Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/03/03• ~O~ ~. /~~ U I ~~-1 E I lV) P c,~ _ <r~ 0 z Y Monday, March 3, 2008 C] o' ~~ Y~~ \NDED~ Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Kimberly Wong, Planner City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None Luis Torrico, Project Manager I Sandip Budhia, Associate Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Civil Engineer Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 28, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 21, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MARCH 3, 2008 AGENDA • Workshop on The General Plan Housing Element Update • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 27 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Faessel •• Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1B and to continue Item 1A and Item 2 as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Resorts and Recommendations: in ITEM NO. 1A • Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2008. Continued from the February 4, 2008, and February 20, 2008, Planning Commission Meetings. (Motion) ITEM NO. 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2008. (Motion) Continued to March 17, 2008 VOTE: 7-0 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki abstained since they were not present for the meeting Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to continue Item 1-A until March 17, 2008 and to approve Item 1-B minutes. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. 03/03/08 Page 2 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~PUbIIC Hearina Items: ITEM N0.2 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0.2008-00064 Agent: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citywide City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend various sections of Title 18 "Zoning" of the Anaheim Municipal Code to establish maximum size requirements for flags and banners, to modify and clarify non-residential parking requirements as shown in Table 42-A , to establish maximum height of logos and trademark symbols for wall signs, to add provisions for reconstruction of non- conforming qualified historic structures in adopted Historic Districts • to modify provisions related to prohibited locations of Second Residential Units, to modify irrigation requirements for required landscaping to amend Chapter 18.92 "Definitions", and to modify procedures to process appeals for public hearing items. CEQA Determination and Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. Continued to March 31, 2008 Motion: Eastman/Romero VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: cflores@anaheim.net Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak to the-City of Anaheim's Zoning Code Amendment. Seeing none; this item was continued. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion; seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this item until March 31, 2008. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 03/03/08 Page 3 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .ITEM NO. 3 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 AND Agarwal CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05294 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Applicant: Paul Chiavatti 1997 Orange-Olive Road Orange, CA 92865 Location: 1340 West Pearl Street: Property is approximately .23-acre having a frontage of 54 feet on the south side of Pearl Street, approximately 294 feet north of the centerline of Wilshire Avenue. Request to permit residential group care facility for up to 24 residents with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CEQA Determination and Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2008-34 .Scott Koehm presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: skoehm@anaheim.net Paul Chiavatti, the applicant, 1997 Orange Olive Road, Orange 92865. He stated that Health Care Services presently operates three other residential group care facilities on the same street. Health Care Services are the largest providers of this type of facility in this state. They operate in San Diego, Stockton and all through Northern California. There have been no complaints, police action, or code violations on the three existing buildings. They plan to run this facility the same as the other buildings. He is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Agarwal referred to Mr. Chiavatti's letter to the City of Anaheim. The letter mentioned programs providing residential treatment for drugs and vocational training. Commissioner Agarwal asked what kind of vocational training would be provided in this facility. Mr. Chiavatti explained there would be in house training for the residents on how to fill out applications for employment when the residents are in the general public. Commissioner Agarwal asked if they had special staff to provide this training. Mr. Chiavatti replied yes. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant what the length of time would be for a resident to stay in their facility. Mr. Chiavatti replied it was about four months or less. 03/03/08 Page 4 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Commissioner Faessel reiterated that this facility would have a regular turnover. Mr. Chiavatti replied yes. He asked the Commission if they would grant the letter of operation to be part of the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that they have done that in the past. When they submit their contract with Sacramento they would like the letter of operation to be part of the CUP. Chairman Buffa stated that would be discussed with staff before the Commission would take action. Tim Salyer, President of Health Care Service, 151 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa. He stated that he is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman stated that she drove this neighborhood regularly and the applicant has been doing a good job of keeping up this property. It does not appear to be a negative impact on the neighborhood. She supports this project. Commissioner Faessel stated that the Commissioners had concerns about the number of police calls in this area. Staff provided a document of police calls of service to this address and also to 1300, 1310 and 1320 W. Pearl Street that began in 2006. The report is lengthy but the consensus of the Police Department is that they don't see any major concerns in this area. He was concerned over the ~uality of life issues in the neighborhood. The City received one a-mail from a resident that expressed concern. In re-counting the police department calls, he supported this project. Chairman Buffa shared her fellow Commissioners belief that these facilities are well managed. She was concerned that they now have three and potentially four transitional housing uses in the same block. She thinks that characteristics that make up amulti-family neighborhood are interactions between people who are stable in the neighborhood and people who have kids that play outside forming connections with the neighbors. It's that kind of interaction that creates a neighborhood. The characteristics that turn apartment units into a neighborhood transitional housing use do not foster that kind of connectivity in a neighborhood. She was concerned about the concentration of these uses. It was obvious the neighborhood is not concerned because they were not present at the public meeting. She thinks if it was a problem people would be making their voice heard. She was concerned because four out of the five buildings would now be used for transitional housing in a multi-family neighborhood. It is something the City needs to keep a careful eye on. If it becomes a problem, the City needs to review the conditional use permits. Commissioner Velasquez had the same concerns. She thought it was helpful to hear Commissioner Eastman's comments with regards to her driving by the neighborhood. She asked during the preliminary meeting if the City keeps track of other areas with similar situations. She stated that the City now has several transitional homes in one particular neighborhood and she thinks the City should monitor that closely. She indicated that the City needs status reports of what is happening in hose neighborhoods as crime may increase. 