Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/10/15City of nahee lanning o ossion inutes Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mondav, October 15, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Aganval, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Dave See, Senior Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Kim Wong, Planner Dennis Joe, Planning Aide Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, October 4, 2007 . Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE OCTOBER 15, 2007 AGENDA a Recess To Public Hearing s Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.IN. Attendance: 70 • Pledge Of Allegiance: . Public Comments a Consent Galendar o Public Hearing Items o Adjournment Commissioner Karaki H:\TOOLS\PCADM I N\PCACTIONAG EN DA\2007M I N UTESWC 101507. DOC OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANPIING COMMISSIOfd MIMUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1A through 1 D as recommended by staff. Renorts and Recommendations ~a.(a) CEQA SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE POWTE {b) FINAL SITE P~AM NO. 2007-00009 Agent: Chris Samuelian Morris Architects 2046 Armacost Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 500 West Disnev Wav Continued from the August 20, and the September 17, 2007, Planning Commission meetings. Request review and approval of a final site plan to construct a 400-unit time share within the Anaheim GardenWalk project. Continued to October 29, 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Project P/anner. (dhemckQanaheim. net) 10-15-07 Page 2 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16. (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) (b) VARIANCE NO. 2004-04626 Approved (c) TENTATNE TRACT MAP NO. 16545 Approved (Tracking Nos. VAR2007-04736 and SUB2007-00050) Agent: Jonathan Pearson Consent Calendar California Cove Approval 8105 Irvine Center Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 VOTE: 7-0 Location: Property is approximately 53-acres, and has a frontage of 190 feet at the terminus of Avenida de scaff~t~risea u~at the scaef Santiago, a maximum depth of 2,657 feet and is located report should indicate 260 feet from the centerline of Pointe Premier (No "cEQn Ntirigacea rresari~e Addf eSS~. Declaration" The agenda has the correct language. Request to permit a time extension to comply with conditions of approval for the following applications: Variance No. 2004-04626 - Waiver of required private street standards to construct a private residential street without sidewalks or parkways. Tentative Tract Map No. 16545 - To establish a 28-lot, Projecf Planner. 21-unit detached single-family subdivision ~Skoenmc~a~anerm.~er~ 10-15-07 Page 3 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES IIAin es 1 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2007. Continued from the October 1, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Motion) 1 D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 2007. (Motion) Approved, with modifications to page 16 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Continued to October 29, 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 1D-15-07 Page 4 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLAPINING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Romero/Eastman (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Romero/Eastman 2C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04816 Romero (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05230) Owner: Southern Califomia Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 Agent: A~aheim RV Storage 2719 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 2719 and 2724 West Lincoln Avenue": Parcel 1: Property is approximately 4-acre, having a frontage of 265 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and is located 210 feet west of the centerline of La Reina Circle (2719 West Lincoln Avenue). Parcel 2: Property is approximately 1.8 acre, having a frontage of 132 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and is Iocated 587 feet west of the centerline of Stinson Street (2724 West Lincoln Avenue). Request to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation for a previously-approved recreational vehicle storage facility and an accessory modular office building approved with waivers of maximum fence height and minimum front yard setback. " Advertised as 2720 and 2721 West Lincoln Avenue. Continued from the October 1, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-119 Dennis Joe, Planning Aide, presented the staff report. Approved Approved Approved, with deletion of time limitation VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (djoeQanaheim.net) Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing then closed it as no one was present to speak on the item. Commissioner Romero stated he does not want to approve the Conditional Use Permit with a 40 year time limitation. It should have a 4 year time limitation and review it should be reviewed again at that time, maybe longer, but not in 40 years. t0-15-07 Page 5 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANIdING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez clarified the request is for no time limitation Commissioner Eastman asked if they approve something that is unlimited, are they still under the Conditional Use Permit? If there are any violations, would the applicant still have to comply with the conditions? Dave See, Senior Planner, stated that is correct. The applicant has to abide by conditions of approval and operational standards and there is a revocation process that the City can initiate. Commissioner Velasquez asked what the General Plan Designation is for the property. Chairman Buffa stated this property and the property to the north and south are Open Space because they are in a Utility Corridor. Commissioner Velasquez agreed with Commissioner Romero, that they could lock themselves in there for 60 years with no change. Chairman Buffa asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that Southern California Edison owns the property and has their power lines over the top, and controls what can be done. The types of uses that can be on the site have to be under 12 feet tall. Edison has no obligation to make it a park and the City does not have the money to make it a park. Commissioner Eastman stated there is nothing in the action they are taking today that could prevent it from becoming a park in the future, if it changes hands. Commissioner Velasquez stated the City has no say if the applicant chooses to remain there for 60 years. Chairman Buffa stated the property is'like any property in the City, owned by a private landowner, with Zoning and General Plan Designations. If the City wants to change these designations, it could be amended. She thinks it is a good use for what could otherwise tend to be badly maintained Edison parcels. Asking the applicant to come back every few years to keep the business in place puts a cloud on their ability to operate a business. Commissioner Romero stated in light of that, he would be willing to reconsider his statement. He agreed with Chairman Buffa that this is a private matter and the business may be there for 40 years. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2003-04816 to delete time limitation. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 yes votes 1A-15-07 Page 6 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p:m. on November 6, 2~07. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (4:36-4:45) This item was trailed as the applicant was not presenf (2:35 p.m.) 1D-15-07 Page 7 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA PIEGATIVE DECLARATIOIV (READVERTISED) 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00460 3c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00190 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05175 3f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17739 Owner: Natalie Tran 3100 Lindacita Lane Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92804-1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy Ward 2614 Ocean Boulevard Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Velasquez/Faessel Velasquez/Agarwal Velasquez Velasquez/Faessel Velasquez Velasquez/Faessel Location: 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West Lindacita Lane: Portion A: This irregularly-shaped 0.27-acre property has a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 West Lindacita Lane). Portion B: This irregularly-shaped 1.68 acres property is a land- locked parcel with a maximum depth of 287 feet and is located north across a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 South Beach Boulevard). General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00470 - Request withdrawn by applicant. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 - Request reclassification of'Portion B from the T{Transition) zone to the RS-4 {Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone and to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 - Request to construct a 9-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B, and waiver of minimum lot area for Portion A. Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered and lettered lot, 10-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions A and B. Approved Withdrawn Denied Denied Denied Denied VOTE ON CEQA AND GPA: 7-0 VOTE ON RCL, CUP, WAIVERS AND TTM: 4-3 Commissioners Buffa, Eastman and Karaki voted no 1D-15-07 Page 8 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Continued from the June 11, June 25, July 9, August 20, September 5, and the September 17, 2007, Planning Commission Meetings. *Advertised to include Reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-117 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-118 Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa referred to the aerial in the staff report and asked staff if they had a chance to look at the site line issues with regard to the relocation of the private street. David Kennedy, Public Works, advised the site distance is adequate. It is over 300 feet for both approaches. Chairman Buffa asked why staff thinks the headlights from cars exiting the private street going eastbound on Lindacita, would be more of a blinding condition than any other opposing intersectio~. Mr. Kennedy stated the private street will exit siightly above the level of the street due the ramp that will be reconfigured. This could potentially affect oncoming traffic. Chairman Buffa confirmed that staff is concerned about traffic from the private street blinding traffic o~ Lindacita, not traffic on Lindacita blinding traffic coming from private street. Mr. Kennedy stated that is correct. Commissioner Velasquez asked if it would also be the case for traffic on Grand Avenue if they moved the driveway based on staffs recommendation. Mr. Kennedy advised traffic on Grand Avenue is not pointed towards the private driveway. That is not a concern, with the proposed driveway. There are no alignment issues at all because they are coming from angles that are not 90 degrees. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Roy Ward, President of Mertco Inc., developer for the Tran family. He stated the property is land locked. Opening the private access by legal easement to Lindacita would make it safer for the mobile home park because there are no sidewalks or parkways. Their goal is simply to unlock the land locked parcel. They have entered into a letter agreement with the City of Anaheim Utilities Division to commit to building all of the properties green. If they open the access to Lindacita Lane, they will reduce traffic on the easement through the Cherokee Mobile Home Park by having three electronic gates between the easement and Lindacita Lane that have to be breached to have access onto the easement. Mrs. Tran owns the easement. They have had meeti~gs with the Cherokee people to mitigate their concems and they have agreed to help them solve their drai~age problem. They agreed to raise the wall between the park and the Tran property to give the Mobile Home Park more privacy. They moved the street to the north 1D-15-07 Page 9 of 38 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES boundary of the Tran property to provide more distance from the living areas and the mobile home park. He asked the Commission to refer to the written responses they submitted to address issues from a previous public hearing. This development wili bring less than S% of ail the traffic that flows on Lindacita Lane and Grand Avenue. He stated they have received minimum cooperation and consideration for the mitigation measures, especially from City Traffic fngineering staff. They feel it could have been worked out a long time ago. They would not have had to do a second report. They feel the second report is a reasonable soiution to the probiem. Mertco is ready to provide any kind of traffic control. He read a section from page 3 of the traffic analysis. They feel if they can put a stop sign at the intersection, it will reduce speed and the passing through of high school students. He asked for approval of the project. Chairman Buffa asked why he does not want to move the private street, as staff suggests. Mr. Ward advised it would be the sixth change on the plot plan. It would also cause planning problems because they would not have a legal lot, it would be too small. If they leave the private street to the east, they would still have a legal lot. Betty Wilkinson, 3104 Lindacita Lane, lives on the property adjoining to the west, where staff suggests they move the street. They concur with staff that the access to Lindacita Lane Lane is unsafe. The February 6~h traffic study was prepared when Grand Avenue was ciosed off between Lincoln Avenue and Del Monte Drive due to construction on Lincoln Avenue, therefore, that count is invalid. Regardless, this is a dangerous intersection. They are going to try to get speed limit signs ar stop signs on Grand Avenue. The property in question has limited use. It used to be a flood control property that was sold by the County to the adjoining mobile home park, with access to Beach Boulevard. The parcel has been resold and separated with a recorded easement. She suggested sectioning off the acre i~to garden plots, then renting it to the seniors in the mobile home park for gardens. She stated the property frontage is 47 feet, but it narrows down by her driveway and it looks like the new street will come across her driveway. She also stated one person will have control of the street and she has an easement to tindacita Lane and Beach Boulevard and may have gates. She asked who will control who goes through the street. She asked the Commission to deny this project because it is unsafe. Terry Sanford, 235 South Beach, #106, President of Cherokee Mobile Homeowners Association. She stated driveway was placed along the border of the Mobile Home Park because they were concerned about private property backing up to their fence and iwo story buildings overlooking the properry. They are concerned about the easement and the gate between the properties is seldom, if ever closed. They are already having problems with kids from the high school and junior high riding skateboards and other things through their park since the youth center opened. They have control in the park by being able to fine owners, but cannot control anyone else. If a new access is accepted, they will have private property backing up to their fence line with young people jumping the fence and using their park for access to the youth center across the street. Charles Bradley, member of WAND and Chairman of WAND Land Use Committee. He stated Grand Avenue was closed because in new sewers were being installed. He said the kids jump over the fence to go to the youth center. If a gate is there, it will make an easier pathway for them to cut through. He also asked how fire trucks would back up on this property. He asked for denial of project. t0-15-07 Page 10 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLAtdNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mary Gray, Secretary of the Board of Directors of Cherokee Mobile Home Park. She stated they provide homes to people of low to moderate income, but many homes in the park are over $200,000. They are asking that a 7 foot high fence be erected across the entire property line between Cherokee Mobile Home Park and the Tran property. The fence would separate the park from the new development. Mrs. Tran will have an exit from her property to a public street which she does not have now. They have tried to have good relations with Mrs. Tran, but she refuses to speak with them or their attorney. Cherokee Mobile Home Park furnishes her with her gas and water. If Commission allows the zoning change without separating the properties, it will make their Park part of the development. They have a 285 foot easement through the Tran property, which is water drainage for half the Park. Their drain does not work properly and they do ~ot know what causes the problem. At one of the meetings, Mr. Ward stated he would replace the drain at his cost. At a later meeting, he said Cherokee Mobile Home Park could replace the drain at their cost. The latest statement is that Cherokee Mobile Home Park can replace the drain and he will tap into it for the water run-off for all of his new homes. They presume that means a section of Mrs. Tran's property too. There are no written agreements between Cherokee Mobile Home Park and Mr. Ward. The drainage problem affects over 80 homes, which is half the Park. Chairman Buffa stated they will ask the applicant about the drainage issue today. Christine West, 3110 West Valejo Drive. She stated the proposed houses will not be single family residences. All the houses sold on her street in the last couple of years are multi-family. One house has 10 cars. Chairman Buffa asked Ms. West to show Commission where her street is located Ms. West stated she was in a cul-de-sac , she further stated the traffic counters did not count traffic going into her area, or any traffic coming in on the west end of Lindacita Lane. The traffic counters were put on the north side of Lindacita Lane on the west end. It is very crowded because the high school kids park there. Shirley Bonem, 3119 Lindacita Lane Lane. She pointed out it will become even more unsafe when the high school kids go to and from school. She asked the Commission to address the lot size of the houses in portion B. She feels zoning should be the same as residentiai houses. Chairman Buffa asked staff to put up an exhibit that shows the relationship of the high school and the project. Ms. Wong stated they did not have an exhibit but will provide one. Commissioner Faessei asked staff to point out the fence that people are talking about. Chairman Buffa stated she thinks the kids are going east to the neighborhood center across the street and cutting through the Mobile Home Park, hopping the fence through the Tran's property then going out through someone's backyard. Maxine Peterson, 3152 W. Lindacita Lane. She does not think the Commission understands what they are going through a~d asked them to be more aware of the problems. They do not want the Tran's back there. 1D-15-07 Page 11 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MIfdUTES Deborah Quigley, 3140 E. Radcliff. She stated in August she passed out over 3,000 yards of yellow ribbon which was displayed on property owner's trees and poles showing opposition to this project. She asked the Commission to drive through and look at the yellow ribbons. That morning she found over 802 open listings on the Multiple'Listing Service with 3 bedrooms or more in Anaheim. Prices began at a low of $300,000 up to over $1,000,000. Housing is in a slump and there is no need for new homes. To answer Commissioner Faessel's question, Anaheim High School is less tha~ a 5 minutes walk. Western High School is also part of the community. They do not need extra homes, traffic and parking in the area. She asked how does the good of one outweigh the good of many. She further asked the Commission to vote no. She aiso pointed out if the applicant ever added street extensions to Beach Boulevard, it would be even more traffic. Mark Bucher, 18002 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, attorney for Cherokee Mobile Home Park. He emphasized the new street wifl go in and literally connect onto the street. There will be gates, but experience shows gates do not stay closed. They know high schooler's will take the shortcut through the Park. All they have asked the applicant to do is make one of the walls solid, to stop the access. This would alleviate the ability to cut through, if the gates are left open. The Tran's currently have one way out. If a wall was built, they would still have one way out and the property will not be adversely affected. The applicant insists on having two ways out. He has tried to cail Mrs. Tran and Mr. Ward, but neither one of them wili speak to him. He asked for a wall in one way or another. Gustavo Hernandez, 207 Loma Linda. He stated his house is at one of the main entrances. Traffic is compacted by the apartment complexes, where population density is extremely high and there is hardly any parking, so the apartment parking overflows into their neighborhood. He is very concerned about the lack of parking. He is also concerned about safety because it is congested and people use driveways, where the children play, to turn around. Whenever there are any events at the high school, parking overflows into