Minutes-PC 2010/08/30City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday,August 30, 2010
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
Commissioners Present
:Chairman: Stephen Faessel
Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki,Harry Persaud,
Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour
Commissioners Absent
:Peter Agarwal
Staff Present
:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerScott Koehm, Associate Planner
Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerVanessa Norwood, Associate Planner
Mark Gordon, Assistant CityAttorneyRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer
David See, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner
Susan Kim, Senior PlannerAndy Minor, Chambers Group
Ted White, Senior PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m.
onWednesday,August 25, 2010, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council
Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, August 19,2010
Call to Order–5:00 p.m.
Audience Attendance: 28
Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Ament
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Discussion (Staff overview of ARTIC Draft Environmental Impact Report)
Adjournment
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M.
Public Comments: None
Minutes
ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutesfor
July 7, 2010
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning (Karaki/Seymour)
Commission MeetingsofJuly 7, 2010 and July 19, 2010.
Approved
VOTE: 5-0
Chairman Faesseland
CommissionersAment, Karaki,
Persaudand Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioners Agarwal and
Ramirez were absent.
Motionto approve minutes for
July 19, 2010
(Karaki/Ament)
Approved
VOTE: 4-0
Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Ament, Karaki
and Persaud voted yes.
Commissioner Seymour
abstained.Commissioners
Agarwal and Ramirez were
absent.
08/30/10
Page 2of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing Items:
ITEM NO. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT NO. 2010-00343Continuedto September 13, 2010
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00480
(Karaki/Ament)
(DEV2010-00043)
Owners:Approved
City of Anaheim
Orange County Transportation Authority
VOTE: 6-0
550 South Main Street
Orange, CA 92863Chairman Faessel and
Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Applicant:
City of Anaheim
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Public Works Department
voted yes.Commissioner Agarwal
was absent.
Location:
The total project area for the Environmental
Impact Report is approximately 19 acres, with
the majority of the project area (16 acres)
located south of Katella Avenue, east of
Douglass Road, north of the Orange (SR-57)
Freeway and west of the Anaheim City Limits.
The proposed General Plan Amendment
pertains to Douglass Road, south of Katella
Avenue and north of SR-57.
The applicant requests certification of an environmental
Project Planner:
impact reportanalyzing the proposed construction and
Susan Kim
operation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation
skim@anaheim.net
Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and an amendmentof the
General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-1: Planned
Roadway Network to reclassify Douglass Road, south of
Katella Avenue from a local street to a secondary arterial.
Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact
Report No. 2010-00343.
OPPOSITION:
None
DISCUSSION TIME
:This item was not discussed.
08/30/10
Page 3of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04823Resolution No. 2010-070
(DEV2010-00106)
(Persaud)
Owner:
Bhupinder Saggu
Approved
7450 Hummingbird Circle
Anaheim, CA 92808
Applicant:
M. Desai
VOTE: 6-0
2040SouthSanta Cruz Street
Chairman Faessel and
Anaheim, CA 92805
Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Location:7450 Hummingbird Circle
voted yes.Commissioner
Agarwal was absent.
The applicant proposes to permit the expansion of an
existing single-family residence with a front yard setback
and side yard setback less than required by code.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Project Planner:
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010along
with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Seymour asked if the public notice is mailed in addition to being posted at the
property.
Mr. Koehm responded that a notification is mailed to all parcel owners within 300 feet of the proposed
project. He statedthat,prior to the meeting,he received a document signed by two of the adjacent
property owners, supporting this project; and that copies were provided to the Commission.
George Behnam, 1150 East Orangethorpe Avenue #109, Placentia, the architect representing the
applicant, stated they have reviewed the conditions of approval and are in agreement with the staff
report.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Persaud offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the August 30, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010-04823.
08/30/10
Page 4of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman
Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:8minutes (5:08to 5:16)
08/30/10
Page 5of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05522 Resolution No. 2010-071
(DEV2010-00127)
(Ament)
Owner:
Robin Hardy
Approved
Grove Construction
2031 Tweed Street
Placentia, CA92870
VOTE: 6-0
Applicant:
Tom Christie
Chairman Faessel and
Weartech International, Inc.
Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
13032 Park Street
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Santa Fe Springs, CA90670
voted yes.Commissioner
Agarwal was absent.
Location:1177 North Grove Street
The applicant proposes to establish a specialty welding and
alloy parts manufacturing facility.
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Project Planner:
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
Judy Dadant
additional environmental documentation per California
jdadant@anaheim.net
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010
along with a visual presentation.He added that there are conditions of approval included in the
resolution which require the slats on the chain link fence which surrounds a portion of the property be
replaced, removal of any razor wire in public view and parking lot be restriping.
Commissioner Persaud asked for clarification regarding the CEQA determinationand use of a
Categorical Exemption.
Mr. Borrego said the Class 1 Exemption is typically used when dealing with an existing building and
use. In this case, because all the activity would be conducted wholly within the building and it would
be subject to all the other regulatory requirements from the permitting agencies, a Class 1 exemption
was appropriate.
Tom Christie, applicant, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the
staff report.
Chairman Faessel asked if he is planning to move his business from Santa Fe Springs to Anaheim or
if this space would be used for additional manufacturing.
08/30/10
Page 6of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Christie responded that they have outgrown their four buildings in Santa Fe Springs and by
moving to Anaheim they will be able to consolidate into one larger building. One of the main
attractions of Anaheim is the favorable utility rates.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the August 30, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use No. 2010-
05522.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman
Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:9minutes (5:16to 5:25)
08/30/10
Page 7of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05512 Resolution No. 2010-072
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04824
(Seymour)
(DEV2010-00112)
Owner:Approved
Richard Alvarez
Alvarez Real Estate Management Corp.
27999 Jefferson Avenue
VOTE: 6-0
Temecula, CA92590
Chairman Faessel and
Applicants:
Rajeet DalalCommissioners Ament, Karaki,
TR Trading Inc. Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
14535 Valley View Avenue, Unit Mvoted yes.Commissioner
Santa Fe Springs, CA90670Agarwal was absent.
Mitchell Gardner
Aptus Group
3750 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 106
Riverside, CA92507
Location:1072 North Armando Street
The applicant proposes to establish an automotive repair
Project Planner:
Dave See
facility with less parking than required by code.
dsee@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010along with
a visual presentation.
Commissioner Persaud asked if there was any merit in creating a reciprocal parking arrangement to
ensure that parking is shared between the two businesses on the property.
Mr. See responded that staff has not considered reciprocal parking because the property is one legal
parcel under a single ownership and parking would be shared by two tenants with or without a
reciprocal parking agreement.
Commissioner Ramirez said the language in the resolution pertaining to the parking requirements for
the adjacent industrial business is not needed for this applicationand should be removed from the
resolution.
08/30/10
Page 8of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. See said staff would concur. He recommended that the findings on page 2 of the resolution be
modified to remove the language regarding the parking for the adjacent industrial business.
Chairman Faessel referred to the staff report, parking variance section and he asked for a breakdown
of the parking spaces between the two businesses and the potential for parking inside the building.
Mr. See stated that in the past, parking arrangements have been considered in industrial buildings
where there is enough space to park cars inside. The applicant is proposing this and they are going
to provide customer parking in front, along Armando Avenue. Also, some employee and customer
parking will be provided in the rear. This proposal is acceptable because it is a longer term auto
repair and they do not propose to store cars outside. According to the applicant, the length of the
repair service would be between two and twelve weeks.
Chairman Faessel asked if the indoor parking would be restricted to cars being serviced.
Mr. See responded yes.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Mitchell Gardner, applicant, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with
the staff report.
Chairman Faessel,seeing noother persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution attached to the August 30, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical
Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2010-05512 and Variance No. 2010-04824.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman
Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:13minutes (5:25to 5:38)
08/30/10
Page 9of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05410A Resolution No. 2010-073
(DEV2010-00072)
(Persaud)
Owner:
Kazem Khoyloo
Approved
2445 EastBall Road
Anaheim, CA92806
Applicant:VOTE: 6-0
Juan P. Aristizabal
9423 Roundup Drive #FChairman Faessel and
Montclair, CA 91763Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Location:2445 East Ball Road
voted yes.Commissioner
Agarwal was absent.
