Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/01/05Councii Chamber, Ciry Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principai Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David See, Senior Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Kimberiy Wong, Pianner Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 12:00 p:m. on Wednesday, January 31, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, December 25, 2008 • Calt 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 THE JANUARY, 2009 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 43 • Piedge of Allegiance: Commissioner Faessel • Public Comments • Consent Calendar Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero Kelly Buffa • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MIMUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: Mone Consent Calendar: Minutes ITEM 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of November 24, 2008. Continued from the December 8, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. ITEM 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 8, 2008. Motion to approve Minutes (Faessel/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 5-0 Commissioner Eastman abstained Commissioner Buffa absent Motion to approve Minutes {Faessel/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa-absent 01/05/09 Page 2 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOM MIfVUTES Reoorts and Recommendations ITEM 1 C COPlDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 (TRACKING NO: CUP2008-05~}00) Owner: Charles McNees 11211 Orange Park Avenue Orange, CA 92869 Applicant: City of Anaheim, Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim CA 92805 Location: 1721 S Manchester Avenue: Property is located at the southeast corner of Manchester Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard and is approximately 4 acres, with a frontage of approximately 561 feet on the south side of Manchester Avenue, 667 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and 154 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue. Request to initiate the revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 1063 (to permit a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc., with on-sale liquor beverages in an existing structure). Environmental Determination: A Categorical Exemption has been prepared for this project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, Class 21 (Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies). Consent Calendar Approval Motion to initiate Revocation of CUP 1063 (Faessel/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project Planner. Susan Kim skimC~?anaheim.net 01 /05/09 Page 3 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLAfVfVIMG COIVIMISSION MINUTES Public Hearina Items: ITEM iVO. 2 AflflENDMENT TO VARIANCE fVO. 2000-04407 (TRACKING NO. VAR2008-047601 Owner: Jack Singh 6164 East Paseo Rio Verde Anaheim, CA 92807 Applicant: Ricardo Noriega 1618 West Willits Santa Ana, CA 92703 Location: 7651-7673 East Corto Road and 370-371 South Timken Road: These four properties have a combined area of 1.8 acres with frontages of 205 feet on the north side of Corto Road and 65 feet at the terminus of Timken Road. Request to amend a previously-approved variance to modify conditions of approval related to pad elevation heights and request smaller setbacks and buildings higher than allowed by code to construct four new single-family residences. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration, which was previously prepared and approved, evaluates the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}. Note: Thisatem was continued from the November 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and the project was readvertised to include an additional request for a buiiding height variance. Resolution No. 2009-001 (Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project Planner. David See dseeQanaheim.~et David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 5, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Agarwal asked Mr. See if the structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 3 would have a height of twenty five feet above grade. Mr. See referred to the plans in the presentation and identified the portions of the structures that would have a height of twenty five feet above grade. He also identified the portion of the roof above non-habitable rooms which is al{owed up to thirty feet in height. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. 01 /05/09 Page 4 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANfVING COMMISSIOfV MIfVUTES Peter Koulos, 292 Pomona Avenue, Long Beach, the builder for the project, described the project and provided a visual presentation. He provided the following information: Lot 1- The entry stairwell tower at #he front round turret would be the only part extending over twenty five feet. The portion of the building encroaching into the setback area would be forty five to fifty feet away from neighboring parcels located thirty five to forty feet below the elevation of this lot. Allowing the basement to be built on Lot 1 would reduce the amount of cubic yards imported on this lo#. Mr. Koulos showed a tentative plan for the rear yard, i~cluding the swimming pool and Jacuzzi and stated there would be plenty of room for outdoor activities. The pool would be at the lower level of the basement/recreation room. Lot 2- A variance was not requested as the structure conforms with code requirements. Lot 3- The portion of the building adjacent to the garage would be at a lower grade elevation. Mr. Koulos described the proposed encroachments. Lot 4- The property lines would be readjusted to allow less encroachment and conform to the 22,000 square foot minimum lot size. By constructing garages at a lower level, they would save approximately 800 cubic yards of import. Overall, they would save over 1,200 yards of irnport than previously approved. Chairman Karaki asked how many truck trips would be needed. Mr. Koulos said truck and #railer loads would be reduced by approximately seventy to eighty trucks. He said the garages would not be visible from the front of the structure or the adjacent parcel. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Romero, Eastman and Ramirez, stated each had met with the applicant. Commissioners Agarwal and Faessel stated each had spoken with the applicant by telephone. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant when the truckloads would take place. He was concerned that ~ traffic problem would occur. ----- Mr. Koulos said they would begin excavation and start importing dirt at the beginning of February or March. The truck trips would occur at different times during the day over a period of approximately two weeks. They are hoping to import half of the dirt originally planned. They have an agreement with the Fire Department to use the private driveway to provide service for certain parcels and for Timken Road when necessary. Bill McNames, speaking on behalf of 310, 315 and 320, and 1146 Timken Road, Anaheim, stated his opposition to a portion of the projecf. He is in favor of the horse trail. His property is not in the 30Q foot radius; however, it will be affected by traffic to and from Timken Road. Daniel McNames, Timken Road, owns two and one half acres of the lower section of Timken Road. Mr. McNames suggested that if the proposed structures do not fit on the property, smaller structures should be built. 