Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/03/19• .... ..-, ~' ~`z Minutes U ~ „ , ~ ~~o~ . Mondav, March 19, 2007 ~ e, : '~p~ lac~`~ Council Chamber, City Hall N D E D 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California' CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKYROMERO; PATVELASQUEZ , Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: ~ Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer ' Ted White, Senior Planner Abby Semblantes; Froject Manager II , Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner Andy Nogal; Project Manager II Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner EIIy Morris, Senior Secre#ary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. ' on Thursday, March 15, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 22, 2007 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MARCH 19, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 50 For record keepinp purposes if vou wish to make a statement reqardinq any item on the aaenda please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Velasquez • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment , • You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: ~lanninacommission(a~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMI N\PCACTIONAGENDA\2007MI NUTESWC031907.DOC MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 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 Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll cal( 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 Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Buffa abstained on Item 1-A pertaining to a portion of the Minutes, ltemNo. 5; and CommissionerFlores abstained on Item' 1-A), for approval of Consent Calendar ltems 1=A and 1-B as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Minutes 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission : Approved • Meeting of January 22, 2007. (Motion) Consent Calendar Approval Commissioner Buffa abstained on a portion of the Minutes pertaining to Item No. 5; and Commissioner Flores abstained as she was not present for the meeting. VOTE: 6-0 1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to April 2, Meeting of March 5, 2007. (Motion) 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Hearina ltems: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05164 Owner: , Daniel Rubalcava, 508 North East Street, LLC, Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Greg Howe11, 20561 Suburbia Cane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Continued to Apri12, 2007 ' Motion: Romero/Karaki VOTE: 7-0 Location: 508 North East Street: Property is approwmately 1 c15 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and East Street (La Reina Market). Request to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and. to establish land use conformity for an existing legally non-conforming commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. _ Continued from the January 8, and March 5, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim, net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na • . • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 FaesseWelasquez • (READVERTISED) : 3b. WAIVER OF CODEREQUiREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2005-05030 Faessel (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05780) , Owner: Southern California Edison, Frank Salomone, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 Agent: Stephanie Li, 14708 Valley Boulevard, City of lndustry, CA 91746 Location: 1500 South State Colleqe Boulevard: Property is approximately 2.1 acres and is located at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue with frontages of 193 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 909 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue (Feng Run Garden). - Request to modify exhibits and conditions of approval for a previously- approved plant nursery with accessory retail sales and to permit a modular unit with waivers of (a) minimum landscape setback and (b) required improvement ofright-of-way. Continued from the March 5, 2007, Planning Commission meeting: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-20 • Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staif report. Concurred with staff Approved, in part Approved ' Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim, net) Chairman Eastman invited public comments. Applicant's Statement: Stephanie Li, applicant, indicated support for her project and that her business is to have mature trees and flowers for inventory. She addressed the parkway issue and stated that she took some photos and went many times to the site and did not observe anyone walking. She expressed financial concerns with following the City requirements. Furthermore, she expressed concerns about making improvements on the corner when the existing four corners currently appear the same and asked why money should be spent to make the corners different. She explained that they have spent about $17,000 for the project, and most of the cost is engineer fees. She asked if they could limit it to the site and grading plans, and also would like to adjust the size of the required 4-foot street number on the roof and asked for some flexibility. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant size of the total parceL Stephanie Li responded that according to Southern California Edison (SCE) it is 1.9 acres, but that they • measured it to be approximately 9.7 acres. 03-19-07 Page 4 MARCH 19, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked what Ms. Li thought to be'the useable portion of the property for her • business. Stephanie Li responded approximately an acre. Commissioner Faessel asked if she thought approximately three-quarters of an acre would be lost due to the inability to use the area where the transmission towers are, which are at the far eastern portion of the: "point" segment of theland , Stephanie Li responded yes, and that only a small project could be accommodated on the triangular portion. Commissioner Faessel referred to a lettersubmitted by Stephanie Li and asked the project is approximately $200,000, and that her concern is based upon fhe required or suggested public improvements by'the City that would cost in excess of $100;000. He asked if the amount was based on the reduced setbacks or on the required setback. Stephanie Li responded that she has already spent approximately $17,000. The fence would cost about $20,000, the trees and irrigation about $10,000, and the building about $25,000. Commissioner Faessel asked if they were planning on leasing the 400 square foot building or buying. Stephanie Li responded the she would probably lease it first. Commissioner Faessel confirmed with the applicant that a permanentbuilding would not be allowed by SCE. : Commissioner Faessel also confirmed with the applicant that she only had a 5 year lease and that she • would be given an opportunity to renew the lease. Commissioner Flores asked about the letters on the roof. Stephanie Li indicated concern over the ability to provide the letters because of the small building. Judy Dadant, Senior Pfanner, cfarified that Ms. Li is referring to Condition No. 1 of the draft conditions of approval. This requirement is from the police department to 4-foot high address letters to be painted flush on the roof of the building. Given the size of the modular unit staff believes that there should be at least , four feet in any given direction to be able to paint on the roof. The purpose is for police helicopter identification of the site. She indicated that the condition is important and should be a minimal cost since it's just painted on the roof of the building. Stephanie Li stated if the roof is big enough, they do not have a problem. Commissioner Romero stated he wanted to clarify from staff what other potential uses are permitted for the property. This property would seem to have very limited uses due to Code requirements. Judy Dadant stated if you look strictly at the zoning of the property there are lists of industrial uses that are permitted for this site. What makes this parcel different is that there is an SCE right-of-way that goes across it. Aside from what the zoning code limitations could possibly be for the site, SCE has additional restrictions on the fype of land uses that they feel are acceptable. The types of land uses that have been seen elsewhere in the City on SCE's right-of-way include self-storage facilities, telecommunications facilities and nursery facilities. The zone allows multiple industrial uses but the additional conflict of SCE structures on the site provides anotherlayer of restrictions controlled by Edison. This combination could have a tendency to limit the possible uses for the property. • Commissioner Velasquez asked Stephanieli if most of her clients walk up to the property or do they' drive and the sizes of plants that are'sold at the business. 03-19-07 Page 5 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Stephanie Li responded they sell big plants, small plants, fountains and pottery. Most times it requires vehicle transportation after purchase. Commissioner Karaki asked staff what are the chances that the property across the street might reconfigure their parkways and landscaping to comply,with the City's code of 20 feet versuszero. James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer, responded that he did no know what improvements the future may hold. But if a property is developed they will''be required to instaU anyPublic Works improvements as they are required by our Code and consistent with our standard details. There are no sidewalks there : now, becausetheproperty was developed under differenf standards. The City did not require sidewalks for an industrial area at that time. He indicated there are changing characteristics of the industrial areas now and more activity in the public right-of-way compared to 20 years ago. Commissioner Karaki asked if there is any other consideration for undeveloped land. He inquired if the utility easement gave flexibility to not make the improvements. He stated that if the applicanf were to comply, she would be left with one-half acre to improve for a five (5) year lease term. He advocated the installation of the handicapped ramp at the corner but that it needed to lead someplace. He indicated that the diagram made by the applicanf shows that there are no walkways along State College Boulevard or Cerritos Avenue. He stated that he did not#hink that the City or OCTA installed a handicapped ramp on the other side of the streetfacing this property. He asked if the properties across the street are likely to install parkways and landscapingto comply with the City. James Ling indicated that the Public Works Department looks at projects City wide with the budget provided. Staff is just trying to follow what is required by the code. Commissioner Faessel asked if staff had an estimate, based upon their engineering background for the „ ~ cost of the improvements. James Ling stated as the city does not want to require more improvements than 100%a of the traffic impacts created by the project. The costs for the right-of way improvements for Cerritos would be ' approximately $67,000. State College Boulevard with the full improvements of the five foot sidewalk and five foot landscape parkway is roughly $13,000. When the access ramp and the driveway approach are - added, the total improvements are approximately $87,500. These estimates are based on recent projects. These are based on comparisons, which is part of why the city agreed to require sidewalk from the corner to the driveway. He further indicated that