Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/05/14P~A~E'M ~~~ City of Anaheim ~ 04 r~ Planning Commission ~ ~ - Minutes ~ ~ D - - ., . ~~o~ . Mondav, Mav 14, 2007 . Council Chamber, City Hall ~~~ ~~'~~ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Np~~ _ CHAIRMAN: GA1L EASTMAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPM KARAKI, PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: NONE _ Sfaff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Sergio Ramirez, Project Manager I JudyDadant, Acting Principal Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. ~ on Thursday, May 10, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: The Orange County Register Newspaper on Thursday, April 19, 2007 • Catl To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS ' AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON 7HE MAY 14, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 30 • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Faessel • Public Comments • Consent Calendar ~ • Public.Hearing Items • . Adjournment H:\TOOLS\PCADMI N\PCACTI ONAGEN DA\2007M I NUTESWC051407. DOC MAY 14, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES :• Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: ' None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1-A, and to continue Consent Calendar Item 1-B as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPRpVED Reaorts and Recommendations 1A.(a) CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVEDI Approved (b) CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT NO. 2006-05066 Approved final plans and a f (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05212) 6me retroactive extension o for 1 year (to expire: on Agent: Ray Berona Apri13, 2008) Condo Conversions. Com 7439 La Palma Avenue #309 Consent Calendar Approval BUena Park, CA 90620 • Location: 729 South Knott Avenue VOTE: 7-0 Request to review final elevation plans, colors and materials for a previously-approved condo conversion and a retroactive time P,~~ect Pianner. extension to comply with conditions of approval. (skoenm@ananeim.net) Minutes 1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 30, 2007. (Motion) Continued to May 30, 2007 Consent Galendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Hearina ltems: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Continued to 2b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT May 30, 2007 2c. ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05164 Motion: RPmero/Flores Owner: Daniel Rubalcava " , 508 North East Street LLG vo'rE: 7-0 Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Greg Howell 20561 Suburbia tane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Location: 508 North East Street: Property is approximately 1.15 ' acres and is located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and East Street (La Reina Market). Request to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to establish land use conformity for an existing legally non-conforming commercial retail center with waivers of (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, and (b) minimum landscape setback. ~ Continued from the January 8, March 5, March 19, April 2, and April 30, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Project Planner. " (kwong2@anaheim. net) MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMI8SION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 f PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) - 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05198 Owner: Steiner Corporation, 505 East South Temple, Salt Lake City,, UT 84102-1004 Agent: Geoff Bonney, Bonney Architects, 300 East Sfate Street Suite #620, Redlands, CA 92373 1 55 d 1763 S uth'Anaheim Continued to May 30, 2007 Motion: Velasquez/Flores VOTE: 7-0 Location: 1740 South Zevn Street 7 an o Boulevard: Property is approximately2.1 acres, having a #rontage of 326 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street and is located 250 feet north of the centerline of Katella Ayenue. Request to expand a legal non-conforming commercial laundry facility with waivers of (a)'minimum landscape and structural setback adjacent to Zeyn Street and Anaheim Boulevard, (b) maximum permitted fence height, (c) minimum distance between driveways serving adjacent parcels, and (d) minimum number of required parking spaces. Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na (kwonq2@ananeim.net) • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 FaesseWelasquez Concurred with staff 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT FaesseWelasquez Approved, inpart 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2716 Faessel Approved amendment (TRACKING N0. CUP2007-05203) WAIVERS Ownet': Clty Of Arlaheim Approved waiver (b) in part, ' 200 South Anaheiril BoUlevard and denied waivers (a) and Anahelm, CA 92805 (c) since they were withdrawn by the applicant. Agent: Casey Griffin Logan Asset Management v0'rE: 7-0 30100 Town Center Drive Suite 0-31A Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 ` Location: 8323 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 9.3 acres and is located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. Request to amend plans for a previously-approved auto dealership to permit additional auto sales, auto repair, and roofmounted equipment with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum number of wall' signs, and {c) maximum letter height. Project Planner.: Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-45 (dsee@anaheim.net) • Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Casey Griffin, of Wilson Automotive Group, 1400 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, CA, representing Weir Canyon Honda, stated he was present to answer questions if needed and that they also had a team of people present to answer questions if needed but they are okay with the removal of the sign as recommended by staff. Chairman Eastman asked Mr. Griffin if the conditions of approval were acceptable. Mr. Griffin responded yes. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Griffin if this expansion was sufficient for the next 10 years or if there were plans for bigger facilities. Mr. Griffin responded no. Honda has a 2010 Design Criteria. Car manufacturers put together designs based on projected number of cars in the market and sales, required service stalls and inventory. 7he current redesign would satisfy the 2010 requirements. He indicated that they may need additional - inventory parking in the future. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez for approval of a CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 1. The motion passed by seven affirmative votes (ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). • Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to deny waivers (a) and (c) and approve waiver (b) in part'to'allow the 5 wall signs only as discussed. The motion' passed by 05-14-07 ; - Page 5 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • seven affirmative votes (ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores; Karaki; Romero, Velasquez, and Ghairman Eastman). Commissioner Faessel offered a'resolution to approve Conditionaf Use Permit Na 2716 (Tracking Na CUP2007-05203). EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. OPPOSITION: ` None Mark Gordon, Assistanf City'Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,'June 5, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 8minutes (2:37-2:45) • : MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMI$SION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQANEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Velasquez Approved 5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00199 Buffa Granted, unconditionaily Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Vote on CEQA & RCL: 6-1 P.O. Box 3222 Commissioner Flores voted no Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 Agent: Elisa Stipkovich Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard 10th Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 212 South Beach Boulevard: Property is approximately - 1.8 acres, having a frontage of 325 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and islocated 671 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. City-initiated (Community Development Department) request for ` reclassification of the subject property from the GG (General Commercial) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-FamilyResidential) zone, or a less intense zone for a future condominium complex. Project Planner.• Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-46 (dsee@anaheim.net) ~ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Faessel stated he would like a little background on the General Plan in this area and how this Medium Density Residential designation came to be. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, responded the property actually was redesignated for Low Medium bensity Residential land uses as part of the 2004 General Plan Update and the notion of redesignating Beach Boulevard from a largely commercial area to a residential area actually had its beginnings back in approximately 2000-2001 as part of the West Anaheim Revisioning Effort where the Community Development Department had a consultant on board to work with the West Anaheim Community to develop the vision for the area. As a part of that effort the City also commissioned a market study focused solely on West Anaheim. The results of that market study revealed that there was a tremendous over abundance of commercial retail space out in West Anaheim. The market study recommended that the City focus its future commercial developments at the intersections of arterial highways and to consider alternate land uses for the mid block commercial areas. Prior to 2004, very long stretches of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue were formerly designated for mid block strip commercial. FoNowing that study, in about 2001-2002, the City updated its housing element which predated the General Plan; and mid block areas, including this stretch of Beach Boulevard, were identified as housing opportunity sites as part of that certified housing element. The General Plan Update in 2004 took all the housing opportunity sites that had been previously identified in the housing element and redesignated them to residential designations that were consistent with the densities identified in the housing element. Therefore Beach Boulevard, large stretches of Lincoln Avenue, stretches of Magnolia and Brookhurst and some of the other northwest streets to residential designations were redesignated. •' Commissioner Faessel asked when the market study was prepared. 05-14-07 Page 7 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Borrego responded approximately 2000-2001. Commissioner Faessel indicated he played a small part in the General Plan Project, and that there was a tremendous amount of community input in the west end of Anaheim. He asked if the reclassification of these' properties along Beach Boulevard was derived from some of the community input or did the City on their own base this solely on the market study. Mr. Borrego responded the original thought to redesignate Beach Boulevard was largely born from those efforts in 2001-2002. The City stayed pretty consistent with its recommended designation along that stretch of Beach Bouleyard all through the General Plan Update process. There were several community meetings and several outreach efforts throughout the City, including out in West Anaheim: There has nof always been consensus between the community and the City with regards to that stretch of Beach Boulevard because there has been a difference of opinion. The City has always consistently felt that area of Beach Boulevard was more appropriate as a residential designation as opposed to a commercial designation largely.because of the findings of that studybut certainly there were plenty of opportunities for the community to express their opinions on that through that process. There were also some general plan events out at Wesf Anaheim as part of the West Anaheim Barbecue.' There were community meetings at the onset of the generaf plan update program as well. Commissioner Faessel asked for examples of other locations in Anaheim where an institutional use such as a police station or a community center was immediately adjacent to a residential area. Mr. $orrego responded as far as police stations and community centers go, the city has a handful. The best example in terms of proximity, is on Harbor Boulevard where the police station and library are immediately adjacent to a multiple family community. The Brookhurst Community Center is actually ' separated by streets and the uses are not immediately adjacent to each other. In East Anaheim there • aren't any residences immediately adjacent to it. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner indicated that the city has received a letter of opposition from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council dated May 14, 2007, and that it was distributed to the Commission earlier today. Chairman Eastman stated there were several cards in opposition and asked if there was anyone there to support the project. Seeing none, she asked Charles Bradley to come forward. Charles Bradley, resident of West Anaheim and also Chairman of the WAND land use committee. He . indicated the need for businesses and restaurants in West Anaheim. The City itself has requirements for affordable housing through other State, County and Federal regulations. He indicated that not all of the units should be in West Anaheim. Originally, the City was going to build affordable housing at the corner of Beach and Lincoln at the landfill site and because of water issues and many other things it couldn't be done. He indicated that commercial is now planned and supported stores such as Lowes and Albertsons. He indicated that when Tom Daly was Mayor, the Mayor was going to do everything he could to upgrade all of the areas of West Anaheim on the major streets; upgrade the businesses and make them look better, and since he left office nothing has happened: He had concern about more affordable housing, especially 3 stories high in that tiny area where the Old Silver Moon Motel was. Robert J. Foumier distributed