Loading...
Minutes-PC 2005/04/18 (2)~A~E~~ ~~ C1TY OF ANAHEIM ~ `~ ~ : ~f o Pianning Commission 0 ~ ~ Supplemental Detailed Minutes ..~ ~ u ~: Monday, Aprii 18, 2005 . ~`~°~ . o~ (General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00416, Item No. 3) fi0~ 1$~~ ND ED Council Chamber, City'Nall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN , Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, CECILIA FLORES, ED PEREZ PAT VELASQUEZ, (TWO VACANT SEATS) Commissioners Absent: NONE _ • Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Ted White, Associate Planner Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner John Ramirez, Associate Planner Scott Koehm, Planner EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary • You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: plannin~commission(a~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN~2005 MINUTES\SUPPLMINUTESO41805 QTEM 3},DOC APRIL 18, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION $UPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MI' • 3a. < CEQA Environmental Im act Re ort No. 329 Buffa p p and Mitiqation Monitorinq Plan No. 132 3b. General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00416 suffa 3c. Reclassification No. 2004-00114 suffa 3d. , VarianceNa 2004-04597 suffa 3e. 7entative Tract Map No. 16440 Buffa/Eastman - 3f. Reauest For Citv Council Review Of Item 3d. sufra/Perez and 3e. Owner: Stonegate Development, LLC, 27071 Cabot Road, Suite 106, Laguna HiIIs, CA 92653 Location: (No address): Property is approximately 32.3 acres, Iocated approximately 1,400 feet south of the'intersection ' of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road (an existing maintenance road) between Festival Drive to the east and Eucalyptus Drive to the west.' General PlanAmendment No. 2004-00416 - Request (a) to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the Estate Density Residential ,• designation to the Low Density Residential designation, (b) to amend the Land Use Element and the Green Element of the General Plan to reconfigure the Open Space designation on the subject property and (c) to amend the Green Element of the General Plan to realign the north-south regional trail. Reclassification No. 2004-00114 - Request reclassification of the property from the T(SC) (Transition; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-2 (SC), (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and the OS (SC)(Open Space; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone, or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2004-04597 - Request waiver of minimum front yard setback for Lot No. 13 of Tentative Tract Map No. 16440. Tentative Tract Map No.16440 - Request to establish a 39-lot, 35-unit detached single-family subdivision. Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. PC2005-69 General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2005-70 Reclassification Resolution No. PC2005-71 Variance Resolution No. PC2005-72 VUTES Recommended City Council approval, with modificatious to MMP No. 132 Recommended adoption of Exhibits "A' ; "B" and "C" to City Council Granted Granted - Approved Withdrawn ' MMP NO. 132 __._.-_- Modified Mitigation `Measure TC-2 on Page 8. TTM Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 7 VOTE: 5-0 ' Two Commission vacancies Sr8880av.doc Ghairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 3, stated the project includes a general plan i amendment to amend the land use designation from the Estate Density Residential to the Low Density _ Residential land use designation with a cap of 35 units, to reconfigure the open space designation on the subject property and to realign the north/south regional traiL The requested amendments would allow for 04-18-05 Page 2 APRIL 18, 2005 PLANNINGCOMMISSION SUPPLEMENTALDETAILED MINUTES • ` a clustered residential development and the implementation of the proposed amendments would preserve more open space on the property than the current general plan designation. The maximum number of ' units that could be developed orr the property with the low density iand use designation would be"up to 122 homes; capping the proposaf to 35 units would protect the rural character of the community. The project also includes certification of EIR Na 329, a reclassification to rezone the property to the_RS-2 and open space zoning designations, a variance of minimum front yard setback for Lot Na 13 and a tentative tract map: She referred to the tentative tract map excerpt and read into the record a modification to Condition Na 5, by including additional text stating "that a 28=foot wide easement shall be reserved along the adjoining property line to the north for future public access." Also, to delete text that states "at fair market value". She referred to Condition No. 7 and read into the record a modification to reword the beginning of the condition and to state''That prior to final map approvaP' versus "That prior to issuance of a building permiY'. She referred to the Findings of Fact document and deleted text on page 5 pertaining to the waiver of public street standards. Staff has determined that the waiver is no longer required since the project has met the standards at the time the application was deemed complete. She stated that two e-mails were received regarding the project which requested elimination or