Loading...
Minutes-PC 2010/09/27City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,September 27, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman Pro-TemporePeter Agarwal Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki,Harry Persaud, Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour Commissioners Absent :Chairman Stephen Faessel Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerVanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Aaron Harp, Senior Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative David See, Senior PlannerRoger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor Della Herrick, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,September 22, 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, September 16,2010 Call to Order–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 97 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Seymour Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Ament/Seymour) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 16, 2010. VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirezand Seymourvoted yes.Chairman Faessel was absent. 09/27/10 Page 2of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00238Resolution No. 2010-084 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387Resolution No. 2010-085 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05515Resolution No. 2010-086 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04815 (Karaki) (DEV2010-00087) Owner:CUP Donovan Anaheim, LLC Approved, added two Chad Brown, Development Manager conditions of approval 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 pertaining to traffic and Newport Beach, CA 92660 recreational vehicle parking. Applicant: Melia Homes Chad Brown, Development Manager VOTE: 6-0 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and Commissioners Ament, Location:851and905 South Western Avenue Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.Chairman Theapplicant proposes to:rezone this property from the Faessel was absent. Transition (T) zone to Single Family Residential (RS-4) zone designation; establish a 32-lot residential subdivision; permit 32 single-family residences with certain lots having rear yard setback areas measuring 13-feet, 6-inches in depth; and, to allow certain lots to maintain driveway lengths smaller than required by code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental vnorwood@anaheim.net impact determination for this request. Continued from the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked how staff arrived at recommending the RS-4 zone versus the RS-2 zone. Ms. Norwood responded the RS-4 zone has more flexible standards and that is what the applicant requested. Commissioner Ramirez asked if a RS-2 wouldn’t accommodate the proposed site plan. 09/27/10 Page 3of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Ms. Norwood responded that is correct, it would not. Commissioner Seymour asked for clarification that the subject tract would be two feet higher than the adjacent residential homes. Ms. Norwood responded yes, some of the lots will have a higher elevation which is due to the requirement for drainage. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, stated the applicant has proposed to drain the project from the west towards the east, from the cul-de-sac towards Western Avenue; however they are not raising the pads in a consistent grade. The developer had to manipulate the site so that they don’t raise the lots adjacent to the cul-de-sac even more. The lots do vary in height; however, in order to drain the street towards Western Avenue, they had to provide some increase in the vertical elevation of the proposed properties. Commissioner Persaud referred to the length of the cul-de-sac street and asked if it’s consistent with City standards. Mr. Garcia responded it is consistent with the Fire Department’s standards. Commissioner Persaud asked staff are there other locations in the city such as the subject site where there are so many units fronting a long cul-de-sac. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, indicated it hasn’t been researched but there are cul-de-sacs of the same length and even longer, but in terms of the actual number of units which front on those cul- de-sacs he does not have that type of information and indicated it can be researched if needed. Commissioner Persaud stated he tried to find one in the vicinity that had the same density but wasn’t able to locate. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Chad Brown, applicant, statedthey acquired the property based upon the unique aspects that the property presents. It is very unusual to find an in-fill property of the subject size that has the potential that the property offers for the transitional design between the intense uses at Ball Road and the existing residential uses to the north. When they first arrived at the site, the first thing they noticed were the mature Cypress trees which provide the unique buffer and the other thing was the understanding that the General Plan being designated for Corridor Residential use would allow up to 13 units to the acre which would provide them with a level of assurance that they could come up with a great design for the site that is generally seen as compatible and consistent with thesurrounding neighborhood. He explained that part of the reason why they choose the RS-4 zoning designation for the reclassification is because it allows them the variation that they needed to provide the type of product which is a single-family detached with a unique street design and that respects the neighbors. Also, the RS-4 has an allowance of 11 units to the acre, and their proposed project is at 9.4 units to the acre with the proposed 32 lot subdivision. 09/27/10 Page 4of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES He referred to the landscape plan and stated that the mature Cypress trees that exist along the north and southerly boundary are intended to remain in place. He indicated their proposed street has a curb-to-curb width of 36 feet which allows parking on both sides of the street. There are also sections where they bring landscaping, trees and planters forward to provide a visual break-up for the length of the street. The expanded parkway planters still provide a 24 foot curb-to-curb width. He stated the code requires a total of 4 parking spaces per unit, they have provided the 4 parking spaces but didn’t feel comfortable in narrowing the street down any further because there are instances where you may need the additional parking. He presented a PowerPoint presentation providing detailed information pertaining to the proposed parkingdesign,building elevations, masonry wall, landscaping, and parkway improvements. He indicated that in-fill sites provide a challenge with development,particularly when it changesthe character from what the adjacent property owners/neighbors are accustomedto viewing.He stated with the transitional zoning there is an anticipation that something would happen on the property. They believe they are coming in with a responsible design that not only respects the single-family aspect but will enhance the neighborhood. The site has some challenges pertaining to the drainage issue, the rear portion of the site is very flat, and currently drainsslightly to the back. He referred to the properties to the north and stated a very small portion of their rear yards have historically,and will continue to,drain on the subject property. Their site will continue to accept the drainage from these properties. He indicated they designed the project to maintain a single-familydetached product type and not a court yard type theme or something else that would be allowable under the allowed uses. The homes are a traditional design with front and rear yards. They are retaining the border trees to maintain the external look of the site, and providing a traditional street frontage with landscaped parkways. He further explained how the drainage issue is being addressed, and provided information pertaining to traffic patterns for the subject project. st He indicated on September 1,he met with seven of the residents, and shared the plans and th answered questions. They also held a community meeting on September 9and invited everybody who was adjacent to the subject property to come view the plans, ask questions, etc. There were nine residents who attended the meeting. Therefore, he is hopeful there is some recognition tonight of their attempts to meet with the neighbors, and asked for the Planning Commission’s support of the project. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the reduced driveway lengths and asked if it impacts someone’s ability to park two cars on the driveway. Mr. Brown responded no, and explained that the typical driveway lengths are 17-18 feet in other communities and 20 feet is a bit longer than normal under some of the current development standards. Commissioner Karaki referred to the drainage, and asked for clarification where the drainage in the back goes. 09/27/10 Page 5of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. Brown clarified that all drainage ultimately ends out at Western Avenue, but by them splitting that they are running some of the drainage back before it runs all the way out to Western Avenue in order to keep the site as low as possible while still achieving the positive drainage. He indicated that it is a private storm drain as is the sewer system because ofthe private street, and stated the water system would be public. He further provided additional information pertaining to the storm drain system. Commissioner Persaud asked if Donovan Ranch Road and Western Avenue are intended to be a right-in, right-out or is it a full access to Western Avenue. David Kennedy,Associate Transportation Planner, responded the street is intendedto be full access, with a standard residential intersection. Commissioner Persaud asked if there is a median on Western Avenue for a vehicle making a left turn. Mr. Kennedy responded the only locations on Western Avenue, south of Orange Avenue that have left turn pockets also have a traffic signal to be consistent with the other residential streets, and it would remain as it is now without a two-way left turn lane in order to allow for on-street parking on Western Avenue. Mr. Borrego indicated staff was able to do some research on the cul-de-sac question raised earlier, and stated there are some cul-de-sacs streets in the Anaheim Hills area (within the Highlands Plan Community) that have cul-de-sac streets with densities that exceed the subject project’s number of units, as they are in the upper 40 range. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal stated for the record that he spoke with the applicant on the telephone to discuss the subject project; Commissioner Ament disclosed that he met with the applicant. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal indicated there are seven speaker cards in opposition to the subject request, and asked that the comments bebrief due to the number of speakers before the Commission today. Mark Patton, 3222 W. Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, stated he submitted a letter to the Planning Commission last week relaying his concerns. The main issue is the RS-4 zoning and indicated there is none in the subject area. The most recent infill development is by Twila Reid Park which is RS-3, and in a lot this size there are only 23 houses. The density for the subject request is too high, and may cause a liability for the City because when there are holiday parties there will not be enough parking to accommodate guests and parking will flow out onto Western Avenue. He stated the drainage is another issue and his property is supposed to have a drain pipe into the system. He also relayed concerns regarding flooding in the area. He stated he submitted a follow-up letter after the staff report was completed which relayed concerns regarding the RS-4 zoning. Their neighborhood is RS-2 and stated that is what’s compatible. He is not opposing having houses on the site, but the need for a conditional use permit and variances so the project can comply is an obvious clue that the project proposal for the said density is not suitable for the property, and he respectfully requests denial of the project. 09/27/10 Page 6of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal asked Mr. Patton when he submitted the follow-up letter. Mr. Patton responded he e-mailed the follow-up letter to Ms. Norwood on September 24, 2010. Mr. Borrego indicated staff does not have that letter on file, and asked for a copy from Mr. Patton in order for them to forward to the Commission for its review. Commissioner Persaud asked Mr. Patton if his property currently drains onto the vacant parcel. Mr. Patton responded it is slightly graded in that direction, but there are no proper drains. Commissioner Persaud indicated he is trying to understand his concern regarding potential back wash. The applicant has said that they have designed drainage to address that issue and wants to know if what is being proposed would adequately mitigate the concerns. Mr. Patton responded if he had a choice he would not have the drain, and not be connected to their system or have any potential liability. Joy Patton, 3222 W. Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, stated she is in agreement withMr. Patton and is concerned about the traffic and water drainage. In addition, they do not feel that the report adequately responded to what would occur in a 100-year flood; that information is not in there and needs to be addressed. David Stahovich, 805 Ramblewood Drive, Anaheim, stated he is speaking on behalf of his father, Arthur Stahovich and read a letter into the record requesting that the subject matter be continued for 60-days in order for the neighbors to fully understand the application since the staff report was not released until after close of business on Thursday, September 23rd. Therefore, interested parties were afforded only 1-business day prior to today’s public hearing to review the staff report. Also, notification was only sent within 300’ of the subject property. He indicated he asked for a copy of the mailing list which he did not receive and therefore cannot verify if the hearing notice went out, but a number of people said they didn’t receive it. He explained the proximity of his property to the subject site and indicated they were not notified. He indicated the project, as proposed, is incompatible with the existing and adjacent established community and as such is considered spot zoning. He stated they have over 40 signatures in opposition to the subject request and forwarded the petition to staff. He indicated they are requesting a continuance in order for them to have an opportunity to meet with staff and the applicant’s representatives to better understand and evaluate the proposal. He stated, upon further review,a full environmental impact report will be required. Based upon their initial review of the proposed project they believe that the applicant will need to do significant environmental studies for the Commissionto review prior to consideration. Those studies include traffic study, cumulative impacts of project on Western Avenue, impacts at intersection of Western Avenue with the proposed private street, the line of sight from the private street onto Western Avenue, the appropriate speed limits, the lack of public right-of-way at the southwest corner of Western and Teranimar and a soil analysis. Furthermore, air quality impacts have not been adequately analyzed, compatibility with the existing land use and zoning of established neighborhood, lack of buffering to contiguous lotsand the variance of the rear and side yard setbacks and the impacts to the existing houses. Proposals to 09/27/10 Page 7of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES raise the padelevations impact the existing residentsand thetwo-story homes on those raised pads further impact the existing residents. The drainage –the sheet flow is proposed to be blocked, diverted, and/or concentrated requiring on and off side drainage analysis, the project is in a flood hazard area according to the staff report, increased discharge for the project needs to be evaluated, cumulative impacts of increased concentration of discharge from the property, and diversion of existing drainage must be evaluated. Loss of permeable area, loss of ground water recharge, impacts to downstream properties, maintenance of private drainage facilities and conveying of the off- site flows, capacity and/or the ability of the existing facilities to accept those additional flows, lack of available on street,in tract parking, the dimensions of the private street, circulation and/or access of the private road for not only emergency vehicles but for trash trucks, moving vans, boats, trailers, and RVs. He indicated when you compare this to other areas that have short driveways,as the applicant identified,many of those have three or four car garages and adequate side parking for the boats and RVs and other trailers. He concluded that studies need to be done for acoustics, lighting impacts, height restriction on new homes, and lack of green house gasanalysis.He continued expressing his concerns pertaining to reliance on the environmental document drafted for the City’s General Plan update in 2004. Additionally, he stated they object to the R-4 zoning, the conditional use permit and all variances, and they oppose the findings and the environmental assessment / initial checklist. He then submitted documents for the Planning Commission. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal asked for clarification by staff if the public notices for the meeting todaywere properly completed. Ms. Norwood responded yes, it was noticed appropriately. A Commissioner askedMr. Stahovich if he attended any of the community meetings. Mr. Stahovich responded his father did attend. Carl Braucksiek, 841 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, stated he is the only neighbor to the subject piece of property, and has lived on his property for 39 years. He stated he is objecting to the amount of homes for the subject project, and relayed concerns pertaining to traffic on Western Avenue and Ball Road, and access to his driveway. Walter Machula, 3208 W. Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, filled out a speaker card in opposition but did not speak. Richard Ortiz, 3240 W. Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, relayed concerns pertaining to the density, traffic andthe proposed 4-foot wall, and stated he opposes the subject project. Rudy Juarez, 908 S. Westchester Drive, Anaheim, stated he is also representing his father who lives at 902 S. Westchester Drive. He indicated a lot of his concerns have already been relayed by previous speakers, and expressed concerns pertaining to the subject project not being compatible to the area and current traffic concerns off of Western Avenue. Robert Liccardo, 3161 W. Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, stated everything has been adequately covered, and added that an average size Suburban would not fit in the driveway. He relayed concerns pertaining to exiting Teranimar Drive going south and general traffic concerns, including the proposed stop control (stop sign on the private drive & legend painted on the street). 09/27/10 Page 8of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Debbie Ortiz, 3240 W. Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, she referred to her backyard and stated the proposed development shows there are 2 ½ homes that backup to their property. She stated one home is understandable, but 2 ½ homes is not acceptable due to the lack of privacy, noise impacts, etc. She expressed her support of the neighbors’ comments who spoke previous to her. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the traffic concerns raised and asked Mr. Brown what his analysis was when coming up with the number of units. Mr. Brown responded there was a traffic analysis completed at the staff level, but they did not complete a private traffic study. He indicated he has observed during various times that he is finding ample breaks in traffic to maneuver into the driveway, it is not a new driveway and the current driveway for the property is basically in the exact location of their proposed street. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the trash pick-up and density issues and asked Mr. Brownto address those issues. Mr. Brown responded that part of the review for the street design involves the Fire Department’s as well as the Sanitation Division’s approval. Also, regarding the density, they looked at it from the standpoint of the General Plan which allows that certain density. They are requesting a zoning and unit count that is lower than what the General Plan allows. Therefore, they feel confident that the density is appropriate. He further provided detailed information regarding the rationale for the project’s density. Commissioner Ament indicated he was in the area on Western Avenue last Friday and traffic was pretty congested, he expressed his concerns related to traffic. Mr. Kennedy responded he noticed that while there was typically enough break in traffic for cars to make left turns, and they looked at the numbers to see how many cars would come in and out during a typical hour. For 32 homes the average would be in the morning 24 trips, and in the afternoon it would be approximately 28 trips which translate to about one car every two minutes, for in-bound and out-bound traffic. The typical morning peak hour traffic generation would be 18 trips, or one vehicle every three minutes. Therefore, there would be acceptable breaks for vehicles to make a left turn. The main concern becomes the visibility of the pedestrians and designing your sight distances at the intersection to ensure pedestrians can be viewed. He indicated he’s reviewed the accident history on Western Avenue and Teranimar Drive, as well as Western Avenue between Ball Road and Teranimar Drive. Between January, 2002 to December, 2009, there were seven reported accidents in the subject area. The majority of those accidents were from Western Avenue making a left-turn onto Teranimar Drive and collision with south bound traffic. Commissioner Ament asked Mr. Brown if there is a homeowner’s association with limitations on RVs, boats, etc. Mr. Brown responded yes, there will be a homeowner’s association and they would be willing to accept any type of conditions to include with the CC&Rs regarding some limitations for trailers, RVs, etc. which can be written with the HOA’s regulations. 09/27/10 Page 9of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated in situations where there are private drives unless they have the cooperation from the association to enforce on those streets, they wouldn’t issue any parking tickets, etc. Usually HOA’s have their own rules which they enforce through a private company. Commissioner Persaud asked about the current Average Daily Trip (ADT) total on Western Avenue. Mr. Kennedy responded the current ADT is 17,200, and the forecast is 24,000. Commissioner Persaud asked Mr. Brown if the proposed project is a retirement or regular working community. Mr. Brownresponded it is a working community. Further discussion took place amongst the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Brown regarding ideas and solutions to address traffic concerns and public safety. Commissioner Persaud asked about the density ofthe adjacent residential developments. Mr. Borrego responded they don’t have the exact density on the side to the north, but typically in a single-family neighborhood such as the subject neighborhood, the density would be around 5 units to the acre. Commissioner Persaud stated he has concerns pertaining to the density on the site and traffic issues. Mr. Brown responded it is appropriate from what the General Plan allows for. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ament expressed his support of the project, and indicated he understands the neighbor’s concerns and hopes the applicant is able to work with the neighbors to try to mitigate some of the issues. Commissioner Karaki stated he understands the neighbor’s concerns; however, this came as a transitional development where different factors are taken into consideration that the developer has addressed. He stated some issues related to traffic could be resolved which will address some of the neighbor’s traffic concerns. He suggested that the Traffic Division find a way to mitigate some of the issues, and recommended a condition of approval be added. Commissioner Agarwal indicated that he concurred with Commissioner Karaki’s approach. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, informed the Planning Commission that those issues should be considered at the time that the decision is made, and recommended it is a decision to be made at this stage and not left to a later point in time, unless the Commission feels that the trafficimpacts have been looked at and that the measures that have been recommended are sufficient to allow for appropriate traffic movements onto Western Avenue. He added that the Commission has the authority to add a condition of approval restricting turning movements at this time. 09/27/10 Page 10of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Karaki agreed that such a condition, as suggested by Commissioner Persaud, would be appropriate to add at this time. Commissioner Ament also suggested adding a condition of approval regarding the limitation of RV parking on the private street. Commissioner Karaki suggested adding that as a separate condition. Mr. Kennedy then suggested language for the added condition of approval regarding turning movements on Western Avenue as follows: “Until such time as a two-way left turn lane is installed on Western Avenue, the private street shall be restricted to right turn in and right turn out.” CommissionerKarakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that aNegative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving the Reclassification No 2010-00238, Tentative Tract Map No. 17387, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010-04815(DEV2010-00087),with the added conditions of approval for traffic and off-site parking. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithsix yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Ament,Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaesselwas absent. OPPOSITION: 10persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :92minutes (5:04to 6:36) 09/27/10 Page 11of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05513 Resolution No. 2010-087 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04830 (Persaud) (DEV2010-00113) Owner: Daniel T. Sun Approved Church In Anaheim 2528 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal Applicant: John Pester and Commissioners Ament, 2431 WestLaPalmaAvenue Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Anaheim, CA 92801 Seymour voted yes.Chairman Faessel was absent. Location:2560 East La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to permit a church in an existing commercial building with smaller setbacks and fewer parking spaces than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare Vanessa Norwood 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 September 27, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. John Pester, applicant, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. CommissionerPersaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27,2010 staff report, determining that aClass 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this requestand approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05513 and Variance No. 2010-04830 (DEV2010-00113). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaesselwas absent. 09/27/10 Page 12of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :5minutes (6:36to6:41) 09/27/10 Page 13of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 728A Resolution No. 2010-088 (DEV2010-00139) (Ament) Owner: Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose 215 NorthHarbor Boulevard Approved Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Sister Johnellen Turner, OP VOTE: 6-0 St. Catherine’s Academy Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal 215 NorthHarbor Boulevard and Commissioners Ament, Anaheim, CA 92805 Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.Chairman Location:215 North Harbor Boulevard Faessel was absent. The applicant proposes to amend a conditional use permit to construct a readerboard sign. 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 11 (Accessory Structures). Scott Koehm, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Sister Johnellen Turner, applicant, stated she is the Administrator and Principal of St. Catherine’s Academy. She stated they changed their name from St. Catherine’s Military Academy to St. Catherine’s Academy, a boys’Catholic school with a military tradition. It became apparent to them over many years that there were seen as a reformatory school for bad boys, and they are not. The Dominican Sisters, the owners of St. Catherine’s, mandated that the name be changed. The program is the same;the name has been changed to emphasize their mission and vision, because of this they had to change their sign to reflect the new name. The sign willbe in the same exact place as the present, it is the same size and height. They changed the sign to a reader board sign as an upgrade and in order to replace all of the banners and the signs that they are currently hanging from the trees and poles in front of their property on Harbor Boulevard. The sign will be on a timer from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalasked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. 09/27/10 Page 14of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution , attached to the September 272010 staff report, determining that aClass 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this requestand approving amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 728A(DEV2010-00139). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirezand Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaesselwas absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :5minutes (6:41to 6:46) 09/27/10 Page 15of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 5 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04827Resolution No. 2010-089 (DEV2010-00142) (Seymour) Owner: Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP Approved 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Applicant:VOTE: 6-0 Brittany DeBeikes DeBeikes Investment CompanyChairman Pro-TemporeAgarwal 5289 Alton Parkwayand Commissioners Ament, Irvine, CA 92604Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.Chairman Location:5645-5675 East La Palma Avenue Faessel was absent. The applicant proposes to construct a freestanding shopping center identification sign with a size and design that is greater than permitted by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Scott Koehm Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare skoehm@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Scott Koehm, Associate Planner,provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Brittany DeBeikes, applicant, statedshe had reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Commissioner Karaki asked why there are more tenants then what’s being proposed on their sign. Ms. DeBeikes responded they feel that the 6 names will be given to the most prominent tenants in the center in hopes that that will drive traffic into the area, right now they have 16 tenants that have lost visibilityand she doesn’t believe that 16 names on a sign would be feasible. Commissioner Karaki asked if it was big enough and asked if a larger sign was needed due the limited visibility. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, stated the sign is considerably larger with more tenants then what would normally be allowed within the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone and it is because of the property’s location within the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone where they really tried to balance the 09/27/10 Page 16of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES needs of what the shopping center needed versus what is allowed in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. He indicated within the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone, the existing sign code is respectful to the fact that not every tenant is going to have identification on a freestanding sign; therefore to answer the question,he believes it is a reasonable balance and is fair in this particular case. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalasked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the , resolution attached to the September 272010 staff report, determining that aClass 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010-04827(DEV2010-00142). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith six yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaesselwas absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :9minutes (6:46to 6:55) (Break 6:55-7:05) 09/27/10 Page 17of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04831Resolution No. 2010-090 (DEV2010-00145) (Persaud) Owner: Richter Farms Trust Approved 5505Garden Grove Blvd., Suite 150 Westminster, CA 92683 Applicant:VOTE: 5-0 Cheryl Fry El Pollo Loco, Inc.Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal 3535 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100and Commissioners Karaki, Costa Mesa, CA 92626Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes.Chairman Faessel Location:1098 North State College Boulevard and Commissioner Ament were absent. The applicant proposes to modify a legal nonconforming pole-mounted freestanding sign. Project Planner: Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Scott Koehm Categorically Exempt fromthe requirement to prepare skoehm@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 11 (Accessory Structures). NO RECORDING ON THIS ITEM(following break) Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Applicantstated they hadreviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalasked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Persaudoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27,2010 staff report, determining that aClass 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010- 04831(DEV2010-00145). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Amentwere absent. 