Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/02/20• /O~ ,~ , ~~ ~~1 E I/~j P cy _ <~~ D City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday, February 20, 2008 ~o ~ ~~ Y~~ ~NDED 1~ Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Dave See, Senior Planner Ted White, Senior Planner Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Peter Agarwal, Joseph Karaki Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary • Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 14, 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, February 7, 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 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 AGENDA • Workshop on General Plan Housing Element Update -Rescheduled to the March 3, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 20 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Velasquez Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas -Minutes\2008 Minutes\Memos for Minutes\2008 Minutes\AC022008.doc FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1 B and to continue Item 1A, as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED in • 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2008. Continued from the February 4, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting (Motion) 1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 4, 2008. (Motion) Continued to March 3, 2008 VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent VOTE: 5-0 Consent Calendar Approval Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent 02/20/08 Page 2 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05293 Owner: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Raymond Smith Federal Heath Sign Company 4602 North Avenue Oceanside, CA 92056 Eastman Location: 2000 East Gene Autry Way, 2000 South State College Boulevard and 2379 East Orangewood Avenue (Angel Stadium of Anaheim): Property is approximately 98.5 acres, having a frontage of 675 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, 1,445 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, and 100 feet on Douglass Road. • Request to permit the modification of two (2) legally non-conforming reader board signs within the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking lot, including the "Big A" sign. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-23 Ted White, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent Project Planner: twhite@anaheim.net Raymond Smith, Federal Heath Sign Company, 4602 North Avenue, stated that he represents Federal Heath Sign Company and is contracted to make this application on behalf of the Angels. He has been working closely with staff and accepts the staff report with no objections. He is available 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 commented that staff explained the improvements of technology and the energy saving on the big "A" is substantial. There is approximately 66% improvement in energy savings for the sign on State College Boulevard and a 40% improvement for the Big A sign. He felt hat was remarkable. Commissioner Velasquez stated that this project's upgrade was a great improvement. Eastman/Romero 02/20/08 Page 3 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Eastman stated that the sign was out dated. She thought it was a good idea to upgrade the technology and save energy at the same time. Commissioner Romero was concerned with the items that would be advertised on the reader boards. The Planning staff assured him the signs would be required to comply with Code. He is happy with the new changes. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05293. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. OPPOSITION: None ark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on ~hursday, March 13, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:32 to 2:38) • 02/20/08 Page 4 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Faessel/Velasquez 3b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Faessel NECESSITY NO. 2007-00038 Owner: Anaheim GWII, LLC 17140 Bernard Center Drive #310 San Diego, CA 92128 Applicant: Lucille Kring Pop The Cork, LLC 1619 West Lorane Way Anaheim, CA 92802 Location: 321 West Katella Avenue (Anaheim GardenWalk): Property is approximately 19.3 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Clementine Street, having approximate frontages of 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713-1717 South • Clementine Street) and 800 feet on the south side of Disney Way. Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of beer and wine for on and off-premises consumption within a proposed bar/wine store at Anaheim GardenWalk. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2008-24 Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved, with modification to Condition Nos. 5 and 7, deletion of Condition Nos. 8 and 10 VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent Project Planner: skoehm@anaheim.net Lucille Kring, Pop the Cork, 1619 West Lorane Way, Anaheim 92802, stated that she has no objections to the changes staff has recommended. If there are any questions, about Pop the Cork, she is available to answer them. Commissioner Velasquez asked if this was an adult atmosphere because on one of the conditions it states that no one under the age of 21 shall be allowed. She asked the applicant if they would be serving dinner. s. Kring replied they would not be serving dinner because Pop the Cork is not a restaurant. They would be serving ancillary food plates which would be small plates of cheese, meats, tapas and things of that nature. The applicant is asking for two different licenses. A license 20 by the ABC is a license for off-site consumption, so that people under 21 with a parent could go in. Pop the Cork will 02/20/08 Page 5 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •ave gourmet foods, pastas, oils, nuts, candy and things of that nature. The adults could come in and by beer or wine and they can have a child under the age of 21 there. When people go into the wine bar there will be a sign that nobody under the age of 21 will be allowed. In that area people over the age of 21 can have a beer and buy a bottle of wine or a food plate. Those are the reasons they would need to request two different licenses. Commissioner Velasquez understood that there were two different areas that were separated. The bar, with adults over 21, being one area and the other area would be where people could purchase merchandise. Ms. Kring replied correct. There is one entrance into the place that would be strictly retail. To enter the bar area where a person would buy a glass of wine or a bottle they would have to go through an entrance that has a sign that says, "No one under 21 ", that would be the only way someone could get into the patio. It would be the only way they could get into the bar and it is very secure. Commissioner Velasquez asked if this condition only applied to that section. Ms. Kring replied no, she needed the off-site consumption for retail and the on-site consumption for the bar and patio area. They will be carding people under the age of 40. She will not be taking any chances. Commissioner Velasquez wanted to make sure she was not being limited because she was not sure ~ow they separated the location with regards to Condition No. 7 Mr. Koehm read Condition No. 7. No one under the age of 21 shall be allowed to enter and remain on the premises. That would allow someone under 21 with a guardian to come in to the retail portion of it if the adults wanted to purchase something and then leave. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the key word would be "remain". Mr. Koehm stated that was correct. They are allowed to come in and purchase something and leave. They didn't want to prohibit parents walking by. Commissioner Velasquez wanted to make sure they were not over doing the conditions. Mr. Koehm stated that they have worked it out with the Anaheim Police Department to make sure this would be allowed. The police department is comfortable with the wording as it is, to allow them to purchase something and leave. They wouldn't be allowed to stay with their children. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman disclosed that she met with the applicant. The applicant explained her business plan and what she planned to do. She is supportive and the business model looks like it's a good fit in that location. The police was not advising against it and she wishes the applicant a lot of ~uccess. Commissioner Romero disclosed that he spoke to the applicant on the phone and he also supports the project. 02/20/08 Page 6 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Faessel disclosed that he has spoke to the applicant. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to recommend approval of this project under CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Faessel offered by resolution to approve the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00038 with the changes to the document as recommended by staff, changes of Condition of Approval No. 5, regarding the operation times and the removal of Condition No. 8, and 10. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney stated that before the item is moved he thinks there might be an additional recommendation concerning Condition No. 7 that Commissioner Velasquez addressed. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that in the future it might be straight forward for the City's enforcement purposes, if it were to read that no one under the age of 21 shall be allowed on the on-site consumption portion of the property. Chairman Buffa agreed. Commissioner Faessel stated that with the additional statement on the Condition of Approval No. 7 hat being included may the resolution to approve. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:39 to 2:49) • 02/20/08 Page 7 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Faessel/Eastman (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05292 Faessel Owner: RRM Properties 770 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 307 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Applicant: Rachel Fenton NSA Wireless, INC. 2527 Camino Ramon, Suite 350 San Ramon, CA 94583 Location: 195 and 201 East Commercial Street: Property is approximately 2.69 acres, having a frontage of 322 feet on the north side of Commercial Street approximately 668 feet east of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. Request to permit the continued use of a telecommunications facility disguised as a palm tree with accessory ground-mounted equipment • and no time limitation. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-25 Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Approved, modification to Condition Nos. 2, 3 VOTE: 4-1 and 4 Commissioner Romero voted no Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent Project Planner: mashabi@anaheim.net Commissioner Romero stated that the original Conditional Use Permit expired in 2004. He asked who had the authority to monitor the permits. Ms. Ashabi stated that the proposed entitlement does not have a time limitation. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that the Planning Department could monitor the permits. They would have to have a tickler system to put in the time limitations that come up on the permits. They are moving towards not having time limitations on Conditional Use Permits. They need to review the remaining permits that have a time limitation to keep track of them. Commissioner Romero stated that the reason he had brought this up was to address those Conditional Use Permits with time limitations. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Rachel Fenton, NSA Wireless, Inc., 2527 Camino Ramon, Suite 350, San Ramon, 94583, represents SA Wireless and was contracted by Sprint/Nextel to process this request. They agree with the staff ~eport and the Conditions of Approval that are being placed on the site. She is available to answer any questions. 02/20/08 Page 8 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Eastman stated that she would like the color of the antennas to match the green palm tree fronds because some of the antennas are faded. She asked if they could replace the palm tree fronds with better looking fronds. She noticed the newer palm trees had a better disguise because of the round bases and fullness to them. She would like this to be an upgrade. She understands they are not able to put in a different base but the improvement would blend better. The other issue is that it looks like there is dirt on the other side. There is an area the applicant could plant something to give a green look. She asked if there is a reason nothing is planted there. Ms. Fenton stated that the reason nothing is planted is because it is outside of Sprint/Nextel's lease area. Commissioner Eastman asked if the screening was on their property. Ms. Fenton stated that they have a certain area, within that property, leased specifically for the Sprint/Nextel facility. She pointed out the existing monopalm. There is a square that is within the applicant's lease area that leaves no room for additional planting. The applicant does not have the ability to plant outside of the area leased from the landlord. Commissioner Eastman replied it sounds like the three existing natural palm trees are outside of the applicant's