a manager's office, computer room, electrical room, janitorial room. But for the restrooms that wi11 be avai{able via an elevator, that entire 2,100 square . feet is really non-public use. At the end of the day, they are adding 4,600 square feet of additional ground floor retail space. : 04-02-07 Page 19 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES He indicated he would address three issues traff+c, parking and the beer and wine sales. • arified that since the were re facin retail with retaif, there wasn't a necessity within the City of He ci y p 9 Anaheim for a traffic study.; The believe that the customers for Mother's Market are already either in the ' _ shopping center, by virtue of frequenting the other stores, or they are already within the intersection of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. They don't feel that they are going to add any additional traffic. _ He explained that from a Code standpoint, they were reducing their parking requirement by ten (10) parking stalls because they were eliminating several more intense parkingLses, such as restaurants. But from a physical standpoint, they are loosing twenty-three (23) parking stalls. Those stalls are at`the rear of the building because they are expanding to the back. The key issue is that none of the parking stalls in the front of the shops are being modified. Over'the course ofthe past thirty (30) months, two parking studies have been conducted'in the shopping center. The first one was done in June of 2004 when they demolished the old Maxwell's Restaurant and replaced it with the'same size building with three tenants: Starbucks; Corner Bakery and Z Pizza: They then updated the parking study. There has been a determination by the consultant, supported by staff, that there is available parking. Consistent with Mother's offering of natural foods and organic produce, any beer or wine sold will meet those requirements. The products are not comparable to what Vons or Rite Aid sells across the street. They feel that that component of what they sell will be very smalL Chairman Eastman observed that there were quite a number of people, from the public, who wanted to offer some testimony. So she asked the applicant to stand by and probably rebut the things that they - bring up. • Chairman Eastman thanked the community for attending the meeting. She asked that the community state if they agree with prior testimony instead of repeating it, and to only bring up new points. She indicated that the Commission has received a stack of e-mails and assured those community members in the audience that their e-mails have been read by the Commission. Chairman Eastman indicated that she would call the individuals in opposition to the project in the order they were presented to her. Jennifer Yang, the daughter of a business owner in the local plaza representing her parents Steven and Shirley Yang said that they had a donut shop in that particular shopping plaza and have been residents for over nineteen (19) years. She stated that they have observed more traffic over the years. She indicated that their business is busy during the early hours of the morning and that a new market would be busy throughout the day. She brought up concems about congestion and access to the commercial center with the existing tenants and proposed tenant. Michael Magan, residing at 1087 South Taylor Court, Anaheim Hills addressed the Commission and indicated that he has been a resident for 35 years. He indicated concerns with the traffic study and felt that the project results in impacts due to congestion. He stated that parking lot is packed a11 day long, every day and was concerned that the store would bring in at least 150 to 200 more cars a day. He was also concerned about constant U-tums from the traffic at fmperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road and didn't feel the center would support a market. Chairman Eastman summarized that Mr. Magan didn't think the land use was appropriate. Michael Megan agreed and asked if an EIR was prepared. ~ Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner indicated that based on the level of impact that would be created with the project, that a CEQA Negative Declaration would be the appropriate environmental 04-02-07 Page 20 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • determination. An EIR would only be required if there was significant environmental impact that would not be mitigated. Michael Megan indicated that for the purposes of the parking, the removal of the donut shop was not a comparable use to a market because the donut shop is busy at different hours. Chairman Eastman thanked Mr. Megan for his testimony and called Mary Ann Moon. 