The applicant proposes to construct a drive-through car
wash tunnel in conjunction with an existing service station.
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, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010
along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Karaki asked if the equipment noise level would affect the residential apartment
complex to the south of the proposed project.
Ms. Norwood stated that it is a quietoperating car wash tunnel which will not emit an excessive
amount of noise. The operation hours of the car wash tunnel will be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if the car wash will be open on Saturdays and Sundays.
Ms. Norwood responded that they would be open seven days a week.
Chairman Faessel asked if the restriction a left turn from the rear of the facility onto Sunkist Street
would remain in place.
Ms. Norwood responded yes.
Juan P. Artistizabal,civil engineer for the project and representing the applicant, stated they have
reviewed the conditions of approval and arein agreement with the staff report.
08/30/10
Page 10of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Ramirez asked when the renovations would be complete.
Mr. Artizabal responded that final inspections have been scheduled and the project should be
complete by the end of the month.
Commissioner Karaki asked how potential congestion at the car wash tunnel will be handled.
Mr. Artizabal said they have sufficient clearance on the lot to prevent congestion.
Mr. Borrego interjected that the parking spaces that are closest to the tunnel entrance are those
which are likely to be the last ones used.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the August 30, 2010staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional UseNo. 2010-
05410A.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman
Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:10minutes (5:38to 5:48)
08/30/10
Page 11of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 7
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2010-00002 Resolution No. 2010-074
(DEV2010-00064)
(Karaki)
Owner/
Dan Miller
Applicant:Approved, recommended City
Irvine Company
Council approval
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location:VOTE: 6-0
The Mountain Park project site consists of
approximately 3,000 acres located generally in Chairman Faessel and
Gypsum Canyon in the City of Anaheim. The Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
site is located immediately south of the Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, and the Eastern voted yes. Commissioner
Transportation Corridor (SR-241) bisects the Agarwal was absent.
site into eastern and western segments.
The applicant requests a Development Agreement by and
Project Planner:
Ted White
between the City of Anaheim and Irvine Land Company
twhite@anaheim.net
LLC and Irvine Community Development Company LLC to
provide for the development of the Mountain Park Specific
Plan; a planned community consisting of 2,500 residential
units, public park and school site, and various public and
private infrastructure improvements.
Environmental Determination: Previously-Certified
Environmental Impact Report No. 331.
Ted White, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010 along with
a visual presentation.
Commissioner Persaud asked how staff views the development agreement (DAG) complying with
new regulations, including AB 32 and SB 375.
Mr. White responded that the project was originally approved in 1994 and included approximately
8,000 dwelling units and a large amount of commercial space. That project was never built and the
Development Agreement was terminated at the request of the Irvine Company. A revised vision for
the project area was incorporated into the City-wide General Plan update that was approved in 2005
and it substantially reduced the size of the project. Following the General Plan update, the applicant
requested an amendment to the specific plan which was approved in 2005. The specific plan
amendment entitled up to 2,500 dwelling units and the preservation of open space along with other
amenities that are proposed.
Commissioner Persaud stated that the Development Agreement would not only lock in the General
Plan, but the Zoning which set standards for lot sizes, etc.
08/30/10
Page 12of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. White stated that those standards are already in place as part of the Mountain Park Specific Plan
and no changes to those standards are proposed as part of this request. It adds another layer of
protection to those standards for the applicant. Also, the tentative maps have already been approved
for portions of the proposed development.
Commissioner Persaud asked if the proposed Development Agreement will it lock in the 2005
updated General Plan zoning and tract maps for this development.
Mr. White responded, yes.
Chairman Faessel asked what thepublic benefits of this projectwould be.
Mr. White said the Development Agreement includes the early dedication and cooperation on
construction of the water reservoir site that is needed to serve existing neighborhoods. This will allow
for the construction of the reservoir on Irvine Company land prior to the construction of their project.
