Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/07/09_ ~~PHE~M ~~~ City of Anaheim ~ r ~~ ~ o : Planning Commission . . ~ .. ~.,Fh. .~ ~ , . . . .. . . . ~ . , ' . :~ ~, Minutes . . , ~~~D~~ ;. Mondav, Julv 9, 2007 o e, '~'pUN 1$~~ Council Chamber, City Hall __ 4ED _:__ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Commissioners Present: Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Cecilia Flores (left at 4:40), Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney ' Della Herrick; Associate Planner, William Sell, Community Preservation Manager Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner Marie Newland, Planner- Linda Johnson; Principal Pfanner Kim Wong, Assistant Planner Susan Kim; Senior Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner ~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary ~ Bill Halligan, Planning Center, Vice President, Mariann Long, Assistant General Environmental Services Manager, Utilities Joint Services Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 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, June 14, 2007 • Call To Order • Preliminary Ptan Review 12:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JULY 9, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 220 • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Flores • Public Comments • • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCACTIONAGENDA~2007MI NUTES1AC070907.DOC J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION' MINUTES . Anaheim Pfanning Commission Meeting - 2:30 P.M. Pubiic Comments: None Planning: Commission Appointments: Appointmenfiof a Planning Commission Chairman (Motion) Appointment of a Planning Commission Chairman Fro-Tempore _ (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Kelly Buffa as Commission Chairman;for 2007/2008. : ACTION: Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and . MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Joseph Karaki as Commission Chairman Pro-Tempore for:2007/2008. . _ • 07-09-07 Page 2 JULY 9, 2007 : PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' • Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eas#man offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and : MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Velasguez abstained on Item 1-C), for approval of ' Consent Calendar Items 1-B and 1-C as recommended by_staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reqorts and Recommendations 1A. (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved - :: (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) ` - (b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2004-00007 APProved : (Tracking Na FSP2007-00008) Motion: FaesselNelasquez - Agent: Bob Linder _ 5141 California Suite 250 VOTE: 7-0 ` Irvine, CA 92617 Location: 1551 East Wrictht Circle. i Determination of substantial conformance with previously- approved exhibits to modify a podium building _ condominium project into a 250-unit wrap building Project P~anner: apartment project within the Platinum Triangle. (ethien@anaheim.net) (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Faessel stated that in going over the staff report on Item No. 1A he noticed that the developer was seeking LEED Certification (a level of green building) for the project and he asked the developer to give a brief background regarding the certification. : Casey Keller, representing BRE Properties, Inc., responded that the mnemonic LEED means Leadership and-Energy and Efficient Design and he stated°that this is the second building BRE has committed to build as a green building. For example; previously on the property was the Dunkel Brothers Building and one of the initiatives to obtain grading . • permits was that they took the building and recycled the concrete. Therefore they feel they 07-09-07 . Page 3 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • have recycled as much of the building as possible which is about 1 of about 60 items that is required for LEED. Commissioner Faessel asked Ms. Long, a representative from Public Utilities, to speak on the project. Mariann Long, Assistanf General Manager, Utilities Joint Services, stated they have quite a few incentives that they want to make sure tlevelopers and builders are aware of to obtain green buildings, and assured Commissioner Faessel that she would speak further with Mr. Keller on the programs that they have available. : Commissioner Faessel stated #hat he wanted to ensure that contact has been made and that the developer uses every possible partnership thatAnaheim has to offer. ~ DISCUSSION: 4 minutes (2:40-2:44) 1B. (a)' CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 329 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) (b) VARIANCE NO. 2004-04597 °(c) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16440 (Tracking Nos. VAR2007-04729 AND SUB2007-00047) ~ Agent: Stonegate Development LLC 27071 Cabot Road Suite 106 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Location: (No Address): Property is approximately 32.3 acres located 1,400 feet south of the intersection of Santa ' Ana Canyon Road and future Deer Canyon Road between Festival Drive to the east and Eucalyptus Drive to the west. I Requests retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for the following applications: Variance No. 2004-04597 - to waive minimum front yard setback for Lot No. 13. Approved Approved retroactive extension of time for one year (to expire on June 7, 2008) Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Tentative Tract Ma No. 16440 - to establish a 39-lot, 35- Project Planner: P (skoehm@anaheim.net) unit detached single-family residential subdivision. 07-09-07 Page 4 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Minutes 1 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of June 25, 2007. (Motion) . Consenf Calendar , Approval VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez abstained as ' she was absent for the '' meeting. 07-09-07 Page 5 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0: 2007-00460 August 20, 2007 2c. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2006-00190 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05175 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17139 Motion: Romero/Eastman VOTE: fi-0 Owner: Natalie Tran Commissioner Flores _ 3100 Gindacita absent Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Anaheim, CA 92804-1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy Ward 2614 Ocean Blvd. ~ Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Location: 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West Lindacita Lane: Portion A: Property is approximately 0.27-acres, having a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 W. Lindacita Ln). Portion B: Property is approximately 1.68 acres, is a land-locked parcel and is located north across a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 S. Beach Blvd). General Plan Arnendment No. 2007-00460 - Request to redesignate Portion A from the Low Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density designation. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 - Request reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone • to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone, and Portion B from the T(Transition) zone to 07-09-07 : Page 6 ~ ~, C~ J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone and to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. Conditionat Use Permit No. 2006-05175 - Request to construct an 11-unit detached single-family residential ' subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B. Tentative Tract Map Na 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered' and 1 lettered lot, 11-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions A and B. Continued from the June 11, and June 25, 2007 Pianning Commission Meetings. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution Na Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Roy Ward, representing Mertco, 2614 Ocean Bou(evard, Corona Del Mar, CA, stated they have worked approximately a year with staff in trying to see if it would be possible to unlandiock this piece of property. They have taken several approaches to it with the last and most reasonable one they felt was viable was the access taken to Lindacita over the additional lot which they acquired from another family member involved. He stated his understanding is that any citizen has the right to grant easements pn their property. He believes the Trans are asking nothing more than to grant another easement to the larger Parcel B over the lot and advance that easement on out to Lindacita. He feels the question is simple: how do we get this land lock piece of land available for development in Anaheim for the owners. The City did not create it nor did the present owners create it but it was created many years ago, sometime in the middle 1960's. Otherwise, they have worked with staff to come up with almost complete compliance with all of the requirements of the zoning code that they are requesting with exception of 1) the access and 2) the types of street designs that they are suggesting. The actual street width is 28 feet unlike other cities which is 24 feet. They have moved the sidewalk to the curb leaving all the front yard and land as a landscape park area in front of the houses. They believe there are 3 solutions to this problem and ask that the Planning Commission and staff give them advice on what to do. He stated at this point he intended to ask for a continuance to see if they can work even further with staff and work out the access under the following situations: 1) , Parcel A could become part of Parcel B in the Tentative Tract Map, 2) They will provide the access on the lot and rebuild the house to conform to the community and look of the neighborhood. They have had four (4) meetings with their neighbors and have worked with their neighbors and they have some agreement on the plan for the project but generally speaking the people on Lindacifa have great concern on the traffic and parking. They 07-09-07 _ Page 7 JULY 9, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t believe they have mitigated those and provided a traffic study which they feel is adequate to show it does nof become a burden on the"neighborhood. Debra Quiqley, 3140 E. Radcliffe Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated that she does not live in the neighborhood but that she grew up in the neighborhood and her parents still reside on Lindacita Lane. She stated that what Commission has before them is a neighborhood with ' ' deep roots in Anaheim. The neighborhood has grown and has added streets, neighbors, etc. So it is not a problem with change but change that respects the neighborhood; and the respect goes both ways - new and old. She feels they are only asking for respect out of ` this project but shehas not seen the respect given: She has been at a meeting where it was implied that the neighbors were asking too much of the developers however she does not feel the neighborhood is asking too much to stay the same. The neighbors want respect. She asked the question when does the good of the one outweigh the good of the 250; because not only was there Lindacita, Graciosa, Grand Avenue, Olinda, Vallejo, Bridgeport, Cherokee, etc. and a lot of neighbors who are very concerned about the project. She stated that it has been brought up to the developer to make a bridge across the drainage ditch and it would not affect the neighbors that way and the land .would no longer be landlocked. Mark Bucher, representing Cherokee Mobile Home Owner's Association, 18002 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 108, Tustin, CA, stated that they do not have quite the same issues of some of the people that live in the area of Lindacita because the traffic is not intended to go ~ through their property however they do have two issues: 1) There is a drainage easement that comes into the channel and currently there is an underground drain but there are substantial problems that occur when the channel gets filled up - a substantial amount of water comes back in and causes flooding. They are concerned that it is going to be made worse by the development and they have