a handout and resides at 213 S. Ridgeway Street, Anaheim, CA, in the immediate area. He indicated that the area has many low and very low income families. There are several apartments in the area that not only have multiple families living in them but also multiple persons living in them. He stated that it is due to the carelessness of the owners and the managers of those apartments. He said that there are people who care about the quality of the neighborhood. He stated that Ridgeway Street is immediately to the right of the property and the area is especially impacted. He pointed out Schweitzer Park as the little piece of green on the aerial. He said there were gang problems at Schweitzer Park after 4:30 p.m., practically every evening and practically every weekend all day long. • He pointed out a foot bridge on the aerial going across Carbon Creek from Baywood Street to the park that the children use to go over to Schweitzer SchooL He stated that the individuals cause trouble at the 05-14-07 _ Page 8 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES footbridge. This impacts people going #o and from school and going to and from'the park. Also there is ~ constant graffiti in the area He said the City has been quite good in painting out the graffiti and trying to keep it down but it is practically a daily thing again. ' He expressed concern that low income and very low income families wiil add to the'quality of the neighborhood whether they own it or not. He had concerns about how to control the occupancy; what wili preventthem from becoming rentals; and'what will control the resale for profit. He said that given the juvenile problems in the area, especially with Schweitzer Park, that the zoning should stay commercial. He indicated #here was enough low and very low income residentiaL , : Chairman Eastman thanked Mr. Fournier.for informing the Commission `about the bridge. ~ Ester Waflace, Chairman of WAND, indicated that she submitted a{etter and wanted to add a few things to it so she read it into the record. The Ietter indicated that WAND's Land use Committee met on Wednesday, May 2"d and voted unanimously to oppose the change of zoning from 212 S: Beach Boulevard from the current General Commercial zone to the Multiple FamilyResidential zone. She indicated that Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue is one of the busiest intersections in Orange County and actually in the 90's it was the busiest intersection in Orange,County. lt is part of the new developing ' shopping mall that will soon be built on the northeast section-ofBeach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. Actually Beach Boulevard is a state highway it is route 39. The area is quite different today than ifwas several years ago when the site of the Silver Moon motel was purchased at 212 S. Beach Boulevartl by the Redevelopment Agency. This area could become an important commercial hub in West Anaheim at least to West Anaheim residents: The plaza at Lincoln and Western Avenues one block:west is being renovated at a cost of over $1,000,000. There is a new Tesco Grocery Store, Fresh and Easy proposed with over $2,000,000 of improvements. The rest of the mall will be upgraded with this addition. This plaza and intersection is one of the most run dawn areas in West Anaheim. West Anaheim residents would like to see restaurants or some light commercial businesses built on Beach Boulevard north of the Police station youth center. They have asked the RedeVelopment Agency forrestaurants over the years and were told the lot was not deep enough at 140 feet. The project site is250 #eet deep. The Claim ~ Jumper at Beach and La Palma Avenue is just 90 feet deep. There is no more successful restaurant than the Claim Jumper in Buena Park in the surrounding area. Tesco did a market study in the area and they expect to do very well at that site at Lincoln and Western. The new Anaheim General Plan has changed seventy percent of West Anaheim's commercial property to residential. She indicated that housing should be placed on less busy streets. Converting this area would be like the effort in the 80's on Lincoln Avenue in downtown Anaheim destroying businesses there. There are over 120,000 people in West Anaheim. Most of those living west of Brookhurst Avenue do not tend to shop east of Euclid Avenue, . instead they shop to the north west and south mainly in Fullerton; Buena Park; Cypress, Garden Grove and Westminster. They are doing a study of where West Anaheim residents spend their. money. The first study shows that many are stating that upwards of 70% of shopping, including food not counting fast food and restaurant use is done outsid.e of Anaheim, actually the restaurant came out at 90%. She asked if Anaheim needs sales tax. She.in~8icated that losing commercial areas would lead to sales going out of - the city. She stated that the residents would preferto shop close to home. 7he group recently obtained a petition supporting a Trader Joe's store and got 5,000 signatures. She indicated that demographics was the reason stated for not opening a store. Tesco, a new business to southern California is planning to add another store in West Anaheim where they think they will do welL WAND is interested in restaurants such as a crab shack or a steakhouse or something like that which will draw people just the same way Claim Jumper does. Nine years ago, a developer proposed building homes down at Knott and Ball. It was really a biighted shopping malf. He wanted to put up $200,000 homes at that time. She said WAND urged a higher price point at $259,000. The builder agreed and sold all the units within 6 weeks: There were about 58 houses there. Upper scale housing, some of it beyond $800,000 sells without advertising: ~ That shopping center at Knott and Ball is actually next to a railroad and still it sold. Redeveloprnent had ideas for Home Depot. WAND had different views than the Redevelopment Agency and the builder incorporated some of their suggestions and those houses at the old Mome pepot site on Lincoln Avenue have sold beautifully. She heard at one time there were 200 people that wanted it. She urged an upgrade of the community. Chairman Eastman closetl the public hearing. a 05-14-07 Page 9 ' ' MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked if the site was planned for affordable housing. ' ~ Sergio Ramirez, Project Manager l, for the Community Development Department indicated no. The agency has an agreement with a developer; Brandy Wine Momes, and they will be proposing a market rate product. No affordable units will be coming before Planning Commission for consideration. Commissioner Faessel asked if Brandy Wine could change their mind. He asked if today's action would ' preclude them from requesting an affordable component later. ~ Mr. Ramirez stated na The code would not preclude them from develaping affordable housing however, Brandy. Wine is actually a developer that is not in the business of affordable housing. Their track record has always been market rate projects, mostly custom made homes, but also town homes throughout , Anaheim and northern Orange County are very successful projects. ` Commissioner Faessel stated