Minutes-PC 2010/02/01City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday,February 1, 2010
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
Commissioners Present
:ChairmanPro-Tempore: Stephen Faessel
Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament,Kelly Buffa,
Joseph Karaki,Victoria Ramirez
Commissioners Absent
:Panky Romero
Staff Present
:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer
David See, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner
Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyGrace Medina, Senior Secretary
Susan Kim, Senior Planner
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m.
onThursday,January 28, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council
Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Call to Order-3:30 p.m.
Audience Attendance: 4
Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Buffa
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Adjournment
FEBRUARY 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -3:30 P.M.
Public Comments: None
Minutes
ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes
(Buffa/Agarwal)
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning
Approved
Commission Meeting of January 4, 2009.
VOTE: 6-0
Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Buffa, Faessel, Karakiand
Ramirez voted yes.
Chairman Romero was absent.
Reports and Recommendations
ITEM NO. 1B
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05465A ANDMotion
VARIANCE NO. 2009-04804A (DEV2009-00048A)
(Buffa/Agarwal)
Owner:
Ronald J. Chester
Approved
JPMorgan Chase Bank
1111Polaris Parkway, Suite 1E
Mail Code OH1-0241
VOTE: 6-0
Columbus, OH 43240
Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Applicant:
Tasia KalliesBuffa, Faessel, Karakiand
Burnham NationwideRamirez votedyes.
111 West Washington Street, Suite 450Chairman Romero was absent.
Chicago, IL 60602
Location:555 North State College Boulevard
The applicant requestsreview of final elevation and Project Planner:
Dave See
landscaping plans for a previously-approved drive through
dsee@anaheim.net
bank.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 2
(Replacement or Reconstruction).
02/01/10
Page 2of 7
FEBRUARY 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing Items:
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05471Resolution No. 2010-003
(DEV2009-00094)
(Ament)
Owner:
Jodi Adamo
Approved
The Pilates Body of Orange County
6525 East Camino Vista,#3
Anaheim, CA 92807
VOTE: 6-0
Applicant:
Adam SurnowCommissioners Agarwal, Ament,
Seligman Western EnterprisesBuffa, Faessel, Karakiand
One Town Square, Suite 1913Ramirez voted yes.
Southfield, MI 48076Chairman Romero was absent.
Location:5100 East La Palma Avenue (Suite 117)
The applicant proposes to establish a fitness studio within
Project Planner:
an existing multi-tenant commercialand industrial business
Dave See
park.dsee@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination: The proposed project is
Categorically Exempt from the need to prepare additional
environmental documentation per California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1(Existing
Facilities).
Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 1, 2010,along with
a visual presentation.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel opened the public hearing.
Jodi Adamo,applicant, stated she has reviewed the staff report and resolution and is in agreement.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel asked if anyone else was present to speak on the item; seeing no
oneindicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Agarwal asked if there is adequate lighting on site.
Mr. See responded he didn’t visit the site at night and is unaware of the lighting. He noted there are
both industrial and commercial businesses within the center as there is a conditional use permit which
allows both uses. There is some activity during the nighttime because of the commercial businesses
on the site.
02/01/10
Page 3of 7
FEBRUARY 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Karaki responded his office is in close proximity to the subject site; therefore, he
knows the center very well and he indicated the site is well lit at night.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the parking for the site and asked for clarification why a parking
variance was not needed.
Mr. See responded currently the existing site complies with code, and the subject use would not
increase the parking requirement for the complex. He said fitness studios with less than 4,000
square feet require 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is the same parking requirement as the
previous commercial business that occupied the same tenantspace.
Commissioner Amentoffered arecommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the February 1, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2009-05471.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the motionpassed with six yes votes.Chairman
Pro-Tempore Faesseland Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Karakiand Ramirezvoted yes.
ChairmanRomerowas absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, February 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:6minutes (3:33to 3:39)
02/01/10
Page 4of 7
FEBRUARY 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00087*Motion
(DEV2009-00093)
(Agarwal/Faessel)
Applicant:
City of Anaheim
Approved
Location:Citywide
VOTE: 6-0
This is a City-initiated request to add a new Section
18.38.135 to Title 18 (Zoning Code) establishing Commissioners Agarwal, Ament,
requirements pertaining to a Festival Permit; a new type of Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and
permit intended to regulate and coordinate permits for Ramirez voted yes.
events or other functions expected to draw a total of thirty-Chairman Romero was absent.
five thousand or more persons at two or more City venues.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner:
Susan Kim
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
skim@anaheim.net
additional environmental documentation per Section 21080
of the California Public Resources Code (Statutory
Exemption).
