Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/11/17• ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRP~RSDN~~JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAI~.~l~~ ~,~51~/~C{~, I~~~L~( $~~~~A, GAIL EASTMAN, ~J~~RY O~CD~I~IE~LL:~bAVID~ROIV~ERO ,~ ~ C I "'~ ka:'I 4P~ ~~..w~.,; '%' S ~~ ,h COMMISSIONERS ABSENT ~ C~~II~,I~~°F~~RE~r~ ~ cu~~pa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~~ , r~~F~ ~ , ~ ~ _ .ha P~ ~~~ ~`:$'a~ ~ .~ nuntic k~. °~ ~ ~' STAFF PRESENT: ~~" ' ~ ~ ~` ~ ~~~~; ~ ~~~ ~' ~~~ Selma Mann, Assistant~~~t'yA~to~r~ejr =~,n~~° David Gottlie~i=,~Re~iPe"veloprner~t~Manager Gre Hastin s, Zonin rviston IVl~ana~qe~~ Alfred Yalda, Pr-r~~i~al T~ar~~~or`~~~tion Planner 9 9 8~~ ~ Greg McCafferty, Prin~i al Pla~~i ~~ `~;~ James Ling, Assoe~a~e~C~v~l~i~i irreer Mark Asturias, Redevelopinen~~IVlanag,er _.Elfy,~orris, Senior Se~i~eta=ry "~~~~ ~¢ ~~~~ ~ 4 Brad Mobson, Comrr~~unity_Dg,velopmen#~D.~rector„„~s~~ Pat ~~iandler;~Sentor S~cr~~ar°~id~~~ s, AGENDA POSTING~ ~A carri~Slete ~opy~of th~e~Planning,Gomm~issron~fig~~ncia vvas~p3ostedN~~ 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, Novembe~'~3;~00~, in~id~~h~,~!lsplay~~cas~e~l~eatec~n'~~~dyer of~t~he~C'ouncil Chambers, and also a~ ~ in the outside display~4~~osk ~ '` ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ Z~ ~ d ~ ~~ ~ ~~~H ~p E ~ ~ ~ 5 S ; ~~: .. ~ ~ `,~ t J~ i ~ s.t ,.~ra t d" ~ ~9 ~ ~~ x ~s ~ ~, e ` . PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bullet~~~,Newsp~~~r orr~Thursdayc`Octob~er~:2~ ~L60~ ~ ~~ ~f~ ~ ~ ~, -~ ~ ~ ,' CALL TO ORDER ~ ~~ `~ ~ „ ,°'~ ~~~,~~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMI~SIO~N'MO~NI~IG S~SSI;ON 1'~~30~~:M. • PRESENTAT~QnN B~'T'HE ~~IV~MUNI~'l~ DE,~/ELOPMENT ~EPARTMENT ON THE DOWNTOWN ~PLANNI~IG Al~'D C~~~~~OPMENT ~~RAT~G~' • REVIEW OF COI~~1~~G~ ~~~II~T'~R~ST ~3Y THE C~TY~TTORNEY'S OFFICE • STAFF UPDATE TO ~'01~11~VIIS~~~IV~~N VP+RlOsI~S~~~~TY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSU~S={ASrREQU'E"STED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE NOVEMBER 17, 2003 AGENDA ~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC~: Commissioner Buffa PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------•------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES~AC111703.DOC planningcommission(a~anaheim.net NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained on Item 1-A and Commissioner Flores was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-B, 1-D and 1-E) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item (1-C) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Planning Commission Appointments were trailed and discussed following Item No. 9. • Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the appointments have been postponed for quite awhile, but they were waiting for the last Commissioner to be appointed, which has occurred. Therefore, he would like to take action on some of the appointments. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWING • ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Bostwick to continue to serve as the representative for the Anaheim Transportation Network Board of Directors. • PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Current Representative: Chairperson Vanderbilt) Appointment was deferred to the February 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM • (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) (Current Alternate: Vacant) Appointment was deferred to the February 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. 11-17-03 Page 2 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • UTILITIES UNDERGROUND CONVERSION SUBCOMMI7TEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Romero) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Bostwick to continue to serve as representative and Commissioner Romero to continue to serve as alternate for the Utilities Underground Conversion Subcommittee. • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Romero) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Buffa to serve as representative and reappoint Commissioner Romero to continue to serve as alternate for the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). • HISTORIC PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Flores) • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Eastman to continue to serve as representative and Commissioner Flores to continue to serve as alternate for the Historic Preservation AD HOC Committee. ~ 11-17-03 Page 3 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved (b) CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT NO. 3545 Determined to be in (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04785) substantial conformance Pamela Marcum, Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests determination of substantial conformance with a previously-approved auto accessory installation (Vote: 5-0, Bostwick and detailing facility to permit a smog check facility within an existing abstained and indoor marketplace. Property is located at 1440 South Anaheim Commissioner Flores Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace), absent) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the smog check facility within a previously- approved automotive installation and detailing facility, based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the proposed use is substantially in compliance • with the previously-approved uses at this location. sr8670av.doc • 11-17-03 Page 4 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 Approved retroactive (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04783) extension of time for 1 CB Nanda, Coorg Corporation, P.O. Box 1266, Anaheim, CA 92815, year (to expire on requests a retroactive time extension and review of final elevation, October 7, 2004) floor, landscape, and sign plans for a previously approved indoor self- Approved Final Plans storage and an outdoor storage yard. Property is located at 711 East La Palma Avenue. (Vote: 6-0; Commissioner Flores absent) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to compiy with conditions of approval, to expire on October 7, 2004, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current zoning and General Plan land use designation for this property. • Further, there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. (ii) That this is the first request for a time extension, and Code permits a maximum of two requests for extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. (iii) That there is no information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approvai of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04573. (iv) That the property has been maintained in a safe and clean condition and there are no unremediated Code violations for this property. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Plan Nos. 1 through 8 for a previously-approved indoor self storage and outdoor storage yard including RV, boat, tractor, trailer, automobile/truck and construction vehicles based on the following: (i) That the proposed final plans comply with the ML Zone and the intent of the original approval of the indoor self-storage and outdoor storage yard including RV, boat, tractor trailer, automobile/truck and construction vehicles. • (ii) That the proposed final plans comply with the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04573. 11-17-03 Page 5 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (iii} That the final plans propose site and floor plans that comply with Code and elevations that are compatible with the surrounding sr8669av.doc industrial buildings. ~ • 11-17-03 Page 6 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL lMPACT REPORT NO. 189 (KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER) (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2003-00008 Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests final site, floor, elevation, roof equipment, parking and pedestrian and vehicle circulation plan review for a planned mixed use development within the Downtown Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Property is located at the northwest corner of Lemon Street and Broadway (Parcel B). This item was pulled for separate discussion. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved Final Site Plans (Vote: 5-1; Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Flores absent) sr2141 ds.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request for review and approval of final plans for Parcel B of the CIM California Urban Real Estate Fund, LP (CIM) Group mixed-use project in downtown Anaheim, staff is recommending approval of the final plans. Commissioner Bostwick stated he had indicated in the morning session that he does have a problem with the parking. ~ Brad Hobson, Deputy Director of Community Development, did recail the comment regarding parking by Commissioner Bostwick and stated forjust over a year they have been working with the CIM Group to master plan and design a mixed-use project with structured parking that would fit into the urban oriented area of the City. It has been the Agency and community's goal to treat it as the heart of the community a it is in the middle of the historic colony district. The subject design is the first of several building designs that reflects an historic character in the community, twenties and thirties Anaheim architecture and those have been developed in conjunction with the community as specific task force for the subject project, tha has two members from all of the different community groups interested in representing downtown organizations. They are recommending approvai of the final plan review and the CEQA action that indicates the scope of the overall development have been previously covered in a previous environmenta work. They took a specific look at sewer, traffic and parking associated with the project. It is generally residential and currently they are entitled for about 1.3 million square feet of office space and are replacing that with about 500 residential units and about 60,000 square feet of retail. They have found that the impacts regarding sewer, traffic and parking are less than what is currently entitled, based on a shared-use analysis prepared by Parsons Transportation Group. It requires one reserved parking space for each residential unit, the rest is on a shared use basis; with the exception of Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. It is a for-sale loft product and all of the parking will be owned by the association at that particular location. For marketing purposes they are providing two exclusive reserve spaces per unit at Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard "Block D". Ms. Anderson, CIM, stated she could speak only to CIM's previous experience in similar cities about the density and size of project. They have provided the same ratio with the understanding that at night there is a vacancy of the spaces that become more available for people when they are at home at night. The accessibility to the spaces is greater in this project than some of their other previous projects. They conducted a market study which anticipated one per unit and looked at comparables in the Orange County area. s t I • Commissioner Bostwick asked where the other projects were. 11-17-03 Page 7 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. Anderson responded Brea is probably a good example and has been the most recent. The