Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/09/30City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday,September 30, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,Joseph Karaki,Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :None Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerVanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner David See, Senior PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Ted White, Senior Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:00 p.m. onWednesday,September 23, 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 17,2009 Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 24 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Faessel Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Faessel/Karaki) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of September 14, 2009. VOTE: 4-0 Chairman Romero and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Karakivoted yes. Commissioners Ament and Ramirez abstained. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. 09/30/09 Page 2of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Reports and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1B REQUEST THAT THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT FORResolution No. PC2009-081 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-23 BE RESCINDED AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2170 BE TERMINATEDResolution No. PC2009-082 (TRACKING NOS. RCL80-81-23A AND CUP2009-05463) (Faessel) Owner: Martin Krawiec 1457 East Chapman Avenue VOTE: 6-0 Fullerton, CA 92831 Chairman Romero and Location:147 South Beach Boulevard Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez The applicant requests that the Resolution of Intent voted yes.Commissioner approvingReclassification No. 80-81-23 to reclassify the Agarwal was absent. property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the CL (Commercial Limited) zone be rescinded andConditional Use Permit No. 2170 to permit a 45-unit Project Planner: Della Herrick motel with fewer parking spaces and less landscaping dherrick@anaheim.net within the setback area than required by codebe terminated. 09/30/09 Page 3of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2009-00057Request for withdrawal No action required Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806 Location:The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area This is a request initiated by the Planning Department to Project Planner: ljohnson@anaheim.net amend the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan to clarify that the Specific Plan zoning code requirements in Chapter 18.114 of the Anaheim Municipal Code prevail where there is an inconsistency between the code requirements and the text and diagrams in the Specific Plan document and to also clarify the correct building height in the Specific Plan Hotel District. Environmental Determination :The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 09/30/09 Page 4of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05444ANDResolution No. PC2009-083 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17333Resolution No. PC2009-084 (Buffa) Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard Approved, modified Condition Anaheim, CA 92805 No. 24 Applicant: John O’Brien Brookfield Homes VOTE: 6-0 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Location:410–418 East Santa Ana Street Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez voted yes.Commissioner The applicant proposes to construct a 182 unit affordable Agarwal was absent. condominium project with a deviation in zoning development standards. The applicant also proposes a 57- lot attached single family residential subdivision, consisting of 43 residential lots and 14 lettered lots. Environmental Determination :A Negative Declaration Project Planner: David See has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental dsee@anaheim.net impacts of this projectin accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 30, 2009,along with a visual presentation.He recommended that Condition No. 24 in the draft Resolution be revised to clarify that trash barrels would be required, not trash enclosures. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to describe the distance between garages on opposite sides of the drive aisle. Mr. See stated that the code requires a distance of 24 feet and the plans complied with the code. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to explain the change to Condition No. 24. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, responded that the original condition required trash enclosures. The revision allows trash barrels which will be rolled out to the street. Commissioner Buffa asked where the barrels would be located on trash day. Mr. Garcia responded that the barrels would be located on the street, consistent with the trash barrels in neighboring developments. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. 09/30/09 Page 5of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA John O’Brien, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. He provided a visual presentation with an overview of the property and status of sales of neighboring projects. He stated they had incorporated elements into all of their new residential projects in this areato make the projectslook like a single neighborhood. He described thefeatures of the project including: front doors facing the street, private outdoor space, two story buildings, great landscaping, Spanish and historic influence in the architectural style and project Green features. He stated that in designing this project, they had incorporated feedback from the residents of the new neighborhoods in the vicinity. He also outlined the local benefits to Anaheim of this project including creating new jobs and homes and getting the Kwikset property redeveloped. Chairman Romero, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa commented this was a great project and believed the request was reasonable and what the Commission was looking for in this area. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 30, 2009 staff report, determining that a Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05444, with the modification to Condition No. 24, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17333. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith sixyesvotes.