Minutes-PC 2005/04/18 (3)•
~
~
A~A~EiM C~l
r
o`~ o
~ ~
v ~
`~'p~ ~~ 1 c~`~
~ D E ~D~
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Planning Commission
Supplemental Detailed Minutes
Monday, Aprif 18, 2005
(Garza Annexation, Item No. 2)
Council Chamber, City Hall
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
Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner
Della Herrick, Associate Planner
Scott Koehm, Planner
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner
James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer
Ted White, Associate Planner
Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner
John Ramirez, Associate Planner
Elly Morris, Senior Secretary
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planninacommissionC~anaheim.net
H:\TOOLS~PCADMIN~2005 MINUTES~SUPPLMINUTESO41805 (ITEM 2).DOC
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED N
• 2a. CEQA Mitiqated Neqative Declaration and rerez
Mitiqation Monitorinq Proqram No. 133
2b. Generai Plan Amendment Nos. GPA 2005-Q0423, rerez
GPA 2005-00424. GPA 2005-00425. GPA 2005-00426,
GPA 2005-00427, GPA 2005-00428, GPA 2005-00429
AND GPA 2005-00430
2c. Reclassification Nos. RCL 2005-00144. RCL 2005-00145. rerez
RCL 2005-00146 RCL 2005-00147. RCL 2005-00148
RCL 2005-00149 RCL 2005-00150'. RCL 2005-00151.'
RCL 2005-00152 RCL 2005-00153. RCL2005-00154 ,
RCL 2005-00155 RCL 2005-00156. RCL 2005-00157.
RCL 2005-00158 RCL 2005-00159, RCL 2005-00160
AND RCL 2005-00161
2b. ReauestFor Citv Council Review Of Item No. 2C Perez/Velasquez
Agent: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South
Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: Property is approximately 495 acres and is generally
bounded by Broadway to the north, Gilbert Street to the west, Kateila
Avenue to the south, and Brookhurst Street to the east and is located
within an unincorporated area of the County of Orange within the City of
• Anaheim's sphere-of-influence, and is further described as County
Islands 4-AN-6, 4-AN-7 and 4-AN-8. Figure 1 depicts the boundaries of
the three County Islands. Figures 2 through 5 depict the approximate
495-acres further divided into eighteen (18) areas to correspond with
the proposed Generat Plan Amendment and Reclassification
applications.
City-initiated request to set forth City of Anaheim General Plan land use
designations and zone classifications for properties located within
unincorporated County Islands 4-AN-6, 4-AN-7, and 4-AN-8 in the City of
Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. This request is associated with a proposed
annexation of the County Islands into the City of Anaheim. The proposed
General Plan Amendments would amend the City of Anaheim General Plan.
The Reclassifications would serve as "pre-zoning" for the subject properties.
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00423 - Request to redesignate Area
No. 1(approximately 1.2 acres adjacent to the south side of Broadway and
225 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street) from the Corridor
Residential (up to 13 dwelling units per acre [du/ac}) to the Medium Density
Residential (up to 36 du/ac) or less intense designation.
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00424 - Request to redesignate Area
No. 5(approximately 1.4 acres at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and
Ba11 Road) from the Low Density Residential (up to 6.5 du/ac) to the Corridor
Residential (up to 13 du/ac) or less intense designation.
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00425 - Request to redesignate Area
No. 6(approximately 0.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and
Ball Road) from the Low Density Residential (up to 6.5 du/ac) to the Medium
Density Residential (up to 36 du/ac) or less intense designation.
• General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00426 - Request to redesignate Area
No. 7(approximately 7 acres adjacent to the south side of Ball Road and 177
feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street) from the Low Density Residential
IINUTES
Recommended City Council
approval, with modifications
to MMP No.133
Recommended City
Council approval
Recommended City
Council`approval
Recommended City
Council Review of Item
No. 2c
M1VIP 1~T0.133
Modified Mirigarion Measure
No. 5:6-3 on Page 3,
pertaining to a request by the
State Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
voTE: s-u
Two Commission vacancies
04-18-05
Page 2
' APRIL 18, 2005
PLANN{NG COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETA{LED MINUTES
(up to 6,5 du/ac) to the Medium Density Residentiai (up to 36 du/ac) or less
• intense designation, '
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00427 - Request to redesignate Area .