01/05/09 Page 5 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ted Ozaki, opposed, 340 Timken Road, Anaheim. His main concern was the height of the structures would not be conducive to a hillside construction area. He said if this project is approved, it would set a precedence that may be used by other builders to request height variances. Mitzy Ozaki, opposed, 340 Timken Road, Anaheim. She said the current plan does not reflect improvements which were proposed in November 2008. The rear yard setbacks on Parcels 1 and 4 are not in compliance with Code. The homes are oversized and will become more imposing and compromise the flavor of the neighborhood. Dave Linskens, opposed, 366 South Tirnken Road, Anaheim, said all the issues he had were already discussed. No further comments. James Roum, opposed, 367 South Timken Road, Anaheim, stated the following concerns: the size of the houses would be out of character for the neighborhood; there were drainage issues; his property is located adjacent to Parcel 2 and he wanted to be assured that his property would not be further destroyed by surface water; and, he did not know the purpose of the large trench filled with water along his property line, nor was he notified prior to the digging of the trench. Mr. Koulos address the issues brought up by Bill and Daniel McNames stating the following: their plans for grading and drainage have been submitted to the Public Works Division; npne of the properties drain onto Timken Road as water is collected and drained into approved collectors; and he did not know the placement of the drainage channels. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, addressed Bill and Daniel McNames' drainage concerns, and that drainage would need to occur in accordance with plans approved by the City. He said during construction, access will be limited through Corto Road from 8:30 a.m. to 1;30 p.m. for the precise grading permit. Access to Timken Road will be limited per the project conditions of approval. Mr. Koulos, said Parcels 2 and 3 have legal access to Timken Road and Parcels 1 and 4 have legal access to Corto Road. The Fire Department access would be through the property from Timken Road to Corto Road with a chain across the driveway with a Knox lock that could be opened by the Fire Department. This access would not be available for public use since it would be over a private road. Their request is for a height variance as shown on the plans and they met witftPlanning staff and the City Attorney to confirm the setbacks were correct, prior to making changes to the plans and presenting them to the Commission. They have a legal responsibility to share in any road repair and have already set up two private repair road funds, one for Timken Road and the other for Corto Road. The hours for importing dirt would be from 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on Corto Road only. Concrete deliveries and heavy truck traffic would be on Corto Road; however, at times they may use Timken Road. Commissioner Eastman said it would be more desirable for the properry owner or any other person to access the property by Mohler Drive, via Corto Road. She asked if there was a reason, apart from the access being approved by previous commissions, why they would need to access the property through the private road on Timken Road without the property owner's permission, when Corto Road was available. She asked when and by whom was legal access determined to use Timke~ Road for Parcels 2 and 3. 01/05/09 Page 6 of 25 JAMUARY 5, 2009 PLAMNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, explained the access rights were determined at an earlier time. Prior to the subdivision that was improved in January 29, 2001, which resulted in the four lots, Parcels 2, 3 and 4 were part of one contiguous parcel of land with access to Timken Road. The property line for Parcel 1 extends across Parcel 4 with access to Corto Road. The estatrlishment of the rights for access to these parcels were established at an earlier time based upon an earlier subdivision of land. There was an easement pertinent to Parcels 2, 3 and 4 with access for rights of entry and exit onto Timken Road; Parcel 1 with access onto and from Corto Road. When the property was re-divided in January 2001 and the design and improvement of the subdivision was granted by the Planning Commission at that time, Parcels 2 and 3 were designed to take access from Timken Road and Parcels 1 and 4 were approved for access onto Corto Road. That is consistent with what was approved in 2001. That is the situation which still exists to this date. it has not been changed. Commissioner Faessel said the two property owners appear to be certain there is no access from the parcels in question down Timken Road. Mr. Gordon addressed Commissioner Faessel's concern. He said this is somewhat analogous to the situation they once had in front of them involving the Mountain Park subdivision. At that time, there were different claims among the property owners concerning access to and from the development and the perspective Robertson parcel to the east. The City should not be the arbitrator or adjudicator of those kinds of disputes. The subject parcels are legally held privately by the property owner, with rights to develop that property. The subdivision map was approved in 2001 and a variance granted. The property owners could go to the Building counter tomorrow, request to pull permits to develop that land consistent with the Building Code and consistent with the discretionary approvals that already came before the Planning Commission. What is presented today is a modification to the variance that applies to this particular property which the Commission is free to approve or reject depending upon whether the Commission feels that the findings could be made for that particular variance. All the issues which have been raised today relate back to the division of the land that was approved in 2001. The access that was approved at that time, would not be modified as a result of the variance in front of the Comrnission today. The Commission would not be able to prevent the property owner below from attempting to block access to the subject property to the current or future owner of the subject property. The owner of the project still has the right to develop their land consistent with prior approvals. That does not give them any entitlement to develop consistent with the plan presented today. That is up to the Commission to decide. - --•- Commissioner Agarwal, said the easements and discharge from the property are not on the agenda at this time. If the property owners have a right to the private road and the easement was never given, that is not something the Commission can get involved in. This is a litigation issue between the property owners. Mr. Gordon, confirmed that Commissioner Agarwal was correct in that the Commission cannot convey rights to the property owner that they do not have. That is not the purpose of these proceedings. They are not conveying access to the property owner of either street. They are approving the design and improvement of the subdivision and variances that relate to it. Commissioner Ramirez, thanked the applicant on their effort to work with the community to address the issues discussed. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. 01 /05/09 Page 7 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLAIVNING COMMISSIOM MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez said the height issues had been addressed. The applicant has reduced the building's footprint and addressed the community's concerns that the building is too large. The third story is a basement, the height of the building is not thirty-six feet, and it is nov~r approximately thirty feet. By adding the basement, they have reduced the amount of dirt that needs to be imported to the site, which also addresses the community's concern. Commissioner Romero said the issues he had at the prior hearing for the subject, have been addressed. Commissioner Eastman commented that the applicant has addressed the community's issues. She said once the project is complete, it would not be intrusive. The height of the building was no longer an issue and the infringement into the setback was very minor. She stated her support of the project. Commissioner Faessel stated the applicant has addressed the community's issues. He is pleased with the new arrangement of the buildings on the site. The setback issues have been addressed very well. Chairman Karaki said nothing could be done regarding the access through Timken Road. The applicant had worked with the City regarding drainage issues. At the previous meeting, the Commission had asked the applicant to produce hardscape and landscape plans and define properry lines. He was satisfied with the revisions and supported the project. Commissioner Agarvual offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 5, 2009 staff report determining that the previously approved Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving an amendrnent to Variance No. 2000-04407. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Buffa was absent. OPPOSITION: ~ Five persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. -~` Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2009. DISGUSSION TIME: 68 minutes {2:37 to 3:45) 01 /05/09 Page 8 of 25 JAMUARY 5, 2009 PLAN(VING COMMISSION NiINUTES ITEM NO. 3 COfVDITIONAL USE PERiNIT NO. 2008-05374 WITH A PARKIMG VARIANCE Owner: Wilpersu Investment Corporation 17510 Pioneer Blvd. Suite 211 Artesia, CA 90701-4081 Applicant: Betsy Mata All's Well Home 8181 Page Street Buena Park, CA 90621 Location: 1761 South Gardenaire Lane: This property is approximately 0.15 acre, with a#rontage of 60 feet on the west side of South Gardenaire Lane, approximately 240 south of the centerline of Judith Lane. Request to permit a group care facility with up to eleven beds in an existing single-family residence with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: A Categorical Exemption, Class (Existing Facilities), has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). . Resolution No. 2009-002 (Agarwal) Failed to pass VOTE: 2-4 Commissioners Eastman and Faessel voted yes; Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Ramirez and Romero voted no; and Commissioner Buffa absent Project P/anner: Scott Koehm skoem~anaheim.net Scott Koehm, Associate Planner provided a summary of the staff report dated January 5, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Bill Naler, All's Well Home, Program Coordinator, 8181 Page Street, Buena Park. Mr. Naler described the facility as a non-profit organization. Their primary mission is reclaiming and rebuilding lives shattered by behavior including addiction to drugs and alcohol among other substances. They propose to occupy a house with five bedroorns. One bedroom will be occupied by three people and each of the remaining four bedrooms will be occupied by two people per room. All's Well Home offers a safe environment away from negative outside inffuences which lead people into addiction. Their services include family education; case management; relapse prevention; and referral services to medical, dental, legal, aftercare support services and off-site diversionary recreation. They also offer General Education Development (GED) test preparation and on-line college courses to residents. All's Well Home focuses on changing the lives of the residents, not simply changing their lifestyle. Mr. Naler has been the resident overseer for approximately two months. Commissioner Romero asked about the typical length of stay at the residence. 01 /05/09 Page 9 of 25 JA(VUARY 5, 2009 PLAPIMIMG COMMISSIOfV MINUTES Mr. Naler indicated they have ninety day, six month, nine month, and one year programs. For the one year program, residents are typically voluntary. State and County referrals are normally for the shorter programs, generally in the ninety day range. Commissioner Romero asked if the residents are allowed to have on-site visitors and/or guests. Mr. Naler said a parent, relative or immediate family member is allowed to pick up a resident at the home. They are not permitted to remain on-site for visits, gatherings, or parties. Commissioner Ramirez asked how old is the organization and how many homes are run by AIPs Well Home. She also asked Mr. Naler to describe his experience running this type of facility and the facilities' relationship with neighbors. Mr. Naler said that All's Well Home has been in existence as a 5013C corporation for approximately two years. The Director has over fifteen years of experience running other operations, including a ranch in Perris, CA with over one hundred people, Mr. Naler said he has over twenty-two years in business management and is a former Noncommissioned Officer in the Air Force which he believes gives him experience working with people. They also have associates as volunteers who are certified State counselors for drug and alcohol addiction and anger managernent. Mr. Naler said the program began as a church outreach program. They have two additional homes in single family neighborhoods. The neighbors have been cooperative and helpful. He could not think of anything negative to say about their relationship. Mr. Naler said they are trying to be an asset to the City by removing drug addicts from the streets. A Sober Living facility is not enough to help someone recover from addiction, which is why they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit. Obtaining a license from the State will be the next step. Commissioner Ramirez asked Mr. Naler to explain the