Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/01/23• /04 ,~ , ~~ ~NEI11~ P c,~ <~~ z Wednesday, January 23, 2008 • ~~ o Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Susan Kim, Senior Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 17, 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 Thursday, December 27, 2007 and Thursday, January 3, 2008 • 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 23, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 38 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Romero •• Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items Adjournment JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1A through 1 C as recommended by staff and to continue Item 4. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Resorts and Recommendations 1-A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning I Consent Calendar Approval Commission Meeting of November 26, 2007. Continued from the December 10, 2007, and January 7, . 2008, Planning Commission Meetings. (Motion) VOTE: 7-0 1-B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning I Consent Calendar Approval Commission Meeting of December 10, 2007. Continued from the January 7, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting. (Motion) 1-C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 7, 2008. (Motion) VOTE: 7-0 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel abstained since he was not present for the meeting Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve items on the Consent Calendar. Motion passed with 7 aye votes for Items 1-A and 1-B. Commissioner Faessel abstained on Item 1-C since he was not present at the meeting. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel abstained. 01 /23/08 Page 2 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 Buffa/Eastman Approved (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 2b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00052 Recommended City Council Approval Agent: Planning Department of draft ordinance, City of Anaheim excluding Sections 200 South Anaheim Boulevard 33, 37, 42, 46, 61 Anaheim, CA 92805 and the erratas Location: Citywide City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend various sections VOTE: 7-0 of Title 18 "Zoning" of the Anaheim Municipal Code to 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 01 /23/08 Page 3 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . permit; Public and Special Purpose Zones: modify the Transition "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; 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, and January 7, 2008, Planning Commission meetings. • Project Planner: (cflores@anaheim. net) 01 /23/08 Page 4 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~onathan Borrego, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa indicated that there were items she would like Commission to consider not taking action on. She recommended they wait to take action on those items and direct staff to do additional research about the appropriateness of the proposed language. She suggested that Item 37A, regarding parking for automated teller machines, not be a part of the action. She thought they should ask staff to take a look at parking for kiosks in commercial area parking lots and develop standards for those ancillary uses not specific for ATM machines. She also suggested, Section No. 42 not be acted on today. She thought bigger signs were not better and does not see any justification to allow larger signs based on what was presented. She would leave the Code alone, unless staff brought forward a comprehensive look at why they proposed making larger signs. Commissioner Karaki stated that from a business prospective he agreed with staff on what they proposed, knowing signage is a sensitive issue to every community. He does not like signs to be over done, but would like to keep this sign standard, as proposed by the staff. commissioner Velasquez stated that it may not be appropriate for all businesses and clarification needed to take place on the size to see if 30 inches was appropriate. The fact that other cities may do it doesn't mean they are doing it right. She felt they needed to research what was appropriate. She asked the same for Item 33, regarding banners. They have had issues with banners and that would increase the size of the banner. She was not opposed to the increase but thought they should get the right size. Chairman Buffa stated that was a better way of articulating what she was getting at. Commissioner Karaki indicated that staff has researched this issue and determined 30 inches was the appropriate action to be taken. Chairman Buffa stated that based on staff review of sign variances received by the City, Commission has approved larger signs where appropriate. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, explained to Commission, during a preliminary meeting, that staff still could do additional work to determine site line and legibility of a sign from particular distances, which has not been done. The Commission does not want to hurt their business community and would ask staff to research the appropriate standards. Commissioner Faessel felt it would be appropriate to come back and revisit these items due to the complexity involved. There was no time given to them in the preliminary meeting to discuss all the :ssues. Commissioner Agarwal agreed with Commissioner Velasquez and Commissioner Faessel that this item needed to be looked at thoroughly. They want to help the business community and at the same 01 /23/08 Page 5 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ime they also have to preserve the quality of their City. There are many things involved in a sign and he is not comfortable with the language used for this item without going into details. He would like to ask staff to set standards. He supported pulling this Section out of this item. Chairman Buffa confirmed that it was Items 33, 37 A, and 42 that they discussed. She wanted to know if anyone had any other additional items they would like to hold action on. Chairman Buffa thought it was a good time to hear the alternate language for No. 46 from staff. Jonathan Borrego stated that at the preliminary plan review session there were questions raised regarding a standard they were proposing regarding requiring bubble irrigation systems for small landscape areas. In discussing this further with staff, the intent was to ensure water wouldn't be wasted. He developed alternate language for consideration. Section 46, 18.46.070.010.0101 would be changed to read as follows; irrigation systems shall be designed and operated in a manner that prevents water run-off onto streets and sidewalks. He thought that clarified exactly what they attempted to accomplish, which was to avoid situations where they have sprinklers overspray onto streets and sidewalks, thereby, wasting water. He thought the simple change of language might address the Commissions concerns. Commissioner Faessel observed that water going into the gutter is wasteful; however, it is possible to *nraste water and still not have it overflow into the gutter. Jonathan Borrego stated that staff could report back to Commission with additional information on this subject. Chairman Buffa reiterated that if the language is that the irrigation system shall be designed to conserve water to the extent feasible and shall not over spray, then, people can be encouraged to use a drip irrigation system or bubblers that would work for their landscaping. Commissioner Faessel commented that they were already pulling three items. He asked if they should pull this one as well. Commissioner Agarwal asked if he would be cited if the driveway in his front yard were soaked with water. Jonathan Borrego clarified that the standards they are proposing do not apply to single family residential zones. The standards that were discussed applied to commercial, industrial and multiple family projects, not single family projects, and that was an important distinction to make. He would have to research this Section of the Code. Commissioner Agarwal stated he is in support of pulling this; Section No. 46, out of the Ordinance as .well. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anything else anyone would like to see reconsidered at a later time. 01 /23/08 Page 6 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to recommend to the City Council that the previously certified final EIR No. 330 serve as the appropriate environmental document. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to recommend to the City Council that the attached draft Ordinance, not including Sections 33, 37A, 42, 46 and 61, be approved with direction to staff to bring back to the Commission language for those five items at a future meeting for the Commission to consider and take action on separately. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, asked for clarification as to what Section 37A is. Chairman Buffa stated that it was not in the Ordinance as a Section No. A. She stated that by 37A, she referred to the summary of changes in the staff report. It would be Ordinance Section No. 37, Code Section 18.42.040.020, Table 42 A, Exhibit F. In our summary of the changes, Item A, deals with the ATM parking requirement. Commission is not taking action on parking for ATM's. Chairman Buffa amended her motion to pull No. 37, as it is listed so they could clear up things. Jonathan Borrego wanted to know if the Commissions actions would incorporate the two errata sheets that were distributed to the Commission. ~hairman Buffa replied yes. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve the draft Ordinance excluding Sections 33, 37, 42, 46, and 61, and the erratas. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (2:41 to 3:05) 01 /23/08 Page 7 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •3a. CEQA EXEMPTION PER CEQA GUIDELINES Faessel/Velasquez SECTION 15061 (b)(3) (GENERAL EXEMPTION) 3b. AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT Faessel SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (SPN2007-00052) Applicant: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Haster Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 137-321-14, 137-321-37, 137-321-40, 137-321-48, 137- 321-52, 137-321-61, 137-321-62, 137-321-85, 137-321- 94, and 137-321-95) (see map below). 0 J m _~ w z z a w Q S \~ S9 ~T KATELLA AVE ~ 9~9~'P 9~ ~~~ Key to Features - Subject Properties L _ ~i The Anaheim ResortT"" Boundary ' MANCHESTER AV I } .. - ~ f ' ''~ ~ r ~ ;r1 1~ v6 "a t7 4 t ~~~^S.t F Y ~ Y , .~: ~ r: ~e "~ i tf s` ~F k '~~ This is a City Council initiated request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by repealing development standards related to affordable housing that are included in the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay and previously approved by Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SPN2006-00044) Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2008-9 Approved Recommended City Council Approval VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (skim@anaheim.nef) 01 /23/08 Page 8 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~usan Kim, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the Item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to determine Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00052 is exempt from CEQA. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to recommend to the City Council, unanimously, that they approve Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00052. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:05 to 3:09) 01 /23/08 Page 9 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND Continued to MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 149 February 4, 2008 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00462 4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00210 4d. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00049 4e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05242 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.2007-00004 4g. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00010 4h. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-163 4i. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17219 4j. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 4c, 4e, 4a, 4h and 4i Motion: Owner: P A Poon & Son Inc. Eastman/Romero 16841 Marina Bay Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Agent: West Millenium Homes Derek Baak 1849 Sawtelle Boulevard #600 • Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (the vacant Tovs 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 property from the Commercial Recreation to the Mixed Use land use designation; Reclassification No. 2007-00210 -Request for a reclassification to change the zoning on the eastern 3.3 acres of 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 01 /23/08 Page 10 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 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 for a 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) Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to request for continuance until February 4, 2008. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01 /23/08 Page 11 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Eastman/Agarwal 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05280 Eastman WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Owner: EI Bekal Temple Association Inc. 1320 South Sanderson Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Agent: Steven Leu 933 West Alpine Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92707 Location: 1320 East Sanderson Avenue: Property is approximately 1.3 acres, located at the southwest corner of Sanderson Avenue (EI Bekal Shrine Center) and Phoenix Club Drive with approximate frontages of 268 feet on the south side of Sanderson Avenue and 284 feet on the west side of Phoenix Club Drive. Request to permit a banquet facility with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, in conjunction with a fraternal organization • facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-10 Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (dsee@anaheim.net) Chairman Buffa wanted Mr. See to clarify what he meant by "Public use." She wanted to know if that meant that a member might have a party at the facility and invite people who are not members. Mr. See suggested that the applicant elaborate on this issue. Based on his conversations with the applicant he indicated it is a private membership facility and the majority of the events will be for membership. On weekends and limited basis they will rent the facility to the public. According to the applicant, the type of event will be carefully scrutinized. They plan to have a manager and security oversee the facility. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Steve Leu, 1320 S. Sanderson Ave., EI Bekal Shrine Center, stated that he represents the EI Bekal Shrine. He was present to answer any questions. They have been in existence at this location for over 10 years. The Shrine is a civic organization and is well known throughout the country. They are operating twenty two hospitals for children and that is their sole purpose. Their membership is dwindling, unfortunately, and they have a banquet room they could hopefully utilize for the members and people of the City of Anaheim. It is not their intent to have a public facility where they would be pen to the general public. What they are asking for is to have wedding receptions and similar events for the use of the facility. Their facility is primarily utilized by the members and they have approximately 1,400 members. He asked if there were any questions at this point he could answer. 01 /23/08 Page 12 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwaf to approve the Categorical Exemption, Class 1. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05280 with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:09 to 3:17) • • 01 /23/08 Page 13 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Eastman Approved (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05023 Karaki Approved, revised and WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT added conditions of (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05282) approval Owner: Elisa Stipkovich Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Clean City Inc. 128 West Sycamore Street Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 7-0 Agent: Ed Perez 5753-G East Santa Ana Canyon Road #131 Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: 1108 West Lincoln Avenue (5 Points): Property is approximately 1 acre, located at the southwest corner of • Lincoln Avenue and West Street with approximate frontages of 615 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 50 feet on the west side of West Street. Request to amend apreviously-approved conditional use permit to refurbish a historically significant mixed use building to permit two apartment units, apublic/private park, and a Ruby's restaurant with sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages, outdoor dining and outdoor "car hop" service with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, permitted type of roof, canopy and blade signs, permitted type, size, number and letter height of wall signs, and permitted location of monument signs. Project Planner: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-13 (dsee@anaheim.net) Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Ed Perez, applicant, 176 S. Vista Grande, Anaheim Hills, stated that on behalf of the Five Points Project known as Ruby's Diner this is an iconic project that everyone can be proud of. This project is nother benchmark for the City of Anaheim. The Five Points building will be a phenomenal ~andmark that people would recognize when they enter into the Downtown area. He thanked developer Bill Taormina for his vision, support and dedication to this project. Ruby's Diner will feature numerous tributes to the Anaheim Historic District. The interior building will feature dozens 01 /23/08 Page 14 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES f photos from the turn of the Century through the 1940's. He is proud to present this project and ill be available to answer any questions. Bill Taormina, developer, 128 W. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, stated that he is looking forward to launching another icon in the City of Anaheim. This project will be attractive to out of town guests. He thanked the Redevelopment Agency, Building, and Planning staff. This is a 100 year old building they rebuilt from the inside out keeping everything they could. This location would be celebrated throughout the nation and in the City of Anaheim's Five Points neighborhood. This historic building would lead the next growth spurt for Ruby's. He was excited about the project and introduced the founder and CEO of Ruby's Diner, Doug Cavanaugh. Doug Cavanaugh, CEO of Ruby's Diner, stated that he started the Ruby's Restaurant 25 years ago. The shack at the end of Balboa Pier was their first project and it was a similar situation. The public loves to see these buildings restored. He thought it was wonderful to have a historic piece of Anaheim preserved for the rest of the public and visitors to enjoy. The element that is unique to Ruby's is that they never had a chance to exercise a full blown drive-in where they serve meals on roller skates and come out to cars to take orders. He thought this would make it a true destination for residents and visitors to enjoy. They plan to take advantage of the history of Anaheim with historic elements. He is ready to answer any questions. Mr. Perez indicated that a lot of thought went into this process and any elements pertaining to the architecture or landscaping could be addressed by Jim Collison, the landscape architect. Jim Collison, Richard