03/03/08 Page 5 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~he is concerned that the neighborhood is being changed. She wanted to know how many ransitional units would be allowed and at what point would it change the complete make up of the neighborhood. She stated these concerns because that is part of the Commission's duty to watch over the interest of the neighbors. She asked staff if the Commission could have more information in the future. She felt more information was necessary to make better decisions based on historical data and what has happened in other neighborhoods with similar situations. Commissioner Agarwal commented that he was 100% in support of his fellow Commissioners. A diversity of the neighborhood is what makes up a neighborhood. Having four transitional housing buildings in one block is very troublesome to him. He requested staff to provide additional information in the future. He would like an idea of what kind of housing would be in the area. He wanted to know if it would be apartment housing, transitional housing, or single family homes, so that the Commission could have a better perspective of what would be around the facility. He thought that would help them in their decision. If apartments were around this type of facility, he would be concerned with the kids and seniors. He was concerned with the four transitional housing facilities on the same block because he does not think these units were developed for this purpose but he is in support of this project. Commissioner Romero stated that his concern was with the four-plex being turned into a transitional home. In essence, the City was removing four family housing units and converting them into transitional homes or facilities. He wanted to know where this would stop. There are now four transitional housing units in one block and he was concerned they were turning Pearl Street into ransitional homes instead of family housing units. He expected the public to express their concerns. He wasn't sure why they were not present. It was the responsibility of the Commission to make decisions about what happens on this street and his concern was that more people don't come out to voice their opinion about this. Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission understands the strong language the State of California uses when it states that, "You need to make accommodation for transitional housing." The City understands this accommodation and that is why there are three transitional projects on Pearl Street. The Commission is careful as they make these decisions. She thinks the reason the neighbors are not present is because this project is well managed. She stated as long as the facilities are well managed and there are no negative impacts in the neighborhood, they should be okay. The applicant is hearing that the Commission is getting nervous about the use and at some point, it is not a residential neighborhood anymore, it's an institutional use in a residential neighborhood. The balance is starting to tip and they want to keep a close eye on this type of use as they move forward. Commissioner Faessel wanted the staff to remind the Commission what the use would be for the parcel on Wilshire and Pearl Street. Chairman Buffa believed it was a special needs community. ~cott Koehm replied it was an approved special needs housing which will be under construction this spring. 03/03/08 Page 6 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Faessel clarified that this project would put more pressure on that neighborhood. Commissioner Velasquez asked staff what the length of time was for the CUP. She wanted to know how long it was in effect. Chairman Buffa stated it would be forever. Commissioner Velasquez asked if it would go with the land. Chairman Buffa replied a CUP ends in one or two ways; either, the land owner asks for a change in the use and invalidates the prior CUP or, if there is a problem, the Commission could ask for a use permit to be brought up for modification or revocation. If they had a use in the City that would create a lot of problems, they could reconsider it. Commissioner Velasquez asked if there were issues with a different management company running the facility, could this CUP be brought back. Chairman Buffa replied yes. It would be so they could impose other conditions to require a different kind of operation. Chairman Buffa remarked before the Commission proceeds, the format of their staff report has changed, previously they had a need for two actions and now it is different. They no longer need to take a separate action for their environmental review, they could do it all with one action, and if .someone recommends approval of the resolution that would include the CEQA finding. Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve a Class 3 Categorical Exemption and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05294 with fewer parking spaces than required by the Code. The Resolution passed with 7 aye votes. Chairman Buffa stated that she saw the applicant talking with staff about her oversight. She promised that the Commission would discuss the attachment of the Letter of Operation to the resolution. The Commission forgot to discuss that issue. She asked CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, to comment on this issue. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that there is a Condition of Approval that referenced attachments 1-3 of the staff report. The letter of operation is there and is incorporated by reference. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:40 to 3:04) • 03/03/08 Page 7 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~TEM NO. 4 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP* NO. 2007-232 Owner: North Anaheim Associates, LLC 3185 Pullman Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Applicant: BKM Development 3185 Pullman Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Location: Assessors Parcel No. 035-010-80: Property is approximately 4.61 acres, having a frontage of 131 feet on the west side of Patt Street and 229 feet on the west side of Kemp Street approximately 452 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Request to establish a 3-lot industrial subdivision. . *Advertised as a tentative tract map. CEQA Determination and Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No. Kimberly Wong presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Request withdrawn by applicant VOTE: 7-0 MOTION: Eastman/Romero Project Planner: Kwong2@anaheim.net Brian Malliet, 3185 Pullman Avenue, Costa Mesa 92660, stated that he was there to withdraw this request to sub-divide the property into three parcels, leaving the existing property as it exists today. The property is currently zoned industrial and it currently has rights to Kemp Street. It is appalling to ask him to give up complete vehicular rights to his property off of a public street. If this is the direction, there is no need for him to subdivide it and he will use the property as it exists. He is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa stated that at this point it was his right to withdraw. Steve Valdez, 1014 N. Kemp Street, Anaheim, stated that BKM Development Company could do whatever they want. His main concern was traffic. The traffic going onto Kemp Street and going out to La Palma Avenue would create a big problem. The street is not wide enough to handle any kind of heavy traffic. What the applicant wants to do with the property is their concern but his concern was .he traffic. Chairman Buffa asked staff if the Commission needed to take action if the applicant on record requested the withdrawal of the tentative parcel map. 03/03/08 Page 8 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, replied it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the acceptance of the request for withdrawal. The alternative would be to take action on the project. Commissioner Faessel commented that the applicant exercised his option to withdraw this tentative parcel map, which would put the Kemp Street issue back in the lap of the local community. He asked staff what potential is there should the developer come before the Commission at some point in the future. He wanted to know if the Commission would be able to request some other CUP on a contiguous parcel. He wanted to know if there would be an opportunity for them to re-visit Patt Street verses Kemp Street access at that point. Chairman Buffa replied if somebody brings forward a development application they would have to demonstrate that there is adequate circulation to support that request. The land owner is probably 100% correct that he is zoned industrial and he wouldn't need a use permit from the City. The only permit he will need is a building permit. Commissioner Faessel was satisfied with this answer. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to accept the applicant's request for a withdrawal. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: One person spoke and one telephone message received with concerns pertaining to traffic issues. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:04 to 3:11) • 03/03/08 Page 9 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION SECTION 21159.23 Karaki (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE -AFFORDABLE HOUSING) AND MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2007-00233 Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard #1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Jamboree Housing 17701 Cowan Avenue #200 Irvine, CA 92614 Location: Assessors Parcel Nos. 272-081-05, 07: Property is approximately 1.29 acres and is located west of the terminus of Glenoaks Avenue at the Greenleaf Avenue intersection having a 418 foot frontage on the west side of Greenleaf Avenue and east of the I-5 Freeway. Request for Planning Commission determination of conformance with • Density Bonus Ordinance to construct a 53-unit affordable apartment complex with development incentives pertaining to structural height and a landscape setback requirement adjacent to Greenleaf Avenue and the Interstate 5 Freeway. *Advertised as CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15280 CEQA Determination and Miscellaneous Case Resolution No. PC2008-35 Approved, added conditions VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Kwong2@anaheim.net Kimberly Wong presented the staff report. She added a condition of approval regarding the alignment of the driveway with the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue. Chairman Buffa asked if there were any questions of staff before they opened the hearing. Chairman Buffa wanted to confirm that she understood the elevation rendering she had in front of her. Ms. Wong indicated that the rendering was a view from Greenleaf Avenue and pointed out the main entrance. Commissioner Faessel wanted to know where staff referred to when they discussed the orientation of the cross street as an additional condition of approval. •Ms. Wong showed the Commission where it was on the plot map. 03/03/08 Page 10 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~hairman Buffa opened the public hearing. John Okura, Senior Project Manager, 17701 Cowan # 200, Irvine 92614, stated that he represents Jamboree Housing Corporation. Jamboree Housing Corporation is one of the leading non-profit developers of affordable housing in the state. As owners of over 5,000 affordable housing units statewide, his company draws upon a breadth of experience that is unmatched in terms of development and ownership of affordable housing in the State of California. They are good neighbors and owners of affordable housing, and based on the strength of that track record, Jamboree Housing has won the RFP from the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, to develop affordable housing on the Greenleaf site. The Greenleaf development will incorporate a number of sustainable design features. The most notable feature will be the inclusion of a photovoltaic array, which will provide electricity to the common areas such as the community room and the management offices. Site lightening will also be powered by this system. The other green features include the use of low or no VOC compounds in the sealants and adhesive, as well as recycled material for the carpets. Energy efficiency would be addressed by exceeding Title 24 standards by a minimum of 15%. Property management will be handfed by the John Stewart Company, one of the leading affordable property managers in this state. They are experienced in all facets of affordable housing management. With regards to the concerns about crime, the first line of defense is tenant screening. Their ~creening process is more vigorous then most market-rate properties. The screening includes a credit check, employment verification, and a criminal background check. Failure in a criminal background check excludes applicants from leasing one of their units. His company works closely with local law enforcement to address public safety concerns, not only at their developments, but in the communities they develop in. For example, in Santa Ana, their property manager is actively involved in the local community groups that advise local law enforcement about crime issues in the neighborhood. The residents on the Greenleaf site will benefit from a variety of services provided by the company's social service affiliate, Housing with Heart. Some of the services might include life skill classes, such as computer tutoring, resume writing, and English as a Second Language. Structured after school programs that feature tutoring and leadership classes are also offered on site for the children. Their efforts to partner with banks and financial institutions have led to financial literacy and first time home buyer programs to help residents plan their financial futures. Jamboree Housing Corporation is reviewing measures that would allow the children from the neighborhood to participate in activities on site in the community facilities. They have worked with the City to outreach to the community making a presentation to the Central District Neighborhood Council and conducting two community meetings. In order to notify interested parties, the City staff compiled a list of addresses within 500 feet of the project site. After the first ~ommunity meeting they added names of all parties that signed in to that list. They mailed notification letters of the second meeting, which occurred last week. Unfortunately, they were informed some people did not receive that mailing. 03/03/08 Page 11 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •The HOA's in the area have been concerned about the development activities at the Greenleaf site. The developer is working to communicate with the Greenleaf community to facilitate the outreach. The developer believes their participation in the process will help them to communicate better with the community. There were concerns expressed at the community meetings and he would like to address them. The community's primary concern is parking. The project is to build 53 apartment units at the Greenleaf site. That number is a reduction from the initial plan to develop 60 units at the site. This is 9 units greater than what was permitted by right if they developed that site as a market-rate project. This reduction was a response from community concerns about the density at the site and parking and traffic issues the project might exacerbate in that community. Of these 53 units, 43 units are to be rented at 50%AMI or less. Statistically speaking, those households at 50%AMI are much less likely to have high vehicle utilization and much more likely to utilize public transportation in lieu of that. Chairman Buffa asked how many units would be rented at 50%AMI. Mr. Okura responded that 43 of the 53, about 81 %. He stated that the location of the site is important because it is near a bus line at Glenoaks and Euclid. These are households that have fewer vehicles than their market-rate counter parts. These households do not have the financial resources to afford multiple vehicles. Studies have shown these households generate as much as 54% less vehicular trips than their market-rate counter parts. An important benefit of being experienced owners and developers of affordable housing in the State *s that they can draw upon their portfolio to accurately predict the actual parking demand that would be required at our large family developments. Jamboree Housing was involved in a parking study that demonstrated, at two of their large family developments, where off site over flow parking would be impossible. The measured demand for those developments was 1.4 spaces per unit and 1.45 spaces per unit. These are actual operational ratios that were employed on site. The Greenleaf Project will park an excess of 1.6 spaces per unit. They understand the Greenleaf community is faced with a challenge in dealing with the parking concerns. The developer feels this condition is generated by the overcrowding that is present in the market-rate units. Due to the tax credit regulations and the Anaheim Housing Authority, there will be annual inspections in the developed units. These inspections coupled with the threat of losing the right to live in their affordable units, has proven to be more than sufficient, to deter overcrowding in other affordable housing complexes. The Greenleaf Project will increase the actual traffic count along the neighborhood, but it will not impact parking to the extent that many in the community fear. The second major concern is crime. Public safety concerns do exist in the neighborhood now and it was evident in the community meeting that they held. Studies have concluded other factors have a greater impact in crime than density and development. The alleys behind current developments in the area are examples of public space that is not well designed or controlled. The residents of the Greenleaf site will undergo a regular screening process that is typically more thorough than market- ~ate developments. As a result, they rarely have concerns dealing with their residents. In those cases where concerns were voiced, they dealt with the situation swiftly because their partnerships 03/03/08 Page 12 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES with local jurisdictions are key to their ability to sustain their