Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/01/07• /O~ ,~ , ~~ ~Fl E 1 IVl P c,~ ~fT D City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday, January 7, 2008 ~~ o Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Stephen Faessel Kimberly Wong, Planner Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary • Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 3, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on October 4, November 15 and December 13, 2007 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JANUARY 7, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 35 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Eastman • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment • H:\TOOLSIPC Admin\PC Action Agendas -Minutes\2008 Action Agendas\AC010708 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1A through 1 E as recommended by staff and to continue Items 1 D and 1 E. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reports and Recommendations 1A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Consent Calendar Approval (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05126 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05269) Owner: Sunrise Fountains Partners, LLC 1380 South Anaheim Boulevard • Anaheim, CA 92805 Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Agent: David Nix Sunrise Fountains Partners, LLC 1380 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 2100 South Lewis Street: Property is approximately 3.63 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lewis Street and Orangewood Avenue, having frontages of 418 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and 338 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue. Request for a retroactive one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for apreviously-approved 132-unit Project Planner: condominium conversion. (kwong2@anaheim.net) 01 /07/08 Page 2 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • roval ndar A l t C C 1 B. (a) NEGATIVE DECLARATION pp e onsen a (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05144 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05274) Vote: 6-0 Agent: Antonine Bakh Commissioner Faessel absent 1546 East La Palma Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1546 East La Palma Avenue (St. John Maron Catholic Church): Property is approximately 1.32 acres, having a frontage of 255 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and located approximately 140 feet east of the centerline of Anna Drive. Request for a retroactive one year extension of time to comply Project Planner: with conditions of approval to expand an existing church. (dherrick@anaheim.net) 1C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Consent Calendar Approval • (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05075 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05270) Agent: HMC Architects 2601 Main Street Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Owner: Diocese of Orange P.O. Box 14195 Orange, CA 92863-1595 Location: 412 North Crescent Way (St. Thomas Korean Catholic Church): Property is approximately 5 acres, having a frontage of 676 feet on the east side of Crescent Way and located approximately 414 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way. Request for a retroactive one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to construct an addition to an existing Project Planner: Church Complex. (dherrick@anaheim.net) 01 /07/08 Page 3 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Min 1D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 2007. Continued from the December 10, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. (Motion) 1 E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 10, 2007. (Motion) • n Continued to January 23, 2008 Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Continued to January 23, 2008 Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent 01 /07/08 Page 4 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 2a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 Continued to (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) January 23, 2008 2b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0.2006-00052 Agent: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Motion: EastmanNelasquez Location: Citywide City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend various Vote: 6-0 sections of Title 18 "Zoning" of the Anaheim Municipal Code to Commissioner Faessel absent correct various errors and omissions, and clarify text and provide consistency with other Chapters of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including but not limited to, provisions to add a new Section to the code to clarify that any permit, license or evidence issued in conflict with the provisions of Title 18 shall be null and void. Proposed amendments include the following: Single-Family Residential Zones: modify permitted encroachments for accessory uses/structures to be consistent with the California Building Code; • add a new section requiring certain accessory structures to conform to setback requirements for the primary residence; modify required rear yard setback in the RS-2 Zone; Multiple-Family Residential Zones: allow modification to setbacks between buildings for a planned unit development; Commercial Zones: amend permitting requirements for Antennas-Telecommunications- Stealth Ground-Mounted; modify Educational Institutions-Business and Educational Institutions-General as uses subject to a conditional use permit; add statement that Self-Storage Facilities be in compliance with Council Policy No. 7.2; add Floor Area Ratio (FAR) General Plan consistency reference; add Automotive-Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale (Office Use Only} as a permitted primary use; add Automated Teller Machines (ATM's) Exterior, Wall- Mounted as a permitted primary use; add Educational Institutions- Tutoring Services as a permitted use; modify Automotive-Car Sales & Rental provisions; Industrial Zones: modify provisions permitting Circuses and Carnivals; add Floor Area Ratio (FAR) General Plan consistency reference; amend permitting requirements for Antennas-Telecommunications-Stealth Ground-Mounted; add statement that Self-Storage Facilities be in compliance with Council Policy No. 7.2; add provisions for street frontage/land subdivision; add Automated Teller Machines (ATM's) Exterior, Wall-Mounted as a permitted primary use; add Automotive-Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale (Office Use Only) subject to conditional use permit; add Educational Institutions-Tutoring Services subject to conditional use permit; Public and Special Purpose Zones: modify the Transition 01 /07/08 Page 5 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • "T" zone provisions to require General Plan consistency for conditionally permitted uses; South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone: amendment to allow attached single-family dwellings by conditional use permit in conformance with multiple- family zone standards; Mixed Use Overlay Zone: modify requirements for Ground-Floor Commercial Uses; Types of Uses: modify Personal Services-General to include permanent facial make-up; modify Medical & Dental Offices to include colonoscopy and laser hair removal services; add Automated Teller Machines (ATM's), Exterior, Wall-Mounted; Supplemental Uses: delete time limitation reference for wireless