lease area. Ms. Fenton stated that the three palm trees are within their lease area. commissioner Eastman explained the area she was referring to would be between the monopalm and the chain-linked fence. She stated that she has chain-linked fence between her house and the neighbors. She didn't like the appearance of the fence so her solution was to plant vines adjacent to the fence. Vines would effectively screen the area open to the view of the public. When there is a plain fence it is open to graffiti and vines would be more effective. This is the intent of screening when it comes to the City's Code. Ms. Fenton stated that Sprint/Nextel was willing to abide by any conditions they can. They try to work with the cities. She was not sure how the Commission wanted to handle this situation because it was not a condition of approval. Chairman Buffa stated that staff could guide them with this matter. Commissioner Eastman stated that it was an industrial area but it would be a definite improvement on the fencing if they could get some green vines. Ms. Fenton asked if there were any other questions. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel asked Commissioner Eastman if she was suggesting an additional palm be ~lanted. He said Commissioner Eastman had requested the applicant to replace the palm fronds, paint the antenna's, and replace the three unhealthy palms per stated condition of approval. 02/20/08 Page 9 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Eastman suggested that the vines be planted on the inside of the chain-linked fence so the vines would grow up and over the fence, resulting in greenery facing the street, rather than just a fence that is vulnerable to graffiti. Commissioner Faessel wanted to make sure the applicant was aware of the points raised by Commissioner Eastman. Chairman Buffa stated that Condition of Approval No. 2 requires the applicant to re-paint the antennas to match the palms. Commissioner Eastman suggested the applicant add longer palm fronds to help screen the antennas. The antennas right now are prominent and not well hidden. The language on Condition No. 3 could be modified to require the applicant to maintain the fence and plant vines on the inside that would be allowed to grow up and over the fence. Commissioner Eastman asked Ms. Fenton if it would be feasible to change out the artificial palm fronds. Ms. Fenton replied it would require a new pole. To replace the fronds with new larger fronds was not something they could ask SprintlNextel. This mono-pole on this site was originally approved in 1999 and that would be the reason they wouldn't want to replace the fronds. Commissioner Eastman stated that the artificial greens tend to fade and become worn. The City usually requires that the applicant maintain the mono-pole in like new condition or good condition. ~he thinks it falls under routine maintenance. Ms. Fenton thought that was a Condition of the Approval. Commissioner Velasquez replied that they were referring to Condition No. 10. She asked if the condition referred to, "facility", as being the building or the palm tree, because it sounded like it referred to the palm tree. Eliminating time limitations was her concern because there is no system to monitor the conditions that have expired permits. She was concerned with this issue, with regards to time limitations on any type of antenna, because issues come up and there is no way to monitor them. Commissioner Eastman stated that it is only looked at when it is brought up to the Planning Department. Commissioner Velasquez remembered that the main reason that was given was because they were going to try to save money for the applicant not to have to re-apply. Someone has to go out and monitor the conditions. It would be the applicant or the City that would eventually pay. She was concerned with eliminating the time limitations. Commissioner Eastman agreed and had the same concerns. Commissioner Velasquez asked how they would go about changing the conditions to be without time .limitations. Commissioner Eastman added, if there were no time limitations on this, five years from now, when it might have expired, who will notice. 02/20/08 Page 10 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~s. Fenton commented that wireless technology is constantly changing. These sites never stay the same. The wireless companies are constantly adding new technology, replacing new antennas, and equipment. With almost all the jurisdictions she has worked with, anytime a wireless facility makes any modification, they always have to bring it up in front of the Planning Department. That is an opportunity for the Planning Department to review the site. Commissioner Velasquez asked staff how the City would monitor those conditions. Chairman Buffa asked staff to express their opinion on this matter. They heard the concerns and need to balance what is reasonable and efficient for the Staff and the applicant. If there is no monitoring program in place, she asked how the City would ensure these facilities are properly being maintained over the long-term. Commissioner Velasquez stated they have shifted the burden on the City as opposed to the applicant. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that as with any permits that are issued compliance with the conditions of approval is part of the responsibility of the applicant. The on going monitoring is an expensive task that falls in the lap of the City. The City has an extensive staff of community preservation officers who are out on patrol daily looking at these things. In this case he assumed, because of the industrial nature of the area, it is an area that has not been patrolled closely as they ormally do for other things. It is unusual in most jurisdictions to put time limitations on Conditional ~se Permits. They could continue to do that but there is nothing illegal or wrong with not doing it. It is an atypical condition for most cities to place time limitations on permits. It is a policy issue that is appropriate for the Commission to make a decision on. Commissioner Velasquez replied there are other antennas that are not in an industrial area. They have identified concerns on almost every antenna that has come before the Commission. Commissioner Eastman stated that we typically do not have pro-active code enforcement in our city, they are re-active. That means either the business owner or the general public has to bring it forward with a complaint. They don't drive around to write down things that are wrong. This falls into an area of, who's going to complain. When she did notice she was concerned. The burden should be on the carrier because they should know they have a