Loading...
Minutes-PC 2004/11/15 (2)C~ /O~ ~~ v~ ~N E M P~ ~p~ ~'~- \ DED c~ _ ~t,~ 0 ~ ~ ~ D %~ ~$% CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning Commission Supplemental Detailed Minutes Monday, November 15, 2004 EIR NO. 327, CUP NO. 2001-04431, SPT NO. 2002-00001, Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study - MIS2004-00088, (ITEM NO. 6) Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • CHAIRMAN: GA1L EASTMAN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: KELLY BUFFA, CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO, JAMES VANDERBILT-LINARES, PAT VELASQUEZ COMMfSSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Natalie Meeks, Development Services Mgr. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner Joseph Wright, Associate Planner Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator • You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission(a?anaheim.net H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MI NUTES\SUPPLEMENTALMI NUTES111504.DOC NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ 6a. Environmental Impact Report No. 327 6b. Waiver Of Code Requirement 6c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04431 6d. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00001 6e. Amendment to Santa Ana Canvon Road Access Point Studv IMIS2004-00088) Owner: Waddell Foods, 801 North Beach Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631 Agent: John & Lisa Waddell, 207 Redrock Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: Property is approximately 29 acres, having a frontage of 1,413 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, located 983 feet west of the centerline of Festival Drive (No address). Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04431 - Request to construct a wedding chapel and banquet facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of (a) maximum building height, (b) required street dedication and improvement and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00001 - To remove thirty (30) specimen Oak trees. . ~J Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study (MIS2004-00088) - Amendment to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study. Continued from the October 4 and November 1, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. PC2004-137 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2004-138 Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study (MIS2004-00088) Resolution No. PC2004-139 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Approved Approved, in part Granted Approved Recommended City Council approval sr8816av.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 6 and stated staff is supportive of the request, with the exception of the waiver pertaining to required street dedication improvement. Staff is recommending denial of that waiver based on the analysis in the environmental impact report. He indicated that since the printing of the staff report, they have received 25 letters from the public, which were submitted to the Planning Commission, and following the public comments staff was prepared to respond to those letters. Applicant's Statement: Lisa Waddell, 207 Redrock Street, Anaheim, CA, stated she is trying to build Canyon Hills Manor and asked to speak following the public's comments. 11-15-04 Page 2 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Public Testimony: Bill Wynne, 5401 Fairmont Boulevard, Yorba Linda, CA, stated he represents Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda, adjoining property owner. Their only concern is the access for the project and he asked for clarification regarding the waiver of the access point. He stated they are in the process of planning a church and school facility along Deer Canyon Road, and it would be their contention that their access or the access for that road be limited to their use and the use behind them and that it not be a shared access with the subject use. Mr. McCafferty responded Mr. Wynne is correct, they are not proposing that they share the access point. The applicant is requesting an additional access point on Santa Ana Canyon Road further east of the proposed location for Calvary Church. Staff is recommending that as part of the mitigation for the project that the intersection improvements required for the projects in the area, including the Calvary Church and School, the Stonegate project as well as the wedding chapel, be constructed and shared amongst those property owners as well as future property owners that are going to be utilizing that access. He clarified that separate access for the wedding chapel would be used for turn/u-turn movements into their site further east. Christine Haynes, 7707 E. Margaret Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated she is a resident/realtor in the area and indicated there are estate homes behind the project and they needed to consider the impacts to those homes. She spoke regarding on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and asked were they considering the impacts of the children who might be attending area schools in the future. She asked the Commissioners to look at the proposed project from the community side, and stated she understands that Anaheim Hills is growing but as it grows they need to look at what is positive and what is negative. • Paul King, address given was not legible, stated he has been a resident of the area since 1988 and is in opposition to the Canyon Hills Manor project. The clearing of the southwest corner at Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road created wildlife being displaced such as mice, rats, rabbits and coyotes. He expressed concerns regarding alcohol, traffic, and the removal of an 8-story building. Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17224, Anaheim, CA, stated she is speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors, Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition. She stated the best options for the property would be for someone to reimburse the owners and make it into permanent open space or a clustered home project, planned in partnership with adjacent projects. However, if the subject project were approved, then they feel the biological avoidance alternative favored by Fish and Game is the best alternative as it only grades 10 acres versus 23 acres. She feels the biological avoidance alternative, if it had willing applicants, together with a creative architect and a civil engineering design team could result in a project, that even though it required some crib walls, would be superior to the alternative that is being recommended today. A terrace and landscaped crib wall would be located at the base of the hill, preserving the ridgelines. The biological alternative would satisfy Fish and Game's concerns and it could preserve the ridgeiine for the community. She expressed that the community's property rights are also important and they have the right to expect an orderly development per the General Pian; and that the CEQA Guidelines and their regulations are fully and meaningfully applied. They expect every possible measure be taken to avoid destruction of the Scenic Vista that brings identity to the community. She asked that the project be denied in order to give the applicant time to explore alternatives. Gloria Manriquez, 949 S. W ildrose Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated she has been a resident of Anaheim Hills for 10 years. She removed her children from an overcrowded public school and welcomes the private school that is going to be built in the area (Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda). She expressed concerns regarding alcoholic beverages being served in the proposed facility, and asked if it would be rented out during the week, or only on weekends. • Stewart Moss, address not given, stated he is a 30-year resident of the area. He referred to the grading, and asked if anyone has taken into consideration the noise impact due to the removal of 82 feet of the 11-15-04 Page 3 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ridgeline. The freeway noise is significant and they reside approximately one mile back in the hills. He ~ feels any residences south of the area that currently benefit from the existing ridgeline, would be impacted significantly by the noise. ApplicanYs rebuttal: Lisa Waddell read into the record a contract tliat their clients have to sign pertaining to alcohol use. She stated that in 13 years of business at their La Habra and Garden Grove facilities they have never had to shut down a party: She encouraged people to come see their current facility to see how well it is run because good management is what makes the facility run well. She stated that within the past 13 years of business no resident has ever called the police to their banquet facilities. She referred to the concerns regarding the removal of 82 feet of the ridgeline, 23 acres being graded, and indicated that it could remain pretty well in tact through the design of an engineering plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Joseph Wright, Associate Planner, stated following the printing of the staff report that staff received approximately 25 letters/e-mails expressing concerns with the project. He gave a summary of the concerns raised, and stated the majority of the comments received were regarding traffic impacts which included additional traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road, new access point, and in addition to a new traffic signal on Santa Ana Canyon Road. In response, concerns have been addressed in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR, in addition to response numbers 4, 6, 26, 41, 43 and 59 of the Response to Comments document. The second largest number of concerns regarded land use compatibility which included residential land uses being built on the site as opposed to a wedding chapel, more open space needed in eastern ~ Anaheim and that the proposed chapel is not compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. In response, he indicated that Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR addresses those concerns in addition to response numbers 11, 12, 14 through 19 of the Response to Comments document. Thirdly, comments were received regarding the visuaf impacts of the project, grading the peak down to 82 feet in height, and approving the height waiver of the wedding chapel from 25 to 30 feet. In response, he indicated that Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR addresses those concerns in addition to response number 6 of the Response to Comments document. In terms of biological impacts, comments were received regarding the existing wildlife impacts in addition to the removal of thirty (30) specimen trees. In response, he referred to Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR, biological study, and stated the series of studies that were prepared are included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR, Volume 2. Another issue raised regarded noise impacts from vehicles, bands, people, and the impacts to the residents along Eucalyptus Drive. Those issues have previously been addressed in response numbers 26, 27, 28, 44 and 45 of the Response to Comments document. He referred to comrr~ents made today regarding removing the peak and lowering it to 82 feet and stated it was aiso a concern of staff, but that the noise study concluded there would be no significant impacts to the residents behind the shadow. He indicated they received a comment requesting that the biological avoidance alternative be selected, because it would have less visual impacts to the ridgeline. In response, he stated the biological avoidance alternative does have slightly less impacts to the ridgeline than the project site. There are approximately 3 or 4 mini peaks along the ridgeline and then it rises up significantly behind where the Southern California Edison easement is located. Several of those peaks, with this particular alternative, would have less impacts but only slightly. He referred to page 154 of the Draft EIR as it indicates that the biological avoidance alternative would have the second highest impacts over all the alternatives including ~ the project that was considered, mainly due to the proposed retaining wall along the Santa Ana Canyon Road. In addition, it moved many of the impacts that were higher up closer to the front of the project along the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. 