communication facilities approved by conditional use permit; modify parking requirements for home occupations; clarify process for waiving setback and screening requirements for public utility equipment; add Automotive-Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale, Office Use Only; modify Mechanical and Utility Equipment -Roof Mounted for solar energy panels; establish maximum size requirements for flags and banners; Parking: modify parking requirements for bowling alleys, second units, and establish standards for automated parking facilities; add parking requirements for Automotive Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale (Office Use Only) and Educational Institutions - Tutoring Services; Signs: modify window sign definition; modify the • provisions for marquee or electronic readerboard signs; modify maximum height of letters and logos for wall signs; Landscape/Screening: modify requirements pertaining to landscape and fence height and type provisions; modify permitted types of landscape materials; Recycling: amend various Chapters to modify standards and procedures related to consumer recycling services; Nonconforming Structures: modify parking requirements in conjunction with the expansion of non-conforming structures in the Anaheim Colony Historic District and the 5 Points Neighborhood; Density Bonus: amend Chapter 18.52 (Density Bonuses) in its entirety to provide consistent formatting with Title 18 (Zoning Code) to allow for additional administrative approvals and various minor modifications and clarifications; Affordable Housing: delete Chapter 18.58 (Affordable Multiple-Family Housing Developments) in its entirety; Procedures: modify the appeal process for Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission decisions; modify responsibilities related to the Zoning Administrator; 01 /07/08 Page 6 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Administrative Reviews: modify requirements for Administrative Reviews; Variances: modify Special Findings for Variances; Definitions: modify definition of "Lots"; add definition for "General Plan Density". Continued from the December 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. Project Planner: (cflores@anaheim. net) Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to request a continuance to January 23, 2008. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 01 /07/08 Page 7 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 21 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3277 (TRACKING NO. CUP NO. 2007-05251) Owner: Barry Lee Konier P.O. Box 2158 Orange, CA 92859 Agent: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 950-970 Tustin Avenue: Property is an irregularly- shaped 2.82-acre property having frontages of 460 feet on the east side of Tustin Avenue and 665 feet on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91). City request to initiate the revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3277 to permit office uses in an industrial building with waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs. Continued from the October 15, 2007, and the December 10, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit No. Withdrawn Motion: Agarwal/Karaki Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to withdraw this item. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 01 /07/08 Page 8 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00213 Agarwal/Karaki 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05268 4d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17164 4e. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2007-00226 Owner: Heitman Living Trust 3083 West Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92804 Agent: Mahendra J. Desai Desai Construction and Development Inc. 2040 South Santa Cruz Street, Suite 115 Anaheim, CA 92805 Agarwal Agarwal Agarwal Agarwal • Location: 3083 and 3087 West Ball Road: Property is approximately 1.4 acres, having a frontage of 231 feet on the north side of Ball Road and located approximately 132 feet west of the centerline of Halliday Street. Request to permit a 20-unit single-family attached condominium complex. This project requires approval of the following actions: Reclassification No. 2007-00213 -Request reclassification of the subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone or less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05268 -Request to construct a 20-unit single-family attached condominium complex. Tentative Tract Map No. 17164 -Request to establish a 1-lot, 20-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00226 -Request for Planning Commission determination of conformance with the Density Bonus Ordinance to construct a 20-unit single-family • condominium development with 2 affordable units, a Density Bonus and incentives. Approved Approved, added conditions Approved, added conditions Approved, revised and added conditions of approval Approved, added conditions Vote: 5-1 Commission Romero voted no Commissioner Faessel absent 01 /07/08 Page 9 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Continued from the December 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2008-1 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-2 Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. PC2008-3 (per kw) Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Mahendra Desai, Desai Construction & Developers Inc, stated he was present to answer any questions. Greg McCafferty, Sheldon Group, stated that he would like to request a 2 year time limitation for the permits and wanted to modify some of the Condition of Approvals. He also stated that they would work with staff to modify the windows to incorporate mullions or craftsman style windows. Chairman Buffa requested clarification of which conditions related to time limitations. She asked Mr. McCafferty or staff to identify the conditions by number. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. ~harles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Drive, stated that he was concerned with the 20-unit single-family condominium development proposed because it did not have enough parking stalls. There are 16 guest parking spaces for the 20 unit development and this project does not have enough space for visitor parking. Ester Wallace, WAND Chairman, 604 Scott Lane, stated that she also was concerned with the parking issues for the development proposed. She had been in contact with the local residents and they felt the development of the condominiums made the parking issues worse, as they were already overcrowded. She submitted a letter to the Commission stating their concerns. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa asked staff to clarify why there are 20 units allowed on this property rather than 16 units. She wanted to know what the City's parking code required for this property. Kim Wong stated that the City of Anaheim's General Plan and Zoning Code allows for 16 dwelling units. The City of Anaheim also allows a property owner to request a density bonus, which allows for additional residential units. The applicant requested a 20% density bonus, which would permit a total of 20 units, 10% of the total number of units would be sold at an affordable rate. In this case, it would apply to either the lower or moderate income level. The applicant requested reduced parking ratios, which is allowed because they proposed a density bonus project. This is consistent with state law and code. The Municipal Code states for a density bonus project, a 3 bedroom unit requires two .parking spaces where they would be required without a density bonus. Chairman Buffa asked if the City had any discretion to deny the development incentive under state laws. 01 /07/08 Page 10 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •Ms. Won stated that as Ion as the a licant requested the parking ratio, the City must grant this in 9 9 PP compliance with state law. Chairman Buffa commented that the State has granted a higher priority to the need for affordable housing than the potential impacts to neighborhoods that might result from reduced parking standards. The State made that decision whether the City agreed or not. Ms. Wong confirmed that was correct. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated that under state law there is no provision for findings to deny a request for a parking reduction under the Code. The applicant is entitled to the reduced parking requirement, as long as the development meets the affordability qualifications. There is no finding to reduce or deny that request under state law. Mr. McCafferty concurred with the City Attorney's findings. They believe the Planning Commission would implement the Housing Element by providing affordable housing to the community. They commend the Planning Commission for adhering to the goals and policies of their Housing Element. The first condition Chairman Buffa asked about relates to the Conditional Use Permit. The developer requested to have an initial period of two years for the Conditional Use Permit given the finance and market conditions for housing. With regard to the Tentative Tract Map, Condition No.12 allows the Planning Director to change the timing of conditions and time extensions but it does not specifically .indicate the initial approval period. The applicant would respectfully request two years. With regard to condition No.6, they would like to revise that timing to say that "prior to issuance of the building permit the existing houses on the property shall be demolished." The applicant would like staff to clarify what those standard engineering plans pertain to so they can determine if they would have trouble complying with those plans. If they had trouble complying they would need to discuss that further with staff. The last issue is the memo from Community Development with regards to the affordability. The memo indicated that the property needed to be bound, bound by a covenant prior to the final map recreation. In a normal development process Mr. Desai indicated that would normally occur prior to issuance of building permit. The applicant does not have a problem recording the restrictions regarding affordability but they wanted flexibility to allow the applicant to work with DRE. Chairman Buffa asked if they can include a provision in their CC& R's that would require residents to park their cars in their garages and not use the garages for storage, if so, the home owner's association would have the right to take action with that home owner. Ms. Wong stated that Condition No. 32 of the Conditional Use Permit Resolution requires that the CC& R's indicate that all two car garages shall be utilized for the parking and vehicles. Chairman Buffa wanted to clarify they had that requirement. If they did have this requirement this .would allow the Home Owner's Association to take action to enforce that provision of the CC&R's. Ms. Wong replied that was correct. 01 /07/08 Page 11 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ommissioner Eastman asked that if staff determines the house is on the City's list of historic houses, would the applicant be willing to abide by the community wishes to move the house off the property and relocate it in order to save the historic building. Mr. McCafferty stated that there had been wording put together on prior entitlements. A 30 day notice in advance would be provided to Community Development or the Housing Authority that the houses were going to be demolished to give the resident time to re-locate. Commissioner Eastman stated she thought it was 60 to 90 days prior to demolition. She stated since the developer was not going to demolish the houses right away, they had plenty of time to determine the time period before they would have to clear the site. Chairman Buffa asked staff if they determined if this was on the City's list. Ms. Wong stated that staff tried to contact two people in Community Development prior to the public hearing but were unable to. Mr. McCafferty stated it was difficult to time the demolition. Mr. Desai indicated that if the outside date is a 90 day notification he would comply with that. Chairman Buffa asked staff if the Commission needed to add a Condition of Approval to the .Conditional Use Permit that would state the applicant would give Community Development or the Housing Authority a 90 day notice prior to demolishing the structures. Ms. Wong stated that would be correct. A condition can be included regarding the contact of Community Development. Commissioner Velasquez was concerned with the wording of Condition No. 32. The way it was worded, "to be utilized for the parking of vehicles" does not exclude storage. Chairman Buffa's explanation of it was better than the way it was written. Chairman Buffa stated that the CC&R's were contracts between the homeowners and the HOA, not the City. She was reluctant to tell them how to implement their contract among themselves. She stated that in a perfect world the developer would write into the CC&R's the provision that the Home Owner's Association would have monthly inspections and fine the home owners that don't park their vehicles in their garage. It was not up to the City to help them. Commissioner Velasquez stated that most people do not park in their garages. She wanted to know if there was anything they could add as a condition to address the residents concerns. Ms. Wong stated that all staff could do is to make that a requirement of the CC&R's. Commissioner Eastman asked staff if the neighbors noticed this condition not being enforced could they come back to the City to let them know the development was not complying with conditions in .the CUP. 01 /07/08 Page 12 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~/Is. Wong stated that would be correct. One of the neighbors could file a complaint with the City's Community Preservation Division. An investigation would occur and a citation could be issued to ensure that the garages were being used for their vehicles. Chairman Buffa stated that the provision in the condition was that the CC&R's required garages to be utilized for parking. She asked if they could require two car garages to be utilized for the parking of vehicles and that the HOA shall be responsible for implementing this requirement. She thought this would put a burden on the HOA so that they could take responsibility. Chairman Buffa was concerned because the neighbors could come back to the City to say there were parking problems and they want to initiate a Code Enforcement procedure against the HOA. However, the City cannot enforce the CC&R's because it is a contract between the homeowners and the HOA. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that they have the legal authority to require placement of provisions in the CC&R's that advance a legitimate public benefit. They don't have the legal authority to require enforcement between two parties in a contract. Mark Gordon agreed. The City does not have standing to enforce the provisions of the restriction and he is not aware of any instance where the City tried to compel an HOA to enforce CC&R's. Mr. McCafferty stated that the CUP is for the Planned Unit Development. If they wanted the .Commission could place a condition on the Conditional Use Permit that requires parking to be open and available for the project. They do meet the required storage are. Commissioner Agarwal read the state law. It states that if the developer met the two parking requirements per three bedroom unit, the City had to give the approval, unless, there was a finding made to the contrary. He asked if this was correct. Mark Gordon stated that the request for reduction, in the parking standards, would be in place as long as the applicant qualified because of the affordable units being developed. There were no findings in state law they could use to reduce or deny that level of parking. The Commission is preempted by state law. State law trumps the City's parking standards, under the circumstances, as long as the applicant requests the reduced parking and provides the required affordable units. Denial requires a written finding that there is a significant impact to health or safety. There has to be substantial evidence of that in the record. Commissioner Agarwal asked if parking would constitute as health and safety. Mr. Gordon replied no. He stated that there was nothing they could do regarding the reduced parking requirement. Under state laws, as long as the developer qualifies and intends to provide affordable units they qualify for the reduced parking. There are no findings that the City could make to require more parking. CJ Amstrup stated that under the residential parking requirements of Code Section 18.42.030.0107, here is a requirement that states the required parking shall be maintained and available for parking of operable vehicles. Regardless of where it resides, in resolutions or CC&R's, they could fall back on the Municipal Code that is enforceable regardless whether a condition is included. 01 /07/08 Page 13 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Chairman Buffa confirmed that the Commission does not need to add a Condition of Approval because in a Code Enforcement proceeding they could rely on that code section. Commissioner Eastman stated the developer showed different kinds of surface entering the project. She wondered if any or all of the hard surfacing materials were planned to use permeable concrete, such as the blocks that allow plantings to grow up to mitigate the impact of impermeable. Mr. McCafferty stated he believed they were using pavers so there was some permeability with the pavers. Ms. Wong stated that the latest site plans showed the enhanced paving and pedestrian pathway between each of the homes and the garages. Commissioner Romero stated that the applicant has come before Commission with a proposal to go from what would be a normal code approval, sixteen units that would require extra parking. He understood the applicant used the affordable content so they could now develop up to twenty units and also require less parking. He wasn't sure if he understood the City Attorney correctly and asked if they had to approve this request. He was concerned with the neighborhood parking impacts. He felt they were impacting the quality of life of the rest of the neighborhood. He thought Mr. Gordon said, the way this proposal is presented, "It had to be approved." ark Gordon stated that when they have an affordable project and the applicant meets the eligibility requirements and the applicant makes a request for a reduced parking standard, under state law, the City is obligated to approve the reduced parking. Commissioner Romero stated that Ms. Wallace brought up the issue of the three bedroom units with two income earners. He wanted to know how many cars would park there. He felt they had to consider the neighborhood requirements. Commissioner Karaki stated that the issue was providing guest parking. There were not enough guest parking spaces to allow each unit to have one guest parking space and this would become a problem. He felt the Commission should recommend or suggest the City change the parking Code, as other cities have. When the State mandates low income units and requirements for parking are reduced, it creates an overflow of parking. He felt the parking requirement should be changed by the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Chairman Buffa stated that parking Code is what it is, not withstanding the Commissions personal feelings about the adequacy of parking. The State mandated what the City will decide. Chairman Buffa commented on the architecture. She stated that there were many colors and materials used on the building elevation. She was uncertain if the architect tried to make the project look like row houses using materials and colors to distinguish one row house to the next. The materials spill over from one unit to the next unit. In the case of the two front doors on the right hand side, they are covered by the same roof profile with the same color and stone. It looked confusing to her. She felt the architect should distinctly make them look less like row houses by using distinct color and .materials for each one. 01 /07/08 Page 14 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Eastman agreed with Chairman Buffa. She stated that having three different kinds of treatment, stone, stucco, and siding made the project confusing to the eye. It might be better if it were all one material. Mr. McCafferty asked if the project should be designed to provide more distinction or uniformity among the units. Chairman Buffa replied one or the other should be adequate. Mr. McCafferty stated that the architect will work with staff to make changes. If staff was not pleased they could come back before the Commission. Chairman Buffa considered the request that the applicant made to change some conditions. Ms. Wong stated that currently the resolution for the Tentative Map did not have a time limitation and staff would not like to place a time limitation on the resolution. The Subdivision Map Act does give the Tentative Tract Map a life of two years, and the applicant could come back to renew the Map if it was not recorded within two years. The Density Bonus Ordinance does state that the time to exercise the entitlement would be a year but the planning director has discretion to extend the life or the time period to be more. Staff was amenable for it to be at two years with the Tentative Tract Map. Staff chose not to add a Condition of Approval to the resolution. •Mr. McCafferty stated that he wanted to make sure this would not be forgotten in a year. Chairman Buffa stated that staff was clear on the record. They said, "The City was amenable to granting administratively that extension." Two years is what would happen. Mr. McCafferty stated that the next condition would be Condition No. 6 on the map. The applicant requested that the timing be changed to prior issuance of the building permit for reasons he testified to earlier. Ms. Wong stated that staff was okay with the requested change. Mr. McCafferty stated that the third condition was not listed in the attachments to the staff report. It was the result of the Affordability Agreement, that it be timed prior to issuance of the building permit, and not the final map based on the testimony he gave earlier. Ms. Wong stated that the Code required the Agreement to be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. That was something already included in their Code and it could not be altered. Mr. McCafferty asked what section of the Code. Ms. Wong stated that it was in their Density Bonus Ordinance. The Code Section is 18.52.230.050 and states that the recordation for the Execution of the Agreement shall take place prior to final map .approval or where a map is not being processed prior to issuance of the final building permits. Mr. McCafferty replied that they understood. 