Minutes-PC 2008/01/07•
/O~
,~ ,
~~
~Fl E 1 IVl
P
c,~
~fT
D
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Minutes
Monday, January 7, 2008
~~ o
Commissioners Present
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney
Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
Chairman: Kelly Buffa
Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Joseph Karaki,
Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
Stephen Faessel
Kimberly Wong, Planner
Minoo Ashabi, Contracted Planner
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary
• Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m.
on Thursday, January 3, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber,
and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on October 4, November 15 and December 13, 2007
• Call to Order
• Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M.
• STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS
AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION)
• PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JANUARY 7, 2008 AGENDA
• Recess to Public Hearing
• Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
Attendance: 35
• Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Eastman
• Public Comments
• Consent Calendar
• Public Hearing Items
• Adjournment
•
H:\TOOLSIPC Admin\PC Action Agendas -Minutes\2008 Action Agendas\AC010708
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M.
Public Comments: None
Consent Calendar:
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION
CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1A through 1 E as recommended by staff and to
continue Items 1 D and 1 E. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Reports and Recommendations
1A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Consent Calendar Approval
(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05126
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05269)
Owner: Sunrise Fountains Partners, LLC
1380 South Anaheim Boulevard
• Anaheim, CA 92805 Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Agent: David Nix
Sunrise Fountains Partners, LLC
1380 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 2100 South Lewis Street: Property is
approximately 3.63 acres, located at the southeast
corner of Lewis Street and Orangewood Avenue,
having frontages of 418 feet on the east side of
Lewis Street and 338 feet on the south side of
Orangewood Avenue.
Request for a retroactive one year extension of time to comply
with conditions of approval for apreviously-approved 132-unit Project Planner:
condominium conversion. (kwong2@anaheim.net)
01 /07/08
Page 2 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• roval
ndar A
l
t C
C
1 B. (a) NEGATIVE DECLARATION pp
e
onsen
a
(PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05144
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05274)
Vote: 6-0
Agent: Antonine Bakh Commissioner Faessel absent
1546 East La Palma
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 1546 East La Palma Avenue (St. John Maron
Catholic Church): Property is approximately 1.32
acres, having a frontage of 255 feet on the south
side of La Palma Avenue and located
approximately 140 feet east of the centerline of
Anna Drive.
Request for a retroactive one year extension of time to comply Project Planner:
with conditions of approval to expand an existing church. (dherrick@anaheim.net)
1C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Consent Calendar Approval
• (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05075
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05270)
Agent: HMC Architects
2601 Main Street Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614 Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Owner: Diocese of Orange
P.O. Box 14195
Orange, CA 92863-1595
Location: 412 North Crescent Way (St. Thomas Korean
Catholic Church): Property is approximately 5
acres, having a frontage of 676 feet on the east
side of Crescent Way and located approximately
414 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way.
Request for a retroactive one year extension of time to comply
with conditions of approval to construct an addition to an existing Project Planner:
Church Complex. (dherrick@anaheim.net)
01 /07/08
Page 3 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
Min
1D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of November 26, 2007.
Continued from the December 10, 2007 Planning Commission
Meeting. (Motion)
1 E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of December 10, 2007. (Motion)
•
n
Continued to
January 23, 2008
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Continued to
January 23, 2008
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
01 /07/08
Page 4 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
2a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 Continued to
(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) January 23, 2008
2b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0.2006-00052
Agent: Planning Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805 Motion: EastmanNelasquez
Location: Citywide
City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend various Vote: 6-0
sections of Title 18 "Zoning" of the Anaheim Municipal Code to Commissioner Faessel absent
correct various errors and omissions, and clarify text and provide
consistency with other Chapters of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
including but not limited to, provisions to add a new Section to the
code to clarify that any permit, license or evidence issued in conflict
with the provisions of Title 18 shall be null and void. Proposed
amendments include the following: Single-Family Residential
Zones: modify permitted encroachments for accessory
uses/structures to be consistent with the California Building Code;
• add a new section requiring certain accessory structures to
conform to setback requirements for the primary residence; modify
required rear yard setback in the RS-2 Zone; Multiple-Family
Residential Zones: allow modification to setbacks between
buildings for a planned unit development; Commercial Zones:
amend permitting requirements for Antennas-Telecommunications-
Stealth Ground-Mounted; modify Educational Institutions-Business
and Educational Institutions-General as uses subject to a
conditional use permit; add statement that Self-Storage Facilities
be in compliance with Council Policy No. 7.2; add Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) General Plan consistency reference; add Automotive-Car
Sales, Retail or Wholesale (Office Use Only} as a permitted primary
use; add Automated Teller Machines (ATM's) Exterior, Wall-
Mounted as a permitted primary use; add Educational Institutions-
Tutoring Services as a permitted use; modify Automotive-Car Sales
& Rental provisions; Industrial Zones: modify provisions permitting
Circuses and Carnivals; add Floor Area Ratio (FAR) General Plan
consistency reference; amend permitting requirements for
Antennas-Telecommunications-Stealth Ground-Mounted; add
statement that Self-Storage Facilities be in compliance with Council
Policy No. 7.2; add provisions for street frontage/land subdivision;
add Automated Teller Machines (ATM's) Exterior, Wall-Mounted as
a permitted primary use; add Automotive-Car Sales, Retail or
Wholesale (Office Use Only) subject to conditional use permit; add
Educational Institutions-Tutoring Services subject to conditional use
permit; Public and Special Purpose Zones: modify the Transition
01 /07/08
Page 5 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• "T" zone provisions to require General Plan consistency for
conditionally permitted uses; South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor
(SABC) Overlay Zone: amendment to allow attached single-family
dwellings by conditional use permit in conformance with multiple-
family zone standards; Mixed Use Overlay Zone: modify
requirements for Ground-Floor Commercial Uses; Types of Uses:
modify Personal Services-General to include permanent facial
make-up; modify Medical & Dental Offices to include colonoscopy
and laser hair removal services; add Automated Teller Machines
(ATM's), Exterior, Wall-Mounted; Supplemental Uses: delete time
limitation reference for wireless communication facilities approved
by conditional use permit; modify parking requirements for home
occupations; clarify process for waiving setback and screening
requirements for public utility equipment; add Automotive-Car
Sales, Retail or Wholesale, Office Use Only; modify Mechanical
and Utility Equipment -Roof Mounted for solar energy panels;
establish maximum size requirements for flags and banners;
Parking: modify parking requirements for bowling alleys, second
units, and establish standards for automated parking facilities; add
parking requirements for Automotive Car Sales, Retail or
Wholesale (Office Use Only) and Educational Institutions -
Tutoring Services; Signs: modify window sign definition; modify the
• provisions for marquee or electronic readerboard signs; modify
maximum height of letters and logos for wall signs;
Landscape/Screening: modify requirements pertaining to
landscape and fence height and type provisions; modify permitted
types of landscape materials; Recycling: amend various Chapters
to modify standards and procedures related to consumer recycling
services; Nonconforming Structures: modify parking
requirements in conjunction with the expansion of non-conforming
structures in the Anaheim Colony Historic District and the 5 Points
Neighborhood; Density Bonus: amend Chapter 18.52 (Density
Bonuses) in its entirety to provide consistent formatting with Title 18
(Zoning Code) to allow for additional administrative approvals and
various minor modifications and clarifications; Affordable
Housing: delete Chapter 18.58 (Affordable Multiple-Family
Housing Developments) in its entirety; Procedures: modify the
appeal process for Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission
decisions; modify responsibilities related to the Zoning
Administrator;
01 /07/08
Page 6 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
Administrative Reviews: modify requirements for Administrative
Reviews; Variances: modify Special Findings for Variances;
Definitions: modify definition of "Lots"; add definition for "General
Plan Density".
Continued from the December 10, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting.
Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No.
Project Planner:
(cflores@anaheim. net)
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to request a
continuance to January 23, 2008. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was
absent.
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
01 /07/08
Page 7 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 21
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3277
(TRACKING NO. CUP NO. 2007-05251)
Owner: Barry Lee Konier
P.O. Box 2158
Orange, CA 92859
Agent: City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 950-970 Tustin Avenue: Property is an irregularly-
shaped 2.82-acre property having frontages of 460
feet on the east side of Tustin Avenue and 665 feet on
the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91).
City request to initiate the revocation or modification of Conditional
Use Permit No. 3277 to permit office uses in an industrial building
with waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs.
Continued from the October 15, 2007, and the December 10,
2007, Planning Commission Meeting.
Conditional Use Permit No.
Withdrawn
Motion: Agarwal/Karaki
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to withdraw this item.
Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel was absent.
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
01 /07/08
Page 8 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00213
Agarwal/Karaki
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05268
4d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17164
4e. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2007-00226
Owner: Heitman Living Trust
3083 West Ball Road
Anaheim, CA 92804
Agent: Mahendra J. Desai
Desai Construction and Development Inc.
2040 South Santa Cruz Street, Suite 115
Anaheim, CA 92805
Agarwal
Agarwal
Agarwal
Agarwal
• Location: 3083 and 3087 West Ball Road: Property is
approximately 1.4 acres, having a frontage of 231
feet on the north side of Ball Road and located
approximately 132 feet west of the centerline of
Halliday Street.
Request to permit a 20-unit single-family attached condominium
complex. This project requires approval of the following actions:
Reclassification No. 2007-00213 -Request reclassification of
the subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RM-1
(Multiple-Family Residential) zone or less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05268 -Request to construct
a 20-unit single-family attached condominium complex.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17164 -Request to establish a 1-lot,
20-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision.
Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00226 -Request for Planning
Commission determination of conformance with the Density
Bonus Ordinance to construct a 20-unit single-family
• condominium development with 2 affordable units, a Density
Bonus and incentives.
Approved
Approved, added conditions
Approved, added conditions
Approved, revised and
added conditions of
approval
Approved, added conditions
Vote: 5-1
Commission Romero voted no
Commissioner Faessel absent
01 /07/08
Page 9 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Continued from the December 10, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting.
Reclassification Resolution No. PC2008-1
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-2
Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. PC2008-3
(per kw)
Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report.
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Mahendra Desai, Desai Construction & Developers Inc, stated he was present to answer any
questions.
Greg McCafferty, Sheldon Group, stated that he would like to request a 2 year time limitation for the
permits and wanted to modify some of the Condition of Approvals. He also stated that they would
work with staff to modify the windows to incorporate mullions or craftsman style windows.
Chairman Buffa requested clarification of which conditions related to time limitations. She asked Mr.
McCafferty or staff to identify the conditions by number.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
~harles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Drive, stated that he was concerned with the 20-unit single-family
condominium development proposed because it did not have enough parking stalls. There are 16
guest parking spaces for the 20 unit development and this project does not have enough space for
visitor parking.
Ester Wallace, WAND Chairman, 604 Scott Lane, stated that she also was concerned with the
parking issues for the development proposed. She had been in contact with the local residents and
they felt the development of the condominiums made the parking issues worse, as they were already
overcrowded. She submitted a letter to the Commission stating their concerns.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
Chairman Buffa asked staff to clarify why there are 20 units allowed on this property rather than 16
units. She wanted to know what the City's parking code required for this property.