Fisher Associates, project architect, 1108 W. Lincoln Avenue, stated that he is a resident of Downtown and has been a member of the Historic Preservation Commission for the last 15 years. He is present to answer questions. Paul Kott, resident and realtor, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he brainstormed with the applicant to try to devise what might be a good use for the historic Five Points building site. This site had been an eyesore for the last 20 years even when it was occupied. In its prime, it had been home to a wig store, record store, head shop, key shop, barber shop, a sign store, liquor store, restaurant supply company, and an old fashion diner. This site was next door to a restaurant called Norm's. Norm's enjoyed almost 25 years of success at the site. It was the highest producing store in the entire chain of restaurants. Cal-trans widened the I-5 freeway and Norm's restaurant was doomed to the wrecking ball in despite of protests by local customers and Norm's corporate office. Improvements of that site were eventually leveled. This site is significant and is the gateway into the Downtown area from the I-5 freeway. Over 22,000 motorists per day travel on Lincoln Avenue. Since the freeway widening, there has been much progress on this block. Dusty old retail stores and office buildings have been raised in favor of newly rehabilitated and modernized office buildings. The new office developments and new residential developments have been or will be approved and built within the next year. The former Marqui Bar and the old Armstrong Restaurant site have been transformed into a clean modern restaurant operated by another one of Anaheim's great restaurateurs, Mr. Frank Garcia, of La Casa Garcia. The neighbors also enjoy the new Subway and drive-thru Starbuck's which is directly across the street from this site. Bill Taormina and Doug Cavanaugh have invested hundreds of hours in improving and planning a development that is not ~nly going to be one of Anaheim's most successfully themed restaurants but one that is desperately needed as well. This project has been in the making for three years with a scheduled opening later this year. He is pleased and supports the project as submitted. 01 /23/08 Page 15 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman commented that Mr. Collison was one of the community members who recognized the significance of this building both in its location and architecture. He was one of the members who tried to save it from the wrecking ball when they were going to knock it down to change that corner. She disclosed that she met with Mr. Perez on this project. She represents and is a member of the Historic Preservation Committee. She stated that everyone refers to this area as Five Points and she hasn't seen the Five Points iri the signage. She suggested that the developer include Five Points in their signage as it might enhance it as a destination. She inquired about the second floor windows that were in the west elevation. She stated that they disappeared between Jim Wilson's rendering and all the different elevations she has. There is a blank wall there and she wanted an explanation for that. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Ruby's Five Points logo is in development and they would love to represent that signage. Mr. Taormina pointed to the slide showing the west elevation. He stated that those windows and the store front had been eliminated for two reasons. The first reason was the upstairs window wasn't supposed to be there because the structure was an add-on and not the original. The other reason for the upstairs windows being eliminated is that there is a new staircase and they couldn't put the window there because of the staircase. The developer is going to landscape the entire wall and the ~levation would not be seen after that. Commissioner Eastman was okay with lack of windows on the south elevation. She was concerned with the second story. She anticipated that they had problems architecturally in the interior which resulted in the elimination of those windows. She asked if they could not provide windows, could they consider a painted mural window. She would like to see it as close to original as possible. Mr. Taormina wanted to discuss adding windows with the neighbors because they have concerns about the back view into their houses. Commissioner Eastman stated that she was okay with that, but she questioned the second story west elevation where there were windows and now there are none. In another meeting she remembered a structure that would enclose, on the west elevation, the far right and back of the building that would mimic the architecture of the building and enclose the trash. She did not see this on any elevations. Mr. Taormina showed her that it was there. It would be completely landscaped and not be a visible structure. Commissioner Eastman was okay with the landscape but would like to see the building around it so that it doesn't stand out as a trash container. It was her understanding that the concept of a willow tree in the cul-de-sac was lost because of cost. The community was supportive of that and they ~nranted to see the tree there. Mr. Collison stated that there were issues with the Fire Department. The fire trucks would have 01 /23/08 Page 16 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES rouble turning in that radius. There is street parking in the cul-de-sac area, and combined with the fire trucks, it would not be feasible. Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that previously there was a tree that was located in the middle of the cul-de-sac which would have served as traffic calming device. There is a requirement for a cul-de-sac with a thirty eight radius and if a tree were in the center a fire truck would not be able to make that turn safely. That is why it was requested to remove the tree. Commissioner Eastman was disappointed and thought it was a nice concept to have a tree. Commissioner Faessel addressed Mr. Collison and stated that he was drawn to the park area. There is a County of Orange historic marker on that area that is not owned by the City of Anaheim. It is property of the County of Orange. He would like the County of Orange Historic Resources Division to be notified that they would have to relocate this a second time. Mr. Collison stated that it's being relocated not far from its current location. They will notify the County of Orange. Commissioner Romero asked Public Works if the parking on Center Street would have access to the property. Mr. See responded that the site plan does show a driveway. The applicant indicated that it would be closed off. It is required for Fire Department emergency access. They do not intend to keep that ate open on Center Street. Commissioner Faessel addressed Mr. Taormina and stated that at this point it appeared that they would be going forward with the two upstairs apartment units that would be occupied by the restaurant staff. He asked how they enforced that. He wanted to know if that was part of the CC&R's of the project. He asked if it would be a contractual relationship that they have with Ruby's. Mr. Taormina stated that Ruby's has leased those units. Commissioner Velasquez wanted to know if there was an issue with the awnings encroaching on the public right-of-way. Mr. Taormina stated that the awning might stick out a few inches over the sidewalk. They plan to get an encroachment permit for that. Mr. Collison stated that there are three awnings at the east end of the building that project into the public right-of way. One awning is a triangular shape and projects five inches into the right-of-way. The next awning projects 10 inches at one end and 18 inches at the other end, and the last awning projects at maximum 1 foot. Commissioner Velasquez stated that she didn't see that as a waiver that the Commission would .have to approve. Ms. Lai replied it was mentioned in previous meetings with the applicant they could not have awnings that hang into the public right-of-way. 01 /23/08 Page 17 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Commissioner Velasquez stated that the plans show the awnings that the Commission would be approving. It has to be taken away or it has to be presented to the Commission for approval of those awnings encroaching on the public right-of-way. She likes them and would be supportive of the awnings but she doesn't see them in the approval. Chairman Buffa asked staff if there was a requirement for a variance. She wanted to know if it was handled through the encroachment permit process. Ms. Lai stated that they have an encroachment permit license the applicant could apply for if they encroach into public right-of-way. Chairman Buffa stated that these are temporary canvas awnings and not part of the building. She asked if the encroachment permit process was appropriate for these encroachments. Ms. Lai replied that this is the process they would need to abide by. Chairman Buffa confirmed that they do not need a variance from the Commission. She asked what their appeal rights would be if they applied for an encroachment permit for their awnings and it was denied. Ms. Lai stated that she would look into that and get back to the Commission with an answer. commissioner Velasquez stated she liked the awnings and suggested they should add them. Chairman Buffa replied because they have not noticed the public they could not consider a waiver for the awnings. She suggested they suspend this item for a few minutes until they could find an answer to her previous question. The Commission would like to know the appropriate procedural steps to take before they make their decision. Ms. Lai reported back and stated that staff was supportive of the awnings, assuming that the applicant applies for an encroachment license, which they could do through the Public Works Department Real Property Division. When they apply it would be routed through Planning and Traffic for safety concerns. In the event it is denied, it could be appealed to City Council. Mr. Taormina stated that they would like to wait two weeks and have the Commission re-advertise it so they could get the awnings by right because the staff supported them. They don't want to take a chance that it might get denied because it is an iconic part of their design. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the development of this structure into the public right-of-way normally is within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department. They process encroachment licenses all the time for a variety of different reasons and the City Attorney takes a look at them carefully. The development of the site and the development of this awning within the setback area obviously is something that is in the purview of the Planning Commission. The development of that structure into the public right-of-way is something that has to be approved by ~he Public Works department. The City doesn't have a process where the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to approve an encroachment into the public right-of-way. 01 /23/08 Page 18 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~r. Taormina stated that knowing this information he would like to take a chance for approval and apply for the encroachment permit. Mr. Gordon clarified that it is the development of this structure over the public right-of-way and the potential interference with the public's right and use of the property right that is the issue. It is not an issue of waiver of a setback requirement that involves the development of the property. These are two separate issues. Commissioner Velasquez thought they had done that, with the Platinum Triangle, over balconies that went over their right-of-way and that was under the jurisdiction of this Commission. Chairman Buffa reiterated that balconies encroached over the sidewalks or where, in the case of the Cheesecake Factory, their cornices extended into the public right-of-way. It encroached into the setback. There may be a distinction and perhaps they were in the setback area not in the public right-of-way. Mr. Gordon remarked that there is a difference between the encroachment and setback issues. The Code provides for encroachment of over hanging structures into a setback area without a waiver. There is a threshold that if the overhang is more than a certain percentage or a certain number of feet then it would require a waiver. That would be a separate issue from the structure over hanging into the public right-of-way. ~r. See reminded the Commission that a revised resolution was provided to the Commission. The esolution included a modification of Condition No. 1 and a new Condition No. 41. Those Conditions were provided to the applicant and the applicant agreed to the conditions. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Taormina if he contacted Anaheim Public Utilities to see if there were any potential green building components. Mr. Taormina replied they were planning to do some green elements on the roof but wanted to implement them later. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to determine that the previously approved Negative Declaration serve as the appropriate environmental documentation. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Commission Karaki offered a resolution to approve amendment Conditional Use Permit No. 2005- 05023 with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, permitted roof, canopy, and blade signs and location of monument signs, and accept the applicant's request to withdraw waiver (d) pertaining to permitted type, size, number, and letter height of wall signs. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. 01 /23/08 Page 19 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: One person spoke and one email was received in favor of the project. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (3:17 to 3:57) and 7 minutes (4:12 to 4:19) This Item was trailed • n U 01 /23/08 Page 20 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 FaessellEastman Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04610 Faessel Approved WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05281) Owner: Muller-MacArthur, LLC 23521 Paseo De Valencia Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Agent: Zohreh Shayan 125 West Cerritos Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 7-0 Location: 125-157 West Cerritos Avenue: Property is approximately 12.3 acres, located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard and having an approximate frontage of 600 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard. Request to reinstate a conditional use permit for an adult daycare • with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-11 Project Planner: (mashabi@ anaheim. net) Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Ghanim Maroul 125 W. Cerritos Ave, Sultan Adult Day Health Care, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve Categorical Exemption, Class 1 for this project. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit NO. 2002-04610 that permits fewer parking spaces than required by Code and delete the time limitation condition. race Medina announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. 01 /23/08 Page 21 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:57 to 4:01) • • 01 /23/08 Page 22 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS_1 EastmanNelasquez (Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3959 Eastman Approved WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (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 VOTE: 7-0 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 200 feet south of Ball Road. Request to amend Conditional use Permit No. 3959 to remodel the exterior facade of a retail center and reconfigure the parking area with a new waiver of parking requirements. Continued from the January 7, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-12 (mashabi@anaheim.net) Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Romero commented that when he visited the site, a lot of cars were parked along the garages of south side of the property. He suggested that Code Enforcement might want to look into this issue. Chairman Buffa addressed staff to note and mention to Code Enforcement to check the alley to see if there are vehicles being stored there that do not belong there. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Robert Vermeltfoort, 8525 N. Cedar, Suite 106, Fresno. He stated he represents Fiesta Foods. The applicant is very excited to offer this revitalization of a shopping center. Minoo and staff have gone through all the items they are concerned with. With regards to parking, the adjacent residents do tore their cars by the alley. The applicant would appreciate if staff does look into the parking issue because they are not going to do anything with that side of the building. He is ready to answer any questions. 01 /23/08 Page 23 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve a Categorical Exemption, Class 1. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit No. 3959 with fewer parking spaces required by Code. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:01 to 4:12) (Following this Item, No. 6 was concluded) U 01 /23/08 Page 24 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 11 BuffalFaessel 9b. VARIANCE NO. 2007-04741 Buffa Owner: 888 Milan R E LLC, 888 South Disneyland Drive #101 Claus Dieckell Anaheim, CA 92802 Agent: John Roetman 20361 Hermana Circle Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 888 South Disneyland Drive: Property is approximately 3.13-acres, having an approximate frontage of 350 feet on the east side of Disneyland Drive and located approximately 780 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Request to permit two (2) additional wall signs for an existing office building in The Anaheim Resort with waiver of maximum number of wall signs. i Variance Resolution No. PC2008-14 Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved 3 wall signs, added condition of approval related to signage design VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (dherrick@ anaheim. net) John Roetman, 627 Porto Place, Anaheim, stated that he is representing, Milan RE LLC, who is the owner of this building. With regards to Item No. 1, the applicant disagrees with the staff's comparison of his building and signs with other buildings and signs in the Resort. In the Specific Plan there are only two buildings that are multi-story commercial buildings, this being one. The other is a four story building, which is now West Coast University. The owner of this building thinks this use should be in the same zone as some of the multi-story office buildings nearby, which are allowed more than two signs and identify more than one tenant. This building has lease space of approximately 120,000 square feet. The two signs that are currently on the building only identify the anchor tenant, Banco Popular. Their lease space is approximately 1/5 of that entire building. Regarding the monument sign on Disneyland Drive, the sign one would read headed north on Disneyland Drive is almost useless to any tenants. That leaves potentially 9 tenants in this building with an opportunity for only three spaces on one face of the monument at the street. The owner would like the Planning Commission to consider a waiver to increase the signage to identify some of the additional tenants that would be in the building. At this site the only access into this site is north from Disneyland Drive. There is no left turn into the property, exiting the freeway from Disneyland Drive, and there is no left turn out of the ~roperty to leave. 