the possibility that in the future Brandy Wine Homes may not go forward ' and this site may be offered to another developer who could develop affordable housing. He indicated there is no guarantee tMat this site will not include an affordable component. Anaheim has an affordable housing ordinance and the city is looking for opportunities but it ean not be guaranteed to the concerned homeowner that the site will not be developed with affordable housing. Commissioner Buffa asked if this is one of thesites that is identified in the City's affordabfe housing plan. Mr. Borrego responded no. The site is identified within the housing element: It is a housing opportunity site as are several acres throughout the city but as parfof the housing element, however; the city does not designate income categories for designated housing`opportunities sites. - Commissioner Faessel asked if there was a specific project for this site. He indicated concerrr over housing in close proximity to a high traffic street like Beach Boulevard. He indicated concern over ' ~ multiple access points to these homes right on Beach Boulevard. He referred to the project north of Lincoln Avenue by Brookfield homes, where it was preferable to have a signaled intersection. Mr. Ramirez responded that the agency would work with the developer on the site design to address circulation and health and safety concerns for the residents of the community. This site has an alley at the rear of the property which would help with access. Staff is working with Caltrans to determine their requirements to allow housing on Beach Boulevard. Staff will work with traffic engineering to comply with requirements. Commissioner Romero asked for confirmation on the statistic that Mrs. Ester Wallace made that over the years or the last few years at least 70% of the area has changed from commercial to residentiaL Mr. Borrego responded that Mrs. Wallace is probably referring to the part of the General Plan Update ' where quite a bit of midblock commercial was redesignated to a residential designation: Some of that land has transitioned since the General Plan was approved to residential uses. He could not confirm that exact percentage of 70%, but that the majority of the commercial land use designation along the arterial highways in West Anaheim was redesignated for residential uses as part of the General Plan Update. " Some of the parcels have in fact transitioned to residential uses but the overwhelming majority of the land that is still used for commercial uses. Although the designation has changed, the commercial zones still exist out there today. Commissioner Romero had concerns with whether or not the proposed land use is the best for this parcel. Mr. Borrego stated that as part of the General Plan Update a physical impact report was prepared to ensure that the changes are not overburdening the City by developing too much residential within the City as opposed to the amount of commercial space left. The study was consistent with the findings made in ~ early 2001-2002 when the market study for West Anaheim was completed. The conclusion of the - 05-14-07 Page 10 MAY 94, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Physical lmpact Report ttiat was conducted as part of the General Plan Update was even by changing ~ these land uses out to residential, the city was still in a very positive financial situation. Commissioner Flores asked how long the property has been vaeant. Mr. Ramirez indicated that the Redevelopment Agency obtained the site in 1999 when if was actually a motei and approximately about a year later the agency demolished the site and it has been vacant since then. ; Commissioner Flores asked if there had been any interest in the property by developers. Mr. Ramirez indicated not since 1999: - , Commissioner Flores asked the reason why the agency is interested in residential uses here. Mr.Ramirez indicated because it was concurrent#o the General Plan. . Commissioner Flores clarified if the area is developed with residential all around. Mr.Ramirez indicated that most of the area across the street and to the east is residential. Commissioner Flores asked if the goal was to take vacant lots on Beach Boulevard from commercial to residential. Mr. Ramirez indicated that the General Plan determines the ultimate use for that site. The underlying zone is still commercial so retailers who are interested in establishing retail businesses on properties that are designated for residential can still be allowed fo go in with their retail use at midblockJocations. Sfaff would support either a commercial or residential use on those sites. : '~ Commissioner Flores stated she is concerned that they are losing a lot of restaurants, or the restaurants are changing to fast food. She is also concerned about the number of stories. Mr. Ramirez indicated that the former Lincoln landfill is a 10 acre site which will house Albertson's, Lowe's and several sit down restaurants such as Olive Garden, Chucky Cheese, and Tony Roma's which is what the residents want. Commissioner Buffa asked Jonathan Borrego to clarify, that the orange area on the map designated for residential is zoned for commerciaL Mr. Borrego responded that was correct except for the property on the opposite side of Beach Boulevard : wHich is a mobile home park and he wasn't sure if the underlying zoning is commercial or the T-zone. Commissioner Buffa wanted confirmation that it currently did have a residential designation and Jonathan _ confirmed that it did. Chairman Eastman confirmed that the property between the corner and Lincoln and Beach down to this property is presently commercial and any of the properties on the General Plan that are either residential or commercial can continue to be used as commercial, as the underline zoning is still commercial. Mr. Borrego responded except for the properties that are currently utilized for residential purposes. Chairman Eastman clarified that this particular site could still be used as commercial if tomorrow somebody wants to use it for commerciaL Mr. Borrego responded someone can still use it for commercial use until such time as an ordinance is ~ prepared introducing and then adopting a zone change which would require a City Council action on the consent calendar. Until that time the underlying zone would remain commercial: 05-14-07 Page 11 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Eastman asked if there was a reason the reclassification is coming before the Commission without a project. Mr, Ramirez answered that the agency wants to get the site prepared so that a disposition and development agreement to the Councif for this developer, Brandy Wine Homes. Staff would then bring back the project. Commissioner Buffa asked as sites are designated for residential development, what is the City's process for going back and looking at neighborhood park conditions to verifythat there is adequate local park space in reasonable proximity to residential sites. Judy Dadant responded'that each time an application comes through for additional:residential units, plans are routed to the Park Division of the Community Services Department. There are park in-lieu fees that are