The City would like to move forward with this as quickly as possible.
Chairman Faessel asked if that would occur before further development of the project.
Mr. White responded, yes. A water reservoir has always been envisioned as a part of the project on
the west side of the 241 toll road. This would allow that reservoir to move forward independently from
the construction of the Mountain Park project. Other public benefits include the contribution of $500
per dwelling unit for the improvement of priority use sports facilities which comes out to approximately
1.25 million total; an agreement to investigate the possibility of using renewable energy; either wind,
solar, or geothermal for twenty-five percent of the dwelling units; and the early reimbursement of fair
share construction costs spent by the City for improvements to Weir Canyon Road and La Palma
Avenue.
Chairman Faessel asked if at this point, this agreement is to only investigate the possibility of using
renewable energy. It does not require the Irvine Company to actually do anything other than titsdue
diligence.
Mr. White responded, yes. TheUtilities Department has incentive programs available to homeowners
and developers for renewable energy resources. If there are opportunities available, the Irvine
Company will move on them.
Chairman asked the value of the Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue roadway reimbursements.
Mr. White responded roughly $150,000.
Commissioner Persaud askedif the developer was providing a site for a school.
Mr. White stated that some of the public improvements that are included in the Mountain Park
Specific Plan include a 10-acre school site, 15-acre public park, and a fire station. The Irvine
Company has an agreement with Orange Unified School District for the construction schedule for the
school.
08/30/10
Page 13of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Dan Miller, applicant, stated that everything in the DevelopmentAgreement represents what was
presented to the City Council five years ago when the project was approved. No changes have been
made. They hope to be able to pursue this project when the economy improves. He said he has
reviewed the conditions of approval and is in agreement with the staff report.
Commissioner Ramirez asked what the concerns are if this project is not approved.
Mr. Miller said the way SB-375 is written and will be implemented through the regulations; these types
of traditional, suburban-type communities could be at risk in the future.
Mr. Karaki asked if they are planning infrastructure work.
Mr. Miller responded that the economy and housing market have to improve significantly before they
can begin this project. It could be five years.
Chairman Faessel opened the public hearing.
Chairman Faessel, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the August 30, 2010 staff report, determining that the Previously-Certified Environmental
Impact Report No. 331 is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and
recommending City Council approval of Development AgreementNo. 2010-00002.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:20 minutes (5:48 to 6:08)
08/30/10
Page 14of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 8
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Resolution No. 2010-075
NO. 2005-00007 (DAG2005-00007)
(Seymour)
(DEV2010-00030)
Owner:Approved, revised the term of
MacQuarie Platinum Katella, Inc.
the Development Agreement
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1800
from four to five years
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Applicant:
Dale Pinney
VOTE: 6-0
First Western Development Services
8129 Lake Balinger Way, Suite 104Chairman Faessel and
Edmonds, WA 98026Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Location:1331 East Katella Avenue
voted yes. Commissioner
Agarwal was absent.
The applicant requests an amendment to Development
Agreement No. 2005-00007, extending the construction
commencement date for the project by four additional
years.
Environmental Determination: CEQA Previously-Certified
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
Environmental Impact Report No. 330 and a Previously-
vnorwood@anaheim.net
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010
along with a visual presentation.
Commissioner Persaud asked if the project is already under construction.
Ms. Norwood responded yes, Phase 1 is under construction.
Commissioner Persaud asked why a five or ten year extension was not requested.
Ms. Norwood stated that the applicant asked for four years; they felt it was adequate time to complete
the project.
Chairman Faessel asked if granting an extension will allow the applicant to complete Phase 1 and
consider Phases 2 and 3.
Ms. Norwood said Phase 1 will be completed in early 2011 and the applicant believes that this is
adequate time to begin and complete Phases 2 and 3.
Dale Pinney, applicant, said he reviewed and was in agreement with the staff report. He said if a ten
year extension could be granted, that would be acceptable. The original Development Agreement
08/30/10
Page 15of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(DAG) was for the 336 unit condominium development. Construction began in 2008 and ceased in
2010. The original developer experienced financial difficulties due to the economy. In April 2010, the
current owner took over the project began completion of Phase I. He did not know the intent of the
original developer regarding the timing between phases. Mr. Pinney said when Phase 1 is completed
there will be a nicely landscaped entry and streetscape improvements. Some modifications of the
existing improvement will be made when Phases 2 and 3 begin construction of the new buildings.