their neighborhood. Also, there are no stop signs and people drive pretty fast, so having direct access will aggravate the problem. Greg Dale, 334 S. Grand Avenue. He stated his house abuts the proJect and he does not want two-story houses looking into his bedroom. Students park on both sides of the street which makes it narrow and dangerous, especially because Grand Avenue and Lindacita Lane are straight streets, which tends to allow going over the speed limit. Scott Layne, 334 S. Grand Avenue. He stated he has lived there since 1958 and wants to state his opposition because of the safety, traffic, overfiow parking, loss of privacy and continuity in the neighborhood. Bill Webright, 3140 Paso Robles Drive. He stated any increase in traffic to this development will pose an increase of injury to pedestrian traffic, especially students. The intersection of Lindacita Lane and Western Avenue has no crosswalk. It is uncontrolled and is unsafe. It is worse before and after school hours. Last month, he observed traffic from 7:30 until 8:10 a.m. and found the student pedestrian traffic and street traffic has increased. He observed students crossing and stopping in the middle of the street to wait for a break in traffic, but cars that were turning left would stop in the center turning lane which blocked the vision of students to oncoming traffic. Also, cars traveling south, stopped in the street to offioad students on Lindacita Lane, then try to tum onto Western Avenue, making it even more dangerous. It is not a safe situation. His concern is for the health and safety of the students. He asked the Commission to vote no. 1D-15-07 Page 12 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANiVIP1G COMMISSION MINUTES John Searight, 3111 West Viejo Lane. He agreed that from 7:25 until 8:25 a.m. it is very dangerous due to parked cars, cars dropping off students, and students trying to cross without using marked crossing lanes. There are long periods during the day when there is very little traffic on these streets. He pointed out that the parking allowance of 36 cars for this number of homes needs to be Iooked at. In the California lifestyle, it is very seldom that the two spaces in the garage are used for a car. Most have one car in garage and the rest is used for storage, and in many homes, no cars are in the garage. They are not addressing the reality of how people are really using their property. He has difficulty going into his driveway when there are events at the school. Carol Hoffman,327 S. Grand Avenue. She stated this project was purchased as a Iandlocked parcel several years ago and nothing has changed, so it should not be a consideration at all. The community will iose the privacy and safety that they have had for the last 30 - 50 years. She asked the Commission to deny the proposal. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Mr. Ward stated there is no other legitimate access for the Tran family to reach the public street. Regardless of the neighbor's concerns, at sometime they will get access to a public street. Their traffic consuitant stated the traffic on Lindacita Lane would increase by 80 - 86 movements per day, 36 trips will go to Lindacita Lane and 50 will go to Grand Avenue, which is a reasonable number if you divide it by the number of hours in the day. The Tran family is trying to adhere to the zoning in the General Plan. He stated they wrote to the attorney who represents Cherokee Mobile Home Park advising him what they wanted to do to help the Park and what they were willing to do on the drainage, with a little cooperation, involving no cost. They changed the access because they thought the mobile home park wanted more privacy and it gave them more parking along the fence. They cannot do anything about the student activiry that has been there for as long as the people have lived there. They have reduced the zoning, they could have had up to 18 condominiums, but have 8 plus the family home. They do not think that is overburdening the neighborhood. They have had a lot of resistance from the nelghbors, but pian to do a good thing for the community and they think it will be a good project. Commissioner Eastman stated she met with the developer. In order for her to give her total support, she would like to see that there is no access between the two properties so that there is no possibility for gates to be left open that would allow people to transition though the Park. She asked Mr. Ward if that was possible. Mr. Ward commented that there are no open fences making it impossible for the kids to cut through the Park and the Tran property. There are other fences, but not through the Tran property. Commissioner Eastman stated she is concerned about the testimony from numerous people that there is an issue about that gate not always being closed. She can identify with the people in the Park, because whenever there is a gate, there is a concern that it is left open. Mr. Ward agreed it is not the best answer, but they could not get an answer from counsel on what they would like to do with that easement. Commissioner Eastman stated she is not talking about the easement. She asked if he would be agreeabie to a solid wall instead of a gate between Mrs. Tran's property and the new development. 1D-15-07 Page 13 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANPIING COMMISSION MItdUTES Mr. Ward said if they conditioned it with the approval, they would have to try, but could not guarantee it. If Mr. Bruker would call Mr. or Mrs. Tran, maybe they could work something out. Until they are willing to do that, Mrs. Tran is going to keep her easement because that is a real property item. Commissioner Eastman stated she would not be comfortable approving this particular plan with a gate for anyone in this location. Mr. Ward stated he cannot answer that at this time. Commissioner Romero stated he has the same concern and if the applicant is willing to have a solid wall he would be supportive. Chairman Buffa wanted to make sure everyone is talking about a wall between the northern edge of lot 9 and the northern property wall, so Mrs. Tran would be using the existing easement through Cherokee Estates, but new residents would not be able to get there. Mr. Ward stated they changed the whole layout of the tract so that they wouid have extra distance between the development and fence. At first, the argument was privacy, so they changed it. Also, as for the headlight blinding probiem, the answer is to have a lighted corner and it has already been placed there. Chairman Buffa asked Mr. Ward how the project will solve the drainage probiem. Mr. Ward stated the Park has a severe wet weather drainage problem at a sump at the end of the street. From that point on through the development, there is a drainage easement with a developed line in it. Via a letter, they told Mr. Bucher they would help them solve the probiem if they got an engineer to look at it and tell them what it needs. To say they have not done that, is not fair. Chairman Buffa asked if they were going to build an oversize drain on the property Mr. Ward stated he would if that is what it takes to correct their system. The engineering on this Mobile Home Park is 40 years old and it was undersized at the time and needs upsizing. They do not have a problem doing it because they have to exit also. He is asking the Park to pay their proportionate share, they wili take on the big burden. Commissioner Karaki asked where the proposed drain is located Mr. Ward stated they are in the street toward the channel, at the lowest point. The houses close to Lindacita Lane will drain into that connection. They do not have an e~gineer's plan yet so he is guessing. Chairman Buffa stated she can see that people want to talk, but the public hearing has been closed. Commissioner Eastman stated she read that the developer made it clear that they expected to be cooperative and pay their fair share and feels that is all you can ask of someone. Commissioner Velasquez feels the most important issue to her is safety. The traffic engineer is recommending denial and she is unwilling to second-guess the recommendation from staff, therefore she will vote to deny the project. 1D-15-07 Page 14 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Romero commented that the Commission is entrusted to make land use decisions and based on today's testimony and the testimony in the past, there are too many open issues besides the safety factor. He is unwilling to approve the project. Commissioner Faessel stated he understands the Tran family's right to develop the property, but agrees with the other Commissioners. There are unmitigated open issues and feels he cannot vote in a positive way. There are adjoining land owners that feel the project is a hardship on them, plus with the safety issues he cannot vote for this project either. Commissioner Agarwal stated he is torn between the residents and the property owner's right to develop. He does not think the developer has mitigated some of the issues and he is mostly concerned with the safety issue. He stated he is not very supportive of the project. Commissioner Karaki stated before he came into the meeting he was 50/50. He feels the applicant has not given them a straight answer about putting a wall where the gate is located. If the applicant had shown good faith in putting up a wall and locking in to nine homes, but he hasn't given the Commission a good answer. He would not have a problem if the project was locked in at nine homes and feels 18 cars would not make or break the safety issue of the whole neighborhood. He agrees that there are school problems, but they cannot deprive a land owner from developing their properry. He has issues with the drainage, and feels a wall should be built between the adjacent neighbor. With no intention of buiiding a wall or driveway, he cannot support the project. Chairman Buffa stated she is surprised at the direction that this has taken. In July, there was no concern expressed on the part of staff about the traffic safety issue, it has come late in the process. She does not agree with the logic presented in the staff report. Of all the arguments made today, the only thing that has merit, from a traffic safety standpoint, is the sightline issue down Grand Avenue. It seems to be mitigated by putting up 3-way stop signs. If it is a controlled intersection, the only people who could potentially cause an accident would be speeders or people who run a stop sign and that is true in any neighborhood. Everybody is impacted by the high school, but there is nothing anyone can do about that. They do not soive those probiems, but do not exacerbate them either, so the impacts the neighbors feel from the school are a wash in her consideration of this project. The project proposal is to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. She thinks the developer has done a good job of finding a product type that is appropriate to the neighborhood. She was originally concerned about having 2 houses where there should only be one, but now they will only have one house and will be consistent with the General Plan and will not need an amendment. Balancing the fact that the neighbors are dissatisfied and do not want change and the City's need for more affordable housing, she thinks it will be safe as Iong as people abide by the law. She thinks it is a perfectiy good use of this property and the project shouid go forward. Commissioner Eastman agrees wholeheartedly with Chairman Buffa. The General Plan calls out for this to be more dense housing than what is proposed. If this is a less dense project, she is for it. Testimony shows concern about traffic that is already created by density that is around them. This is a better use of the land and more consistent with the overall good for the City and her only concem is that nobody travels from this project through the Mobile Home Park. She wouid totally support this and would like to see a solid wall across there and it would probabiy give the applicant another couple of parking spaces. As for the parking, she does not know a~y neighborhood in the City that is not impacted by the fact that people do not use their garages for what they are intended. There is no place to park on any of their streets. With that, she is in support of the project. 