business. Their success State-wide is testament to their ability to manage and operate their development well. Commissioner Eastman asked what measures the management would employ to make sure the residents would not own too many cars. Mr. Okura stated that there is a parking management plan that is employed by the property management at all of their properties. That plan requires that all vehicles be operational, insured, and registered. Depending on unit size, the residents can't exceed the number of vehicles permitted, based on the number of bedrooms in those units. Commissioner Eastman asked how many cars an occupant of a three bedroom unit could have. Mr. Okura replied two cars. Commissioner Eastman asked if a resident violated those conditions by having a third car what would they do. Mr. Okura replied it would be towed. The property management conducts a monthly walk by inspection to verify all vehicles are registered. The information is recorded and kept by the property management on-site. Commissioner Eastman asked how the property management would address the situation if ~omebody had a car parked off-site in the neighborhood to keep the management from knowing about it. She asked if they would go through DMV records. Mr. Okura replied they do not go through DMV records. Other properties owned by the applicant have shown, based on the income levels that reside at those properties, the residents do not have those vehicles. Commissioner Faessel asked if the applicant owned or managed other properties within Anaheim. Mr. Okura replied yes. The Jamboree Housing Corporation is currently developing two other properties. The two properties are the Monarch Point Apartments off of Crescent Avenue and the Diamond Apartments off of Diamond Street. They are also developing, with a joint venture partner, the Bellage Apartments which is a senior affordable development. Commissioner Faessel reiterated that the applicant has had experience in Anaheim already. Mr. Okura replied that is correct. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the background check. He asked the applicant what criteria was used for the background check. He asked if there were certain limitations to approve a potential resident. ~Vlr. Okura replied anybody that has been convicted with a felony arrest would not be eligible to live on-site in any of their developments. 03/03/08 Page 13 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Agarwal asked how many residents are permitted per unit. Mr. Okura stated that there is a state mandated limit that the tax credit program provides for a limit of 1.5 people per bedroom. Commissioner Agarwal asked if there would be on-site security. Mr. Okura stated that on-site security is not projected at this time. There will be a live-in manager who will be available on-site 24 hours a day to deal with management issues that might arise. Chairman Buffa referred to the population per household. She stated that she must have misunderstood. She asked if a couple with two children would be able to rent a two bedroom apartment. Mr. Okura stated that the state tax credit guide line provided for 1.5 plus one. Chairman Buffa reiterated that a family of four could live in a two bedroom apartment. Mr. Okura replied correct, but that is the maximum. Commissioner Romero wanted to know if he understood the applicant correctly. He asked if what he heard was that if the developer were to build market-rate units on that property, the traffic would generate more than what the applicant proposed. ~r. Okura replied that is correct. Commissioner Romero asked what he based the number of cars on. Mr. Okura stated that is a function of the financial resources of their residents. Commissioner Romero asked how the applicant would control that issue. Mr. Okura indicated what they have seen operationally is the financial resources of the residents is the limiting factor. Commissioner Romero asked if there was an actual mandate that the applicant would impose on the renter. Mr. Okura commented other than the parking management plan which also provides limitation to the number of vehicles each resident has, the answer would be no. Commissioner Romero stated that the applicant's statement that 43 units would generate more traffic than his proposed 53 units, is subjective. Mr. Okura stated that they have seen market-rate development generate more vehicular trips than affordable units. There will be less vehicle usage on sites where residents statistically have 54% or •ess vehicular trips generated by the development of affordable housing in the area, therefore, the need for parking is reduced. That is the rationale that the State employs with respect to the state density bonus law. 03/03/08 Page 14 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Commissioner Faessel stated that his qu tion is with regards to the partnership that the developer has with the Redevelopment Department~He asked if the affordable units last 55 years, at which point they would then revert back to market-rate. Ms. Wong stated that is correct. As a part of the recorded affordable rental housing agreement, these units that they are committing to need to be provided at the agreed very low income affordable level for a minimum of 55 years. Mr. Okura remarked this is regulated by the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee. Commissioner Faessel stated that he wanted 55 years re-stated for the record. Ms. Wong replied that's correct, 55 years. Galina Drapkin, 1855 W. Greenleaf Avenue # Q, Anaheim, 92801, wanted to know when the City of Anaheim acquired this property. Luis Torrico, Project Manager I, replied the Redevelopment Agency acquired the site in 2005. Ms. Drapkin asked from whom. •Mr. Torrico stated that they were remnant parcels from Caltrans after the widening of the freeway. Ms. Drapkin asked who the previous owner was. Mr. Torrico replied that the City of Anaheim acquired this property from the California Transportation Department. Ms. Drapkin indicated there might be a problem. She is a homeowner in the Anaheim Homeowner's Association, Anaheim Village Tree. The HOA has the title and deed on this property. She looked through by laws and found the description of this property, which is Lot A. Each of the homeowner's has an interest in this property according to her deed. Her interest is .99% or less than a percent. The property is not just common property for the homeowner's, the property is divided by percentage based on the square footage of the units they own. If every owner of Anaheim Village Tree checks these properties, they are owners of this property. She indicated she could not find any legal record of the sale of this property. She stated that it was not supposed to be for sale. The property was divided into lots. The lots are Lot 1, leased property, and Lot 2, the property where the units were located on Greenleaf and Glenoaks Avenue. This property was sold and she wasn't sure how. She was unaware who it was sold to. She stated every change in by laws requires very strict procedures and every vote has to be accounted for and notarized. If this procedure was followed, nobody's rights would be violated. .She said that nothing like this has happened in the history of their association. 03/03/08 Page 15 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~altrans needed a portion of the property to expand the freeway. It was not intended to build an apartment complex. There was enough property for the HOA to have an office, clubhouse, and a pool. This property was never sold by the HOA of Anaheim Village Tree. She believes this hearing has to be postponed until they know who owns this property. There is no documentation of any sale. There are many concerns of the community because of traffic and parking, but she thinks it has more to do with their rights as owners. She believes an investigation has to be done because she has the deed and title of ownership. Commissioner Buffa stated that the Commission understands the issue that she is raising. She will ask staff to address this issue after the testimony is concluded. Ms. Drapkin stated that she was consulting a real estate attorney. She believed that the District Attorney should take a look at this issue as well. Dolores Casino, 1851 W. Glenoaks Avenue, # A, Anaheim, stated that she is a homeowner in Anaheim Village 1 since 1988. She referred to Chairman Buffa's comments with regards to what makes a neighborhood. The children in our neighborhood play with sticks, breaking the neighbor's lights, because they do not have any other place to play. She has witnessed children playing soccer and running into the street to chase the ball. The density issue in the neighborhood is hard to imagine. She stated that Mr. Okura failed to mention that the Monarch complex is less than two blocks away from this project. The Monarch complex has 63 units, with three