talked with the developer and feel there are things that could be done to resolve the issue but no agreement has been made. Therefore the Cherokee community would like to see that there be an agreement reached on how to make sure they can mitigate the problem and not make it worse. He indicated by pointing to the map that there is an access to the entire parcel where there is a gate that people come through and there has only been one or two people living there so there are cars that come every now and then. There is an existing home which is being left essentially intact and is the home~which has the access. The easements actually overlap and the thing that concerns the residents is that the finro openings together potentially could become a shortcut for vehicular access because if the gates are left open, cars could drive through and become a shortcut. He feels it would absolutely become a shortcut even if the gates are not left open for pedestrian traffic; for children who wish to get to the new community center, and dramatically affect the quality of life in the Cherokee community. He believes there is a very simple solution - either build a wall on one end or the other. He _ _ #eels there is not a reason why the existing home which currently has one access needs ` two. He spoke to the developer and cannot get a reason why the developer needs to : maintain tlieir proposal now that they have a brand new street and new way out. He realizes staff cannot force an easement to be extinguished but believes as a condition of the project staff will not allow a gate to be built as a condition of the project or if the - • applicant would agree to enclose the wall stafF would allow the access. He ensured that 07-09-07 Page 8 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . they are'not opposed to the development for any other reason than the amount of traffic would ,generate. Terry Lee Sanford, President of Cherokee Mobile Home Owner's Association, 235 South ` Beach Boulevard #106, Anaheim, CA, stated' concern over the north side of their development where there is an additional park and apartment buildings. The park is not the problem but the apartment building has had the problem for years of people jumping the back fence to use the Cherokee Community Park; it has become a very nice shortcut: He stated that since the building of the youth center they would have Orangeview and Western High School coming down Lindacita through the new development and over Cherokee Community wall to make their shortcut. Since the residents have put up trellises and grown vines approximately 8 feet high on the north side they have had a great reduction in people jumping the fence and the loss of garden ornaments and garden furniture that were disappearing priorto that. He stated that they have been told that there would be a 7-foot wall there and if that wall was complete'they beiieve that woufd be sufficient to°prevent drivers through the communitypark: The second problem is that they are an adult`senior park and have~ many retired people of various ages and #here are no sidewalks in the park. They are concerned about vehicular traffic not abiding by the speed ` limits especially with reduced reaction times for seniors: He referred to the plan and stated that section B is being divided into two parts; the area that is being built and the rest of the old farm' house. He pointed out that an additional area has room to build two (2) to three (3) more homes beyond the original home and stated that if the entire lot is rezoned at R-4 it would mean all of the people would use the community's easement, but their easement ~ was granted to'only one family. He reiterated that their concern is the safety of their members and residents. Maxine Ford, 235 South Beach Space M, Anaheim, CA, stated Cherokee Mobile Home Park is a resident owned park and they are celebrating their 21St year of ownership this month - 35 years, and it is also a senior park so she asked Commission not to change the zoning and feels if the park is taken away it will take away everything. She stated that they do not have sidewalks and people use their wheelchairs, walkers and canes and have to walk the street. She stated that the applicant promised her that she would not build as long as her father was alive however she feels if the zone is changed the applicant will build as soon as she can therefore she asked Commission to leave the zoning as resident 1. Betty Wilkison, 3104 West Lindacita Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated she is very much with all that is happening in Anaheim, especially all the good things that have happened in West ~ Anaheim - the police station, fire station and the Tesco that is coming in and feels even Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard will someday look like Anaheim. She stated that she concurs with staff on the denial of all the components of the project presented today however their~ concerns are much more than the General Plan Amendment, which of course is of major importance. The removal of one proposed house from the 3100 Lindacita Lane property would not really make a difference so their concern is with the - project as it is the access through the proposed property and feels that has not been addressed in the staff report. She stated the proposed demolition of the house at 3100 - West Lindacita Lane to build.a private narrow street back to the property at 237 South Beach Boulevard is yery~disturbing to her and her husband as well as the entire , : Y -` : > ~ ~ : ' 07-09-07 : _ , r. , , . Page 9 _ JULY 9, 2007 ' . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • neighborhood. They are a tract of homes built in the late 50's; in the RS-2 zone with lots of 7,200 square feet or larger. People are constantly upgrading their homes and the City has helped by adding the street fights and they have put in parkway trees. She stated that she looks at their neighborhood as the vision of Anaheim with a mixture of young and old, blue collar and professional, all ethnic groups and all living peacefully together and they even have a fourth generation. Therefore,' they are asking to be able to enjoy their residential - neighborhood without adding a street through to the Beach Boulevard property. Some of the reasons for their objections are aesthetics. A private narrow street antl two-story' home of a different style between two 50's style homes would degrade the visual character of the surrounding neighbor.hood. The grass, trees and shrubs that are on the property will be gone and replaced by concrete and asphalt. A private street would physically divide their neighborhood. The zoning is incompatible with their neighborhood - the lots are 7;200 square feet orJarger. The noise - their would be a substantial permanent increase in noise: levels next to homes because of a street with traffic moving in and out 24/7, and her neighbor's bedroom would be 20 feet from the proposed street. She stated that they did not buy a house on a corner lot. Probably most important to her,' is the substantial increase in hazards due to the design features of the knuckle. She stated that she admits that she is - not a traffic engineer but she has spoken to the Traffic Department in the City of Anaheim, and the traffic engineer advised the developer that the proposed site was not adequate for access to the Beach Boulevard property. The project would substantially increase hazards _ due to a design feature - a sharp curb. People take the curb from Lindacita to Grand like it is a curb but actually it is a corner. There are 15 mph speed fimit signs there. Wesfern ' • High`School is at the end of Lindacita Lane. Grand Avenue has a signal that is a shortcut through to Western High School or Western Avenue. This corner has become a real problem. She feels that.adding a street there would only add:to an already big problem. She stated that they are also eoncerned with ingress and egress in their driveway as they _ have not yet seen a site plan that shows the private street going all the way to the public street but feels even finro feet is close coming out of their driveway. She feels that opening up a private street that has a right-of-way through Cherokee to Beach Boulevard causes concern to through traffic. Information, noise, aesthetics, land use and hazards of the corner are all of great concern. She stated that even if they were to somehow comply with _ the zoning the use of that property for a private narrow street would be objectionable to the adjoining property owners in the neighborhood in general. She asked for the health and safety ofi citizens in the area that Commission deny the development of 3100 Lindacita for access to the parcel at 237 South Beach Boulevard because there is not a way to make a safe street for that location. She suggested that if the applicant is interested ir- making changes to their access that they visit properties on~Orange Avenue or Beach Boulevard which are more consistent with their zoning. They have enjoyed a single-family residence and have a cactus garden on the property while enjoying the right-of-way through Cherokee. She stated they are anxious to see improvements on Beach Boulevard but their neighborhoods must be kept intact because what happens on Beach Boulevard should not become a burden to the adjoining properties. Rhonda Larson, representing Halecrest Heritage Estate, 206 South Loma Linda Drive, stated she was 6 months old when she started lived there. She presented a view of how it would look when the house on 3100 Lindacita would be demolished and the new homes i would be built. She sfated they are used to a very loving neighborhood and having the _ , 07-09-07 ~ Page 10 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •' proposed property adtled to it would be problematic. Her main concern is there are seven (7) active gangs in their neighborhood and having the new development coming in gives an opportunity for a gang member to buy a home there and since it is so reclusive it could be another place for crimes to occur. According to the 2006 Anaheim Police Report, Anaheim ranked in one of the top 10 cities of the highest crime. There were 129 crimes in 2007. She feels if more people are added in a reclusive area it screams out that it is the perfect spot and the police cannot control the area very wel1, especially if it is a gated community. She`added that she would not feel safe walking with her dogs and asked that Commission - consider denial of the proposaL _ Patricia Garcia, 3136 Lindacita Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated that everyone who lives in her household are ail registered voters and all sent emails to the Commission concerning the subject matter. She stated that they moved into their home on her youngest child's first birthday who will be 21 in August. They have invested a considerable amount of money in their home and have one of the largest single-story homes on Lindacita Lane with abuilt in pooL She stated that no one has really addressed the safety due to fhe traffic. They have very young children playing and she has almost been hit while trying to cross her street. Most people have two cars which would be a minimum of 20 vehicles causing potential nearmisses. She stated that there are several original owners`in the neighborhood and the addition of the proposed property would destroy the family neighborhood. It would not conform to what is there. It would be converting two tracts into three tracts. There is other property that it would conform to. She feels that for the safety of all of their residents,' ~ several of which are disabled. She welcomes anyone to come during graduation week and try to get into Lindacita Lane or during September - October, during football season and try to get into Lindacita Lane. Lindacita Lane and Del Monte are the only two entrances into their housing tract and she believes the developer created it that way to avoid access to a major street for the children because back in the 50's there were a lot of children . running around. She does not feel the proposed project will benefit anyone except the Tran family and Mr. Ward. Rachel Garcia, 3136 West Lindacita Lane, Anaheim, CA stated she concurs with the previous speakers and asked