1-0-15-07 Page 15 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MIPIUTES Mr. Ward stated if it takes a wall at the gate to the easement, they will go ahead and try to get it done. They are willing to build the wall where the gate that goes north and south is located. They promise to arrange that with Mrs. Tran. It is the gate in the northeast corner. Commissioner Karaki asked if a wall wili be put between the Mobile Home Park and single family homes. Mr. Ward said they are raising the existing wall height to seven feet, but if the Ciry limit is 8 feet high, they will go to 8 feet. David See, Senior Planner stated where the applicant agrees to build the block wall is an important clarification for staff. There are two gates, one is where it separates the new development from the Tran property and fhe other is from the Tran property to the Mobile Home Park. He wants clarity on which gate they are talking about. Mr. Ward stated the purpose is to open up the entire parcel to a public street. If they put the gate in line and block off street access to Lindacita Lane, they have not served the purpose. They will build the wall and fill the gate to the easement which is the little one in the north corner of the site. Commissioner Eastman stated they cannot control what happens between Mrs. Tran and the Mobile Home Park, they only have control over fencing built around the property. She has no probiem if they were able to close off Mrs. Tran's Iegal easement, but they cannot control that. They can control what is between this developme~t and Mrs. Tran's property and she wants to see a solid wall until or unless they came to an agreement on the other. It would be an either or thing, but totally up to Mr. Ward to achieve. If that is not acceptable, she does not support it. Mr. Ward stated if you are going to unlandlock a piece of land and put a block wall over the passage to get to the public street, it is not unlocking the land. Commissioner Eastman stated, he is for a portion. Mr. Ward said that is the probiem and what people do not understand is you need to get the whole parcel unlandlocked. Chairman Buffa recommended that staff come up with language for a condition of approval on the parcei map that says something to the effect that prior to recordation of the map, access from this parcel shall be controlled so that it cannot enter the Cherokee Mobile Home Estates. That there is a block wall that separates this property from the Cherokee Mobile Home Estates. Commissioner Velasquez stated the developer did not state this would be affordable housing. Chairman Buffa stated these are not intended to be affordable housing under the City's affordable housing guidelines. Her assumption is that it is a smaller home on a smalier lot, making them more favorably priced. They are market rate homes and not regulated by Affordable Housing law. Commissioner Velasquez stated Chairman Buffa's instructions are for approval but they need to take a vote. Commissioner Karaki stated he was confused about the gate issue. He is concerned about the first gate between the two properties a~d is concerned about future development coming back and adding more homes with access through this site. He is not concerned about the gate 'LO-15-07 Page 16 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES between the Tran property and the mobile home park. He is concerned about the neighbors. He approves the project as it is proposed so nothing is added to the property in the future. Chairman Buffa stated the Commission has all the information they need and Commissioner Velasquez's point is a good one. These may be moot points if the project does not have majority support. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to accept the applicanYs request for withdrawal of the General Plan Amendment 2007-00460. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to deny Reclassification 2006-00190. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution for denial passed with 4 yes votes, Commissioners Eastman, Karaki and Buffa voted no. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to deny the waiver of improvement of a private street and accept the applicanYs request to withdraw the waiver of minimum lot area. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced motion for denial passed with 4 aye votes. Commissioners Buffa, Eastman and Karaki voted no. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit 2006-05175. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution for denial passed with 4 yes votes, Commissioners Eastman, Karaki and Buffa voted no. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to deny Tentative Tract Map 17139. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced motion for denial passed with 4 aye votes. Commissioners Buffa, Eastman and Karaki voted no. Mark Gordon Assistant City Attorney clarified for the record that the motion for denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 passed with 4 votes in the affirmative, with Chairman Buffa, Commissioners Eastma~ and Karaki voting in opposition. Chairman Buffa stated that is correct. OPPOSITION: 15 people spoke in opposition 10-15-07 Page 17 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNI(dG COMMISSIOiV MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 25, 2007 and 22-day appeal rights for the remaining items ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 57 minutes (2:36-4:30) A 5 minute break was taken (4:30-4:35) ('Following this Item, Item No. 2 was heard) 10-15-07 Page 18 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Faessel Approved 4b. GENERAL'PLAM AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00457 Karaki RecommendedCity Council Approval 4C. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00202 Karaki Granted 4d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Karaki/Faessel Approved 4e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05216 xaraki Granted Owner: Ellas Properties 1NC 5395 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 ~~ Modified Condition No. 3 Agent: Joseph Marca Caliber Motors Added two conditions oF 5395 East La Palma Avenue approval Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: Property is approximately 1.85-acre, located on the south vo'rE oN CEQA: 7-0 side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) right-of-way with a frontage of 682 feet along the Riverside Freeway, north of VOTE ON GPA, xCL, Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Solomon Drive and W~RS "4~n CUP: 5-2 1,357 feet east of the centerline of Via Cortez. Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00457 - Request to designate property to the General Commercial land use designation. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05216 - Request to perrnit an outdoor automobile storage and display area in conjunction with an adjacent automobile sales dealership with waiver of landscape setback adjacent to a freeway. Reclassification No. 2007-00202 - Request reclassification of the subject property to the GG(SC) (General Commercial, Scenic Corridor Overiay) zone. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-120 ReclassifiCation Resolution No. PC2007-121 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-122 Pro~ectPianner: (skoehmQanaheim.net) Scott Koehm, Associate Planner introduced the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Joseph Marca, 240 N. Market Place, Escondido, CA, project architect. He stated if this project is approved, Anaheim Hills Mercedes Benz will be able to operate under that lease with Caltrans for an indeterminate amount of time. The amount of development that is proposed is consistent with their goals to add low cost additional inventory and display to make the property attractive from the freeway. They concur with staff that the Iight levels will be maintained at an 1A-15-07 Page 19 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION flAINUTES acceptable level to adjacent property owners. They have reduced the light levels from what had been previously proposed. Chairman Buffa asked if they had a permit for the big banner that is on site. Mr. Marca could not answer that question. They have made great efforts to make sure management understands banners and balloons are prohibited. Chairman Buffa advised the banner advertes a tent sale and she does not want to see a tent without a permit. Commissioner Faessel asked if they had any plans to cover the channel on the north side of the residential property. Mr. Marca stated no. The map shows the lease tine is on the north, freeway side of the channel so Anaheim Hills Mercedes Benz is not leasing that portion of the channel. It remains in control of Caltans. Commissioner Velasquez asked when the cars will be delivered and what are the hours of operation. Mr. Marca stated it is conditioned to have no delivery trucks on its site at all. All delivery of cars by large transport trucks will be done at the facility on La Palma Avenue and cars will be individually driven to be stored on this property. They are conditioned from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. Commissioner Velasquez suggested weekend hours be at 9 a.m. Mr. Marca stated these cars are very quiet and the freeway noise would mask any sound from a moving car that would be moved in or out of