01 /07/08 Page 15 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Velasquez commented that staff recommended the Commission should not add the time lines. Commission discussed, on a different project, that the time lines should be 18 months. She thought they should be consistent and add a condition so that they could be clear about time lines. Chairman Buffa stated that the difference was the Code because of the Density Bonus. Linda Johnson stated staff was agreeable to adding the condition. They could add it in a Condition of Approval stating that the time limitation would be two years for the CUP. They could clarify that the Code would allow a one year. The wording would be that the Planning Director agreed to a one year extension. It would be the Planning Director's authority. Mr. McCafferty stated that the Code Section 18.60 allowed the staff to grant two years. To eliminate any ambiguity they should add the two years for the initial time period. Linda Johnson stated that the Code Section she referred to was in the Density Bonus Ordinance. Chairman Buffa stated that was the difference. The Density Bonus Ordinance states one thing but the Code would allow something else. She agreed with Linda Johnson's idea. Mr. McCafferty wanted to make sure the developer didn't end up with an expired permit a year from now. .Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission agreed to add a condition and staff would generate that language for them. The condition would be that, if it is determined, that any house on the property was a historic house on the City of Anaheim's existing list, the applicant would provide 90 days advance notice, prior to demolishing that structure. CJ Amstrup stated that he would like to amend the condition. Rather than 90 days prior to demolition, it should read, notice provided after determination that the house is historic. If they do it right away it would potentially be a greater amount of time. Mr. McCafferty wanted this clarified as he did not understand. He wanted to know if it would be 90 days of it being determined historic. He was concerned the applicant would have no control over when the house would be determined historic. Chairman Buffa stated that it either would be on the existing list or not. The City was not proposing that the applicant change the current determination. If the City already determined it was on list of historic properties then they would immediately give notice to Community Development that it was on their list and it was available. Mr. McCafferty asked if staff would provide them with that determination. Chairman Buffa stated that was correct. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent. 01 /07/08 Page 16 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00213. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05268. Changes included. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17164 with changes included. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00226 with changes. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent. OPPOSITION: 3 persons spoke with concerns pertaining to the request. IN GENERAL: A letter was received in support of the project. A summary of discussion with people within the 300 foot buffer was also received. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 17, 2008 and the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 3 minutes (2:34 to 3:42) • 01 /07/08 Page 17 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Romero/Agarwal (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3840 Romero (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05271) Owner: Vietnamese District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance 2275 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: Hiep Nguyen 22822 Via Santa Rosa Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Location: 2275 and 2283 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 1.29-acres, located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Monterey Street. • Request to amend previously-approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3840 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05271) for an existing church to permit a parsonage. * Advertised as a caretaker's unit with waivers of maximum permitted size of unit and maximum number of bedrooms. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-5 Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Approved, with added condition Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa stated for the record that the applicant was in the audience. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to approve CEQA Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved). Motion passed by 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner offered a resolution to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3840 with changes read into the record by staff. .Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. 01 /07/08 Page 18 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:42 to 3:45) 6a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Velasquez/Eastman Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04952 Velasquez Approved, with modified and (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05254) added conditions pertaining to the hours of operation Owner: William C. Taormina 128 West Sycamore Street Anaheim, CA 92805 • Agent: Steve Elkins 128 West Sycamore Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 400, 401, 407, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard and 113 West Adele Street Vote: 6-0 Parcel 1: Property is located at 401 and 407 North Commissioner Faessel absent Anaheim Boulevard and is approximately 0.3-acre, located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street with approximate frontages of 107 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 103 feet on the north side of Adele Street. Parcel 2: Property is located at 400, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard and is approximately 1.5 acres, located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street with approximate frontages of 361 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 120 feet on the south side of Sycamore Street, 221 feet on the west side of Claudina Street and 204 feet on the north side of Adele Street. • Parcel 3: Property is located at 113 West Adele Street and is approximately 0.58-acre, having a frontage of 140 feet on the north side of Adele Street 01 /07/08 Page 19 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES approximately 155 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. Request to reinstate apreviously-approved conditional use permit for a public dance hall, banquet hall and community and religious facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off-site parking lot and to amend previously- approved plans, to add a cover charge and conditions of approval to remove the time limitation. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-6 Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa stated that the new proposed parking lot was immediately adjacent to the existing multi-family homes. She was concerned because neighbors and existing facilities in the past complained about people leaving the facility late at night making noise in the parking lot. She asked if staff was concerned about the potential noise generated next to those multi-family homes. She wanted to know if this facility was self parked as opposed to valet parking. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that one way to address this would be to add an additional condition that would require the first two rows of parking, adjacent to those homes, to be valet parking. That would control parking, loitering, or people turning their stereos up as they exit. One of the conditions is the requirement for a valet plan. They could specify a minimum number of parking stalls adjacent to the resident to be for valet. He would like to confirm with the applicant that they understood the condition. Then they could work the condition into their business model. Chairman Buffa agreed that they should get the applicant's point of view. She was concerned with the noise people might make entering their vehicles by the neighbor's windows at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. Commissioner Romero was concerned with people leaving the facility, jay-walking across Anaheim Boulevard. He wondered if staff considered that as well. He thought this would be addressed by valet parking, if that was the issue. Chairman Buffa stated that should be discussed with the applicant. She remembered the original application was that it was all valet parking. She thought there might be management issues that needed to be addressed. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Steve Elkins, Ember Cafe and Music Club, 128 West Sycamore Street, wanted to request re- instatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-004952. In addition to this re-instatement, the applicant requested amendments to their CUP. These amendments were listed on their application for re-instatement. The applicant felt those amendments were in the scope of existing businesses in their area and were necessary for the success for their business. When they originally applied for this CUP his plan was to expand their banquet business by providing a larger space for corporate and private parties. As the redevelopment efforts in the downtown area increase and the City of 01 /07/08 Page 20 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~4naheim's design charrette started to become a reality, it became clear that downtown Anaheim had and would continue to have pressing general needs, like healthy inexpensive neighborhood restaurants and classy downtown entertainment destinations. The applicant realized by re-vamping their original vision they could create a more suitable business which would not only satisfy those needs but would serve a wider customer base. This would contribute to the quality of life for downtown Anaheim residents, both, future and present. The last three years they spent countless hours researching and gathering information from experts in the areas of security, sanitation, branding, urban planning, entertainment, consumer economics, menu design, and public safety. The areas of sanitation and safety were their main focus. For example, they contacted, the City of Fullerton, to see what they could learn about their efforts to develop their restaurant overlay district. They derived valuable information concerning the growth of downtown businesses and how that growth affects local residents and city services. Much of what they learned contributes to what they are calling their neighborhood enhancement strategy. They traveled to Madison, Wisconsin to attend the neighborhood oriented policing conference, in which, the Anaheim Police Department presented a nationally recognized case study about night club policing and security. Combined with the Department of Justice the best practice manuals have served as the basis for their own security protocol. In addition to the time and resources they have invested in this project they consistently and proactively reached out to their neighbors in the Colony and asked them for their input. They responded to the neighbor's wishes and concerns by making numerous changes to their business ~odel and architecture. They mentioned this not as an idle boast but a public acknowledgement and declaration that they know their success is reliant on their peaceful co-existence with their neighbors and customers. Commissioner Velasquez wanted to know how they planned to manage their live entertainment with under age kids. Mr. Elkins replied that their plan was to have security staff at every entrance to the night club event. For instance, if a family were to the cafe for dinner where there was an event at the night club, security personal would cover the top and bottom of the two stairwells that lead from the cafe to the first story. It should not be an issue. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant how they could encourage people to use the crosswalk and what would they do regarding noise. Mr. Elkins stated that they made a change by bringing the parking lot adjacent to the building. In that way, they would not have issues with people crossing Anaheim Boulevard. Their traffic protocol would call for all entrances and exits to be on and off of Anaheim Boulevard. The residents on Adele Street would not have to deal with that issue late at night. In terms of the potential noise that might happen inside the parking lot, Thursday through Sunday would be all valet parking. They would have control of all noise and activity. They learned that many situations can happen in parking lots if they are not monitored. •In addition to the security cameras and personnel in the parking lot, they would have professional valets and people walking around the block making sure that nobody engages in disruptive behavior on residential streets. The Police Department informed the applicant that security could not do police 01 /07/08 Page 21 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~rvork. The applicant could also offer a free parking voucher to encourage the public to park and use their facility. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant if they could reserve the two parking rows that would be closest to the multi-family property. She wanted to know if they would have valet parking on the other nights of the week. Mr. Elkins stated that on Sunday through Wednesday there would not be as large a patronage. It would not be realistic for them to have valet parking 7 to 2 a.m. everyday. The applicant wouldn't want that because they want to encourage people to come to their cafe and enjoy their food. The applicant was open to any recommendation. On the nights where they utilize the parking lot, those cars would be handled by professional valet staff and there would be security personal. Noise abatement, security, and sanitation of their property and of their neighborhood are of utmost importance. Chairman Buffa stated that she felt better knowing the applicant had their own personnel to keep an eye on the parking lot. Commissioner Eastman wanted to know if there was another component to the back part of the parking lot above the residential homes that would include Cypress Trees. Mr. Elkins stated that they discussed the possibility of planting Spanish Cypress Trees that would .serve to abate sound and give neighbors something nice to look at. That was a consideration for the future. Chairman Buffa stated that their principal parking would be on the east side of the street. Mr. Elkins replied no. He stated that they would be moving it to the west side of the street. Chairman Buffa wanted to know how many parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Elkins stated that it would be 149 spaces. Chairman Buffa stated that people would park as close to the building as they could. The back parking area probably won't be full except on the weekends. She felt it should not be an issue. Commissioner Eastman asked staff if there was a plan for trees within that parking area or would this be exempt from that. Kim Wong stated that there are specific landscape requirements for parking lots. Ten parking stalls or more are required to be separated by a landscape finger. They could add landscape diamonds in between the parking stalls. Commissioner Eastman asked if there would be landscaping and lighting the Commission did not .see. Kim Wong replied that those were requirements of the Code. 01 /07/08 Page 22 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Velasquez asked if they addressed the issue with the lighting being too close to the houses. Kim Wong stated anytime a parking lot is adjacent to a residential land use, lights are limited to a maximum height of 12' tall and they should be down shielded so that there is no spill over lighting onto the adjacent properties. Commissioner Eastman stated that all those things would help mitigate issues that the neighbors might experience. Mr. Elkins replied yes. Bill Taormina, property owner, 128 W. Sycamore, wanted to clarify that on the western side of the new parking lot, adjacent to the multi-family apartments, they were going to plant tall Cypress trees, to create a visual barrier. Also, along Adele Street, they are going to have a tall fence. That fence would be behind tall trees that already exist. The driveways would be for valet only. Those driveways would not be used, except, for emergencies. With regards to the lights, the range is between 8' to 12' high. They chose 8' high and wanted all of their lights below their 8' fence. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, commented that staff had concerns about potentially having .sole access off of Anaheim Boulevard. He stated people would have to make left turns into the site when heading north on Anaheim Boulevard or they might exit needing to go northbound onto Anaheim Boulevard and would not be able to. The City has a condition requiring a valet plan to be approved prior to the beginning of operations. Staff recommended that the condition be changed to require a valet and access plan, approved prior to part of the commencement of operations. It was not the City's desire to have more traffic on the residential street, Adele Street. Staff was concerned that the condition might inadvertently wind up looping more traffic all the way around the block, as people north bound on Anaheim Boulevard make a series of lefts to get into the site. Commissioner Eastman wanted to disclose that Mr. Taormina showed her around the site. She saw this parking tot and heard his comments. She thought it would be a good improvement. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve Categorical Exemption Class 1. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04952 with changes as read into the record by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. 01 /07/08 Page 23 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (3:46 to 4:11) • r~ U 01 /07/08 Page 24 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3959 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05278) Owner: Fiesta Properties LLC Fiesta Mexicana 1950 South Sterling Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 Agent: Robert Vermeltfoort Vermeltfoort Architects, I 8525 North Cedar Suite 106 Fresno, CA 93720 Location: 1221 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 2.77 acres, having a frontage of 438 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 381 feet on the east side of Iris Street and located approximately 264 feet south of Ball Road. • Request to remodel the exterior facade of a retail center and reconfigure the parking area with a new waiver of parking requirements previously approved by Conditional Use Permit No. 3959. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Continued to January 23, 2008 Motion: Eastman/Karaki Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: (mashabi@anaheim. net) Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to continue this item to January 23, 2008. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 01 /07/08 Page 25 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05250 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05272) Owner: Anaheim Indoor Marketplace 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: Sang C. Han 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Eastman Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 14.74 acres, having approximate frontages of 725 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and 490 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard. Request to permit a tattoo and body piercing business booth within the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. The applicant is currently operating in another booth and is proposing to operate from two • booths. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-7 Minoo Ashabi, Civic Solutions, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: (mashabi@ anaheim. net) Phillip Schwartze, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San Juan Capistrano 92675, stated that the Commission approved a tattoo facility for Mr. Han, the applicant. Mr. Han, with the Conditional Use Permit, moved the tattoo business into the indoor swap meet and bought the other existing facility. The existing facility was there before the Code was changed to require a Conditional Use Permit. It has been there for a number of years. The applicant's intention was to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for that facility. Chairman Buffa closed the public meeting. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve Categorical Exemption Class 1. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05250. .Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. Eastman/Karaki 01 /07/08 Page 26 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:11 to 4:15) 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) • Owner: H Koch & Sons Co. 5410 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Ware Malcomb 10 Edelman Irvine, CA 92618 Romero Location: 5410 East La Palma Avenue: Property is located at 5410 East La Palma Avenue and is approximately 4 acres, having a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and located approximately 305 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. Request to amend Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-137 to establish a 1-lot, 11-unit industrial condominium subdivision. Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No. PC2008-8 .Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. 