that Commission take into consideration how many people were present who were actually opposing the plan and the few people present who were not opposing the plan because it would really affect what she has grown up with her entire ' life. She stated that if they wanted to live on a major street they would have moved to one or stayed where they were but their neighborhood was built to be a quiet and small neighborhood for a purpose. John C. Searight, 3111 West Vallejo Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated that the parking estimate shown in the plot of the new development seems somewhat optimistic because.it depicts two car garages and finro cars in the driveway but he only knows of two houses in the entire tract that put finro cars in their garage. There are issues with putting one car in their garage. He stated that the six (6) car street parking in the new tract is going to be used up quickly and cars are going to be parked along Grand or Lindacita and that if anyone should have family members over for dinner they wou{d also have to park along Grand or. tindacita. ~ Secondly, he noted that a traffic study was performed but the counters were placed on Lindacita east of Loma Linda and on Grand south of DeI Monte and as such they only - 07-09-07 Page 11 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ covered a couple of the possible routes into the knuckle of Lindacita and Grand and that this was done at a time when there was construction at Lincoln Avenue and Grand. Numerous drivers were avoiding that entire north end of the traet therefore he feels that the traffic study was somewhat flawed in that way. He stated thaf coming out of the new tract on the entrance road there is good visibility down Lindacita but visibility to the north'of ' Grand would be blocked by the parked cars, shrubs, and bushes. He feels this is important because these roads are used regularly because it is the most convenient way to get to the north or east from that area'- going up Grand to Crescent or Lincoln Avenue is a good option to avoid traffic. He stated that a major concern is the zoning change of a house in portion A, stating that by changing that from RS-2 to RS-4 causes the people on-Vallejo Drive duress because they have heard that the Tran family has also bought another house . there so they worry that sometime in the future, usingthe rezoning as a precedenfithey . would want to bring a street out through the parcel thus making Vallejo Drive a through street rather than a dead-end street. He stated that he has lived there for27 years and has seen several generations come and go and be able to play on the sidewalks and in the streets with quite a bit of safety and they would not like to` see it turned into an exit street firom any current planned fract or larger one that might include that portion of :the tract. Ray Hoag, 3122 West Lindacita Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated that he and his wife have lived there for over 50 years and have raised four children there. Debra Quiggley; who spoke earlier, is one of his daughters. He realizes people have property that they try to sell and : make a profit on and he is not opposed to that but expresses that the problems created by ~ this activity must be looked at, and at the same time it must be recognized that there are over 200 voters in the Hillcrest estates, stating that people vote and businesses do not. Additionally, he stated that it is bad enough that the community has a iandlocked piece of property and he feels sorry for the owners but at the same time anything you would do there is like introducing a"cancer" into what is an old and well established neighborhood. He concurred with the speakers before him that while he does not wish the applicant any ill will he is trying to protect the community's interest in keeping the character of their neighborhood intact. Commissioner Flores asked why the vast members in the audience were wearing yellow ribbons. Mr. Hoag responded that they are not the Red Coats and the Indians but rather it is an indication of the people from the Hillcrest and Cherokee neighborhoods. Pam Idoine, 330 South Grand Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated in regards to parking the proposed streets are very narrow and as been previously stated there are only six (6) spaces and she is not against the applicants developing the property and is all for it but as many of her predecessors have said they would like to maintain their quality of life in their neighborhood. She is concerned because there are current parking problems and wondered if they would have to go to permif parking because the proposed parking would definitely impact her. She asked if they should have to go to permit parking would the developer be willing to pay for all the permits'. Additionally, she stated that her husband • has lived in the Hillcrest neighborhood since he was 4 days old and they purchased the neighborhood to be close to her mother-in-law and. feels because it is a tight neighborhood 07-09-07 _ Page 12 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNINGCOMMISSION MINUTES • if her children were misbehaving other adults would warn them that they would inform their parents. ` There is a cul-de-sac next to her house and the children play ball and various other games there. She has provided drinks to the neighborhood kids over the years and still does even though her kids are 17 and 21: She believes they are safe therebecause there is less traffic at the cul-de-sac. She stated that a neighbor has had cars go through their yard and she has had a fire hydrant in front of her house knocked over by cars. She feels that traffic in the neighborhood is a serious problem and cannot understand how having an additional development with the proposed narrow street would alleviate any of #he traffic problems but would make them worse. She is also concerned about the fine of sight going tlown Grand Avenue as they are pulling out. She was fortunate to have her children play in her front yard without worrying about them and would hate to see that change. She is all for the applicant building the property and all for including them into their neighborhood but would like them to be all for joining the neighborhood and not be exclusionary. _ Michael Schoppman, 3148 W. Bridg.eport Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated that he submitted a: petition of 223 signatures to Kimberly Wong but since the submittal he has received 8 more for a total of 231. The petition was to request that the Planning Gommission deny the reclassification of rezoning of the two properties, deny the tentative tract map, and deny the conditional use permit concurrent with the request of the planning staff, In addition, they : had a neighborhood meeting with approximately 75 to 80 people to discuss the possible pros and cons and demonstrated a chart listing their ideas. He stated that he also wanted ~ to give the applicant a chance to come up with something that was good about the development but feels there really is not anything good. The only people that it is good for are the ones that would benefit from it financially and added that one good thing it has`done is brought the neighbors closer together. He asked the Commission to please consider the 230 plus signatures from the residents that are requesting denial of the development. He indicated that since this is the third time they have come out regarding the issue he asked Commission to deny the request for continuance as well because he is unsure how many more times he can take off work before it threatens his job as well as many of his constituents. Many of the members of the neighborhood are elderly and disabled and it has proved a burden on them to continue attending the meetings. Dennis Owens, 235 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, stated he has lived in Cherokee since 1985 and served on the board for six years; resigning in January 2003. He pointed to the aerial map to show how people enter the gate. He stated that both pedestrian and vehicular trafficwould be a nuisance to their community. He stated they already have - issues with dumping, children with skateboards, buses unloading students and parties going on which generates traffic in and out. It is critical that it,not become a thoroughfare and that the access is restricted by the deed to only the one usage. They have been ° threatened by former owners that they would do something that would cause traffic to come through and there are 173 homeowners and no one wants to see more traffic on the streets. ~ Shirley Bonem, 3800 San Miguel Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated she wished to add her name to the petition in opposition and stated that by opening up portion A to portion' B they would ' be making portion B a part of the Lindacita/Grand neighborhood and feels if it is part of the . 07-09-07 Page 13 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • neighborhood ifi should be zoned the same and the lot sizes should be the same: There should only be five (5) houses on portion B rather than 11', antl there is a possibility later on of another property on portion B being subdivided into three'(3) additional houses. The houses' on portion B are on very small lots - 3,000 square feet and the houses on Grand and Lindacita are on large lots over 6,000 square feet. Therefore, portion B is not compatible with the other neighborhood that it is being added onto. , Charles T. Horton, 310 Southwest Vallejo Drive, Anaheim; CA, stated that he wished to make 3 points: 1) he objects strenuously to it being called a landlocked parcel because it has legal access through the Cherokee Mobile Home Park and therefore cannot be called a landlock parcel; 2) the gate into the remaining Tran property which is approximately one acre, would allow more than a 11 home tract but rather a 22 home tract because the zoning would be changed; 3) the only reasonable way #his should be built is with"access to Orange Avenue - a major thoroughfare. This can be done in one or two ways. He stated that he suggested one way to the developer and the developersaid it cost too much money - and that is putting a road over the flood control channeL This can be done and it is a perFectly. reasonable way to adding access to this property.' They could gate the property,or whatever they want and it would not impact the existing neighborhoods. The other way would be by purchasing one of the two properties on Orange Avenue. He thought that one of those may be available. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development) 604 ~ Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated that from the indications of the presentations the two neighborhoods are very adamant about what they would like to see done and what is being done to their neighborhood. She stated that in the ten (10) years that WAND has assisted and pursued land use in West Anaheim she has never seen as many people come together on a project that affects them. She asked Commission to take into consideration how passionate they are about their neighborhood. She stated that WAND is always interested in the parking and she asked Commission there are six cars parked along the northern end of the street and what would prevent cars from being parked all the way over to Lindacita. She feels that the access through the mobile park home should be closed and access taken through Lindacita. Cherokee Park gave that access because at a time it was landlocked. When this project is completed, whatever is put in there, it will not be : landlocked anymore and the lot can also have access to Lindacita. A wall could put at the entrance into Cherokee Park and the park would nolongec have to worry about any cars coming through there. She reiterated the importance of safety for the older residents. She stated that she hoped Commission would deny the project and maybe something lesser could be put in there and also that Commission would deny the access through Cherokee Park. ~ Maxine Peterson, stated that she has lived on Lindacita Lane since May 1957. They raised six (6) children there since kindergarten and through college. They have loved that it has been secluded and have a beautiful home where it seems enclosed where nobody seems to bother them. They work on the neighborhood watch and the police program, but they do not want to work with the proposed project because they don't need it ancl she concurs with ~ the many reasons previously mentioned. 