required tobe paid to contribute towards the parks in the area. With each review Parks wiU know when a project is coming through. They have also reviewed documents at the General Plan stage as well. That also applies toprojects that do not require'zoning actions ,such as those thaf are built as a matter of right. , Commissioner Buffa stated'that she realizes there are a 1ot of people in the community who do not agree with the City's strategic Land Use Plan as identified in the General Plan, and a lot of people don't agree with the idea of consolidating commercial space at intersections. That was a strategic choice the City made. She' indicated it was not her place to set policy, but to implement thepolicy which the City has set through the General Plan, which has made it clear that as midblock sites present themselves, ' and can be converted from commercial to residential it will apply additional momentum behind the commercial properties. As there is less commercial space available, better tenants will rise to the surface, and she agrees with that theory and supports this change. , Commissionec Karaki concurred with Commissioner Suffa and agreed with staff. He indicated to the speakers that it was good for them to voice their concerns and that the appropriateness for residential will be looked at on a case by case basis. He supports this request based on the Anacapa Project, which is a beautiful project. The Brookhurst project came out very nice and contributed to the quality of the neighborhood. Thebig commercial site at Lincoln and Beach will provide restaurants and better commercial businesses. He agreed with the community providing feedback on land use issues but that in this case he was supportive of the request. Commissioner Flores commented she would like to see what the project entails before approving it. She was going to deny the project at this point because she doesn't agree with the City. She is siding with the residents to keep it commercial until she can see if the project fits in the area. Commissioner Velasquez asked if theyare already working with the builder and if so, how far along are they and is it normal to bring the reclassification forward without the project. Judy Dadant responded Community Development can indicate how far along they are with the developer, but that it was not uncommon for the reclassification request to be processed ahead of the project. Mr. Ramirez advised that staff was approached by the developer and saw that the zoning was : commercial however, the General Plan was residential. Staff negotiates the economics and the details of the agreement, but in order to facilitate a disposition and development agreement that can be taKen to the Redevelopment Agency the reclassification is requested now. Commissioner Velasquez commented that the residents have indicated that there are not enough services around like restaurants and services. She felt more comfortable with this request because these changes are market driven. She asked for confirmation that if a restaurant wanted to occupy the site, it would be permitted even though the General Plan identifies the site for residential land uses. She asked if the reclassification would be market driven. • 05-14-07 Page 12 ' MAY 14, Z007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr: Borrego responded thaYs absolutely correct and that was a major component of the General Plan : Update was to ensure that'the City gave property owners that flexibility to operate under either scenario. Commissioner Faessel commented that he spent time on the General Plan Committee, and doesn't like spot zoning. He is concerned that the Commission does not have a project before them, and will have little control over wfiaf will eventually go in there in terms of #he quality and the #ype of building and he can't support that. ' Mr. Ramirez assured Commissioner faessel that before a project goes for an entitlement, the agency and developer will come for Commission's consideration with the site design and elevations. Staff will work with the WAND members to make sure that they review the proposal and that it wil( be well designed : architecture and site design. : - Commissioner Faessel stressed the Commission needs to ensure the future project type and quality on this site. Commissioner Karaki agreed with Commissioner Faessel and added they don't want to change Beach Boulevard from a commercial zone street'intoresidential. Chairman Eastman agreed with Commissioner Buffa thaf this is not a policydecision for Commission to make. The City Council is the policy maker in the Cityand the Commission is merely following the direction that they have set in the General Plan by approving this reclassification. She stated support for it. _ Commissioner Buffa offiered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for the project. Motion passed by six affirmative votes {ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman and 1 no by Commissioner Flores). , Commissioner 8uffa offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00199. EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 6 ayes votes - Commissioner Flores voting na OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (2 represented the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council - WAND) and photographs were submitted. A letter in opposition was received from WAND. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (2:46-3:46) . MAY' 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION Karaki/Buffa Concurred with staff SECTION 21159.23 6b. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH Karaki/Flores Determined to be in DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE conformance with the (TRACKING NO. MIS2007-00195) Density Bonus Code Owner: Anaheim Housing Authority vo'rE: 7-0 200 South Anaheim` Boulevard, 10th Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: Jamboree Housing Corporation 17701 Cowan Avenue, Suite 200 lrvine; CA 92614 Location: 1228-1232 West Diamond Street (partial address): Property is approximately :78-acre and is located at the northeast corner of Wilshire AVenue and Pearl Street. Planning Commission determination of conformance with the Density pro~ectPianner.~ Bonus Code to construct a 25-unit affordable apartment complex with '~kwonq2@anaheim.net) incentives. A f P' ' I PI r stated that the flowchart on the screen has been distributed to the Judy Dadant, c ing rmcipa anne Planning Commission earlier today during preliminary plan review. It includes two charts, one that ~ indicates the process with the Planning Department for reviewing projects under the density bonus chapter of the Zoning Code which is in compliance with State law along with'supplemental information ' and also the flowchart from the Community Development Department indicating their process #or affordable projects. Both of those charts and supplemental information is available for anymembers of the public that wish to see it. Community Development Department staff along with Planning staff are here for any questions regarding this document. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Judy Iturriaga, Resident Care & Housing Office, Health Care Agency, 405 West 5th Street, Suite 500, Santa Ana, CA, stated they are hoping that this goes forward so they can provide stability and an opportunity for adults and children who are suffering. Commissioner Buffa asked who the special population was. Ms. Iturriaga responded these are mentally ill individuals and their families. The individuals are living at 30% AMI or less in terms of being able to afford anything in this county it is almost impossible. Annette Mugrditchian, Division Manager of Orange Health Care Agency, 405 West 5th Street, Santa Ana, CA, stated many of their clients struggle to find affordable housing. The Health Care Agency is committed to assisting their clients who live in this project with additional support so that they may achieve their goal of having their own home and getting back into their community by working and going back to school. It is this housing opportunity that will allow them to do that. Johanna Gollide, of Jamboree Housing, 17701 Cowan Avenue, Irvine, CA, indicated she would like to wait to speak. • Chairman Eastman stated that the Commission has received one objection from one of the neighbors th8t _ , the Commission had a chance to read."' 05-14-07 Page' 14 MAY 14, 200Z PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Flores asked about the occupants of the units Ms.'Gollide clarified that there would be one member of thefiousehold that would qualify as disabled. The largest unit would be four persons but they anticipate mostly two to three in the two bedrooms and one to two persons in the one bedrooms. Chairman Eastman stated she is not happy with the site plan, especially where the trash is because it allows more traffic into the Diamond Street neighborhood. Ms. Gollide advised the Sanitation Department dictates where trash should be. Ms. Wong responded that staff did work with the developer and concluded to keep that location on Pearl Street: Commissioner Faessel stated trash' isn't the issue, the issue is the impact on Diamond Street. He doesn't care where the trash goes he doesn't want the people coming in off of Diamond Street. He indicated that the trash location needs to be modified and that it should not dictate the plan. -What's best for the community is to take that traffic burden off of Diamond Street and he was sorry that someone from the Sanitation Department wasn't there because he would like to have further discussion with them. CommissionerRomero asked who will provide maintenance and care of the complex; who will supervise the mentally ill residents. Ms. Gollide corrected Commissioner and stated these are people who are disabled and may have had : some kind of disability. Commissioner Romero stated that was the term used by a previous speaker. ~ Ms. Gollide stated there are several social services and resident service programs that will be available to the residents. There will be 24-7 case management available, onsite manager and onsite social service coordinator .There will be resident classes and service programs about 30 hours a week. They have a third party management company, John Stewart, that oversees about 2,500 of their units who will also have someone on site. Everyone is coming out of some kind of program and has already been through a program where they have gotten theirlives back on track. This is permanent housing for them, not transitional housing, and they are either doing part time work, they are in school or they are serving the community on a volunteer basis. They are contributing members of the community. Commissioner Buffa stated she was concerned about the site plan too and asked staff how much latitude the Commission has to ask for changes to the site plan. Ms. Dadant responded the findings that the Commission needs to make in order to deny the project today : are in the staff report and those are found in paragraph 17-A and 17-B. They state that the incentives are not required for the project to be an affordable project or that there is specific adverse impacts upon public health and safety and on the physical environment that are of concern. Unless the Commission can make those findings or feels there has been evidence presented that those findings are in question, the project would need to be approved. Commissioner Velasquez asked who has the final say so on this site plan and Ms. Dadant responded that the Commission is the decision making body on this request. The Commission can deny it if it feels there is a life safety issue or a specific adverse impact on public health. If the Commission does not make those findings, then the project has to be approved. : Commissioners continued to discuss the ability to modify the site plan. • Mark Gordon, Assistant Deputy Attorney, advised in terms of the approval, the developer and staff is always interested in the Planning Commission's viewpoints concerning the development of this site. They are constrained by Sfate Law and the city has had this discussion`in the past and he has said on 05-9 4-07 Page 15 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . occasion that these issues really do not involve the approval of the site plan. That's not really the issue that is before the Commission here today. Whether#hat process is desirable from a Planning Commission standpoint or from a City Council standpoint or even from a staff standpoint is something . that can be looked at when somethinglike this comes up. This is not the;typical development project where the final site plan comes before the Planning Commission on recommendation of the Planning Director for approvaL Under the City's code the Planning Director can approve a final site plan with respect to many development projects and it is the discretion of the Planning Direcfor whether or not to work with the applicant for the approval of the`final site plan or to defer that judgment to the Planning Commission, but that is really not the issue here today.lf Commission has specific concerns about ' access to the site perhaps staff could look at that as this moves forward but that really is not the ultimate question that is in front of the Commission today. There are State preemptions when it comes to this type of housing development although it doesn't restrain the City completely in zoning powers. Certainly if the project qualifies because of the affordable component, or for Tier 2 incentives then thaYs the judgment that the Commission has to make today. And, it appears from the evidence that they do qualify for those incentives. He recommended the Planning Commission go forward with the decision keeping in mind whaf the role is here today: Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant to reconsider this site plan to address the concern of the neighbors. _ Ms. Gollide responded that certainly they are in partnership with the City of Anaheim on this development since this is a ground lease from the Housing Authority. There have been numerous public community meetings. They have met with Planning Staff, Redevelopment Staff and the Housing Authority Staff on numerous occasions. They met with the Housing and Community Development Commission at least three times. They have met with the downtown task force several times and with