Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/09/14City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,September 14, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Kelly Buffa,Stephen Faessel,Joseph Karaki Commissioners Absent :Peter Agarwal,Todd Ament and Victoria Ramirez Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerKevin Clausen, Planning Aide Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerLorri Gonzalez, Acting Building Operations Manager Mark Gordon, Assistant CityAttorneyPreet Bassi, Management Assistant Selma Mann, Assistant City AttorneyScott Beery,Senior Plans Examiner II Ted White, Senior PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David See, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerElly Morris, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:30 p.m. onWednesday,September 9,2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday,September 3,2009 Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 28 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissionerBuffa Public Comments Consent CalendarItem No. 1A Public Hearing ItemNos. 2-9 Board of Appeals –Public Hearing ItemNo. 10 Discussion and Action on Proposed Meeting Time Change from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. beginning October 12, 2009 Commission Updates Discussion Adjournment SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1A Motionto approve minutes Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2009.(Faessel/Buffa) Approved VOTE: 3-0 Chairman Romero and CommissionersBuffaandFaessel voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. Commissioner Karaki abstained. 09/14/09 Page 2of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.Resolution No. 2009-076 2003-04814(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04814A) (Faessel) Owner: Pastor Jean Wilson Approved,added Condition No. 3 Guiding Light Christian Fellowship 631 South Brookhurst Street, Suite 114 Anaheim, CA92805 VOTE: 4-0 Applicant: Tatiana BelloChairman Romero and Galaxy Investments, Inc.Commissioners Buffa,Faessel and 17612 Beach Boulevard,Suite 2Karaki voted yes. Huntington Beach, CA92647 Commissioners Agarwal, Amentand Location:631 South Brookhurst Street Ramirez were absent. The applicant proposes to amend the hours of operation for an existing church. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Kevin Clausen Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare kclausen@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Kevin Clausen,Planning Aide, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel stated he understood this request was initiated because ofa Code Enforcement complaint in June, 2009. Heasked Mr. Clausen to describe the complaint. Mr. Clausen respondedthiscomplaint was not generated from the public. It was generated by staff as a result of areview ofbusiness license records to ensure compliance withthe conditions of approval. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Pastor Jean Wilson,the applicant, 12582 East Bartlett Street, Garden Grove, stated shehad reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 09/14/09 Page 3of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 14, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04814. Elly Morris,Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith fouryesvotes.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. CommissionersAgarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,October 6,2009. DISCUSSION TIME :7minutes (2:36to 2:43) 09/14/09 Page 4of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2009-05441Motion to continue hearing to October 12, 2009 Owner:( Larry LopezKaraki/Faessel) Superior Tree Care 1342 North Miller Street Approved Anaheim, CA92806 Applicant: Phil Schwartze VOTE: 3-1 PRSGroup 31872 San Juan Creek RoadChairman Romero and San Juan Capistrano, CA92675Commissioners Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Location:1342 North Miller Street Commissioner Buffa voted no. The applicant proposesto operate an outdoor greenwaste collection and recycling facility in conjunction with an Commissioners Agarwal, Ament existing tree care service business.and Ramirez were absent. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act vnorwood@anaheim.net (CEQA). Vanessa Norwood, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009,along with a visual presentation.Ms. Norwood stated that acopy of a memo from Code Enforcement staff dated September 14, 2009,had been provided to the Planning Commission. She also recommended that the draft resolution be revised to delete Condition No. 8 pertaining to hours and days of operation and to add Condition No. 15 regarding a requirement for a Certificate of Complianceas follows: “The legal property owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of Compliance to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division.A Certificate of Compliance or Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of abusiness license.” Raul Garcia, Principal CivilEngineer, stated Condition No. 15 was needed becausethis parcel had not been mapped as part of a tract or parcel map and aCertificate of Compliance wasrequired to bring theparcel intocompliance with the subdivision map act. Commissioner Buffa askedhowthecurrentowner purchasedthe property since it had not been mapped. Mr. Garcia responded that in the past,parcels hadbeen purchased or transferred via a deed, which at the time was alegal form of conveyance. When a parcel was created prior to 1972 with a deed, the subdivision map act required anunconditional Certificate of Compliance. If aparcel was created 09/14/09 Page 5of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES by a deed after 1972,cities had the ability to impose conditions onthe Certificate of Compliance. In thiscase,staff recommended that an unconditional Certificate of Compliancebe required to bring the parcel in compliance with the subdivision map act. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. PhillipSchwartze, applicant, representing the property owner and the tenant,Superior Tree Service, 1342 North Miller Street, Anaheim,stated they were in agreement with the staff report and conditions of approvaland werewilling to accept the conditionregarding the Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Faessel asked if the property to the north containedfirewood. Mr. Schwartze saidhe believedthe business included the construction and storage ofwood pallets onsite. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa asked staff for more information about theCertificate of Compliance. She asked ifthe subdivision map act required a Certificate of Compliance tobe obtainedin order to issue a conditional use permit or if City staff was taking the opportunity to get a Certificate of Compliance because of the conditional use permit. Mr. Garcia stated staff recently had the same issue with The White House Restaurant. They had to issue a Certificate of Compliance to bring the parcel intoconformancewith the map act. The restaurant did not violate any regulations. He stated the processing of a Certificate of Compliance was largely an administrative process. Chairman Romero asked if thesubject parcel was unique. Mr. Garcia explained thatanumber of parcels throughout the city werenot part of arecorded tractor parcelmap. Atsomepoint, theproperty ownerswould need to obtaina Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Karaki asked whether aCertificate of Compliancewas required only when anew project was constructed or was it required because of this permitor due to the nature of aproject. Mr. Garcia responded that at the timepermits such as a building permit or license were requested, staff reviewed whether a Certificate of Compliancewas needed. Commissioner Karaki asked staff to confirm whether staff could request a Certificate of Compliance at any stage of apermit or licensing. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Commissioner Faessel referred to the code enforcement memorandum dated September 14, 2009, andaskedwhy the current parking violations were not addressedin the conditions of approval. Ms. Norwood respondedthe conditions of approvalrequiredthebusiness owner to develop according to the proposed site planand that would bring thesite into compliancewith the parking code. 09/14/09 Page 6of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Schwartze if he concurred with this requirement to install parking spaces. Mr. Schwartze responded yes. Chairman Romero reopened the public hearing. William Allen,1332 N. Miller Street, Anaheim, stated his building was located next doorto the subject property. He submitted photographsand stated the followingconcerns: The staff report referredto the pile of trash as “greenwaste”. It hadbeen as high as 30 feet, as long as 50feet, and as wide as 20 feet. Approximately three years ago, when the large wood pallet on the property to the north caught on fire, the compost pile on this property also caught on fire. If the wind was blowing while compost was being loaded or unloaded, some of the matter would blow onto his and neighboring properties. Water and compost matter accumulatedin the curband gutter and wastracked throughoutthe neighborhood.He did not believe staff conducted a proper investigation of thisissue. The office building,which was an 80 year old house, was not upto industrial building standards. Adiesel tank wasstored within four to fivefeet of the property lineadjacent to his property.He did not believe this conformed to fire requirements of at least ten feet.He believed this was a fire hazard for this property. The compost pile was higher than the fenceand this violated the code. There wereold sheds and metal containers, piles of debris and tree stumps leaning against the fence.This fence was not designed to be a retaining wall. Theparking was notadequate for employees and guests. He did not have concerns with the previous owner’s useofthe property. The current owner rents the property. The previous renter used the property as a contractor’s storage yard and was not there legally. The fence did not screen the outdoor uses on the property. Commissioner Buffa asked for clarification on where Mr. Allen’s property was located and where the diesel tank was located. Mr. Allen responded that his property was located to the south of the subject property. He pointed out that the diesel tank was located in a shed adjacent to the southern property line adjacent to his property. Commissioner Faessel thanked Mr. Allen for the photographswhich showed an unkempt condition. He asked when the photographs were taken.He stated the memo from Code Enforcement staff stated the front of the property was maintained and that some barb wire had been removed. He asked Mr. Allen if his issues werethe general upkeep of the property. Mr. Allensaid thephotographswere taken the day of the hearing, September 14, 2009.He reiterated his concerns about the back part of the propertyandthe items leaning against the fence, the height of 09/14/09 Page 7of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES the compost pile and the property not having the number of parking spaces required by code. He also stated he did not believe the house was handicapped approved. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional persons indicating to speak,closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa asked if there was a code requirement pertaining to locating adiesel tank near a property line. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that it would be a building code requirement, not a planning requirement. He offered to research the matter. Commissioner Buffa suggested that a condition of approval be added requiring the diesel tank to be reviewed for conformance with the code and to be relocated if necessary to comply with the code. Chairman Romero stated he would suggest the samefor the water runoffand the dust created by the compost pile. He suggested the pile be covered or properly maintained. Commissioner Buffa stated that because of the nature of the operation, the compost pilecould probably not be covered since they werecontinually adding to the pile. Commissioner Faessel stated they might be able to mitigate dust from the compost pilewith the use of spray.He believed that some type of mitigation was needed, if for no other reason, than to be a good neighbor to Mr. Allen. Chairman Romero asked which department had the ultimate responsibility for the diesel tank. Mr. Amstrup stated Fire Department staff would be responsiblefor determining whether the diesel tank location complied with the code. Code Enforcement staff would take any necessary actions to remedy any nonconformance with the code. Regardless of the conditions in the conditional use permit,the diesel tankwould be required to comply with any applicable codes. Therefore, in the absence of a condition inthe conditional use permit, the property ownerwould still be required to comply with code. In this particular issue, it may be more appropriate not to add a condition of approval. Commissioner Buffa asked if it waslegal to have outdoor storage above the height of the fence.She stated the wood pallets on the adjacent property had pallets stacked up much higher than the fence. Ms. Norwood responded that outdoor storage needed to be screened so it wasnot visible from the public right-of-way. Commissioner Buffa asked staff if greenwaste could be piled up fairly high as long as it was not visible from Miller Street. Ms. Norwood responded yes. The greenwaste had to be screened from the street. Commissioner Karaki asked if the compost pile had a heightlimitation or was it based upon visibility from the street. 09/14/09 Page 8of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Ms. Norwood responded that the height of the outdoor storage was based upon whether it wasvisible from the street. Commissioner Karaki referred to the issues raised regarding the compost pile and firehazards and asked what preventative measures could be taken. Chairman Romero re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Schwartze responded the fire that was discussed was at the pallet manufacturing site and not on the subject property. He stated he would work with staff to find the appropriate mitigations for holding down the dust using a sprinkler system or putting down decomposedgranite, etc., in order for them to continue to be a good neighbor. Mr. Allen stated the fire was started onthe pallet companypropertyand the fire spread to the compost pile. He did not believe thathe or other neighborsshould have to be concerned with fire dangers associated with the items onthissite. Mr. Amstrup stated thatsome of the issues being raised were not under the purview of Public Works and Planningstaff. Hesuggested it may be appropriate to continue the hearing in order to give staff an opportunity to look into the issues being raised today. Chairman Romero concurred with Mr. Amstrup. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to continue the hearing to October 12, 2009. The motion passedwith threeyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioner Buffa voted no. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. Commissioner Buffa stated she did not feel a continuance of the hearing was needed. She feltthat if the permit were approved, staff would review the location of the diesel tank and determine if it needed to be moved to comply with code.Regarding the combustible nature of greenwaste material, she believedthe fire code would take care of the issue through the enforcement offire code regulations through the normal inspection process.That was why she voted no. Chairman Romero concurred with Commissioner Buffa, but stated the property hadbeen operating this way. In all fairness to the applicant, neighbor and staff’s recommendation for a continuance to review the issues, he felt a four-week continuance would be appropriate. Commissioner Karaki stated that Fire Department staff should look into the issues identified during the hearing, especially since two businesses withflammable materialwerelocated adjacent to each other.He supported a four-week continuance in order for Fire Department staff to look into this matter. Commissioner Faessel statedhe appreciatedMr. Allen’s presence todaysince there had notbeen anyother testimonyregardingtheon-site conditions. Without Mr. Allen’s testimony, the Commission would not have heard about the fire, etc. He expressed his support of a four-week continuance. 09/14/09 Page 9of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Romero called for a retake of the vote since the discussion was reopened. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, announced the motion passedwith three yes votesand one no vote.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Faessel and Karaki voted yes.Commissioner Buffa voted no.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition and submitted photographs pertaining to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME :28minutes (2:44to 3:12) 09/14/09 Page 10of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05435Resolution No. 2009-077 (Buffa) Owner: Kenneth J. Catanzarite Parkgate Center L.P. Approved 2331 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA92801 Applicant:VOTE: 4-0 Martha Herrera Iglesia Casa De OracionChairman Romero and 9541 Ball Road Apt. 307Commissioners Buffa, Faessel Anaheim, CA92804and Karaki voted yes. Location:2323 West Lincoln Avenue Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. The applicant proposes to establish a community and religious assembly hall in an existing office and commercial building. (A request for fewer parking spaces than required by code was removed because there is sufficient parking.) Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare vnorwood@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to translate the church name. Ms. Norwood responded the name meant house of prayer. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Sylvia Renteria, 9541 West Ball Road, Apartment No. 202, Anaheim,stated she was the church secretary.Thechurch servedthe community and providedcounseling to the youth and families.She stated she was in agreement with the staff report. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional persons indicating to speak,closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 14, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05435. 09/14/09 Page 11of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Elly Morris, Secretary,announced that the resolutionpassedwith four yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,October 6,2009. DISCUSSION TIME :4minutes (3:13to 3:17) 09/14/09 Page 12of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04790Motion to continue hearing to October 12, 2009 Owner: Anaheim Gardens Homeowners Association(Karaki/Faessel) 4175 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 100 Anaheim, CA92806 Approved Applicant: Diana Byrnes New Start Management Services VOTE: 4-0 4175 East La Palma Avenue,Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92806Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel Location:944 South State CollegeBoulevard and Karaki voted yes. The applicant proposes a smaller landscape setback than Commissioners Agarwal, Ament required by Code adjacent to asingle-family residential and Ramirez were absent. zone to permit additional parking spaces. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Linda Johnson Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare ljohnson@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 09/14/09 Page 13of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04788Resolution No. 2009-078 (Karaki) Owner and Kuther Jagganath Applicant: Kaiser Hospital Approved 3460 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA92806 Location:3460 East La Palma AvenueVOTE: 4-0 Chairman Romero and The applicant proposes to construct new freestanding Commissioners Buffa, Faessel monument signs and wall signs for a Kaiser Hospital and Karaki voted yes. campus.The number, size, location and height of the signs exceed Code requirements.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: David See Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 11 dsee@anaheim.net (Accessory Structures). Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa stated the Commission recently reviewed signage for the Wescom Building on La Palma Avenue. She asked staff how high the letters were in that sign. Mr. See stated the Wescom building was a four-story office building located several miles east of the Kaiser Hospital site. He stated the Commission approved five-foot high sign lettersfor this building. Commissioner Buffa stated the Wescom building was four stories and the Kaiser Hospital was six stories, so the sign scale was going to read a little differently. Mr. See responded that wascorrect. He also stated that the Wescom building waslocated 60 feet from the street while the hospital would be located over 500 feet from La Palma Avenue and 300 feet from the freeway. Chairman Romero stated he had a question that was not related to this project. He asked staff to look into a memorial on the side of the freeway adjacent to the Fry’s property which seemed to be growing in size. Commissioner Buffa stated she believed this was located in Caltran’s right-of-way and people seemed to be adding items to the fenceat the property line. Mr. See stated staff would look into this and report back to the Planning Commission. 