reduction , of street lighting on the property, planning for an entry to the property at the northeast and a trail : connection. She indicated review of a lighting plan is a mitigation measure and the conditions of approval within the attached draft resolutions, address the access and the trail connection. She expressed that staff is pleased with the site configuration and the design of the homes and recommends approval of the project. Applicant's Statement: Gordon Youde, 27071 Cabot Road, Suite 106, Laguna HiIIs, Ca, stated he represents Stonegate ~ Development. He stated they are fully supportive of the staff report and indicated he has one change to. the condit+ons of approval pertaining to Condition No. 7 of the tentative tract map. There was an inconsistencybetween Condition No. 7 and Mitigation Measure TG2, and he read into the record the modification to the condition, stating "The project applicant shall be responsible for contribution of the projecYs fair-share cost towards the improvement of the intersection at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road, including the installation of a traffic signal and roadway widening. The fair-share cost shall be calculated by the City of Anaheim Public Works Department once the appropriate density and access points are determined for other development projects in the area'' He stated to strike out the sentence that reads "The first developer shall pay for all improvements and request a Reimbursement District from the City of Anaheim City Council." and to be replaced with text stating, "The developer is only required to construct those improvements necessary to safefy serve the development. The exact limits of the required improvements will be determined through final engineering plans for the intersection. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections:' He stated the project has been made very complex by fractured ownerships surrounding the particular parcel as well as its inclusion within an HCP/NCCP environmental area and the fact that the property is encumbered by the presence of endangered species which are covered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He believes those are the reasons why it has taken almost 5 years to complete the project. He believes the ESA process is almost incomprehensible for many people and its impact on private property rights is so alien to what is believed that Americans property rights should be, and he believes that has created some problems with their neighbors. Public Testimony: Kiran Volina, 1639 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA, stated she is speaking on behalf of the owners, the Dutt's Family property, regarding the EIR. She relayed concern regarding the easement through the project and stated it is not shown in the EIR or on the map. They were informed that iYs included in the . • approved map, and as Mr. Youde stated that the future access easement is being provided. She stated the other issue is the acquisition of the easement for the development of their property. The Cityrequires a streef dedication for future development for most projects.: In this case, it is required that they are to 04-18-05 Page 3 APRIL98, 2005 PLANNfNG COMMfSSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • purchase the property/easement from Stonegate development. However, they haven't been able to get their asking price, they have tried to contact them verbally and in writing but they haven't received any response as of yet. Today, staff discussed the issue with City Attorney and she was informed that the City Attorney advised to strike out theverbiage "fair market price" from Condition Na 5 of the draft tentative tract map excerpt. She is concerned if she would be able to acquire the easement or not and she asked that the Commission take a fair action and require a street dedication through the City as it has done in numerous other projects. Sherelayed concern regarding the gnat-catchers on the Deer Canyon project and stated they are concern with the EIR because when the grading activities occur that the gnat-catchers will move onto their property. It was suggested that they get a permit to mow their property in order to avoid the gnat- catchers from settling on their property which she was'in agreement with. She stated the cost and impact should be the responsibility of the Deer Canyon project because there is nothing that they are doing to cause any impacts. ' Jay Dutt, 6198 E.Paseo RioVerde, Anaheim, CA, stated he owns a business at 1140 N. Kraemer Blvd; Anaheim, and he is in agreement with Kiran Volina's concerns. P.J. Canavan, 222 S. Eucalyptus Drive, Anaheim; CA, stated he is in agreement with Kiran Volina's concerns. Navjivoan Dutt, 12 Summerset Drive, Alicia Viejo, CA, stated his business is located at 1140 N. Kraemer Blvd., #M, Anaheim, CA, presented a speaker card in opposition to the request. Surendra Vohra, 1639 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA, stated he has the same objection regarding the easement and the gnat-catchers. . Kamlesh Dutt, 222 S. Eucalyptus Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated she is in agreement with Kiran Volina's ' concerns. Christian Hansen, 136 S. Eucalyptus, Anaheim, CA,~stated he believes changing from the estate zoning would change the integrity of the neighborhood and feels it would impact