11-15-04 Page 4 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Commissioner O'Connell asked for staff's input regarding Sonja Grewal's comments. Mr. McCafferty referred to the biological alternative and stated essentially it minimizes the amount of area disturbed that is existing biological habitat and pushes the development further towards Santa Ana Canyon Road, preserving the area to the south. In exchange for that, you would have impacts closer to where it is more visual, adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road you would have the retaining wall that would be needed to construct that alternative. Mr. Wright stated the reason it has so much visual impact is because of the proposed retaining wall. Chairman Eastman asked if the wall would be along the whole length of the property. Mr. Wright responded yes, as it is currently proposed. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant what measures are taken for excessive drinking. Lisa Waddell responded they would stop giving them drinks if they were drinking too much. If they became uncooperative they would be asked to leave the premises and either a cab or police wouid be called when necessary. Commissioner Romero asked monthly how many events do they have during the week. Lisa Waddell stated on average they have approximately four events, and usually those events are funerals. Commissioner Romero asked if they could do 4 wedding events a day. ~ Lisa Waddell responded yes, on Saturdays and/or Sundays. Commissioner Romero asked how many guests are allowed. Lisa Waddell responded 301 guests, and 150 guests in the other. Commissioner Flores asked if there would be a blind curve. Natalie Meeks, Development Services Manager, responded Santa Ana Canyon Road has a curve, but it is not a blind curve. They have worked with the applicant to provide a safe location for the proposed driveway and a deceleration lane. Commissioner Flores referred to the storm drain issue and asked staff to respond. Natalie Meeks responded their plan would require some drainage facilities in order to accommodate their drainage on site in the areas that they are developing. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares expressed his concerns to traffic that would be generated by the facility. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated the proposed traffic signal would be in a good location and could be coordinated with The Festival Drive as well as Mohler Drive. The interruption would be minimal and the signals would be synchronized to make traffic move freely on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares expressed additional concerns regarding traffic. . Mr. Yalda explained reasons why the proposed traffic signal would help address the traffic concerns. 11-15-04 Page 5 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Chairman Eastman stated it might serve to regulate the flow between the two existing signals and take away the long stretch. Mr. Yalda concurred. Further discussion took place amongst the Commissioners regarding traffic. Commissioner Buffa stated she feels the EIR has done an adequate job in addressing the traffic impacts, She believes staff is asking the applicant to make improvements to Santa Ana Canyon Road along their property frontage and even beyond their frontage they are going to improve the flow of traffic and it wifl accommodate the trips generated by the subject use. She stated she agrees with staff tha# in order for the business to operate successfully and for traffic to be safe on Santa Ana Canyon Road that the road needs to be widened. She pointed out that U.S. Fish and Wildlife service are a sole purpose agency who are tasked by the government to only look at the wildlife resources. They don't look at aesthetics, traffic or land use compatibilities because they are not allowed to take those into consideration. When they advocate a certain position, she feels it is incumbent on them to recognize that they have a very narrow focus. She doesn't feel the biological avoidance alternative would be a benefit to any body in the City of Anaheim and she feels it would be terrible for the neighbors to build a retaining wall all the way down Santa Ana Canyon Road and for that aesthetic reason alone she feels they should support staff and reject that alternative. She referred to the 14% grading aiternative, and does not feel that would accomplish anything because it would reduce the amount of grading by such a small increment and it would create a very steep driveway condition that might create some safety hazards. ~ Commissioner Velasquez stated she shares the same concerns as Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares because she is concerned about the traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. She asked based on staff's recommendation how many cars would the turning lane accommodate. Mr. Yalda referred to the left-turn movement and stated they don't have the exact design but generally speaking they a11ow one foot per car but once that is determined they would then determine what the actual length of the left-turn pocket would be. They usually figure that out once the project is approved and it is under design. They do take that into consideration by the number of trips generated