process and requirements of obtaining a license from the State. Mr. Naler said the State requires a very extensive application which includes detailed program information; a City of Anaheim Fire Department report which shows the number of persons allowed in the house; relevant sections of their operational handbook and policies; a summary of their qualifications; medical information; a recent medical physical examination and tuberculosis testing. All of the staff members are required to have First-Aid and CPR certification. They are periodically monitored by the State. All's Well Home bases their operation on accountability. Gommissioner Ramirez asked if the maximum stay is one year and if they follow up with the success of the residents. Mr. Naler confirmed that the maximum stay is one year. He said if they obtain a State license, they will be required to submit follow up documentation. Commissioner Agarvual asked if the occupants arrive at the facility on a voluntary basis or are referred by the State to receive treatment for substance abuse. He asked if background investigations are done on each occupant to check for sex offenders or violent criminals. Mr. Naler said the occupants are referred by the State or County and are there voluntarily for treatment. He said they conduct an extensive screening process before each occupant enters the 01 /05/09 Page 10 of 25 JAfdUARY 5, 2009 PLAMNIfVG COMMISSIOM MINUTES program. They ask for identification, proof of insurance if they own a vehicle and if the occupant has any medical, mental or emotional issues. Persons with communicable diseases are not allowed into the facility. Commissioner Agarwal asked if criminal background checks were done on the residents. If so, how is it done, are fingerprints taken? Mr. Naler said that criminal history is checked whether someone is referred by the court system or enters the program voluntarily. However, they do not complete a"Live Scan". He said he subscribes to a couple of on-Iine background record check services. They also have a police officer on staff who can check someone's background. He said the process is very simple and they know the background of the residents. They try to maintain safety in the neighborhood and the facility. Commissioner Agarwal said his concern is that they have one caretaker for eleven residents and that eleven people living in a 1400 square foot house is a lot. He asked how they handle the situation if a resident becomes violent. Mr. Naler said the residents are mainly people who are interested in their recovery and becoming a better person, not someone who has anger management issues. The caretaker's main function is to provide leadership and oversight. Commissioner Eastman asked how long the organization has owned the house. Mr. Naler said the corporation owns the house. All's Well Home has been there less than one year. They are currently a sober living residence and have five occupants. Not all occupants have been through a treatment program. At this time, there are two residents who have not been through a prior treatment program; however, they are responding well to the environment and are remaining sober. They also attend outside treatment programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous. Commissioner Eastman asked if the five current residents will be transitioned into the proposed treatment facility at this residence. Mr. Naler said 3he five residents are aware of the proposed treatment facility and are,l4oking forward to participating fn the program. Comrnissioner Eastman said that in the past there had been an overcrowding issue at the residence. She indicated that one of the Exhibits submitted to them was the profile of a registered sex offender who is currently a resident at the facility. Mr. Naler said he is unaware of all details of everyone in the house. Commissioner Eastman asked if there was someone managing the house or if it was just a group of people living together. She also wanted to know the State's regulations or qualification requirements for the resident manager at such a facility. Mr. Naler indicated that currently, there is only a group of people living together. He said that there are minimum qualifications required by the State; however, he did not have that information. 01/05/09 Page 11 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Eastman said she visited the property and noticed a trailer parked in the driveway advertising a mobile detailing business. She asked if the business was being operated from this residence. She was concerned that if the parking variance were granted, this vehicle would be taking up one of the required spaces for this facility. Mr. Naler said the trailer was purchased with the business advertisement already painted on it. A business is not operating from the residence; the owner of the trailer has not removed the advertisement frpm the car. Mr. Naler said if parking became an issue, the trailer would be removed from the driveway. Although he did not think it would since they would not have more than two cars at the residence at any given time. Mr. Koehrn confirmed that the Conditional Use Permit request requires four parking spaces. Commissioner Faessel said there was a code violation in 2007 for operating a sober living house for six individuals and at that time, there were eleven residents. He asked if the facility was under Mr. Naler's control at that time. Mr. Naler said he was aware of that issue. All's Weli Home was not in charge of the residence at that time. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Leif Andersen, 2239 Judith Lane, Anaheim, stated his opposition to the project Tim Barnes, opposed, 2251 West Goldenwest Avenue, Anaheim. Mr. Barnes said he had been in several treatment facilities and sponsored people through twelve step programs. He said that because his personal experience has been mostly bad with recovery programs, he does not want this type of facility in his neighborhood. Mark Swanson, opposed, 1727 South Nedra Place, Anaheim, stated he was a ten year resident. Based on his negative experience with a rehabilitation facility in his parents' neighborhood (Brookhurst Street and Ball Road), he would like the proposed request for an increase in occupants at this residence to be denied. _ __~ Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Swanson if the facility in his parents' neighborhood had more than six residents. Mr. Swanson said it was more than six residents; however, he was not certain of the number permitted. One of the issues was people sleeping in recreational vehicles parked on the public street. Sunny Dela Cruz, opposed, 2279 West Goldenwest Avenue, Anaheim, stated she was a fourteen year resident. Ms. Dela Cruz said there was a similar type of facility on Judith Street. She believed the proposed facility would limit further development in the neighborhood and cause property values to decline. Ms. Dela Cruz said having alcohol available at the neighboring liquor store and Albertson's grocery store would be tempting for residents