sidewalks along the full length of Cerritos Avenue would require costs to become greater than 100% of the traffic impacts. He also indicated that it would be appropriate to require the sidewalk where pedestrian traffic is most likely. Commissioner Faessel indicated that the use for the property will likely be of a temporary nature. He , encouraged the nursery use with appealing landscaping to improve the existing situation. He indicated that pedestrian traffic is not likely, therefore the sidewalk improvements are not necessary until a permanent use is estabfished. - Commissioner Buffa referred to the parkway improvements and asked staff for the City's standard requirements. James Ling responded that Public Works has a landscape and irrigation specification manual for parkways. Part of that includes accessible tree pallets and ground cover selection. It would be something that improves the arterial streets. The city is always looking to ways to beautify its corridors with parkways and landscape. Commissioner Buffa indicated one of the reasons she asks is because in previous dealings with SCE, they have had several limitations on what can be planted in the SCE right-of-way. She asked if the city's landscape pallet accounts for that. • 03-19-07 Page 6 - MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • James Ling responded that staff discussed the height of the street trees with the Public Works Operations Group who handles a lot of maintenance of the street trees. The tree that was selected is consistent with SCE requirements. Commissioner Buffa asked if the city maintains parkways affer installation. James Ling responded yes. On arterial streets the Citytakes responsibility for the maintenance of the trees. The ground cover is the responsibility of the property owner and the irrigation as weU. Commissioner Velasquez expressed her support of the applicant's request. Comm+ssioner Buffa stated she shares the applicanYs concern. The project is a highly constrained piece property, has an extremely peculiar shape, has a disproportionate amount ofstreet frontage'and it would . take 12%0 of the site to put in the public improvements, where others in the area have used 10%. Other' businesses are allowed to have permanent structures on site which the nursery is not due to the SCE right-of-way. She stated she is in favor of waiving the sidewalk and the ADA ramp, because handicapped . individuals have the ability to cross the street at a signalized intersection and use the sidewalk on the other side. The wheelchair bound public is not being deprived of the use of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue. There is a sidewalk there. They can use it if they want to cross the street. The edge does need to be beautified to some degree. The applicant has the ability to instalf some form of minimal irrigation for this area which would also include trees and drought resistant ground cover. She is' in favor or seeing a 13 foot landscape parkway, starting from their driveway west to<the corner and then a 10 foot parkway on State College Boulevard thaf is landscaped, irrigated and maintained which would be a huge improvement to the area. And this is a relatively temporary improvement; In five (5) years if they loose their lease whoever comes in next could then make a change.' Judy Dadant stated for clarification, that the applicant is requesting two waivers. One waiver pertains to • the landscape improvements within the private property, the 20 #oot landscape setback that is required by Code. The applicant is requesting waiver of that so that that area may be stocked with potted plants in' lieu of planting iandscaping in the ground. Chairman Eastman asked if that would be behind their fence. Judy Dadant responded yes, behind the public right-of-way. The second waiver has to do with the public improvements. It is the 5-foot sidewalk, 5-foot parkway on State College Boulevard and the 5-foot : sidewalk, 8-foot parkway on Cerritos Avenue. The applicant has indicated in their request that theywould be willing, unless it has changed, to provide the parkway for 10 feet on State College Boulevard and for ' the 13 feet on Cerritos Avenue. So the request was really to waive the installation of the sidewalk as weU as the access ramp at the comer. But the width was not a matter of issue, nor was landscaping that area. CommissionerKaraki stated as far as the ADA requirements, he will not support the elimination of the handicapped ramp at the corner nor the improvement, and recommends at least a 5-foot sidewalk along State College Boufevard and Cerritos Avenue. As far as the improvements inside the property, he does not have a problem if this improvement is nof done because it does not affect public safety. Therefore, he would be inclined to support the setback waiver and deny the applicanYs request to waiVe the handicapped accessibility for the corner to the other two streets. James Ling indicated that internal staff discussions have occurred and that the applicant may change in five years or the current applicant might stay on this site. He was concerned that the use would still be considered temporary for the next five year increment. He indicated that staff looks at the people coming to the site and the potential employees that might be on site. The' city encourages #he use of public transportation. He said that staff would support Commissioner Karaki's recommendation of just improving State College Boulevard, with sidewalks and have the corner access ramp constructed in compliance with ADA standards. There are other properties along State College Boulevard with sidewalks. He indicated that on Cerritos Avenue, although it is staff's recommendation to have sidewalks to the driveway, it could • be looked at since there are not sidewalks on the other side of the street. 03-19-07 Page 7 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Velasquez asked what is the minimum that must be done as far as sidewalks are concerned and what is the length of the sidewalk to be ADA compliant. James Ling responded there is no minimum. He said it is not unusual to have portions of public improvements made at different times. Over time, as the properties develop, they can be connected. So the intent is for the sidewalk along the south of the railroad tracks, to connect with the sidewalks already • in place south of Hall Street. There is no minimum length along State College Boulevard. ` Commissioner Faessel asked what the cost is for changing the ADA ramp only, exclusively to meet the minimum requirements, excluding any sidewalks. : James Ling indicated sometimes there are opportunities where you can modify an existing ramp that was constructed recently. In this specific case however, the ramp was installed'quite sometime ago and doesn't comply with,the current standards of the ramp in terms of grades or the grooving patterns as well as the truncated dome. The ramp would have to be reconstructed. The full cost of the ramp, varies with contractors, but it is roughly in the magnitude of $3,000 or $4,000 to replace the full ramp. Commissioner Faessel made a motion to approve the CEQA Categoricaf Exemption Class 3 for new construction or conversion of a small structure for this project. Commissioner Velasquez`seconded the motion. The motion passes with 7 ayes, (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman:) Commissioner Faessel made a motion to approveboth waiver (a) and (b) which is 13 foot parkway, no ' sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue. And the ten (10) foot parkway, no sidewalk on State College Boulevard. The motion includes the rebuilding of the ADA ramp at the intersection of State College Boulevard and • Cerritos Avenue. Commissioner Karaki encouraged the Commission to require a sidewalk for pedestrians who are coming south from the bus stop or for pedestrians to access the bus stop from the nursery: He indicated it would be appropriate to at least provide a sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue to access the site from the bus stop across the street. He indicated the sidewalk was more important than the parkway. Commissioner Romero agreed that not having the sidewalk makes the handicap ramp meaningless. Chairman Eastman indicated that it is an existing condition. Commissioner Faessel indicated that this applicant is held captive, more or less, by Southern California Edison to a five yearJease in an odd shaped piece of property, where they loose 75%a of their usable space due to circumstances beyond their controL And then the City asks them to add another between $87,500 or $100,000 by the applicanYs estimate, of additional improvements. He indicated that his opinion is that it is an unreasonable burden and impact based upon the overall cost of the project. Commissioner Velasquez ctarified that the Commission is asking the applicant to construct the ramp and to at least provide enough sidewalks to get them into the property. Commissioner Faessel indicated that he did not wish to change his motion. Commissioner Karaki indicated that he wanted to modify that motion for public safety and the City benefit to add the sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue. He stated that he wanted to add to Commissioner FaessePs , motion. Chairman Eastman asked Mark Gordon to clarify procedures for modification to a motion. Mark Gordon ! indicated that the Commission would need to vote on the request to modify the original motion, and then vote on the motion. 03-19-07 Page 8 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Velasquez asked what would be the length of the sidewalk proposed and Judy Dadant indicated that it is approximately 185 feet. Commissioner Velasquez asked for the cosf of that Improvement. Jamesling indicated that based on about 1,000 square feet of sidewalk at $8 per square foot that it would be $8,000 for the portion along Cerritos Avenue. Commissioner Velasquez'confirmed that the cost would be $8,000 for the sidewalk and roughly $3,000 to $3,500 for the ramp. Commissioner Flores suggested that the Commission vote on Commissioner Faessel's motion. Chairman Eastman confirmed CommissionerKaraki's intent to amend Commissioner FaessePs motion. Commissioner Buffa asked Commissioner Karaki if the sidewalk that he is proposing curb adjacent and if that affects the need to provide them parkway. Commissioner Karaki indicated that there is no need to provide parkway. ' Chairman Eastman asked for a 10 minute break because an audience memberfell. Chairman Eastman asked Commissioner Karaki to restate his motion. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion to amend the motion proposed Commissioner Faessel to reflect the addition of a sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue from the handicapped ramp at the corner to the • driveway access on Cerritos Avenue. Commissioner Romero seconded the motion. Commissioner Karaki clarified that the applicant shall install a new handicapped ramp at the corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue and a five (5) foot sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue to the driveway, to the proposed driveway along Cerritos Avenue. Commissioner Romero seconded the motion. Commissioner Velasquez clarified that the cost of adding tfiat ramp and the proposed sidewalk for Commissioner Karaki's motion would cost probably between $11,000 and $12,000. Chairman Eastman and Mark Gordon indicated yes. Mark Gordon stated that the motion to amend the original motion passes, with Commissioners Romero, Karaki Eastman and Velasquez voting aye and Commissioners Flores, Faessel and Buffa'voting no. Chairman Eastman took a roll call vote on the amended motion with Commissioners Velazquez, Faessel, , Romero, Karaki and Eastman voting aye and Commissioners Buffa and Flores voting no on the waivers. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approYe the request to modify the CUP Permit No. 2005- 05030 which is Tracking No. CUP 2006-05180. Elly Morris indicated that the resolution passed with seven (7) yes votes. , ~ , - 03-19-07 Page 9 MARCH 19, 2007 _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • r~ L_J ~' , OPPOSITION: None ACTION: ' MOTION: Commissionerfaessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to approve waiver (a) minimum landscape setback:and approve, in part, waiver (b) required improvement of right-of-way for a 13-foot landscaped parkway, no sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue, and a 10-foot landscaped parkway, no sidewalk along State College Boulevard. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Commissioner Karaki offered an amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero ~to also require a new handicapped ramp at the corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue, and a 5-foot sidewalk from'the ramp along Cerritos Avenue to the proposed driveway along Cerritos Avenue. VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: 4-3 (Commissioners Eastman, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez voted yes, and Commissioners Faessel, Flores, Buffa voted no) and MOTION CARRIED. - VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: 5-2 (Commissioners Eastman, Faessel, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez voted yes, and Commissioners Buffa, Flores voted no) and MOTION CARRIED. VOTE ON CUP: 7-0 Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Apri1 10, 2007. DISCIlSSION TIME: 1 hour and 7 minutes (2:37-3:35) break (3:47-3:56) A 1 D-minute break was taken (3:36-3:46 p.m.} • MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Romero/Flores Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE'REQUIREMENT Romero/Flores Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05184 ' Romero Granted Owner: Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, 2811 East Villa Real Drive, Orange, CA 92867 Modified Condition No. l Agent: David Meider, Development One. Inc., tn VOTE: 7-D 1611 East 4 Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 , Location: ' 1450 East La Palma Avenue` Property is approximately 8.21-acres*, having a frontage of 392 feet on the south side ' of La PalmaAvenue and is located 120 feet east of the centerline of Buttonwood Street. Request to permit two modular buildings for classrooms at an existing parochial school with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. * Advertised as 2.33-acres. : Project P/anner: {ethien@anaheim. net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na PC2007-21 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ' Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner, presented the staff report. • She read into the record a revision to Condition No. 1, of the draft resolution, that church staff shall ensure. that all parking lots are sufficiently illuminated monitor the parking lots to ensure that congregants are parking in marked stalls and direct vehicles fo park on site and not within the surrounding neighborhoods. ApplicanYs Statement: David Meider, applicant, stated the proposal is for two (2) modular classrooms located as shown. There is no proposal to increase the enrollment at the school or staff just to accommodate existing population of students. Commissioner Faessel asked if this would permit lower class sizes within the existing school population. The school is evidently filled; hence the two new buildings are needed. David Meider responded that is correct. It will reduce the crowding in the existing classrooms. Amin David, 1585 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, stated that Saint Boniface recently closed their school and they were fortunate enough to accommodate the children. The church size is squared off at 13,466 feet. The actual seating, square feet, should be about two-thirds of that. And if that is the case, that would work out to 261 parking spaces. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a motion to approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for this project. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. ~ ?he motioned passed with 7 ayes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.) 03-19=07 _ Page 11 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero offered a motion to approve the parking waiver. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed `with 7 ayes. (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.) Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05184. Judy Dadant clarified that it included modifications to the Condition No. 1. ' Commissioner Romero indicated yes. Elly Morris stated that the resolution passed with seven "yes" votes. ' Commissioner Faessel commented thathe is a`graduate of St. Boniface and that he feels sad that the ' children had to be moved out of downtown over to east Anaheim. He stated that maybe some day they will be able to open St. Boniface again. ' ; After tne Commission acted on this item, a member of the public spoke up that he wanted to testify on this item. Chairman Eastman called him up to speak. Juan Jimenez, 628 Buttonwood, Anaheim, California, stated he has a concern about the height of a perimeter wall because it is about 45 - 48 inches high from the parking. He stated #hat neighbors are concerned about the letters that we received, because the distance from the subject property to the center of Buttonwood was listed as 120 feet instead of 130 feet. ~ Chairman Eastman asked if he wants the staff report to be corrected. Juan Jimenez responded yes and asked for a higher walL He had concerns about the parking lot being busy for the church and people using it in the middle of night and noise related to that. He said the neighbors were also concerned and that sometimes there are young kids that just go and drink. - Chairman Eastman verified that the wall he was speaking of is next to the parking lot right off of La Palma Avenue. Juan Jimenez responded yes. Commissioner Buffa stated that the schooPs application for modular units would not change the nature of the use and does not really relate to the height of the walL But, she feels it is a concern that perhaps staff can take back to code enforcement and the police department to see if something can be done with the church to help supervise the property better. It would not really affect the land use action that that the Commission just took. But it might be a concern for staff to address to the appropriate City departments. Chairman Eastman suggested that restricting access to the parking lot after hours may help. Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated for clarification that this property is located in the Transition zone. Within the first 25 feet the maximum wall height would only be 3 feet unless we approved a variance for wall height. Chairman Eastman indicated the issue sounds like a community issue and the church may need to work together to solve the issue. Judy Dadant agreed. She believes that there are members of the church present who heard the • concerns and may be able to work on monitoring the parking lot better. 03-19-07 Page 12 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Eastman suggested that Juan Jimenez get together with #he neighbors and appropriate people • at the church to try to solve the problem. Juan Jimenez was in agreement. David Meider explained that the parking lot lighting #hat is required should also help to address the concern. OPPOSITION: ` None IN GENERAL: A person spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject site. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,:Apri1 10, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (3:57-4:12) ~ _ MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ` • V I u F essel 5a. . CEQA SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE e asq ez/ a ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 5b. AMENDMENT N0. 7 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT Velasquez ' SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 TRACKING NO. SPN2007-00047) Owner: William Stone, Sr, Vice President, Anaheim GW LLG, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite #300, San biego, CA 92128 Agent: ' Dewayne Mitchell, Cheesecake Factory, , 17701 Mitchell North, Irvine, CA 92614 Location: 321 West Katella Avenue. 1717 South Clementine Street and 1700 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is located on approximately 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. The project site has approximate frontages of 1;500fieet on the south,side ~ of Disney Way between Harbor BouleVard and Clementine'Street; 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street between Disney,Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713-1717 South - Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet south of the centerline of i Disney Way: Request to modify Zoning and Development Standards pertaining to permitted architectural encroachments in required building setback'areas and modify exhibits pertaining to the maximum number and location of permitted wa{I signs. Specific Plan Amendment No. PC2007-22 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Ted White, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. ApplicanYs Statement: Project Planner.• (twhite@anaheim.net) William Stone, owner, stated the last time he was before the Commission he indicated that he had not gone into the detail of the tenant designs. And that he would probablybe coming back for some minor modifications. He said that he had promised the City that he would bring the finest restaurants he could to the City. In order to do that, especially on the corner for The Cheesecake Factory and also the location Bubba Gump's has, it took a little more architectural detail. He stated that the building is not encroaching much in the way of mass as much of the encroachment is high, above the ground. 1t leaves a lot of landscaping area. The signage really follows the spirit of this specific plan. Dewayne Mitchell, applicant, stated he is Senior Project Manager with The Cheesecake Factory. He indicated he concurs with Mr. White. He stated that they are just trying to enhance the corner and trying • to embellish it in orderto give the visibility needed. As everyone knows to the south of Katella Avenue there is a parking structure and they don't get any benefit witK the sign on that corner. _ ' 03-19-07 Page 14 : MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked staff for additional information pertaining to:the Bubba Gump sign. Ted White indicated in Commission's packets there were sign exhibits that show #he actual signs: The sign on the western elevation will serve to identify the restaurant better from oncoming traffic for east bound Katella: And then also, for cars that are pulling into the main parking entrance.- They will get more identification there. He indicated that there are representatives present #rom Bubba Gump for questions. Commissioner Flores asked if the signs were more for pedestrians. Ted White stated that' it is anticipated that there is going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic coming from the convention center. That will be walking along that sidewalk.' That would be the first sign that they are going to see as they approach the development. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion to recommend that the City Council determine that the previously approved Second Amendment Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation. Commissioner Faessel'seconded the'motion. The motion passed with 7 ayes. `(Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel; Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.) Commissioner Velasquez offered a recommendation that the City Council approve Amendment No. 7 to : the Disneyland Resort Specific Pfan No. 92-1, SPN2007-00047. • Elly Morris stated that the resolution passed with seven yes votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City CounciL DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (4:13-4:20) • MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION Karaki/Flores Approved SECTION 21159.23 . 6b. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH STATE Karaki/Flores ` Approved DENSITY BONUS LAW ' (MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2007-00184) VOTE: 7-0 Owner: Global Premiere Development lnc., , 1012 Brioso Drive, Suite 202, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Agent: : Broadway Village Investors, 5 Park Plaza Suite 980, ' Irvine, CA 92614 location: ' 1245 East Broadwav: Property is approximately 1.5- ` acres, having a frontage of 150 feet on the north side of ' _ Broadway and is located 153 feet west of the centerline of Fahrion Place. Planning Commission determination of conformance with State density ` bonus requirements to construcf a 46=unit affordable apartment complex with incentives*. Project Planner.• "Advertised as "47-unit affordable apartment complex with a density bonus and (kwong2@anaheim.net)) incentives" ~ _ _ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner: Presented the staff report. Chairman Eastman called Charles Hutchinson. Charles Hutchison, the applicant: indicated that he is with Global Premier Development, Inc., 5 Park Plaza, Suite 980, Irvine, CA. Global Premier currently has 28 family or senior affordable projects under construction in the state of,California. The Broadway Village started out as a 68-unit complex, but has been reduced to 46-units to provide some open space and break ups along the building. The company receives tax credit allocations on this first round of six which means they have an operation date of December3l, 2008, or tax credits have to be returned back to the state. Trash containers will be covered due to the neighbors concerns. They have reviewed parking requirements and are considering assigned parking for the units to avoid over crowding parking problems in the parking structure or public streets. TheJighting was an issue at the neighborhood meeting so lighting will be provided along the alley on the proposed walL Dave Garcia who lives at 1221 East Oak Street, Anaheim, CA testified that he is against the building, He is concerned that homeless people will jump the fence and dig though the trash cans. Many subterranean parking apartment buildings in Anaheim have their trash in their parking structure underneath fhe building. His son attends Lincoln Elementary where it is projected to have 800 students : next year. Adding 37 apartments buildings with four bedrooms will over populate the school. A 200-unit building is also going to go up at the Choc Center across the street from the schooL He is also concerned about the parking. With four bedroom apartments there may be more than, three people driving cars. He had concerns about parking on Lincoln and blocking two lanes on Broadway. He is also _ concerned that people will jaywalk because they are not going to want to walk to the crosswalk which is ~ about a mile away. 03-19-07 Page 16 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . He stated that Kim said she was at their street that morning to see a trash truck coming down the street but'trash doesn't get picked up until Wednesday. He stated planning staff doesn't even live in Anaheim so how will they know what is best for the residents. He is also concerned that they can look through the third story window and'see into'his backyard. He also had concern about a wireleft'hanging from demolition on this property. He indicated concern over trash pick-up from the middle of Oak Street and Chestnut and did not want' additional traffic down his street. He indicated that a high wall is necessary to prevent views into their homes. He also indicated concern over additional lighting in the alley and potential dumping. He was concerned about rodents and potential health effects to his children. He was also concerned about run- off from the trash. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of the,rest of the residents and covered pretty much all that they have talked about..' He stated Anaheim only has'a handful of parks in the City of Anaheim and had concerns over adequate play area for kids: Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Garcia if he remembered if they had an over crowding condition there. Or anything in the past that caused any difficulty as a surrounding issue. David Garcia answered yes. He said that was the issue with the high walL People" would jump the wall and walk to Lincoln'because it is the quickest way to get'to East and;Lincoln. It was over crowed. The brick wall would continually be damaged. CommissionerFaessel asked if there was on-sife management. David Garcia stated yes.' Commissioner;Faessel inquired if the problems still occurred with on site management • David Garcia state yes. Commissioner Romero confirmed that Mr. Garcia would not be in opposition to the project if the wall was high enough so that they couldn't see into his home and backyard. David Garcia stated yes, but that the wall would have to be at least three stories high. Ron Contreras spoke representing his dad who lives at 1224 East Oak Street. Ron Contreras concurred with what David had to say. He is concerned about the parking and feels there could be a maximum of 368 people living there. He was concerned about adequate parking and parking on the street, and that it is likely that some units would have more than one car: It appears that people who live in the apartments sometimes park their cars on the church property. He also expressed concern over fire and police access. He also stated concerns over the fence on the west side of tfie project, which is adjacent to the residential units that are existing there. From East Street, east on Broadway to State College, all of the homes along that area are one story and two story. The same is true on Lincoln. The additional height would be an intrusion into that area and he would be in favor of a taller block wall. He` also indicated concern over trash service. Lastly, he expressed concern over the landscaping. He thought that particularly along the west side, adjacent to the single family units, probably along Broadway and even possibly along the east side adjacent to the other apartment complex, that the trees should remain the 24 inch box trees. This would provide more privacy. The larger #he trees; the faster it would grow versus a 15 gallon tree as requested, particularly if there is going to be a!ot of children within this project. Lastly, he doesn't think this project would be compatible with the surrounding area based upon the land use and the intensity of the use and on the height of the project Livrer Valencia, 1238 East Chestnut Avenue: She identified her residence as the first house next to the walls and will be the most affected since she just lives right next to the building that they are planning to , build. She agreed with previous statements. She had problems with the neigh6ors who used to jump back and forth and broke the walL She has had issues of trash in her backyard because her walf is less 03-19-07 Page 17 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES than six'feet taq. She asked about the kind oftrees proposetl and indicated concern about Santa Ana - '• winds blowing leaves into her yard. She also expressed concern over health effects from demolition on : herson who has asthma. Chairman Eastman indicated that staff can answer some of her questions. Teresa Barbosa, 1239 East Chestnut indicated that her house is the last house on Chestnut. Her niece had the same problem, Ms.'Valencia came to the microphone and #ranslated for her. Stated she is concerned that about the dust and the trash. Oscar Gonzalez:: af 1238 East 0ak lives xight at the end. Stated the trash trucks already clipped his garage and knocked the corner part of i4 out. There is more of a chance of his house getting damaged again. He stated that he didn't move into a house' on a cul-de-sac to have trash and three dumpsters in front of his house. He has three daughters who use the end of the street for softball practice. A lot of the : kids hang out there. He also expressed concern over people getting into the dumpsters. Charles Hutchison thanked the community for their insight and comments. A lot of the issues brought Up are management issues.'The jumping the wall is not going to'happen on their site. He indicated an ability to control the occupants they rent to and evict or refuse occupancy when needed. He said that the cable that David referred to has actually ha5 been cut down . Pictures have been fon~varded to the Redevelopment Agency as evidence that this cable has been resolved. The proposed height is within is the zoning for the property. At the neighborhood meeting the trash dumpster was an issue and they did everything they could to accommodate the neighborhood. The trash dumpsters are going to be enclosed. They, are not proposing anything new that wasn't in the apartment complex before it was demolished. Trash enclosures were already there on site.'As for fhe fence„they have agreed to change it to block, wrought iron or whatever characteristies the neighborhood prefers. He indicated that homeless people, gang members, any other nuisance on or around the site will not be tolerated. They will have 24 hour, seven day management on site to monitor the environment and anything going on around the project. As ~ far as the school and the overcrowding, the best they can do as developers for the schools or as any other agencies is to pay their impact fees. How the agencies choose to hand out that money is beyond their control. The parking complies with the affordable housing code and parking will be designated. They also advise the future tenants how many vehicles they are allowed. Tenants can have a two bedroom but be restricted to one space. And a three bedroom, restricted to two parking spaces. He said it has not been an issue on their other projects. He emphasized that public streets are not private roads and are available to the entire public. Fire has access to three of the sides from public roads. He indicated that the project complies with Fire requirements. He clarified for Chairman Eastman that the project provides a full sprinkler system. He indicated that life safety departments have reviewed this project and provided comments. As far as the surrounding area being overdeveloped , it is zoned for multi-family. Theyare asking for some tier two incentives as far as the building separations because of the design proposed. The project is under the density permitted and they are trying to provide a nice quality project for the site. The landscaping will be looked at with a line of sight study to try and address visibility issues into the adjacent single-family homes. Chairman Eastman suggested looking at opaque glass to limit visibility. Charies Hutchison indicated that he didn't know if that was considered because a majority of the windows are for living spaces, but that they could look into it. He continued to say that the only access to the wall is for trash pick up. Those gates will be locked 24/7 by the management company and will only be un- locked by them for trash pick up. There will be not public access. They are trying to balance privacy for the neighbors and a functional project. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. David Garcia indicated concern with having to register complaints constantly to the on site management. ~ 03-19-07 ' Page 18 MARCH 19, 2007 PCANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Eastman asked Mr. Garcia to allow Commission to ask more questions and make comments, then he will feel a little better about the whole thing. Commissioner Karaki asked staff why there are four bedrooms. Abby'Semblantes, Projecfi Manager II from the Housing Development Department. Project is TCAC funded, which means that its tax credits come from the federal government: They qualified for this project because it was based on a multi-family housing project which is for larger families. In order for them #o qualify, theysaid that they were going to provide 30% to 40% of the total units, available to larger families. Commissioner Karaki stated that more than 3Q% of the 42 units shall be three to four bedrooms.' Abby Semblanfes indicated that when the applicant originally applied for this project; they submitted their proposal for 68 units, and the city said that it.was foo dense. 8o the applicant reduced it from 68 units to 46 units, which is almost 30%. Theyreduced the density, but in order to continue to receive those funds, , they had to provide the greater number of bedrooms. ' Commissioner Karaki asked several questions about'the bedroom count and Abby Semblantes clarified ' that the reduced the density from 68 to 46 required the largerbedroom count Commissioner Karaki questioned how they came up with 22, which represents more than 30% of the total units, having three or four bedrooms: He wanted to know the densityof the population that is,going to occupy those apartment units. He also questioned the parking provided for the original 62 units: Charfes Hutchison stated that the plan for 68 units was a little over a year old. He indicated that there was an issue over a 25 foot segment of the property which resulted in a reduced parcel size. When they lost that 25 feet, it also reduced the parking structure; He indicated that the project submitted to 'fCAC " ~ was for 46-units. It was for three and four bedroom units to help with the funds that were lost from loosing : the 68-units. Once they received allocations on those 46-units and they received the allocations, they were locked into unit mix. They cannot change it now if they wanted ta They now have to build what was allocated to them. The state handed out minimum square footages for the units. One bedroom is 550 square feet, 750 for two bedrooms, and 1,000 for three bedroom and 1,200 for four bedroom. Chairman Eastman and Karaki inquired further as to how the applicant arrived at 22-units with four ~ bedrooms and the parking required. Charles Hutchison indicated that he could not remember. That it was over a year ago. In speaking with our architect, the entire site was subterranean parking. He believes they pulled the parking structure back, in just dealing with the 25 foot loss of property that they thought they had when they were originally : at the 68-uinits. Right now, the site and the site plan has been scrutinized. They value engineered it as far down as they possibly could. The Redevelopment Agency asked them to enhance the project to make it look appealing and be functionaL , , Kimberly Wong indicated that the affordable rental development projects require a minimum of two parking spaces for each a four bedroom unit. Judy Dadant clarified fhat this is a requirement of state law. If an affordable project meets the minimum criteria, which this project does, we are mandated by state law to give them this parking ratio. IYs not the discretion of the Commission or staff. Chairman Eastman indicated that the premise there is that, because it is affordable they will not be able to afford more cars than two and they are near public transportation. Abby Semblantes indicated that it is a given incentive under state law. ~ 03-19-07 Page 19 . MARCM 19, 2007= PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez asked the.Redevelopment Agency if they have seen other.projects that the • applicant currently owns. Andy Nogal, Project Manager II stated they have not seen any other of their projects. Commissioner Velasquez indicated that she is looking for a:track record since the applicant is making a statement that the neighbors concern is one of poor management. She said thatperhaps that was the problem with #he other projecf that was there. She asked if the agency has taken the time to look at this applicanYs project. Andy Nogal indicated that they have not. But in order to approve the management plan, which is required of the developer the city will review the on-site management. The city also reserves the right to approve ' the management company. And the agency has the ability to remove that management company if they are not running up to par: And they have the ability of course, to have certain conditions in the management plan. Like a parking plan. That would be a requirement of this project, and other requirements to ensure that,the site is properly managed. Commissioner Velasquez asked if out of the 46-units, only nine of those units are required to be affordable. ' Andy Nogal indicated she was correct. However, the developer is requesting funding from the Tax Payer Allocation Committee which requires 100% affordable.` Commissioner Velasquez commented that it would only apply if they were to get that funding. As it stands with their current proposal, only nine have to be affordable. Andy Nogal indicated that was correct under the zoning. • Commissioner Velasquez indicated that it was a lot of give for nine units. Commissioner Velasquez stated they have heard all the comments from the neighbors and is glad that they've taken the time because they would not have known otherwise what the issues are. And in as much as she is for affordable housing, she wants to try to find a balance, a justification. She asked about the strictness of the occupancy of the affordable units. She also asked for the total number of residents based on occupancy requirements. She also asked if the occupancy limit applies only to the affordable units or does it apply to the entire project. Andy Nogal answered that it applied to the entire project. The question was asked earlier about the allowance for occupancy. The applicant can have two people per bedroom, plus one. So it is assumed that someone could live in the living room. For the four bedroom, it would be nine. And for the three bedroom, it would be seven. This obviously assumes the worse case scenario. Chairman Eastman said that would verify the 368 figure that one of the people who objected gave earlier. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the issues that are being raised by the neighbors are very real. They have had the experience with a lower density pro}ect that was in its place. She is concemed about the height of the building. She does not know how big that wall can be. She knows it cannot be three stories high. But the Commission needs some help from the agency. She indicated that a hardship would be created for the neighborhood. Andy Nogal indicated that this project will be 100% affordable. It cannot happen without funding, required under TCAC. If their funding goes away, they can't do this project alone. However, assuming that the project would go forward, and the agency were to participate, with its developer, then the agency will require 100% affordability for a 55year term. There is the zoning aspect of it, which the Commission is considering today as a part of the density bonus. Given the number of incentives they are only required ~ to provide a certain level of affordability. Then there is the part of it dealing'with the applicant's requirement, Under the CTCAC regulations which would mandate a 100% affordable project. Before the' 03-19=07 Page 20 MARCH 19, 200T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commission today is actually 46-units affordable. With the separation of the density bonus which oniy requires nine of those units being affordable. Abby Semblantes stated that there is a letter of understanding: The nine units are in compliance with the state density bonu§ law and it is just a minimum requirement. The applicant is actually applying for the state density bonus under the affordable housing rental options. Those nine units are actually restricted ' ' for 55 years and that goes with the land. In the'event that this project would change ownership, for example, right now it is going to be 100°/a affordable. `She clarified that even with a change ownership, nine of those units will be restricted to very low income for 55 years. A density bonus housing"agreement would be executed that would go into pface and be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Buffa asked if there were gates in the waA along the alley in the single family neighborhood except for the trash pick up. She indicated that her plans show two pedestrian gates. She asked if a person would be able to gain access through the gate. Charles Hutchison stafed that there would be no access from outside the wall except forthe trash. The manager'wheels the trash out to have it picked up and puts it back. ' Commissioner Buffa stated that the plan clearly shows'two single gates between the trash enclosure gates. She indicated that one of the problems with the prior apartment project was people jumping over the wall to.get to the alley for whatever reason. She asked if it would work to provide a pedestrian gate so people can legitimately walk through there at specified times for school or other reasons. She clarified that it would not be open all the time so that anybody could wander through. She suggested that the applicant pursue that in a community meeting and perhaps ifwould alleviate the wall jumping issue. She asked the applicant to indicate address the issue of play areas for chi{dren. Charles Hutchison had no objection to that. They already submitted this project to the state for ~ allocations and have received the award, so they are locked into 46-units. They are Iocked intothree and : four bedrooms. He indicated that the project provides Very adequate recreation rooms, basketball courts, video games and amenities for the children to play with. He indicated that at the neighborhood meeting he voiced that they have a project in Buena Parkthat is fully occupied. It is a 100% senior project. He offered the invitation for anybody to go take a look at it. To address Commissioner Velasquez's question, 100% of these units will be affordable for the next 55 years. Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant if they are locked in to the 22, four bedrooms and three bedrooms Units: He further asked if the applicant could work with 12-units versus 22-units and the rest one and two bedrooms. Charles Hutchison clarified that they are filing for CTCAC allocations in a few days and that he would have to look at the pro-forma and the financial feasibility of reducing the number of three and four - bedroom units. Commissioner Buffa asked if the applicant has occupancy standards and if they choose families first. Charles Hutchison said they look through criminal background, go through credit checks. Income is also a reviewed because obviously these units are income restricted. If they have a family that comes in that meets all requirements, thaYs who they're are going, to like to rent to or lease to. Commissioner Buffa asked if he could give an estimate of what percentage of units are leased to groups of single people who just decided to be room mates. She indicated that she thought that they are trying to serve families. It might be a brother and a sister and their four children that they have through one of their relationships. She did not see the reason for the hesitancy on the number of bedrooms. ~ Charles Hutchison agreed. MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Andy Nogai addressed an earlier question about monitoring and indicated that the agency requires on an annual basis that there be monitoring of the development. The developer is required to lease to Anaheim residents and the residents must come from the city's #amily,wait list: The city maintains a wait list for seniors, families and special needs. During the initial lease-up, the city conducts the initial checking of these residents. In other words, as people leave, the city has first right of refusal to put in a resident that is from the city's list. Chairman Eastman asked if the City has an ongoing list of hundreds bf people waiting. Andy Nogal indicated that it is a veryJong list. The city monitors income levels, occupancy and parking. The city inspects the site #o ensure that it is prope~ly maintained. Charles Hutchison indicated that the state has similar requirements: If there are .two people living there and they are both working, nine times out of ten, their income would be too high. Commissioner Romero'indicated that he is really concerned:about the land use decision that the ' Commission is being asked to make here. He expressed that whatever they decide and approve they are ` going to be affecting`the quality of life of tfie folks that are in the immediate neighborhood. Chairman Eastman indicated fhat she did not think that a land use decision' is being made by the Commission. That it has alreadybeen made. Commissioner Romero agreed with that. He indicated concerns of the project severely impacting the immediate neighbors like Mr. Garcia, Mr. Contreras and the rest of the folks that have detailed their concerns. He stated that it seems like the projecY is to dense for what the neigh6orhood warrants. £hairman Eastman indicated that the land use designation from the General'Plan and the zoning allowup to 60 units. i Judy Dadant indicated that based on the current zone for the property, which is already in place, this parcel would allow up to 51 dwelling units. Commissioner Romero states that doubling the number of units on this property is going to have a big impact on these folks in here and he is therefore, leaning towards not supporting the request. Judy Dadant ~esponded to a prior question about grading by stating that there are provisions in Title 17 of theAnaheim Municipal Code that regulate grading ope"rations which involve and include limitations on the hours of work, as well as wetting and erosion control measures that should address the grading issue. She further stated that Government Code Section 65915 pertaining to density bonuses is a state law that applies to the City of Anaheim. The zoning code has been recently adopted to comply with those state law provisions. She summarized that projects which qualify for a density bonus are allowed to have unlimited tier one incentives and three, tier two incentives. This project qualifies for these incentives. The City is required to grant the request for the project unless it can make the findings identified in Paragraph 22 of the staff report. Unless the public or the Commission has been presented with evidence that indicates that those two findings can be made, the City is required to approve the project. Mark Gordon expanded on the point that Ms. Dadant raised. The General Plan supports this development. The zoning that is in place is for a multiple-family residential project that allows development at a density that is greater than what is proposed by this project. Certain entitlements are a matter of right at that location. This project qualifies for certain incentives. Not only under state law, but under the recently amended Density Bonus Law that the City adopted that this Commission recently : considered and approved and recommended to our City Council. He reiterated the requirement to approve the project unless findings can be made to deny it. r 03-19-07 Page 22 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Flores indicated that it is her understanding that a three or fourbedroom unit, does not ~ necessarily mean that there will be two occupants in each room. A family rriight be a single woman with two children. A male and a female of a certain age, may be required to be in`a separate room. Some units may only room three individuals.-She indicated'thatbecause of overcrowding issues; it is easy to assume thaf a high bedroom count would result in a high occupancy. Because they are going to be monitored, not all the units, will have seven to eight people. There are going to be some units that will only have three or four people. Perhaps palm trees could be used as a screen to provide privacy to the single-family homes. She recognized the need for affordable housing and commended the applicant for doing this project. Charles Hutchison indicated that a line of sight study will be conducted to address the privacy issue and had no objection of working with the community. CommissionerFaessel stated that even though the Commission has heard testimony that the site could accommodate upwards of 368 people with only 92 parking spaces the Commission can not do anything about it because of state law. Someone asked if they could speak from the audience. Chairman Eastman called the audience to order and indicated`that CommissionerFaessel was trying to explain the Commission's limitations because of state law. 'She encouraged the community to work with the developer. Community Development staff will'continue to do what they can within the law. The city ; will hold this developer responsible for holding up his end of things. Commissioner Faessel stated he feels powerless to do much on this issue 6ecause of the constraints as dictated by the State of California regulation. His main concern is the parking issue: He believes that the wall and trash issues can be mitigated. He said over flow parking is an issue that he hears constantly about. ~ Chairman Eastman indicated that this is an issue that is beyond the scope of the hearing today. There is a higher group in the City that the public can go to wifh their complaints about things like this. Commissioner Karaki indicated support for affordable housing. There are many units being built that are not affordable. He indicated to the pub{ic that their presence will encourage the developer to work with them in the future to address their concerns. He encouraged the public to work with the Redevelopment Agency and the developer. ' Commissioner Velasquez suggested the applicant work with the agency and staff to work on the fa~ade of the building, so that it does not have to look like an affordable building and to work with the residents to address their concems. Charles Hutchison said he has been working with the Redevelopment Agency for over a year now. The site plan has gone through many revisions which are the result of comments that he has received. He further indicated that the project would include professional management'and that it would be monitored by both the state and the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Eastman stated that based on the Commission's experience with housing authority staff and the outcome of other city involved projects; that this project shoufd move forward. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion to determine that this project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 2115.23. Commissioner Flores seconded motion. The motion passed with 7 ayes. (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, • Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman,) . 03-19-07 ' Page 23 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Karaki offered a motion to determine that the proposed 46-unit affordable apartment • complies with code. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. Chairman Eastman asked the applicant if he was going to follow through on everything he said and the hearing. She also asked if he would make a pledge to the neighbors that he will continue to. work with them as much as possible to mitigate all their concerns. Charles Hutchison indicated yes. The motion passed with 7 ayes: (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel,'Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.) Commissioner'Flores asked why this item was brought to the Commission given its limited ability to change the project. Mark Gordon indicated that the Commission' is the approval authority and that is the way the Code is structured:' He stated that certain findings could be made to disapprove a project, but that those findings are very limited. ' He informed the Commission of the potential legal ramifications if'a project with quaiified incentives was denied. He also indicated that if there was a health concern'or a strong:safety concern it could be used #o disapprove one or more incentives. - Commissioner Flores questioned the ability for the applicant to change a project because of the funding situation. Mark Gordon indicated that those are the kinds of considerations that determine if a project developer is < going to go forward: He clarified that the economics of the project is up to the developer to determine if it is feasible. _ _ ~ Commissioner Flores indicated concerns over adequate open space and the desire to see the project when it could still be modified. Mark Gordon responded that hopefully the City is going to commit to developing some open space in the area. The state helps affordable projects by providing protections that limit the city's ability to disapprove projects that otherwise qualify. OPPOSITION: 6 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 19 minutes (4:21-5:40) ~ 03-19-07 Page 24 MARCH 19, 2007 ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Buffa/Velasquez 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05185 Owner: Albert De Mascio Trust,1097 Via Verde, Cathedral City, CA 92234-4856 . Agent: Ed Perez, EP Development, 5753 - G 8anta Ana Canyon Road, #131 Anaheim, CA 92807 . Location: 125 North State Colieqe Boulevard: Property is approximately 0.66-acre; having a frontage of 101 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and is located 304 feeY north of the centerline of Center Street. Request to add a walk-up window to an existing restaurant and public dance facility: * Advertised as "with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages". Conditiona! Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-23 ~ Concurred with staff Granted CUP ' CommissionerBuffa offered a resolution to deny CUP. The resolution FAILED TO CARRY. VOTE: 3-4 Commissioners Flores, Karaki, Romero and Velasquez voted no CUP , Commissioner Karaki offered an alfernate resolution to approve CUP. Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 6 Added 3 conditions of approval VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim.net) - Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong presented the staff report. Ed Perez, Applicant, 176 South Vista Grande, City of Anaheim. Mr. Perez presented slides and gave description of the property and surrounding area. He wanted to state for the record that re-stripping will allow more parking at the rear of this building. He indicated for the record that he called the Anaheim Police Department to clarify a report dated March 9tn but did not get a response: He stipulated that the hours of use are Monday through Sunday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. Lunch is served from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Dinner is usually served from 5:00 p.m. until midnight. The services included are music and entertainment from various Latino groups and bands featured throughout Southern California, Orange County. The operation consists of about twelve (12) employees, eight (8) of which are full-time and four (4) part-time. Mr. Flores has been in this business since 1969. The police department stated that they responded to this location twenty-three (23) times in the last year. He represented and attended the Fullerton Court on behalf of an issue for a citation of a food cart. They have since mitigated that. On that one instance, the judge, granted the opportunity to give a one week extension to comply. The emphasis is a ten (10) by eleven (11) area. He reminded the Commissioners if they can just put emphasis on that particular area. It is just an improvemenYto provide an outdoor or take-out window service for the patrons. But based on the owner's testimony, he wanted to make note of the fact that there were no specific citings. Nor did the Anaheim Police Department come twenty-three (23) times to this specific locatiorr. He wanted to emphasis this for the public record. If the report indicated it was in proximity, such as loud disturbances or assaults or fights, it did not occur within : La Isla Bar and GriIL ~' He asked for a specific police xeport to detailing the issue and location. Of the twenty-three (23) items that are noted here there is nothing very specificthat says fhat it took place within, other than the report _ ` 03-19-07 Page 25 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • that we have here. There are four security officers on site that help mitigate. 7here is a"search down" that takes place whenever they have this type of entertainment. He is asking the Commission to grant him the right to improve the lunch peak hours. The staff concerns were about trash. There are methods to clean up. The applicant is willing to comply with the ten (10) seat maximum outdoors He requested at least a one year approvaL He indicated that the emphasis is the lunch period and that it is going to flow over into the evening hours as a take-out window. He further indicated that per Mr. Rick Solberg, the architect, the take-out window is to avoid indoor clutter: It is not a drive through, this is merely where individuals can come, drive up, and take their meal andleave or eat outside. ` There would be no real impact to hours. This is not a major design or detriment to the operation. They'are willing to comply with some of the conditions but the establishment is not in favor of being limited to 4:00 p.m. He clarified that it was never the intent serve alcohol at that take-out window. Amin David Indicated supportfior the project. That Mr. Francisco Flores is his friend and that he is a very decent, hard working individual and responds to the community. Ghairman Eastman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Faessel wanted clarification on where the proposed window:'will be because there does not seem to be a direct pathway from the kitchen to that window other than going through the lobby and the cashier sta4ion. Ed Perez indicated thatthey will make that correction on the plot plan. Chairman Eastman stated she met with Mr. Perez and walked the site. The restaurant has a walk- through area with a solid counter all the way across the fobby area. Ed Pe~ez indicated that food services can be brought from the kitchen directly tothe cashier area, thus servicing the window. He further stipulated that based on staff's recommendation theywill staywithin the ~ request for ten (10) seats. ; Chairman Eastman asked if patrons will be required to go into the premises and have their beer while they are waiting for their food. Ed Perez responded yes. Ed Perez indicated that alcohol no alcohol will be shown on the menu board. Also, to avoid clutter, condiments will not be kept outdoors. Commissioner Faessel asked if this window is used primarily only during lunch and what is the expected increase in business. Ed Perez responded that the owner was asking for an all day service and that he not be limited tp 4:00 p.m. Lunch time is slow, and he wants to improve the volume of business during the lunch hour. At this point the operator has zero percent on a take out food service window, and he can not gauge what the increase will be. He is aiming for 50/50. That is why seeking a year approval to monitor the progress and the operation. ' Commissioner Flores asked if there could there be some designated parking in the front for those individuafs who just want to come in, get their foad and get out. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner responded that the peak demand for this facility is really for the public dance hall that is in the evening. So if the intent is that during the day time, designation of a parking space or two for take-out service is fine. In the evenings when the public dance hall is busier and they need the parking; it woufd those spaces should be avaifable for the patrons of the public dance hall versus restaurant. But as Iong as the parking spaces are open and accessible it would meet the code ~ requirement. 03-19-07 Page 26 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Flores asked'if he would mind if the hours are limited to 10:00 a.m: to 9:00 p,m: • Ed Perez stated in his initial letter he just addressed the business hours. He did not identify the hours for a take-out window. Chairman Eastman stated she thinks that one of the concerns of staff and Commission is the possibility of alcohol going out that window and that was one of the `major reasons that police staff recommended limiting hours to 4:00 p.m. ' Ed Perez indicated that foot traffic is an important factor and sees an increase in foot traffic once the window is estab{ishetl. ` He concurred with designating parking for two vehicles for take out. He- mentioned that the site would have security. Chairman Eastman asked what time security ofFicers are on the premises. Ed Perez responded that he did not know buf speculated that it would be in the evening when this entertainment peak period starts He would highly recommend signs indicating that no alcohol be served at this window. He would even discourage the fact that alcohol could be served. `Because it is a bar, : there is a specific area where those individuals can go. Commissioner Romero stated that he met with Mr. Flores and Mr. Perez. He wanted to clarify that Mr. Perez was in agreement with the conditions with minor modifications and other than the time, Condition No. 6; was there anything else. Ed Perez responded that ltem No. 1, on page five of the staff report,"that only one walk-up window shall be permitted:' He wanted to clarify that the condition that reads "no accessory equipment or food supplies or displays shall be permitted in conjunction with this approval" is intended for outdoors. • Judy Dadant responded that Condition No. 1 can be clarified by adding the word `butdoors" after the word "perm ifted". Ed Perez agreed with that and indicated concurrence with condition no. 2 pertaining to landscaping. He then mentioned the operating hours. Chairman Eastman asked if his client would be opposed to an 8:00 or a 9:00 p.m. time. Ed Perez responded that he feels individuals still like to eat after 9:00 p.m. He would prefer 11:00 o'clock at night, but if the Commission desires 10:00 p.m. He indicated that 9:00 o'clock is just too soon. Chairman Eastman asked if he had issues wifh any other conditions. Ed Perez questioned the limitation on signs based on condition no. 12. Judy Dadant responded that if the menu board is not readily visible from the street in terms of being able to read it, that there are two ways address it. If it is placed inside the window,`staff would consider it window signage which is limited to 10% of the window area. If it is not placed in the window but on the wall, staff would not consider that wall signage for the building if it were not visible from the street. Commissioner Buffa stated that considering that there have been 22 police visits and anytime the police department has brought us a detailed list of the time and the date of exactlywhat happened, they back them all up, she can not support adding a walk-up window. They could serve take-out without changing the establishment. She indicated that they could increase business by advertising "take-out" service. Modify the building would create people waiting in front of the restaurant which would make it difficult to determine ifthey are waiting for a meal or loitering. This creates activity at the front of the restaurant that is impossible to control. Security can nof really keep an eye on what is going on: She does not supporf' ~ the walk-up window and'agrees with staff. The walk-up window is not needed. Motion is to approve the CEQA, but then to deny the CUP. 03-19-07 Paae 27 MARCH 19, 2007 , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Buffa offered a motion to approve the GEQA Categorical Exemption. Commissioner Karaki stated he would not second it. Commissioner Velasquez seconded the motion. The motion passed with 7 ayes. (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, . Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.) Commissioner Buffa offered a resolution to deny the Conditional Use Permit. ' Commissioner Karaki indicated that he does not thinkthat it will be harmful to the City to grant this window. He said it wouldbe appropriate to approve it for one year based on the conditions and limit the ' - hours of operation until 9:00 p.m. A one year trial would be a fair to see if it works and check with the ' Police Department to make sure there are no problems with this window. After one year the city can renew or revoke it. ' Commissioner Velasquez indicated. that the letter from the police department is very clear that they have : been at that location and that most calls were made after 10:00 p.m. She said that the issues were during the operation of the club and speculated an issue with security. She supported the window and - suggested that they #ry to improve service so people don't have to wait the 20 minutes to avoid loitering. Sfie concurred with the hours of operation limitation of 9:00 p.m. Chairman Eastman stated that she thinks a dance hall and a take out restaurant are not compatible uses. Elly Morris stated fhat the resolution for denial failed to carry. Commissioners Velasquez, Karaki, Romero ~ and Flores, voting no. Commissioners Faessel, Buffa and Eastman voting yes. Commissioner Karaki proposed a resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05185 with changes to Condition No. 6, limiting the operating hours to 9:00 p.m., adding a time limit for this Conditional Use Permit for one year from the date of approval and adding quarterly inspections by the Community 5ervice Preservation. Ed Perez asked if that is specific to the operation of the restaurant or the night club activities. Judy Dadant responded that Community Preservation checks for compliance with Conditions of Approval, so it would be all conditions. In response to Commissioner Romero's question about the cost, she thought it was about $70. Commissioner Faessel asked what the minimum level in foot candles is recommended for restaurant parking lots. Judy Dadant stated she believes the police department recommends an average foot candle of one, with minimum to maximum ratio of one to fifteen. Commissioner Faessel indicated that for him to support this for one year, he would like to have additional lighting in both the front