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 12, 2009 and the22-dayappeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :18minutes (2:33to 2:51) 09/30/09 Page 6of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4089AResolution No. PC2009-085 (Faessel) Owner: La Palma Partners P.O. Box 448 Approved Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Applicant: Ilona Nanda VOTE: 6-0 Coorg Corporation P.O. Box 1266Chairman Romero and Anaheim, CA 92815Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez Location:710 East La Palma Avenue voted yes.Commissioner Agarwal abstained. The applicant proposes to reinstate a previously approved conditional use permit for a building material and contractor’s storage yard and outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trailers and amend the permit to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration, Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood which was previously-approved, has been determined to vnorwood@anaheim.net serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Vanessa Norwood, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 30,2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Ilona Nanda,applicant, stated she had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Commissioner Fassel asked the applicant when the property owner had purchased the property from Union Pacific. Ms. Nanda responded that she believed the property was purchased by the previous owner of the site and did not know the date. Commissioners Karaki, Faessel, Ramirez and Ament each statedthey had spoken with the applicant. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 30, 2009 staff report, determining that the previously approved Negative 09/30/09 Page 7of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving an amendment and reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4089. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolutionpassedwith sixyesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioner Agarwal abstained. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :6minutes (2:51to 2:57) (CommissionerAgarwal arrivedat 2:53 p.m.) 09/30/09 Page 8of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. DAG2005-00001 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00004Resolution No. PC2009-086 DAG2005-00002 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00005) AND Resolution No. PC2009-087 DAG2005-00003 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00006)Resolution No. PC2009-088 (Ramirez) Owner: Bob Linder BRE Properties, Inc. Approved 5141 California Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA92614 VOTE: 7-0 Bert Haboucha 1515 E. Katella Avenue –Anaheim, LLCChairmanRomero and 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1640Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Irvine, CA92614Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez voted yes. 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). Ted White, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 30, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if City staff had initiated the interim roadway improvementdue to the fact that there could be no resolution to the driveway relocation issue. Mr. White responded that the applicant had initiated the request for the interim solution because they could not acquire the rights to relocate the driveway from the adjacent property owner. City staff worked with the applicant on the design of the interim solution. 09/30/09 Page 9of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA CommissionerFaessel asked for confirmation that the interim solution did not interfere with delivery or trucking vehicles for any of the property owners further north on Campton Avenue. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, responded that there was an alternative access from Auburn Way. Commissioner Faessel asked for confirmation that the interim solution had worked out to everyone’s satisfaction. Mr. Garcia responded that was correct. CommissionerKarakiasked what the Bank of America’s position was on the driveway relocation. Mr. White responded that the applicant tried to acquire the rights from Bank of America to relocate the driveway, but was not able to negotiate the relocation of the driveway. Commissioner Karaki askedif the Bank of America property had another driveway access. Mr. White responded that was correct, the Bank of America property had a driveway access from the street just west of the Stadium Lofts property. Commissioner Karaki asked if the Bank of America property would have a driveway to Katella Avenue in the future. Mr. White responded that the Bank of America property would have driveway access to Campton Avenue and access to Katella Avenue would be removed. Commissioner Karaki asked if the properties to the north of the Bank of America property had any entitlements for other types of development. Mr. White responded not now, but anticipated that could change in the future. Commissioner Ramirez asked if Campton Avenue was a one-wayor two-way street. Mr. White responded that it was currently a one-way street, but it would be a two way street in the future. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to describe the signage installed for this interim solution. Mr. White described the signage including on southbound CamptonAvenue, a right-turn only sign to Katella Avenue and on westbound Katella Avenue, a no right turn sign to CamptonAvenue. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. Bob Linder, applicant, representing BRE Properties, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement.He stated that the Park Viridian project had received Green 09/30/09 Page 10of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA certification and they anticipated a Silver LEED certification in October.He stated this would be the first residential LEED project inthe City ofAnaheim. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel observed that the property owner used their best efforts to work with the adjacent property owner to relocate the driveway but were not able to come to an agreement; however, the property owner had worked with City staff to implement a workable interim solution. Commissioner Ramirezoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 30, 2009 staff report, determining that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending approval to City Council of an amendment to Development Agreement Nos. 2005- 00001, 2005-00002 and 2005-00003. GraceMedina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passedwith sevenyesvotes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez voted yes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :11minutes (2:57to 3:08) 09/30/09 Page 11of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372 AND Resolution No. PC2009-089 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795 (Karaki) Owner: Daniel Akarakian Approved,added conditions 315 Rees Street pertaining to a security plan Playa Del Rey,CA 90293 and modified the timing of Applicant:conditions pertaining to the Dave Tanazaki parking management plans. Tanazaki and Associates, Inc. 601 East Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 201 Glendale, CA 91207 VOTE: 6-1 Location:5635 East La Palma Avenue Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, The applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 square foot Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez commercial retail building on the Cinema City movie theatre voted yes.Commissioner Buffa property with fewer parking spaces than required by Code.voted no. 