No. 8(approximately 5.5 acres adjacent to the east side of GilbertStreet, 276
feet south of the centerline of BaU Road) from the Low Density Residential (up ;
to 6.5 du7ac) to the Medium Density Residentiai (up to 36 du/ac) or less
intense designation.
General Plan Amendment No.: 2005-00428 = Request to designate Area No.
14 (approximately 2.7 acres generally bounded by Pacific Avenue ta the
north, 122 feet to the centerline of Magnolia Avenue to the west, the Southern ~
California Edison easement to the south and 1,324 feet to the centerline of
Gilbert Street to the east) to the Low Density Residential (up to 6.5 du/ac)
designation. :
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00429 - Request to designate Area Na
17 (approximately 30 acres generally bounded by Pacific Place to the north,
Gilbert Street to the east, Katella Avenue to the south and 156 feet to the
centerline of Markev Street to the west) #o the Low-Medium Density
Residential (up to 18 du/ac) or less intense designation. -
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00430 - Request to designate Area No..
18 (approximately 0.3 acre at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and
Berry Avenue) to the Low-Medium Density Residential (up to 18 du/ac) or less
infense designation.
Reclassification No. 2005-00144 - Request to reclassify Area No. 1
(approximateiy 1.2 acres adjacent to the south side of Broadway and 225 feet
west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street) from County R-3 "Apartment
District to City RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00145 - Request to reclassify Area No. 2
~ (approximately 2.9 acres at the southwest corner of Broadway and Brookhurst
Street) from County C1 "Local Business" District to City GG (General
Commercial) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00146 - Request to reclassify Area No. 3
(approximately 109 acres generally bounded by Broadway to the north,
Gilbert Street to the west, Ball Road to the south and 181 feet west of the
centerline of Brookhurst Street) from County R1 "Single-Family Residential"
District to City RS-2 (Single Family Residential) Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00147 - Request to reclassify Area No. 4
(approximately 5 acres at the northwest and southwest corners of Stonybrook
Drive and Brookhurst Street) from County C1 "Local Business" District to City
GG (General Commercial) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00148 - Request to rectassify Area Na 5
(approximately 1.4 acres at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball
Road) from County CN(C2884) "Commercial Neighborhood" District to City C-
G(General Commercial) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00149 - Request to reclassify Area No. 6
(approximately 0.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Ball
Road) from Caunty C1 "l.ocal Business° District to City RM-4 (Multiple-Family
Residential) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00150 - Request to reclassify Area No. 7
(approximately 7 acres adjacent to the south side of Ball Road and 177 feet
east of the centerline of Gilbert Street) from County R3 "Apartment" District to
City RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00151 - Request to reclassify Area No. 8
(approximately 5.5 acres adjacent to the east side of Gilbert Street, 276 feet
south of the centerline of Ball Road) from County R2 "Multifamily Dwelling"
• District to City RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) or less intense Zone. ,
04-18-05
Page 3
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED N
Reclassification No. 2005-00152 = Request to reclassify Area No. 9
• (approximately 124 acres generaily bounded by Ball Road to the north, Gilbert
Street to the west, Cerritos Avenue to the south and Brookhurst Street to the
east) from County R1 "Single-Family Residential" District to City RS-2 (Single
Family Residential) Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00153 - Request to reclassify Area Na 10
(approximately 2.1 acres at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Cerritos
Avenue) from County R2 "Apartment" Districf to City RS-2 (Single Family
Residential) Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00154 - Request to reclassify Area No. 11
(approximately 3.9 acres adjacent to the west side of Brookhurst Street
' including,properties 529 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue and
properties 1,103 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue) from County
RP "Residential Professional" District to City RS-2 (Single Family Residential)
Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00155 - Request to reclassify Area Na 12
(approximately 54 acres generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north,
Gilbert Street to the west, the Southern California Edison easement to the -
south and 185 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street) from County
R1"`Single-Family Residential" Districtto City RS-2 (Single Family
Residential)`Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00156 - Request to reclassify Area No. 13
(approximately 26.3 acres generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north,
1,155 feet to the centerline of Magnolia Avenue to the west, the Southern ,,
California Edison ea'sement to the south and Gil6ert Street to the east) from I
Counfy. R1 "Single-Family ResidentiaP District to City RS-2 (Single Family
Residential) Zone.