his property values. Applicant's RebuttaL Mr. Youde stated he has previously discussed the easement issues and they have not responded with an asking price and he doesn't have a plan to do so anytime soon. He feels a tentative map is a tentative map, there are not final engineering drawings completed, and he is not able to fully determine what the impact of a road addition would be as of yet. The property is sloping land, and the impact of a road can't really be determined at this time until final engineering plans are completed. With respectto the gnat- catchers, the subject property has been surveyed and has been included in all of the biological studies and the Dutt's Family property also has gnat-catchers on it as they naturally occur on the site. He stated the issue is not the gnat-catchers but it is the habitat, not the presence or absence of birds. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer, stated Public Works Department is not in support of the street dedication requirement for a number of reasons. There is not a general public benefit that is observed and the benefits would be towards a private parcel owner and a development. It is also consistent with the reservations of easements for a planned roadway network similar to other developments that have occurred in the past in the subject area. Furthermore, the Dutt's property does already have access to Santa Ana Canyon Road through the maintenance trail of Deer Canyon Park. Joan Kelley, Bonterra Consulting, 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200, Costa Mesa, CA, stated there was a • Comment letter on the EIR with the concern of during grading gnat-catchers spreading to surrounding properties and it is a mitigation measure that they recommend that prior to grading the surrounding owners be notified when grading will start so that they could get a permit to mow the habitaY prior to 04=18-05 Page 4 APRIL 18, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAC DETAILED MINUTES • nesting. Therefore, the habitat would be removed prior to the birds coming in to nest and it would prevent additional gnat-catchers nesting in the a~ea which would increase the amount of mitigation that they would have to provide if they developed their property. It is a common approach and it is suggested. She doesn't know of another project where the burden for that mowing was put on the developer. _ Commissioner Flores asked for more detail regarding the gnat-catchers. Joan Kelley stated nesting season usually starts February 15th, but certain years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will modify the date based on weather conditions. The developer will not be grading during nesting season, therefore, a notice to adjacentproperty owners would be given outside ofthe - nesting period so that you remove the habitat prior to any birds being in the area for nesting, therefore, preventing nesting from starting at all. Commissioner Velasquez stated she feels requiring Stonegate to dedicate the easement for some future - use would'be a burden to Stonegate, and she supports staff s recommendations. Comm.issioner Flores expressed her support of the project. . Commissioner Perez stated he doesn't feel it is the Commission's position at this time to determine a"fair market value", and he also agrees with Mr. Youde pertaining to the tentative tract map because they really can't determine the complexity of the project and/or what the cost impact would be, and he expressed his support of the project. ~ Chairman Eastman stated staff has done an excellent job with the staff report. She is not unsympathetic to the family that owns the other land but does agree with the Public Works Department's reasons for not supporting the easement, and there is already access to the property and it is not landlocked. She expressed her support of the project. ! Mr. Ling stated in response to Mr. Youde's comments made at the beginning of the meeting, and stated he has had an opportunity to review the changed mitigation measure regarding the street improvements and agrees with the changes as Mr. Youde proposed. Chairman Eastman stated at the preliminary plan review session today there was discussion regarding the lighting impact to the more rural areas, and she is in sympathy with that and would not like to see the character of the area change anymore than necessary and feels lighting may change the character of the area. Therefo~e, she asked that the developer mitigate the lighting as much as possible when they consider the lighting, and that it would need to comply with the Traffic and Engineering Department's safety standards. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated the way the conditions and mitigation measures are set up today, it would allow that flexibility to look at that within the existing City ordinance. OPPOSITION: 7 people spoke in opposition, and 2 additional people filled out speaker cards in opposition to the request. IN GENERAL: 2 e-mails were received with suggestions pertaining to the design of the project. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council and presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions. • DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (7:36-8:14) 04-18-05 , Page 5 ~ Respectfully submitted: ,~~~~ ~~~`~ Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on '~,~_~ , 2005.