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 3 twhite@anaheim.net (New Construction). Ted White, Senior Planner, provideda summary of the staff report dated September 30, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Mr. White further described two pieces of correspondence from the attorney representing the Imperial Promenade property. The first piece of correspondence was a marketing brochure produced by the broker of the proposed retail building showing a site plan that would physically alter vehicular circulation on the Imperial Promenade property and an 11,000 square foot commercial building. Mr. White stated this site plan wasnot part of the proposed project, staff had not reviewed this plan and there wereno physical improvements proposed on adjacent properties. He confirmed that the proposed building would be10,000 square feet. The second piece of correspondence requested that the Planning Commission continue the item so that concerns from the adjacent property owner regarding the project could be addressed. The first issue raised was regarding the proposed CEQA determination of a Class 3, Categorical Exemption. The correspondence indicated that the City should not use a Categorical Exemption because the potential 1,500 square feet of outdoor dining should be considered as part of the structure and project for CEQA purposes. Mr. White explained that a Class 3 Categorical Exemption appliedto the construction of new smaller structures. In urbanized areas, the exemption appliedto construction of up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for the proposed use where all necessary pubic services and facilities wereavailable and the surrounding area wasnot environmentally sensitive. Mr. White expressed staff’s belief that the Class 3 09/30/09 Page 12of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Categorical Exemption wasthe appropriate environmental determination based on the proposed building having an area of 10,000 square feet. He further stated that CEQA didnot define outdoor diningareas as part of a structure. Mr. White also described the second issue raised by the letter relating to the validity of the parking study. Heexplainedthat the correspondence questions the validity of the study because the study reliedon parking counts from 2007 for its conclusions. He statedthe traffic engineer who prepared the study revisited the site last weekend and conducted parking counts to confirm the assumptions in the parking study and found that less parking spaces were being utilized than were studied in 2007. He added that the results were supported by citywide traffic numbers which showedan approximately 15% reduction in traffic since 2007 due to the economy. He explained that based on this information, using the 2007 parking counts wasa more conservative approach to analyzing the parking needs of the center. Mr. White explained that the adjacent property owner also raised concerns in his letter that the proposed conditions of approval werenot adequate to determine whether measures taken to increase utilization of the parking structure would be adequate to get people to use the parking structure and dissuade patrons from parking in the adjacent Imperial Promenade parking lot. Mr. White stated that the recommended conditions of approval requireda detailed plan for physical improvements as well as operational improvements to encourage the full utilization of the parking structure and that this plan would come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. He also explained that another condition requiredthat, prior to the issuance of building permits, an interim parking and operation plan identifyingimprovements required during construction of the projectto be approved by the Planning Department. Mr. White stated that after the staff report was completed, staff received further information from the Police Department pertaining to concerns they had with this property and properties in the immediate vicinity relating to teenage loitering, skateboarding, trash and debris, tagging, etc. He said that the Police Department recommended additional conditions of approval that wouldrequire a security plan including improved lighting, security guards, and perimeter fencing along the side and rear of the property to address these concerns. The security plan would be required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, with any physical improvements required prior to final building and zoning inspections, as well as the on-going maintenance of the improvements and security operations in compliance with the approved plans. He mentioned that staff also took the opportunity to clean up the timing shown in the conditions to expressly require the implementation of the interim parking plan during project construction, and completion of the permanent features designed to increase utilization of the parking structure would be required prior to final building and zoning inspection. Commissioner Faessel asked for background regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 which was approved forthe expansion of the movie theater and specifically regarding the requirement to maintain 80% of code required parking spaces. Mr. White stated there hadbeen numerous modifications over time. The number of seats in the theater was a work in progress at the time the permit was approved. The condition to require a minimum of 80% of parking spaces was intended to ensure that the final number of seats, and the final restriping plans, plus the redesign of the parking structure would result in a minimum of 80% of the parking spaces provided for the site. The proposed project was at 83% in compliance with the previously approved conditional use permit. 