07-09-07 Page 14 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES' `~ Laura Ahern, 235 South Beach Boulevard #2; stated that she is one of the big reasons why traffic is not good in Gherokee Park. In 2000 she Jost her sight and she is also deaf. She indicated that she felf safe there and has a scooter for access. She explained her limitations and maximum speed of 2 miles per hour for using;the scooter on the sidewalk. She stated her reason for speaking is because she has friends that come and see her. She explained how she is able to get day-to-day things done. She isreally concerned because other#raffic coming through the mobile home park. She indicated her age and that many of the residents in the park are elderly. Kiyofumi Matsuura, 3147 Vallejo Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated that he is from Japan and surVived the atomic bomb and came to the United States, was drafted and served in Korea, and then found a nice place to live in Anaheim in 1972. He has nice neighbors and everybody helps him and he helps them and the neighborhood is quiet. Now, younger people are driving cars and'it is so loud that he'cannot sleep. He needs his sleep because he is disabled and he takes prescription drugs to sleep but he never complains He bought a house on a VA ioan and tries to keep his house nice. He indicated issues with crossing the street with his walker because of the speed of the cars on the streef. He does not care if the applicant makes a profit but fears that if the proposal is approved and the cul-de-sac is opened it would be too dangerous because drivers would cut the corner and drive really fasf without the consideration of disabied people or chifdren. He reiterates that it is not the place to open and make another street because it is too dangerous and even he drives about 15'miles due to the children playing. He stated thaf he also raised his children there .. and now would just like to have peace and plans to be there until he dies. He concurs'that it is difficult to make the Gommission meetings because for example, he had to cancel his VA appointments and if he cancels the VA appointments he has to wait three to four months to get the treatments, but he states that he comes to stand with his neighbors to help them preserve their community. Also, he has diabetes and has to eat on schedule because otherwise he would pass out therefore, he ask the Gommission not to continue the proposal again. Carol Hoffman, 327 South Grand Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated that the number of cars driving through scares them very much. She stated that she and her family have three (3) cars and not one of them is parked in the garage and she believes no one else would park their cars in the garage either. She feels if everybody has that many cars the traffic is going to be terrible. She also has raised her children in the neighborhood and indicated the value of kids being able to piay in the front yard without having to worry about the cars coming out. Marla K. Fenwick, 235 S. Beach Boulevard, #21, Anaheim, CA, stated that the maintenance of their street comes out of their monthfy Homeowner's fee and her concern is. . that they would still have to pay to have the streets repaved and maintained when other people are allowed to drive through their parks and wear out the stree~s. Chris Ibarra, 235 South Beach Boufevard, Anaheim, CA, stated she is one half of the park management for Cherokee Homeowner's Association and they are in charge of the streets, ~ parking, traffic control, etc., and one of her main concerns is that if they have that many homes coming through the easement she would-not have authority over them. Also, she 07-09-07 Page 15 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • stated that there is extensive flooding in the back of the park and asked how it would be taken care of. Roy Wilkison, 3104 West Lindacita Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated that he has lived in his house since 1963 and the proposed house is within 20 feet of his home. He stated what scares him is if if is demolished, what would happen to his house. Ray Hoag, 3122 West Lindacita Lane, Anaheim; CA, stated he has heard discussion on the : size fior each unit in each traet. He has heard 5,000 square feet, and 3,000 square feet and would like to clarification. He did some calculation using a conversion on his computer and for 1:6 acres which is 69,696 square feet, eleven (11) homes at 5,000 feet a parcel plus another 618 square feet for a finro lane road could be developed. He asked for clarification of the square footage per unit. Patricia Garcia, 3136 Cindacita Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated she did not believe that anyone there is against progress but asked progress at what expense. She stated that she also has 1,000,000 miles logged because she was a professional school bus driver for 25 years and won' Orange County School Bus Rodeo Driving Competition and can attest to the fact that people drive very quickly. But they are not really against #he progress #hey are against destroying a neighborhood that has been in existence for over 50 years when there is an alternative, which is going over the creek and going out onto a main street, Orange ' Avenue, and it would not affect anyone. They are all for progress but not af the expense of '~ anyone's life or safety. She asked that Commission not to continue the item and resolve the issue at today's meeting. Applicant's rebuttal: Mr. Ward stated that he is overwhelmed because they had no idea working with staff that access would be an issue. They also feel there is a solution and therefore request at least two weeks to resolve the issue with staff. He stated there are three (3) general views that they reviewed earlier. He would like to (1) include portion A into the tract map, (2) remove one house and keep them separate but would expect to be granted an easement through there to the property in the rear. He indicated that Ms. Tran should have the right to develop her property to conform to the general plan of the City. The property designated for the.use proposed and they have proposed a plan under density. He hopes they can come up with a solution that may not be happy for everyone but that would be tolerable. Commissioner Velasquez stated based on the different options that the developer presented she is ready to take a vote and not grant the continuance. She opposes portion A; is against building the street without a parkway; and having the gate that would go from portion B to the property adjacent to the mobile home park. Therefore, she concurs with staff to deny. Commissioner Romero stated to his count there were 26 speakers who spoke and there were quite a few not opposed to the development but rather believed that there was , S~ another solution whether going through the creek or going through Beach Boulevard: He 07-09-07 Page 16 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • feels that granting the applicant the extension so that they could work out some of the issues would be a solution for them. Commissioner Karaki concurred with Commissioner Romero that the applicant has a right to develop his land and if no one agrees with him he should at least be given a chance to come back with a solution that might be acceptable. He stated that the community was not ' opposing the development but rather opposing:the access of the:development. He : believed that it would be fair to all the` applicant time; therefore, He agrees to continue,the case to four (4) weeks instead of two (2) weeks. Commissioner Flores stated that she does not concur with an extension but concurs with Commissioner Velasquez regarding the sidewalk; etc. in that if it is approved the applicant should install sidewalks and curbs atthe iocation. She suggested reducing the unit from eleven (11), close the easement to the mobile home park to gain community support, and look at building another access. She asked if the remaining large lot was developed in the near future how they would gain access. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, responded that as he understands it, there is an ` existing easement on portion B. He ~farified that the easement is something between the two contiguous landowners and not something that the City would get involved'in with trying to extinguish or expand those rights. It is something that has to be negotiated between the parties and something that the easement either addresses in writing or it does ~ not. Commissioner Flores asked if the Commission's zone change would be for the total lot or ' just the portion where they are building the homes. Mr. Gordon responded what is under consideration today is the entire portion B and not just the portion that is proposed for development but the proportion of portion B that is not proposed for development as well. Yes, it would be a rezone that would apply to that part of the property as welL Commissioner Flores asked when Commission would be required to consider the access for the larger lot. Mr. Gordon responded that would have to be something that the applicant, for that portion of the project, would have to contend with as part of the development of that property. Commissioner Flores stated that with the information given she would support a continuance. Commissioner Faessel indicated that taking all of fhe testimony into account, including the comments from his fellow Commissioners, and the changes suggested by the Commissioners such as changing the roadway, changing the egress and access perhaps adding an additional bridge over the Carbon Creek channel makes the current project ~ presented today completely difFerent. He stated #hat he believes changes are necessary. Taking into account the very strong public sentiment against the project he would go ahead 07-09-07 Page 17 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ and make'the motion to approve the negative declaration, deny the General Plan Amendment, deny the reclassification, deny the conditional use permit and deny the tentative tract map. _ . ~ .; - Commissioner Faessel,offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez, to approve the Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent):; Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to deny the General Plan Amendment. The resolution to deny the General Plan Amendment passed .with 4 ayes votes with Commissioners Karaki and Romero voting no (Commissioner Flores absent). Chairman Buffa wished to discuss the item further before proceeding. Commissioner Eastman stated that she is against the General Plan change after hearing the overwhelming testimony from the neighborhood for Portion A and she voted'to oppose - #he General Plan change for that reason. She stated that she is not opposed to developing the property and believes that it is vital that additional homes areneeded,in Anaheim and the Council has set that necessity at the policy level therefore she has a feeling if the subject project were #o come before them it might be supported. That poses another _ challenge because she feels there is a way to make some compromises and make this work for everybody. There were several testimonies stating they were not opposed to ~ progress. Progress means some of the vacant land in the City gets developed into homes which could be a benefit for the neighborhood and the mobile home park community, Based on those issues she would either abstain or deny because she would like to see a continuance on the item. Chairman Buffa concurred with Commissioner Eastman and stated at this point they have sent a very clear message to the applicant that they are not supporting changing the zoning on the first parcels near the street and beyond that she prefers to continue the item and give the applicant an opportunity to try and find a solution to satisfy the property owner's right to develop and also address many of the neighborhood concerns. She stated procedurally Commission would need to amend the motion and stop here and continue or go ahead and vote on 2C through ZF and see how it plays out. Commissioner Faessel stated in order to make a motion to continue the item he therefore withdraws the balance of his suggested resolutions in order to allow a vote to continue. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated Commission has taken a partial action on the subject application which is not undone by a continuance therefore he.suggested if ~ Commission decides to continue the item perhaps they should leave the action as it stands right now and the two prior actions could be reconsidered at the next meeting. The rules of , procedure would require any reconsideration to be done at the very next meeting therefore Commission would have to reconsider those actions at this time. ~ 07-09-07 Page 18 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ Commissioner Buffa stated regarding'the General Plan Amendment the Commissions vote would mean they are not happy with the applicant developing two (2) homes on portion A which fronts on Lindacita. Commissioner Romero and Karaki wished to change their vote to deny the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Buffa stated that the outcome would not change during the next meeting therefore she recommended thatthe Commissions action today on items 2a and 2b remain in place and items 2c thru 2f be continued fo'r six (6) weeks or until the date of the hearing. Mark Gordon stated as it stands right now you have a negative action on the General Plan Amendment which is critical to the resolution of this application'and if this portion of the decision stands here today then we are left with the situation that the appeal rights on that particular part of the action would commence from today and the balance of the action would be postponed from some future point and time'after the appeal rights have run on that particular part of the action and it leaves the applicanf in a very ditfiicult position. Commissioner Buffa stated she is wiAing to reverse her decision to continue the item. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to reconsider the votes on item 2a and 2b. ~ Commissioner Faessel explained to the audience that it was necessary to reverse the two prior actions to the applicant has the opportunity for all of his application to be heard together. He emphasized his desire for a vote today. Mr. Gordon stated the action would be the motion to rescind the resolution that was offered disapproving the General Plan Amendment and the motion to approve the CEQA. Commissioner Velasquez asked if it was alright to extend this request since it has already been continued several times. Ms. Dadant, indicated a decision would have to be made by November 15, 2007. Commissioner Buffa stated that based on the City Attorney's recommendation she would amend the motion from reconsidering the action to rescind the prior actions on items 2a and 2b. Commissioner Eastman seconded the motion. The motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to continue this request to August 20, 2007. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). 07-09-07 Page 19 JULY 9, 2007 ' - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSfTION: 23 peopie spoke in opposition to the su6ject request. A letter was received in opposition and a photograph was su6mitted at the public hearing. Prior to the meeting, 14 letters were received in opposition and finro petitions were submitted with a total of 442 signatures in opposition to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 10 minutes (2:55-5:05) ' Commissioner Flores /eft the Council Chambers at 4:40 p.m. A 5-minute break was taken (5:05-5:10) ~ 07-09-07 Page 20 JULY 9, 2007 ° PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - • : 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2006-00335 Approved, with Errata Faessel 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00446 Recommended City Faessel Council Approval 3c. AMENDMENT TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER Recommended City LAND USE PLAN (MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT N0. 2006- Council Approval 00162 Faessel Recommended City - 3d. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00054 Council Approval of FaesseUEastman Draft Ordinance' 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05134 Faessel Granted 3f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2006-00004 Faessel Recomrr~ended City Council Approval 3g. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17089 Faessel/Eastman Approved Owner: Drew Singer AMB Property Corporation ~ Peir 1 bay 1 San Francisco, CA 94111 Agent: New Urban West, INC. - 1733 Ocean Ave, Suite 350 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Location: 1969 South State Colle4e Boulevard: This property is a 17.5-acre site at the southwest corner af Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard within the Gene Autry District of The Platinum Triangle in the City of Anaheim. The site has a frontage of approximately 1,210 feet on the south side of Gene Autry Way and 600 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard. ` Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-00335 - Request for certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 335, including adoption of a Statement of Findin,gs of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation a.. Monitoring Program No. 143 for the Gene Autry Experience project. EIR No. 335 has been prepared to serve as the primary environmental document for GPA2006-00446, ~ CUP2006-05134, SUBTTM17089, DAG2006-00004, ZCA2007-00054 and MIS2006-00162 and subsequent actions related to implementation of the project. VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Flores absent . J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSFON IV~.INUTES • Implementation is intended to include, but not be limited to, the approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street t I f' I't I d th I t d f improvemen p ans, ina si e p ans, an o er re a e ac ions for the GeneAutry Experience project. Future actions related to the Gene Autry Experience project that require additional , discretionary'review will utilize this document for CEQA purposes to the extent possible, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. ' General Plan Amendment No.`2006-00446 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the'maximum number of dwelling units permitted in The Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units. Miscellaneous Permit No. 2006-00162 - Request to ~mend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to increase the maximum number of dwelling units in the Gene Autry District from 1,000 to 1;699 and the total number of:dwelling units in The Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units. ` Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00054 - Request to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to ~ increase the maximum number of dwelling units in the Gene Autry District from 1,000 to 1,699 and the fotal number of dwelling units in The Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05134 - Request to permit building heights over 100 feet (up to 300 feet proposed) for the proposed Gene Autry Experience project. I Development Agreement No. 2006-00004 - Request to adopt a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and AMB Property, L.P. and New Urban West Land, L.L.C. for a mixed use development. Tentative Tract Map No.~17089 - To establish a 21-lot, mixed use subdivision with 1,208 residential units; 100,000 square feet of office; and, 50,000 square feet of commercial. Continued from the June 25, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. PC2007-68 General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-69 Miscellaneous Permit Resolution No. PC2007-70 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-71 , Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2007-72 Project Planner: (skim@anaheim.nef) 07-09-07 Page 22 ~ Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Susan Kim, Senior Planner; presented the staff'report. Tom Zanic, representing New Urban Wesf, 1733 Ocean Avenue, 350 Santa Monica, CA, - stated that they feel privileged to be a part of building the City's vision in thePlatinum Triangle, particularly at the key location of State Callege Boulevard and Gene Autry Way which is identified in the City's master plan as being an icon location. He stated that it will be exciting, challenging and a shining star for the City and also for Southern Cafifornia. New Urban West has a proud history of development in Southern California building ' numerous planned communities since 1955. With regard to urban development, they plan to break ground in early 2008 on an urban village in Northridge in San Fernando Valley and it actually has a lot of similarities to this site; 16 acres, 800 units, 50,000 of ground floor retail and walking distance to existing shapping, movies and other amenities. Closer to Anaheim and Huntington Beach they were the master builder along with their partner_ ' CheVcon Land and the Howe Seaport Barrier building and the Howe Seaport Specifie Plan they built over 1000 homes around the Seaport Country Club. He stated that his education . ~ stems from personally working for local and state government m land use planning and they try to focus their projects on partnerships with local governments and communities to try to achieve the vision that already exists in the community in:'a creative way. They developed a plan for the subject site with Ken Ryan, who helped to develop the Platinum Triangle master plan with planning staff. They chose Ken because they felt they could assure themselves more closely aligning with meeting the goals and the vision of the City. Ken Ryan, representing KTGY for New Urban West, 17992 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA, presented a power point presentation demonstrating in detail the intents and purposes of _ the proposed project. Public Testimony: Tom Rizzuti, representing the Anaheim City School District, 10Q1 S. East Street, Anaheim, CA, prefaced his remarks by stating that the school district neither opposes nor supports the project but that he is present to reiterate the district's concerns regarding the continued increase of allowable residence density in the City, particularly in the Platinum Triangle. With this increased density no consideration is being given to the focation of the school to serve students who will be generated from an ever growing number of future residential units. Under the current allowable densities the project before Commission today could have only constructed 509 residential units, which would have left the remaining acreage available for other uses such as a school. Instead the request is for a density increase of 699 units. This-increase on{y serves to increase the likelihood of more students while taking away another option for the school district in terms of providing facilities. Despite their enrollment decline over the last few years, the Anaheim City School District remains overcrowded. This is evidence by the fact that seven (7) of the City's schools remain on a multi-tract year around calend"ar and the 200 portable classes on the campuses that occupy playground space. He stated that they do not have adequate space for students generated • from the residential development regardless of the number of those students. Additionally, because of their overcrowding they will not be able to say what school will be able to 07-09-07 Page 23 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~' accommodate the students from this or any other Platinum Triangle project but what they can say with certainty however is that students from this area will be going to a school located a significant distance away and school buses will be required to get them there at great expense. He asks that schools be given the consideration they desenre as essential public facilities much like roads, sewers, police and fire protection.. Now is the time to help the Anaheim City School District locate and reserve a site for a future schooL They stand readyto work with the City and the development community to come up with a