of the treatment facility. Kaye Chandler, opposed, 1741 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim stated she and her husband were twenty-nine year residents. Mrs. Chandler said the property is not large enough to house eleven 01 /05/09 Page 12 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLAMNIfVG COMMISSIOM MINUTES residents. She said since the residents are not allowed to drive, they will be walking in the neighborhood and she was not comfortable with that. Commissioner Ramirez asked Mrs. Chandler if she had noticed any parking issues. Mrs. Chandler said parking has always been an issue in their neighborhood even without the treatment facility. Jerrald M. Rowley, opposed, 1765 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Mr. Rowley lives next door to the proposed project. He is opposed to the existence of the facility and to increasing the number of residents allowed. He agrees with comments made by his neighbors and said that the foot traffic is out of control. If they did not have a neighborhood watch group in the area, they would be calling the Police Department every ten minutes. He said because of this proposed project, the property values in the neighborhood have already decreased. Mr. Rowley was recently approached by a female resident who was intoxicated. She told him she had been kicked out of the facility without her belongings and asked for his help. The woman said that residents of the facility were using drugs. Eventually, someone from the facility went to get the woman and took her back to the house. He has had several people who were intoxicated in his front yard. Even when the windows and doors at his house are shut, his eighty-seven year old mother is still able to hear loud talking and laughter coming from the facility. He referenced the applicanYs justification letter and said that the facility will have a negative impact in their neighborhood. Comrnissioner Faessel asked Mr. Rowley if his previously mentioned encounters with the facility residents had been within the last year. Mr. Rowley confirmed they had. Cornmissioner Eastman stated the existing facility on the property is considered a"sober living facility". This is essentially a group of people who may not be related to each other choosing to live together in a home. The City does not have the authority to regulate six people in one home, nor the number of vehicles to each property. If the Planning Commission were to approve the Conditional Use Permit, many conditions and restrictions would be placed on the proposed project and the neighborhood would have more recourse at that time. Commissioner Eastman said the existing use of the property is different than the proposed facility. Mr. Rowley expressed his concern regarding sex offenders residing at the facility. June Clark, opposed, 1720 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim, stated she had been a resident for forty years. She said she is opposed to this type of facility being allowed in her neighborhood regardless if it is regulated or monitored by any government agency. She is concerned for the safety of her grandchildren and other children in the neighborhood since foot traffic and the number of strangers in the area has increased. Their property values will decrease and the crime rate will rise. She requested the name of the church with whom the applicant is affitiated. Clifford Oshirq opposed, 2273 West Judith Lane, Anaheim. Mr. Oshiro said there are three existing facilities in his neighborhood and he is opposed to another being approved. He is concerned for the safety of the,neighborhood children. There are only two entrances into their tract of homes. He and his wife would like their neighborhood to remain safe, quiet, and clean. He said a 1,400 square foot 01 /05/09 Page 13 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES house is too small for eleven people. If Mr. Naler did not know the history of the past issues at the residence, how can the neighborhood be assured that he will know what is happening now and in the future? Mr, Oshiro also submitted his written statement and one from Daniel Goulet, a neighbor. Travis Watowa, opposed, 1768 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Mr. Watowa submitted a map indicating the location af care facilities already in the neighborhood. Two on Gardenaire, one on Judith Lane, the home behind him is also an unsupervised home. He referenced a tree which is used as a"safe haven" and under which he has witnessed several people using drugs. He has a granddaughter and does not want her in a negative environment. Mr. Watowa said that Mr. Naler is currently the caretaker at the residence and Mr. Naler was not aware that one of the residents is a felon. There is non-stop traffic thraughout the night. At the end of the cul-de-sac there is a walkthrough. He has witnessed people with a backpack or small piece of luggage being dropped off and walking to the care facilities in the neighborhood. Mr. Watowa said they have had continuous foot traffic, and find drug paraphernalia, empty alcohol bottles, and beer cans littered throughout the neighborhood since the group home opened approximately two years ago. He said no one in the neighborhood has a positive opinion regarding the facility. Mr. Watowa said there have been many issues in the neighborhood, some of which he has had to address himseif. He read the Webster's Dictionary definition of "family" and disagreed with the definition presented earlier in the meeting. He said that people with addictions deserve a second chance; however, he does not want them in his neighborhood. The applicant, Betsey Mata has never attempted to make contact with the neighborhood residents. Virginia Carmelo, opposed, 1757 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Ms. Carmelo lives north of the proposed facility. She provided reports to the Planning Commission identifying several criminals currently residing at the facility. She is constantly finding strangers next door especially late at night, which she said was very unsettling. These'Yransients" create an uncomfortable atmosphere. Her bedroom window is twenty five feet from the facility. She is often awakened between 5:00 and 7:00 a.m. by noises coming from the facility. She keeps her windows closed because of cigarette smoking next door. In 2008, the Police Department responded to a complaint abaut 1761 South Gardenaire Lane. Neighborhood safety is an issue. During the summer, a woman knocked on her front door demanding she be let in to use Ms. Carmelo's telephone. She verbally insulted Ms. Carmelo when she refused to let her in. Ms. Carmelo's son-in-law attempted to assist her and he too was insulted by the woman. Ms. Carmelo reported the incident to the Police Department. She has also witnessed physical and verbal altercations in front of the facility, some involving up to eight people. There is loitering, constant foot traffic, and visitors to the facility speeding through the neighborhood, on a regular basis and at all hours. Vehicles parked in