Chairman Faessel asked if he planned to complete Phase 1 soon.
Mr. Pinney said it’s well underway and will be for sale in February 2011.
Commissioner Karaki asked why Phase 1 was being included in the time extension request if it would
be completed by February 2011.
Mr. Pinney said he was concerned that the development agreement may expire while they are still
working on Phase 1 and they wanted to keep all phases together for consistency.
Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner stated that the standard Platinum Triangle development
agreement calls for a five year term, staff would recommend extensions be given in five year
increments.
Chairman Faessel asked CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager for input as to memorializing the
completion of Phase 1, separate from Phases 2 and 3.
Mr. Amstrup said a milestone addressing the construction of Phase 1 could be added if the concern is
that the project would sit idle and incomplete for an additional five years. He recommended granting
the time they anticipated needing, plus an additional six to nine months. The milestone would then be
acted upon when the development agreement was considered by the City Council.
Mr. Pinney said he understood the concern with Phase 1. He said construction is underway, well
funded and stated that he was comfortable that Phase 1 would be completed by the end of 2011.
Commissioner Ramirez asked for a recap of the milestones set for all phases.
Mr. Pinney stated that the original development agreement was to proceed with three phases of
development. Deadlines for phases were not imposed onthe original developer. The project was to
be completely market driven; as soon as one phase was sold, construction on the next phase would
begin. The original development agreement stated that the project should be completed by August
2010.
Mr. Borrego added that there were no specific milestones for completion of the individual phases.
Commissioner Ramirez asked if it was originally anticipated that all phases would be completed by
October 2010.
Mr. Borrego responded that was the intent of the original development agreement.
Commissioner Persaud suggested that the completion date for Phase 1 be flexible.
08/30/10
Page 16of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Ament asked if there were lot maintenance standards for development agreements.
Chairman Faessel stated that there have been specific standards made on specific projects.
Mr. Borrego responded that the Platinum Master Land Use Plan currently being updated as part of
the recertification of the environmental impact report. As part of that revision, screening issues will be
examined and could become code requirements.
Chairman Faessel asked if those requirements will apply to this project.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney said that, at the time of adoption, if the City decides it is
applicable to existing projects, those existing projects would have to comply.
Chairman Faessel advised Mr. Pinney that some screening may be required for Phases 2 and 3.
Mr. Pinney said they are familiar with the concerns. They obtained administrative approval on the
revised landscaping plan. They have full landscaping along the street frontage and along the fenced
portions of Phases 2 and 3.
Commissioner Karaki asked if lighting will be installed in the driveway.
Mr. Pinney responded yes.
Chairman Faessel opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Karaki asked if this was a LEED certified project.
Mr. Pinney responded no.
Commissioner Persaud asked if there would be revised conditions.
Mr. Gordon responded that any amendment or revision to the development agreement is subject to
the procedures resolution which requires formal action by both the Planning Commission and the City
Council to revise the contract. There is flexibility that requires annual review.
Chairman Faessel stated the Commission would like to see the development agreement extended
from the proposed four years to five years and that the completion of Phase 1 should be
memorialized.
Commissioner Seymour said they should hold the milestone for completion of Phase 1 to 2011.
Mr. Gordon said another option would be that the applicantreturn and request a modification of the
agreement if they cannot comply with the term that has been agreed to between the City and the
applicant.
Chairman Faessel, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
08/30/10
Page 17of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Ramirez reiterated that the extension of time for five years is for the completion of
Phases 1-3 and if the developer cannot meet that deadline, they can ask for another extension. In
addition, Phase 1 of the project is to be completed by the end of 2011.
Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution attached to the August 30, 2010 staff report, determining that the CEQA Previously-
Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 330 and a Previously-Approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending City
Council approval of Amendment No. 1 to Development AgreementNo. 2010-2005-00007(DAG207-
00007).