CUP. It would be like they would reward the business owners for not having come forward to renew their CUP, by giving them an unlimited ticket. That is the reason she brought up these changes. Chairman Buffa stated that they needed to balance all of this discussion against the city's initiative to have wireless service available over every square inch of the city. Commissioner Velasquez stated that she was not suggesting it be a three year time limitation, it could be 10 years. The issue is there have been concerns over almost every antenna that has come before ~he Commission. Commissioner Romero agreed. His opinion was that they should have some sort of time limitation to monitor Condition No. 10. They are supposed to maintain it in a good manner and he does not know 02/20/08 Page 11 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES they are doing that. It becomes the burden of the city to go out and inspect it. If they put time imitations on the CUP the applicant would have to come back to the Commission. He suggested five years as the time limitation. He would be in agreement with that. Commissioner Velasquez stated that another compromise would be that the applicants pay every other year for an inspection. Chairman Buffa stated that based on all of this discussion and understanding what the city's larger policy objective is, she wondered if it was appropriate to take action on the proposed new condition project today. The Commission raised legitimate concerns. If the Commission moves forward they could ask staff to develop a clear policy about conditions that would be uniformly attached to all projects that would allow a monitoring effort. She wanted staff to think of a program that would work. She was not supportive of time limitations because they are not working and not being accomplished. She shared the concern but wasn't sure if time limits would solve the problem. She stated that until they could develop a program that could be attached to all of these types of projects, they could not single out one applicant. Commissioner Velasquez stated they could ask the applicant if a five year limitation would be okay. She stated it wasn't an issue of limiting the use, but the issue of being able to monitor. Commissioner Romero commented that in Condition no. 10 it states that the facility shall be maintained in the original condition as approved. He wasn't sure if that meant anything if no one was ~ble to monitor that matter. Chairman Buffa stated that an orderly fashion could be interpreted in many ways. Commissioner Eastman stated that if the palm fronds were green when they when up they should stay green. If the palm fronds were full with fringe, and looked like a tree, than it should look like a tree in 10 years. The same would go for any replacement fronds. Commissioner Velasquez stated that Condition No. 10 should include the facility and the tree. Chairman Buffa stated that she thinks "facility" includes the tree but was not sure if "orderly fashion" was describing the like new condition the city wants. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to determine the previously approved Negative Declaration serve as the appropriate environmental documentation. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel asked staff for help with regards to the resolution because he was uncertain if they added additional conditions of approval as recommended by Commissioner Eastman. He heard the planting of vines adjacent to the fence. Although the changing of the fronds was recommended, based on the applicant's testimony, that may not be possible. Commissioner Eastman stated that according to Condition No. 10, the facility was supposed to be in ~riginal like condition. 02/20/08 Page 12 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Faessel stated that it was his understanding that Condition No. 2 requires the painting of the existing fronds back to their original color, which will satisfy Condition No. 10. Chairman Buffa replied no. The antennas would be painted green. Commissioner Eastman read that it would match the artificial branches and leaves. Chairman Buffa stated that based on the testimony of the applicant, new fronds can't be substituted for the old ones; it was not something they could do with this pole. Commissioner Faessel asked if they were asking the vines be added to the fence. Chairman Buffa stated that he should make his motion and they will vote on it. Commissioner Faessel offered by resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05292 with the inclusion of planting appropriate vines adjacent to the fence to mitigate the institutional look of the fence. Chairman Buffa stated that his motion does not include a time limitation. Commissioner Faessel replied that it does not at this point. ~hairman Buffa stated that this would be a resolution and not a motion. Commissioner Velasquez asked if the resolution did not include a time limitation, would it include monitoring. Commissioner Faessel stated that the responsibility is stated by the Conditions of Approval. It is the responsibility of the Planning Department as he reads it. His concern was expressed by Chairman Buffa that these are policy issues that they were not able to result today. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 4 yes votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (2:50 to 3:22) 02/20/08 Page 13 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05300 Owner: RREEF America Reit II c/o RREEF Management Co. Attn: Dan Patterson 1630 South Sunkist Street Anaheim, CA 92806 Applicant: Tom Hubbard Flightdeck Air Combat Center 1601 Sunkist Street, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Romero Location: 1601 .South Sunkist Avenue, Unit A: Property is an approximate 2.54-acre site located within a 9.8 acre industrial business park at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Sunkist Street, having frontages of 500 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue and 1,350 feet on the west side of Sunkist Street. Request to permit a 3,600 square foot indoor recreation facility including seven flight simulation stations serving individuals and small corporate groups.* * Advertised with a request to permit fewer parking spaces than required by code. This request is not needed as the number of parking spaces complies with code requirements. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-26 Minoo Ashabi, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved, with modification to Condition No. 2 VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent Project Planner: mashabi@anaheim.net Phillip Schwartze, Flight deck Air Combat Center, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San Juan Capistrano 92675, stated that staff described all of the activities that are at the facility. With regards to parking, that issue is completely handled because the hours of operation and the way it operates. It is not a problem because there are only a few people in the facility at the same time under any circumstances. He is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa stated that during the Commissions preliminary session they discussed changing Condition No. 2. The Condition reflects the hours of operation that the applicant submitted in their ~etter of operation. It was the Commission's feeling in the preliminary session that it makes more sense to place fewer restraints on the hours with the hours being between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Romero/Faessel 02/20/08 Page 14 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES hey wouldn't want the applicant to come back and ask for more hours if business was better than anticipated. Mr. Schwartze thanked the Commission. Chairman Buffa asked if anyone was present to speak on the item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that she talked with the applicant and he asked that the hours of operation be 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05300, with a change to Conditional Approval No. 2, to extend the time from 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Grace Medina announced that the resolution passed with 5 yes votes. Commissioner Agarwal and Karaki absent. APPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:23 to 3:30) 02/20/08 Page 15 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •6a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Velasquez/Romero AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 154* 6b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00462 Velasquez 6c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00210 6d. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00049 6e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05242 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT • 6f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.2007-00004 6g. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00010 6h. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-163 6i. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17219 6j. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 6c, 6e, 6g, 6h and 6i Owner: P A Poon & Son Inc. 16841 Marina Bay Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Applicant: Greg McCafferty Sheldon Group 901 Dove Street, Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Velasquez Velasquez Velasquez Velasquez/Romero Velasquez Velasquez Velasquez Velasquez/Romero Approved and recommended City Council Approval, with revision to mitigation measure pertaining to security plan Recommended City Council approval Approved Recommended City Council approval Approved, with modification to Condition No. 4; deletion of Condition Nos. 10, 11, and 38; final elevation plans to return to Planning Commission as a Reports & Recommendations Item Continued to March 17, 2008 i Approved Approved Approved Approved VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent 02/20/08 Page 16 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (the vacant Toys R Us site : Property is approximately 4.8 acres, having a frontage of 382 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and located 252 feet south of the centerline of Wilken Way. Request to develop a mixed use project consisting of a 105 room hotel, Project Planner.• with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on the western dsee(a~anaheim.net 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 permit a mixed use project with 191 condominium units, to include live/work units, for the rear 3.3-acre portion of the property, and fora 105-unit hotel with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on the front 1.5 acres of the property adjacent to Harbor Boulevard with waivers of minimum lot frontage adjacent to a public or private street; Development Agreement No. 2007-00004 -Request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and West Millennium 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 02/20/08 Page 17 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 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. *Advertised as Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 149 General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2008-27 Reclassification Resolution No. PC2008-28 Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2008-29 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-30 Final Site Plan Resolution No. PC2008-31 Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No. PC2008-32 Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. PC2008.33 Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Velasquez noticed that the elevation plans and the plans on the slide shown by staff were different. She asked staff which one of those plans were correct. Mr. See stated that he spoke with the applicant and the correct elevation is the one on the slide. The ~rchitect is not present but the applicant confirmed this by the date. Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission reviewed plans that were different. They do not relate to this in any way. Mr. See stated that he will provide a hard copy of the correct elevation plans to the Commission. Steve Sheldon, the Sheldon Group, 901 Dove Street, Suite #140, Newport Beach, stated that West Millennium is not the applicant shown on the staff report. The technical name for the LLC is RP Harbor Properties A21, LLC. The Sheldon Group is the applicant's agent and working to process the project. They are under the direction of P.A. Poon and Son, who has given them a letter as their authorized agent to process the project. They have tried hard to create a good project and respected the core of the Resort area. He is aware that there are issues with the elevations because of transition. He is available to answer any questions. Greg McCafferty, The Sheldon Group, 901 Dove Street, Suite #140, Newport Beach. He stated that they have worked with staff and Gensler on the elevations and had a number of iterations. They have been through two Gensler reviews and met with staff on those comments and addressed them. The presentation on the screen reflects further refinements to the plans than what the elevation plans Commission had. The applicant apologized for the confusion between the prior partnership, West Millennium, and the ew partnership between the property owner, and RP Harbor properties. They have taken a dilapidated site that