and the back parking area up to no less than abouffive foot candles on average. Ten would be better. The one lighting fixture in the 6ack of the property is antiquated and totally inappropriate. He believes additional lighting in both the front and the back of the propertywill mitigate _ some of the police calls that have evidently been an issue. Judy Dadant indicated that the lighting should be sensitive to the motel to the west that has windows into : rooms. The city would have to look at shielding. • Commissioner Faessel statetl that he believes that there are cut off style of fixtures that coufd be purchased tha4 would allow increased lighting levels of both the parking lots and yet not cause difficulty 03-19-07 Page 28 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ for the adjoining motel. Since he has some expertise in this subject, he would propose that as an additional requirement. Ed Perez indicated concerns over the cost of this additional condition in relationto the tenant improvement. He is willing' to comply with the conditions imposed thus far but his`client is not there to accept the Iighting condition. He speculated the cost to be about $30,000. Commissioner Karaki suggested that they conduct a photometric study to see if he can make improvements to the lights he already has. Maybe the balusters just need to be changed. He suggested a condition for the applicant to work with Planning Department staff to conduct a phota metric study. : Ed Perez agreed to conduct a photo metric study. Judy Dadant asked the Commission what they wanted the minimum foot candle requirement to be. , Commissioner Faessel indicated that one foot candle is inefficient and not high enough level for an area that has exhibited #he amount of police calls as this has. Judy Dadant suggested deferring that decision to the police department, giyen the level of calls for service that they had. She suggested a condition that "adequate lighting shall be provided to the satisfaction of the police department through the provision of a photo=metric plan and that any additional lighting required after that study shalf be provided and the decision may be appealable to the Planning Commission as a Consent Item:' Commissioner Faessel agreed to that. ~ Mark Gordon clarified the proposed modifications as a change to Condition No..6 that would allow the walk-up window until 9:00 p.m. And then there would be three additional conditions. He identified Community Preservation quarterly inspections, at the cost of the applicant, a time limitation of one year ' _ and the condition regarding additional lighting. There was one other matter that was discussed earlier, and that is Condition No. 1. He referred to the modification offered by Judy Dadant so that it would indicate that it is permitted outdoor. Several Commissioners indicated yes and Chairman Eastman confirmed the changes,as read into the record. _ Elly Morris stated that the Resolution passed with seven yes votes. OPPOSITION: None : IN SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (5:41-6:41) D3-19-07 Page 29 MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. ' CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Buffa/Flores Concurred with staff 8b. WAIVER OF CODEREQUIREMENT Buffa/Flores Approved 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05187 Buffa Granted Owner: Peter Issa, 14822 Kornblum Avenue, ' vOTE: 6-0 Hawthorne, CA 90250-8437 Commissioner Velasyuez absent ' Agent: Jean-Pierre Boladian, Boladarck Architects, ' 221 East Glenoaks Boulevard #225, : Glendale, CA 91207 Location: 2437-2441 West Ball Road: Property is approximately 0.45-acre, and is iocated at the northwest'corner of Ball Road'and Roanne Street. r Request to permit the division of a retail uni4 into three (3) units and establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-24 Project P-anner: (kwong2@anaheim.net)) ' ~ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jean=Pierre Boladian, representative from Boladarck Design Corporation and N: Battle Architect stated he read the conditions and was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Buffa asked if there were four entry doors to serve three tenant spaces as illustrated on the final plan. Mr. Boladian responded the floor plan had been changed to two entry doors. Chairman Eastman stated the project was a beautiful improvement and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion to approve the CEQA Categorical Exemption. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed with 6 ayes (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero and Chairman Eastman.) Commissioner Velasquez absent. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion to approve the waiver for the required number of parking spaces. Commissioner Flores seconded the motion. • The motion passed with 6 ayes. (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa; Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, and Chairman Eastman.) Commissioner Velasquez absent. ' 03-19-07 Page 30 • ~ • MARCH 19, 200T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Buffa offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05187. EIIy Morris stated that the resolution passed with six (6) yes votes. ' OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal; rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Apri1 10, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (6:42-6:48) ' Commissioner Velasquez left the Council Chambers at 6:45 p.m. ~ ~ ~ MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISS{ON MINUTES 9a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Karaki/Romero Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Karaki/Romero Approved, in part 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05182 Karaki Granted Owner: Abdul Aziz, 22365 Birdeye Drive, ` WAIVERS Approved waivers (a), (cj, Diamond Bar, CA 81765-2404 , (d); and denied waiver (b) since it has been deleted. Agent: Shakil Patel, 25982 Hinckley Street, ' Loma Linda, CA 92354 VOTE: 6-0 Location: 1671 West Katella Avenue: Property is approximately' Commissioner velasquez absent 0.79-acre, having a frontage of 106 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and is located 283 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. ' Request to construct a 14-unit commercial retail center with waivers of (a) maximum structural height, {b) minimum landscaped setback abutting a residential zone, (c) minimum structural setback abutting a residential zone and (d) minimum number of parking spaces. Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-25 (kwong2@ananeim.net)) : Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Kelly Buffa wished to be informed if the other properties in the neighborhood with reduced setbacks from residential were one or two story buildings. Ms. Wong responded one story commercial buildings. Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ApplicanYs Testimony: Shakil Patel, 25982 Hinckley Street, Loma Linda, CA, architect of the project, stated the project is an infill project and their intent was not to go beyond the 35 feet height but to try and maintain a 28 feet height at the easterly property line. He indicated that only two single family homes would be impacted. The structural setback of the house to the building will be more than 40 to 50 feet. He stated that he could build about 16,000 square feet but is only building 13,800. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated concerns with the two story retail component creating a high'blank wall next to a residential area and atso the row of African Sumac trees being proposed along the property line; stating the Commission would want the trees to be evergreen and not a bare branch tree or a tree that would present a nuisance to the neighboring properties. Mr. Patel responded they will oblige Commission's preference and use a mixture of cedar and evergreen trees and work with staff. 03-19-07 Page 32 MARCH 19, 2bOT PLANNING`COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Judy Dadant, Senior Planner indicated that Condition No. 20 requires an eight (8) foot high decorative biock wall along the north and east property lines as well as broad-headed evergreen trees. She indicated that staff will make sure that that tree is one that is not so broatl-headed that iYll canopy over. But that it' is definitely evergreen. Chairman Eastman asked about the access between the block wall and the buiVding. She expressed concern over creating are area for vandalism'. Shakil Patel indicated that the client was concerned about that toa The area will be used for a fire PIV valve and a#rickle, sub-panel. He indicated plans to have a gate on either end to`stop the vandalism. It might also be required as a fire exit, so #he area will be more useable than just a dead space. Chairman Eastman recommended some vines in a few places. ~ Shakil Patel recognized the graffiti potentiaL Commissioner Faessel also indicated concem over a blank building elevation at this location. There was.discussion between the applicant,' staff and Commissioners Faessel and Eastman about ways to articulate the east bUilding elevation. There was also discussion about security'iighting. Shakil Patel discussed the movement of the building elevation with medallions to enhance fhe wa11. He also pointed out the closene§s of the proposed trees and that it would help articulate the elevation. Commissioner Joseph Karaki complimented the project and asked staff whyspace was 6eingleft between the property line and the blank wall; stating no one would see it and it would create a heaven for , transients to sleep there in the future. He indicated that itwould be more appropriate to plant the ~ landscaping elsewhere or to use the space for seating. Ms. Dadant stated when a commercial business is abutting a single family zone it is the intent of the City Code to provide a buffer so that the wall is not right on top of the single family residences,;that#here is at least a ten foot distance for landscaping so as to provide relief for the homeowners and their backyards. Commissioner Karaki stated that a portion of the property abuts commerciaL Shakil Patel indicated that one-third of the parcel abuts commercial in the front on Katella Judy Dadant responded that parcels that abut a commercial zone has a zero setback. The applicant ' could jog the building over to the property line where it abuts the commercial zone. The ten foot setback is only required where it abuts the residential zone. There was some additional discussion among the group about the most appropriate use of the setback area. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion to approve a CEQA Negative Declaration. Commissioner Romero seconded the motion. Motion passed with 6 ayes. (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, and Chairman Eastman.) Commission Velasquez was absent. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion to approve waivers (a), (c) and (d); and deny waiver (b) because it ` has been deleted. . Commissioner Romero seconded the motion. 03-19-07 Page 33 ~ MARCH 19, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Motion passed with'6 ayes. (Ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, and ~ Chairman Eastman.) Commission Velasquez was absent. Commissioner Karaki offered a Resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit 2007-05182. Elly Morris'indicated that the Resolution passed with six (6), yes votes. Chairman Eastman adjourned the meeting to 1:00 p.m. on April 2"a OPPOSITION: None ` Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2007: DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (6`.49-7:12) ~ / ~ Marle W itKay Senior Secretary