• Reclassification No. 2005-00157 - Request to reclassify Area No. 14
(approximately 2.7 acres generally bounded by Pacific Avenue to the north,
122 feet to the centerline of Magnolia Avenue to the west, the Southern
California Edison easement to the south and 1,324 feet to the centerline of
Gilbert Street to the east) from County R1 "Single-Family Residential" District
to City RS-2 (Single Family Residential) Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00158 - Request to reclassify Area No. 15
(approximately 11.3 acres generally located 150 feet south of the centerline of
Pacific Avenue, Gilbert Street to the west, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the
south and Brookhurst Street to the east) from County C1(C02-014) uLocal
Business" District to City GG (General Commercial) or less intense Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00159 - Request to reclassify Area No. 16
(approximately 31.6 acres generally bounded by the Southern Pacific
Railroad to the north, Gilbert Street to the west, Katella Avenue to the south
and 1,321 feet to the centerline of Brookhurst Street to the east) from County
R1 "Single-Family ResidentiaP District to City RS-2 (Single Family
Residential) Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00160 - Request to reclassify Area No. 17
(approximately 30 acres generally bounded by Pacific Place to the north,
Gilbert Street to the east, Katella Avenue to the south and 156 feet to the
centerline of Markev Street to the west) from County R2D "Two-Family
Residence" District to City RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) or less intense
Zone.
Reclassification No. 2005-00161 - Request to reclassify Area No. 18
(approximately 0.3 acre at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Berry
Avenue) from County R2(3000)(C3201) "Multifamily Dwelling° District to City
RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) or less intense Zone.
•
04-18-05
Page 4
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
• General Plan Amendment Na 2005-00423 Resolution No. PC2005-43
General Plan Amendment Na 2005-00424 Resolution No. PC2005-44
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00425 Resolution No.PC2005-45
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00426 Resolution No. PC2005-46
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00427 Resolution No. PC2005-47
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00428 Resolution No. PC2005-48
General Plan Amendment No.`2005-00429 Resolution No: PC2005-49
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00430 Resolution No: PC2005-50
Reclassification No. 2005-00144 Resolution No. PC2005-51
Reclassification No. 2005-00145 Resolution No. PC2005-52
Reclassification No. 2005-00146 Resolution Na PC2005-53
Reclassification No. 2005-00147 Resolution No. PC2005-54
Reclassification No. 2005-00148 Resolution No. PC2005-55
Reclassification No. 2005-00149 ResolutionNo. PC2005-56
Reclassification No. 2005-00150 Resolution No. PC2005-57 ,
Reclassification No. 2005-00151 Resolution No. PC2005-58
Reclassification Na 2005-00152 Resolution No. PC2005-59
Reclassification No. 2005-Q0153 Resolution No. PC20Q5-60
Reclassification No. 2005-00154 Resolution No. PC2005=61
Reclassification Na 2005-00155 Resolutio~ No. PC2005-62
Reclassification No. 2005-00156 Resolution No. PC2005-63
Reclassification No. 2005-00157 Resolution No. PC2005-64
Reclassification No. 2005-00158 Resolution No. PC2005-65
Reclassification No. 2005-00159Resolution No. PC2005=66
Reclassification No. 2005-00160 Resolution No. PC2005-67 Sr4000gk.doc
Reclassification No. 2005-00161 Resolution No. PC2005-68
•
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
Scott Koehm, Planner, introduced Item No. 2 and presented a PowerPoint Presentation. He stated the
subject item is a series of General Plan Amendments and Reclassifications associated with the potential
annexation of County Islands Nos. 4A and 6, 4A and 7, 4A and 8 into the City of Anaheim; the areas are
known as The Garza Islands and the three (3) areas comprise a total of approximately 495 acres and
have a current population of approximately 7,800 residents. Following the 1994 bankruptcy, the County
of Orange ce-assessed its approach to providing services and decided to concentrate on its core business
as a regional service provider, including public safety, public health, social services, environmental
protection and regionat planning. The assessment further concluded that providing municipal services to
the islands was duplicative and costly to the tax payers. It was determined that residents would be more
efficiently served by a surrounding City. 1n January of 2000, the State made annexation of incorporated
areas a priority of local government through the passage of AB1555. The County of Orange approached
the City of Anaheim regarding annexing the last remaining counry islands within Anaheim's sphere of
influence and the City is now cooperatively working towards achieving this common goal. On December
21, 2004, the County Boards of Supervisors adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City of Anaheim and the County, outlining an approach to annexing the subject area to the City of
Anaheim. The MOU was adopted by the City Council on December 14, 2004, and subsequently on
March 1, 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission
to commence proceedings for the annexation of the subject areas.