a parking stall. There is no cleaning or working on cars on that property. Commissioner Faessel asked if this storage lot is open to the public. Can people walk onto the lot to see cars? Mr. Marca stated there is no intention of that. There will be display along the freeway for visibility. Cars wiil be picked up by lot porters and brought up to the front. It is not a sales lot. Customers will wait in the waiting area and cars will be brought to them. Commissioner Agarwal stated on Page 3, under Issues, line 5 talks about the lights will be on a timer to shut off at 8:30 p.m. He asked if they will be dimmed or shut off completely. Mr. Koehm stated the lights are shut off along the south property line on the existing dealership parcel at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Buffa stated it is only that one raw of lights. Commissioner Agarwal stated he visited the lot yesterday. He has observed on three separate occasions in the last week, the lights were not shut off. They were on at 11:30 p.m. Saturday 10-15-07 Page 20 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES and Sunday night and were still on that morning at 5:30 a.m. He asked what alternative methods they have if the lighting is not acceptable to staff. Mr. Marca stated the standard methods are shielding as one, or having them on or off as the other. The main site was conditioned to have them off at 8:30 p.m. On this site the closest light to a home is 80 feet and the farthest is 140 feet. There are zero candles of light on the property line and they are putting in a bank of trees, 20 feet on center between the nearest and farthest light. The trees are ~ondon Plane trees that can grow as tall as 60 feet. They also agreed with staff to do additional shielding or landscaping to block the light from homeowners. Paul Egger, 5937 East Camino Manzano, pointed out his home on the aerial. Stated he sat in on the preliminary meeting. Stated he took offense to the comment made by Commissioner Romero insinuating that because the residents on Camino Manzano are located along the freeway, they should be afforded any less consideration. He made it sound like a joke and it is not a joke to them. The have been incrementally beaten down by this project and he is not sure where it will end. The major issue is the lighting. The currentjob shows a poorjob is being done on the two story homes, the light is hitting thern. If no one is going to be walking the lot, they do not need as much light. He feels it is commendable that they want to remove some lighting form the south side. There are inconsistencies in the light standards information that they sent, some say 250 watts and others are 400 watts. The light is pouring out from the main dealership and if they cannot mitigate it there, how can they do it at this location? The light will fill his yard and reflect upon his house. Also, part of their approval on the previous section was that none of the auto transports were to be used, but the plan he has shows an auto transport unloading and turn-around area. So they are obviously planning on bringing in auto transports. He hopes someone stands up and checks that these people stick to what they say they are going to do. Claire Egger, 5937 Camino Manzano. As a US history teacher, it upsets her that the Mercedes flag is flown right besides the US flag. She is worried about a parking lot in her backyard and how it affects her community. She questions if she would have purchased this home in 2001, if she would have known her backyard would tum into a parking lot. Her main concern is the light because she goes to bed early. She's noticed the lights on at 5 a.m. and asks who can check the timing on the lights. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing and thanked the Eggers for bringing things to the Commission's attention that they did not know. She advised there are things that bother the Commission about the way the dealership is being operated. Mr. Marca stated the main interest is the storage lot and the lighting is of secondary interest and they would be willing to further mitigate by considerably lowering the light level in the middle row of lamps. Theyjust need a level of security lighting. They understand the concerns of the neighbors and operationally they cannot guarantee that everybody does everything that is written in the staff report and conditions of approval, although it is their intention to do that. They could remove one or two heads off of each of the poles in the middle row to reduce the light. Scott can vouch for the fact that they did remove an entire row of lighting along the channel and they are willing to do more on the interior light poles. They need a 2-5 foot candle range to maintain security lighting. He asked that the neighbors who spoke, go through planning staff to take additional steps to make sure their homes are not affected by tighting. 40-15-07 Page 21 pf 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Buffa asked Mr. Egger to show the Commission the plan he has showing the auto transport drop off because their plans do not show that. Mr. Marca stated at one time, way back, they did show that on the site plan. The Anaheim Hilis project is conditioned for no transports regardiess of what the plans show. Mr. Egger added that the majority of houses on Camino Manzano are elevated which means their angle of view is not what is depicted on the plan. They will have a nice view of the lot. He just wants to make sure the depictio~s are accurate. Commissioner Aganval asked if there are provisions to make the light poles look more attractive. Could they have a palm tree with lighting underneath so the neighbors aren't staring into a light pole. Mr. Marca said anything could be possible, but the neighbors have layers of landscaping from their bedroom windows. They have put a new layer of screening between their homes and the light standards. Middie light standards are by themselves and may give them some additional relief. As far as the accuracy of the drawings Mr. Egger mentioned, with the help of staff, the general grade differential between the homes and site is 6-7 feet. It may be slightly different than the gentleman's one way or another. Commissioner Agarwal suggested putting the palm tree right next to the light pole, then have more palm trees in the center lane. Mr. Marca stated he would be happy to study that Chairman Buffa asked if there is a reason to have the light standards 18 feet tall and if the middle row could be shortened. Mr. Marca explained lowering light standards focuses the light in a much more limited area with hotter spots. For general lighting, it is better to have them up at a reasonable height, 18 feet is relatively low for automobile lighting. He feels the neighbors wouid be best served by reducing the number of light heads that would reduce the number of shields required and the light level would be halved. Commissioner Karaki stated bottom line is the lighting. He suggested making lights 14 feet tall with 36 inch box trees with more mature trees. Downsizing the number of lights would also be helpful. Mr. Marca stated they would be happy to provide 36 inch box trees and reduce lighting in the middle row to 14 feet high. Commissioner Faessel asked if they really needed the second row of lights at all because in the evening there is consistent light on the west parcel. If this is only a secondary lot, do they need that much additionai light afforded by the second row of fi~ctures. He is very concerned along with the rest of the Commission and neighbors about the lighting issue. ta~ a-o~ Page 22 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING CONIMISSION MINUTES Mr. Marca stated they do need some in the middle row. They could provide two that orient towards the freeway and get rid of two that face towards the residents. Commissioner Faessel noted they have been reduced in size from 400 to 250, but as they progress east, it becomes narrower and forces the last 3 fixtures closer to the property owners. He would rather see the lights consiste~t away from the property, rather than getting closer. By proposing the fixtures at 40 feet center alongside the freeway right-of-way, it is giving tremendous amount of light on the nine pads. Commissioner Karaki advised Commissioner Faessel that security cameras do not work in a dark space. The lot will be subject to vandalism. He suggests lowering the light standards to 14 feet high, raise the trees and have 1 head on the ones closer to the residents. It is to the benefit of the residents and applicant to have security Iights. Commissioner Velasquez suggested a security guard if they are concerned about security. Commissioner Karaki stated they need to be fair and if the applicant agrees to lower lights, raise the trees and minimize the number of heads, they can achieve what they want. It can be monitored from now on also. Commissioner Velasquez stated it is important for the applicant to understand that the conditions of approval are not suggestions. They have failed to comply with some of the most important conditions of approval on the previous approval. One is the lights going off at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Buffa stated compliance with the Conditional Use Permit is a great issue and right now there is no compliance. She reminded them of the flag. Commissioner Velasquez advised several neighbors were opposed to the project but Commission chose to approve it based on the fact that the lights were going to be off at 8:30 p.m. and now they have a banner. She asked to have the General Manager address the issues. There is an issue with the banner and flags; maybe staff needs to add a condition to include inspections of the property. Chairman Buffa agreed with Commissioner Velasquez that they may need to add a condition for periodic inspections by staff, paid for by the applicant. Commissioner Eastman added it is insulting to the Commission to have a new request before them when they have a user who has failed to pay attention to the conditions of previous approvals. She does not drive by there but trusts her colleagues who do, and testify that the lights are on when they are not supposed to be. She feels it is insulting to her and the time she gives as a volunteer to make good decisions for the City, that they would come back and ask for approval on a new portion of a project when they have not shown good faith in complying in the past. She stated she would support this, but not until she sees some of the other compliances are met. She is out of patience. 