parking was not below the structure it was across the street behind other buildings, very similar in scale, concept, and density. Commissioner Romero referred to the downtown Brea facility and asked how the retail parking operates and the ratios. Ms. Anderson stated she is unaware as she was not the project manager for the project and if more detail is needed she can retrieve the information. Commissioner Bostwick stated he has a problem with the parking, and feels there should be two parking spaces per apartment. At a minimum one space for every studio/ one bedroom; and two spaces for every two bedroom because for two bedrooms there is potential of four people. He asked Mr. Hobson if the approval today is going to cover all of the parking for the entire project area or if they are only talking about one building. If they were talking about the entire project area he wouldn't support today's request, as he is concerned that the proposed parking would not work. Mr. Hobson responded the request is to establish the development envelope for CIM in the downtown, it is a maximum development envelope and is approving the parking that goes along with that anticipated scope of development. They are not certain yet if it would be exactly that, but to the extent iYs within the envelope, they would be moving forward. He explained if there were additional units built at a later phase they would have to come back to re-evaluate the parking, traffic, sewer and CEQA. As far as parking goes, they have looked at it in a worse case scenerio; during peak period on a Thursday with the Farmer's Market, and they could accommodate all of the parking on a shared use basis. As a potential solution, they have a very iarge supply of additional parking spaces, which is the utilization of the Center Street parking structure on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard; they have analyzed that but did not include it before the Commission. • As the project is developed there is also going to be a whole project management program that is also developed which will apply during construction and after the project is completed. He understands parking makes or breaks a project and it is a critical decision to make as you don't want to build too much and be caughf shorf. Since they based it on the worse case scenerio, and the product would be on line they would be able to test how the parking is working, he feels they would have ample opportunity to make any adjustments as they go forward. He stated people renting the apartments would have a reserved parking space and would receive parking passes, which could be used by additional people living in the unit to park in any facility in the downtown area. Commissioner O'Connell asked for clarification on the passes the residents receive. Mr. Hobson responded there is a pass, hang tag and a swipe card and those would be issued to residents in all of the developments in the downtown area. Each apartment would have access to a reserved space, and would receive passes allowing the residents to park anywhere in the downtown "pool" (City Hall west structure, Pac Bell parking structure, and the new parking that is to be constructed with the subject project) and that would be included in their rent. Commissioner O'Connell stated it seems to be a great project. Commissioner Buffa stated she doesn't share the concern about shared parking and feels in an urban environment, one space per unit is the appropriate amount of assigned residential reserved parking. Shared uses for parking have a long viable track record and have been demonstrated to work, especially • when the analysis shows one of the uses is the Farmer's Market which is only there for a few hours a week. She feels the downtown provides an adequate supply of parking and it would support the subject project, particularly, since a parking management system would be implemented. 11-17-03 Page 8 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero asked for clarification if they are taking action on the parking plan for the entire project, but as the phases go on the parking would come back to Commission. Mr. Hobson responded no, they would be entitling the entire CIM project as it's currently envisioned; to the extent it becomes feasible to have more units, then they would bring back an additional parking study. He explained "Block C1" has not been totally scoped out yet, therefore there is some flexibility. They may come back if they happen to decide to build more or less, or if they are going to build parking and retail only;.but they are unsure what is going to occur with "Block C1". Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he shares the concern with regard to the number of parking spaces, however, he feels it is the nature of urban living and it may increase pedestrian use; therefore he supports the project. Commissioner Eastman stated she is excited about the proposed deve~opments in the downtown area, since the goal of the project is to make it more of an urban feel, and she feels they are going in the right direction; therefore she supports the project. FOLLUWING 15 A SUMMARY ~F THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 189 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning • Commission does hereby approve Final Plan No. 2003-00008 (as shown on Finai Plan Nos. 1 through 17 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Plans are in conformance with the DMU Overlay Design Guidelines based on the following: That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the DMU Overlay Zone performance standards and Design Guidelines (Ordinance No. 5871 and Resolution No. 2003-173) and for compatibility with surrounding uses in the Downtown area. The submitted plans are consistent with the intent of the Guidelines so as to (i) encourage superior design mixed-use development projects that combine residential with non-residential uses as a means to continue downtown revitalization, (ii) encourage a full array of diverse land use types and structures, to ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located, and (iii) ensure consistency with and implement the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Alpha Downtown Redevelopment Project Area and related plans for Downtown Anaheim. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (1:41-2:02) ~ 11-17-03 Page 9 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u D. (a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2003-00031 - REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: Patricia McCaughey, Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92628, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of commercial space for the operation of the Orange County Department of Education Alternative, Community and Correctional Education Schools and Services (ACCESS) Program. Property is located at 1895 West Kateila Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Orange County Deparfinent of Education's proposal to lease commercial property located at 1895 West Katella Avenue for the operation of the ACCESS Program as described, is in conformance with the Anaheim Generai Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. • (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by December 14, 2003, as the application was submitted on November 4, 2003 for the subject request.) • Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. (Vote: 6-0; Commissioner Flores absent) sr1149tw.doc 11-17-03 Page 10 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of November 3, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fiores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 2003. ~ ~ Approved (Vote: 6-0; Commissioner Flores absent) 11-17-03 Page 11 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04693 OWNER: Hunter's Pointe HOA, 2 Corporate Park, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92606 AGENT: Maree Hoeger, Global Telecom Resources, 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 6920 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is approximately 3.1 acres, having a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, located 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard (AT&T Wireless). To permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of minimum front yard setback.* *The waiver has been deleted. Continued from the September 22, October 6 and October 20, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. • . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-152 Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Denied Granted sr8643vna.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to approve a telecommunications facility at 6920 E. Canyon Rim Road for AT&T Wireless. Staff is recommending approval of the subject request based on the conditions as stated in the staff report; and is recommending denia( of the waiver since it was deleted. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the applicant or representative is present; there was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum front yard setback since the waiver is not necessary to construct this proposed facility. 11-17-03 Page 12 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04693 (to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower with accessory ground-mounted equipment) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 17, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:04-2:06) • • 11-17-03 Page 13 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 (READVERTISED) Withdrawn 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04574 OWNER: Neelam Shewa, 5333 University Drive, Irvine, CA 92616 AGENT: Blash Momeny, 23120 Alicia Parkway, #100, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 LOCATION: 301 and 345 Pennv Lane. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 70 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of 220 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 160 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Request waivers of: (a) required improvement of right-of-way, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front yard setback, and (d) minimum side yard setback, to construct two single-family homes. Continued from the September 8, October 6, October 20 and November 3, 2003 Planning Commission Meetings. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. sr5064jr.doc • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04574. VOTE: 6-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. u 11-17-03 Page 14 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04739 Granted OWNER: County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources, Vicki Wilson, Director, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702 AGENTS: Phil Schwartze, PRS Group, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Tiger Woods Foundation, Greg McLaughlin, CEO, 4281 Katella Avenue #111, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 LOCATION: 520 North Gilbert Street & 2045 West Crescent Avenue. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 83.28 acres, located at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenue (Gilbert Settling Basin). Parcel 2: Property is approximately 10.85 acres, having a frontage of 1300 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue, located 510 feet east of the centerline of Valley Street (Crescent Settling Basin). Request to establish a private educational facility including an auditorium and accessory golfing facilities with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-153 sr5058jr.