09/27/10 Page 18of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :6minutes (7:05to 7:11) 09/27/10 Page 19of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05516Resolution No. 2010-091 (DEV2010-00119) (Seymour) Owner: Allison Lynch Approved Anaheim Center Co. 2716 Ocean Park Santa Monica, CA 90405 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Celso Gutierrez Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal Pinoy Fiesta Restaurant and Commissioners Karaki, 160 West Lincoln Avenue Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour Anaheim, CA 92805 voted yes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioner Ament were Location:160 West Lincoln Avenue absent. The applicant proposesto permit beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption in an existing restaurant. Project Planner: Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Dave See Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dsee@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1 (Existing Facilities). NO RECORDING ON THIS ITEM (following break). David See, SeniorPlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Applicant stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalasked if anyonewas present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the , resolution attached to the September 272010 staff report, determining that aClass 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05516 (DEV2010-00119). 09/27/10 Page 20of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :9minutes (7:11to 7:20) (Item No. 9 was heard afterthis item) 09/27/10 Page 21of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05361Resolution No. 2010-092 (DEV2010-00117) (Karaki) Owner: Paul Nikolau Approved Nikokau Living Trust 10387 Los Alamitos Los Alamitos, CA90720 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Michael Ayaz Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 and Commissioners Karaki, Santa Ana, CA92706 Persaud, Ramirez andSeymour voted yes.Chairman Faessel Location:1160 North Kraemer Boulevard and Commissioner Ament were absent. The applicant proposes to amend a conditional use permit to delete a condition ofapproval pertaining to a time limitation and to increase the permitted number of patrons Project Planner: for an existing nightclub. Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@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). Vanessa Norwood, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to explain the reports and recommendations requirements. Ms. Norwood responded staff will visit the site and review the calls for service, and code enforcement willvisit the site to ensure they are in compliance with their conditions of approval and will follow-up with a report to the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar item. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Michael Ayaz,representative for the applicant, stated the calls for service have been reduced and the business has been operating successfully. They previously developed a security plan and they have not had any problems. They reviewed the conditions of approval andarein agreementwith the staff report. Commissioner Ramirez asked for clarification regarding their shared parking agreement with neighbors. 09/27/10 Page 22of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. Ayaz responded they meet the parking per code and rarely reach full capacity that is allowed. Commissioner Ramirez asked for clarification regarding what the square footage entails, if it is usable square footage or total square footage of the building. Ms. Norwood responded it is total square footage of the property. Mr. Ayaz stated the parking takes into account the overall space, and they meet the parking per code. He indicated that the police department and code enforcement have visited the site on more than one occasion, and finds the location to be operating in compliance of the conditions. Commissioner Ramirez responded except for the tally counter. Mr. Ayaz stated the tally counter may have been an isolated incident. (Approximately 7 minute blank in recording) Mr. Ayaz stated that they submitted plans and the landscaping plans remained at the City for 3-4 months before they received them back. He stated it was a little “hasty” to restripe the parking until they received the plans back for the landscape so they wouldn’t have to move planters, etc. He referred to the 60-day period and stated they will have the parking lot stripped and the landscaping plans should take them less than 60 days to complete. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalasked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361(DEV2010-00117). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :12minutes (8:48to 9:00) (Break 9:00-9:03) 09/27/10 Page 23of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 9 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00092 Motion to Deny CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05518Resolution No. 2010-093 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Resolution No. 2010-094 NECESSITY NO. 2010-00071 (Ramirez) (DEV2010-00128) Owner:ApprovedMotion and Resolutions JohnKnaak to Deny Requested Actions KnaakFamily Trust 4016 CrownRanchRoad Corona, CA 92881 VOTE: 3-2 Applicant: MikeAyazChairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and LawOffice of Rick BlakeCommissioners Karaki andRamirez 2107 North Broadway, Suite106voted yes.Commissioners Persaud Santa Ana, CA 92706and Seymour voted no. Chairman Faessel and Commissioner Ament Location:2162 West Lincoln Avenue were absent. The applicant proposes a zoning code amendment to allow the expansion of a legal non-conforming usewithin the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone. The applicant also requests approval of a conditional use permit and determination of public convenience or necessity to allow the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming bar. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Project Planner: DellaHerrick Exemption, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). dherrick@anaheim.net Continued from the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010, along with a visual presentation. She stated the subject request would have a negative impact on the adjacent single-family residences located directly to the south of the property. The small size of the current establishment helps to ensure that the patrons confine any outdoor activity to the front of the business along Lincoln Avenue. She indicated that the applicant is proposing to use the parking lot of an adjacent dental office to provide for a portion of the code required parking spaces. A number of parking spaces that the applicant is proposing to use as off-site parking spaces are located directly adjacent to, or in close proximity to the sides and rear of several single-family residences to the south. Staff believes that the adjacency of the proposed parking area to these residenceswould create a significant negative impact on theproperties due to the potential noise created by voices, car stereos, car alarms and engine noise. Staff has received a letter from the owner of the adjacent property to the east which states that they will not agree to allow employees or customers of the bar to use their parking lot at any time, which means that additional off-site parking would need to be 09/27/10 Page 24of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES provided on a non-contiguous property. The subject location is in a reporting district, 1720, which has a crime rate 128% above the City average in terms of reported calls for service. A determination of public convenience or necessity is required as a result of the above average crime rate, in addition to the above average crime rate within the reporting district it should be noted that the crime rate within a quarter mile radius of the subject site is 235% above the City average in terms of calls for service. Staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permit and denial of the determination of public convenience or necessity requests. She concluded, stating that an expanded bar would have a negative impact on the adjacent single-family residences located directly to the south of the property. Staff also recommends denial of the proposed code amendment as staff believes that the expansion of non conforming uses in the BCC Overlay zone is inconsistent with the goals of the Redevelopment project area, and would potentially serve to intensify land uses which have been deemed as blighting influences to the area. Commissioner Persaud asked if the applicant can avoid filing a variance request. Ms. Herrick responded the applicant originally said that they were going to have enough parking based on them getting the property to the east, but staff received a letter from the property to the east stating otherwise. Therefore, it is basically up to the applicant, staff can’t approve it. Should the Planning Commission approve it, and they couldn’t obtain the code required parking, the applicant would have to come back and request a parking variance. Commissioner Persaud referred to the high crime rate, and asked staff if any of the incidences were related to the subject property. Michele Irwin, Sr.Police Services Representative, responded the property has had 15 calls for service and she provided details of those calls. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal asked has an expansion ever been allowed in the BCC Overlay zone before. Ms. Irwin responded no. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal referred to the calls for service and asked if this is average for such an establishment. Ms. Irwin responded it is average for that type of business. Commissioner Persaud asked if requesting to expand a non-conforming use is unusual. Ms. Herrick responded yes, it is unusual in the BCC Overlay zone. In looking at thepast ordinance, City Council wanted to exclude uses, which is why they put them as prohibited. In addition, with the zoning code it is not just for the subject business, all the ones that are listed as non-conforming uses each one could expand under thisrequest; therefore any other bar in the BCC Overlay zone would have the option to expand by a conditional use permit. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. 09/27/10 Page 25of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mike Ayaz,applicant,stated the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor was implementedover 17 years ago with the goal that the area would be redeveloped either through private or public expenditures, and much of that redevelopment has not occurred. The most redevelopment that they have seen is the widening of Brookhurst and the development of Home Depot. There have been some residential communities that have gone in there but the redevelopment of the area has been stagnant for most of the 17 years. The goals of the ordinance back in 1993 are vastly different from what is actually happening today in the Brookhurst Corridor. The area still remains with undeveloped properties and a lot of the uses are still there that were there at the inception of the ordinance and none of the real goals or impacts that the redevelopment agency stated in their ordinance has significantly taken effect in that area as of yet. There are also other goals mentioned in the ordinance itself such as retention of jobs and development of local job opportunities. He stated the staff report indicates there are currently 34 alcoholic beverage licenses within the Brookhurst Corridor, and he provided information pertaining to the type of businesses. He explained that the calls for service at the subject establishment are low. Also, stated that they are not a night club or an adult use, they are a neighborhood bar which serves the neighborhood. He explained it is unfortunate, with the state the economy is in, that the outdated ordinance is prohibiting a successful small business owner from expanding his bar. He stated for the last 10 years that there have been no complaints from adjacent neighbors, no code enforcement issues, and not one Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) violation. The goal behind the proposed expansion is to accommodate his existing customers, and isnot doing it to get more customers. Furthermore, he stated they havereviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreement; and asked the Planning Commission to allow the code amendment and approve the subject request based upon the recommended conditions of approval by City staff. Rick Blake, Attorney representing the applicant, stated Mr. Ayaz indicated that the area had a specific problem 17 years ago, and possibly no longer a problem today. The blight today is closed down businesses, old buildings not remodeled and architectural out of date. The subject business has been there since 1953 and has no option under the current code, and is just asking to expand subject to a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit brings the place into compliance and no longer a non conforming use, it now has restrictions. They are requesting an expansion in order to allow for more furniture, more game machines, and to open the space up. They are not looking at bringing in additional patronage but to better serve the existing customers. Mr. Ayaz visited homes behind the subject location and there were not any neighbors who expressed concerns. He asked the Planning Commission to consider approval of the subject request. Gerry White, 2162 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, business owner, stated he has the opportunity to expand, create more jobs and betterment for his family. There is security that controls the parking lot, and even though the property east of them wrote a letter against them, they will still continue to patrol the parking lot since they never had any problems with the neighbors; and if any concerns arise he will address it. He expressed that he ensures that his bar is a respectable place, and does not tolerate fights, drugs, disrespect to his staff, etc. He stated he is not looking to create more revenue, but wants more space for his customers. He indicated he offers taxi service for who they feel has had too much to drink and he will pay for the taxi. He expressed that he is proud of his business and the good service that they provide to their customers. 09/27/10 Page 26of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES JohnKnaak, owner, provided history of the family properties, and stated for the past 10 years that Mr. White has been one of the best tenants that they’ve had. He expressed his support of the subject request. Charles Mendiola, 234 N. Dahlia Drive, Anaheim, stated he has met some good friends at the subject establishment and expanding the business will benefit the customers in providing additional space; and expressed his support of the request. John Ray Tracy, 2409 Marian Avenue, Anaheim, stated the business owner pays the cost for them to participate in softball games. John Hamill, 1215 S. Empire Street, Anaheim, referred to the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor and stated it is possibly outdated. Eduardo Peralta-Ferrer, 301 N. Aladdin, Anaheim, stated the establishment is a family-oriented environment, and people know each other. The owner does take care of them and ensures their safety home, if necessary, and expressed his support of the request. Samuel Andresen, 234 N. Dahlia Drive, Anaheim, stated he grew up in the area and can walk to the establishment and enjoy his time there playing pool, etc. The bar is small and sometimes it is hard to play pool, and expressed his support of the request. William McDonald, 633 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, filled out a speaker card in favor of the request, but did not wish to speak. Beverly Torrocha, 320 N. Park Vista #137, Anaheim, filled out a speaker card in favor of the request, but did not wishto speak. Travis Acosta, 320 N. Park Vista #137, Anaheim, expressed his support of the establishment and today’s request. Sandy Drexel, 633 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, expressed her support of the establishment as it is a family-oriented environment. SiButterfield, 12281 Diane Street, Garden Grove, stated he is employed at the establishment and there are not any problems there. Everyone’s ID is checked, and they cut people off of drinking if they have had too much to drink and provide them a cab to take them home. Rob Eager, 633 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, expressed his support of the business owner and establishment, and stated the business owner supports softball teams and little league baseball. Patti Rivera, 2162 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated she is a bartender at the establishment and Mr. White is very strict and ensures that they follow the rules and regulations. She stated she lives in the apartments across the street and 30% of the people who live in those apartments walk to the establishment and she doesn’t believe there is a parking problem; sometimes the parking lot is empty but their bar is full. Robin Hart, 306 S. Ramona Court, Anaheim, expressed his support of the establishment and stated Mr. White supports the community. 