09/14/09 Page 14of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Kuther Jagganath, applicant, representing Kaiser Foundation Hospital, stated they werein agreement with staff’s presentation.Kaiser provided an essential service to the area, serving a large number of patients. Once the site was built out, there would be a number of buildings and patients would need to quickly find the appropriate building. Commissioner Karaki asked if theproposedsignage wasstandardfor Kaiser. Mr. Jagganath responded yes. He stated they had provided staff with examples of other recent projects in Southern California. Commissioner Buffa stated she wasconcerned with the 16-foot tall monument sign.She asked the applicant to explain the rationale for this height because there was very little to obstruct the view on La Palma Avenue and it seemed the same identification could be accomplished by a smaller sign. Mr. Jagganath responded that the signs get fairly cluttered. They proposed a vertical rather than a horizontal sign because it wasvery confusing when you hadto identify a number of different buildings and departments on a horizontal sign. The graphics that Mr. See showed did not include Phase 3 buildings. They would add more signage to identify the Phase 3 buildings as those buildings were completed.He stated that once the project was completed, the entire height of the proposed sign would eventually be taken up with signage for wayfinding. Commissioner Buffa asked iftherewould bemorebullet points on each sign at La Palma Avenueby the time the project was built out and the hospital opened. Mr. Jagganath responded yes. More horizontal panels would beaddedto the sign as the buildings were completed. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karaki offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 14, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingVariance No. 2009- 04788. Elly Morris,Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with four yesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,October 6,2009. DISCUSSION TIME :12minutes (3:18to 3:30) 09/14/09 Page 15of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-121Resolution No. 2009-079 (Buffa) Owner: Patrick Russell Sares Regis Approved,modifiedCondition 18802 Bardeen Avenue No. 3 Irvine, CA92715 Applicant: Alicia Martinez VOTE: 4-0 Thienes Engineering, Inc 14349 Firestone BoulevardChairman Romero and La Mirada, CA90638Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Location:3400 East Miraloma Avenue Commissioners Agarwal, Ament The applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.5-acre property to and Ramirez were absent. create a 3-lot industrial subdivision. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: David See Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dsee@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009, along with a visual presentation. He stated staff recommended a modification to Condition No. 3 as follows: “An improvement bond shall be posted to guarantee that public parkways and sidewalks are improved per Public Works Standard Detail 160-A and as approved by the City Engineer.” Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Patrick Russell, representing Sares Regis Group,stated he wasin agreement with the staff report andwasavailable to answer any questions. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 14, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 15 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingTentative Parcel Map No. 2009-121. Elly Morris,Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fouryes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. 09/14/09 Page 16of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 24,2009. DISCUSSION TIME :3minutes (3:31to 3:34) 09/14/09 Page 17of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 8 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. Motion to continue hearing to DAG2005-00001 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00004September 30, 2009 DAG2005-00002 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00005) AND (Karaki/Faessel) DAG2005-00003 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00006) Owner:Approved Bob Linder BRE Properties, Inc. 5141 California Avenue, Suite 250 VOTE: 4-0 Irvine, CA92614 Chairman Romero and BertHabouchaCommissioners Buffa, Faessel 1515 E. Katella Avenue –Anaheim, LLCand Karaki voted yes. 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1640 Irvine, CA92614Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. Applicant: Nicolle Ferrier Huitt-Zollars 430 Exchange, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Location:1515 East Katella Avenue, 1761 and 1781South Campton Avenueand 1551 East Wright Circle The applicant proposes to modify Section 9.5 of the Project Planner: Ted White Development Agreement and conditions of approval twhite@anaheim.net relating to the required relocation of an adjacent vehicular driveway. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09/14/09 Page 18of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05443ANDResolution No. 2009-080 VARIANCE NO.2009-04793 (Faessel) Owner and Praful Patel Applicant:Approved Nara Investments, LLC 1441 South Manchester Avenue Anaheim, CA 92802 VOTE: 4-0 Location:1441 South Manchester Avenue Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel The applicant proposes to partially remodel an existing and Karaki voted yes. hotel to permit a full service spa/massage establishment with a building setback adjacent to Manchester Avenue that Commissioners Agarwal, Ament is less than required by Code.and Ramirez were absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Ted White Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 twhite@anaheim.net (Existing Facilities). Ted White, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Buffa asked staff if there wereplans to widen Manchester Avenue. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, stated staff wasnot aware of any plans to change Manchester Avenue in that area. Commissioner Buffa asked if Manchester Avenue should be downgraded from a secondary arterial street. Dave Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways identifiedManchester Avenue as a secondary arterial street which would require four lanes.However, future trafficvolumes indicateda demand of about 5,000 vehicles per hour which did notjustify widening the street to four lanes. Thiswaswhy staff did not haveplans to widen the street. Commissioner Buffa asked if staff had contemplated approaching the County to change the Master Plan. Mr. Kennedy responded that staff would beconsidering this as part of atraffic module update, which wouldbe starting in a couple of months. 09/14/09 Page 19of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Faessel referred to the Gene Autry overpass over the Interstate 5and asked staff how close this overpass would be in relation to this site. Mr. Kennedy responded the Gene Autry overpass wasapproximately three quarters of a mile south of thisproperty.He stated this property waslocated between Disney Way and Ball Road. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Hamar Ravikumar, applicant, representing the Quality Inn & Suites, Anaheim Resort,stated she was in agreement with the staff report. Chairman Romero, seeing no additional persons indicating to speak,closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 14, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05443 and Variance No. 2009-04793. Elly Morris,Secretary announced that the resolution passed with fouryes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes.Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,October 6,2009. DISCUSSION TIME :7minutes (3:35to 3:42) A 5-minute break was taken (3:43-3:48) 09/14/09 Page 20of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 10 BOARD OF APPEALS –APPEAL OF THE BUILDING Motionto uphold the OFFICIALS DETERMINATION PERTAINING TOapplicant’s interpretation of the BUILDING PERMIT NO. 2006-01658Building Code provision and grant the applicant’s appeal of (The Planning Commission is designated as the Board of the Building Official’s Appeals per Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.02.110.) determination Owner: Front Porch Communities(Buffa/Romero) 303 North Glenoaks, Suite 1000 Burbank, CA 91502 Approved Applicant: Stewart H. Ankrom, AIA, NCARB,President Ankrom Moisan Architects VOTE: 3-1 6720 SW MacAdam Portland, OR 97219Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa and Faessel Location:891 South Walnut Street voted yes. Commissioner Karaki voted no. The applicant appeals the Building Official’s determination that thirty-five of the residential units in the Walnut Village Commissioners Agarwal, Ament Continuing Care Retirement Community project do not and Ramirez were absent. comply with the 2001 California Building Code Section 1112A.2 pertaining to kitchen cabinet clearances. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Staff Contact: exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Lorri Gonzalez Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. lgonzalez@anaheim.net Lorri Gonzalez, Acting Building Operations Manager, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 14, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, what action the Commission would or would not be able to take on this project. Ms. Mann clarified that she had not advised staff or the applicant regarding this project prior to the hearing. She said the Planning Commission has been designated asthe Board of Appeals in the Anaheim Municipal Code. The Commission’s authority wasrestricted in that the administrative requirements that wereset forth may not be waived and that they could not waive requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The Commission’s role would be limited to interpretation of those sections. Commissioner Buffa asked if the 2001 and 2006 UBC exhibits provided in the packets where what they should reference. Ms. Gonzales responded yes. 09/14/09 Page 21of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Buffa asked Ms. Mann if they would be making their decision based on the 2001 or the 2006 Building Code. Ms. Mann responded the 2001Building Code. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Stewart Ankrom, 6720 SW MacAdam Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR, the applicant and architect for Front Porch Communities, stated that in the eleventh hour, they were asked to modify something that they disagreed with and they opposed the manner in which the code was interpreted. Chris Ebert, 6720 SW MacAdam Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR, set up a visual presentation. He clarified that they were not requesting that any building codes be waived. He brought up the following: The 2001 Uniform Building Code was based on the 1997 Universal Building Code (UBC), which was modified by the State. The purpose of the section was to provide access to persons with disabilities to the kitchen equipment. Code requireda 30 by48 inch clear floor space, which would allow a parallel approach for a wheelchair. Clear width wasonly defined for U-shaped kitchens, which were not in question in this appeal. The plans were reviewed and discussed with the Building Division;however, the clear floor space issues were not raised during these initial discussions. The space in front of the refrigerator was a concern. The distance between the countertop and the island was 50-54 inches. The refrigerator protrudedbeyond the cabinet by 8 inches. He admitted that there were construction errors as this was a large projectincluding 155 units, all with different kitchen sizes and configurations. When