is currently vacant on the southern fringe of the Resort bordering Garden Grove. That area was an expansion to the Resort when the General Plan was updated in 2004. It was not 02/20/08 Page 18 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •art of the original resort boundaries that were adopted back in 1994. All the assumptions in the planning area resort that were analyzed in the Specific Plan did not include this property originally. The applicant believes they have a good project that respects the edge along Harbor Boulevard, with regards to resort conforming use, and at the same time providing housing opportunities. He pointed to an aerial that showed the distance from the property to the park entrance. He was not going to dispute the three deleted conditions but was concerned with one mitigation measure. He asked the Commission for their consideration. He stated that it was not a mitigation measure but it is presumptive of the restaurant. The mitigation measure requires they hire security guards for the restaurant and retail. The applicant believes that would be an operational issue. If the findings for the Conditional Use Permit in the public health and safety is being compromised that would be something that could be brought back to the Commission. They haven't opened the restaurant and they don't want to be at a disadvantage of having to hire a security guard when it will be a family restaurant consistent with the hotel. They respectfully request that condition be removed. On page 11, of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, it states that the property owner/developer shall provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to review an approval of the police department. The applicant will work with staff and the City Attorney on the development agreement. There are a ~ew technical and policy issues needed to be reviewed with the Planning staff and they expect to bring that back to the Commission as soon as possible. The applicant stated no one disrespectfully requests that they approve the project. He is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa gave the Commissioners a chance to review the mitigation measure. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Chairman Buffa asked staff to address the origination of this mitigation measure that the applicant questioned. She asked if this was a Police Department request. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that this mitigation measure was added when the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated amongst City Staff for input. It was reviewed by the Anaheim Police Department. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for Public Agency review and they have not received comments until this meeting. The Planning Staff needs to confer with the police staff to find out if there were any concerns with removing this mitigation measure. Commissioner Faessel read the mitigation measure 13-3. It stated that private security on the ~ppremises to maintain adequate security for the entire project. He asked if a hotel would generally provide a level of security that would include security cameras and electronic security devices. As a general matter, he thought a condo project of this size would have security. He did not see a problem with this measure. 02/20/08 Page 19 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~r. McCafferty stated that the applicant did not have issues with incorporating the equipment with regards to mirrors and cameras. They do not want to have to commit to paid security guards on site at this point. When the hotel opens there will be a certain level of security on the property that would happen as a matter of operation in fact. They want it to be part of the business plan that makes sense for the applicant. Commissioner Faessel stated that the issue has been clarified to his satisfaction. Commissioner Eastman stated that the measure was open to interpretation. She read the mitigation measure and it stated, "To provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security." She thought the word "adequate" was open to interpretation. The first thing she thought of was, "security during the construction", they will have to have security measures to deter any theft of materials. Projects that are being built have on-site security. Mr. McCafferty stated that his concern would be that the police department would want the "partnership" to have three security guards on the premises. When the developers are under construction they would have fences consistent with the local ordinances. They will have a trailer and a caretaker on the site during construction. When it is in operation they want to have the flexibility any other establishment would have to determine when and how they provide security on their property. If it becomes a problem then it would be a land use issue ~ack before the Commission again. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Eastman that the mitigation measure appears to refer to "during construction". The mitigation measure is vague and the Commission can not make a definitive decision. If it was during construction it would be reasonable that a contractor would provide security. He thought at this point to require the developer to have security for both the hotel and the proposed condo project may be asking too much. Chairman Buffa agreed. She stated that the language was clear. It was not during construction and it's on going during project operation. The mitigation measure states that "the use of security patrols should be considered." The police envision private security guards patrolling the property. This might make sense in a hotel but she has never seen it in a condo complex. If this is a mitigation measure then she would have to read the Mitigated Negative Declaration. She would want to know the impact they would be mitigating. They would need to determine if the condition was necessary in order to adequately mitigate the impact. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager stated that they are allowed to consider equivalent alternative mitigation measures. He pointed out that in the neighborhood he lives in has private security, which is a contracted firm. There is not security on-site 24 hours a day but it is part of an over all program. He wasn't sure if the language requires 24 hour security. The mitigation measure requires devices, programs, and things that are monitored. It would also require approval from the police department. The Planning Staff can clarify the language to broaden the discretion of whether the security guards are required 24 hours. They could make it clear that it is not necessarily a requirement of this condition as long as there is adequate security on the site. o2i2oios Page 20 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa stated that she would like the language to be clarified that there may not be security guards. The level of security may be achieved through surveillance cameras or some other means. Mr. McCafferty stated that if that was a menu of options, that they work with the police department, not necessarily a requirement, then the applicant would be okay with that. They do not want it to be affirmative that they would have to do that. Chairman Buffa stated that she would agree with the menu of options approach. In that way the applicant would create the program in cooperation with the police department. Mr. McCafferty remarked it was an operational issue and not a level of service. Jennifer Marks, Bonterra Consulting, responded to the idea of the mitigation measure. She stated that this mitigation measure has the history of going back to the original Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. If the Commission could take a look at the Mitigated Negative Declaration there is a parenthetical reference to the original mitigation measure. They have not modified that since it's inception within the original document. There is no in particular impact that this was tied to, it was carried down from the original Anaheim Resort Specific Plan document. Chairman Buffa asked staff to work on the Mitigation Measure to come up with an approach, such as, "The owner will provide adequate security using such things as". She thinks that would achieve what the police depart wants and would allow the flexibility to make the decisions as part of an on going operational plan. Chairman Buffa asked if there were any other questions for the applicant; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Mr. See handed them the correct elevation plans. Chairman Buffa stated that the elevation plans handed to them were for the hotel and not for the condominiums. It was the condo plans that changed. When the Commission receives a project of this magnitude it is helpful to get their materials in a color board recognizing that these elevations are evolving. She recommends that the final elevations come back to the Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item along with the color materials board because they still need the proper elevation materials for the condominiums. Ms. Johnson stated that she spoke to Mr. McCafferty and he agrees to the recommendation. She stated that they can work on those recommendations for an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Faessel commented that they had testimony from Mr. McCafferty regarding the placement of this site and the fact that this portion of the area was an expansion of the original Resort District of the 1994. He asked if staff could give a recap of the history of this site in regards to the expansion during the General Plan Review of 2004. He wanted to know why the mitigation measure •was included into the Resort District at that point. Ms. Johnson replied, as background, when the Planning Staff worked on the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan in 1994 they re-zoned all properties that had been under the commercial recreation designation 02/20/08 Page 21 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the Anaheim Resorts Specific Plan and kept those original boundaries. That meant that there was a length of Harbor Boulevard between Orangewood and the City of Garden Grove that was in a commercial zone. It was not Anaheim Resorts Specific Plan but a general commercial zone. Commissioner Faessel asked if Ms. Johnson could go back to an earlier slide that would show the Resort District. Ms. Johnson replied the original boundaries ended at Orangewood which she pointed out with the cursor on the slide. She stated that, when they worked on the General Plan update in 2004, at that time they wanted to encourage commercial recreation or the Resort type of development along this length of Harbor Boulevard between Orangewood and Chapman, so they would have a seamless connection visually driving down Harbor Boulevard. Their concern was to have an incentive to upgrade the frontage of those properties so that they would have that commercial recreation look along that length of street. The approach they took at that time is that they looked at all the properties that were zoned as the general commercial and reclassified those to the Anaheim Resorts Specific Plan Zone. At that time they analyzed the appropriate depth of the zone. They took any property that had that CG zone and reclassified it to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone. That is how the City resulted in these boundaries. Commissioner Faessel asked about all of the financial models that were used in 1994 to determine the future success and the financial veracity of the Resort District. He heard testimony from Mr. McCafferty that it was not the additional section being discussed. They were discussing everything outh of Orangewood and it was not included in those original financial models. He asked if that was ~orrect. Ms. Johnson replied that was correct. Chairman Buffa commented that when the General Plan was revised and the Resort District boundary was expanded the goal was to provide resort related uses along Harbor Boulevard frontage. She was glad that Commissioner Faessel asked the question because the answer was enlightening. The depth of the parcels was not the issue; it would be the frontage that's of paramount importance to the City that it relates to the Resort. She pointed to the image on the slide and stated that the depth of parcels along Harbor varies widely up and down the street between Orangewood and the City boundary adjacent to Garden Grove. She thinks this project is the kind of mixed use on a large parcel that the City wants. It completely protects the Harbor Boulevard frontage. She thinks they have accomplished the City's goal of having resort related uses along Harbor Boulevard while creating a reasonable transitional use to the multi-family housing that is to the east of this property. She is supportive of this project. Commissioner Eastman stated that the only interest from the public that they received was an a-mail. It was a response from the condominiums behind this property. They expressed support for this project and she thought it was significant for what they were considering. They expressed concern, should that whole use become amulti-story tower hotel use. She could understand their fear on looking at the higher towers that are going upon Katella Avenue. She agreed with Chairman Buffa that this would preserve what the City was looking to preserve in the Resort District along that ~rontage. She thought it would be an exception she could support. 