'She also recognized receipt of an e-mai! from her and her husband. Mary Ann Moon indicated her concurrence with prior testimony and stated her address at 7509 Calle Durango, Anaheim. She indicated that she has been a resident for twenty-eight (28) years: She pointed ouf that access is primarily from Via Cortez and that there is a lot of tra~c. She was also concerned about the beer and wine license and did not think'it was necessary. She indicated concern over . congestion and parking supply in the center. She felt thaf the property owner should provide a place for the donut shop to move. ' Chairman Eastman responded that tenancy issue is not relevant to the Commission's land use authority and encouraged her to express her concern to the appropriate people. Mary Ann Moon indicated she would. Chairman Eastman thanked Ms. Moon and called Hans De Fearante. Hans De Fearante indicated that he lives at 128 Derby Circle, in Anaheim Hills. Mr. Fearante is a frequent user of the LA Fitness Center and has observed the center to be busy during the mornings and ; afternoons. He said it was hard to find parking now and indicated concern over fhe location of shopping ` carts. He also stated that he has three grandchildren going to the high school nearby and didn't think that ~ there should be beer and wine sales just across the street. Chairman Eastman thanked Mr. Fearante. Dan Sheeren from Orange addressed the Commission. He said he agreed with,Mr. Fearante about parking problems at the center. Me indicated that he used the donut shop and that it would be an inconvenience for it to be relocated. Chairman Eastman thanked Mr. Sheeren and asked if anyone was in the audience representing Mother's Market. She recognized that Mr. Jakowsky was representing them. Jack Jakowsky indicated the traffic circulation is what it is and that the center was developed in 1977. He purchases the properry four (4) years ago and the access has not changed over the last thirty (30) years. He reiterated the thought that the majority of the customers for the Mother's Market are already in the center. He indicated that the patrons of the LA Fitness are probably health conscious and would go to a market fike Mother's. Chairman Eastman closed the Public Hearing and invited the Commissioners to ask questions of staff. Commissioner Buffa asked about the location of shopping cart corrals. She inquired if one would be allowed in the parking lot because parking spaces get used up by abandoned shopping carts. She asked the applicant if they were willing to remove a parking sta11 for a cart corraL Jack Jakowsky indicated that he would not be opposed to utilizing an existing parking stall as a cart corral. He also stated that he is a landlord for another Mother's and that their employees are diligent on carts. . Commissioner Faessef asked Mr. Jakowsky about the normal parking procedures for employees. He asked if as the landlord, if he could specify specific parking areas for employees to open up more spaces for the customers and ifhe was doing that now. 04-02-07 : Page.21 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Jack Jakowsky indicated that they did, but that they haven't been diligent about monitoring that. He agreed that it was a good point and that he plans to enforce it once Mother's Market is operating. He agreed that they should be more sensitive to it themselves as welL Commissioner Faessel indicated concern over the numerous testimony from neighbors and customers, . about parking issues. Me indicated that he frequents the center and can speak from some personal experience of some of the parking concerns that there are in this area. He also acknowledged that there are otherspaces in the property as shown in the parking study and urged the property owner to work managing the parking. - Jack Jakowsky agreed. Chairman Eastman echoed the desire far the property owner to manage the employee parking to the perimeter of the site. Jack Jakowsky agreed and said that sometimes getting alt the stores to get their employees to park in the appropriate spot is challenging. Chairman Eastman indicated the importance of his efforts. Judy Dadant indicated that the peak demand for the center requires 616 parking spaces and the current plan proposes 842. Therefore, the property is well in excess of their peak demand for the number of spaces provided in the commercia{ center. She recommended a new condition of approval tfiat would require at least two locations for cart retrieval or corrals in a manner that is approved by the Planning Department and the decision may be appealable to the Planning Commission. She acknowledged that the applicant could eliminate a couple of parking stalls in order to accommodate that. ~ Chairman Eastman indicated that would be good. Commissioner Buffa asked if it would be feasible to include a condition that requires the employees of the market to park behind the macket with the market responsible for enforcement. Mark Gordon indicated that the City could certainly attempt to address that by crafting a condition. However, it may be problematic because the property owner controls the siteand it would be difficult for the City to enforce. He recommended that the condition indicate that management employ their best practice to ensure that their tenants utilize parking spaces at the perimeter of the site reserving the more accessible spaces to customers. Commissioner Faessel concurred with the City Attorney. Commissioner Buffa suggested adding to the previously-discussed condition regarding cart corrals to include the submittal of a parking lot plan that shows how they are going to corral the carts. The plan which is developed with