bedroom apartments, that will house people if the laws are obeyed. The laws have never been obeyed and there is no indication that the City of Anaheim has ever been interested in enforcing residency laws. The crime, parking, and people that have moved in the neighborhood are all situations of congestion. The effects of 63 units from the Monarch complex have not been dealt with and now the community has to deal with another 53 units more at the Greenleaf site. She refutes Mr. Okura's statistics he provided with regards to cars. She lives next to a renter who has 10 people in a 1,200 square foot condo and five cars. The community feels they could not have visitors because there is no parking for anybody. This situation will create a tremendous affect in their community. She received an a-mail from staff regarding an environmental impact study and traffic study. Luis Torrico informed the community that the studies are not necessary because this is a low income area. She wanted to know why they were exempted from studies that affect their quality of life. It was not a working class area at the time some of them purchased their units. She stated that the traffic on Glenoaks Avenue is heavy and has increased. The complex that Mr. Okura refers to is dense; it's three stories on the street. The area is not zoned for four stories. She commented that Luis Torrico stated that the City of Anaheim purchased this property with the intent of building on it. The make up of the neighborhood is different from years ago, the units were ~ccupied bysingle-family residents and now there are multiple-family residents. To add more people will not help the situation and the community is at their breaking point. 03/03/08 Page 16 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~laine Orr, 1974 Glenoaks #A, Anaheim, stated that she and her husband bought in the complex in 1966 and she is an original owner. Their neighborhood has changed and they didn't have the parking problems that they do now. The neighborhood is a land locked piece of property and there only two ways to come in and out. One of the outlets is Glenoaks Avenue to Euclid. The other way out is Crescent and Chippewa. There is no other way out. There used to be a freeway on-ramp at Crescent before the expansion of the freeway, but that changed and is no longer there. She wished the City would give them the benefit of a density study. Carlos Pires, 1964 W. Glenoaks Avenue, # D, Anaheim, expressed his concern. He stated that the traffic, parking, and density is bad and the community can't take any more people. The community was never notified about the Monarch complex. After the development of the Monarch complex, the HOA realized that another development was in the process. The impact of the 63 units in the Monarch project will be bad for this area and the 53 units at the Greenleaf site they are planning to build will be a nightmare. The congestion is a nightmare and he would like the Commission to take into consideration these uncomfortable situations. Pam Voelker, 1964 W. Glenoaks Avenue, # M, Anaheim, stated that she has been a resident for twenty years. She works with the HOA as the administrator and there are problems within their complex, with the neighborhood. This would include crime, traffic, and parking. Entering into the neighborhood from Euclid onto Glenoaks Avenue, there is no left signal. People turning into the neighborhood from Glenoaks Avenue have to wait several turn signals to get into the neighborhood. Their complex has 102 units that are 3 and 4 bedroom units. Out of the 102 units there are 12 units that are two bedroom units; most of these complexes were single family units. The affordability of ~ousing in Orange County has impacted this area. This area is considered a low income area, and at the height of the housing market, the units were selling between $400,000 and $430,000. The apartments were attractive to low income families because they were affordable even though it was not a great neighborhood because of the crime, traffic and parking. There are multiple families per resident, instead of single-family residents, occupying these units, creating a congestion problem. The HOA has worked with John Lower of the City's Public Works Department. He inspected the complex to see what the HOA could do in order to park in the area. The only suggestion was for the homeowner's to rebuild their garages and have permitted parking in front of the garages. It would help relieve congestion but it will be a problem for families with multiple cars. The multi-family units would have parking problems because there would be limited permits per unit and they may have additional cars. She appreciates that this project is providing four additional parking spaces than what they are required to provide but the residents will not have guest parking. These issues impact the residents of this community. Ezequiel Gutierrez, Public Law Center, 11523 E. 215th Street, Lakewood, 90715, stated that he represents persons and organizations in Orange County. He represents primarily the low income community in Anaheim and Orange County. There has been an attempt to describe the neighborhood conditions to this applicant. This applicant has proposed a well thought out, controlled, and planned application for this housing. He would like to point out things that this project features from a policy stand point. The first point is a mix of affordable and green technologies. The State of California is promoting this policy aggressively. The more efficient resource use, the more the unit will be affordable. The City of Anaheim has a great opportunity to show leadership in the area of green affordable housing projects. The other issue that applies to this project is the housing 03/03/08 Page 17 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES transportation linkage. There are less commuting and less traffic impacts, making the improvements for the quality of life for all. These are features the City of Anaheim could show leadership in terms of the State and Federal Government policies. This is good opportunity for the City of Anaheim to show leadership in the affordable housing, transportation, green technologies and transportation linkage. Joseph Singh, 7870 E. View Mount, Anaheim, stated that he is a resident of Anaheim and supports the project. He is familiar with the neighborhood and he has lived in Anaheim for many years. There is no doubt there are issues in the neighborhood that need to be addressed. However, in affordable housing development, there is a lot of control. The City's Development Agreement has a lot of control over the affordable housing, management, and the day to day operations. There in no control with any other type of development. With the City's interest, participation, and the development with Jamboree Housing, it is one of the premiere affordable housing projects. Jamboree Housing projects are well managed and he supports the project. Bob Logandice, 1954 W. Glenoaks Avenue, # J, Anaheim, commented that the applicant mentioned that they would police the cars that the occupants have. He had four cars at one time and the manager of his apartments never knew it. He wasn't sure how they would manage that issue. He was concerned the low income families, without cars, would resort to the use of shopping carts. The shopping carts have become a big problem because they are left throughout the neighborhoods. Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission, 17701 Cowan Avenue, Irvine, stated that he is with an advocacy organization that advocates balanced housing development in Orange County. He wanted to state good points with regards to this project. Anaheim has proven to be a leader in providing ~ousing development for all income segments. Anaheim is providing housing opportunities in the Platinum Triangle for the above moderate and moderate income households. The City of Anaheim is also providing housing opportunities for the lower income segments through out the city. The low income families are working families and with affordable housing they can afford to pay rent and not resort to over crowding. Our housing stock is not providing opportunities in our market today and therefore, people will resort to overcrowding to pay high rent. Average rent in Anaheim and Orange County is $1500.00 for a two bedroom apartment. When homeownership is involved there is overcrowding because the mortgage rates are anywhere from $3000.00 to $5000.00. In order to afford the mortgage families need to co- habitat to make their payments. This is a different development that provides the opportunity for partnerships. Collaboration with the City and the developer has a proven track record of making sure these developments are addressing community needs. The concerns of these issues mentioned exist today. This is an opportunity to enhance the