1-0-15-07 Page 23 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Marca stated he does not know anything about their banners or sales. They are Code Enforcement opportunities for the City and they should not have to do that. He knows Mr. Zandy has been angry in his discussion about what they have done out there. As for the lighting, the agreement had been worked out with the neighbors and they turned off a lot of the lights. Mr. Zandy told him that they agreed that the lights along the perimeter were not to be turned off completely at 8 o'clock, they were to be reduced by 40-60%. He does not have the information in front of him, it is a complex agreement where Anaheim Hills Mercedes Benz has made every effort to try to be a good neighbor to have the lights on timers. If he drove by and saw it bright, he might say all lights were on too. Or if he were a code enforcement person with the conditions of approval in hand, and he went there and it was not done, he wuld stand and testify before the Commission that that was the case. He cannot say they have done the incorrect thing. He has been asked to lower the light level and he is willing to do that by lowering the light to 14 feet high with 36 inch box trees, take out half of the lights and condition the center row to be reduced by half a light level at 8 o'ciock at night. He is happy to work with staff and maybe the photometrics can be brought back as a consent item until it meets everyone's satisfaction. Chairman Buffa stated what he has enumerated is what the Commission wants and adding a condition for periodic inspections is good because there is a compliance problem. She asked staff to correct residential boundary language in Condition 3, because there is no residential boundary. Commissioner Romero stated the applicant has failed to show good faith and it seems like the Commission is enabling them by continuing to approve projects for them, based on the fact that they are going tp do something. Commissioner Karaki stated he is going to give them the benefit of the doubt, they exist there and they will work together until they solve the issue. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Mitigated Negative Dedaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Karaki offered a resolution to recommend the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2007-00457. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 5 yes votes, Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no. Commissioner Karaki proposed to approve a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007- 00202. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 5 yes votes, Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the reduction of landscape setback adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. Motion passed with 5 ayes votes. Commissioners Eastman and Romero opposed. 10-15-07 Page 24 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLAMMING COMMISSION MIIdUTES Commissioner Karaki offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05216 with the modifications that applicant shall reduce the height of middle-row area lights from 18 to 14 feet; that the landscape trees along the adjacent property to the south will be 36 inch mature box trees, minimum height of 15 feet; and reduce the number of heads in the middle- row of area lights adjacent to the neighbors from 3 heads to one head, and reduction of lighting to comply with previously approved conditions. Commissioner Agarwal advised they can go lower than 40% because it is a storage lot and no one will be there after 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Karaki proposed for appiicant to come back with a photometric light study as a consent calendar item. Commissioner Faessel stated he is not convinced that the last two fixtures need to be in there. Commissioner Karaki added a condition requiring periodic Code Enforcement inspections at the cost of the applicant to assure they are complying with the conditions. Commissioner Agarwal advised he would be agreeable to once a quarter. Mc Gordon asked, so that the record is not confused, is the idea of the applicant returning with a photometric study in addition to the other restrictions articulated by Commissioner Karaki, lowering the light standards from 18 feet to 14, 36 inch box trees and the number of light heads reduced from 3 to 1 in certain areas of the middle light standards. He is not clear which light standards are proposed to be reduced from 3 to 1. Commissioner Faessel stated he was not comfortable with the photometric study laying on top of all the other changes. Once the changes have been made, what good is the photometric study? Commissioner Karaki stated they are proposing that to see if it is going to work. Chairman Buffa stated the Commission cannot condition them to do something then if the Commission does not like it, they will change their mind. The study is to establish the percentage of reduction in fight that is supposed to occur at 8:30 p.m. They are searching for the number that gives them security. She asked which poles will be reduced to one head. Commissioner Karaki stated the last 3 to the east of the property, closer to the neighbors. Commissioner Faessel stated he still has a problem with the lighting issue. He is not convinced about the 2 fixtures that were just pointed out because as the lot Iine becomes narrower, their placement becomes closer to the neighbors. Maybe the fixtures could be spaced further apart or one compietely removed. They should be not be closer than the third fixture to the west. Mr. Gordon stated before things get too confusing, there is a proposed motion suggesting amendment by Commissioner Faessel and before there is too much change to the existing motion, either withdraw the motion and start over or take that motion and take Commissioner 1D-15-07 Page 25 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLAfVNIfdG COMMISSION MINUTES Faessei's suggestion as an amendment to that motion and take it first Commissioner Faessel advised he wiN withdraw his comment with the understanding that there is a photometric study or recommendations made by Commissioner Karaki to remove some of the heads or lower the standards effectively to not cause more light difficulty for the neighbors. He feels they could be more certain of that if they completely removed a couple of the standards, but if Commissioner Karaki feels that removal of the heads is sufficient, he will remove his comment just to move it forward, although he is not convinced that it will work. Mr. Koehm because of the intent of the Commission to reduce the light, he pointed out another one that they had not noticed. Commissioner Faessel stated that one could be completely eliminated. Commissioner Karaki rephrased that the light to the easterly side in the landscape area, would be completely eliminated and the last 3 lights to the east of the site will be minimized to one head only. Commissioner Velasquez stated she does not know much about lights, and does not know how much light will be really reduced by dimming, but it seems the light that is second farthest from the east is close to homes. No matter how much they dim it, it is still close. Chairman Buffa stated the other choice is to move it back to the property line or easement boundary and shine it out. Commissioner Velasquez agreed, it should shine away from the homes, dimming it seems too close to the residences. Chairman Buffa asked if she is amending Commissioner Karaki's resolution or should they regroup. City Attorney has given good advice to not add too many moving parts. Mr. Gordon stated under the circumstances Commissioner Karaki could take this amendment and amend his proposal or Commissioner Velasquez could propose an amendment to the resolution. Commissioner Karaki wanted to rephrase what he was trying to say. Completely eliminate the light in the landscape to the easterly side. The first light is to be completely removed as well, then move the first light to the easterly side to compensate so it is not dark at the end. Mc Koehm wanted to darify that Commissioner Karaki wanted the most eastern light and the next one removed. Commissioner Karaki stated just to disperse them eve~ly. Chairman Buffa asked if everyone understood the recommendation and is prepared to vote. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 5 yes votes, Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no. 1-0-15-07 Page 26 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANPJIfdG COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2007. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns on lighting. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (4:46-5:46) ~.o-~ a-o~ Page 27 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNIMG COMMISSION MINUTES 5a. 5b. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEPIT NO. 2007-00003 5c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05146 5e. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00048 5f. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MO, 2007-195 Owner: Kaiser Foundation 393 East Walnut Street Pasadena. CA 91188 Agent: Duane Luzum Kaiser Permanente 1707 Barcelona Circle Placentia, CA 92870 Faessel Faessel/Eastman Faessel Faessel Faessel Location: 3400-3450 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 27 acres, having a frontage of 984 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and is located 225 feet east of the centerline of Miller Street. Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-00337 - Request for certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 337, including adoption of a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 147 for the Kaiser Hospita'I project. EIR No. 2007-00337 has been prepared to serve as the primary environmental document for CUP2006-05146, SUBTPM2007-195, DAG2007-00003, and SPN2007-00048 and subsequent actions related to implementation of the project. Implementation is intended to include, but not be limited to, the approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement plans, final site plans, and other related actions for the Kaiser Hospital project. Future actions related to the Kaiser Hospital project that require additional discretionary review will utilize this document for CEQA purposes to the extent possible, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidetines. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00048 - Amendment No. 4 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SP94-1) to adjust the boundaries of Development Area 4. Recommended City Council Approval Recommended City Council Approval Approved Grauted Recommended City Council Approval Approved DAG Added Condirion Nos. 25, 26 and 27 VOTE: 7-0 t0-15-07 Page 28 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Conditional Use Permit Mo. 2006-05146 - To construct a new 1.2 million square foot Kaiser Hospital campus to include medical office buildings with building heights in excess of 100 feet, a 360 bed hospital, central utility plant, and two parking structures with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback abutting La Palma Avenue (withdrawn), and (b) minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway frontage. Development Agreement No. 2007-00003 - Request to adopt a Development Agreement betw2en the City of Anaheim and Kaiser Foundation to construct a hospital campus in three phases. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-195 - To merge 9 parcels into 1 parcel. Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. PC2007-123 Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-124 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-125 Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2007-126 Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No. PC2007-127 David See, Senior Planner introduced the staff report. Project P/anner. (dseeQanaheim.net) Chairman Buffa asked if the changes to the conditions are Development Agreement conditions or Conditional Use Permit conditions. Mr. See stated they are changes to the recitals in the Development Agreement and conditions. Chairman Buffa stated for the record, in the email from the neighboring property owner, he is making the assertion that by granting Kaiser the ability to be included in the transit core zone, they are being given preferential treatment. She asked staff to address that. Mr. See stated the Specific Plan Amendments only pertains to this property to adjusting the boundaries. It does not affect the Fry's property owner, other than the higher floor area ratio. It is an indirect effect on that property owner. Chairman Buffa thinks he is saying he would like to have the benefits that come with being in the transit core area. Maybe he feels Kaiser is getting special privileges that are not being afforded to his property. She asked if Kaiser is being granted any special favors. Mr. See stated because it is a comprehensive development, master planned campus, staff feels it is an appropriate change in zone. If the adjacent property owner wants to t0-15-07 Page 29 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MIPIUTES pursue that, staff would consider it, but wouid have to consider if it is appropriate in thatzone. Commissioner Romero is not clear as to why they would not change the whole area. Mr. See answered the La Palma Core Zoning is exclusive to La Palma and is for uses along La Palma Avenue and the freeway. The permitted uses are appropriate at this time, west of the subject site. West to Kraemer is in the La Palma Core, which is appropriate zoning and it is intended to be that way. This property is unique in that it is more linked to the MetroLinlc station, which is the Transit Core Zo~ing. There is a link between the properties and there are seven other property owners who have been in discussion with the City about developing their sites too. Kaiser would be more linked to these developments to the east and that is why they feel the rezoning is appropriate, Commissioner Romero stated in theory they are linked by virtue of being next door. Mr. See agreed, it is a compatible use to the east and that is where the Transit Core Zoning is located. He pointed out the different development areas on the map. He stated it is logical and consistent to e~end the Transit Core to this property line because the hospital is complementary to the uses there and linked to the train station. Commissioner Romero asked if the Fry's owner wants to be included. Mr. See advised he is a retail use which is consistent with the zoning he is in. If he moves forward with another development, staff can talk to him about rezoning to accommodate his use. Currently, the La Palma Core does accommodate a retail use along the freeway. Commissioner Romero darified that because he is zoned retail, he is not included in the Transit Core. Mr. See explained the Transit Core is an industrial zoning with some uses that are compatible to the train station. Commissioner Romero asked if the gentleman understood that. Mr. See stated he received the email at 2:10 p.m. during the plan review session and has not had time to respond to the email, but he will talk to him about it this week. Chairman Buffa stated it is important to mention that someone wili be considered for a change in zone if they bring in an application on their own merit. Staff is not giving them speciai privilege, there is a connection to the east that makes sense. Commissioner Faessel asked what is the General Plan use for the east side of Grove Street. 10-15-07 Page 30 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLAIdNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. See advised the General Plan designation is mixed-use which allows residential up to 60 dwelling units per acre, not unlike the Crossing, which was recently approved by the Commission. It is similar to that type of development. Commissioner Faessel understood the west side of Grove is a different land use. Mr. See stated no. Commissioner Velasquez stated regarding the email, the owner does not know what it means to be part of that zone; he just might want to be included. She asked if there is a plan, how many people can apply and what are the uses. Can there be an overlay on that zoning. Mr. See stated there is no plan to extend the boundaries. This is unique, it would be a case by case basis. There are three reasons for the zone change: one the property is split in two zones, so it makes sense to have one consistent zoning; the other is iYs appropriate for the Transit Core; and because it is in close proximity to the train station. As you get further away into a different zoning, they would be concerned about the boundary spreading further west. The Fry's property is appropriate in the zone it is in and it is fair to say they would be concerned about changing the zoning for his property without a new development. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Joe Stasney, 1707 Barcelona Circle, Placentia, Project Director for Kaiser. He used the site plan to briefly explain the buildings and services that will be provided. Commissioner Eastman asked him to explain how the first and second parts of the hospital will be built. Mr. Stasney stated the first phase will be the Medical Office Building 1 with an associated surface parking. The next phase will be the hospital, encompassing two nursing towers, diagnostic and treatment block, and another office building and a parking structure. The remaining portion is open space. They have a development agreement proposal with the City for 25 years. Commissioner Eastman asked if they were going to demolish the entire site and continue with pieces. Mr. Stasney stated they will maintain the property around the entire perimeter of the compiex. Throughout the entire course of the development of the campus, it is important for them to maintain an image and provide a platform for patients, visitors, members and staff to interact. Chairman Buffa stated it appears as though Grove Street, which now terminates in a cul-de-sac with a normal turn-around, does not do that anymore and it appears the road ends with landscaping in the cul-de-sac paving. She asked if that is the intent or 10-15-07 Page 31 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNIPIG COMMISSION MINUTES is there landscaping there that should not be there to provide a more typical city street termination. Lee Brennan, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, architect. He stated they are proposing to move the cul-de-sac slightly over, then landscape the old cul-de-sac. There is still a standard turn-around. Commissioner Faessel asked if Mr. Brennan and his staff have been in contact with the Public Utilities Department, with future plans to incorporate green components into the project. Mr. Brennan stated yes. Kaiser prides itself as being one of the leaders in the health care industry in terms of utilizing green products and construction techniques. Each one of their projects generates an eco tool kit, which is a national standard for every single project, whether it is a small infill or a remodel project up to these campuses. Commissioner Velasquez stated staff has design concerns. Chairman Buffa advised there is a condition that requires it to come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eastman added to her, it looks like a large complex of buildings with glass and stucco and it did not excite her. it seems there has been usage of some of the elements that are more permanent than stucco construction. She feels stucco construction has its own issues as far as upkeep and she would like to see it be an outstanding example of Anaheim architecture. Commissioner Faessel stated he sees this as an exciting component in the Canyon Commercial District and is hopeful it will become a magnet for other high tech firms to move into the area vacated by the Boeing property. Commissioner Agarvval asked if there is an expansion built into this, will it go to more than 260 beds. He also asked if there is a helipad. Mr. Stasney stated it is the ultimate build-out. 260 beds is the first phase and it will not increase. There is no helipad. Mr. Stasney stated there was an early discussion with the Fire Department as to whether or not they would have a helipad, but they do not transport patients on and off of the buildings. If there is an emergency condition, they wouid clear the parking lot and bring in a helicopter. It would not be brought in on top of the buildings. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez, that they recommend to the City Council that they certify the Environmental Report No. 2007-00337 which includes the adoption of a statement of findings of fact and the statement of overriding considerations, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 147. 