adjacent neighbors. She indicated tfiat the site plan could be laid out different ways, but the challenge has been differing opinions from the various parties and a constrained site. The parcel is asymmetrical, is pinched with an • easement through it and frontages on three streets. She indicated that they have done their best to site the property. They have lowered the density to 25 instead of 49 units and still had trouble parking it, which is one of the incentives requested. They increased the units to accommodate families because the City Council asked them to. They'anticipate 25% of the residents will have cars because folks at this ' income level do not have cars. We have a site plan that is not perfect, but because of the constraints on this site and the irregular shape of this site and all of the requests that have been made, they have done their best and look for Planning Staff and Housing Staff to validate all the options that they have looked at throughout the 20 or so community meetings they have had. . Commissioner Faessel stated he was impressed with the level of care and concern that not only the residents are shown by the staff and the management of these facilities but the facilities were well maintained both inside and out and doesn't have an issue with the use. He reiterated his concern with the issue of the trash enclosure, which he feels they are powerless to change. He thinks it will be a great project. : Commissioner Buffa stated that staff has heard the Commissions concerns and although the project is not perfect, it clearly does not impact the health and safety of the neighborhood. So perhaps on future, projects like this, the Planning Director would allow input from the Commission prior to the time it comes to the Commission for approval of these sites. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel asked if the 34 spaces take into account the affordable housing incentives and what would the parking requirement be for a market rate project. Ms. Dadant explained the 34 spaces would be the number required if the five units are affordable and the remaining units are not. If they were to take into account the full affordable housing parking requirements • for all of the units then that would drop to 30 spaces and if this were a market rate project, 53 parking _ spaces would be required. 05-14-07 Page 16 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMlSSION MlNUTES ~ Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to determine that this project is exempt from CEQA based on Public Resources Section 21159.23. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes (ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman. ' Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores to determine that the proposed 25 unit affordable apartment complex conforms with the Anaheim Municipal Code and State density bonus per section 65915 of the Government Code and therefore grant the request. EIIy Morris,'Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with7 affirmative votes. OPPOSITION: An e-mail was receiVed in opposition to the subject request, Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. ' DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (3:47-4:17) • MAY 14, 2007 ' ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. ' CEQA MITIGATED'NEGATIVE DECLARATION FaesseUKaraki 7b. ' WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Faessel/Karaki 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202 Faessel Owner: '' Andrew C. Edwards Trust 1230 South Lewis StreeY Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: PRS Group ' Attention; Phillip Schwartzee 31872 San Juan Creek Road San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Location: 1055 East Ball Road: Property is approximately 3:5 acres and is located at the northwest corner of East StreeYand BaII Road. ` Request to construct a 5-story office and training building accessory to an . existing industrial business with waivers of (a) maximum permitted height adjacentto a residential zone boundary, (b) minimum landscape setback abutting an:arterial highway, and (c) minimumnumber ofrequired parking: spaces. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-47 • Kim Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Approved Approved, in part Granted WAIVERS Approved waivers (b) and (c), and denied waiver (a) since it was withdrawn by the applicant. CUP Modif~ed Condition No. 26 VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) Phil Schwartze, representative for Extron. He explained that the water line easement made it difficult to satisfy all the needs of the project. Andrew Edwards, President and owner of Extron Electronics, gave a brief history of the company, how it operates and described its plans and goals. He also explained their hiring and training process. Craig Anderson, Anderson and Associates, project Architect, addressed the design features of the building and landscaping. Commissioner Faessel wanted assurance that he contacted the Anaheim Public Utilities regarding potential of green building components for the facility. And Mr. Anderson stated they did make contact and are still conversing with staff. Kari Brooner, Landscape Architect with Whiteworks Architect explained how they articulated the plants around the entryway. He assured the Commission that they have addressed the green issue. She addressed the kinds of plants and trees that will be placed throughout the property. Phil Schwartze stated they've read and understand the staff report and resolution, understand the mitigations and conditions and Iook forward to approval of the project. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karaki stated he would like to see colored elevations, materials or site plans. He feelsthe building is too large and wants the building to make a statement. He also suggested that there should be • a fa~ade or elevation to portray the company image. He doesn't want to support the project without having specific elevations that portrays Extron and the image of the building. 05-14-07 Page 18 MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Phil Schwartze advised the Commission that they transmitted color renderings to staff and to the Commission via email several months ago. Additionally, on Friday they transmitted,a computer generated graphic, which was seen at the pre-session that morning that superimposed the building onto the surrounding campus area. He understands what Commissioner Karaki is saying about the office, but they are in the heart ofan industrial area and not in an office area. They worked with the architect'on about 80 different siteplans and decided this particular form of architecture was the best fit for that industrial area and enabled them to handle the green issues. Commissioner Karaki stated the architecture reflects the 1960's and 1970's.' The Commission'doesn't want to look at it 20 years from now and have the building look like it is 40 years old. They want to see a product that is suitable for thefuture surrounding area because the development is expanding. Commissioner Karaki stressed he is not asking them to use expensive material, just to add flavor