Mr. Gordon clarified that the term of the initial agreement of five years; this would be an additional five
years, for a total of ten years.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman
Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9,2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:34 minutes (6:08 to 6:42)
08/30/10
Page 18of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 9
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04813*
Continued to September 13, 2010
(DEV2010-00084)
Approved
Owner/
Applicant:
Paul &Sandra Frattone
VOTE: 6-0
3 Hughes
Chairman Faessel and
Irvine, CA92618
Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
Location:611 East Adele Street
voted yes.Commissioner Agarwal
was absent.
The applicant proposes to construct a metal industrial
building with aside yard setback area that is smaller than
required by Code.
Project Planner:
Environmental Determination: The proposed action is
Vanessa Norwood
Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare
vnorwood@anaheim.net
additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 3
(Small Structures).
*Advertised as Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-04813
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Robin Nguyen, 360 North Pauline Street, Anaheim, stated he is concerned that approving this project
will increase the existing parking issues and also release pollutants into the air.
Ms. Lynda Redkey, 350 North Pauline Street, Anaheim, said there is an entrance and exit from
Cypress Street to Adele Street where trucks hauling sand and rock, they alsopark overnight. A few
trucks park on Adele Street which is a dead end. She expressed concerns regarding: children’s
safety at the bus stop, noise; and environmental issues.
Chairman Faessel reminded Mr. Nguyen& Ms. Redkey that staff has requested a continuance for
this item and it cannot be discussed at this time. He invited them to return on September 16, 2010;
the next Planning Commission meeting, to be fully heard.
Chairman Faessel,seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
OPPOSITION:
Two persons spoke with concerns pertaining to parkingand traffic issues,
pollutants, and children safety.
DISCUSSION TIME
:7minutes (6:42to 6:49)
08/30/10
Page 19of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM NO. 10
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.2010-112Resolution No. 2010-076
VARIANCE NO. 2010-04818
(Ament)
(DEV2010-00081)
Owners:Approved
Joann Harper
P.O. Box 1161
Parowan, UT 84761
VOTE: 6-0
Mark LamphChairman Faessel and
370 Country Hill RoadCommissioners Ament, Karaki,
Anaheim, CA 92808Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour
voted yes. Commissioner
Applicant:
George BoxAgarwal was absent.
7321 East Singingwood Drive
Anaheim, CA 92808
Location:370 South Country Hill Road and
7561, 7571 & 7581 East Country Hill Lane
The applicant proposes to establish a 4-lot residential Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
subdivision with lots having less net area than required by
code.vnorwood@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination: ANegative Declaration has
been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental
documentation for this project in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA.
Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 30, 2010
along with a visual presentation.She advised the Commission that two letters of concern were
received before the meeting and that she had provided them with copies.
Commissioner Seymour said that one of the letters received suggested a twenty foot wide easement
rather than forty. He asked staff to comment.
Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, stated the forty foot easement is the minimum standard
necessary in this instance as it needs to accommodate surface traffic above and the utilities lines
below.
Commissioner Faessel referred to the same letter received which stated that a twenty foot easement
is common practice in the Mohler Drive and Country Hill Road loop area for private roads.
Mr. Garcia stated he is not aware of existing twenty foot easements; however, there is a process for
abandonment of existing easements, which would not be applicable to this project.
08/30/10
Page 20of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
George Box, applicant, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the
staff report.
Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing.
Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
attached to the August 30, 2010staff report, determining that a Negative Declaration Determinedis
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Tentative Parcel Map No
2010-112 and Variance No. 2010-04818.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yesvotes. Chairman
Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.
Commissioner Agarwal was absent.
OPPOSITION:
Two letters of concern were received.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION TIME
:11minutes (6:49to 7:00)
08/30/10
Page 21of 22
AUGUST 30, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DISCUSSION:
Overview of Draft ARTIC Environmental Impact Report (7:00 to7:29)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:29P.M.
TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010AT 5:00P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace Medina
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on October 11, 2010.
08/30/10
Page 22of 22