by the project and the percentage and that is how they determine the exact length of the left-turn pocket. Further questions by Commissioners were raised regarding synchronized signals; Mr. Yalda explained the operations of synchronized signals. Commissioner Velasquez asked for clarification if adding the proposed signal would help the traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Yalda stated it would help the traffic in the area and would also help the proposed project to make it safer because they are asking for additional access on Santa Ana Canyon Road; he stated it improves the overall situation. In response to a question posed by Chairman Eastman, Mr. Yalda stated if the subject project didn't exist, they would eventually need an additional signal. Mr. McCafferty stated from a cumulative project perspective a traffic signal and intersection is warranted at the subject location. In addition for safety issues, they need a point that is controlled for protected left turns and that is the additional objective of attaching the mitigation measures to the subject project. ~ Commissioner Buffa pointed out that as a result of the cumulative project impact, the subject project is the first one in the door and triggers the need. 11-15-04 Page 6 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL.ED MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated he feels the cumulative perspectives are a concern and he reiterated traffic concerns for the proposed project. Commissioner Buffa stated it is the City's obligation to look at the General Plan build out and what is coming in the "pipeline" towards the General Plan build out. Theyjust approved the General Plan contemplating thousands of additional dwelling units and many new businesses in the area and she feels all those things get taken into consideration. Commissioner O'Connell concurred with Commissioner Buffa and stated he feels it is imperative that they do the widening of the road and the proposed signal because there are a lot of things happening in the area pertaining to the school, church and additional homes and today's approval would be the first step. He feels the impact of traffic on the weekends would not be significant and indicated he travels on Santa Ana Canyon Road everyday because he lives out there and traffic does get heavy but he doesn't feel a wedding facility off of Santa Ana Canyon Road would be a problem. Commissioner Velasquez stated she feefs more at ease after hearing staff's expfanation on the traffic and the operation of the signals. Mr. McCafferty pointed out to Commissioners that they have the authority to refer the matter to City Council if they feel there is enough controversy involved, the only matter referred to them would be the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study. He indicated staff feels they have addressed all of the issues that were brought up today through the response to comments and any other written documentation received after the staff report was prepared. ~ OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. 26 letters were received in opposition to the subject request. CONCERNS: 4 people spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 327 including the Statement of Findings and Facts and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 123 based on the finding that said action reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and that the document is adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the request. Vote: 6-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares voted no) Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum structural height, and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. Denied waiver (b) pertaining to the required street dedication and improvement of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Vote: 6-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares voted no) • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04431 (to construct a wedding chapel and banquet facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and roof-mounted equipment) and adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report dated November 15, 2004, including the findings and conditions contained therein. 11-15-04 Page 7 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Vote: 6-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares voted no) Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00001 (to remove thirty (30) specimen Oak trees), including the conditions attached to the staff report dated November 15, 2004. Vote: 6-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares voted no) Recommended to City Council approval of amendment to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study (MIS2004-00088) to allow an additional access point on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Vote: 6-1 (Commissioner Flores voted no) Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 2004. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour 20 minutes (2:31-3:51) ~ ~ 11-15-04 Page 8 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Following the public hearing items, Greg McCafferty, Principai Planner, noted two items that required attention: (1) A time set aside to celebrate with Commissioner Vanderbilt as he resign as Commissioner and take on a newly elected position in the Anaheim School District; and (2) a time set aside for the annual Christmas luncheon in honor of the Planning Staff. Also, Commissioner Romero recommended that in the future, when there is a large agenda, beginning the preliminary plan review earlier, but keeping the public hearing at the normai time of 2:00 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:06 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ .J ~ Respectfully submitted: f ~~i~~7i~ii~%L~ ~/~ ~ Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 17eCe n~.bQr (3, 2004. 11-15-04 Page 9