to it He assured that he is 100% for the project, he just is not in agreement with the elevations. Commissioner Buffa concurred with Commissioner Karaki about the elevations not showing materials and colors. She asked if he would be wif(ing to change condition number 5 to state that the final elevation go back to #he Planning Commission for reView instead of the staff. Chairman Eastman agreed with Commissioners Buffa and Karaki and added that she was disappointed that they hadn't picked up on some of the nice enhancements that the Orange facility has. ' Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner advised staff could work with the applicant on the final elevations to obtain a mutual agreement, then bring it back to Planning Commission as areports and recommendation item: ' Commissioner KaraRi asked to be copied on any changes and plans. Commissioner Faessel offered a motioned, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve a CEQA • Mitigated Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes (ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve waivers A and B and deny waiver C since it has been withdrawn by the applicant. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes (ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman). Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve CUP2007-052 with the changes to condition 26. Judy Dadant modified condition 26 to read "That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for Planning Commission review as a reports and recommendation item. Said plans shall include additional architectural enhancements." Commissioner Karaki asked her to be more specific with regard to the enhancements. Judy Dadant stated the sentence would end with "said plan shall include additional architectural enhancements for the elevations facing Ball Road and East Street:' She asked Commissioner Karaki if he wanted her to specify what type of enhancements and he said no that he would communicate with her when that time comes. EIIy Morris stated that the resolution passed by seven affirmative votes. • OPPOSITION: None MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p,m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (4:18-4:55) Commissioner KarakiJeft the Council Chambers at 4:55 p.m. _ ~ MAY 14, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Buffa/Romero Concurred with staff 8b. VARIANCE N0. 2007-04721 Buffa Granted Owner: Craig Wildvank Modified Condition No.1 of 4500 East Cerro Vista Drive staffreport dated May 14, Anaheim, CA 9280Z 2007, modifications made at today's meeting io be reflected in the final resolution. - Agent: Jack Swaving 21520 Yorba Linda Boulevard; Suite 6413 Yorba Linda, CA 92887 VOTE: 6.p Commissioner Karaki absent Location: 4500 East Cerro Vista Drive: Property is approximately 1-acre and is located at the southeast corner of Cerro Vista Way and Cerro Vista Drive. Request waiver of maximum fence height and permitted location of parking to retain a 6-foot high fence and permit additional parking in the front yard setback. Project Planner.• Variance Resolution Na PC2007-48 (skoehm@anaheim.net) Scoft Koehm, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Jack Swaving, general contractor on the project briefly described the entrance to the driveway and how ~ they want to soften it with landscape using grass inserts and trees. They will spend approximately $180,000 for lush plant material to insure that the retaining wall and driveway are not visible from the street. Craig Wildvank, property owner since 1978, advised the Commission that the homeowners association is pleased about their proposal to landscape 7,000 square feet of the easement area to create a beautiful : environment and help stop erosion. Due to the location of the home it will serve as a showpiece for , passersby. Approximately 85% of the driveway will not be visible from the street. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing since no one else wanted to speak on this item. Commissioners Velazquez, Buffa, Romero expressed their approval of the project. Chairman Eastman stated now that they have agreed to put in paving material that vvill absorb runoff, she supports the project. Commissioner Flores asked if the ultimate purpose was to obtain more parking. Jack Swaving confirmed that more parking was the reason for the project and he briefly described the different plants which will be planted to make it look plush. He also explained that public works put in a new storm drain because large trucks from one of the neighbors destroyed the storm drains. Mark Gordon, City Attorney, advised the Commission that if they propose to approve the variance request with maximum fence height, as well as location of permitted parking, they will have to modify the proposed resolution. He provided new wording on how paragraph 2 on page 2 needs to modified. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner stated Commission spoke about turf block and landscaping in their ~ diSCUSSionS about the driveway, She asked if it was the intent of the Commission to require something other than'hardscape for#he driveway or was it just landscaping in between the fence and driveway for hiding the hardscape. - 05-14-07 Page 21 < MAY 14, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMI$SION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Buffa stated they did not talk about turf block. _ Jack Swaving explained they have options with plants to screen the driveway. He assured they have many drains throughout the yard to omit erosion. Grass and curbing will be placed so that the water doesn't erode the dirt away, it will just go down to the storm drain. ' Chairman Eastman wants to make sure they don't erode the area with runoff water and encouraged them to use water wise plants to ensure water conservation. Commissioner Buffa suggested staff craft a cqndition of approval requiring that landscaping be water efficientand Jack Swaving assured them that the new design will require less water. He also asked Commission to verify that they didn't want grass planted in the easement area. Jamie Lai recommended using some other ground cover so the water can percolate down. Judy Dadant stated staff recommends that condition 1 of the staff report be modified to include percolation options. Commissioner Buffa offered a motioned, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approvea CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 1. Motion passed by six affirmative votes (ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Faessel, Flores, Romero, Velasquez, antl Chairman Eastman, Commissioner Karaki absent.) Commissioner Buffa offered a resolution to approve Variance no. 2007-04721 to approve the fence waiver and permit additional parking in the front setback with amended condition 1 as recommended by ' staff and amendments to the resolution as recommended by the City Attorney. Elly Morris stated resolution passed by 7 affirmative votes. ~ OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (4:56-5:19) Res ectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler, : Senior Secretary ~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on Yh aY 3 a , 2007.