He indicated that the Council has worked closely with the County of Orange and LAFCO to provide
background information to the community regarding the annexatian process. On February 23, March 16
and March 31, 2005, LAFCO, City of Maheim and County staff held public workshops for the community
• to discuss the proposed annexation process. In addition, the City has been airing informational
messages on ACTV, Channel 3; provided information on the City's website and established a hotline to'
answer questions related to the annexation. The establishment of General Plan and zoning designations
04-18-05
_ Page 5
APRIL 18, 2005:
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MlNUTES
is one of the preliminary steps required by LAFCO to process the annexation of the County lsiands into
• the City of Anaheim. On March 7, 2005, following a tour of the area and a workshop, the Planning
Commission initiated General Plan Amendments and Reclassification proceedings for the area.
He stated there are eight (8) general plan amendments, and eighteen (18) reclassifications proposed for,
the eighteen (18) areas which are for Commission's consideration today. The proposed actions were
determined by conducting extensive field research, documenting existing land uses, reviewing county
zoning designations and development standards, and analyzing the City's existing Generaf Plan for the
area. 7hefollowing three factors where instrumental in determining staff s approach:
• Maintaining consistency with existing land uses. A primary objective in determining
the appropriate General Plan designations andzoning classifications for the
properties within the annexation area is to maintain consistency with existing land
uses. The majority of the annexation area is developed with single-family homes,
there are also apartment complexes and commercial uses in the area.
• Establishing appropriate General Plan land use designations. The proposed
- General Plan Amendments are consistent with existing land uses in the respective
areas, the one exception is at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street antl Ball Road
where staff has p~oposed a corridor residential General Plan designation. The
properties are developed with commercial land uses and a vacant lot. Corridor
residential designation is consistent with the Citywide General Plan Policy to
transition under utilized commercial_properties to residential land uses. The corridor
residential land use designation woutd not impact the commercial development `
opportunities of the site but would rather provide an additional developmenf
opportunity.
. Implementing zoning classifications compatible with existing County zones. Another
• objective of their efforts is to maintain as near as possible the development rights
enjoyed by the property owners under the existing County zoning designations. The
staff report includes detailed exhibits, analysis, and recommendations for each of
the 18 areas.
He stated the proposed General Plan Amendments and Reclassifications are before the Commission for
their consideration. Any recommendations will be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on
Tuesday, April 26, 2005. Following the public hearings, the City will be submitting its' application to
LAFCO at the end of April for a 30-day review period. Following the review period, LAFCO will forward
the application to the County Tax Assessor. The tax assessor has a 45-day review period to set property
values for the proposed annexation area. Once the tax assessor's review period is over, the City and
County wiif then determine the property taxes exchange agreement. The finat agreemenf wifl be in
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding that was previously adopted by the City and the
County. After the property tax agreement has been determined, LAFCO will set the public hearing date
around early August. If LAFCO approves the annexation, they will set a 21 - 60 day protest period.
Depending on the number of protests received, the annexation could be finalized, put on a ballot, or
rejected. The recordation of a certificate of completion should take place in December, 2005.