09/30/09 Page 13of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Agarwal asked if there was anything in the proposal that would improve the ingress and egress from La Palma Avenue. Mr. White said the commercial center did not create enough additional traffic to warrant a traffic study. He noted that the parking study indicated that by adding the commercial building on the west side of the property, there could be an increased utilization of the second driveway at the southwest corner of the property for egress. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, said the primary issue was the proximity of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. He said Traffic Engineering staff was currently exploring options to improve circulation at theintersection. Commissioner Agarwal asked how the Imperial Highway/Orangethorpe Avenue bridge would affect traffic in the area. Mr. Kennedy said it would smooth out the traffic flow on Imperial Highway, with the removal of one traffic signal and reduce delays on Imperial Highway. The retiming of the traffic signal to remove the split phasing on La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway would allow for more “green” time for traffic on the streets; resulting in less traffic congestion. Commissioner Faessel asked about plans showing improvements to the driveway on the Bayport property. Mr. White stated it was not part of the proposalandno physical improvements to either the Imperial Promenade or the Citibank properties were proposed. All the improvements would be wholly contained on the Cinema City property. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Peter Mitchell, President of PM Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 518, Brea, representing Daniel Akarakian, the applicant. Mr. Mitchell stated the following: Mr. Akarakian purchased the business in 2002, seating capacity haddecreased from 2,500 seats to 1,760 in order to add stadium seating and make other improvements. He also owned theaters in Whittier and Garden Grove. Several restaurants within the adjacent shopping center regularly use the movie schedule of the theater to better staff their businesses. Some of the concerns raised in the letter of opposition were also raised in January 2006. He agreed that there were several issues in the past with skateboarders, dirt and that the parking structure was not being utilized. He indicated that the following improvements would be made to facilitate increased use of the parking structure: The parking structure would be cleaned and used regularly. A valet service would be employed. There would be a lighted covered walkway on the east side of the movie theater. They would install better lighting on the walls or fencing surrounding the parking structure. 09/30/09 Page 14of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA They would work with staff to address stairwell reconstruction or enhancements. They would advertise on the property, their website, social exchanges, and telephone outgoing messages, and offer incentives to encourage people to park in the structure. Security cameras/devices would be installed. The overpass and the two left turn lanes from La Palma Avenue onto Imperial Highway had already improved the traffic flow exiting the theater. Commissioner Buffa asked Mr. Mitchell if he had contacted the owners of the Imperial Promenade regarding the shared parking concept, before heprepared the report. Mr. Mitchell stated they had contacted them in the past and the projectwasmore than 2 to 3 years old. They have had difficulty with their neighbor agreeing to anything they proposedto do. Trissa Allen, LLG Engineers,1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122, Costa Mesa, said her company had prepared the current parking study and the September 2007 studies. She also stated that: They analyzed the theater site on its own and also the combined parking needs. They excluded the 190 parking spaces in the parking structure as a conservative measure. There was a surplus of 81 parking spaces. There were 70-110 fewer occupied spaces when they revisited the site over the last weekend than when they originally looked at the site in 2007. CommissionerBuffa said the fact that the Commission received a letter from the Imperial Promenade’s attorney, suggested that they werenot willing to participate in a shared parking agreement. She asked if it was true that there was no shared parking except for the small area on their property which wascovered by an easement or parking agreement. Commissioner Agarwal disclosed he had spoken to Mr. Mitchell by telephone. He described his understanding of the parking study and asked Ms. Allen to clarify certain components regarding the parking spaces that would be lost as part of the construction and the required parking spaces for the new commercial center. He asked Ms. Allen to confirm his understanding of the required parking. Ms. Allen responded by agreeing with his conclusions that the current surplus of 80 parking spaces existing without the use of the parking structure, when factored with the new parking demand of 80 spaces associated with the new shopping center, results in a net no impact, and that the reduction of 136 surface parking spaces as a result of the new commercial center would be offset by the re- opening of the 190 space parking structure, resulting in a surplus of 54 spaces. She further indicated that her analysis also included a contingency factor of 10% which is why the results of her study result in a surplus of approximately 15 parking spaces. Commissioner Buffa stated that it was inconvenient to park in the parking structure. Mr. Mitchell said that waswhy they would be using several methods to encourage parking in the structure. Commissioner Buffa said the challenge with the structure was that many people would be leaving at the same time and the queue would bevery long to exit the structure. 