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to establish a private educational facility including an auditorium and accessory golfing facilities and waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces for the Gilbert Settling Basin and the Crescent Settling Basin, which is known as the Tiger Woods Learning Center. This morning's work session staff passed around to the Commission revisions to the conditions of approval and it has been discussed with the applicant; the applicant has concurred with the changes to the conditions. He stated following the morning session there were additional changes to the conditions of approval, which he read into the record, modifying Condition Nos. 1, 21 and 55, also deleting Condition No. 42 and adding two new conditions of approval. Commissioner Buffa asked for clarification regarding Condition No. 21; if it is being modified to strike out the reference to public utilities. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Commissioner Buffa asked if a new condition is being added with similar language. She pointed out in the condition before them there is a distinction between the applicant being required to make a dedication of county property to the City and the language was modified to say "the petitioner would use their best efforts to get the County to dedicate". Therefore, she asked if that same language would be included in the added condition of approval pertaining to the public utilities. , Mr. McCafferty responded that was intentionally left out because the Public Utilities Department needs that easement in order to serve the project. 11-17-03 Page 15 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Phil Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano. Stated he is the agent for Tiger Woods and would be presenting a brief presentation; Greg McLaughlin, Tiger Wood's Foundation would be speaking. Greg McLaughlin, 4281 Katella Avenue #111, Los Alamitos. Stated he is the Executive Director of the Tiger Wood's Foundation and expressed it is a great day for the City of Anaheim, its residents, and certainly the children in the community and throughout Orange County. He presented the presentation and stated they began the process about 2 years ago, as they met with the City Manager and City Council. Their project is a 35,000 square foot youth education facility that combines a"tri-part~' relationship between the City of Anaheim, County of Orange and the Tiger Wood's Foundation. The facility would be located at Dad Miller Golf Course, corner of Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street. He pointed out certain areas/parcels on the PowerPoint Presentation and stated the Tiger Wood's Learning Center will encompass the entire 13-acre parcel. The entire parcel includes a 10-acre piece, which includes the Crescent Basin. He pointed to a certain area and stated the County of Orange owned property was also optional to them for the outgrowth of a 7-hole par 3 course that would work in concert with their existing 13-acre parcel currently at the Gilbert Basin. It has been their goal to develop both parcels. He explained the phases of the project being Phase 1, relocating the public driving range; Phase 2, building the Tiger Wood's Learning Center; Phase 3, being the par 3 golf course. He spoke regarding the relocation of the driving range, the pond/water supply for both the Dad Mill Goif Course and the Tiger Wood's Learning Center Driving Range; and also building new greens and tees. • He further explained that they have cooperated with the City's requests regarding the driving range modifications, which includes the fencing, construction, mounding, etc. He stated present today are their architects, project manager, and the superintendent of the Anaheim City School District, available to answer any questions. Commissioner O'Connell asked what is the timeline for the project. Mr. McLaughlin explained their "rough" timeline was to began the golf course construction project about January 1, 2004 where they would move and re-establish the new public driving range within Dad Miller Golf Course, there is a 9 month grow-in process, therefore, the existing range would remain open. There would be a cut over about September 1, 2004 where they would begin the process of building the Tiger Wood's Learning Center and redoing the existing driving range which would go on for about 9-10 months. Their plan was a"sofY' opening about May 2005, where they would bring the kids in on a pilot program and hopefully have the formal public dedication about September 2005. Commissioner O'Conneli stated he believes iYs going to be an exceptional project and it is great to have Tiger Woods associated with the City of Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioner O'Connell and stated it is a great day for the City of Anaheim. He feels the children and the school system would benefit by the subject project and is thankful that Tiger Woods decided to put the project in Anaheim. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he is also excited about the project. • 11-17-03 Page 16 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 121. Approved Waivers of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04739 (to establish a private educational facility including an auditorium and accessory golfing facilities) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 17, 2003, with the following modifications: Qeleted Condition No. 42. Added the following conditions: That the petitioner shall acquire from the County of Orange an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement along and across the primary cable underground and around the pad-mounted transformer. That the Tiger Woods Learning Center staff shall be present when students are being loaded and/or unloaded at the bus turnout area proposed on the east side of Gilbert • Street adjacent to the Learning Center. The applicant shall provide an updated parking study within one (1) year from the commencement of the activity to determine the parking demand, including busing for the Tiger Woods Learning Center and the impact to the surrounding area. Modified Condition Nos. 1, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 55 as read in the morning hearing. 1. That a maximum of 300 students is allowed within the facility at any one time, or such other number of students as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and confirmed by an updated parking study. 19. That the petitioner shall use best efforts to assist the City in working with the County of Orange to acquire an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement for a five (5) foot wide sidewalk and five (5) foot wide parkway along Crescent Avenue at Gilbert Street. Said easement is triangular in shape (approx. 140 feet long x 5 feet wide) beginning at the intersection curb return and terminating at the fence line located 10 feet behind the existing curb. 21. That the County of Orange shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement for road, '' s and other public purposes for the proposed bus bay, parkway, sidewalk, and along Gilbert Street. 23. That prior to construction of improvements for the 6-hole par three course at the • Crescent Settling Basin, the petitioner shall prepare street improvement plans to construct curb and gutter along the full length of the projecYs frontage along Crescent Avenue. Street improvement plans for the proposed improvements including the transition to existing conditions shall be submitted for review and approval by the 11-17-03 Page 17 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Works Department, Development Services and Traffic Engineering Divisions. Any decision regarding street improvement plans may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspection. 55. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. ~--~~ 1 through 9, and as conditioned herein. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Flores absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:09-2:23) • • 11-17-03 Page 18 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04791 OWNER: Leedy Ying, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602- 1019 AGENT: Richerd Seleine, GPA Inc. Architects, 1240 North Jefferson Street, Suite J, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1126 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 3.4 acres, consisting of five properties located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. Request to establish a commercial retail center with the addition of a third retail tenant space to an existing commercial building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-154 • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Approved, with modifications (Vote: 5-1; Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Flores absent) sr5062jr.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to establish a commercial retail center with the addition of a third retail tenant space for property located at 1126 South Anaheim Boulevard, staff is recommending approval of the request as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Richard Seleine, 1240 N. Jefferson Street, Suite J, Anaheim. Stated he is the architect and agent for the owner and asked for cfarification on Condition No. 2 regarding landscaping and Condition Nos. 10 and 12 regarding grading requirements. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. McCafferty clarified Condition No. 2, regarding final landscape plan. When they visited the site, they observed areas where the existing landscaping was deficient and staff is requiring that it be refurbished with additional trees along the frontages and within the existing planters area within the project site. To the extent they are adding additional parking, then the additional requirement with regard to one landscape planter separating every ten parking spaces would be applicabie, if they are not adding any additional parking then it would not apply. It is basically just refurbishment and adding additional trees. 7here was discussion in the morning session regarding access from Ball Road where the proposed addition to the building is going to be located and there is a very thin landscape strip, which would be difficuit to landscape. Therefore discussion was made to perhaps expand it, which would impact the access easement. They could reduce the width of the building to accommodate a larger planter adjacent to the building. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer. Referred to the questions by the applicant regarding Condition No. 10. He stated the water quality management plan is not required, but the applicant is required to ensure the site he maintains would not be an impact to the storm water system. The property owner ensures the ~ trash on site is collected and maintained. He clarified the applicant doesn't have to prepare anything but iYs something that may be inspected in the future. 11-17-03 Page 19 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Seleine asked if they have to pay the $22,000. Mr. Ling referred to Condition No. 12 and pointed out the verbiage at the end of the condition states "If the impervious area remains the same or decreases, no fee is due." But, some parts of the project may have planters or landscape areas that might be turned into an "impervious area" and increasing the drainage is proportional to the fee. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if that addresses his questions. Mr. Seleine responded yes, but is not sure if Condition No. 2 was completely answered because they are not adding any more parking spaces. He agrees with the refurbishment of landscaping on site, but feels the staff report reads incorrectly as it states "along Clifton Avenue" which is not on their site. Chairperson Vanderbilt suggested tabling that issue for the moment, since there were additional questions raised by the Commission at the morning session, which could now be addressed. Commissioner Bostwick stated he has a problem with the location of the proposed building because Shoe City tends to have "sidewalk sales" during the weekend, and there would not be sufficient parking. Also, the lot across the driveway is going to be developed by the existing motorcycle business and people sometimes park in the dirt area would no longer be able to park there. He suggested the location of the building be on the north side of Shoe City facing Anaheim Boulevard with parking in the rear in order to add more parking for Shoe City and the new building would be facing a major street with plenty of parking. Mr. Seleine responded the overall site has more than ample parking. Commissioner Bostwick stated on a normal weekday, but when they take up the parking lot with their • sales then there isn't enough. Mr. Seleine responded he isn't aware of their sales. Commissioner Bostwick indicated he feels the applicant would be building something that is going to create problems, and asked if he looked at any other orientations for the building. Mr. Seieine stated the site was designed to have the proposed building added and the owner wants the building facing the same direction as Shoe City. Commissioner Buffa asked if the property owner is aware of the tenant who would occupy the space. Mr. Seleine responded no. Commissioner Buffa stated there is a very narrow planter bed at the end of the building closest to the driveway that comes off Ball Road, and there needs to be landscaping at that end of the building as it needs to be screened. If a building is there, there needs to be adequate planting space in order for the landscaping to survive and doesn't feel the narrow planter would accomplish that. She asked if the planter bed could be widened. Mr. Seleine responded it could be widened, but their intent was to put wall trellis and vines running up the wall. Mr. McCafferty stated he just talked to the Traffic Engineer who stated the minimum drive aisle width for that location would be 24 feet in order to allow room. If the only purpose is to make sure there is no graffiti, staff does agree it needs to be wider. Perhaps a minimum of an interior dimension of 24 feet, absent the footing, exciusive of that if they have 24 inches of planting area, there should be enough there ~ to irrigate and plant the vines and the trell+s. Mr. Seleine was in agreement. 11-17-03 Page 20 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Buffa informed she shares the concern if the current tenant Shoe City is using the available parking in front of the site for parking lot sales on a regular basis, it may create problems around the site. She asked if there is a way to address those concerns through better signage on parking and the pedestrian connection in order to help find parking and get from the parking to the front door. Commissioner Bostwick suggested the plans be taken back to the owner of the property in order for the building to be re-evaluated. Mr. Seleine stated speaking on behalf of his client and himself, they have discussed that and they believe the proposed site would be best. Further discussion continued between Commissioner Bostwick and applicant regarding the parking and the orientation of the building. Commissioner O'Connell stated he feels the property owner has put a lot of thought into the proposed request and in having the new retail center face Ball Road rather than Anaheim Boulevard. He doesn't see how it would change the parking situation if the addition was put in the back side. He feels some credit should be given to the property owner in the sense of putting the subject project together. He referred to Shoe City's "sidewalk sales" on the weekend and stated it might be a code enforcement issue that needs to be addressed. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated when he noticed the "sidewalk sales" it was on the site facing the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. Commissioner O'Conneil stated at the last Planning Commission meeting they had Hahm Motor Sports • before them and they are redoing their building right next to the proposed building. He feels the synergies of having the three buildings facing Ball Road would be much better and would be an advantage for the person leasing the retail space if it were to remain as proposed. If he was looking to lease space there, he would rather lease the two businesses along Ball Road rather than being on the backside. Commissioner Romero stated he feels the "sidewalk sales" issue and the use of the parking space needs to be looked at. Commissioner Eastman stated she shares the concerns about the parking issues, but feels the building owner has looked carefully at what he wants to do. If the owner feels he would more likely rent/lease it based on the proposed orientation, then they should have some faith in that. The signage issue should be addressed in order for people to know that parking is available in the back. Commissioner Bostwick reiterated some concerns, and also stated he doesn't believe it is a factor that the owners thought out; but believes the owner doesn't want to rip up the concrete/asphalt and redo it all, therefore he is proposing the subject location where there is a"blank" piece of ground. He would be voting against the subject request as he feels the proposed building would not be economically viable. Mr. Seleine explained his disagreement with Commissioner Bostwick; if the owner felt it was a better location he would have put it there. Commissioner Buffa stated if Commission supports the project, she feels it should be a goal to better direct people to find parking which is located behind the building and to provide pedestrian access way. She suggested an additional condition stating "that the owner wouid fook at signage and a pedestrian connection from the back lot to get around to the front door of the store". ~ Commissioner Buffa returned back to the applicant's concern regarding Condition No. 2, and she asked for clarification pertaining to landscaping on Clifton Avenue. 11-17-03 Page 21 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated for Condition No. 2, they would stipulate "that the petitioner shall submit a finai landscape plan for the property under control of the property owner". ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Flores absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction or conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Flores absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04791 (to establish a commercial retail center with the addition of a third retail tenant space to an existing commercial building), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 17, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 2 as follows: 2. That the petitioner shall submit a final landscape plan to the Zoning Division for ~ review and approval. Said pian shall include the planting of additional evergreen trees within the existing landscaped areas along Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard and within interior parking areas, and provide sufficient planter area for the trellis structures proposed for the west building wall of the new tenant space in compliance with Code. Said plan shall also demonstrate that interior parking lot landscaping and perimeter landscaping along Clifton Avenue be refurbished (replacement of dead trees, pruning and weeding) a~-vvell~ And how pedestrian will circulate from the rear (north) of the retail building to the store entrances facing Ball Road. The plan shall include details such as sidewalk locations and directional signage. Any decision by the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendation" item. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no; Commissioner Flores absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (2:24-2:56) • 11-17-03 Page 22 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04333 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04790) OWNER: Larry and Carol Henry, 7692 Haldor Place, Buena Park, CA 90620 AGENT: Dean Garcia, 1303 West Becon Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 309 North Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 0.25-acre, having a frontage of 120 feet on the south side of Manchester Avenue, located 210 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street (Agape House of Prayer). Request to reinstate this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 6, 2002 to expire October 24, 2003) to retain a church. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-155 Approved Approved reinstatement without a further time limitation sr1132cw.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request for reinstatement of an existing church located at 309 N. Manchester Avenue, the Agape House of Prayer, and staff is recommending approval of the reinstatement without a time limit. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Dean Garcia, 1303 West Becon Avenue, Anaheim. Stated he is the representative of the church. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Garcia responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had any questions or concerns. Mr. Garcia responded he is present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated she would like to commend the applicant on the positive impact that they've had in the area, and she expressed her support. Commissioner Bostwick asked the Redevelopment Agency what the timeline is for the subject area. David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Manager. He referred to the area of Manchester Avenue and Loara Street and stated the agency owns or controls along with Mr. Woody Okiejas of Anaheim Chevrolet all the • properties to the east of Loara Street, between the freeway ramp and Loara Street. They own the property on the southwest corner of the site and have another under contract with CalTrans and the third one from CalTrans the documentation is now being prepared. With regard to the redevelopment project 11-17-03 Page 23 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • with Mr. Oklejas to redevelop that site with the site for Anaheim Chevrolet they are moving forward with the preparation of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Mr. Oklejas, as the agency would have a deal pending with him and would be before City Council either late December or early January. Commissioner Bostwick clarified that is for all the properties east of Loara Street. Mr. Gottlieb responded yes. Commissioner Bostwick asked are there any plans for the subject property to the west. Mr. Gottlieb stated they have had some conversations with the property owners and based upon their comments they are not going to pursue, at this point in time, any acquisitions of those parcels. However, based upon the land use plans that have been developed for the entire Lincoln and Euclid Avenue area, the area along Manchester, west of Loara Street was identified for automobile uses and the plan has been pending for about 5-6 years. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Flores absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. ~ Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04333 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04790) without further time limitation, to retain a church based on the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 17, 2003. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2002-66 into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: That three-foot high address numbers shall be maintained and displayed on the roof in contrasting colors to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from view of the street or adjacent properties. 2. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with plans previously reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager pertaining to Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 relative to parking standards and driveway locations. 3. That the existing structures shall comply with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 4. That there shall be no accessory day care facilities or private schools permitted on this property. 5. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. • 11-17-03 Page 24 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on Exhibit No. 4, as submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 7. That the petitioner shall maintain a minimum of three (3) potted plants as reviewed and approved by the Planning pepartment, to be located in the front of the building. 8. That the trash barrels shall be stored out of public view. 9. That guard (crash) posts shall be maintained around the existing fire hydrant located in the parking lot. 10. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and as conditioned herein. 11. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (office hours) Tuesday and Wednesday 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. (Bible study) Thursday and Friday 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Choir practice and Outreach) Saturday and Sunday 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. (Church services and miscellaneous office activities) 12. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request • only to the extent that it compiies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Flores absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:57-3:04) • 11-17-03 Page 25 NOVEMSER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00112 Granted 7c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS Granted AGENT: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1101, 1107, 1111, 1115, 1119, 1123, 1127, 1131, 1133, 1139, 1143, and 1145 West Broadwav, 1100, 1104, 1110, 1114, 1118. 1122, 1124, 1126, 1130, 1204, 1207, 1209, 1210, 1215, 1218, 1224, 1227, and 1229 West Center Street 114 118 120 122 128 200 206 and 210 South Cherrv Street, 1114, 1115. 1116, 1119, 1120, 1123, 1124, 1127, 1128, 1132, and 1133 West Chestnut Street, 1200, 1204 and 1226 West Lincoln Avenue, 110, 115, 116, 120, 121 122 125 126 131 200 201 205 206 210 213 214 217, 223 and 225 South Walnut Street, 115, 123, 125, 203, 211, and 215 South West Street. The 74 properties are contiguous to and located immediately west of the Anaheim Colony Historic District, in the "5 Points Neighborhood" encompassing approximately 12.5 acres, bounded by Lincoln Avenue to the north, West Street to the east, Broadway to the south and the I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) to the west. • City-initiated (Planning Department and Community Development Department) request on behalf of the Anaheim Colony Neighborhood Council (see Attachment No. 1) for reclassification of the properties in the "5 Points Neighborhood" as follows: Area 1 as shown on the attached Vicinity Map and further described as the properties located approximately 535 feet west of the centerline of West Street and east of the I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway), between Center Street and Lincoln Avenue from the CG (Commercial, General) zone to the RS-5000 (Residential, Singie-Famiiy) zone or a less intense single-family residential zone; and RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-156 Area 2 as shown on the attached Vicinity Map, located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Walnut Street, containing four (4) parcels of land (3 vacant parcels and 1 parcel developed with apartments, 213 South Walnut Street) from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to the RS-5000 (Residential Single-Family) zone or a less intense single-family residential • zone; and RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-157 11-17-03 Page 26 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Area 3 as shown on the attached Vicinity Map containing the remainder of the subject properties from the CG (Commercial, General), PD-C (Parking District - Commercial), and the RM- 1200 and RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zones to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family} zone or less intense single- family residential zones. RECLASSlFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-158 Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. sr8667cf,doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a city-initiated request for the reclassification of severai properties located west of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. The area is known as the "5 Points IVeighborhood" and it was initiated by the residents within the subject area to rezone the properties consistent with existing single-family residential land uses in the area, Staff is recommending approval of the reclassifications subject to the listed recommendations on page 7 of the staff report, including the preparation of directing the City Attorney's Office to prepare a draft ordinance with regard to the "grandfathering" provisions for properties within the "5 Points Neighborhood". Public Testimony: Myrna Beach, 203 S. West Street, Anaheim. Stated she has lived at her residence on West Street for 50 years. She has watched the neighborhood change from quiet single-family residences to an overcrowded neighborhood with insufficient parking. The change was due to some of the older historic houses that were torn down and apartments were built. She expressed her support of the subject request in order to not allow any more apartments and overcrowding in the area. • John C. Zahn stated he owns the property at 1127 W. Broadway, Anaheim, and expressed his opposition to the subject request. When he purchased the property a few years ago he went to the City to find out the zoning. He explained that property owners who are complaining about apartments in the area should have gone to the City to find out the zoning. He bought the property for an investment, and Commission would be affecting his investment by approving the subject request. Across the street on Broadway everything is apartments; and there are three new apartments adjacent to him and on~y a few of the older buildings are left. He feels the neighborhood already went too far to now reverse the procedure and he asked the Commission to disapprove the request. Commissioner Vanderbilt informed him there is a"grandfathering" provision which essentially protects certain structures that have already been past the permit process or constructed. There isn't a "wholesale" change necessary for all the properties in question. There are some aspects that are allowed to continue because they were developed under the conditions that have existed previously. Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Zahn if the property he is speaking of is apartments or a single-family home. Mr. Zahn responded it is a single-family home. Commissioner Eastman asked if he currently lives there. Mr. Zahn responded no. Commissioner Eastman verified if it is an investment property for the applicant. • Mr. Zahn agreed, and spoke expressing his concerns regarding residents who purchased properties in the area and are now supporting the reclassification for the subject properties. He stated when you purchase a property for investment reasons as he has with his property on Broadway Street, and the City comes and changes things he feels they are taking away a!I your rights. He doesn't want to be penalized 11-17-03 Page 27 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • when someone else just purchased a property and wishes to protect what he or she considers a way of life. Max Wills stated he owns the property located at 1204 W. Center Street, Anaheim, and expressed his opposition to the subject request. He feels it is kind of late to try to turn it into a regular residential property because there are too many apartments and asked why is the City trying to rezone at this time. It would also decrease his investment. Bill Taormina, 128 W. Sycamore, Anaheim. Stated it is interesting to listen to comments about people who are trying to extract as much income as they can out of properties and continue to destroy what is left of our Anaheim neighborhoods. He is very familiar with properties in the subject area and is grateful so many Hispanic people do live there. !t is wonderful that they are going to try to preserve what is left of one of Anaheim's finest neighborhoods, the "5 Points Neighborhood". His interest is Area 1, where he intends to restore the large commercial building that is currently sitting up on blocks at West Street and Lincoln Avenue. He then intends to restore from five to seven historic homes along the rest of the properties to the west. He stated they do not have many nice, older single-family home areas left in the downtown area, therefore, Commission would be deciding to save what is left and to preserve and improve the quality of life. He continued to express his concerns regarding landlords who have over built illegal units in their homes and he asked Commission to approve the request. Joyce Morris stated she lives at 1100 W. Center and has fived there for 20 years, and explained she is willing to give up her commercial zoning for the sake of the neighborhood, even though it might have greater value if she would sell it to someone who wanted to put a business there. The area is a relatively pristine area of their historic homes. The block she lives on at West Street and Lincoln Avenue up to Walnut Street, all those houses were built in the 1920s and many have their original "footprints". She continued to speak addressing concerns of single-family homes and bungalows being replaced with two- story apartments that are over looking the single-family homes and creating parking problems. She urged • Commission to support the downzoning of the area. Barbara Gonzalez stated she lives at 330 S. Ohio Street, her family owns 1124 and 1126 W. Center Street. In the last year there have been a number of activities, which occurred in the area (liquor store, continual truck traffic and vagrance is gone, landscaping along the cul-de-sac installed) and it has been a "breath of fresh air" in a neighborhood that was very troubled and is on the return of being a pleasant neighborhood to live in. She appreciates the support of the Planning Commission and City