Kim Wong stated that the City of Anaheim's General Plan and Zoning Code allows for 16 dwelling
units. The City of Anaheim also allows a property owner to request a density bonus, which allows for
additional residential units. The applicant requested a 20% density bonus, which would permit a total
of 20 units, 10% of the total number of units would be sold at an affordable rate. In this case, it would
apply to either the lower or moderate income level. The applicant requested reduced parking ratios,
which is allowed because they proposed a density bonus project. This is consistent with state law
and code. The Municipal Code states for a density bonus project, a 3 bedroom unit requires two
.parking spaces where they would be required without a density bonus.
Chairman Buffa asked if the City had any discretion to deny the development incentive under state
laws.
01 /07/08
Page 10 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•Ms. Won stated that as Ion as the a licant requested the parking ratio, the City must grant this in
9 9 PP
compliance with state law.
Chairman Buffa commented that the State has granted a higher priority to the need for affordable
housing than the potential impacts to neighborhoods that might result from reduced parking
standards. The State made that decision whether the City agreed or not.
Ms. Wong confirmed that was correct.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated that under state law there is no provision for findings to
deny a request for a parking reduction under the Code. The applicant is entitled to the reduced
parking requirement, as long as the development meets the affordability qualifications. There is no
finding to reduce or deny that request under state law.
Mr. McCafferty concurred with the City Attorney's findings. They believe the Planning Commission
would implement the Housing Element by providing affordable housing to the community. They
commend the Planning Commission for adhering to the goals and policies of their Housing Element.
The first condition Chairman Buffa asked about relates to the Conditional Use Permit. The developer
requested to have an initial period of two years for the Conditional Use Permit given the finance and
market conditions for housing. With regard to the Tentative Tract Map, Condition No.12 allows the
Planning Director to change the timing of conditions and time extensions but it does not specifically
.indicate the initial approval period. The applicant would respectfully request two years.
With regard to condition No.6, they would like to revise that timing to say that "prior to issuance of the
building permit the existing houses on the property shall be demolished." The applicant would like
staff to clarify what those standard engineering plans pertain to so they can determine if they would
have trouble complying with those plans. If they had trouble complying they would need to discuss
that further with staff.
The last issue is the memo from Community Development with regards to the affordability. The
memo indicated that the property needed to be bound, bound by a covenant prior to the final map
recreation. In a normal development process Mr. Desai indicated that would normally occur prior to
issuance of building permit. The applicant does not have a problem recording the restrictions
regarding affordability but they wanted flexibility to allow the applicant to work with DRE.
Chairman Buffa asked if they can include a provision in their CC& R's that would require residents to
park their cars in their garages and not use the garages for storage, if so, the home owner's
association would have the right to take action with that home owner.
Ms. Wong stated that Condition No. 32 of the Conditional Use Permit Resolution requires that the
CC& R's indicate that all two car garages shall be utilized for the parking and vehicles.
Chairman Buffa wanted to clarify they had that requirement. If they did have this requirement this
.would allow the Home Owner's Association to take action to enforce that provision of the CC&R's.
Ms. Wong replied that was correct.
01 /07/08
Page 11 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• ommissioner Eastman asked that if staff determines the house is on the City's list of historic houses,
would the applicant be willing to abide by the community wishes to move the house off the property
and relocate it in order to save the historic building.
Mr. McCafferty stated that there had been wording put together on prior entitlements. A 30 day notice
in advance would be provided to Community Development or the Housing Authority that the houses
were going to be demolished to give the resident time to re-locate.
Commissioner Eastman stated she thought it was 60 to 90 days prior to demolition. She stated since
the developer was not going to demolish the houses right away, they had plenty of time to determine
the time period before they would have to clear the site.
Chairman Buffa asked staff if they determined if this was on the City's list.
Ms. Wong stated that staff tried to contact two people in Community Development prior to the public
hearing but were unable to.
Mr. McCafferty stated it was difficult to time the demolition. Mr. Desai indicated that if the outside
date is a 90 day notification he would comply with that.
Chairman Buffa asked staff if the Commission needed to add a Condition of Approval to the
.Conditional Use Permit that would state the applicant would give Community Development or the
Housing Authority a 90 day notice prior to demolishing the structures.
Ms. Wong stated that would be correct. A condition can be included regarding the contact of
Community Development.
Commissioner Velasquez was concerned with the wording of Condition No. 32. The way it was
worded, "to be utilized for the parking of vehicles" does not exclude storage. Chairman Buffa's
explanation of it was better than the way it was written.
Chairman Buffa stated that the CC&R's were contracts between the homeowners and the HOA, not
the City. She was reluctant to tell them how to implement their contract among themselves. She
stated that in a perfect world the developer would write into the CC&R's the provision that the Home
Owner's Association would have monthly inspections and fine the home owners that don't park their
vehicles in their garage. It was not up to the City to help them.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that most people do not park in their garages. She wanted to know
if there was anything they could add as a condition to address the residents concerns.
Ms. Wong stated that all staff could do is to make that a requirement of the CC&R's.
Commissioner Eastman asked staff if the neighbors noticed this condition not being enforced could
they come back to the City to let them know the development was not complying with conditions in
.the CUP.
01 /07/08
Page 12 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~/Is. Wong stated that would be correct. One of the neighbors could file a complaint with the City's
Community Preservation Division. An investigation would occur and a citation could be issued to
ensure that the garages were being used for their vehicles.