02/20/08 Page 22 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa stated that she failed to mention that every unit of housing stock they add in the City of Anaheim regulates the price of housing. It is a straight forward supply and demand ratio and more housing means more stable pricing for the consumer. She stated that every unit helps. Commissioner Romero commented that looking at the overall concept of this project it goes along way towards fulfilling the City's requirements on the businesses on Harbor and yet creating homes. It is a perfect mixed use. He is in support of this project. He asked staff, when the 3.3 acres becomes landlocked, would it be the intention of the code that there would be access through Harbor. He asked how it would work. Mr. See replied that would be correct. Access would be provided to the rear property through the front property through an access easement. It would be guaranteed and recorded against the property and there is traffic signal access. Commissioner Romero asked if fire access would be through the front of Harbor. Mr. See stated that was correct. It would be through the front 1.5 acre parcel through an access easement to the rear parcel. Commissioner Romero asked if they were in compliance with all Code requirements. Mr. See replied there is one waiver being requested that is for the rear parcel that does not have land ~ontage on Harbor Boulevard. That would be a waiver that is under consideration by the ommission. Mr. See added that the elevations were both correct and he apologized for the confusion. The slides on the screen were interior elevations which was a west elevation. The new prints he provided were the east elevation. The elevations both are up to date but one is interior and the other is exterior. Chairman Buffa asked if it was for the hotel. Mr. See stated it was for the condominiums. Chairman Buffa asked everyone to take a look at the hotel elevation. She stated that it appears, going back to the site plan, that there are two hotel buildings and they are divided some how through a walk way. Mr. McCafferty stated that he believed she was looking at the ground level floor plan, in which, there would be a walk way at the ground level. Chairman Buffa recognized the plan was labeled and apologized for her mistake. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, noticed in the staff report, under the recommendation section, paragraph A, concerning the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigating ~llonitoring Program as the appropriate documentation but also to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as the appropriate environmental documentation for it's actions on this project as well. It ties in to the staffs 02/20/08 Page 23 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •ecommendation, under the recommendation section of the staff report, recommendation in paragraph J, that suggests that the Planning Commission should request review of the actions by the Planning Commission concerning those items that are under the authority of the Planning Commission that would later be reviewed by the City Council when they consider the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan Amendment. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 154 and for City Council to do the same. CJ Amstrup asked if this motion included a revision to the Mitigation for on-site security. Commissioner Velasquez replied yes. CJ Amstrup stated that he had draft language he would like read into the record. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a security plan for review and approval by the Anaheim Police Department which may include on-site patrol, closed circuit cameras, or other methods deemed appropriate by the APD to maintain adequate security for the entire project. Commissioner Velasquez stated that was included in the motion. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. • Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00462. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00210. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to recommend that the City Council approve Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00049. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05242 ~-vith a waiver of the Code to allow the 191 unit condominium complex to have no frontage adjacent to a public street. 02/20/08 Page 24 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa amended that to add the final elevations need to come back to the Planning ommission as a Reports and Recommendation item. Commissioner Velasquez added materials and color boards. Mark Gordon reminded Commissioner Velasquez that there were modifications to the Conditions of Approval concerning the Conditional Use Permit. Specifically there was a modification to Condition No. 4 in the recommendation for deletion of Condition No. 10, 11, and 38 pursuant to the revised draft GUP resolution that was provided during the workshop. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue consideration of development agreement No. 2007-00004 to the March 17, 2008 Planning Commission meeting based upon staff's determination that the agreement is not ready for Planning Commission review and consideration. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Final Site Plan No. 2007-00010. race Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Tentative Parcel Map. No. 2007-163. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Tentative Tract Map No.17219. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. Mark Gordon stated that the consideration the Environmental by the City Council in conjunction with the General Plan and Specific Plan and the additional items if review is proposed would be necessary by state law. Commissioner Velasquez wouldn't need to include that in the motion. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to request to City Council review of the Commissions decisions in items C, E, G, H, and I. Motion passed with 5 aye •lrotes. Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki absent. o2i2oios Page 25 of 26 FEBRUARY 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 2008, and the 22-day appeal rights for the remaining items ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 46 minutes (3:30 to 4:16) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:27 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW • Respectfully submitted: ~~~ Grace Medina, Planning Commission Secretary U Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 03, 2008. 02/20/08 Page 26 of 26