driveways have been vandalized. On one occasion, she saw a resident of the facility sleeping in one of two vehicles which had been abandoned on the public street. Also, during the summer, residents at this facility were seen walking to neighboring facitities as early as 2:00 a.m. She has compassion for persons who are addicted; however, she does not agree that this type of facility belongs in a residential area. Ms. Carmelo said there is an unlicensed facility across the street from her; the address is possibly 1756 Gardenaire. She said there were inaccuracies and misinformation in the staff report pertaining to: the number of bedrooms and residents; modification to the structures; the supervision and operation of the facility; the impact the facility will have on the neighborhood; and the awareness of the presence of the facility residents. In January 2008, at the request of the Code Enforcement Division, the converted garage was returned to its intended use. 01 /05/09 Page 14 of 25 JAfVUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Sam Kermiz, opposed, 1765 Rainier Court, Anaheim. His home is directly behind the facility. Mr. Kermiz has had numerous people knock on his front door looking for the group home. People loiter in the street late at night. Residents of the facility have returned from a night out and mistaken his house for the facility. His mother operates a day care business from his residence. Across the street from him is a home for mentally chaflenged individuals. Mr. Kermiz is concerned for the safety of the neighborhood children. Frances Banuelos, opposed, 1720 West Nedra Place, Anaheim, stated she has been a resident for twenty-five years. There is a lot of foot traffic on the street. Residents frequently walk to the neighborhood liquor store, when they return; they are drinking what appears to be a can of beer, inside a paper bag. If this facility is approved, children will no longer be allowed to play outdoors. The bedrooms in the facility are too small to be occupied by three and a half people. Ms. Banuelos said the facility is a four bedroorn home. She does not agree with having only one on-site manager. Maria Hernandez, opposed, 1758 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Ms. Hernandez's home is directly across the street from the facility. She indicated that she works until 2:00-3:00 a.m. and on several occasions, she has returned home to find people loitering in her front yard. Approximately one week ago, she overheard neighborhood children talking about the fact that there is a sex offender in the area. She is concerned that there are sex offenders and felons living at the facility and fears for everyone's safety. She commended the applicant on his intent to help addicted persons; however, she does not want this facility in her neighborhood. Tamera Oshiro, opposed, 2273 West Judith Lane, Anaheim. Ms. Oshiro said she opposes the project. Carmen J. Rowley, opposed, 1765 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Mrs. Rowley indicated she is the caregiver to her mother-in-law who lives next door to the facility. She and her family were dismayed when they found out that the house had been transformed from a single family residence to a rehabilitation home. She understands that some people are recovering from an addiction and need a place to stay. She does not agree with having such a business in a residential area. Her mother- in-law's quali#y of life has been affected. They can smell cigarette smoke, and hear loud talking and noise coming from next door, even through closed windows and doors. Mrs. Rowley asked the Planning ComrLiission to deny the proposed request. --•- Michael K. Magis, opposed, 3515 Seaside Drive, Newport Beach. Mr. Magis is a former resident of the facility. He accused the applicant, Betsy Mata, of various offenses towards him. He said the facility is not bible-based. Ms. Mata invades the residents' privacy and confiscates their personal property. Although she has never had a license to operate this type of facility, she has had more than six residents at one time. Mr. Magis indicated that during his stay, people with criminal backgrounds were also occupying the residence. Esther Wallace, opposed, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim. Ms. Wallace is the Chairman of the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development council and a school trustee for the Magnolia School District. Ms. Wallace said she was concerned for the safety of the children who walk to school. She said this facility is a religious-based group with motorcycles. Ms. Wallace has had experience with such a group at Brookhurst Street and Broadway. She asked if the residents would be allowed to have vehicles or motorcycles. There could possibly be ten felons living under one roof. Ms. Wallace indicated she, her husband, and tive children lived in a house which was 1,400 square feet and it was 01 /05/09 Page 15 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNIIVG COMII~ISSION MINUTES crowded. She does not understand how eleven men could get along in a residence of the same size. The facility is only 1,500 feet from a school. Ms. Wallace does not believe that this business belongs in a family oriented zone. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the request. Chairman Karaki asked Mr. Naler to return to the podium to respond to the comments made by the neighborhood residents. Mr. Naler said he is affiliated with Holy Ground Church in Buena Park. He said the house is 1,600 square feet, not 1,400 square feet as previously stated by several speakers. He addressed the statement made earlier that the garage had been converted to bedrooms. All's Well Home was not operating the facility at that time. He agrees that there is some foot traffic; however, it is not from their facility. All's Well Home prohibits residents from loitering and smoking in front of the residence. The residents are all males and not allowed to interact with the neighbors, nor can they have female visitors. Recently, a facility resident was seen talking to a neighboring elderly woman and he was told to stop. One of the facility residents walks from the house to the bus stop at Gene Street and Katella Avenue. Mr. Naler said the facility has a right to be in the neighborhood. They are a family as defined by Fair Housing "a group of people suffering a common disability with a common goal of recovery". He indicated there are currently only four people in the residence. He said Mr. Magis was dismissed from the house because of drinking and stealing. Mr. Naler held his property for three months then disposed of it since Mr. Magis did not make an appearance nor pay his bill. Mr. Naler is the only person at the facility who owns a car. Sober living homes do not have the ability, nor are they required to investigate residents as thoroughly as a licensed facility. If there are sex offenders in the neighborhood, he is not aware of #hem. He said convicted offenders have had their day in court and served the time. It is his job to help them recover and live a normal, decent life and contribute to society. Mr. Naler said that All's Well Home staff are volunteers and do not receive a salary. He said the facility has not been in the area long enough for them to get to know their neighbors. Mr. Naler said since the homes are only six feet apart, it is difficult not to hear noise coming from other residences to a certain extent. Occupants of the facility also hear noises from neighboring properties. Mr. Naler said he has presented all the facts and hoped that the Planning Commission would vote in AII's Well Home's favor. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing and then reopened the hearing after it was brought to his attention that other persons wanted an opportunity to address the matter. ___ Roberta Cornwell, 1724 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Ms. Cornwell said she was made aware of the proposed project two days ago. She has five grandchildren whom she does not allow to play in the front yard. Jessica Arbicio, 1757 South Gardenaire Lane, Anaheim. Ms. Arbicio said that although the applicant said he is the only one who has a vehicle at the facility, she has seen up to nine cars on the property. On several occasions, their cars have blocked Ms. Arbicio's driveway. Mr. Naler said he owns a motorcycle, but does not belong to a"motorcycle church". They do however; have a motorcycle ministry "Paid in Fufl". They are not affiliated with Phil Aguilar's church. Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Naler if the request was approved, would he become the resident overseer of the house. She also asked how long he had lived at the home and prior to Mr. Naler becoming the overseer, was there anyone else who supervised the facility. 01/05/Q9 Page 16 of 25 JAMUARY 5, 2009 PLANNIPIG COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Naler said he is currently the temporary overseer and at some point they plan on having a permanent qualified overseer. He has been at the facility for approximately two months at the most. Before him, there was someone loosely supervising the residents. The property is owned by a police officer. When he was made aware of all the issues associated with the previous tenants, he evicted everyone from the residence. He was familiar with All's Wel'I Home and invited them to operate a recovery facility at the property. Mr. Naler said there would'be no advertising of the business and no physical changes to the properry. As far as loitering, he was only aware of people going to and from work or being picked up by staff to go to various functions. Commissioner Eastman said that recovery facility requests have been brought before the Planning Commission in the past. The residents were not allowed outside a gated facility without supervision. If they were picked up, the supervisor would escort them to the car. She asked if All's Well Home would be similar. Mr. Naler said that the facility will not be "locked-down". They have an enclosed yard which has a locked gate. The residents are not allowed outside the gate. Commissioner Eas#man asked if the facility would be all males. She expressed concern regarding the number of people in a 1,600 square foot residence and what they would do throughout the day. Mr. Naler said all residents will be males. Sorne would leave during the day to receive treatment, off- site individual counseling, or go to work. They are either picked up at the residence or they take the bus. Commissioner Eastman referenced the Letter of Justification which states that the residence is a six bedroom, two bathroom house. She asked staff to confirm, for the record, that the house is five bedrooms. Mr. Koehm confirmed that the fifth bedroom had been permitted Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Naler if the resident manager would be sharing a bedroom and if that person would be a recovering substance abuser. She asked why he or the owner of the facility did not make an effort to meet with the neighborhood residents to outline what they f~d in mind for the facility. If this had been done before the Planning Commission meeting, she would feel more comfortable voting. Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Naler to identify the religious group with whom he is affiliated. Mr. Naler said the house manager would share a bedroom with a resident. The manager will not be a recovering substance abuser. He said that he is affiliated with the Holy Ground Christian Fellowship, 7699 Ninth Street, Buena Park, a non-denominational Christian church. Chairrnan Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez said that several neighborhood residents have mentioned Police activity at the facility. She asked staff to elaborate. Mr. Koehm said he spoke with the Police Department the morning of the Planning Commission meeting and they did not have any concerns regarding the facility. 01 /05/09 Page 17 of 25 JAMUARY 5, 2009 PLAPINING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez said she is concerned with the organization operating the facility. They do not seem to have much experience since they have only been in existence for two years. They are not very familiar with the licensing process. Also, they are essentially asking to double the occupancy and do not have a proven track record in this field. This may have a negative effect on the community. Commissioner Romero said he is for individual property rights and this facility is located in a single family residential area. The neighbors seem to be opposed to the project and it will affect their quality of life. At this time, he is opposed to this project. Commissioner Faessel said he lives in a neighborhood which is impacted with several sober living facilities. Because of the laws of the State of California, there is nothing the City can do to regulate homes with six residents or less. If these facilities came before the Planning Commission, they would be able to attach numerous requirements. This particular project has twelve conditions of approval. It is unfortunate that this property owner has every right to run this business. The residents have every right to oppose it. Commissioner Faessel said they are not voting on the current operation of the facility but the potential operation that has additional oversight The Planning Commission will take the residents' testimonies into account. He said most of the issues presented can be mitigated through some type of oversight, which does not exist now. Commissioner Eastman said the process for the applicant to change the Conditional Use Permit is costly. Mr. Kermiz testified that his mother runs a licensed day care center; that is a business someone else could oppose. A licensed facility comes with certain conditions. She said she had visited the neighborhood and she was impressed with the pride of ownership. She said the residents have the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City CounciL She did not feel she had the legal findings to deny the project. She reluctantly supports the project but is concerned with the operator's inexperience. She trusts that the operator will abide by the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. If they do not, they have many people watching them. Chairman Karaki said he believes some people deserve to have a rehabilitation center, but he also believes there should be a quality of life for the neighborhood residents. In the past, they have approved this type of facility. He does not agree with the State ruling to encourag~ tlaese types of recovery facilities in residential neighborhoods. He is concerned that the square footage of the house is too small for eleven residents and is opposed to the project. Commissioner Agarwal thanked the neighborhood residents for taking the time to testify. He said he is opposed to the project because the applicant has not proven they can operate a safe facility. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 5, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Gategorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05374 with a parking variance. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution failed to pass with Commissioners Eastman and Faessel voting yes and Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Ramirez and Romero voting no. Commissioner Buffa was absent. 01 /05/09 Page 18 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLAPlNIMG COMMISSION MIMUTES OPPOSITION: Two residents expressed opposition to the project at the Planning Department public counter. Six telephone calis and two pieces of correspondence were received and thirteen persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 118 minutes (3:45-4:25 and 4:40~5:58) Break 4:25 to 4:40 01 /05/09 Page 19 of 25 JAIVUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIpN MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05377 Owner: Lederer-Anaheim, LTD. 9200 Sunset Boulevard 9~h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90069-3604 Applicant: Dayal Singh 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard: This property is approximately 14.7 acres, having a frontage of 512 feet on the east side of South Anaheim Boulevard, approximately 225 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Request to permit a tattoo and body piercing establishment Environmental Determination: A Categorical Exempkion, Class 1(Existing Facilities), has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution No. 2009-003 (Faessel) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project Planner; Scott Koehm skoem ~anaheim. net Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 5, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Dayal Singh, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. --• Commissioner Faessel offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 5, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving CUP No. 2008-05377. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Commission Buffa was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (5:58 to 6:01) 01 /05/09 Page 20 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITENi MO. 5 REIfVSTATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-04971 (TRACKING NO. CUP2008-05392) Owner: Christi Cristich-Milazzo 5395 East Hunter Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 Applicant: Barker and Pollock 5395 East Hunter Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: 5397 East Hunter Avenue: This property is approximately 2.1 acres, having a frontage of 320 feet on the north side of Hunter Avenue, approximately 110 feet north of the centerline of Brasher Street. Request to reinstate a previously-approved conditional use permit for an indoor bounce house facility and to amend the permit to remove the time limitation. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration, which was previously prepared and approved, eualuates the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution No. 2009-004 (Eastman) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwonq2 C°? anaheim. net Kimberly Wong, provided a summary of the staff report dated January 5, 2009 along with a visual presentation. _ _ __ Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Laura North, 5397 East Hunter Avenue, applicant, stated she had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the January 5, 2009 staff report, approving a Negative Declaration and approving a Reinstatement and Amendment of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04971. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes. Commissioner Buffa was absent. 01/05/09 Page 21 of 25 JAPlUARY 5, 2009 PLANMING COMMISSIOfV MINUTES 01 /05/09 Page 22 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNWG COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2008-00066 Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim'Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvuvide This is a request initiated by the City of Anaheim Planning Department to amend Chapter 18.04 (Single Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheirn Municipal Code related to the permitted height of non-habitable accessory structures; and, to amend Chapters 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations), 18.44 (Signs) and 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code related to temporary residential banner and future establishment sign provisions, including the creation of new wayPinding signage standards and procedures for residential developments within The Platinum Triangle. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. BAotion to approve a continuance to January 21, 2009 (Eastman/Faessel) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa absent Project Planner. Vanessa Norwood vnonvood ~anaheim.net 01 /05/09 Page 23 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLAIVNING COMMISSION NiIMUTES ITEM M0. 7 ZONING CODE ANIENDMENT NO. 2008-00076 Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Bouleuard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvwide This is a request initiated by the City of Anaheim Planning Department to amend Chapters 18.08 (Commerciai Zones), 18.10 (Industrial Zone) and 18.38. (Supplemental Use Regulations) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to eliminate "Automotive - Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale - Office Use On!ly" as a specific land use category. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation under Section 21080, Public Resources Code. OPROSITIOPI: None DISCUSSIOM TIME: This item was not discussed. Motion to approve a continuance to January 21, 2009' (Eastman/Faessel) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Cornmissioner Buffa absent Project Planner. Vanessa Nonvood vnonvoodCalanaheim.net 01 /05/09 Page 24 of 25 JANUARY 5, 2009 PLANNING COMNiISSION MINUTES MEETING ADJOURMED AT 6:06 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted, ~~ v ~ Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received.and approved by the Planning Commissian on March 16, 2009. 01 /05/09 Page 25 of 25