Chairman Buffa stated that the provision in the condition was that the CC&R's required garages to be
utilized for parking. She asked if they could require two car garages to be utilized for the parking of
vehicles and that the HOA shall be responsible for implementing this requirement. She thought this
would put a burden on the HOA so that they could take responsibility.
Chairman Buffa was concerned because the neighbors could come back to the City to say there were
parking problems and they want to initiate a Code Enforcement procedure against the HOA.
However, the City cannot enforce the CC&R's because it is a contract between the homeowners and
the HOA.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that they have the legal authority to require
placement of provisions in the CC&R's that advance a legitimate public benefit. They don't have the
legal authority to require enforcement between two parties in a contract.
Mark Gordon agreed. The City does not have standing to enforce the provisions of the restriction and
he is not aware of any instance where the City tried to compel an HOA to enforce CC&R's.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the CUP is for the Planned Unit Development. If they wanted the
.Commission could place a condition on the Conditional Use Permit that requires parking to be open
and available for the project. They do meet the required storage are.
Commissioner Agarwal read the state law. It states that if the developer met the two parking
requirements per three bedroom unit, the City had to give the approval, unless, there was a finding
made to the contrary. He asked if this was correct.
Mark Gordon stated that the request for reduction, in the parking standards, would be in place as long
as the applicant qualified because of the affordable units being developed. There were no findings in
state law they could use to reduce or deny that level of parking. The Commission is preempted by
state law. State law trumps the City's parking standards, under the circumstances, as long as the
applicant requests the reduced parking and provides the required affordable units. Denial requires a
written finding that there is a significant impact to health or safety. There has to be substantial
evidence of that in the record.
Commissioner Agarwal asked if parking would constitute as health and safety.
Mr. Gordon replied no. He stated that there was nothing they could do regarding the reduced parking
requirement. Under state laws, as long as the developer qualifies and intends to provide affordable
units they qualify for the reduced parking. There are no findings that the City could make to require
more parking.
CJ Amstrup stated that under the residential parking requirements of Code Section 18.42.030.0107,
here is a requirement that states the required parking shall be maintained and available for parking of
operable vehicles. Regardless of where it resides, in resolutions or CC&R's, they could fall back on
the Municipal Code that is enforceable regardless whether a condition is included.
01 /07/08
Page 13 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
.Chairman Buffa confirmed that the Commission does not need to add a Condition of Approval
because in a Code Enforcement proceeding they could rely on that code section.
Commissioner Eastman stated the developer showed different kinds of surface entering the project.
She wondered if any or all of the hard surfacing materials were planned to use permeable concrete,
such as the blocks that allow plantings to grow up to mitigate the impact of impermeable.
Mr. McCafferty stated he believed they were using pavers so there was some permeability with the
pavers.
Ms. Wong stated that the latest site plans showed the enhanced paving and pedestrian pathway
between each of the homes and the garages.
Commissioner Romero stated that the applicant has come before Commission with a proposal to go
from what would be a normal code approval, sixteen units that would require extra parking. He
understood the applicant used the affordable content so they could now develop up to twenty units
and also require less parking. He wasn't sure if he understood the City Attorney correctly and asked
if they had to approve this request. He was concerned with the neighborhood parking impacts. He
felt they were impacting the quality of life of the rest of the neighborhood. He thought Mr. Gordon
said, the way this proposal is presented, "It had to be approved."
ark Gordon stated that when they have an affordable project and the applicant meets the eligibility
requirements and the applicant makes a request for a reduced parking standard, under state law, the
City is obligated to approve the reduced parking.
Commissioner Romero stated that Ms. Wallace brought up the issue of the three bedroom units with
two income earners. He wanted to know how many cars would park there. He felt they had to
consider the neighborhood requirements.
Commissioner Karaki stated that the issue was providing guest parking. There were not enough
guest parking spaces to allow each unit to have one guest parking space and this would become a
problem. He felt the Commission should recommend or suggest the City change the parking Code,
as other cities have. When the State mandates low income units and requirements for parking are
reduced, it creates an overflow of parking. He felt the parking requirement should be changed by the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Chairman Buffa stated that parking Code is what it is, not withstanding the Commissions personal
feelings about the adequacy of parking. The State mandated what the City will decide. Chairman
Buffa commented on the architecture. She stated that there were many colors and materials used on
the building elevation. She was uncertain if the architect tried to make the project look like row
houses using materials and colors to distinguish one row house to the next. The materials spill over
from one unit to the next unit. In the case of the two front doors on the right hand side, they are
covered by the same roof profile with the same color and stone. It looked confusing to her. She felt
the architect should distinctly make them look less like row houses by using distinct color and
.materials for each one.
01 /07/08
Page 14 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
commissioner Eastman agreed with Chairman Buffa. She stated that having three different kinds of
treatment, stone, stucco, and siding made the project confusing to the eye. It might be better if it
were all one material.
Mr. McCafferty asked if the project should be designed to provide more distinction or uniformity
among the units.
Chairman Buffa replied one or the other should be adequate.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the architect will work with staff to make changes. If staff was not pleased
they could come back before the Commission.
Chairman Buffa considered the request that the applicant made to change some conditions.
Ms. Wong stated that currently the resolution for the Tentative Map did not have a time limitation and
staff would not like to place a time limitation on the resolution. The Subdivision Map Act does give
the Tentative Tract Map a life of two years, and the applicant could come back to renew the Map if it
was not recorded within two years. The Density Bonus Ordinance does state that the time to
exercise the entitlement would be a year but the planning director has discretion to extend the life or
the time period to be more. Staff was amenable for it to be at two years with the Tentative Tract Map.