09/27/10 Page 27of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Alexis Montijo, 10591 Chamberlain Drive, Anaheim, stated she supports the request. Jon Deyo, 306 S. Ramona Court, Anaheim, stated he doesn’t go out very often but when he does he frequents the establishment because it is a nice, neighborhood atmosphere, and has never seen any problems. Manosez Carrasco, 382 N. Robway Street, Anaheim, expressed his support of the establishment and the employees. David Pavlovich, 513 S. Hollenbeck Street, West Covina, stated he supports the request. Monique League, 2124 Cindy Place #C, Anaheim, stated she is employed at the establishment and agrees with the previous speakers. She receives health benefits which are very rare for a bartender, and she asked for approval of the request as they need additional space for their customers. Joel Schiele, 401 W. Orangewood Avenue, #M101, Anaheim, expressed his support of the establishment and stated it is a good place to go and enjoy, and stay out of trouble. Jason Hamacher, 401 W. Orangewood Avenue, M101, Anaheim, stated he frequents the establishment and his mother works there; and expanding the facility would make it more comfortable. Daniel Hauser, 2705 W. Lincoln Avenue, #103, Anaheim, expressed his support of the establishment and expanding the facility. Brad Heidner, 1306 W. Castle Avenue, Anaheim, stated him and his wife enjoy the establishment, and expressed his support of the request. Kymberly DeVenecia, 1500 W. Catherine, Anaheim, expressed her support of the request. Kathy Phillips, 379 N. Robway Street, Anaheim, filled out a speaker card in favor of the request, but did not wish to speak. Linda Kenski, 2146 and 2156 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated she represents the owners to the east of the property. She appreciates the fact that Mr. White has cleaned up the bar because with the previous owners there were many problems. Mr. White is highly thought of by her tenants, but stated the expansion will bring more people and their only concern is that it will fill up their parking lot and they don’t want their parking lot to be for the bar, and the City has the parking ratio codes for a reason. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal asked Ms. Kenski if she is in favor or in opposition to the request. Ms. Kenski responded she is in opposition to the request. Wendy Walker, stated she is representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) as well as herself. They concur with staff’s recommendations and believe it sets a precedence that would affect all of the businesses in the overlay district; and allowing this expansion 09/27/10 Page 28of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES would allow all the others to expand. They are looking for something better for that overlay district and the bar is not one of them. Ruby Mogavero, stated she has watched the establishment grow, and doesn’t consider it a bar as she feels safe there. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Ayaz statedthe request does not automatically grant prohibited uses in the zone to expand, as it requires them to go through the process of filing for a conditional use permit, having the facts and the merits of the case reviewed, and then a determination. It is time to change the outdated overlay zone. He stated that he went and spoke to neighbors on Cherrywood Lane,and spoke to 7 of the 9 neighbors that are facing Gerry’s parking lot and no one had any concerns. He stated with the type of businesses in the area that they are probably the quietest tenant on the street. He asked the Planning Commission to hear the testimonies that was provided today; and further provided reasons to approve the subject request. Commissioner Seymour stated even with off-site parking, it is still deficient; and it was agreed that there would be a condition if the request was approved, stating that the parking issue would be resolved priorto going forward with the conditional use permit. Mr. Ayaz responded yes, they would need 8 more parking spaces. The property owner to the dental building has agreed to enter into a reciprocal parking agreement which gives them in need of 8 more parkingspaces, and they also own the corner property across Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, they would work with staff to see if that would be allowable, and they plan to resolve the parking issue. Commissioner Persaud asked for the rate of vacancy in the area. Mr. Borrego responded they have had several conversations with Redevelopment Agency staff on the subject item, but that is one item that they haven’t discussed. Commissioner Persaud asked if there is an opportunity to expand the business within certain constraints. Mr. Ayaz responded as long as it is reasonable, as he doesn’t want to jeopardize his client’s investment/business; but they would be completely open to it and would agree with a review period. Further discussion took place amongst Mr. Ayaz andCommissioner Persaud regarding additional sites in the area that may or may not potentially expand their business, and options to resolve the parking issue. Commissioner Persaud asked staff given the vision of the specific plan for Brookhurst what benchmarks are there over the last years to say they are making progress. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalclosed the public hearing. Mr. Borrego stated there has been progress made within the past 17 years since the redevelopment plan has been approved, the mostsignificantly is the development near the intersection of Brookhurst 09/27/10 Page 29of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES and Crescent Avenue, near the northeast corner which is the site of the Home Depot and the fast food restaurant which was recently approved. In addition, since the redevelopment plan was adopted there have been several new residential developments that have gone into the area, some of which are within the boundaries of the Brookhurst Corridor Overlay zone including the newer residential community just to the south and to the east, in addition to the community which is on the northwest corner of Muller and Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, there has been some new development in the area since the redevelopment plan was adopted. He stated certainly things haven’t moved as quickly as the City would have hoped in the area in terms of the redevelopment plans but there has been some progress made. Most recently, the life of the City’s redevelopment area was extended significantly when all the redevelopment project areas in the city were merged into one, and there are quite a bit of years left on the redevelopment project area, and the redevelopment agency staff still sees progress ahead for the area. He stated to his knowledge there hasn’t been any benchmarks established in terms of measuring the progress. Commissioner Persaud asked has staff looked at if there is a way to allow a viable, temporary use expansion. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded staff was discussing that issue today and the conclusion they arrived at is that a temporary use is neither legal, nor appropriate in this particular case. The conditional use permit runs with the land and in the past the City has done these with time frames on them but generally that is considered both poor policy and there are questions about the legality of that process. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwal stated based on the testimony it has been established that Mr. White is a good operator and they are not debating that, but what they are to consider is the land use and to look at the overlay zone and see if the request complies with that or not. Commissioner Ramirez stated she has lived in the west Anaheim area for 18 years, and does not think that the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay zone is outdated, and agrees that some progress and improvements have been made. She stated although the subject establishment operates their business successfully and appropriately she believes if the request is granted today, it will set precedence for future bars who may not operate their business assatisfactory and that may continue to blight the community, and she expressed that she would not be able to support the request. Commissioner Karaki thanked the residents who are present today and testified to Mr. White’s operation. He stated that from the people who spoke today he can see that the establishment provides a family-oriented atmosphere; and in his years as a Planning Commissioner this is the first time to see so many people attend the meeting and express their opinions. But, there is only so much the Planning Commission can do, and stated he can’t support the request as proposed. Commissioner Ramirez offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the resolutions for denial attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this requestand denying Zoning Code Amendment No. 2010-00092,Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05518and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No.2010-00071(DEV2010-00128). 09/27/10 Page 30of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolutions for denialpassedwith three yes votes.Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal and Commissioners Karaki and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Persaud and Seymour voted no. Chairman Faessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. OPPOSITION: 2 persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 26persons spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :88 minutes (7:20to8:48) 09/27/10 Page 31of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES PRESENTATIONS FOR ITEMS 10 -13 WERE COMBINED BUT EACH ITEM WAS VOTED ON SEPARATELY ITEM NO. 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05519Resolution No. 2010-095 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Resolution No. 2010-096 NECESSITY NO. 2010-00066 (Persaud) (DEV2010-00124) Owner:Approved Antonio Cucalon Jr. Walcuca,LP 625 El Camino Del Mar VOTE: 5-0 SanFrancisco, CA94121 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal Applicant: BrianFish/JenniferChavez and Commissioners Karaki, LuceForwardHamilton& Scripps Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour 600 WestBroadway, Suite2600 voted yes.Chairman Faessel SanDiego, CA 92101 and Commissioner Ament were absent. Location:1720 West La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for off-premises consumption in an existing drive-thru Project Planner: Della Herrick drugstore (Walgreens). dherrick@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). Della Herrick,AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated September 27, 2010, along with a visual presentation.She stated the applicant proposes on four separate conditional use permits to permitthe sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in Walgreens drive-thru drugstore. Thefour facilities vary in square footage, andare all in the CG zone. The applicant is requesting a determination of public convenience and necessity for two of thefacilities the reason being is anover-concentration of licenses and for the other two facilities is because there in a high crime area. All requests have similar floor plansand contain a pharmacy, photo area, walk-in coolers, and sales counter. They don’t expect the square footage of it to be any more than 2% of either of the buildings, and the applicant indicates there will be no more than 5% of the sales. Two of the facilities operate 7 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the other two will operate 24 hours a day, however, they will not be selling alcohol during the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The police department and planning staff are recommending approval of the requests. 09/27/10 Page 32of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Persaud asked do all the Walgreens stores in Anaheim sell liquor. Ms. Herrick responded she is unaware, but knows one in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor is not allowed to sell alcohol because of the restriction. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalopened the public hearing. Jennifer Chavez, 600 W. Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, stated she is present on behalf of the applicant, Walgreens, also present today are a few of the store managers. In terms of which stores are or are not pursuing alcohol licenses in the city of Anaheim, as a general matter Walgreens has recently decided that they want to start selling beer and wine in most of the stores nationwide, as there is a strong customer demand for the convenience of one-stop shopping. She clarified that the initial request is to use about 50 square feet for beer and wine in each of the subject stores, a very small floor area; if the demand is there in the future they would like the right to expand the floor area. Therefore, currently the initial request is to use at least 2% of their floor area for beer and wine, not a maximum of 2%. She stated Walgreens has a number of policies and procedures in place to ensure that alcohol sales will be handled in a safe and responsible way, and provided detailspertaining to their employees’ extensive training program.Furthermore, selling beer and wine also helps Walgreens remain competitive with CVS, Rite Aid and other retailers that are selling alcohol in the city of Anaheim. Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwalasked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Ms. Herrick indicated that on Item No. 13 a revised resolution was submitted to the Planning Commission, modifying the address in the conditional use permit resolution. Commissioner Persaudoffered arecommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No2010-05519and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00066(DEV2010- 00124). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland CommissionersKaraki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 7, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :8minutes (9:03to 9:11) 09/27/10 Page 33of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05520Resolution No. 2010-097 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Resolution No. 2010-098 NECESSITY NO. 2010-00067 (Karaki) (DEV2010-00125) Owner:Approved RonaldP.Bearde, Trustee c/oSouthlandEquities 15 CorporatePlazaDrive, Suite240 VOTE: 5-0 NewportBeach, CA 92660 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal Applicant: BrianFish/JenniferChavezand Commissioners Karaki, LuceForwardHamilton& ScrippsPersaud, Ramirez and Seymour 600 WestBroadway, Suite2600voted yes.Chairman Faessel SanDiego, CA 92101and Commissioner Ament were absent. Location:2560 West Ball Road The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for Project Planner: Della Herrick off-premises consumption in an existing drive-thru dherrick@anaheim.net drugstore (Walgreens). 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). Commissioner Karakioffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No2010-05520 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00067(DEV2010- 00125). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. 09/27/10 Page 34of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05524 Resolution No. 2010-099 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCEOR Resolution No. 2010-100 NECESSITYNO. 2010-00070 (Ramirez) (DEV2010-00141) Owner:Approved Michael Redstone Walgreen Company 104 Wilmot Road, Tax Department MS 1435 VOTE: 5-0 Deerfield, IL60015 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal Applicant: BrianFish/JenniferChavezand Commissioners Karaki, LuceForwardHamilton& ScrippsPersaud, Ramirez and Seymour 600 WestBroadway, Suite2600voted yes.Chairman Faessel SanDiego,CA92101and Commissioner Ament were absent. Location:3446 West Ball Road The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for Project Planner: Della Herrick off-premises consumption in an existing drive-thru dherrick@anaheim.net drugstore (Walgreens). 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). Commissioner Ramirezoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No2010-05524 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00070(DEV2010- 00141). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. 09/27/10 Page 35of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05521 Resolution No. 2010-101 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCEOR Resolution No. 2010-102 NECESSITYNO. 2010-00068 (Seymour) (DEV2010-00126) Owner:Approved Michael Redstone Walgreen Company 104 WilmotRoad, Tax DepartmentMS 1435 VOTE: 5-0 Deerfield, IL60015 Chairman Pro-Tempore Agarwal Applicant: BrianFish/JenniferChavezand Commissioners Karaki, LuceForwardHamilton& ScrippsPersaud, Ramirez and Seymour 600 WestBroadway, Suite2600voted yes.Chairman Faessel SanDiego, CA 92101and Commissioner Ament were absent. Location:128 South State College Boulevard The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for Project Planner: Della Herrick off-premises consumption in an existing drive-thru dherrick@anaheim.net drugstore (Walgreens). 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). CommissionerSeymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the September 27, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No2010-05521 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00068 (DEV2010-00126), with modifications made to theconditional use permit resolution. Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwithfive yes votes.Chairman Pro Tempore Agarwaland Commissioners Karaki, Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. ChairmanFaessel and Commissioner Ament were absent. 09/27/10 Page 36of 37 SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:12P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2010AT 5:00P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2010. 09/27/10 Page 37of 37