community by providing developments of this type. These developments provide controls to regulate parking and occupancy. He is in support of this project. Sarah Hill, 6592 E. Via Corral, Anaheim, stated that she is a resident of Anaheim. She is a social worker and understands the struggles of the working poor. She believes people should support this development because it is important for the citizens of Anaheim to allow this opportunity for low and very low income families to have a place to live. She is in support of this project. ~ebbie Lawrence, 737 N. Chippewa Avenue, Anaheim, stated that the issue for the community is not the fact that it is low income housing project. The fact is that there are two new projects in their community. She submitted and read a letter that expressed her concerns to the Commission. She 03/03/08 Page 18 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~tated that there were many issues with the overcrowding of people and parking. There are only two roads into this neighborhood and if there was a natural disaster they would be in trouble because there is no other way out. Her concern is for the children who have to go to school. There is no way for the kids to get over the bridge to Brookhurst Junior High School other than crawling through the sewers. The elementary school kids will have to go out through Glenoaks Avenue or Greenleaf if they are walking. There are a lot of kids walking to school in danger because there is no sign to slow down when children are present or extra crossing guards to protect them. The easiest access to the schools is through the gutters where drugs, transients, and gangs are present. They were told by the Police Department that these two projects would not help them or us. This community was not notified about the Monarch complex and to place another development within a half a mile from each other is unfair. They are homeowners with current issues and have learned to accommodate to them. The community was told they would have patrols and now there is not. This project will impact this community. She was not in support of this project. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing and invited the applicant to come back to rebut testimony that he has heard. Mr. Okura stated that his initial presentation was dense in terms of material and information of the actual operation of affordable housing in Orange County and their experience as owners and operators of affordable housing. He stated that when he started with Jamboree Housing he went to visit properties that were developed by this company. He visited many properties and was impressed. As a former market-rate acquisitions person, he would acquire any of those assets without question. The architecture, the quality of construction and the size of the units are comparable to their market-rate counter parts. Affordable housing is something he is passionate about and he has no qualms about endorsing it whole heartedly. Commissioner Eastman referred to the security issue. She stated that the applicant's point was that security was not a needed factor in this neighborhood. She hoped if this project was approved it would be a factor. She drove by the neighborhood and noticed a security guard and was concerned because it was obvious other properties feel the need to have security. She wanted to hear the applicant's point of view on how they will determine if they will need security. Mr. Okura stated that current site plan and the project concept have been reviewed by the Police Department. They have taken into consideration the recommendations that the Police Department has made with respect to defensible space securing common areas, etc. They will implement those recommendations. If they find a need for a security guard in the future, it would be something they would consider. In other tougher neighborhoods they have been able to work with public safety so that they did not require a security guard. Commissioner Eastman asked if the applicant employed security cameras around the premises. Mr. Okura replied absolutely. They will have security cameras in the subterranean parking lot which is the most vulnerable locations in any type of development. The majority of the common spaces for .example, the elevator shaft, would have awire-less camera. 03/03/08 Page 19 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Velasquez was concerned about the number of cars that would be on the street. By the applicant's testimony, he was saying that the type of renters that would be at the property wouldn't have that many cars. Mr. Okura stated that this was statistically shown. The renters at 50% AMI level or less which is about 80% of the renter's at their development would have a much lower vehicle count and usage than market-rate counter parts. Commissioner Velasquez stated that there were two issues raised by the testimony of the neighbors. The issues were that most people with low income housing would have multiple families living in their units. She understands that the renters have annual inspection of their units. She wanted to know how they would monitor these units during that twelve month period of the inspection when other families could possibly move in. She asked the applicant how they would address that issue. Mr. Okura stated that there are multiple layers of financing that provide over-sight with respect to overcrowding. The company would risk tax credits associated with this project if overcrowded conditions are found. We are very stringent and property management is very vigilant in watching for overcrowded conditions. Commissioner Velasquez asked how they monitored the issue of other families possibly moving in during the eleven months. Mr. Okura stated that the renters are at risk of losing their affordable unit. The risk deters the low ~ncome residents from providing overcrowded conditions. If it is found that one of our residents sub leases a unit, leasing to an additional family, they are given eviction notices and removed from the premises. The risk of losing their unit has proven to be sufficient to not have multiple families in their units. The fact that these units are restricted, at 30% or less of the tenant's income, lessens the economic incentive for them to have overcrowded conditions. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the other issues raised by the neighbors were the shopping carts. She has seen low income areas with shopping carts left throughout the neighborhood. She asked what measures the applicant would take to ensure that this does not happen at the site or in the neighborhoods. Mr. Okura stated that they have considered this issue. He is open to working with the local vendors and neighbors so that this does not prove to be an issue. Chairman Buffa asked if a resident moving into an apartment had to sign a contract. Mr. Okura replied there is a valid and enforceable lease. Chairman Buffa asked if the on-site property manager had the right to inspect the property if they see .strangers on the property that are not part of the family. 03/03/08 Page 20 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~r. Okura replied yes. It would be like any other multi-family or residential property and they would receive a 24 hours notice. The property manager has the right to inspect the unit at any time, given adequate notice. Chairman Buffa stated that it seemed to her that the on-site property manager is the one who would be aware in the 11 month period, who really lives there. Mr. Okura stated that the interaction with their on-site social services provider is another important way they interface with their residents. It is another way they find out about potential issues and conditions in the households on-site. Commissioner Agarwal would like to see a measure in place. He wanted to know what measure the property management will take to minimize issues on the property. Mr. Okura stated that onsite management is his first line of defense. He stated that the necessity of overcrowding is driven by economic concerns. Our units are targeted so that renters would not exceed 30% of their income. There is no economic incentive to generate overcrowded units. The low income program deters the renter's from jeopardizing their opportunity for affordable housing. Commissioner Agarwal was not satisfied with that statement. Commissioner Velasquez commented that the applicant relies on the property management to make inspections. She wanted to know if the applicant could offer any other measures that would help. ~he stated that there have been renters, on Section 8, that have been late on their rent and even though there is a threat of losing their Section 8, there is still that element. She asked the applicant if there was anything he could think of that would help alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Okura explained that at the