He noted that staff has received one letter from the State Soard of Toxic Substances ControF relating to
hazardous substance mitigation. The mitigation monitoring program for the subject project already has a
mitigation in this regard, however, staff is recommending refinements to the mitigation in light of the letter:
The refinements reflect standard information and studies that are required as part as phase 1
environmental assessment. Specifically, prior to commencement of any work on the site, including any
demolition or issuance of any building permits of phase 1 assessment would need to be prepared which
would identify whether or not there are any existing or hazardous substances in the vicinity or on the
project site. Further, if said substances are identified the assessment would need to include steps to take
• care of the substances prior to the commencement of construction and said steps would need to be
reviewed and approved by responsible agencies including the Department of Toxic Substances Control,
04-,18-05
Page 6
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNfNG COMMISSION SUPPLEMEIdTAL DETAILED MINUTES
the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water QualityControl Board. A copy of the :
• mitigation monitoring program has been provided to the Comrriission and copies are availabie for review.
in addition; he stated staff has received one letter as indicated in the staff report regarding`the proposed
reclassification for Area No. 1. The letter requested that the existing'County multi=family zoning
standards remain.in place, however, staff is. recommending that the RM4 standards apply to Area 1 as '
indicated in the staff report. Staff has also received phone calls inquiring whether existing legal
businesses and/or projects currently in process in the County would be grandfathered following '
annexation. To address the concerns, draft resotutions inc{ude provisions that wouid a{low for existing
projects, including existing County entitlements or building permits that have not yet been constructed
and projects currentlyin the process of acquiring building permits or entitlements to maintain the
development's rights afforded by the County zoning.
He stated the actions before the Planning Commission today are the mitigated negative declaration,
mitigation monitoring program, eight (8)'general plan amendments, eighteen (18) reclassifications and a
recommendation to the City Council to consider reclassifications along with a mandatory review of the
general plan amendments:
Furthermore, copies of the staff report, draft resotutions and environmental documents are available on
the City's website, under the Planning Department.
Public Testimony:
Watty Courtney, Paul Kott Realtors, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he is speaking on '
behalf of any on-going projects and has just learned that staff hasvery diligentlyand thankfully allowed
an on-going project to continue with the current County zoning. He thanked stafffor that and asked that
Commission accept the recommendations and include it with the resolution.
• Charles Smith, 3749 Roxanne Avenue, Long Beach, CA, stated he owns property at 10361 Brookhurst
Street in Anaheim. He is concerned about zoning of the property. They were going to sell it about 4
years ago to the Habitat of Humanity but the City of Garden Grove would not allow a sewer permit for the
eight (8), 2-story homes that were to be built. He explained the different zoning for the City of Anaheim
and the County.
Chairman Eastman asked staff what parcel Mr: Smith is referring to.
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, responded she believes he is referring to a property in Area No. 9 and
it is on Brookhurst and veers onto a cul-de-sac at Harriett Lane and Poona Drive, and the current County
zoning is R-1.
Ted White, Associate Planner, responded it is in Area No. 9, but is immediately north of Area No. 11
which is the angular piece that is fronting onto Brookhurst Street.
Mr. Koehm stated it is currently zoned R-1 with the County district and they are proposing RS-2 zoning
designation.
Chairman Eastman asked if that is a comparable zoning; Mr. Koehm responded it is comparable as the
most compatible zone.
Commissioner Velasquez asked if the difference is the minimum square footage to build a residence. '
Mr. Koehm responded no, the current County zoning R-1 requires a minimum square footage of 7,200
square feet for a single-family residence as well.
Chairman Eastman clarified that it is compatible and still allows the property owner the same
S development rights as the County; Mr. Koehm responded yes.
: 04-18-05
Page 7
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
Joanne Frankel; 1311 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA, stated she has prepared a letter and has
• copies available to submit to the Commission and staff; and were submitted to staff for distribution. She
indicated she owns Lots 30 & 31, Tract 2273, within Area Na'9 of the proposed annexation of the County
- Islands into the City of Anaheim. She stated she has a ~ariance for a professional office building. She
indicated her two contiguous lots are in existing County land and directly on the borderwith the City of
Anaheim on the west side of Brookhurst about 1108 feet'south of Ball Road. All prope~ties north of her
property are zoned commerciai and are in the existing City of Anaheim. The two parcels were vacant
until 1962,' and there were never anything built on them: The oniy entry and egress from the two lots is a
driveway onto Brookhurst Street. The building was built pursuant to Variance No. 4934 and was built
specifically as an office building. She purchased the property on November 12, 1991, and has used the
property as commercial office building continuously since her purchase. She asked that the City of
Anaheim consider zoning the prope~ty commercial since it has never been a residential use and never
had a residential structure built on it. The front smaller lot is too small to build a house and they're two
{ots that have afways constituted one parcel. She indicated ideally she would like one parcel and zoned
commercial so she could keep heroffice building in case it burns down.