creative workable solution. Commissioner Buffa asked if the school district has engaged in any regular meetings with the City.to discuss reservation of school sites in the development process. Mr. Rizzuti responded that they have contacted City staff on occasion and:a lot of #heir _ communication has been through the CEQA process and working in that arena in terms of getting a mitigation measure in place to ask the City to work with them in locating a school site. They have also metywith.a couple of developers, at the request of City staff, regarding -. their project and what #he school district might be. Commissioner Buffa stated the City's,hands are tied under the rules of CEQA and therefore she would encourage the school district to get outside the CEQA process and - communicate with the City to discuss some of the property owned by the City. ~ Mr. Rizzuti responded that they understand that lega!!y the developer fees satisfy all requirements under CEQA and they basically look at it as a way to get their comments on the public record and to have their concerns addressed and they will continue to work with ` the City. Commissioner Romero concurred with Commissioner Buffa and stated there are a lofi of discussions with what was going on around and you have 9,500 to 10,000 units coming to this triangle and Commission has not seen a proposal from the school district so he asked what their plan was and what direction would they go from this point. Mr. Riuuti responded that after today's proposal of 10,000 units and the potential for 17,000 units that even with a very small student generation that the need for a school will be required. They would like to work cooperatively with the City and understand the importance of the Platinum Triangle to the City. They would like to work to locate a school site that works best for everyone and they are asking for the City's help. They feel that if the developers see the location of a schoo( as a priority that there will perhaps be more incentive to work with the school district when they are putting their development plans together. Commissioner Karaki stated that the land values within the Platinum Triangle will approach values that are not affordable to the school district. He asked if they were going outside the outskirts of the Platinum Triangle in the industrial area. ~ Mr: Rizzuti responded that they would certainly consider any possible option that they can but do not have any specific sites at this moment. They are aiways on the lookout#or 07-09-07 Page 24 _ JULY 9, 2007 ~~~ _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~omething that would be appropriate; however they unfortunately have their own constraints because of the restrictions from the state in terms of how close a school site can be to a freeway, railroad track, etc. Commissioner Karaki indicated that the Commission is also concerned about the situation. Commissioner Faessel stated the EIR report is somewhat sizeable and he actually read every word of it and paid close attention to the issue having to do with the school. He stated that he also read the schooPs letter dated May 25, 2007, and the staff's response which indicates that the level one (1) school impact fees which is split with the Anaheim high school district is at $2.63 a foot and .42 cents a foot for commercial and industrial space. There is a lot of office and commercial space and substantial square footage of residential included in the projeet so he fee{s thatthe district should receive a sizeable grant on the project. He concurs with Commissioner Karaki that the Commission is very sensitive tp the school issue but their hands are tied and appreciates that he has come to read it into the records. Commissioner Romero stated they are trying to create something new for the City of Anaheim and the applicant is trying to bring an urban lifestyle and with the urban lifestyle is a different type of resident that will be in the community. So he asked the applicant what is the typical buyer profile that he is expecting for his project. ~ Mr. Zanic responded potentially in the project they are building in Northridge they feel they have similar type buyers and that is probably at the younger end of the spectrum and the older end of the spectrum and the middle end will probably not be living there. Chairperson Buffa stated that in a prior version of the EIR Mr. Halligan had included language comparing this project to the project being built in Long Beach, CA, and she thought they were pretty reasonable comparisons. She feels the City will see a profile that tends to be a family but not a large family and although the fees for the school district will remain the same, the number of students generated will be lower. Again, she encouraged the schoo! district to work with the City, not just when development issues come forward but in other times as well so that they will have a broader range of opportunities to state the case. Jim Adams, representing Los AngeleslOrange Counties Building and Conservation Trades Council, 436 South Camellia Street, Anaheim, CA, stated their council represents approximately 130,000 crafts; men and women for affiliated crafts union in the construction industry; and he is a 32 year resident of AnaMeim. He stated they were neither present to oppose or support the project but rather they were present due to concern about jobs for locaf residents, local contractors, area standard wages, apprenticeship and contribution to apprenticeship. They look at themselves as a pillar of community for the labor industry and they are serious about the 800 acres that are under redevelopment in the Platinum Triangle and they are reaching out to this devefoper as they have others to work with the building ' trade and the building trade a~liate for this project. Commissioner Buffa closed the public hearing. 07-09-07 Page 25 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Faessei referred to staff and asked questions regarding the EIR, specific to the infrastructure improvements necessary to support not only this project but future ones that will come before the Commission. , ~... Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated generally this is a project thaf is asking for an additional `699 units and they are also working on an EIR which will be released this week _: for a larger expansion area so fihey have been doing extensive studies in terms of infrastructure and density and capacity. Bill Halligan, Planning Center, stated to touch briefly on some of the infrastructure issues associated with the project, as part of the EIR they did a water supply assessment that looked at water supply for the project as well as a sewer demand analysis which analyzed : impacts to all the waste water infrastructure. ln terms of electricity, no new#acilities or substations are"required for this project. For schools, the City is somewhat tied bySB50 relating to the payment of fees. For traffic there was one intersection that fails af build out of the project and that was at State College and Gateway. There are available improvements on the stadium property that would mitigate the issue at that time the stadium,district develops. Commissioner Velasquez asked Ms. Johnson to give a brief preview of the larger property that she addressed. ~ Ms. Johnson stated the Platinum Triangle expansion basically would double the intensity in the Platinum Triangle. When they originally drafted the plan in 2004,,the City's vision for this area was to consolidate development around the major core around State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue Orangewood, Gene Autry, etc. The intensity was first come first served with development agreements. In the short period of time since the adoption of the master land use plan, the developers have either submitted deVelopment agreements where they have been approved or they are pending for all of the remaining intensity on privately owned land. There are about four (4) projects that wanf additional intensity : beyond what is already in the plan. The City owned land in the Stadium District, Arena District and the North Net Fire Station site, is entitled for development but there is no specific development project on those. The demand for intensity is for the privately owned parcels. The City conducted sewer and traffic studies to determine the potential upper limit. An EIR will be circulated later this week with the recommendations. She anticipates taking the request to the Planning Commission on September 17, 2007. The entire infrastructure that goes afong with the increased intensity has been studied and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified for improvements. Ms.:Velasquez asked if the cap on intensity was based on the infrastructure or if the City has a plan stating the maximum number of units. Ms. Johnson stated this is a City initiated effort to look at potential maximum density in the Platinum Triangle. There are approximately four (4) projects in various stages of ~, processing within that umbrella. She could not determine if there wilf be developers who ' have other ideas and may not come back and want additional intensity: Those particular _ 07-09-07 Page 26 JUtY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , projects would have to come forth and involve infrastructure analysis at that point. The City is looking at the best opportunity areas within the Platinum Triangle to fill in #he missing pieces to create an urban -environment and .make sure that the development opportunities are laid out. ,~:. , ; Mr. Faessel` stated for the record, he spoke with Mr. Ryan briefly on the phone and they ' talked about a number. of issues, some of which were dealt with today. He referred to Mr. Ryan and strongly encouraged him or the applicant`to contact the City's Public Utility Department to see what potentiat for green building is available. He recognized that some of the energy saving points presented are required by Title 24. Mr. Ryan stated he appreciates that suggestion and stated not every City will encourage cooperation with Utilities because they are encouraging'green building. He indicated that he can take that suggestion to heart and will do that. Commissioner Karaki stated, for the record, he met with Mr. Zanic and Mr. Ryan in his office and stated this is one of the rare opportunities that Anaheim gets to have an internationally'known architect design a building in a manner that sets higher standards for future developments. He commended the applicant on the design of the public park and indicated he was proud to have the project in the City. Chairman Buffa concurred and stated there are three (3) aspects to this project that she ~ feels are of key importance to the City of Anaheim, not just this development, but that reach ' beyond just the scope of the property. She identified the wonderful iconic building, the park along Gene A~atry, and the conceptual pedestrian bridge. She indicated that she feels it is critical to the City's success to provide an alternative pedestrian access other than at street level on State College Boulevard after a baseball game. She commends the developer for keeping the bridge in the plan and keeping it at the forefront of the discussion. Commissioner Romero stated for the record that he met with the applicant as well and also commends them on the great design they have brought before Commission and feels the project is a key project for Anaheim and will create the urban lifestyle they are looking for. Commissioner Karaki stated he wished to include the people who work behind the scene; the planning department, the staff, because it takes a great deal of effort and time to work with the applicant for such a project Commissioner Eastman stated, for the record, she met with Mr. Ryan and received a preview before receiving the staff report and it was wonderFul to see the iconic building and she complimented him on the fact that he is also planning to incorporate public art into that . public space. It is not a requirement and many cities make it a condition but Anaheim is proud that it tries to encourage rather than mandate things to people. So she commends him for the art as welL • Commissioner Velasquez stated finally the City is at the point where it has wanted the Platinum Triangle to be. There have been some projects that they have actually sent back and reworked but seeing a project of this magnitude and the way it was done is awesome. 