community meeting they invited other City departments to address the concerns of the community. Anaheim Sporn, who is the contact in Neighborhood Services, invited Traffic, Code Enforcement and the Police Department so that they could hear first hand the concerns of the community. He stated that they would like to continue partnership with the community to help address concerns. We understand the valid concerns of the community and we hope we can be good neighbors. Commissioner Eastman stated that she is familiar with Anaheim Sporn and her track record of bringing people together and working with communities. She thinks what the applicant has offered is a wonderful idea. She thought the developer might want to consider a large meeting space, at the project, to have neighborhood meetings with the City departments. The development could become a partner to help them solve problems that were there before the development took place, rather than adding to the community's problem. Mr. Okura stated that he would be open to that suggestion. It was expressed to him that the neighborhood children did not have recreational opportunities. They were asked if they could open their community space to them. This subject was discussed with their asset management department ~nd it is something they are open to, periodic events on site that would welcome the area children into their property. The applicant stated they are open to have meetings with other departments. 03/03/08 Page 21 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Agarwal asked if the applicant would consider permit parking for this project. Mr. Okura stated that they would be okay with permit parking if the city wanted to enforce permit parking on the site. He wanted to clarify with Commissioner Agarwal if he was talking about permit parking for their residents. Mr. Agarwal replied yes. Mr. Okura stated that they have done that at other properties and they would consider permit parking. Mr. Agarwal commented that it would be enforced by the applicant. Mr. Okura stated the Affordable Housing Agreement with the city stipulated that the applicant will submit a parking management plan. The city staff will have the opportunity to review that. Chairman Buffa indicated that during the course of the testimonies she heard several issues that were raised. She asked the Redevelopment staff to address when the property was acquired. She stated that what they know about the chain of title prior to it being purchased might be helpful. Luis Torrico replied that the City's property services division went through the proper motions acquiring the site from Caltrans. The City does have a deed and title report for both parcels that show the property is free and clear. There are no liens on the site. He cannot attest to the comments .made by Ms. Drapkin, but he will look into it. Chairman Buffa stated for the record that the City has clear title of the property. Chairman Buffa referred to testimony with regards to the CEQA steps, specific reports that were not required because it is a low income neighborhood, she asked staff to clarify that issue. Ms. Wong indicated that it was not the neighborhood. The project in general is statutorily exempt through Section 21159.23 which is a public resources code for affordable housing. The project does qualify for a statutory exemption. Chairman Buffa reiterated to make sure the neighborhood understood what staff meant. She stated that under state law, affordable housing projects that meet certain criteria do not require CEQA review or certain parts of CEQA review. It has nothing to do with the price of the homes that already exist in the neighborhood. This project is an affordable housing project and the project is exempt from certain types of reviews. She asked staff if that was correct. Ms. Wong stated that was correct. Chairman Buffa stated that she heard testimony with regards to the adequacy of the neighborhood circulation system. The neighbors wanted to know if the City had an adequate roadway network system to safely move people from the western side of this neighborhood to the north to get to arterials. She asked staff to discuss the adequacy of the local roads to support the level of traffic that ~s proposed on these neighborhood streets. 03/03/08 Page 22 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES avid Kennedy, Public Works, replied with regards to the first question. He stated that the City typically does not count traffic on the streets, Glenoaks, Greenleaf, and Chippewa, because they are considered interior streets. The neighborhood takes its primary access off of two signalized intersections. Those intersections are Glenoaks at Euclid and Crescent at Euclid. The City is in the process of seeking funding to improve the Euclid and Crescent intersection. This intersection at Euclid and Crescent is far worse than Euclid at Glenoaks, as far as traffic levels are concerned. A lot of those issues are related to pedestrians crossing to the schools, east of Euclid, and the City is looking at adding alert-turn. For example, on Crescent Street, left-turn traffic leaving the schools have to wait for the kids to cross the street in order to safely make that turn. Traffic in both directions on Crescent has a tendency to backup as a result. The City is looking at the circulation issues on Euclid as far as getting cars in and out of the neighborhood. The City is working on a proposed traffic calming plan. The City will work with the neighborhood to identify the traffic problems of speeding and other circulation issues to identify which tools would help reduce volumes. Cut through traffic is not much of an issue in this area, but speeding is. There are specific tools that can be implemented to help slow down traffic and make these streets flow safely. Chairman Buffa asked if the City's Public Works Department is willing to participate with the neighborhood on identifying and helping solve those issues Mr. Kennedy replied that the traffic calming toolbox that the City will implement will help solve those ~ssues. Commissioner Velasquez asked staff if the CEQA exemption includes a traffic study. David Kennedy replied that the project by itself and with the additional units does not meet the City's threshold requirements for their traffic study. It does not generate enough trips to create a significant impact in the intersection according to their criteria. For example, by right the applicant could build 44 units. The nine additional units would generate approximately four or five trips in the peak hour of just one car every twelve to fifteen minutes. It was not something that would generate a significant impact at the signalized intersections. That is what the City looks for in the traffic studies. Commission Eastman asked if the Monarch Project and Greenleaf Project combined would put them over the threshold. Mr. Kennedy stated that he would have to research that because in combination it does get close to their threshold. Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission was not allowed to look at the projects in combination because they were two separate applications. commissioner Velasquez was satisfied with that clarification. 03/03/08 Page 23 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Romero commented that the law exempts a project based on the type of project. He was concerned with that because the law does not consider the citizens affected by the property values, quality of life, parking, traffic, and congestion. The law is not concerned with everything the citizens are facing. The words "unfair" were used by the community but the Commission has to approve a project of this type because of the way it is being proposed. Chairman Buffa stated that she was horrified that the residents on Catalpa Avenue, who are about to back up to a four story building, are not present. She thought if someone was about to build a four story building, not withstanding the fact that there is a three story step up edge along the property line right behind residents homes, she would be at City Hall everyday until the hearing, refusing to sit down until she was satisfied. Chairman Buffa could not believe they were not present because these citizens live close enough and were notified. She shared staff's concern with regards to the architecture. She replied that the applicant's architecture had a long way to go. The Commission was asked to grant a Tier Two Development Incentive to allow for a height variation. She was concerned with the development because there is nothing in the area that is four stories tall. However, the Commission discussed the required findings and in order for them to deny this Tier Two Incentive they needed to make a finding that the project having nine extra units in this neighborhood would cause a health and safety impact. She thought with the inadequate neighborhood circulation