9b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-137 (TRACKING NO. SUBTPM2007-00052) Romero/Agarwal Approved Approved Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: (skoehm@ anaheim. net) 01 /07/08 Page 27 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa announced that the applicant was present in the audience and available to address any comments. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to approve CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved). Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve an amendment to Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-137 to establish a one lot, 11 unit air space attached industrial condominium subdivision. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 17, 2008 and the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. • DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:15 to 4:19) • 01 /07/08 Page 28 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •10a. PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL Velasquez/Eastman IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 Velasquez (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05276) Owner: California Drive-In Theatres I 120 North Robertson Boulevard #3 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Agent: Dynamic Builders 2114 South Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90007 Location: 1500 North Lemon Street: Property is approximately 27 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. Request to amend previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 to permit a car audio installation center in an existing retail business. • Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-9 Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel absent Project Planner: (skoehm@ anaheim. n et) Chairman Buffa announced that the applicant was present in the audience and available to address any comments. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to determine that the previously approved Environmental Impact Report No. 323 serve as the appropriate EIR documentation. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 to permit a car audio installation center in an existing retail business. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. .OPPOSITION: None 01 /07/08 Page 29 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~llark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:19 to 4:21) 11a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND Continued to MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 149 January 23, 2008 11 b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2007-00462 11 c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00210 11d. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2007-00049 11e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2007-05242 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00004 11g. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00010 11 h. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2007-163 11 i. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17219 11 j. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 11c, 11e, 11g, 11h and 11i Owner: P A Poon & Son Inc. 16841 Marina Bay Drive Motion: Eastman/Agarwal Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Agent: West Millenium Homes Derek Baak Vote: 6-0 1849 Sawtelle Boulevard #600 Commissioner Faessel absent Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard Ithe vacant Toys R Us site : Property is approximately 4.8 acres, having a frontage of 382 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and located 252 feet south of the centerline of Wilken Way. Request to develop a mixed use project consisting of a 105 room hotel, with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on the western 1.5-acre portion of the project site adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, and a 191-unit, 3 to 5 story condominium complex, including nine live/work units, on the eastern 3.3-acre portion of the project site. Proposed project actions include the following: General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00462 -Request to amend • the General Plan to redesignate the eastern 3.3 acres of the d l an property from the Commercial Recreation to the Mixed Use use designation; Reclassification No. 2007-00210 -Request for a reclassification to change the zoning on the eastern 3.3 acres of 01 /07/08 Page 30 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the property from the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) zone to the Multiple Family Residential, Mixed Use Overlay (RM-4 (MU) Overlay) zone; Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00049 - Request to remove the eastern 3.3 acres of the property from the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and increase the hotel density from Low Density to Medium Density for the western 1.5 acres of the property adjacent to Harbor Boulevard and to permit reduced front and interior setbacks and distance between driveways; Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05242 -Request to permit a mixed use project with 191 condominium units, to include live/work units, for the rear 3.3-acre portion of the property, and fora 105- unit hotel with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on the front 1.5 acres of the property adjacent to Harbor Boulevard with waivers of minimum lot frontage adjacent to a public or private street; Development Agreement No. 2007-00004 -Request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and West Millenium to construct the proposed mixed use project; Final Site Plan No. 2007-00010 -Request for approval of a Final Site Plan for the proposed mixed use project; Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-163 -Request to establish a 2-lot subdivision to separate the commercial and residential land uses; Tentative Tract Map No. 17219 -Request to establish a 191-unit • condominium complex; and, CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 149 -Request for approval of a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 149 for the Toys R Us mixed use project. The MND and MMP has been prepared to serve as the primary environmental document for GPA2007-00462, CUP2007-05242, DAG2007-00004, FSP2007-00010, RCL2007- 00210, SPN2007-00049, SUBTPM2007-163, and SUBTTM17219 and subsequent actions related to implementation of the project. Implementation is intended to include, but not be limited to, the approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement plans, final site plans, and other related actions for the Toys R Us mixed use project. Future actions related to the project that require additional discretionary review will utilize this document for CEQA purposes to the extent possible, consistent with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution No. Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Development Agreement Resolution No. • Final Site Plan Resolution No. Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. Project Planner: (dsee@anaheim.net) 01 /07/08 Page 31 of 33 JANUARY 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to continue this item to January 23, 2008. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:23 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2008, AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: /~`. L ~ :~ • __ Grace Medina, Planning Commission Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2008. 01 /07/08 Page 32 of 33