07-09-07 Page 27 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to certify EIR No. 2006-00335 and adopt the Gene Autry Experience Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 143 with errata. Ms. Dadant stated the: resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendmenf No. 2006-00446 be approved. Ms. Dadant stated that the resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to recommend to the City Council that Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan be approved. Ms. Dadant stated that the Resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, that Zoning Code'Amendment No. 2007-00054 be approved. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006- 05134. ~ Ms. Dadant stated the reso(ution assed with 6 a es Commissioner Flores absent). p Y ~ Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Development Agreement No. 2006- 00004. Ms. Dadant stated the resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to approve the Tentative Tract Map No. 17089. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: Two people spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights~for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 19, 2007, and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 31, 2007. The subject item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City CounciL ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 55 minutes (5:10-6:05) 07-09-07 Page 28 J U LY 9, 2007 f- ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MFNUTES ~ ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ,July 23, 2007 4c. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00455 4d. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-OQ198 4e. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT . Motion: EastmaniKaraki 4f. 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2007-05200 4g. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17116 VOTE: 7-0 Owner: La Vue LLC 30622 La Vue Street : Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 : Agent: Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh 30622 La Vue Street Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Location: 1556 West Katella Avenue: Property is ' approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of : 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and is located 170 feet west of the centerline ofi Bayless Street. ~ G eneral Plan Amendment No. 2007-00455 - Request to amend the land use element map of the General Plan redesignating the property from the General Commercial designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential* designation. Reclassification No. 2007-00198 - Request recfassification of the subject property from the T(Transition) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05200 - Request to construct a 14-unit attached residential planned unit devefopment with modification to development standards and waiver of setback between buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 17116 - To establish a 1-lot, 14- unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. *Advertised as Medium DensityResidential. Continued from the June 25, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. ~ General Plan Amendment No Reclassification Resolution Na : Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim.net) : 07-09-07 Page 29 JULY 9, 2007 ;~ • JULY.9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION'MINUTES ~ ` n C 5a. CEQA SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT onti ued :to REPORT NO. 332 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) AND July 23, 2007 ' ADDENDUM (READVERTISED) 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-Q0445 5c. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTNO. 2007-00060 Motion: Romero/Eastman 5d. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2007-00202 5e..' RECLASSIFICATION NO: 2007-00207 VOTE: 7-0 5f. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05222 5g. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0. 2007-00001 ` Owner: 2130 Dupont Company 2130 East Dupont Drive Anaheim, CA 92806 Japos INC., 2220 East Orangewood Avenue Wind-Dor iNC., Anaheim, CA 92806-3110 Agent: Sheldon Group ~ 901 Dove Street, Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2210-2220 East Oranaewood Avenue, 2130 & 2231 Dupont Drive*: Area A: Property encompasses approximately 820 acres located at the confluence of the Interstate 5 Freeway and the SR-57 Freeway, in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. Area B: This rectangularly-shaped, 3.8 acre property is located at the southeast and _ southwest corner of Dupont Drive and Orangewood Avenue with a frontage of 362 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and frontages of 452** feet on the east side of East Dupont Drive and 445** feet on the west side of West Dupont Drive. *Advertised as Dupont Circle. **Advertised as 296. ;• General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00445 - Request to amend the Land Use Elemenf of the General Plan to increase _ 07-09-07 Page 31 ~ the maximum office and/or retail square footage permitted in The Platinum Triangle and to remove the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use`Overlay, Orangewood District. ~ Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00060 - Request to amend The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code), to establish the Orangewood District. Miscellaneous Permit Na 2007-00202 - Request to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to establish the '- Orangewood District. Reclassification No. 2007-00207 - Request to rescind the Resolution of Intent to reclassify the property to the 0-H zone and request to reclassify properties from the I(Industrial) zone to I(PTMU Overlay-Orangewood District) (Industrial, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay - Orangewood District) zone for Area B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05222 - Requesf to permit a building height over 100 feet up to 311 feet for a proposed '~ 20-story office building and to permit the sales alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant for Area B. Development Agreement.No. 2007-00001 - Request to adopt a Development Agreement befinreen the City of Anaheim and Steadfast Investment Properties and 2130 Dupont Co. for a 591,500 square foot office building with 8,500 square feet of commercial uses for Area B. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Miscellaneous Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution Na Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Development Agreemer~t Resolution Na Projecf Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Jim Adams, representing Los Angeies/Orange County Building and Construction Trades ~ Council, 436South Camellia Street, Anaheim, CA,'stated he' is a 32 resident of the City of ' Anaheim and that they are neither opposed to or in favor of the project but would like to , 07-09-07 Page 32 JULY 9,'2007 : - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES' JULY,9, 2007 _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ have the opportunityto meet with the developerbecausethey are concerned about utilizing local contractors and local workers from the community.and also their apprenticeship program and therefore they are hoping the developer of this project will work with the Building Trade CounciL Commissioner Flores asked if the project was going to be commercial and not residentiaL Ms. Dadant responded that Item No. 5 is a request for an office building with commerciaf on the ground floor. Commissioner Flores asked if it would be possible for Commission to request of the lessees or suggest to the City Council that before any permits are issued that a certain percentage`of floors; etc;, be leased out before the unit is built in order to prevent building a large structure only to have remaining floors vacant. ~ Mark Gordon; Deputy City Attorney, responded ultimately it would be considered as a" recommendation and there are a number of approvals that are tantamount with this particular request but perhaps we can discuss it further and undersfand it better the ' concerns that you have and how we might be able to address it. He indicated concern over the ability to compel the City Council to impose agreements or enter into an agreement with such a restriction. ~ Commissioner Flores stated that she has seen other city's that have made an agreement with the developer that before any construction can begin they would have to lease a percentage of floors. James Theis, Jet Medical Electronics, 2230 S. Dupont Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated he owns : the building directly across the street from the proposed project. He stated that he attended a meeting at the City three months ago and at that meeting he spoke with someone in - charge of the Platinum Triangle and was told that there were no plans to change anything on Dupont Circle and later he gets a letter announcing this meeting and it has taken him by surprise therefore he asked what is going on, and why there is a continuance. He stated Commission is talking as though the project has already been approved so he feels as though he is behind the power curve on what is going on. Chairman Buffa suggested that he speak with Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, who is the planner for the project to be informed of the reason the project is being continued, when action will be taken, and what the actions are. She assured him that Commission was not taking any actions today and welcomed him to return to the July 23, 2007 hearing, to express his concerns and present further information that would help the Commission - make the right decision. Mr. Theis stated that he received an email from Ms. Wong after the last meeting where they said there would not be anything done on Dupont Circle and he feels as though the proceedings are going really quick. ~ 07-09-07 Page 33 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairman Buffa stated to a certain extent the City of Anaheim prides itself on being able to. move applications through the system expeditiously. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to continue this item. Motion passed with 7 yes votes. ` OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:46-2:52) ~~ JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 Romero/Karak~ Concurred with staff 6b. NARIANCE NO. 2007-04727 Romero Granted ' Owner: Lorena Garcia VOTE: 6=0 1416 East Santa Ana Street Commissioner: Flores ' Anaheim, CA 92805-4205 ~ absent Agent: Lorena Garcia 1416 East Santa Ana Streef Anaheim, CA 92805-4205 Location: 1416East SantaAna Street: Property is approximately 0.59-acre, having a frontage of 125 #eet on the south side of Santa Ana Street and is located 143 feet west of the centerline of Bond Street. : Request'waiver of permitted fence height to retain a 6 feefhigh wrought iron fence with pilasters within the front setback of a single-family home. ~ Variance Resolution No. PC2007-73 Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Marie Newland, Planner, presented the staff report. Project Planner. (mnewland@anaheim. net) Lorena Garcia, 1416 E. Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, CA, stated her main concern is the safety for her children therefore, she is requesting approval to keep the pilasters and they will plan nice landscaping. Commissioner Eastman asked if the house is a historic house and when it was built. Ms. Garcia responded she understands that it is not a historic house. Commissioner Eastman stated she will support it but she is sad about putting a tall fence around a significant home because not too far from it is a home that is very beautiful and very visible from the street. Commissioner Faessel asked Ms. Garcia when she engaged her-contractor to demolish the ~ old fence and install the new fence if she was aware there were requirements regarding 07-09-07 Page 35 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~- front yard setbacks and fence heights and if the contractor took it upon himself to do an investigation. Ms. Garcia responded she was not aware and stated there was a pre existing one and two of the pilasters that were just remodeled with the stone. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki`to approve a Categorical Exemption Class 3. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Variance No. 2007-04727. Ms. Chandler stated the resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None ' Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at _~ 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 31, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (6:06-6:12) 07-09-07 Page 36 J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE~ . 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Velasquez 7b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2007-00206 Karaki Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency City of Anaheim 201 South Anaheim, Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 - Location: 2121 South Manchester Avenue (partial address : Parcel 1: Property is approximately .86-acre and is a landlocked parcel located north of 2125 South ManchesterAvenue and located 197 feet north of Orangewood Avenue (2121 South Manchester Avenue). Parcel 2: Property is approximately .65-acre located at the northwest corner of Orangewooci Avenue and Manchester Avenue with a frontage of 367 feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue and a frontage of 130 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue. ,~ City-initiated request to reclassify Parcel 1#rom the T (Transition) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone and reclassify Parcel 2 from the I(Industrial) zone to the (Multiple-Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone for a future development. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-74 Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. ~ Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Buffa closed the public hearing. i Approved Granted; unconditionally VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Flores absent Project Planner: (dherrick@anaheim. net) Commissioner Romero asked staff how soon they expect development of the project. Luis Torrico, Redevelopment Department, Project Manager I, stated they received.ten (10) proposals for the site approximately two (2) weeks ago which is currently under review. They are hoping to select a developer sometime towards the end of the year or at the latest end of the conference of the year ne~ year. 07-09-07 Page 37 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero asked if they knew how big a proposal they were proposing. : Mr. Torrico responded ranging from 44 units up to 120 units. Commissioner Eastman asked if it is scheduled to be afforda6le. Mr. Torrico responded yes, 100% affordable. _ Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve - a Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). : Commissioner Karaki offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No: .2007-00206. Ms. Chandler stated the resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None ~~ Mark Gordon Assis n' A r - , t a t C i t y t t o n e y, p r e s e n t e d t h e 2 2 d a y a p p e a i n g h t s e n d m g a t 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 31, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (6:13-6:17) J U LY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05195 8d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENfENCE OR ~ NECESSITY NO. 2007-00035:' - Owner: BP West Coast Product, LLC 4 Center Point Drive La Palma, CA 90623 q Agent: Fred Cohen CJC Design 1205 North Red Gum Unit A Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 1700 West La Palma and 1017-1031 _North Eucfid Street: Property is approximately 1.1 acre parcel iocated at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street with frontages of 171 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and270 feet on the west side of Euclid Street. ~~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05195 - Request to l construct a service station with a self-serve car wash and convenience market with beer and wine sales with waivers of (a) maximum wall sign area (withdrawn), and (b) minimum landscaped setback (withdrawn). Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00035 - Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed service station convenience market. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Public Convenience Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Project Planner. (ethien@anaheim.net) 07-09-07 Page 39 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA'NEGATIVE DECLARATION Velasquez/Eastman Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Velasquez/Eastman 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05190 Velasquez Owner: Alan Y H Kwong and Yue Chang Kwong 11565 Columbet Avenue Gilroy, CA 95020 Agent: TRG, INC. Attention: Lorenzo Reyes 1403 Batavia Street, Suite 203 Orange, CA 92867-5049 Location: 3110 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately .97-acre and is located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard with frontages of 252 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 230 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard. Request to construct a new fast food restaurant and to retain a legal non-conforming pole mounted sign with waivers of (a) ~ minimum required landscape setback abutting an arterial, and (b) maximum wall sign size (withdrawn). Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-75 Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Granted WAIVERS ' Approved waiver (a), and denied waiver{b) since it was withdrawn by the applicant. CUP Modified Condition No. 12 Added a condition of aPProval VOTE:' 6-0 Commissioner Flores absent : Project Planner: (skoehm@anaheim.net) : ' Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and read into the record a modification to condition no. 12 and added a condition of approval pertaining to final elevations. Chairman Buffa stated that it was identified_in the preliminary meeting that the elevations are incorrectly labeled and as part of the record what was (abeled south elevation is ~ actually west and what was north elevation is actually east. Those are the two sides that the Commission is talking about increasing landscaping on. It would be for the long sides _ of the building that face Kramer and the flood channel side. Commissioner Eastman stated staff also mentioned the south elevation which has a fairly significant blank wall. Landscaping material should be provided there to discourage graffiti. • Mr. Koehm stated that the condition as read into the record should accomplish that as well. 07-09-07 Page 40 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a Commissioner Karaki asked aboutthe freestanding sign and indicated that in the past the City has asked to have the owner take down the sign and-replace it with a monument sign. He asked why this situation is different. Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stafed generally staffJooks at signs on a case by case basis and for this particular property it was noticed--that the adjacenf property to the west is also ' - developed with a rather substantial pole sign and given the black drop of the other signs in the immediate corner and the applicant's desire to keep the sign and the ability to work around the redevelopment of the sign led staff to support it in this particular case. Commissioner Karaki stated not long ago, the City asked them to take the Chevron sign down. Ms. Dadant responded that there is a provision in the Code that allows the Commission to allow the continuation of a non conforming sign and that is a part of the request. Staff is supporting the retention of the sign. She indicated #hat this was a unique circumstance but generatly when'someone redevelops the site, staff would recommend the removal of pole signs because the trend in the community is to move towards monument signs. Public testimony: John Murray, representing Carl Karcher Enterprise, 401 Carl Karcher Way, Anaheim, CA, ~ stated they were present#o answer questions. ~ Chairman Buffa asked if they read the staff report and were in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Murray responded yes. Commissioner Romero stated his concern,.is that as cars are coming onto Kramer they may back onto the street if people delay in ordering. He asked if staff has looked at this issue. Mr. Murray responded when'they design the driveway they took into consideration the City Code requirements for stacking and they feel comfortable because they have been operating at that site for over 20 years. Commissioner Karaki concurs with Commissioner Romero and stated the solution is to push the menu board farther in to allow greater stacking. : Mr. Murray responded their ideal spot is actually farther and would like it to be closer to the window so that there is room for five (5) cars. Chairman Buffa asked if there would be any staff concerns if Commission asked the ~ applicant to move the menu board to provide more stacking distance. • Ms. Dadant responded stafF would not have an issue with that as Jong as they were still able to comply with the minimum Gode requirement for stacking. 07-09-07 Page 41 JULY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • r Chairman Buffa asked what the Code requ~rement is from the window to the orde mg device. Ms. Dadanf responded 100 feet. Commissioner Vel.asquez asked if#hey are stacking up all of the way to the driveway would there be enough room for a car to go in and go out because the stacking is including that part of the driveway. She was concerned with blocking the entrance to the property. Chairman Buffa stated "she would be comfortable with granting a condition that stated if possible the ordering box be moved closer to the window so long as it is in compliance to ,_ the Code. Ms. Dadant responded the code requirement is 60 feet from the entrance to the drive thru ' to the ordering device and then 100 feet from the ordering device #o the pickup window, The total number of vehicles that can queue into the drive thru Jane is 10 vehicles. Staff understands what the intent is:of the Planning Commission and will ask the applicant to try to move the ordering device as close as possible to the pickup window while still complying with the Code. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to ~ approve a Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to approve waiver (a) and accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of waiver (b). Motion passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007- 05190 with modifications to conditions. Ms. Chandler stated the resolution passed with 6 ayes (Commissioner Flores absent). OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 31, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (6:18-6:35) 07-09-07 Page 42 JULY 9,_2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05213 10d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 17175 ' Owner: The Vineyards Apartments. LLC 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 , Agent: Ron Cole 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 5601 East Oranaethorpe Avenue: Property is approximately 13.3-acre with a frontage of 555 - feet along the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, located 460 west of the'centerline of Imperial Highway. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05213 - Request to permit the conversion of an existing 304-unit-apartment ~ complex to an attached airspace residential condominium planned unit development complex with modification to I standards and waiver of setbacks befinreen buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 17175 - To establish a 1 lot, 304 unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. ,I Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na Continued to July Z3, 2007 Motion: Eastman/Faessel VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (skoehm@anaheim.net) OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:38 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 23, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ 07-09-07 Page 43 JULY 9, 2007