it would help them to deny this Tier Two Incentive but staff informed the Commission that people can safely make it through the arterial system. She is not comfortable with this but legally the Commission could not deny this project. The State ~as set priorities that local land use agencies must follow. The Commission could not find a way to make a finding to prohibit the development of a four story structure immediately adjacent to single family one story homes and across a street from single story buildings. She didn't think this project was in the appropriate place but she doesn't think anybody's health is at risk by having the nine extra units. She will vote yes even though she does not agree. Commissioner Eastman added that she agreed with Chairman Buffa. She was happy that there were citizens that were concerned with their neighborhood. The best thing the citizens could do is to communicate with one another because that's how things change in a community. She has been a resident of the downtown area for a long time and there has been significant change as a result of the neighbors getting together to discuss their issues and seeking the City's support to resolve their problems. She thought this would happen for their neighborhood if they would continue their meetings. She was concerned with the architecture and was disappointed that there was no architect present for the project to get the Commissions input. She suggested that staff should direct them to the "Elm Street Project", which is also a tall building and an affordable project. The City worked hard on the "Elm Street Project" to get both materials and architecture that would compliment the neighborhood. She encouraged the applicant to look at the "Elm Street Project" to come up with better ideas. She would like it to come back to the Commission for review. She could not find a reason to deny the project. She was frustrated with this because she felt, by taking this action, she betrays the community. The State is clear that if the City could provide adequate police protection, fire, sewer, ~nd, water service, they are not allowed to say no. This is an area of state law that should be changed. 03/03/08 Page 24 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Karaki stated that there are several things that could be suggested to the applicant to regulate what they do, but they could not tell the applicant what to do. The Commission shares the concerns of the neighbors but this problem has been created prior to this project. With all fairness to the neighbors and to the applicant, the City has no low income housing. With the economy the City needs affordable housing projects and if it was not here it would be somewhere else. There is no area dedicated to low income housing because it would create a ghetto for certain neighborhoods and the city does not want to do that. The additional nine units would not make much of a difference to this neighborhood. He is sure the applicant would work with them to improve the well being of this project. He is in support of this project since the city is in need of low income housing and since the applicant has been flexible to work with the community's concerns. He shares the concerns of the neighbor's; however, many families would be affected positively by this project. He is not pleased with the architecture and stated that the applicant needed to come back to the Commission for review. The applicant mentioned they would install security cameras in the parking lot but the Commission would like them to install security cameras on the building outside to monitor and address situations that may come up. He feels it is a positive decision to make a decision to approve this project. Commissioner Agarwal commented that he also shares the concerns of the neighbors and is not pleased with the four story building. He was disappointed with the outcome of the neighborhood eople who were not present at this meeting. He suggested to the neighbors that were present not to ~et their decision discourage them from voicing their opinion, as it is their right to exercise it. There is not much they could do because of the State mandate. They are only discussing the applicant adding nine units to the 44 units that the applicant is entitled to. He stated that the applicant does not want to be the most hated neighbor on the street. He encouraged the applicant to have meetings with the neighbors to get their input. He stated that there would be more projects in Anaheim and the applicant should turn the situation around so that the same neighbors could support future projects when they develop a new project. This is not a one time situation for the community and the developer. They should work together and create harmony for a good project and to be good neighbors. Commissioner Velasquez asked staff for clarification with regards to how the notifications get distributed and to whom they go to. She thought it was important to let the public know how the city generates the notices. Ms. Wong replied mail notices were sent out to a 300 foot radius from the property boundaries. Commissioner Velasquez asked if it was a regular policy for all projects. Ms. Wong replied yes. The city always sends out 300 foot radius notifications. .Commissioner Velasquez stated that she wanted this issue addressed for the record. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated that in addition to the direct mail notice that is required by State law there is also a legal notice published in a periodical of newspaper of general circulation. 03/03/08 Page 25 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES They utilize the Anaheim Bulletin for that purpose. The property is also posted even though that additional requirement is not technically required by Statute. Commissioner Eastman added that she drove by and there was a clear notice posted on a pole right by the property. Anybody that walks by the area would see that public notice. Commissioner Faessel stated that this reminds him of a property they had with the same issues and it was unfortunate they were forced to come up with the same decision. They would have to vote positive on this project even though they disagreed. The Commissioners try to look after the community as they are all residents in the City of Anaheim. The Commission does not agree with the project the way it is being presented. The Commission would like to see changes such as the architecture and the improvement of parking but their hands are tied. The neighbors who showed up meant a great deal to the Commission. Commissioner Karaki commented that he commends the applicant for coming forward to put a green building into this project. The Commission looks forward to other buildings being built with the same features in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Velasquez thought that people should not confuse the comments that they are horrified about the project. This Commission has been clear that they are for affordable housing. That is a comment that has not been reflected that we are against the project. They have heard the concerns and other affects this project may cause, and they are frustrated with those issues but they •are for affordable housing and wanted to make that point. Commissioner Romero commented that the issue is with the 20% density bonus but it could have been more, it could have been 35%. Commissioner Karaki offered a resolution to recommend to adopt the attached resolution and to approve the Statutory Exemption Section 21159.23 Public Resources Code Affordable Housing with the modification of one condition to have the applicant bring back the design for additional review and the driveway alignment with the adjacent street. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that Commissioner Karaki mentioned additional surveillance cameras on the exterior of the building. Commissioner Karaki added the additional installed security cameras outside the building to monitor the adjacent street and to approve Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00233. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: 7 persons spoke, of which 3 had also sent written correspondence, in opposition to the project. ~N GENERAL: 2 email messages were received regarding traffic, parking and general concerns related to the project. 4 persons spoke in support of the project. 03/03/08 Page 26 of 27 MARCH 3, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES people spoke in opposition regarding traffic, parking, and general concerns relating to the project. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 47 minutes (3:12 to 4:59) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:05 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: • ~~ ~ ~- ~l/~~ Grace Medina, Planning Commission Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008. • 03/03/08 Page 27 of 27