Chairman Eastman asked staff to address the issue.
Linda Johnson stated that property is currently zoned R-1 in the County and with the variance that is on
the property which entitles the current use, if the property is annexed to the City of Anaheim thaf variance
would be carried over. Furthermore, all of the properties that are annexed to the City of Anaheim, the '`
County will turn over all of the records and they would have copies of all of the'entitlements. Their
proposed reclassifications are going from 1ike-zone to like-zone, and R-1 is proposing to be rezoned to
RS-2. Ifthe Commission were to desire a different designation, staff would stitl recommend going forward
today because of the LAFCO timelines. If the Commission were to direct staff to follow up with an
anatysis of whether the land use designation, generaf plan and the zoning should change to commercial,
staff could concurrently be looking into that issue while the other process is underway. She reiterated :
• staff would recommend moving forward with the like-zone to the like-zone.
Chairman Eastman clarified the property owner would not be losing any rights to say that she can't use it
the way she has been using it.
Linda Johnson concurred and stated those entitlements would carry over.
Donald Calderwood, 9951 Yardley Street, Anaheim, CA, he expressed concerns pertaining to Area Nos.
5 and 7. He asked why the original plan is to change it from low density to medium density, and he
expressed his opposition to the annexation.
Cedric Troncoso, 7251 Owensnorth Avenue, Orange Park, CA, stated he is an attorney and is present on
behalf of the owner of the property at 9731 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA. He stated there are six (6) single-
family residences and they appear to be the only single-family residences that actualty face Ball Road.
He asked if staff gave any consideration to redesignate those six (6) houses that actually face BaII Road,
which have commerciat on one side to the east, and to the west will now have commercial corridor
residential as opposed to leaving it as single-family residences.
Chairman Eastman asked staff to address the issue.
Mr. Koehm clarified the area Mr. Troncoso is referring to is the area across the street from Ball Road,
directty north of Area No. 7 and to the east of Area No. 5
Linda Johnson stated the purpose of the reclassifications were to take a look at the existing land uses
and also to the extent possible to go from a like-zone in the County to a similar zone in the City of
Anaheim. If following the annexation, the property owners wanted to propose a redesignation of the site
to provide for additional units and had a development proposal along with that, then they could.apply for
~ that type of change. Staff was not looking at providing a lot of changes, or to increase density in areas
where there were not already some existing land uses to coincide with that.
04-18-05
Page 8
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
She explained that at the corner of Ball Road and Gilbert Street they are proposing that it be redesignated
• to Corridor Residential and that designation is a new one thaf was adopted by the City as part of their
comprehensive general plan update last year, and basically is one that they are looking'at applying to
underutilized commerciai corridors where there is already some commercial use on the property and this
would provide a different opportunity for the property but would still maintain the commercial zone. They
are recommending that the property go from a County commercial zone to a Citycommercial zone, but
that the General Plan change to the Corridor Residential is to provide an additional opportunity.
She referred to the properties mentioned by Mr. Troncoso and stated if those property owners had a
proposal for an increased density, if they were annexed to the City of Anaheim, then they could apply for
a General Plan amendment and areclassification forthat type of proposaL
Mr. Troncoso asked if staff is suggesting to proceed in that regard after the' proposed annexation is
complete.
Chairman Eastman asked staff to address the issue.
Linda Johnson stated if the area is annexed to the City of Anaheim, then the property owners would be
able to submit an application for a devetopment proposat to amend the Generaf Plan and a
reclassification and those types of proposals`are accompanied by some development plans so they could
understana'the full enVironmental impacts of such a change.
Chairman Eastman asked Mr. Troncoso if that satisfies his questions; Mr. Troncoso responded yes. :
Burt Sullivan, 10631 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA, stated his residence is located within Area No. 11
and it is contradicting to what staff is saying because they are taking an area which is zoned residential
professional and converting it to strictly residentiaL It is bound to have_an affect on his property value
because his property has an option to be an office or a home, if it is changed from residential professional
• then it has changed away from the current County standards which is contrary to what staff has indicated
today.