the property owner, would designate employee parking. The property owner and tenant would then use their best efforts to encourage their employees to utilize the employee parking area. This would not put too big of a burden for the City to enforce. The property owner would be responsible with working with all the tenants to gain compliance. Commissioner Velasquez made a suggestion on wording. Mark Gordon reiterated that the use of "best practices" by the property owner woufd be the best method in this case. Commissioner Buffa and Faessel inquired about Conditions 20 and 21 from the draft resolution for the ~ Conditional Use Permit. They quesiioned the permitted age of market staff for selling beer and wine. Commission Faessel wanted to assure that the requested conditions were not more restrictive than other conditions applied to similar uses. 04-02-07 Page 22 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Judy Dadant clarified that these two conditions are intended to mirror ABC requirements relating to persons under21 selling alcohol. No one under the age of 18 is allowed to'sell alcohol and a person between the 18 and 21 may only sell alcohol,with the direct approval of someone over 21 for the transaction. These conditions are not intended.to be any more limiting that what wouldbe required by ABC restrictions for the beer and wineJicense and only applies to the transaction for the sale of beer and wine. She indicated that Condition No. 21 should be modified to say that "no person under 18 years of age shalf be permitted to sefl alcoho{" Commissioner Buffa indicated that concurred with the concerns raised about traffic congestion on Imperial Highway and SantaAna Canyon Road. She indicated hope that the City's planned improvements at Imperial and La Palma and Imperial and Orangethorpe will alleviate alot of thatpeak hour congestion. She indicated her expectation is that planned improvements will help alleviate some of that congestion. CommissionerFfores concurred there is a problem and that hopefully the solution of placing the emp{oyees in another location would be helpful. She indicated that she did not think that the market was going to generate much more patronage than what is existing. She indicated that the Commission could not act on the donut shop issue, but encouraged the pu6lic to talk to the property owner. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion to approve a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Velasquez seconded the motion. The motion passed with five affirmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Ffores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). ~ Commissioner Faessel offered a motion to approve the parking waiver. Commissioner Velasquez seconded the motion. 7he motion passed with five affirmative votes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). Commissioner Faessel: And to follow that up by the Resolution that approves Conditional Use Permit Na 2007-05191. And I befieve this is with the addition of the corrections that have been read into the record and Mr. Gordon how are we going to address the "best management" practices regarding the parking. Mark Gordon restated two changes to conditions of approval. Condition No. 21 is modified to read that no person under the age if 18 years of age shall be allowed to sell alcoholic beverages. The second - change is to add a condition of approval that would require the management to alter the plan toprovide for shopping carts storage in the parking lot that would bereviewed by Planning staff and have to be approved by Planning staff. If the applicant feels that they can't come to terms with Planning staff, then they could appeal that issue to the Planning Commission and also to include language in that same Condition that would encourage management to use "best practices" to provide that tenants utilize more remote parking spaces for employee parking. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant if that change is satisfactory. After the applicanYs concurrence, he offered a Resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the changes read into the record. Chairman Eastman clarified that since this is a resolution, iYs a button vote. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the reso~ution passed with five (5) yes votes. ~ Commissioner Faessel then offered a resofution to approve the`Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00033. 04-02-07 Page 23 APRIL 2, 2007 PLANNING`COMMISSION MINUTES • Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with five (5) yes votes. Judy Dadant indicated that the Planning Commission meeting of Aprii 16this cancelled because there are nof any Public Hearing items on that agenda. She requested that the Commission adjourn to April 30th at noon for a Workshop on Density Bonus. , OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition, and 32 e-mails were received in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday; April 24, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (4:05-4:58) ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Marie Witkay Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on a or ~ ~ 30 , 2007.