1a-15-07 Page 32 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to recommend the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 2007-00003. Mr. See read changes into the record. In the Development Agreement attached to the staff report staff recommends adding to page 15: "Subsection B, owners shall have obtained the first building permit for the project prior to the fifth anniversary of the Development Agreement date. If owner has not timely obtained the first building permit for the project, the term of this Development Agreement shall be for a period of eight years, terminating at the end of the eighth anniversary of the Development Agreement date. Subject to the periodic review and modification or termination provisions defined in Section 24 and 26 of the Development Agreement." Applicant is in agreement with this provision, it ensures a building permit is pulled in a timely manner and in-lieu $2 million fee is made, rather than a 25 year period. Subsection C of 9.2: "Notwithstanding any provision of this agreement, except Subsections 9.2a and 9.2b above, City and owner expressly agreed that there is no requirement that owner initiate or complete development of the project, or any particular phase of the project within any particular period of time, and City shall not impose such a requirement on any project approval. The parties acknowledge that the owner, cannot at this time, predict when or the rate at which, or the order in which phases will be developed. Such decision depends upon numerous factors which are not in control of the owner such as changes in health care, delivery requirements, member needs, market orientation and demand, interest rates, competition, and other factors." In addition, staff recommends a change to section 12.2.3 which indicates purchase electrical power. Staff wishes to strike that section and replace it with: "It is the owners intent to purchase its electrical power requirements from the City. Requirements for purchase of electric power or other agencies are subject to the City's Public Utilities Department Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations." Commissioner Faessel asked how that is different from what was originally offered. Mr. See stated Community Development and Utilities Department felt revised wording leaves some flexibility to be incompliance with Federal and State law. It encourages applicant to purchase the City's electrical power. Lastly, three conditions need to be added. One, on page 48 of the Development Agreement. Add conditions 25, 26, 27 and change subsequent numbers. Condition 25, "Priar to issuance of the first building permit, the owner shall obtai~ a right-of-way construction permit from the Public Works Development Services to widen and replace curb gutter landscaping and irrigation and sidewalks on those requisite portions of La Palma Avenue and shall be maintained by the owner. A bond 90-15-07 Page 33 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSIOM MINUTES shall be posted in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The improvements shall be installed prior to final zoning and building inspections." Condition 26 "Bonds required for tra~c related improvements shall be posted in the amounts required and in accordance with Public Works requirements and the Subdivision Map Act except the timing of these bonds for traffic related improvements where the permit is issued by outside agencies, such as Caltrans, may be differed in light of the extended period of time before such improvements are required to be installed, subject to approval of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager." Condition 27: "Prior to final parcel map approval, the existing 48-foot wide utility and access easement adjacent to the 91 freeway shall be abandoned." Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to recommend the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 2007-00003 with all of the changes and modifications as deli~eated by Mr. David See. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve the waiver of landscape setback adjacent to the 91 Freeway and accept the applicanYs request to withdraw the landscape setback waiver on La Palma Avenue. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit 2006- 05146. Mr. See confirmed there are no other changes to it. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Specific Plan Arnendment No. 2007-00048. Mr. See confirmed there are no other changes to it. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Tentative Parcel Map. No. 2007-195. Mr. See confirmed there are no other cha~ges to it. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced resolution passed with 7 yes votes. 10-15-07 Page 34 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. an Thursday, October 25, 2007 and 22-day appeal rights for the remaining items ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 OPPOSITION: An email was received prior to the meeting in opposition to the request. DISCUSSION TIME: 43 minutes (5:47-6:30) 1D-15-07 Page 35 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 21 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3277 (TRACKIMG NO. CUP NO. 2007-05251) Owner: Barry Lee Konier P.O. Box 2158 Orange, CA 92859 Agent: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 950-970 Tustin Avenue: Property is an irregularly- shaped 2.82-acre property having frontages of 460 feet on the east side of Tustin Avenue and 665 feet on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91). City request to initiate the revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3277 to permit office uses in an industrial building with waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Continued to December 10, 2007 Motion: Eastman/Agarwal VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (kwong2Qanaheim. net) 10-15-07 Page 36 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANMING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Gordon added that on the item concerning the Anaheim Hills Mercedes Benz dealership, he wanted to respond to a comment made by Commissioner Eastman. They do impose conditions of approval when they approve Conditional Use Permits. As Commissioner Velasquez suggested, these are not suggestions but are requirements for approval. He suggests that if staff determines that an applicant is not complying with conditions of approval under the procedures of the Zoning code 18.60.110, it is the prerogative of this Commission to initiate a process to modify or terminate a Gonditional Use Permit if the applicant is not complying with it. In this particular instance, it was a new request and it does rise and fall on its own, certainly there were conditions that were suggested to mitigate a potentiai impact of this use. If it was the feeling of one or more of Planning Commissioners that the conditions do not go far enough, or that they cannot be mitigated and will have an adverse affect on the adjoining land use, it is proper grounds for opposition or disapproval of the Conditional Use Permit. He thinks with respect to a Conditional Use Permit that has been previously approved, certainfy commenting on the applicant's compliance, they should look at it in its own terms. If the applicant is not complying with the previously issued Conditional Use Permit, certainly it is the prerogative of the Planning Commission to initiate an action to change or terminate that permit if appropriate under the circumstances. Chairman BufFa advised he may have planted a thought with the Commissioners who have been frustrated at the lack of compliance on the part of Anaheim Hills Mercedes Benz. They can all think about it and at the next preliminary plan review, see if anyone wants to agendize an item to modify their Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Agarwal suggested getting Code Enforcement out there to see if they are complying. Chairman Buffa asked Dave to check on the banner that'is on the property at this time. Mr. Gordon advised that there was testimony here today pertaining to the lighting and if the applicant is not complying, it could be addressed by Code Enforcement. If it is not satisfactory, the Planning Commission could take action to impose additional requirements to modify existing conditions to address concerns, or terminate the use permit. Chairman Buffa stated another issue brought up in testimony, is that they are still flying the American flag the same as the others and their flag should be flown differently and maybe Code Enforcement can look at that too. The American flag should be higher and the Commission has spoken to them about that in prior hearings and they have not made the change. Mr. See asked if they are talking about the American flag and corporate flags. Chairman Buffa stated they have American, State and corporate flags. The American flag should be flown higher. It is not, and they have been spoken to about it before. Commissioner Romero stated they also have not moved the logo sign on the side of the building. They work on their own agenda and do whatever they want. to-i s-o~ Page 37 of 39 OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMM9SSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal stated for the record, he is very supportive of the remarks by Commissioner Eastman that it is very insulting that there is a blatant violation of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Eastman hopes that the two no votes today will get their attention. It is good to know that Mr. Gordon told them they can take it to the next level and have another option. Mr. Gordon stated Item 6 from today's agenda that has been continued concerns that very issue, compliance with conditions of approvai. It has been set for consideration or modification of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Romero stated they did nof discuss it at the preliminary plan review, but Item 6 states revoking or modification and asked if that is their choice. Mr. Gordon, stated it is agendized and he is not sure, he did not read the staff report. He understands it has been set for some consideration of some non-compliance issues, and under the provisions of the Zoning code, it allows for the Pianning staff to imitate, at a duly noticed public hearing, consideration of modifications or termination of a use permit if the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Karaki added a comment to Mr. Gordon's comment about revoking the Conditional Use Permit. He'd like to see Code Enforcement go first when they approve a project and if they do not comply, then come back. Commissioner Eastman disagreed with Commissioner Karaki in the fact that the only time people come out to let the Commission know what is going on, is if they run into them in a neighborhood when they are looking at a project or they get public noticed and it directly affects them. She took the stand and did what she did today because of the testimony from the Gommissioners who live in the area and the neighbor who came up today. It indicates there is a serious problem with them complying. Commissioner Karaki stated he expected more neighbors today. Commissioner Eastman stated people get to the point where they feel no one is listening to them and they do not think they can fight a big business. Commissioner Faessel thanked Commissioner Romero for nominating him to the Chairmanship of the Undergraunding Sub-Committee of the Pla~ning Commission and Public Utilities Board. ~ 0-15-07 Page 38 of 39 OCTO'BER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES flIIEETIMG ADJOURNED AT 6:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2007 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMIMARY PLAN REVIEW. RespectFully submitted: ~~(~J~C.~J-~Q ~~'~'c~'v Simonne Fannin P/T Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on b Lt Z~ , 2007. '~0-15-07 Page 39 of 39