Staff chose not to add a Condition of Approval to the resolution.
•Mr. McCafferty stated that he wanted to make sure this would not be forgotten in a year.
Chairman Buffa stated that staff was clear on the record. They said, "The City was amenable to
granting administratively that extension." Two years is what would happen.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the next condition would be Condition No. 6 on the map. The applicant
requested that the timing be changed to prior issuance of the building permit for reasons he testified
to earlier.
Ms. Wong stated that staff was okay with the requested change.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the third condition was not listed in the attachments to the staff report. It
was the result of the Affordability Agreement, that it be timed prior to issuance of the building permit,
and not the final map based on the testimony he gave earlier.
Ms. Wong stated that the Code required the Agreement to be recorded prior to recordation of the final
map. That was something already included in their Code and it could not be altered.
Mr. McCafferty asked what section of the Code.
Ms. Wong stated that it was in their Density Bonus Ordinance. The Code Section is 18.52.230.050
and states that the recordation for the Execution of the Agreement shall take place prior to final map
.approval or where a map is not being processed prior to issuance of the final building permits.
Mr. McCafferty replied that they understood.
01 /07/08
Page 15 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
commissioner Velasquez commented that staff recommended the Commission should not add the
time lines. Commission discussed, on a different project, that the time lines should be 18 months.
She thought they should be consistent and add a condition so that they could be clear about time
lines.
Chairman Buffa stated that the difference was the Code because of the Density Bonus.
Linda Johnson stated staff was agreeable to adding the condition. They could add it in a Condition of
Approval stating that the time limitation would be two years for the CUP. They could clarify that the
Code would allow a one year. The wording would be that the Planning Director agreed to a one year
extension. It would be the Planning Director's authority.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the Code Section 18.60 allowed the staff to grant two years. To eliminate
any ambiguity they should add the two years for the initial time period.
Linda Johnson stated that the Code Section she referred to was in the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Chairman Buffa stated that was the difference. The Density Bonus Ordinance states one thing but
the Code would allow something else. She agreed with Linda Johnson's idea.
Mr. McCafferty wanted to make sure the developer didn't end up with an expired permit a year from
now.
.Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission agreed to add a condition and staff would generate that
language for them. The condition would be that, if it is determined, that any house on the property
was a historic house on the City of Anaheim's existing list, the applicant would provide 90 days
advance notice, prior to demolishing that structure.
CJ Amstrup stated that he would like to amend the condition. Rather than 90 days prior to demolition,
it should read, notice provided after determination that the house is historic. If they do it right away it
would potentially be a greater amount of time.
Mr. McCafferty wanted this clarified as he did not understand. He wanted to know if it would be 90
days of it being determined historic. He was concerned the applicant would have no control over
when the house would be determined historic.
Chairman Buffa stated that it either would be on the existing list or not. The City was not proposing
that the applicant change the current determination. If the City already determined it was on list of
historic properties then they would immediately give notice to Community Development that it was on
their list and it was available.
Mr. McCafferty asked if staff would provide them with that determination.
Chairman Buffa stated that was correct.
Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve the CEQA
Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
01 /07/08
Page 16 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
.Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00213.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes.
Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05268.
Changes included.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes.
Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17164 with changes
included.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes.
Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve
Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00226 with changes. Motion passed with 5 aye votes.
Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Faessel absent.
OPPOSITION: 3 persons spoke with concerns pertaining to the request.
IN GENERAL: A letter was received in support of the project.
A summary of discussion with people within the 300 foot buffer was also
received.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, January 17, 2008 and the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January
29, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 3 minutes (2:34 to 3:42)
•
01 /07/08
Page 17 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Romero/Agarwal
(PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3840 Romero
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05271)
Owner: Vietnamese District of the Christian
and Missionary Alliance
2275 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
Agent: Hiep Nguyen
22822 Via Santa Rosa
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Location: 2275 and 2283 West Lincoln Avenue: Property
is approximately 1.29-acres, located at the
northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Monterey
Street.
• Request to amend previously-approved Conditional Use Permit
No. 3840 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05271) for an existing
church to permit a parsonage.
* Advertised as a caretaker's unit with waivers of maximum
permitted size of unit and maximum number of bedrooms.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-5
Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report.
Approved
Approved, with added condition
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Chairman Buffa stated for the record that the applicant was in the audience.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to approve CEQA
Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved). Motion passed by 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel
absent.
Commissioner offered a resolution to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3840
with changes read into the record by staff.
.Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
01 /07/08
Page 18 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 29, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:42 to 3:45)
6a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Velasquez/Eastman Approved
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04952 Velasquez Approved, with modified and
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05254) added conditions pertaining
to the hours of operation
Owner: William C. Taormina
128 West Sycamore Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
• Agent: Steve Elkins
128 West Sycamore Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 400, 401, 407, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim
Boulevard and 113 West Adele Street
Vote: 6-0
Parcel 1: Property is located at 401 and 407 North Commissioner Faessel absent
Anaheim Boulevard and is approximately 0.3-acre,
located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard
and Adele Street with approximate frontages of 107
feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 103
feet on the north side of Adele Street.
Parcel 2: Property is located at 400, 408, 416 and
424 North Anaheim Boulevard and is approximately
1.5 acres, located at the northeast corner of Anaheim
Boulevard and Adele Street with approximate
frontages of 361 feet on the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard, 120 feet on the south side of Sycamore
Street, 221 feet on the west side of Claudina Street
and 204 feet on the north side of Adele Street.