Council and is asking for Commission's support today because she doesn't feel they lost the neighborhood. She stated residents and property owners have been meeting and there is overwhelming support for the change in zoning. There are petitions that show many people who are in support, but because the time of day of the meeting, they could not be present today. She urged Commission to support the downzoning of the area. Stuart Pompel stated he lives at 1124 W. Chestnut Street, Anaheim, the bungalows were built in 1922, and they moved in there April of 2001. They spent a year looking for a home and saw approximately 50 homes. The reason they chose the home on Chestnut is because it is in a neighborhood with a history, as well as a number of young families who are moving into the neighborhood and restoring their homes. He doesn't feel it is too late for the neighborhood as he believes the majority of the homes, 42 out of 66 lots, are still historic single-family or duplexes. He thanked staff for initiating the request and feels it would be a great opportunity for the future of the neighborhood. Mr. Zahn stated he wouid like his property to remain as currently zoned, and would like his property to fall under the "grandfathering" clause, and reiterated there are apartments on both sides of his property. Mr. Wills concurred with Mr. Zahn and stated he would like his property to remain as currently zoned. Henry Sanchez stated he lives at 1120 W. Chestnut Street, Anaheim, and is asking as a 50 year resident • of the area, to keep the historical values. They have a lot to give to the new generations that are coming forth and sharing some of their wonderful times they've had in the neighborhood and hoping for the continuance of these good times, if it is downzoned to the beautiful neighborhood that he has personally experienced. He stated he is in support of the request. 11-17-03 Page 28 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa asked if the downzoning is approved and someone wants to build multi-family housing on a lot, what would be the process. Mr. McCafferty stated it depends on how the Planning Commission directs the City Attorney's Office to draft the legal non-conforming or "grandfathering" regufations. It was discussed at today's morning session about placing today's date as the date to "grandfather" properties that were issued a building permit or in the process of plan check; or such other timing that Commission feels appropriate given today's public testimony. Commissioner Buffa asked what if someone comes in a year from now with a new application and indicates they are zoned RS-7200, single-family, but wants to put two units. Mr. McCafferty responded they could have the primary single-family residence located on site, and would also be aliowed a second unit, according to the new State law recently passed in July. Commissioner Buffa asked if they could apply for a variance to ask for an apartment building. Mr. McCafferty responded that would be illegal, it would be a use variance. Commissioner O'Connell asked pertaining to the lots discussed today, what are the lot sizes. Mr. McCafferty referred to the location map and stated it gives a good idea of what the lot configurations are and the number of units that are presently on the properties. He further addressed Commissioner Buffa's question and added a property owner could come in and ask to rezone back to a multi-family • zoning, but under State law, that would be "spoY' zoning, which would be problematic for the Commission. Commissioner Romero stated he is in favor of the reclassification, and he feels in order to affect positive change they need to make "bold" changes. It is only too late for a neighborhood when you decide it is too (ate, and the neighborhood has seen huge amount of changes. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated what the Planning Commission determines as a policy matter would be a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council with regard to the subject item. Under State law there is no entitlement to the existing zoning on the property, as a person does not have any kind of invested right, an entitlement to proceed with a particular development untii they not only have an approval in hand, but have a(ready invested significant sums in pursuing that approval. Prior to a motion being made on the "grandfathering" provision, Mr. McCafferty stated it would be for any property that has either a valid building permit to construct or a plan that has been received into plan check by the City of Anaheim, Building Division, by the end of the business day, today. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 peopie spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 6 people spoke in favor of the subject request, a petition containing 38 signatures was received during the meeting and 3 letters were received in support of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration. • Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00112 (to reclassify properties within the "5 Points Neighborhood", Area1, Area 2 and Area 3 as follows, and finding that the proposed 11-17-03 Page 29 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . reclassification is consistent with the Housing Element and that there would be no net loss of Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from the proposed reclassifications subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated November 17, 2003. (i) Area 1 as identified on the attached Vicinity Map and also on Attachment Nos. 2 and 3 from the CG to the RS-5000 zone or a less intense single-family zone, conditioned upon the pending adoption of the Recommended Land Use Alternative for the General Plan Update with a land use designation of Low Density Residential for the properties in Area 1. (ii} Area 2 as identified on the attached Vicinity Map and also on Attachment Nos. 2 and 3 from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-5000, unconditionally. (iii) Area 3 as identified on the attached Vicinity Map and also on Attachment Nos. 2 and 3 from the CG, PD-C, RM-1200 and RM-2400 zones to the RS-7200 zone or a less . intense single-family zone, unconditionally. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Conneil and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Flores absent and Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Attorney's office prepare a draft ordinance containing the provisions for the "grandfathering" of legally- established multiple-family dwellings such as second dwelling units, granny units, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments complexes that become non-conforming by the reclassification of these properties as follows: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the reconstruction of any legally-established multiple-family dwelling located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District (bounded by North, South, East • and West Streets) or the "5 Points Neighborhood" (bounded by Lincoln Avenue, West Street, Broadway and the I-5, [Santa Ana] Freeway) that is damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, wind, flood, explosion or other disaster, casualty or act of God, or of a pubiic enemy shall be permitted provided that: (i) the dwelling is made non-conforming by the adoption of an ordinance for reclassification to a less intense zone on or after August 26, 2003, (ii) the dwelling is constructed in conformance with development standards in the Zoning Code in effect on August 26, 2003, which were applicable to the property prior to reclassification to a less intense zone; (iii) the number of units shall not exceed the number of legally established units which existed on the effective date of said reclassification, (iv) reconstruction is in conformance with all applicable building codes and regulations, other than development standards as set forth above, in effect at the time of reconstruction, and (v) a compiete application for a building permit to authorize reconstruction is filed with the Buiiding Division within two years of the date of the event that caused the damage or destruction." Commission also requested that the City Attorney's office include in the "grandfather" provisions new multiple-family projects which have received a valid building permit or which are currently in plan check in the Building Division subject to compliance with all applicable existing multiple-family development standards, as of 5 p.m., November 17, 2003. This "grandfather provision" will be contained in each of the three resolutions approving the requested reclassifications. VOTE: Reclassification No. 2003-00112 Grandfather Provision 6-0 (Commissioner Flores absent) 5-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no; Commissioner Ftores absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (3:05-3:36) 11-17-03 Page 30 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00413 Recommended adoption of 8c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00111 Exhibit "A" to City Council Granted, unconditionally OWNERS: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Cesare Gutierez, 416 Black Oak Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 Stephen Cebrynski, 2354 Robinhood Place, Orange, CA 92867 CITY-INITIATED: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopent Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 802 to 808 East Broadwav, 801 East Santa Ana Street, and 409 to 421 South Vine Street. The site consists of multiple properties with a combined area of approximately 2.3 acres, located on the west side of Vine Street between Broadway and Santa Ana Street. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00413 - A City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan redesignating the properties from the General Industrial land use designation to the Medium Density . Residential land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00111 - A City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to reclassify the properties from the ML (Limited Industrial) zone to the RM-1200 (Residential,Multiple-Family) zone or a less intense zone. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-159 RECLASSIFICATION RESOWTION NO. PC2003-160 sr2140ds.