the contractor asked if it was an issue to move the kitchen cabinet over a few inches. He said heresearched the code and found no clear width requirement. He did not believe it was necessary to invest money to comply with a requirement that did not exist. The code requirement had a provision that there should be an accessible route of 36 inches wide. If the 36 by 48 inch rectangle were turned to only a forward approach, it would not be consistent with the code which requiredparallel approach at the other appliances. Commissioner Faessel asked for clarification on parallel approach. Mr. Ebert statedthat Federal law required40 inches minimum clear floor space asstated in the Fair Housing Design Guidelines and recognized in all model building codes. Mr. Ebert understoodthat the City didnot enforce federal law. Commissioner Romero asked if the new units met the code requirements of the State of California. Mr. Ebert said the new units did not meet those requirements because when the State changed the code, they clarified the measurements. 09/14/09 Page 22of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Ebert to define a 30-48 inch clear floor space on his display. He asked if the 40 inch rule was deleted from the 2001 UBC code. Mr. Ebert said the State rewrote the 1997 UBC accessibility section in CBC Chapter 11 and addressed the clear space and clear width requirements in Section 1112A.2, which appeared to have no width requirement, except for a “U” shaped kitchen. Commissioner Faessel asked if Mr. Ebert’s point was that the code was clarified in 2006 but the building was not constructed to that standard and since it was constructed to the 2001 standard, that they should be held to that. Mr. Ebert responded yes. The 2006 CBC supplement or conversations with Building Division or State officials could not be used as a way to interpret, only what was in the code. The 2006 CBC supplement was provided to contrast withwhat should have been done. If the State wanted to articulate a differentstandard than the Federal standard, they should have done it clearly and specifically,which was achieved in the 2006 CBC revision. Commissioner Karaki stated thestaff report indicated that the residential unit kitchens that did not meet the minimum clear width requirement were the result of a construction error. Mr. Ebert said he disagreed. Mr. Ankromstated the construction was done according to the plans. He said the staff report was inaccurate. He distinguished construction tolerances from construction errors. Commissioner Faessel indicated that Attachment No. 6 showed the various dimensions printed on the plans that were approved by City staff. He stated some of them were less than 48 inchesand requested an explanation. Mr. Ankrom said therewas no minimal clearance dimensions called out between the faces of the cabinets.The drawings showed a 30 by 40 inch clear floor space. There was not a dimension of 48 inches. Commissioner Faessel asked if only a 30 inch dimension was called out, why 80 percent of the units were built to a 48 inch dimension and 33 units werenot. Mr. Ebert reiterated that no minimum clearance dimensions were called outon the plans.He said all of the kitchens hada 40 inch or greater clearance. Commissioner Faessel asked for confirmation that there was never a 48-inch dimension listed in the plans approved by the City. Mr. Ebert responded that this was correct. Commission Karaki stated the plans were stamped and approved based upon the 2001 CBC. He asked why thedeveloper did notask tobuild to the 2006 CBC supplement when they began construction in 2007. 09/14/09 Page 23of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. Ebert stated that only the 2001 CBC couldbe applied and that his office hadfound no 48 inch clear width requirementin the 2001 CBC. Chairman Romeroasked whether the interpretation of the code and compliance with the federal standard only came into question after the clearance issue was identified in the field. Mr. Ebert responded yes. They did their original design and did not find the 48 inch requirement. During the construction, they did research again and did not find the 48 inch requirement. Commissioner Karaki asked what actions werenecessary to fix the issue in the building. Mr. Ebert stated they wouldneed to cut cabinets in certain unitsor purchase new appliances. Commissioner Buffa stated that the applicant’s obligation was to build a space that was 30 by 40 inchesandtheir plans were in compliance. Chairman Romero agreed with Commissioner Buffa. th Mr. Jacobson, 3317 NE 58, Portland, OR, consultant for the applicant and Front Porch Communities, stated the following: He agreed with Commissioner Buffa. The model codes, Federal codes, ANCIStandards, the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other State codes hada 40 inch width requirement which was consistent with the 1997 UBC. The “parallel approach” referedto the 30-48 dimension with the 48 inch dimension appearing on the appliance face, not the 30 inch. Commissioner Buffa asked if every kitchen in the project provided a parallel approach to the range or cooktop and either a parallel or forward approach to every other appliance in the kitchen. Mr. Jacobson responded yes. Bill Jennings, President of Front Porch Communities, the applicant, 400 El Adobe, Fullerton. He urged the Planning Commission to consider the appeal so that residents would be able to move in on October 1, 2009. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. After an additional speaker was brought to his attention, Chairman Romero re-opened the public hearing. Charles Ritcherdsen,stated he lived at 1546 West Chateau, Anaheim for 45 years. He said he was currently living in a one bedroom apartment and had been looking forward to moving in to Walnut Village on October 2, 2009. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Chairman Romero asked Ms. Mann what type of potential liability the City would be subjected to, if the appeal was granted. 09/14/09 Page 24of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Ms. Mann said the Federal standards didnot have applicability to the California Building Code and they werenot used in interpreting the California Building Code. All local jurisdictions wererequired to adopt the California Uniform Building Codeand there were very express provisions in the Health and Safety code for any deviations from those standards. Those need to be established at the beginning and they could be denied by HCD if the appropriate findings were not made.Whether the deviation was for a Federal standard, there would still need to be the appropriate justification for that. She stated it does not appear that the Federal standards had relevance in the Commission’s analysis of the Uniform Building Code provisions. She stated, as Commissioner Buffa pointed out, the Commission was limited to interpreting the 2001 Building Code.Based uponher experience,she stated that compliance with other standards that werenot relevant to the analysis, would not protect the City from any such liability.She said the Commission was limited in interpreting the provisions of the 2001 CBC. She said she would need more time to research the specific liability relating to this project. Commissioner Buffa said the State did not make their intentions clear in 2001. People who were processing plans based on the 2001 code, had to rely on this sentence, not withstanding what the State might have meant but failed to express. Commissioner Faessel asked Ms. Mann who would take precedence in rules and regulations relating to ADA compliance, the State or the Federal government. Ms. Mann said in matters relating todisabled ADA, it was one of those areas where there were standards and provisions that were more restrictivethan the minimum permitted. Provided the State of California did not adopt a Uniform Building Code that had a standard that was less than the Federal standard set forth, that would be what would be binding upon the Stateof California. Commissioner Faessel asked if it was correct that the more stringent requirement would need to be followed should there be two conflicting requirements. He asked if the State of California had a 48 inch requirement and the Federal government had a 40 inch requirement, if by enforcing the California requirement, would that meet the Federal requirement. Conversely, if the State of California had a 30 inch requirementand the Federal government had a 40 inch requirement and the project met or exceeded the 40-inch requirement, than that would exceed the California requirement. Ms. Mann responded that the more restrictive standard would have met the Federal standard. It would meet the State standard depending upon the Commission’s interpretation of that section. In considering the interpretation, the Commission would need to determine whether one interpretation would be less restrictive than the Federal standard. Commissioner Karaki stated he would not support the appeal. He believed that the State superseded the Federal requirements, especially with the ADA requirements. Commissioner Faessel agreed with Commissioner Buffa’s comments and supportedthe appeal because the applicant had met the Federal guideline and exceeded the State guideline based upon the testimony supplied during the hearing and his interpretation of the code provision. Chairman Romero stated there were many compelling reasons to grant the appeal. He said the safety of the residents wasnot compromised in any wayandhe supported the project. 09/14/09 Page 25of 26 SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa disclosed that they had met with the applicant prior to the hearing. Commissioner Faessel statedhe communicated with the applicant via e-mail. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by ChairmanRomero, determining the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Codeand upholding the applicant’s interpretation of the Building Code provision in question and granting the appeal of the Building Official’s determination. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney announced that the motion passed with three yes votes and one no vote. Chairman RomeroandCommissioners Buffa and Faessel voted yes. Commissioner Karaki voted no. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: Oneperson spoke in favor of the subject request. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 6, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :1 hour and 16minutes (3:49to 5:05) DISCUSSION: PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME CHANGE Chairman Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki, to change the time that Planning Commission meetings begin from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,starting with the October 12, 2009 meeting. The motion passed with four yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karaki voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Ramirez were absent. Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:10P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009AT 2:30P.M. 09/14/09 Page 26of 26