•
Parcel 3: Property is located at 113 West Adele
Street and is approximately 0.58-acre, having a
frontage of 140 feet on the north side of Adele Street
01 /07/08
Page 19 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
approximately 155 feet west of the centerline of
Anaheim Boulevard.
Request to reinstate apreviously-approved conditional use permit
for a public dance hall, banquet hall and community and religious
facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic
beverages and an off-site parking lot and to amend previously-
approved plans, to add a cover charge and conditions of approval
to remove the time limitation.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-6
Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report.
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Chairman Buffa stated that the new proposed parking lot was immediately adjacent to the existing
multi-family homes. She was concerned because neighbors and existing facilities in the past
complained about people leaving the facility late at night making noise in the parking lot. She asked if
staff was concerned about the potential noise generated next to those multi-family homes. She
wanted to know if this facility was self parked as opposed to valet parking.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that one way to address this would be to add an
additional condition that would require the first two rows of parking, adjacent to those homes, to be
valet parking. That would control parking, loitering, or people turning their stereos up as they exit.
One of the conditions is the requirement for a valet plan. They could specify a minimum number of
parking stalls adjacent to the resident to be for valet. He would like to confirm with the applicant that
they understood the condition. Then they could work the condition into their business model.
Chairman Buffa agreed that they should get the applicant's point of view. She was concerned with
the noise people might make entering their vehicles by the neighbor's windows at 2:00 a.m. in the
morning.
Commissioner Romero was concerned with people leaving the facility, jay-walking across Anaheim
Boulevard. He wondered if staff considered that as well. He thought this would be addressed by
valet parking, if that was the issue.
Chairman Buffa stated that should be discussed with the applicant. She remembered the original
application was that it was all valet parking. She thought there might be management issues that
needed to be addressed.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
Steve Elkins, Ember Cafe and Music Club, 128 West Sycamore Street, wanted to request re-
instatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-004952. In addition to this re-instatement, the
applicant requested amendments to their CUP. These amendments were listed on their application
for re-instatement. The applicant felt those amendments were in the scope of existing businesses in
their area and were necessary for the success for their business. When they originally applied for this
CUP his plan was to expand their banquet business by providing a larger space for corporate and
private parties. As the redevelopment efforts in the downtown area increase and the City of
01 /07/08
Page 20 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~4naheim's design charrette started to become a reality, it became clear that downtown Anaheim had
and would continue to have pressing general needs, like healthy inexpensive neighborhood
restaurants and classy downtown entertainment destinations. The applicant realized by re-vamping
their original vision they could create a more suitable business which would not only satisfy those
needs but would serve a wider customer base. This would contribute to the quality of life for
downtown Anaheim residents, both, future and present. The last three years they spent countless
hours researching and gathering information from experts in the areas of security, sanitation,
branding, urban planning, entertainment, consumer economics, menu design, and public safety. The
areas of sanitation and safety were their main focus.
For example, they contacted, the City of Fullerton, to see what they could learn about their efforts to
develop their restaurant overlay district. They derived valuable information concerning the growth of
downtown businesses and how that growth affects local residents and city services. Much of what
they learned contributes to what they are calling their neighborhood enhancement strategy. They
traveled to Madison, Wisconsin to attend the neighborhood oriented policing conference, in which, the
Anaheim Police Department presented a nationally recognized case study about night club policing
and security. Combined with the Department of Justice the best practice manuals have served as the
basis for their own security protocol.
In addition to the time and resources they have invested in this project they consistently and
proactively reached out to their neighbors in the Colony and asked them for their input. They
responded to the neighbor's wishes and concerns by making numerous changes to their business
~odel and architecture. They mentioned this not as an idle boast but a public acknowledgement and
declaration that they know their success is reliant on their peaceful co-existence with their neighbors
and customers.
Commissioner Velasquez wanted to know how they planned to manage their live entertainment with
under age kids.
Mr. Elkins replied that their plan was to have security staff at every entrance to the night club event.
For instance, if a family were to the cafe for dinner where there was an event at the night club,
security personal would cover the top and bottom of the two stairwells that lead from the cafe to the
first story. It should not be an issue.
Chairman Buffa asked the applicant how they could encourage people to use the crosswalk and what
would they do regarding noise.
Mr. Elkins stated that they made a change by bringing the parking lot adjacent to the building. In that
way, they would not have issues with people crossing Anaheim Boulevard. Their traffic protocol
would call for all entrances and exits to be on and off of Anaheim Boulevard. The residents on Adele
Street would not have to deal with that issue late at night. In terms of the potential noise that might
happen inside the parking lot, Thursday through Sunday would be all valet parking. They would have
control of all noise and activity. They learned that many situations can happen in parking lots if they
are not monitored.
•In addition to the security cameras and personnel in the parking lot, they would have professional
valets and people walking around the block making sure that nobody engages in disruptive behavior
on residential streets. The Police Department informed the applicant that security could not do police
01 /07/08
Page 21 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~rvork. The applicant could also offer a free parking voucher to encourage the public to park and use
their facility.
Chairman Buffa asked the applicant if they could reserve the two parking rows that would be closest
to the multi-family property. She wanted to know if they would have valet parking on the other nights
of the week.
Mr. Elkins stated that on Sunday through Wednesday there would not be as large a patronage. It
would not be realistic for them to have valet parking 7 to 2 a.m. everyday. The applicant wouldn't
want that because they want to encourage people to come to their cafe and enjoy their food. The
applicant was open to any recommendation. On the nights where they utilize the parking lot, those
cars would be handled by professional valet staff and there would be security personal. Noise
abatement, security, and sanitation of their property and of their neighborhood are of utmost
importance.