*Advertised as Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009-00093
Susan Kim, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 1, 2010,along
with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Agarwal stated at the last meeting it was indicated that there was some input from the
major league baseball committee and he asked what changes were made.
Ms. Kim responded there were very minor modifications to the sign permit which originally it was
envisioned as 75% of the signs had to be dedicated to the event and 25% to the sponsor and some
flexibility was allowed subject to the approval of the Planning Director; there were some minor
adjustments to the liability information which is in the ordinance; and the mobile billboards were
added to ensure those were prohibited in the festival district.
Commissioner Ramirez referred to the language pertaining to signs for charitable organizations and
she asked for further information.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, responded when there are temporarily banners placed
generally there is a requirement that the festival logo comprise of a minimum of 75% of the total area
of the banner and that thesponsor name or logo shall comprise no more than 25% of the banner.
Those are the general percentages, but the Planning Director would have the ability to alter those
percentages and under the new language if the festival permit holder decided to substitute out a non-
commercial message for a commercial message on the banner, those restrictions would not apply so
that the banner could be dedicated to a non-commercial purpose without the logo being displayed on
the banner or the size restrictions applying to it and generally there is a provision in the same section
02/01/10
Page 5of 7
FEBRUARY 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
that would allow the substitution of non commercial messages and that is to avoid first amendment
issues.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel asked for an example.
Mr. Gordon responded they could substitute a banner that expresses sponsorship by a charitable
institution or it could be a public service message. He added that he is not aware of any examples of
such non-commercial banners being used in St. Louis from the pictures he has seen it mostly
portrayed the major league all-star logo as well as the sponsorship information on banners. He hasn’t
seen any banners where it was solely dedicated to non-commercial messages.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel opened the public hearing; seeing no oneindicatingto speak, closed
the public hearing.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel relayed concerns regarding delineating the name Honda Center as
the name may possibly change in the future.
Mr. Gordon responded they are conscientious of the naming rights that have beenextended to Honda
in association with the use of the building, and because there is an agreement that is the present
name of the building that is recognized by the City of Anaheim.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel referred to the language in the staff reportstating “to qualify for
festival permit, the festival must meet certain criteria, must have at least 35,000 people and involve
two of the City venues”. He pointed out that the recent NAMM event at the convention center had
approximately 87,000 people, and asked in the future is it possible that the NAMM event would fall
under these requirements.
Mr. Gordon responded as currently written he would say no, because they need more than one City
facility even though it may draw more than 35,000 people to the area and it may generate a hotel
block of greater than 500 rooms within the City. Based on his involvement it was intended to be
restricted to more than two facilities and of a large scale event that takes place over more than one
day, as NAMM does, and utilizing different areas of the City. They have a different enforcement
dynamic when dealing with a large festival that is spread out over a larger area and utilizing different
city venues then they would when the event is concentrated at the convention center as it is staffed
and equipped to handle a large event and is a much easier event to control, and they do control those
events under agreements with the event promoter.
Chairman Pro-Tempore Faessel referred to the language “two or more public event days”, and he
asked for clarification regarding the language.
Mr. Gordon responded it doesn’t have to be consecutive days, just two or more. It doesn’t have to
use two different facilities occurring concurrently or on the same day.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated as long as the events are being held within venues
designed to hold the events they would not be subject to the permit. They are not inadvertently
adding a requirement to any sort of group.
02/01/10
Page 6of 7
FEBRUARY 1, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Agarwaloffered a motion determiningthat theaction is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code and recommendingto
the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009-00087.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the motion passed with six yes votes.Chairman
Pro-Tempore Faesseland Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Karakiand Ramirezvoted yes.
ChairmanRomerowas absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, February 11, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:17minutes (3:39to 3:56)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:57P.M.
TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2010AT 3:30P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace Medina
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2010.
02/01/10
Page 7of 7