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principa( Planner. He stated the subject item is a city-initiated request by the Community Development Department to amend the land use element of the general plan to redesignate the properties on the location map from General Industrial to Medium Density Resic~ential and also reclassification from those same properties from the ML zone to the RM-1200 multiple-family zone. It is for a number of addresses generally located along the west side of Vine Street, south of Broadway, and north of Santa Ana Street, and inciuding the right-of-way contiguous to the property along Santa Ana Street. Public Testimony: Cecilia Ariaz, (speaker cards were filled out by Cecilia and her mother Mary Ariaz in opposition), stated her current address is 1708 Jeffery Street, Santa Rosa, but was raised at 407 and 411 S. Bush Street, which is one block over from the subject site. She feels putting more housing in the area is not • conducive, maybe dup(exes, but not muiti-dweliings of apartments. The parking in the area is horrible. She stated she is speaking on behalf of herself and her mother, and hopefully one day it is going to be her inheritance. There are three generations currently living in her mother's house on Bush Street, which 11-17-03 Page 31 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • is a two-story, 6-bedroom house and it has some historical value. They are all Latino families living in the Rebecca Warner stated she lives at 314 S. Vine Street, Anaheim, which is directly ~cross from the subject site. Her house was built around 1915, and she has lived there for 28 years. The property across the street used to rent out to little businesses (pottery shop, tamale shop, painting, etc.) but now the businesses that are in there are noisy. There is a street cleaning business and their vehicles create noise at 3 a.m. and sometimes until 10-11 p.m. She stated she would like to see the property improved, but not with a lot of apartments; town homes or single-family homes would be nice. The area has been put into a historical neighborhood and would like to see that improved on. She explained the lot across the street from her house is used a lot for dumping, abandon cars, appliances and furniture dropped off, etc. She stated she supports the rezoning. neighborhood and it would be nice to continue that. All the neighbors seem to know one another and acknowledge each other, unlike apartment buildings where people don't seem to get to know each other. She further spoke expressing her concerns on keeping some of Anaheim's neighborhoods as single- family dwellings or duplexes. Mrs. Rosales stated she and her husband have been Anaheim residents for about 25 years. In 1999, they bought a house located at 408 S. Vine Street, and the reason they chose the house was because of the quite area and it is a historic house. She stated the lot in front of their property does create loud noises and it is not a very safe area for the kids in the neighborhood. They would like to see the area improved, but doesn't fee! multi-family dwellings would work as it may create overcrowding and parking problems and she asked Commission to take that into consideration. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated the surrounding area of Bush Street seems to be zoned RM-2400, which means all of the area could be higher density than single family and asked staff to verify. • Mr. McCafferty agreed. Chairperson asked Redevelopment staff to address the issue on the designation. Mark Asturias, Redevelopment Manager. Stated the subject property is consistent with the Housing Element that has been adopted by the City Councii as well as previously approved by the Planning Commission, and certified by the State of California. The site itself is identified in the Housing Element as an opportunity site for housing at the proposed density. The density is pretty consistent with density that you find along Broadway as identified on the location map, he noted quite a few of the properties have the RM-1200 or the RM-2400 designation. The proposed property would have a similar designation and he feels they are consistent with the designation surrounding the neighborhood. He explained they are not proposing to affect the balance of the neighborhood, as they are only looking at the subject piece of property. The surrounding land uses are fairly low-density and there is no intent on the City's part to go in and acquire those properties and redesignate that area, nor is it shown in the Housing Element thaf they would be affecting the properties in that particular neighborhood. Those properties were not identified as opportunity sites to increase density. Unless the neighborhood itself is interested in increasing the density, he feels the neighborhood would stay as it is. By putting in a residential use adjacent to the neighborhood they feel it is more compatible with the residential neighborhood than having the current industrial use. Commissioner Buffa stated since she is new to the Commission and not yet familiar with the City Zoning Code, she would like clarification between the difference of RM-2400 and RM-1200. Mr. McCafferty responded it is double the density. • Commissioner Buffa asked if RM-1200 is the lower density. 11-17-03 Page 32 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded no, RM-1200 is 36 dwelling units to the acre; and RM-2400 is 18 dwelling units to the acre. Chairperson Vanderbilt acknow~edged Cecilia Ariaz in the audience as she asked to speak; he stated the public hearing is closed and asked Commissioners if they wished to hear additional comments. Commissioner Bostwick responded yes. Cecilia Ariaz stated she has multiple sclerosis and is 60 years old. She explained that many of the children who grew up with her in the neighborhood are now deceased, and her sister is deceased as they died of various diseases. They were very close to the railroad tracks and when they were growing up there were no laws concerning the environment, therefore they got a lot of pollution. She was part of a study in the 1970s, and the study was done at UC Medical Center in San Francisco, which the doctors found more than likely both her and her sister were exposed to elements of pollutants that came from the railroad tracks. She asked why not make the subject site a greenbelt so that the kids in the surrounding neighborhood would have a place to play, instead of additional housing. Commissioner Bostwick stated when the item came up for initiation he voted no, and it is a tough decision because more housing is needed, and it would clean up an industrial area that is a blight. He explained his reasons why he feels the Agency plan is faulty, and stated there is still going to be plenty of industrial buildings in the subject area. He stated he would not vote for the development. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he is unsure about the proposal for a lot of the reasons Commissioner Bostwick pointed out, and it would be more helpful if other factors were known. He feels it's an improvement, but is not sure if iYs an improvement that would make sense in the future. Commissioner Buffa asked how does the site fit into a larger picture. • Mr. Asturias stated at the morning session Brad Hobson and Kerry Kemp were present and explained the overall visioning plan that was done for Central Anaheim. Starting with the Broadway project and the CIM project; and then transitioning south along Anaheim Boufevard towards Santa Ana Street and essentially basically east and west along Santa Ana Street. The concept to bring residential back into the downtown is a"cornerstone" of that developmenf. The visioning for the downtown with the CIM project bringing in residential and then transforming the area along Santa Ana Street into a residential street. It was initiated through the Housing Element, which identified housing opportunity sites in the west, central and east area and it showed significant housing opportunity sites in the central area. They have initiated the housing element component of it and are moving forward as weil as the prepared land use alternative that would be brought to the Commission in the future for the General Plan. The overall concept is changing the land uses in the downtown from industrial towards residential land use designation and the densities vary depending on locations. He further explained why the site was brought to Commission, 1) the agency is now able to control the majority of the site and are now negotiating the last portion of the property with the current property owner; 2) it is identified under the Housing Element as a site that they wanted to see converted; 3) it is an opportunity to clean up a blighted area and; 4) they have an opportunity to work with a very good developer to design a project that would be brought back to Commission for consideration. Additionally, it would meet the needs of the community in providing additional housing, and not necessarily that you would see a project that would have a density of 36-units to the acre. But, the density gives them flexibility to design a project that is going to address a lot of the concerns of physical design, and also their concerns regarding the economics and cost of the project. Commissioner Eastman stated she commends the people who have come out to speak and appreciates their input. She stated last week she had the opportunity to go on a low-income housing tour and saw a very well done, very dense site. She believes if the neighbors saw a"model" of that, they might say they wouid like something similar in their neighborhood. She feels the proposed project would provide additional housing for a lot of families. If they go forward with the project, she hopes today's testimony by ~ the neighbors would be taken into consideration and would be a part of what goes into developing a project that would go on a piece of land as such. 11-17-03 Page 33 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Asturias stated as part of their process, once they develop a project concept they would then go out to the community and discuss the concept with them in order to get their feedback. Commissioner Buffa asked Commissioner Eastman how many stories were there at the project she visited. Commissioner Eastman stated it varied from two to three stories, but they did take parking into consideration as they provided plenty of parking underneath the site. She was very impressed with the project. Commissioner Buffa asked what was the density. Mr. Asturias stated approximately 22-28 units to the acre. Commissioner Eastman stated it was almost 30 units an acre, and she was reafly surprised. Mr. Asturias agreed and stated because of the design it was very deceiving. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition of the subject request and 1 person attended in opposition of the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. 1 person spoke in favor of condos and improvements. • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended to the City Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2003- 00413 (Exhibit A), amending the Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan redesignating the properties from the General Industrial land use designation to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. The portion of the amendment within the Santa Ana Street right-of-way would be subject to the pending amendment to City's Circulation Element of the General Plan in conjunction with the City-wide General Plan Update. Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00111 to rezone the properties from the ML (Limited Industrial) zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multipie-Family) zone. VOTE: General Plan Amendment No. 2003-00413 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no; and Commissioner Flores absent) Reclassification No. 2003-00111 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no; and Commissioner Flores absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights with regards to Reclassification No. 2003-00111. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated General Plan Amendment No. 2003-00413 would be ~ scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (3:37-4:10) 11-17-03 Page 34 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04789 Granted OWNER: Paul Chiavatti, Chiavatti Living Trust, 1340 West Pearl Street, Unit A, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1300 West Pearl Street. Property is approximately 0.2- acre, having a frontage of 65 feet on the south side of Pearl Street, located 490 feet west of the centerline of Carleton Avenue. Request to convert a duplex into a residential care facility including on- site counseling for up to 24 residents living on the premises. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-161 sr1133cw.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to convert an existing duplex into a residential care facility to include on-site counseling for up to twenty-four residents living on the premises and the property is located at 1300 W. Pearl Street, Expedition House, and staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Paul Chiavatti, 1300 W. Pearl Street, Unit A, Anaheim. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Chiavatti responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he has any questions or concerns. Mr. Chiavatti stated about 5 years ago, they moved into the neighborhood to install sober living homes, at the time it was drug infested. He explained the probiems that were occurring with drug dealers and stated they installed fences in the neighborhood in order to stop people who were trying to escape from the police. There were problems on Diamond Street and they bought the building over there to get rid of two drug dealers. They understand what it takes to improve a neighborhood. The subject project there would be less density, because the building now has 30 tenants as sober living and they propose to limit it to 24 tenants on a residential program, which they are not allowed to leave the premises. The upstairs part of the building is already licensed for a 6-bed residential license from the Alcohol and Drug Program with the State of California. He feels the proposed would improve the neighborhood and not have any impacts to the neighborhood. Beverly Morne stated she lives at 1243 W. Pearl Street, across from the subject request and stated there is not an empty spot on the street at night, they are over parked and don't need more people on the street. She feeis they are currently highly populated. The have lived in their home since 1972 and have • seen many changes. Across from them was an empty lot until they built 10, 4-plexes. On average, the people who live there come and go and seem to stay there less than a year because the moving vans are always there. They are asking that no more people be allowed to come and live on Pearl Street. When 11-17-03 Page 35 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • they have company they can't find a place to park their cars, and she asked Commission to please consider the parking. Nancy Starne stated she lives on 278 N. Wilshire Avenue, which is actually on the cul-de-sac of Pearl Street and has lived there for 25 years. She is concerned because there are a lot of children on Dwyer Place just behind the subject location. She understands by changing the site and having in-house, on- site counseling services that it would eliminate the parking issue because they would not be allowed to drive; but there are a lot of activities going on up and down the street to the complex. Currently the subject site is using one of the garages for some type of construction, and cars are not being parked inside of the garage. She asked if the facility is going to be for total confinement within the quarters, and would find that hard to believe because she sees people congregated on the cement walkway. She explained they have had neighborhood involvement for the last 3-4 years, which has contributed to the betterment of the area, and she asked Commission to consider not changing it over. (Unknown speakersince did not state his name.) Stated he has a condominium at 278 N. Wilshire Avenue. He referred to the staff report and stated to a certain extent he feels it is an insult to his intelligence. He asked how would you personally like to live next door to the subject facility, where there are drug addicts and alcoholics and the facility is not going to help the City of Anaheim. He asked that the item be postponed because there are 115 people who live at the condominium facility at 278 N. Wilshire, and since it is a work day most people are busy and/or probably not even aware of the request. He feels when they find out what the place is going to become, there wouldn't be so many empty seats in the Council Chambers. He visited the subject site because there was a bunch of carpenters over there and he asked them what they were doing, and they had stated they are building bunk beds. He feels they want to pack them in like "sardines". Mr. Chiavatti stated regarding the bunk beds they are going from 30 beds to 24 beds, and the bunk beds were being made for another facility and it so happened that the maintenance people were building them • there. It is in the contract for the existing tenants that no loud noise is allowed, and according to documentation by Code Enforcement there are no complaints, and feels they have been a very good neighbor. He stated the proposed request would have the residents confined to the house, and would further improve the neighborhood. The residents are trying to recover from their addictions and they follow a 12-step program. One of the things of the 12-step program is to get along with your neighbors and they have complied with that for 5 years. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa referred to the parking issue and asked if the project is approved today and is converted to a residential care facility where people don't come and go, would the parking just be for staff members. Mr. Chiavatti responded the parking would be for staff members and the manager, and they probably have less cars than any 4-plex or apartment building that is across the street. The parking is horrendous, and when he goes there on the weekend he can't even find a place to park. Commissioner Buffa asked how many staff people on site. Mr. Chiavatti responded two counselors and one on-site manager, and there are four outdoor and four indoor parking spaces. Commissioner O'Connell asked if he is associated with any group, and wondered how people found out about his service. Mr. Chiavatti responded they have contracts with the Health Care Agency and The Salvation Army. He prefers The Salvation Army because they have a 6-9 month program and when people come out of there, • they are very serious about their sobriety. Commissioner O'Connell clarified that the residents are now going to be confined in the home. 11-17-03 Page 36 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Chiavatti explained they have people with multiple DUIs, that it is mandatoryjail time if you get a second or third drunk driving, or under the influence. Therefore, they put them in the home where there is in-house counseling; they have to be away from theirjob and family in order to figure out how they are going to change their life. Commissioner O'Connell commended Mr. Chiavatti with trying to assist people with addictions. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated this is a high intense use, and the program has a lot of good merits, but feels it increases the intensity when you have that type use. Commissioner Eastman stated the property appears to have "mirrored" buildings, back to back. The building was a 4-plex which would allow up to 6 people in each one of those four apartments. But, by combining those and making a duplex you are able to house 12 people into each one. Mr. Chiavatti stated they are under the Disabilities Act where Alcoholic and Drug problems are considered handicapped, therefore, they are allowed to put as many as they like but of course they don't cram them in, and hasn't found any law that limits the amount of people to live in the residents. Commissioner Eastman clarified they are self-regulating, and are asking Commission today to approve the facility where there is going to be 24 residents. Mr. Chiavatti agreed. Commissioner Eastman stated she feels since there is going to be less people, it seems to be a benefit to the neighborhood versus a detriment. She also stated she wouldn't want to think that having the use of saws and building activities in the garage would be routine. • Mr. Chiavatti agreed and stated iYs not a normal thing for them. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, referred to the number of residents and stated it was somewhat of a misstatement that because you have something labeled as handicapped under the law that there is no regulation permitted at all. They discussed at the morning session the constraints on the City in regulating certain types of facilities and what adds to that is a very broad definition of what constitutes a family under California law. ft is so broad it really includes almost anything. It is not just a blood tie, but also any group of people that is living together that has some type of psychological bond and who are living as a single housekeeping unit. Just as you don't really limit the number of children that a blood family can have living in a single-house, you don't limit the number of people. The case law stated that you can't limit the number of people living together as a family. It doesn't mean you can't enforce it if they become a nuisance or if there are problems in the neighborhood because there are other ways it can be enforced, but it can't be by capping the number for a family. However, when you change the type of operation, because ordinarily in a family you don't have counselors coming in to work with the family members, then in that situation you would have become a group facility and you would fall into another category which brings it before the Planning Commission for consideration, it is a group home that is going to be a residential group home for up to 24 individuals subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. OPPOSITION: 3 peopfe spoke in opposition of the subject request. • ACTION: Commissioner O'Connell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Flores absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the 11-17-03 Page 37 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • definition of categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmentai Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04789 (to convert an existing duplex into a residential care facility including on-site counseling for up to twenty-four (24) residents living on the premises) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 17, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Flores absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (4:11-4:43) (There was a 1-minute recess following this item.) • Chairperson Vanderbilt was in agreement. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, read an update on City Council stating City Council approved the request for Wendy's with a 4-1 vote as the applicant submitted, with the drive aisle being adjacent to State College Boulevard. ~ Mr. McCafferty referred to the revised 2004 Planning Commission Schedule and Filing Deadline Schedule and stated the only change from what they saw previously is where it showed a Tuesday, Planning Commission meeting and has changed to Wednesday, in order for it not to conflict with any City Council Meetings. He asked if Commission agreed with the schedule they would then distribute it. 11-17-03 Page 38 NOVEMBER 17, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2003 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~r'~~ ~r~ ~~ • Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on Decew~ ~Qt' ~, 2003. \~iI 11-17-03 Page 39