Chairman Buffa stated that she felt better knowing the applicant had their own personnel to keep an
eye on the parking lot.
Commissioner Eastman wanted to know if there was another component to the back part of the
parking lot above the residential homes that would include Cypress Trees.
Mr. Elkins stated that they discussed the possibility of planting Spanish Cypress Trees that would
.serve to abate sound and give neighbors something nice to look at. That was a consideration for the
future.
Chairman Buffa stated that their principal parking would be on the east side of the street.
Mr. Elkins replied no. He stated that they would be moving it to the west side of the street.
Chairman Buffa wanted to know how many parking spaces would be provided.
Mr. Elkins stated that it would be 149 spaces.
Chairman Buffa stated that people would park as close to the building as they could. The back
parking area probably won't be full except on the weekends. She felt it should not be an issue.
Commissioner Eastman asked staff if there was a plan for trees within that parking area or would this
be exempt from that.
Kim Wong stated that there are specific landscape requirements for parking lots. Ten parking stalls
or more are required to be separated by a landscape finger. They could add landscape diamonds in
between the parking stalls.
Commissioner Eastman asked if there would be landscaping and lighting the Commission did not
.see.
Kim Wong replied that those were requirements of the Code.
01 /07/08
Page 22 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
commissioner Velasquez asked if they addressed the issue with the lighting being too close to the
houses.
Kim Wong stated anytime a parking lot is adjacent to a residential land use, lights are limited to a
maximum height of 12' tall and they should be down shielded so that there is no spill over lighting
onto the adjacent properties.
Commissioner Eastman stated that all those things would help mitigate issues that the neighbors
might experience.
Mr. Elkins replied yes.
Bill Taormina, property owner, 128 W. Sycamore, wanted to clarify that on the western side of the
new parking lot, adjacent to the multi-family apartments, they were going to plant tall Cypress trees,
to create a visual barrier. Also, along Adele Street, they are going to have a tall fence. That fence
would be behind tall trees that already exist. The driveways would be for valet only. Those
driveways would not be used, except, for emergencies. With regards to the lights, the range is
between 8' to 12' high. They chose 8' high and wanted all of their lights below their 8' fence.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, commented that staff had concerns about potentially having
.sole access off of Anaheim Boulevard. He stated people would have to make left turns into the site
when heading north on Anaheim Boulevard or they might exit needing to go northbound onto
Anaheim Boulevard and would not be able to. The City has a condition requiring a valet plan to be
approved prior to the beginning of operations. Staff recommended that the condition be changed to
require a valet and access plan, approved prior to part of the commencement of operations. It was
not the City's desire to have more traffic on the residential street, Adele Street. Staff was concerned
that the condition might inadvertently wind up looping more traffic all the way around the block, as
people north bound on Anaheim Boulevard make a series of lefts to get into the site.
Commissioner Eastman wanted to disclose that Mr. Taormina showed her around the site. She saw
this parking tot and heard his comments. She thought it would be a good improvement.
Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve
Categorical Exemption Class 1. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
2004-04952 with changes as read into the record by staff.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
01 /07/08
Page 23 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
.OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 29, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (3:46 to 4:11)
•
r~
U
01 /07/08
Page 24 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3959
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05278)
Owner: Fiesta Properties LLC
Fiesta Mexicana
1950 South Sterling Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Agent: Robert Vermeltfoort
Vermeltfoort Architects, I
8525 North Cedar Suite 106
Fresno, CA 93720
Location: 1221 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is
approximately 2.77 acres, having a frontage of 438
feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 381
feet on the east side of Iris Street and located
approximately 264 feet south of Ball Road.
• Request to remodel the exterior facade of a retail center and
reconfigure the parking area with a new waiver of parking
requirements previously approved by Conditional Use Permit No.
3959.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
Continued to
January 23, 2008
Motion: Eastman/Karaki
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Project Planner:
(mashabi@anaheim. net)
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to continue this item to
January 23, 2008.
Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent.
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
01 /07/08
Page 25 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2007-05250
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05272)
Owner: Anaheim Indoor Marketplace
1440 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Agent: Sang C. Han
1440 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Eastman
Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is
approximately 14.74 acres, having approximate
frontages of 725 feet on the north side of Cerritos
Avenue and 490 feet on the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard.
Request to permit a tattoo and body piercing business booth within
the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. The applicant is currently
operating in another booth and is proposing to operate from two
• booths.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-7
Minoo Ashabi, Civic Solutions, presented the staff report.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
Approved
Approved
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Project Planner:
(mashabi@ anaheim. net)
Phillip Schwartze, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San Juan Capistrano 92675, stated that the
Commission approved a tattoo facility for Mr. Han, the applicant. Mr. Han, with the Conditional Use
Permit, moved the tattoo business into the indoor swap meet and bought the other existing facility.
The existing facility was there before the Code was changed to require a Conditional Use Permit. It
has been there for a number of years. The applicant's intention was to obtain a Conditional Use
Permit for that facility.
Chairman Buffa closed the public meeting.
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve Categorical
Exemption Class 1. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
No. 2007-05250.
.Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
Eastman/Karaki
01 /07/08
Page 26 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 29, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:11 to 4:15)
9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
•
Owner: H Koch & Sons Co.
5410 East La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
Agent: Ware Malcomb
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA 92618
Romero
Location: 5410 East La Palma Avenue: Property is located at
5410 East La Palma Avenue and is approximately 4
acres, having a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue and located approximately 305 feet
east of the centerline of Brasher Street.