01 /23/08 Page 25 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Karaki wanted to know if Banco Popular occupied 1/5 of the total lease space and asked if it was the applicant's intention to have an additional tenant to add an additional proposed sign. Mr. Roetman stated that the purpose of the two additional signs was to benefit the applicant. The purpose would be to offer additional large tenants an incentive to lease space in that building. He does not have a particular tenant that would be placed on the building. Commissioner Karaki asked if he knew the vacancy rate on the building. Mr. Roetman replied that he was unaware of the vacancy rate as he represents the sign company and is not the owner. Chairman Buffa asked if the property owner or the leasing agent was present. Mr. Roetman replied no. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karaki stated that staff is recommending denial of this waiver for additional signage. He thought the applicant would be entitled to additional building signs if there were potential for a tenant to occupy more lease space. He asked staff if there was a provision where the lessee would ~e entitled to have the building signs if they wanted to occupy one side of the building. Ms. Herrick replied that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan does not go by the tenant, it went by the number of signs. She processed the original Conditional Use Permit on the property at the time when a different tenant was in the building. The City asked if they wanted to use one sign and maybe save it for another tenant. It was the owner's choice to place Banco Popular on both sides of the building. The City did not mandate the property owner put a sign based on where the tenant was. It was up to the owner. Commissioner Karaki asked what the situation would be if they had three anchor tenants. Ms. Herrick stated that they would have the monument sign. There are three spaces on the monument sign they could put tenants on. The Code allows two wall signs. Commissioner Velasquez asked if this building was not in the Anaheim Resort Area, how many signs would be allowed in a building like this. The reason she asked this question was because this office building is not like other parts of the Anaheim Resort Area and is an unintended use for this area. She wanted to make sure they treat the applicant like an office building and not as a hotel. Ms. Herrick replied that the maximum number of wall signs permitted was three. Commissioner Velasquez commented that she would be in favor of giving them the same number of ~igns they could get if they were outside of the Anaheim Resort Area. 01 /23/08 Page 26 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ommissioner Eastman stated that this area is close to where she lives and she uses Disneyland rive all the time. The traffic is fast headed north on Disneyland Drive. She agreed with the sign company that the monument sign is useless because it's small. By the time someone sees the sign they would have a hard time turning and would be either on the freeway or down the road. She thought it was a hardship with this particular parcel. It is on the very edge of the Resort District and it is not a resort use. She is in support of the three signs Commissioner Velasquez suggested. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Velasquez. He clarified that although this office building is at the very corner of the Resort, it is not defined as a Resort use. The City has other business buildings and other residential structures within the Resort District that are not Resort uses but could be in the future. This property owner could in the future put in a hotel. He does not see an issue with the placement of the sign and thought it would be a reasonable way of approaching the sign issue. He suggested they should use the criteria that would be appropriate. Commissioner Agarwal stated that he was concerned with the placement of the sign. He was in support of the signs being on top of the building which has more visibility driving on the freeway. He was in favor of putting another sign or increasing the dimensions of the sign at the top of the building. Chairman Buffa stated that the majority of the Commission would be willing to grant a waiver. The Planning Commission does not have a resolution of approval in front of them. She was not sure how they would grant an approval of a waiver since they don't have a resolution to do that. Mark Gordon remarked that the Planning Commission could take action by motion. He commented hat by reviewing the staff report and the proposed resolution that represents a recommendation for denial, there were no conditions proposed that may be appropriate. He stated he did not see any conditions in the staff report and if the Planning Commission grants the proposal and no conditions were in the proposed resolution they might want to defer action until the Planning Department could recommend appropriate conditions. The Planning Commission may want to consider the approval of a sign plan before the applicant was allowed to hang signs on the building. Plans could be approved by the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission, as a report and recommendation item. In respect to an issue raised, the issue here is unusual circumstances that are applicable to this property that would deny this property owner privileges that are enjoyed of other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Comparing this property with rights that properties have outside of this zoning district is comparing apples with oranges. Commissioner Faessel addressed the City Attorney. He wanted to know if the Planning Commission had the purview of where the signs were to be placed on the building. Mark Gordon stated that could be one of the conditions brought back to the Commission for consideration. Chairman Buffa stated that she was still uncertain on this application. She could think of high rise buildings in Los Angeles where one tenant gets their name at the top of the building, renting three ~loors out of forty. She stated there are times where a tenant wouldn't have the opportunity for building signage, from that point of view; she doesn't think this is an unusual circumstance. It is the property owner's choice about what they do with the two signs that are available. They could use that 01 /23/08 Page 27 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~quare footage to put up more than one business name. She wasn't sure if that was a hardship. In heir favor, there is a limited number of this kind of use in the Resort District. If the Commission feels that the Resort District penalizes mid rise office properties, then Commission needs to look at that. The Commission might consider that because this property is located on streets with high rates of speed, those were enough unusual circumstances to justify granting this property owner a waiver. They need to be careful because they don't need every hotel in the Resort District coming back to add more signs. Commissioner Velasquez stated that she agreed with Commissioner Eastman. The hardship is location and the difficulty in seeing the building. Commissioner Agarwal believed there were harsh and unusual circumstances applicable to this building. Placement of the ingress and egress from this building was very difficult. He wasn't sure if a sign would solve the property owner's problem of tenancy in this building but at least it would be an attraction. With the market being what it is there could be a vacancy for a long time. Commissioner Karaki thought they should consider adding a provision on the lease that nobody would be allowed to put signs on top of the building, because if they made an agreement they could not force them to put it on top. He thought there should be a lease agreement between them and Banco Popular. He would like to allow them the freedom to put the sign any where they want to by allowing them one more sign and that's it. Commissioner Faessel referred to his previous question to the City Attorney. He asked if this building *ivas outside the Resort District, and was permitted by right to have three signs, could they place the signs any place they wanted to. The Commission could place restrictions on that if they so choose. He was under the impression that his associates agreed that they would handle this as if it were outside of the Resort District. He felt uncomfortable adding additional restrictions on placement of a third sign. Chairman Buffa thought that the distinction was important. If the signs were in the canyon they wouldn't be seeing them at all. They were not in the canyon, they were in the Resort. They need a waiver to do what they are doing in order to grant the Commission the discretion about how that variance works. Chairman Buffa asked if it someone would like to make a motion so that they could consider a different outcome. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue this item for the next Planning Commission meeting in two weeks. Commission Karaki wanted to know before they vote what the Commission is asking of staff. Chairman Buffa stated that what she has heard from the Commission is that the Commission would be willing to consider three wall signs. The applicant would need to resubmit plans showing the location of three wall signs and not four. The findings would be based on an approval of that decision. It would be based on the fact that it's at the edge of the Resort District and it is an unusual use in the Resort District. The office building, because of its specific location along the 5 freeways 01 /23/08 Page 28 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~nd Disneyland Drive, suffers from awkward access onto the property. The applicant has challenges hat other properties don't face in the area. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, suggested that they don't have to continue this item. The Commission could direct staff to prepare a resolution reflecting these findings and their decision. Staff would recommend a condition prior to issuance of the sign permit. The applicant would have to get approval from the Planning staff. The Planning staff would confirm the compliance with the Commission's direction and that the size of the wall sign complied with Code. Mark Gordon stated that they could take action by motion. The Commission could take action by motion as long as they articulate the findings that support the decision. They already stated the reasons for taking the actions. He suggested staff may want to include a condition that the plan is brought back to the Planning Commission for approval showing the location of the signs, the types of signs, and so on. Ms. Herrick wanted to know which one of those signs the Commission preferred. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant to come back to express his opinion on which of his three signs he liked best. Mr. Roetman replied as far as siting on the building, if they had an option for either of the locations they proposed, it would be okay. The proposed new eyebrow sign is fine with everybody. The Bank may have a problem with putting the sign at the top of the building. They wouldn't choose that for two ~easons. The first reason is that south elevation would get buried behind the Sheraton Hotel and the sign would never be seen. The second reason is that on the north side of the elevation the sign would be competing with the current sign on the same line as the current bank. He doesn't feel it would work well for anybody. If staff could direct them to one or the other of the proposed locations, they would be okay. Chairman Buffa asked if both of the signs were above the second and third stories of the building. Mr. Roetman stated there was a reason for that. He stated if they went lower, it would be guaranteed to be viewed all throughout the year. This is about the level you would find what was referred to as an eyebrow sign almost county wide. The drawback to dropping it down one more stories is that one would never know what the vegetation is going to be over the course of the years. He feels this would work for the purposes on the application. Mark Gordon discussed with the Planning staff that it would be nice to have something that reflects the permanency of the decision. As a matter of record, he thinks the Planning staff would prefer to follow up the Planning Commissions decision with a resolution. He thinks at this time instead of proposing it as a motion, they could offer a resolution, instead of the resolution being a resolution to deny Variance No. 2007-04741. It would be a resolution of the Anaheim Planning Commission that the petition for Variance No. 2007-04741 be granted in part and then describe the nature of what's being approved, conditions being imposed, and the findings that would support the action. Then they could fashion that into a resolution that would reflect the Planning Commissions action, and the ~lanning Department would have a paper trail, a document, that somebody could look to at a later date to see what exactly has been approved and what the basis for the approval was. He recommended that course of action. 01 /23/08 Page 29 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Commissioner Agarwal withdrew his motion. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve Categorical Exemption, Class 11. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. Chairman Buffa offered a resolution for Variance No. 2007-04741 to grant in part the applicant's request for one more building signs than allowed by Code. The Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution approving three signs based on the findings that this property is at the edge of the Resort and is an unusual type of use in the Resort District. There are very few multi-office buildings in the Resort. The sign guidelines were created for uses closely related to the Resort. Due to the placement of the building along two very busy streets, I-5, and Disneyland Drive North and the awkward access into the building that the Commission believes that a third building sign would be appropriate. Commission would ask staff to draft a Condition of Approval related to the design of that signage and the plans for the signs be brought back to Planning Staff for approval and if for some reason staff is not comfortable they could bring it back to the Planning Commission as reports and recommendation item but it would be the Commissions preference that staff make the decision. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. APPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (4:19 to 4:54) (Commissioner Eastman left the Council Chamber at 4:54) • 01 /23/08 Page 30 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Oa. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 FaesselNelasquez 10b. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2008-00235 * Buffa Owner: Evangelical Christian 955 West Imperial Highway P.O. Box 2400 Brea, CA 92822 Harvey Loebel P.O. Box 3000 Anaheim, CA 92803 Agent: Ross Maxwell 252 Esther Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Location: 1150 North Magnolia Avenue: Property is approximately 2.3-acres, located at the southeast corner of Woodland Drive and Magnolia Avenue, having approximate frontages of 260 feet on the south side of Woodland Drive and 318 feet on the east side • of Magnolia Avenue. Request to consider an appeal of the City Engineer's denial of a request to waive public right of way improvements associated with an expansion of an existing office building. * Advertised as Variance No. 2007-04740 Miscellaneous Permit No. PC2008-15 Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Denied, Recommended City Council Review Motion: BuffaNelasquez VOTE: 3-2 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki voted no Commissioner Eastman and Faessel abstained Project Planner.• (dherrick@anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa wanted to know the estimated cost of the improvements in public right-of-way. Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that the estimated cost for Woodland Drive, is approximately $14,000 and Magnolia Avenue it is approximately $47,000.00. If the developer does any improvements they would get credit for dedication and improvements, which would be approximately $ 38,000.00. Chairman Buffa asked if that would be a credit against their public fees that they would other wise ~ay. Ms. Lai replied correct. 01 /23/08 Page 31 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa indicated that there was discussion about the bus stop locations and the number of people who use the buses. She wanted to know how these improvements are linked with bus traffic. Ms Lai stated that the increased size of the building would result in an increase in pedestrian activity and that is the nexus for sidewalks in that area, because this property is on a corner it is a logical first step for sidewalks along Woodland Drive. It would be beneficial for people coming from the bus stop. This requirement would apply to adjacent properties that add square footage or construct a new building in the future. The City would be requiring the same improvements throughout the area. Commissioner Faessel referred to Woodland Drive and the industrial park and asked staff if there were sidewalks in that area. Ms. Lai stated that there are currently no sidewalks along that area. The code anticipates that changes will occur and staff's recommended improvement would be per the City's standard. Commissioner Agarwal wanted to know how reasonable cost is determined. It seemed that they implied to the applicant the cost for the improvement was reasonable. He asked if they were looking at the percentage of the total project. Ms. Lai replied in order to determine if the cost is reasonable they took into account the traffic fees the applicant had for the property. The traffic fees are based on the amount of square footage they're adding on to the building, it amounted to $32,000.00. To gain a hundred percent of the traffic ~mpact that would be $52,000.00. That is the amount reasonable for them to proceed with the onstruction and based on the amount of total construction they would be doing, less Woodland Drive, because it is not part of the master plan of arterial highways. Commission Agarwal stated it was still unclear to him. He reiterated that they were defining this by the traffic impact fee that the applicant would be paying and if the cost of the improvement is less than the traffic impact fee they would be calling these reasonable improvements. Ms. Lai stated that was correct. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Harvey Lobel, 1150 N. Magnolia Avenue, property owner, stated that he has worked in this business park for over twenty five years. He cares about the appearance of the business park. He owns the land and the building with his three brothers. This business park in very clean and well maintained. Their company is one of two at the front of the business park. It is important to keep the appearance on both sides of the streets the same or the front of the business park would look odd. The business park has very mature trees and it would look odd to place small parkway trees in front of mature trees. In addition, to have a 5' sidewalk with grass on one side of the front of the business park and the other side to have a 10' side-walk would be odd. Since the business park was built long ago, if they put a sidewalk along Woodland Drive, it would stand out. There is no where in the business park that has a sidewalk and it would appear very strange. All of the mature trees are 40' trees in eight and would have to be cut down. The City estimate of $61,000.00 is not even close to what it ~ivould cost. They had this project bid out by large builders, such as Swinerton Builders, that have built very large projects in Anaheim. The cost was estimated at $125,000 to 150,000.00. They would need to remove the trees along Woodland Drive and build retaining walls due to the slope. 