Chairman Eastman asked staff to address the issue. '
Linda Johnson responded that area is separate from the neighborhood it backs up to and stated the
proposal for that area was to reclassify it to a zone that is compatible with the existing land uses and to
their knowledge those are used as single-family homes, along the frontage, and the surrounding area is
atl zoned for single-family homes.
Mr. Sullivan stated if the annexation goes forward, he would request that the Commission disapprove that
one section in order for him to have the option of residential or professional for his property.
Chairman Eastman responded they will take that into consideration.
Commissioner Buffa asked if the City of Anaheim has a residential professional zone.
Linda Johnson responded it is an office low zone designation that would allow a residential house to be
converted to an office use with a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Buffa asked staff why they did not designate that area o~ce low.
Linda Johnson responded staff took a look at the existing land uses and did not see any single-family
homes along that segment that had been converted to a commercial use and the general plan
designation for the area is low density.
~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
04-18-05
, Page 9
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
Commissioner Buffa'stated they may not want to get into the zone change activity but probably need to
• find the most comparable category, and she feels they should preserve office low even though nobody is
using it as professional office IoW currently, it would allow tfiem to if they chose ta
Chairman Eastman stated it may necessitate a general plan change because of the designation in that
corridor.
Linda Johnson stated changing it to office low wouid not necessitate a general plan change, in that case it
wouid be going from like-zone to like-zone; however it may necessitate the project being readvertised for
fhat area because it would be for a more intense use than an RS-2 zone. She stated there is an option to
move forward with staff's recommendation, yet direct staff to come back to review that area and schedule
it for another public hearing which could be taking place while the LAFCO annexation application is
underway.
Commissioner Velasquez concurred with Commissioner Buffa and expressed her support in preserving
the rights of the property owners as much as possible.
Commissioner Perez stated he understands they are going to make some provisions through theprocess
but in o~der to expedite the application process they will incorporate to make the necessary changes for
Area Na 11, and he concurred with staff and suggested that they'move forward with the item.
Commissioner Flores asked if there is a variance on the property if it would automatically carry over.
Linda Johnson responded that is correct, if the area is annexed to the City of Anaheim, the variance and
the'records would carry over to the City of Anaheim, but if the Commission desired to take a look at the
land use and the zoning to change it to commercial zone then the Commission could request that of staff.
Commissioner Velasquez stated during the preliminary plan review session she raised an issue regarding -
• some of the commercial properties that would become legal nonconforming and stated her concern is that
if one of those properties were to burn to the ground that the property owner may not be able to rebuild
what they had, therefore, she asked staff to look into that to check what the options would be in that type
of situation.
IN SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor of the subject request.
OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request.
A letter was received, at today's meeting, with concerns/suggestions to the subject
request.
IN GENERAL: 2 people spoke with concerns/questions regarding the subject ~equest.
A letter was received, prior to the meeting, from the State of Califomia, Department of
Toxic Substances ControL
ADDI710NAL
ACTION TAKEN: Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and
MOTION CARRIED (with finro Commission vacancies), that the Anaheim Planning
Commission does hereby direct staff to process a reclassification of Area No. 11
(RCL 2005-0015A) to the Low Intensity 0ffice Zone (0-L) and process a Code
Amendment to allow nonconforming structures within the annexation area to be rebuilt
in the event of 100% destruction of the building.
Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated this item is set for a public hearing before the City Council on
• Tuesday, April 26, 2005.
DISCUSSION TIME:' 56minutes (6:39-7:35)
04-18-05
Page 10
APRIL 18, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
~
Chairman fastman stated the newly appointed Planning Commissioner
Joseph Karaki will be sworn in at the Planning Commission meeting of May 2,
2005; and aiso indicated that Chairman Pro-Tempore David Romero has
resigned from the Planning Commission, and she asked for the appointment of
a new Chairman Pro-Tempore be agendized to fhe May 2, 2005 meeting.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:38 P.M. `
TO MONDAY, MAY 2, 2005 AT 1:00 P.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
•
~
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~a.cf a`- , 2005.
Respectfuliy submitted:
'/&'~ „ ' ~
~ ~~ ~!~'~~D
_/
Elly Morris
Senior Secretary
04-18-05
Page 11