Request to amend Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-137 to establish
a 1-lot, 11-unit industrial condominium subdivision.
Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No. PC2008-8
.Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
9b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-137
(TRACKING NO. SUBTPM2007-00052)
Romero/Agarwal
Approved
Approved
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Project Planner:
(skoehm@ anaheim. net)
01 /07/08
Page 27 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~hairman Buffa announced that the applicant was present in the audience and available to address
any comments.
Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to approve CEQA
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Previously-Approved). Motion passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve an amendment to Tentative Parcel Map No.
2007-137 to establish a one lot, 11 unit air space attached industrial condominium subdivision.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, January 17, 2008 and the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January
29, 2008.
•
DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:15 to 4:19)
•
01 /07/08
Page 28 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
•10a. PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL Velasquez/Eastman
IMPACT REPORT NO. 323
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 Velasquez
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05276)
Owner: California Drive-In Theatres I
120 North Robertson Boulevard #3
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Agent: Dynamic Builders
2114 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Location: 1500 North Lemon Street: Property is
approximately 27 acres, located at the southeast
corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street.
Request to amend previously approved Conditional Use Permit No.
4171 to permit a car audio installation center in an existing retail
business.
• Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-9
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
Approved
Approved
Vote: 6-0
Commissioner Faessel absent
Project Planner:
(skoehm@ anaheim. n et)
Chairman Buffa announced that the applicant was present in the audience and available to address
any comments.
Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to determine that
the previously approved Environmental Impact Report No. 323 serve as the appropriate EIR
documentation. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent.
Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 4171 to permit a car audio installation center in an existing retail business.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel absent.
.OPPOSITION: None
01 /07/08
Page 29 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~llark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 29, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:19 to 4:21)
11a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND Continued to
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 149 January 23, 2008
11 b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2007-00462
11 c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00210
11d. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2007-00049
11e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2007-05242 WITH
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
11f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00004
11g. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00010
11 h. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2007-163
11 i. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17219
11 j. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF
ITEM NOS. 11c, 11e, 11g, 11h and 11i
Owner: P A Poon & Son Inc.
16841 Marina Bay Drive Motion: Eastman/Agarwal
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Agent: West Millenium Homes
Derek Baak Vote: 6-0
1849 Sawtelle Boulevard #600 Commissioner Faessel absent
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard Ithe vacant Toys R
Us site : Property is approximately 4.8 acres, having a
frontage of 382 feet on the east side of Harbor
Boulevard and located 252 feet south of the centerline
of Wilken Way.
Request to develop a mixed use project consisting of a 105 room
hotel, with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on the
western 1.5-acre portion of the project site adjacent to Harbor
Boulevard, and a 191-unit, 3 to 5 story condominium complex,
including nine live/work units, on the eastern 3.3-acre portion of the
project site. Proposed project actions include the following:
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00462 -Request to amend
• the General Plan to redesignate the eastern 3.3 acres of the
d
l
an
property from the Commercial Recreation to the Mixed Use
use designation; Reclassification No. 2007-00210 -Request for a
reclassification to change the zoning on the eastern 3.3 acres of
01 /07/08
Page 30 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
the property from the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) zone
to the Multiple Family Residential, Mixed Use Overlay (RM-4 (MU)
Overlay) zone; Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00049 -
Request to remove the eastern 3.3 acres of the property from the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and increase the hotel density from
Low Density to Medium Density for the western 1.5 acres of the
property adjacent to Harbor Boulevard and to permit reduced front
and interior setbacks and distance between driveways;
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05242 -Request to permit a
mixed use project with 191 condominium units, to include live/work
units, for the rear 3.3-acre portion of the property, and fora 105-
unit hotel with 14,714 square feet of accessory commercial uses on
the front 1.5 acres of the property adjacent to Harbor Boulevard
with waivers of minimum lot frontage adjacent to a public or private
street; Development Agreement No. 2007-00004 -Request for
approval of a Development Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and West Millenium to construct the proposed mixed use
project; Final Site Plan No. 2007-00010 -Request for approval of
a Final Site Plan for the proposed mixed use project; Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2007-163 -Request to establish a 2-lot
subdivision to separate the commercial and residential land uses;
Tentative Tract Map No. 17219 -Request to establish a 191-unit
• condominium complex; and, CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 149 -Request
for approval of a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 149 for the Toys R Us
mixed use project. The MND and MMP has been prepared to
serve as the primary environmental document for GPA2007-00462,
CUP2007-05242, DAG2007-00004, FSP2007-00010, RCL2007-
00210, SPN2007-00049, SUBTPM2007-163, and SUBTTM17219
and subsequent actions related to implementation of the project.
Implementation is intended to include, but not be limited to, the
approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement
plans, final site plans, and other related actions for the Toys R Us
mixed use project. Future actions related to the project that require
additional discretionary review will utilize this document for CEQA
purposes to the extent possible, consistent with Section 15070 of
the CEQA Guidelines.
General Plan Amendment Resolution No.
Reclassification Resolution No.
Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
Development Agreement Resolution No.
• Final Site Plan Resolution No.
Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No.
Tentative Tract Map Resolution No.
Project Planner:
(dsee@anaheim.net)
01 /07/08
Page 31 of 33
JANUARY 7, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
.Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to continue this item
to January 23, 2008. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel absent.
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
•
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:23 P.M.
TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2008, AT 1:30 P.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
Respectfully submitted:
/~`.
L ~
:~
•
__
Grace Medina,
Planning Commission Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2008.
01 /07/08
Page 32 of 33