01 /23/08 Page 32 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .There is no reasonable need for the sidewalk and the estimate is not even close to what it would cost. He has been in the area for twenty five years and there is virtually no one ever walking on the street. There is no pedestrian traffic. He thought it would ruin the look of the business park should it be altered. He is more concerned with the look of the property and the appearance and the esthetics than he is with the money. Most of all there is no reason to change one small area of the business park. They are the only property that has the land to add the additional portion to their building. The property owner deposited $5,000.00 of their own money with the City because they care about the property's appearance. That is why he is asking for the Variance. Commissioner Agarwal asked the applicant how many people work in their building. Mr. Lobel guessed approximately 100 people. Commissioner Agarwal asked if he knew how many of those hundred people took the bus. Mr. Lobel replied none. Commissioner Agarwal stated that by adding another 11,000 square feet, how many more people would be working in the building, approximately. Mr. Lobel guessed approximately 50. He reminded the Commission that there is no need to for this project. He felt that it would be an eyesore if the City required this. ~hairman Buffa asked if anyone else was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero stated that he has been to the property a few times to see the foot traffic. He did not observe anyone in the area or in the business park itself. He was concerned that the sidewalk would lead to nowhere, except to the end of the driveway. It is a well maintained park and he agreed with the applicant. Adding the sidewalk up Woodland Drive and changing the appearance of the front of the building at Magnolia seems like it wouldn't make sense. He observed the area with the intention of verifying what the City came up with. It still didn't' make sense to make the changes and to have to pay the expense as well. He is in favor not requiring the sidewalk. Commissioner Faessel stated that he went over Municipal Code Section 18.40.060. It delineates clearly what the two options are before the Commission. It states that a private right-of-way can be denied on behalf of the City Engineer. The second one would be in regards to the cost issue. It states that if the cost of required dedication and improvements unreasonably exceeds the burden or impact created by the development project the requirement could be waived. He felt the word "impact" was the telling word. He believed this project wouldn't have the level of impact that would create the needed civic right-of-way improvements that the City Engineer is demanding. He is in support of the applicant, against the recommendation of the staff. Commissioner Karaki stated the City had issues regarding cost previously with other applicants. He does not want to encourage waiving City requirements for improvements or everyone would request ~t. He would like to see a sidewalk in that area, as in the future there would be many more developments. He has been in the business and doesn't think the City is far off on their estimate pertaining to cost. He is concerned, in regards to Magnolia Avenue, about the mature trees that 01 /23/08 Page 33 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ould be destroyed. He asked staff if there was any alternative solution to keep the trees. Ms. Lai stated the trees would be removed along Woodland Drive. Trees would be required in the parkway along Magnolia to provide a buffer for pedestrian safety. That is part of their standard. The existing Magnolia trees located within the setback along Magnolia will not be removed. There is an existing 10' sidewalk within which the proposed street improvements of a 5' parkway and 5' sidewalk are to be located. There are two existing Magnolia trees along Woodland Drive that will be removed by the proposed street improvement. Mr. Karaki remembered the past projects on Magnolia and other occasions were they imposed those conditions. This situation is different from the others and he agrees with staff on the importance of providing improvements along those streets. The cost that the applicant estimated is way off from what the City estimated. Chairman Buffa was concerned regarding the City's proposed conditions along the two streets. She didn't see any benefit to add a sidewalk along Woodland Drive. There is no sidewalk on the entire length of that street, on either side. The sidewalk would not connect to anything and there is no evidence of pedestrian traffic on that street. If people walked to the bus stop they could walk on the lawn. She was not in favor of adding the sidewalk on Woodland. She does not believe the impact to that street justifies taking out those mature trees and putting in a sidewalk. She was concerned with regards to Magnolia Avenue. Her concerns veered off into the area of policy making which is inappropriate. She believed that when you have a major arterial highway like Magnolia Avenue, it is inappropriate to ask developers to improve one street frontage at a time, to go in and make changes ecause they might end up with odd connections of sidewalks where property has been improved. It is her preference that this should be a public improvement and stretches of Magnolia should be improved altogether by the City. Funding mechanisms are always challenging and she is not sure if the City has a fee program into which this developer can pay for those improvements to be made by the City in the future. She does not know if a fee program exists. Ms. Lai stated there is a fee. There is cash in lieu fee where the applicant can do the improvements based on the City's cash estimates. The city could add a condition for the improvements. Chairman Buffa supported having cash in lieu payment along Magnolia Avenue. She didn't see the point of Woodland Drive improvements. Ms. Lai stated that there would be only two trees removed in that area. In response to walking on the sidewalk, the City has ADA requirements in which the sidewalks should be 2%. The City would like to have a sidewalk because if anyone should be walking in that area it would be a city right-of- way and if anything should happen the City would be liable. On Woodland Drive, technically, the City should ask for a parkway and a sidewalk but they see the reasonableness of not having the applicant put in a parkway and only put in the sidewalk that would impact two of the trees. There is a monument sign adjacent to the driveway along Woodland Drive and if it impacts the sidewalk they could work with the developer to jog around it and not have it relocated. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to determine that a lass 1, Categorical Exemption. Chairman Buffa suggested that the Commission withhold their vote until further discussion took 01 /23/08 Page 34 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES lace on this item. A general discussion took place regarding the decision that was appealed to determine if it was the decision of the City Engineer to impose the obligation for an improvement because of the standards the policies and the obligations that are imposed under the General Plan and other provisions of the Code that apply. The Commission also discussed issues of the estimates and credits that would apply to the applicant. Chairman Buffa indicated that they start a motion. She asked if the Commission was ready to vote. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve this covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone opposed. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel offered by resolution to suggest that the Commission approve Miscellaneous Permit No. 2008-00235 for the reasons that the cost of the required dedication and improvements do indeed unreasonably exceed the burden and impact created by the previously approved development project. Chairman Buffa reminded him that he would have to justify the reasonableness. The Commission needs to state their rational to support their decision. Commissioner Faessel withdrew his resolution. Commissioner Faessel offered by resolution to deny the Miscellaneous Permit No. 2008-00235. Grace Medina announced that the resolution failed with 2 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki voted no and Commissioner Faessel abstained and Commissioner Eastman was absent. Further discussion took place to reconsider the Commissions vote as there were still questions Commission wanted addressed. They reconsidered their votes. Chairman Buffa offered a resolution to deny Miscellaneous Permit No. 2008-00235. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 3 aye votes and 2 no votes. Commissioner Agarwal and Commissioner Karaki voted no. Commissioner Eastman absent and Commissioner Faessel abstained. Chairman Buffa asked the record to reflect that Commissioner Faessel left the meeting. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney read and reviewed the Procedures Resolution to the Planning Commission. Further discussion took place with regards to the action. Chairman Buffa stated that she would like to re-open the public hearing on this item to reconsider .this matter. Mark Gordon commented that he looked at the Procedures Resolution and a tie vote would not result in a motion or resolution carrying but if the Planning Commission is unable to act upon a 01 /23/08 Page 35 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~atter in a meeting due to a tie vote among it's members the Planning Commission may, in it's discretion, by motion refer such matters to the City Council without further action or recommendations. As a result of a tie vote if the Planning Commission can not agree, a tie vote that .can't be reconciled or worked out ,could lead to a motion being adopted referring the matter to the City Council. That action could have been taken under the circumstance. The Procedures Resolution goes on to say that if a resolution can not be adopted then the manner is deemed automatically continued till the next Planning Commission meeting. A tie vote does not result in any action being affirmed or denied. The Commission could under those circumstances, if they are unable to break that deadlock, could offer a motion to refer the matter to the Council. Chairman Buffa stated that prior to the Commission voting she made the statement that she was prepared to change her vote. She believed a tie would result in the matter being referred to the City Council. Chairman Buffa commented that they no longer have the ability to have a tie vote since only five Commissioners present. She stated that they could reconsider their prior vote or continue the matter over until February 4, 2008 and instead of denying the permit they could reconsider the matter at the next hearing at which time the outcome might change. Commissioner Karaki stated that they already took action on behalf of the city. He stated that he ~as not comfortable with taking another action. Chairman Buffa wanted to make a motion. Mark Gordon commented that if they were going to make a motion for reconsideration he would like to review the rules in the Procedures Resolution and discuss that first before they offer a motion again. Commissioner Eastman is absent and Commissioner Faessel is no longer present and he doesn't remember who voted in favor or against the proposal that was in front of the Commission. Commissioner Karaki asked if he could chose not to participate in this because this item was over discussed and he was not comfortable with further action on the item. Mark Gordon stated that he was only advising the Commission as to their options and he was not recommending they go back and reconsider the item. He advised the Commission that they could request review by Council if they wanted or re-open the matter as long as they proceed in the correct manner. Commissioner Romero asked if he could change his vote in order to result in a tie vote, therefore, it would automatically go to the City Council for a decision with no cost to the applicant. Mr. Gordon stated that would not necessarily happen because there would have to be a new vote and it would be difficult because there are only five Commissioners left. It might result in a tie vote again since there are only four Commissioners and Commissioner Karaki stated that he might not participate. Chairman Buffa stated that she was prepared to offer a motion to refer the matter to the City Council. 01 /23/08 Page 36 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon reminded Chairman Buffa that was a separate action. He thought it would not require reconsideration of the action already taken. Chairman Buffa re-opened the public hearing on Miscellaneous item Permit No. 2008-00235. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant if he would like this to be referred to the Council. Mr. Maxwell stated that he would like the matter referred to the City Council. Mr. Gordon stated that it comes down to nexus and cost. Those are the issues that Council could discuss as they are the policy makers. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to have item #10 reviewed by the City Council. The motion passed with 3 aye votes. Commissioner Agarwal and Commissioner Karaki voted no with Commissioner Eastman and Faessel absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME • 1 hour and 15 minutes (4:54 to 6:10) 21 minutes (6:20 to 6:41) -reopened (Commissioner Faesse/ left the Council Chamber at 6:09) 01 /23/08 Page 37 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05279 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Owner: Isaac Alchalel 2663 South Malt Avenue Commerce, CA 90040 Agent: Mark Botich CBA Architects 20280 Acacia Street #230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Velasquez Location: 1900 and 1990 West Crescent Avenue: Property is approximately 5.9 acres, located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Muller Street, having approximate frontages of 618 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue and 280 feet on the west side of Muller Street. Request to permit school and daycare uses associated with a • church with less parking spaces than are required by Code. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-16 Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Approved Vote: 5-0 Commissioners Eastman and Faessel absent Project Planner.• (skoehm@anaheim.net) Commissioner Agarwal referred to the staff report. He read there would be up to 200 teachers working on Sundays. He asked staff if that was correct. Mr. Koehm replied yes. The maximum number of teachers would be 200. The applicant has indicated that it would be during times when the high school students are in attendance in the evening. There will be approximately 150 teachers for the first three quarters of the day on Sunday. Chairman Buffa questioned one of the conditions. She stated that one of the conditions is the school has a parking permit system for students so teachers get preferential parking. She asked if that was included within one of the conditions or was that a recommendation in the traffic report. Mr. Koehm stated that it was a recommendation in the parking study, on Condition No. 11, #4. Chairman Buffa confirmed that her question was answered. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Mark Botich, CBA Architects, 20280 Acacia Street Suite 230, Newport Beach, stated that he would like to present a brief summary of the Conditional Use Request. Sa-Rang Community Church desires to relocate its religious education program from the existing church facility located at the Velasquez/Romero 01 /23/08 Page 38 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~orner of Brookhurst and La Palma Avenue, to an off-site location. The project before Commission today has been identified as Mission Education Campus. It is located at 1900 and 1990 W. Crescent Avenue. The site is a forty year old corporate and research campus containing 5 one story buildings and 1 two story building, with approximately 79,708 square feet. They are proposing to add 3,000 square feet of new construction in the future. In addition to conducting Sunday school classes, at the Mission Education Campus, the church wishes to conduct a weekday day care center, with a maximum enrollment of 100 children and also schedule adult bible study classes in the evening. The parking study for this Conditional Use Permit request provided a clear and precise report stating that they would meet the City's requirements with off-site parking, using their busses from the church to the campus for Sundays and on-site parking for partial use as indicated in the parking study and a letter of operation during the week. He is glad to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked that since this is an educational use that involves high school students who have cars, what mechanisms can the church put in place to ensure that students that don't have a permit to park on site ,don't spill over to the adjacent industrial properties or into the adjacent neighborhood streets. Mr. Botich stated that the religious education school is for all ages. Junior high and high school students are the last service on Sundays. The church has a traffic community group that directs traffic and monitors traffic. In the report, it shows 1,800 parking spaces in an off-site location, which they bus to the church and 800 parking spaces at the church, which in turn, they then bus to their religious education campus. They do not feel they will have that many seniors. That would be a .small portion of the total number of children. Chairman Buffa indicated that they already have a bussing program and that is not something new. She felt that made a big difference. Mr. Botich replied that was correct. Commissioner Romero commented that, in the future if, Mr. Botich wanted to add building area that would impact the parking requirements at that time. Daniel Kim, Senior Pastor, 1111 N. Brookhurst Street, stated that the church highly values their standing in the community. In order to better serve the community, they would love to open up a library that could be used by the community once the building is complete. They would also like a multi-purpose building that the community could use after getting permission from the church, for various purposes. They want to continue their commitment to the community and grow together with their neighbors and their community. Chairman Buffa reflected for the record that there were many members of the church in the audience supporting the application. She asked if there were anyone who would like to speak on the application. Kenny Staggs, 2130 W. Crescent Avenue, stated that he is a member of the church. He stated that since this has to do with the parking situation he wanted to assure the Commission that the shuttle ~ystem, parking enforcement and their personnel keep things in order. The shuttle system is efficient and parishioners use the off-site parking. He thought the off-site parking would alleviate any problems. 01 /23/08 Page 39 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to determine that the previously approved Negative Declaration serve as the appropriate environmental documentation. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Eastman and Faessel abstained. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05279 with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Eastman and Faessel were absent. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: 5 persons in favor of the project were present. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2008. ~ISCUS$ION TIME: 15 minutes (6:10 to 6:26) Item No. 10 was re-opened following this item 01 /23/08 Page 40 of 41 JANUARY 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:41 P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2007 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: ~: Grace Medina Planning Commission Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008. 01 /23/08 Page 41 of 41