09/30/09 Page 15of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Mr. Mitchell said opening more exits and having people use the structure would reduce traffic congestion. Ms. Allen added that one of the conditions of approval was for development of a traffic and parking management plan. During “blockbuster” showings, plans may include the use of parking/traffic attendants on site, not on the public right-of-way. She indicated that peak queuing occurred mostly on weekdays during the lunch hour. The lunch queue at La Palma Avenue far exceeded the peak Friday evening queue. Commissioner Faessel asked if they intended to use all 190 parking spaces in the structure and for the best estimate for the utilization of the parking structure. Mr. Mitchell responded that once the improvements were completed, they intended to fully utilize the structure. There wouldbeeasy access from the movie theater using the side doors which were allowed to be opened for egress. Commissioner Agarwal disclosed he had spoken to Mr. Mitchell by telephone. He described his understanding of the parking study and asked Ms. Allen to clarify certain components regarding the parking spaces that would be lost as part of the construction and the required parking spaces for the new commercial center. He asked Ms. Allen to confirm his understanding of the required parking. Ms. Allen answered his questions and agreed with his conclusionsthat not counting the 190 parking spaces in the structure, there was a surplus of 81 parking spaces for the current uses on the site. Further, the construction of the 10,000 square foot retail center would require 80 spaces and result in the loss of 136 parking spaces.Therefore, a total of 216 additional spaces would be needed for the construction of the retail center. A total of 190 of these spaces would be provided in the parking structure, leaving a shortfall of 26 spaces. Commissioner Agarwal disclosed he had spoken to Mr. Mitchell by telephone. He described his understanding of the parking study and asked Ms. Allen to clarify certain components regarding the parking spaces that would be lost as part of the construction and the required parking spaces for the new commercial center. He asked Ms. Allen to confirm his understanding of the required parking. Ms. Allen responded by agreeing with his conclusions that there are 80surplus parking spaces without the use of the parking structure. When factored with the parking demand of 80 spaces associated with the new shopping center,thisresults in a net no impact. The reduction of 136 surface parking spaces as a result of the new commercial center would be offset by the re-opening of the 190 space parking structure, resulting in a surplus of 54 spaces. She further indicated that her analysis also included a contingency factor of 10% which is why the results of her study result in a surplus of approximately 15 parking spaces. Commissioner Ament asked if any of the businesses at the rear of the Imperial Promenade center had designated parking spaces. Mr. Mitchell said that some of the restaurants have marked parking spaces. Commissioner Agarwal stated that Subway, the fish restaurant, Kinko’s, Starbucks, Radiance Dental, and KFC haddesignated parking. 09/30/09 Page 16of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Ament asked if an offer had been made to the other businesses in the center to have their employees park in the structure. Mr. Mitchell said he would like for them to use it if they were interested. Commissioner Ramirez suggested the top floor of the parking structure be used for valet parking. Mr. Mitchell agreed. Mark Nitikman, 4750 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, representing BayportImperial Promenade Association LP. He stated that in 1992, the City had required the property owners to enter into an agreement at the time the Imperial Promenade property was developed regarding the closure of the driveway on La Palma Avenue so the two projects would share an intersection. The agreement required reciprocal parking spaces, and stated that the parties would not change their site plan without consent of the neighbors. Mr. Nitikman said they heard about this proposed project by way of the public notification, and one of their tenants, not the owneror representative of the theater. He referred to the brochure from Cinema City and said it indicated the building would be up to 11,000 square feet. He expressed concern regarding possible CEQAregulation violations and that the parking study was done in 2007. Most likely, the majority of the theater’s customers would park in his clients’ parking spaces rather than use the parking structure because of its inconvenience. He would like the opportunity to work with them and try to find a solution. He stated they opposedthe project. Commissioner Agarwal asked Mr. Nitikman if there were any signs posted on his client's property which indicated no theater parking. Mr. Nitikman said they just reinstituted them and that this weekend his client would reluctantly install signs which state that theater customers will be towed. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa statedthe parking study was confusing because it mostly analyzed shared parking between both properties while that was not part of the proposal. The theater provided 592 spaces, including the parking deck, which was based on a conditional use permit with a parking waiver. She asked how many parking spaces were required for the theater to meet code. Mr. White said the movie theater parking requirement wasbased on 1,795 seats and the number of theaters in the multiplex. Code required a ratio of .3 spaces for every seat and 2 additional parking spaces for each movietheater, totaling 564 seats. The proposed retail/restaurant center would require 80 spaces, totaling 644 spaces of required parking. Commissioner Karaki said it was time to use the parking structure for the movie theater and that he supported the project. Chairman Romero concurred with Commissioner Karaki and also supported the project. Chairman Romero and Commissioner Karaki both disclosed that they had spoken with the applicant by telephone. 09/30/09 Page 17of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Buffa said she was very concerned with the traffic and the driveway on La Palma Avenue. The problem wasat the In-N-Out Burger across the street from this center. She said she was not convinced that the use of the parking structure would be effective. The parking at the Imperial Promenade would beaffected by the proposed project. Commissioner Karaki disclosed that he had met with the applicant and spoke briefly about the project. Commissioner Karaki offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 30, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 3, Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372 and Variance No. 2009-04795. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six yes votes and one no vote.Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Faessel, Karaki, and Ramirez voted yes.Commissioner Buffa voted no. OPPOSITION: One personspoke and twopiecesof correspondencein opposition to the projectwerereceived. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :81minutes (3:08to 4:29) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:32P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2009AT 3:30P.M. 09/30/09 Page 18of 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2009. 09/30/09 Page 19of 19